The Site and Antiquity of the Hellenic Ilion. 69 the Site
THE SITE AND ANTIQUITY OF THE HELLENIC ILION. 69
THE SITE AND ANTIQUITY OF THE HELLENIC ILION.
THERE is an interesting question in relation to Dr. Schlie- mann's Trojan excavations, which seems yet unsettled; it is this: when was the historical Ilion really founded ? and the answer to this question involves another of considerable interest: was the historical Ilion on the site of the mythical Troy ? If its foundation be recent, and in historical times, there is room for doubt as to the identity of the sites, and accordingly the ancient inquirers who denied this identity also denied the an- tiquity of Ilion. I propose, therefore, to review the evidence as briefly as possible by the light of recent discussions, and beg leave for this very brevity's sake to be allowed through the following argument to call the heroic city Troy, and the his- torical Ilion, without further specification. Both Dr. Schliemann and I had come independently to the same conclusion on the seeond question just stated. He was led by his excavations, and I by a critical examination of the historical notices of the ancients, to assert the identity of the two sites, and we advanced from this to the further conclusion, that the alleged foundation of Ilion in historical times on a new site was not true, and that probably Ilion succeeded to the site and traditions of Troy without any considerable interruption. This was the general opinion throughout Greek history, till a very learned man, Demetrius of Scepsis, undertook to destroy the claims to a heroic ancestry of the Ilians, then rich and insolent through the favour of Lysimachus. Demetrius' con- clusions were accepted and propagated by Strabo, and have thus passed into currency among older scholars. But most pritics of 70 THE SITE AND ANTIQUITY our own day, and notably George Grote, our highest historical authority, have recognised that the theory of Demetrius was not only novel and paradoxical, but based on no real and solid evidence. This theory then, overthrown by Grote's critical acuteness, received a further deathblow from Dr. Schliemann's excavations. Any one who knows even the elements of archae- ology now feels sure that the site of Ilion was a site occupied in heroic and prehistoric times, as the layers of many centuries' successive remains clearly testify. As there is no other site in the Troad for which the least evidence of this kind has been, or can be, produced, the argument that Troy and Ilion occupied the same site is as surely established as any thing in ancient history. It was accordingly worth while considering why Demetrius was so zealous to overthrow this fixed belief, and both Dr. Schliemann and I think it is to be ascribed to pedantic jealousy on the part of that author, who being himself a native of Scepsis, and anxious to claim Aeneas as a heroic ruler of that city, set himself to destroy the rival claim of Ilion to that honour. It would of course be a ridiculous hypothesis to assert that Demetrius deliberately chose a false site for Troy, through unwillingness to admit a claim which his critical conscience secretly ratified. But such a clumsy piece of psychology was no part of our argument. We only assumed that an envious pedant could persuade himself to argue a bad case, and could become so persuaded of it himself as to adopt it in the most serious earnest. Belief, as Mr. Bain says, is an affair of the will, and it would be easy in the present day to show learned men who maintain absurd propositions with the most serious zeal and a thorough conviction that they are neither unfair nor ridiculous. It was probably the rival claims of Ilion and Scepsis to be the seat of Aeneas' dynasty that stimulated this feeling in Demetrius. His only positive ground for claiming this honour on behalf of Scepsis was the very weak argument that Scepsis was half-way between the country assigned to Aeneas in the Iliad, and Lyrnessas to which he fled when pursued by Achilles (cf. Strabo xiii. 1, § 53). So shadowy an argument could not stand for one moment till the claim of Ilion has been disposed of. For what did Homer prophesy ? OF THE HELLENIC ILION. 71
Nw Se Srj Alvelov filr) Tpcoeaaiv ava%ec Kal "7ral8e<; iral&cov, roi/cev fjueTO-made
