ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Mr Chevalier quickly perceived the necessity of getting rid of this notion, as it was incompatible with his hypothesis. He therefore strenuously contended, that the Greek preposition sn^i ought in this instance to be translated near, befide, hard-by. We confess we were astonished to find that Mr Bryant so easily abandoned this point. The question is, whether Homer ever uses the preposition vi(i before the accusative case in any other sense than as signifying round, or about? These words are often employed in our own language, without a strict attention to their original meaning and proper signification. We speak of the gardens round London, without thereby understanding, that London is quite encircled by gardens; and we discourse about many things, without thinking of the primary meaning of the word about, which -we take to have been originally synonymous with around. In Greek, the preposition ■x'^i is often used with the same inattention to its rigid and proper fense. Thus, jrsfi ■reflw *{*», about the third hour— vip iSSeftijxomi »*<V, about seventy ships-r-r.* tn^t Iftt, the tilings which belong to me—it x\^l Xaixgxnip, those about Socrates—srtfi Xjcxjl piii-;*, about the beautiful streams—srcji TMx,>s> about the wall. But after allowing all this latitude of fense to the preposition, there still can be no doubt, that, before the accusative case, it generally signifies round, and especially when employed in any local description. We will even venture to assert, that it must be so understood, except wher; the sense necessarily limits the meaning. When Homer fays,

ra. ine) icalM fitiftt a\tf rolit(io7a mQvxu,

we immediately perceive that its full force cannot be given to the preposition, because, strictly speaking, the trees and plants could not grow round the river. Neither, when he fays,

can we literally understand -xiy to signify round, since the wa3 ran in a long line, and the fixe was only on the side of the wa3 next the phun; but when no such difficulty exists, then its &18 meaning must be given to the preposition. Mr Dalxel, in his learned note, observes, that suitmfum in(i itv ought to be translated « fighting about, or near the city.' But if Troy were hut in a plain, as Homer fays it was, there is no impropriety in supposing, that the hostile armies were engaged in different divisions, on all sides of the city. Hector fays, ' Let the sacred herald-, proclaim, that the youth arrived at the age of puberty, and the old men hoary with time, keep watch round the city, on the godbuilt towers.' * In this place, *%J Hrv can signify neither aboc. nor near, the city; but must bear the interpretation which w: have given it. Why, however, could not Hector have been si

[ocr errors]

t'sfied with having the walls guarded, which were next the plain, if Troy had stood on the hill of Bournabachi, and if the Greeks had always fought before, and never round Ilium? "When Andromache so pathetically deplores her fate, in cafe she should be carried a captive into Greece, she adds, ' and then sometimes there ■will be some one who shall say, as he beholds me weeping, This ■was the wife of Hector, who was the most distinguished warrior among the Trojan tamers of horses, when they fought round Ilium.' *cfli"lM»nifijn/utx.<'"T'- Achilles in the ninth book expresses himself not less clearly,

'Et fi'.i x xvSi fUitn T^aut ireMt afttptf&x%uftta, il >.C\r, flit Im tew, &c. From all these circumstances, we are still inclined to think that Homer meant to use the preposition *i(t in its common signification before the accusative case, when he repeated it no less than five times in speaking of Hector's flight round, the walls of Troy. If our limits allowed us, we could quote various testimonies to prove, that this was the fense in which he was understood by the ancients; and we cannot reject so much evidence, merely that the travellers may have a difficulty the less in persuading their readers that they have discovered the site of Ilium on the hill of Bournabachi. Mr Gell, indeed, is pleased to allege, that Virgil 'must have understood Homer in the sense for which he contends; because, in a passage which is evidently copied from that now under consideration, he makes Turnus run in a circular direction before the walls, and not round them. We shall not stop to dis, pute this point with him5 because, whether Virgil believed that Hector fled thrice round the walls or not, he certainly beli"ved that his body was dragged thrice round them, which is exactly r the fame thing in relation to the present argument.

