A Dorian himself, H. identifies the Dorians with the Hellenes. Hellas was originally a district in Thessaly, closely connected with Phthia and ruled by Achilles (Il. ix. 395), whose followers are ‘Myrmidons and Hellenes’ (Il. ii. 684). But in the Catalogue (ii. 530) it is also used as a general name, Πανέλληνες (cf. καθ̓ Ἑλλάδα καὶ μέσον Ἄργος, Od. i. 344 et pass.—a verse condemned by Aristarchus as an interpolation). ‘Hellas’ was already used in a general sense by Archilochus and Hesiod (Strabo, 370), i. e. in the seventh century, and had become established in this sense before 580 B. C., when two ‘Hellanodicae’ (cf. I. G. A. 112) were appointed for the Olympic games; but the date depends on the reading in Paus. v. 9. 4, 5, which is a little uncertain (cf. Frazer, P. i. 584; iii. 489). Thucydides (i. 3) describes the transition from the special to the general sense; this was probably due to the influence of the myth of Achilles; as the Greeks, by contrast with the barbarians, became conscious of their own similarity, it was natural they should assume the name of the people whose chief was the hero of the national epic and the type of heroic manhood. The adoption of the name may be connected with the spread of Dorian influence (cf. Ζεὺς Ἑλλάνιος and Ἀθανὰ Ἑλλανία in the ῥήτρα of Lycurgus, Plut. Lyc. 6). The origin of ‘Hellenes’ is uncertain; it may be connected with the Σελλοί, the priests of Zeus at Dodona (Il. xvi. 234, where Achilles prays to this god). This is partially confirmed by Aristotle (Meteor. i. 14, 352 A), who says that ‘ancient Hellas’ was περὶ Δωδώνην. For the whole subject cf. Busolt, i. 196 seq. Bury has an ingenious theory that the name received its first great extension in connexion with the Achaean colonies in Magna Graecia (J. H. S. xv. 236); but his proof is by no means complete. This chapter (with c. 145, and viii. 43 and 73) is interesting as showing that the story of the Dorian Invasion was fully developed in H.'s time: he assumes its main points and even refers to details, e. g. vi. 52, ix. 26. 3. The questions as to it may be summed up under two heads:—
I. Evidence for reality of Dorian Invasion.
The oldest evidence for it is Tyrtaeus, fr. 2 (in Str. 362)— “Ζεὺς Ἡρακλείδαις τήνδε δέδωκε πόλιν:οἷσιν ἅμα προλιπόντες Ἐρινεὸν ἠνεμόεντα,
εὐρεῖαν Πέλοπος νῆσον ἀφικόμεθα.
” (Cf. Pind. Pyth. i. 63 seq.) Beloch (R. M. xlv) argues that the story is an invention, based on mistaken etymologies (e.g. of ‘Naupactus’） and unhistorical combinations, to explain the difference between Homeric Greece and Historic Greece. His arguments are briefly these: (1) The evidence is late; there is nothing as to the migration in Homer (but Homer is equally silent as to Greek migrations to Asia Minor which are pretty generally accepted). (2) Race names are very late (Thuc. i. 3; but this argument confuses name and fact: races exist as distinct, though their general names may be late). (3) There was no real gap between ‘Mycenaean’ and historic times, e. g. a Dorian column is found in the Lion Gate at Mycenae. The transition was gradual, but the Greeks, not understanding such a process, invented a catastrophe. (This argument is not admitted by archaeologists generally; it makes the Mycenaean culture too late; cf. Busolt, i. 116 n.) Arguments for the historic reality of the invasion are (cf. generally Meyer, ii. 47): (1) Modern archaeological research tends to vindicate the accuracy of Greek myths in their general outlines. (2) If tradition is ever good evidence, it would be so for an event of such importance. (3) Tradition is confirmed by the existence of subject classes (probably subject races) in many parts of the Peloponnese. (4) The Dorians always looked on themselves as being new-comers in the Peloponnese. (5) The tradition explains such facts as resemblance of Dorian and Aeolian dialects (Busolt, i. 195) and the connexion of the Lacedaemonians with Doris, which is of great importance in historic times (Thuc. i. 107. 2). It must be frankly admitted, however, that we know nothing of the details of the Invasion.