Of course the obvious inference from this passage was that Aeneas reigned at Troy, and so Strabo tells us it was generally- understood (cf. below). It was asserted by divers legends pre- served to us. Thus Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Ardiq. Mom. i. 53) tells of legends asserting that Aeneas returned from Italy to Troy, and reigned there, leaving his kingdom to Ascanius-~- a legend based on the Homeric prophecy. There are other stories (hinted at by Homer) of Aeneas being disloyal to Priam, and thus saving his own party in the city. Against these legends, and the hero-worship of Aeneas at Ilion, Demetrius had to find arguments, if Scepsis could save its mythical renown. What were his arguments, and how did he persuade Strabo, and even some modern scholars, to adopt his theory ? I will state at the outset an important distinction, the neglect of which is sure to vitiate any argument on the subject; and yet the distinction is easy and obvious enough. When the destruction of Troy is to be considered, we have two points before us, (1) was it total ? (2) was it final ? Both cases are exceptional enough, for to destroy any city totally is an affair of no small labour and perseverance. But even when totally destroyed, a Greek city site was sure to be re-occupied by fugitives as soon as the enemy had disappeared, and so there is hardly a case in history where even a total destruction was final. It was effected in the case of Sybaris (a) by turning the course of a river over the levelled buildings, (/3) by cursing solemnly the re-occupiers of the site, or (7) by a hioUuris, as in the case of Mantinea. These special precautions show that the ordinary pictures, poetical or otherwise, of the total ruin of a city, in no way imply its final disappearance from among the habitations of men. The party of Demetrius knew and felt this distinction very well. For they felt themselves obliged to assert an abnormal destruction of Troy. Thus Strabo are yap eK-7reirop6r)/j,evcov rwv KVK\q> iroXecov, ov TeXew? Se Karea-Trau/jLevcov, some traces of them still remain; but Troy, he adds, was not only e'« /3d6p had discovered for Troy showed n-o traces of antiquity. Hence the first unproved conjecture; it was considered, even by its supporters, so weak, that they added another. According to Strabo : o/ioXoyova'i 8e ol vecorepoi TOV acfravicrfibv T^S 7rdXe&)?, a>v ecrri Kal Av/covpyo? 6 prjrcop (whom he quotes) elicd£ovcn Be they conjecture that the spot was avoided on account of its evil omen, or because Agamemnon cursed it. The vecorepoi are of course not post-Homeric writers generally, as some have ventured to translate it, but the party of Demetrius, who have with them, among older authorities, the orator Lycurgus. It is perfectly clear that he was the only earlier authority asserting the final destruction of Troy by the Greeks. Thus then we are warranted in declaring that there is no evidence to prove any settled belief on the part of the historical Greeks that Troy was fivally destroyed. Some old authorities, such as Plato*; Isocrates, and Xenophon, imply their belief that it was totally destroyed by the Greeks, but no one, except Ly- curgus, ever asserted that it ceased to be inhabited. The weight of Lycurgus' evidence will be presently considered. But this is not all. Can it even be said that there was a settled belief among the historical Greeks that the destruction of Troy was total, if not final ? It is indeed true that Aeschy- lus, Euripides, and their Latin imitators portray the destruction of Troy almost as Hebrew prophecy pictures the desolation of Tyre. But are they indeed using no poetical liberty in so doing, and are they representing a tradition on this point inflexible ? Far from it. What does Strabo say—Strabo, whom the followers of Demetrius quote as so important and trustworthy ? ' But the current stories (ra dpvXkov/xevd) about Aeneas do not agree with the legends about the founding of Scepsis. For the former say that he came safe out of the war owing to his feud with Priam, "for he had a lasting feud (says Homer) with noble Priam, because: Priam would not honour him, brave though he was among men," and so did the Antenoridae escape, and Antenor himself through the guest-friendship of Menelaus. Sophocles indeed in his Capture of Troy says that a leopard's skin was hung out before Antenor's door as a sign to leave his house un- sacked.' Strabo then speaks of these heroes' distant wanderings. ' Homer, however, does not agree with these legends, or with what is told about the founders of Scepsis. For he indicates OF THE HELLENIC ILION. . 73 that Aeneas remained in Troy, and succeeded to the sovereignty, and left the succession to his children's children.' How can the legend of the total, far less the final, destruction of Troy be called inflexible in the face of this famous and familiar au- thority ? Homer was not inflexible on the point. Sophocles, the most Homeric of the tragedians, was not inflexible on the point. Polygnotus in his famous pictures in the Lesche at Delphi, illustrated the Sophoclean view of the legend, and his pictures made it known to all visitors. They all contemplate only a partial destruction, followed (according to the Iliad) by a re-occupation of the place, and a restoration of the Trojan monarchy. Thus there was from the beginning an important addition—I will not admit it to be a variation—to the legend of the sack of Troy, which stated that the site had not remained desolate after the sack, but was occupied by the Aeneadae. Sophocles even implies that the destruction was not complete. And