….From Troyes Attila probably returned directly to Pannonia, through either Strasbourg or Basle, continuing his course along the Danube. He passed the ensuing winter at his capital Sicambria, which was perhaps the ancient Buda. It is fabulously stated to have been founded by Antenor the Trojan. When Attila either built or enlarged Sicambria, he is said to have wished to bestow his own name upon it, and the fatal quarrel between him and his brother is stated to have arisen from a dispute whether it should be called Attila or Budawar. Bleda is by some writers named Buda, and in Scandinavian sagas Buddla is given as the name of the father of Attila, and perhaps it may be considered as having some reference to the name Buddha, the oriental title of Woden or Odin, who seems to have been on some occasions identified with Attila himself in ancient Scandinavian legends.

Pictures of the Real Troy


The Wanderings of Dardanus and the Dardani


IN this article I shall discuss only that part of my subject which deals with the Danubian river-folk, the prehistoric trade-route from Servia to Troy, and the Dardanians in the Troad, omitting for the present the Arcadian, Cretan, and Mediterranean traditions. I suggest some points regarding the Dardani in Europe and in the Troad which, I believe, have not yet been brought out in linking the two divisions of this people. The points which I desire to make in this connection are concerned first with religion, second with the trade-route of the metal-using Balkan peoples, and third with a point of military tactics. I hope to show that the mythical Dardanus was as truly a projection of the community emotion and activities of his people as Orpheus and Dionysus were of Thrace, Achilles and Athena of the Achaeans, and Paeon of the Paeonians. The tribal movements of the Danubian peoples are men- tioned by Herodotus in several places, and, in particular, in the seventh book 1 he states that before the Trojan war there was an invasion of Europe by the Mysians and Teucrians, who penetrated as far as the Adriatic after vanquishing all the Thracians. It is recognized by scholars of the present day who have studied the problems of the Danubian connections with Asia Minor, that the movement of the tribes in question was from the opposite direction from that assumed by Herodotus. The drift from Europe into the Asiatic peninsula has been established by scholars who treat the subject from the various sides of language, ethnography, and archaeology.

The present mode of stating the matter may be quoted from Dr. Walter Leaf’s Troy, I6 f., or in his recent book on Homer and History. I quote the latter, 72 f.: “The Dardanians who founded the Troy of the Mycenaean age were – 1 Hdt. vII, 20. Vol. xlvi] and this is hardly questioned now-a branch of that Phrygian stock, who were themselves sharers in the great thrust of the nations from the north. The Phrygian language was closely akin to the Greek, and the two nations had doubtless come down together, or nearly at the same time, from the Danube valley. The Dardanians had taken the southeastern road, while the Achaeans passed on southwestwards.” Two closely related tribes of the Phrygian stock that settled in the Danube valley appear in the earliest European record, and do not disappear from history until after the Slavic inva- sion of the seventh century A.D. They have left a reminis- cence of themselves in two words well known to-day. It is a matter of common knowledge that the famous strait called the Dardanelles preserves the name of the Trojan Dardani; and I was glad to note that, in default of any other plausible derivation, Mr. T. W. Allen accepts, in a recent number of the Journal of Hellenic Studies,2 my derivation of the paean from the neighbors and kinsmen of the European Darda- nians, the Paeonians. The Dardanians in the Iliad are, as Andrew Lang says of their leader Aeneas, a very special sort of people. They are sharply divided from the Trojans in several places, and Dardanian is not used for Trojan. Their leader is so dear to the gods that his race is to be saved, while the race of the Trojans as represented by Priam’s family is doomed to disappear. Yet Priam is said in the genealogy in the twentieth book to be a descendant of Dardanus, and the epithet Dardanides is used of him only, except in two passages in the eleventh book where it is applied to Ilos. Aeneas is protected by Apollo, Artemis, and Leto, who tend and heal him in the Trojan temple of Apollo, by Aphrodite his mother, and by the god of the sea, Poseidon, who is normally on the side of the Achaeans. He is represented in the thirteenth book as keeping in the rear of the fighting because of his bitterness against Priam, who withholds honor from him. Other notable Dardanians are Antenor and his sons and the sons of Panthous, Poulyda- mas the seer and Euphorbus is to be discerned a connection with religion and sacred things that indicates their northern origin. And it is appropriate enough that the descendants of Dardanus, who brought the mysteries to Samothrace and to the Troad, should be invested with a kind of sanctity. It is to be noted that Antenor is the husband of the Thracian Theano, who is made priestess of the goddess Athene by the Trojans. His son Agenor is the special care of Apollo, who saves him from the raging Achil- les by assuming his form. Panthous himself, arcis Phoebique sacerdos, is mentioned in the third book of the Iliad as the counsellor of Priam. His son Poulydamas is protected by Apollo in the fifteenth book, “for Apollo would not permit Panthous’ son to be conquered among the fighters.” It is clear that stress is laid on the father here rather than on the seer Poulydamas himself, as we find instead of the patronymic the emphatic Hldvcov viov. The blameless Poulydamas first appears in the eleventh book as a companion of Hector. He gives the latter in the twelfth book the unwelcome advice which provokes the fiery answer in which comes Hector’s famous line, to which all hearts have thrilled,- el; otlWvos aptros’ , afJLvacrOat 7rept 7raTrprs. The Dardanian seer is of much more significance in the Iliad than the Trojan Helenus, the brother of Hector, who appears most prominently in that capacity in the sixth and the elev- enth books. In vi, 76, Helenus is called olcvo0rdXoav o’ apto-ro9. But in spite of this he is “eine etwas blasse Ge- stalt,”3 and Poulydamas has much the larger role in the books that recount the great fighting. Indeed, in xvIi, 250, it is said of him that he alone knows the past and the future.

Besides these Dardanians who have some religious function, there is their leader Aeneas, who is of divine descent from his mother, as well as from Dardanus and Zeus, and is espe- cially commended by Poseidon for the pleasing gifts which he gives the gods. It is a Dardanian who slays the Greek Protesilaus, the first victim of the war. I do not know whether or not there is any religious significance in this. The founder of the race of Dardanians in the Troad, according to the account given in the twentieth book, was a son of Zeus who founded Dardania before holy Ilion had been surrounded with walls in the plain. According to the legend preserved in Dionysius, VIII, 46I and Diodorus, v, 48 and elsewhere, he was the son of Zeus and the Atlantid Elec- tra. It is related that Dardanus was the first to cross the sea by means of boats, and that he was the founder of the city Dardanus on the strait; further, that he learned the mys- teries which already existed on the Holy Island and was the first to initiate strangers and to make the rite famous. Pau- sanias (vII, 4, 3) states that the original name of the island known to Homer as Thracian Samos was Dardania. He also tells us in another place (ib. I9, 6) that Dardanus received from Zeus an image of Dionysus in a chest. Strabo and Dionysius both relate that the brothers Dardanus and Iasion, or Iason, came to Samothrace, and that in conse- quence of his sin against Demeter Iasion was consumed by a thunderbolt, after which episode Dardanus left the holy island, and going to the Troad taught the mysteries to those on the mainland. The connection of Dardanus with Samo- thrace is regarded by Bloch, Thraemer, and others as a relatively late invention without historical foundation. On the philological evidence Fick maintains that the appearance of the name in connection with Samothrace indicates that in the time of the great migrations Dardanians coming from Europe reached the Troad from this island. This view gains substantial support from the archaeological remains, which show such a strong connection between Troy and the middle Danube valley. “It is probable that the main trade-route left the middle Danube and followed more or less the Roman road from Nish to the Hellespont.”4 Nish is, of course, the Dardanian Naissos. The Dardanians and their neighbors, the Paeonians, possessed the Vardar river from its head- waters down to the plain at its mouth where Saloniki now stands.

At this moment there is no need to comment on the strategic and commercial importance of this river and its mouth. The words of Homer in praise of the Axios, which have sometimes caused wonder, are intelligible to-day5 when the nations of Europe have its banks for their battle ground. If, as the pottery, celts, and other prehistoric objects already excavated indicate, there existed an old caravan route, run- ning as far as Aenos and starting from the country of the metal-using Dardanians, it is reasonable to argue that these early immigrants settled in the Thracian islands, which lie on the way to the Troad. The fact that these islands were so productive of metal would have been the important con- sideration with these men from the north, whose prehistoric working of the mines of Servia can be traced back to neo- lithic times. The importance of the mining industry in old Servia under the Romans is attested by coins of Trajan and Hadrian inscribed Dardanici, and by the procuratores metal- lorum inter Mlacedoniam, Daciam Mediterraneam, Moesiam seu Dardaniam. The shining armor of the young prince from the Vardar is described with ardor by Achilles, who stripped it from hiis body when he slew him. In the twenty- second book, 569 ff., Achilles says, ” I will give a breastplate which I stripped from off Asteropaeus-of bronze it is, and around its edge a casting of molten tin is rolled.” And again, ” I will give a sword silver-studded, a fair thing, made in Thrace, which I took from off Asteropaeus.” Diomed wins this prize and carries away the mighty sword, together with its scabbard and well-wrought baldric. The fact that the Dardanians in Europe were possessed of the art of metallurgy is of great significance in connection with the religion of Samothrace, Leinnos, Imbros, and Tha- sos, in which islands we find the worship of the Kabeiroi and the mysteries. ” Among primitive people metallurgy is an uncanny craft and the smith is half medicine man.” I quote from Miss Harrison in Themis, p. 26. The part that Darda- nus, representative of a people whose contribution to the cul- ture of the new lands to which they had come was, above all, the knowledge of metal work and mining, plays in the reli- gion of Samothrace is akin to the r61e of an Idaean Dactyl. Of these Dactyls Sophocles (Strabo, x, 473) says: “They first found out iron and wrought much else of these arts that are of use in living.” The Dactyls, who invent charms and purifying rites and mysteries, as well as fire and the use of iron, in my opinion come from the Danubian country. They are Phrygian in origin, according to Sophocles and Strabo, who says that they first lived on the Trojan Ida and were transferred to the Ida in Crete. This combination’of metal- lurgy and magic grew into the strange complex of worships that made Samothrace famous. On the neighboring islands the same worships are found, but subordinated to the com- mercial interests which mark the Thracian islands. On Samothrace, the most majestic and least accessible in point of harborage, the worship overshadowed the other side; and just as at Delphi the northern immigrants made a sacred place among the shadowy mountains, so the Dardanians and other European settlers of a still earlier time made a shrine of the island with the towering height, which was a resting place on their way eastward. It is not the place here to dis- cuss the problems of Samothracian worship, but I heartily agree with Fick in accepting a European origin for the Kabeiroi and the Kadmiloi. In pointing out the Trojan and Phrygian affiliations of the word Kabeiros, Fick protests against the tendency to overestimate the Phoenician influ- ence on the Samothracian cults and on Greek development. Hiller von Gaertringen, also (Thera,, , 42), in speaking of the Kadmus cult on Thera, while saying that it is beside his purpose there to discuss how it came about that the Greeks came to regard Kadmus as a Phoenician at all, denies any Phoenician influence on Thera beyond their stopping at the harbor, bringing their script for business purposes, and selling their goods. They were birds of passage here as else- where. And so with Samothrace also we have no need of Phoenician influence to explain the culture of an island always named from Europe, – Saoke from the Thracian  Flattiden und Danubier.

Saioi, Dardania from the Dardanians, the Island of the Atlantid Electra, the Sun God’s wife, and from Homer’s time the Thracian Samos. The influence of the Danubians in religion is entirely in accord with what we know of the influence and spread of other northern worships. It is well known how the religion of Olympus spread southward and eastward, finally reaching Crete. The cults of Orpheus and Dionysus came to all Greek peoples, and I have in previous articles argued that the mantic and medicine-magic of the Paeonians had a far- reaching influence. Homer never speaks of Dardania in Europe, although the kindred Paeonians play so large a part in the fighting. Of this several explanations could be given. The most reason- able would appear to be that the name Paeonia was of much larger connotation in early time than in that of which we have more detailed knowledge. There is ample proof of this in Herodotus, and Livy’s phrase (Dardanis repetentibus Paeoniam quod et sua fuisset et continens esset finitimis suis) suggests the earlier very close connection of Dardania and Paeonia. The Paeonians, nearer the river mouth, were more civilized because of their contacts with the Aegean, and their name stood for the whole stretch of the Vardar country. In the Journal International d’Archeologique Numismatique (I913, 194-280), M. Svoronos, in a study entitled “Numis- matique de la Peonie et de la Macedoine,” shows the astonish- ing development of Paeonia and the extent of country under its dominion up to the time of the Persian wars. After going through in detail all the coinage of north Greece, M. Svoro- nos ascribes all the Thraco-Macedonian coins to Paeonia and concludes his article with the declaration that we must revise all our ideas about the origin of monetary types and systems, and asserts that Paeonia will become in the future the most im- portant centre and point of departure for all our numismatic knowledge, both historical and mythological. M. Svoronos’s study of the coinage emphasizes all that I have said about the importance of Dardania-Paeonia as a commercial centre from early time.

Another explanation of Homer’s failure to mention the Dardanians in Europe is that he merely does not happen to do so. He writes much about the Asiatic Mysians, and only once chances to let Zeus look away to Europe to the Thracian Mysians. In the centuries in which the Homeric poems were composed attention was centered for Greece far more on the Mediterranean lands than on the northern places which are known through tradition of older songs to the poet or poets of the Iliad, and it may well be that the actual poets of the time of the composition of the Homeric poems were in igno- rance of the European descent of the Trojan Dardani. But it is certain that a sense of their foreignness in Troy lingers implicitly in the Iliad. There are the Dardanians whom I discussed at the beginning of this paper; there is the distinc- tion in the eighteenth book between the women- TpoaLt Kat AapaavieS f/aQ9vKoX7roL, and there is the recurring battle-cry Tp&es Kat AV’KLOL Kat AaopSovot dayXLcaXqrat. The epithets ayXe’taXot and a’yXL,aXLarat I would urge as of the greatest significance as an indication of the Euro- pean origin of the Dardanians. The Danubian Mysians are called ayXe’,axot, ‘hand-to-hand fighters,’ or ‘close fighters’ by Homer. Except for the Mysians in Europe and the Dardanians, the term is applied only once by Homer, and that in the Catalogue, to Arcadians who dwelt about the tomb of Aepytus, no sailors, but such good fighting men that Agamemnon provides them with ships to go to Troy. They are never mentioned again in the Iliad. The fighting in close phalanx is strongly a Dorian and Macedonian trait in historical time and a central European inheritance. Caesar speaks of it as a Gallic or German custom, and Livy espe- cially notes it in the Dardanian fighting in the books in which he writes of the battles of this people. For example, in xxxI, 43 we read: Ubi rursus procedere Dardani coepissent, equite ac levi armatura regii nullum tale auxilii genus habentes Dar- danos oneratosque immobilibus armis vexabant…. perpauci sunt, plures vulnerati, captus nemo, quia non ex- cedunt temere ordinibus suis, sed confertim et pugnant et cedunt. I think this a very enlightening commentary on this epithet of the Dardanians used by Homer. The Homeric epithet is explained in the thesaurus as ‘in stataria pugna praestans’ and ‘qui confertim proeliantur.’ The word appears in Plutarch, Theseus, and in Xenophon and some late writers as a special military term. The Xenophon passage is especially instructive. I make also the suggestion that here is the explanation of the much disputed name of the father of Aeneas. ‘The Near One’ or ‘Close-fighter’ is the meaning of the name Anchemachos, quoted by Fick and Bechtel, Personennamen, from Gallipoli. The name Anchises would stand to the Dardanian epithet ‘AyXtaX,irax?r in the relation of the words adduced on p. 21 of the Perso- nennamen, in which in the kosende Form the entire first part of the compound and only the suffix of the second part remain. The meaning thus secured is appropriate to the epoch and the person, whereas the explanation proffered by the Thesaurus (Irapa Tr adryXt, o E7ry7y eyeve&rOat T-? ‘A0po^’- r7S) is unsatisfactory, as it leaves too much to be understood. ‘The Near One’ does not easily suggest the Lover of the Goddess, whereas it is an excellent Kosename for the ‘Close- fighter.’ The form ‘AyXt’ir7 occurs in Empedocles apud Diog. Laert. vIII. Dardanus and Aeneas both, according to various myths, came to the Italian peninsula, and, whatever the origin of these myths, the researches of Kretschmer and others have made it clear that the Illyrian-Thracian tribes of the Danube valley found their way into Italy as well as into the Pelopon- nesus and Asia Minor. Chapter eighth of Kretschmer’s Ein- leitung, Tomaschek’s investigations, and Fick’s Flattiden und Danubier give the philological evidence for what Kretschmer calls “the mediating role that the Illyrian immigrants have played between the Balkan and the Apennine peninsulas.” The Illyrian Danubians found their way to all parts of the Mediterranean, and the eponyms Paeon and Dardanus became common property in Greece and were carried wherever Greeks migrated. Like all fertile countries that lie on the highroads of commerce, this land of the Vardar valley has ever been the prey of the invader and has suffered from the invader’s greed and cruelty. In the epitome of Livy’s ninety-fifth book the first sentence reads: C. Curio proconsul Dardanos domuit. The atrocities of his campaign were such that nearly five hundred years afterward the historian of Theodosius recalls with admiration Curio’s policy of Schrecklichkeit, as a prece- dent for that emperor’s mutilation of his rebellious soldiers.1 It may seem strange and paradoxical that a rude mountain folk should give to the Greeks such myths as those of Dar- danus and Paeon, which entered so deeply into the religion and poetry of the highly civilized Aegean Greeks. But it is clear that the Illyrian and Thracian stock had a strain of music and mysticism which is not really inconsistent with their comparative barbarism in other respects. In the very passage in which Strabo speaks of the complete barbarism of the Dardani he says that they have always made a spe- cialty of music and use both wind and stringed instruments. Wace and Thompson speak of the importance of Thes- saly as a buffer state in the Mycenaean age, lying as it did between the two metal-using lines-that of Servia-Troy on the north and the Mycenean route to the south. And after the people from the north had overrun the entire Greek peninsula, the Balkan Danubian tribes were divided still by Thessaly from the Greek civilization and it was possible for the Greeks to credit all wonderful things to those who lived beyond the Bora. So the actual Dardanians, with their mud huts and with their music, were forgotten save for the unpleasant proverb, rpl ro /3iov XEXovrat, oawrEp AapSavevs, while Dardanus himself, the personification of their restless wanderings in times of swarming, had his legend in many parts of the Mediterranean world.


A genealogy of the Carlovingians, printed by Pertz (ii, 310), has the phrase, ” Priamus et Antenor egressi a Trqja, venerunt in Secambria, et inde in Pannonia, et inde in Mseotides paludes, et inde juxta ripas fluminis Reni in extrema parte Germanise.” Again, a scholiast to Fredegar, whose notice is printed by Bouquet (ii, 391), after describing the wanderings of the fugitives from Troy, goes on to say: “Denuo bifarea divisione Europam media ex ipsis par cum Francione eoruin Rege ingressa fuit. Qui Europam pervagantes cum uxoribus et liberis Rheni ripam occuparunt. Nec procul a Rheno civitatem ad instar Trojae nominis aedificare conati sunt . . . . et per Francionem vocati sunt Franci.” Mr. Perry says this Trojan theory has been defended in modern times by Turk, ” Kritische Gesch. der Franken.” A false reading in Cicero’s “Ep. ad Atticum” (lib. xiv, epist. 10), where Fangones has been corrupted into Frangones, has been brought forward to prove that the Franks were known by that name in the time of Cicero (Cluverius, “Germania Antiqua,” hi, 82; “The Franks,” by W. C. Perry, p. 41, note 1).

The tale of Troy supplied the most popular tradition of the oriental origin of the Franks. As Virgil traces the descent of the Romans from AEneas, so the clerkly writers of the time of Frank ascendancy must invent for the nation a more celebrated birthplace than the swamps of the lower Rhine. After the destruction of Troy, they tell us, and the flight of iEneas to Italy, Priam and Antenor, with twelve ships, took to the sea, sailed through the Maeotic waters to the Danube, and wandered into Pannonia, where they settled for a long time and built a city, which they called Sicambria. Here they became a mighty people. This was in the time of Valentinian, whom they aided in his wars with the Alans, and by whom, in reward of their services, they were freed for ten years from tribute, and honoured with the title Frank, which is the Greek term for fierce. Prosperity made them proud, for at the end of ten years they demurred to the re-establishment of the tribute; Valentinian defeated them in a battle, in which their prince Priam fell, and the nation, under the leading of Marchomir and Sunno— the former the son of Priam, the latter of Antenor—forced their way to the banks of the lower Rhine, where they built a city, which they called Xanthen (Gest. Franc, i. 4; Fredeg. Epit., ii.), in remembrance of the rivulet Xanthos in the Man plain, and Faramund, Priam’s grandson, became their king. The Mahrchen was probably invented by Roman clerks, to flatter the vanity of their barbarian masters; if of Frank parentage, it carries upon its face a date posterior to the introduction of classical literature into the Frank monasteries. It seems, however, to have been embellished, and made circumstantial by degrees; for Gregory contents himself with stating, upon hearsay, that the Franks appeared first in Pannonia, whence they found their way to the Rhine, and thence into Thuringia (Tungria), where they formed many states, over which ruled long-haired kings, elected out of their first and noblest families. (Greg. Tur., ii. 9.) It is much to be regretted that these insipid fictions should have superseded the national songs, which were their only national history; fragments of these songs, in which their wars and the deeds of their ancient chiefs were celebrated, were still extant in the time of Charlemagne.

Of course this Trojan origin of the Franks is mere fable, but it is very curious bow general these fables were. Ammianus Marcellinus, after discussing various theories about the origin of the Gauls, says: “Some, again, maintain that after the destruction of Troy, a few Trojans, fleeing from the Greeks, who were then scattered over the whole world, occupied these districts, which at that time had no inhabitants at all” (op. cit., xv, 9). We all know how many jibes have been cast at Geoffrey of Monmouth for a similar pedigree which he gives to the Britons, and few remember that, several centuries before Geoffrey wrote, the same story was told in a truncated form by Nennius, another proof that Geoffrey was not the inventor and impostor he is often made out to be. But returning to the Trojan story about the Franks. In the popular histories of the last century it was the fashion to deduce the line of Frank kings from an ancestor named Pharamund. Latterly, with every justice, this person has been treated as purely mythical. He is quite unknown to the earliest Frank chroniclers, Gregory of Tours and Fredegar, who would assuredly have mentioned him had he really existed. His name first occurs in an interpolated passage in a corrupt copy of Prosper of Aquitaine, where we read, under the year 417, the twenty-sixth year of Honorius: “Faramundus regnat in Francia.” On which passage Mr. Perry speaks as follows:—” No value whatever is to be set on this passage of the work of Prosper, who lived in the fifth century.” Two MSS. are extant, one of which appears complete and uncorrupted, and contains no reference to Pharamund. The other is full of irrelevant interpolations, and among them the passage above quoted, which probably dates from the seventh century. Henschenius, in his “Exegesis de Epistola Tungrensi,” doubts whether the name occurs before the ninth century. Long ago, Leibnitz, in a famous paper on the Franks, which was published in 1720 as an appendix to Eccard’s work entitled “Leges Francorum,” suggested that Pharamund was a corruption of Priam, and we, in fact, find Prosper of Aquitaine, who died in 463, in his notice of Theodosius, saying, “Priamus quidam regnat in Francia quantum altius colligere potuimus.” 1 am not sure that the name of Troy was not similarly suggested by that of the Tongri, in whose land the Franks were early settled.

The scene of the warfare of the Iliad is well known t6 have been- described by the poet, as an extensive plain, or flat valley; intersected by two torrent streams from Mount Ida ; and which, forming a junction in that plain, discharged their confluent waters into the Hellespont, between two promontories ; which, although spoken of by Homer,a are not named by him : but from succeeding authorities^ are well known to have been intended for those of SigcEum and Rhoeteum. They are, moreover, strongly marked by the positions of the tumuli, ascribed to Achilles and Ajax, in reference to their military stations, in the line. These promontories, therefore, together with the discharge of the confluent waters, from Ida, by an opening situated between them, are unerring guides to the Plain of Troy; since there is no other river, or plain, that opens to the Hellespont, from Ida : so that it appears impossible to refer the scene of the Iliad, to any other spot, in the Lesser Phrygia.

It is also well known that one of those streams was named Scamander (or Xanthus); the other Simois; and that no others are mentioned by Homer. But a third, under the name of Thymbrius, is mentioned by Strabo, issuing from the valley of Thymbra; which valley (though not the river) is noticed by Homer.c And a fourth river, the Bounarbashi, appears not to have been mentioned by any of the ancients; unless it be the Amnis navigabilis of Pliny: which, however, is uncertain. At present, this river flows into the Mgean Sea, (or Archipelago); though appearances authorize a belief that at some period it ran into the Hellespont; either in a separate stream, or conjointly with the Mender ; and that it was forced into its present channel, by an artificial mound, in order to irrigate the valley that branches off, from that of

■ Iliad, lib. xiv. v. 36. Cowper, v. 42. fc Pliny, in particular, lib. v. c. 30. ‘ In this valley was situated the Temple of Apollo, which doubtless gave him the name of ThymbrcBus.

Troy, between Erkessi-kui and Jeni-kui. (See the map, compartments Nos. I. and II.) Whether this change was effected before, or after, the war of Troy, cannot be known: but in the present enquiry, it may be fair to consider it, as being posterior to that event.

Accordingly, there are four streams to be considered in the Troad: three of which, that is, the Mender, Shimar, and Thymbrek, in the present times, discharge themselves, in a collective stream, into the Hellespont, (or Dardanelles); and the fourth, the Bounarbashi, into the Archipelago. And of these Four streams, Three have by different writers been severally taken for the Simois, and as many for the Scamander.

But, in every system adopted for the arrangement of the rivers of the Troad, the Mender has always been regarded as One of the Two rivers that bounded the Trojan Plain: (that is, it was supposed to be either the Scamander, or the Simois: for it has been taken for both, in turn): and the dispute is reduced simply to this: ” on Which Side of the Mender did the Plain of Troy lie ?” The difference, at first sight, appears trifling: but the circumstances belonging to each of the systems, respectively, are very different indeed : and thence require much discussion. M. de Chevalier’s system takes the Mender for the Simo’is, and the Bounarbashi for the Scamander; whilst we regard the Mender as the Scamander, leaving the Bounarbashi out of the question: and seek, with Demetrius of Scepsis,* for a Simois, on the opposite, or eastern side of the Mender. Our dissent from the opinion of M. de Chevalier, is chiefly grounded on the

– An ancient city of Troas, situated within the western chain of Mount Ida, accordance, in point of character and description, of the Mender, with the Scamander of Homer; and the total want of accordance in the Bounarbashi.

The system of M. de Chevalier is founded on a most erroneous topography; in which, not only the principal part of the extensive plain, lying on the east of the Mender, is converted into a hilly tract; but a river and its valley are entirely omitted ; and others of a different name substituted for them. And it is the river so omitted, that appears to have constituted the Simo’is of Demetrius ; as the plain, so filled up, is His Plain of Troy! After this, it becomes no matter of surprize, that M.de Chevalier should wish to under-rate the authority of Demetrius; so as scarcely to allow him to possess the ability of identifying a river, or a plain, even in the neighbourhood of his own residence. The reader is requested to compare the plan of M. de Chevalier, N°. III. with those of Mr. Gell, and Mr. Kauffer; and with Mr. Carlyles sketch; N°*. I. IV. and V. in the annexed map.

But let it be enquired, what was the opinion of Strabo, a person who had well considered the authority of Demetrius.

He says, (page 603,) ” I think we ought generally to rely ” on the authority of Demetrius; a man of knowledge, and *« so enthusiastically fond of Homer, as to have written SO 11 book s on about 60 lines of Homer’s catalogue of the ” Trojan forces. ‘•

The opinions of certain modern authors, of great respectability, are no less in favour of Demetrius.

■ He was cotemporary with Scipio Ajricanus, who visited the Tread, B. C. 190.

: The celebrated M. Heyne of Gottingen (in the Edinb. Trans. Vol. iv. p. 76. Lit. Class) says :.

” Demetrius seems indeed to have a just title to belief ” and respect, as he was born in the neighbourhood of the ” Troad; and had, in all probability, surveyed it himself. •* Our good opinion of hini is confirmed, by the accuracy

with which particular places are laid down; and by their «« coincidence with the descriptions of ancient poets.

” This author, however, gives rise to a still greater em” harassment, not so much respecting the situation of Troy ; ” for it is assigned to what, in all probability, is its exact place; ” as in regard to the river Scamander, and its sources, which ” are thrown far back in the mountainous region behind “Troy.”‘

And Dr. Chandler (Hist. Troy, pages 1. and 52,) says, ” He (Demetrius) was a great philologist and grammarian ; ” of high reputation for learning: and especially noted for ” his study of Homer, and his topographical commentaries ” on the Ilias.—His curious researches give him a just title ” to be mentioned always with respect.”

After this, let the reader compare the style of M. Chevalier’s criticisms, with that of the above testimonials. After mentioning the attempt of Strabo to reconcile Demetrius with Homer, on the subject of the fountains, attributed to the Scamander, in the plain ; he says, (Plain of Troy, English Transl. p. 59), ” This is certainly a very obscure and unsatis” factory explication: and Demetrius and Strabo are equally censurable, the one for his negligence in committing the ” blunder; and the other for adopting it, and endeavouring ” to give it authenticity.”

Such is the modesty of the Gentleman, who produces an erroneous map, to prove his own system, in contradiction to Demetrius; whilst the latter was doubtless in the right. The remaining part of the chapter is equally censurable, for want of decorum ; as well in the mode of speaking of himself, as of the two ancient authors: even on a supposition that he had himself been in the right.

In effect, Demetrius is slighted only by those, who could not make his system square with theirs; although such systems may have been founded on deficient information, or on misconception.

It seems to be acknowledged on all hands, that the place of the source of the Scamander is the great stumbling block to the interpreters of the Iliad ; owing to the different modes of translating the description of the two springs before the Sccean Gate. (Iliad, xxii. v. 148.) Some have supposed it to intend ” The sources Which Supplied the Scamander;” whilst others have translated it ” Springs Of The Scamander;” as appertaining to that river, either from their effecting a junction with it, or from the notion that they were derived from it. So that, perhaps, they ought rather to have been denominated Adjunct Streams To the Scamander, than the Remote Sources, or Heads of that river.

