II. The local kings, some of them considerable enough to have other
lords or princes (ἄνακτες) under them.
III. The minor chiefs of contingents; who, though not kings, were
princes or lords (ἄνακτες), and governed separate states of their own:
such as Thoas for Ætolia, and Menestheus for Athens.
IV. The petty and scattered chiefs, of whom we can hardly tell how far
any account is taken in the Catalogue, but who belonged, in some sense,
to Agamemnon, by belonging to no one else.
~_First tokens of change in the Heroic Polities._~
There are signs, contained in the Iliad itself, that the primitive
monarchies, the nature and spirit of which will presently be examined,
were beginning to give way even at the time of the expedition to Troy.
The growth of the Pelopid empire was probably unfavourable to their
continuance. In any case, the notes of commencing change will be found
clear enough.
Minos had ruled over all Crete as king; but Idomeneus, his grandson,
is nowhere mentioned as the king of that country, of which he appears
to have governed a part only. Among obvious tokens of this fact are
the following. The cities which furnish the Cretan contingent are all
contained in a limited portion of that island. Now, although general
words are employed (Il. ii. 649.) to signify that the force was not
drawn from these cities exclusively, yet Homer would probably have been
more particular, had other places made any considerable contribution,
than to omit the names of them all. Again, Crete, though so large and
rich, furnishes a smaller contingent than Pylos. And, once more, if it
had been united in itself, it is very doubtful whether any ruler of so
considerable a country would have been content that it should stand
only as a province of the empire of Agamemnon. In the many passages
of either poem which mention Idomeneus, he is never decorated with a
title implying, like that of Minos (Κρήτῃ ἐπίουρος), that he was ruler
of the whole island. Indeed, one passage at least appears to bear
pretty certain evidence to the contrary. For Ulysses, in his fabulous
but of course self-consistent narration to Minerva, shows us that even
the Cretan force in Troy was not thoroughly united in allegiance to a
single head. ‘The son of Idomeneus,’ he says, ‘endeavoured to deprive
me of my share of the spoil, because I did not obey his father in
Troas, but led a band of my own:’
οὕνεκ’ ἄρ’ οὐχ ᾧ πατρὶ χαριζόμενος θεράπευον
δήμῳ ἔνι Τρώων, ἀλλ’ ἄλλων ἦρχον ἑταίρων[20].
[20] Od. xiii. 265.
So likewise in the youth of Nestor, two generations back, Augeias
appears as the sole king of the Epeans; but, in the Catalogue, his
grandson Polyxeinus only commands one out of the four Epean divisions
of ten ships each, without any sign of superiority: of the other
three, two are commanded by generals of the Actorid family, which
in the earlier legend appears as part of the court or following of
Augeias[21]. And wherever we find in the case of any considerable
Greek contingent the chief command divided among persons other than
brothers, we may probably infer that there had been a breaking up of
the old monarchical and patriarchal system. This point deserves more
particular inquiry.
[21] Il. xi. 709, 39, 50.
~_Shown by analysis of the Catalogue._~
In the Greek armament, there are twenty-nine contingents in all.
Of these, twenty-three are under a single head; with or without
assistants who, where they appear, are described as having been
secondary.
1. Locrians with 40 ships.
2. Eubœans 40
3. Athenians 50
4. Salaminians 12
5. Argives 80
6. Mycenians 100
7. Lacedæmonians 60
8. Pylians 90
9. Arcadians 60
10. Dulichians &c. 40
11. Cephallenians 12
12. Ætolians 40
13. Cretans 80
14. Rhodians 9
15. Symeans 3
16. Myrmidons 50
17. Phthians of Phylace 40
18. Phereans, &c. 11
19. Phthians of Methone &c. 7
20. Ormenians &c. 40
21. Argissans &c. 40
22. Cyphians &c. 22
23. Magnesians 40
-----
966 ships.
Under brothers united in command, there were four more contingents:
1. Of Aspledon and Orchomenus, with 30 ships.
2. Of Phocians 40
3. Of Nisuros, Cos &c. 30
4. Of Tricce &c. 30
-----
130 ships.
In all these cases, comprising the whole armament except from two
states, the old form of government seems to have continued. The two
exceptions are:
1. Bœotians; with 50 ships, under five leaders.
2. Elians; with 40 ships, under four leaders.
It is quite clear that these two divisions were acephalous. As to the
Elians, because the Catalogue expressly divides the 40 ships into four
squadrons, and places one under each leader, two of these being of the
Actorid house, and a third descended from Augeias. As to the Bœotians,
the Catalogue indicates the equality of the leaders by placing the five
names in a series under the same category.
An indirect but rather strong confirmation is afforded by the passage
in the Thirteenth Book[22], where five Greek races or divisions are
engaged in the endeavour to repel Hector from the rampart. They are,
[22] Il. xiii. 685-700.