this no doubt was the reason why nobody through the earlier centuries of Greek history thought of denying the claim of the Ilians to represent the Troy of epic poetry. This too was the real reason why Strabo, with all his exact knowledge, mentions no other writer besides Hellanicus as having supported that claim. Everybody took it for granted. Let us now lay aside the legend that the destruction was incomplete, and proceed to show the probability that the site was unchanged. This also was sustained by several important witnesses. Xerxes visited the place, and admired its famous relics, in a way which leaves no doubt whatever as to the then current opinion among his Greek subjects. Herodotus, by his language, indicates plainly his acquiescence in this belief. Min- darus proves the persistence of the same belief, and so does Alexander the Great. What need have we of further witness ? what no one thought of questioning, no one thought of asserting. The best modern judge of evidence in Greek history, George Grote, lays it down as self-evident, that this was the general belief of the Greek world. It is very characteristic of the pedantry of Demetrius, that he seems to have passed over this strong historical proof from the acts and the acquiescence of leading public men in older days, and set himself to attack the statements of a writer, a compiler 74 THE SITE AND ANTIQUITY of local legends, who being intimately acquainted with Ilion, bad set down the legends there preserved in his Troica, and thus given formal support to the identity of site. We do not know that he advocated a belief in a mere partial destruction; it is more than probable that he did. But it so happened that the very subject treated by this writer—Hellanicus—led him neces- sarily to contradict Demetrius' theory, and hence he must be refuted. He is alleged to have been over-partial to the Ilians. Surely when a man undertook to collect local legends he was not likely to succeed if he were not in sympathy with the inhabitants. He no doubt wrote down fully, without any sifting or sceptical criticism, what they had to say. Probably he was silent about Scepsis. There is no further evidence of any undue favouritism. It is clear that the main claim of the Ilians, beyond the vener- able antiquity of their shrine of the Ilian Athene, was the annual pilgrimage of Locrian virgins, sent to expiate the crime of Ajax. Strabo and Demetrius object that this legend is not Homeric. It was certainly as old as the Cyclic poets. The annual sending of these virgins must have been in consequence of some misfor- tune which befel Locris, and according to the behest of some ancient oracle. The statement of Strabo, that it did not begin till the Persian Wars, is devoid of probability and of evidence, and even if accepted, proves the recognition of the shrine as that of Homer's Athene at that date. This refutation then of Hellanicus being very weak, and his authority as an ancient and respectable writer being capital in the question, the modern attacks on his credibility demand our attention. We may reject the evidence of Hel- lanicus either on the general ground that he was an uncritical logographer, or on the special ground of his being untrustworthy in other cases where we can test his credibility. The former reason is by itself weak and insufficient, for though it might not be in Hellanicus' power to criticise with acuteness the materials before him, he might nevertheless be an honest and careful collector of legends, and this is all we require in the present case. But so much we may safely allow him, for this strong and conclusive reason, that one of the severest critics of the logographers, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, though speaking with contempt of them as a class, alludes repeatedly to this, particular man, Hellanicus, as an authority of importance on local OF THE HELLENIC ILION. 75 legends. Thus in the first book of his Roman Antiquities, he cites Hellanicus at least four times, once without remark, once (c. 35) to differ with him, though without disrespect. But the remaining cases are more important. He says (c. 38) ' The most credible of the legends about Aeneas' flight, which Hellanicus, of old historians, adopts, is as follows.' In the other (c. 22) he sums up the legends of the passage of the Sicels into Sicily, as they are told VTTO T&V \6yov aftW. Who are they 1 Hellanicus, Philistus, Antiochus, and Thucydides ! This shows that Dionysius at all events respected Hellanicus' authority, and thus contradicted in this particular case his general depreciation of the logographers. JMor need it surprise us, for Thucydides himself, who never cites other writers, selects Hellanicus alone for critical censure as to his chronology. This solitary citation clearly proves the importance of the man. But are there not distinct cases in which Hellanicus can be shown inaccurate and untrustworthy ? This is the