Mr. Muller has interpreted many of these names 4) the nation itself was personified under an individual, and its presence in a particular region, or its migration to a particular district, was described; just as in the language of Hebrew poetry the names Israel and Jacob are used to designate the whole Hebrew nation. But, although in the Greek traditions these were not real names, or rather were poetical descriptions substituted for the real names, yet the facts with which they were connected were real circumstances. In the former sense of the name of a clan or race transferred to an individual we may understand Thessalus the leader of the Thessali, Ion of the Ionians, Achæus of the Achæans. In the latter sense (which, however, less frequently occurs) of a nation personified by an individual, we may interpret Thesprotus and Macedon sons of Lycaon, or Phthius son of Achæus. Such genealogies will express an affinity between the tribes so named x. Among the second class of fabricated names we may reckon those which have been invented to shew a connexion, or rather which are poetical expressions of a connexion. The connexion is real, but the expression of it fabulous. In these fabricated names many of the females who appear in the genealogies may be included. Thus Messene daughter of Triopas, Sparte daughter of Eurotas", Taygetë mother of Lacedæmona, Larissa mother of Achæus, Callisto mother of Arcas, Meliboa wife of Magnes, were fictitious persons; but the connexion which they signified was substantial and real. To such names we may refer Arne the daughter of Eolus and mother of Bootuse. Here Arne belongs to the second class of names, Æolus and Bootus to the first. Among the imaginary persons again may be numbered the names designed to express a local origin; as Haliartus and Coronus sons of Thersander; Manalus, Mantineus, Orchomenus, Parrhasus, sons of Lycaon; Epidaurus and Tiryns sons of Argush; Andreus son of the Peneüsi: or those in which a plain and obvious analogy may be traced between the name and the fact. Thus Aethliusk and Amphictyon1are fabricated persons. But in cases like these of Amphictyon and Aëthlius the particular circumstances must conspire to mark the persons as fictitious. The mere occurrence of a name expressing a thing is not of itself a proof that the person is fabricated. Thus Charilaüs was a real person, Agesilaüs and Archidamus were real persons, in historical times. The practice of giving descriptive names is found in many nations. It was common with the Hebrews, and with the Greeks themselves in their latest periods; why should it not have occurred among them in the first ages? Descriptive names, then, are not evidences of fiction, when unaccompanied by other particulars. Thus Eunomus is rejected in this work m, not on account of the composition of the name in itself, but because a generation is wanting in the oldest author, and because that generation is perhaps interpolated, certainly transposed, in the next oldest authority. Even when the name is fictitious the person may be real. Thus the father of Arion is Cycleus; doubtless a fabricated name, expressing that Arion invented or improved the cyclian chorus; and yet Arion himself was real. Helen therefore may be a person, although by one poetical fiction she is called the daughter of Nemesis. A descriptive name which superseded the original name was not unusual with the Greeks. Stesichorus was not the original name of that poet, who received this appellation after he had attained eminence P. The real name of Melissa was Lyside. Pero the daughter of Neleus was afterwards called Elegeis". The original name, then, of Hercules might have been Alcaus; and in all the cases in which we pronounce the person bearing a descriptive name to be a fabulous person, we must have a substantial reason founded upon each particular case; and we shall not be justified in rejecting Hercules or Theseus from the mere composition of their names. real Too much is often deduced from the etymology of names. Thus many inquirers have sought an etymology for the Pelasgi, and have even founded the history and origin of that people upon the supposed origin of their name 3. But there seems no reason why this particular people should be so investigated. No etymology can be proposed of the names Achæi, Ætoli, Epei, Dores, Thessali, and many other tribes; who are derived by the mythologists from Achæus, Dorus, or Thessalus, as the Pelasgi are from Pelasgus. And yet these tribes are acknowledged; and their origin is not made to depend upon etymology; why should this be done in the case of the Pelasgi? A name might often originate in some accidental or trivial cause which was soon forgotten. The etymologies proposed for Iaones, Æoles, and some others noticed below, are of a different character. There the etymologies harmonize with the origin of the tribes, deduced from other facts. In the case of the Iaones and Æoles, the etymology is founded upon the history; in the case of the Pelasgi the history is founded upon the etymology. We may observe that the Greeks themselves, who are fanciful in etymology, have often been led from the accidental import of a name to invent a fable, which has thrown discredit upon the name itself. But the person may be real, although the tale to which his name had given occasion is a mere invention, fabricated in a later age. We may acknowledge as real persons all those whom there is no reason for rejecting. The presumption is in favour of the early tradition, if no argument can be brought to overthrow it. The persons may be considered real when the description of them is consonant with the state of the country at that time; when no national prejudice or vanity could be concerned in inventing them; when the tradition is consistent and general; when rival or hostile tribes concur in the leading facts; when the acts ascribed to the person (divested of their poetical ornament) enter into the political system of the age, or form the basis of other transactions which fall within known historical times. Cadmus and Danaüs appear to be real persons; for it is conformable to the state of mankind and perfectly credible that Phoenician and Egyptian adventurers, in the ages to which these persons are ascribed, should have found their way to the coasts of Greece': and the Greeks (as already observed) had no motive from any national vanity to feign these settlements. Hercules was a real person. Hercules was a real person. His acts were recorded by those who were not friendly to the Dorians; by Achæans and Æolians and Ionians, who had no vanity to gratify in celebrating the hero of a hostile and rival people. His descendants in many branches remained in many states to the historical times. His son Tlepolemus and his grandson and great grandson Cleo dæus and Aristomachus are acknowledged to be real persons"; and there is no reason that can be assigned for receiving these, which will not be equally valid for establishing the reality both of Hercules and Hyllus. Above all, Hercules is authenticated by the testimonies in the Iliad and Odyssey. These, the oldest poems, treat of the latest period within the epic cycle. If we regard the subjects of the early epic poetry, the earliest place, as will be seen below, belongs to the Theogony, the wars of the Giants, the wars of the Titans. Then follow the Phoronis and the Danais; then at some interval the acts of Hercules and Theseus, and the Theban wars: last of all the war of Troy and the voor. But this order is in a great degree reversed with reference to the poets. The most ancient poems, the Iliad and Odyssey, describe the subjects which are nearly the last in order ; and, in celebrating the war of Troy, the author of the Iliad limits himself to the times which immediately precede it. In the Trojan line he ascends to Dardanus; in the Argive kings to Acrisius". In the Æolian line the Odyssey traces a genealogy upwards to Melampus, and to Cretheusb and Salmoneus; and the Iliad another to Sisyphusd. But except in these cases the genealogies in these two poems are limited to the third or fourth generation. They never name Dorus, or Hellen, or Danaüs, or Deucalion. Even Æolus is not distinctly named as an individuale. But this character of the Homeric genealogies is in favour of their historical evidence. The authors of these poems seem to ascend no higher than authentic accounts transmitted by contemporary poets would carry them, and to have neglected the remoter times, where tradition was less distinct and more obscured by fable. But if the author of the Iliad flourished where we have placed him, the heroes of the fourth generation would be only 250 or 260 years, and Hercules only 210 or 220 years, before the time of the poet himself; and through that period the testimony of contemporary bards, by whom so remarkable a person was mentioned, might well descend to the time of Homer; in whom that hero appears (as Mitford has remarked) in a different character from the Hercules of later poets, not clothed in a lion's skin, but armed like other heroes and attended by armies. If the testimonies in the Iliad are sufficient for establishing the reality of Hercules, they are still more valid for attesting the heroes of the Trojan war itself. The existence of Theseus has been denied. It is urged by Mr. Muller i that the Athenian constitution was falsely ascribed to this hero by Athenian vanity; that the Athenians had no democracy till the time of Solon; and that the line in the Iliad in which duos 'Epexños is mentioned must have been composed at least as late as the age of Solon. It is truly affirmed that the Athenians had no democracy till the age of Solon. We have the testimony of Aristotle that down to this period the government of Athens was an unmitigated oligarchy. The gradual limitations of the power of the chief magistrate at Athens, which occurred between the death of Codrus and the legislation of Solon, a period of about 395 years, were not imposed by the people but by the aristocracy, who restrained the powers which they were willing to share: and the benefits ascribed to the institutions of Theseus were doubtless much exaggerated in the brilliant times of Athens, when the Athenians had become a lettered people ". But in that period from Codrus to Solon they had made no advances in political importance: they had displayed no signs of that intellectual superiority which they were destined to assume. While the Lacedæmonians were conquering Messenia, the weight and Anno 936, Peloponnesii bellum Atheniensibus intulerunt. Anno 939, Amazones cum Cimmeriis incursionem in Asiam fecerunt. Orosius: Anno ante U. C. XXX Peloponnensium Atheniensiumque maximum bellum totis viribus animisque commissum est; in quo mutuis cædibus ad hoc coacti sunt, ut velut victi se ab alterutro subtraherent bellumque desererent. Tum etiam Amazonum gentis et Cimmeriorum in Asiam repentinus incursus plurimam-stragem edidit. I should not however think with Scaliger that the date in Orosius is corrupt, and that it ought to be ante U. C. CCCXXX. The date, as it now stands, is consistent with the next event, the Messenian war; and Orosius rather seems to have confounded the notice of a Cimmerian incursion in the reign of Codrus with a later irruption in B. C. 782. h History of Greece vol. I. p. 34. i Dor. vol. II. p. 73. 74. k Il. g. 547. 1 See F. H. II. p. 249. m. m From B. C. 989 to 594. See below p. 227. 140. n Pausanias I. 3, 2. acknowledges that the Athenian account was false: κεχώρηκε δὲ φήμη καὶ ἄλλως ἐς τοὺς πολλοὺς ὡς Θησεὺς παραδοίη τὰ πράγματα τῷ δήμῳλέγεται μὲν δὴ καὶ ἄλλα οὐκ ἀληθῆ παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς οἷα ἱστορίας ἀνηκόοις οὖσι, καὶ ὁπόσα ἤκουον εὐθὺς ἐκ παίδων ἔν τε χοροῖς καὶ τραγῳδίαις πιστὰ ἡγουμέ νοις. • Orosius indeed I. 21. relates a war between the Athenians and Peloponnesians, which he places in B. C. 782. But on a comparison of Eusebius Chron. II. the suspicion of Scaliger ad Euseb. num. 939. p. 59. appears just, that Orosius referred to the war with Codrus: Euseb. |