He treats the Greek nation as made up chiefly of two ingredients, the

Dorian and the Pelasgian. He takes the Greeks of the Trojan Epoch to

have been Pelasgian, and so to have continued until the return of the

Heraclidæ. Then, according to him, began the Hellenic, which he treats

as synonymous with the Doric, preponderance; and, having Sparta before

him as the one great Hellic type, he observes that the race was far

better adapted “for the arts of war and self-government, than for the

softer arts of poetry and peace[588].”

But the supposition of a Pelasgic supremacy in Homeric Greece, is

contrary to all the evidence afforded by the text of Homer, and, I

think we may add, to the belief alike of ancient and of modern times.

Even the limited part of the Homeric evidence which is connected with

the names Ἕλλας and Ἕλληνες, seems large enough to overthrow any such

hypothesis. Though the Dorian race was Hellenic, it was apparently

a late outgrowth from the stock, and has no pretension whatever to

be considered as the universal type of its products. In Sparta, the

excessive development of policy was doubtless unfavourable to human

excellence in other forms; among others, to poetry and art. Still,

neither verse, music, nor architecture are disconnected from the Dorian

name and race. It seems quite impossible to refer the war-poetry of

the Iliad, the grandest in the world, for its origin to a people so

unwarlike, in reference especially to the changeful, romantic, and

poetic side of war, as the Pelasgi.

The adventurous tone and tenour of the Odyssey, and its wide range over

the world, and over the sea, are as little in keeping with what we can

see of Pelasgic habits in the heroic age. Above all, that largeness and

unimpaired universality of type, which belongs to human character as

drawn by Homer, and especially to Achilles and Ulysses, demonstrate (I

cannot use a weaker word) that all the materials of Grecian greatness

were in his time fully ripened.

_Pelasgian sense of beauty._

At the same time it is not necessary to deny, that the Pelasgians

may have been endowed with a high sense of beauty. Not that Homer

appears to have had a vivid conception of beauty in connection with

architecture, their great reputed accomplishment; for he seems, on the

contrary, to have had little idea of ornament in buildings, beyond

the blaze of plates of polished metal: far different here from what

he shows himself to be in dealing with dress, or armour, or the forms

of men and horses. But we have before us the fact that through Athens

itself preeminently, and likewise through its colonies to the east, the

Greek race earned in after-times the very highest honours in poetry

and the fine arts. On the one hand, however, a large share of these

honours, especially in early times, fell to the share of the race

called Æolian, which was clearly Hellic, and a principal part of the

Hellic family. On the other hand, Arcadia, which remained more purely

Pelasgian, while Athens received all sorts of mixtures, never attained

to high distinction in art, nor rose above a modest and tranquil strain

of verse. The great tragedians and the great artists were of a race

the most composite in all Greece. The natural inference would seem to

be, that whatever the Pelasgians may have contributed to the general

result, however they may have afforded for poetry and art (as also they

did for war) a good raw material, it was only when in combination with

other elements from other sources, that they could attain to great

practical excellence. A lively sense of beauty is, doubtless, not only

a condition, but even a foundation: yet a great organising power is as

necessary for the production of the great works of imagination, as

it was to Lycurgus for the Spartan constitution, or to Aristotle for

philosophical analysis and construction; and this was the commanding

and sovereign faculty in a mind such as that of Homer.

The connection between the Homeric Greeks and the traditions of

huntsmen is, I think, sufficiently evident from Homer. His hunting

legends, and the multitude of his hunting similes, are so many signs of

it; and many indications, I think, concur towards forming a belief that

the Greeks owed their fondness for the chace to their Hellic, not to

their Pelasgic habits and blood.

I take first the relation between Achilles and his instructors.

Chiron was the teacher of Achilles in the surgical art, while Phœnix

had charge of his higher education. Surgery and war would obviously

go together. But Chiron too gave his father the ashen spear from

Pelion, which none but Achilles could wield: he was the most civilized

(δικαιότατος) of the Centaurs, the one to whom the ideas of right, on

which society is founded, were most congenial. But he seems to dwell

on Mount Pelion, not like Phœnix, in the court of Peleus; he is,

therefore, without doubt, a huntsman, and is in fact a link between the

old and rude, and the new and more civilized life of the Hellic tribes.

Again. Of the Hellic legends of Homer, which are not in all very

numerous, two have hunting for their subject: as,

1. That of the Calydonian Boar in Il. ix.

2. That of the visit of Ulysses to the court of Autolycus, in Od. xix.

Now these two legends are the only ones in the poems, that do not

relate to war. Though the Trojans dwelt by Ida, we never hear of their

hunts: but their princes feed sheep upon its slopes, or tend horses in

the plain below.

_Evidence as to hunting._

Even apart from particular evidence, we might presume that, if the

nation derived its warlike turn from a Hellic source, so it must

likewise have been with hunting, which was next of kin to war.

Lastly, if this supposition be correct, it helps to account for what

is otherwise an anomaly in the poems. Diana fights on the Trojan side:

yet we find no evidence that she was worshipped among the Trojans, or

even known to them in the character, in which she has the greatest

mythical celebrity. She is mentioned but once, I think, among them; it

is by Andromache, and that is as having put a period to her mother’s

life[589], nowhere in her character as a huntress. But among the Greeks

she constantly appears otherwise than as in connection with death. Her

epithets, ἀγροτέρη, κελαδεινὴ, ἰοχέαιρα, are far more suitable to the

huntress, than to the more solemn function of the ministry of Death

among human beings. Again, Helen is compared to her in appearance.

The calamities of the Kalydonians came upon them in consequence of

their neglect as to her worship on a particular occasion[590]; and the

particular punishment inflicted is the sending a wild boar upon them.

Nausicaa[591] is elaborately compared to her, and in this simile she is

described as hunting in Taygetus and Erymanthus. Thus while among the

more Pelasgic Trojans, she appears only in virtue of the relation to

death which (we shall find) she holds from a traditive source[592]; it

is the Hellic influence, which superadds the mythical and imaginative

attributes of the beautiful huntress: and which, in so doing, supplies

a marked proof of the addiction of the Hellic tribes to that pursuit.

_Evidence as to navigation._

It is not easy to judge whether the turn of the Greeks for navigation

ought to be referred in any degree to a Pelasgian source. Plainly, if

there was such a source, it was not the main one. We have seen that

only the most elementary words connected with propulsion by rowing,

appear to bear any sign on them of proceeding from that stock. We

cannot argue from the maritime excellence of the Athenians at a much

later date to their nautical character in the time of Homer, on account

of the important ethnical changes, which in the mean time they had

gradually, but most thoroughly, undergone. On the other hand, our

finding the pure Pelasgian population of Arcadia resorting to the

inland country, and wholly destitute of ships, affords a negative

indication. A stronger, and indeed very remarkable one, is supplied by

the total want of ships among the Trojans, notwithstanding that their

situation was one highly favourable to the acquisition of maritime

power. Yet Paris needed to have ships built for him in order to effect

his tour[593], and the building of them appears in the Iliad as

having been an event of much note in Troy. On the other hand, Homer

is full of indications of the locomotive tendencies of the Hellic

races. Among these may be mentioned, the wide circle embraced in

the adventures of Hercules: the offer of Menelaus[594] to accompany

Telemachus on a journey about Greece: the sojourn of Neoptolemus[595]

in Scyros: the frequent visits of Idomeneus[596] to Sparta before

the war: the marriage of Theseus[597] to a daughter of the king of

Crete: the journey of Nestor[598] into Thessaly: the pleasure visits

of Autolycus to Ithaca, and of the young Ulysses[599] to Autolycus:

the evident familiarity of the Poet with the idea of travelling to

recover debts[600]: the existence of places of wide resort for Games

and Oracles[601]: the custom of assembling from a group of districts

at the funerals of great men[602]: nay, the very choice of the voyages

of Ulysses for the subject of so great a part of the Odyssey, and the

lengthened tour of Menelaus. And while the Pelasgians appear to be akin

to the land-loving Egyptians, we have found the Hellenes to be strongly

sympathetic in character with the Phœnicians, the great masters of

navigation in the heroic age.

From the speech of the Pseudo-Ulysses in the Fourteenth Odyssey, we

have the strongest evidence that navigation and agricultural pursuits,

which were those of the Pelasgians, stood in sharp opposition to one

another. He could not bear tillage, but loved ships and war[603].

ἔργον δέ μοι οὐ φίλον ἦεν,

οὐδ’ οἰκωφελίη, ἥτε τρέφει ἀγλαὰ τέκνα·

ἀλλά μοι αἰεὶ νῆες ἐπήρετμοι φίλοι ἦσαν

καὶ πόλεμοι καὶ ἄκοντες ἐΰξεστοι καὶ ὀïστοί.

It is also plain, from two circumstances at least, that Homer regarded

travelling as one great means of mental and practical culture. One is,

that he describes this benefit as attained in the case of his great

hero Ulysses;

ὃς μάλα πολλὰ

πλάγχθη ...

πολλῶν δ’ ἀνθρώπων ἴδεν ἄστεα, καὶ νόον ἔγνω[604].

The other is that, in the very remarkable simile of the Thought, he

treats travelling as the great stimulus to the growth of the mind of

man:

ὡς δ’ ὅτ’ ἂν ἀΐξῃ νόος ἀνέρος, ὅς τ’ ἐπὶ πολλήν

γαῖαν ἐληλουθὼς φρεσὶ πευκαλίμῃσι νοήσῃ·

ἔνθ’ εἴην, ἢ ἔνθα· μενοινήῃσί τε πολλά[605].

Both as to navigation then, and as to locomotion, which stand nearly

related to each other, it would seem that we ought probably to regard

the Hellic stock as the parent of the Greek accomplishment.

_Summary of the case._

After this laborious and microscopic investigation, we may now be

justified in taking a survey more at ease of the ground which we have

traversed so slowly, and in endeavouring to embody our general results

in a rude sketch of the succession, places, and functions of the two

great races of early Greece.

Relying, therefore, upon what has been produced in the way of proof,

I will proceed to fill up its interstices with such conjectures as

probable reasoning will supply.

The Greek nation was originally formed of two great coefficients, the

Hellic and Pelasgic races respectively: and there is no evidence, that

any other race entered largely into its composition, or modified it

sensibly: although individual foreigners or companies of emigrants,

which left little impression on the names of districts or races, may

notwithstanding have exercised a powerful influence from time to time.

We may consider the Leleges, Caucones, and other pre-Hellenic tribes as

branches of the Pelasgian family, or as akin to it rather than to the

Hellic stem.

There is Homeric and post-Homeric evidence, which seems to shew us the

Pelasgians established through Greece from Macedonia in the north,

to Crete in the south: as well as in Italy, and elsewhere beyond the

borders of Greece.

It is on the whole most probable, that the Pelasgians principally

entered Greece from the south by Crete; but they may have entered

it in both directions. In either case, there is no other people

to dispute with them in continental Greece the title of its first

regular settlers. They chose their habitations in the plains, and

were essentially a lowland people. It is even likely that they derive

their name from this characteristic, and that it marks them at once as

agriculturists.

As respects the religion of Greece, its most essential features were

probably common to the two races: a principle illustrated by the fact

that the Helli, by a kind of natural succession, become the wardens and

interpreters of the great Pelasgian shrine of Jupiter at Dodona.

The first form of the religion of Greece was probably due to

the Pelasgians; and moreover it would appear to be from them

that it received, in the main, its ritual and hierarchical, as

contradistinguished from its imaginative, development. They appear to

have incorporated it in visible institutions, and to have given social

order to the country; probably in that form in which men live sparsely,

and not in the large aggregations of considerable cities. But social

order in any form implies some means of defence against the lawless:

and we must view the Pelasgians as having introduced the construction

of works of this class, which were then of prime necessity to the

existence of communities. Their standing pursuit was evidently that of

agriculture: the only link of connection established by Homer between

them and the beautiful in art, is the doubtful one of the epithets

περικαλλέα and καλὰ[606] applied to the architecture of the palaces of

Priam and Paris respectively.

In general, the Pelasgian race, though without the vivid temperament of

the Hellic tribes, yet would appear to have been both brave and solid

in character.

The stream of Pelasgic immigration, flowing chiefly northward, is met

by the counter-stream of Hellic tribes, proceeding from the highland

nation of the Helli, which had taken its seat in the mountains to the

north of Thessaly.

They in their southward course overspread the same countries which the

Pelasgi had already occupied; successive tribes of immigrants going

forth from the parent stock at different times, as the pressure of

population on the means of subsistence required it, and under different

names, taken in all likelihood from their leaders.

In the nest of mountaineers, barbarism, or at least rudeness,

continues: but as the young broods go forth, and make their way into

more favourable conditions of physical and social life, their great

capacities for development find scope, and they rapidly assume a new

character.

By their greater energy and activity, they became everywhere the

dominant race. Policy and war fell into their hands: they supplied the

more vigorous, intellectual, and imaginative element in the wonderful

composition of the Greek mind. Of the Pelasgian imagination it is

difficult to speak in a definite manner: but it probably had not that

masculine tone, and energetic movement, when alone, which marks the

mind of Greece.

Far more expansive than their Pelasgian antecessors, the Hellic tribes

availed themselves of the great advantages which the country offers

for extended navigation, which was so essential as a means both of

communication, and of attracting the elements of civilization from

abroad. They were apt pupils under apt instructors, the Phœnician

mariners. They developed the Pelasgic religion into their more enlarged

and diversified mythology: they idealized the visible world together

with human nature, and established those peculiar and pervasively

poetical relations between the seen and the unseen spheres of

existence, which are the basis of the Greek mythology. Their keen sense

of the beautiful led them to adorn both the body and the mind of man

with the attributes of deity, while their imaginative power continually

prompted them both to clothe celestial objects in shapes borrowed from

the visible world, and to equip the gods with sentiments and passions

drawn from the sphere of every day experience.

They likewise brought with them the gymnastic element of the Greek

system, the education of the body; and they made provision for this

education, in conjunction with a powerful means of national union, in

the Games which became so famous through so many ages.

The same qualities which found employment in fashioning the relations

of earth to heaven, were likewise busy in uniting the past with the

present, by the agency of history in the form of song.

Of this race were the Achæans, who by their power and extension through

Greece, gave to it and to its people their first famous designation,

that which they bore in the Homeric times. From the same source

proceeded all the Hellenes, derivatively so called, and the Myrmidons.

Under the great Achæan name, understood in its special sense, are

probably included with the Pelopids, the Pylians, Cephallenians,

Epeans, Myrmidons, Loerians. Nor can we be certain that it did not also

include those Æolid families whose power and extension subsequently

impressed large portions of Greece with the Æolian name.

While imperial cares and aims, and the refinements and enjoyments,

together with the stir, movement, and solicitude of life, fell to the

Hellic portion of the Greek societies, and took its form from them,

the Pelasgian element, though depressed below the surface, continued

to live and act with vigour; it predominated in the classes which form

the solid _substratum_ of society, those on which rural industry, if

not those on which mechanical pursuits depended, and from which the

upper surface, when exhausted by the prolonged performance of its

functions, may draw in every society successive stocks of new materials

to renovate its vital forces.

While Homer himself seems to represent the unbounded wealth and

fulness, and the manifold and versatile power, of the composite Greek

mind, we appear to have, in the rural strains of Hesiod, if not in the

unenlivened theogonic traditions ascribed to him, the just and natural

exemplification of all that we might expect in a Pelasgic poet.

_States especially Hellic or Pelasgic._

In later, as well as in Homeric times, the Arcadians seem in the most

marked manner to have exhibited the Pelasgic aspect of the Greek mind

and life: and they show it much in the same relation to the Hellic

races, as that of the Saxons to the Norman chivalry. Like the Saxons,

it was not in bravery that they failed: they were ἐγχεσίμωροι and

ἐπιστάμενοι πολεμίζειν: but in energy and passion, and likewise in

governing and organizing powers, they were beneath the competing race,

and therefore they gave way: while, from their enduring and solid

qualities, they were well qualified in after generations to supply the

greater waste caused by a more vivid temperament and keener action in

the soil above them.

Among the Spartans we find developed, in a very peculiar degree, two

of the imperial elements of the Greek character. The first is that

political faculty of the Hellic races, by which, as Strabo says, they

preserved their ἡγεμονία from the time of Lycurgus, down to the fifth

century.

And the second is, the idea of the education of the body, as an

essential and main part of human training: a sentiment which to us may

seem narrow, but we must remember that the Greeks kept fully in their

view what we have dropped from our theories, though it may be hoped,

not wholly from our practice, namely, the influence of bodily exercise

and discipline in forming mental qualities and habits.

It was to Attica, however, that was reserved the offices of exhibiting

in the fullest degree the manysidedness of the Greek character: and

the efficient cause, by which she was fitted to fulfil this function,

probably may have been that constant infusion of new blood by the

successive immigrations of the different Greek races, without the

absolute displacement of any of them on a large scale, which, as we

have seen, Thucydides remarks to have been her special characteristic.

Hence she always exhibited both the ancient and the fresh; both, too,

in the highest degree; urging, like Arcadia, the autochthonic origin of

her population, which must refer to its Pelasgic element; contending

with that state, and with Argos[607], for the honour of the traditions

touching Pelasgus and the worship of Ceres; but richer at the same time

than any other Greek State, in the varied aggregate of the qualities,

which the composite or entire Greek mind appears to have owed to

Hellic infusion. Hence the breadth of the transition which, according

to Herodotus[608], she had made from the Pelasgic to the Hellenic

character: and yet she had made it without any visible breach in the

continuity of her social and political traditions.

Though Thessaly was the country in which, to all appearance, the Hellic

tribes, coming down from the poverty and rudeness of their highland

life, first began to develope their amazing powers, and to acquire

civilization, yet it was rather, so to speak, their caravansera or

halting house, than their abode.

The Helli, thus travelling through Hellas, give it a name, and receive

from it one in return; so that when they pass on to the southward,

they are no longer Helli but Hellenes, and have only a secondary

and derivative relation to their original home and stock. It is

intelligible, that they should not wish to claim too close a kindred

with the ἀνιπτόποδες χαμαίευναι of Homer[609], although most ready to

own the relationship in solemn appeals to the ancient seat of Jupiter.

Even in Homer’s time, they had advanced very far ahead of the habits

thus ascribed to them: for when the Greek chiefs return from the

Doloneia, they first wash in the sea, then pass into the bath, and

thirdly are anointed, before they begin their well-earned meal[610].

The rapidity of their growth in numbers, and of their propagation

southwards, might be due to their having settled on a fertile plain;

while necessities, arising from the vicissitudes of climate, would

be the probable and less copious cause of migration from the hills.

But in any case, whether from the rapidity of their passage through

Thessaly, or from their having actually occupied no more than a small

portion of it, they left it in the Homeric, and apparently also in

the Hesiodic period, still partly impressed, as they must have found

it, with the Pelasgic name[611]. The prolonged existence of this

appellation indicates in part perhaps the predominance of the Pelasgic

element in this country, in part the fugacious character of the Hellic

settlement, of which only the Achæan portion lived through the historic

times in such a degree of force as to maintain its visible identity:

this, too, according to post-Homeric tradition, was peopled by the

Myrmidons from the south, and not directly from the region of the Helli.

Thessaly, then, was the nursery or cradle of the Hellic or Hellenic

races, but it was no more. Consequently with the lapse of time, as it

wanted the true mixture of ingredients, Thessaly became less and less

Greek in its essential habits and sympathies: while from its preserving

a federal constitution, under a federal head, the τάγος, we may also

refer to its more Pelasgian character the apparent fact, that it was

not so liable to political change, or νεωτέρισις, as were the less

Pelasgian parts of Greece. When, after centuries of vicissitude, the

outward notes of its original blood were almost gone, Pelasgian feeling

still survived: for Thucydides relates that, when Brasidas entered

Thessaly at the head of the Lacedæmonian army, he found the mass of the

people attached by affection to the Athenian cause, and had to rely on

aristocratic influence to furnish him with guides[612].

FOOTNOTES:

[516] See Studies on the Theo-mythology of Homer.

[517] Fasti, i. 39.

[518] De Nat. Deor. ii. 27.

[519] Liv. Hist. Rom. iv. 25, 29.

[520] Exc. iv. ad Æn. vii. See Browne’s History of Roman Literature,

chap. viii. p. 129, and chap. iii. p. 41. Also Dunlop’s Hist. Rom.

Literature, vol. iii. p. 56.

[521] See ‘The Trojans.’

[522] Polyb. vi. 56, sect. 6-12.

[523] Dionysius, b. ii. 18-21.

[524] Id., b. viii. 38. See also Cic. Div. i. 2.

[525] Smith’s Dict., Art. ‘Fasti.’

[526] Acts xvii. 22.

[527] Outram de Sacrif. b. i. ch. iv. sect. 3.

[528] Exodus xi. 12-16, and Levit. viii. 1-13. 1 Sam. xvi. 2, &c. See

Calmet’s Dict. Taylor’s Edition, 1838. Art. Priest.

[529] Heb. v. 4.

[530] Browne’s Roman Classical Literature, ch. i. p. 13.

Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age, Vol. 1 of 3 I. Prolegomena II. Achæis; or, the Ethnology of the Greek Races · 第 24 / 41 段