1.χρυσὸς, aurum.2.ἄργυρος, argentum.3.χαλκὸς, æs.4.σίδηρος, ferrum.5.μόλιβος, plumbus: in later Greekμόλυβδος, the form nearest to the Latin.6.κασσίτερος, stannum.
1.χρυσὸς, aurum.
2.ἄργυρος, argentum.
3.χαλκὸς, æs.
4.σίδηρος, ferrum.
5.μόλιβος, plumbus: in later Greekμόλυβδος, the form nearest to the Latin.
6.κασσίτερος, stannum.
Here also there is a great want of correspondence. Only in iron and lead, and possibly in silver, are there signs of relationship: but in all it is remote. In the other metals it is entirely wanting; and in those which are nearest, it amounts only to presumptive derivation from a common root. The want of community in this class of terms seems to show, that the race which was the common factor of the two nations, was probably not advanced in the use of metals beyond their elementary purposes.
I will only further observe, that while so many names indicative of social and domestic relations are akin, nothing can be more clearly separate than the Greekδοῦλοςand the Latinservus. From this fact it would be no improbable inference, that slavery was unknown to the Pelasgians: and their ignorance of it would, on the other hand, be in the closest harmony with their slight concern in warlike and in maritimepursuits; since captivity in the one, and kidnapping through the other, were the two great feeders of the institution. It is also in close correspondence with the further hypothesis, which represents the Pelasgians as probably the race that first occupied the Greek soil, and found no predecessors upon it over whom to establish political or proprietary dominion[546].
It may, I think, deserve notice in confirmation of the general argument, that almost all those Greek words, which are in close affinity with the Latin, are found in Homer. For there can be little doubt that, after his time, the Greek tongue became more and more Hellenic: and the fact that a word is Homeric supplies the most probable token of a link with a Pelasgian origin.
And now let us sum up under this head of discussion.
It may be said with very general truth, that the words which have been quoted, and the classes to which they belong, have reference to the primary experience and to the elementary wants and productions of life: but that they do not touch the range of subjects belonging to civilization and the highest powers of man, such as war, art, policy, and song.
But if the evidence goes to show, that the Pelasgian tongue supplied both the Latin and the Greek nations with most of the principal elementary words, and with those which express the main ideas connected with rural industry, the inference strongly arises, 1. That they constituted the base of the Greek nation; and, 2. that, originally cultivators of the soil for themselves, there came upon them a time when other tribes acquired the mastery among them, so that thenceforth they had to cultivate it under the government of others. The case of the Pelasgian vocabulary in theLatin and in the Greek languages would thus appear to resemble the Saxon contribution to the English tongue: and it is likely that something like the general position, which we know to be denoted in the one case, is also similarly to be inferred in the other.
Evidence from names of persons.
No inconsiderable light may, I think, be thrown upon the character and pursuits of the Pelasgian and Hellenic races respectively, from an examination of the etymology of the names of persons contained in the Homeric poems. For the names of men, in the early stages of society, are so frequently drawn direct from their pursuits and habits, that the ideas, on which they are founded, may serve to guide us to a knowledge of the character and occupations of a people.
By way of summary proof that a connection prevailed (whether the names be fictitious or not, I care not, for this purpose, to inquire,) between the Homeric names, and the pursuits and habits of those who bear them, I may refer to the names of Phæacians and Ithacans. Of the latter, which are numerous, not one is derived from the horse; and we know[547]that no horses were used in Ithaca. The former are chiefly composed of words connected with the sea: in conformity with the fact that the pursuits of the people are represented by Homer as thoroughly maritime.
The names of persons in Homer are extremely numerous, amounting to many hundreds. It would be hazardous, as a general rule, to assume for them an historical character, except in the cases of such individuals as, from general eminence or local connection, or fromsome particular gift or circumstance, were likely to be held in remembrance. In some cases, as we have already seen[548], they bear the marks of invention upon them. But this question is little material for the present purpose: and indeed the probability that we ought, as a general rule, to regard the less distinguished names as fabricated for the purposes of the poem, makes it the more reasonable that we should turn to them to see how far they connect themselves with distinctions of pursuit, character, and race, and what properties and characteristics, when so connected, they appear to indicate as having been assigned by Homer to one race or to another.
We must not expect to arrive at anything better than general and approximate conclusions; for particular circumstances, unknown to us, may have varied the course of etymological nomenclature, and it may also happen, that in a great number of cases we cannot securely trace etymology at all.
Subject to these cautions, I would observe, first, that the evidence from other sources generally tends to show,
1. That the Trojans, except as to the royal house[549], and perhaps a few other distinguished families, were Pelasgian.
2. That the base of the Greek army and nation were Pelasgian: with an infusion of Hellenic tribes, not families merely, who held the governing power and probably formed the upper, that is, the proprietary and military, class of the community, in most parts of Greece.
3. That some parts of the Greek peninsula present little or no mark of Hellenic influences; particularly Attica and Arcadia.
4. That the Lycians appear to approximate morethan the other races on the Trojan side to the high Greek type, and to present either the Hellenic element, or some element akin to it, in a marked form.
The investigation of individual names occurring singly would be endless, and often equivocal: but Homer frequently unites many names in a group under circumstances, which authorize us to assume a common origin and character for the persons designated: and others, though he may not collect them together in the same passage, are yet associated in virtue of palpable relations between them.
An examination of Homeric names, in the groups thus gathered, has brought me to the following results:
1. Where we have reason to presume an Hellenic extraction, a large proportion of those names, of which the etymology can be traced, appear to express ideas connected with glory, political power, mental fortitude, energy and ability, martial courage and strength, or military operations.
2. But where we may more reasonably suppose, in part or in whole, a Pelasgic stock, ideas of this kind are more rarely expressed, and another vein of etymology appears, founded on rural habits, abodes, and pursuits, or the creation and care of worldly goods, or on other properties or occupations less akin to political and martial pursuits, or to high birth and station.
It is at the same time worth remark that, among the slaves of the Odyssey, we find names of a more high-born cast than those most current among the Pelasgians. Such as Eumæus (μάω, to desire eagerly and strive after), Euryclea, (who moreover is daughter of Ops the son of Peisenor,) Eurymedusa (in Scheria), and Alcippe (at Sparta[550]). There were two causes, towhich this might be referable: first, that high-born slaves were often obtained both by kidnapping and by war; Eumæus, as we know, was of this class. And secondly, that the names of their lords may then, as now, have been occasionally given them. So that the high significations connected with servile names do not constitute an objection to the rules which have been stated.
There is another class of names, which requires especial notice. They are those which have reference to the horse. The rearing and care of the horse are in Homer more connected with the Trojans, than with the Greeks: and his standing epithet,ἱπποδάμος, is more largely employed on the Trojan side[551]. The horse was not exclusively, perhaps not principally, employed in war and games. He was used in travelling also: he may have been employed as a beast of burden: he certainly drew the plough, though Homer informs us that in this occupation the mule was preferable.
The points at which we may expect to find names chiefly Pelasgian, besides those which are expressly given us as such, will be these three:
1. In connection with some particular parts of Greece, especially Attica or Arcadia.
2. Among the masses of the common Greek soldiery.
3. Still more unequivocally among the masses of the Trojan force, and of the auxiliaries generally; except the Lycians, whom we have seen reason to presume to have been less Pelasgian, and more allied, or at least more similar, to the Hellic races.
On the other hand we may presume Hellic blood, or what in Homer’s estimation was akin to it, among the Lycians, and likewise wherever we find, especially on the Greek side, any considerable collection of namesappertaining to the higher class or aristocracy of the army, or of the country.
Names of the Pelasgian Class.
The Homeric names, which are given us as expressly Pelasgian, are four only; and they belong to the Pelasgian force on the Trojan side.
