I. EARLY INHABITANTS OF GREECE. THE inhabitants of Greece in the first ages are rather to be classed according to their clans and families than according to the districts which they occupied in the country. They had no settled habitations, but migrated from one part of the country to another, often in a hostile, but sometimes in a peaceful manner. Thus the Dorians frequently changed their habitations. The first seat of the Achæans was in Thessaly; thence they migrated into Laconia, and lastly occupied the northern shore of Peloponnesus, called from them Achaia. The Ionians were settled in Attica; thence they passed into Peloponnesus; from whence they returned again into Attica, before their final settlement in Asia. Thucydidesa and Strabob mark this character of the early times. It was not till after the Dorian occupation of Peloponnesus that the different members of the Greek nation were fixed in the seats which they finally occupied. On surveying the people known by the appellation of Greeks, it naturally occurs to inquire whether these were descended from the aboriginal occupiers of the soil, or whether they were sprung from settlers of a later date, by whom that original race was supplanted. Four establishments were ascribed to foreigners; but the change effected by these establishments of Danaüs, Cecrops, Cadmus, and Pelops, was not such as to deserve to be accounted the introduction of a new race of people, such as is produced by force of arms, or by large bodies of invaders overwhelming the ancient inhabitants. Nothing of this character belonged to the settlements made in early Greece. These were made within three centuries of the Trojan war, when the country was already in the possession of powerful tribes, which subsisted after these establishments, and increased so far as to supersede them. All these four settlements are examples of a smaller received into a larger number. They were adopted by the body of the people by whom they were received, and the Egyptian or Phoenician or Phrygian settler was lost in the Greek. Excluding, then, these from the inquiry, we must ascend to a higher point of time, and extend our survey over the early tribes by whom the country was possessed, in order to determine how far the Greeks were an aboriginal people. Bryantd has pronounced of all the Greeks that they were not descended from the original inhabitants: that by the confession of their best historians, their ancestors were not the first & Thucyd. I. 2. b Strabo XII. p. 572. c Clavier Hist. des Prem. Temps. tom. I. p. 9. distinguishes this character of the early settlements: Il n'étoit pas nécessaire que ces premières colonies fussent bien nombreuses; elles n'étoient que des établissemens pour le commerce, autour de quels se réunirent quelques familles, &c.— D'après cela, au lieu de faire adopter leur d Analysis of Ancient Mythology vol. I. p. 187-189. vol. V. p. 1-20. 21-38. B . inhabitants; that the country was before their arrival in the possession of a people whom they style barbarians. He asserts that the Helladians were colonies of another family; that they introduced themselves somewhat later; that they came from Egypt and Syria; that the Pelasgi, Leleges, Hellenes, Dorians, Ionians, were all of one great family, Cuthite colonies, who came into the land of Javan. His testimonies are these: 1. Hecatæus apud Strabonem VII. p. 321. 2. εἰσὶ δὲ ἡμῶν ἀρχαιότεροι βάρβαροι. Plato Cratyl. tom. I. p. 425. 3. πάλαι τῆς νῦν καλουμένης Ελλάδος βάρβαροι τὰ πολλὰ ᾤκησαν. Pausan. I. 4. 'Apxadíav Bápẞapor xnσav. Schol. Apollon. III. 46] [IV. 264]. 5. Αθηναίους—ἀποίκους Σαϊτῶν τῶν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου. Diod. I. [28.] 