* Ter circum Iliaeos raptaverat Hectora muros.' But perhaps Mr Gell is ready to show that circum does not proj.perly signify around, any more than iny.

a': Till we took up Mr Gell's book, we will confess we had nei1 'ther read or seen any thing which could lead us to believe that ::there still existed any remains of ancient Troy: and recollected, -■without any emotions of scepticism, the lamentation which attest-?:ed its complete destruction nearly two thousand years zgo—jnm p sieges eft, ubi Trojafuit; and etiam periere ruin/e. Mr Gel], however, ctwas almost persuaded that he found some of the original marbles of ejTroy. He discovered the remnant of a tower of considerable dirt iaiensions, and the vestiges of the wall which encircled the acro.T;EK>lis: such vestiges, he adds, may be found on almost every side jf the Pergama. That there are vestiges of buildings, is undeawble; but from what data Mr Gell thought himself entitled to.

S 3 ascribe;

ascribe them to so remote an antiquity, we do not pretend to understand. In the mean time, we will venture to put a few question to him, which we hope he will resolve in the next edition of his work. How happened it that Alexander sought for Troy amonf the fields, and not on the summit of the hill called Bournabachi by the Turks? How came it that the Macedonian hero was not led by these traces, which are so distinct in our days, to build upon this spot? Is it not rather strange that Cæsar could not discover the vestiges which were so obvious to Mr Gell? Why did Lucan fay, that even the very ruins were destroyed? Is it ns extraordinary that Hestiæa Alexandrina, a learned lady, who wrote concerning Troy, and who was a native of Troas, should have known nothing of these remains of the ancient Ilium i for what purpose did Demetrius of Scepsis inform Strabo, that no trace was preserved of the ancient city? We do not doubt thai Mr Gell found all the vestiges of which he speaks, old marbles and capitals of the Ionic order turned upside down in the walls of the Aga's house; but we certainly doubt as little, that the ruins on the hill of Bournabachi belonged to some of those numerous citks which, according to Strabo, were rebuilt after the Trojan war.

On the summit of the hill, Mr Gell tells us he found the tumulus of Hector, * which consists of a large conic heap of stones, apparently thrown together without any order or regularity, and on the top of it is a small patch of earth producing long grass and weeds. * * When Cæsar visited the Troad, and happened carelessly to walk among some long grafs, a native of Phrygi. forbade him to tread on the ashes of Hector. Securus in alto

Gramifte ponebat grejsus; Phryx iacola manes

Heftoreos calcare vetat.

Who then can doubt that our traveller has discovered the verr spot where Cæsar trod, and where Hector lay? The long grais still grows on the tomb; though Mr Gell, with an eye attentive to the effects of time and nature, observed that, when he wai there, the herbs were withered ! f There are other evidences, however, still more infallible. Pausanias relates, that the Thebans were directed by an oracle to carry the ashes of Hector to Thebes. Our traveller found some faint traces of an openin; having been made in the tumulus; and this, he thinks, is probably the testimony of their religious obedience. How fortunate a coincidence of circumstances for Mr Gell!!! But this gentleman's good luck in making discoveries can only be equalled by his sagacity in seeking for them. He not only finds the tombs cr

men,

* P.,92. + P. 95.

men, who died before the existence of any certain history—he not only shows the marsh, where Ulysses passed the night above three thousand years ago—but he remarks, ' that the ground near the gardens seems to have preserved in some degree the same appearance as in the time of Homer, who observed that there was a fallow field in this situation.' Papa! Who shall now deny that Troy stood on the hill of Bournabachi?

To be serious, however, we conceive that the tomb of Hector, upon which Mr Gell has made so exulting a Hand for his theory, is among the most formidable of the stumbling-blocks that have fallen in his way. It consists of small stones no doubt j and this is the sole proof of its identity. What if Homer lhould give no authority for supposing that the tumulus of Hector consisted of any thing but earth? The lines in the last book are,

Aii^a i' <tg' if Kcim' X«vitm> Hints «i/t*j i>Vf(.^i
rit>K»oiin» XtUcin KivrfripTtt) (HytLXturi.
TtftQ* Si rrift i^ui.'

