During the Heroic Age of the Teutonic peoples kingship appears to have been practically universal. The Old Saxons may have formed a solitary exception to the general rule; but our knowledge of this people really begins only towards the close of the seventh century.

Much has been written about the various powers possessed by the kings, but it is still by no means clear what they could not do, so long as they had a powerful and contented body of personal followers. If they forfeited the allegiance of their retinues by violence or outrage their power of course was gone at once. In the course of the eighth century several English kings were killed or expelled by their retinues; and in Beowulf (v. 902 ff.; cf. v. 1709 ff.) we hear that a former king of the Danes named Heremod had met with a similar fate. But in early times such cases do not seem to have been common. Again, the numbers of the retinue might decrease through want of generosity or excessive love of peace on the king's part, and he would then be exposed to the attack of any aggressive neighbour or of some member of his own family whom he had offended. The only definite statement however which we possess regarding a limitation of the king's authority is a passage in Ammianus Marcellinus' history (XXVIII 5. 14) referring to the Burgundians—before their conversion—according to which kings were regularly deposed as a consequence of unsuccessful war or famine. The context, though not plainly expressed, seems to suggest that this deposition was carried out by the decision or through the agency of a high-priest whose authority was permanent.

The statement that the kings of the Burgundians were deposed on account of famine points to the survival of a primitive idea of kingship, which credited the ruler with superhuman powers. The kings of the Swedes also, according to Ynglinga Saga, cap. 47, were believed to have control over the seasons[544], like the god Frey from whom they claimed descent; and it is said that two of them were sacrificed in times of famine. In the same saga, cap. 20, it is stated that the members of this dynasty individually were called Yngvi, a name of the ancestral god[545]—which seems to indicate that they were regarded as his representatives. How far such ideas were general during the Heroic Age it is impossible to say, owing to the fact that we have few records dating in their present form from heathen times. Note may be taken however of the peculiar position occupied by the later Merovingian kings[546]. During the last century of their existence as a dynasty their power was entirely taken from them and transferred to a viceroy (commonly known as maior domus)—whose office became practically hereditary in one family. The only duties which were retained by the kings were certain ceremonial functions, which point to a more or less sacral character, so far as was possible in a Christian community. We may note further that in the North there is no evidence for a specifically priestly class; temporal and spiritual power were apparently united in the same person. Among the Angli on the other hand there was such a class, though, in contrast with the Burgundians, the high-priest seems to have been subordinate to the king[547].

In Sweden there was a form of election for kings, which may have had a religious significance. The electors (the lawman and twelve others from each province) stood on huge stones (Morastenar), fixed in the earth, which may still be seen at Hammarby near Upsala. Saxo (p. 10 f.) records the former existence of a similar custom in Denmark. On the other hand the Frankish custom of hoisting a new king on a shield probably meant no more than a proclamation of lordship, as may be seen from the first recorded instance[548]. Whatever the formalities employed, it appears that in practice the reigning king was usually able to secure the succession for his son; but failing such the nearest male relative acceptable to the court would normally be chosen[549]. It was not an unknown thing even for minors to succeed[550]. Frequently we find the kingdom shared by two or more brothers, just like any other property; and on the death of one of them his son was sometimes allowed to take his place, as in the well-known case of Hrothgar and Hrothwulf. On the other hand the survivor might, and apparently often did, refuse any such concession; and consequently struggles between relatives for the possession of the throne were of not infrequent occurrence.

National or tribal assemblies figure prominently in Tacitus' account of the ancient Germans, and among several of the Continental Teutonic peoples they survived down to the seventh or eighth century. At this time they were generally held in the early spring—whence the name Campus Martius applied to the assembly of the Franks. After the adoption of Christianity however they had come to be little more than military reviews for the most part, though at the same time a meeting of dignitaries, lay and ecclesiastical, was held for the transaction of business. In much later times we meet with national assemblies in the North also, especially in Sweden, and there can be little doubt that these had long been in existence. They were used by the kings for the purpose of publishing proclamations, and at the same time they presented an opportunity for coercing or overthrowing a king who had aroused popular resentment in any way. But they appear to have been primarily religious gatherings, for the great annual sacrifices at the chief national sanctuary. It is more than probable however that such was the case also with the assemblies of the ancient Germans[551]. At all events there is nothing to show that, apart from special emergencies, they met more than once, or possibly twice, in the year. In England evidence seems to be altogether wanting for any assemblies which could properly be called national; nor do we find any reference to such an institution in the poems.

It is true that we hear not unfrequently of discussions and deliberations in works dating from the Heroic Age. But although precise information as to the size and constitution of these meetings is seldom given, they appear to be those of comparatively small bodies, similar to the royal councils of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The latter however were nothing more than meetings of the court from the earliest times to which our records go back. When important questions were discussed care may have been taken to summon all the leading men; and no doubt age and high rank ensured priority of hearing, as in the assemblies of Tacitus' day. But still they remained essentially meetings of the king's personal dependents. So far as I am aware, there is no reason for supposing that gatherings like that described by Procopius (Vand. I 22), when Genseric received the embassy from his compatriots in Europe, differed in any way from the meeting called by Edwin in 625 to discuss the adoption of Christianity. Often indeed the persons present are described as ?? ?????? or ?????tat??. Again, in Beowulf we hear more than once of Danish councillors (witan Scyldinga), but there is nothing to show that these were a different body from the members of the court who entertained Beowulf; and it is clear from vv. 778 ff., 936 ff. that their meetings were held in the same building. The old and distinguished councillor who persuaded Genseric to reject the petition of the envoys would seem to have been just such another person as Aeschere, Hrothgar's trusted adviser (cf. p. 350). In the story of Hermegisklos and Radiger also (cf. p. 97 f.) it is clear that the same 'distinguished men of the nation' (?? ??????, ?????tat??) act both as companions of the old king and advisers of his young successor.

In spite of what has been said above there is some evidence for the existence of councils consisting of a fixed number of men, namely twelve, whose position may have differed somewhat from that of the ordinary members of the court[552]. The Old Saxons had a council of twelve which met annually at a place called Marklo, on the Weser; but this case stands by itself, as the Old Saxons had no king. In Sweden however we meet with such councils both in tradition and in historical times, and what we know of them indicates that they were composed of the chief men. Moreover councils of twelve for judicial purposes occur both in provinces and small districts in various parts of the Scandinavian peninsula, as well as in the Scandinavian settlements in the British Isles. The gods too were credited with possessing a council of twelve which had both judicial and sacrificial duties[553]—a fact which is interesting as it points to a connection between the councils of which we have been speaking and bodies of twelve with sacrificial duties, of which we hear in stories relating to heathen times. If we take into account the legend of the twelve Frisian judges (asegen) and the fact that councils of twelve are known to have existed among the Celts and other European peoples, we can scarcely doubt that this type is of great antiquity. Yet there is nothing to show that such councils were at all general during the Heroic Age; in England they seem to be entirely unknown before the period of Scandinavian influence. It is probable therefore that in this, as in other respects, the Swedes had preserved an institution which other kingdoms had discarded.

From the stories quoted above we see that it was customary for the king to consult his council or court when any question involving difficulty or danger arose; and there can be little doubt that he would feel his position strengthened by so doing. But we have no reason for supposing that the opinion of the council possessed anything more than moral force; and consequently it would depend upon the king's strength of character or the security of his position whether he felt himself bound to follow their advice or not. Procopius (Goth. I 2) states that Amalaswintha was coerced by the leading men of the Goths with regard to her son's education; but she was only a regent at this time. Again, in another passage (ib. IV 27) he relates how Hildigisl, a claimant to the Langobardic throne, fled for refuge to Thorisin (Turisindus), king of the Gepidae. Audoin, king of the Langobardi, demanded that he should be given up; and his request was supported by Justinian. Thorisin consulted his distinguished men (?? ??????), but they replied that it would be better for the whole nation of the Gepidae to perish than to commit such an act of sacrilege. The king now, says Procopius, felt himself to be in a great difficulty. For he could not carry out what was demanded against the will of his subjects, and at the same time he was afraid to go to war against the Romans and Langobardi. So he contrived to get the fugitive murdered secretly, obtaining a quid pro quo in the murder of one of his own rivals. It must be observed that Thorisin himself had obtained the throne by violence. So the young Radiger, when he was captured and brought before the English princess, pleaded that he had been forced to renounce his promise to her by his father's commands and the insistence of the leading men (t?? t?? ?????t?? sp??d??). Genseric on the other hand dismissed the envoys in accordance with the old councillor's advice; but we are told that both of them were ridiculed by the rest of the Vandals for so doing. Plainly then there was no question of having to follow the opinion of the majority.

It might naturally be expected that the authority of the council would make itself felt most on the occasion of the king's death; and the story of Radiger seems to bear this out. Yet it is worth noticing what is recorded in Beowulf on an occasion of great emergency. Hygelac, king of the Geatas, lost his life in the disastrous expedition against the Frisians and left an only son, Heardred, who seems to have been scarcely more than a child. Beowulf escaped from the slaughter, and on his return (v. 2369 ff.) "Hygd offered him the treasury and the government, the rings and the throne. She trusted not that her child would be able to hold his patrimony against foreign nations, now that Hygelac was dead." There is no reference to any action on the part of the council or court; but the queen offers the throne to the late king's nephew. The whole passage seems to indicate that the throne with all its rights was regarded very much like any ordinary family property. Its disposition is arranged by the family itself, without any notion of responsibility to others; and the members of the court are not taken into account any more than the servants in a private household.

It may perhaps be argued that court poets would be apt to exaggerate the power of the royal family and consequently that the picture of its authority given here is misleading. Yet Amalaswintha, who was a contemporary of Hygelac, appears to have acted on her own authority when she associated Theodahath, the nephew of Theodric, in the sovereignty with herself after her son's death. There is other evidence also which goes to show that this passage truly reflects the spirit of the times. In the story of Radiger we see how a young princess was able to gather together a huge army and bring about a sanguinary struggle between two nations on account of an insult offered to her by a neighbouring king. Again, Paulus Diaconus (Hist. Lang. I 20) states that the war between the Heruli and the Langobardi was due to the murder of the Herulian king's brother by a Langobardic princess. Even if this story is untrue, it is significant enough that it should obtain credit. To the prominent part played by women in determining the destinies of nations we have already alluded (p. 337 f.). In particular we may call attention to the position of Fredegond and Brunhild, who after the deaths of their husbands practically ruled the kingdom of the Franks. In the seventh century Hygd's action in disposing of the kingdom is easily outdone by Sexburg, the widow of the West Saxon king Coenwalh, who is said to have kept the throne for herself.

There is no doubt of course that the ease with which kings and princes were able to draw their nations into war was due largely to the restless spirit which animated their retinues. Sometimes indeed they appear to have been drawn into war against their own inclination. Procopius (Goth. II 14) differs from Paulus Diaconus in the cause which he assigns for the outbreak of the war between the Heruli and Langobardi. According to him it was due entirely to the fact that the Heruli could not endure a peace of more than three years duration, and consequently forced their king into hostilities. The Frankish king Lothair I is said by Gregory (IV 14) to have been driven into a disastrous campaign against the Saxons from the same cause. In this direction then we may certainly recognise the influence of the court; but the pressure probably came not from the old councillors, but from the younger men who hoped to gain riches and glory thereby.

This brings us to the question of international relations. What is said in the opening verses of Beowulf regarding Scyld Scefing, the eponymous ancestor of the Danish royal family, may probably be taken as a standard description of a typical successful king of the Heroic Age: "He deprived many dynasties of their banqueting halls ... and gained glory after glory, until every one of his neighbours across the whale's road had to obey him and pay him tribute." With increasing wealth however the love of peace frequently reasserted itself, especially perhaps towards the end of the period, by which time the kingdoms had materially decreased in number and consequently increased in size. We now see alliances more and more taking the place of conquest. Theodric organised an alliance not only with the Visigoths but also with the kings of the Thuringians, Heruli and Warni, which extended his influence from the Mediterranean to the North Sea; and his name seems to have carried weight as far as the eastern part of the Baltic. In Beowulf too we see the nations of the Baltic dealing with one another for the most part on friendly terms.

That such alliances were primarily of a personal rather than a national character is shown in two ways. In the first place they were often cemented by marriage. Thus two of Theodric's daughters were married to Alaric, king of the Visigoths, and Sigismund, king of the Burgundians, respectively, his sister to Thrasamund, king of the Vandals, and his niece to Irminfrith, king of the Thuringians, while Theodric himself married a sister of Clovis. We have seen (p. 98) that similar marriages were contracted by the kings of the Warni, while the Frankish royal family was intermarried with those of practically all the surrounding nations. In the North the same custom seems to have prevailed, for in Beowulf one of the Swedish kings, probably Onela, is married to a sister of the Danish king Hrothgar. The term friÐuwebbe (usually interpreted as 'weaver of peace'), which we find applied to ladies of royal rank in Anglo-Saxon poetry, probably owes its origin to this bond of union between kingly families. Such marriages seem to have sometimes taken place after a war, as in the case of Ingeld and Freawaru in Beowulf.

Secondly, we hear of kings entering into a relationship called 'fatherhood' and 'sonship' with other kings. For an example we may cite one of Cassiodorus' letters (Var. IV 2), addressed to a king of the Heruli and informing him that Theodric creates him his 'son in arms' (filius per arma), which is a great honour[554]. The letter is accompanied by a valuable present of arms and horses. Parallels are to be found in much later times. We may refer to the Saxon Chronicle, ann. 924, where the Scottish king (Constantine II) and several other princes in northern Britain accept Edward the Elder as 'father and lord.' It is scarcely to be doubted that in such cases the 'son' is expected to render assistance to the 'father' when required. The king of the Heruli appears to have been in alliance with Theodric[555], while Malcolm I, the successor of Constantine II, was under an engagement with Edmund to be his "cooperator both by sea and by land[556]." The imperium which Bede (H. E. II 5) ascribes to several English kings in all probability involved somewhat similar obligations; and it rested without doubt upon an acceptance of lordship, if not of fatherhood.

After the establishment of overlordship the next stage is that in which the smaller kingdoms are annexed and incorporated by the larger ones—generally in consequence of a revolt. The place of the native king or kings is often taken at first by a member of the victorious dynasty; but such arrangements were seldom lasting, and before long the national organisation was abolished. The completion of this process on the Continent belongs of course to times subsequent to the Heroic Age, while in this country it took place still later. But we can see such changes going on within the Heroic Age itself. At the end of the period the number of Teutonic kingdoms on the Continent was quite small. Several however, such as those of the Alamanni, the Burgundians and the Thuringians, had disappeared within the last half century; in the fourth century they were probably far more numerous. Many of them may have been quite insignificant, like the petty kingdoms which are said to have existed in Norway—eight apparently in the district of Trondhjem alone—down to the time of Harold the Fair-haired. Several of the nations which figure prominently in Tacitus' works had perhaps disappeared still earlier. At all events they are never mentioned either in historical works or traditions referring to the Heroic Age.

The reverse process cannot be traced so clearly. The division of a kingdom between brothers or other relatives does not seem as a rule to have led to a permanent partition. Very often indeed it was apparently no more than a temporary distribution of estates and spheres of jurisdiction, not necessarily in solid blocks[557]. In such cases the kingdom was still regarded as one property, of which the kings were joint possessors. But there can be no question that many kingdoms established on alien soil, e.g. in Britain, were offshoots from other kingdoms.

This consideration brings us to the much debated question of the relationship between kingdom and nation. It has been assumed by many scholars that among the Teutonic peoples the kingdom was a comparatively late outgrowth from the nation or tribe. In reality this problem seems to me to have much in common with that of the hen and the egg. With the earliest kingdoms of all we are not concerned here; it will be enough to mention that our earliest historical notices testify to the prevalence of kingship, though not always to monarchy in the strict sense of the term. In the Heroic Age however we certainly find kingdoms springing up where no nation or tribe, properly speaking, can be said to have existed previously. We may cite the case of Odoacer, who in 476 made himself king in Italy with the help of his troops. In principle we may regard him as the princeps of a comitatus. Then we have to consider the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The Mercian royal family traced their descent from Offa, the ancient king of Angel, while the West Saxon dynasty claimed to be sprung from that Wig, the son of Freawine, who was earl of Slesvig under Offa's father, according to the story preserved by Saxo. But to the origin of the rest the genealogies give us no clue. If they were all of royal origin—and apparently they did claim divine descent—the Angli must have possessed a numerous royal class; and we are scarcely justified in denying that this may have been the case[558]. On the other hand it is by no means impossible that some of them were sprung from foreign peoples, such as the Danes, Swedes or Warni. But what we may regard as practically certain is that the individual kingdoms did not rest upon a national or tribal foundation. There is not the slightest ground for supposing that (e.g.) the East Anglians as a people belonged to a different nation or tribe from the Northumbrians. It is scarcely credible that the first kings were anything else than principes in command of comitatus, whether they set out from the homeland in this position or established themselves at a later date by severing their allegiance from other kings in Britain itself.

Nor is there any reason for supposing that this phenomenon was peculiar to Britain. The story of Waldhere tells of the presence of small Teutonic communities in eastern Gaul, each under a royal family of its own. And not only heroic stories but also historical works relating to the earlier part of the Heroic Age frequently refer to comparatively small bands of warriors—such as that led by the Goth Sarus in Stilicho's time—in various parts of the Roman empire, and even beyond its borders[559]. Such bands may very well have produced communities like the one ruled by Waldhere's father[560]; but it would be absurd to speak of them as nations or tribes. They have clearly far more in common with the military kingship established by Odoacer. The peculiarity of his position indeed lies only in the magnitude of the power to which he attained.

In brief we have to distinguish between two classes of kingdoms in the Heroic Age. In the new kingdoms, settled on foreign soil, we find an essentially military kingship, an imperium vested in a particular family. These kings either established themselves in Roman cities, such as Ravenna, Langres or York, or moved about from one royal estate to another. Of national assemblies we have frequently no trace at all, while the council is identical with the comitatus and consists of relatives and nominees of the king. Such kingdoms often rest on no national or tribal foundations; the king and his comitatus form the nucleus of the organism. On the other hand the older kingdoms, especially in the North, retained many features of a more primitive constitution. The king's position had a religious significance, and his capital, e.g. at Leire or Gamla Upsala, was the chief national sanctuary, at which assemblies, primarily religious but possessing considerable political influence, took place from time to time. It is likely too that the councils here were originally permanent bodies with more or less fixed prerogatives—essentially religious, but yet by no means without political power. Between these two types of kingdoms we find others of an intermediate character, especially in nations which had migrated en masse; and there can be little doubt that during the Heroic Age even the most conservative of the older kingdoms were influenced by the newer type. It is the newer type of course which we must regard as truly characteristic of the Heroic Age.

In post-heroic times again we find a reversion to the national idea of a kingdom, though on a much larger scale. In English history this tendency can be traced from the seventh century onwards. In Bede's works it is clear that such an expression as Merciorum gens (Myrcna maegÞ) had come to mean something more than the royal family of the Mercians with their property and dependents. By the ninth and tenth centuries however this feeling is much more clearly perceptible. We may cite King Alfred's will, where it is clearly recognised that the kingdom should not be divided up as a family property. But it is not until the time of Aethelred II that the full sense of the king's responsibility to the nation finds expression in definite terms.

The form of government which we find depicted in the Homeric poems seems to be not unlike that which we have discussed above. Here too kingship is universal—apparently also without any recognised constitutional limitations to the royal authority. The murder or expulsion of a prince is not unknown; but such cases are due to strife within the royal family. Any differences which we can detect between the authority of Homeric kings and that wielded by early Teutonic rulers may be ascribed partly to the much smaller size of the kingdoms and partly to a social feature noted in the last chapter (p. 363 f.), namely that in many Greek communities kingly or princely rank seems to have been claimed by a number of different families.

The last consideration is especially prominent in the Odyssey[561]. The throne of Ithaca has been in the possession of one family for three generations. Yet in I 394 ff. Telemachos says that there are many kings of the Achaeans, both young and old, in the island, and he expects that one of them will take the sovreignty, now that Odysseus is dead. In Scheria also we hear of twelve sceptre-bearing kings under Alcinoos; but to this case we shall have to return shortly. That a king was not necessarily a person of great magnificence may be inferred also from one of the scenes depicted on Achilles' shield (Il. XVIII 556 ff.), where we find a king in the harvest-field watching the work of the reapers and feasting on the spot. We are reminded here of the story of the Norwegian king SigurÐr SÝr who was summoned from the harvest-field to greet his stepson, St Olaf, and whose state-robes had to be sent to him there in order to enable him to make a suitable appearance[562].

In this connection it is perhaps worth noting that according to the Catalogue of Ships the contingents supplied by several communities were under a number of different princes. Thus the Epeioi have four leaders and the Boeotians five, without counting those from Orchomenos and Aspledon. The troops from Argolis (exclusive of Agamemnon's dominions) are led by three princes, all of whom according to later authorities were related—two of them, Diomedes and Sthenelos, being sons of Adrastos' daughters, while the third, Euryalos, was his brother's son[563]. Diomedes is said to be the commander-in-chief, but as Sthenelos is his charioteer the relations between them are evidently of an intimate character. It is not stated whether all these princes were actually reigning kings, or merely leaders selected for the expedition; but Diomedes and Sthenelos at least have no fathers living.

There is no evidence, so far as I am aware, for any form of election for kings. In the case of Bellerophon we are told that "the Lycians apportioned him a demesne" (t?e??? t???); but it was the king who granted him half the royal rights. And similarly in all other cases the kingly power seems to have been obtained from some relative by blood or marriage. This renders it more easily intelligible that the plural kingship—if such it was—of which we have spoken above, may be due ultimately to family arrangements. It is scarcely necessary to suppose that in such cases the kingdom was always divided into geographical halves and quarters. As to the relationship between the various kings under such an arrangement—e.g. whether the phrase s?p??t?? ??e?t? applied to Diomedes in Il. II 567 means a formal recognition of lordship on the part of his colleagues—we have apparently no precise information.

The religious aspect of kingship is not very prominent in the Homeric poems. When the armies are gathered together to perform a sacrifice Agamemnon acts as priest (Il. III 271 ff.) with the cooperation of Priam, and Nestor seems to take the chief part in sacrifices at Pylos (Od. III 444 ff.). There is no reason for supposing that such cases are exceptional; as in the North (cf. p. 367) the king or chief person seems likewise to have acted as priest. We do occasionally hear of priests of sanctuaries, such as Chryseus at the opening of the Iliad; but no mention is made of state-priests or tribal priests. In historical times the case was otherwise. Thus Athens possessed a state-priest known as as??e??. The name of the office itself shows that it was a relic of the kingship which had been gradually stripped of all except its religious duties. Political power here was transferred at first to an official called ? ?????, whose origin may have been similar to that of the Frankish maior domus. We may note also that at Sparta, where the institution of kingship was preserved in a modified form, priestly functions were among the chief duties preserved by the kings.

The poems themselves do not make it clear that the religious aspect of kingship amounts to more than priestly position, for such phrases as ?e?? ?? t?et? d?? are scarcely free from ambiguity. But later authorities give us much more information in this respect. In the first place we may notice certain legends, such as that of the impious king Salmoneus, who aspired to the functions of Zeus—a story which is now thought by many scholars to have arisen from a misunderstanding. More than one of the early Attic kings also seem to have been regarded as at least partly divine[564]. But above all we have to take into account the statement of Clement of Alexandria (Protr. II 38) that the Spartans worshipped a certain ?e?? ??a????, which has led some writers to assume that Agamemnon was originally a god. In all probability the true explanation is furnished by Tzetzes[565], who says that in early times kings regularly bore the name ?e??. We have an interesting parallel here to the usage of the ancient Swedes[566], whose kings are said to have been called Yngvi (cf. p. 367). In both cases we may probably infer that the king was regarded in some sense as the god's representative; possibly he personated him on certain occasions. Yet it must be remembered that this aspect of kingship is not brought forward in the poems[567]. If our sketch of the history of Homeric poetry is correct in its main outlines, we must conclude that the divinity of kings was not a doctrine to which supreme importance was attached in the courts themselves.

National or tribal assemblies are not often mentioned. In Od. VIII 26 ff. Alcinoos addresses the Phaeacians in their assembly (?????) and declares to them his resolve to assist Odysseus. Again, in II 6 ff. Telemachos calls an assembly in Ithaca. But on this occasion the first speaker, Aigyptios, says that the assembly has not met since the departure of Odysseus, some twenty years before, and further that he wonders who it is who has called them together now. The former statement seems to indicate that such meetings were not held regularly, while the latter at first sight suggests that it was open to anyone to call them, and consequently that they were of a quite informal character—in spite of certain rules of procedure which seem to have been usually followed. But the conditions here are abnormal. The king has disappeared and no one has yet taken his place; Aigyptios is perhaps scarcely prepared to expect that the young Telemachos would summon the assembly. It is true that in Il. I 54 ff. the Achaeans are called together by Achilles, not Agamemnon; but here we have to deal with a confederate army in the field[568], and with a prince who shortly afterwards sets Agamemnon's authority at open defiance. There is scarcely sufficient ground for supposing that a similar course would have been possible at home, when the king was on the spot. Further, it is to be noted that on all the above occasions the notice served is so short that only those in the immediate neighbourhood could attend. On the whole then we are probably justified in doubting whether any definite rules existed as to when the assembly should be called, and indeed whether this body had much in common with the constitutionally regulated assemblies of historical times[569]. It seems rather to be a more or less fortuitous gathering called together on the spot by criers when the king wishes to bring something before the notice of the public[570].

In Od. III 5 ff. we certainly do hear of a great public gathering—indeed we may probably say a national gathering—of a kind which can only have taken place at definitely fixed times. But it is clear that this was essentially a religious festival[571]. Such gatherings may of course have been used for political purposes, as in the North; but we have no information on this subject.

The Achaean 'council of elders' (???? ?e???t??) in the Iliad seems to be a body of quite as informal character as the assembly. On several occasions Agamemnon calls together a small number of princes, namely Nestor, Idomeneus, the two Aiantes, Diomedes and Odysseus, together with his brother Menelaos. This number of course forms only a small proportion of the leading men in the army. Occasionally however we find others summoned, such as Meges and even Thrasymedes and Meriones, who are not the chiefs of contingents. The council of an expeditionary army however is an exceptional case. On the Trojan side we hear of a number of d???????te? with Priam (Il. III 146 ff.), seven of whom are named. Three of them are brothers of the king, while others are fathers of the most distinguished Trojan warriors. They are described as eloquent orators, but no account is given of their deliberations. In the Odyssey references to councils are very rare. No mention is made of such a body in Ithaca. In Scheria however Alcinoos has twelve kings under him (VII 390 f.), who clearly form his council and are to be identified with the 'leaders and rulers of the Phaeacians' Fa????? ???t??e? ?d? ?d??te? who feasted in his hall (VII 98 f., 186; VIII 26, 41, 46 f.), though on Odysseus' arrival they were apparently not all present (VII 189). It may be observed that in the account of the Phaeacian assembly Alcinoos uses the same formula as when he is addressing the princes in his hall: "Hearken, ye leaders and rulers of the Phaeacians." His speech then is directed primarily to the princes—a fact which seems to indicate that council and assembly were not very clearly distinguished. In this connection we may note that in the assemblies of the Iliad, as in those of the ancient Germans, the speaking is almost invariably left to the princes.

So far as the councils of the Iliad are concerned little can be said against the view that Agamemnon calls together from time to time those of the leaders in whom he has most confidence. The same may be true of Alcinoos' council[572]. But on the whole it seems more probable that this is a permanent institution, with definitely fixed numbers and privileges. The 'sceptre-bearing' under-kings are twelve in number, like the councils of so many European peoples in ancient times. The agora where they meet, with its polished stones, is clearly a place specially constructed for such functions and similar apparently to the one described in the trial scene depicted on Achilles' shield (Il. XVIII 497 ff.), where the elders are seated on polished stones 'in a sacred circle.' We are reminded here of the Northern council of the gods—especially as described in Gautreks Saga, cap. 7[573]—and of the 'circle of judgement' (domhringr), which we find at 'chief-places' (i.e. centres of jurisdiction) in Iceland. Possibly too we should refer to the stones used in the election of Scandinavian kings (cf. p. 368). If we take the evidence as a whole it can hardly be denied that the Phaeacian council does seem to show the characteristics of a primitive communal organisation[574]. But it would be unwise to assume that councils of this type were universal in the Heroic Age.

The actual power possessed by the council, whatever its constitution, does not seem to amount to much. Agamemnon is often ready to take advice from some of his colleagues, especially Nestor; and in Od. VII 167 ff. Alcinoos acts on the suggestion of the old Echeneos. Both these cases may be compared with the story of Genseric (cf. p. 369 f.[575]). But it is clearly as individuals that the councillors have influence. In the Iliad Achilles acts on his own initiative and withdraws from the war in open defiance of Agamemnon. But even in the case of home councils—I mean councils of the kingdoms—we never hear of organised action. In Ithaca, where the king is away, no council seems to exist. Nor is any mention made of a council in the story of Agamemnon's death and Orestes' vengeance. This fact deserves to be remarked all the more because we find apparently just the same phenomenon in Anglo-Saxon poetry, e.g. in Beowulf where the proceedings after Hygelac's death are related. The natural inference to be drawn from the evidence is that the councillors were essentially advisers to the king and that after his death or disappearance their standing was gone. But here again caution is necessary. It is difficult to believe that such a description can be true of a council like that of the Phaeacians, however ready they may seem to follow the king in ordinary circumstances.

The cases of emergency arising out of the misfortunes of Odysseus and Agamemnon bring to our attention another curious feature, again possibly analogous to the conditions described in Beowulf, namely that the king does not seem to appoint a regent in his absence[576]. Odysseus has entrusted his household to Mentor (Od. II 226 f.), and Agamemnon has put his wife in charge of a minstrel (ib. III 267 f.); but nothing is said of the kingdom in either case. Are we to suppose that the queen is the person in authority? Presumably, like Hygd, she has command over the treasury; for (as also perhaps in the North) the treasury seems to be connected with the queen's chamber. If it be objected that the absence of any national control apart from the king's (or queen's) personal authority must have been productive of strife, we have only to refer to the stories to see that dissensions, especially between members of the same family, were by no means of rare occurrence.

With regard to international relations warfare between different kingdoms does not seem to be particularly common. Apart from the siege of Troy we hear incidentally of a number of struggles, such as the two expeditions against Thebes, the war of the Aetolians against the Curetes, and those of the Arcadians and the Epeioi against Pylos, while references to buccaneering exploits are frequent. But on the whole the normal state of relations between the various kingdoms is one of peace.

As in the Teutonic Heroic Age, we hear frequently of marriages between different royal families. Agamemnon's offer of one of his daughters to Achilles is part of his attempt at reconciliation and may be compared with the marriage of Ingeld and Freawaru. Menelaos marries his daughter to Achilles' son. Both these cases show that such marriages were not limited to neighbouring families. So also Penelope the daughter of Icarios (whose home is not stated in the poems) has married the king of Ithaca, while her sister is the wife of Eumelos at Pherai in Thessaly (Od. IV 795 ff.). Such marriages would doubtless do much towards promoting friendly relations between the various royal families. Indeed visits paid by one prince to another seem to be nothing very unusual[577]. Autolycos visits his son-in-law Laertes in Ithaca, and Odysseus later goes to stay with Autolycos in the neighbourhood of Parnassos. Helen recognises several of the Achaean princes from the walls of Troy and remarks (Il. III 232 f.) that Idomeneus had frequently been entertained by Menelaos in her old home.

Again, it can scarcely be doubted that the expedition against Troy involves the existence of relations of some kind between Agamemnon and the other kings. But the character of Agamemnon's position in Greece itself is never clearly defined in the poems. According to Od. XXIV 115 ff. he has considerable difficulty in persuading Odysseus to take part in the expedition. On the other hand in Il. XIII 669 we hear of a fine (???) for those who refused to serve[578]. This passage however refers to a native of Corinth, who was doubtless a much nearer neighbour. Indeed the Catalogue of Ships (Il. II 569 ff.) represents the Corinthian contingent as under Agamemnon's immediate command. According to this section of the poem Agamemnon's own territories consist of the north-western part of Argolis, together with at least the eastern half of Achaia, while the rest of Argolis belongs to Diomedes and his colleagues. But in IX 149 ff. (291 ff.) it is clear that Agamemnon possesses part of Messenia, bordering apparently on Pylos (the territory of Nestor). Further, we have to take into account that, apart from the Catalogue, neither poem gives evidence for the existence of anything which can fairly be called a kingdom in the Peloponnesos, except Pylos, Elis and the territories of the two brothers[579]. Taking the positive and negative evidence together it seems probable that Agamemnon and his brother were regarded as ruling over the greater part of the peninsula, though certain cities and districts remained in possession of native princes, perhaps in a dependent position. Again, I am not aware that there is any evidence apart from the Catalogue for supposing that the territories of the two brothers were regarded as definitely marked off from one another. From Il. IX 149 ff., taken together with the references to Sparta and Mycenae, we may infer the contrary. On the whole it seems more probable that we have here to do with a case of divided kingship, as so frequently among the Teutonic peoples, rather than with two separate kingdoms. In that case too we shall obtain a satisfactory explanation of the later tradition (cf. p. 240) which claimed Agamemnon for Sparta or Amyclai.

Beyond his own territories Agamemnon's authority does not seem to be represented as anything more than a somewhat indefinite hegemony—comparable probably with the relationship of Theodric the Ostrogoth to his northern allies (cf. p. 373 f.). The army which he leads against Troy is furnished partly by his own subjects and partly by a number of princes whose positions may have varied from complete dependence to something which may best be described as alliance. A good parallel is to be found in the army led by the Mercian king Penda against Oswio, which according to Bede (H. E. III 24) consisted of thirty legiones under regii duces. Among these were the king of East Anglia and several Welsh kings.

How Agamemnon acquired his imperial position we are not told; for scarcely anything is recorded of his doings before the Trojan war. From Il. II 104 ff. we may perhaps infer that his family had held a preeminent position before him[580], although Pelops was located by later tradition in a different part of the peninsula[581]. Nor again is it made clear whether the hegemony remained with the family after Agamemnon's death. All that can be said is that the Odyssey represents Menelaos as a very wealthy king and that neither the poems nor later tradition give any hint of the rise of a new power in the Peloponnesos before the 'Return of the Heracleidai.' What may be regarded as certain is that no individual Greek prince attained to such a supremacy again, for many centuries after the close of the Heroic Age.

In conclusion we must consider briefly the question how far the Homeric kingdoms rested upon a national or tribal basis (cf. p. 375 ff.). Upon this question the nomenclature of the poems seems to throw some light. In the north of Greece, except the plain of Thessaly, the inhabitants of the various kingdoms bear what are apparently national or tribal names, e.g. ????t??, ??????, ????pe?, ?????e?, ?????te?, ??t????, ?a?te?—probably also F???e? and ????d??e? (?????e?). The same is true of kingdoms outside Greece, e.g. Fa???e?, ???e? and the various Trojan allies. But in the Peloponnesos the only names of this type are ?pe???, ????de? and ?a????e?; for ?????? and ???e??? are not primary national names but derivatives of ????? and ?????, while ??a??? is a name, like Engle, applied to the inhabitants of many kingdoms. This evidence, so far as it goes, tends to indicate that the southern kingdoms rested on a political or military rather than a tribal basis—which is natural enough if we are right in believing that the Peloponnesian Achaeans were an offshoot from the Achaeans of northern Greece. It would seem then that these kingdoms are to be compared with the newer kingdoms of the Teutonic Heroic Age, the nucleus of which consisted of the kings with their military followings; and I am not aware of the existence of any evidence inconsistent with this view. I do not mean of course that these kingdoms were necessarily areas carved out by the sword, like the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. What I mean is that we have no reason for supposing that Agamemnon's subjects believed themselves to be of a different nationality from Nestor's subjects or the rest of the Achaeans and that each of these kingdoms had a separate tribal organisation and tradition of its own.

If our observation is correct it is important to notice that several of the chief Achaean leaders belong to kingdoms which apparently rest on a non-national basis. Among them we have to include not only Agamemnon, Menelaos and Nestor, but also probably Idomeneus; for the name ???te? in the Homeric poems can scarcely mean anything else than inhabitants of Crete. The followers of Diomedes and of Aias, the son of Telamon, likewise appear to bear no national names. The case of Odysseus is doubtful, since his subjects are described both as ??a??? and ?efa????e?. The question is whether he is king of the Cephallenes in general or only king of Ithaca, with a temporary lordship over the rest of the nation. The only 'heroes of the first rank' who clearly represent national kingdoms are Achilles and Aias the son of Oileus.

In the course of this chapter we have noticed many remarkable resemblances between the Homeric and the early Teutonic systems of government. Not all of these however can be regarded as characteristic of the Heroic Age; some have been inherited in all probability from an earlier stage of development. Such are the religious type of kingship, the council of twelve and the national gathering for religious (sacrificial) purposes[582]. The form of government truly characteristic of the Heroic Age in both areas alike is an irresponsible type of kingship, resting not upon tribal or national law—which is of little account—but upon military prestige. Such kingdoms are often of recent origin and without roots in any national organisation. The assembly here, so far as it exists at all, is a gathering summoned at the king's pleasure, while the council consists of an indefinite number of his trusted followers, whose advice he may wish to have from time to time. Lastly, we may observe in both cases a very strong tendency to develop intercourse between one kingdom and another—partly by royal marriages and partly by the cultivation of personal relations between the kings, which generally take the form of a recognition of overlordship, though in varying degree. The general effect of this intercourse must have been to produce something in the nature of an international royal caste, and to break down tribal and local prejudices, at least in the highest ranks of society.

With the end of the Heroic Age the lines followed by Teutonic and Greek political history part company. In both cases, it is true, we find a revival of national feeling. Among the Teutonic peoples however the kingdoms constantly tend to decrease in number and increase in size—partly by the process sketched above (p. 375) and partly by pressure from without. In Greece on the other hand this tendency was brought to an abrupt end[583] by the Thessalian and Dorian conquests, by which the richest parts of the country were brought into the power of populations in a lower stage of civilisation and governed largely by tribal principles and prejudices. The general effect of these movements was to isolate the various communities—not only in the conquered provinces but also in those districts, such as Attica, which remained entirely or comparatively untouched. This isolation in turn was probably favourable to the growth of internal dissensions. In the end at all events no king succeeded in maintaining a personal lordship over the rest of his class[584], even within the smallest communities. The title came to denote an official with constantly diminishing powers, often indeed of an exclusively religious character, while the allegiance formerly owed to an individual was now transferred to the state and its constitution[585]. At a later date, it is true, most of the Greek states again came for a time into the power of individual rulers. But it is not until the days of Philip II, king of the Macedonians, that we find any single man holding an authority over the Greek world such as the poems attribute to Agamemnon.

[544] For analogies to this belief cf. Frazer, Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship, p. 112 ff. Especially interesting parallels are to be found in the region of the Congo; cf. Pinkerton, Voyages and Travels, Vol. XVI. pp. 330, 577.