1. Hippothous.2. Pulæus.3. Lethus.4. Teutamus[552].
The etymology of the three first names seems obvious enough: and, though the persons are all rulers among their people, not one of them unequivocally presents the characteristics which we should regard as appropriate in Hellic names: although, from their being of the highest rank, we should be less surprised if the case were otherwise.
As regards the first of the four, upon examining the class of names relating to the horse in the poems, we find, as far as I have observed, only Hipponous[553]among the Greeks. This rank does not clearly appear: butνόος, the second factor of the word, supplies the higher element.
On the other side, in addition to Hippolochus, a name meaning horse-ambush, who was both Lycian and royal, we have Hippasus, Hippodamas, Hippodamus, Hippocoon, Hippomachus, and Hippotion. We have likewise,
Melanippus, (Il. xvi. 695.)Echepolus, (Il. xvi. 417.)Euippus, (Il. xvi. 417.)
Take again Pulæus, fromπύλη. This name may mean porter or gate-keeper: it is scarcely susceptible of a high sense. In connection with the character of the Pelasgians as masons and builders of walled places, it is appropriate to them. Homer has three other names, and no more, which appear to be founded simply uponthe term gate:Πύλων,Πυλάρτης, andΠυλαιμένης. They are all on the Trojan side.
Next, we have a larger class of names, where a strong infusion of the Pelasgic character may be expected: namely, those connected with Attica.
Among these, three belong to its royal house, and in them we find no certain features of the Pelasgian kind. They are,
1. Erechtheus,2. Peteos,From Il. ii. 547-52.3. Menestheus,
The last of the three, however, seems, if derived fromμένος, to belong to the higher class of names.
Besides these three there are,
4. Pheidas,5. Stichius,Il. xiii. 690, 1.6. Bias,
7. Iasus,8. Sphelus,Il. xv. 332, 7, 8.9. Boucolus.
Now the whole of these are commanders or officers; and yet four of them, Pheidas (φείδω), Stichius (στείχω), Sphelus (σφάλλω), and Boucolus (βούκολος), are in a marked manner of the Pelasgian class: Bias (βίη), may perhaps belong to it, as meaning mere physical force: and on the etymology of the ancient name Iasus I do not venture to speculate. Boucolus, like Boucolion, which we shall meet presently, deserves particular attention: we find nothing at all resembling it among the names which are (on other grounds) presumably Hellic.
Other names in the poems, which there may be some reason, from their local connection, to presume Pelasgian, are,
1. Lycoorgus,From Il. vii. 136, 149, where they are described as Arcadians.2. Ereuthalion,
3. Dmetor, Lord of Cyprus, from Od. xvii. 443.
And perhaps we may add,
4. An Ion or Ian, as head of theἸάονες.5. An Apis, the early eponymist of the Peloponnesus, or a part of it[554].
Now, though these are all rulers and great personages, the name Dmetor is the only one among them which seems in any degree to present Hellenic ideas: nor need that mean a subduer of men; it may as well mean simply a breaker of horses. Apis, we have every reason to suppose, means the ox. Lycoorgus, fromΛυκὸςandἔργονor its root, has all the appearance of being characteristically Pelasgian.
Let us now inquire if the rules laid down will bear the test of being applied to the lower order of the Greek soldiery.
In the Fifth Iliad Hector and Mars slay a batch of apparently undistinguished persons[555]. They are,
1. Teuthras.2. Orestes.3. Trechus.4. Œnomaus.5. Helenus (son of Œnops).6. Orestius.
And again in the Eleventh Iliad Hector slays nine more;
1. Asæus.2. Autonous.3. Opites.4. Dolops (son of Clytus).5. Opheltius.6. Agelaus.7. Æsymnus.8. Orus.9. Hipponous.
Now out of the seventeen names here assembled,
Four, namely, Autonous, Clytus, Agelaus, and Æsymnus (from its connection with the wordαἰσυμνητὴς, ruler), belong to what I term the Hellic class.