Moreover, Homer says elsewhere, that the Scamander ” descends from the Idcea?i heights.”* Demetrius, who certainly did not refer the two springs of Homer, to those of Bounaibashi (as he placed Troy in so different a position), * Iliad, lib. xii, v. 19. Cowper, v. 23.

derives the Scamander from Mount Cotylus, in the eastern chain of Ida: and is silent in respect of any of its sources in the plain. Hence one may conclude, that he understood the passage in Homer to mean nothing more than two adjunct streams to the Scamander; and not its sources.

Strabo, who follows him so far as to believe that” its source ” was not in the plain, but in the mountain;” accounts, in a most extraordinary manner, for the existence of the cold spring, (for no hot spring could then be found.) For he supposes it to be a portion of the water of the Scamander, forcing its way through a subterraneous channel, and again rising up to the surface of the ground.h This, at least, proves, that Strabo believed the source of the main river, to be remote from Troy: and at the same time, seems to shew how much the text of Homer, in this place, had perplexed him.

Homer surely had Mount Cotylus (that is Gargarus) in view, when he characterizes Ida* as abounding with springs ;k

b Page 602. By this we learn that either Demetrius, or Strabo, had recognised a cold spring, in a situation which they thought was proper to the celebrated springs of Homer. So that travellers should enquire after it;-as it might lead to some discovery.

There appears to be a difference of opinion, amongst the learned, whether Strabo ever visited the Troad in person. It seems probable, that he only sailed along the coast, from Lectum, and viewed the plain, rivers, and mountains, from SigtBttm, or from the tumulus of Antilochus: as most of our modern travellers have done. Consequently, he must have derived the greater part of his information from the observations of others ; and it is probable that the writings of Demetrius, ” the Field of Troy” furnished all that relates to the interior of Troas, Carasena, &c. in the work of Strabo.


* ” Spring-fed Ida, mother of wild beasts.” Iliad, lib. viii. v. 47> Cowper, v. 52. ” Ida’s mount with rilling waters veined.” xiv. v. 283. Cowper, v. S32. and, again, v. 307- Cowper, 387. A number of sources descend from Gargarus. because it suits that mountain, perfectly, but not the one opposite to the Trojan Plain, and to Bouriarbashi; it having no known sources in it. Consequently, he can only be supposed to derive the Scamander from Gargarus.

With respect to the warm spring itself, as Demetrius could not find it, it would surely be vain for any one at present to attempt it: since he had, doubtless, opportunities of examining the ground in a closer and better manner than any one of our modern travellers could have done. It is a region subject to great earthquakes, the effects of some of which are on record. A spring of any kind is easily destroyed bv such a convulsion : besides which, the changes that have probably taken place, during the lapse of ages, since the time of Homer, must be taken into the account.

There can be no doubt that the Ancients believed the war of Troy to have happened; as they speak of it as of an acknowledged fact in history: but then, they of course made a distinction between history and heroic poetry: and no more believed that Vulcan dried up the waters of the Scamander to please Thetis, than we, that the Duke of Marlborough’s victory of Blenheim ” swelled the Danube with floods of gore, which fell from the vanquished.”1 But, in effect, whether Homer adopted for the subject of his poem a real event of history, (as we certainly conceive he did), or invented a fiction for it, is not the point to be considered in this place; but whether his description of the scene of action, agrees with the site acknowledged by the Ancients to be intended for it.

It is well known that Herodotus, Thucydides, and the historians of Alexander, have all spoken of the Trojan war as a matter of real history. But the statements and arguments of Thucydides are most to the point, in proof of the general belief of the Ancients, concerning it: for he reasons on it as on any other historical fact. It may not be amiss, in this place, to quote some of his opinions and observations on the subject. (Peloponnesian War, lib. I.)

” Their power (that is, of the Greeks) by these methods gradually advancing, they were enabled, in process of time, to undertake the Trojan expedition.” …

” It is farther my opinion, that the assemblage of that armament, by Agamemnon, was not owing so much to the attendance of the suitors of Helen, in pursuance of the oath they had sworn toTyndarus, as to his own superior power.’V—*« To these enlargements of power, Agamemnon succeeding, and being also superior to the rest of his countrymen, in naval strength, he was enabled, in mjr opinion, to form that expedition more from awe, than favour. It is plain that he equipped out the largest number of ships himself, besides those he lent to the Arcadians.”

—” We ought not therefore to be incredulous, nor so much to regard the appearance of cities, as their power; and of course, to conclude the armament against Troy, to have been greater than ever was known before; but inferior to

■ Of those who have reported, on the mbject of the Troad, Demetrius of Scepsis is the only one whose observations in detail, (preserved by Strabo,) have reached us : for those of Pliny, &c. apply to particular circumstances only, those of our age.” And whatever credit be given to the poetry of Homer in this respect, who no doubt as a poet hath set it off with all possible enlargement, yet even, according to his account, it appeareth inferior/’ —” On their first landing they got the better in fight; the proof is, that they could not otherwise have fortified their camp with a wall. Neither doth it appear that they exerted all their strength at once; numbers being detached for supplies of provisions; to till the Chersonesus; and to forage at large. Thus divided as they were, the Trojans were better able to make a ten years’ resistance, being equal in force to those who were at any time left to carry on the siege.—In fact, they did not ply the work with all their number, but only with a part constantly reserved for the purpose: had they formed the siege with their whole force, in less time, and with less difficulty, they must have taken Troy/’°

Herodotus (in Euterpe, c. 113. et seq.) gives the answers of the Egyptian priests, to his enquiries respecting Helen. They reported that Paris and Helen had arrived at a port of the Nile, in their way from Sparta to Troy; and that the King of iEgypt detained Helen, and the treasures plundered from her husband; but expelled Paris, as an infamous person. The result of these enquiries lends to shew, that although Troy was besieged and taken by the Greeks, yet that Helen (of course) was not found there. The father of history remarks, (ch. 118.) that ” this circumstance could not be unknown to Homer; but as he thought it less ornamental to his poem, he forbore to use it. That he did know it, is evident from that part of the Iliad, where he describes the voyage of Paris—who after various wanderings, at length arrived at Sidon in Phoenicia”?

Herodotus concludes this subject by remarking, that the restoration of Helen was not in the power of the Trojans; and that the Greeks placed no dependance on their assertions, which were indisputably true: ” but all this (says he) with the subsequent destruction of Troy, might be ordained by Providence, to instruct mankind that the Gods proportioned punishments to crimes.” (Euterpe, c. 120. Mr. Beloe’s translation.)

One cannot be otherwise than surprized, that any learned person should altogether slight these testimonies; so as even to doubt the existence of Troy itself: unless, indeed, he disbelieved the truth of ancient history generally.

The verses of the Iliad, ever in the mouths of the Greeks, kept alive the remembrance of the events which they recorded; whilst the tumuli, dispersed over and about the plain of Troy, gave a character of reality to the scene of warfare, which the mere natural scenery of mountains, promontories, and rivers, though described ever so characteristically in the poem, could not of themselves, perhaps, have

Her mantles of all hues, accompli >h’d works
Of fair Sidonians wafted o’er the deep
By godlike Paris, when the gallies brought

The high-born Helen to the shores of Troy.” Cowper, v. 326 et seq. effected : so that the Ancients never lost sight of the subject. The Greeks and Ionians who were in the habit of visiting, or passing in view of the spot, on commercial, or other errands, had their curiosity awakened by these monuments, which forced themselves on their notice; as well by their geographical position, as by their artificial form and bulk. The Macedonian dynasties which were afterwards established in Asia, by their founding the city of Alexandria Trous, still kept alive the memory of the events: and finally, the Romans, warmed by the fictitious story of their origin, adopted the inhabitants of the Troad for brethren; and consequently interested themselves deeply in all that concerned the Troad.

From these circumstances taken together, the curiosity of the Greeks and Romans led them to collect the traditions still existing: and to examine the ground, with a view to refer to it the transactions recorded in the Iliad : and surely no poem ever interested mankind so much, and during so long a continuance.

These enquiries had the effect of impressing a firm belief, on the minds of the enquirers, that Homer’s story had truth for its basis : each tumulus, as we learn from Demetrius, being appropriated to its proper hero: the rivers which bounded the ” deathless Plain,” being also discriminated; as well as the bay and promontories, which marked the camp of the Greeks; the Vale of Thymbra, and the chain of Mount Ida.* But the precise site of Troy was still unknown

* For instance, Pliny mentions, lib. xvi. c. 44, incidentally, the barrow or tumulus of Ilos, which had trees growing on, or about it ; and which probably he might have seen in his way through the Troad.

to Demetrius, although belief had attached itself to a particular spot: for the very ruins themselves being supposed to have perished,1 nothing that was sufficiently marked, remained for the judgment to fix on. It is most probable that the materials of the city had been removed : perhaps to New Ilium and Alexandria Troas, which were built long before Demetrius or Lucan wrote. But in the time of Alexander, and before the building of the latter of those cities, it is probable thatenough of the ruins of ancient Troy remained to direct him to the spot: so that the report of its general site may well have been handed down to the time of Demetrius ; an interval of no more than 150 years, at most.* It appears certain, that even those who resided near the spot, about the time of Augustus, had lost all idea of the exact position, otherwise than by report; and the warm spring was absolutely unknown to Demetrius, nearly two centuries before our aera.

Nor have the moderns shewn less curiosity or industry than the ancients: but, obviously, they have pursued their object with fewer advantages. For many of the notices possessed by the ancients, must, of necessity, have been lost: and the severe restraints so long imposed by bigotry and tyranny, must have damped the spirit of enquiry; not to mention that the aspect of an inhabited and cultivated country, is continually changing. And although in

* Although the city visited by Alexander was that of New Ilium (Strabo, page 593), yet we may conclude that he also visited the site of the ancient city: for unless he had gone over the whole scene of the Iliad, he could not have been so well qualified to decide on the merits of the historical and descriptive parts of the poem.

latter times, the restraints have been generally removed; yet, it has unfortunately happened, that a particular traveller (M. de Chevalier) having formed a system of his own, (plausible only from the erroneous statement of its topography, and of its hot and cold springs), nearly all of the succeeding travellers have confined themselves to his path, as if the question was set for ever at rest; instead of extending their researches to quarters not yet sufficiently explored.

Now, although every one reads the Iliad as a poetical romance, in respect of its machinery of deities, &c. yet he may believe, that, as it relates to the mere actions of men, the foundation of the story may be generally true, howsoever embellished: and such readers will, no doubt, be grati6ed to find, that so many of the descriptions in Homer agree with the ground itself. But it is unfortunate, that the ancient .description of the landscape is too general; and that our present knowledge of it is less extensive than could be wished.

In order to make a just comparison of the description of the field of action of the Iliad (according to the scanty notices in Homer) with the actual topography, as far as the present slate of our information goes; it becomes necessary, first, to enquire what were the ideas of the people, who lived and wrote at a period much nearer the date of the transactions ; that is, Demetrius of Scepsis, Strabo, and Pliny; but more particularly of the former: and then to examine, how far the ground described by Demetrius, and referred to the present topography of the Troad, agrees with the notices in Homer. For, as Demetrius found the principal monuments described by Homer, whether natural or artificial, still in existence, one may be satisfied that those descriptions were real: and that although we have not been able to discover all those monuments, yet that they did once exist, and may even exist at present, although they may have escaped our research. Therefore, by the intermediate assistance of Demetrius, more facts may perhaps be verified.

The including ridges of hills, and the rivers, as well as the greater part of the tumuli, are slill recognised; and the record concerning them is clear and distinct. Nothing more therefore seems to be required, than an unbiassed interpretation of the text of the poem, and a reference to a more accurate topography: the application will then, it is presumed, appear perfectly clear and natural.

In the courseof the disquisition, it is proposed to treat the subject in the following manner and order:

First, to compare the ideas of the ancient geographers, and particularly those of Demetrius, with the actual geography.

Secondly, to enquire how far the descriptions in Homer, can be reconciled to Demetrius, and to the actual geography.

And Lastly, what is to be collected from the ancients, respecting the position of the ancient City of Troy itself.

But in order to understand with more effect the descriptions given by Demetrius, whether quoted directly from him by Strabo; or presumed to be derived from him, and occurring in various passages of the same author; it becomes previously necessary to give a general idea of Mount Ida itself: since the chains of hills that encompass the Plain of Troy, and the whole scene of the Iliad, originate iny or are connected with, Ida. And moreover, because the largest of the rivers, the Scatnander, springs from the most distant range of Ida : thereby furnishing the direct means of discriminating it from the other rivers of the Troad, which spring from the ridge of Ida, nearest to the Plain of Troy.



Ida, a Region composed of three principal Ranges of Mountains; Gargarus; the Trojan ; and Lecturn—The second, which faces the Plain of Troy, has been commonly regarded as the great body of Ida, both by the Ancients and Moderns —Path of Juno—Strabo misapprehended the Subject of Ida, and the Courses of its Rivers, in the Report of Demetrius of Scepsis—Palae Scepsis, iEnea, Polichna—Scepsis—Homers Idea of Ida, appears to be correct—The Mountain of Gargarus, the same with Cotylus— Gives rise to the Scamander, Esepus, Granicus, &c.—Dr. Pocock’s Idea of Ida, correct—M. D’Anville’s the contrary.

Ida, as we collect from Homer,’ is not merely a mountain, or even a single chain of mountains, but a mountainous region; extending, in its greatest length, from the Promontory of Ledum to Zeleia (that is from Cape Baha to Biga); and in breadth, from the Hellespont to the neighbourhood of Adramyttium : so that it occupied, by its ridges and ramifications, the whole of the tract anciently called the Lesser Phrygian

Amongst a number of ridges or ranges, and irregular masses of mountains, of which it is composed, there are three ridges that are superior, in point of elevation, to the rest: and one of them eminently so. From their relative positions to each other, they may be compared, collectively, in point of form, to the Greek Delta ; the head, or northernmost angle of which approaches the Hellespont, near the site of the ancient Dardanm; and the two lower angles approach the promontory of Ledum on the one hand; Adramytiium on the other.

The loftiest of these ridges, is that which forms the right, or eastern side of the A; extending S E.-ward, between the Hellespont, and the head of the Gulf of Adramyttium* and terminating in the lofty summit oiGargarus; called also, indifferently, Cotylus; and Alexandres; and which overtops, in every distant view, the great body of Ida, like a dome over the body of a temple.*

The Second ridge, forming the left of the A, runs parallel to the coast of the Mgean Sea, from N. to S. at the distance of six or seven miles. Its commencement in the north, is, like that of the former, near the Hellespont; and it extends far on, towards the Promontory of Lectum. In a general view from the west (See Mr. Gell’s View, N°- XIX), it appears to extend to the promontory itself j although in reality it is separated from it by a wide valley, through which flows the Touzla, or Salt River.1

* Called also the Idaan Bay.

y See Mr. Gell’s beautiful and characteristic views, in his Troy, N°*.XII. and XIX. The modern name of Gargarus, is Kas-dagh.

* Strafco mentions (page 605) the Saline of TVagescea, near Hamaxytut, ma the coast of Troas. This is, no doubt, the one now in use, at the mouth of

The Third ridge, forming the base of the A, extends along the southern coast of the Lesset Phrygia, from the summit of Mount Gargarus, to the Promontory of Ledum; diminishing in altitude as it proceeds towards the latter (which Homer describes as the terminating point of Ida, on that side) a and which is, doubtless, the course of Juno, as described by him, in the same place. Mr. Hawkins says, that this ridge is not inferior in height to that which faces the Plain of Troy.

To prevent confusion, it becomes necessary to distinguish each of these ridges, by a particular name; and that of Gargarus being already appropriated to the one which contains the peak of that name, it may perhaps be allowed to name the one that faces the Plain of Troy, and seems to appertain to it, in respect ofjuxta-posilion and connexion, the Trojan Ida: and that which extends from Gargarus to Ledum, Ida Lectum. The Author is aware that the western ridge has already been called, by some, Ida Ledum; but it being separated from the promontory, as before said; whilst the other is continuous, the whole way from the summit of Gargarus; and as it appears, moreover, to be the poetical path of Juno, under which consideration it has an immediate reference to Lectum; there may perhaps be a propriety in calling this southern ridge by that name. If this be admitted, the three ridges, the eastern, western, and

the Touzla River, a league to the southward of Alexandria Troas. The agency of the Etesian winds, so oddly described by Strabo, was doubtless nothing more than that of raising the level of the sea, so as to overflow the margin, and fill the hollow plain within; where, in due time, it chrystallized. (See Map, N°.VI.) * Iliad xiv. v. 284 : Cowper, v. 838.

southern, will be respectively distinguished by the names of Gargarus, The Trojan, and Lectum.1″

Some of the most respectable authorities amongst the Ancients, and still more amongst the Moderns, have regarded the western range, or that over Troy and Alexandria Troas, as the true and only Ida; or they may have added to it a portion of the southern range.* This idea was probably taken up from a view of the mountains from the side of Troy, and of the coast opposite to it; or from the Hellespont : from which quarters, it was most frequently viewed ; and from whence the whole appears as one range; the nearest hiding the others; save only the Peak of Gargarus, which ordinarily passes for a distinct mountain, unconnected with Ida.

Herodotus, Xenophon, and Strabo, evidently design by

b Lectum and Gargarus are clearly discriminated in the XlVth Book of the Iliad, v. 284, et seq. (Cowper, v. 333) on occasion of the ascent of Juno: who (accompanied by Sleep)

1 ” with gliding ease swam thro’ the air
” To Ida’s Mount—at Lectos first
” They quitted ocean, overpassing high
‘* The dry land, while beneath their feet the woods
” Their spiry summits wav’d. There, unperceiv’d
” By Jove, Sleep mounted Ida’s loftiest pine—
” Then swift to Gargarus, Ou Ida’s top
” The Goddess soar’d.”

If it be insisted that the mountain immediately over Troy, is the true Gargarus, why should Juno, who came from the quarter of Lemnos and Imbrus, land at Ledum, so far out of the way ?

c Dr. Pocock is an exception. However, until the publication of M. Kauffer’s map, (though a bad copy,) by Dr. Clarke and Mr. Cripps, the Public had the ,most incorrect ideas, possible, of Ida and the Troad, Ida, the ridge towards Troy; or at least, they exclude Gargarus. The former, in describing the march of Xerxes, northward, from Pergamus, Tbebe, and Antandros, to Ilium, makes him ** leave Ida on his Left hand,” that is to the West. (Polym. 42.) Now the summit of Gargarus being little short of an English mile, in altitude (775 toises, French), what should have induced Xerxes to lead his army over such a ridge, when he might have gone a straighter and smoother road, by avoiding it; and after all, he must of necessity have crossed the western ridge, also, in order to arrive at Ilium ?

Again, Xenophon says, (Anab. vii.) that in his way [southward] from Ilium, through Antandros, to Adramyttium, he crossed M. Ida. Of course, it must have been the western and southern ranges; as is done at present by those who travel from the Dardanelles to Eidermit, or Adramyttium.11

Strabo unquestionably refers the ideas of Demetrius, respecting the Mountain of Cotylus (i. e. Gargarus) and its rivers, to the Trojan Ida ; never supposing that the lofty mountain over Antandros and Gargara, was Cotylus, the

d Since the above was written, the Author has seen, in the second volume of Dr. Clarke’s Travels, Mr. Walpole’s route from Alexandria Troas to Adramyttium, over the western and southern ridges of Ida. He finds also the same route in Le Brun: and in M. Choiseul Gouffier’s second volume.

Mr. Walpole’s account of this short journey is highly illustrative of the course and nature of the two chains of Ida, which he passed.

The route in Le Brun, which led from Adramyttium to Papazli, Narli, Felampe, Lerissi, and Kemalli, to Kourn-kala, appears to be that of the ordinary caravans; and we cannot but believe that Dr. Clarke misconceived the route of the caravan, given in his Vol. II. page 137, where he supposes it to have passed by the east of Mount Gargarus, or high Ida.

There is another route from Lerissi to Koum-kala, by way of Ene, and Bounarbashi.

highest point of Ida ; from whence Demetrius derives the fountains of the Scamander, the Esepus, and the Graniens, (page 602). Strabo concluded that all these rivers sprung from that chain of Ida bordering on the Trojan plain, which he had in view from the sea coast; and which, it appears, was the only Ida known to him.e Vet he describes the position of the City of Gargara, at 260 stadia to the eastward of the Lectum Promontory, with the Mountain of Gargarus above it: and he had before him, the distance of Cotylus from Scepsis, and of this latter from Palce Scepsis, in the report of Demetrius. But it appears clearly that he was not in the habit of subjecting his written geography to the test of tabular construction ; whence, in some cases,, its accuracy and consistency, were never put to the proof.

Conceiving, therefore, that the highest part of the Trojan Ida, or of the ridge next to him, was the Cotylus of Demetrius, Strabo referred (p. 603) the positions of Pales Scepsis, Mnea, Polichna, and the Silver Mine (all of which were really situated under that part of the Trojan Ida), to Cotylus. But Cotylus lay 20 or more miles farther to the eastward; and belonged to a different chain of mountains. He also describes the JEsepus River, to be no more than 30 stadia from Pake Scepsis (p. 603); although it is described by Demetrius to flow from Cotylus, towards the Propontis; or to the opposite quarter from the Troad.

Eski Skupchu, or Old1 Skupchu, was found by Dr. Pocock, and other modern travellers, at the eastern loot of the highest part of the Trojan Ida; seven or eight miles to the eastward of Alexandria Troas: and this is universally allowed e See the first note to page 1. f Eski being the Turkish word for old.

to be the Pake Scepsis of Strabo. At a few mfles to the northward of it, is also found Ene, taken for the JEnea of Strabo, given at 50 stadia from the former. Again, a silver mine, said by Strabo to lie between Palce Scepsis and Polichna (which two places are said by him, page 603, to be near each other) is also found within two miles of the former. Here then are three points of comparison: and as the village of Balouk-li is also found near Eski Skupchu, one may conceive this to be Polichna, or Polikna; and the agreement between the ancient and modern geography will be still closer. (See the Map of the Troad, N°. VI.; and also M. KaufFer’s Map of the same Tract.)

Now, the river mentioned by Strabo, at 30 stadia from Palce Scepsis, could not be the JEsepus; which, as we have seen, rises in Kusdagh, or Gargarus, and flows to the eastward, and into the Propontis; but must be the Mender (Scamander) which flows westward from the same mountain; and really passes at about the aforesaid distance from EskiSkupchu: or in other words Pake Scepsis. One must therefore suspect that the name JEsepus has been interpolated, and that Scamander stood in the original of Demetrius; but that it was altered, from an idea that the context required it. Strabo indeed says (page 602,) that the Scamander rises in the mountains; but he probably thought those mountains belonged to the Trojan Ida.

With the above clue, one may trace the error of Strabo, respecting the position of the mountain, which gave rise to the JEsepus, Scamander, and Granicus; and without which, the useful part of his information, respecting this quarter, would be lost. Therefore, what he says respecting Ida, has a reference to the chain of mountains over Ilium and Alexandria Troas: and that, respecting Cotylus and its rivers, Carasena, Sec. &c.; to Gargarus, and the tract tying to the eastward of it.

Scepsis is said (Strabo, page 607) to be 60 stadia from Palce Scepsis ;z but no line of direction is given. Ii may be conceived to lie towards Cotylus, or Gargarus; as the whole distance between Palce Scepsis and Cotylus, is given at 180 stadia: (that is, 60 to Scepsis, and 120 thence to Cotylus;) whilst the distance on Kauffer’s map is 6| French leagues, or about 20 B. miles, from Eski Skupchu to the hither foot of Kasdagh, or Gargarus. The 180 stades, if taken for Roman, are equal to about 21 such miles; but if on Strabo’s scale (of 700 to 1°.) to 18 only. The difference, in either case, is not so great, as to destroy the probability of Kasdagh and Eski Skupchu being the places intended; since the reports of so many persons, worthy of credit, have established the fact of the distance, and of the circumstances of the ground; as Dr. Pocock, Messrs. Kauffer, Carlyle, Hawkins, Clarke, &c : all of whom agree, that the Mender flows from Kasdagh (the loftiest summit of Ida, situated over Adramyttium, and the site ofAntandros; &c.) westward to the Plain of Troy; and to the Hellespont.

Homer, when he derives not only the Scamander, but the Msepus and Granicus, &c. also, from Mount Ida,h could only

1 The Latin translation of Casaubon lias, erroneously, forty instead of sixty.

h Iliad, lib. xii. v. 19 ; (Cowper, v. 23) where he makes the Escpus and Granicus, &c. which flow from the eastern side of Ida, and into the Propontis, turn bach over the tops of the mountains, that give rise to them, to assist in the demolition of the Grecian rampart. This appears to be a most extraordinary license, considered even as a poetical one.

intend the eastern ridge. He knew the geography well, and extended the region of Ida from Zeleia, near the Propontis, to the Promontory of Lectum, in Troas; and, therefore, it is probable, had remarked the principal features of it, on every side. But it may be also, when he describes the ascent of Juno, that he only spoke to the eye; and as the landscape would have appeared to a spectator in the Trojan Plain; since, viewed from that side, the Promontory of Lectum appears to be a continuation of the Trojan Ida, the wide valley that separates it, being shut up, in the perspective.*

On the whole, then, it appears, that the Cotylus of Demetrius, was the Gargarus and Alexandrea of Strabo; and that it answers to the Kasdagh of the present time; the highest peak of Ida: and situated opposite to the head of the Gulf of Adramyttium. As also, that the Mender flows westward from the same mountain, through the vallies of Ida, into the Trojan Plain ; and therefore answers (as will presently be shewn) to the Scamander of Demetrius: it being, moreover, joined by the way, by a river from the N E. answering to the Andrius of Strabo, from the quarter of Carasena: (page 602) And finally, that Herodotus, Xenophon, and Strabo, evidently exclude from their ideas of Ida, the mountain and ridge of Gargarus: in which they were followed by the modern travellers, Pocock alone excepted; until the date of the late researches of the French gentlemen, resident at Constantinople.

1 See Mr.Gell’s Views, in his Troy, N°*. IV. V. and more particularly N°. XIX, from the Tumulus of Antilochus. The sharp-peaked mountain in the nearest range, seen a little to the right of Gargarus, appears to be the Gargarus of Captain Francklin, and others who considered the western ridge as the ontyld*.

M. D’Anville was totally mistaken, in his ideas of the geography of Mount Ida, and the courses of the rivers of the Troad. And this may serve as a proof of the total misconception that must have prevailed in those times respecting Ida and Troas: since He was likely to be the best informed of any one, on such subjects.

He places Cotylus nearly in the parallel of Troy; although it be nearer that of the Lectum Promontory: and at the distance of only 20 MP. from Troy, although it be 30. But following Demetrius, he derives the Scamander, /Esepus, and Granicus, from Cotylus. However, from the difficulty of believing that the source of the Scamander was so far distant from Scepsis, as is represented by Demetrius, he places Cotylus too near to Troy; and Scepsis on the further, or eastern side, of Cotylus (i. e. Gargarus); thus reversing the order of tilings, as may be seen by comparing the geography of the Troad, in his Map of Asia Minor, with ours in N°. VI. founded on the authority of M. KaufFer, &c. M. D’Anville has also followed Strabo, in supposing that there were no other ridges of Ida, save the one facing Troy. So that he has placed Scepsis in respect of Ida Gargarus, as it really stood, in respect of the Trojan Ida.

Had Scepsis, Pake Scepsis, Polichna, &c. been where M. D’Anville has placed them, they would not have been in Troas, as they confessedly ought to be; but in Carasena.

But it is however, certain, that by his deriving the Scamander from Cotylus, he meant to follow the opinion of Demetrius : and that he had no idea of its springing from the Plain, in front of Troy, according to the system of M. de Chevalier.


” From the tract of [Western] Ida, two Elbows, or projecting ridges of the mountain, extend themselves towards the sea; one in the direction of Rboetcum, the other of Sigceum:k and bending in a semicircular form, include within them both the Simdisian Plain, through which flows the Simdisi and also the Scamandrian Plain, which is, in like manner, watered by the Scamander: which latter Plain, is also named the Trojan, or Wean.”1

” The terminations of these mountainous (or hilly) projections, in the plain, are at about the same distance from the sea,mas the present Ilium ; which is situated between them, as the site of the Ancient Ilium is between the places of their commencement [near Ida].”

” The Scamandrian Plain is the broadest of the two; and in it most of the battles, described by the poet, were fought. In it, we are also shewn the Erineus, the barrow of Msyeles, the Baticca, and the Monument of Ilus.v

” The rivers Scamander and Simois, the latter by directing its course towards Sigceum, and the former towards Rhcetcum, unite their streams, a little in front of the present [i. e. the Nea>] Ilium: and the confluent stream discharges itself

k See the Map, compartments N°. I. and II.

1 When the Grecian army was first marshalled at the ships, and marched towards the Plain of Troy, it was said (lib. ii. v. 465. Cowper, v. 526), that they were in the Scamandrian Plain. This was, of course, below both of the confluences; and Homer no where speaks of a Simo’isian Plain, as distinct from the Scamandrian. It is Demetrius alone, who distinguishes the Plains.

m By the Sea, the JEgean only can be intended.

towards Sigceum: forming first the Stoma-limne, or Lake of the Mouth.”

” Finally, a narrow ridge divides each of the above Plains from the other; beginning near the present Ilium, and reaching as far as Ccbrenia; forming the shape of the letter T towards the above hilly projections, as it joins to either side.” ■

” The village of the Ilieans, where Ancient Ilium, or Troy, is supposed to have stood, is 30 stadia from the present Ilium.” (In page 593, it is said ” towards the East, and Ida.”) ” And beyond that, at 10 stadia, is the Kalli-colone; near which the Simois flows, at the distance of Jive stadia.” [Strabo, page 597]

This description (as far as it can be understood, by comparing it with the actual topography) seems to be allowed to be just, even by M.de Chevalier, and by those who have adopted his system; the application of the names of the rivers excepted.0

The projecting ridges from Ida, described by Demetrius, which envelope the scene of the Iliad, are easily understood to mean those two ranges, between which the Mender and its branches flow, in their course to the Hellespont: the range on the south detaching itself from that part of Western Ida, over Bounarbashi, and terminating at Erkessi-kui; and that from the north, which, separating the Valley of Thymbrek (Thymbra) from the coast of the Hellespont; has its termination at the promontory, on which the tumulus of

■ This cannot well be understood, for want of a more detailed, and mort accurate topography of the hilly tract towards Ida. • See again in the Map, compartments N°. I. IV. and VI,

In Tep6, (or of Ajax) stands : anciently Rhoeteum. It will appear, by Mr. Gell’s distinct and beautiful view, N°.XIX. (from the Tumulus ascribed to Antilochus) that the general appearance of the landscape, justifies the description given by Demetrius : nor is there any other spot near the Hellespont, that resembles it, in any degree.

With respect to the distinct course of each of the two rivers, previous to their junction near New Ilium, the description agrees well with the supposition, that the Shimar was the Simois, and the Mender, the Scamander. For, it is naturally understood that, previous to their intercepting each others course, the river which pointed towards Sigceum, must have been the eastern one, or that to the right, which would answer to the Shimar: and the one which pointed towards Rhoeteum, the western, or left hand river; which agrees to the Mender.? It may indeed be said, that the same result might have been produced by the Mender and Bounarbashi rivers; the former considered as the Simois, and the latter, as the Scamander: but it does not appear so probable that the Bounarbashi River ever ran near New Ilium, as that the Mender did.


Much more conclusive, however, respecting the identity of the Scamander, is the testimony of Demetrius concerning the source of that river, in the distant mountains near Antandros (Strabo, page 602); and its western course from thence to the Troad; since, in that course, it is said to separate the country of Cebrenia from that of Scepsis: a circumstance that can apply only to the Mender; which really takes a westerly course, between countries which alone can be taken for Cebrenia and Scepsis.* This circumstance therefore, appears decisive of its being the Scamander, intended by Demetrius.

It is also said by Strabo, page 602 (and doubtless on the same authority of Demetrius) that the river Andrius, from the quarter of Carasena, joins the Scamander. Carasena was a country that bordered on Dardania, and extended to Zcleia: consequently, the Andrius answers to the Lidgex of KaufFer’s map; which joins the Mender, in the heart of Ida, and has most of its sources from the mountains adjacent to Carasena: that is the chain of eastern Ida, or Gargarus.



It has been shown that the Throsmos on which the Trojans bivouacked, consisted of a portion of the plain, on the left, or west bank of the Skamander. Dolon, the Trojan spy, when interrogated by Ulysses, gave some rather interesting details of the interior arrangement of the bivouac, which I have endeavoured to trace in the Topographical Sketch, No. 3.1

m. x. This dotted line, represents the present shore line. x. The ancient shore line.

Q. C. The Greek Camp.

r. n. m. The present course of the Skamander.

r. «. t. The ancient course in the age of Homer.

r. w. z. Its probable course in the time of Strabo and Demetrius.

T. Two Tumuli, considered to be those of Achilles and

Patroclus. X. The reputed tomb of Ajax. L. Supposed site of the tumulus of Ilus. 6. The village, or place, called Thymbra. b. The acropolis or citadel of Troy. g. The Sksean gate.

s. i. and S. 1. The two channels of the Simois. The series of short lines from 1 to 5 along the left bank of the Skamander indicates the posts of the several corps composing the Trojan army when blockading the Greeks, then shut up in their camp Gr. C.

1- 2. The Carians and Pceonians (Bowmen), with the

Leleges, Caucones, and Pelasgi, who were “towards the sea.”1

2- 3. The Lycians, Mysians, Phrygians, and Mceonians,

who were “towards Thymbra,” d.

3- 4. The Trojans in their supposed position, which Dolon

does not define, but naturally it would be about the middle of the bivouac, as we learn that the greatest confidence was placed in their vigilance. Dolon stated that the confederates and “allies, whose families were far off, posted no guards at their stations, entrusting that duty to the Trojans, who were watchful in consequence of the immediate danger to their wives and children.”2 Another of those happy natural touches, which impress so striking a character of truth upon the story of the Iliad.

4- 5. The other confederates and allies, for whose names

we must go back to Book n. 819. They are Dardanians—the men of Zelea—Adrasteans, with the men of Apsesus and Pityea—the men of Percote, Practium, Sestus, Abydus, and Arisba—the Ciconians— Paphlagonians—Halizonians; lastly, the Thracians, who were “newly arrived,” and posted apart, at the “extremity of the bivouac” 5, (eo-xv, extremi omnium)3—Dolon probably pointed to their position with his hand—En Thraces, “behold the Thracians.”4 These auxiliaries of course crossed the Hellespont, and are fitly placed at the part of the bivouac nearest their landing place, which was probably at Abydos. L. The tumulus of Ilus, where Hector held his council.

1 njos pti* aXts.—H. x. 428. Heyne renders it versus mare, and at v. 430, versus Thymbra. Annot. ad loc. » II. x. 41&-422.

8 Qgnixis oiV aTanvfo vtnXv^iS, tff%arfli aWuv.—II. X. 434.

4 See Heyne, Annot. v. 433.

Here, he was ” apart from the noise” (v. 415), having at least the breadth of the river (about 300 feet) between him and the army; and conveniently placed for sending messages to the city, and procuring provisions from it.

Supposing the Trojans and their allies to occupy the positions here assigned to them, it will be seen that the Greeks, in their camp G. 0., would be completely shut in, and no means of escape left them but by sea. And if escape by sea were attempted, their enemies, resting on their arms, were waiting for the moment to attack them, at a distance not much exceeding a mile. The portion of the river northward from the figure 5 being too deep to be forded, would not require to be watched. Diomed and Ulysses, in their nocturnal expedition to the Trojan bivouac, would proceed from the eastern part of the camp about 0., and a journey of less than a mile would bring them to the Thracian bivouac at the figure 5, the station nearest to them.

6. Thymbra.—No mention of Thymbra is met with in the Iliad or Odyssey, except in this single passage; and the name of a river Thymbrius first occurs in the works of the poets and geographers of a much later age. The modern name of the Simois, Dombrek, or Gbeumbrek, misled Lechevalier, from the resemblance of the sound, to confound it with the Thymbrius, and to seek Thymbra in that valley. Strabo’s Thymbrius is, beyond all doubt, the Kimair or rivulet of Akche Keui. He makes it “join the Skamander, at the temple of Apollo Thymbraeus, 50 stadia from New Ilium.”1

The expression applies correctly to the Kimair, or rivulet of Akche Keui, and to no other. And farther to identify the stream, Doctor Hunt found at the village, where some ruins exist, an inscription in which the name of Apollo occurs.2

1 Strabo, p. 598.

2 Walpole’s Memoirs relating to Turkey, vol. i. p. 609.

But the Thymbra mentioned by Homer, was near the Throsmos (or formed part of it), and the Trojan army, we have seen, was within a mile or little more of the Greek fleet and the Hellespont, while the nearest part of Strabo’s Thymbrius, its mouth, at Akche Keui, is nine miles from the Hellespont, and more than six from any position that can be assigned to the Throsmos. When the Trojans were watching the Greek camp, surely to post a part of their troops six miles distant from it, was a strategic movement too absurd to be dreamed of. Yet this, or what is nearly equivalent, has been done by Choiseul GoufHer, whose Throsmos is the high ground at Yerkassi Keui, five miles from the Hellespont, and four from the Greek camp, as laid down in his own plan, designed by Barbie du Bocage! Major Rennell conceives it to be “the first rising or step of the ground from the beach of the sea,”1 in short, the portion of the plain immediately without the Greek camp. Accordingly, in his map No. 2, he disposes the Trojan army in a line three miles long, parallel to his rampart of the Greek camp, and barely half a mile from it, the extreme right being in the valley of Dombrek, where (following Lechevalier) he places Thymbra. I have given my reasons for thinking that an interval of a mile or more between the hostile armies, is required by the poet’s expressions. But if Thymbra was at or near a Trojan army so stationed, what connection could it have with a river which terminated in the Skamander six or eight miles from that camp? The connecting link is supplied by the Kalifat Asmak, which mingles its water with the brook of Akche Keui (Strabo’s Thymbrius) at the south end of the plain, and continues its course to the north end, where Thymbra must be placed. Even at present the water of the Kalifat Asmak passes (circuitously) to this part of the plain, but its ancient and more natural course would be that which I have given it in the Sketch No. 3. Assuming this to be the case, the village would give its own name, modified in the usual Greek form (Thymbrius), to the little rivulet which passed it to join the Skamander, and the name would

1 Observ. on the Plain of Troy, p. 100.

be extended to the Kimair, or brook of Akche Keui, of which in the rainy season the Asmak may be said to be a prolongation. For this connection between the lower and upper streams, we have the authority of Dr Forchhammer. Describing the marshy lake Judan he says, it affords a small, but permanent, supply of water, derived from springs on the hills; but “at the rainy season its water is increased by a stream or Asmak from the place lohere the overflowing Mendere and Kimair meet; the overflow then runs off by two parallel Asmaks towards the Hellespont.”1 Under such circumstances it was not unnatural that the Kimair should be confounded with the Kalifat Asmak, and is it not curious, and satisfactory too, to find one river (or what may be considered as such) fulfilling the apparently incompatible conditions, of having one termination eight miles from the sea, corresponding to Strabo’s words, and another only two miles from it, corresponding to Homer’s? It is probable that these Asmaks have changed their beds several times since the age of Homer. They consist of broad channels completely filled with clay or mud in summer; and when floods descend from Ida, it must sometimes happen that the stream, unable to push the clay before it, turns off to the right or left, and cuts out a new channel in the soft soil of the plain.

Very little additional light is afforded by the scholiasts and later authors, who give us conjectures and fables—much more than reliable information. Stephanus terms Thymbra “a city of Troas (n-0A15 TpwaSos), so named by Dardanus in honour of his friend Thymbrus; while the river is called Thymbrius.2 Eustathius expresses himself in nearly the

1 The lake or marsh where the streams meet is shewn in the map at Kanai Tepe.

“Genahrt wird dieser See diirch die unterirdischen Quellen des ruckens; vermehrt aber werden seine gewasser zur zeit des regens durch ein Strom oder Asmak aus der gegend wo der austretende Mendere, und der Kimair sich begegnen. Die uberfluthing des Sees verlauft sich dann durch zwei parallel fiiessende Asmaks in der richtung gegen den Hellespont.”—Beschreibung, p. 10.

2 Steph. Byz. in voc.

same words; and both of them speak of a temple there of Thymbrasan Apollo. Hesychius terms Thymbra “a place of Troy, near the river (ron-os njs IAiou n-epi Tov 8vfif3pov irorafiov) distant ten stadia from the ancient city,1 where also there is a temple of Apollo Thymbraaus.” The existence of a temple is implied in Virgil’s epithet of Thymbraean, given to Apollo.2 And Servius adds in his commentary, that Thymbra was “a field near Troy (ager vicinus) full of the plant Thymbra Satureia,” where there was ” a grove and temple of Apollo, and where Achilles was killed by Paris.” The field was, of course, the re/tevos, or “sacred field/’-kept apart from all vulgar uses, for the service of the god, and enclosing a temple, or “fragrant altar,” such as Homer informs us, existed at the springs of the Sperchius, in honour of the rivergod.3 There may have been a grove here in the Homeric age, though the poet does not mention it; or there may have been one in the Roman times; for among nine groves (apparently all consecrated) enumerated by Vibius Sequester, we find Thymbra Phrygia?, “ab herbse nomine.” The Thyme or Thymbra of the ancients, according to Doctor Sibthorpe, is the Satureia Capitata; Virgil calls it strong-scented (graviter spirans).4 The name Thymbris occurs in Theocritus,5 and Bochart, in his Geographia Sacra, quotes a scholiast, who explains the word as signifying “the sea,” in some language not named.6 From “the sea,” it might slide into the more comprehensive sense of “water;” hence the root might be found in ofiSpos, and imber, “rain,” “the element of water,”

1 Hobhouse’s Journey in Albania, 2d Ed., p. 748. I have placed the village at i, 10 stadia from the supposed boundary of the recent Ilium, which Hesychius, like nearly all the Greeks and Romans, probably identified with the ancient city.

! ^Ineid, m. 85.

3 H. x. 148. “Before temples were erected altars were built in groves, and hence all sacred places were called groves. After they fell into disuse as places of worship, they were still held in great veneration, and cutting the trees was deemed a heinous offence.”—Robinson’s Archseologia Grseca, p. 200-2. 2nd Ed.

* Geor. rv. 31. s Idyl. i. 110.

• Geog. Sacr. Frankfurti. 1674. P. 598.

the 6 being prefixed, which is not unusual in the iEolic dialect.1 The Tiber was sometimes called Thymbris by the Greeks,2 and a branch of the Sangarius had the same name. There was a river Imbrasas in Samos; an Imbros, the citadel of Caunus, a town and port in the south coast of Caria, noted for the unhealthiness and cadaverous aspect of its inhabitants,3 evidence of the presence of marshes. There was another town or village in Caria, named Thymbria, four stadia from Myus, in the marshy district at the estuary of the Maeander.4 Now keeping in mind that the Thymbrius in the plain of Troy consists, for the greater part of the year, of a chain of pools of stagnant water, with tufts of herbage, do not the references above cited, with the supposed root, o/j.Spos, or “imbris,” lend some probability to the idea, that the name Thymbris or Thymbrius among the Greeks, might, like Asmak among the Turks, be reserved for rivers in which the water stagnates in pools, or assumes the form of a marsh, for a large part of the year.

1 Damm. in lit. I. 1 Dionysii Orbis Descriptio, v. 352.

• Strabo, p. 651. » Strabo, p. 636.



E» Ta> (aurea amphora) rot nttrm Xst>*’ ofrta fmli/f A%iX\tv>
Uiyfa Si, HargoxXoti Mtvotrtozb’ao 6avovrw

Aptf avroifft S’ sTtira fMyWI xat otftvftovot rvftflov

Axrn tTi Tgov%ovffri, rrt TXartt ,EXXtr!r«i>Tor
Cls xm rttXtipotvr.s sx TovroQtv avigafftv att
totSy 01 m yiyaotfft, xat ot ftsroTiffhv sffovrai.

Odyss. Xxit. 76.

The existing Tumuli are very interesting monuments, but only two of them can be referred, on sure grounds, to the heroic age.

Tumulus o/^Jsyetes.—This object is only once mentioned, in a passage which states, that the Trojan Prince Polites, one of Priam’s sons, renowned for swiftness of foot, was stationed on the tumulus to watch the Greeks in their camp, and give timely notice of any aggressive movement made by them.1 The tumulus should be near the Greek camp to afford insight into the movements there, and pretty far from Troy, since the extraordinary swiftness of the king’s son was the only security for his personal safety. It should also be quite out of the line of march between the city and the camp, since it is never alluded to in the military movements. Setting aside the two tombs at T (in Sketch No. 3) as those of Achilles and Patroclus, none of the existing tumuli combine these requisites satisfactorily. The tumulus at X has the best claim, but it has been long appropriated to Ajax. There is a hillock on

1 n. n. 792.

the west bank of the Mendere in the general map, two miles south from Koum Kale, (near the words “ruined bridge” in the map), which, if artificial, may not unfitly represent the tumulus of iEsyetes. But there may have been other tumuli in more appropriate situations which have been swept away by the annual inundations, or levelled by the hand of man.

The Tomb of Ajax.—We learn from the Odyssey that Ajax fell at Troy,1 and we may feel sure that so distinguished a chief would have a tumulus; but as the poet does not mention it, we have no other authority than the tradition or belief of the later Greeks for considering the barrow at Rhceteum as his. This authority is not to be altogether rejected, especially if we could be assured, that the practice which prevailed in later times of sacrificing to Ajax, Achilles, Hector, and the other heroes, began near the time of the war.2 At any rate, there can be little doubt that this represents the barrow which was highly venerated by the later Greeks as the tomb of Ajax. There was a building here in the time of the Romans, which Strabo describes as comprising a monument, with a temple, and statue of Ajax.3 The remains now existing consist of ruble stone walls a few feet high, with a vault running in horizontally. From Lechevalier’s plan in his 22d plate, the breadth of the built structure seems to be about 60 feet. It stands on the sloping extremity of the Bhoetean ridge, at a height, according to my estimate, of forty feet above the plain. The paved “causeway” a little westward from it (shown in the map), was made at the expense of the ruble walls, which, in a few years, may disappear entirely.4 There are four barrows marked in the map on the north side of the supposed site of Rhoeteum, but they escaped my notice, and must be of small size.

Tomb of Protesilaus.—We know that Protesilaus died in the Troad ;5 but the tradition of a later age affords the only

1 Od. xi. 466-8; 560-3. • Strabo, p. 596.

8 niuv aXtr£v«s y ftvnfta xoti ttgov Atatros xott otvfyttts.—Strabo, p. 595.

4 Walpole’s Memoirs relating to Turkey, Voi. I. p. 100. » n. ii. 697.

reason for attaching his name to the tumulus at Cape Helles, (the ancient Ekeus), at the south extremity of the Chersonese.1 It is conspicuous from the Sigean ridge, as shown by Sir William Gell’s 19th plate.

Tumuli at Sigeum.—A higher interest attaches to the barrows at Sigeum, which retain nearly their original form, and which can, perhaps, be more safely identified with the tumuli mentioned by Homer, than any others in the Troad. Strabo informs us that Achilles had a temple and monument at (or near) Sigeum, and that Patroclus and Antilochus had also monuments there.2 There are three hillocks near Koum Kale; the two to which the names of Achilles and Patroclus are affixed in the map, are clearly artificial, true barrows. The third, half a mile northward, and close to the wooden bridge over the Mendere, is a great deal larger, but wants the conical form; it is called the tomb of Antilochus by Count Choiseul, but is declared by Dr Forchhammer to be decidedly natural (Jene Hohe entschieden eine natiirliche ist). It must be of earth or sand, for it is now the burying ground of Koum Kaleh. In passing from the village to the reputed tomb of Achilles, the ground rises by terraces, as shewn in the following sketch, which was taken on the spot:—

The Walls of Troy
Aegina was named after the daughter of river-god Asopus, in Sicyonia. Zeus fell in love with Aegina, transformed himself into a flame, and abducted the maiden. Zeus brought her to the island of Oenone. Aegina became the mother of Aeacus (Aiacos). The island was then renamed to Aegina.
Asopus went searching for his daughter, but could not find her. Sisyphus, king of Corinth, had seen Zeus take Aegina to the island. Sisyphus told Asopus, where Zeus taken his daughter. Asopus tried to take his daughter back, but was driven away by Zeus’ thunderbolts.
Aegina became the mother of Aeacus. Aeacus became king of the island Aegina. As the son of Zeus, Aeacus was persecuted by Hera, his father’s jealous wife. Hera sent a pestilence that killed entire population. Aeacus prayed to his father (Zeus) to repopulate the island. Zeus answered his son’s prayer, by transforming the boundless ants into humans. These people became known as the Myrmidons. The Myrmidons were strong and hardy people. They were excellent workers and soldiers.
Aeacus was the mortal who helped the gods, Poseidon and Apollo, to build the wall around Troy. Aeacus had three sons. By his wife Endeïs, he had two sons: Peleus and Telamon.
Aeacus also had one son named Phocus, by his mistress Psamathe, a Nereïd and the sister of Thetis. Peleus and Telamon envied their half-brother’s athletic prowess, who had become Aeacus’ favourite son. At Endeïs’ urging, Peleus murdered his half-brother Phocus. Aeacus banished both Peleus and Telamon from Aegina. Peleus went to Phthia, Thessaly, while Telamon went to the nearby island of Salamis. Telamon tried to plead with his father, that he was innocent, but Aeacus ignored Telamon’s pleas.
Aeacus became an attendant of the Themis, goddess of justice, along with Minos and Rhadamanthys, the two sons of Zeus and Europa. They were three judges in the Underworld, presiding over the souls of the dead.
“But who,” he [Darius] answered, “are the Paeonians, and where do they dwell, and with what intent have you come to Sardis?
[in Lydia]” They told him, that they had come to be his men, that the towns of Paeonia lay on the Strymon, a river not far from the
Hellespont, and that they were colonists from the Teucrians of Troy. (Herodotus)
Herodotus: on the Thracians: “These when they had crossed over into Asia came to be called Bithynians, but formerly
they were called, as they themselves report, Strymonians, since they dwelt upon the river Strymon; and they say that they
[the Bythinians] were driven out of their abode by the [Paeonian] Teucrians and [Thracian] Mysians.”
The inhabitants of Troas, called by prose-writers Trojani or Teucri.
The Tjeker Sea People refered in Egyptian stele was linked with the Teucrians ?
I Strymon river dwelt previously the Briges, after came invading Thracian Moesians/Mysians, and the last to arrive the Paeonians, also expelled by common Thracians…
Would have the Pelasgians (as theoric proto-Greek speakers and forerunners of Epirots, Macedonians, Dorians and Achaians)
an origin in the Paeonians /Pannonians (Banat region) ?
The Scamander River had as son Teucer, his daughter, Batia married Dardanus [the Dardanians were an Illyrian tribe], which came from Samothrace and founded Troy. The grandson of Dardanus was Tros, which had as son Ilus II (which re-founded Troy and gave his own name to the city). Ilus’ son was Laomedon, and Laomedon’s son was Priam. The father and the son of this king, Paris, will be defeated by the Greeks after raping Hellen (action that humiliated the Greeks and menaced since he would have inherited Hellen’s kingdom).
That gives seven generations between Teucer and Priam, some 175 years.
Allied with Troy: Thracians, Dardanians of Troy, Carians, Maeonians, Phrygians, Mysians, Lycians and Pelasgians.
Appian, The Foreign Wars: “These peoples [Illyrian tribes], and also the Pannonians [related to Teucrians], the Rhaetians, the Noricans, the Mysians of Europe, and the other neighboring tribes who inhabited the right bank of the Danube, the Romans distinguished from one another just as the various Greek peoples are distinguished from each other, and they call each by its own name, but they consider the whole of Illyria as embraced under a common designation.”
Such fact can be explained as that once such Great Illyria was ethnically homogeneus: it is attested that the Rhaetians crossed
the Alps in classical sources, also we know that the Norics were Celtics that sprang with the Hallstadt culture, and the Mysians could have suffered a process of Thracization.
Mysia was considered in Roman times as part of Illyria; the Pannonians/Paeones were considered as Illyrians and they
dwelt in Illyria; Mysians also present in the Troad; Teucrians from Pannonia there… = Illyrian spearhead ??
If it is recognized that the Teucrians were Paeones/Pannonians, that would allow to understand better the ancient traditions
that speak about a migration of Trojans (the Eneti) towards north Italy; and since the Veneti were a branch of the Illyrians (see the
section of Italy), everything would become more clear: Veneti and Trojans departed from Illyria, or the Illyrians and Veneti departed
from NW Turkey after so much plunderings.
When Laomedon I was king of Troy, Apollo and Poseidon decided to put him to a test. Assuming the likeness of mortal men, the two
gods undertook to fortify Troy for wages. But when the work was done, King Laomedon I would not pay their wages. So Apollo sent
a pestilence, and Poseidon sent a sea-monster [invaders ?] that snatched away the people of the plain. The oracles foretold deliverance from these calamities if Laomedon I would expose his daughter Hesione II to be devoured by the sea-monster [= to give tribut, including his daughter ?]. So he, more obedient of this oracle than of his agreement with the gods, exposed Hesione II to the monster by fastening her to the rocks near the sea. When Heracles saw her exposed, he promised to save her on condition of receiving from Laomedon I the mares which Zeus had given in compensation for the rape of Ganymedes [the Greeks offered their alliance against the invaders ?].
Once again Laomedon I promised to pay for the service, and Heracles killed the monster [maybe Thracians ?] and saved Hesione I. But when this was accomplished, Laomedon I would not give the agreed reward [so that the Greeks were compelled to attack to get their reward ?].
This account would be the symbolic or embellished history of the first attacks over Troy.
A letter attributed to the Hittite King Hattusilli III, dated to around 1250 BC and written to the Mycenean or Ahhiyawan King, refers
to former hostilities between the Hittites and the Ahhiyawans over Wilusa, which were discontinued in favour of peace.
In the legend of Atlantis, which is not connected to other myths except for the names of Atlas and Poseidon, the first ten kings of Atlantis (five pairs of twins) were all sons of Poseidon and Cleito. The first born was Atlas, who was appointed to be king over the rest, and the island was called after him.
The gods Apollo and Poseidon, during a time when they were being punished by having to work among men, built the city of Troy for Priam’s father, Laomedon. They invited the mortal man Aeacus (the son of Zeus and Aegina and grandfather of Achilles) to help them, since destiny had decreed that Troy would one day be captured in a place built by human hands (so a human being had to help them).
When newly constructed, Troy was attacked and captured by Herakles (Hercules), Telamon (brother of Peleus and therefore the uncle of Achilles and father of Telamonian Ajax and Teucros), and Peleus (son of Aeacus and father of Achilles), as a punishment for the fact that Laomedon had not given Hercules a promised reward of immortal horses for rescuing Laomedon’s daughter Hesione. Telamon killed Laomedon and took Hesione as a concubine (she was the mother of Teucros).
Priam, King of Troy and son of Laomedon, had a son from his wife Hekabe (or Hecuba), who dreamed that she had given birth to a flaming torch. Cassandra, the prophetic daughter of Priam, foretold that the new-born son, Paris (also called Alexandros or Alexander), should be killed at birth or else he would destroy the city. Paris was taken out to be killed, but he was rescued by shepherds and grew up away from the city in the farms by Mount Ida. As a young man he returned to Troy to compete in the athletic games, was recognized, and returned to the royal family.
Peleus (father of Achilles) fell in love with the sea nymph Thetis, whom Zeus, the most powerful of the gods, also had designs upon. But Zeus learned of an ancient prophecy that Thetis would give birth to a son greater than his father, so he gave his divine blessing to the marriage of Peleus, a mortal king, and Thetis. All the gods were invited to the celebration, except, by a deliberate oversight, Eris, the goddess of strife. She came anyway and brought a golden apple, upon which was written “For the fairest.” Hera (Zeus’s wife), Aphrodite (Zeus’s daughter), and Athena (Zeus’s daughter) all made a claim for the apple, and they appealed to Zeus for judgment. He refused to adjudicate a beauty contest between his wife and two of his daughters, and the task of choosing a winner fell to Paris (while he was still a herdsman on Mount Ida, outside Troy). The goddesses each promised Paris a wonderful prize if he would pick her: Hera offered power, Athena offered military glory and wisdom, and Aphrodite offered him the most beautiful woman in the world as his wife. In the famous Judgement of Paris, Paris gave the apple to Aphrodite.
Helen, daughter of Tyndareus and Leda, was also the daughter of Zeus, who had made love to Leda in the shape of a swan (she is the only female child of Zeus and a mortal). Her beauty was famous throughout the world. Her father Tyndareus would not agree to any man’s marrying her, until all the Greeks warrior leaders made a promise that they would collectively avenge any insult to her. When the leaders made such an oath, Helen then married Menelaus, King of Sparta. Her twin (non-divine) sister Klytaimnestra (Clytaemnestra), born at the same time as Helen but not a daughter of Zeus, married Agamemnon, King of Argos, and brother of Menelaus. Agamemnon was the most powerful leader in Hellas (Greece).
Paris, back in the royal family at Troy, made a journey to Sparta as a Trojan ambassador, at a time when Menelaus was away. Paris and Helen fell in love and left Sparta together, taking with them a vast amount of the city’s treasure and returning to Troy via Cranae, an island off Attica, Sidon, and Egypt, among other places. The Spartans set off in pursuit but could not catch the lovers. When the Spartans learned that Helen and Paris were back in Troy, they sent a delegation (Odysseus, King of Ithaca, and Menelaus, the injured husband) to Troy demanding the return of Helen and the treasure. When the Trojans refused, the Spartans appealed to the oath which Tyndareus had forced them all to take and the Greeks assembled an army to invade Troy, asking all the allies to meet in preparation for embarkation at Aulis. Some stories claimed that the real Helen never went to Troy, for she was carried off to Egypt by the god Hermes, and Paris took her double to Troy.
Achilles, the son of Peleus and Thetis, was educated as a young man by Chiron, the centaur (half man and half horse). One of the conditions of Achilles’s parents’ marriage (the union of a mortal with a divine sea nymph) was that the son born to them would die in war and bring great sadness to his mother. To protect him from death in battle his mother bathed the infant in the waters of the river Styx, which conferred invulnerability to any weapon. And when the Greeks began to assemble an army, Achilles’s parents hid him at Scyros disguised as a girl. While there he met Deidameia, and they had a son Neoptolemos (also called Pyrrhus). Calchas, the prophet with the Greek army, told Agamemnon and the other leaders that they could not conquer Troy without Achilles. Odysseus found Achilles by tricking him; Odysseus placed a weapon out in front of the girls of Scyros, and Achilles reached for it, thus revealing his identity. Menoitios, a royal counsellor, sent his son Patroclus to accompany Achilles on the expedition as his friend and advisor.
The Greek fleet of one thousand ships assembled at Aulis. Agamemnon, who led the largest contingent, was the commander-in-chief. The army was delayed for a long time by contrary winds, and the future of the expedition was threatened as the forces lay idle. Agamemnon had offended the goddess Artemis by an impious boast, and Artemis had sent the winds. Finally, in desperation to appease the goddess, Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Iphigeneia. Her father lured her to Aulis on the pretext that she was to be married to Achilles (whose earlier marriage was not known), but then he sacrificed her on the high altar. One version of her story claims that Artemis saved her at the last minute and carried her off to Tauris where she became a priestess of Artemis in charge of human sacrifices. While there, she later saved Orestes and Pylades. In any case, after the sacrifice Artemis changed the winds, and the fleet sailed for Troy.
On the way to Troy, Philoctetes, the son of Poeas and leader of the seven ships from Methone, suffered a snake bite when the Greeks landed at Tenedos to make a sacrifice. His pain was so great and his wound so unpleasant (especially the smell) that the Greek army abandoned him against his will on the island.
The Greek army landed on the beaches before Troy. The first man ashore, Protesilaus, was killed by Hector, son of Priam and leader of the Trojan army. The Greeks sent another embassy to Troy, seeking to recover Helen and the treasure. When the Trojans denied them, the Greek army settled down into a siege which lasted many years.
In the tenth year of the war (where the narrative of the Iliad begins), Agamemnon insulted Apollo by taking as a slave-hostage the girl Chryseis, the daughter of Chryses, a prophet of Apollo, and refusing to return her when her father offered compensation. In revenge, Apollo sent nine days of plague down upon the Greek army. Achilles called an assembly to determine what the Greeks should do. In that assembly, he and Agamemnon quarrelled bitterly, Agamemnon confiscated from Achilles his slave girl Briseis, and Achilles, in a rage, withdrew himself and his forces (the Myrmidons) from any further participation in the war. He asked his mother, Thetis, the divine sea nymph, to intercede on his behalf with Zeus to give the Trojans help in battle, so that the Greek forces would recognize how foolish Agamemnon had been to offend the best soldier under his command. Thetis made the request of Zeus, reminding him of a favour she had once done for him, warning him about a revolt against his authority, and he agreed.
During the course of the war, numerous incidents took place, and many died on both sides. Paris and Menelaus fought a duel, and Aphrodite saved Paris just as Menelaus was about to kill him. Achilles, the greatest of the Greek warriors, slew Cycnus, Troilus, and many others. He also, according to various stories, was a lover of Patroclus, Troilus, Polyxena, daughter of Priam, Helen, and Medea. Odysseus and Diomedes slaughtered thirteen Thracians (Trojan allies) and stole the horses of King Rhesus in a night raid. Telamonian Ajax (the Greater Ajax) and Hector fought a duel with no decisive result. A common soldier, Thersites, challenged the authority of Agamemnon and demanded that the soldiers abandon the expedition. Odysseus beat Thersites into obedience. In the absence of Achilles and following Zeus’s promise to Thetis, Hector enjoyed great success against the Greeks, breaking through their defensive ramparts on the beach and setting the ships on fire.
While Hector was enjoying his successes against the Greeks, the latter sent an embassy to Achilles, requesting him to return to battle. Agamemnon offered many rewards in compensation for his initial insult (see 11). Achilles refused the offer but did say that he would reconsider if Hector ever reached the Greek ships. When Hector did so, Achilles’s friend Patroclus (see 7) begged to be allowed to return to the fight. Achilles gave him permission, advising Patroclus not to attack the city of Troy itself. He also gave Patroclus his own suit of armour, so that the Trojans might think that Achilles had returned to the war. Patroclus resumed the fight, enjoyed some dazzling success (killing one of the leaders of the Trojan allies, Sarpedon from Lykia), but he was finally killed by Hector, with the help of Apollo.
In his grief over the death of his friend Patroclus, Achilles decided to return to the battle. Since he had no armour (Hector had stripped the body of Patroclus and had put on the armour of Achilles), Thetis asked the divine artisan Hephaestus, the crippled god of the forge, to prepare some divine armour for her son. Hephaestus did so, Thetis gave the armour to Achilles, and he returned to the war. After slaughtering many Trojans, Achilles finally cornered Hector alone outside the walls of Troy. Hector chose to stand and fight rather than to retreat into the city, and he was killed by Achilles, who then mutilated the corpse, tied it to his chariot, and dragged it away. Achilles built a huge funeral pyre for Patroclus, killed Trojan soldiers as sacrifices, and organized the funeral games in honour of his dead comrade. Priam travelled to the Greek camp to plead for the return of Hector’s body, and Achilles relented and returned it to Priam in exchange for a ransom.
In the tenth year of the war the Amazons, led by Queen Penthesilea, joined the Trojan forces. She was killed in battle by Achilles, as was King Memnon of Ethiopa, who had also recently reinforced the Trojans. Achilles’s career as the greatest warrior came to an end when Paris, with the help of Apollo, killed him with an arrow which pierced him in the heel, the one vulnerable spot, which the waters of the River Styx had not touched because his mother had held him by the foot (see 7) when she had dipped the infant Achilles in the river. Telamonian Ajax, the second greatest Greek warrior after Achilles, fought valiantly in defense of Achilles’s corpse. At the funeral of Achilles, the Greeks sacrificed Polyxena, the daughter of Hecuba, wife of Priam. After the death of Achilles, Odysseus and Telamonian Ajax fought over who should get the divine armour of the dead hero. When Ajax lost the contest, he went mad and committed suicide. In some versions, the Greek leaders themselves vote and decide to award the armour to Odysseus.
The Greeks captured Helenus, a son of Priam, and one of the chief prophets in Troy. Helenus revealed to the Greeks that they could not capture Troy without the help of Philoctetes, who owned the bow and arrows of Hercules and whom the Greeks had abandoned on Tenedos. Odysseus and Neoptolemus (the son of Achilles) set out to persuade Philoctetes, who was angry at the Greeks for leaving him alone on the island, to return to the war, and by trickery they succeeded. Philoctetes killed Paris with an arrow shot from the bow of Hercules.
Odysseus and Diomedes ventured into Troy at night, in disguise, and stole the Palladium, the sacred statue of Athena, which was supposed to give the Trojans the strength to continue the war. The city, however, did not fall. Finally the Greeks devised the strategy of the wooden horse filled with armed soldiers. It was built by Epeius and left in front of Troy. The Greek army then withdrew to Tenedos (an island off the coast), as if abandoning the war. Odysseus went into Troy disguised, and Helen recognized him. But he was sent away by Hecuba, the wife of Priam, after Helen told her. The Greek soldier Sinon stayed behind when the army withdrew and pretended to the Trojans that he had deserted from the Greek army because he had information about a murder Odysseus had committed. He told the Trojans that the horse was an offering to Athena and that the Greeks had built it to be so large that the Trojans could not bring it into their city. The Trojan Laocoon warned the Trojans not to believe Sinon (“I fear the Greeks even when they bear gifts”); in the midst of his warnings a huge sea monster came from the surf and killed Laocoon and his sons.
The Trojans determined to get the Trojan Horse into their city. They tore down a part of the wall, dragged the horse inside, and celebrated their apparent victory. At night, when the Trojans had fallen asleep, the Greek soldiers hidden in the horse came out, opened the gates, and gave the signal to the main army which had been hiding behind Tenedos. The city was totally destroyed. King Priam was slaughtered at the altar by Achilles’s son Neoptolemos. Hector’s infant son, Astyanax, was thrown off the battlements. The women were taken prisoner: Hecuba (wife of Priam), Cassandra (daughter of Priam), and Andromache (wife of Hector). Helen was returned to Menelaus.
The gods regarded the sacking of Troy and especially the treatment of the temples as a sacrilege, and they punished many of the Greek leaders. The fleet was almost destroyed by a storm on the journey back. Menelaus’s ships sailed all over the sea for seven years—to Egypt (where, in some versions, he recovered his real wife in the court of King Proteus. Agamemnon returned to Argos, where he was murdered by his wife Clytaemnestra and her lover, Aegisthus. Cassandra, whom Agamemnon had claimed as a concubine after the destruction of Troy, was also killed by Clytaemnestra. Aegisthus was seeking revenge for what the father of Agamemnon (Atreus) had done to his brother (Aegisthus’ father) Thyestes. Atreus had given a feast for Thyestes in which he fed to him the cooked flesh of his own children. Clytaemnestra claimed that she was seeking revenge for the sacrifice of her daughter Iphigeneia.
Odysseus (called by the Romans Ulysses) wandered over the sea for many years before reaching home. He started with a number of ships, but in a series of misfortunes, lasting ten years because of the enmity of Poseidon, the god of the sea, he lost all his men before returning to Ithaca alone. His adventures took him from Troy to Ismareos (land of the Cicones); to the land of the Lotos Eaters, the island of the cyclops (Poseidon, the god of the sea, became Odysseus’s enemy when Odysseus put out the eye of Polyphemus, the cannibal cyclops, who was a son of Poseidon); to the cave of Aeolos (god of the winds), to the land of the Laestrygonians, to the islands of Circe and Calypso, to the underworld (where he talked to the ghost of Achilles); to the land of the Sirens, past the monster Scylla and the whirlpool Charybdis, to the pastures of the cattle of Helios, the sun god, to Phaiacia. Back in Ithaca in disguise, with the help of his son Telemachus and some loyal servants, he killed the young princes who had been trying to persuade his wife, Penelope, to marry one of them and who had been wasting the treasure of the palace and trying to kill Telemachus. Odysseus proved who he was by being able to string the famous bow of Odysseus, a feat which no other man could manage, and by describing for Penelope the secret of their marriage bed, that Odysseus had built it around an old olive tree.
After the murder of Agamemnon by his wife Clytaemnestra, his son Orestes returned with a friend Pylades to avenge his father. With the help of his sister Electra (who had been very badly treated by her mother, left either unmarried or married to a poor farmer so that she would have no royal children), Orestes killed his mother and Aegisthus. Then he was pursued by the Furies, the goddesses of blood revenge. Suffering fits of madness, Orestes fled to Delphi, then to Tauri, where, in some versions, he met his long-lost sister, Iphigeneia. She had been rescued from Agamemnon’s sacrifice by the gods and made a priestess of Diana in Tauri. Orestes escaped with Iphigeneia to Athens. There he was put on trial for the matricide. Apollo testified in his defense. The jury vote was even; Athena cast the deciding vote in Orestes’s favour. The outraged Furies were placated by being given a permanent place in Athens and a certain authority in the judicial process. They were then renamed the Eumenides (The Kindly Ones). Orestes was later tried for the same matricide in Argos, at the insistence of Tyndareus, Clytaemnestra’s father. Orestes and Electra were both sentenced to death by stoning. Orestes escaped by capturing Helen and using her as a hostage.
Neoptolemus, the only son of Achilles, married Hermione, the only daughter of Helen and Menelaus. Neoptolemus also took as a wife the widow of Hector, Andromache. There was considerable jealously between the two women. Orestes had wished to marry Hermione; by a strategy he arranged it so that the people of Delphi killed Neoptolemus. Then he carried off Hermione and married her. Menelaus tried to kill the son of Neoptolemus, Molossus, and Andromache, but Peleus, Achilles’s father, rescued them. Andromache later married Helenus. Orestes’s friend Pylades married Electra, Orestes sister.
Aeneas, the son of Anchises and the goddess Aphrodite and one of the important Trojan leaders in the Trojan War, fled from the city while the Greeks were destroying it, carrying his father, Anchises, his son Ascanius, and his ancestral family gods with him. Aeneas wandered all over the Mediterranean. On his journey to Carthage, he had an affair with Dido, Queen of Carthage. He abandoned her without warning, in accordance with his mission to found another city. Dido committed suicide in grief. Aeneas reached Italy and there fought a war against Turnus, the leader of the local Rutulian people. He did not found Rome but Lavinium, the main centre of the Latin league, from which the people of Rome sprang. Aeneas thus links the royal house of Troy with the Roman republic.
The Cultural Influence of the Legend of the Trojan War
No story in our culture, with the possible exception of the Old Testament and the story of Jesus Christ, has inspired writers and painters over the centuries more than the Trojan War. It was the fundamental narrative in Greek education (especially in the version passed down by Homer, which covers only a small part of the total narrative), and all the tragedians whose works survive wrote plays upon various aspects of it, and these treatments, in turn, helped to add variations to the traditional story.
Unlike the Old Testament narratives, which over time became codified in a single authoritative version, the story of the Trojan War exists as a large collection of different versions of the same events (or parts of them). The war has been interpreted as a heroic tragedy, as a fanciful romance, as a satire against warfare, as a love story, as a passionately anti-war tale, and so on. Just as there is no single version which defines the “correct” sequence of events, so there is no single interpretative slant on how one should understand the war. Homer’s poems enjoyed a unique authority, but they tell only a small part of the total story.
The following notes indicate only a few of the plays, novels, and poems which have drawn on and helped to shape this ancient story.
1. The most famous Greek literary stories of the war are Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, our first two epic poems, composed for oral recitation probably in the eighth century before Christ. The theme of the Iliad is the wrath of Achilles at the action of Agamemnon, and the epic follows the story of Achilles’s withdrawal from the war and his subsequent return. The Odyssey tells the story of the return of Odysseus from the war. A major reason for the extraordinary popularity and fecundity of the story of the Trojan War is the unquestioned quality and authority of these two great poems, even though they tell only a small part of the total narrative and were for a long time unavailable in Western Europe (after they were lost to the West, they did not appear until the fifteenth century). The Iliad was the inspiration for the archaeological work of Schliemann in the nineteenth century, a search which resulted in the discovery of the site of Troy at Hissarlik, in modern Turkey.
The Greek tragedians, we know from the extant plays and many fragments, found in the story of the Trojan War their favorite material, focusing especially on the events after the fall of the city. Aeschylus’s famous trilogy, The Oresteia (Agamemnon, Choephoroi [Libation Bearers], and Eumenides [The Kindly Ones]), tells of the murder of Agamemnon and Cassandra by Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus, the revenge of Orestes, and the trial for the matricide. Both Sophocles and Euripides wrote plays about Electra, and Euripides also wrote a number of plays based on parts the larger story: The Trojan Women, The Phoenissae, Orestes, Helen, and Iphigeneia in Tauris. Sophocles also wrote Philoctetes and Ajax on events in the Trojan War.
Greek philosophers and historians used the Trojan War as a common example to demonstrate their own understanding of human conduct. So Herodotus and Thucydides, in defining their approach to the historical past, both offer an analysis of the origins of the war. Plato’s Republic uses many parts of Homer’s epics to establish important points about political wisdom (often citing Homer as a negative example). Alexander the Great carried a copy of the Iliad around with him in a special royal casket which he had captured from Darius, King of the Persians.
The Romans also adopted the story. Their most famous epic, Virgil’s Aeneid, tells the story of Aeneas (see 23). And in the middle ages, the Renaissance, and right up to the present day, writers have retold parts of the ancient story. These adaptations often make significant changes in the presentation of particular characters, notably Achilles, who in many versions becomes a knightly lover, and Odysseus/Ulysses, who is often a major villain. Ulysses) and Diomedes appear in Dante’s Inferno. Of particular note are Chaucer’s and Shakespeare’s treatments of the story of Troilus and Cressida.
Modern writers who have drawn on the literary tradition of this ancient cycle of stories include Sartre (The Flies), O’Neill (Mourning Becomes Electra), Giradoux (Tiger at the Gates), Joyce (Ulysses), Eliot, Auden, and many others. In addition, the story has formed the basis for operas and ballets, and the story of Odysseus has been made into a mini-series for television. This tradition is a complicated one, however, because many writers, especially in Medieval times, had no direct knowledge of the Greek sources and re-interpreted the details in very non-Greek ways (e.g., Dante, Chaucer, and Shakespeare). Homer’s text, for example, was generally unknown in Western Europe until the late fifteenth century.
For the past two hundred years there has been a steady increase in the popularity of Homer’s poems (and other works dealing with parts of the legend) translated into English. Thus, in addition to the various modern adaptations of parts of the total legend of the Trojan war (e.g., Brad Pitt’s Troy), the ancient versions are still very current.
The Royal House of Atreus
The most famous (or notorious) human family in Western literature is the House of Atreus, the royal family of Mycenae. To follow the brief outline below, consult the simplified family tree in p. 279 of the text of Aeschylus’s play. Note that different versions of the story offer modifications of the family tree.
The family of Atreus suffered from an ancestral crime, variously described. Most commonly Tantalus, son of Zeus and Pluto, stole the food of the gods. In another version he kills his son Pelops and feeds the flesh to the gods (who later, when they discover what they have eaten, bring Pelops back to life). Having eaten the food of the gods, Tantalus is immortal and so cannot be killed. In Homer’s Odyssey, Tantalus is punished everlastingly in the underworld.
The family curse originates with Pelops, who won his wife Hippodamia in a chariot race by cheating and betraying and killing his co-conspirator (who, as he was drowning, cursed the family of Pelops). The curse blighted the next generation: the brothers Atreus and Thyestes quarrelled. Atreus killed Thyestes’s sons and served them to their father at a reconciliation banquet.
To obtain revenge, Thyestes fathered a son on his surviving child, his daughter Pelopia. This child was Aegisthus, whose task it was to avenge the murder of his brothers. When Agamemnon set off for Troy (sacrificing his daughter Iphigeneia so that the fleet could sail from Aulis), Aegisthus seduced Clytaemnestra and established himself as a power in Argos.
When Agamemnon returned, Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus killed him (and his captive Cassandra)–Aegisthus in revenge for his brothers, Clytaemnestra in revenge for the sacrifice of Iphigeneia. Orestes at the time was away, and Electra had been disgraced.
Orestes returned to Argos to avenge his father. With the help of a friend, Pylades, and his sister Electra, he succeeded by killing his mother, Clytaemnestra, and her lover, Aegisthus. After many adventures (depending upon the narrative) he finally received absolution for the matricide, and the curse was over.
Many Greek poets focused on this story. Homer repeatedly mentions the murder of Agamemnon in the Odyssey and the revenge of Orestes on Aegisthus (paying no attention to the murder of Clytaemnestra); Aeschylus’s great trilogy The Oresteia is the most famous classical treatment of the tale; Sophocles and Euripides both wrote plays on Orestes and Electra.
One curious note is the almost exact parallel between the story of Orestes in this family tale and the story of Hamlet. These two stories arose, it seems, absolutely independently of each other, and yet in many crucial respects are extraordinarily similar. This match has puzzled many a comparative literature scholar and invited all sorts of psychological theories about the trans-cultural importance of matricide as a theme.

The Allies of Priam
I must admit that not so long ago I tended to consider the Trojan War as a legend, with more mythology in it than history: neither in its cause nor in its conduct did this conflict seem to reflect historical events. The cause of the war, according to tradition, was a seduction or abduction of the spouse of one of the Helladic chiefs; and this, we are told, raised the leaders of all Hellas to undertake a mobilization and campaign to the coast of Asia and to endure hardships for ten years, leaving their own spouses to be ravished or besieged by suitors in the meantime. And if Hissarlik is the site of Troy, there is the additional incongruity of a great war effort the goal of which was to capture a fortress occupying not much more than two acres of land (Troy VIIa)—so Carl Blegen, the last excavator of the site. And what of the participation of Ares, Athene, Zeus, and other divinities? The emphasis is on the courage and proficiency of a few single heroes who trace their descent, and in some cases even their parenthood, to various deities and other mythological figures (Thetis in the case of Achilles).
With the end of the siege of ten years’ duration and the fall of Troy, the navy of the Achaeans—of which the second book of the Iliad gives a record enumerating the number of ships that carried the warriors from each of the cities—is as if no more existent. Victory and triumph are followed by only a few wretched returns home. Nothing is heard of the return to Greece of the Achaeans, victorious in war, as an organized force. We hear of single warriors, like Agamemnon, the leader of the expedition, returning only to find violent death waiting for him in his own town and house or, like Odysseus, spending another ten years striving to reach home by a round-about way. Those of the heroes who succeed in returning find their wives, some faithful, some unfaithful, some in cohort with their scheming lovers and having to be avenged by their children—but little is said of the continuing royal houses, whether of Agamemnon in Mycenae, or of Menelaus in Sparta, or of Odysseus in Ithaca, or of Nestor in Pylos.
Then in a matter of hardly half a generation a curtain descends on Achaean Greece, which presumably for close to five hundred years presents only a picture of void enveloped in primeval darkness. Nothing is known of the subsequent history of these city states, the personal tragedies having ended in family blood-baths. It is as if in the theater the curtain descended for the last time, the lights are extinguished, the hall hurriedly locked, and then five hundred years of impenetrable darkness. Yet a success of the protracted expedition, if undertaken, as some scholars have theorized, to protect the marine route through the Hellespont, across the Black Sea, and to the Caucasian coast, should have made the Hellenes, having forged their national unity in war, exploit the success by expansion of overseas trade and traffic.
The curtain of darkness descends also on Troy—and the void endures there almost as long as in Greece, though it is presumed that some wretched inhabitants settled in hovels, but not before centuries passed. Of the defenders of Troy, from among those who survived the siege, we read also very little—as if they evaporated into thin air—with the exception of Aeneas and his household; and he, like Odysseus, spends a decade or so in wanderings, before reaching Italy.
Strangely, in that substantial portion of the enormous literature on the Trojan War and Troy that I consulted, I scarcely ever found a discussion of the nationality of the people of Troy.
In the Iliad they are regularly referred to as “the people of Priam,” their king, but this is not an ethnic designation.
Thus while it is known that the besiegers of Troy were Achaeans, also called Danaans, and it is generally accepted that they were Mycenaean Greeks—actually the last generation of them, sometimes designated as the Heroic Generation—the question of which race were the people of Priam was left unanswered by Homer. But at least let us look at Priam’s allies. Here some clear indications come to the fore; and if we are still not helped in our pursuit—which nation did the Achaeans fight at Troy?—at least we see a ray of hope that, by knowing the allies we may be guided to the proper time. By knowing the correct century of the events we may obtain an insight into the interplay of nations and races and perhaps come to realize the true reason for the conflict that summoned the Achaean host to the Troad, the region surrounding Troy.
Phrygians are named as allies of Priam; also Ethiopians are counted among his allies. The identification of both these nations carries indications as to the century to which the most famous war of ancient times needs to be ascribed.
Of the Phrygians it is told that their origin stems from Thrace, north of Macedonia, west of the Hellespont. The time of their migration to Asia Minor is not known. No Phrygian antiquities from before the first half of the eighth century have been found, and the opinion is expressed that Homer’s reference to the Phrygians is an anachronism. It seems that in one of the earliest waves of the eighth century migrations the Phrygians moved from Thrace over the Hellespont to Asia Minor.
Tradition has it that the first king in their new domicile was Gordias, and the story of his selecting the site for his capital Gordion is a well known legend.
The son of Gordias, Midas, is even more than his father an object of legendary motifs—whatever he touched turned to gold, he had the ears of an ass—yet he was a historical figure as well who, according to the chronicle of Hieronymus, reigned from -742 to -696.
Soon the Phrygians came into conflict with the Assyrians who opposed the penetration of newcomers into central Asia Minor; and Sargon II (-726 to -705), the conqueror of Samaria and of the Israelite tribes, moved westward to stop the penetration of the Phrygians. Altogether the Phrygian kingdom in Asia Minor had a short duration. Already the Körte brothers, the early excavators of Gordion, noted that of the royal mounds (kurgans) only three could be dated before the Cimmerian invasion of the early seventh century which put an end to the Phrygian kingdom, and probably the number of royal successions did not exceed this number. Little is known of its history besides the fact that ca. -687 Gordion was overrun by the Cimmerians.
The Cimmerians came from the north, traversing the coastal routes of the Caucasus; their original homeland is often thought to have been the Crimea in southern Russia. They occupied Gordion, displacing the Phrygians westward, toward the Lydian kingdom and the Aegean coast. While the displaced Phrygians may have continued to live for a time in the western confines of Asia Minor, the year -687 saw the end of their kingdom.
It appears that the Cimmerians did not tarry for any length of time in Phrygia; like the Scythians, a nomadic race from the steppes of Russia, who soon followed them on the coastal roads of the Caucasus, they were but transient conquerors. The time they came from their native land, -687 or soon thereafter, makes it quite certain that they were put on their migration by the natural events of that year—described at some length in Worlds in Collision: by the world-wide upheavals, earthquakes, frightening apparitions in the sky, as well as by the changes in climate that made many accustomed pursuits and agricultural practices obsolete. -687 (or possibly -701) was also the year that Sennacherib met his famous debacle as described in the books of Isaiah, II Kings, and II Chronicles, while threatening Jerusalem with capture and its population with eviction and exile.
Phrygians as allies of Priam, in the hinterland of the Troad, in conflict with the Cimmerians, themselves pursued by the Scythians, would limit the period of the Trojan War to the years between -720 and -687.
After the passing of the Cimmerians, Phrygia was exposed to the occupation and influence of neighboring states, in particular to that of the Lydian Kingdom to the west, with its capital at Sardis. Lydia was ruled by Gyges, a great king who played a conspicuous role in the politics of the Near East. He was on friendly terms with Assurbanipal, grandson of Sennacherib, king of Assyria; then, feeling the threat of the growing Assyrian empire, he supported Egypt’s rise to independence: he sent Ionian and Carian detachments to Psammetichus, king of Egypt, which enabled that country to free itself from the supremacy of Assyria.
The Homeric epics were created on the Asia shore of Asia Minor; it is most probable that Homer was a contemporary of Gyges, king of Lydia.
This view was also offered and supported with arguments by Emile Mireaux; moreover, Mireaux ascribed also the very events of the poems to the time of Gyges.
The allies of Priam also included Ethiopians under Memnon; the Ethiopian allies of Priam must date in all probability to the period when the Ethiopians were one of the most honored nations, highly regarded for their military prowess. What is called here Ethiopians were actually Sudanese: in Egyptian history the Ethiopian Dynasty and their most glorious period is dated from ca. -712 to -663, when Ashurbanipal pursued Tirhaka to Thebes, occupied it, and expelled the Ethiopian from Egypt proper. The tradition concerning Memnon, the Ethiopian warrior who came to the help of Troy, would reasonably limit the time of the conflict also to the end of the eighth and the beginning of the seventh century. The possibility of an Ethiopian landing at Troy in the days of the Ethiopian pharaoh Tirhaka need not be dismissed because of the remoteness of the place: as just said, close to the middle of the seventh century, and possibly at an earlier date, Gyges, the king of Sardis, sent in the reverse direction Carian and Ionian mercenaries to assist the Egyptian king Psammetichus in throwing off the Assyrian hegemony.
Thus it seems that if the participants in the Trojan War all belong to the eighth-seventh century, Homer, who is thought to have lived at the end of the eighth century or the beginning of the seventh, must have been either a contemporary of the siege of Troy, or separated from it by one generation only.
A correct historical placement of the Trojan War may contain a clue to its real cause: we can surmise that the Helladic city-states, alarmed by rumors of hordes of Cimmerians, preceded by dispossessed Phrygians, pushing towards the Hellespont, united under the leadership of Agamemnon and moved across the Aegean sea to preclude the invasion of their land, should the migrating Cimmerians or displaced Phrygians attempt to cross the straits into mainland Greece. Troy was located in the vicinity of the Hellespont, crossed by armies in ancient times, by Alexander, by Darius I, and by other conquerors before them.
While the Greek expedition may have had some limited success, its forces were wrecked and dispersed in the natural upheavals that accompanied the fall of Troy.

After Schliemann’s death in 1890 the excavations were continued by Wilhelm Dörpfeld until 1894. He introduced the numbering of the different strata from Troy I to Troy IX where the earliest settlement, Troy I, dates back to c3000 BC while the latest, Troy IX, was built by the Romans after 85 BC. Unlike his predecessor, Dörpfeld did not believe that Troy II was Homer’s Ilion but rather Troy VI (c1800–c1260 BC).However, it has since been established that the destruction of this town was not caused by armed conflict but by an earthquake half a century before the Trojan War. Between 1932 and 1938 excavations were led by Carl William Blegen of the University of Cincinnati. He considered Troy VIIa as Homer’s Troy because this town was destroyed by war around 1180BC which comes close to the generally accepted date of the end of the Trojan War. However, by the time this war was about to start, the Mycenaean palace culture in Greece had itself been destroyed, most probably by the mysterious Sea Peoples as is now generally believed. For this reason, and many other reasons we will discuss, Troy VIIa must also be excluded as the Troy of the Iliad. Normally this would have been the end of the search for the war in north-west Turkey but the belief that Hissarlik was Troy is so persistent that the outcome of the search has been qualified merely as inconclusive by Michael Wood.2 In fact it is most likely that Troy VIIa, like so many other places around the eastern Mediterranean during the same period, was also destroyed by the Sea Peoples. After an interruption of fifty years, excavations at Hissarlik were resumed in 1988 by Prof. Manfred Korfmann of the University of Tübingen. He hopes that new finds will confirm that Hissarlik was Homer’s Troy. Among recent finds are traces of a lower town which would increase the built-up area of Hissarlik. However, there is no indication of a lower town of Troy in the Iliad. Recently also the remains of an ancient water-well south-west of Hissarlik was found but its location does not fit Homer’s description as, amongst other features, there should be a hillock between the town and the source. Korfmann nevertheless maintains that the new finds are fully in line with Homer.3 Such a claim is all the more surprising as virtually none of the forty-odd detailed descriptions by Homer fit Hissarlik and its region as we will see in Part II. What is more, at Hissarlik large quantities of pottery have been found but no traces of the Great War, merely a few bronze arrow- and spear points in Troy VIIa. One may indeed go on digging until the last stone of Hissarlik is turned up without ever finding traces of Homer’s Trojan War for the simple reason that it was not waged here!

Ancient Written Sources

Those who persist in the belief that the unimpressive heap of stones at Troy in Turkey? Hissarlik was Homer’s Troy point out that there are three ancient written sources that mention Homeric names of gods, persons and places. First, Hittite archives in cuneiform script found in Turkey mention the people of ‘Ahhijawa’, probably designating the Achaeans, while ‘Wilusa’ and Taruisa’, two regions within their sphere of influence, seem to stand for(W)Ilion and Troy. Furthermore, a certain ‘Alaksandus’ was king of‘ Wilusa’ around 1280BC, but this cannot be Prince Paris who was also named Alexander, as he lived a century later and, besides, never was king. It could well be that ‘Alexander’ was a fairly common name at the time as it is now. Second, Linear-B inscriptions on clay tablets from Crete mention the names of the gods ‘a-ta-na’ (Athena), ‘di-we’ (Zeus), ‘di-wono-so-jo’ (Dionysus) and ‘e-ma-a’ (Hermes) while ‘a-ka-wi-ja-de’ is supposed to mean ‘Achaeans’ and ‘to-ro-ja’ possibly a Trojan woman. Third, Egyptian hieroglyphs mention, among others, a people called ‘drdny ’which might well be the Dardanians, an alternative Homeric name for the Trojans. Although there is no agreement on the interpretation of these names, most if not all are plausible as they must have originated with the Sea Peoples who were present in the Mediterranean during most of the second millennium BC. Shortly after 2000 BC they traded Cornish tin in Crete for the production of bronze and they probably did so in Egypt as early as 2600BC.

Hissarlik Disqualified

On close scrutiny neither Hissarlik nor the adjacent plain fit the descriptions in the Iliad as Hissarlik was a village the size of a stadium while Homer called it a ‘big city’ with ‘wide streets’ which had a garrison of50.000 warriors (Iliad, VIII, 562). Schliemann himself admitted that there could not have been more than 5000 inhabitants and according to W. Leaf not more than 2000. It is unlikely that the siege of such a small place by a big army would last ten years even if a lower town is taken into account. Also the plain to the north of Hissarlik is much too small to conduct a major war. The distance from the hill to the coast is now six kilometers, but 2000 years ago, in the time of the Greek geographer Strabo4 and the Roman author Pliny the Elder5 it was not more than two kilometers and it was even less in Homer’s time as most of the bay has silted up overtime. In other words: there was a bay where the battlefield is supposed to have been! There was no room for the quarters of some 100.000 warriors which was approximately the size of the Achaean army according to the ‘Catalogue of Ships’ in Book II of the Iliad. Although Homer often spoke of the ‘wide camp of the Achaeans’, it was never realized that a military camp for so many people must be huge, covering many square kilometers. Another head-ache for the supporters of Hissarlik is the eight rivers which flooded the Achaean camp-wall after the war. What is more, the region cannot have embraced the twenty-three cities destroyed by Achilles. The bay of Hissarlik is equally too small to hold a fleet of 1186 ships, and the strong currents in the Sea of Marmara would make a landing there very difficult. Since Hissarlik was situated very close to the bay during the Bronze Age and as there is no drinking water available near this coast, Korfmann believes that the Achaeans landed in the bay of Beçik situated to the south-west of Hissarlik although the Iliad describes how the camp was exposed to the northerly gales that swept up the sea between the ships beached on the shore and the barracks further inland. What is more, if the Achaean army were installed near Beçik, it would have had the major handicap of crossing the river Skamander each time it engaged in combat with the Trojans but no mention is made in the Iliad of warriors or horse-drawn war-chariots crossing a river between the Achaean camp and the city of Troy. Furthermore, the rivers Scamander and Simoïs flowed together (Iliad V, 774), while in Turkey the corresponding rivers Kara Menderes and the Dümrek Su did not merge three thousand years ago (see Map 1).The Trojan War can certainly not be interpreted as a confrontation between Europe and Asia or between the cultures of East and West as some believe because Trojans and Achaeans shared the same language and religion, which is why in the Iliad the gods were believed to have chosen sides between the warring parties. By contrast, in north-west Turkey the language was Luvian and the religion that of the Hittites. A further argument against Hissarlik is of a geo-political nature. It is not true, as is often believed, that it was ideally situated to control both the maritime traffic in the Bosporus and the commerce between Europe and Asia. For that purpose the right location is on the Bosporus, wherein the seventh century BC the Greeks founded Byzantium, later called Constantinople, present Istanbul. Traces of ancient trade routes were found near the Bosporus but not at Hissarlik. And finally, there is a problem with the cause of the war. The kidnapping of Queen Helen does not justify the gigantic expedition against Troy, as Herodotus noted in the fifth century BC.7 The argument that the ancient Greeks had to secure their access to the Black Sea for commercial purposes is not credible either as the Greeks had little or no trade with countries around the Black Sea in the Bronze Age. While there is no alternative reason for the war in Turkey, there certainly was a very important economic cause for conflict elsewhere in Europe as we will discover.

The Great Confusion

But if Hissarlik was not Homer’s Troy, why would several kings have paid a ceremonial visit to the site? In the fifth century BC, the Persian19King Xerxes halted here to offer a thousand oxen to the gods and the heroes of the Trojan War according to Herodotus8. About a century later also Alexander the Great visited the region to pay tribute to his ancestors before embarking on the conquest of the Near-East. The ceremony was held near the big tumulus that Strabo called the ‘Tomb of Achilles’. However, we now know that this barrow has nothing to do with Achilles, as it dates from the Stone Age. All these official ceremonies obviously do not prove that King Priam’s city was located here. They only confirm that the great confusion surrounding Homer’s Troy started long ago, probably in the eighth century BC when the first Greeks settled on the coast of Asia Minor. If a big war had really been waged here, it would have left many traces, in particular bronze weapons, but nothing much of the sort has been found. Some archaeological finds at Hissarlik are even in direct conflict with the Iliad, which led the late Sir Moses Finley of the University of Cambridge (UK) to state that ‘we are confronted with this paradox, that the more we know the worse off we are’ and he therefore came to the conclusion that ‘Homer’s Trojan
The Iliad and the Odyssey are only two of the epics which immortalized the Trojan War in Greek saga and legend. Another epic, the Kypria, dealt with the events leading up to the arrival of the Greek forces at Troy at the beginning of the ten-year siege. The full text of this epic no longer survives, but a capsule summary of its contents is preserved. The original epic was written down after the Iliad sometime in the 7th century B.C. A peculiar feature of the Kypria is that it appears to preserve the memory of two slightly different expeditions, as follows:
Expedition #1
(a) The Greek leaders and their forces rendezvous at Aulis preparatory to leaving Greece enroute to Asia Minor.
(b) As they conduct sacrifices, they are confronted with the omen of the serpent and the sparrow: a snake appears in the midst of the sacrifice, climbs a tree, and eats eight baby sparrows from a nest at the top of the tree before swallowing their mother. Calchas, the chief seer of the army, interprets this omen to indicate that the siege of Troy will last nine years before being successful in the tenth.
(c) The Greeks put to sea and arrive at Teuthrania in Mysia, well south of Troy. They sack the city of Teuthrania, mistaking it for Ilion.
(d) The local Mysian hero Telephos, a son of Heracles, comes to the aid of the Teuthranians and kills Thersander, son of Polyneices, one of the Greeks.
(e) Telephos himself is wounded by Achilles.
(f) The Greeks put to sea again, but a storm comes up and scatters the fleet before it can reach Ilion.
(g) Achilles is driven to the island of Skyros, where he marries Deidameia, the daughter of the local king Lycomedes.
(h) Achilles heals Telephos, who has been led by an oracle to go to Argos so that he can guide the Greek fleet to Ilion, the proper “Troy”.
[The figure of Telephos here is comparable in a number of respects to the Greek hero Philoctetes in the “standard version” of the Trojan War epic.]
Some further details are added to the story of Expedition #1 by later authors. These additions are likely to be contaminated, at least to some extent, by the story line of the “standard version” of the Trojan War as told in the Iliad:
(i) When the Greeks first land at Teuthrania, they are driven back to their ships by their enemies until Patroklos comes to the rescue and repels the enemy.
(j) Patroklos is wounded and so Achilles intervenes, pursuing and wounding the local champion, Telephos. [Compare the death of Patroklos, and the subsequent death of the local champion Hector at the hands of Achilles, in the Iliad.]
(k) Achilles, though “swift-footed”, is unable to catch Telephos until Dionysos grows a magic vine which trips Telephos in his flight. [Compare Athena’s apearance as Deiphobos in the Iliad to fool Hector into stopping in his flight from Achilles and into turning and facing his pursuer, with disastrous consequences.]
Expedition #2
(a) The Greek leaders finally reassemble at Aulis.
(b) Agamemnon kills a stag sacred to Artemis, and as a result Artemis sends unfavorable winds against the Greeks which prevent them from sailing for Troy. Calchas prophesies that Iphigeneia, Agamemnon’s daughter, must be sacrificed to appease Artemis.
(c) The Greeks, on the pretext that Iphigeneia is to marry Achilles, send to Mycenae for the girl and plan to sacrifice her. But Artemis saves Iphigeneia at the last moment by snatching her away and substituting for her a stag.
(d) The Greeks set sail for Ilion. They stop first at the island of Tenedos, where Philoctetes is bitten by a snake. Philoctetes is marooned on the nearby island of Lemnos because of the stench from his wound and his incessant cries of pain.
(e) The Greeks try to land at Ilion, but the Trojans at first prevent them from landing and Hector kills Protesilaus, the first of the Greek champions to fall in the war. Achilles kills Kyknos, a son of Poseidon, then drives the Trojans back and the Greeks disembark to begin their long siege.
Carpenter (1946) has argued that these two expeditions are doublets of one and the same event. He concludes that there seems to have been some doubt in the minds of the Greeks as to where exactly Troy was located. In the Iliad, the word most commonly used for the city of the Trojans is not “Troy” but “Ilion”. It is possible that Troy was not the name of a town at all, but rather the name of an area or district inhabited by the Trojans. The Greeks clearly had a legend about a war against the Trojans, but may have disagreed about where these people lived. At least one group of Greeks put them at a place called Teuthrania in the area known as Mysia, or at least so the doublet of the Troy story in the Kypria seems to indicate.
Further evidence suggesting that such an alternate version of the Trojan War story, along the lines of the Teuthrania episode in the Kypria, did in fact exist can be cited. For example, there is an early variant of the story of Telephos according to which he was born in Troy. “Pergamon” is sometimes given as the name of the inner citadel at Troy. The only other major occurrence in Greek literature and history of the place-name “Pergamon” is as the name of a major city in Mysia, the area where Teuthrania is located. In the works of the Hellenistic mythographer Apollodorus, Pergamon is the name given to the fortress built by Apollo and Poseidon for Laomedon, king of Troy. Finally, in the Iliad Achilles is reported to have sacked a number of minor cities during the ten years of the Trojan siege. Most of these cities are located on the southern slopes of Mt. Ida at the head of the Adramyttian Gulf, that is, in the general vicinity of Teuthrania rather than of Troy.
The stories of Teuthrania’s destruction and of the sacking of minor cities in its vicinity are likely to be connected with the Aeolic Greek occupation of the Anatolian Mainland opposite Lesbos, a process which in fact included the resettlement of the site of Hisarlik as well. This “Aeolic migration” is a post-Mycenaean phenomenon, many details of which appear to have become attached to the story of the Trojan War, an event which is supposed to have taken place toward the end of the Mycenaean period. The story of the siege and sack of Troy is the focus of the Homeric Iliad, a product of Ionia rather than Aeolis. Carpenter suggests that the real “Troy” is located in neither the Troad nor Aeolis but rather that the memory of a pan-Achaean expedition elsewhere was located at two different points in Asia Minor by later poetic traditions: at Ilion by the Ionic poets, because they found in this area a local folk tradition about a strong citadel sacked near the end of the Bronze Age (Hisarlik); and at Teuthrania by the Aeolic poets, to correspond with Aeolic traditions connected with their own occupation of this area. Where, then, was the original “Troy”?
If one is willing to accept Carpenter’s line of argument this far, one can place “Troy” virtually anywhere in the eastern Mediterranean where bands of Mycenaean Greeks may have undertaken joint piratic raids. Carpenter goes so far as to place “Troy” in Egypt and to connect the story of the Trojan War with the raids of the Sea Peoples mentioned in Egyptian sources at the end of the 13th and beginning of the 12th centuries B.C.
More recently, Meyer (1975) has gone well beyond Carpenter in dissociating a historical Troy from the mound at Hisarlik. In Meyer’s view, no historical city of Troy existed anywhere. First of all, there never was a city called Troy: the Homeric Troie is an adjectival formation derived from the name of a people, the Troes. The conjunction of Troie and Ilion to refer to one and the same place, a city, is a late development. Both the Troes and the settlement of Ilion are to be located in Greece, not in northwestern Asia Minor. The names were transferred to Hisarlik in the process of the Aeolic occupation of Asia Minor in the 8th century B.C. The original homeland of the Troes, the antagonists of the Achaeans who themselves can only be located in Achaia-Phthiotis near Mt. Othrys, is in fact the upper Spercheios River valley, the southern border between central Greece and Thessaly.
Another fact that should be taken into consideration in the debate over the historicity of the Trojan War and its location at Hisarlik is the increasing evidence for the popularity in Aegean art from ca. 1800 B.C. onward of scenes illustrating the siege of a town or city in which the attackers normally employ a fleet as part of their assaulting force. Examples include the Town Mosaic from MM II Knossos, the Silver Siege rhyton from Circle A at Mycenae, the painting on the north wall of Room 5 in the West House at Akrotiri, fragments of a steatite rhyton from Epidauros [illustrated by Warren, JHS 99(1979) fig.5], a fragment of another steatite rhyton from Knossos [illustrated in Palace of Minos III 100 fig.56], and possibly a fragment of yet one more steatite rhyton from Knossos [illustrated by Warren, JHS 99(1979) fig.4]. These works of art suggest that the siege of a town may have been a popular theme in Aegean pictorial art and raise the possibility that an equivalent theme may have existed in contemporary literary (presumably epic) art; this latter possibility has been explored in some detail by S. Morris (1989) in connection with the miniature frieze from Room 5 of the West House at Akrotiri. In neither case need this siege have been a specific, and hence an historical, one. However, if it was, such a siege clearly preceded the Trojan War as conventionally dated by many centuries.

The Iliad is an epic poem, not an historical work ; and the
first point to be considered is this-Did the tale of Troy arise
from the siege and capture of some real town ? It probably did.
So much would be corlceded by all, perhaps, except those who explain the siege of Troy as a solar myth, and regzard it as merely
‘ a repetition of the daily siege of the East by the solar powers
that every evening are robbed of their treasures in the West.’
The affirmation that the story of Troy had its ultimate origin in
fact is compatible with suspense of judgment as to the precise
amoi~not f historical truth which can be recovered from the Iliad.
The analysis of that is a very nice operation, admitting a great
variety of view; but it is one on which we have not to enter

Remains have been found at Hissarlik which are presutnably
old enough to be those of a town besieged and destroyed before
the Iliad was composed. No similar remains, to which an equal
antiquity could be ascribed, have been found elsewhere in the
Trojan plain. Hissarlik is entitled to the benefit of this. We
will say, then : Hissarlik nlay have been the site of that town,
the capture of which, at an unknown date, gave rise to the story
of Troy.

A further question now presents .itself. The historical
prototype of the poetical Troy actually stood, we will suppose,
at Hissarlik. But where did Homer conceive his Troy as
standing? Here we can judge only from the topographical
data given in the Iliad itself. These data are of two classes,-
general and particular.
(1) The general data are such as these,-that Troy stood in
the plain ; that its acropolis was ‘lofty,’ with crags sufficiently
steep to warrant the epithet 6+pv6~aua,’beetling ‘; that two
rivers met in front of it; that near it were two springs which
could be regarded as the sources of one of the rivers ; and that
between the town and the Hellespont there was room for the
movement of armies.
(2) The particular data depend, for instance, on calculations
of the distance between Troy and the Greek camp, as required
by particular incidents of the poem ; on the exact position relatively to the town which the poem seems to suppose for certain tumuli ; on the circumstance that Achilles could chase Hectorall round the walls, &c.

Now, with regard to the data of this second class, it is my
belief that to argue from them is lost labour. In the first place
many of them are essentially ambiguous. Next, even if such
ambiguity did nut exist, it would be necessary to remember that an epic poem is not an Ordnance Survey. A poet, though minutely familiar with the localities, might make slips, or might permit himself some licence,-especially when he had the excuse that his warriors were not ‘such as mortals now are.’ And
the probability of such oversights or such licence is indefinitely
increased if we suppose the poem, or parts of it, to have been
composed without a minute knowledge, or an exact recollection,
of the ground.

The general data seem; then, to be those which alone can be
safely applied here. And it should be noted at the outset
that no one place in the Troad satisfies all the general data for the
site of Troy. This remark was made to me by Mr. Calvertthan
whom no one knows the Trqjan plain more thoroughly-at
the beginning of our tour, and I can now confirm it from personal

A few words will suffice to orientate the reader with regard
to the broad features of topography. The Trojan plain is about
seven miles long from north to south, with a breadth of about
two or three miles from east to west. It is bounded on the
west by low hills skirting the Aegean, on the north by the
Hellespont, on the east and south by low hills. Hissarlik (the
<place of fortresses’) is a mound at the end of a long low ridge
which runs out north-westward into the plain from the hills
bounding it on the east. ‘Ridge’ is perhaps rather too strong
a word for this tongue of slightly elevated ground which seldom
attains a height of more than some eighty feet above the ordinary
level of the plain. Approaching Hissarlik, as we did, from a point in the plain four miles to the S.E. of it, one cornes on to the side of the plateau by a scarcely perceptible slope, and is already at the place claimed as ‘lofty Ilios’ without having been conscious of any decided ascent. The area of the mound of Hissarlik is given by Dr. Schliemann as about 328 yards by 238 ; and the relative smallness of this area is a fact which should be constantly borne in mind by those who wish to form a correct mental picture. The height of the mound above the ‘plain is about 112 feet; and the greatest depth to which Dr. Schliemann has dug is about 524 feet below the surface, or 594 feet above the plain ; but this depth has been reached, of course, only in a part of the excavated area. Hissarlik is about four miles S.E. by E. of ancient Sigenm at t l ~ eN .W. angle of the Troad, and about three miles from the coast of the Hellespont. This latter distance must have been slightly
greater (and not, as had long been assumed, less,) in antiquity ;
for Mr. Calvert seems to have established beyond a doubt that
the sea has been gaining on the land, not vice versa, along this
coast. The first thing which is obvious to a visitor is that a
town of which Hissarlik represented the whole extent, and
not merely the acropolis, would have been very inconsiderable.
The other feature most obvious in a first view is that it would
be strange indeed to call Hissarlik ‘lofty.’

Besides Hissarlik, two other sites in the plain have
been claimed as Troy. One of these is about four miles
S.E. of Hissarlik, near the farm formerly called Akshi-kioi
(‘cook’s village ‘), and now ‘Thymbra,’ on ground which gently
rises from the plain to the hills which bound it to the S.E., not
far from the junction of the river Kimar with the Mendere.
Here in historic times probably stood ‘ the village of the Ilians,
a local tradition claimed as the site of Troy. At the Greek Ilium local tradition made the same claim.

In Phocis, the name of the extinct Ledon was preserved by a
small village near the ancient site (Paus. x. 33 5 2). One of
the arguments for this site depends on the supposition that
Homer conceived the Greek camp as not visible from Troy ; a
position which Iliad 12, 742 f.((where Polites is sent froin
Troy as a spy) fails to establish. Speaking generally of this
site near Thymbra with reference to the data of the Iliad, I
would briefly say that, to my mind, it is open to most of the
objections which can be urged against Hissarlik, and also to
several others peculiar to itself. Looking at the question in a broad way, then, I should put the case thus, It seems possible that, in the general conception of an Ionian poet or poets, composing an epic on the story of Troy, Hissarlik should have figured as the centre of the epic action.

It is not improbable that the Aeolic Ilium may have
been founded at Hissarlik before the tale of Troy had been
worked up into the form of a large epic. In that case, the fact
of a town with that name existing at Hissarlik would have
been likely to influence Ionian poets in favour of the site. But
we have seen that no one site in the Troad satisfies all the
Homeric data for the position of Troy. May not the reason of
this be that the Homeric topography is in fact-though not,
perhaps, consciously-eclectic ? May not the poet or poets
have combined features which really belonged to different sites,
without knowing, or without caring, that the resulting picture
was one which could not be accurately localised at any single
point in the Trojan plain ? This is what has happened in other
cases where a popular poetical legend has been developed from Now, what would be the natural influence of such conditions
as those just sketched on the topographical element in the work
of the Ionian poets? They would seek to combine their own
general in~pressionsw ith any features which figured as constant
in the Aeolic lays local to the Troad. Such features they would
be reluctant, or afraid,: to change. So, when they found that
the Pergamos of Troy was regularly described as alrrervrj,
?jvepcieuoa, 64pudeaua, they would retain those epithets. In
such an incident as the scheme of Agenor, which involves a
large and familiar grasp of the topography, they would refrain
from altering. But when they were inventing new incidents,
or developing incidents froni mere hints in the older local lays,
the centre about which their ideas were grouped may well have
been the site at Hissarlik ; especially if a town called Ilion,-
claiming, with however little proof, to stand where Homeric
Troy had stood,-already occupied that site. For instance, the
impossible incident of Achilles chasing Hector round and rountX
the walls of a great city could have been conceived only by one
who supposed the city to stand in a plain.

We find, then, that two clain~sm ay reasonably be allowed on
behalf of the site at Hissarlik. (1) It may have witnessed a
real siege which gave rise to the tale of Troy. (2) It ma;y have
represented the site of Troy as generally conceived by Ionian
epos ; though, mingled with those traits which suit Hissarlik,
there are other traits which suit only Bunirbashi, and ~vllich
may have been derived from older aeolic lays, originating in the
Troad, which served as material to the poets of Ionia. It would
follow that the inconsistencies of Homeric data for the situation
of Troy do not admit of being truly reconciled. We find that
the Homeric topography is really eclectic, though we can no
longer say how far the Ionian epos was conscious or ur~conscious of this fact.

A last question remains, and it is entirely distinct from those
which have hitherto been discussed. The Iliad does not merely
indicate a position for Troy. It gives us, in outline, a picture of
Troy itself. Homeric Troy is ‘a great town,’ ‘with broad streets.’
On the Pergamos, rising in a slope above the lower city, was
Priam’s great palace of polished stone. This palace included
twelve chambers for his daughters and their husbands, fifty
chambers for his sons and their wives; so, with Priam and
Hecuba, it lodged 126 princely persons. After allowing for retainers and domestics on the most frugal scale which royalty
could tolerate, and for occasional guests of the hospitable
monarch and his family, we perceive that we require ‘a
really large and imposing’ house; in fact, a house which
would not leave room for much else on the excavated
area of Hissarlik. But this house was only one of the
ornaments of the Pergamos. There was also the well-built
house of Hector and. the fair house of Paris,-the latter
including a court-yard and a large hall. There was moreover
a temple of Athene, a temple of Apollo, and a temple or altar of Zeus. Now, it may be said that the Homeric poet was
thinking of buildings which he had seen, or which he knew by
tradition to have existed, on the acropolis at Hissarlik, and that
he has merely used some exaggeration. As this argument has
often been employed, or implied, in the discussions arising from
Dr. Schliemann’s discoveries, it is permissible to observe that
poetical exaggeration has its limits. And, if those limits were
stretched to their widest, they would be enormously exceeded
by supposing that three palaces,-one of them lodging, at the
very least, some 150 persons,-besides two or three temples, had
ever had real counterparts within an area of some 325 gards by
235. The poet of the Ilrind was not describing a town which he
had ever seen at Hissarlik. He was not merely exaggerating the
scale and the splendour of a town known to him through an
approximately correct tradition. If anything in this question
can be considered as certain, it is that the Homeric poet was
creating an imaginary town on the site which he conceived as
that of Troy. The surroundings-plain, hills, rivers-are drawn
with general truth to nature. But the city itself-the broad
streets, the temples, the vast palaces of marble-are works of
the fancy. The poet’s own age furnished the originals, just as
it furnished so much of the manners and of the civilisation
which he has ascribed to the heroic past. Here I may quote
the recent words of an acconipliahed scholar and critic : have held the 126 members of Priam’s family (Ilios, p. 327).

The idea which underlay this identification was the same which
has constantly appeared in the tendency to magnify the scale of
the remains at Hissdik. If the Third City of Ilios was to be
the Troy which Homer described, the largest house in it must be
Priam’s. But last summer’s investigations have shown that the
Third City was really a poor vil1a.ge.l ‘ Troy ‘ is now to be the
Second City, next below it. Now, therefore, Dr. Schliemann is
free to observe that, in comparison with the buildings of the
Second City, ‘the houses of the third city are altogether

These seem to be the essential points which need to be
brought out in any attempt to answer the question : ‘ How is
the discovery at Hissarlik related to the Iliad ? ‘
The sum of my answer is as follows :-
I. Hissarlik has one definite and lxniqise claim-the presence
of sufficiently old remains-to be regarded as the site of a,
town, the capture of which at an unknown date gave rise to the
legend of the siege of Troy.
2. Hissarlik may represent the site of Troy as generally
(though not consistently) imagined by the poet or poets who
gave epic form to the legend of Troy.
3. The city of Troy, as described in the Iliad, is a creation of
the poet’s fancy, suggested by handsome cities of his own tirne.
The Pergamos of the niad is conceived as having an area
decidedly larger than that of the acropolis at Hissarlik. The
spacious palaces and wide streets of the Homeric Troy point to
a city totally different, both in scale and in character, from of which traces exist at Hissarlik. It is futile, then, to attempt an identification of buildings found at Hissarlik with buildings described by Homer. In this sense, HomericTroy has not been found, and never can be found, because it never existed.

What did the ancients themselves believe as to the site of Troy ?
From a survey of the extant evidence, I drew the following
conclusions :-
I. The general belief of antiquity was not only that Troy
had been utterly destroyed, but also that the site had remaiued
2. The claim of the Greek Ilium at Hissarlik to occupy the -.
site was rnerely a local legend, destitute of evidence. The
Ilians showed the lyre of Paris, the shield of Achilles, the stone
on which Palamedes played draughts. The collective opinion
of intelligent antiquity rejected their claim.

Meanwhile, Prof. J. P. Mahaffy had contributed to this Journal
a paper on ‘The Site and Antiquity of the Hellenic Ilion,’
which appeared to be intended as a reply to mine, but confused
the issue which I had argued with other issues which were
not in question. His paper involved, in fact, three distinct
(1) that Hissa.rlik is the site of Troy :
(2) that Troy was not ‘ totally and finally destroyed’ :
(3) that the Greek Ilium was generally recognised in antiquity as occupying the site of Troy.

It will be conducive to a clear and convenient arrangement
to take them under the several heads to which they are
1. Wus it the established belief of the aficients that Troy had
been, totally destroyed by the G~eclcs? Mr. Mahaffy denies it (p.
72). We naturally ask : Where, then, is the evidence that the
ancients believed the destruction to have been only partial?
Mr. Mahaffy adduces two passages. (a) Ilicctl 20, 306

Of course Mr. Mahaftjr remarks, ‘ the obvious inference
from this pa,ssage mas that Aeneas reigned at Troy.’ Is it ?
Homer says sinlply, Tph~cra~vT.he TpGeq are the people of
Tpoia, and Tpola in Homer means not only the town but the
land. Achilles says that he has sacked eleven cities ~

a r hTPolTv hplPwXov (11. 9, 329).

Strabo specially explains this use of Ipoia (xiii. 7) :

crr2aav T$U ~apahlavr a & ~6~7~v6 rot9 Tpwai yeyovf’vur, v v a u r f ~Qu ~vvia,. . . . heyopdvqv 82Tpoiav :

arid when, in a later place of the same book, Strabo speaks of the inference from the Iliad that Aeneas had remained f’v Tpoiy, it cannot be proved that he meant the town.

Suppose, however, that he did so understand it. We have the
Homeric text on which he is commenting, and can judge for
ourselves how much is necessarily implied by Tpheaarv. Bnd
tliere is another Homeric text which strongly suggests that by
‘I’pdeoarv the poet meant simply the people of the land, not
the town ;-that prophecy of a day when Priam and Troy shall
perish together (11. 4, 165f.). The ‘obvious, inference’ \vould
therefore be that ths dynasty of Aeneas was conceived as
destined to have a different capital. And we happen to know
that Sophocles represented Aeneas, after the victory of the
Greeks, as remaining in the Trond, but not remaining at Troy.
In the Laoc6o.i~Aeneas was described as withdrawing to the
slopes of Ida: this was the counsel of Anchises, pronlpted by
recollection of precepts given by Aphrodite? After the fall of
llios, it would have been natural enough for a new shepherd of
the people to seek a inore secure site further inland ; and the
version given by Sophocles–in strict accord with the Homeric
phrase-points to a local tradition that the royal seat of the
Aeneadae had been to the south of the Ilian plain. The author
of the Hymn to Aphrodite, into which the glories of the
Aeneadae enter, never alludes to a reign at Troy; he, too,
says simply, Tp&eoarv. Can it now be said that Ilind 20, 30G$. affords the slightest proof of a belief that the town of Troy had been but partially destroyed ?
(b) The only other evidence produced is a legend used in a
lost play of Sophocles,-that, when Troy was taken, the house of
Antenor was spared through the friendly offices of Menelaus.
Strabo introduces this with the words, PO#JOKXy~t8Fv Ev rfj
dX&cer TOG ‘IXiou, K.T.X. (xiii. 53). Mr. Mahaffy renders this,
‘ Sophocles indeed in his C’aptzwe of Troy says,’ kc. But the
words Ev rij cEh&ce~TOG ‘Jhiou belong to what follows : ‘ S. says that, at the capture of Troy,’ &c. For the title of a play, we
should have had f’v ‘Ihiov ‘AXhoer, or more likely Ev ‘IXiou
TI4pae~. Strabo’s citation is doubtless, as Nauck has seen, from
the lost ‘AvrqvopiGa~ of Sophocles, mentioned in the argument
to the Ajnx. I note this, because Mr. Mahaffy implies that
Sophoc:es had written a special drama on the Capture, in which
its inconzpleteness was a, well-marked feature : whereas all we
know is that the legendary incident of this one house having
been spared was noticed in a, drama dealing with the fortunes of
Antenor’s descenda.nts. The very point of the incident is that,
when every other dwelling was doomed, this one alone escaped.
Because Antenor’s house was said to have been spared, was the
destruction of Troy therefore regarded as merely partial ?
Alexander the Great razed Thebes to the ground. Was that
destruction ‘ partial,’ because he spared the house of Pindar ?
‘They utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and
woman, young and old.’ Was the destruction of Jericho partial,
because Joshua spared the house of Rahab ?
Mr. Mahaffy proceeds :–
‘ Polygnotus, in his famous pictures in the Lesche at Delphi,
illustrated the Soplioclean view of the legend, and his pictures
made it known to all visitors. They all contemplate only a
partial destruction,’ &c. ‘ They all’ are Homer, Sophocles,
Polygnotus, and the visitors. But Homer and Sophocles, as we
have already seen, are not witnesses for a merely partial destruction.

Polygnotus and the visitors remain. Mr. Mahaffy gives
no authority for his statement. But I am not aware that the
paintings of Polygnotus in the Lesche at Delphi are described
in detail by any extant ‘ visitor ‘ except Pausanias. Pausanias
describes them fully and minutely, devoting to them seven entire
cl~apters of his Tcntli Book, cc. 25-31. I have gone overthese carefully, in search of sometlling which might explain
Mr. Ma,haffy’s statement ; and I can only say that I am wholly
at a loss to comprehend whence he can have inferred that
Polygnotus ‘ contemplated only a partial destruction of Troy.’
From the beginning to the end of the long and exact account of
Pausanias, there is not one word which implies anything of the
kind. Mr. Mahaffy describes Polygnotus as ‘illustrating the
Sophoclean legend’–i.e. the sparing of Antenor’s house. But
it has already been pointed out that the sparing of that one
house does not imply that the destruction of the city was merely
partial. And Mr. Mahaffy has omitted to add that Polygnotus
described Antenor and his household as preparing to leave Troy.
The whole family was assembled at the door; servants were
putting the luggage on a donkey ; and a little Antenorid had
already mounted another donkey (Paus. x. 27, 4).
We have now seen that the two isolated passages adduced
(11. 20, 306, Strabo xiii. 53) prove nothing, and that the
assertion as to Polygnotus is incorrect. On the other side
is the evidence of all ancient literature. It was the settled
belief of antiquity that the destruction of Troy had been
2. The next point is, Was the destruction of T~oybelieved to have been final as well as total ?-Mr. Mahaffy says, No ; even when the ancient poets and prose-writers describe the ruin of Troy as total, they do not mean to exclude the idea that, after a short interval, it rose again on the same site.
I, on the other hand, think that these authors manifestly
imply, even where they do not expressly say, that the ruin was
final as well as total,-that the site had remained desolate. It
is unnecessary, however, to dwell on what they imply. Let us
see what some of them expressly say.
The orator Lycurgus, speaking about 332-330 B.c., says :-
T<V Tpoiav 7 1 ~o h &~tcrjtco~v~, T pLc~eyia7y~erye~rlpBvqT&V TOTE
~ 6 h ~ otcavl .rrdaq~2 .rrcipfaoa rrjg ‘Auiag, cjg &rat6rrA r&v
‘Ehh?,ivov ~ca~ecrtcd#qT, ~ Val Gva &oircr/r6q ~ C T;L ‘ Who has not heard of Troy, how it had become the greatest city of its time, the mistress of Asia, and how, since it was demolished once for all by the Greeks, it has been left .~uvinhabited thro76gh the ages ? ‘The known character and tastes of Lycurgus entitle this
definite and precise statement to be regarded as representing
the belief received by the best informed Greeks in the fourth
century B.C. He was a man who mas peculiarly likely to be
familiar with the existing tradition about Troy, and to be
accurate in reporting it. How does Mr. M~~haffpyr opose to
meet this unanswerable proof ? He suggests that LEoi~qrod~oes
not mean ‘ zcni~~habited.’
1a’OL1KqTOS may have been used hy J,ycurg~~sto signify, not tlie complete desertion of the site, but its disappearance [sic] fro111 among the catalognc of Greek independent ~ ~ X E L S . ‘
That is, Lycurgus, according to Mr. Mahaffy, did not mean to
say that the site of Troy was deserted ; he only meant to say
that tlie Greek Ilion was no longer in ‘the catalogue of independent
Greek T~XELF.H’ OW,t hen, are me to t~.n?tslale
& O ~ K ~ T O? F It must signify : ‘ no loizgcr ~*cprcse~zteIidy a12 intlcpendent
Greek city.’ And what evidence is there for this
pregnant force of i o i ~ ~ r o p ?The use, says Mr. Mahaffy,
of olxi&~v, as meaning, ‘to make a new Hellenic polity on
a spot inhabited by barbarians or villagers.’ But & o i ~ ~harso ~
nothing to do with olnl<esv : it is from 01tcf10 : the coi-relative
of O ~ K ~ ~ €wLoVul d be &oitcso~o~N. ow suppose that it were
&O~KLGTanOdF t,h at &oltc~urcoo~u ld mean all that Mr. Mahaffy imagines. There mould remain this awkward fact,-that, when Lycurgus spoke, the Greek Ilion was ‘in the catalogue of
independent Greek 7r6Xe~.’ Alexander had visited it just after
the battle of the Granicus (334 B.c.) ;had given it the title of
city (7rihiv 7rPoaayoP~;)~an~d) ,h ad decreed that it sllould be
free, with cxe~nption from taxes : .hev8f1pav 7.5 ~cpEva~nai
it+opov, Strabo, xiii. 5 36. Now, I had noticed this vikit of
Alexander to the Greek Ilion-a visit which had so vividly
impressed the Greek mind-as inaking it inconceivable that
Lycurgus, when in llis speech two or three years later he said
~ o ~ K ~cou~lCol Fhav,e been overlooking the existence of the
Greek Ilion. Mr. Mahaffy says :-
‘I liad accepted this reading of tile facts about Alexander arid Ilion, but I now confess that I was here in error. It is clear enough in this case that Alexander oilly made pronlises and gave orders.’
This is beside the question. No one had said that new bfcildings
were comrncnced at llion during Alexander’s visit. It was that visit itself, with its impressive circumstances, and the honours
which Alexander then bestowed on Ilion by his proclamation that
it should be TTXLF f’Xeveipa r e ~ a iit+opop, that attracted
attention. Mr. llahaffy supposes that Alexander’s visit drew
little notice. Why, Dicaeaxchus is quoted as recording minute
det~ilso f it f’v T$ r e p i rij9 2v ‘IXhp Ouula~,–which, if not a
special treatise, must have been at least a special section of his
U l o ~’ E X X ~ G O ~ Arrian, Plutarch, Justin, Strabo, are other
witnesses. Grote does ample justice to the interest and significance of the episode. ‘ The coincidence of time then between Lycurgcs’ speech and Alexander’s pro~nises has no historical importance,’ says Mr. Mahaffy. ‘ Then ‘-i.c. on the hypothesis that the visit had been little noticed. But if, on the contrary, it had strongly impressed the Hellenic world, as it did, then the coirlcidence in question is important. Mr. Mahaffy has one more reason for not believing Lycurgus, and it is a truly curious reason. That statesman was ‘steeped in Greck tragedirs about the Fall of Troy (p.77). This alludes to the tradition that Lycurgus took measures for establishing accurate texts of Aeschylus,
Sophocles, and Euripides, which should be laid up in the public
archives of Athens, and should be the standard texts for the
theatre. So the fact that Lycurgus showed an interest in the
tragic poets becomes presumptive evidence that he would hare
been exceptionally ig~lorant about the site of Troy. The fact
that he gave a signal proof of love for accuracy becomes presumptive
evidence that he would have been apt to make a
remarkable blunder.
We now turn to Strabo. Homer, says Strabo, has expressly
indicated the utter destruction of Troy : r’Op71P~8.2~
$~]T&F rr)v d + a v ~ u ~ L Tv$ F rdhemp elpq~ev. He then adds:-
~JLOXO~OG6U2L ~ aoil v e h r e p o ~7 dv d+avrap6v 5-739 r d h e w ~ &, V
ZUTL ~ a lAv~o17pyoq6 {rjrop (xiii. 41) : ‘And the later w~wiiers
also ‘-i.e. not Horner only, but post-Homeric writers too-‘ agree
on the utter destruction of the city ; anlong whom is the orator
Lycurgus ‘ (alluding to the passage just quoted). It is almost
incredible that lfr. Mahaffy should have commented on Strabo’s
statement thus :-
‘The vc&rcpoi are of course not post-Homeric writers generally, as some
Ilave ventured to translate it, but the party of Demetrius [circ. 190 B.c.], who have wilh them, among older authorities, the orator Lycurgus.
It is perfectly clear that he is the only earlier authority [i.e. earlier
than 1)ernetriusl asserting the final destruction of Troy by the Greeks,
(P. 72).
Mr. Monro has already pointed out that the phrase o l
v e ~ ~ e pis ~”a common one-as in the scholia-denoting post-
Homeric writers of every possible kind.’ And here in Strabo
the context makes this additionally clear. Strabo says that the
total destruction of Troy is recognised, not only by Homer
himself, but by the general consent of those who have come
after him.
Strabo continues :-ebs&@vo~68 TO& i;orepov, &vasricra~
G~avoov~E’vovqo,lwvicracrBa~ rbv 7691-ov f)seivov, eire GLA T&P
cr~~c#,opdq,E ~ T E lcal lca~a~acrapf’vo7v0 8 ‘AyapCpvovoq K ~ T &
rraharhv E @ o ~ . ‘They (the post-Homeric writers) conjecture
that the men of a later time, when they thought of making a
new settlement, shunned that spot (the site of Homeric Troy)
as ill-omened -either because of its disasters, or because
Agamemnon had cursed it after an ancient custom’ (as when
Croesus, for instance, cursed the site of Sidene.) Strabo has
already told us that the post-Homeric writers agree as to the
fact of Troy’s site having been left desolate. About that there
was no disagreement. But two different ca.uscs had been suggested;-(
1) a general feeling that the spot was unlucky, (2)
a special curse ;-and e l s d { o v o ~refers to these conjectures. But
Mr. Mahaffy takes E I . I C & ~a;s~ ifV i~t i~mLplied doubt of thef act of the
desolation, about which Strabo has just told us that these writers
dpohoyo80a The superstitious dread mentioned here as having
connected itself with the deserted site of Troy can be illustrated
from an independent source. There was a legend that, before
the founding of Troy, the site had been known as ‘ the hill of
the Phrygian At&’; and Daxdanus was said to have been
warned against it by an oracle, which induced him to found
Dardania further inland.2 The legend is in itself another
indication that the site supposed to have been that of Troy
had been left desolate. Popular tradition affirmed that even
the one city which had arisen there, to perish so signally, had
been built in disregard of a divine warning. In the belief of the ancients, as disclosed by ancient
literature, the destruction of Troy had been both totul and
3. But, for the opposite view, it is claimed that there is
evidence other than literary: that, namely, of homage paid to
the Greek Ilium by distinguished visitors, who thus implied
tlieir admission of its claim to be the local heir of Troy. This
argument arises from a neglect of the distinction which I
endeavoured to make clear in my paper on ‘Homeric and
Hellenic Ilium ‘ (pp. 30 f.) The ‘ mythical legitimacy ‘ of the
Greek Ilium had two aspects-the political and the antiquarian.
Alexander, entering Asia, welcomed a local legend which was
ready, in its turn, to sanction his claim of descent from the
Aeacidae. The Romans, entering Asia, welcomed a local legend
which was ready to sanction their claim of descent from Aeneas.
What did Alexander or Lucius Scipio care about the proof
or probability of the local legend? Thenceforward the
Greek Ilium was the Homeric Troy of Roman officials and
Emperors. .
Yet Mr. Mahaffy can speak of ‘ this strong historical proof from
tEle acts and acquiescence of leading public m.en in older days.’
Who were these men ? Here is his list :-(i.) Xerxes, Herod.
vii., 42. (ii.) Mindarus, Xen. H. i., 4, 4. [Xenophon says
absolutely nothing but that Miudarus was Ev ‘IXI? B6wv 7ij
‘AB7v4, when he observed that a sea-fight was taking place in
the Hellespont.] (iii.) Alexander the Great. ‘What need
have we,’ Mr. Mahaffy asks, ‘of further evidence?’ None,
indeed. When Xerxes, Mindarus, and Alexander the Great are
quoted in such a court, the only possible reply is embodied
in an observation which proceeded from the Bench at a celebrated
trial. ‘What the soldier said ‘ is not evidence.
That which is really shown by such visits as those of Alexander
and Lucius Scipio is the versatility with which the Greek
Ilians could adapt their local legend to the exigencies of each
occasion. As to the herd of helpless sightseers, their credulity is
chiefly interesting as showing how little twenty centuries have
altered the average nature of the ‘personally conducted’ tourist.
4. The claim made by Mr. Mahaffy on behalf of the Greek
Ilillm is twofold : (a)that it stood on the site of Troy: (6) that
its existence had beell virtually continuous with that of Troy.He says that ‘the alleged foundation of Ilion in llistorical times
on a new site was not true ‘ : ‘ probably Ilion succeeded to the
site and traditions of Troy without any considerable inte~rzqtion’
(p. 69). But Dr. Schliemann-with whom Nr. Mahaffy
professes to be in complete agreement-holds that all traces of
the Greek Ilion cease at 6 feet below the surface, and that
beneath it three p~ehistoric citics come on top of Homeric Troy.
Do not three successive prehistoric cities imply an ‘interruption ‘
which might fairly be called ‘ considerable ‘ ? Let us now see
what is the evidence for the hyvpothesis that the Greek Iliutn
succeeded ‘without any considerable interruption ‘ to the site
and traditions of Troy. Mr. Mahaffy puts it thus (p. 74) :-
‘It is clear that the main claim of the Ilians, beyond theivenerable
antiquity of tlieir shrine of the Ilian Athene, was the annual pilgri~nage of
Locrian virgins, sent to expiat- tlie crime of Ajax. It was certair~ly as
old as the Cyclic pocts.’
But (I) as to the tetnple of the Ilian Athene, there is
absolutely no reason to suppose that it dated from a period
earlier than the foundation of the Greek Ilium -itself. The
oldest evidence for the existence of the temple does not go back
beyond the sixth or seventh century B.C. llr. Brentano has
worked out this point fully and clearly (I’roin zv~zd Ncu Ilion,
pp. 39 $). He has also shown (pp. 33 j:)that the identity of
Name (Ilion) proves nothing whatever for identity of site. The
first Aeolic settlers gave Homeric names to their settlements, as
it suited their taste and fancy. Thus the Homeric. Dardania
was on the slopes of Ida: the l~istorical Aeolic Dardanus
was on the shore of the Hellespont. Thus, again, the
site of the Homeric Tliymbra was probably not identical with
t,hat of the historic Thyn1bra.l Hence, in the first instance,
that confusion in the nomenclature of the Troad on which
Strabo dwells at the beginning of Book xiii., a confi~sionw hich
mas afterwards aggravated by the not unfrequent removal of a
settlement from one spot to another; as Scepsis, for instamce,
mas in historical times distinguished from ‘old Scepsis,’ Yalaiscepsis,
about seven miles off’. There is no reason, then, for
supposing that the settlers at Hissarlik called their town ‘Ilion ‘
because they found a temple of Athene Ilias already existing
there. (2) As to the yearly tribute of two virgins, whom theLocrians gent yearly to Ilium, Strabo says that it was est,ablished
IIepcrGv $arl ~ C P ~ T O ~ V (Tx~iiVi. 40) ; that is, when the Persian
power, under the elder Cyrus, was becoming predominant.
Mr. Mahaffy reproves Strabo for saying that the tribute did not
begin till the Persi~~Wn ars: which Strabo does not say. The
tribute, it seems, was ‘ as old as the Cyclic poets.’ But this is
compatible with its having originated at about the time indicated
by Strabo-the earlier half of the sixth century B.c.-and
in any case would not carry us back much beyond 700 B.C. What
the tribute plainly means is the wish of an oracular priesthood
in Greece Proper -doubtless the Delphic-to enhance the
prestige of the temple of Athene Ilias in the Troad. The
Locrians were in some trouble, and the oracle imposed
a penance which could be linked to the myth of Ajax and Cassandra.
The date of the Ilian temple gives a superior limit
for the date of the first Locrian tribute. And on independent
grounds it is likely that the temple arose about, or not much
before, 700 B.C. The period from 700 to 550 B.C. is roughly
that within which the tribute probably began.
5. The auZJzority of Hellaniczcs. Polemon of Ilium, about
200 B.c., set forth the local legend of his town in its. completeness-
mentioning the extant stone on which Palamedes had
played draughts, &c. Besides Polemon, only one solitary writer
is known to have ackr~owledged. the Ilian claim. This was the
logographer Hellanicus of Mitylene. As Mr. Tozer remarks,
‘ We may conclude that Strabo was not unfair in accusing him
of doing it ‘ to gratify the Ilians, as was his wont,’ for they were
of Aeolian origin like himself.’l The task of Hellanicus was to
collect the local legends of each place as he found them. Besides
being wholly uncritical, he seems to have been often careless.
Strabo, at least, describes him (with reference to his
A / T ~ ~ L KBSu r)r h e l u ~ ~e bv ~ k p e ~ a. &v- T L ~ ‘ E L K V L ; ~ ~ VgOvP C C T ~rnUXe~8ov
TL~ 1 j~/Pu+$( x . 11). Sopater mentions his treatise on Egypt
as full of /LUBLK& l c a l ~ X a u p a ~ ~ l c c Ti .hucydides, speaking of
his references to the MT$LK&in his Attic History, says that he
has touched on them p p a ~ f ‘ w qre l c a i TOT$ X ~ ~ V O LoF b L~l c p ~ P G q .
Let us now see what Mr. Mahaffy urges in his favour.
(a) ‘ Thucydides himself, who never cites other writers, selects

Hellanicus alone for critical censure as to his chronology. This
solitary citation clearly proves the inzportance of the nza,?e.’ Hellanicus
is the more trustworthy, then, because Thucydides notes
his inaccuracy.
(b) ‘ Dionysius of Halicarnassus, though speaking with contempt
of them [the logographers], alludes repeatedly to this
particular man: Hellanicus, as an authority of importance on
local legends.’ Just so. Hellanicus reported the local legend of
the Ilians. But the question is whether he was a capable critic
of it-whether he proves anything more than its existence.
And not a word in Dionysius or any other writer implies this.
Dionysius says ,(i. 48), ‘The most credible of the legends about
Aeneas’ flight-which Hellanicus, amongst old writers, adopts-is
on this wise.’ This, again, merely shows that Hellanicus adopted
the local legend which he found prevalent; and we know from
Strabo that the legend in question was that which was commonly
current in the Troad (xiii. 53), where Hellanicus found it. SO
in i. 22, Dionysius classes Hellanicus with ot h&yov d f ~ o ib,e cause,
by his large collections of local stories, he was a very useful
source for them.
(c) The recorded errors of Hellarlicus prove nothing against
his authority, Mr. Mahaffy argues, because Strabo also makes
mistakes. ‘The proper answer is to apply the same sort of
argument to his critic Strabo.’ Strabo, though as unlike as
possible to Hellanicus, did not differ from other men in being
infallible ; but he is not liable to the only charge which Mr. Mahaffy
has to lay against him. When Strabo says that Mycenae
~ca.rculcd+qcavtn-‘ IApyelov GUTCv Gv ,uq8’ ZXvo~c6 piclceu8a~~ $ 9
Mvlcqvalov ~ d X c o(sv iii. 6 , s lo), he is speaking of deserted sites
in Argolis, and instances Mycenae as a formerly populous place
which has no longer an inhabited house on it. It is manifestly
unjust to accuse Strabo of a blunder because, here, he has not
mentioned the so-called Treasuries and the Gate of Lions. Nor is
there the least sound reason for doubting Strabo’s accuracy when
he says that Mycenae was destroyed by the Argives in 468 B.C.
He is confirmed by Diodorus and Pausanias. Mr. Mahaffy%
hypothesis that Mycenae was destroyed before the fifth century
B.C. has no evidence. Herodotus tells us that Mycenae was
represented by troops at Thermopylae and P1ataea.l And a contemporary witness of his statement is extant to this hour. The
name of the Myceneans stood between that of the Thespians
and the men of Ceos in the inscription on the bronze serpentine
column which the Greeks dedicated at Delphi after the battle of
Plataea, and which is now at Constantinople?
6. Demetrius of Scepsis. While Hellanicus is the only non-
Ilian writer who allowed the Ilian claim, Demetrius, by his
local knowledge and Homeric studies, had special weight among
those who denied it. Hence it has been thought necessary to
discredit his evidence by assuming unworthy motives. According
to Mr. Mahaffy, he was ‘ a malevolent pedant.’ The supposed
reason of this unamiable disposition is curious. Demetrius
belonged to the town of Scepsis. The Greek Ilium had lately
received favours from the Romans. Demetrius, accordingly,
‘hated the Ilians on aecozcnt of their recent good fortune, and
sought to detract from their respectability on antiquarian grozcnds.’
And so Demetrius would not hear of Homeric Troy having
been at Ilium. So vividly can Mr. Mahaffy conceive the
emotions which agitated the bosom of the Scepsian, that he is
able to give us the very form in which the meditations of this
envious pedant clothed themselves. Demetrius mused thus :-
‘These vain and overbearing upstarts are now great and rich ; but even
I remember their town a set of contetnptible ruins’ (Mahaffy, p. 78).
It is but a prosaic criticism on this soliloquy that there
is no reason for supposing Demetrius to have been jealous of
the Ilians. The Tpoi’rcirqGe&xoopoq was the chief work of his
life, and it is reasonable to suppose that, in it, he cared about
nothing so much as getting his Homeric topography right.
The absurdity of supposing that he made it wrong in order
to spite the burgesses of Ilium becomes still more grotesquewhen it is observed that his own town, Scepsis, mas not Ilium’s
rival. His own view was that the @aalherov of Aeneas had
been at Scepsis. Neither he nor any one else dreamed of setting
up Scepsis as Troy. Strabo, who expressly notes that Hellanicus
was prejudiced in favour of the Ilians, would not have been
silent if he had had cause to think that Demetrius was prejudiced
against them. Argzcments against the credibility of
Dernetrius there are none. Mr. Mahaffy casts doubt on his
statement that, about 190 B.c., Ilium was a poor and decayed
place, and contends that it is inconsistent’with Ilium having
been the head of a xorvdv about 230-220 B.C. But this xorvdu
included only the petty towns of a portion of the Troad.
Why should not a decayed town have still been the chief of such
a district, especially when it retained the prestige of the honours
decreed to it by Alexander? And Demetrius is confirmed
here by an independent witness. Hegesianax stated that the
Gauls, about 278 B.c., had gone to Ilium, .rrapaxp$~a 6′
E’tchrreb 8rd r b ~ r e i X r c r o v (Miiller, Fray. Hist. iii. 70).
Lycurgus, and the post-Homeric writers generally, were with
Demetrius in refusing to recognise the claim of the Greek Ilium.
The peculiar interest of the testimony of Demetrius corlsists in
its being that of a Inan who had two special qualifications for
judgiug: (a) he lived in the Troad, and knew it thoroughly:
(b) he was a close student of the Homeric poems.
It has been argued that, because Hellanicus and Demetrius
are represented by fragments only, they are both alike ‘unknown
quantities.’ The fallacy is evident. It is the general credibility
of these two writers, as reported by others, that is here in question.

The ancient citations of Hellanicus fill twenty-four large
pages in Miiller’s work (Fray. Bist. i. 45-69). The remains
of Demetrius have lately been the subject of a special
treatise (Gaede, Dcmetrii Scepsii quae supemunt, Greifswald,
1880). We have abundant evidence for estimating the
general characteristics of each, and the general repute of
each in antiquity. After Mr. hfahaffy’s denunciations of
Demetrius and panegyrics on Hellanicus, it is astonishing to
find him saying, as he said lately, that such comparisons of
their authority are necessarily futile, because ‘the works of each
afcthor me irret.rievably lost.’

I have now examined Prof. Mahaffy’s statements in detail.
In eonclnsion, I desire to repeat that my attitude has been
strictly defensive. This reply has been written solely because
it was formally demanded, The result is as follows :-
1. The general belief of the ancient world was that Homeric
Troy had been utterly destroyed, and that its site had remained
2. The local legend of the Greek Ilians was rejected by the
common consent of intelligent antiquity.
The fact of the ancient belief having been established,
its significance in relation to recent discoveries at Hissarlik
might be thus defined :-It attests the general sense of those
ancients who were familiar with the topographical data of the
Iiad that Hissarlik does not suit them all. And thus it tends
to confirm the position taken up in my remarks on the relat,ion
of Hissarlik to the Iliad, that the topography of the Iliad is
probably eclectic.

The sources of the traditions concerning the Asiatic immigration to the North belong to the Icelandic literature, and to it alone. Saxo’s Historia Danica, the first books of which were written toward the close of the twelfth century, presents on this topic its own peculiar view, which will be discussed later. The Icelandic accounts disagree only in unimportant details; the fundamental view is the same, and they have flown from the same fountain vein. Their contents may be summed up thus:

Among the tribes who after the Babylonian confusion of tongues emigrated to various countries, there was a body of people who settled and introduced their language in Asia Minor, which in the sagas is called Tyrkland; in Greece, which in the sagas is called Macedonia; and in Crete. In Tyrkland they founded the great city which was called Troy. This city was attacked by the Greeks during the reign of the Trojan king Priam. Priam descended from Jupiter and the latter’s father Saturnus, and accordingly belonged to a race which the idolaters looked upon as divine. Troy was a very large city; twelve languages were spoken there, and Priam had twelve tributary kings under him. But however powerful the Trojans were, and however bravely they defended themselves under the leadership of the son of Priam’s daughter, that valiant hero Thor, still they were defeated. Troy was captured and burned by the Greeks, and Priam himself was slain. Of the surviving Trojans two parties emigrated in different directions. They seem in advance to have been well informed in regard to the quality of foreign lands; for Thor, the son of Priam’s daughter, had made extensive expeditions in which he had fought giants and monsters. On his journeys he had even visited the North, and there he had met Sibil, the Celebrated prcphetess, and married her. One of the parties of Trojan emigrants embarked under the leadership of ^Eneas for Italy, and founded Rome. The other party, accompanied by Thor’s son, Loride, went to Asialand, which is separated from Tyrkland by a mountain ridge, and from Europe by the river Tanais or Tanakvisl. There they founded a new city called Asgard, and there preserved the old customs and usages brought from Troy. Accordingly, there was organised in Asgard, as in Troy, a council of twelve men, who were high priests and judges. Many centuries passed without any political contact between the new Trojan settlements in Rome and Asgard, though both well remembered their Trojan origin, and the Romans formed many of their institutions after the model of the old fatherland. Meanwhile, Rome had grown to be one of the mightiest empires in the world, and began at length to send armies into Tyrkland. At that time there ruled in Asgard an exceedingly wise, prophetic king, Odin, who was skilled in the magic arts, and who was descended in the twentieth generation from the above-mentioned Thor. Odin had waged many successful wars. The severest of these wars was the one with a neighbouring people, the Vans; but this had been ended with compromise and peace. In Tyrkland, the old mother country, Odin had great possessions, which fell into the hands of the Romans. This circumstance strengthened him in his resolution to emigrate to the north of Europe. The prophetic vision with which he was endowed had told him that his descendants would long nourish there. So he set out with his many sons, and was accompanied by the twelve priests and by many people, but not by all the inhabitants of the Asa country and of Asgard. A part of the people remained at home; and among them Odin’s brothers Vile and Ve. The expedition proceeded through Gardarike to Saxland; then across the Danish islands to Svithiod and Norway. Everywhere this great multitude of migrators was well received by the inhabitants. Odin’s superior wisdom and his marvellous skill in sorcery, together with the fact that his progress was everywhere attended by abundant harvests, caused the peoples to look upon him as a god, and to place their thrones at his disposal. He accordingly appointed his sons as kings in Saxland, Denmark, Svithiod, and Norway. Gylfe, the king of Svithiod, submitted to his superiority and gave him a splendid country around Lake Mseler to rule over. There Odin built Sigtuna, the institutions of which were an imitation of those in Asgard and Troy. Poetry and many other arts came with Odin to the Teutonic lands, and so, too, the Trojan tongue. Like his ancestors, Saturnus and Jupiter, he was able to secure divine worship, which was extended even to his twelve priests. The religious traditions which he scattered among the people, and which were believed until the introduction of Christianity, were misrepresentations spun around the memories of Troy’s historical fate and its destruction, and around the events of Asgard.

Saxo’s Eelation Of The Story Of Troy.

Such is, in the main, the story which was current in Iceland in the thirteenth century, and which found its way to Scandinavia through the Prose Edda and Heimskringla, concerning the immigration of Odin and the Asas./ Somewhat older than these works P is Historia Danica, by the Danish chronicler Saxo. Sturlason, the author of Heimskringla, was a lad of eight years when Saxo began to write his history, and he (Sturlason) had certainly not begun to write history when Saxo had completed the first nine books of his work, which are based on the still-existing songs and traditions found in Denmark, and of heathen origin. Saxo writes as if he were unacquainted with Icelandic theories concerning an Asiatic immigration to the North, and he has not a word to say about Odin’s reigning as king or chief anywhere in Scandinavia. This is the more remarkable, since he holds the same view as the Icelanders and the chroniclers of the Middle Ages in general in regard to the belief that the heathen myths were records of historical events, and that the heathen gods were historical persons, men changed into divinities; and our astonishment increases when we consider that he, in the heathen songs and traditions on which he based the first part of his work, frequently finds Odin’s name, and consequently could not avoid presenting him in Danish history as an important character. In Saxo, as in the Icelandic works, Odin is a human being, and at the same time a sorcerer of the greatest power. Saxo and the Icelanders also agree that Odin came from the East. The only difference is that while the Icelandic hypothesis makes him rule in Asgard, Saxo locates his residence in Byzantium, on the Bosphorus; but this is not far from the ancient Troy, where the Prose Edda locates his ancestors. From Byzantium, according to Saxo, the fame of his’ magic arts and of the miracles he performed reached even to the north of Europe. On account of these miracles he was worshipped as a god by the peoples, and to pay him honour the kings of the North once sent to Byzantium a golden image, to which Odin by magic arts im- \y parted the power of speech. It is the myth about Mimer’s head which Saxo here relates. But the kings of the North knew him not only_ by report; they were also personally acquainted with him. He visited Upsala, a place which “pleased him much”. Saxo, like the Heimskringla, relates that Odin was absent from his capital for a long time; and when we examine his statements on this point, we find that Saxo is here telling in his way the myth concerning the war which the Vans carried on successfully against the Asas, and concerning Odin’s expulsion from the mythic Asgard, situated in heaven (Hist. Dan., pp. 42-44; vid. No. 36). Saxo also tells that Odin’s son, Balder, was chosen king by the Danes “on account of his personal merits and his respect-commanding qualities”. But Odin himself has never, according to Saxo, had land or authority in the North, though he was there worshipped as a god, and, as already stated, Saxo is entirely silent in regard to any immigration of an Asiatic people to Scandinavia under the leadership of Odin.

A comparison between him and the Icelanders will show at once that, although both parties are Euhemerists, and make Odin a man changed into a god, Saxo confines himself more faithfully to the popular myths, and seeks as far as possible to turn them into history; while the Icelanders, on the other hand, begin with the learned theory in regard to the original kinship of the northern races with the Trojans and Romans, and around this theory as a nucleus they weave about the same myths told as history as Saxo tells.

The Older Periods Of The Troy Saga.

How did the belief that Troy was the original home of the Teutons arise? Does it rest on native traditions? Has it been inspired by sagas and traditions current among the Teutons themselves, and containing as kernel “a faint reminiscence of an immigration from Asia,” or is it a thought entirely foreign to the heathen Teutonic world, introduced in Christian times by Latin scholars? These questions shall now be considered.

Already in the seventh century—that is to say, more than five hundred years before Heimskringla and the Prose Edda were written—a Teutonic people were told by a chronicler that they were of the same blood as the Romans, that they had like the Romans emigrated from Troy, and that they had the same share as the Romans in the glorious deeds of the Trojan heroes. This people were the Franks. Their oldest chronicler, Gregorius, bishop of Tours, who, about one hundred years before that time—that is to say, in the sixth century—wrote their history in ten books, does not say a word about it. He, too, desires to give an account of the original home of the Franks (Hist. Franc, ii. 9), and locates it quite a distance from the regions around the lower Rhine, where they first appear in the light of history; but still not farther away than to Pannonia. Of the coming of the Franks from Troy neither Gregorius knows anything nor the older authors, Sulpicius Alexander and others, whose works he studied to find information in regard to the early history of the Franks. But in the middle of the following century, about 650, an unknown author, who for reasons unknown is called Fredegar, wrote a chronicle, which is in part a reproduction of Gregorius’ historical work, but also contains various other things in regard to the early history of the Franks, and among these the statement that they emigrated from Troy. He even gives us the sources from which he got this information. His sources are, according to his own statement, not Frankish, not popular songs or traditions, but two Latin authors— the Church father Hieronymus and the poet Virgil. If we, then, go to these sources in order to compare Fredegar’s statement with his authority, we find that Hieronymus once names the Franks in passing, but never refers to their origin from Troy, and that Virgil does not even mention Franks. Nevertheless, the reference to Virgil is the key to the riddle, as we shall show below. What Fredegar tells about the emigration of the Franks is this: A Frankish king, by name Priam, ruled in Troy at the time when this city was conquered by the cunning of Ulysses. Then the Franks emigrated, and were afteiwards ruled by a king named
Friga. Under his reign a dispute arose between them, and they divided themselves into two parties, one of which settled in Macedonia, while the other, called after Friga’s name Frigians (Phrygians), migrated through Asia and settled there. There they were again divided, and one part of them migrated under king Francio into Europe, travelled across this continent, and settled, with their women and children, near the Ehine, where they began building a city which they called Troy, and inteuded to organise in the manner of the old Troy, but the city was not completed. The other group chose a king by name Turchot, and were called after him Turks. But those who settled on the Rhine called themselves Franks after their king Francio, and later chose a king named’ Theudemer, who was descended from Priam, Friga, and Francio. Thus Fredegar’s chronicle.

About seventy years later another Frankish chronicle saw the light of day—the Gesta regum Francorum. In it we learn more of the emigration of the Franks from Troy. Gesta regum Francorum (i.) tells the following story: In Asia lies the city of the Trojans called Ilium, where king iEneas formerly ruled. The Trojans were a strong and brave people, who waged war against all their neighbours. But then the kings of the Greeks united and brought a large army against iEneas, king of the Trojans. There were great battles and much bloodshed, and the greater part of the Trojans fell. ./Eneas fled with those surviving into the city of Ilium, which the Greeks besieged and conquered after ten years. The Trojans who escaped divided themselves into two parties. The one under king iEneas went to Italy, where he hoped to receive auxiliary troops. Other distinguished Trojans became the leaders of the other party, which numbered 12,000 men. They embarked in ships and came to the banks of the river Tanais. They sailed farther and came within the borders of Pannonia, near the Mceotian marshes (navigantes pervenerunt intra terminos Pannoniarum juxta Mceotidas paludes), where they founded a city, which they called Sicambria, where they remained many years and became a mighty people. Then came a time when the Roman emperor Valentinianus got into war with that wicked people called Alamanni (also Alani). He led a great army against them. The Alamanni were defeated, and fled to the Mceotian marshes. Then said the emperor, “If anyone dares to enter those marshes and drive away this wicked people, I shall for ten years make him free from all burdens “. When the Trojans heard this they went, accompanied by a Roman army, into the marshes, attacked the Alamanni, and hewed them down with their swords. Then the Trojans received from the emperor Valentinianus the name Franks, which, the chronicle adds, in the Attic tongue means the savage (feri), “for the Trojans had a defiant and indomitable character “.

For ten years afterwards the Trojans or Franks lived undisturbed by Roman tax-collectors; but after that the Roman emperor demanded that they should pay tribute. This they refused, and slew the tax-collectors sent to them. Then the emperor collected a large army under the command of Aristarcus, and strengthened it with auxiliary forces from many lands, and attacked the Franks, who were defeated by the superior force, lost their leader Priam, and had to take flight. They now proceeded under their leaders Markomir, Priam’s son, and Sunno, son of Antenor, away from Sicambria through Germany to the Rhine, and located there. Thus this chronicle.

About fifty years after its appearance—that is, in the time of Charlemagne, and, to be more accurate, about the year 787—the well-known Longobardian historian Paulus Diaconus wrote a history of the bishops of Metz. Among these bishops was the Frank Arnulf, from whom Charlemagne was descended in the fifth generation. Arnulf had two sons, one of whom was named Ansgisel, in a contracted form Ansgis. When Paulus speaks of this he remarks that it is thought that the name Ansgis comes from the father of iEneas, Anchises, who went from Troy to Italy; and he adds that according to evidence of older date the Franks were believed to be descendants of the Trojans. These evidences of older date we have considered above—Fredegar’s Chronicle and Gesta regum Francorum. Meanwhile this shows that the belief that the Franks were of Trojan descent kept spreading with the lapse of time. It hardly needs to be added that there is no good foundation for the derivation of Ansgisel or Ansgis from Anchises. Ansgisel is a genuine Teutonic name. (See No. 123 concerning Ansgisel, the emigration chief of the Teutonic myth.)

We now pass to the second half of the tenth century, and there we find the Saxon chronicler Widukind. When he is w tell the story of the origin of the Saxon people, he presents two conflicting accounts. The one is from a Saxon source, from old native traditions, which we shall discuss later; the other is from a scholastic source, and claims that the Saxons are of Macedonian descent. According to this latter account they were a remnant of the Macedonian army of Alexander the Great, which, as Widukind had learned, after Alexander’s early death, had spread over the whole earth. The Macedonians were at that time regarded as Hellenicised Trojans. In this connection I call the reader’s attention to Fredegar’s Chronicle referred to above, which tells that the Trojans, in the time of king Friga, disagreed among themselves, and that a part of them emigrated and settled in Macedonia. In this manner the Saxons, like the Franks, could claim a Trojan descent; and as England to a great extent was peopled by Saxon conquerors, the same honour was of course claimed by her people. In evidence of this, and to show that it was believed in England during the centuries immediately following Widukind’s time, that the Saxons and Angles were of Trojan blood, I will simply refer here to a pseudo-Sibylline manuscript found in Oxford and written in very poor Latin. It was examined by the French scholar Alexandre (Excursus ad Sibyllina, p. 298), and in it Britain is said to be an island inhabited by the survivors of the Trojans (insulam reliquiis Trqjanorum inhabitatam): In another British pseudo-Sibylline document it is stated that the Sibylla was a daughter of king Priam of Troy; and an effort has been made to add weight and dignity to this document by incorporating it with the works of the well-known Church historian Beda, and thus date it at the beginning of the eighth century, but the manuscript itself is a compilation from the time of Frederik Barbarossa (Excurs. ad Sib., p. 289). Other pseudo-Sibylline documents in Latin give accounts of a Sibylla who lived and prophesied in Troy. I make special mention of this fact, for the reason that in the Foreword of the Prose Edda it is similarly stated that Thor, the son of Priam’s daughter, was married to Sibil (Sibylla).

Thus when Franks and Saxons had been made into Trojans— the former into full-blooded Trojans and the latter into Hellenicised Trojans—it could not take long before their northern kinsmen received the same descent as a heritage. In the very nature of things the beginning must be made by those Northmen who became the conquerors and settlers of Normandy in the midst of “Trojan” Franks. About a hundred years after their settlement there they produced a chronicler, Dudo, deacon of St. Quentin. I have already shown that the Macedonians were regarded as Hellenicised Trojans. Together with the Hellenicising they had obtained the name Danai, a term applied to all Greeks. In his Norman Chronicle, which goes down to the year 996, Dudo relates (De mmnhis et gestis, &c., lib. i.) that the Norman men regarded themselves as Danai, for Danes (the Scandinavians in general) and Danai was regarded as the same race name. Together with the Normans the Scandinavians also, from whom they were descended, accordingly had to be made into Trojans. And thus the matter was understood by Dudo’s readers; and when Robert Wace wrote his rhymed chronicle, , Roman de Rou, about the northern conquerors of Normandy, and wanted to give an account of their origin, he could say, on the basis of a common tradition:

“When the walls of Troy in ashes were laid,
And the Greeks exceedingly glad were made,
Then fled from flames on the Trojan strand
The race that settled old Denmark’s land;
And in honour of the old Trojan reigns,
The people called themselves the Danes”.

I have now traced the scholastic tradition about the descent of the Teutonic races from Troy all the way from the chronicle where we first find this’ tradition recorded, down to the time when Are, Iceland’s first historian, lived, and when the Icelander Ssemund is said to have studied in Paris, the same century in which Sturlason, Heimskringla’s author, developed into manhood. Saxo^_rejected the theory current among the scholars of his time, that the northern races were Danai-Trojans. He knew that Dudo in St. Quentin was the authority upon which this belief was chiefly based, and he gives his Danes an entirely different origin, quanquam Dudo, rerum Aquitanicarum seriptor, Danos a Danais ortos nuncupatosque rccenseat. The Icelanders, on the other hand, accepted and continued to develop the belief, resting on the authority of five hundred years, concerning Troy as the starting-point for the Teutonic race; and in Iceland the theory is worked out and systematised as we have already seen, and is made to fit in a frame of the history of the world. The accounts given in Heimskringla and the Prose Edda in regard to the emigration from Asjjard form the natural denouement of an era which had existed for centuries, and in which the events of antiquity were able to group themselves around a common centre. All peoples and families of chiefs were located around the Mediterranean Sea, and every event and every hero was connected in some way or other with Troy. founding of colonies on foreign shores and the creating of new empires, were the things which especially stimulated their curiosity and captivated their fancy. The Latin literature which was to a greater or less extent accessible to the Teutonic priests, or to priests labouring among the Teutons, furnished abundant materials in regard to Troy both in classical and pseudo-classical authors. We need only call attention to Virgil and his commentator Servius, which became a mine of learning for the whole middle age, and among pseudo-classical works to Dares Phrygius’ Historia de Ezeidio Trojce (which was believed to have been written by a Trojan and translated by Cornelius Nepos !), to Dictys Cretensis’ Ephemeris belli Trqjani (the original of which was said to have been Phoenician, and found in Dictys’ alleged grave after an earthquake in the time of Nero I), and to “Pindari Thebani,” Epitome lliados Homeri.

In fact, a great part of the lands subject to the Roman sceptre were in ancient literature in some way connected with the Trojan war and its consequences: Macedonia and Epirus through the Trojan emigrant Helenus; Illyria and Venetia through the Trojan emigrant Autenor; Rhetia and Vindelicia through the Amazons, allies of the Trojans, from whom the inhabitants of these provinces were said to be descended (Servivs ad Virg., i. 248); Etruria through Dardanus, who was said to have emigrated from there to Troy; Latium and Campania through the ^Eueids; Sicily, the very home of the JEne&n traditions, through the relation between the royal families of Troy and Sicily; Sardinia (see Sallust); Gaul (see Lucanus and Ammianus Marcellinus); Carthage through the visit of ^Eneas to Dido; and of course all of Asia Minor. This was not all. According to the lost Argive History by Anaxikrates, Scamandrius, son of Hektor and Andromache, came with emigrants to Scythia and settled on the banks of the Tanais; and scarcely had Germany become known to the Romans, before it, too, became drawn into the cycle of Trojan stories, at least so far as to make this country visited by Ulysses on his many journeys and adventures (Tac., Germ.). Every educated Greek and Roman person’s fancy was filled from his earliest school-days with Troy, and traces of Dardanians and Danaians were found everywhere, just as the English in our time think they have found traces of the ten lost tribes of Israel both in the old and in the new world.

In the same degree as Christianity, Church learning, and Latin manuscripts were spread among the Teutonic tribes, there were disseminated among them knowledge of and an interest in the great Trojan stories. The native stories telling of Teutonic gods and heroes received terrible shocks from Christianity, but were rescued in another form on the lips of the people, and continued in their new guise to command their attention and devotion. In the class of Latin scholars which developed among the Christianised Teutons, the new stories learned from Latin literature, telling of Ilium, of the conflicts between Trojans and Greeks, of migrations, of the

Before the story of the Trojan descent of the Franks had beeo created, the Teuton Jordanes, active as a writer in the middle of the sixth century, had already found a place for his Gothic fellowcountrymen in the events of the great Trojan epic. Not that he made the Goths the descendants either of the Greeks or Trojans. On the contrary, he maintained the Goths’ own traditions in regard to their descent and their original home, a matter which I shall discuss later. But according to Orosius, who is Jordanes’ authority, the Goths were the same as the Getce, and when the identity of these was accepted, it was easy for Jordanes to connect the history of the Goths with the Homeric stories. A Gothic chief marries Priam’s sister and fights with Achilles and Ulysses (Jord., c. 9), and Ilium, having scarcely recovered from the war with Agamemnon, is destroyed a second time by Goths (c. 20).

The Origin Of The Story In Regard To The Trojan Descent Of The Franks.

We must now return to the Frankish chronicles, to Fredegar’s and Gesta regum Francorum, where the theory of the descent from Troy of a Teutonic tribe is presented for the first time, and thus renews the agitation handed down from antiquity, which attempted to make all ancient history a system of events radiating from Troy as their centre. I believe I am able to point out the sources of all

the statements made in these chronicles in reference to this subject, and also to find the very kernel out of which the illusion regarding the Trojan birth of the Franks grew.

As above stated, Fredegar admits that Virgil is the earliest authority for the claim that the Franks are descended from Troy. Fredegar’s predecessor, Gregorius of Tours, was ignorant of it, and, as already shown, the word Franks does not occur anywhere in Virgil. The discovery that he nevertheless gave information about the Franks and their origin must therefore have been made or known in the time intervening between Gregorius’ chronicle and Fredegar’s. Which, then, can be the passage in Virgil’s poems in which the discoverer succeeded in finding the proof that the Franks were Trojans? A careful examination of all the circumstances connected with the subject leads to the conclusion that the passage is in JUncis, lib. i., 242 ff.:

“Antenor potuit, mediis elapsus Achivis,
Illyricos penetrare sinus atque intima tutus
Regna Liburnorum, et fontem superare Timavi:
Unde per ora novem vasto cum murmere montis
It mare proruptum, et pelago premit arva sonanti.
Hie tamen ille urbem Patavi sedesque locavit

“Antenor, escaped from amidst the Greeks, could with safety penetrate the Illyrian Gulf and the inmost realms of Liburnia, and overpass the springs of Timavus, whence, through nine mouths, with loud echoing from the mountain, it bursts away, a sea impetuous, and sweeps the fields with a roaring deluge. Yet there he built the city of Padua and established a Trojan settlement.”

The nearest proof at hand, that this is really the passage which was interpreted as referring to the ancient history of the Franks, is based on the following circumstances:

Gregorius of Tours had found in the history of Sulpicius Alexander accounts of violent conflicts, on the west bank of the Rhine, between the Komans and Franks, the latter led by the chiefs Markomir and Sunno (Greg., Hist., ii. 9).

From Gregorius, Gesta regum Francorum has taken both these names. According to Gesta, the Franks, under the command of Markomir and Sunno, emigrate from Pannonia, near the Moeotian marshes, and settle on the Rhine.

Virgil’s account of Antenor’s and his Trojans’ journey to Europe from fallen Troy refers to the emigration of the father of the Frankish chief Sunno at the head of a tribe of Franks. And as Gesta’s predecessor, the so-called Fredegar, appeals to Virgil as his authority for this Frankish emigration, and as the wanderings of Antenor are nowhere else mentioned by the Roman poet, there can be no doubt that the lines above quoted were the very ones which were regarded as the Virgiliau evidence in regard to a Frankish emigration from Troy.

But how did it come to be regarded as an evidence 1

Virgil says that Antenor, when he had escaped the Achivians, succeeded in penetrating Illyricos sinus, the very heart of Illyria. The name Illyricum served to designate all the regions inhabited by kindred tribes extending from the Alps to the mouth of the Danube and from the Danube to the Adriatic Sea and Hsemus (cp. Marquardt Rom. Staatsvervmlt, 295). To Illyricum belonged the Roman provinces Dalmatia, Paunonia, and Mcesia, and the Pannonians were an Illyrian tribe. In Pannonia Gregorius of Tours had located the Franks in early times. Thus Antenor, with his Trojans, on their westward journey, traverses the same regions from which, according to Gregorius, the Franks had set out for the Rhine.

Virgil also says that Antenor extended his journeys to the Liburnian kingdoms (regno Libumorum). From Servius’ commentary on this passage, the middle age knew that the Liburnian kingdoms were Rhetia and Vindelicia (Rhetia Vindeliei ipsi sunt Libimii). Rhetia and Vindelicia separate Pannonia from the Rhine. Antenor, accordingly, takes the same route toward the West as the Franks must have taken if they came from Panuonia to the Rhine.

Virgil then brings Antenor to a river, which, it is true, is called Timavus, but which is described as a mighty stream, coming thundering out of a mountainous region, where it has its source, carrying with it a mass of water which the poet compares with a sea, forming before it reaches the sea a delta, the plains of which are deluged by the billow’s, and finally emptying itself by many outlets into the ocean. Virgil says nine; but Servius interprets this as meaning many: “finitus est numerus pro infinito “. these battles was not the Mceotian marshes and Pannonia, as Gesta supposes, but the regions on the Rhina

We must pardon the Frankish scribes for taking this river to be the Rhine; for if a water-course is to be looked for in Europe west of the land of the Liburnians, which answers to the Virgilian description, then this must be the Rhine, on whose banks the ancestors of the Franks for the first time appear in history.

Again, Virgil tells us that Antenor settled near this river and founded a colony—Patavium—on the low plains of the delta. The Salian Franks acquired possession of the low and flat regions around the outlets of the Rhine (Insula Batavorum) about the year 287, and also of the land to the south as far as to the Scheldt; and after protracted wars the Romans had to leave them the control of this region. By the very occupation of this low country, its conquerors might properly be called Batavian Franks. It is only necessary to call attention to the similarity of the words Patavi and Batavi, in order to show at the same time that the conclusion could scarcely be avoided that Virgil had reference to the immigration of the Franks when he spoke of the wanderings of Antenor, the more so, since from time out of date the pronunciation of the initials B and P have been interchanged by the Germans. In the conquered territory the Franks founded a city (Ammian. Marc., xvii 2, 5).

Thus it appears that the Franks were supposed to have migrated to the Rhine under the leadership of Antenor. The first Frankish chiefs recorded, after their appearance there, are Markomir and Sunno. From this the conclusion was drawn that Sunno was Antenor’s sou; and as Markomir ought to be the son of some celebrated Trojan chief, he was made the son of Priam. Thus we have explained Fredegar’s statement that Virgil is his authority for the Trojan descent of these Franks. This seemed to be established for all time.

The wars fought around the Moeotian marshes between the emperor Valentiuianus, the Alamanni, and the Franks, of which Gesta speaks, are not wholly inventions of the fancy. The historical kernel in this confused semi-mythical narrative is that Valentinianus really did fight with the Alamanni, and that the Franks for some time were allies of the Romans, and came into conflict with those same Alamanni (Ammian. Marc, libs, xxx., xxxi.). But the scene of

The unhistorical statement of Gregorius that the Franks came from Pannonia is based only on the fact that Frankish warriors for some time formed a Sicambra cohors, which about the year 26 was incorporated with the Roman troops stationed in Pannonia and Thracia, The cohort is believed to have remained in Hungary and formed a colony, where Buda now is situated. Gesta makes Pannonia extend from the Moeotian marshes to Tanais, since, according to Gregorius and earlier chroniclers, these waters were the boundary between Europe and Asia, and since Asia was regarded as a synonym of the Trojan empire. Virgil had called the Trojan kingdom Asia: Postquam res Asic e Priamique evertere gentem, &c. (AVneid, iii. 1).

The Roman Gauls and the Franks were represented as having been one people in the time of the Trojan war. After the fall of the common fatherland they were divided into two separate tribes, with separate destinies, until they refound each other in the west of Europe, to dwell together again in Gaul. This explains how it came to pass that, when they thought they had found evidence of this view in Virgil, this was at once accepted, and was so eagerly adopted that the older traditions in regard to the origin and migrations of the Franks were thrust aside and consigned to oblivion. History repeats itself a third time when the Normans conquered and became masters of that part of Gaul which after them is called Normandy. Dudo, their chronicler, says that they regarded themselves as being ex Antenore progenitos, descendants of Antenor. This is sufficient proof that they had borrowed from the Franks the tradition in regard to their Trojan descent.

Who occupied Troy at its fall?
The date of Troy VIIa’s destruction probably lies within the half-century ca. 1230-1180 B.C., although Blegen ultimately placed it a generation or so earlier and Podzuweit has recently suggested that it should be set a good deal later.

On the basis of the Iliad and Odyssey specifically and of Greek tradition in general, the destroyers of Troy VIIa have traditionally been identified as Mycenaean Greeks from the central and southern Greek Mainland. However, there is nothing in the archaeological evidence to identify precisely who the attackers were. Indeed, there is at least some archaeological evidence which suggests that the attackers were not Mycenaeans. For example, are the Mainland Greeks likely to have destroyed Troy at more or less the same time as their own centers in the Peloponnese were being destroyed? It is possible to answer this question in the affirmative if the Peloponnesian destructions were due to natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes, as most recently argued in the cases of Tiryns and Mycenae) or if they were a direct result of the absence of large numbers of potential defenders who were away besieging Troy, although both scenarios do seem to stretch coincidence to its limits. Perhaps more significant is the fact that the “Coarse Ware” of Troy VIIb1, a class of pottery which makes its first appearance at Troy immediately after the destruction of Troy VIIa, is very closely related to the handmade and burnished pottery which appears in more or less contemporary contexts of the early LH IIIC period at a number of sites on the Greek Mainland as well as in Cyprus, southern Italy, and Sicily. In none of these areas does this pottery have local antecedents, and it has been argued by Deger-Jalkotzy that such pottery is to be derived ultimately from ceramic traditions at home in the Middle Danube area of central Europe. The “Coarse Ware” of Troy VIIb1 may be interpreted as identifying the sackers of Troy VIIa, a population group who crossed the Hellespont at the end of their journey from the Middle Danube through Rumania to Turkish Thrace. Similar groups may have been involved with the sacking of numerous major Mycenaean sites in the Peloponnese at the end of the LH IIIB period. One of several weaknesses of such a reconstruction of events, it must be confessed, is the fact that the quantities of “Coarse Ware” in Troy VIIb1, like those of the related handmade and burnished pottery at Mainland Greek Mycenaean sites in the early LH IIIC period, are relatively small. Did the makers of such pottery indeed play as important a role in the political and military history of the end of the Aegean Bronze Age as some authorities impute to them?

Desborough (1964)

Desborough cautiously suggested the possibility of an invasion by land from the north, although at the time he wrote he was acutely conscious of the fact that there was virtually no evidence, except for the destruction levels and widespread abandonments themselves, for the presence of such invaders. He did point out that a few new classes of bronze objects, the {fibula} [or safety-pins] and the cut-and-thrust swords of the so-called “Naue II” type, make their first appearance in the Mycenaean world ca. 1200 B.C. However, these objects always appear in “good Mycenaean” contexts such as chamber tombs with otherwise standard Mycenaean funeral assemblages. They consequently do not appear to have belonged exclusively to an intrusive, non-Mycenaean population element. As a result, Snodgrass (1974) concluded that objects of these kinds need not be taken as evidence of the invasion or immigration of northern peoples from the western Danube basin into the Aegean (as argued by Grumach, Milojcic, and Gimbutas, among others) because they could be considered simply as “good ideas” which “caught on” in the Aegean area at much the same time as similar objects first appeared in northern Italy and in the early Urnfield cemeteries of the Danube basin. All such objects, Snodgrass argued, could have been imported initially and locally copied thereafter by peoples indigenous to the areas in question, rather than necessarily being the belongings of invaders.

Rutter (1975, 1990), Walberg (1976), Deger-Jalkotzy (1977, 1983), Small (1990, 1997), Pilides (1994), Bankoff, Meyer, and Stefanovich (1996)

Rutter, following in the footsteps of E. French, identified a non-Mycenaean handmade and burnished class of pottery in early LH IIIC contexts at Korakou, Mycenae, Lefkandi, and a few other sites in central and southern Greece. Since this pottery was locally made, it constituted evidence for the presence of a non-Mycenaean population element within Mycenaean Greece in the period immediately following the destruction of the major Peloponnesian centers. This handmade and burnished pottery, in Rutter’s view, had its closest parallels in the “Coarse Ware” of Troy VIIb1 and in the pottery of the Final Bronze Age Coslogeni culture of southeastern Rumania. Rutter therefore suggested that there might be a connection between the makers of this non-Mycenaean pottery and the destroyers of both Troy VIIa and of the Mycenaean centers in the Peloponnese.

Deger-Jalkotzy, publishing similar non-Mycenaean ceramics from early LH IIIC contexts at the coastal site of Aigeira in Achaea, argued that similar pottery was to be found not only in Troy and Rumania but also in Sicily and southern Italy. In all cases, this pottery had no local ancestry and was presumably evidence for intrusive population groups. Such groups were probably not large (i.e. not comparable in scale to the migrating tribes who contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries A.D.), but rather small bands of pirates, freebooters, and unemployed mercenaries. The original homeland of these groups, from which they filtered down into various areas of the Mediterranean by a number of different routes, was the central Danube. These warrior bands, comparable in terms of their activities and organization to the Vikings of the 7th to 10th centuries A.D., may indeed have constituted the nucleus of the raiders known later to the Egyptians as the Sea Peoples.


[1] When the arrival of Antenor and Talthybius was known at Troy, all the Trojans and their allies rushed to meet them, desiring to learn what had happened among the Greeks. But Antenor postponed his report until the next day, and so they dispersed and went home.

Then, at a banquet, in the presence of Talthybius, Antenor advised his sons to consider nothing so important in life as their long-standing friendship with Greece and recalled, with evident admiration, the honor, good faith, and guilelessness of individual Greeks.

After the meal, they parted company. But at daybreak Antenor and Talthybius went to the meeting of the council. (The elders were already there, eager to find some end to their dreadful afflictions.) Aeneas was the next to arrive, and then Priam and the rest of the princes. At last Antenor, having been ordered to tell what he had heard from the Greeks, spoke as follows:

[2] “It is a sad thing, Trojan princes and Trojan allies, it is a sad thing for us to be at war with the Greeks, but it is an even sadder and more painful thing that for the sake of a woman we have made enemies of the closest friends, of those who, being descendants of Pelops, are joined to us even by ties of marriage.

“If I may briefly touch on the past evils we have suffered, when has our city ever found rest, once it was lost in this quagmire of sorrows? When have we ever been without tears? When have you allies ever seen your misfortunes decrease? When have our friends, parents, relatives, and sons not been dying in battle? And, to sum up the rest of our sorrows with a personal allusion, what suffering have I not endured in the case of Glaucus, my son? His death, however, was not so painful to me as the fact that he had accompanied Alexander in the abduction of Helen.

“But enough of the past. Let us, at least, look to the future with caution and wisdom. The Greeks are faithful and true; they are rich in kindness and pious in doing their duty. Priam is a witness to this, for, in the very heat of the battle, he reaped the fruit of their pity. The Greeks were not so rash as to declare war against us until we had treated their envoys – even their envoys! – with treachery and guile. It is my opinion that Priam and his sons were to blame in this matter, and also Antimachus, who has recently paid for his guilt with the loss of his sons. But the real blame for everything that has happened rests upon Helen, that woman whom not even the Greeks really want to recover. Why should we keep this woman on whose account no nation, no people, has ever been friendly or even non-hostile to us? Shall we not, rather, eagerly beg the Greeks to take her again? And shall we not offer complete compensation for all the ways we have harmed them? Shall we not be reconciled with such men at least in the future?

“For my own part, I am leaving; I am going away. I refuse to share in these crimes any longer. There was a time when it was pleasing to live in this city; until now we had allies and friends; our relatives were safe, our country unharmed. But now we have partially or totally lost all of these things. Who can deny it? I can no longer endure to remain with those whose work is all destined to ruin along with the fall of their country.

“Until now, it is true, we have found some way to bury our dead; the enemy granted this favor. But now the altars and shrines of the gods have been criminally desecrated with human blood. And thus, being unable to hold our dear ones’ funerals, we will suffer even more than when they died.

“At least prevent this from happening now. Our native land must be redeemed with gold and other ransom of this sort. There are many in our city who are rich; each must give whatever he can. We must offer the Greeks, in return for our lives, what they will have soon enough if they kill us. Let us give even the ornaments of our temples, if otherwise we cannot save our city.

“As for Priam, let only him keep all his wealth, let only him consider riches more important than his people, let him, the brooding miser, have even the things they carried off with Helen and see how best to use his country’s sorrows. Now our sins have found us out, and we are conquered.”

[3] He was weeping as he spoke these and other things, and everyone was mourning. Stretching their hands toward heaven, they showed their agreement, praying, individually and together, that Priam, in view of their many adversities, should bring an end to their miseries. And finally, with one voice, they shouted that their native land must be redeemed.

Then Priam, tearing his hair and weeping in a pitiable way, addressed them. Now, he said, he was not only hated by the gods but was even considered a public enemy by his own people. Formerly he had friends, relatives, and fellow citizens to comfort him in his misfortunes, but now none was to be found. He had wanted to begin negotiations when Alexander and Hector were living and not wait until now. No one, however, was able to remedy the past; they must plan for the present and put their hopes in the future. He offered all that he had for the redemption of Troy, and instructed Antenor to see to the matter. But now, since they hated him so, he was leaving their presence. Whatever they decided to do was agreeable to him.

[4] When the king had left, they decided that Antenor should return to the Greeks and learn what terms they wanted exactly; and that Aeneas, as he desired, should go along too. Thus the council broke up.

About midnight, Helen came to Antenor secretly. She suspected that they were about to return her to Menelaus and feared that she would be punished for having abandoned her home. Accordingly, she begged him to mention her, when he spoke among the Greeks, and plead in her behalf. Now that Alexander was dead, she hated all Troy, as they knew, and wanted to return to her people.

At daybreak, Antenor and Aeneas came to the ships and told us all about their city’s descision. Then they withdrew with those they had talked to before, to plan what action to take. It was during these discussions about Troy and their nation that they also told about Helen’s desires and asked forgiveness for her; and finally they agreed on how best to betray their city.

When they were ready, they returned to Troy, accompanied by Ulysses and Diomedes. Ajax also wanted to go, but Aeneas made him remain, arguing, no doubt, that the Trojans were afraid of him no less than they had been afraid of Achilles and, therefore, might take him by treachery.

The hopes of all Trojans were raised when they saw that our leaders had come. They thought this meant that war and conflict were going to end. A meeting of the council was quickly called and there, in the presence of our men, they decided, first of all, to exile Antimachus from all of Phrygia, for he, to be sure, was the cause of their terrible troubles. Then they began to discuss the terms of peace.

[5] During their discussions, a huge crash and much shouting suddenly arose from Pergamum, where Priam’s palace was located. Those in the council, being thrown into confusion, ran outside and, thinking that the princes, as usual, had done some treacherous deed, they rushed to the temple of Minerva. Soon afterwards, however, they learned, from those who came from the citadel, that the sons of Alexander, his children by Helen, had perished, crushed when the roof of their home had collapsed. The names of these sons were Bunomus,1 Corythus, and Idaeus.

The business of the council was thus deferred, and our leaders went off to Antenor’s, there to dine and spend the night. Moreover, they learned from Antenor about an oracle which once had informed the Trojans that Troy would fall in ruins, if the Palladium was carried outside the walls of the city. (The Palladium was an ancient statue in the temple of Minerva; it was made of wood, and had fallen from heaven and taken its place when Ilus was building the temple, and all but the roof was complete.)

Antenor agreed to help our men, just as they urged, in very way; he would do whatever they wanted. Nevertheless, he warned them that, at the meeting of the Trojan council, he would speak out boldly and openly oppose the demands the Greeks were making; in order, no doubt, to give the barbarians no grounds to suspect him.

Their plans being thus completed, at daybreak Antenor went, along with the Trojan nobles, to Priam; and our leaders returned to the ships.

[6] The sons of Alexander were buried with due ceremony. Three days later Idaeus came and summoned our leaders (those mentioned above). Panthus2 and the other Trojans who were known for their wisdom made long speeches in which they explained that their previous actions had been rash and ill-advised. They had been constrained, they said, to act according to the will of the princes, by whom they were hated and counted as naught. They had not taken up arms against Greece willingly, for those who must follow another’s command must look to his nod and try to obey it. Therefore, the Greeks should grant forgiveness and be willing to confer with those who had always been hoping for peace. Moreover, the Trojans had already suffered enough for their ill-advised acts.

After a long discussion of this point and that, finally the question of tribute was raised. Diomedes asked for five thousand talents of gold, and a like number of silver, besides one hundred thousand measures of wheat, for a period of ten years.

Then all the Trojans were silent, except for Antenor. He said that the Greeks were not acting like Greeks but barbarians. Since they demanded what was impossible, it was evident that they were planning for war under a pretext of peace. Moreover, Troy had never had as much gold and silver as Greece was demanding, not even before she had gone to the expense of hiring auxiliaries. If the Greeks persisted in these unscrupulous demands, the Trojans must shut their gates and burn the temples of their gods, and offer themselves and their country to one and the same destruction.

Diomedes answered: “We did not come from Argos to give special terms to Troy, but to fight you to the death. Therefore, if you are still desirous of war, the Greeks are ready, or if, as you say, you wish to burn your city, we will not prevent you. The Greeks, when treated unjustly, take vengeance. That is their way.”

Then Panthus asked for a day’s reprieve during which to ponder the Greek proposal. Thus our men went home with Antenor, and from there to the temple of Minerva.

[7] Meanwhile news of a remarkable portent was brought. It had occurred during the offering of sacrifices. Victims had been placed on the altars as usual. But he fire, having been lit, had not caught or burned in the usual way but had left the offering untouched.

This news startled the people, and they rushed to the temple of Apollo to prove for themselves whether or not it was true. When they had placed parts of entrails on the altar and lit the fire, suddenly everything was thrown into confusion; the entrails fell to the ground. Then, while everyone was struck with astonishment, an eagle, swift and screeching, dove down and caught up a piece of the entrails and, soaring off, carried it away to the sips and there let it fall.

The Trojans received this omen as a great and very clear sign portending their doom. Diomedes and Ulysses, however, pretended not to know what had happened and walked around in the public square, like sightseers, marveling at the wonderful buildings of Troy.

We at the ships, were also pondering the portent’s meaning. And Calchas told us to be of good cheer, for we would be masters of Troy in short order.

[8] When Hecuba learned of the portent, she went to placate the gods, especially Minerva and Apollo, with many gifts and rich sacrifices. But just as before, the fire refused to burn the victims and died out quickly.

Then Cassandra became divinely inspired and ordered the victims to be carried to Hector’s tomb. She said that the gods were angry and were rejecting their sacrifices because of the crime they had recently committed against the religion of Apollo. Thus, following her orders, they slew the bulls and took them to Hector’s pyre, where, when the fire was lit, the sacrifice was completely consumed. With the coming of evening, they returned to their homes.

During that night Antenor secretly went to the temple of Minerva and, threatening the priestess Theano3 with force and promising that she would be richly rewarded, begged her to give the Palladium to him. This she did; and thus he, being true to our men, carried it off to them. And they, having wrapped it up so that no one could tell what it was, sent it away in a cart to the hut of Ulysses through close and faithful friends.

With the coming of dawn, the Trojan council met. When our envoys had entered, Antenor, as though fearing the wrath of the Greeks, begged their forgiveness for having previously spoken so boldly against them in behalf of his native land.

Ulysses replied that he was not disturbed by this so much as by the fact that negotiations were being prolonged, especially when the favourable time for sailing was quickly passing.

After a long discussion, they finally agreed on a sum of two thousand talents of gold and two thousand of silver.

Then our envoys returned to the ships to make their report to our men. When our leaders had been assembled, they told them all that had been said and done, and how Antenor had carried the Palladium off. Thereupon, since all our leaders thought best, the rest of the soldiers were given the news.

[9] In view of these developments we decided unanimously to show our gratitude to Minerva by making a splendid offering to her. Helenus was summoned to tell us how to proceed. Using his prophetic powers (he had not been informed), he was able to give a detailed account of everything that had happened so far. And he also said that Troy was doomed now that the Palladium, the safeguard of Troy, had been carried away. We must, he said, offer a wooden horse to Minerva; this gift would prove fatal to Troy. The horse must be so large that the Trojans would have to breach their walls; Antenor would urge and advise them to do this. As Helenus was speaking, the thought of his father, Priam, and of his brothers who were still living caused him to burst into tears; his grief was so strong that he lost all control of himself and collapsed.

When he had come to his senses and was able to rise, Neoptolemus took him in charge. He had him guarded for fear he might somehow inform the enemy about what had happened. But Helenus, seeing himself under guard, told Neoptolemus there was nothing to worry about, for he would prove faithful and, after Troy’s fall, would live with Neoptolemus in Greece many years.

And so, following Helenus’ advice, we brought in a great deal of wood for building the horse. Epeus and Ajax the son of Oileus were in charge of this work.

[10] Meanwhile ten leaders were chosen to go to Troy and ratify the terms of the peace: Diomedes, Ulysses, Idomeneus, Ajax the son of Telamon, Nestor, Meriones, Thoas, Philoctetes, Neoptolemus, and Eumelus.

The Trojans, seeing our men in their public square, rejoiced, believing that now their afflictions would end. Individually and in groups, whenever they met them, they greeted them warmly and embraced them like loved ones.

Priam implored our leaders on behalf of Helenus and commended him to them with many prayers. Helenus, he said, was his dearest son, dearer because of his wisdom than all of the others.

When dinnertime came, the Trojans held a public banquet in honor of the Greeks and in celebration of the peace they were making. Antenor was host and graciously served every need of our men.

At daybreak all the elders convened in the temple of Minerva, and Antenor officially announced that ten envoys had been sent by the Greeks to ratify the terms of the peace. Thereupon the envoys were escorted into the council, and they and the elders shook hands. It was decided to ratify the peace on the following day. Sacred oaths must be sworn, for the purpose of which altars must be raised in the center of the plain where all could see.

When preparations had been made, Diomedes and Ulysses were first to sear. Calling on Highest Jupiter, Mother Earth, Sun, Moon, and Ocean to be their witnesses, they promised to abide by the agreements which they had made with Antenor. Then they walked through the center of the portions of the sacrificial victims. (Two victims had been brought, the portions of which had been laid out, half in an easterly direction and half in the direction of our ships.) Diomedes and Ulysses were followed by Antenor, who took the same oath. After ratifying the terms of the peace in this way, both sides returned to their people.

The barbarians heaped highest praises upon Antenor, reverencing him like a god whenever he approached. They believed that he alone was responsible for the treaty and peace with the Greeks.

Now everywhere, as both sides wished, war had ceased. Greeks felt free to go to Troy. Trojans came among the ships. And the Trojan allies – who were still alive – went home, taking advantage of the treaty and feeling thankful for peace, not even waiting to be paid for their hardships and troubles, fearing, no doubt, that the barbarians would somehow break the agreements.

[11] During this time, at the ships, Epeus, following Helenus’ advice, was directing the building of the wooden horse. It towered to an immense height. Wheels were put beneath its feet to make it easier to draw along. It was the greatest offering ever to be given to Minerva. Everyone said so.

At Troy, Antenor and Aeneas were making sure that the exact amount of gold and silver, in accordance with the terms of the peace, was carried to the temple of Minerva.

And we, having learned that the allies of the Trojans had left, were careful to keep the terms of the peace. There was no more killing and no more wounding, lest the barbarians suspect that we were breaking agreements.

When the wooden horse had been built, complete in all points, we drew it out to the walls. The Trojans were told to receive it religiously as a sacred offering to Minerva. They poured from their gates and joyously welcomed the horse. A sacrifice was made, and they drew it nearer the city. When, however, they saw that the horse was too large to pass through their gates, they decided, their enthusiasm blinding them to any objections, to tear down their walls. Thus they all joined in, and tore down their walls, those walls which had stood for centuries unharmed, and which, as tradition told, were the masterwork of Neptune and Apollo.4

When the work of demolition was almost complete, the Greeks purposely caused a delay. We said that the Trojans must pay the gold and silver they had promised before they could draw the horse into Troy. Thus there was an interval of time during which, the walls being half demolished, Ulysses hired all of the Trojan carpenters to help repair the ships.

When our fleet had thus been put in order, along with all of our sailing gear, and when the gold and silver had been paid, we ordered the Trojans to continue their work of destruction. As soon as a part of the walls was down, a crowd of joking men and women merrily hastened to draw the horse within their city.

[12] Meanwhile we, having stowed everything on the ships and having set fire to our huts, sailed off to Sigeum and there awaited the night.

When the Trojans, being worn out with carousing and feeling happy and secure because of the peace, had fallen asleep, we returned to the city, sailing through the dead silence, following the beacon that Sinon raised from his hidden position. Soon we had entered the walls and divided the city among us. At a given signal, we slaughtered whomever we found – in homes, on streets, in places sacred and profane. Some of the Trojans awoke, but these were cut down before they could reach for their arms or think of a way to escape. There was, in short, no end to death and slaughter. Parents and children were killed, while loved ones watched and lamented, and then the latter were killed – a pitiable sight. With equal dispatch, the buildings of the city were set on fire and destroyed; the only homes to be saved were those of Aeneas and Antenor, where guards had been posted. Priam, seeing what was happening, fled to the altar of Jupiter that stood in front of the palace. And many members of the royal family fled to other shrines of the gods; Cassandra, for instance, went to the temple of Minerva. All who fell into the hands of the enemy died cruelly, without anyone to avenge them.

At daybreak our forces came to the house where Helen was living with Deiphobus. He (as already described) had taken her to wife when Alexander had died. Now Menelaus tortured him to death, brutally cutting him to pieces, lopping off ears and arms and nose and so forth.

And Neoptolemus, with no respect for old age or the office of king, slaughtered Priam, both of whose hands were clutching the altar.

And Ajax the son of Oileus dragged off Cassandra from the temple of Minerva to be his captive.

[13] Thus we destroyed Troy and the Trojans. But still there were those who were seeking protection at the altars of gods. We decided unanimously to pull them away and kill them; so great was our lust for vengeance and our will to destroy the power o the Trojans. Accordingly, those who had escaped the slaughter of the previous night, those trembling sheep, were slaughtered. And, as is usual in war, we pillaged the temples and half-burned houses, and for many a day hunted down any of the enemy who might have escaped. Places were designated where objects of gold and of silver and costly garments were brought.

When we were sated with Trojan blood, and the city was burned to the ground, we divided the booty, in payment of our military service, beginning with the captive women and children. First of all, Helen was freely given to Menelaus; then Polyxena, at the request of Ulysses, was given to Neoptolemus, to sacrifice to Achilles; Cassandra was given to Agamemnon (he had been so moved by her beauty that, in spite of himself, he had openly said that he loved her); and Aethra and Clymene were given to Demophoon and Acamas. The other women were apportioned by lot, and thus Andromache fell to Neoptolemus (to honor whose greatness, we further allowed Andromache’s sons to accompany her); and Hecuba fell to Ulysses. After enslaving the women of royal birth, we allotted booty and captives to the rest of our men in proportion as they deserved.

[14] Heated contention arose at this time as to which of our leaders should have the Pallantium.5 Ajax the son of Telamon demanded it in payment for the booty his courage and zeal had brought to us all. There was almost no one who was willing to offend a man of such greatness, for we vividly remembered his deeds on offense and defense. Only Diomedes and Ulysses stood in his way; they based their claims to the Palladium on the fact that they had carried it off. But Ajax swore that Antenor, who had hoped thereby to win their friendship, had carried the Palladium off; and this, he said, had caused them no trouble and made no demands on their courage. Thereupon Diomedes modestly yielded to Ajax. But not so Ulysses, who contended, with all of his force, that he should have the Palladium.

Menelaus and Agamemnon favored the cause of Ulysses, for they remembered how Helen had been saved, just a little before, by his aid. When Troy had been taken, Ajax had been the first to propose that she should be killed because of the troubles and sufferings she had caused for so long a time. Many good men had assented. But Menelaus, still loving his wife, had gone the rounds, and plead for her life, and finally, through the intercession of Ulysses, had won her back unharmed.

And so we decided between Ajax and Ulysses, judging only their merits in this particular case. It made no difference which was the bravest. Yes, Ajax had performed many valorous deeds, and brought back grain from Thrace, but these were matters not pertinent here. Thus, in spite of the fact that we were surrounded by enemies and still threatened with war, the Palladium went to Ulysses.

[15] This decision caused our men to split into two factions: those who, remembering the brave deeds of Ajax, thought that no one was better than he; and those who favored Ulysses. Ajax was so angry that he lost control of himself and openly swore to kill those who had thwarted his claim. Accordingly, Ulysses, Agamemnon, and Menelaus increased their guard and kept careful watch for their personal safety. With the coming of night, as we departed, we all cursed and reviled the two kings, blaming them for letting the lust for a women endanger the army.

At daybreak we found Ajax, out in the open, dead; upon closer investigation, we discovered that he had been killed with a sword. A great tumult arose among our leaders and men, and soon a full-grown rebellion was under way. We felt that just as Palamedes, our wisest counsellor in war and peace, had been treacherously slain, so now Ajax, our most distinguished commander, had met a similar end.

Agamemnon and Menelaus stayed in their huts, guarded by trusted companions, and avoided any possible violence.

Meanwhile Neoptolemus brought wood and cremated the body of Ajax; then he gathered the remains in a golden urn and had them buried in Rhoeteum.6 He also dedicated a monument in honor of Ajax, and this was quickly constructed.

If Ajax had died before Troy had been taken, certainly the cause of the enemy would have been greatly promoted. Who knows how the war might have ended?

Ulysses, knowing that he was hated by the army, feared personal violence, and fled across to Ismaros. He left the Palladium behind for Diomedes to have.

[16] After the departure of Ulysses, Hecuba, preferring death to enslavement, called down many curses and evil omens upon us, and we, being terribly provoked, stoned her to death. Her tomb which was raised at Abydos, was called Cynossema (The Tomb of the Bitch) because of her mad and shameless barking.

At the same time Cassandra, inspired by the god, predicted that Agamemnon would die, treacherously slaughtered by members of his household. Furthermore, she said, death and disaster awaited he rest of the Greeks, as they tried to return to their homelands.

Antenor begged us, in behalf of his people, to forget about vengeance and think of ourselves, for the time for sailing was passing. Having invited our leaders to dinner, he loaded them down with marvelous gifts.

Our leaders were urging Aeneas to sail along with us to Greece and promised to give him a kingdom as powerful as any they ruled.

Helenus was rewarded with the sons of Hector, whom Neoptolemus gave him, and with all the gold and silver which the rest of our leaders felt they should give him.

Then a meeting of the council was called, and we decided to hold a public funeral, to last for three days, in honor of Ajax. When the third day came to an end, all of our kings cut off their hair, which then they placed on the tomb.

From this time on, we began to revile Agamemnon and Menelaus, saying that they were not the sons of Atreus but of Plisthenes, and therefore ignoble. They, hoping that if they were gone our hatred would vanish, begged us to let them depart without harm. This we permitted; and so, like outcasts or exiles, they were the first to set sail.

We gave the sons of Ajax to Teucer. They were Aeantides and Eurysaces, whose mothers were Glauce and Tecmessa respectively.

[17] Winter was coming on fast and threatened to prevent us from sailing. Accordingly, we drew our ships down to the sea and fitted them out with oars and other equipment. Then we departed, each with the booty he had gained for all those years of fighting.

After our departure, Aeneas, who had been left behind at Troy, tried to drive Antenor out of the kingdom. Leaving the city, he approached all those who were inhabitants of Dardanum and the peninsula nearby, and begged them to help him. He was unsuccessful, however; and when he tried to return to Troy, Antenor, who had learned what was happening, refused him admittance. And so Aeneas was forced to set sail. Taking all of his patrimony, he departed from Troy and eventually arrived in the Adriatic Sea, after passing many barbarous peoples. Here he and those who were with him founded a city, which they called Corcyra Melaena (Black Corcyra).

When it was known at Troy that Antenor had gained control of the kingdom, all the survivors of the war, those who had escaped the slaughter of that fearful night, supported his rule. In practically no time his following had increased to immense proportions. Everyone loved him and trusted his wisdom. His closest friend was Oenideus, the king of the Cebrenians.

I, Dictys of Cnossos, the companion of Idomeneus, have written this account in the language (how many there are!) I best understand, using the Phoenician alphabet bequeathed to us by Cadmus and Danaus. No one should marvel that many different languages are spoken on this one island of mine, for such is the case all over Greece. Everything I have written about he war between the Greeks and the barbarians, in which I took a very active part, is based on first-hand knowledge. What I have told about Antenor and his kingdom was learned on inquiry from others.

Now it is time to relate the returns of our men.

entry abiegnus: … equus, i. e. the wooden horse before Troy , Prop. 4, 1, 25 (
entry Achaeus2: … .— Portus Achaeorum, the harbor before Troy , where the Greeks landed , Plin. 4
entry Achivus: … the (Grecian) kings are guilty of (before Troy) their subjects must suffer for; but it
entry Agamemnon: … Electra , commander-in-chief of the Grecian forces before Troy , and murdered by his wife , with the … phalanges, i. e. the Grecian troops before Troy , commanded by Agamemnon , Verg. A
entry Alastor: … Sarpedon , king of Lycia , killed by Ulysses before Troy , Ov. M. 13, 257 .—
entry Anchises: … of Æneas , who bore him forth from burning Troy upon his shoulders , Enn. Ann. 1, 30
entry Andraemon: … m. , father of Thoas , a combatant before Troy , Ov. M. 13, 357 ; cf. Hom
entry Andromache: … , and wife of Hector. After the destruction of Troy, she was carried by Pyrrhus to Greece, and was
entry ante: … cladis condiderunt, a year before the fall of Troy , Just. 18, 3, 5 :
entry Antenor: … making peace with the Greeks; after the fall of Troy , he went to Italy and founded Patavium (
entry Antilochus: … a son of Nestor , slain by Hector before Troy , Hor. C. 2, 9, 14 ;
entry Antiphates: … , who sunk the fleet of the Greeks returning from Troy with Ulysses , and devoured one of his companions
entry Astyanax: … Son of Hector and Andromache; at the destruction of Troy he was thrown from a tower by Ulysses ,
entry Aulis: … otia , from which the Grecian fleet set sail for Troy , Verg. A. 4, 426 : Aulin (
entry Calchas: … Thestor , the most distinguished seer among the Greeks before Troy , Verg. A. 2, 122 ; 2,
entry Caphareus: … and father of Palamedes , who had been slain before Troy; now Capo del Oro , or Xylofago ,
entry Cassandra: … but was believed by no one. After the destruction of Troy she became the bondmaid of Agamemnon , and was
entry cedo1: … i. e. who remained unhurt in the destruction of Troy , Ov. M. 15, 862 :
entry Clytaemnestra: … her paramour, Aegisthus, murdered her husband on his return from Troy, and was on that account put to death by
entry Coroebus: … freed Cassandra. and fought for Priam against the Greeks before Troy , Verg. A. 2, 341 ; 2,
entry Danaus: … the Greeks (esp. freq. of the Greeks before Troy), Cic. Tusc. 4, 23, 52 ;
entry Dardanus1: … Dardania, in Troas, and ancestor of the royal race of Troy , Att. ap. Schol. Bern. ad Verg. G
entry decennis: … (post-Aug.): bellum, of the Greeks before Troy, Quint. 8, 4, 22 ;
entry Demoleos: … , i , m. , a Grecian chieftain before Troy, slain by Aeneas , Verg. A. 5, 260
entry Demophoon: … lover of Phyllis, and one of those who fought before Troy , Ov. H. 2 ; id.
entry Diomedes: … in Argos; a famous hero at the siege of Troy, after which he went to Apulia, where he founded
entry Erichthonius: … of Dardanus , the father of Tros and king of Troy , Ov. F. 4, 33 ; cf.
entry Eurypylus: … Thessaly , and leader of a body of troops before Troy , Ov. M. 13, 357 ; Verg
entry Hector: … of the Trojans , slain and dragged three times around Troy by Achilles , Enn. ap. Macr. S. 6
entry Hecuba: … Dymas , wife of Priam; after the destruction of Troy the slave of Penelope , changed through
entry Helena: … of her beauty , was carried off by Paris to Troy , and thus became the cause of the Trojan
entry Hesione: … Ἡσιόνη . A daughter of Laomedon , king of Troy , whom Hercules rescued from a seamonster and gave
entry Hicetaon: … , = Ἱκετάων , son of Laomedon king of Troy , App. de Deo Socr. p. 152, 9
entry Ida: … .— A high mountain in Phrygia , near Troy , still called Ida , Mel. 1, 18
entry Idomeneus: … king of Crete , the leader of the Cretans against Troy , Verg. A. 3, 401 ; Ov
entry Ilium1: … poetical name for Troja, the city of Ilium , Troy , Verg. A. 1, 68 ; 5, … 8, 50 : Vesta, worshipped at Troy , Ov. F. 6, 227 ;
entry Laomedon: … , the father of Priam and Ganymede, king of Troy , Cic. Tusc. 1, 26, 65 ;
entry Lecton: … = Λέκτον , a promontory on the coast of Troy , now C. Baba , Liv. 37, 37
entry Lesbos: … island in the Ægean Sea, off the coast of Troy and Mysia, the birthplace of Pittacus, Alcæus, Arion,
entry Macareus: … 6, 124 .— A companion of Ulysses before Troy, and afterwards of Æneas in Italy , Ov.
entry Machaon: … sculapius, a famous surgeon of the Greeks before Troy , Cels. praef.; Prop. 2, 1, 61
entry Memnon: … or Memnonides, who every year flew from Ethiopia to Troy and fought over Memnon’s tomb , Ov.
entry Meriones: … charioteer of Idomeneus, who piloted his ships from Crete to Troy , Ov. M. 13, 359 ; Hor
entry munitor: … i. e. Apollo, the builder of the walls of Troy , Ov. H. 5, 139 .
entry Nauplius1: … his son, whom the Greeks had put to death before Troy, he made false signal-fires on the shores of
entry nefas: … tamen … Laudabor (i. e. Helen, as the destroyer of Troy), Verg. A. 2, 585 .—
entry Nestor: … Neleus, and king of Pylus, famous among the heroes before Troy for his wisdom and eloquence. He is said to
entry Nireus: … Charopus and Aglaia, the handsomest man among the Greeks before Troy , Hor. C. 3, 20, 15 ;
entry obscenus: … , that bore Helen when she eloped with Paris to Troy, Ov. H. 5, 119 ; cf.:
entry Palamedes: … king of Eubœa , who lost his life before Troy , through the artifices of Ulysses , Cic.
entry Pallas1: … A. A. 1, 727 : arx, Troy , Prop. 3, 7 (4, 8)… in the reign of Ilus , fell from heaven at Troy , and during the Trojan war was carried off
entry Paris: … , as a reward; by carrying her off to Troy , he was the cause of the Trojan war
entry Penthesilea: … a queen of the Amazons , who fought before Troy against the Greeks , and was slain by Achilles
entry Pergama: … = Πέργαμα or Πέργαμον , the citadel of Troy , poet. for Troy : Pergama, Liv. Andron. ap. Non. 512, 32
entry Philocteta: … at his death gave him the poisoned arrows without which Troy could not be taken. On account of the stench … of Lemnos , but was afterwards taken by Ulysses to Troy , where Machaon healed his wound , and he
entry Phryges: … 37, 56 .— Transf. , poet. , Troy : Phrygiae fatum componere, Prop. 4… , 4 .— Transf. , poet. , because Troy belonged to Phrygia, Trojan , of or belonging to Troy : inuri, Ov. M. 12, 148… : Minerva, the statue of Pallas in Troy , Ov. M. 13, 337 :
entry pineus: … claustra, i. e. of the wooden horse before Troy , id. ib. 2, 258 :
entry Priamus: … Πρίαμος . A son of Laomedon , king of Troy , husband of Hecuba , and father of Hector
entry Protesilaus: … of Laodamia , and the leader of the Thessalians against Troy , where he was the first man killed ,
entry Rhesus: … of his horses and killed by Diomede and Ulysses before Troy , Cic. N. D. 3, 18, 45 ;
entry Rhoeteus1: … poet. , in gen., of or belonging to Troy , Trojan : ductor, i. e. Æ
entry robur: … 74 .— So of the wooden horse before Troy: sacrum, Verg. A. 2, 230
entry Sarpedon: … king of Lycia , who was killed by Patroclus before Troy , Hyg. Fab. 106 ; 112 ;
entry Scaea porta: … the Scœan (western, σκαιός ) gate of Troy; Verg. A. 3, 351 ; Sil
entry sepulcrum: … . 683 P (Ann. v. 142 Vahl.).—Of Troy: Troja nefas, commune sepulcrum Europae Asiaeque,
entry simulo: … (cf. Hom. Od. 3, 22): simulata Troja, a counterfeit Troy , i. e. which is copied after , built like Troy , Ov. M. 13, 721 : simulata
entry Stentor: … Στέντωρ , a Greek warrior in the army before Troy , celebrated for the strength of his lungs ,
entry Sthenelus: … the Epigoni , charioteer of Diomede at the siege of Troy , and one of those shut up in the
entry Telephus: … Hercules and the nymph Auge. He was wounded before Troy by the spear of Achilles, but was afterwards oured
entry Teucer: … son-in-law of Dardanus , and afterwards king of Troy , Ov. M. 13, 705 ; Verg… , adj. , Trojan : moenia, of Troy , Sil. 13, 36 . — Hence… , ae , f. , the Trojan country , Troy , Verg. A. 2, 26 .—
entry Thersites: … m. , = Θερσίτης, a Greek before Troy , famous for his ugliness and scurrility , Ov
entry Thoas: … of Andræmon , one of the Greeks who besieged Troy , Verg. A. 2, 262 ; Hyg
entry Tlepolemus: … a son of Hercules , leader of the Rhodians before Troy , Hyg. Fab. 81, 97 ; Ov
entry Trojugena: … Trōjŭgĕna , ae , comm. Troja-gigno , Troy-born , born in Troy , of Trojan descent , Trojan ( poet.
entry Tros1: … Τρώς , a king of Phrygia , after whom Troy was named; he was the son of Erichthonius and… Trōja or Trōia , ae , f. , Troy , a city of Phrygia , Mel. 2… , um , adj. , of or belonging to Troy , Trojan : Aeneas, Verg. A… , um , adj. , of or belonging to Troy , Trojan : urbs, i. e. Troy , Verg. A. 1, 624 : … . 4, 121 : ludi, i. e. the game of Troy (v. 2. c. supra), Suet. Tib… Trōjāni , ōrum , m. , the inhabitants of Troy , the Trojans , Cic. Div. 2, 39

0 Responses to “Troy”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: