GOVERNMENT IN THE HEROIC AGE.
During the Heroic Age of the Teutonic peoples kingship appears to have
been practically universal. The Old Saxons may have formed a solitary
exception to the general rule; but our knowledge of this people really
begins only towards the close of the seventh century.
Much has been written about the various powers possessed by the kings,
but it is still by no means clear what they could not do, so long as
they had a powerful and contented body of personal followers. If they
forfeited the allegiance of their retinues by violence or outrage their
power of course was gone at once. In the course of the eighth century
several English kings were killed or expelled by their retinues; and
in Beowulf (v. 902 ff.; cf. v. 1709 ff.) we hear that a former king
of the Danes named Heremod had met with a similar fate. But in early
times such cases do not seem to have been common. Again, the numbers
of the retinue might decrease through want of generosity or excessive
love of peace on the king's part, and he would then be exposed to
the attack of any aggressive neighbour or of some member of his own
family whom he had offended. The only definite statement however
which we possess regarding a limitation of the king's authority is a
passage in Ammianus Marcellinus' history (XXVIII 5. 14) referring to
the Burgundians--before their conversion--according to which kings
were regularly deposed as a consequence of unsuccessful war or famine.
The context, though not plainly expressed, seems to suggest that this
deposition was carried out by the decision or through the agency of a
high-priest whose authority was permanent.
The statement that the kings of the Burgundians were deposed on account
of famine points to the survival of a primitive idea of kingship,
which credited the ruler with superhuman powers. The kings of the
Swedes also, according to Ynglinga Saga, cap. 47, were believed to
have control over the seasons[544], like the god Frey from whom they
claimed descent; and it is said that two of them were sacrificed in
times of famine. In the same saga, cap. 20, it is stated that the
members of this dynasty individually were called Yngvi, a name of the
ancestral god[545]--which seems to indicate that they were regarded
as his representatives. How far such ideas were general during the
Heroic Age it is impossible to say, owing to the fact that we have
few records dating in their present form from heathen times. Note
may be taken however of the peculiar position occupied by the later
Merovingian kings[546]. During the last century of their existence as
a dynasty their power was entirely taken from them and transferred
to a viceroy (commonly known as _maior domus_)--whose office became
practically hereditary in one family. The only duties which were
retained by the kings were certain ceremonial functions, which point to
a more or less sacral character, so far as was possible in a Christian
community. We may note further that in the North there is no evidence
for a specifically priestly class; temporal and spiritual power were
apparently united in the same person. Among the Angli on the other hand
there was such a class, though, in contrast with the Burgundians, the
high-priest seems to have been subordinate to the king[547].
In Sweden there was a form of election for kings, which may have had
a religious significance. The electors (the lawman and twelve others
from each province) stood on huge stones (Morastenar), fixed in the
earth, which may still be seen at Hammarby near Upsala. Saxo (p. 10
f.) records the former existence of a similar custom in Denmark. On
the other hand the Frankish custom of hoisting a new king on a shield
probably meant no more than a proclamation of lordship, as may be
seen from the first recorded instance[548]. Whatever the formalities
employed, it appears that in practice the reigning king was usually
able to secure the succession for his son; but failing such the nearest
male relative acceptable to the court would normally be chosen[549]. It
was not an unknown thing even for minors to succeed[550]. Frequently we
find the kingdom shared by two or more brothers, just like any other
property; and on the death of one of them his son was sometimes allowed
to take his place, as in the well-known case of Hrothgar and Hrothwulf.
On the other hand the survivor might, and apparently often did, refuse
any such concession; and consequently struggles between relatives for
the possession of the throne were of not infrequent occurrence.
National or tribal assemblies figure prominently in Tacitus' account
of the ancient Germans, and among several of the Continental Teutonic
peoples they survived down to the seventh or eighth century. At this
time they were generally held in the early spring--whence the name
_Campus Martius_ applied to the assembly of the Franks. After the
adoption of Christianity however they had come to be little more than
military reviews for the most part, though at the same time a meeting
of dignitaries, lay and ecclesiastical, was held for the transaction
of business. In much later times we meet with national assemblies in
the North also, especially in Sweden, and there can be little doubt
that these had long been in existence. They were used by the kings for
the purpose of publishing proclamations, and at the same time they
presented an opportunity for coercing or overthrowing a king who had
aroused popular resentment in any way. But they appear to have been
primarily religious gatherings, for the great annual sacrifices at the
chief national sanctuary. It is more than probable however that such
was the case also with the assemblies of the ancient Germans[551].
At all events there is nothing to show that, apart from special
emergencies, they met more than once, or possibly twice, in the year.
In England evidence seems to be altogether wanting for any assemblies
which could properly be called national; nor do we find any reference
to such an institution in the poems.
It is true that we hear not unfrequently of discussions and
deliberations in works dating from the Heroic Age. But although precise
information as to the size and constitution of these meetings is seldom
given, they appear to be those of comparatively small bodies, similar
to the royal councils of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The latter however
were nothing more than meetings of the court from the earliest times
to which our records go back. When important questions were discussed
care may have been taken to summon all the leading men; and no doubt
age and high rank ensured priority of hearing, as in the assemblies
of Tacitus' day. But still they remained essentially meetings of the
king's personal dependents. So far as I am aware, there is no reason
for supposing that gatherings like that described by Procopius (_Vand._
I 22), when Genseric received the embassy from his compatriots in
Europe, differed in any way from the meeting called by Edwin in 625 to
discuss the adoption of Christianity. Often indeed the persons present
are described as οἱ λόγιμοι or λογιμώτατοι. Again, in Beowulf we hear
more than once of Danish councillors (_witan Scyldinga_), but there is
nothing to show that these were a different body from the members of
the court who entertained Beowulf; and it is clear from vv. 778 ff.,
936 ff. that their meetings were held in the same building. The old
and distinguished councillor who persuaded Genseric to reject the
petition of the envoys would seem to have been just such another person
as Aeschere, Hrothgar's trusted adviser (cf. p. 350). In the story of
Hermegisklos and Radiger also (cf. p. 97 f.) it is clear that the same
'distinguished men of the nation' (οἱ λόγιμοι, λογιμώτατοι) act both as
companions of the old king and advisers of his young successor.
In spite of what has been said above there is some evidence for the
existence of councils consisting of a fixed number of men, namely
twelve, whose position may have differed somewhat from that of the
ordinary members of the court[552]. The Old Saxons had a council of
twelve which met annually at a place called Marklo, on the Weser; but
this case stands by itself, as the Old Saxons had no king. In Sweden
however we meet with such councils both in tradition and in historical
times, and what we know of them indicates that they were composed
of the chief men. Moreover councils of twelve for judicial purposes
occur both in provinces and small districts in various parts of the
Scandinavian peninsula, as well as in the Scandinavian settlements in
the British Isles. The gods too were credited with possessing a council
of twelve which had both judicial and sacrificial duties[553]--a fact
which is interesting as it points to a connection between the councils
of which we have been speaking and bodies of twelve with sacrificial
duties, of which we hear in stories relating to heathen times. If we
take into account the legend of the twelve Frisian judges (_asegen_)
and the fact that councils of twelve are known to have existed among
the Celts and other European peoples, we can scarcely doubt that
this type is of great antiquity. Yet there is nothing to show that
such councils were at all general during the Heroic Age; in England
they seem to be entirely unknown before the period of Scandinavian
influence. It is probable therefore that in this, as in other respects,
the Swedes had preserved an institution which other kingdoms had
discarded.
From the stories quoted above we see that it was customary for the king
to consult his council or court when any question involving difficulty
or danger arose; and there can be little doubt that he would feel his
position strengthened by so doing. But we have no reason for supposing
that the opinion of the council possessed anything more than moral
force; and consequently it would depend upon the king's strength of
character or the security of his position whether he felt himself bound
to follow their advice or not. Procopius (_Goth._ I 2) states that
Amalaswintha was coerced by the leading men of the Goths with regard
to her son's education; but she was only a regent at this time. Again,
in another passage (_ib._ IV 27) he relates how Hildigisl, a claimant
to the Langobardic throne, fled for refuge to Thorisin (Turisindus),
king of the Gepidae. Audoin, king of the Langobardi, demanded that
he should be given up; and his request was supported by Justinian.
Thorisin consulted his distinguished men (οἱ λόγιμοι), but they replied
that it would be better for the whole nation of the Gepidae to perish
than to commit such an act of sacrilege. The king now, says Procopius,
felt himself to be in a great difficulty. For he could not carry out
what was demanded against the will of his subjects, and at the same
time he was afraid to go to war against the Romans and Langobardi. So
he contrived to get the fugitive murdered secretly, obtaining a _quid
pro quo_ in the murder of one of his own rivals. It must be observed
that Thorisin himself had obtained the throne by violence. So the young
Radiger, when he was captured and brought before the English princess,
pleaded that he had been forced to renounce his promise to her by
his father's commands and the insistence of the leading men (τὴν τῶν
ἀρχόντων σπουδήν). Genseric on the other hand dismissed the envoys in
accordance with the old councillor's advice; but we are told that both
of them were ridiculed by the rest of the Vandals for so doing. Plainly
then there was no question of having to follow the opinion of the
majority.
It might naturally be expected that the authority of the council would
make itself felt most on the occasion of the king's death; and the
story of Radiger seems to bear this out. Yet it is worth noticing what
is recorded in Beowulf on an occasion of great emergency. Hygelac,
king of the Geatas, lost his life in the disastrous expedition against
the Frisians and left an only son, Heardred, who seems to have been
scarcely more than a child. Beowulf escaped from the slaughter, and
on his return (v. 2369 ff.) "Hygd offered him the treasury and the
government, the rings and the throne. She trusted not that her child
would be able to hold his patrimony against foreign nations, now that
Hygelac was dead." There is no reference to any action on the part
of the council or court; but the queen offers the throne to the late
king's nephew. The whole passage seems to indicate that the throne
with all its rights was regarded very much like any ordinary family
property. Its disposition is arranged by the family itself, without
any notion of responsibility to others; and the members of the court
are not taken into account any more than the servants in a private
household.
It may perhaps be argued that court poets would be apt to exaggerate
the power of the royal family and consequently that the picture of
its authority given here is misleading. Yet Amalaswintha, who was a
contemporary of Hygelac, appears to have acted on her own authority
when she associated Theodahath, the nephew of Theodric, in the
sovereignty with herself after her son's death. There is other evidence
also which goes to show that this passage truly reflects the spirit
of the times. In the story of Radiger we see how a young princess
was able to gather together a huge army and bring about a sanguinary
struggle between two nations on account of an insult offered to her
by a neighbouring king. Again, Paulus Diaconus (_Hist. Lang._ I 20)
states that the war between the Heruli and the Langobardi was due to
the murder of the Herulian king's brother by a Langobardic princess.
Even if this story is untrue, it is significant enough that it should
obtain credit. To the prominent part played by women in determining the
destinies of nations we have already alluded (p. 337 f.). In particular
we may call attention to the position of Fredegond and Brunhild, who
after the deaths of their husbands practically ruled the kingdom of
the Franks. In the seventh century Hygd's action in disposing of the
kingdom is easily outdone by Sexburg, the widow of the West Saxon king
Coenwalh, who is said to have kept the throne for herself.
There is no doubt of course that the ease with which kings and princes
were able to draw their nations into war was due largely to the
restless spirit which animated their retinues. Sometimes indeed they
appear to have been drawn into war against their own inclination.
Procopius (_Goth._ II 14) differs from Paulus Diaconus in the cause
which he assigns for the outbreak of the war between the Heruli and
Langobardi. According to him it was due entirely to the fact that the
Heruli could not endure a peace of more than three years duration,
and consequently forced their king into hostilities. The Frankish
king Lothair I is said by Gregory (IV 14) to have been driven into a
disastrous campaign against the Saxons from the same cause. In this
direction then we may certainly recognise the influence of the court;
but the pressure probably came not from the old councillors, but from
the younger men who hoped to gain riches and glory thereby.
This brings us to the question of international relations. What is
said in the opening verses of Beowulf regarding Scyld Scefing, the
eponymous ancestor of the Danish royal family, may probably be taken as
a standard description of a typical successful king of the Heroic Age:
"He deprived many dynasties of their banqueting halls ... and gained
glory after glory, until every one of his neighbours across the whale's
road had to obey him and pay him tribute." With increasing wealth
however the love of peace frequently reasserted itself, especially
perhaps towards the end of the period, by which time the kingdoms had
materially decreased in number and consequently increased in size.
We now see alliances more and more taking the place of conquest.
Theodric organised an alliance not only with the Visigoths but also
with the kings of the Thuringians, Heruli and Warni, which extended his
influence from the Mediterranean to the North Sea; and his name seems
to have carried weight as far as the eastern part of the Baltic. In
Beowulf too we see the nations of the Baltic dealing with one another
for the most part on friendly terms.
That such alliances were primarily of a personal rather than a national
character is shown in two ways. In the first place they were often
cemented by marriage. Thus two of Theodric's daughters were married to
Alaric, king of the Visigoths, and Sigismund, king of the Burgundians,
respectively, his sister to Thrasamund, king of the Vandals, and his
niece to Irminfrith, king of the Thuringians, while Theodric himself
married a sister of Clovis. We have seen (p. 98) that similar marriages
were contracted by the kings of the Warni, while the Frankish royal
family was intermarried with those of practically all the surrounding
nations. In the North the same custom seems to have prevailed, for
in Beowulf one of the Swedish kings, probably Onela, is married to a
sister of the Danish king Hrothgar. The term _friðuwebbe_ (usually
interpreted as 'weaver of peace'), which we find applied to ladies of
royal rank in Anglo-Saxon poetry, probably owes its origin to this bond
of union between kingly families. Such marriages seem to have sometimes
taken place after a war, as in the case of Ingeld and Freawaru in
Beowulf.
Secondly, we hear of kings entering into a relationship called
'fatherhood' and 'sonship' with other kings. For an example we may
cite one of Cassiodorus' letters (_Var._ IV 2), addressed to a king
of the Heruli and informing him that Theodric creates him his 'son in
arms' (_filius per arma_), which is a great honour[554]. The letter is
accompanied by a valuable present of arms and horses. Parallels are to
be found in much later times. We may refer to the Saxon Chronicle, ann.
924, where the Scottish king (Constantine II) and several other princes
in northern Britain accept Edward the Elder as 'father and lord.' It
is scarcely to be doubted that in such cases the 'son' is expected
to render assistance to the 'father' when required. The king of the
Heruli appears to have been in alliance with Theodric[555], while
Malcolm I, the successor of Constantine II, was under an engagement
with Edmund to be his "cooperator both by sea and by land[556]." The
_imperium_ which Bede (_H. E._ II 5) ascribes to several English kings
in all probability involved somewhat similar obligations; and it rested
without doubt upon an acceptance of lordship, if not of fatherhood.
After the establishment of overlordship the next stage is that in
which the smaller kingdoms are annexed and incorporated by the larger
ones--generally in consequence of a revolt. The place of the native
king or kings is often taken at first by a member of the victorious
dynasty; but such arrangements were seldom lasting, and before long the
national organisation was abolished. The completion of this process
on the Continent belongs of course to times subsequent to the Heroic
Age, while in this country it took place still later. But we can see
such changes going on within the Heroic Age itself. At the end of the
period the number of Teutonic kingdoms on the Continent was quite
small. Several however, such as those of the Alamanni, the Burgundians
and the Thuringians, had disappeared within the last half century; in
the fourth century they were probably far more numerous. Many of them
may have been quite insignificant, like the petty kingdoms which are
said to have existed in Norway--eight apparently in the district of
Trondhjem alone--down to the time of Harold the Fair-haired. Several
of the nations which figure prominently in Tacitus' works had perhaps
disappeared still earlier. At all events they are never mentioned
either in historical works or traditions referring to the Heroic Age.
The reverse process cannot be traced so clearly. The division of a
kingdom between brothers or other relatives does not seem as a rule to
have led to a permanent partition. Very often indeed it was apparently
no more than a temporary distribution of estates and spheres of
jurisdiction, not necessarily in solid blocks[557]. In such cases the
kingdom was still regarded as one property, of which the kings were
joint possessors. But there can be no question that many kingdoms
established on alien soil, e.g. in Britain, were offshoots from other
kingdoms.
This consideration brings us to the much debated question of the
relationship between kingdom and nation. It has been assumed by
many scholars that among the Teutonic peoples the kingdom was a
comparatively late outgrowth from the nation or tribe. In reality
this problem seems to me to have much in common with that of the hen
and the egg. With the earliest kingdoms of all we are not concerned
here; it will be enough to mention that our earliest historical
notices testify to the prevalence of kingship, though not always to
monarchy in the strict sense of the term. In the Heroic Age however we
certainly find kingdoms springing up where no nation or tribe, properly
speaking, can be said to have existed previously. We may cite the
case of Odoacer, who in 476 made himself king in Italy with the help
of his troops. In principle we may regard him as the _princeps_ of a
_comitatus_. Then we have to consider the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.
The Mercian royal family traced their descent from Offa, the ancient
king of Angel, while the West Saxon dynasty claimed to be sprung from
that Wig, the son of Freawine, who was earl of Slesvig under Offa's
father, according to the story preserved by Saxo. But to the origin of
the rest the genealogies give us no clue. If they were all of royal
origin--and apparently they did claim divine descent--the Angli must
have possessed a numerous royal class; and we are scarcely justified
in denying that this may have been the case[558]. On the other hand it
is by no means impossible that some of them were sprung from foreign
peoples, such as the Danes, Swedes or Warni. But what we may regard as
practically certain is that the individual kingdoms did not rest upon
a national or tribal foundation. There is not the slightest ground
for supposing that (e.g.) the East Anglians as a people belonged to
a different nation or tribe from the Northumbrians. It is scarcely
credible that the first kings were anything else than _principes_ in
command of _comitatus_, whether they set out from the homeland in this
position or established themselves at a later date by severing their
allegiance from other kings in Britain itself.
Nor is there any reason for supposing that this phenomenon was peculiar
to Britain. The story of Waldhere tells of the presence of small
Teutonic communities in eastern Gaul, each under a royal family
of its own. And not only heroic stories but also historical works
relating to the earlier part of the Heroic Age frequently refer to
comparatively small bands of warriors--such as that led by the Goth
Sarus in Stilicho's time--in various parts of the Roman empire, and
even beyond its borders[559]. Such bands may very well have produced
communities like the one ruled by Waldhere's father[560]; but it would
be absurd to speak of them as nations or tribes. They have clearly far
more in common with the military kingship established by Odoacer. The
peculiarity of his position indeed lies only in the magnitude of the
power to which he attained.
In brief we have to distinguish between two classes of kingdoms in the
Heroic Age. In the new kingdoms, settled on foreign soil, we find an
essentially military kingship, an _imperium_ vested in a particular
family. These kings either established themselves in Roman cities,
such as Ravenna, Langres or York, or moved about from one royal estate
to another. Of national assemblies we have frequently no trace at
all, while the council is identical with the _comitatus_ and consists
of relatives and nominees of the king. Such kingdoms often rest on
no national or tribal foundations; the king and his _comitatus_ form
the nucleus of the organism. On the other hand the older kingdoms,
especially in the North, retained many features of a more primitive
constitution. The king's position had a religious significance, and
his capital, e.g. at Leire or Gamla Upsala, was the chief national
sanctuary, at which assemblies, primarily religious but possessing
considerable political influence, took place from time to time. It is
likely too that the councils here were originally permanent bodies with
more or less fixed prerogatives--essentially religious, but yet by no
means without political power. Between these two types of kingdoms we
find others of an intermediate character, especially in nations which
had migrated _en masse_; and there can be little doubt that during
the Heroic Age even the most conservative of the older kingdoms were
influenced by the newer type. It is the newer type of course which we
must regard as truly characteristic of the Heroic Age.
In post-heroic times again we find a reversion to the national idea
of a kingdom, though on a much larger scale. In English history this
tendency can be traced from the seventh century onwards. In Bede's
works it is clear that such an expression as _Merciorum gens_ (_Myrcna
maegþ_) had come to mean something more than the royal family of the
Mercians with their property and dependents. By the ninth and tenth
centuries however this feeling is much more clearly perceptible. We
may cite King Alfred's will, where it is clearly recognised that the
kingdom should not be divided up as a family property. But it is not
until the time of Aethelred II that the full sense of the king's
responsibility to the nation finds expression in definite terms.
* * * * *
The form of government which we find depicted in the Homeric poems
seems to be not unlike that which we have discussed above. Here
too kingship is universal--apparently also without any recognised
constitutional limitations to the royal authority. The murder or
expulsion of a prince is not unknown; but such cases are due to strife
within the royal family. Any differences which we can detect between
the authority of Homeric kings and that wielded by early Teutonic
rulers may be ascribed partly to the much smaller size of the kingdoms
and partly to a social feature noted in the last chapter (p. 363 f.),
namely that in many Greek communities kingly or princely rank seems to
have been claimed by a number of different families.
The last consideration is especially prominent in the Odyssey[561]. The
throne of Ithaca has been in the possession of one family for three
generations. Yet in I 394 ff. Telemachos says that there are many kings
of the Achaeans, both young and old, in the island, and he expects that
one of them will take the sovreignty, now that Odysseus is dead. In
Scheria also we hear of twelve sceptre-bearing kings under Alcinoos;
but to this case we shall have to return shortly. That a king was not
necessarily a person of great magnificence may be inferred also from
one of the scenes depicted on Achilles' shield (Il. XVIII 556 ff.),
where we find a king in the harvest-field watching the work of the
reapers and feasting on the spot. We are reminded here of the story of
the Norwegian king Sigurðr Sýr who was summoned from the harvest-field
to greet his stepson, St Olaf, and whose state-robes had to be sent to
him there in order to enable him to make a suitable appearance[562].
In this connection it is perhaps worth noting that according to the
Catalogue of Ships the contingents supplied by several communities were
under a number of different princes. Thus the Epeioi have four leaders
and the Boeotians five, without counting those from Orchomenos and
Aspledon. The troops from Argolis (exclusive of Agamemnon's dominions)
are led by three princes, all of whom according to later authorities
were related--two of them, Diomedes and Sthenelos, being sons of
Adrastos' daughters, while the third, Euryalos, was his brother's
son[563]. Diomedes is said to be the commander-in-chief, but as
Sthenelos is his charioteer the relations between them are evidently of
an intimate character. It is not stated whether all these princes were
actually reigning kings, or merely leaders selected for the expedition;
but Diomedes and Sthenelos at least have no fathers living.
There is no evidence, so far as I am aware, for any form of election
for kings. In the case of Bellerophon we are told that "the Lycians
apportioned him a demesne" (τέμενος τάμον); but it was the king who
granted him half the royal rights. And similarly in all other cases the
kingly power seems to have been obtained from some relative by blood
or marriage. This renders it more easily intelligible that the plural
kingship--if such it was--of which we have spoken above, may be due
ultimately to family arrangements. It is scarcely necessary to suppose
that in such cases the kingdom was always divided into geographical
halves and quarters. As to the relationship between the various kings
under such an arrangement--e.g. whether the phrase συμπάντων ἡγεῖτο
applied to Diomedes in Il. II 567 means a formal recognition of
lordship on the part of his colleagues--we have apparently no precise
information.
The religious aspect of kingship is not very prominent in the Homeric
poems. When the armies are gathered together to perform a sacrifice
Agamemnon acts as priest (Il. III 271 ff.) with the cooperation of
Priam, and Nestor seems to take the chief part in sacrifices at Pylos
(Od. III 444 ff.). There is no reason for supposing that such cases
are exceptional; as in the North (cf. p. 367) the king or chief
person seems likewise to have acted as priest. We do occasionally
hear of priests of sanctuaries, such as Chryseus at the opening of
the Iliad; but no mention is made of state-priests or tribal priests.
In historical times the case was otherwise. Thus Athens possessed
a state-priest known as βασιλεύς. The name of the office itself
shows that it was a relic of the kingship which had been gradually
stripped of all except its religious duties. Political power here was
transferred at first to an official called ὁ ἄρχων, whose origin may
have been similar to that of the Frankish _maior domus_. We may note
also that at Sparta, where the institution of kingship was preserved
in a modified form, priestly functions were among the chief duties
preserved by the kings.
The poems themselves do not make it clear that the religious aspect
of kingship amounts to more than priestly position, for such phrases
as θεὸς ὣς τίετο δήμῳ are scarcely free from ambiguity. But later
authorities give us much more information in this respect. In the first
place we may notice certain legends, such as that of the impious king
Salmoneus, who aspired to the functions of Zeus--a story which is now
thought by many scholars to have arisen from a misunderstanding. More
than one of the early Attic kings also seem to have been regarded
as at least partly divine[564]. But above all we have to take into
account the statement of Clement of Alexandria (_Protr._ II 38) that
the Spartans worshipped a certain Ζεὺς Ἀγαμέμνων, which has led
some writers to assume that Agamemnon was originally a god. In all
probability the true explanation is furnished by Tzetzes[565], who
says that in early times kings regularly bore the name Ζεύς. We have
an interesting parallel here to the usage of the ancient Swedes[566],
whose kings are said to have been called Yngvi (cf. p. 367). In both
cases we may probably infer that the king was regarded in some sense
as the god's representative; possibly he personated him on certain
occasions. Yet it must be remembered that this aspect of kingship is
not brought forward in the poems[567]. If our sketch of the history of
Homeric poetry is correct in its main outlines, we must conclude that
the divinity of kings was not a doctrine to which supreme importance
was attached in the courts themselves.
National or tribal assemblies are not often mentioned. In Od. VIII
26 ff. Alcinoos addresses the Phaeacians in their assembly (ἀγορή)
and declares to them his resolve to assist Odysseus. Again, in II 6
ff. Telemachos calls an assembly in Ithaca. But on this occasion the
first speaker, Aigyptios, says that the assembly has not met since
the departure of Odysseus, some twenty years before, and further that
he wonders who it is who has called them together now. The former
statement seems to indicate that such meetings were not held regularly,
while the latter at first sight suggests that it was open to anyone
to call them, and consequently that they were of a quite informal
character--in spite of certain rules of procedure which seem to have
been usually followed. But the conditions here are abnormal. The king
has disappeared and no one has yet taken his place; Aigyptios is
perhaps scarcely prepared to expect that the young Telemachos would
summon the assembly. It is true that in Il. I 54 ff. the Achaeans
are called together by Achilles, not Agamemnon; but here we have to
deal with a confederate army in the field[568], and with a prince who
shortly afterwards sets Agamemnon's authority at open defiance. There
is scarcely sufficient ground for supposing that a similar course would
have been possible at home, when the king was on the spot. Further, it
is to be noted that on all the above occasions the notice served is
so short that only those in the immediate neighbourhood could attend.
On the whole then we are probably justified in doubting whether any
definite rules existed as to when the assembly should be called, and
indeed whether this body had much in common with the constitutionally
regulated assemblies of historical times[569]. It seems rather to be
a more or less fortuitous gathering called together on the spot by
criers when the king wishes to bring something before the notice of the
public[570].
In Od. III 5 ff. we certainly do hear of a great public
gathering--indeed we may probably say a national gathering--of a kind
which can only have taken place at definitely fixed times. But it
is clear that this was essentially a religious festival[571]. Such
gatherings may of course have been used for political purposes, as in
the North; but we have no information on this subject.
The Achaean 'council of elders' (βουλὴ γερόντων) in the Iliad seems to
be a body of quite as informal character as the assembly. On several
occasions Agamemnon calls together a small number of princes, namely
Nestor, Idomeneus, the two Aiantes, Diomedes and Odysseus, together
with his brother Menelaos. This number of course forms only a small
proportion of the leading men in the army. Occasionally however we find
others summoned, such as Meges and even Thrasymedes and Meriones, who
are not the chiefs of contingents. The council of an expeditionary army
however is an exceptional case. On the Trojan side we hear of a number
of δημογέροντες with Priam (Il. III 146 ff.), seven of whom are named.
Three of them are brothers of the king, while others are fathers of
the most distinguished Trojan warriors. They are described as eloquent
orators, but no account is given of their deliberations. In the Odyssey
references to councils are very rare. No mention is made of such a body
in Ithaca. In Scheria however Alcinoos has twelve kings under him (VII
390 f.), who clearly form his council and are to be identified with the
'leaders and rulers of the Phaeacians' Φαιήκων ἡγήτορες ἠδὲ μέδοντες
who feasted in his hall (VII 98 f., 186; VIII 26, 41, 46 f.), though on
Odysseus' arrival they were apparently not all present (VII 189). It
may be observed that in the account of the Phaeacian assembly Alcinoos
uses the same formula as when he is addressing the princes in his hall:
"Hearken, ye leaders and rulers of the Phaeacians." His speech then
is directed primarily to the princes--a fact which seems to indicate
that council and assembly were not very clearly distinguished. In this
connection we may note that in the assemblies of the Iliad, as in those
of the ancient Germans, the speaking is almost invariably left to the
princes.
So far as the councils of the Iliad are concerned little can be said
against the view that Agamemnon calls together from time to time those
of the leaders in whom he has most confidence. The same may be true of
Alcinoos' council[572]. But on the whole it seems more probable that
this is a permanent institution, with definitely fixed numbers and
privileges. The 'sceptre-bearing' under-kings are twelve in number,
like the councils of so many European peoples in ancient times. The
agora where they meet, with its polished stones, is clearly a place
specially constructed for such functions and similar apparently to
the one described in the trial scene depicted on Achilles' shield (Il.
XVIII 497 ff.), where the elders are seated on polished stones 'in a
sacred circle.' We are reminded here of the Northern council of the
gods--especially as described in Gautreks Saga, cap. 7[573]--and of the
'circle of judgement' (_domhringr_), which we find at 'chief-places'
(i.e. centres of jurisdiction) in Iceland. Possibly too we should refer
to the stones used in the election of Scandinavian kings (cf. p. 368).
If we take the evidence as a whole it can hardly be denied that the
Phaeacian council does seem to show the characteristics of a primitive
communal organisation[574]. But it would be unwise to assume that
councils of this type were universal in the Heroic Age.
The actual power possessed by the council, whatever its constitution,
does not seem to amount to much. Agamemnon is often ready to take
advice from some of his colleagues, especially Nestor; and in Od.
VII 167 ff. Alcinoos acts on the suggestion of the old Echeneos.
Both these cases may be compared with the story of Genseric (cf. p.
369 f.[575]). But it is clearly as individuals that the councillors
have influence. In the Iliad Achilles acts on his own initiative and
withdraws from the war in open defiance of Agamemnon. But even in the
case of home councils--I mean councils of the kingdoms--we never hear
of organised action. In Ithaca, where the king is away, no council
seems to exist. Nor is any mention made of a council in the story
of Agamemnon's death and Orestes' vengeance. This fact deserves to
be remarked all the more because we find apparently just the same
phenomenon in Anglo-Saxon poetry, e.g. in Beowulf where the proceedings
after Hygelac's death are related. The natural inference to be drawn
from the evidence is that the councillors were essentially advisers to
the king and that after his death or disappearance their standing was
gone. But here again caution is necessary. It is difficult to believe
that such a description can be true of a council like that of the
Phaeacians, however ready they may seem to follow the king in ordinary
circumstances.
The cases of emergency arising out of the misfortunes of Odysseus
and Agamemnon bring to our attention another curious feature, again
possibly analogous to the conditions described in Beowulf, namely
that the king does not seem to appoint a regent in his absence[576].
Odysseus has entrusted his household to Mentor (Od. II 226 f.), and
Agamemnon has put his wife in charge of a minstrel (_ib._ III 267 f.);
but nothing is said of the kingdom in either case. Are we to suppose
that the queen is the person in authority? Presumably, like Hygd, she
has command over the treasury; for (as also perhaps in the North) the
treasury seems to be connected with the queen's chamber. If it be
objected that the absence of any national control apart from the king's
(or queen's) personal authority must have been productive of strife, we
have only to refer to the stories to see that dissensions, especially
between members of the same family, were by no means of rare occurrence.
With regard to international relations warfare between different
kingdoms does not seem to be particularly common. Apart from the siege
of Troy we hear incidentally of a number of struggles, such as the
two expeditions against Thebes, the war of the Aetolians against the
Curetes, and those of the Arcadians and the Epeioi against Pylos, while
references to buccaneering exploits are frequent. But on the whole the
normal state of relations between the various kingdoms is one of peace.
As in the Teutonic Heroic Age, we hear frequently of marriages between
different royal families. Agamemnon's offer of one of his daughters to
Achilles is part of his attempt at reconciliation and may be compared
with the marriage of Ingeld and Freawaru. Menelaos marries his daughter
to Achilles' son. Both these cases show that such marriages were not
limited to neighbouring families. So also Penelope the daughter of
Icarios (whose home is not stated in the poems) has married the king of
Ithaca, while her sister is the wife of Eumelos at Pherai in Thessaly
(Od. IV 795 ff.). Such marriages would doubtless do much towards
promoting friendly relations between the various royal families.
Indeed visits paid by one prince to another seem to be nothing very
unusual[577]. Autolycos visits his son-in-law Laertes in Ithaca,
and Odysseus later goes to stay with Autolycos in the neighbourhood
of Parnassos. Helen recognises several of the Achaean princes from
the walls of Troy and remarks (Il. III 232 f.) that Idomeneus had
frequently been entertained by Menelaos in her old home.
Again, it can scarcely be doubted that the expedition against Troy
involves the existence of relations of some kind between Agamemnon and
the other kings. But the character of Agamemnon's position in Greece
itself is never clearly defined in the poems. According to Od. XXIV 115
ff. he has considerable difficulty in persuading Odysseus to take part
in the expedition. On the other hand in Il. XIII 669 we hear of a fine
(θωή) for those who refused to serve[578]. This passage however refers
to a native of Corinth, who was doubtless a much nearer neighbour.
Indeed the Catalogue of Ships (Il. II 569 ff.) represents the
Corinthian contingent as under Agamemnon's immediate command. According
to this section of the poem Agamemnon's own territories consist of
the north-western part of Argolis, together with at least the eastern
half of Achaia, while the rest of Argolis belongs to Diomedes and his
colleagues. But in IX 149 ff. (291 ff.) it is clear that Agamemnon
possesses part of Messenia, bordering apparently on Pylos (the
territory of Nestor). Further, we have to take into account that, apart
from the Catalogue, neither poem gives evidence for the existence of
anything which can fairly be called a kingdom in the Peloponnesos,
except Pylos, Elis and the territories of the two brothers[579]. Taking
the positive and negative evidence together it seems probable that
Agamemnon and his brother were regarded as ruling over the greater
part of the peninsula, though certain cities and districts remained in
possession of native princes, perhaps in a dependent position. Again,
I am not aware that there is any evidence apart from the Catalogue
for supposing that the territories of the two brothers were regarded
as definitely marked off from one another. From Il. IX 149 ff., taken
together with the references to Sparta and Mycenae, we may infer the
contrary. On the whole it seems more probable that we have here to do
with a case of divided kingship, as so frequently among the Teutonic
peoples, rather than with two separate kingdoms. In that case too we
shall obtain a satisfactory explanation of the later tradition (cf. p.
240) which claimed Agamemnon for Sparta or Amyclai.
Beyond his own territories Agamemnon's authority does not seem
to be represented as anything more than a somewhat indefinite
hegemony--comparable probably with the relationship of Theodric the
Ostrogoth to his northern allies (cf. p. 373 f.). The army which he
leads against Troy is furnished partly by his own subjects and partly
by a number of princes whose positions may have varied from complete
dependence to something which may best be described as alliance. A
good parallel is to be found in the army led by the Mercian king Penda
against Oswio, which according to Bede (_H. E._ III 24) consisted of
thirty _legiones_ under _regii duces_. Among these were the king of
East Anglia and several Welsh kings.
How Agamemnon acquired his imperial position we are not told; for
scarcely anything is recorded of his doings before the Trojan war.
From Il. II 104 ff. we may perhaps infer that his family had held a
preeminent position before him[580], although Pelops was located by
later tradition in a different part of the peninsula[581]. Nor again
is it made clear whether the hegemony remained with the family after
Agamemnon's death. All that can be said is that the Odyssey represents
Menelaos as a very wealthy king and that neither the poems nor later
tradition give any hint of the rise of a new power in the Peloponnesos
before the 'Return of the Heracleidai.' What may be regarded as certain
is that no individual Greek prince attained to such a supremacy again,
for many centuries after the close of the Heroic Age.
In conclusion we must consider briefly the question how far the Homeric
kingdoms rested upon a national or tribal basis (cf. p. 375 ff.). Upon
this question the nomenclature of the poems seems to throw some light.
In the north of Greece, except the plain of Thessaly, the inhabitants
of the various kingdoms bear what are apparently national or tribal
names, e.g. Βοιωτοί, Λοκροί, Δόλοπες, Ἐνιῆνες, Μάγνητες, Αἰτωλοί,
Ἄβαντες--probably also Φωκῆες and Μυρμιδόνες (Ἕλληνες). The same is
true of kingdoms outside Greece, e.g. Φαίηκες, Τρῶες and the various
Trojan allies. But in the Peloponnesos the only names of this type are
Ἐπειοί, Ἀρκάδες and Καύκωνες; for Πύλιοι and Ἀργεῖοι are not primary
national names but derivatives of Πύλος and Ἄργος, while Ἀχαιοί is
a name, like _Engle_, applied to the inhabitants of many kingdoms.
This evidence, so far as it goes, tends to indicate that the southern
kingdoms rested on a political or military rather than a tribal
basis--which is natural enough if we are right in believing that the
Peloponnesian Achaeans were an offshoot from the Achaeans of northern
Greece. It would seem then that these kingdoms are to be compared with
the newer kingdoms of the Teutonic Heroic Age, the nucleus of which
consisted of the kings with their military followings; and I am not
aware of the existence of any evidence inconsistent with this view. I
do not mean of course that these kingdoms were necessarily areas carved
out by the sword, like the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. What I mean is that
we have no reason for supposing that Agamemnon's subjects believed
themselves to be of a different nationality from Nestor's subjects or
the rest of the Achaeans and that each of these kingdoms had a separate
tribal organisation and tradition of its own.
If our observation is correct it is important to notice that several
of the chief Achaean leaders belong to kingdoms which apparently
rest on a non-national basis. Among them we have to include not only
Agamemnon, Menelaos and Nestor, but also probably Idomeneus; for the
name Κρῆτες in the Homeric poems can scarcely mean anything else than
inhabitants of Crete. The followers of Diomedes and of Aias, the son
of Telamon, likewise appear to bear no national names. The case of
Odysseus is doubtful, since his subjects are described both as Ἀχαιοί
and Κεφαλλῆνες. The question is whether he is king of the Cephallenes
in general or only king of Ithaca, with a temporary lordship over the
rest of the nation. The only 'heroes of the first rank' who clearly
represent national kingdoms are Achilles and Aias the son of Oileus.
* * * * *
In the course of this chapter we have noticed many remarkable
resemblances between the Homeric and the early Teutonic systems of
government. Not all of these however can be regarded as characteristic
of the Heroic Age; some have been inherited in all probability
from an earlier stage of development. Such are the religious type
of kingship, the council of twelve and the national gathering for
religious (sacrificial) purposes[582]. The form of government
truly characteristic of the Heroic Age in both areas alike is an
irresponsible type of kingship, resting not upon tribal or national
law--which is of little account--but upon military prestige. Such
kingdoms are often of recent origin and without roots in any national
organisation. The assembly here, so far as it exists at all, is a
gathering summoned at the king's pleasure, while the council consists
of an indefinite number of his trusted followers, whose advice he may
wish to have from time to time. Lastly, we may observe in both cases
a very strong tendency to develop intercourse between one kingdom and
another--partly by royal marriages and partly by the cultivation of
personal relations between the kings, which generally take the form of
a recognition of overlordship, though in varying degree. The general
effect of this intercourse must have been to produce something in the
nature of an international royal caste, and to break down tribal and
local prejudices, at least in the highest ranks of society.
With the end of the Heroic Age the lines followed by Teutonic and
Greek political history part company. In both cases, it is true, we
find a revival of national feeling. Among the Teutonic peoples however
the kingdoms constantly tend to decrease in number and increase in
size--partly by the process sketched above (p. 375) and partly by
pressure from without. In Greece on the other hand this tendency was
brought to an abrupt end[583] by the Thessalian and Dorian conquests,
by which the richest parts of the country were brought into the power
of populations in a lower stage of civilisation and governed largely
by tribal principles and prejudices. The general effect of these
movements was to isolate the various communities--not only in the
conquered provinces but also in those districts, such as Attica, which
remained entirely or comparatively untouched. This isolation in turn
was probably favourable to the growth of internal dissensions. In the
end at all events no king succeeded in maintaining a personal lordship
over the rest of his class[584], even within the smallest communities.
The title came to denote an official with constantly diminishing
powers, often indeed of an exclusively religious character, while the
allegiance formerly owed to an individual was now transferred to the
state and its constitution[585]. At a later date, it is true, most of
the Greek states again came for a time into the power of individual
rulers. But it is not until the days of Philip II, king of the
Macedonians, that we find any single man holding an authority over the
Greek world such as the poems attribute to Agamemnon.
FOOTNOTES:
[544] For analogies to this belief cf. Frazer, _Lectures on the Early
History of the Kingship_, p. 112 ff. Especially interesting parallels
are to be found in the region of the Congo; cf. Pinkerton, _Voyages and
Travels_, Vol. XVI. pp. 330, 577.
[545] Frequently used in poetry. The god's full name seems to have been
Yngvifreyr or Ingunarfreyr, both of which occur occasionally (cf. _The
Origin of the English Nation_, p. 231).
[546] We may compare Ibn Fadhlan's account of the king of the
(Scandinavian) Russians, who never put his foot to the ground. His
duties also were discharged by a viceroy. Cf. Frähn, _Ibn Foszlan's und
anderer Araber Berichte über die Russen älterer Zeit_, pp. 21, 23.
[547] The priesthood figures very prominently in Tacitus' _Germania_.
But it is not safe to assume that the conditions described there are
necessarily more primitive than those which we find in much later times
in the North.
[548] Tacitus, _Hist._, IV 15.
[549] Among the Ostrogoths during their war with the Romans (from
535 onwards) we meet with several kings of non-royal birth; but the
conditions were altogether abnormal. One king (Eraric) was a Rugian and
appointed apparently by his own followers.
[550] E.g. Athalaric the grandson of Theodric and Walthari the son of
Waccho, king of the Langobardi. Aethelberht, king of Kent, must have
succeeded as a child. Heardred, the son of Hygelac, is represented as
very young.
[551] Cf. especially Tacitus, _Germ._ 39; _Ann._ I 51.
[552] For references see _Folk-Lore_, XI, pp. 280, 282 f., 300.
[553] Cf. especially Gylf. 14, Yngl. S. 2, Gautreks S. 7.
[554] In Beow. 946 ff. (cf. 1175 f.) Hrothgar pays a similar compliment
to the hero, who is not a king at this time. Probably the intention is
to do Beowulf a quite exceptional honour.
[555] Cf. Cassiodorus, _Var._ III 3.
[556] Cf. Chron., ann. 945. For the form of agreement entered into upon
such occasions reference may be made to ann. 874, 921 (ad fin.) etc.
The terms probably varied from case to case.
[557] For the case of the Frankish kingdom see Waitz, _Deutsche
Verfassungsgeschichte_³, II, p. 145 ff.; Brunner, _Deutsche
Rechtsgeschichte_, II, p. 25 f.
[558] In the account of Wulfstan's voyage given in King Alfred's
translation of Orosius (p. 20 in Sweet's edition) it is stated that
the land of the Este (in East Prussia) contains very many fortified
places (_burh_, i.e. probably stockaded villages) and that in each of
these there is a king. But it is scarcely probable that such primitive
conditions survived among the Angli even four or five centuries before
Alfred's time (cf. p. 380, note).
[559] It is only in this way that we can account for the more or less
simultaneous appearance of Heruli in Gaul and on the Black Sea in the
latter part of the third century. In the fifth century this nation had
a powerful kingdom in Central Europe. We may refer also to the traces
of various peoples (Angli, Warni, etc.) which we find in the basin of
the Saale, as well as to the kingdom of the Suabi in Spain, the Goths
in the Crimea, etc. Abundant parallels are to be found in the history
of the Viking Age.
[560] It is quite possible that many of the leading characters in the
heroic stories may belong to such communities, e.g. Hnaef, Sigmundr and
Sigurðr, Heðinn, Hamðir and Sörli, Haki and Hagbarðr.
[561] In explanation of this phenomenon the view has been put forward
(cf. Finsler, _N. Jahrb._ XIII 319 ff., 396 ff.; summarised 410 ff.)
that the form of government depicted in the Odyssey is really an
aristocracy, whereas the evidence of the Iliad is inconsistent owing
to traditional reminiscences of a time of real kingship. Thus in the
latter poem βασιλεύς (in the singular) is generally used only of
Agamemnon, though there are exceptions, e.g. I 331, where it is applied
to "Achilleus, dem der Titel, streng genommen, nicht zukommt, da Peleus
noch lebt" (p. 404 f.). I do not think that this explanation is likely
to carry conviction to anyone who has studied early Teutonic history.
It is clear that in early times throughout the Teutonic area--in
England down to the end of the seventh century and in the North much
later--the title of king was applied to sons and other relatives of
kings, as well as to dependent princes. The only qualifications for
the title were (i) royal birth, (ii) the possession of some kind of
authority or 'lordship' (τιμή). How small this authority might be can
be seen from St Olaf's Saga (Heimskr.), cap. 4, where we are told that
Olaf had the title of king given to him by his followers; "for it was
customary that _herkonungar_ (i.e. Viking chiefs) who were engaged in
piracy should take the title of king at once, if they were of royal
birth, although they governed no territories." The qualification of
royal birth however was essential. The title was not taken even by so
great a man as Earl Haakon of Lade, who had kings practically dependent
on him. I see no reason for regarding the conditions depicted in either
of the Homeric poems as different from what we find in the North,
although, owing presumably to the smallness of the kingdoms, all the
important characters appear to be persons of royal birth.
[562] St Olaf's Saga (Heimskr.), cap. 30 ff.
[563] This passage offers at least a partial explanation of the
phenomenon which we have been discussing. If royal rank is traced
both on the male and female sides the kingly class will inevitably be
numerous. Such may have been the case among the Angli also at one time.
But it is not unlikely that at least in the remoter parts of Greece
each 'city' or small district may have retained a royal family of its
own, like the communities visited by Wulfstan (cf. p. 376, note). We
may refer to such a passage as Il. IX 395 f., if ἀριστήων here means
dependent princes.
[564] Cf. especially Cook, _Folk-Lore_, XV 385 f.
[565] _Chil._ I 474 (τοὺς βασιλεῖς δ' ἀνέκαθε Δίας ἐκάλουν πάντας) and
elsewhere. On this subject see Cook, _Class. Rev._ XVII 409, and
_Folk-Lore_, XV 303 f. (cf. 301), where full references are given.
[566] The parallel must not be pressed too far of course. According to
Tzetzes all kings were called Ζεύς. But apparently not all kings were
descended from Zeus; Nestor, for example, was sprung from Poseidon
according to Od. XI 254 ff. We may refer however to Hesiod, _Theog._
96, where kings are said to derive their authority from Zeus, and
to the Homeric epithet διοτρεφής (possibly also διογενής) which is
commonly applied to kings. Frey on the other hand was an ancestral god
but not the chief of the gods, though he is sometimes in poetry called
_folkvaldi goða_, which Saxo translates by _satrapa deorum_.
[567] A trace of the belief that kings had power over the seasons (cf.
p. 367) may perhaps be found in Od. XIX 109 ff.
[568] I cannot help thinking that evidence derived from the Achaean
gatherings in the Iliad is somewhat precarious ground on which to build
up a theory regarding the constitutional rights possessed by the ἀγορή
at home. The same remark applies to such a passage as Od. XII 297,
where an important constitutional change (cf. Fanta, _op. cit._, p. 91)
has been inferred from the mutinous behaviour of a ship's crew.
[569] It cannot fairly be argued from Od. II 192 f. that the assembly
(apart from the king) has a right to impose fines, for the suitors here
are relying not upon any 'constitutional' rights but on force majeure.
It is to be remembered too that Eurymachos appears to have designs upon
the throne (cf. p. 358 f.).
[570] It has been suggested that the true name for such a gathering was
θόωκος (θῶκος) and that this was something different from the ἀγορή
(cf. Fanta, _op. cit._, p. 77); but the evidence for such a distinction
is very far from convincing. We may refer to such passages as Od. XII
318 and, more especially, to V 3 (θῶκόνδε), which is clearly parallel
to Il. XX 4 (ἀγορήνδε). Cf. Finsler, _N. Jahrb._, XIII 327.
