In Chapter V we saw that four well-marked stages may be distinguished in the history of Teutonic heroic poetry. The first is that of strictly contemporary court poetry, dealing with the praises or the adventures of living men. The second is that of epic or narrative court poetry, which celebrates the deeds of heroes of the past, though not of a very remote past. The third is the popular stage, during which the same stories were handled by village minstrels. The last stage is that in which the old subjects again found favour with the nobility in Germany and were treated in a new form which reflected the conditions of the age of chivalry. We must now see whether any such stages can be traced in the history of Greek heroic poetry.

For the first stage plenty of evidence is supplied by the Homeric poems. In the Odyssey we meet with several persons who seem to be professional court minstrels. Such are Demodocos at the court of Alcinoos and Phemios at that of Odysseus, while others are mentioned at the courts of Agamemnon and Menelaos. Both Demodocos and Phemios are represented as singing of recent events, namely the adventures of the Achaeans on their return from Troy, though the former also produces one song upon a mythical subject. The song or recitation is invariably accompanied upon a lyre, probably much in the same way as the Teutonic minstrel used his harp[356].

As among the Teutonic peoples, we hear also occasionally of royal minstrels. Paris appears to be a skilful musician (Il. III 54), while Achilles is amusing himself by singing the 'glories of heroes' (???a ??d???) when he is visited by Aias and Odysseus (ib. IX 189). But the status of even the professional minstrel was, sometimes at least, one of considerable importance. Agamemnon, on his departure to Troy, is said to have entrusted his queen to the care of a certain minstrel (Od. III 267 f.)—a case which may be compared with several Teutonic stories relating both to the Heroic Age and the Viking Age. The Phaeacian minstrel Demodocos is blind, like the Frisian Bernlef; but, unlike the latter, he seems to have a recognised position at Alcinoos' court. He is evidently regarded as a person of distinction; in VIII 483 we find him described as ????, a term frequently applied to princes. For minstrels of Bernlef's type we have no clear evidence in the Homeric poems. In Od. XVII 382 ff. we hear of invitations given to minstrels; but the reference may be to persons of Widsith's class. The same seems to be true of the Thracian minstrel Thamyris mentioned in Il. II 595 ff.; for it is stated that he was coming from Eurytos of Oichalia when disaster befell him.

On the whole then the court minstrelsy of the Homeric poems bears a striking resemblance to that of the Teutonic Heroic Age. We cannot, it is true, obtain any corroborative evidence for its existence from contemporary historical documents. But the negative evidence is almost as decisive. Even in the earliest times of which we have record no trace of such an institution is to be found in Greece. We hear of rhapsodists at Sicyon as early as the beginning of the sixth century; but they are clearly persons of Bernlef's type, reciting 'Homeric' poems, i.e. stories of ancient times. Moreover they were viewed with disfavour by the ruler. Another type of professional poet may be seen in such persons as Alcman. These were what may be called 'state-poets'; sometimes they were trainers of the state choruses. But there is nothing to show that they were court poets. We hear also of poets, sometimes men of noble birth, like Eumelos, who composed hymns for festal occasions. But these too worked for the glorification of the state, or indeed for that of any state which employed them, and their position was essentially different from that of the court minstrel who composes for his lord's gratification. Minstrelsy of the Homeric type is conceivable only in an age of real kingship, and it is incredible that such a type could have been invented after that institution had ceased to exist. Indeed the nearest Greek analogy to it is probably to be found in such poets as Anacreon who flourished at the courts of the later tyrants. Their poems however dealt with an entirely different class of subjects.

It is true that minstrels are mentioned beside kings in a passage in Hesiod's Theogony (v. 94 ff.), both being said to derive their endowment from divine sources[357]. But there is nothing to show that these were court minstrels. At all events it is clear enough from another passage in the same poem (v. 22 ff.), as well as from the Works and Days, that Hesiod himself was not a man of this type. Moreover, the subjects with which the minstrels are said to deal are the 'famous deeds (glories) of men of old' (???ea p??t???? ?????p??). The reference then is to heroic poetry, but in a stage not earlier than Stage II of our scheme. The passage however is undoubtedly interesting as showing a stage intermediate between Homeric minstrels and the later rhapsodists. From the word ???a??sta? we may perhaps infer that the musical accompaniment, which the latter seem to have discarded, was still in use.

Probably no one will suggest that the Homeric poems themselves are products of the type of minstrelsy (Stage I) which we have been considering. Now therefore we must try to ascertain which of the other three stages they correspond to. Curiously enough no such question as this appears to have been discussed in any of the numerous Homeric researches which the last half century has produced. Nearly all writers have completely ignored the existence of the Anglo-Saxon heroic poems. On the other hand medieval German poems, such as the Nibelungenlied, have been freely used in illustration of Homeric problems, and there can be no question that in many respects the supposed analogy has had far-reaching influence on their interpretation. In the application of these illustrations as a rule no account whatever has been taken of what we may call the stratification of Teutonic heroic poetry.

Let us now consider briefly the history of the Nibelungenlied. We have seen that the origin of the story is to be sought in poems composed probably within memory of certain events with which it deals, and that the subject appears to have been worked up into a somewhat elaborate form within the next two centuries. It can scarcely be doubted that these early poems were products of court-minstrelsy and that their form was that of the old Teutonic alliterative verse. Later however there came a time when all heroic poetry passed out of fashion among the higher classes, and when this story, like the rest, must have been preserved only by village minstrels. Then, after a lapse of several centuries, it appears again in an entirely different metrical form, and permeated through and through with the ideas and customs of the age of chivalry. Little beyond the bare outlines of the story can have been inherited from the original poems, and even these appear to have undergone considerable modification.

Now if the history of Homeric poetry is really parallel to this, we shall have to suppose that the stories were first treated in court poetry about the close of the pre-migration period; that after flourishing for a while they fell out of favour in royal circles and were preserved only by village minstrels, at whose hands they underwent a long process of disintegration; and that finally they formed the basis of new aristocratic poems some six or seven centuries after they first saw the light. In order to present a complete parallel the later poems must use a new metrical form, of foreign derivation, which will preclude the possibility of their containing a single verse of the original poems. The customs and ideas too which they reflect must be wholly, or almost wholly, those of their own period, and not those of the Heroic Age.

But it is manifest that this description will not fit the Homeric poems in any way. According to the opinion held by the majority of scholars the customs and ideas reflected by the Homeric poems are inconsistent—sometimes they are those of the Heroic Age, sometimes those of the poets' own age. Indeed many scholars hold that the former type predominates. Personally I am not ready to admit that the difference between the two ages was anything like so great as is commonly assumed. But in any case it must be granted that in some respects, e.g. in regard to political geography and the use of the metals, the conditions of the Heroic Age are truly reflected almost everywhere. Further it is commonly held that considerable portions of the poems go back, more or less in their present form, not perhaps to the Heroic Age itself, but at all events a long distance in that direction. We must conclude therefore that, unless modern criticism has gone hopelessly astray, the Nibelungenlied presents no true analogy to the history of the Homeric poems.

Now let us take the Anglo-Saxon heroic poems. It is obvious enough that here there is at all events a superficial resemblance between the two cases, although the Greek poems are on a much larger scale. Both sets of poems are the work of colonists who had crossed the sea, and both equally suppress all reference to the existence of such settlements. It is true that the scene of the Iliad is laid in a district not far from that in which it appears to have been composed. But this district is represented as being in possession of an alien people. The compatriots of the poets—who clearly speak from the Achaean side—are uniformly represented as dwelling on the west of the Aegean. But these after all are merely accidental coincidences. Far more important for us is the fact, which we have already noted, that both sets of poems carry the history of heroic poetry back to court minstrels who are represented as living in the Heroic Age itself. The question which we have to face is whether or not the Iliad and Odyssey likewise resemble the Anglo-Saxon poems in being themselves products of court-minstrelsy in direct continuation of that which they depict as existing in the Heroic Age.

If this question is incapable of being answered we must, I think, conclude that the historical study of early Greek poetry is futile. No impartial observer can fail to have been struck by the immense strides made within the last generation by Greek archaeology, as compared with the very small amount of progress made from the literary side—at least if progress is to be judged by the attainment of any general consensus of opinion. Experienced archaeologists can now very soon determine whether the remains which they find are those of a village or a palace, and whether they belong to (let us say) the classical or the geometrical or the Mycenean period. Again, in the case of sites long occupied they can easily detect the existence of different strata—especially if a palace has been built on the site of an earlier village, or if a village settlement has intervened between two 'palace-periods.' Is it really impossible to distinguish such strata in the history of poetry, or is the absence of progress which we have noted to be attributed to other causes—perhaps that the criticism has been of too subjective a character?

Now it is almost universally agreed that the Homeric poems are considerably older than any other form of Greek literature which has come down to us. Some scholars indeed hold that the latest portions of the Odyssey belong to the seventh century; but we have seen that the evidence for this view is by no means satisfactory. Certainly by the middle of the seventh century, and probably somewhat earlier, we meet with totally different types of poetry. In the first place we find a number of new metrical forms, elegiac, iambic and trochaic, not to speak of the numerous varieties of lyric metre. In matter and in spirit too the difference is just as marked as it is in form. The new poets are primarily concerned with the affairs of their own day. Callinos and Tyrtaios are inspired by national patriotism. Their fragments may be compared with the poem on the battle of Brunanburh, though even this is nearer to the heroic spirit. Archilochos again is almost entirely taken up with his own experiences and passions. A good analogy for his case is to be found in the Icelandic adventurer Egill SkallagrÍmsson. In all respects then the poetry of this age is as far removed as possible from the heroic type of poetry.