6. Again: Diod. ibid. 7. The Athenians, Αἰγυπτίων ἄποικοι, ὥς φασιν ἄλλοι τε καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν τῷ Τρικαρήνῳ. African. apud Euseb. Præp. X. 10. 8. Κέκροψ Αἰγύπτιος ὢν δύο γλώσσας ἠπίστατο. Cedren. p. 82. 9. Κέκροψ Αἰγύπτιος τὸ γένος ᾤκησε τὰς ̓Αθήνας. Schol. Aristoph. Plut. [773.] 10. Cecrops from Sais came to Greece. Tzetzes Chil. V. 18. 11. Κέκροψ Αἰγύπτιος τὸ γένος ᾤκησε τὰς ̓Αθήνας. Suid. Κέκροψ [merely a repetition of No. 9.1 12. Λέλεξ ἀφικόμενος ἐξ Αἰγύπτου. Pausan. [I. 44, 5.] 13. Erechtheus from Egypt. Diod. I. 14. Triptolemus from Egypt. Diod. I. [18. 20.] 15. Δαναός Χεμμίτης. Herodot. II. 91. 16. Danaüs from Egypt. Plin. VII. 56. Diod. I. [V. 58.] 17. All the heads of the Dorian race from Egypt: AlyúπTIO ¡layevées. Herodot. VI. 53. 18. "The Lacedæmonians esteemed themselves of the same family as the Caphtorim of "Palestine. Hence they surmised that they were related to the Jews." 1 Macc. XII. 20. Joseph. Ant. XII. 4. 19. Perseus was supposed to have been a foreigner. Herodot. VI. 54. 20. "It is said of Cadmus that he came originally from Egypt in company with Phoenix:" Κάδμος καὶ Φοίνιξ ἀπὸ Θηβῶν τῶν Αἰγυπτίων. Εuseb. Chron. 21. "Eusebius in another place mentions the arrival of Cadmus with a company of "Saitæ. They founded Athens and Thebes. Chron. p. 14. The ancient Atheni"ans worshipped Isis, and were in their looks and manners particularly like the Egyptians. Diod. I. p. 24-26f." 66 By far the greater part of these passages is irrelevant, since they only tend to prove that Cadmus, or Danaüs, or Cecrops, or Triptolemus, were derived from Egypt and the East; facts which are of no weight in determining the original of the Pelasgi, Dores, or Hellenes. Others of these testimonies are strained beyond their due meaning; as, for instance, he quotes Herodotus to prove that all the heads of the Dorian race were from Egypt: which he repeats in another places: "Of this we may be assured, that the Dorians, like their brethren the "Ionim, were not of the first occupiers of the country. They were colonies from Egypt; ❝ and Herodotus VI. 53. speaks of all the heads and leaders of this people as coming directly "from Egypt." But Herodotus says nothing to this extent. His words are these: after relating the history of the first Spartan kings, he observes; τούτους τοὺς Δωριέων βασιλῆας μέχρι μὲν Περσέος τοῦ Δανάης—καταλεγομένους ὀρθῶς ὑπ ̓ Ἑλλήνων, καὶ ἀποδεικνυμένους ὡς εἰσι Ἕλληνες ἀπὸ δὲ Δανάης τῆς ̓Ακρισίου καταλέγοντι τοὺς ἄνω αἰεὶ πατέρας αὐτέων, φαινοίατο ἂν ἐόντες οἱ τῶν Δωριέων ἡγεμόνες Αἰγύπτιοι ιθαγενέες. The whole amounts to no more than this; that the Heraclidæ, being descended through Hercules from Perseus, were derived from Danaüs the Egyptian. It has no weight in giving a foreign original to the Dorians beyond what was effected in the person of Danaus: and it has been shewn that the settlement of Danaüs had no such consequence. This testimony, then, when limited to its real meaning, establishes nothing in support of Bryant's hypothesish. Other instances occur in his work of a somewhat exaggerated exhibition of testimonies. "The Ionim were supposed to have been led by one "Ion; but what was alluded to under the notion of that person may be found from the his even that point is far from being satisfactorily "established. But the third, or Grecian, if any "credit is due to history, was erected, not by "the descendants of Japheth, but by those of "Ham. Greece might probably have been first peopled by Japheth; but these aborigines were soon conquered, and either extirpated or incorporated with a totally different race. It is im"possible to derive the later Greeks, so cele"brated to this day for their proficiency in the "arts and sciences, from the line of Japheth, "unless we contradict the whole tenor of his"tory. Diodorus Siculus asserts that some of "the original leaders of the Athenians were Egyptians, and that the Athenians themselves "were a colony from Sais in Egypt. Herodotus speaks in a similar manner of the Dorians: "and Pausanias gives the same account of the Megarians. Lelex also, the father or leader "of the Leleges, came from Egypt. The Peloponnesus was for the most part inhabited by "Dorians; and the Leleges established them 66 "selves in Megaris. In short, the most cele"brated leaders of the Grecian colonies, such as Danais, Erechtheus, Cecrops, Cadmus, and Phoenix, all came from Egypt. Hence it is "manifest that the Greeks were, strictly speak"ing, an Egyptian nation; and consequently not "the descendants of Japheth, but of Ham." The value of these propositions in establishing the origin of the Greeks has been already examined; since the whole of these arguments had been preoccupied by Bryant. As to the leading object of Dr. Faber's enquiry, namely, from what race of mankind the third kingdom of the prophet was derived, these facts concerning the origin of Cadmus and Erechtheus and Cecrops have still less weight in determining that point, because none of the states to which these persons belonged had any principal share in establishing that empire; which was founded by the Macedonians, and not by the people of Attica or Peloponnesus. The Lacedæmonians especially had no share, and were expressly excluded by Alexander himself: Plutarch. Alex. c. 16. Arrian. Exp. I. p. 48. And Thebes was destroyed the year before the invasion of Asia. Next to the Macedonians, the Thessalians had the largest share in that war; and none of the Egyptian settlements were made in that province of Greece. 66 66 tory given of him. Tatian imagines that he came into Greece in the time of Acrisiusi.” Thus he translates Ἴωνος εἰς τὰς ̓Αθήνας ἄφιξις. “ Hellen was the son of the person who escaped “ the foodi.” Thus he renders Ἕλλην υἱὸς Δευκαλίωνος, to give colour to his conclusion that Hellen was the same person as Ham the son of Noah. Bryant collects from Pausanias that the Leleges were Egyptian. The whole passage in Pausanias is as followsk: δωδεκάτη ὕστερον μετὰ Καρα τὸν Φορωνέως γενεᾷ λέγουσιν οἱ Μεγαρεῖς Λέλεγα ἀφικόμενον ἐξ Αἰγύπτου βασιλεῦσαι καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους κληθῆναι Λέλεγας ἐπὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς αὐτοῦ. Κλήσωνος δὲ τοῦ Λέλεγος γενέσθαι Πύλαν· τοῦ Πύλα δὲ Σκίρωνα· τοῦτον συνοικῆσαι Πανδίονος θυγατρὶ, καὶ ὕστερον Νίσῳ τῷ Πανδίονος ἐλθεῖν κ. τ. λ. This Lelexl, then, according to the tradition, is twelve generations later than Phoroneus, and in the third generation before Nisus and Egeus. But the Leleges existed long before, and were a people in the time of Deucalion m. Another Lelex, an aboriginal chief, prior in time to Deucalion, founded the Leleges in Laconia". A third Lelex, an indigenous chief, the leader of the Teleboa, was traced by Aristotle in Acarnania. If the Megarian tradition, then, is admitted to be true, the Leleges were not founded by that Egyptian settler. He was ὁμώνυμος τῷ ἔθνει. He bore the name of the people among whom he settled, and derived his appellation instead of imparting it. 66 66 The remaining testimonies collected by Bryant are for the purpose of proving that the first inhabitants of Greece are called Bápßapor by the Greek writers. He has elsewhere? added other references to the same effect; and his argument is, that "though the Greeks pretended “ to be αὐτόχθονες, yet their best historians ingenuously own that Hellas was originally occupied by a people of another race, whom they styled ßápßago. Therefore the first inhabitants were of a different race from the Pelasgi and Leleges and Ionians, who succeeded them, "and came afterwards." But these "barbarians" are no other than the Pelasgi themselves, the most ancient people of whom the Greeks had any vestiges, and beyond whom their traditions did not reach9: ἔθνος βάρβαρον Πελασγοὶ κατῴκουν πάλαι τὴν Θεσσαλίαν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ "Αργος καὶ ἄλλας οὐκ ὀλίγας χώρας. According to Strabor, σχεδόν τι καὶ ἡ σύμπασα Ελλὰς κατοικία βαρβάρων ὑπῆρξε τὸ παλαιόν. But these barbarians are the Dryopes, the Caucones, the Pelasgi, 1 He is mentioned again by Pausanias I. 42, 8. Idem I. 44, 5. μνῆμά ἐστι πρὸς θαλάσσῃ Λέλεγος, ὃν ἀφικόμενον βασιλεῦσαι λέγουσιν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου, παῖδα δὲ εἶ και Ποσειδῶνος καὶ Λιβύης τῆς Επάφου. Pylus or Pylas son of Cleson occurs again Pausan. IV. 36, 1. ἡ Πύλος [in Messenia]—ταύτην ᾤκισε Πύλος ὁ Κλήσωνος ἀγαγὼν ἐκ τῆς Μεγαρίδος τοὺς ἔχοντας τότε αὐτὴν Λέλε γας. καὶ τῆς μὲν οὐκ ὤνατο, ὑπὸ Νηλέως— ἐκβληθείς ἀποχωρήσας δὲ ἐς τὴν ὅμορον ἔσχεν ἐνταῦθα Πύλον τὴν ἐν τῇ Ἠλείᾳ. m Hesiod. apud Strab. VII. p. 322. ἤτοι γὰρ Λοκρὸς Λελέγων ἡγήσατο λαῶν, τοὺς ῥά ποτε Κρονίδης Ζεὺς ἄφθιτα μήδεα εἰδὼς λεκτοὺς ἐκ γαίης λάας πόρε Δευκαλίωνι. λάας is the conjecture of Heyne ad Apollod. I. 7, 2. Salmasius apud Palmer. Græc. Antiq. p. 68. had already conjectured λαέων πόρε. Dionysius Ant. I. Ρ. 47. identifies the Leleges with the Locri: ἐξελαύνονται Θετταλίας ὑπό τε Κουρήτων καὶ Λελέγων, οἳ νῦν Αἰτωλοὶ καὶ Λοκροὶ καλοῦνται —ἡγουμένου τῶν πολεμίων Δευκαλίωνος. n Pausan. III. 1, 1. • Strabo VII. p. 321. ὅτι πλάνητες (οἱ Λέλεγες) καὶ μετ' ἐκείνων [sc. τῶν Πελασγῶν] καὶ χωρὶς, καὶ ἐκ παλαιοῦ, καὶ αἱ ̓Αριστοτέλους πολιτεῖαι δηλοῦσιν. ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῇ ̓Ακαρνάνων φησὶ τὸ μὲν ἔχειν αὐτῆς Κουρῆτας, τὸ δὲ προσεσπέριον Λέλεγας, εἶτα Τηλεβόας· ἐν δὲ τῇ τῶν Αἰτωλῶν, τοὺς νῦν Λοκροὺς Λέλεγας καλεῖ κατασχεῖν δὲ καὶ τὴν Βοιωτίαν αὐτοὺς φησίν· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐν τῇ Οπουντίων καὶ Μεγαρέων· ἐν δὲ τῇ Λευκαδίων καὶ αὐτόχε θινά τινα Λέλεγα ὀνομάζει, τούτου δὲ θυγατριδοῦν Τηλεβίαν· τοῦ δὲ παῖδας δύο καὶ εἴκοσι Τηλεβόας· ὧν τινας οἰκῆσαι τὴν Λευκάδα. For the Teleboæ conf. Strab. X. p. 459. Their history, and their occupation first of Acarnania and then of the Echinades, and their war with Amphitryo, are related Schol. Apollon. I. 747. P Vol. V. p. 1, &c. q Schol. Apollon. cod. Paris. I. 580. the Lelegess. Hecatæust affirms that the predecessors of the Hellenes were barbarous. But the predecessors of the Hellenes were the Pelasgi. The Leleges are called barbarous by Strabo, who observes, recounting the early inhabitants of Boeotia, ή Βοιωτία πρότερον μὲν ὑπὸ βαρβάρων ὠκεῖτο ̓Αόνων καὶ Τεμμίκων ἐκ τοῦ Σουνίου πεπλανημένων, καὶ Λελέγων, καὶ Ὑάντων. εἶτα Φοίνικες ἔσχον οἱ μετὰ Κάδμου. Bryant, then, has failed in proving that ancient writers describe any barbarous tribes of another race prior to the Pelasgi or the Leleges. With respect to the Hellenes themselves, no testimony warrants the supposition that these were a foreign race. The earliest traditions place Deucalion in Thessaly, or in the adjoining region. Bryant has been particularly unsuccessful in making out a Cuthite or Amonian original for the descendants of Deucalion. As nothing in ancient Greek traditions favours the supposition, his theory is built upon conjecture and hypothesis, to which he adds some fanciful etymologies. The Arcadians are "Arkites," the Ionians are "Ionim," or worshippers of the dove; being denominated from Ionah the dove. Meanwhile the name Eolus, the great family which included so many of the heroic chiefs, appears to be unnoticed. A dynasty of Pelasgic chiefs existed in Greece before any other dynasty is heard of in Greek traditions w. Excepting in this line, none of the genealogies ascend higher than the ninth, or eighth, or seventh generation, before the Trojan war. Danais is in the ninth, Deucalion in the eighth, Cadmus in the seventh generation before that epoch. But in the Pelasgic branch of the nation Phoroneus is in the eighteenth before the Trojan war; the founder of Sicyon is his contemporary; and the Pelasgic chief who planted the Pelasgians in Thessaly is five generations earlier than Deucalion. Inachus the father of Phoroneus was the highest term in Grecian historyx: τὰν τᾶς Ελλανικᾶς ἱστορίας ἀρχὰν ἀπὸ Ινάχω μεν τῷ ̓Αργείω. Inachus is mentioned by Pausaniasy: Ίναχον βασιλεύοντα τότε τόν τε ποταμὸν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ λέγουσιν ὀνομάσαι, καὶ θῆσαι τῇ Ἥρᾳ. λέγεται ὧδὲ καὶ δε λόγος· Φορωνέα ἐν τῇ γῇ ταύτῃ γενέσθαι πρῶτον, Ἴναχον δὲ οὐκ ἄνδρα ἀλλὰ τὸν ποταμὸν πάτερα εἶναι Φορωνεῖ—Φορωνεὺς δὲ ὁ Ἰνάχου τοὺς ἀνθρώπους συνήγαγε πρῶτον ἐς κοινὸν, σποράδας τέως καὶ ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν ἑκάστοτε οἰκοῦντας. He is named by Apion, by Tatian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Africanus, and Eusebius. Africanus makes him a little older than s Strab. Ibid. Δρυόπων τε καὶ Καυκώνων καὶ Πελασ γῶν καὶ Λελέγων καὶ ἄλλων τοιούτων κατανειμαμένων τὰ ἐντὸς Ἰσθμοῦ. t Strabo Ibid. Ἑκαταῖος ὁ Μιλήσιος περὶ τῆς Πελοποννήσου φησὶν ὅτι πρὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ᾤκησαν αὐτὴν βάρβαροι. u Strab. IX. Ρ. 401. v Vol. V. p. 38, &c. 130, &c. Of his success in etymology a_judgment has been pronounced by Sir William Jones, Asiatic Researches vol. III. p. 488. with whom we shall agree, that no mode of reasoning is in general weaker or more delusive than etymological conjecture. w Ogyges will be no exception to this remark, for Ogyges himself was indigenous. He left no descendants or successors; and he was not earlier than Phoroneus, with whom he is made contemporary by Acusilaüs, as will be seen below. x Ócellus apud Stob. Eclog. I. 21, 5. p. 426. y Pausan. II. 15, 4. z These testimonies may be gathered from Syncellus p. 62-66. compared with Eusebius Præp. Χ. p. 487491. ὁ μὲν ̓Αφρικανὸς—εἰδὼς τὴν τῶν πολλῶν δόξαν οὕτω κρατοῦσαν, ὅτι ἐπὶ ̓Αμώσεως Φου ρωνεὺς ̓Αργείων ἐβασίλευσε καὶ πρό γε τούτου Ιναχος ὁ τούτου πατὴρ, ἐφ' οὗ Μωϋσῆς γεννᾶται—ὁ δὲ Εὐσέβιος οὔτε τῷ ̓Αφρικανῷ οὔτε τῷ Ἰωσήππῳ οὐδ ̓ ἄλλῳ τινὶ συμφωνῶν—τοὺς χρόνους περιέκοψε, σύγχρονον Μωϋσέως δεῖξαι Κέκροπα τὸν διφυῆ ἐπειγόμενος μαρτυρῶν καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ του κανόνος αὐτοῦ προλόγῳ τοὺς προλεχθέντας Ιώσηππον μὲν καὶ Ἰοῦστον ἐκ περιτομῆς, ̓Αφρικανὸν δὲ καὶ Κλήμεντα τὸν Στρωματέα καὶ Τατιανὸν τοῦ καθ' ἡμᾶς λόγου ἄνδρας ἐν παιδεύσει γνωρίμους πάντας, κατὰ Ιναχον καὶ Φορωνέα τὸν Ινάχου πρώτους ̓Αργείων βασιλεῖς γενέσθαι Μωϋσέα, ὧν σύγχρονος ἦν Ωγυγος αὐτόχθων πρῶτος βασιλεὺς ̓Ακτῆς τῆς νῦν ̓Αττικῆς, καὶ ὁ κατ ̓ αὐτὸν Ωγυγον πρῶτος καὶ παλαιὸς ἱστορούμενος Ἕλλησι κατακλυσμὸς κατὰ τὸ π' ἔτος Μαϋσέως, νε' δὲ Φορωνέως, κατὰ τὸν ̓Αφρικανὸν ὧδέ πως ἐπὶ λέξεως γραφέντα Φαμὲν τοίνυν ἔκ γε τοῦδε “ τοῦ συγγράμματος Ωγυγον, ὃς τοῦ πρώτου κατακλυσμοῦ γέγινεν ἐπώνυμος, πολλῶν διαφθαρέντων διασωθεὶς, κατὰ σε 66 τὴν ἀπ ̓ Αἰγύπτου τοῦ λαοῦ μετὰ Μωϋσέως ἔξοδον γεγενῆσθαι, τόνδε τὸν τρόπον· ἐπὶ τὴν πρώτην ολυμπιάδα τὴν |