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<ov avarerpafifiivr}, but all its atoms were carried away for building elsewhere—an amusing evidence of the way in which Demetrius (Strabo's authority) tried to meet the obvious objection that the site he 72 THE SITE AND ANTIQUITY" 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.