that is, the Pelasgian side, in the war of Troy. The only two names
which do not appear on the Trojan side, are Vesta, who with Homer is
not personified at all: and Proserpine, who from the seat of her dark
dominion could not share in the wars waged upon earth.
On the other hand, when we turn to the second list of exclusively Greek
names, we find that it contains all the deities who took part against
Troy: and only two very secondary names of deities friendly to it.
Mars and Venus, both engaged on the Trojan side, and one standing in
the first list, are the deities after whom, according to Ovid[517], the
two first months of the Roman year were named in the first age of the
city.
It would not, however, be safe to depend implicitly upon the apparent
reappearance of certain names in the Latin language, without a fuller
knowledge of the laws of discrimination between the early mythology
of the Romans, and the form which their religious system assumed at
the period when they came into free communication with Greece and its
colonies, from which, as they certainly borrowed some names of deities,
such as Pallas and Phœbus, so they may have assumed others too. We have
no proof, for example, that Apollo was prominent, or even that he was
known, in the earliest Roman worship. Cicero[518] says, _Jam Apollinis
nomen est Græcum_. Still, a temple was raised to him in Rome[519] as
early as 430 B. C.; and the Trojan sympathies of most of the deities
in the first list tend in some degree to show both that they were well
known in the Pelasgian religion, and that many of the older portions
of the mythology were common to the Trojans, the early Romans, and the
Pelasgians of Greece.
_Pelasgian Religion less imaginative._
We may more boldly rely upon a general indication, which is offered to
us by the religious systems both of Rome and of Troy, in comparison
with that of Greece.
The large account of Roman deities furnished by Saint Augustine, in
his ‘De Civitate Dei,’ constitutes for us the principal representation
of the great work of Varro, now lost, on the ‘Antiquitates Rerum
Divinarum.’ Notwithstanding the multitudinous development of the
theurgic system, the ‘_De Civitate_’ tends to support the belief that
it was not vivified, like the system of the Greeks, by the intense
pervading power of a vigorous and prolific imagination. The ‘Fasti’ of
Ovid may perhaps be referred to as sustaining the same opinion. And
Heyne in his commentary on Virgil has observed upon the comparative
dulness and dryness of the early mythology of Rome: _Italici mythi
longe a Græcæ fabulæ suavitate absunt; nec varietas grata inest_[520].
In a later portion of this work[521] I shall endeavour to show, that
a similar character apparently attaches to the religious system of
Troy: not so much a purity or simplicity, as a comparative poverty
and hardness; and an indisposition in the inventions to assume those
graceful forms, of which the Grecian Theo-mythology, as exhibited in
Homer, is so full.
And again, when we pass from Homer to Hesiod, we find a great mass
of religious fable, either added by the later poet, or grown up in
the interval between the two. Hesiod’s depositories are much more
numerously peopled: but we have passed at once from the poetry of a
theogony to its merest prose, when we compare his manner of touch or
handling, and his ideas on these subjects, with those of Homer. And, as
on other grounds we may consider Hesiod to represent the Pelasgian side
of the Greek mind, we seem justified in referring the distinctive tone
of his mythology in some degree to his Pelasgian characteristics.
But independently of confirmation from the case of Troy, and from
the tone of Hesiod, the character of the old Italian mythology, so
devoid of imagination, force, and grace, leads us to ascribe these
properties, when we find them abound in the Greek supernaturalism, to
its non-Pelasgian, that is, to its Hellenic source.
_Its ritual development fuller._
When, however, we turn to another form of development in religious
systems, we find the case entirely different: I mean the development
in positive observances of all kinds, and in fixed institutions of
property and class. Here the religion of Rome was large and copious.
Polybius has left upon record, in a most remarkable passage, his
admiration of the Roman system of δεισιδαιμονία, which had, he says,
been so got up, and carried to such a point, that it could not be
exceeded. It was all done, in his opinion, on account of the multitude.
Were States composed of the wise, the case would have been different:
but as the people are full of levity and passion, λείπεται τοῖς ἀδήλοις
φόβοις καὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ τραγωδίᾳ τὰ πλήθη συνέχειν[522].
Not less remarkable is the testimony of Dionysius; who, while he
praises Romulus for the severe simplicity of what he caused to be
taught and held concerning religion, and for the expulsion of immoral
fables and practices, says that he arranged for his people all that
concerned the temples of the gods, their consecrated lands, their
altars, their images, their forms, their _insignia_, their prerogatives
and their gifts to man, the sacrifices in which they delight, the
feasts and assemblies to be celebrated, and the remissions of labour
to be granted in their honour. In no other newly founded city could be
shown such a multitude of priests and ministers of the gods[523], who
were chosen, too, from the most distinguished families[524].
The Fasti of Ovid give an idea of the manner in which the Roman
Calendar brought the ceremonial of religion to bear upon the course
of life. For some centuries an acquaintance with the Calendar was the
exclusive property of the sacred order[525]; and the priesthood turned
to its own power and profit the knowledge, which afterwards filled the
pages of that characteristic work.
Again, we shall have occasion, when considering the distinctive
character of Troy, to notice that the political and ritual forms of
religion appear to have been much more advanced there, than with the
Greeks. This difference will naturally connect itself with the stronger
Pelasgian infusion in the former case. We shall then find that of the
two great kinds of sacred office, one only, that of the μάντις, and not
that of the priest, seems at the time of Homer to have appertained to
the Hellenic races.
And it is not a little curious to observe that, when Saint Paul
arrives among the Athenians, the point which he selects for notice
in their character and usages, after all the intermixtures they had
undergone, is still this, that they are δεισιδαιμονέστεροι[526],
peculiarly disposed to religious observances; and that, not contented
with the gods whom they suppose themselves to know, they have likewise
a supernumerary altar for ‘the Unknown God.’ Nor are we the less
warranted to connect this peculiarity with the original and long
preserved Pelasgian character of Athens, because that city had, for
centuries before, become a peculiarly apt representative of the full
Greek compound: for a system of ritual observance has a fixity,
which does not belong to mere opinion; and, when once rooted in a
country, has powerful tendencies to assume such a solidity as survives
vicissitude: perhaps in some degree on account of its neutral and
pacific character, and of the power it leaves to men of separating
between outward observance and inward act.
Although the opinion has been entertained, that from the earliest ages
it was the exclusive privilege of the first-born to offer sacrifice,
it appears most probable that the separate function of priesthood was,
like other offices and professions, one of gradual formation. Whether
the primitive institution of sacrifice was spontaneous or commanded,
every man, that is to say, every head of a family, was, I shall assume,
at first his own offerer or priest[527]. Then, as the household
developed into the community, the priestly office, in the first stages
of political society, as a matter of course appertained to the chief.
He, by the necessity of natural order, originally united in his own
person the great functions of
1. Father.
2. Teacher.
3. Priest.
4. King.
5. Proprietor.
6. Commander.
The severance of these offices successively would arrive sooner or
later, according as the progress made in numbers and wealth was rapid
or slow. Concentration of employments in a single hand marks the
primitive condition or retarded movement of society, while the division
of labour is the sign of more speedy and more advanced development.
Even the annals of the people of Israel furnish instances in which
we trace, at periods when these offices had undergone division under
divine authority, vestiges of their former union. It appears that,
besides Moses, who consecrated Aaron and his sons by divine command,
Joshua, Samuel, and Saul[528] on certain occasions offered sacrifice.
The exclusive character of priesthood has been impressed upon it,
under Divine Revelation, by positive ordinance, and for a special
purpose[529].
_Order of Priests not Hellenic._
The Hellenes in Homer appear to exhibit it in its earlier state
of union with the office of civil government; and the Pelasgians
to display it as a function which has indeed become special and
professional, but only on that self-acting principle which, in the
progress of society, leads to division of labour.
If we suppose the case of two races, one of them inhabiting a rude and
barren country in a state of perpetual poverty and warfare, and then
recently, by a descent upon more fertile soils, brought into contact
with civilised life: the other of them addicted from a much earlier
period to pursuits of peace and industry, inhabiting plains, and
accustomed to form agricultural settlements; there will be no cause
for wonder upon our also finding that the latter of these races has
a professional priesthood, while the former has none; but that the
sacrificial office remains in the private dwelling with the father
of the family, and on public occasions with the head of the civil
government.
This appears to have been the state of facts as between the Trojans
of Homer who had a priesthood, and the Hellenes who had none: and the
difference may be principally referable to the different condition
and history of the Pelasgian and the Hellic races: while other
causes, belonging to the respective characters of the races, may have
contributed their share towards the production of this curious result.
Partly the greater personal energy and self-reliance of the Hellic
tribes, but partly also the earlier and older ease, wealth, and fixity
of the Pelasgians, are the probable reasons why, at the point of time
exhibited in the writings of Homer, we find priesthood properly a
Pelasgian, but not yet properly an Hellenic, and only to a limited
extent an adoptive, institution.
Thus far, then, we have a presumption, to be greatly strengthened
as I trust hereafter, that the Greek religion owed to the Hellenes
its imaginative, and to the Pelasgians its sacerdotal and ceremonial
development. And this presumption is, I think, in entire accordance
with what we should reasonably anticipate, from relations otherwise
known to have subsisted between the two races. I now pass on to the
subject of language.
_Contributions to language._
In attempting to illustrate the relations of Pelasgians to Hellenes
through the medium of the affinities and contrasts between the Greek
and Latin languages, I am aware that I venture upon ground which
requires to be trodden with great circumspection. For the Latin nation
may possibly have contained within itself some ethnical element not
dissimilar to the Hellenic, as well as one substantially corresponding
with the Pelasgian, factor of the Greek people. And again, there is a
very extended relation of the two languages to a common root in the
Sanscrit. The number of words traceable to such a root has recently
been stated at 339 in the Greek, and 319 in the Latin tongues[530]. We
must not then, it will justly be observed, infer from the simple fact
of resemblance between a Greek and a Latin word, that the one has been
borrowed or directly modified from the other.
Let us begin by considering the just effect of these remarks, and
inquiring whether they do not still leave space enough for an useful
examination.
I begin from the assumption, that there was a deep and broad Pelasgian
_substratum_ both in the Greek and the Roman nations. It is thought,
and it may perhaps be justly thought, that a dominant tribe of Oscans,
who were a nation of warriors and hunters, came among the Pelasgi of
Italy, as the Hellenes came among the Pelasgi of Greece. But while we
may properly assume the identity of the Pelasgian factor in the two
cases respectively, it is quite plain that the compounds or aggregate
characters are broadly distinguished, and represent an assemblage and
admixture either of different qualities, or else of the same qualities
in very different proportions. Therefore we are justified in laying
it down as a general rule, that whatever is found in the language of
the two countries alike was most probably Pelasgian: since, if that
portion of the aggregate language had been supplied from those elements
in which the nations differed, it is likely that a corresponding
difference would have been found to prevail between their modes of
speech.
Again, I think we must distinguish between the simple fact of
derivation from an original source in common, and those degrees or
descriptions of resemblance which show that any given words not only
had one source at first, but that they continued together up to a
certain point in the formative process, so as to be capable, from their
shape, of derivation, not only from that root, but also one from the
other. For instance, the Greek ἐγὼ and the Latin _ego_ are both stated
to be derived from the Sanscrit _aham_. But here it is quite plain that
they have not only set out from the same point, but travelled along
the same road to their journey’s end, as the Greek and Latin words are
identical. On the other hand, if we take the Greek τέσσαρες, and the
Latin _quatuor_, both are referred to the same Sanscrit root, _chatur_:
but neither of them can well have been derived from the other, and each
is more nearly related to the root than it is to the other. Or if we
take the Latin _anser_, the Greek χὴν, and the English ‘goose,’ these
words scarcely appear to have a connecting link: but it is found, and
a remote or mediate connection established, by means of the German
_gans_. Instances might easily be multiplied.
In single cases, where the relationship of words is only of the kind
last exemplified, it would not be safe to draw inferences to the
effect of their being respectively due to this or that element in the
composition of the nation.
But where there is such a similarity as to show either that the word
has advanced nearly to its mature state before the Greek and Latin
forms began to divaricate, or that the Latin form may have been derived
from the Greek in an early stage of the history of the language, or
_vice versâ_, then it seems just to refer the resemblance of terms to
the existence of a powerful common element in the two peoples.
And further, if we shall find that the words standing in close kindred
are capable of classification with reference to their sense, then, when
we have once constituted a class of such words, it may be justifiable
to add fresh words to it on the strength of a more remote affinity,
in virtue of the presumption already created. For instance, if the
names of the commonest objects and operations of inanimate nature are
generally in close correspondence, we may infer a relation between
other words which are in the same class as to meaning, though they may
be not so nearly alike, with more confidence than if the reasoning
as to this latter section were not supported by the former. On this
principle I proceed in the collections of words given below.
Of course the utmost care must be taken to exclude those words which
have been copied from Greek into Latin, after the literary ages of Rome
had begun, and according to the practice which Horace has described and
recommended[531].
_Niebuhr’s propositions._
Niebuhr was, I believe, the first person to draw from philological
sources a conclusion as to the character and habits of the Pelasgians.
He proceeded upon the threefold assertion, (1) that the words common
to the two tongues are presumably Pelasgian, (2) that they for the
most part refer to tillage and the gentler ways of life, and (3) that
we may hence conclude that the Pelasgians were a people given to peace
and husbandry. And conversely, that the words which widely differ in
the two tongues are not Pelasgian, and that the pursuits which they
indicate must have been more peculiarly characteristic of some other
race, that contributed to make up the composition of the Roman nation.
The principles thus assumed by Niebuhr[532] appear, when placed under
due limitation, to be sound; and the only question is, whether they are
supported by the facts of the case. If in a given language we find the
words indicative of a certain turn of life to have been derived from a
particular race, which forms part of the nation speaking that language,
while other words, referable to other habits and pursuits, have been
supplied by other races also numbered among its constituent parts, it
is just to read the characters of those races respectively through the
character of the words that they contribute to the common tongue. For
the question is really one of forces which may have been adjusted with
as much accuracy, as if they had been purely mechanical. The ordinary
reason why a word of Pelasgian origin prevails over a word of Hellenic
origin with the same signification, or the reverse, is that it is in
more or in less common use: and the commonness of use is likely to be
determined by the degree in which the employment or state of life, with
which the word is connected, may belong to the one race or the other.
The survey taken by Niebuhr appears to have been rapid; and the list
of words supplied by him is very meagre. Bishop Marsh[533] and other
authors have, with a variety of views, supplied further materials. The
most comprehensive list, to which my attention has been directed, is
in the ‘Lateinische Synonyme und Etymologieen’ of Döderlein[534]. The
subject is essentially one which hardly admits of a fixed criterion or
authoritative rule, or of a full assurance that its limits have been
reached. Mindful of the reserve which these considerations recommend, I
should not wish to lay down inflexible propositions. But I venture to
state generally, that those words of the Latin and Greek tongues, which
are in the closest relationship, are connected
1. With the elementary structure of language, such as pronouns,
prepositions, numerals.
2. With the earliest state of society.
3. With the pursuits of peaceful and rural industry, not of highly
skilled labour.
_Classes of words which agree._
Examples, numerous enough to show a most extensive agreement, will
readily suggest themselves under the first head. To illustrate the
other propositions, though it can only be done imperfectly, I will
follow both the positive and the negative methods. The first, by
comparing words which denote elementary objects, both of animate
and inanimate nature, or the simplest products of human labour for
the supply of human wants, or the members of the human body, or the
rudiments of social order. The second, by contrasting the words which
relate (1) to intelligence and mental operations, (2) to war, and (3)
to the metals, the extended use of which denotes a certain degree of
social advancement. It will I hope be borne in mind, on the one hand,
that these lists are given by way of instance, and have no pretension
to be exhaustive: and, on the other hand, that exceptions, discovered
here and there, to the rule they seem to indicate, would in no way
disprove its existence, but should themselves, if purely exceptions, be
treated, provisionally at least, as accidental.
Class I.--_Elementary objects of inanimate Nature._
ἔρα, terra
ἀήρ, aer
αἴθηρ, æther
αὖρα, aura
ἀστήρ {astrum
ἀστέρος {stella
{sterula
κοίλον, cælum
ἥλιος, sol
σε-λήνη, luna
νὺξ, nox
(Ζεὺς) Διὸς, dies
πόντος, pontus
ἃλς } sal
θάλασσα } salum
πόλος, polus
λυκὴ in λυκάβας, } lux
λεύσσειν }
χείμων, hyems
ἔαρ, ver
ὥρη, hora
ἑσπέρα, vesper
νέφος {nubes
{nebula
(νιψ) νιφος, nix, nivis
δρόσος, ros
ὕετος {fluvius
{pluvia
ῥῖγος, frigus
χάμαι, humus
πευκὴ, pix
κῆπος } sepes
σῆκος }
λακκὸς } (_a pit_), lacus
λάχυς }
ἄμπελος, pampinus
ὕλη, sylva
φύλλον, folium
ῥόδον, rosa
λαὰς, lapis
ἄγρος, ager
ἄρουρα, arvum
ἄντρον, antrum
φῦκος, fucus
σπέος } spelunca
σπήλαιον }
ἴον, viola
σκόπελος, scopulus
ὕδωρ, sudor.
Class II.--_Elementary objects of animated Nature._
θὴρ, fera
λύκος, lupus
καπρὸς, aper
λέων, leo
ἔγχελυς, anguilla
ἴχθυς, piscis
ὠκύπτερος, accipiter
κύων, κύνος, canis
ὄϊς, ovis
βοὺς, bos
ταῦρος, taurus
ὓς, sus
ἵππος, equus
πῶλος, pullus
οὖθαρ, uber
ἄμνος, agnus
κριὸς, aries
ἀλώπηξ, vulpes.
Class III.--_Articles immediately related to elementary wants and to
labour._
1. DWELLINGS.
δόμος, domus
οἶκος, vicus
θύραι, fores
κληΐς, clavis
ἕδος, sedes
αἰθάλη, favilla
θάλαμος, thalamus
λέχος, lectus.
2. FOOD.
οἶνος, vinum
ἔλαια, olea
ἔλαιον, oleum
ὦον, ovum
μῆλον, malum
σῦκον, ficus
τρύγη, fruges
ἀ-τρύγετος, triticum
σῖτος, cibus
γλάγος, } lac, lactis
γάλα, γάλακτος }
κάλαμος, calamus
κρέας, caro
μέλι, mel
δαὶς, dapes
κοινὴ, cœna.
3. CLOTHING.
ἐσθὴς, vestis
χλαῖνα, læna.
4. TOOLS AND IMPLEMENTS.
ἄροτρον, aratrum
ζεῦγος } jugum.
ζύγον }
5. NAVIGATION.
ναῦς, navis
λίμην, limen
ἐρετμὸς, remus
κυβερνήτης, gubernator
ἀγκύρα, ancora
ποὺς, pes.
Class IV.--_The constituent parts of the human body, the family,
society, and general ideas._
1. THE HUMAN BODY.
κεφαλὴ, caput
κόμη, coma
ὦμος, armus[535]
μῆρον, fe-mur, moris
παλάμη, palma
ποὺς, pes
ὄδους, οντος, dens, dentis
λάπτω, labrum
δείκνυμι, digitus
λὰξ, calx
ἦπαρ, jecur
ἔντερον, venter
ἕλκος, ulcus
κέαρ } cor
καρδία }
γόνυ, genu
μύελος, medulla
ὄστεον, os (ossis)
ὤψ, os (oris).
2. THE FAMILY.
πατὴρ, pater
μήτηρ, mater
υἷος, filius
φρήτηρ } frater
φρήτρη }
ἕκυρος, socer
χήρη } heres
χηρωστῆς }
γένος {gens
{genus.
3. SOCIETY.
(ῥέζειν) ῥέξας, rex[536]
ἐλεύθερος, liber
τέκτων (στέγω), cf. tectum (tego)
φὼρ, fur
παλλακὶς, pellex.
4. GENERAL IDEAS.
νεύω, numen
θεὸς, deus
ὄνομα, nomen
μόρφη, forma
ἲς, vis
ῥώμη, Roma, robur
κνίσση, nidor
ὄδμη, odor
φήμη, fama
φάτις } fatum
φάτον }
βίος, vita[537]
μόρος, mors
ὕπνος, somnus
ὀδύνη[538], odium
ἄλγος, algor
γεύω, } gustus
γεύσω }
ἦνις, annus
λήθη } lethum
λήτω }
δόσις, dos
δῶρον, donum
φυγὴ } fuga
φύζα }
αἴων, ævum.
Class V.--_Adjectives of constant use in daily life._
μέγας, magnus
παῦρος {parvus
{paucus
πλατὺς, latus
ἄγχος }
ἄγκιστρον } {uncus
or} {angustus
ἄγοστος }
κυρτὸς, curtus
γῦρος, curvus
πυρρὸς, furvus
ἐρυθρὸς {ruber
{rufus
παχὺς, pinguis
βραχὺς, brevis
βραδὺς } tardus
βαρδὺς }
χαὸς, cavus
τέρην, tener
πλέος, plenus
μείων, minor
μάσσων, major
νέος, novus
ἄλλος, alius
ὄρθος, ordo[539]
ὕπτιος, supinus
γραῦς, gravis
λεπτὸς {levis
{lentus
λεῖος, lævis
γενναῖος, gnavus
δέξιος, dexter
ὅλος, solus
ἡδὺς, suavis
πικρὸς, acris[540].
_Classes of words which differ._