The evidence of the German poems for the social and political conditions of the Heroic Age cannot be regarded as trustworthy owing to the lateness of the period in which they were composed. In principle the same is true also of the Norse poems. These reflect the conditions of the Viking Age rather than those of the Heroic Age, though, as we have already noted, the difference here is less marked. On the other hand, in addition to the Anglo-Saxon poems and the works of contemporary Roman historians, such as Ammianus Marcellinus, Jordanes and Procopius, we have valuable evidence from the early Teutonic codes of law. Some of these, such as the Lex Salica and the Lex Burgundionum, date from the first half of the sixth century or earlier, i.e. from the Heroic Age itself, while a number of others—in particular we may note the earliest English laws—belong to the following two centuries and show probably little deviation from the custom of the Heroic Age. All the codes of course contain certain Roman or Christian elements; but this influence in some cases goes back to the fifth century or even further.

The chief forces which governed the social system of that age were the bonds of kinship and allegiance. The influence of the former extended not merely, as with us, to rights of succession and duties of guardianship over children and women. It was also the power by which the security of the property and person of each member of the community was guaranteed. If a man received injury or insult, his kindred were bound to assist him to obtain redress. If he were slain they had to exact vengeance or compensation from the slayer. On the other hand not only the slayer himself but every member of his kindred became liable to vengeance, and each had to pay his quota towards the compensation (wergeld), just as it was divided among the kindred of the slain—the proportion varying in both cases according to the degree of relationship. In case of bloodshed a certain sum had also to be paid to the king, even in the earliest times of which we have record; but this sum seldom exceeded half the wergeld, and as a rule amounted to considerably less.

The character and size of the kindred appear to have varied in different nations. Some laws speak of claims to succession as remote as the seventh degree, while the rights and duties connected with the payment and receipt of wergelds seem generally to have extended as far as third cousins, i.e. the descendants of great-great-grandparents. Again, we hear sometimes of royal or noble families which bore a common name derived from some ancestor, real or mythical, from whom their power or prerogatives were believed to be inherited. Such were the Oescingas, the Wuffingas and the Icelingas, the royal families of Kent, East Anglia and Mercia respectively; so also the Scyldungas (SkiÖldungar) among the Danes, the Merovingi among the Franks, and the Agilolfinga and other noble families among the Bavarians. Persons belonging to these families had probably—in some cases certainly—special wergelds; and the throne or principality seems to have been regarded as in some sense family property. Some writers believe that kindreds in general were permanent organisations of this kind, and that originally they held land, and possibly other property also, in common. But this view goes a good deal beyond what the facts warrant, at all events for the period with which we are dealing. It is clear that at this time kinship on both sides was recognised everywhere; maternal relatives shared in the payment and receipt of wergelds with those on the father's side, though not always in the same proportion. Moreover the idea that the inclusion of the maternal relatives was due to an innovation cannot be maintained. Thus, in spite of the fact that the Frankish kings claimed the throne by direct descent in the male line from Merovechus, there are clear indications that Frankish law in its earliest form gave priority to the mother's side. No doubt on the whole the agnatic system of relationship had become predominant almost everywhere in the Heroic Age; but sufficient traces of the opposite system remain to render it probable that a change had taken place not so very far back[513].

Any such change of course involves—or rather perhaps implies—a weakening in the force of the bonds of kinship; and of this we have very clear evidence in the Heroic Age. Now it has often been pointed out that early Teutonic custom seems to have made no provision for the case of homicide within the kindred. In such a case the persons on whom vengeance devolved would be identical, in part at least, with those against whom it would be directed—and so also with the compensation. It is generally held that homicide of this kind was extremely rare and that, when it did occur, the slayer was outlawed. That would no doubt be in accordance with primitive custom. Indeed in a state of society based on blood-relationship the life of a kinsman must be sacred above all else. Further, it is clear enough that the shedding of kindred blood was regarded with abhorrence in the Heroic Age. Thus Procopius (Goth. II 14), describing the euthanasia practised by the Heruli, states that when the dying man has been laid upon the top of the pyre, one of his countrymen goes up with a dagger and stabs him; but he adds explicitly that this man must not be related to his victim[514]. Again, to take another point of view, perhaps the saddest passage in Beowulf is that which relates how Herebald was accidentally killed by his brother Haethcyn. But the aspect of the case which first strikes the poet is not one which would appeal to a man of modern times. "That was a slaughter without compensation," he says (v. 2441 ff.), "the prince had to lose his life unavenged."