[571] In the Hymn to the Delian Apollo, v. 146 ff., mention is made of
a festal gathering of Ionians at Delos, apparently on a considerable
scale. Similar gatherings may have been in existence quite as early,
or even earlier, in other parts of Greece. For the festival at Pylos
however much better parallels are to be found in the great religious
gatherings which took place every nine years at Leire and Upsala, the
old Danish and Swedish capitals. Cf. Thietmar of Merseburg, _Chron._
I 9: _est unus in his partibus locus ... Lederun nomine ... ubi post
nouem annos, mense Ianuario ... omnes conuenerunt et ibi diis suismet_
XCIX _homines et totidem equos cum canibus et gallis pro accipitribus
oblatis immolant_. And Adam of Bremen, IV 27: _solet quoque post nouem
annos communis omnium Sueoniae prouintiarum sollempnitas in Ubsola
celebrari. ad quam uidelicet sollempnitatem nulli praestatur immunitas.
reges et populi omnes et singuli sua dona transmittunt ad Ubsolam_.
It does not appear however that on these occasions--in contrast with
the festival at Pylos--any of the victims were eaten. In this respect
they are probably to be compared rather with the great quadrennial
sacrifices of the Gauls; cf. Diodoros, v. 32.
[572] It is scarcely capable of proof that the picture of the Phaeacian
community in the Odyssey is derived from a Greek model (cf. p. 297 f.
and note); but I believe I am following the generally accepted view in
assuming this to be the case. The features noted here are such as we
might expect to find in a Greek community if we take into account the
evidence of later times.
[573] We may refer also to the rökstólar (judgement-seats) on which the
gods sit when they gather in session (Völuspá, str. 9, 23, 25).
[574] For a true analogy we must of course turn to councils which were
attached to the king's court. Such appears to have been the case with
the twelve chiefs of the Uppland Swedes who, according to St Olaf's
Saga (Heimskr.), cap. 96, constantly attended the Swedish king, sitting
in judgement with him and giving him advice in matters of difficulty.
If the meaning of Od. XIII 130 is that the Phaeacians in general are
descended from Poseidon, we have a further analogy with the same
community, who appear to have claimed descent from the god Frey. Cf.
Saxo, p. 260 (in the catalogue of Ringo's warriors at Bravalla): _At
Sueonum fortissimi hi fuere.... qui quidem Frø dei necessarii erant
et fidissimi numinum arbitri.... iidem quoque ad Frø deum generis sui
principium referebant_.
[575] For Genseric's disregard of the general opinion of those present
a parallel is presented by Agamemnon's conduct in Il. I 22 ff.
[576] Cf. Seymour, _Life in the Homeric Age_, p. 81.
[577] It may be observed here that we often hear also of journeys
for trade and other purposes, as in Od. III 366 ff., where Athene,
disguised as Mentor, says she is going to the land of the Caucones
to collect a debt. Voyages even to countries as distant as Egypt and
Phoenicia are not unknown.
[578] Cf. XXIII 296 ff., where a certain Echepolos (presumably a
fictitious character) is said to have given Agamemnon a mare in order
that he might be excused from the expedition. This person belongs to
Sicyon, another adjacent city and likewise included in Agamemnon's
domain in the Catalogue of Ships.
[579] The evidence of the Catalogue as to the dimensions of Diomedes'
dominions is not corroborated elsewhere in the Iliad. The author may
of course have derived his information from other sources, e.g. from
poems dealing with the story of Adrastos and the expedition against
Thebes. But it is at least equally possible that he was influenced by
the desire of providing each king with dominions comprised in a compact
geographical area.
[580] The passage suggests that the σκῆπτρον is regarded as a symbol
of authority. Thyestes here appears between Atreus and Agamemnon.
In Od. IV 517 f. Aigisthos is said to have dwelt where Thyestes had
formerly dwelt, though unfortunately the locality is not stated.
The two passages however are not necessarily inconsistent, for it
does not follow that Agamemnon, when he took the _imperium_, would
deprive his relative of the estate on which he lived. For the method
of succession--which was of course extremely liable to produce
strife--many Teutonic parallels might be cited. We may refer to the
events which took place on the death of Alfred the Great.
[581] Thucydides (I 9) relates how Atreus acquired the sovereignty
at Mycenae; but his account seems to be largely in the nature of a
conjecture.
[582] Among the Teutonic peoples we have records of such gatherings
from the first century (cf. p. 369, note) to the eleventh (at Upsala;
cf. p. 383. note). There is evidence also for similar festivals among
the Lithuanians and Prussians; cf. Matthias a Michov, De Sarm. Europ.,
Lib. II (in Grynaeus' _Novus Orbis Terrarum_, etc., Basel 1537, p.
519): _insuper prima Octobris die maxima per Samagittas in syluis
praefatis celebritas agebatur, et ex omni regione uniuersus utriusque
sexus conueniens illuc populus cibos et potus quilibet iuxta suae
conditionis qualificationem deferebat; quibus aliquot diebus epulati
diis suis falsis, praecipue deo lingua eorum appellato Perkuno, id est
tonitru, ad focos quisque suos offerebat libamina_.
[583] It is important to notice that the tendency appears to have been
by no means so far developed as in the Teutonic Heroic Age. We cannot
tell, it is true, how far the various dependent cities and districts
remained in the hands of native royal families and how far they were
governed by officials. In the latter category we may include such a
person as Phoinix (Il. IX 483 f.). But it is clear that the royal
families form a much larger proportion of the population than was the
case among the Teutonic peoples of the fifth century.
[584] Teutonic analogies occur, though they are not common. We may
instance Bede's account (_H. E._ IV 12) of what took place after the
death of Coenwalh, king of Wessex (about 673): _acceperunt subreguli
regnum gentis et diuisum inter se tenuerunt annis circiter_ X, after
which _deuictis atque amotis subregulis Caedualla suscepit imperium_.
The Saxon Chronicle certainly gives a different impression; and
from Eddius, _Vita Wilfridi_, cap. 40, it appears that Centwine's
authority was recognised at least to some extent. Reference may
also be made to Procopius' statement (_Goth._ II 14) that--early in
Justinian's reign--the Heruli slew their king, ἄλλο οὐδὲν ἐπενεγκότες
ἢ ὅτι ἀβασίλευτοι τὸ λοιπὸν βούλονται εἶναι; but the interregnum was
of short duration. Earlier cases may be found among the Cherusci and
other peoples of western Germany during the first century--where it is
to be noted that Tacitus' _principes_ and _regnum_ correspond to Bede's
_subreguli_ and _imperium_ respectively. I cannot help thinking that
much confusion has been introduced into early Greek history through
failure to distinguish between kingship and lordship.
[585] This is true even of Sparta. We may quote Herodotus' account
(VII 104) of Demaratos' speech to Xerxes: ἐλεύθεροι γὰρ ἐόντες (sc.
οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι) οὐ πάντα ἐλεύθεροί εἰσι· ἔπεστι γάρ σφι δεσπότης
νόμος, τὸν ὑποδειμαίνουσι πολλῷ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ σοὶ σέ. It is the
recognition of this impersonal force--not of course any sense of
universal right, but the 'law' of the community--which perhaps most
clearly distinguishes post-heroic and pre-heroic society from that
of the Heroic Age. The existence of such a force--operating, under
religious sanction (cf. p. 366), as a restraint upon the king's freedom
of action--is implied by Tacitus, _Germ._ 7, 11. But it is a strange
misunderstanding which has led several scholars to compare the former
of these passages with Beow. 73, where the limitations stated are those
of Hrothgar's generosity, not of his power.