HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES. 309 Inscriptiones Tyrae, Olbiae, Chersonesi Tauricae,

(C).— HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES.

Griechische Geschichte bis zur Schlacht bei Chaironeia. Von DR. GEOEG BUSOLT. I. Teil. Bis zu dem Perserkriegen. Gotha, 1885. History of from the Earliest Times to the End of the Persian War. Translated from the German of PROFESSOR MAX DUNCKER by S. F. ALLEYNE and EVELYN ABBOTT. Vols. I. and II. London, 1881. Griechische Geschichte von ihrem Ursprunge bis zum Untergange der Selbstandigkeit. Von ADOLF HOLM. Erster Band. Berlin, 1886. IN these three works we have the latest results of the labours of German erudition directed to a thorough examination of the sources 310 NOTICES OF BOOKS. of early Greek history and a reconstruction of that history in the light that has recently been brought to bear on it, chiefly from the discoveries and generalisations of archaeologists and comparative mythologists. But the work of criticism and of reconstruction has in each case been undertaken from a different point of view, and its results are presented in a different form. Dr. Busolt's work shows generally a more sceptical attitude than that of the other two authors. It also supposes that his readers possess both an acquaintance with ancient and modern sources and facilities for referring to such sources. His chapters on authorities at the beginning of each chapter are most useful, and his foot-notes refer us to all manner of stores of information. Prof. Duncker's book is that of one who has long laboured in the same field and is in some respects more original and less critical. For the convenience of the general reader, he not only refers to, but copies in extenso, all that the earlier and traditional authorities have to tell us on some important subjects, even where his subsequent examination of their statements makes them almost entirely valueless. He has, as he says in his preface, ' woven together the indispensable critical dis- quisitions upon a basis of traditional facts.' The history of Holm is shorter, less pretentious in character, and truly admirable for the clearness with which proved facts are distinguished from dubious hypotheses. The narrative in the text is not much broken by critical examinations, but very valuable criticisms are given in an appendix to each chapter. The book is thus at once attractive to the general reader, and useful to those preparing for special studies. Some of the characteristics of each author may be shown by comparing the view which each takes of a few important problems in Greek history, such as the nature of the pre-Dorian population of the , the work of Lycurgus, the Phoenician settle- ments in Greece, and the character of the Corinthian tyranny. On the first of these points, the state of the Peloponnese before the Dorian invasion, we cannot present any positive opinion of Dr. Busolt, as his criticism is here mainly destructive. He considers that the races dispossessed by the Dorians were akin to the Arcadians, and so far from attaching any credit to the tradi- tions of their early greatness, regards the remains of Tiryns and Mycenae as belonging to Dorian princes, and would even attribute the renown of the Peloponnesian Achaeans to Spartan pride work- ing on the material of epic poets, in whose eyes the Achaeans were inhabitants of Thessaly and not of the Peloponnese at all. Prof. Duncker, on the other hand, believes in the greatness HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES. 311 and the wealth of the empire of the Pelopidae, and his views as to the origin of the Greek people seem substantially the same as those of Prof. Curtius. It is, however, exceedingly difficult to determine clearly what he would connote by the names given to primitive Greek peoples. ' We may be quite sure,' he says, ' that the Pelasgians, Achaeans, and Hellenes were not three distinct races, but that these names rather indicate three distinct periods of Greek history, and denote three stages arising out of, and following one another, in the development of the one Greek people.' In another place he speaks of ' the name of Pelasgus, derived from the universal intuition of the Greeks of ancient times.' To Holm, however, the Achaeans are not a phase, but a definite people, who inhabited Argolis and probably also Laconia before the Dorian occupation, and the Pelasgi also are a definite people, inhabiting definite districts in Europe and Asia, whose name was extended, for various ex- plicable reasons, so as to take in many to whom it did not properly belong. The primitive, pious, peace-loving, rather colourless Pelasgians of the ordinary conception seem to be banished to the regions of the blameless Ethiopians. In his chapter on the remains of prehistoric art in Greece, the author sets before us a lively picture of the best times of Tiryns and Mycenae, calling in the historical imagination to relieve the vagueness of conflicting traditions and conjectures. If we turn to another matter—the character of Lycurgus and his work—we see similar differences in method of treatment. Dr. Busolt does not go so far as to deny the historical personality of Lycurgus altogether, but he would not attribute to him any of the fundamental institutions of the Spartan state, nor yet, apparently, the peculiarities of the Spartan discipline. Prof. Duncker has a brilliant theory, which would account for much that has hitherto baffled investigation, especially the double monarchy, the eponymous titles of the kings, and the position of the law-giver. He holds that the work of Lycurgus was the union into one political body of two Dorian states, dwelling on the Oenus and on the upper respectively, and that this union was effected after King Charilaus had been worsted in the war with the Tegeans. The military