second line of argument. Of course there are. Strabo asserts that he had made mistakes in supposing old but obscure towns in Aetolia, Olenus and Pylene, to be still undisturbed, and indeed that his whole account was marked by great carelessness (ev^epeta). This may be true, but is his ignorance of Aetolian geography any proof of inaccuracy in Trojan affairs ? The proper answer is to apply the same sort of argument to his critic Strabo. It is easy enough to hoist him on his own petard. In the account of Argolis, Strabo comes to speak of Mycenae, whose ruins were then, as they now are, perhaps the most remarkable in Greece. What does the learned and accurate Strabo, whose authority is paramount with the modern followers of Demetrius, say about it, ' In later times [and he was wrong about this too] Mycenae was razed by the Argives, so that no trace of it is to be found—&crre vvv /iT]S' 'iyyo'; evplcrKeaOai T179 Nlvicqvauov 7r6\ea><; ! Here we have almost the very words applied by him to his imaginary site of Troy applied to a great and famous ruin in Greece—no Olenus or Pylene, but royal Mycenae ! Thus the argument that a writer is generally untrustworthy because he has been wrong or negli- gent on one point applies with terrible force to Strabo himself. And yet those who attack Hellanicus on this very ground, extol the learning and accuracy of Strabo as beyond suspicion. Let us now turn to the opposite side of the controversy, and 76 THE SITE AND ANTIQUITY having sufficiently defended Hellanicus, who asserted the trans- mission of Troy into Ilion without change of site or continuity, let us examine the only tangible witness from older days on the side of Demetrius—the orator Lycurgus. He says distinctly that Troy, after its total destruction, has remained uninhabited to his own day. Is this statement to outweigh all the consensus on the other side ? Is it not notorious that the Attic orators were loose in their historical allusions ? Lycurgus is said indeed to have been steeped in legendary lore, and likely to represent the soundest opinion of his day on such a question. But so far as our positive evidence goes, he was rather steeped in the tragic literature, and so impressed by such plays as the Hecuba and Troades, that he would naturally speak in the strongest terms of the destruction of Troy. He may then have used only a rhetorical exaggeration, which would not have been seriously quoted, but for the dearth of evidence on that side of the question.1 But Lycurgus' statement has recently been supported by an argument of some ingenuity, which requires a moment's consideration. It has been argued that the speech in question was delivered shortly after the battle of the Granicus, and that then Ilion has just been 'impressively aggrandised' by Alexander, proclaimed a city, free of imposts, &c, so that the question of the site of Troy was at that moment prominent. This gives (it is urged) peculiar point to Lycurgus' expression, and makes it impossible that he could have used a random expression. In my appendix to Schliemann's Ilios I had accepted this reading of the facts about Alexander and Ilion, but I now confess that I 1 In arguing a very strong case desertion of the site, but its disap- I am willing to concede that Ly- pearance from among the catalogue of curgus really intended by (WO-TOTO? Greek independent v6\eis. As a matter and dyoUriTos the total ruin and of fact even the site advocated by complete desertion of an inhabited Demetrius, the ' I\ieW Kwfiri, was site. But it is certain that aviaraTos inhabited, and probably at Lycurgus' is used rhetorically for mere political time, for had it been lately occupied, destruction, and I think it likely that Demetrius would not have failed to as OIKICHV constantly means not to mention it. I think therefore that people a deserted spot, but to make had Lyeurgus been attacked for gross a new (Hellenic) polity on a spot inaccuracy, he would have defended inhabited by barbarians or villagers, himself in this way, and replied that so dvoUriTos may have been used by he was only speaking politically, and Lycurgus to signify- not the complete not in the absolute sense of the words. OF THE HELLENIC ILION. 77 was here in error. It is clear enough in this case that Alex- ander only made promises, and gave orders; even after his complete success he is still only making promises, of which the fulfilment did not come till Lysimachus took the matter in hand. The point in Strabo's mind was the close imitation (as he thought) of Alexander by Augustus, and hence he gives prominence to a matter of no real importance in its day. It is however plain that we have been translating mere promises of Alexander iato facts, for let us quote what follows (Strabo, xiii. 26). He had made his first promises as he was going up into Asia (avaftdvTa)- varepov Be /Aera rfjv KaraXvaiv T5)V Ylepcrav eTriaToXrjv /caraTrefiyJrai (pikdvdpcoirov, inrt J. P. MAHAFFY.