346 Rosaria Vignolo Munson
non-Greek stock, in contrast to the Dorians, who were the original Greek-speakers and
newcomers to the Peloponnese. In other words, one cannot have everything, or to put it
in the politically resonant terms that Herodotus attributes to Solon in his speech to Croe-
sus, “no country is entirely self-contained (autarkês)” (1.32.8). Those who have the right
to claim that they are true Greeks are interlopers, just as those who take pride in being
natives must also accept their non-Greek origin. The passage is subversive, as R. Thomas
rightly saw (2000: 216, 2001: 224). However, we should notice that it conveys no con-
tempt: the union of the primordial Greeks (i.e., “the Hellenic race” [τo...Eλληνικ’ óν] in the passage quoted in the following text) and the Pelasgians of Attica was a good thing. Each group was by itself of lesser account, while the resulting Greek nation (i.e., again,τo...Eλληνικ’ óν), as the implied subject of “has grown” [α
, ́
υξηται], and now used
in the same contemporary sense as at 8.144.2) has grown in strength with the addition
of a multitude of peoples. In Herodotus’ view, all present-day Greeks, aside from the
Dorians, were originally “Pelasgians” (Sourvinou-Inwood 2003: 121):
On the other hand the Hellenic race (τo`...Eλληνικ’ óν, meaning the Dorians) has always
used the same language (γλωσση ́ .) from when it came into existence, as it seems to me to
be the case. But being weak when separate from the Pelasgians, tracing its beginning from
something small, it (sc.τo`...Eλληνικ’ óν, here meaning the Greek nation as a whole) has
grown to a plenitude of peoples, especially after many<Pelasgians>and other barbarian
nations have joined it; in addition to which, it seems to me, no Pelasgian ethnic group that
is non-Greek has anywhere grown to be great. (1.58)In the process of acculturation by which, according to Herodotus, the Pelasgians of
Attica became Greek, language played a major role: “they became Greek at the same
time as they changed their language (γλωσσαν~ ) and learned to speak Greek” (1.57.1).
Here, Herodotus refers to a single Greek language that eventually unifies the Greek
ethnos, precisely as in the Athenians definition of Greekness at 8.144.2. Elsewhere,
however, Herodotus discusses the linguistic situation in his own times to suggest, once
again, internal ethnic subdivisions within the Greek nation. At 1.142.2–4, he declares
that the 12 Ionians cities of Panionion, which share a common sanctuary, do not
speak the same language at all (γλωσσα~ ), but four different dialects (τρóπoυς τεσσερας́
παραγωγεων́ ). The inhabitants of the Ionian cities located in Caria “speak to one another
in the same way” (καταταυ’τα διαλεγ óμεναι σφíσι), but those in Lydia, while sharing
the same speech with one another (
,
oμo휑ωνέoυσι), speak in a completely different way
(
,
oμoλoγέoυσι καταγλωσσαν~ oυ’δεν́ ); Chios and Erythrae speak the same language (κατατ
,
ωυτo`διαλεγ́ oνται), but the Samians are on their own (
,
επ’
,
εωυτων μ~ o ̃υνoι). Even
if one considers that ancient Greek terminology did not sharply distinguish between
“language” and “dialect” (Morpurgo Davis 1987), Herodotus’ insistence on diversity
of speech precisely within the most cohesive league of Ionians is remarkable (Munson
2005). It goes hand in hand with Herodotus’ criticism of the contemporary claim by
the same Ionians of Panionion that they constituted a unified block with a purer Ionian
bloodline (1.146.1):
Because [to say] that these (i.e., the Ionians of Panionion) are more Ionian than the other
Ionians or that they are somewhat better born (καλλι ́ o ́ντιγεγo ́νασι) is pure idiocy. Not the