system, the discipline, and the sumptuary laws of the Spartans he would assign to a later period. Holm recognises the great ingenuity of Duncker's hypothesis without venturing to adopt it. But he does not consider it impossible that the laws against wealth and luxury may have originated at the same time as the new political order, and have been promulgated by the originator of that order. In tracing the early history of Attica, Dr. Busolt rejects all 312 NOTICES OF BOOKS. traditions of Phoenician colonies, though he recognises the im- portant influence of Phoenician trade. ' The opinion that they (the Phoenicians) colonised Thebes is certainly unfounded, nor have we any more reason to suppose that a colony in Athens (Melite) was founded by them.' Duncker, on the other hand, regards the settle- ment of the Phoenicians in Athens as a clearly ascertained fact, and associates its overthrow with the union of Attic communities into one state traditionally ascribed to Theseus. Holm considers the existence of Phoenician colonies in Thebes and in Athens as not improbable, though not clearly proved. In treating of the government of the Cypselidae in Corinth, both Busolt and Duncker are inclined to a more favourable view than that of Herodotus. Busolt attributes the sentiments of the speech put by Herodotus into the mouth of the Corinthian Sosicles to the relations existing between Athens and Corinth at the moment when the historian published his narrative. Duncker traces the motive which led the Corinthians to accuse their tyrants of spoliation, to the desire to represent as their own property the treasures laid up at Delphi and elsewhere. But while defending Periander from some of the charges brought against him, Prof. Duncker insists, on grounds which hardly seem sufficiently strong, that he ' must bear the guilt of the death of Melissa.' Holm does not pass a definite judgment on the arbitrary acts of Cypselus and his son, but shows the improbability of the theory that princes who encouraged the worship of Dionysus should in their internal regulations have acted solely with a view to public order and decency. In spite of all differences, however, we may observe important common characteristics in the methods of all three authors. All alike take a wide view of the province of history so as to make it include the literary, artistic, and religious, as well as the political development of the people. All are very ready to make use of archaeological results, especially those of numismatics. In the use of early historians, not even Busolt entirely disparages the authority of Herodotus, though they would all restrict it within certain limits. Thus for the date of Phidon of Argos, all three prefer the statements of Pausanias to those of Herodotus, and Duncker confidently asks, ' Who can seriously adopt the argument that the coins of Phidon belong to the end of the seventh century— that is, that they were struck just before the time of Solon 1' One of the chief drawbacks to the value of Dr. Busolt's work is the difficulty the ordinary reader meets in clearly ascertaining the grounds of his conclusions, especially where they are drawn from HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES. 313 archaeological materials. Thus we find him confidently asserting the existence in the fifth century of a monetary alliance among the Arcadian states, though in a foot-note he refers to the rival hypothesis by which Imhoof-Blumer would explain the coins with the inscription Arhadikon. Still more serious is the difficulty caused to the student, by the statement that the theory of Prof. Curtius as to the early migrations of the Ionians ' has long been found un- tenable,' for the proof of which statement he is referred in a foot-note to articles in various German periodicals. The difficulty we experience in trying to determine Prof. Duncker's canons of evidence are of a different kind, and arise from the manner in which brilliant and plausible hypotheses are stated as if they were matters of fact. Besides the views given above of the union of the two Spartan states under Lycurgus and the combination of the Attic cantons in opposition to the Phoenicians, we have an interesting theory of the origin of the Parthenii and their discontent, which he attributes to a restoration of the old and strict marriage laws and. a retrospective enforcement of the same; also some interesting generalisations concerning the moral influence of the religious sentiment in the Greek aristocracies. In one or two places his deductions from archaeological facts seem rather questionable, as when he says, ' That the Cypria were composed before the year 600 B.C. is evident from the representation of the Judgment of Paris on the chest of Cypselus.' The general arrangement of the work is not all that might be desired in point of clearness. In the introductory remarks to his history, Holm observes that in the investigation of original sources, what we now require is not so much the reconstruction of the lost works of ancient authors, as the discriminating study of those we still possess. If we extend this remark and apply it to modern authorities in special fields, we arrive at the conclusion that a writer of ancient history is now likely to produce good work in proportion as he is able clearly and justly to estimate the historical import of the labours of specialists in all subjects which are or might be made auxiliary to the study of history.—A. G.

Historia Numorum : A Manual of Greek Numismatics. By B. V. HEAD. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 1887. THE first title of this work is distinctive, and marks its most essential characteristic. Hitherto all general works on Greek Numismatics, from Eckhel's great work, Doctrina Numorum Veterum, down to the handbooks of Akerman and Werlhof, have H.S.—VOL. VIII. Y