Yet traces of an intermediate or transitional stage are not altogether wanting. From the fragments of the Hesiodic Catalogue and other works which are attributed to the close of the eighth and the early part of the seventh centuries it is clear that—apart from hymns—the old hexameter metre was retained for a time in a class of poetry which appears to have been largely genealogical in character. In matter also, as well as in form, this class had certain elements in common with Homeric poetry, since both were concerned with the far past. But in spirit its affinities were rather with the poetry of the following age; for its object seems clearly to have been the glorification of the state.

These observations lead us to conclude that a sequence can be traced in the history of poetry, as in that of art. It is at least a natural hypothesis that the great development of original poetry in the age of Callinos and Archilochos was connected in some way with those political and social movements which so greatly affected the Greek world during the eighth and seventh centuries—changing almost every kingdom into a republic. Moreover the existence of the transitional (genealogical) type of poetry which we have noted is altogether favourable to this idea; for the form of government which took the place of kingship was at first that of a strictly limited aristocracy. But have we any ground for believing that heroic poetry was the poetry of the age of kingship? How far is such an equation in accord with the chronological data at our disposal? In Greece itself kingship generally seems to have come to an end about the middle of the eighth century. In Aeolis however, with which we are primarily concerned, the change was in all probability somewhat later; for the Phrygian king Midas (Mita of Muski), who perished in the Cimmerian invasion about the beginning of the seventh century, is said to have married a daughter of Agamemnon, king of Cyme. But few will deny that the great bulk of Homeric poetry was in existence by this time. The equation therefore seems to be fully justified. Survivals and imitations may occur in later times, as in the case of art; but, broadly speaking, it appears that heroic poetry is properly the poetry of the age of kingship.

We must not assume forthwith however that it was the only type of poetry which existed during this age. Certain passages in Hesiod's poems (Theog. 80 ff., W. and D. 38 f.) render it clear that kingship in some form or other still existed when they were composed; yet they differ very greatly from the Homeric type. Our next object therefore must be to try to ascertain the true provenance of Homeric poetry. Was it court poetry or popular poetry, or are we to trace its origin to conditions which cannot well be brought under either of these categories?

It cannot seriously be contended, I think, that the Homeric poems are of popular origin. In the first place their length is scarcely compatible with such a hypothesis[358]. Their metrical form also is clearly the product of a long artistic development; it is inconceivable that popular poetry could be capable of creating anything so elaborate. Again they are by no means in the nature of biographical sketches (cf. p. 95); in spite of their great length the action in both cases extends over quite a brief period of time. Further, there is little or no definite evidence—certainly none which can be called conclusive—for that confusion of different stories which characterises popular poetry. The heroes who figure in the Homeric poems are scarcely the most famous representatives of their states. Most of them are little known elsewhere. Popular poetry could hardly have failed to introduce into the action such persons as Heracles, Theseus, Peirithoos, Minos, Iason or Adrastos. Then again we may note the presence of nearly all those features which distinguish the heroic poetry of the Teutonic peoples (cf. p. 82 f.). The characters brought before us in the Iliad are almost invariably either princes or persons attached to the retinues of princes, and themselves apparently of what we may call knightly rank. The chief exception (Thersites) is described in a way which only proves the rule. It is true that this principle is not so strictly observed in the latter part of the Odyssey Several persons of humble rank are introduced here, though it is to be noted that the most prominent of them (Eumaios, the swineherd) is said to be of princely birth. In other respects however the Odyssey conforms to the rules of Teutonic court poetry just as much as the Iliad. Thus it is fond of describing in detail the movements of kings and queens in their palaces and the conventions observed in the reception of strangers. Again, persons of princely rank are seldom spoken of with disrespect in either poem. Dialogues must of course be excepted, and also references (especially in the Nekyia) to persons of the far past—precisely as in Teutonic poetry. But in general there is a noteworthy absence of any display of feeling against the opponents of the poet's heroes—as much in the case of Penelope's suitors as in that of the Trojans. Perhaps the most striking instance is the semi-apologetic account of Clytaimnestra's conduct given by Nestor (Od. III 263-272), a passage which may be compared with the story of Offa's wife in Beowulf. We may note also the surprisingly lenient treatment of Paris in the Iliad. Indeed the characters represented in the most unfavourable light are gods—a phenomenon for which we have analogies in Old Norse poetry. Lastly, we must observe the strict avoidance of coarseness and of things not mentioned in polite society.

Before we proceed further it will be convenient to turn for a moment to Hesiod's poems. For these also early Teutonic literature presents a number of fairly close parallels. In particular the proverbial part of the Works and Days has many analogies in gnomic poetry, both English and Scandinavian. As an example we may cite the first and last portions of HÁvamÁl. Again the precepts on husbandry and the calendar resemble several Anglo-Saxon works both in prose and verse. For the Theogony the closest Teutonic parallel—and it is very close—is the prose Gylfaginning; but earlier poetical works, such as VÖluspÁ and HyndluliÓÐ, run on somewhat similar lines. There is evidence too that subjects of the same kind were once popular in England[359]. Lastly, the verses (22 ff.) which relate how the poet received his inspiration may be compared with the story of Caedmon.

Now if we compare the characteristics of Hesiodic and Homeric poetry we cannot fail to notice that they present a very striking contrast in several respects, even apart from the absence of a common theme. In the first place Hesiod takes no pains to conceal his personality. Again, his poems contain little in the way of detailed description, except where the occupations of a farmer's life are discussed. Thirdly, they show no tendency to avoid indelicate subjects. Lastly, they betray no acquaintance with court life. Kings are occasionally mentioned, though not by name, but all the references are to their public appearances, as judges or mediators. We may notice too that though in the Theogony (v. 80 ff.) they are spoken of with respect, in the Works and Days (v. 38 f.) the title is coupled with an opprobrious epithet (d???f?????). No one can fail to observe that in nearly all these respects[360] Hesiod shows the characteristics which commonly distinguish popular poetry.

But we have to remember that in spite of all these differences Hesiod uses the same metrical form and to a large extent the same style of language as the Homeric poems. There can be little doubt that priority lies with the latter; indeed Hesiod frequently betrays acquaintance with Homeric poetry. But it must not be assumed that his themes were new; they are far more primitive than anything of the heroic type. If Hesiod was the founder of a new era in poetry we must conclude that his innovation consisted in the application of the forms of heroic poetry to purposes for which they had not previously been used. The heroic hexameter is the only form of metre which can be traced back beyond the seventh century, and we can hardly doubt that it is the oldest form of cultivated Greek poetry. But less elaborate forms of verse—perhaps rude precursors of the iambic and lyric metres—must also have been in popular use for ages in ballads, songs and hymns. We may infer then that what Hesiod did was to turn to popular use the form of poetry which represented the highest standard of art in his day.

But what were the conditions which produced this elaborate and highly artificial type of poetry? The characteristics of Homeric poetry enumerated above are conclusive evidence that it was not of popular origin. Some of them are extremely difficult to account for unless its true home was in the king's courts. It may be objected that Hesiod was familiar with Homeric poetry, though he knew nothing of court life. But Hesiod probably belonged to the last days of the kingly period, when that institution was losing its power and popularity. It is only in accordance with what we might expect that in such an age court poets—in view of Theog. 94 f. we should perhaps say minstrels—would frequently try to get a hearing from a wider circle. Hesiod's own activity falls in with this explanation perfectly well. His popularity was due to the fact that he preserved the artistic form of court poetry, while at the same time he discarded its conventions and turned to subjects which were more in accordance with the tastes and interests of his own class.

Apart from the courts it is difficult to see where conditions favourable to the growth of Homeric poetry could have existed. Aeolis in the eighth century must have differed very greatly from the city states of the sixth and fifth centuries. Hesiod himself belonged to a family which was possessed of some property. His father was a merchant; but we can hardly suppose that this class was either numerous or wealthy, in a land which consisted essentially of agricultural communities. We shall hardly go astray, I think, in believing that the conditions here at the time of which we are speaking bore far more resemblance to those which prevailed in Teutonic kingdoms some twelve or thirteen centuries later than to those of cities like Miletos or Athens at their prime. There as here the wealth was probably to a large extent in the possession of the kings. Indeed from the story of Midas' relations with Agamemnon of Cyme (cf. p. 227) we may perhaps infer that the kings retained a certain amount of influence even in the latter part of the eighth century. On the other hand the name of this king may certainly be taken as evidence that the courts were interested in heroic poetry[361].

We have now seen that Homeric poetry goes back to the age of kingship and that it is not of popular origin (Stage III), but in all probability a product of court life. Our next object must be to consider whether this poetry was a direct continuation of the court-minstrelsy of the Heroic Age (Stage I), represented by Demodocos and Phemios—in which case of course it will correspond to Stage II of our scheme—or whether it is rather a secondary outgrowth from popular poetry (Stage IV). The problem, it will be seen, is essentially one of stratification. If we may, in archaeological language, speak of the Homeric poems as a 'palace-structure'—it ought surely to be possible to determine whether traces of a 'village settlement' lie immediately beneath it.

It has been pointed out above (p. 224 f.) that the Nibelungenlied cannot furnish any true analogy to the history of Homeric poetry. The other type of Stage IV which we have considered (p. 99 f.) is that of the Edda poems. But I do not think that anyone will seriously expect to find a strict parallel here. In that case we should have to suppose that heroic poetry was originally unknown to the Aeolians, whether in Asia or Thessaly. But the Thessalian element—including as it does such striking conceptions as the location of the gods on Mount Olympos—is too deeply engrained in this class of poetry to render such a hypothesis probable. We shall see shortly that a better analogy for the history of the Edda poems is perhaps to be found in quite a different quarter.

The theory which obtains most currency at the present time is that Homeric poetry grew up in the Greek settlements on the Asiatic coast on the basis of ballads derived from Thessaly—perhaps also from other parts of Greece. This theory does not exactly answer to our definition of Stage IV; but we may treat it under the same heading, as it likewise involves the development of heroic poetry out of popular poetry. According to any explanation of this kind we must of course assume that the court-minstrelsy depicted in the poems is a reflection of court life in the Asiatic settlements. This is conceivable enough in itself, provided that the requisite conditions are carried back at least to the ninth century. But is the theory probable? No one will suggest, I suppose, that the wealth or culture of the Aeolic settlements during the tenth and ninth centuries was superior to that of the Greek kingdoms in general towards the close of the Achaean period. Briefly stated then the current theory comes to this: the wealthier and more cultured period produced nothing but popular ballads, while the poorer and ruder period produced a most elaborate and magnificent court poetry.

We have seen that Homeric poetry possesses certain characteristics which are incompatible with the idea that it is itself of popular origin. But a closer inspection will show that some of these characteristics are almost as difficult to account for on the hypothesis that it was a recent outgrowth from popular poetry. In particular this is true of their metrical form, if we are justified in believing that the Homeric type of verse presupposes a long artistic development. Again, the confusion of different stories which characterises popular poetry (Stage III) will not be removed in its more cultivated successor (Stage IV); Dietrich von Bern (Theodric) remains by the side of Etzel (Attila) in the Nibelungenlied. The same remark too applies to those changes of character which popular poetry is apt to produce. In the Nibelungenlied Hagen remains as cruel and Kriemhild as passionately vindictive as popular fancy had painted them. The poets of a later age will not trouble themselves to save the characters of persons who lived long ago. We shall see shortly that this is true of Greek poetry just as much as of German. But the Homeric poems—except perhaps in the Nekyia—will not supply us with examples.

Finally, we must bear in mind those reminiscences of Mycenean—or rather 'sub-Mycenean'—splendour which the poems contain and their almost invariable use of bronze as the material for weapons—not to mention the fact that the political and national boundaries which they record are totally different from those which existed in the ninth century. Will anyone seriously maintain that such traditions could be preserved through the medium of popular ballads alone? I confess that such a hypothesis is altogether incredible to me.

Now let us take the alternative explanation, suggested by the Anglo-Saxon poems. It is generally agreed that the Aeolic settlements are older than the Ionic in Asia; but since even the former are ignored in the poems it is hardly probable that they came into existence until towards the close of the Achaean period. When the storms broke upon Greece crowds of refugees, not only from Thessaly but also from many other parts of the country, fled to the new Aeolic settlements across the Aegean. Among them, according to the suggested analogy, were many court minstrels, of the type represented by Demodocos and Phemios, who brought with them not only a poetic technique matured by long experience but also a number of poems, of which the newest would probably be the most in favour. This poetry was developed and expanded by the court minstrels of subsequent generations; but the subject-matter became stereotyped and—precisely as in England—everything relating to the new settlements was completely ignored. This is the conclusion to which all the evidence at our disposal seems to me to point.

We must now turn for a moment to the Cyclic poems. And here it is to be remembered in the first place that our information is very defective, if not actually misleading. Herodotus (II 117) doubted Homer's authorship of the Cypria on the ground that it contained a statement in direct contradiction with the Iliad, namely that Alexandros arrived at Troy with Helen on the third day after leaving Sparta, whereas it is stated in the Iliad (VI 290 ff.) that he wandered out of his course (to Sidon) when he brought her. But the epitome of the Cypria which has come down to us states expressly that Alexandros did go to Sidon. Hence we can only conclude that its trustworthiness as an authority for the contents of the poem is open to serious doubt.

Taking the evidence as it stands we can detect at once an important difference between the Cypria and the Nostoi on the one hand and the Iliad and the Odyssey on the other. In the two former poems the action seems to have been spread over a considerable number of years, while in the latter it was limited to a few days or weeks. Again, as far as we can judge, the two former treated a much larger number of events, in proportion to their length—events too which were not so closely connected with one another. Indeed they seem to have been almost in the nature of chronicles. These however are characteristics of popular rather than court poetry.

The story of the Cypria, as we know it, bears a curious resemblance to the Edda trilogy ReginsmÁl—FÁfnismÁl—SigrdrÍfumÁl (cf. p. 13). Both the Cyclic poem and the trilogy served as introductions to famous stories. Both stories were essentially concerned with the adventures and passions of human beings; but in both cases the introduction begins with the gods, and the origin of the tragic events which follow is traced ultimately to irresponsible, not to say mischievous, conduct on the part of certain deities. There can be no doubt that the whole theme of the Northern poems is a late addition to the story of SigurÐr, and that the poems themselves were composed as an introduction to this story. Is it not possible that the Cypria was of somewhat similar origin? The latter part of the poem, if we are to trust the epitome, contained some extraordinary features. The story of Odysseus' pretended madness and how he was eventually compelled to join the expedition is difficult to reconcile with the general tone of Homeric poetry. Again, the army is represented as assembling twice at Aulis and twice starting for Troy. The account of the first of these incidents agrees with what is stated in the Iliad (II 303 ff.), while the second contains the story of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, according to the version in which she was rescued by Artemis. On the other hand it is worth bearing in mind that the poem is said to have ended with a catalogue of the Trojan allies, presumably the same list which we find in the Iliad (II 816 ff., or perhaps 840 ff.)—and this can hardly be regarded as a late composition.

The chief characteristic of the Nostoi seems to have been absence of unity. Beginning with the departure of the Achaeans from Troy, it narrated the adventures which befell various heroes on their return. These formed, as far as we can tell, a number of quite distinct stories, unconnected with one another except at the beginning. If we may judge from the number of books contained in the poem—five as against eleven in the Cypria—these stories must have been very short, and consequently it is perhaps questionable whether we are justified in regarding the Nostoi as an epic at all, except in the same sense in which that term is applied to Hesiodic poetry. Indeed it seems to have had an affinity with the latter in more than one respect; for the stories of the various heroes were probably not uninfluenced by genealogical interests. In the same light we may perhaps regard the fact that one scene is laid in an Ionic city (Colophon). All these features suggest that the poem came into existence at a fairly late period. If the Cypria was designed as an introduction to the story of the siege of Troy there can be little doubt that the Nostoi was composed as an epilogue to the same. On the other hand many scholars hold that it has been used by the Odyssey. But it is at least questionable whether the references in question do not come from the sources of the poem rather than the work itself[362].

The other poems of the Trojan series—the Aithiopis, Little Iliad and Iliu Persis—resembled the Cypria and the Nostoi in the fact that they dealt with a considerable number of separate episodes[363]. But the resemblance was perhaps only superficial; for these episodes were apparently represented as following one another in regular sequence. If we had only a fragmentary epitome of the Iliad we might gather from it much the same impression. All these poems were on a small scale, eleven books in all; but, unlike the Cypria and the Nostoi, the action covered only a short interval of time. Several incidents which they related are referred to or even told at length in the Odyssey; but we have not sufficient information to enable us to determine whether the references are taken from the poems themselves. The chief argument to the contrary is that these poems seem to have contained certain 'post-Homeric' features, notably the rite of purification from bloodshed, in the Aithiopis, and the sacrifice of a virgin (Polyxene), in the Iliu Persis. The former case is especially significant, because—in striking contrast with the spirit of later Greek poetry—the ideas of pollution and purification seem to be entirely ignored in the Iliad and Odyssey[364].

These so-called post-Homeric features are of course really characteristics of a more primitive religion, and it would be better to describe them as 'non-Homeric' or 'non-heroic.' But the fact that such practices are ignored in the Iliad and Odyssey, while later poets had a special affection for them, renders it probable that their presence in the Cyclic poems is due to popular influence. Are we then justified in assigning these poems to Stage IV of our scheme? That is a question which, considering the evidence at our disposal, I feel a good deal of hesitation in answering. Certainly they cannot have differed from the Iliad and Odyssey in anything like the same degree that the medieval German poems or even the heroic poems of the Edda differ from Beowulf. They may actually have incorporated a good deal of ancient matter. On the whole the balance of probability seems to me to incline towards the view that the Cyclic poems are derived ultimately from the same body of early heroic court poetry upon which the Iliad and Odyssey themselves are based; but that their composition took place in later times, when the 'Homeric' standard was no longer preserved in its purity.

Whatever may be the case with the Cyclic poems there are other poetic works which may be assigned to Stage IV without hesitation. For our purpose it will perhaps be best to take an illustration from the drama; for, though such works are only secondary authorities, they are on the whole less open to objection than lost poems on which our information may be misleading. A good example is furnished by Aeschylus' Oresteia, a series of plays which deals with a subject treated at some length in the Odyssey. The chief incidents are the murder of Agamemnon by his wife Clytaimnestra, the vengeance taken upon her by her son Orestes, the persecution of the matricide by the Erinyes, his purification by Apollo, and his trial by Athene and the citizens of Athens. In the Odyssey the first of these incidents, the murder, is ascribed to Aigisthos, Clytaimnestra's paramour. As regards the second we have nothing but a passing reference to Clytaimnestra's funeral. The other incidents are not mentioned at all. Again, in Aeschylus' work prominence is given to an attempt on Clytaimnestra's part to placate the dead Agamemnon, to an invocation of him for vengeance by his children, and to the instigation of the Erinyes by Clytaimnestra's ghost. These features too are unknown in the Odyssey; indeed they are directly opposed to all that we know of Homeric religion. Then again we find frequent and detailed allusions to tragic events which had occurred previously in the history of Agamemnon's family—especially the 'banquet of Thyestes' and the sacrifice of Iphigeneia. On these matters too both the Iliad and the Odyssey are completely silent. Yet in the latter case this silence cannot be due to accident. Either the poets were ignorant of the story, or they deliberately suppressed it.

Few modern readers can fail to appreciate the Oresteia as an almost unrivalled masterpiece of poetic art, in spite of the fact that the ideas with which it is permeated are largely strange and unreal to us. But what would have been the effect if such a work had been recited at one of those courts in which Homeric poetry was patronised in early times? There can scarcely be any doubt, I think, that the recitation would not have been tolerated. To such an audience the poet's religious conceptions would have been intelligible enough, but only as products of a degraded and baneful superstition, while his skilful presentation of various painful incidents in the history of a royal house—the most distinguished in Greece—would have appeared not merely an offence against good manners but rather a wanton insult to the kingly class in general.

The social conditions and the ethical standard of Aeschylus' time differed no doubt very greatly from those of the Homeric age. This is a subject with which we shall have to deal later. It should be observed however that nearly all the special features which characterise Aeschylus' treatment of this story can be paralleled from Scandinavian works which we may assign to Stage IV. A very close analogy for the 'banquet of Thyestes' is furnished by the story of GuÐrÚn, Atli and their children; and it is to be remembered that, though Atli at least was a historical character, this story cannot possibly have any foundation in fact. The persecution of Orestes by the Erinyes may be compared with Saxo's story (p. 246) of the curse inflicted upon Haldanus[365], likewise as a result of the shedding of 'kindred blood.' With the sacrifice of Iphigeneia we may compare that of Vikarr in Gautreks Saga (cap. 7), which was also brought about by the prevalence of contrary winds. Invocation of the dead is not uncommon in such works. On the other hand it is extremely doubtful whether any of those features would have been permissible in early heroic poetry. They do not occur in the extant poems of Stage II.

There is sufficient evidence that most of the characteristic features of Aeschylus' story were not invented by him, though as to his sources our information is not very satisfactory. The lost Oresteia of Stesichoros was doubtless one of his chief authorities, and there is some reason for believing that the version given in this work differed from the Homeric account quite as much as that of Aeschylus. Beyond Stesichoros we may perhaps think of the Cyclic poems, especially the Nostoi; but it is very doubtful if they would have furnished such a very markedly divergent form of the story. Stesichoros himself is said to have treated his authorities with great freedom. But some of the non-Homeric features can hardly be due to deliberate alteration. We may notice especially the differences in the personal relations of Agamemnon's family. In the Iliad he is the son of Atreus; Stesichoros and others call him son of Pleisthenes. In the Iliad he has three daughters, Laodice, Chrysothemis and Iphianassa; Aeschylus gives him two, Electra and Iphigeneia, the latter of whom seems to have figured also in the Cypria[366]. There is also a good deal of discrepancy in regard to the scene of the events. In the Iliad and Odyssey Agamemnon belongs to Mycenae; in Aeschylus' account this place is forgotten and the story transferred to Argos, while Pindar, apparently also Stesichoros and Simonides[367], placed it at Amyclai (close to Sparta). Now these are just the kind of corruptions and discrepancies which characterise popular poetry everywhere. Taken together with the other non-Homeric features discussed above they seem to me to afford ground for suspecting that Stesichoros and his followers drew upon a popular and perhaps Doric or Peloponnesian version of the story[368] which was independent of Homeric poetry. Their work then would be similar in more than one respect to that of those Norse poets who rehabilitated the old story of SigurÐr and GuÐrÚn after the (strophic) type of their own national poetry.

The course of our discussion has led us to conclude that the Homeric poems are products of court poetry or minstrelsy in direct continuation of that type of minstrelsy which we considered at the beginning of the chapter. As yet however we have expressed no definite opinion as to the length of time involved in their development, although we have noticed that the evidence commonly adduced in favour of a long interval between the earliest and latest portions of the poems is highly unsatisfactory. It must be admitted that beyond a certain point the evidence at our disposal does not admit of anything more than an estimation of probability.

We have seen that there is good reason for believing that the history of heroic poetry in Aeolis and in England proceeded on similar lines in several respects, and also that the chief monument of English heroic poetry was probably composed within not much more than a century after certain events which it records. Now in any comparison between English and Greek heroic poetry we must of course leave out of account the frequent Christian allusions which occur in the former (cf. p. 47 ff.); for there is no reason whatever for supposing that any change comparable with the introduction of Christianity came over the Greek world during the times which saw the development of Homeric poetry. Apart from this element anachronisms are not very numerous or marked; but they do occur. Thus the road which leads to the Danish king's dwelling is described as a Roman road (straet), paved with stone (Beow. 320), while the members of the same king's court (ib. 768) are termed 'inhabitants of a chester' (ceasterbuendum). Such cases may be compared with the Homeric inconsistencies discussed in the last chapter—e.g. perhaps the occasional use of iron for weapons. It can hardly be maintained, I think, that the latter are of greater significance than the anachronisms in English heroic poetry.

This absence of striking anachronisms decidedly favours the view that the period involved in the development of Homeric poetry was not very long. Against such a conclusion it may of course be urged that there is a constantly recurring phrase (???? ??? ??t?? e?s?) which contrasts the 'men of the present day,' i.e. the men of the poet's own time, with the heroes of the siege of Troy, emphasizing the superior strength of the latter. But it is quite unnecessary to suppose that a long interval of time is intended here. The old Nestor uses almost the same expression in Il. I 272 (t?? ?? ??? ??t?? e?s?? ?p????????), when he compares the men among whom he was then living with those he had known in his youth. Again, in Od. VIII 122 f., Odysseus contrasts the 'men of the present day' (?ss?? ??? ??t?? e?s?? ?p? ?????) with the 'men of old' (??d??s? p??t????s??); but by the latter phrase he means persons belonging to the generation next above his own (Heracles and Eurytos). The same usage occurs elsewhere. Thus in Il. IX 524 Phoinix speaks of the 'glories of those heroes that were of old' (t?? p??s?e? ?pe???e?a ???a ??d??? ?????); but the story which he proceeds to relate is of Meleagros, the uncle of Diomedes. Indeed persons of more than two generations back are seldom mentioned in the Homeric poems.

An expression very similar to the one last quoted is used by Hesiod (Theog. 99 ff.) when he speaks of the minstrel as singing the "glories of men of old and the blessed gods who hold Olympos[369]." Here of course the reference is not to persons of the last generation, but to the heroes of Homeric poetry. In the Works and Days, vv. 156 ff., 174 ff., the Heroic Age is distinguished with all possible clearness from the period in which the poet himself lived. It is not to be overlooked that antiquarian interest forms a prominent feature in all Hesiodic poetry. Even in the Works and Days it is obvious enough, although such topics have little in common with the main theme of the poem. In the Catalogue we meet with such characters as Hellen and Doros, who owe their existence to speculations in tribal origins. The poetry of the following period seems to have been essentially of a genealogical character.

For such antiquarian interest the Homeric poems furnish no evidence, except perhaps in the Nekyia. Not only are the genealogies of the heroes seldom carried back more than two generations, but—what is more important—there is scarcely any reference to their descendants, beyond the first generation. Again, Achilles is said to have been singing the 'glories of heroes' (???a ??d???) when he received the embassy (Il. IX 189); but it is not stated that these were heroes of former times. The songs of Demodocos and Phemios deal with the adventures of the Achaeans at Troy and on their return home. That this is no accident is shown by Od. I 351 f., where Telemachos pleads in excuse for Phemios that "men always prize that song the most which rings newest in their ears." No sentiment could well be more foreign to the tone of Hesiodic or post-Hesiodic poetry than this. If any poet of that school had interested himself in contemporary history our knowledge of the eighth century would not be the blank which unfortunately it is. Clearly the only heroic poetry known to them was the ???ea p??t???? ?????p??. That means very much the same thing as Einhard's ueterum regum actus et bella or the antiquorum actus regumque certamina sung by Bernlef (cf. pp. 80, 87). At such a time if anyone was composing a heroic poem it would probably have seemed natural enough to use the formulae with which several of the Edda poems begin: "It was long ago," or "It was in early times that," etc. On the other hand Telemachos' remark would be perfectly appropriate in the earlier stages of Teutonic poetry. We have seen (p. 85) that in Beowulf one of the Danish king's knights begins to compose a poem on the hero's adventure within a few hours of the event. Procopius' account of Hermegisklos and Radiger (p. 97 ff.) must also be borne in mind, although this story may not have attained the form of an epic poem.

The conclusion then to which the Teutonic evidence leads us is that at all events the type of narrative was fixed very early. The growth of the Homeric poems may or may not have taken longer than that of their Teutonic counterparts. Records of the eighth century B.C. speak of ???ea p??t???? ?????p??; records of the eighth century A.D. speak of antiquorum actus. But in neither case do the poems themselves give expression to a consciousness of the antiquity of the events which they relate.

[356] In Od. IV 17 ff. two acrobats give a performance while Menelaos' minstrel is singing, and in VIII 261 ff. Demodocos' song on the love of Ares and Aphrodite is both accompanied and followed by dancing. More usually however the minstrel's song and music is the only form of entertainment.