Yet, in spite of all this, instances of the slaying of kinsmen seem to have been by no means uncommon in the Heroic Age In Beowulf the spokesman of the Danish kings, Unferth, is said to have killed his brothers, and though the fact was a reproach to him, it apparently did not prevent him from holding an important office at court. In the same poem we hear of dissensions within the Swedish royal family, which ended in death for both Onela and Eanmund. According to the legends preserved in Ynglingatal this family had had a very bad record for such quarrels in the past. Among the Goths we have the case of Eormenric, who put his nephews Embrica and Fritla to death. And it is by no means only in poetry or tradition that we meet with such cases; historians also furnish numerous examples. Thus according to Gregory of Tours (II 28) the Burgundian king Hilperic was killed by his brother Gundobad, while Sigismund, son of the latter, had his own son, Sigiric, put to death (III 5). The Thuringian king Irminfrith slew his brother Berhthari (III 4); the Frankish king Sigiberht was murdered by the orders of his son Hlothric (II 40). Clovis is said to have put to death a number of his relatives, while his sons and grandsons were repeatedly involved in deadly strife[515].

In view of such evidence we must conclude that the primitive sanctity of the family was giving way in the Heroic Age. For the change of feeling which was taking place one passage in Beowulf is particularly instructive. In the struggle between Onela and Eanmund the latter was slain by one of the king's knights named Weohstan. He stripped the dead man of his arms and brought them to Onela who presented them to him and "said nothing about that deed of guilt although it was his brother's son whom he (Weohstan) had laid low[516]." To the modern reader the poet's reflection seems strange; for Onela had been relieved of a dangerous foe, who was trying to deprive him of the kingdom. Yet there can be no doubt that according to primitive tribal custom he ought to have taken vengeance upon his knight.

It is clear then that primitive custom was breaking down even in countries far removed from contact with Christianity and Roman civilisation. We cannot tell indeed how far the change was general, since our knowledge is practically limited to the princely families. It is by no means unlikely that the lower strata of society were more conservative in many respects.

The principle which had now become dominant, at least in the higher ranks, was that of personal allegiance. This principle was of course by no means new. Even in Tacitus' works we hear of the comites who lived and fought in their lord's service and thought it a disgrace to survive his death. In the Heroic Age however it is probable that among the more northern peoples every man, except the king himself, had a lord. In the Anglo-Saxon laws the lord shares with the kindred the duty of protecting his men, and when one of them is slain he receives a special payment (the manbot) when the wergeld was paid to the relatives. Also, when any of his men die, at all events a man of the higher classes, he is entitled to the heriot, i.e. the arms of the dead man, which in theory at least the latter had originally received from him[517].

But in the poems, as is natural, we hear most frequently of the knights who formed the courts and retinues of kings and princes. As a summary of the services rendered by such persons to their lord, Tacitus' brief description (Germ. 13) still holds good: their presence gave him dignity in time of peace and protection in war. They dwelt and served him at his court and joined him in hunting and other amusements, while he rewarded their services with gifts of treasure and arms. In the descriptions of kings which we meet with in the poems there is no characteristic—not even personal bravery—which receives more commendation than that of generosity to their followers. In return the knight was expected to give up to his lord whatever he gained by his own exploits—just as Beowulf renders up to Hygelac and his queen the valuable gifts which he had received from the king of the Danes. As an instance of personal devotion in time of war we may cite the surrender of Chonodomarius' retinue at the battle of Strassburg—an incident to which we have already referred (p. 340). So also in the various accounts of the fall of HrÓlfr Kraki given by Scandinavian authorities the king's knights are said to have perished to a man. The same spirit survived in England in later times, as we see from the story of Cynewulf's death, when in each of the two encounters only one member of the defeated party was left alive. It was also thoroughly in the spirit of the Heroic Age that Edwin's knight, Lilla, acted when he threw himself between the king and the assassin and received a mortal wound in so doing.

It was customary for the sons of noblemen to enter the king's service at an early age. Beowulf went to Hrethel's court when he was only seven years old; but this case may have been exceptional, as he was the king's grandson. When they reached manhood[518] the king was expected to provide them with estates or jurisdiction over land, which would enable them to marry and support a household of their own. Thus Beowulf, after proving his prowess at the Danish court, is presented by Hygelac on his return with seven thousand hides—a considerable province—together with a residence and a prince's authority. The grant is accompanied by the gift of a sword, signifying that the bond of personal allegiance was still preserved. Beowulf in turn presents his young relative Wiglaf with the dwelling-place of their family and the public rights appertaining thereto. The court minstrels Widsith and Deor receive grants of land from their lords. In two of these cases (those of Wiglaf and Widsith) we are told that the estate had previously been in the possession of the recipient's father; and we may probably assume that such cases were not uncommon. Yet it is plain that such practices must very largely have destroyed the tribal custom of succession—at least in the higher ranks of society.

