It is commonly held that history, myth and fiction have all contributed to the formation of the Greek heroic stories; but opinions differ widely as to the relative importance to be attributed to the three elements. Among modern scholars the general tendency has been to assign the chief weight to myth. By many indeed the heroes of the Trojan War are believed to be as mythical in origin as the gods themselves.

One conclusion may safely be drawn from the Northern evidence discussed in the last chapter: we must definitely dismiss the argument that the Homeric heroes cannot have been men of flesh and blood because they are brought into contact with the gods. No one will be so hardy as to suggest that King Haakon or his namesake, the famous earl of Lade, were products of myth or poetic imagination. Yet GÖndul is as much responsible for the death of King Haakon as Athene is for that of Hector. There is certainly this difference between the two cases, that we have no historical evidence for the existence of the Homeric heroes. But the fact that deities participate in their destruction does not in itself prove that they are themselves products of myth or fiction.

There was a time, not so very long ago, when most of the characters of the Greek Heroic Age were believed to owe their origin to nature-myth—personifications of light, darkness and so forth. At the present time however it is only in some few cases that this view is generally maintained. Its chief stronghold is the case of Achilles; and here we are invariably referred for proof to the story of SigurÐr. The two characters have of course a good deal in common. Both are more or less idealised types of youthful strength and valour, and both die prematurely. But it would be pure folly to regard these features as in themselves proofs of mythical origin. In order to prove this it is necessary to point to features which can only be mythical, and to show that such features formed an original element in the stories.

Now we have seen (p. 140 ff.) that the current explanation with regard to SigurÐr is open to the most serious—in my opinion fatal—objections. On the other hand there certainly was a tendency for myth to grow up in later times round this hero. As an instance we may take his invulnerability, a feature which is peculiar to the German version of the story. Achilles possesses the same characteristic—but not in the Iliad or Odyssey. It is as much unknown in the Homeric account of Achilles as in the Norse account of SigurÐr. Indeed the only essentially mythical feature which the poems themselves record in the case of Achilles—and it is by no means peculiar to his case—is that he is the son of a deity[401]. But divine descent was claimed also by many Teutonic princes, though the heroes of our stories are usually separated from their divine ancestors by two or three generations[402]. Whatever may be the explanation of this phenomenon it is doubtless to be connected with the stories of conjugal relations between human and divine beings which we find both in Greece and in northern Europe. This is a subject to which we shall have to return in a later chapter. Above all, however, we have to take account of the influence of folk-tales[403] and popular beliefs, which, as we have seen from the Teutonic evidence, may make itself felt even in the description of very recent events.

The story of the abduction of Helen is another case for which many scholars still claim a mythical origin. It is perfectly true that stories of (e.g.) the abduction of the sun or the incontinence of the moon[404] do occur, though examples of this type are by no means so common or widespread as many writers have assumed[405]. But what is apt to be overlooked is that these stories arise from a personification of the sun or moon, and that it is in consequence of this personification that the heavenly bodies are believed to be exposed to perils and passions such as affect human beings. It is surely nothing less than an inversion of the natural order of things to suppose that the numerous class of folk-tales which deal with the abduction of a girl or wife originated in the type—a comparatively rare type—in which this motif is applied to the sun. There can be no reasonable doubt that the prevalence of such folk-tales is due to the innumerable occurrences of abduction in real life. But the theory we are discussing involves not merely the personification of heavenly bodies and natural phenomena but their complete anthropomorphisation[406]—a very doubtful process in the best of cases—whereas the story which it seeks to explain bears no trace even of derivation from a folk-tale. In other words we are asked to assume a most complex and precarious hypothesis in order to account for a story for which parallels are to be found very frequently in almost all stages of human society.

Of course I do not mean to say that the story of Helen is entirely devoid of mythical elements. On the contrary, it is a most instructive example of the growth of myth, and as such it furnishes an interesting parallel to the history of similar stories in the north of Europe. In the Iliad Helen possesses no mythical characteristics, except that she is the offspring of a divine father. In the Cypria she had apparently also acquired a divine mother (Nemesis). By the seventh century we find her figuring in quite a different story of abduction—a story which seems to have been treated by Alcman and Stesichoros, as well as on the 'Chest of Cypselos.' This time she is carried off by Theseus, with the help of Peirithoos, and rescued by her brothers, the Dioscoroi[407]. Somewhat later we find a new version of the story of her abduction by Paris. Now it is said to be only her e?d???? which is carried off by Paris; Helen herself is taken by Hermes to Egypt[408]. There seems to be little reason for doubting that the e?d???? was a deliberate invention of Stesichoros, though in other respects this version of the story may well have been influenced by the Egyptian version, recorded by Herodotus (II 112 ff.). The latter again comes in all probability from Greek settlers in Egypt, who connected the narrative of Helen's sojourn in Egypt, related in the Odyssey (IV 125 ff., 351 ff.), with a cult which they found existing in that country. This version of the story then should perhaps be regarded as a product of fiction rather than myth. The other story however—that of Theseus, Peirithoos and the Dioscoroi—is doubtless of popular origin. It is important to notice that both these pairs of heroes are connected with other stories of abduction[409]. Moreover in both cases these stories have certain elements in common with that of Persephone. There can be little doubt therefore that we have to deal with a folk-tale. The introduction of Helen into the story may be due partly to her kinship with the Dioscoroi and partly to the influence of the story of her abduction by Paris.