Three, namely, Teuthras, Asæus, and Helenus, do not immediately suggest a particular derivation.
Of Hipponous I have already spoken. The other nine appear to conform to the Pelasgian type. Œnomaus corresponds with the Latin Bibulus.
Again; the names of ordinary Trojans appear to belong generally to the same type.
When Patroclus commences his exploits in the Sixteenth book, he slays in succession,
1. Pronous.2. Thestor, son of3. Enops.4. Erualus.5. Erumas.6. Amphoteros.7. Epaltes.8. Tlepolemus, son of9. Damastor.10. Echios.11. Puris.12. Ipheus.13. Euippus, and14. Polumelus, son of15. Argeas.
Of these only Tlepolemus and Pronous can with certainty be assigned to the higher class. Damastor is doubtful, like Dmetor; but perhaps from its connection with Tlepolemus, we ought to place it in the same category. Still it must be observed that Homer takes care to bring into action against Patroclus and the Myrmidons his favourites the Lycians, as well as the Trojans[556]: and that therefore we are to presume in this list an intermixture of Lycian names.
The names of ordinary Trojans are for the most part of the same colour. But we must bear in mind that we cannot so easily trace the Trojan as the Greek commonalty. Homer rarely allows a Greek of high stationor distinction to be slain: whereas the Greeks continually destroy Trojans of eminence. We may therefore be prepared to find names of the higher type somewhat more freely sprinkled among the Trojan than among the Greek slain.
In the Sixth Iliad[557]a number of the Greek heroes dispatch consecutively a list of Trojans, which supplies the following names:
1. Dresus.2. Opheltius.
3. ÆsepusThese two were sons of Boucolion, an illegitimate son of Laomedon, who apparently never was acknowledged, but was brought up in the lower class by his mother Abarbaree.4. PedasusI add these names to the list:
5. Boucolion.6. Abarbaree (mother of Boucolion).7. Astualus.8. Pidutes.9. Aretaon.10. Ableros.11. Elatus.12. Phylacus.13. Melanthius.14. Adrestus.
Among all these names there is not one which we can with confidence place in the higher category except Aretaon. Dresus (compareδρήστηρ, a domestic servant), Opheltius, Boucolion, Melanthius (from its use in the Odyssey, supported by Melantho, and both belonging to servants), are unequivocally of the Pelasgian class:probably Elatus (which however is found among the Ithacan suitors), Phylacus, Adrestus, should be similarly interpreted. Astualos (ἄστυ,ἃλς) has no contrary force: and of the rest the derivation is not obvious.
If we take the second batch of Trojans slain by Patroclus, it gives a somewhat different result. They are[558],
1. Adrestus.2. Autonous.3. Echeclus.4. Perimus, son of Megas.5. Epistor.6. Melanippus.7. Elasus.8. Moulius.9. Pulartes.
Of these Autonous and Epistor would seem clearly to belong to the higher class; to which we may add Echeclus, if it is derived (like Echecles, a Myrmidon chieftain) fromἔχωandκλέος: but even this is not a large proportion.
Now when we turn to the Lycians[559]slain consecutively by Ulysses, we find a material change. These are,
1. Koiranos.2. Alastor.3. Chromius.4. Alcandros.5. Halios.6. Noemon.7. Prutanis.
Of the higher or Hellenic Class.
All of these seven visibly belong to the higher or Hellenic order of names, exceptΧρόμιος, which I presume may be akin toχρῶμα, andἍλιος, ‘mariner.’ But this last named designation is also somewhat Hellic: I doubt if we find among Pelasgian names any taken from maritime ideas or pursuits.
Again, when Achilles comes forth, there is provided for him a list of victims bearing distinguished names[560], though practically unknown as characters in the poem. At the end of the Twentieth book he slays,
1. Druops.2. Demouchus, son of3. Philetor.4. Laogonus, and5. Dardanus, sons of6. Bias.7. Tros, son of8. Alastor.9. Moulius.10. Echeclus, son of11. Agenor.12. Deucalion.13. Rigmos, son of14. Peiroos, one of the Thracian leaders.15. Areithous.
