INTRODUCTION.

THE times before Pisistratus, forming the first of the three periods into which we have divided Grecian chronology, may themselves be distributed into three portions; the first extending to the Trojan war, the second containing the space from the fall of Troy to the first Olympiad, and the third the interval from the first Olympiad to the fifty-fifth. In treating these we must be guided by the degree of our knowledge. The two first portions, where the sources of information are scanty, are briefly surveyed. In the first, little more is attempted than to ascertain the races of which the early inhabitants were composed, and to trace the families to which the leaders of the Greek nation were ascribed. In the second I have endeavoured to fix the dates of some leading epochs. In these parts of the volume, to bring the subject within a small compass, a short outline of the various positions, and the results at which I have arrived, are stated in the text; while the discussion of particular questions and an exhibition of the testimonies at large are reserved for the notes.

In these two divisions of the subject, the times before the Olympiad of Corœbus, some remarkable periods might have been preserved. It might have been remembered and recorded that the war of Troy lasted to the tenth year; that Orestes returned to Argos in the eighth year after the death of Agamemnon ; that the Boeotians occupied Boeotia in the 60th year, and the Dorians Peloponnesus in the 80th year, after the fall of Troy; or that the Ionic migration commenced 60 years after the return of the Heraclide. The duration of some remarkable reigns might also possibly have been transmitted. But it is not likely that the years of any entire series of reigns were accurately preserved. Accordingly, not relying upon the dates which are given by the later chronologers, I have attempted to draw together the scattered relics of the early traditions, and to exhibit the early times as they are related by the ancients themselves, in the form of genealogies. The positions of the chronologers are examined, and compared with those other accounts which the genealogies supply.

b

But the authority even of these has been called in question by many able and learned writers, who reject Danaüs, Cadmus, Hercules, Theseus, and many others, as fictitious persons. It is evident that any fact would come from the hands of the poets embellished with many fabulous additions; and fictitious genealogies were undoubtedly composed. Because, however, some genealogies were fictitious, we are not justified in concluding that all were fabulous. Niebuhr argues that the traditions preserved by the poets would be obscured in two or three generations. This might have happened if the poetry of the Greeks had been rude songs recited merely by the populace. But this was not the character of the early poetry of Greece. The compositions were recited by persons whose profession it was to lay them up in their memories and to transmit them. The andòs was a person of importance and dignity. In poetical language he was inspired by the gods; in plain description he was one who had leisure for intellectual pursuits, who was exempted from the necessity of labour and spared the toils of war; and who cultivated poetry as his peculiar province. What he composed was not left in the hands of the rude multitude, but was committed to other poets who were his successors in the art a.

We may also observe that national vanity, one cause of corrupting genealogies and falsifying traditions, could have no place in the early times of Greece. In later times, when the Greeks began to distinguish mankind into barbarian and Greek, this feeling would operate. But that distinction had not then been made. The country was occupied by independent and rival tribes, Ionians and Æolians and Achæans and Dorians. The traditions which celebrated the heroes of one tribe would be cautiously received by the others. Variations in the tale occurred. Thus the character and death of Sciron were related by the Athenians solely to the honour of Theseus; but the Megarians described them very differently ". These variations, however, would establish the general fact in which all agreed. And especially we may receive the traditions which were admitted by those who had no interest or concern in the admission. Some of the early traditions acknowledged obligations to foreign countries. They had to tell that they received the arts of life through Danaüs and Cadmus and Pelops from nations more civilized than themselves: these traditions, so little flattering to national vanity, were not such as a people would be apt to fabricate. In estimating, then, the

a See this subject touched upon below at p. 358. j. 372. 373.

b Plutarch. Thes. c. 10.

historical value of the genealogies transmitted by the early poets, we may take a middle course; not rejecting them as wholly false, nor yet implicitly receiving all as true. The genealogies contain many real persons, but these are incorporated with many fictitious names. The fictions, however, will have a basis of truth: the genealogical expression may be false, but the connexion which it describes is real. Even to those who reject the whole as fabulous, the exhibition of the early times which is presented in this volume may still be not unacceptable; because it is necessary for the right understanding of antiquity that the opinions of the Greeks concerning their own origin should be set before us, even if these are erroneous opinions; and that their story should be told as they have told it themselves.

The names preserved by the ancient genealogies may be considered of three kinds; either they were the name of a race or clan converted into the name of an individual, or they were altogether fictitious, or lastly they were real historical persons. An attempt is made in the four genealogical tables inserted below to distinguish these three classes of names. Those which appear to be the names of nations converted into the names of persons are there exhibited in capitals; the fictitious names are in italics. Of those who are left in the third class all are not entitled to remain there. But I have only placed in the two first classes those names concerning which there seemed to be little doubt. The rest are left to the judgment of the reader.

The following are examples of the name of a people converted into the name of a person. The brothers Lydus, Mysus, and Car, in Herodotus d; Caucon in Strabo; Pelasgus, of whom there were five f; Achæus, of whom two are recorded; Lelex, of whom three occur. To the same class I would ascribe Epeüs, Etolus, and Eleüs1; Phlegyas, Minyas, and Orchomenusk; Ion1, DorusTM, ArcasTM, Æolus°, and even Hellen P. These appellations might be applied in two ways; either the leader was described under this national name, or (as