From which passage we conceive it is quite plain, that the body was laid in a grave, and covered with a number of great stones, after which the earth was heaped over it. Mr Gell, after Mr Chevalier, chuses to understand ' a number of great stones, '—' a gTeat number of small stones :' whereas it is obvious that the large stones were placed to protect the body from the pressure of the earth, the heaping up of which is specified as a separate operation; and no mention whatever is made of such a pile of small loose stones as occur in the tumulus of Bournabachi. To us, indeed, it did not appear th;it there is any reason for considering this heap as sepulchral at all. It rather occurred to us, that as the hill was formerly cultivated, these stones had been collected together for the purpose of clearing the ground; a circumstance which is rendered more probable from the existence of several other heap?, though of less magnitude, on the adjoining parts of the hill.

It has been the practice of almost every nation, at some period of their history, to raise mounds of earth over the dead: and as we learn from Strabo, that the Mysians and Phrygians were accustomed to erect such monuments, it certainly cannot appear wonderful that these tumuli, as they are called, should be more frequent in Asia Minor, than on the continent of European Greece; or that they lhould be found in considerable numbers in theTroad, which appears, by the remains of several towns, to have been formerly so well inhabited. With all these facilities, we acknowledge we are rather surprised that Mr Gell has succeeded so ill in identifying a selection of these barreivs with the monuments of Homer's heroes. Two of these mounds, however, situate near the mouth of the Mcndere Sou, have been pointed out by him

S 4 aa as the tombs of Achilles and Patroclus: their vicinity to each other, is the only possible foundation of such a supposition •, for, in other respects, nothing can differ more from Homer's description. In the account which Agamemnon gives to Achilles, in the xxtvth Book of the Odyssey, of the funeral rites with which he had been honoured by the Greeks, he describes the tomb u large, situated on a promontory, and visible from afar.

Xivctftir A(ylf»» lifts ffttrif iuyjfvuritn,
Axth art rqtxpryi, iri Ta*th ' EAA«ir!rorr*.

Now, these tombs are at some distance from the sea, and perfectly on a level with it: it is, moreover, a fact, that a person unacquainted with the history of the Trojan war, although he would be struck with the appearance pf several other mount., jnight very easily leave these unnoticed, in sailing at an inconsiderable distance from the coast. This is perfectly incompatible, we conceive, with what we are made to believe concerning the great magnitude and conspicuous situation of the tomb of Achilles.

The larger of these mounds was opened some years since, br the order of M. de Choiseul, the French ambassador at the Porte; and its contents afforded, to many, an additional proof of its identity with the sepulchre of Achilles. A small bronze statue, and fragments of eaithen vases were discovered in it; but Mr Chevalier's representation of the figure, (if we may believe tie artist vik first discovered that it was a figure, and not the point of a lance), is extremely incorrect; and from an authentic cast which we have seen, made by this fame artist, there can be no doubt that by the manner of the drapery, and general style of the work, it is not to be referred to a period of higher antiquity, than wlien the country was under she dominion of the Romans. But even if this tomb were more ancient, and if, for the fake of argument, we suppose it to be the same, round which Alexander danced stark-naked in his frenzy; there is no reason why we should rot conclude that he was equally mistaken as in the situation of the city, which certainly was an object of greater notoriety.

The allies of Antilochus, we learn from Homer, were placed in the fame tomb with those of Achilles and Patroclus; but we do not find any mention of a tumulus or cenotaph being railed in his honour. At the distance of more than a mile from those just mentioned, is a mound most conspicuously placed on a promontory, and which is indeed a land-mark to sailors far out at sea; this, Mr Chevalier and Mr Gell have been pleased to denominate the tomb of Antilochus; but with a still less degree of probability ■, for if any tomb had been erected to his memory, it wouM doubtless have been near that of Achilles, in which his remain

west

« 前へ次へ »