Now of these fifteen names none, if judged by the rules which we have laid down, would clearly fall into the Pelasgian, or more plebeian, class, except Dryops, perhaps Laogonus, and Bias: three only. Peiroos and Rigmos (probably akin toῥῖγος) are Thracian, and may be put aside. Six, viz., Demuchus, Philetor, Alastor (contrast with this Lethus), Echeclus, Agenor, and Areithous, are of the Hellic class. The others, Dardanus, Tros, Moulius (Il. xi. 739), and Deucalion are repeated from eminent historical personages.
In this set of names we observe, in conjunction with a new instance of Homer’s ever wakeful care in doing supreme honour to Achilles, unequivocal evidence, as I think, that the poet did distribute his names with some special meaning among his minor, and, (so we must suppose,) generally or frequently, non-historical personages.
And the further inference may perhaps be drawn of a probable affinity of race between the highest Trojans and the Hellic tribes.
This inference may be supported by another example. The numerous sons of Antenor, whose names are collected from different parts of the poem, are as follows:
1. Agenor, Il. xi. 59.2. Acamas, ii. 823. xi. 60. xii. 100,et alibi.3. Archelochus, ii. 823. xiv. 464.4. Coon, xi. 248.5. Demoleon, xx. 395.6. Echeclus, xx. 474.7. Helicaon, iii. 123.8. Iphidamas, xi. 221.9. Laodamas, xv. 516.10. Laodocus, iv. 87. and11. Pedæus (νόθος), v. 70.
I apprehend Laodocus should be construed, after the manner of Demodocus, to signify having fame or repute among theλαός. If so, then of the ten legitimate sons, eight have names with an etymology that directly connects them with the higher signification. The name of the Bastard only is more doubtful.
Among the Suitors in Ithaca, who are the princes and chief men of the island, with their connections, and others of the same class, we have the following list of names of the high class:
Mentor.Elatus. (cf. Il. xi. 701.)Euryades.Eurydamas.Eurymachus.Eurynomus.Amphinomus.Peisander.Eupeithes.Antinous.Leiocritus.Leiodes.Agelaus.Damastor.Demoptolemus.Euryades.Mastor.Euenor.Phronius.Noemon.
Nor are the names which have not been placed in this list of an opposite character. They are chiefly such as have not an obvious etymology. Two of them, Ægyptius and Polybus, were, as we know, great names in Egypt, and they probably indicate a Pelasgian or an Egyptian extraction. Others are, Halitherses, Melaneus, Ctesippus, Nisus, Antiphus, Peiræus. Of these,the two, or even the three, first may perhaps be regarded as properly Hellic.
Take again the six sons of Nestor:
1. Antilochus.2. Stratius.3. Thrasymedes.4. Echephron.5. Perseus.6. Aretus (akin toἀρέσκω,ἀρετή, and the Arete of Scheria).
Of these only Perseus would not at once fall within the class; and this is evidently a most noble name, taken from a great Greek hero. Indeed it must itself stand as a conspicuous example of the rule, if we shall hereafter be able to show[561]a relationship between the Hellic races and Persia as their fountain-head.
Lastly, let us take the Myrmidon leaders and commanders. These were,
1. Patroclus;son ofand after him the heads of the five divisions.
2. Menœtius.3. Menesthius.4. Eudorus.5. Peisander, son of6. Maimalus, fromμαιμάω.
7. Phœnix.This name may represent, (1) Phœnician extraction or connection; (2) The palm tree; (3) The colour of red or purple, akin toφόνος, and to blood, which the colourφοίνιξis supposed to betoken. In any of these three aspects, it will fall into the Hellic class.