At the present time it appears to be the more general opinion that the Homeric heroes originated mainly not in personifications of natural phenomena, but in tribal divinities or personified conceptions of peoples ('hypostasierte VolksindividualitÄten'). Now we have seen (p. 131 f.) that in Teutonic heroic poetry we occasionally meet with the mythical eponymous ancestors of families, though such persons are referred to the past and not introduced into the main action of the stories. Similar characters are to be found in the Homeric poems. Perhaps the best example occurs in a speech of Aineias (Il. XX 200 ff.), where the names ???da???, ????, and ???? are included in the hero's genealogy. The Cadmos of Od. V 333 is probably to be regarded, in some sense or other, as the eponymous ancestor of the Cadmeioi, though he is not mentioned in connection with Thebes. Again, in Od. XVII 207 we have a reference to eponymous heroes of places, Ithacos and Neritos. They are perhaps creatures of the poet's own imagination, i.e. fictitious rather than mythical beings; but it is probable that they were modelled upon existing types. Other examples of both types may be found elsewhere in the poems[410]. Yet it cannot be said that they are common. In Greece, as in northern Europe, the true home of eponymous ancestors (Hellen, Doros, Achaios, etc.[411]) is to be found in post-heroic, or at least non-heroic, literature.

In recent years however several scholars have put forward the theory that the characters who figure in the main action of the Iliad are tribal heroes in disguise. For a simple example of this theory we may refer to the interpretation put upon Il. V 43 ff., where the Cretan leader Idomeneus is represented as slaying a man named Phaistos (Fa?st??). Now there was in Crete a well-known city called Phaistos (Fa?st??). According to Prof. E. Bethe (Neue JahrbÜcher, VII 669) it cannot be disputed that the man Phaistos is the 'eponym' of the city and that we have here the remains of an ancient Cretan heroic lay. But the origin of the man is stated explicitly enough in the poem (l.c.): he is the son of Boros the Maeonian and had come from a place called Tarne. Before we can assume that he was the 'eponym' of a Cretan city we must surely ask how he came to be represented as a Maeonian (Lydian). Is it inconceivable that a name identical with that of a city should be borne by anyone except the eponymous hero of the city?

This is not the only case of the kind which has been brought forward. In Il. V 706 we hear of an Aetolian named Trechos slain by Hector and in Il. XX 455 of a Trojan named Dryops slain by Achilles. Here we are said to have 'eponyms' of Trachis and the Dryopes. In England during the centuries immediately following the Heroic Age we find mention in historical documents of princes or ecclesiastics called Walh, Cumbra, Seaxa, Dene, Fronca, etc. Are we to suppose that these persons are the eponymous heroes of the Welsh or Cymry, the Saxons, Danes and Franks? But national names of this type seem to have been just as frequently used by the Greeks, at least in historical times. We may mention Achaios of Eretria, Ion of Chios and Dorieus the brother of Leonidas. Is there any reason for denying their use in earlier times[412]?

The evidence of these names has been brought forward in support of a far-reaching theory—that the conflicts which we find described in the Iliad are echoes of tribal struggles which once took place in Greece, and that the warriors, Trojans as well as Greeks, are in reality mythical heroes in whom the various contending tribes have become personified. If this theory is sound it will be obvious that the resemblance between Greek and Teutonic heroic poetry must be merely superficial—that the two groups of poems spring from essentially different sources. It will be well then to examine somewhat carefully the evidence on which the theory is based.

The first argument in its favour is derived from a story quoted by Plutarch (Theseus, cap. 34) from Istros, a writer of the third century, to the effect that Alexandros (Paris) was overcome by Achilles and Patroclos on the banks of the Spercheios. In confirmation of this story it is pointed out that the warriors with whom Paris fights in the Iliad mostly belong to Thessaly, while his sister Alexandra (Cassandra) was worshipped by the Locrians. Another argument rests on a story derived from the Little Iliad, that Andromache was brought to Pharsalos after the fall of Troy. The inference that she belonged originally to this region is supported by the proposed identification of Thebe Hypoplacie, her home in the Iliad, with the Phthiotic Thebes, to the east of Pharsalos. Yet a further argument relates to Hector. It is noted that he was worshipped as a hero at Thebes in Boeotia, and that most of the persons associated with him, either as friends or foes, are connected with Boeotia, Thessaly and the intervening districts. In Prof. Bethe's words "Hector's tracks lead from southern Thessaly, through Phocis and Boeotia, to the Cadmean Thebes." "In other words Hector, or rather the tribe which honoured Hector as their hero, migrated by this road. More accurately, the tribe gradually, in how many centuries none can tell, moved in a south-easterly direction, driven by a pressure which was no doubt exerted by the Aeolic tribe represented in the Epos by Achilles[413]."

Now it is manifest that the argument derived from Istros' story can have validity only if it can be shown that there is reason for believing it to be based on genuine native tradition, independent of the Homeric poems. For everyone who has studied the history of Teutonic heroic poetry knows that in the later forms of the stories the scene is liable to be changed to entirely different countries. Thus the fight of HeÐinn and HÖgni is located in the Orkneys in the Norse version of their story, while in KÛdrÛn Hagen is made a king in Ireland. Again, in the Vitae Duorum Offarum the whole story of Offa and his single combat is transplanted to the English Mercia, the home of the hero's descendants. Yet in the case of Istros' story the requisite evidence seems to be altogether wanting. If the story really comes from local tradition it may very well be due to an imperfect acquaintance with the Homeric poems. But the context, which mentions Hector as well as Paris, suggests rather that Istros was referring not to the story of the Iliad at all but to an early adventure of the two brothers[414]—presumably one of those accretions to the old heroic cycles, for which so many parallels can be found in late Teutonic authorities like ThiÐreks Saga af Bern.

The argument relating to the Locrian cult of Alexandra (Cassandra) need scarcely be considered at length; for, however ancient this cult may have been, it was always connected with the sanctuary of Athene at Troy[415]. The cult of Hector at Thebes likewise seems to have been derived from the same quarter, perhaps in comparatively late times[416]. Again, the identification of Andromache's home with Thebes in Phthiotis is admittedly nothing more than a conjecture.

One argument still remains for consideration, namely that the persons brought into contact with Hector come chiefly from the north-eastern parts of Greece and those encountered by Paris chiefly from Thessaly. Now it is to be observed that several of the persons whose names figure in Prof. Bethe's lists (op. cit., p. 670 ff.) are not said to come from Thessaly, Boeotia, etc. in the Iliad itself. That they were derived from this quarter is merely an inference from the fact that other persons belonging to Thessaly, Boeotia, etc. bear the same names. It cannot for a moment be suspected that in V. 705, XV. 547 ff. the poets themselves were thinking of Orestes the son of Agamemnon or of Melanippos the famous Theban hero But surely nothing can be more absurd than the proposition that persons who bear the same name must necessarily be identical in origin. In the Teutonic Heroic Age we know from historical sources of five kings named Theodric, all of whom were living within half a century of one another. Have we any reason for supposing that the ancient Greeks were more careful to avoid the use of names which had already been appropriated?[417]

Again, the lists given by Prof. Bethe contain merely a selection of the warriors encountered by Paris and Hector. The former fights in the Iliad not only with the Thessalian heroes Machaon, Eurypylos and Menesthios, but also with Menelaos from Sparta, Diomedes from Argos and Euchenor from Corinth. Hector's antagonists include, among others, Aias from Salamis, Stichios from Athens, Periphetes from Mycenae, Lycophron from Cythera and Amphimachos from Elis. On the other hand Melanippos is merely one, and by no means the most conspicuous, of the same hero's supporters. Considering the evidence as a whole therefore I fail to see that this argument is worth any more than the others.

It appears then that the evidence adduced in favour of the theory which we are discussing is open to serious objection at every point[418]. But, leaving questions of detail, we have yet to notice that the theory as a whole consists of two main propositions. The first of these is that the warriors of the Iliad are really 'tribal heroes,' i.e. in some sense or other personifications of tribes. In other words the contests described in the poem were originally conflicts of tribes and not of individuals. The second proposition is that these conflicts must have taken place between neighbouring tribes. It will be seen that this proposition depends very largely upon the first. If the conflicts of the Iliad really took place, as the poem states, between individual warriors or bands of soldiers, there is no occasion for supposing that the combatants were necessarily neighbours. As far back as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries Egyptian monuments testify, as we have seen, to enterprises far more distant than the expedition against Troy.

Now the first proposition is of course nothing new in itself. On the contrary, Prof. Bethe's theory is an outgrowth from a view which has been long and widely current—that the conflicts recorded in the Iliad are a reflection of the Aeolic settlement of the Asiatic coast. His purpose has been to show that only a comparatively small portion of the story comes from this source[419], and that the bulk is derived from reminiscences of earlier tribal struggles in Greece, which have become embedded in the story of Troy. The two theories differ very greatly in the explanations which they give of the origin of various incidents and characters. But it is not to be overlooked that the principle of interpretation is the same in both cases.

No one will deny that the personification of tribes and nationalities is to be found in both the poetry and the prose literature of many peoples. In certain passages of the Old Testament this principle of interpretation has been recognised from ancient times. But the authorities in which these passages occur cannot be described as heroic poems. Again Greek literature itself also yields plenty of obvious examples, such as the stories of Hellen and his sons and Danaos, several of which can be traced back to quite early poems. But these poems appear to have been of the Hesiodic, and not of the Homeric school. If we turn to the Teutonic peoples, evidence for such personification is abundant, and some of it belongs to our very earliest records. But, except in genealogical references such as we have dealt with above (p. 267), examples are not to be found in heroic poetry. The idea that the characters who are brought before us in the poems—let us say Beowulf or SigurÐr or Witege—are themselves personifications of tribes is one which probably no scholar would entertain.

Now in the Homeric poems, as we have them, just as much as in Teutonic heroic poetry, the interest of the poets lies in the fortunes of individual heroes, not in those of the communities to which they belong. Even in those Teutonic stories which have the least claim to be regarded as historical there is no reason for doubting that such was the case from the very beginning. On the other hand the current hypothesis with regard to the origin of the Greek heroic stories postulates what can only be described as a complete revolution in the interests of the poets and their audiences. This however is a postulate which ought not to be accepted, unless decisive evidence is forthcoming in its favour.

In the first place it must be observed that the existence of a poem or story which deals with reminiscences of tribal conflicts necessarily presupposes an absorbing interest in tribal history. It will probably be admitted by everyone that this interest can hardly have been of an academic character; indeed, we may assume, I think, that it must be inspired by patriotic motives. If so, the foremost place will naturally be taken by that tribe or community with which the story originated. Now it is generally agreed that the Homeric poems contain both Aeolic and Ionic elements. Further, though opinions differ widely as to the relative importance of the two, there is a practical unanimity in believing that the Aeolic element is the earlier one. The tribal interest then, at least in the earlier elements in the poems, should be essentially Aeolic. For 'Aeolic' we may practically say Thessalian (using the term of course in a geographical sense); for the Aeolic settlements, mainly at least, had proceeded from Thessaly. But Achilles, the chief hero of the Iliad, himself belongs to Thessaly; and so all is well. Further, many scholars hold that the later or Ionic elements in the poem are marked by the introduction of Nestor. There was, apparently, a tradition current in Colophon that the inhabitants of that city had originally come from Pylos. Nestor therefore may be regarded as typifying the later or Ionic interests of the Iliad, just as Achilles typifies its earlier or Aeolic interests. This opinion however is by no means so widely entertained as the other.

So much for the Iliad; now let us turn to the Odyssey. Here we are confronted with a serious difficulty. Odysseus is at least as much the hero of the Odyssey as Achilles is of the Iliad. But Odysseus belongs to the Ionian Isles; and there is no trace of either an Aeolic or an Ionic population in these islands. It is not surprising then that the Odyssey is put aside by the advocates of the theory which we are discussing. The tendency is to regard it as a later work—originating perhaps at a time when tribal interests had become forgotten. We must confine our attention therefore to the Iliad.

As applied to the Iliad the theory was long ago seen to be open to one serious objection. Achilles is the only one of the chief Achaean leaders who can be referred to Thessaly. His nearest neighbour is the Locrian Aias; but the Locrians, in spite of their connection with Troy, cannot be regarded as an Aeolic people. All the other Achaean leaders who may be termed 'heroes of the first rank' belong to the southern and western parts of Greece. Their positions geographically cannot be reconciled with the theory of Aeolic tribal wars. In order to obviate this difficulty various suggestions have been put forward. On the one hand we have Prof. Bethe's hypothesis which brings the Trojan leaders, Hector and Paris, to the north-eastern parts of Greece. Upon this enough has been said above. On the other hand there is an older and still very popular hypothesis, according to which some of the southern leaders, Agamemnon in particular, originally belonged to the northern parts of the country. It is to this that we must now turn our attention.

In the Iliad Mycenae is represented as being the home of Agamemnon. But it has been observed that this place is comparatively seldom mentioned, and that sometimes Agamemnon is said to rule over 'Argos.' Unfortunately there is a considerable amount of ambiguity in the use of the latter name. Occasionally it denotes the well-known city in Argolis; but more often it is clearly used in a much wider sense, for the Peloponnesos or the whole of Greece. Once however (II 681) we find the expression t? ?e?as????? ????? as a name for the home of Achilles. In ancient times the meaning of this expression was not known. Some authorities believed it to be the name of a city, while others understood it as a designation for the plain of Thessaly. Many modern scholars have adopted the latter interpretation. But further, they hold that this was the original Argos, and that the application of that name to the Peloponnesos or any part of it is due to a misunderstanding on the part of later (Ionic) poets, by whose time the northern Argos had been forgotten.

In favour of this view Prof. Cauer[420] brings forward the following arguments. "If Agamemnon, as well as Achilles, belongs to the oldest elements in the story, he also must come from a land in which Aeolic was spoken; and indeed not Aeolic in the extended sense which the ancients gave the term—where the name includes Elean and Arcadian—but Lesbian-Aeolic. This was, as inscriptions show, the language of the original inhabitants of Thessaly." Again "Agamemnon started with his fleet from Aulis.... He was associated with Achilles in the story from the beginning. His Argeioi are the companions of the Achaeans led by Achilles. The two tribal names are used for one another indifferently, and either of them can be employed as a designation for the forces which fought at Troy. Consequently the Argeioi and the Achaeans must have been neighbours." Further, it is urged by Prof. Cauer that the epithet ?pp??t?? as applied to the Peloponnesian Argos is inappropriate. This state possessed no cavalry in the fifth century, and none of consequence at any time. On the other hand it is a very suitable epithet for the plain of the Peneios; Thessalian cavalry were famous. Lastly, it is argued that the expression ?a?' (??') ????da ?a? ?s?? ?????, which occurs four times in the Odyssey, must originally have denoted two neighbouring districts, though in the passages in question it is used in a very wide sense—perhaps for all Greece.

The last argument does not seem to me to have any decisive bearing upon the question under discussion. If we admit, as I think we must, that Homeric poetry is essentially Aeolic and that Aeolis was settled mainly from Thessaly, it is only natural that the poems should preserve traces of traditional Thessalian phraseology, just as they preserve poetic conceptions which must have originated in the same country. But, though we grant that the phrases in question may possibly have been used originally of the Thessalian Argos mentioned in II 681, we are not bound thereby to conclude that this was the only Argos known to the earliest poems on the siege of Troy. Again, it is scarcely inconceivable that the traditional epithet ?pp??t?? may have been transferred from one Argos to the other, though on the other hand there seems to be good reason for doubting whether the application of this term to the Peloponnesian Argos is as much out of place as has been alleged[421]. Still less cogent is the argument relating to Aulis. For the assembling of such a fleet as the story describes the choice of a convenient central position in sheltered waters would be suggested by the most elementary notions of strategy.

All these however are comparatively minor considerations. I doubt if they would have been seriously brought forward except as reinforcements to the main contention—viz. that Agamemnon, like Achilles, must have come from an Aeolic district, if he belongs to the oldest elements in the story. It is surprising to see how this principle appears to have commanded the assent of Homeric scholars. To anyone who has made a study of Teutonic heroic poetry such an argument seems nothing less than absurd. Out of 132 personal names which occur in the Anglo-Saxon heroic poems only three or four, so far as we know, belong to persons of English nationality (cf. p. 32 ff.). Beowulf is concerned almost exclusively with the doings of princes of the Danes, GÖtar and Swedes. In Waldhere, another English poem, the characters are Burgundians and (perhaps) Franks; in the German Hildebrandslied they are apparently Goths. The Norse poems of the Older Edda are occupied chiefly with the adventures of Huns, Burgundians and Goths. What need then is there for supposing that Agamemnon must have belonged to the same branch of the Greek race as Achilles? And what need is there for supposing that an Aeolic poem must contain any Aeolic characters at all? In the Odyssey it is not the case. In the Iliad, as we have it, only a small proportion of the characters at most can be regarded as Aeolic[422].

The reason why Agamemnon must belong to an Aeolic district is clearly to be found in the assumption that both he and Achilles were originally not individuals but personifications of tribes. Starting from this assumption we become involved in a series of hypotheses each of which is dependent upon the preceding one. i. The sources of the Iliad were concerned only, or at least chiefly, with the fortunes of tribes (though in point of fact the Iliad, as it stands, is concerned only with the fortunes of individuals). ii. These tribes belonged to adjacent districts (though in fact the heroes of the Iliad are represented as coming from nearly all parts of Greece). iii. Since Achilles belongs to an Aeolic district, Agamemnon and the Argos over which he rules must be located in the same quarter. But the third hypothesis is by no means the only one which is dependent upon the second. Menelaos must have been transferred from the north, i.e. from Thessaly, with his brother. Again, Pylos lies far away from any Aeolic district. Here we have a choice between two hypotheses. Some hold that Nestor, like Agamemnon, belonged originally to Thessaly (the district of the river Enipeus); others that he is a late and Ionic addition to the story. With Diomedes the case is somewhat similar. He cannot have ruled over Argos even in the second stage of the story; for then, before Mycenae was introduced, Argos belonged to Agamemnon. Either then he has been transferred from Aetolia, the home of his ancestors; or he is a late addition, due to Ionic poets. Again, Idomeneus' case is due to 'attraction'; originally he belonged to quite a different cycle of story, like Tlepolemos. Aias, the son of Telamon, is clearly a 'doublet' of the Locrian Aias; and so forth. By this process we are enabled to dispose satisfactorily of all the southern Greek heroes.

It will be seen that according to some scholars only a few of the leading heroes belonged to the original form of the story, and that their number has grown by gradual accretions. According to others the majority were there from the beginning; but they belonged originally to the northern parts of Greece, more especially the Aeolic districts. With reference to this latter view it may be observed that the Aeolic districts are by no means unrepresented in the Iliad as we have it. On the contrary we find a considerable number of leaders both from Thessaly and Boeotia; but they are all what we may term 'heroes of the second rank.' Are we to suppose that these are 'Ionic' substitutions for the original heroes, when the latter were transferred to the southern parts of Greece?

But we have yet to consider a more important question than this. In the Iliad itself only two of the leading heroes, namely Achilles and the Locrian Aias, are represented as coming from the northern parts of Greece. But the Locrians cannot be regarded as an Aeolic people. Achilles then is the only leading hero whose Aeolic nationality rests on any solid evidence, and it is, as we have seen, chiefly owing to their association with him that the same nationality is claimed by hypothesis for Agamemnon and the rest. But before we bring our discussion to a close it will be well to ask whether Achilles' nationality really is established beyond question by the evidence.

It has been mentioned above that 'the Pelasgian Argos' is said to be the home of Achilles, though unfortunately neither ancient nor modern scholars have been able to determine with certainty what is meant by that name. Of the other places recorded in the same context (Il. II 681 ff.[423])—viz. Alos, Alope, Trechis, Phthia and Hellas—all except the third are involved in somewhat similar obscurity. Phthia—whether it be a city or a district—was generally located between Mt Othrys and the Malian Gulf. Hellas was believed to be in the same neighbourhood, if not actually identical with Phthia; some placed it on the north side of Othrys, a short distance away. The names ???? and ???p? were borne in historical times by places in Locris, and also by other places in Phthiotis, on the Pagasean Gulf and the Malian Gulf respectively. Opinion was divided as to which of these were the places mentioned in the Iliad. Trechis (Trachis) lay on the south of the Spercheios.

It must not be overlooked that, except the indefinite Hellas and Phthia, all these places, including 'the Pelasgian Argos,' are mentioned only in the Catalogue of Ships, a section of the poem which is commonly regarded with very little respect. Indeed the same scholars who lay so much stress upon the Pelasgian Argos as the home of Achilles have no hesitation about rejecting the evidence of the Catalogue as to the homes of Agamemnon, Menelaos, Nestor, Diomedes and others. Yet the Thessalian section of the Catalogue is admittedly far more difficult to understand than any other. It is scarcely credible that the poet responsible for it can have been personally acquainted with the places he was enumerating. Now in other parts of the poem Achilles and his followers are associated with the Spercheios or Ellada; from XVI 173 ff., XXIII 144 ff. it is quite clear that his home was supposed to be in the immediate neighbourhood of that river. According to IX 484 his vassal Phoinix rules over the Dolopes, a people who, at least in historical times, inhabited the mountainous country to the north-west[424]. These indications, it will be seen, agree perfectly well with the only place in the Catalogue which can be identified with certainty, namely Trechis. On the whole also they favour the view that 'Alope' is the Phthiotic Alope. Achilles' country then is the basin of the Spercheios, together probably with the coast lands on the Malian Gulf between the mountains of Oite and Othrys. It may have included the northern slopes of the latter, in the territory of the Dolopes; but neither the evidence of the Catalogue itself nor references in other parts of the Iliad give us any warrant for supposing that it extended into the plain of Larissa[425].

Now there is not a particle of evidence that an Aeolic dialect was ever spoken either in the basin of the Spercheios or in the districts bordering on the coasts of the Malian Gulf. A form (?a?ae???) which may be an Aeolic patronymic occurs in an inscription from Melitaia[426]; but the inscription in other respects is definitely non-Aeolic, although Melitaia lies to the north of Othrys. A similar form (????te?a) occurs in an inscription found near Pteleon[427], which is too short for us to determine its character; but Pteleon lies in the extreme east of Phthiotis, outside the Malian Gulf, and according to the Catalogue belonged to Protesilaos. The only inscription of definitely Aeolic (Thessalian) character as yet found in Phthiotis comes from near Eretria, just inside the boundary. This place is not mentioned in the Catalogue, or elsewhere in the Iliad; but Strabo (IX 5. 10) conjectured that it belonged to Achilles' territories. If we are to follow the indications given by the Catalogue the question would seem to lie between the territories of Protesilaos and those of Eurypylos; there is nothing to show that Achilles' country was believed to extend so far. It is most surprising therefore to find Prof. Cauer[428] concluding from such evidence as this that "we are justified in claiming the valley of the Spercheios also as an Aeolic district and Achilles as a hero of Aeolic nationality."

For the language of Achilles' country itself we are by no means without evidence. Fairly long inscriptions have been found at Hypate in the valley of the Spercheios and at Lamia, to the north of the Malian Gulf—to which may be added an inscription, apparently of the Oitaioi, at Drymaia in Phocis. All these show the form of language usually known as 'north-west Greek,' and the same is true of other inscriptions found in the north and east of Phthiotis. Although they are all late, there is no valid reason for doubting that this language is indigenous[429]. Only two inscriptions[430], so far as I know, contain references to Aetolian magistrates. The dialect is almost identical not only with that of the Aetolian inscriptions, but also with those of the Locrians and Phocians, the former of which is well known from much earlier times. Greek communities as a general rule were slow to change their language, and the influence of the Aetolian League was scarcely of such a character as to favour the permanent extension of its dialect[431].

If we are to trust all the evidence which we possess Othrys, and not Oite, was the southern limit of the Aeolic (Thessalian) dialect. The communities of Phthiotis were politically dependent upon Thessaly, but they seem never to have been subjugated in the same way as the Aeolic population north of the mountains[432]. They had their own troops and sent a separate contingent to Xerxes' army. Indeed Herodotus (VII 173, 196 ff.) clearly distinguishes between 'Thessaly' and 'Achaia' (i.e. Phthiotis). Moreover it appears to have been the general opinion among the Greeks themselves that this district was the original home of the Achaeans of the Peloponnesos. Pausanias (VII 1. 6) traces the Peloponnesian Achaeans to Archandros and Architeles, the sons of Achaios, who had come from Phthiotis[433]. Herodotus (II 98) was evidently familiar with some form of this story, though he calls Archandros son of Phthios and grandson of Achaios. The supposed connection therefore goes back at least to the fifth century. How far these genealogies were constructed upon linguistic affinities is a question which needs some discussion. We may remark in passing however that the dialect of the Peloponnesian Achaia, so far as it is known to us[434], shows but little difference from the dialects north of the Gulf of Corinth. It is commonly included in the list of 'north-west Greek' dialects.

In the meantime we may notice an argument which has sometimes been brought forward in support of the hypothesis that Aeolic was once spoken much further south. This is the presence of an Aeolic or semi-Aeolic form of language in Boeotia. The ancients themselves believed that the Boeotians were not indigenous. Thucydides (I 12) states that they had been expelled by the Thessalians from 'Arne' after the Trojan War; but this was not the only form of the story. On the other hand many modern scholars have adopted the view that the 'north-western' dialects of Locris and Phocis were intrusive[435], and that the non-Aeolic characteristics of the Boeotian dialect itself were due to an extension of the same movement—in short that Aeolic was the earliest form of Greek spoken throughout the whole region from Thessaly down to the borders of Attica. For such a displacement of population[436] no evidence is to be found either in history or tradition. Moreover this hypothesis has opposed to it the evidence of what may be called linguistic geography. The Ionic dialects of Euboea and Attica have much more in common with the 'north-western' dialects of Locris and Phocis than they have with Boeotian. The latter indeed stands quite isolated in many respects among the dialects of this part of Greece. It will be sufficient here to notice the close pronunciation of e (e.g. in Gen. sg. e????) and the open pronunciation of o (e.g. in Acc. pl. t??)—both of which are probably to be regarded as Aeolic characteristics—the use of Aeolic patronymics in -ios (e.g. ?pp?? ??a??d?????) and more especially the Aeolic tendency to change labiovelar explosives into labials before e?, which we find exemplified at both extremities of the Boeotian area (?e?f??, ?e?att??). The last peculiarity is doubtless one of the earliest cases of dialectal variation which can be traced in the Greek language; but it is impossible to date. All this evidence tends to show that Aeolic was the intrusive element—in other words, to confirm the tradition that Boeotia was at some time invaded by settlers from an Aeolic-speaking district[437].

In recent years there has been a tendency to classify the Greek dialects in two main groups—'East Greek' and 'West Greek.' In the former are included Arcadian, Cypriot, Ionic (with Attic) and the Aeolic dialects, i.e. Thessalian and Lesbian-Aeolic, together with the Aeolic element in Boeotian. To the latter are referred the remaining dialects, i.e. the Doric dialects and all the dialects of the mainland of Greece except Arcadian, Attic, Thessalian and Boeotian, so far as Boeotian can be regarded as Aeolic. It may be doubted whether this classification is altogether satisfactory, since the affinities of Aeolic with Ionic and Arcadian are by no means close; as much perhaps might be said for a division into 'North Greek' (Aeolic) and 'South Greek' (non-Aeolic). But there can be no doubt that the 'West Greek' dialects, i.e. Doric and north-western Greek, except perhaps Elean, do really form a homogeneous group. Indeed it can hardly be maintained that the Doric dialects as a whole show any divergence from the other members of the group[438], though there are marked differences between one Doric dialect and another. It is this West Greek group which specially requires our attention, for according to all the evidence we possess it included the dialects of both the Phthiotic Achaeans and the Peloponnesian Achaeans.

Now let us return to the genealogical problem. We have seen that Herodotus was familiar with a story which traced the descent of the Peloponnesian Achaeans from Phthios the son of Achaios. The same writer elsewhere (I 56, etc.) draws a distinction between 'Hellenic' and 'Pelasgian' peoples. Among the former he includes the Dorians; among the latter the Athenians (I 56, VIII 44), the Ionians (VII 94), the Arcadians (I 146) and the Aeolians (VII 95). By ?????e? he means here the inhabitants of the Asiatic Aeolis. But in view of other passages (I 57, VII 176) it can scarcely be doubted that he would have included the earlier population of Thessaly in the same category.

Now Herodotus himself believed the Pelasgoi to have been a barbarous nation. The peoples of whom he is speaking here were regarded by him as 'Hellenized' Pelasgoi. Some modern writers think that he was mistaken in this view, and that the Pelasgoi were a Greek people from the beginning[439]. Some hold also that the term ?e?as??? in most of these cases is due simply to the influence of genealogies[440]. It is a serious objection to this latter view that the well-known genealogy in which the descent of Ion, as well as Aiolos, is traced from Hellen, goes back at least two or three centuries before the time of Herodotus. But we are not primarily concerned here with Herodotus' opinions; for it is clear from the expressions which he uses (e.g. VII 95: t? p??a? ?a?e?e??? ?e?as???, ?? ??????? ?????) that the distinction between ?e?as??? and ?????e? was one which was generally recognised in his time. Some of his contemporaries may have regarded the Pelasgoi as Greeks, others as barbarians. What was generally agreed was that the term ?????e? was originally applied only to a portion of the inhabitants of Greece. We may refer to Thucydides (I 3[441]): "The different tribes, of which the Pelasgian was the most widely spread, gave their own names to different districts. But when Hellen and his sons became powerful in Phthiotis, their aid was invoked by other cities, and those who were associated with them gradually began to be called Hellenes, though a long time elapsed before the name prevailed over the whole country. Of this Homer affords the best evidence; for he, although he lived long after the Trojan War, nowhere uses this name collectively, but confines it to the followers of Achilles from Phthiotis, who were the original Hellenes." In a certain sense therefore we may regard ?e?as??? as a term of negative value, i.e. 'non-Hellenic.'

Herodotus does not expressly describe any people as 'Hellenic,' in the narrower sense, except the Dorians. But we are surely not justified in concluding from this that he regarded the Dorians as the only true Hellenes[442]. He is interested in pointing out that certain Greek (Hellenic) peoples were believed to be of Pelasgian origin. Doubtless he considered it unnecessary to say that those for whom no such origin was claimed were really Hellenes, except in such a passage as I 56, where a 'Hellenic' and a 'Pelasgian' people are specially contrasted with each other. In general then the presumption is rather that a people was believed to be truly Hellenic, unless we have a statement to the contrary. In particular however it is incredible that the Achaeans were regarded as Pelasgian, for it was in the Achaean Phthiotis—more properly perhaps in 'Phthia'—that traditional belief located the eponymous Hellen. Thucydides, as we have seen, observes that this belief was confirmed by the evidence of the Homeric poems. The term 'Hellenic' belongs essentially to the followers of Achilles (??pe? ?a? p??t?? ?????e? ?sa?).

It can hardly be contended either that the story of Hellen is derived from the Homeric usage, or that the Homeric usage is derived from the story of Hellen. Both alike are based on the common knowledge or belief that the names ?????e? and ????? belonged originally to Phthia. It is not difficult to see why names from such a district, obscure and remote as it was, should come to be applied to the whole nation. The valley of the Spercheios was regarded as the gate of Greece. Certain peoples, such as the Boeotians and Eleans, may have come into possession of their territories by maritime invasions. But there can be little doubt that in prehistoric, as in historical times—we may refer to the Persians and the Gauls—great invasions usually made their way through the pass of Thermopylai. That is true probably not only of the later invasions of the 'West Greek' peoples (the Achaeans, Locrians, Dorians, etc.) but also of those much earlier movements by which the first Greek populations—the ancestors of the Ionians and Arcadians—were introduced into the peninsula. But if we are to trust all the evidence at our disposal it was with the later movements that the names ?????[443] and ?????e?[444] were originally connected.

The results of our discussion may now be summarised as follows: (i) According to current hypotheses the language of the Achaeans of Phthiotis was Aeolic, while that of the Peloponnesian Achaeans was perhaps Arcadian; but in point of fact all the linguistic evidence which we have from both districts (including the colonies of the Peloponnesian Achaeans) is definitely West Greek. In all probability the valley of the Spercheios was one of the first, if not actually the very first, of the districts occupied by the West Greeks in the eastern and southern parts of the peninsula. (ii) According to a belief current in the fifth century certain Greek peoples were truly 'Hellenic,' while others were of 'Pelasgian' origin. The former category coincided, at least to a large extent, with the 'West Greek' linguistic division, the latter with the 'East Greek' division, or—to speak more accurately—with the northern, eastern and southern groups of dialects. In certain cases, owing to the silence of our authorities, it may be permissible to doubt whether a people was regarded as 'Hellenic' or 'Pelasgian'; but no such doubt applies to the followers of Achilles, 'who were the original Hellenes.' It was in Phthia that much earlier tradition located the eponymous Hellen; and from the same district came Archandros and Architeles, the legendary progenitors of the Peloponnesian Achaeans, several generations before the Trojan War. It is clear then that the 'West Greek' language of the extant inscriptions is in perfect agreement with the belief of the fifth century Greeks that this community was essentially Hellenic. We may dismiss therefore as totally without foundation the hypothesis that Achilles was an Aeolic (or Pelasgian) hero[445].

Now let us drop hypotheses and consider briefly the evidence actually furnished by the Iliad. The poem leaves us in no doubt as to who are regarded as the principal persons in the Achaean army. In II 404 ff. Agamemnon is represented as calling together "the elders, the chiefs of the whole Achaean host" (?????ta? ???st?a? ?a?a?a???). They are Nestor, Idomeneus, Aias the son of Telamon and his Locrian namesake, Diomedes, Odysseus and Menelaos. In another council (X 194 ff.) we find the same party together with three additional persons, Thrasymedes, Meriones and Meges. In the debates, which occur so frequently, the leading speakers are almost always Agamemnon, Nestor, Diomedes, Odysseus and Menelaos. In the battle scenes the aged Nestor naturally does not play an active part. The other four heroes however, together with Idomeneus, Aias the son of Telamon and (to a somewhat less extent) the Locrian Aias, are by far the most conspicuous figures in the army. In response to Hector's challenge, from which Menelaos has been forced to retire, all the other six come forward, together with Meriones, Eurypylos and Thoas. There can be no doubt then that the eight leading men are Agamemnon and his brother, Nestor, Idomeneus, the two Aiantes, Diomedes and Odysseus. To these we must certainly add Achilles, who is in retirement throughout the greater part of the poem.

MAP OF GREECE

illustrating the 'Catalogue of Ships'

The numerals denote cities or territories belonging to the chief leaders of the Achaeans.

1. possessions of Odysseus
2. " Nestor
3. " Menelaos
4. " Agamemnon
5. " Diomedes, etc.
6. " Aias son of Telamon
7. " Aias son of Oileus
8. " Achilles