Those who had received grants of land or jurisdiction did not thereupon cease to attend the court. In the English courts of the seventh century Bede distinguishes between the comites, who already held office, and the ministri or milites, who seem in general to have been young knights without such official positions. The Anglo-Saxon version of the Ecclesiastical History translates comes by gesiÐ and minister or miles by Þegn. In poetry both these words are of frequent occurrence, though they appear to be used more or less indiscriminately. It should be observed that the word Þegn means properly no more than 'servant[519]' though (like knight in later times) it came to be specialised, while gesiÐ is almost an exact equivalent of comes[520]. In Beowulf however we meet with the same classes under the collective terms geogoÐ and duguÐ, i.e. youths and men of tried valour respectively. To the latter may be assigned such persons as Aeschere, Hrothgar's "confidant and counsellor," who had stood by his side on the battlefield; but the former class were probably as a rule in the majority.

Another characteristic of these retinues, which deserves notice, is the fact that they were not always composed of born subjects of the king. Bede (H. E. III 14) says that Oswine, the popular king of Deira, attracted young noblemen to his service from all sides; and in the Heroic Age such cases appear to have been frequent. Perhaps the most striking case in the poems is that of Weohstan, who took service under the Swedish king Onela and consequently became involved in hostilities against his own nation. It is probably due to the same custom that we find so many Teutonic chieftains serving under the Romans during the Heroic Age. Among them we may mention Arbogastes, Stilicho, Ricimer and Odoacer. Most frequently perhaps the men who sought service abroad were those who had either lost their lords or had had to leave their homes through vendetta. Such cases occur frequently in the Anglo-Saxon poems; we may refer especially to the Wanderer and the Husband's Message. Further, it appears from the story of Waldhere and Hagena that even hostages were expected to fight for the prince to whom they had been given. In later times we may compare the case of the British hostage who was wounded in the fight following Cynewulf's murder. But there are a number of other stories which seem to indicate that it was at one time a regular custom for young princes to set out from their homes, on reaching manhood, and to seek the court of some foreign king with a view to marrying his daughter and thereby acquiring a share in the sovereignty. Such incidents are of the commonest occurrence in folk-tales; and we find them also in works, such as Hervarar Saga and Ynglinga Saga, which claim to be based on genuine tradition. It is in this light too that all northern authorities represent the position of SigurÐr at the home of GuÐrÚn.

What has been said above applies primarily of course to the more northern peoples. The Goths were early exposed to Christian and Roman influence, and the same is true also of the Burgundians, especially after their settlement in Gaul. The Franks were no doubt less affected at first; but their customs seem from the beginning to have differed a good deal from those which we have been considering. They too had retinues of warriors (antrustiones or homines in truste regis) attached to the kings by personal service; but the prevalence of lordship in the lower ranks of society is by no means so clear. The possession of land also seems to have been governed at first by tribal principles and later by that of succession in the male line—without reference to the will of a superior. These differences are doubtless connected with certain features which distinguished the social organisation of the Franks from that of the other Teutonic peoples.

Every one of the early Teutonic nations possessed a more or less elaborate social system, with various class gradations. These gradations may be seen most clearly in the sums of money fixed for wergelds, for the compensations fixed for various injuries and insults and for fines; in some cases also they show themselves in the relative value attached to oaths. Apart from slaves, who do not come into consideration in these matters, the classes usually met with are those of nobles, freemen and freedmen. Sometimes however a class is subdivided; sometimes again one class is wanting altogether. Thus in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, except Kent, there were two grades of nobility, apparently landowning and landless, while freedmen did not form a distinct class. Among the Franks on the other hand we find no noble class. In general the freeman's wergeld is about double that of the freedman, while that of the noble is twice or thrice as great as the former; and the other payments usually follow more or less the same proportion. The actual sums fixed in the various laws differ greatly in each case, owing to the employment of different systems of currency. But it may be regarded as extremely probable that the normal wergeld of the freeman was originally a hundred head of cattle. Some nations, further, had special wergelds for certain high officials. Among the Franks persons in truste regis had threefold wergelds, and the same applied to the ordinary freeman when engaged in military service. In England the existence of special official wergelds is uncertain, at least before the great Danish invasion, though such persons were entitled to higher compensations in other respects. But in this country members of the royal families had wergelds six times as great as those of the higher class of nobles.

All the above classes (excluding officials of course) seem to have been as a rule hereditary. In some nations indeed the descendants of freedmen did become freemen. But it is scarcely probable that this class everywhere consisted only of manumitted slaves or their offspring. Sometimes we find the terms litus, latus, lazzus (laet in the Kentish laws) in place of libertus; and there is good reason for believing that this class was largely derived from subject populations. Its numbers seem to have been very large. As to the numbers of the nobility there was apparently great difference between one nation and another. Among the Bavarians it consisted only of six families, including that of the duke, whereas in England it appears to have formed a considerable element in the population. The term applied to it here was gesiÐcund, i.e. of gesiÐ origin (cf. p. 350), which indicates clearly a hereditary official or rather military class. Indeed the evidence seems to show that the population consisted of two clearly defined classes, which we may describe as military and agricultural, and that all serious fighting was left to the former. This is another feature in which Anglo-Saxon custom differed from that of the Franks, whose armies in the sixth century appear to have been of a more truly national or even tribal character. With regard to the other nations we have less information; but it is probable that the military organisation of the Danes and other Baltic peoples approximated more nearly to the English type.

In Homeric society we find the same forces operative as in that of the Teutonic Heroic Age. The duty of protecting or avenging one's relatives is frequently mentioned. Thus in Od. XVI 97 f. the disguised Odysseus says to Telemachos: "Hast thou fault to find with thy brethren, for it is in them that a man trusts to do battle, even if a great quarrel takes place?" Telemachos replies (v. 115 ff.): "Nor have I fault to find with my brethren, in whom a man trusts to do battle, even if a great quarrel takes place. For our family has been reduced to one man by the son of Cronos, as I will tell thee. Arceisios begat one only son Laertes, and Odysseus again was the only son begotten by his father; but Odysseus begat me only and left me in his palace without profit to himself. Hence there are now innumerable enemies in our house."

The duty of vengeance is clearly recognised by Nestor in Od. III 196 ff.: "How good a thing it is for even a dead man's child to survive! For he (Orestes) also took vengeance on his father's slayer, the crafty Aigisthos, who killed his famous father." It was in order to escape such a fate that Theoclymenos besought Telemachos to take him on his ship (ib. XV 272 ff.): "I also have left my country, having killed a man of my own tribe (or 'people'). And in Argos, the pastureland of horses, he had many brethren and kinsmen who hold great authority among the Achaeans. I have taken to flight and so evaded death and black fate at their hands; for it is still my lot to wander among men. Now take me on thy ship, since I have come to thee as a fugitive and suppliant, lest they kill me outright; for I am sure they are in pursuit." We are reminded here of the story of Ecgtheo, the father of Beowulf, who fled for protection to the Danish king Hrothgar owing to a similar cause (Beow. 459 ff.). Another case of such exile occurs in Il. XIII 695 ff. (XV 334 ff.): "He (Medon) dwelt in Phylace, away from his own fatherland; for he had slain a man, the kinsman of his stepmother Eriopis, whom Oileus had to wife." We may compare also Il. XV 430 ff. where Hector slays "Lycophron, the son of Mastor, the Cytherian squire of Aias, who dwelt with him; for he had slain a man in divine Cythera."

Among the Homeric Greeks, as in northern Europe, compensation for manslaughter could be made to the dead man's relatives. Thus in Il. IX 632 ff. Aias says to Achilles: "And yet one accepts compensation from a man who has slain one's brother or for the death of a son. Hence it comes to pass that the one, when he has paid a large compensation, remains in his own land, while the other, after he has accepted the compensation, restrains his feelings and his proud spirit." Again, in the description of Achilles' shield we find a scene (ib. XVIII 497 ff.) representing a dispute over the payment of a wergeld. "The folk were gathered in the assembly place; for there a strife was arisen, two men striving about the blood-price of a man slain; the one claimed to pay full atonement, expounding to the people, but the other denied him and would take naught; and both were fain to receive arbitrament at the hand of a daysman[521]." In this case the transaction takes place before certain elders, one of whom is to receive a payment of two talents, apparently as a reward for bringing about an agreement. There is no mention of any payment to the king[522].

From the passage relating to Theoclymenos quoted above (v. 273: p????? ?as????t?? te ?ta? te) we may probably infer that the duty of vengeance extended beyond the brothers of the slain man; and evidence to the same effect is given by the story of Tlepolemos (Il. II 661 ff.). But it is not at all clear how many degrees of relationship were either involved in this duty or entitled to compensation. Indeed the poems give us very little information regarding the character of the kindred. Patronymic forms such as ?t?e?d??[523] are very common and correspond in use to Anglo-Saxon forms such as HreÐling, Wonreding. But they are almost always used of individuals or of a pair of brothers (?t?e?da, d???? ?ppas?da?). Collective names for families, such as ??a??e?da?, ?e??p?da?, seem not to occur in the Homeric poems[524]. Indeed the patronymic is nearly always derived from the name of the father. Cases where they are taken from the grandfather's name, e.g. ??a??d?? for Achilles, appear to be quite exceptional. This is a feature in which Homeric usage differs not only from Teutonic but also, still more, from that of later times in Greece, where we frequently find families or kindreds bearing patronymic names derived from a remote ancestor. As examples we may mention the Aigeidai at Sparta and the Philaidai at Athens.

But the difference between Homeric and later usage in this respect does not seem to be one of nomenclature only. At Athens we find later an elaborate system of 'tribes' (f??a?), phratries or 'clans' (f??t?a?) and 'kindreds' (????), of which the last at all events were supposed to rest on a basis of blood-relationship, involving common religious rites. Divisions of a more or less similar type seem to have existed in the other Greek states. In the Homeric poems however we find extremely little evidence for anything of this kind. The clearest case is in Il. II 362 f., where Nestor instructs Agamemnon as follows: "Divide thy men according to tribes and clans, Agamemnon, that clan may render succour to clan and tribe to tribe[525]." In the battle scenes we hear little of any such organisation, though this may be due to the fact that attention is entirely concentrated upon the leaders. But it is worth noting that the word f??t?? occurs only in this passage[526]. Again, f??? does not occur at all, except possibly in the form ?ataf??ad?? (Il. II 668), while f???? is a word of very vague significance, ranging from f??a ?????p?? etc. to the f???? ???e?s???, i.e. the descendants of a man whose son is still alive[527]. The same is true also of ?????. Lastly, there is no evidence for any religious rites peculiar to certain families or clans.

It would be rash of course to conclude from this that the clan and family system of later times was unknown in the age of the poems; for in itself it bears every mark of antiquity. But there must be some reason for the neglect with which it is treated in the poems. If we examine individual cases we find that scarcely any heroes claim an ancestry of more than three generations. The Achaean families with the longest history are those of Agamemnon and Odysseus; but, if we are to believe post-Homeric tradition, the former changed its territories after the time of Pelops.

This brings us to the question of succession. In Ithaca the throne seems to pass in the regular paternal line; and, though there is really no king after the retirement of Laertes, it is generally expected that the young Telemachos will eventually take his place (Od. I 386 f., II 14). Similarly Nestor has succeeded his father Neleus, while Idomeneus apparently occupies the throne formerly held by his father's father, Minos. On the other hand, according to the story told by Glaucos (Il. VI 192 f.), Bellerophon, a stranger, received half the kingly rights in Lycia with the hand of the king's daughter. Moreover all post-Homeric authorities agree that Menelaos received the throne of Sparta by marriage, from his father-in-law Tyndareos. Similar stories are told of Tydeus, Telamon, Peleus, Teucros and many others[528]. It is to be observed that, though these stories do not occur in the Iliad and Odyssey, they do not conflict with any evidence to be found there. Many of them can be traced back to the seventh century, indeed probably to the eighth.

If we are to trust post-Homeric authorities it would seem that the wife remained in her parents' home quite as often as she went to that of her husband. This state of things however points to the prevalence of a cognatic organisation of society. In the case of Bellerophon indeed there can scarcely be any doubt; for the Lycians reckoned descent through the mother down to the time of Herodotus. The historian himself (I 173) remarks on the custom as strange and without parallel elsewhere—from which we may probably infer that it had disappeared altogether from Greece before his time. Yet in one Greek community we have evidence almost as explicit. According to Polybius, XII 5, the Epizephyrian Locrians stated that with them all ancestral honours were derived from women and not from men, and that even then (i.e. in the second century) their nobility traced their descent from certain women of 'the hundred families' who had taken part in the foundation of the colony. 'The hundred families' were those which before this time had been selected by the Locrians (i.e. the Hypocnemidian Locrians) as the families from which they were to choose the virgins who were to be sent to Ilion. This story seems to imply that cognatic organisation survived in Locris down to the beginning of the seventh century[529]. In other states[530], so far as I am aware, we find only traces of the former existence of such an institution. Some of these however suggest that the change may not have been of any very great antiquity[531].

The Homeric poems themselves contain some further evidence, which points in the same direction. We may note that a number of heroes are said to be sons of gods. But it can hardly be without significance that the Lycian prince Sarpedon (daughter's son of Bellerophon) is the only son of Zeus, who belongs to the story of the Trojan war, whereas in the earlier generations examples are comparatively common. In post-Homeric genealogies the succession of son to father seems to become less frequent the farther one goes back.

In regard to marriage customs the poems show a remarkable absence of uniformity. The story of Bellerophon is by no means the only case in which the wife remains at home, even if we leave out of account such marriages as those of Menelaos and Tydeus, upon which the poems themselves are silent. Alcinoos proposes a union of this kind to Odysseus (Od. VII 311 ff.)[532], and the wife of Iphidamas the son of Antenor appears to remain with her father (Il. XI 225 f.). On the whole however the other type seems to be decidedly more common. Then we have to take into account the use of the word ?ed?a. It is commonly held that this originally denoted the 'bride-price' paid by the bridegroom to the relatives of the bride; and there is no doubt that the word is so used in several passages. In others however it may at least equally well denote presents made to the bride herself; occasionally indeed it appears to mean presents (i.e. a dowry) given by the bride's parents. By far the most prominent case of course is that of Penelope; and here the question is complicated apparently by a doubt as to the proper person entitled to bestow the bride—who is presumed to be a widow. Sometimes the decision seems to rest with her son, Telemachos, sometimes with her father—never with Laertes; but in the end she takes the matter into her own hands, after exacting presents for herself from all the suitors. It has been well suggested[533] that the ambiguity in the situation is due to a real change of custom. But I am by no means convinced that the ancient custom, now being superseded, was one of real purchase. It is made fairly clear (Od. I 396 ff., XV 518 ff., XXII 49 ff., etc.) that at least some of the suitors have ulterior objects in view. That the throne should be conveyed through Penelope seems to us no doubt illogical; for Odysseus himself had not acquired it by his marriage But, if we are right in believing that the type of marriage represented in the story of Bellerophon is earlier than the other, the situation depicted in the Odyssey is one for which ancient custom could not have made provision; indeed in such a situation traditional feeling might very well incline towards regarding the queen, even though a stranger, as the proper channel for conveying the succession. Add to this the practical consideration that Penelope is apparently the person actually in command of the treasury; and we have no reason, so far as I am aware, for doubting that treasury and kingdom were as closely bound up together in Heroic Greece as they were in the Heroic Age of the northern peoples[534]. It has often been remarked that the position of women in the Homeric poems appears to be one of greater influence and responsibility than anything we find in later times. But nowhere is this responsibility made so clear as in the absence of all evidence for the constitution of a regency when the king is away from home.

If the view put forward above is correct we must conclude that a change had been taking place in the organisation of society, and indeed that it was as yet by no means complete[535]. We have noticed that the conditions seem to have been somewhat similar in the Heroic Age of the Teutonic peoples. But we saw also that there the change was apparently accompanied by a relaxation in the bonds of kinship, which shows itself especially in fatal strife between relatives. The same phenomenon appears in the Homeric poems. Thus according to Il. II 662 f. Tlepolemos slew his father's mother's brother, Licymnios, and had to leave his country in consequence. Among Achilles' followers (ib. XVI 570 ff.) was a certain Epeigeus who had taken refuge with Peleus because he had killed a cousin or kinsman (??e????) in his own city. Again in Il. IX 566 f. it is at least implied that Meleagros slew his mother's brothers (in accordance with the story found later). In the same speech (V 458 ff.) Phoinix confesses that he had been on the point of killing his own father. Then there is the tragic history of the house of Pelops. The facts stated in the Odyssey are that Aigisthos slew Agamemnon, his father's brother's son, and that Orestes, the son of Agamemnon, eventually slew Aigisthos. The most important feature in this story is that here we have not only homicide but also vengeance within the kindred. It is not actually stated that Orestes slew his mother; but from Od. III 310 we may infer at least that she perished at the same time as Aigisthos. This is one of the cases in which I suspect that disagreeable incidents connected with royal families have been suppressed (cf. p. 238). Later authorities add many more instances of homicide within the kindred. Some of these, such as the 'banquet of Thyestes,' bear a close resemblance to Teutonic stories which we know to be unhistorical. Others again may have been invented to account for the presence of heroes in districts far from their native place. Yet from the fact that this motive is so frequently employed we may conclude that the murder of relatives was nothing very rare.

In this respect then the Greek evidence agrees entirely with the Teutonic. In both cases alike the bonds of kinship seem to have lost their force to a great extent[536]. But it is to be remembered that among the Teutonic peoples we have in general no evidence except for the families of kings and royal officials; in other ranks of society the kindred may have retained much more vitality—as indeed the laws seem to imply. Such may also have been the case in Greece; for the Homeric poems are concerned almost exclusively with persons of princely rank. Certainly the strength and sanctity possessed by the kindred in early historical times is most easily to be explained on the supposition that the tendency which we have been discussing affected only a limited element in society[537].

The second of the two principles which we find dominant in early Teutonic society, namely that of personal allegiance, seems at first sight to play by no means so important a part in the life of heroic Greece. But for the lack of prominence assigned to it there are special reasons—a different reason in the case of each poem. In the Iliad, which deals with campaign life, the stage is so crowded with kings that there is little room left for persons of humbler station. The only force indeed of which we have any account at all is that of Achilles. This was divided into five troops, each under a leader of its own, in addition to Patroclos and Automedon. We saw in the last chapter that the speech in which Patroclos exhorts his men to battle is entirely in the spirit of the Teutonic comitatus. The appeal which he makes to them is not to any feeling of patriotism, but entirely to the effect that they should show their devotion to their own lord. We may note that several of the chief men, at all events Patroclos, Automedon and Phoinix, seem to share Achilles' hut. The passionate friendship of Achilles and Patroclos appears to be a stronger bond than any other relationship that we meet with in the Homeric poems. But even if we set this on one side as something exceptional, the devotion shown to Achilles by Phoinix is quite in accordance with the best traditions of Teutonic thegnship.

The Odyssey presents us with the picture of a king's house in time of peace. But, though Penelope has not less than fifty women in the house, the only men apparently, besides the suitors and their followers, are Telemachos himself, the herald Medon and the minstrel Phemios, together with the swineherd, neatherd and goatherd who come with provisions each day from a distance But the conditions here are abnormal; the king himself has been away from home for many years, and his son is only just reaching manhood. It is scarcely credible that a Teutonic comitatus could have existed under such conditions. Menelaos appears to have something of a retinue at his court. In IV 22 f. we hear of a ?e??p?? named Eteoneus, who seems to be a person of some rank, as he is called ??e???. In v. 216 f. another ?e??p??, Asphalion, is mentioned, while v. 37 f. speak of several of such persons, though their number is not stated. All that is said of them seems to indicate that their position was much the same as that of the thegns in early Teutonic courts. The picture of the Phaeacian court also bears a general resemblance to that of the Danish court as described in Beowulf.

The use of the word ?e??p?? appears to correspond almost exactly to that of Þegn[538]. In both cases the general meaning is 'servant'; but, just as we find Beowulf described as Hygelaces Þegn, so in the Iliad the term ?e??p?? is applied to such distinguished persons as Meriones and Patroclos. The converse term ??a? also seems to correspond almost as closely to the English dryhten. Like the latter it is used for the master of a slave (e.g. Od. XV 557), while on the other hand it is applied, again like dryhten, to the most important kings—and even deities—in relation to all who recognise their authority. We have already noticed (p. 329) that the phrase ??a? ??d??? seems to correspond very closely to the English phrase eorla dryhten.

There is little or no evidence to show whether it was customary for the sons of leading men to be brought up at the king's court. Patroclos was declared to be the ?e??p?? of Achilles at an early age (Il. XXIII 89 f.); but the circumstances were exceptional. Certainly the ?e??p??te? often came from beyond the king's dominions. Thus Patroclos had come from Opus (ib. XXIII 85 ff.) and Lycophron, Aias' squire, from Cythera (ib. XV 430 f.). It is true that both these persons had had to leave their homes owing to homicides which they had committed; and no doubt many such cases were due to circumstances which rendered a change of abode advisable. Thus Phoinix had sought the protection of Peleus owing to a deadly quarrel with his father. Yet apart from such emergencies the protection and friendship of a wealthy and powerful king probably offered considerable attractions. We may refer to a somewhat remarkable passage in the Odyssey (IV 174 ff.), where Menelaos says that it had been his wish to bring Odysseus to his own country, with his son and his followers and possessions, adding that in order to make a home for him he would have ejected the inhabitants from one of the neighbouring cities which were under his lordship.

Menelaos' intention seems to have been to put Odysseus in the position of a dependent prince. We have seen that Teutonic kings were in the habit of rewarding their knights with grants of jurisdiction; and the same appears to have been the case with the kings of Homeric times. Thus in Il. IX 483 f. Phoinix says that Peleus had made him rich and granted him many followers, and that he had made his dwelling in a frontier district as lord over the Dolopes. This passage seems to furnish almost an exact parallel to the treatment of Beowulf by Hygelac (cf. p. 349). A similar case perhaps was that of Medon, the son of Oileus, who according to Il. II 727 commanded the forces from Methone and the adjacent districts, in the absence of Philoctetes, and who, like Phoinix, was a fugitive from his native land (cf. XIII 695 ff.). Here too we may mention the case of Phyleus, who had left his own country and gone to Dulichion owing to a quarrel with his father (ib. II 629), and whose son Meges commanded the forces from that island. In many such cases of course there may have been a marriage with a princess of the native royal family; but it is hardly necessary to assume that this was universal. In the case of Phoinix indeed such an assumption is improbable.

There seems to be no actual record of a Homeric hero who left his home except under stress of circumstances; and hence, after making all deductions, we are bound, I think, to conclude that the system of the comitatus was not so highly developed as in the north of Europe. This is in full conformity with the fact that kingly families were apparently much more numerous. Among the suitors of Penelope twelve princes belong to Ithaca alone, an island of no great size and probably never thickly populated[539].

For a class of nobility distinct from the princely families we have no clear evidence[540]. Persons like Eteoneus, the squire of Menelaos, may belong to such a class; but it is quite possible that they are princes. We may refer also to the false story told by Odysseus in Od. XIII 256 ff., from which it appears that chiefs with small followings might be expected to place themselves in the position of ?e??p??te? to more powerful chiefs. But Odysseus does not here make clear what rank he claims to have possessed in Crete. Quite possibly the practice referred to might be somewhat analogous to what we find in the Saga of Harold the Fair-haired, where a number of petty kings submit to Harold and take the rank of earls.

The same want of definiteness occurs in regard to the humbler ranks of society. Even the slave's status is not made particularly clear, while there is no reference to the existence of freedmen or to the practice of manumission[541]. Slaves are apparently able to buy other slaves on their own account (cf. Od. XIV 449 ff.). In other respects however their position seems to be very similar to that of slaves in early Teutonic society[542]. Still less do we hear of differences of rank or status within the free population[543]. But it should be observed that the Anglo-Saxon poems give us no more information on such matters. Were it not for the early laws and foreign authorities we should know nothing of the distinction between land-holding and landless peasants, nor even of the great classes of noble, freeman, slave, etc. The true explanation seems to be that both sets of poems alike are interested only in persons of royal rank.

No light is thrown on the social system by the passages which mention the payment of wergelds; for we are not informed whether these were fixed by custom or whether they formed the subject of bargaining in each individual case. In Il. XXI 79 f. Lycaon says that Achilles had sold him into Lemnos for a hundred oxen and that he had been ransomed from thence for three hundred. Even the smaller of these sums is of course much too great for an ordinary slave's price. In the light of Teutonic custom it is possible that both represent standard wergelds, regarded as man-values in general; but one can hardly say that it is more than a possibility. The silence of the poems upon this subject is nothing surprising, for the Teutonic poems yield us no more information.

We may now briefly summarise the results of this discussion. The salient characteristic of the Heroic Age, both in Greece and in northern Europe, appears to be the disintegration of the bonds of kinship, a process which shows itself chiefly in the prevalence of strife between relatives, and which in both cases is probably connected with a change in the organisation of the kindred—agnatic relationship having come gradually to take the place of cognatic. How far this process affected society as a whole we cannot tell, since our evidence is generally limited to the royal families. The binding force formerly possessed by kinship was now largely transferred to the relationship between 'lord' and 'man' (dryhten—Þegn, ??a?—?e??p??), between whom no bond of blood-relationship was necessary. The comitatus was probably not developed in Greece to the same extent as it was in northern Europe; indeed in regard to social development generally the conditions in Greece seem to have been more primitive. Yet in individual cases the bond between lord and man was apparently the strongest force of which we know.

[513] Cf. The Origin of the English Nation, p. 327 ff.