The History and Antiquities of the Doric Race, Vol. 1 of 2

The History, of which an English translation is now offered to the public, forms the second and third volumes of a work by Professor C. O. MÜller, entitled, “Histories of Greek Tribes and Cities.” The first volume of this series was published separately under the name of “Orchomenos and the MinyÆ;” and contains a most learned examination of the mythology and early history of Orchomenos and other towns of Boeotia, and of the migrations of the MinyÆ, together with other questions more or less connected with these subjects. It is, in every respect, a distinct and separate work from the Dorians, comprised in the second and third volumes; nor was it more incumbent on us to publish a translation of that first volume, because it is often referred to in the subsequent volumes, than of the many other admirable works on Grecian history, equally referred to, which are inaccessible to persons not acquainted with the German language.

[pg iv]

At a time when a large part of the present translation had been completed, the translators communicated by letter to Professor MÜller their intention with regard to his work on the Dorians, and requested him to read the manuscript of their translation before it was printed, in case they should have anywhere committed any errors, or failed to catch the import of his words. To this request Mr. MÜller, though not personally known by either of the translators, not only acceded, but, with an unexpected, and indeed unhoped-for liberality, expressed his willingness to contribute to our translation all the alterations and additions which his reading had suggested since the appearance of the original work. The manuscript was accordingly transmitted, and carefully revised, corrected, and enlarged by the author. Of the value of these changes it would perhaps be improper that we should speak in the terms which they seem to us to deserve: of their number, however, as this can be brought to a certain test, we will venture to assert, that few books undergo so great changes after their first publication; and that the present work may be in strictness considered, not only a translation, but a new edition of the original. In making these changes, it was also the author's wish to clear up ambiguities or obscurity of meaning, either by a change in the expression, or a fuller development of the thought: and we cannot help hoping, that even to a person [pg v] acquainted with German, our translation will thus be found in many places more explicit and satisfactory than the original text.

Besides those alterations, which appear for the first time in the following translation, the additions and corrections published by the author in his “Introduction to a scientific System of Mythology” have been here incorporated; and a Dissertation on the early history of the Macedonian nation, published separately by the author, some time after the appearance of the Dorians, has been inserted in the Appendix.

Not only has the small map of Macedonia, appended to this Dissertation, been inserted in our translation, in addition to the map of the Peloponnese, which was alone contained in the original work, but also a map of northern Greece, which, together with the explanatory article inserted in the Appendix, is now for the first time given to the public. These three maps together furnish a complete geographical picture of ancient Greece, from the promontory of TÆnarum to the north of Macedonia; and we may be allowed to say, that in accuracy and fulness of detail, they rival, if not excel, all other maps of the same regions1.

[pg vi]

After the printing of the whole work (with the exception of the Appendix) had been completed, the sheets were sent to Mr. MÜller, by which means not only the translation of the original, but also of the manuscript additions, have received the approbation of the author. Any discrepancies, therefore, which may appear between the translation and the original must be considered as sanctioned by the author. The translators at the same time think it right to state, in case Mr. MÜller should be exposed to any misrepresentations in his own country, that in making their translation they did not consider themselves bound to follow the letter of the original, and have sometimes indulged in a free paraphrase: while in some places they suggested more considerable changes, on account of the difference between the opinions on many important subjects which generally prevail in England and Germany.

(1830.)

[pg vii]

Advertisement To The Second Edition.

The First Edition of the present Translation has been revised by the Author; and he has supplied several corrections and additions, which have been inserted in their proper places.

The accounts of the geography of Peloponnesus and Northern Greece, which were inserted in the Appendix to the First Edition of the Translation, have been omitted in the present Edition.

April, 1839.

[pg 001]

Introduction.

§ 1. Origin of the Dorians in the North of Greece. § 2. Northern boundary of Greece. § 3. The Macedonians. § 4. The Thessalians. § 5. Diffusion of the Illyrians in Western Greece. § 6. The Phrygians. § 7. The Thracians. § 8. The Hellenes, AchÆans, Minyans, Ionians, and Dorians. § 9. The Hylleans. § 10. Relation of the above nations to the Pelasgians. § 11. Difference between the Pelasgic and Hellenic religions. § 12. Early language of Greece, and its chief dialects.

1. The Dorians derived their origin from those districts in which the Grecian nation bordered towards the north upon numerous and dissimilar races of barbarians. As to the tribes which dwelt beyond these boundaries we are indeed wholly destitute of information; nor is there the slightest trace of any memorial or tradition that the Greeks originally came from those quarters. On these frontiers, however, the events took place which effected an entire alteration in the internal condition of the whole Grecian people, and here were given many of those impulses, of which the effects were so long and generally experienced. The prevailing character of the events in question, was a perpetual pressing forward of the barbarous races, particularly of the Illyrians, into more southern districts; yet Greece, although harassed, confined, nay even compelled to abandon part of her territory, never attempted to make a united resistance to their encroachments. The cause of this negligence probably was, that all her views being turned to the south, no attention whatever was paid to the above quarters.

[pg 002]

2. To begin then by laying down a boundary line (which may be afterwards modified for the sake of greater accuracy), we shall suppose this to be the mountain ridge, which stretches from Olympus to the west as far as the Acroceraunian mountains (comprehending the Cambunian ridge and mount Lacmon), and in the middle comes in contact with the Pindus chain, which stretches in a direction from north to south. The western part of this chain separates the furthest Grecian tribes from the great Illyrian nation, which extended back as far as the Celts in the south of Germany. Every clue respecting the connexion, peculiarities, and original language of this people must be interesting, and the dialects of the Albanians, especially of those who inhabit the mountains where the original customs and language have been preserved in greater purity, will afford materials for inquiry.2 For our present purpose it will be sufficient to state, that they formed the northern boundary of the Grecian nation, from which they were distinguished both by their language and customs.

3. In the fashion of wearing the mantle and dressing the hair,3 and also in their dialect, the Macedonians bore a great resemblance to the Illyrians; whence it is evident that the Macedonians belonged to the Illyrian nation.4 Notwithstanding which, there can be no doubt that the Greeks were aboriginal5 inhabitants [pg 003] of this district. The plains of Emathia, the most beautiful district of the country, were occupied by the Pelasgians,6 who, according to Herodotus, also possessed Creston above Chalcidice, to which place they had come from Thessaliotis.7 Hence the Macedonian dialect was full of Greek radical words. And that these had not been introduced by the royal family (which was Hellenic by descent or adoption of manners) is evident from the fact, that many signs of the most simple ideas (which no language ever borrows from another) were the same in both, as well as from the circumstance that these words do not appear in their Greek form, but have been modified according to a native dialect.8 In the Macedonian dialect there occur grammatical forms which are commonly called Æolic,9 together with many Arcadian10 and Thessalian11 words: and what perhaps is still more decisive, several words, which, though not to be found in the Greek, have been preserved in the Latin language.12 There does not appear to be any peculiar affinity with the [pg 004] Doric dialect: hence we do not give much credit to the otherwise unsupported assertion of Herodotus, of an original identity of the Doric and Macednian (Macedonian) nations. In other authors Macednus is called the son of Lycaon, from whom the Arcadians were said to be descended;13 or Macedon is the brother of Magnes, or a son of Æolus, according to Hesiod and Hellanicus,14 which are merely various attempts to form a genealogical connexion between this semi-barbarian race, and the rest of the Greek nation.15

4. The Thessalians, as well as the Macedonians, were, as it appears, an Illyrian race, who subdued a native Greek population; but in this case the body of the interlopers was smaller, while the numbers and civilization of the aboriginal inhabitants were considerable. Hence the Thessalians resembled the Greeks more than any of the northern races with which they were connected: hence their language in particular was almost purely Grecian, and indeed bore perhaps a greater affinity to the language of the ancient epic poets than any other dialect.16 But the chief peculiarities of this nation with which we are acquainted were not of a Grecian character. Of this their national dress,17 which consisted in part of the flat and broad-brimmed hat καυσία and the chlamys (which last was common to both nations, but was unknown to the Greeks of Homer's time, and indeed [pg 005] long afterwards,18 until adopted as the costume of the equestrian order at Athens), is a sufficient example. The Thessalians, moreover, were beyond a doubt the first to introduce into Greece the use of cavalry. More important distinctions however than that first alleged are perhaps to be found in their impetuous and passionate character, and the low state of their intelligence. The taste for the arts shown by the wealthy house of the ScopadÆ proves no more that such was the disposition of the whole people, than the existence of the same qualities in Archelaus argues their prevalence in Macedonia. This is sufficient to distinguish them from the race of the Greeks, so highly endowed by nature. We are therefore induced to conjecture that this nation, which a short time before the expedition of the HeraclidÆ, migrated from Thesprotia, and indeed from the territory of Ephyra (Cichyrus) into the plain of the Peneus, had originally come from Illyria. On the other hand indeed, many points of similarity in the customs of the Thessalians and Dorians might be brought forward. Thus for example, the love for the male sex (that usage peculiar to the Dorians) was also common among the Illyrians, and the objects of affection were, as at Sparta, called ἀίται;19 the women also, as amongst the Dorians, were addressed by the title of ladies (δέσποιναι), a title uncommon in Greece, and expressive of the estimation in which they were held.20 A great freedom in the manners of the female sex was [pg 006] nevertheless customary among the Illyrians, who in this respect bore a nearer resemblance to the northern nations.21 Upon the whole, however, these migrations from the north had the effect of disseminating among the Greeks manners and institutions which were entirely unknown to their ancestors, as represented by Homer.

5. We will now proceed to inquire what was the extent of territory gained by the Illyrians in the west of Greece. Great part of Epirus had in early times been inhabited by Pelasgians,22 to which race the inhabitants of Dodona are likewise affirmed by the best authorities to have belonged, as well as the whole nation of Thesprotians;23 also the Chaonians at the foot of the Acroceraunian mountains,24 and the Chones, Œnotrians, and Peucetians on the opposite coast of Italy, are said to have been of this race.25 The ancient buildings, institutions, and religious worship of the Epirots, are also manifestly of Pelasgic origin. We suppose always that the Pelasgians were Greeks, and spoke the Grecian language: an opinion in support of which we will on this occasion only adduce a few arguments. It must then be borne in mind, that all the races whose migrations took place at a late period, such as the AchÆans, Ionians, Dorians, were not (the last in particular) sufficiently powerful or numerous to effect a complete change in the customs [pg 007] of a barbarous population;26 that many districts, Arcadia and PerrhÆbia, for instance, remained entirely Pelasgic, without being inhabited by any nation not of Grecian origin; that the most ancient names, either of Grecian places or mentioned in their traditions, belonged indeed to a different era of the dialect, but not to another language; that finally, the great similarity between the Latin and Greek can only be explained by supposing the Pelasgic language to have formed the connecting link. Now the nations of Epirus were almost reduced to a complete state of barbarism by the operation of causes, which could only have had their origin in Illyria;27 and in the historic age, the Ambracian bay was the boundary of Greece. In later times, more than half of Ætolia ceased to be Grecian, and without doubt adopted the manners and language of the Illyrians;28 from which point the Athamanes, an Epirot and Illyrian nation, pressed into the south of Thessaly.29 Migrations and predatory expeditions, such as the Encheleans had undertaken in the fabulous times, continued without intermission to repress and keep down the genuine population of Greece.

[pg 008]

6. The Illyrians were in these ancient times also bounded on the east by the Phrygians and Thracians, as well as by the Pelasgians. The Phrygians were at this time the immediate neighbours of the Macedonians in LebÆa, by whom they were called Brygians (Βρύγες, Βρύγοι, Βρίγες);30 they dwelt at the foot of the snowy Bermius, where the fabulous rose-gardens of king Midas were situated, while walking in which the wise Silenus was said to have been taken prisoner. They also fought from this place (as the Telegonia of Eugammon related)31 with the Thesprotians of Epirus. At no great distance from hence were the Mygdonians, the people nearest related to the Phrygians. According to Xanthus, this nation did not migrate to Asia until after the Trojan war.32 But, in the first place, the Cretan traditions begin with religious rites and fables, which appear from the most ancient testimonies to have been derived from Phrygians of Asia;33 and, secondly, the Armenians, who were beyond a doubt of a kindred race to the Phrygians,34 were considered as an aboriginal nation in their own territory.35 It will therefore be sufficient to recognise the same race of [pg 009] men in Armenia, Asia Minor, and at the foot of mount Bermius, without supposing that all the Armenians and Phrygians emigrated from the latter settlement on the Macedonian coast. The intermediate space between Illyria and Asia, a district across which numerous nations migrated in ancient times, was peopled irregularly from so many sides, that the national uniformity which seems to have once existed in those parts was speedily deranged. The most important documents respecting the connexion between the Phrygian and other nations are the traces that remain of its dialect. It was well known in Plato's time that many primitive words of the Grecian language were to be recognised with a slight alteration in the Phrygian, such as πῦρ, ὕδωρ, χύων;36 and the great similarity of grammatical structure which the Armenian now displays with the Greek, must be referred to this original connexion.37 The Phrygians [pg 010] in Asia must, however, have been intermixed with Syrians, who not only established themselves on the right bank of the Halys, but on the left also in Lycaonia,38 and as far as Lycia,39 and accordingly adopted much of the Syrian language and religion.40 Their enthusiastic and frantic ceremonies had doubtless always formed part of their religion: these they had in common with their immediate neighbours the Thracians: but the ancient Greeks appear to have been almost entirely unacquainted with such rites.

7. The Thracians, who settled in Pieria at the foot of mount Olympus, and from thence came down to mount Helicon, as being the originators of the worship of Dionysus and the Muses, and the fathers of Grecian poetry,41 are a nation of the highest importance in the history of civilization. We cannot but suppose that they spoke a dialect very similar to the Greek, since otherwise they could not have had any considerable influence upon the latter people. They were in all probability derived originally from the country called Thrace in later times, where the Bessians, a tribe of the nation of the SatrÆ,42 at the foot of Mount PangÆum, presided over the oracle of Dionysus. Whether the whole of the populous races of Edones, Odomantians, Odrysians, Treres, &c. are to be considered as identical with the Thracians in [pg 011] Pieria, or whether it is not more probable that these barbarous nations43 received from the Greeks their general name of Thracians, with which they had been familiar from early times, are questions which I shall not attempt to determine. Into these nations, however, a large number of PÆonians subsequently penetrated, who had passed over at the time of a very ancient migration of the Teucrians, together with the Mysians.44 To this PÆonian race the Pelagonians, on the banks of the Axius, belonged; who also advanced into Thessaly, as will be shown hereafter. Of the Teucrians, however, we know nothing, excepting that in concert with (Pelasgic) Dardanians they founded the city of Troy,—where the language in use was probably allied to the Grecian, and distinct from the Phrygian.45

8. Now it is within the mountainous barriers above described that we must look for the origin of the nations which in the heroic mythology are always represented as possessing dominion and power, and are always contrasted with an aboriginal population. These, in my opinion, were northern branches of the Grecian nation, which had overrun and subdued the Greeks who dwelt further south. The most ancient abode of the Hellenes Proper (who in mythology are merely a small nation in Phthia46) was situated, [pg 012] according to Aristotle, in Epirus, near Dodona, to whose god Achilles47 prays, as being the ancient protector of his family. In all probability the AchÆans, the ruling nation both of Thessaly and of Peloponnesus, in the mythical times, were of the same race and origin as the Hellenes. The Minyans, Phlegyans, LapithÆ, and Æolians of Corinth and Salmone, came originally from the districts above Pieria, on the frontiers of Macedonia, where the very ancient Orchomenus, Minya, and Salmonia or Halmopia were situated.48 Nor is there less obscurity with regard to the northern settlements of the Ionians; they appear, as it were, to have fallen from heaven into Attica and Ægialea: they were not, however, by any means identical with the aboriginal inhabitants of these districts, and had, perhaps, detached themselves from some northern, probably AchÆan, race.49 Lastly, the Dorians are mentioned in ancient legends and poems as established in one extremity of the great mountain-chain of Upper Greece, viz. at the foot of Olympus; there are, however, reasons for supposing, that at an earlier period they had dwelt at its other northern extremity, at the furthest limit of the Grecian nation.

[pg 013]

9. We now turn our attention to the singular nation of the Hylleans (Ὑλλεῖς, Ὕλλοι), which is supposed to have dwelt in Illyria, but is in many respects connected in a remarkable manner with the Dorians. The real place of its abode can hardly be laid down; as the Hylleans are never mentioned in any historical narrative, but always in mythical legends; and they appear to have been known to the geographers only from mythological writers. Yet they are generally placed in the islands of Melita and Black-Corcyra, to the south of Liburnia.50 Now the name of the Hylleans agrees strikingly with that of the first and most noble tribe of the Dorians. Besides which, it is stated, that, though dwelling among Illyrian races, these Hylleans were nevertheless genuine Greeks. Moreover they, as well as the Doric Hylleans, were supposed to have sprung from Hyllus, a son of Hercules, whom that hero begot upon Melite, the daughter of ÆgÆus:51 here the name ÆgÆus refers to a river in Corcyra, Melite to the island just mentioned. Apollo was the chief god of the Dorians; and so [pg 014] likewise these Hylleans were said to have concealed under the earth, as the sign of inviolable sanctity, that instrument of such importance in the religion of Apollo, a tripod.52 The country of the Hylleans is described as a large peninsula, and compared to Peloponnesus: it is said to have contained fifteen cities, which, however, had not a more real existence than the peninsula as large as Peloponnesus on the Illyrian coast. How all these statements are to be understood is hard to say. It appears, however, that they can only be reconciled as follows: the Doric Hylleans had a tradition, that they came originally from these northern districts, which then bordered on the Illyrians, and were afterwards occupied by that people; and there still remained in those parts some members of their tribe, some other Hylleans. This notion of Greek Hylleans in the very north of Greece, who also were descended from Hercules, and also worshipped Apollo, was taken up and embellished by the poets; although it is not likely that any one had really ever seen these Hylleans and visited their country. Like the Hyperboreans, they existed merely in tradition and imagination. It is possible also that the CorcyrÆans, in whose island there was an “HyllÆan” harbour,53 may have contributed to the formation of these legends, as is shown by some circumstances pointed out above; but it cannot be supposed that the whole tradition arose from CorcyrÆan colonies.

10. Here we might conclude our remarks on this subject, did not the following important question deserve some consideration. What relation can we suppose to have existed between the races which migrated into those northern districts, and the native tribes, and [pg 015] what between the different races of Greece itself? All inquiries on this subject lead us back to the Pelasgians, who although not found in every part of ancient Greece (for tradition makes so wide a distinction between them and many other nations, that no confusion ever takes place),54 yet occur almost universally wherever early civilization, ancient settlements, and worships of peculiar sanctity and importance existed. And in fact there is no doubt that most of the ancient religions of Greece owed their origin to this race. The Zeus and Dione of Dodona; Zeus and HerÉ of Argos; HephÆstus and AthenÉ of Athens; Demeter and Cora of Eleusis; Hermes and Artemis of Arcadia, together with Cadmus and the Cabiri of Thebes, cannot properly be referred to any other origin. We must therefore attribute to that nation an excessive readiness in creating and metamorphosing objects of religious worship, so that the same fundamental conceptions were variously developed in different places; a variety which was chiefly caused by the arbitrary neglect of, or adherence to, particular parts of the same legend. In many places also we may recognise the sameness of character which pervaded the different worships of the above gods; everywhere we see manifested in symbols, names, rites, and legends, a uniformity of ideas and feelings. The religions introduced from Phrygia and Thrace, such as that of the Cretan Zeus and Dionysus or Bacchus, may be easily distinguished by their more enthusiastic character from the native Pelasgic worship. [pg 016] The Phoenician and Egyptian religions lay at a great distance from the early Greeks, were almost unknown even where they existed in the immediate neighbourhood, were almost unintelligible when the Greeks attempted to learn them, and repugnant to their nature when understood. On the whole, the Pelasgic worship appears to form part of a simple elementary religion, which easily represented the various forms produced by the changes of nature in different climates and seasons, and which abounded in expressive signs for all the shades of feeling which these phenomena awakened.

11. On the other hand, the religion of the northern races (who as being of Hellenic descent are put in contrast with the Pelasgians) had in early times taken a more moral turn, to which their political relations had doubtless contributed. The heroic life (which is no fiction of the poets), the fondness for vigorous and active exertion, the disinclination to the harmless occupations of husbandry, which is so remarkably seen in the conquering race of the Hellenes, necessarily awakened and cherished an entirely different train of religious feeling. Hence the Zeus Hellanius of Æacus, the Zeus Laphystius of Athamas, and, finally, the Doric Zeus, whose son is Apollo, the prophet and warrior,55 are rather representations of the moral order and harmony of the universe, after the ancient method, than of the creative powers of nature. I do not however deny, that there was a time when these different views had not as yet taken a separate direction. Thus it may be shown, that the Apollo Lyceus of the Dorians conveyed nearly the same notions as the Zeus LycÆus of the Arcadians, although the worship of either deity [pg 017] was developed independently of that of the other. Thus also certain ancient Arcadian and Doric customs had, in their main features, a considerable affinity. The points of resemblance in these different worships can be only perceived by comparison: tradition presents, at the very first outset, an innumerable collection of discordant forms of worship belonging to the several races, but without explaining to us how they came to be thus separated. For these different rites were not united into a whole until they had been first divided; and both by the connexion of worships and by the influence of poetry new combinations were introduced, which differed essentially from those of an earlier date.

12. The language of the ancient Grecian race (which, together with its religion, forms the most ancient record of its history) must, if we may judge from the varieties of dialect and from a comparison with the Latin language, have been very perfect in its structure, and rich and expressive in its flexions and formations; though much of this was polished off by the Greeks of later ages: in early times, distinctness and precision in marking the primitive words and the inflections being more attended to than facility of utterance. Wherever the ancient forms had been preserved, they sounded foreign and uncouth to more modern ears; and the language of later times was greatly softened, in comparison with the Latin. But the peculiarities of the pure Doric dialect are (wherever they were not owing to a faithful preservation of archaic forms) actual deviations from the original dialect, and consequently they do not occur in Latin; they bear, if I may be allowed the expression, a northern character. The use of the article, which did not exist in the Latin language or in that of epic poetry, can be ascribed to no other [pg 018] cause than to immigrations of new tribes, and especially to that of the Dorians. Its introduction must, as in the Romance languages, be almost considered as the sign of a great revolution. The peculiarities of the Doric dialect must have existed before the period of the migrations; since thus only can it be explained how peculiar forms of the Doric dialect were common to Crete, Argos, and Sparta: the same is also true of the dialects which are generally considered as subdivisions of the Æolic; the only reason for the resemblance of the language of Lesbos to that of Boeotia being, that Boeotians migrated at that period to Lesbos. The peculiarities of the Ionic dialect may, on the other hand, be viewed in great part as deviations caused by the genial climate of Asia;56 for the language of the Attic race, to which the Ionians were most nearly related, could hardly have differed so widely from that of the colonies of Athens, if the latter had not been greatly changed.57

[pg 019]

Clyx.com

Contents

Advertisement To The Second Edition.

Introduction.