8. Alcimedon, son of Laerces.9. Automedon.
All these names belong to the higher categories. It is therefore the general result of our inquiry, that wherever we have reason on other grounds to presumea Pelasgian origin, we find in the proper names of persons, unless they chance to be merely descriptive of the country they inhabited, a decided tendency to represent peaceful, profitable, and laborious pursuits, or the lower qualities and conditions of mankind. But wherever from other causes we are entitled to presume an Hellic relationship, there, so far as a simple etymology will carry us, the personal appellatives appear to run upon ideas derived from intellect, power, command, policy, fame, the great qualities and achievements of war; in short, apart from religion, which does not appear to enter into the composition of nomenclature at all, all the ideas that appeal most strongly to those masculine faculties of our race, in which its perfection was so vividly conceived by the Greeks to reside.
Evidence from political and martial ideas.
One among the most remarkable features of the Homeric Poems is, their highly forward development of political ideas in a very early stage of society[562]. It seems hardly necessary to argue that these were of Hellic origin; because the fact is before us, that they make their appearance in Homer simultaneously with the universal ascendancy of the Hellic over the Pelasgian tribes wherever they were in contact; and because, in comparing the two nations together, we shall have occasion to note the greater backwardness, and indocility, so to speak, of the Trojans[563]in this respect. I assume, therefore, without detailed argument, the peculiar relation between the Hellic stock and the political institutions of Greece.
For similar reasons I shall touch very briefly the relation of the Hellic tribes to the martial character of Greece.
We may consider the whole Iliad, which representsa conflict between less Pelasgic and more Pelasgic races, and which gives a clear superiority to the former, as a general but decisive testimony to this fact.
We find another such testimony, with a well established historical character, in the comparison between the secondary military position of Athens in the Iliad, and its splendid distinctions in later times. It is true indeed, that the Athenian troops are mentioned specifically in the attack upon the ships, together with the Bœotians, Locrians, Phthians, and Epeans[564]. Of these the two latter are called respectivelyμεγάθυμοιandφαιδιμόεντες; the Athenians are theἸάονες ἑλκεχίτωνες, an epithet of most doubtful character as applied to soldiers. It seems to me plain that Homer by no means meant the particular notice of these five divisions for a mark of honour: they fought to be defeated, and he does not use his prime Greeks in that manner. No Peloponnesian forces are named as having been engaged on this occasion. Those probably were the flower of the army; and it is mentioned in the Catalogue that the troops of Agamemnon were the best[565]. Again, it will be seen, on reference to the Catalogue, that the whole force of Middle Greece is here in battle except the Ætolians, the contingent of Ulysses, and the Abantes (for whom see 542-4). These three are all distinguished races, whom he seems purposely to have excluded from a contest, where honour was not to be gained. The military contrast, then, between the earlier and the later Athens, may be taken to be established: and with it coincides that very marked, though normal and pacific, transition of Attica from the exclusively Pelasgic to the fullest development of the composite Greek character[566].
The passage of the seventh Iliad, which describesthe war of the Pylians with the Arcadians, suggests a like conclusion.
Upon the whole, however, thede factoHellic ascendancy in Greece at the time is, with reference to war and the strong hand even more than to policy, a full presumption of their title to be regarded as having given birth to the splendid military genius of Greece.
When, for the business of the Trojan war, Homer divides the two great traditive deities[567], and assigns to the Greeks Pallas, the more political, energetic, and intellectual of the two, to the Trojans Apollo, we may take this as of itself involving an assertion, that the high arts of policy and war were peculiarly Hellenic.
Evidence from Games.
We come now to the principle of what may be called corporal education, which found a development among the Greeks more fully than among any other nation; first, in gymnastic exercises, generally pursued, and, secondly, in the great national institution of the Games.
“There were,” says Grote[568], “two great holding points in common for every section of Greeks. One was the Amphictyonic Assembly, which met half yearly, alternately at Delphi and at Thermopylae; originally and chiefly for common religious purposes, but indirectly and occasionally embracing political and social objects along with them. The other was, the public festivals or games, of which the Olympic came first in importance; next, the Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian: institutions, which combined religious solemnities with recreative effusion and hearty sympathies, in a manner so imposing and so unparalleled. Amphictyon represents the first of these institutions, and Aethlius the second.”
This passage places in an extremely clear light the relative position of the Games and the AmphictyonicAssembly. The Council represented a religious institution, partaking also of a political character. The Games, on the other hand, were a gymnastic celebration, made available for national gatherings: placed, as a matter of prime public moment, under the guardianship of high religious solemnities, and referred for greater effect, in the later tradition, to some person of the highest rank and extraction, as their nominal founder. As the objects of the Games and the Council were distinct, so were their origin and history different; and this difference mounted up into the very earliest ages. This is clearly proved by the extra-historic and mythical names assigned to their founders, whose faint personality does not even serve to repress the suggestion of fiction, conveyed with irresistible force by etymological considerations. But the legend, though a legend only, conformed to the laws of probability, by assigning to Amphictyon a Thessalian birth, and by vindicating at the same time to Aethlius the higher honour of the immediate paternity of Jupiter; while, by placing him in Elis it secures his function as the institutor of the oldest, namely, the Olympic Games. In this legend, too, we see Hellenic imagination providing for its own ancestral honours in competition, as it were, with those of the sister institution, which may have been Pelasgian.
The foundation of Gamesin genereappears to be traceable, with sufficient clearness and upon Homeric evidence, to the Hellic tribes.
The lengthened detail of the Twenty-third Iliad is of itself enough to prove their importance, as an institution founded in the national habits and manners. We must not, however, rely upon the absence of any similar celebrations, or even allusions to them, among the Trojans; since their condition, in the circumstancesof the war, will of itself account for it. But we may observe how closely it belonged to the character of the greatest heroes to excel in every feat of gymnastic strength, as well as in the exercises of actual warfare. The kings and leading chiefs all act in the Games, with the qualified exception of Agamemnon, whose dignity could not allow him to be actually judged by his inferiors, but yet who appears as a nominal candidate, and receives the compliment of a prize, though spared the contest for it; and with the exception also of Achilles, who could not contend for his own prizes. Again, it is a piece of evidence in favour of the Hellic character of public Games, that, though there were three Athenian leaders alive during the action of the Twenty-third Book, none of them took any part. They were Menestheus, Pheidas, and Bias. Again, the speech of Ulysses to Euryalus, the saucy Phæacian[569], with the acts which followed it, strengthen the general testimony of the Iliad upon the point. So does the prosecution of these exercises, to the best of their power, even by the Phæacians, the kindred of the gods.
So much for the general idea of Games in Homer; but, to draw the distinction with any force between what is Hellic and what is Pelasgic, we must refer to those passages which afford glimpses of the earlier state of Greece, and see what light they afford us.
According to the Homeric text, Elis and Corinth were the portions of the Peloponnesus, where the early notes of the presence of the Hellenic races are most evident. Now of these Elis had the greatest and oldest Greek Games, while the Isthmian festival at Corinth was held to stand next to them.
The invention of these gymnastic exercises wasascribed in the later mythology to Mercury, who is in Homer a Hellenic, as opposed to Pelasgian, deity.
Mercurî, facunde nepos Atlantis,Qui feros mores hominum recentumVoce formasti catus, et decoræMore palæstræ[570].
Mercurî, facunde nepos Atlantis,Qui feros mores hominum recentumVoce formasti catus, et decoræMore palæstræ[570].
It has been observed, that the Hermes of Homer bears no trace of this function: but we have no proof in Homer of the formal institution of Games at all, although we have clear signs of them as a known and familiar practice; and the Mercury of the poems is even yet more Phœnician than he is Hellenic. Aristophanes[571]produces theἙρμῆς Ἐναγώνιος, and supplies a fresh link of connection by referring toἀγῶνεςin music, as well as in feats of corporal strength and skill. So does Pindar[572].
In truth, these Games were the exercise and pleasure of the highest orders only. For we see that, in Homer’s Twenty-third Book, not a single person takes a part in any of the eight matches that is not actually named among theἡγεμόνεςandκοίρανοιof the Catalogue, with three such exceptions as really confirm the rule. They are Antilochus, the heir apparent of Pylos, Teucer the brother of Ajax, and Epeus, (only however in the boxing match,) who appears from the Odyssey[573]to have been a person of importance, as he contrived the stratagem of the horse. Even theσόλος αὐτοχόωνος, the iron lump, part of the booty of Achilles, had formerly been used for the sport only of a king[574].
ὃν πρὶν μὲν ῥίπτασκε μέγα σθένος Ἠετίωνος.
ὃν πρὶν μὲν ῥίπτασκε μέγα σθένος Ἠετίωνος.
The Greek Games presuppose leisure, and therefore the accumulation of property, or the concentrated possession of lands: but this comports much more with Hellenic than with what we know of Pelasgic society, in which we do not find the same signs as in the former, of an aristocracy occupying the middle place between the people at large, and the royal house. Let us now examine another part of the Homeric evidence.
In the Eleventh Iliad, Nestor’s legend acquaints us that, at the time of the war between Pylians and Elians, Neleus the king appropriated a part of the Pylian spoil, in respect of a ‘debt’ owed him in Elis, the nature of which he explains[575]:
τέσσαρες ἀθλοφόροι ἵπποι αὐτοῖσιν ὄχεσφιν,ἐλθόντες μετ’ ἄεθλα· περὶ τρίποδος γὰρ ἔμελλονθεύσεσθαι· τοὺς δ’ αὖθι ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Αὐγείαςκάσχεθε, τὸν δ’ ἐλατῆρ’ ἀφίει, ἀκαχήμενον ἵππων.
τέσσαρες ἀθλοφόροι ἵπποι αὐτοῖσιν ὄχεσφιν,ἐλθόντες μετ’ ἄεθλα· περὶ τρίποδος γὰρ ἔμελλονθεύσεσθαι· τοὺς δ’ αὖθι ἄναξ ἀνδρῶν Αὐγείαςκάσχεθε, τὸν δ’ ἐλατῆρ’ ἀφίει, ἀκαχήμενον ἵππων.
There were then, it is plain, chariot races regularly established (for the Games are here spoken of without explanation, as a matter familiarly known) in Olympia: and this was during the boyhood of Nestor, or about two generations before the Trojan war. The tribes, which we here see concerned in these Games, are first, the Pylians, and next the Elians, of whom Augeas was king. It will be seen in a subsequent part of this inquiry[576], that both of these tribes were Hellic, and not Pelasgian. Yet certainly there is nothing here to show directly the non-participation of Pelasgians in the games.
There is however another passage of our useful friend Nestor in the Twenty-third Book, which supplies in some degree even this form of evidence. ‘Would,’ says he in his usual phrase, ‘would I were young and strong[577],’
ὡς ὅποτε κρείοντ’ Ἀμαρυγκέα θάπτον ἘπειοὶΒουπρασίῳ, παῖδες δ’ ἔθεσαν βασιλῆος ἄεθλα·
ὡς ὅποτε κρείοντ’ Ἀμαρυγκέα θάπτον ἘπειοὶΒουπρασίῳ, παῖδες δ’ ἔθεσαν βασιλῆος ἄεθλα·
Here is a distinct testimony to the custom of funeral Games in Elis, nearly two generations before theTroica.They embraced, as we find further down in the record, 1. Chariot races, with the best prize; 2. Boxing; 3. Wrestling; 4. Running; and 5. Hurling the spear. But we have a further most valuable passage. There was no person present, says Nestor, equal to myself; and then he adds an exhaustive enumeration of the races that furnished the company: