nr 
 
 sv 
 
 r +,' 
 
 
 sL r l/4 '** 
 
 : \iA 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 Research Library, The Getty Research Institute 
 
 http://archive.org/details/someobservationsOObrya 
 
SOME 
 
 OBSERVATIONS 
 
 UPON THE 
 
 VINDICATION of HOMER, 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 ANCIENT POETS and HISTORIANS, 
 
 WHO HAVE RECORDED THE 
 
 Siege and Fall of Troy. 
 Written by I. B. S. MORRITT, Esq, 
 
 By JACOB BRYANT. 
 
 Aoyov O}v<ro-£os, y 'uraQiv, 
 
 AtX 70V «Su£7HJ yjyj(r0' 'OjU.5Jf0V. 
 
 "E.7TSI tyiv-.iz<r<Tiv ci Tzoiuva, ys pay/tvcc. 
 
 ILi^VOV ITTifl 11. XsiplX 5s 
 
 KAf^ra 'zs'ULctyoia-ex. jj.v9oig. 
 
 Pindar. Nemea. Z. 
 
 'H t» 'OpjjlJ <ro(pia xXzttth tov v8v yu.wv t «S"£ %u ipiuoij ockzw 
 *a>j5jj uvea (itu %a(>iv kccl ospvoTyTcc. Scholia.. 
 
 E r O N:. 
 Printed by M. POTE, and E. WILLIAMS, 
 
 MDCCXCiX.- 
 
Published by the same Author y 
 
 Observations upon the Miracles in Egypt, and the Divine 
 
 Mission of Moses. 
 
 The Sentiments of Philo Judeus concerning the Logos, 
 
 or Word q{ God. 
 
THE 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 rH E Author ; of the Work, which I am about to con- 
 sider > has given to it the title of A Vindication of 
 Homer. It seems extraordinary, that he should have ex- 
 fended so much labour unnecessarily : for he has taken in hand 
 to vindicate, where there was no grievance ; and to maintain 
 what was never denied. Not one syllable is to be found in the 
 'Treatise, which he is pleased to oppose, that at all derogates 
 from the chara&er of the Poet : on the contrary, there ap- 
 pears every mark of the highest admiratiojt. To this Vin- 
 dication another is annexed of the Aiicie7it Poets a?id Histo- 
 rians, who have recorded the siege and fall of Troy. Among 
 these are Metrodorus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Dicdorus Siculus, 
 
 A 2 Pausanias, 
 
[ w ] 
 
 Pausanias t Plutarch : Of the Poets, Simonides, Euripides, 
 Lucretius, Ovid : to whom others to a large amount might be 
 added. 'These are all spoken of by me as Writers of con- 
 sequence ; and to their authority I continually appeal ; nor 
 can there be shewn- an instance, in which they have been mis- 
 represented, the Author therefore is again at unnecessary 
 trouble to defend, where there is no censure, nor opposition* 
 His zeal and humanity are needless ; for he tries to justify r 
 what was never disputed. At the same time it will be worth 
 while, as we proceed, to observe his mode of Vindication ;, 
 for I fear,, that it will be sometitnes found very little re- 
 moved from abuse.. But of this I shall say tnore hereafter*. 
 
A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 VINDICATION, &c. 
 
 I 
 
 N my Observations upon Mr. Morritt's Vindication of Homer* 
 I' shall not professedly enter into any considerations concerning the 
 War, with which it is connected: but only consider if his stridures 
 are well founded and his conclusions just. He prefaces this Vindication 
 with a remark, which is so abstruse and elaborate, that I am not sure, 
 that I perfectly understand it. It begins in the following manner. 
 P. i. It is a misfortune attending on old, and established truths, that 
 whilst thev are received in the world, as matters of general notoriety, or 
 undoubted authority, we are contented to take them upon trust : and, not 
 irrationally, give credit to the opinions of those, who had better opportunities 
 than ourselves to juJge of their truth or falsehood. Here is an unlucky 
 circumstance mentioned, and it is not easy to find out in what it 
 consists. We are told, that it is a misfortune attending upon old and 
 established truths, that they are taken upon trust. But how can any 
 ancient fact be taken otherwise ? Whatever is not intuitively known, 
 
 B must 
 
( » 3 
 
 must be received in this manner. It is farther added, that We are 
 contented to take them upon trust. But this is a truth too plain to be 
 mentioned. For we must necessarily be contented, where there is 
 no choice. What adds to the misfortune is faid to be, that we, 
 not irrationally, give credit to the opinions of those, who bad better 
 opportunities than ourselves to judge of their truth or falsehood. There 
 seems to" me to be here, what we call, a paralogism 1 : for how can it 
 be a misfortune to adt rationally : and to give credit to those, who are 
 better informed ? In fhort how can there be loss, or grievance, in ad- 
 mitting evidence upon undoubted authority ? The Author says, that we 
 are contented to give this afTent: and well contented we may be: for 
 what more can be desired than moral certainty ? The Author adds, 
 that Sceptics have appeared upon this subject before Mr B — Sed 
 omnes illacrymabiles urgentur,, ignotique, longa nodte jacent {so- it 
 should be expressed.) To this I can only say, it is a pity that this- 
 mark of contempt was introduced so early; or that it was introduced* 
 at all. It is an unfortunate prelude. 
 
 P. 3. The Author of the Vindication says, that he disclaims all Hi 
 will to Mr. B. This would appear very liberal and fair, if he had 
 not immediately subjoined, that though there is an appearance of candor, 
 yet he (Mr. B.) does not seem to have considered the affirmative with 
 -indifference. Hence wc find, that, notwithstanding this plausible 
 appearance of candor, Mr. B. has but little share of it, and has 
 viewed things with a very partial eye. After this come some very 
 
 severe 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 .severe intimations. The Reader will judge, •whether his (Mr. B\r.) 
 statements are always perfectly fair. And, if he finds, that interpretations 
 are given by him to classical passages, wholly unwarranted by the context ; 
 translations materially differing from their originals j and erroneous tra?i- 
 scri'pts from the originals themselves; he will be apt to smile at the 
 fervour of that zeal, which has stepped forward under the mask of 
 inquiring for literary truth, to defend a favorite Egyptian system. The 
 Author seems already greatly aggrieved, and betrays much disquietude: 
 and, we fear, some intimations of more ill will than he owns. 
 
 Vcstibulum ante ipsum, primisque in faucibus Orci 
 Lu&us, ct ultriccs posuere cubilia Curae. 
 
 'He indeed sets out with only saying, that the Reader should consider, 
 and judge, whether the statements of Mr. B. are always perfectly fair. 
 This is mild and gentle ; and like that calm which comes before 
 a storm. But he is afterwards less moderate: and speaks of passages 
 wholly unwarranted, false translations, erroneous transcripts; and as we 
 shall find in the course of the Treatise, wilful perversion of the truth. 
 So far from smiling at a mistaken zeal, the World must detest a 
 man under such a mask, who is guilty of so much perfidy and 
 baseness ; who, whatever his parts may be, has prostituted them 
 to so vile a purpose. But it is to be hoped, that we shall find 
 things more favourable ; and that the character of the person alluded 
 to, will not be affedled by these severe allegations. As to truth 
 being sacrificed for a favourite Egyptian system, the insinuation is 
 
 B 2 disin- 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 disingenuous; and no such prejudice is to be found. It is very 
 unworthy the person, from whom it proceeds. It is open to the 
 Reader to judge, whether there be the least truth in this censure: 
 and he may farther consider, whether he can here see, or whether 
 he ever in his life saw, — Fervour of Zeal under a mask of inquiry, 
 stepping forward to maintain an Egyp m system. It affords a strange 
 and complex phenomenon, totally past my comprehension. 
 
 P. 4. Mr. B. is here charged with unfairness in his version of a 
 passage in Justin Martyr. The Author accordingly says, Justin is 
 asserting the higher antiquity of Moses: and he does not say, that the 
 Grecians had no history, upon which they could depend : but that they had 
 none, which was accurately detailed, like the records of the Pentateuch, 
 But, when the Author brings this accusation, and charges both the 
 version and application of the sentence with unfairness, (p. 5.) which is 
 a severe censure ; why does he not bring the original immediately 
 before the eye of the Reader in the text, and afford himself a better 
 version, and "prove wherein. Mr. B. has failed? The words of the 
 learned Father are as follow. AAAwj ts ah raro v^ag ayvosiv "srpoo-TiKH, 
 pre ahv 'EXhrjrt zspo twv OXvu/iritxowv oc&pfcss i<?op7\T<xh Oyd i?i n <rvyyp<xu.[jt.x 
 'nxaXcciov 'EAA'^wv v\ Bap&apwv (rrijj.aivov wposfjfl'. JUSt. Mart. p. 1 6. A. 
 Besides you ought to be well apprised, that the Grecians have no history, 
 upon which they can depend, antecedent to the Olympiads. They have 
 no written evidence of any antiquity relating either to themselves or any 
 fiber nation. This is the true purport of the passage. How then 
 
 can 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 can the Author assert, that Justin does not say, that the Grecians had 
 no history on which they could depend ; when the words quoted are so 
 plain ? As to the Pentateuch, and the records, of the Pentateuch detailed, 
 they are not included here : They are neither mentioned, nor referred 
 to by Justin. 
 
 The Author of the Vindication, in treating cf the War of Troy, 
 (p. ',.) pronounces the grounds of this war to be adequate. By this, 
 I presume, the Author means, that they afford a sufficient and probable 
 reason for it. He gives a very short epitome of these grounds, which 
 he endeavours to make plausible. Paris, an Asiatic Prince, came to a 
 Grecian Court, which he insulted by carrying off the Queen of the Country, 
 and a quantity of treasure, and slaves, which were the property of fyer 
 husband. In this plain history there is nothing incredible. Undoubtedly 
 nothing, when thus partially represented. But the Author has artfully 
 omitted a number of articles, with which this history is accompanied. 
 However, he says most truly, that Mr. B. colletling together the 
 miraculous stories related by different Greek Authors, (and he should 
 have added by Homer himself) sees nothing on every side, but a mass 
 cf impenetrable fclion. The supernatural birth of Helen, the dreams of 
 Hecuba, and the contest of the three Goddesses, are in his opinion so gross, 
 as to impeach the credit of every part of the story. The Author certainly 
 speaks my mind : and I own, that I think, these fables are very 
 gross, and that the credibility of the history is certainly injured by 
 them ; for they are the foundation, upon which that history is built. 
 
 But 
 
{ « ) 
 
 But as the Author only hints at these extravagances, and does not 
 choose to bring them before the eye of the Reader, it shall be my 
 business, before I proceed farther, to place them in full view : at 
 least such, as are most to the purpose. 
 
 The whole of the war depended upon Helen being stolen, and 
 carried from Sparta by Paris. And as we have had of this Personage 
 a very imperfecr. account given above, I shall beg leave to give a 
 more ample history of him. He was the son of Priam by Hecuba, 
 who when she was with child, of him., dreamed, that she was delivered 
 of a burning torch. This was by the wise men of Troy interpreted, 
 as a fatal prognostic : and they gave out, that the child would one 
 tlay inflame his Country, and be the ruin of the nation. Upon this. 
 the Parents formed an unnatural resolution, that the child, when born, 
 should be exposed to the wild beasts upon Mount Ida. He was 
 accordingly carried, and exposed there. But some Shepherds found 
 him; and he was through their compassion preserved. When he 
 arrived at a state of manhood, he was one day accosted by the God 
 Mercury, who came to his hovel, and presented him with a golden 
 apple. At the same time he told him, that he was to bestow it as 
 a prize upon the most beautiful of the three Goddesses, who attended 
 for his determination. These three Deities were Juno, Pallas, and 
 Venus i who immediately stript themselves before him, and he after 
 .a proper attention, adjudged the golden apple to Venus. The Goddess 
 in return, promised that she would' bestow upon him the most 
 
 handsome 
 
C 7 ) 
 
 handsome woman in the world. After this he quitted his pastoral 
 life j and leaving the Mountain he came to Troy. Here, by what 
 means we know not, he was found out and acknowledged by his 
 Parents : and from a Clown and Mountaineer became the finest 
 Gentleman of the age. 
 
 Soon after this he built a fleet of Ships, the last thing that one would 
 have expecled, and though commerce was not then known, and little' 
 communication subsisted between the Provinces, as the Author, p. 6, and 
 p. 8. observed : and though not the least reason is given for his going 
 to Sparta, yet to Sparta he went with his fleet of fhips. At that time 
 IWenelaus was King of that City, whose wife was the peerless Helen* 
 whom Paris beguiled and carried off. One would imagine, that 
 when he had stolen such a prize, with treasure to a great amount, that 
 he would have made the best of his way homeward; and there fecured 
 himself. No : he took quite a different course; and carried his Lady 
 to Fgypt : and then after some time returned to Troy. Helen is said 
 to have been the daughter of Leda, the wife of 1 yndarus, with whom 
 Jupiter had a private intercourse in the fhape of a Swan. Hence her 
 mother at a proper time was brought to bed of two eggs ; and 
 out of one of these Helen and a brother were hatched. When fhe 
 was as yet very young (he became greatly admired for her uncommon 1 
 beauty, and Tyndarus, suspecting that fhe would be one day stolen, 
 obliged all those, who made any pretensions, to swear, that they would 
 unite their powers to bring her back. This shewed a wonderful fore- 
 cast,, 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 cast, and at the same time an uncommon affe&ion in Tyndarus for a 
 suppositious and spurious child. These however were the grounds of 
 the Trojan War and the expedition of the Grecians. 
 
 We see, that the history of this war is founded upon the most idle 
 and improbable stories, yet the Author of the Vindication insists, that 
 tlie truth of this history is not hence at all impeached ; and this we 
 shall rind repeated through his whole Treatise. But it is a mistake: 
 for if the basis be bad, the building must be in danger. And whereas 
 Euripides, and several Grecian Writers differ in some of these essential 
 articles, the Author sets them aside, because they were Poets. But 
 Homer was a R*^st, and by the Author, p. y$, supposed to have been of 
 Asia. A Native therefore of Hellas has as much reason to be cre- 
 dited about Helen and Sparta, as a person of the opposite continent. 
 The Author would fain rid himself of these difficulties, and palliate 
 the extravagances of the Poets. But it is impossible. The most idle 
 fiction is in Homer himself, who makes the contest of the Goddesses, 
 and the apple given to Venus, to have been the cause of the war. He 
 speaks of Juno and Pallas as never forgiving it. 
 
 'AAA' £%ov, cog <r!piv 'zt^wtov caiy\y§zia lKicg t^yj, 
 
 JHcti Ylpitxu.og, Hut Xxog AA.-ijawpS z\>ix ctT^g. 
 
 'Oj vit/U<ro-£ Stag, ens ct u.;co-<xvXov hiovro, 
 
 Tyv o' nvflff r, ol zcope ^.ayJ\o<rvwiV aAfyanjv. XI. 2J. 
 
 These articles cannot be cancelled ; and if they are on the other 
 hand admitted, the Jerusalem of Tasso, and the Orlanjdo of Ariosto, 
 
 have 
 
C 9 ) 
 
 nave as good right to be believed. Clelia, Cassandra, and Amadis 
 de Gaul have better pretensions. 
 
 The Author tries to excuse these legendary stories throughout his 
 whole Treatise; but in these endeavours he cautiously avoids mentioning 
 many fads, of which he ought to have taken notice. He alludes too- 
 partially to many incidents, instead of laying them properly before 
 the Reader. He also omits many arguments and proofs, which are 
 contained in the Treatise, which he opposes ; and are there inserted 
 to shew the incredibility of the war, 
 
 P.- 9. He likewise tries to make the antecedent ra r ^ of Helen by 
 Theseus plausible by the like omissions, and forms a hibtory of it 
 from Plutarch, which he so models, as to make it in some degree 
 credible. But he does not take notice of one syllable, that makes 
 against him. He says nothing about her being at that time represented 
 as only seven years old ; and her brothers no older, as they were from 
 the same eggs. He forgets that his Author, Plutarch, confesses the 
 obscurity of the times, and the uncertainty of this hiftory ; that he 
 owns that Helen was not yet in a irate of maturity; that according to 
 some writers, she was not stolen by Theseus; but that it was Idas and 
 Lynccus who carried her away. Plut. Theseus, p. 4. F. All this 
 intelligence, and these contradi&ions, are passed over by the Author in : 
 silence. 
 
 G The- 
 
I 20 } 
 
 The Author Bad mentioned, p. 7. the powerful Leaders of Greece? 
 their alliances, and the large confederacy formed at Aulis. He men- 
 tions Heroes,. who asserted the cause of justice ; and stood in the place of 
 the Gods. p. 8.. Yet this was at a time, when by his own confession,. 
 Agriculture was negkBed, and commerce unknown, p. 6. And he speaks 
 of people at this day, who bear a strict resemblance to them, for 
 piracy is frequent among them, little communication between the Provinces ; 
 in short every characteristic of the early times, excepting their freedom and 
 then honour, p.. 8. Thus we find honour arid freedom supposed in 
 these early times amidst confessed barbarism; and great and distant 
 alliances formed, where there was little or no communication : al- 
 liances, that extended from Epirus to Rhodes, and from Rhodes to j 
 Thrace, p. 7. He farther admits, that in these honourable days,. 
 the petty Chiefs were continually engaged in a freebooting warfare; 
 and ready to assemble, where there was any prospect of plunder, p. 7*. 
 8. As to their freedom mentioned above, we can say little to itjj 
 as we never heard of it, unless it consisted in taking the liberty tO' 
 rob their next neighbours. Of this freedom mention is often made 
 in Homer. And none were more free, if this were freedom, than 
 those Heroes, who arc- said to have asserted the cause of justice, and stood 
 in the place of the Gods. 1 he. Poet describes them, as in a state of 
 rapine before the war, and they all turned Pirates and Marauders 
 afterwards. Strabo. L, 1. p. 83. Of this ample testimony was 
 afforded : but the whole is passed over in silence ; and a specious- 
 picture of honour is given, as existing in the most rude and barbarous- 
 times. But of this I shall say more hereafter, 
 
 P. 13. 
 
t » y 
 
 "P. 13. The Author of the Vindication proceeds in saying,— -It seems 
 ft range to Mr. B. that an army like that at P/atea, should be thought an 
 extraordinary exertion, at a time when Greece abounded both in wealth 
 tind men ; and yet that she should be able in the rude ages described by 
 Thucy aides, to levy and support so extraordinary an armament, as that under ' 
 Agamemnon. But our astonishment will cease when we reflect that the 
 ,us, and uncivilised ages of the world have ever furnished armies 
 ntrh numben in 'ised times are almost deemed fabulous. He accor- 
 
 ding dons from Pausanias, that the army of Brennus amounted 
 
 to 2 . - nen: and adds, The Cimhri aid Teutones, whom 
 
 Mai ius co> into the field against him 300000 efife&ive men. 
 
 The Gauls, who in the time of the Republic sacked and burnt the City 
 of Rome, and the Huns, Goths, and Vandals of later times, assembled troops, 
 which astonish almost to incrtdulity. The very circumstances of rudeness 
 ■and barbarism, which foi m the ground work of Mr. B's argument, are in 
 ■ reality the proofs of its fidelity. In this argument, we fear, the Author is 
 mistaken. It does not merely depend upon the numbers sent out; 
 •but upon the extent of country, where they were collected. Gaul 
 and Germany were large and populous regions. Scandinavia was very 
 extensive, and styled the Northern hive, whence vast colonies issued. 
 And the Scythic region of the Huns we know to have been immense, 
 though the precife extent cannot be determined. What was the Pelo- 
 ponnesus, with the addition of the small provinces above, to these ? 
 They bear no proportion. We must not therefore consider only the 
 number of men specified; but the regions, from which they came. 
 
 C 2 The 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 The least of these was many times larger than all Greece. The Au- 
 thor concludes. If he (the Reader) candidly considers all this, I believe, 
 he will hardly acquiesce in Mr. B's conclusion against the probability of the 
 expedition. We fear, if no better arguments are brought, the Reader 
 will be forced to acquiesce. 
 
 P. 22. Mr. B. now starts another objeclion, for he asserts, that the 
 Shipping of the Grecians, must by a ten years anchorage, have been rendered 
 totally unfit for service. We should never strain the words of a Writer 
 beyond their true purport. There is no mention made by Mr. B. of" 
 anchorage, nor were the ships at anchor, but drawn upon the beach. 
 Nor does he assert ~, but says only, that one would imagine. But if he 
 had spoken more determinately, how could he be blamed, when he 
 is countenanced by the very words of the Poet ? 
 
 <The timbers are rotted, and the cordage has lost it's strength. These 
 words the Author unduly suppresses and proceeds, we fear, in a course 
 of argument too lax and inconclusive. He tells us, that Mount Ida 
 abounded in timber, and adds, Is it necessary to suppose, that the ships 
 were never repaired, . because they are never mentioned as undergoing the 
 
 operation ? At the time, to which Agamemnon alludes the rigging might 
 
 want repairing. We suppose, before they sailed, it was repaired, p. 23. But 
 why does he suppose, when there is not the least ground for supposition ? 
 
 He 
 
( *3 ) 
 
 He argues from the silence of the Poet, when he speaks most plainly r 
 and when he tells us, that in the tenth year, just before the conclusion 
 of the war, the Ships were very much decayed. And there is no 
 reason to think, as the Author does, that before they sailed, there 
 was any repairing: for the contrary is manifest. In the Odyssea 
 Nestor gives a full account of every material article, that followed, 
 upon the destruction of the City. He says, that they immediately 
 purposed to return. That they first called a Council, to which they 
 came intoxicated, and dissentions ensued. They afterwards separated 
 with much noise and tumult. He intimates farther, that Agamemnon 
 wished to restrain the people in order to offer some propitiatory 
 sacrifices; but he was defeated in his purpose: for the greatest part 
 immediately set sail, and he soon followed. Odyss. r. v. 130. 
 There was therefore no time for repairing or rebuilding a thousand 
 Ships. 
 
 The Author still proceeds, and says From the quotation which 
 
 Mr. B. gives at the end of this Chapter, he infers that Menelaus used 
 the same ships for eight years after the destruction of Troy. It is very 
 truly said, for it is so intimated by the Poet in his Odyssea. 
 
 H yap 'uToXkx ct«9wi/, xcti -sroXA 1 S7rxXy9st$ 
 Hyotyopriv w vyivo-i, Koil oytoccioo era yjXQov. A. 8 1. 
 
 To this evidence the Author seems to us to make a strange reply. 
 p. 23. Homer s words are vj vywi, in ships: and whether they were never 
 
 repaired 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 repaired or rebuilt h a subject, on which he is totally silent. Why then, 
 does the Author make any inference, when he acknowledges that the 
 Poet says not one word to the purpose. Menel.ms came with a fleet 
 to Troy, and departed with it. How can we infer, that they were 
 different ships, when no such intimation is afforded ? In a note at 
 the bottom of, p. 23. we are told, In this passage, I can find not one 
 word that proves, what Ships Menelaus possessed, or how they had been, 
 built, or how often repaired. Why then does he, when he can find no 
 intimation, make any supposition and venture upon conjecture unsup- 
 ported ? He is still unwilling to give up the point, and, p 24. says, 
 There are many seaboats in England whose duration has been greater 
 than that of any of their (the Grecians) ships. Here is only half the 
 truth said ; the rest is not duly suppressed. There may be, what he 
 calls seaboats, as old as Drake's ship was at Deptford. But are 
 there any such, which want no repairs; and, which after seventeen, or 
 even ten, years, are fit for service ? We cannot but hesitate about the 
 propriety of this assertion. 
 
 P. 24. The Author here says — We now come to another argument 
 .drawn also chiefly jrem the silence of Homer. We do not find, it is 
 true, any mention of a regular correspondence, which was owing to the 
 circumstances of the times ; but, that there was no intercourse at all, 
 cannot be inferred from Homer's not having recorded it. It has been 
 shewn by Mr. B. that such an inference may be fairly made ; and the 
 arguments, which the Author must have read, were not drawn merely 
 
 from 
 
( *5 > 
 
 from the silence of the Poet, but from what he has more than once 
 very plainly signified. The very line quoted by the Author from 
 Mr. B. shews that there had been no correspondence. Zustv yav &# 
 tpoca-t Mivomov. Iliad, n. v. 14. They say, that Mencetius is still alive. 
 By this we find, that there was a vague report, consequently very 
 uncertain. Had any intelligence been brought to Achilles himself,, 
 from his Father, or Friends in Thessaly, he would have spoken 
 with more certainty. He afterwards plainly shews, that he knew 
 nothing about his Father : for he says that he is absolutely in doubty 
 whether Peleus was living, or departed. 
 
 HSjj yap n»jX:?a y oipxi q xxtk , zrx[.<.7rav 
 
 TLsQvuvca, jj TuH tuiQcv sti ^movt azctyjjcrSxi. T. V. 334. 
 
 For I should think, that my Father Peleus is either absolutely dead; or 
 barely alive, and under the last afflictions of old age. He appears 
 equally uncertain about the fate of his Son, whom he left in the 
 Island Scyros I know not, he says, 
 
 Es7TH ill ^OOcl yt tUsolTToXiUOe 0EOE<J>JJ« • 
 
 Now Scyros, according to the Poet, could not b-C above two days and 
 a half sail from the coast of Troas-. Even Thessaly was not much 
 farther; for Achilles says, that he could reach it in three days. II. I., 
 v. 363. Scyros lay nearly in the way for any ships, that passed 
 or repassed, to bring intelligence from Greece. Yet no intelligence' 
 seems to have been obtained during the whole time (above nine 
 
 years): 
 
( ** ) 
 
 years) that the ?rmy was before Troy. This has been urged': and 
 eve r v body mwt confess, that this is not arguing from silence. Ii" 
 is a fair inference made from the very words of the Poet. And 
 all these words have been before quoted t and these proofs have been 5 
 brought in full view for the Reader's inspection. But by the Author 
 they are sometimes extenuated ■; and sometimes totally neglected. And 
 he renews his objections to articles, which have been sufficiently 
 ascertained,, as if nothing had been previously said.. And we are- 
 sorry to say, that this is attended with too much contempt. 
 
 P. 24. It had been said, that no intimation is given of any fresh 
 troops being sent to the army before Troy, Upon which he observes- 
 — < T/je other objection, of- their (the Grecians.) not being, recruited is equally 
 founded on Homers silence And surely it is not founded amiss : for 
 Kow can we believe a fadt, that is not once menti ned, and where 
 there is constant intimation to the contrary ? The Au'.hor of the Vin- 
 dication' still" proceeds, and says, We read however of the recruits 
 
 brought afterwards by Pyrrhus ; and allowing the argument in its fullest 
 extent, it will only prove th.:t the army must have been greatly weakened be~ 
 fore the tenth year,. Why then did they not send for recruits before that' 
 year ? and what reason have we to think, that even then they sent for 
 them ? If the Author has any account of fresh troops brought by 
 Pyrrhus, (for we recollect none) he should mention his authority for 
 it. But he seems to suspect the evidence And whilst he dwells so 
 much upon the silence of Homer, he forgets, what the Poet really 
 
 hap 
 
( »? > 
 
 has said: to which he ought to have attended. Homer speaks very 
 plainly upon this subject ; and informs us, that Pyrrhus was concealed 
 in the Island Scyrus ; a place of no great extent, which could not 
 have furnished any supply of consequence, nor did it supply any 
 at all. Ulysses tells Achilles in a discourse with him, that he can- 
 give him a very good account of his son Neoptolemus, called also 
 Pyrrhus. 
 
 AvTog ytxp [juv iyw xoiXqg evfi vyog tia-qg 
 
 Hyayov ix. HkvjjH fx-sr evx.vyfj.3dg A%aiVg. OdySS. A. V. 507. 
 
 We find, he was fetched from "Lxvpog, or Scyros, and brought in a 
 single ship, which had before its complement. What recruits could 
 he bring ? None certainly, as is plain from the Poet's words. This 
 is n;t arguing from silence. The truth is not founded upon what 
 was not said: but upon Homer's clear and positive evidence, with 
 which it is a pity, that the Author was not better acquainted. We 
 are obliged in justice to say so much, and at the' same time to warn 
 him of any blind attachment : for we find him at the close saying, 
 that Troy at last fell only by a <well timed stratagem- From this it 
 appears, that he gives credit to the story of the wooden horse j & 
 fiction, the most idle that ever was devised.. 
 
 It had been observed in the Treatise, which the Author of the 
 Vindication controverts, that Homer shews great precaution in respect 
 to the Fortification, which the Grecians were said by him to have 
 erected for the security of their Camp, and Fleet. It consisted of a 
 
 D wall 
 
( 18 ) 
 
 -wall and rampart, with a deep ditch on the outer side; all which 
 was constructed during the secession of Achilles. Iliad. H. v. 435. 
 The Poet was sensible, that such a mound of earth was durable : and 
 if it ever' had existed, people in after times would expect to have 
 found it, and the credibility of his narration depended upon its 
 appearance. The Poet therefore to remedy this deficiency, and to 
 take off any untoward arguments from its not existing afterwards, says, 
 that it was demolished by some of the Gods. They brought all the 
 neighbouring rivers to bear upon it. Jupiter also rained from heaven 
 for nine days; and Neptune assisted. By these means this great work 
 was borne down into the sea. Hence Mr. B. concludes, that the 
 whole history of the rampart is a fable. And he forms his opinion 
 from many inconsistent circumstances, which are omitted by the 
 Author, who represents the rampart and ditch as inconsiderable : the 
 work of one day. p. 28. The history of this operation is thus described 
 by the Poet. H. v. 385. The Trojans petitioned for a truce, that they 
 might bury their dead, which was granted. They accordingly went 
 to Ida to cut wood, and the Grecians took the opportunity of going 
 to the same place with the like view. After this they formed their 
 funeral piles, and performed the last rites. This was their mode of 
 proceeding. The Author thinks, that this was compleated in a single 
 -day; and hence concludes, that the foss and rampart were finished 
 in the same short interval. This we suspect to be a mistake : for 
 ihe operations seem to have required a much longer time. This, we 
 
 think 
 
( i9 ) 
 
 think, appears afterwards from the petition of Priam to Achilles, In 
 this he mentions that Ida, whence they were to fetch wood was a 
 great way from the City. O-irSct yap us tuitx arv aX^x, iviXodi S' vXtj, 
 $%epiv sf opsog: ft. v. 66?. He therefore begs a- truce of no less 
 than eleven days to bury his dead, and to raise a tomb to Hector.. 
 If the distance of Ida from Troy was great; it must have been far 
 more considerable from the Grecian camp.: which, if we believe Mr. 
 Chevalier, was at least ten miles from Troy. The funeral rites there- 
 fore, and the construction of the foss and rampart, took up a much 
 longer space. The Poet therefore, when he mentions the particular 
 time, when these operations were carrying on, speaks only of the 
 parts of the civil day, in which the people were occupied. They 
 got wood as early as they could: and burnt, and buried their dead at 
 -night; afterwards----Hp>s $' «r' <xp zsrco jjci^j st: <T a^(piXvx.>j w%, the next 
 morning, when it was not yet quite day -light, but still- doubtful nighty. 
 they returned to the place of sepulture, and raised a tomb over them 
 — »Tup.6oy— hx CTo.jov. H. v. 435. This, we think, proves, that there 
 was more than one day allotted for the performance of these duties. 
 After this the Poet informs us, that they built the rampart,, and the 
 other necessary works: but in what time is not mentioned. We can 
 only make an estimate from the nature and extent of the works, which- 
 appear to have been very considerable.. 
 
 Tri^og UQ a^Qi -utu^yiv K-p/roj sypsro Xccog Kypaoov,-* 
 Ti'fxbov §' ct^ty uvtyiv ha ixronov, s^xyayevns 
 
 D 2 Axp/rctf 
 
( « ) 
 
 HvpyXs S' CiliyjKiSg, stXtxp vr t uiv rs ttoct ecvrcoy. 
 
 Ev S' avTOi<ri "srvAxg miroKov sv apapvtxg, 
 
 Qpzx $/' avTtxwv iTnn]\ct<riYi o^og sitj. 
 
 "ExtooScv §e (oxSsixv err ocvtoo rxtypov opv^xv, 
 
 TLvpzixv, fAeyahriv' a £; <rx.oXo7rxg Y.xiiiTY^a.v . H. V. 434. 
 
 We will now present the Reader with Mr. Pope's Version, 
 
 Then to secure the Camp, and naval Powers, 
 They raised embattled Walls with lofty Towers. 
 From space to space were ample gates around, 
 For passing chariots ; and a trench profound, 
 Of large extent ; and deep in earth below 
 Strong piles infix'd stood adverse to the foe. 
 So toil'd the Greeks. See Homer H. v. 435. 
 
 Mr. Pope affords no bad imitation of the original, and we may see 
 from him, that this was no contemptible work. But the Author of 
 the Vindication speaks of it as a very humble performance; which 
 (p. 28.) he proves in the following manner. Of the size of each of 
 them (the foss and rampart) we shall there (in the 12th. Book,) find a 
 very sufficient intimation. When the Trcjans came to it they stopped, 
 for says he, it was not easy to leap over it ; and there was a difficulty in 
 passing through it, since the sides were very steep ; and the upper part 
 fenced with palisadoes. We fear, there were other obstacles ; for there 
 6eem to have been also palisadoes below in the ditch— Tafppov epu£av— 
 m h c-xcXcwxs HXTctTn^xv. Yet notwithstanding these difficulties, which 
 
 he 
 
( 2* J 
 
 he so plainly allows, he tells us in the next line, that Heclor actually 
 leaped over the foss. How the Author could possibly be led into this 
 mistake, we cannot imagine. For Homer tells us, that the Hero went 
 over the causeway, which was made for linrYiXa<ncc, a passage for chariots 
 and horses, and consequently for the foot also, to pass over, when 
 they took the field; and that he seized a vast stone, and went up to 
 the gate of the opposite tower, which with a violent shock he burst 
 open, and then sprang in. The Author should consider that there is 
 a great difference between going under a building, and jumping over 
 
 a rampart. He thinks otherwise, and says, p. 28. ditch, rampart 
 
 and palisadces were within the compass of a desperate leap. A very desperate 
 leap it must have been: yet he persists, and affirms that Patroclus 
 leaped over them all. And he shews the certainty of it by the fol- 
 lowing estimation in the same page. The size of the wall we may 
 discover also from another part of the same book, where we find Sarpedon 
 approaches it, and seizing the battlement with a strong hand, drags it 
 down. It falls, and a breach is made in the wall. But this does not prove 
 that Patroclus leaped over it. Besides we suspeit that there is another 
 mistake: for there was no breach at this time made. Sarpedon pulled 
 down one of the swaA^/f, or pinna? murorum, one of the battlements; 
 but the wall remained, though deprived of this defence— Tuyj>; syvpwQij, 
 are the Poet's words M. 399. He proceeds in his argument, 1 "be height 
 of it, we see, was little more than that of a man. We will then, without 
 entering into too nice an inquiry, grant, that it may have been six fcet t 
 
 or 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 or six feet and a half high; and we will not dispute the breadth: still 
 this is a great height for a person armed, however strong and active 
 to have vaulted over. Besides Patroclus was in a chariot with three 
 horses and a charioteer. II. II. 149,. and 467. and with all these he 
 must have gone over the rampart and ditch. And this ditch the Poet 
 describes, as svpuxv, psyatyv, &c9uxy, ftsy'a :-3-/ov. H. 440, 44 r , 444. And 
 
 the piles or palisadoes ■srux.va? xtxt ueyafttsg. The Author therefore 
 
 of the Vindication, must have been misled by some bad version, to- 
 which he applied: for there is nothing in the Poet concerning either 
 Hector or Patroclus leaping} nor was it possible. 
 
 The history is as follow, The Trojan*, after they had forced tbeir 
 way into the Grecian Camp, made a passage in more than one place 
 through the rampart, and by these openings they afterwards retreated.. 
 Patroclus pursued. 
 
 Kvrntjv 0' avu zeetppov \r7rspvop0v wku; invnoi,. 
 AjAcfOioi, &? IbiXrjt Bioi ODtrocv ciy7s.oc.ee Swpa, 
 
 upjo-trw Uy.siiQi. n. v. 380.. 
 
 The imtnortal Coursers', which the Gods had given as a noble present to 
 his father Feieus, hounded through the trench, kvtplov, quite through to 
 the opposite side, continually pressing forwards. In this trench lay heaps 
 of warriors slain, with their chariots overturned. IT. v. 378. The 
 verb 0opw does not necessarily signify to leap^over, but to prance and 
 bound: which may be effected upon plain ground. 
 
 The 
 
( *3 ) 
 
 The Author has so mean an opinion of the rampart that he thinks, 
 it might without any great difficulty have been destroyed. It was 
 tasily to be obliterated, p. 27. Why then was the labour of the Gods 
 introduced, and the combination of so many rivers mentioned in order 
 to have it demolished ? It is observed in the Treatise concerning Troy, 
 that some of these rivers must have gone retrograde just as they are by 
 Ovid mentioned in a poetical rant. 
 
 Xanthe, retro propera, versaeque recurrite Lymphae. 
 
 The Author thinks, that this may have happened : for he says ■ 
 
 A all these rivers however Jlow into the Fropontis or Hellespont above 
 Rhatea'r, they may perhaps by Homer be represented as co-operating 
 with the l) vmande, ' causing an inundation at its mouth, p. 29. There 
 is no occasion to m ion perhaps. They are plainly represented by 
 the Poet, as joining the Scamander, and making an inundation at its 
 mouth. And this junction, and this cooperation, is as contrary to 
 truth and common sense, as to suppose the Severn, Trent, and Humber, 
 making an inundation at the mouth of the Thames. These and many 
 other wonderful articles are either believed or palliated by the Author; 
 for he says, who can suppose, that Homer would 'violate probability ? (p. 
 22.) Yet he has violated probability in numberless instances, as Milton 
 and many other Poets have done since. The Author's great zeal, we 
 fear, prevents his making a proper distinction. A Poet's excellence is 
 not diminished in the eye of the world by his introducing feigned 
 occurrences, or the speciosa miracula mentioned by Horace. They 
 
 are 
 
( *4 ) 
 
 are often received with the greatest admiration. A battle piece by 
 Raphael, or a landscape designed by Poussin or by Gainsborough, are 
 not esteemed the less because they never existed. 
 
 Pidoribus atque Poetis 
 
 Quidl'ibet audendi semper fuit aequa potestas. 
 
 It had been said, that Homer was instructed by Phantasia, a woman 
 of Memphis : and it is conjectured, that she was a Priestess of Isis„. 
 Upon which the Author observes, that every Lexicon will inform us r 
 that Phantasia, (pavrxa-ix, is a Greek word, derived from (p'xivu). But every 
 person of common sense should know, that an ancient Egyptian nams 
 could not be of Grecian original, however modified by the Greeks. 
 It was farther said, that Phant and Phont signified at this day a Priestess. 
 To this likewise the Author objects, and says> Mr B diving into all the 
 depths of Coptic lore, finds the word Hant and Ho:tt to be a priest; then by 
 a national prefix forms it into P'Hant. p. 33. This is very true : and 
 it has the sanction of the learned La Croze, Jablonsky, Kircher, ;-choltz, 
 and Woide. This may be new to him; but why does he suppose 
 people ignorant, because he does not know ? For every article upon 
 this subject numberless vouchers and proofs are brought, which are. 
 set aside unnoticed. 
 
 P. 25. The Author of the Vindication seems to be in a continual 
 ferment, and to be dissatisfied with every thing, that is said. In the 
 Treatise upon Troy it had 6ctn observed, that there was such a City 
 
 in 
 
( iS ) 
 
 in r gypf, which was mentioned both by Strabo and by Stephartus 
 Byzantinus And from their authority the description of it was taken - . 
 But in the translation of the several passages great offence has been? 
 given. The \uthor of the Vindication, p. 35. summons the Reader ttf - 
 fake particular notice, and says — / would wish to fix the attention of the" 
 Reader upon the manner in which he (Mr. B'. has amplified this interesting 
 discovery. Be quotes the passage from Strabo, and sets cut in his translation 
 of it by making Troy in Egypt a Town which- in the original is xwpq 
 a village. The words of Mr. B. in the version alluded to are,. There 
 
 W'>s a I own or Pillage--* which Town was named Troy. Does not 
 
 the Author know, that the word km^h signified both a Village, and 
 a I own ? Does he not farther know,, that it is sometimes applied ever* 
 to a City ? That it signifies a Town we learn from I uke the ix„ 
 v. 6 , The words lt*^x ono xaTX ™s xm^us are there rendered — They 
 went through tbt Jowns, also v. 12. rag x.ux,Aa vM^ug. is translated in 
 the towns round about. And that it must sometimes have a reference 
 to a City may be known from the word xwpwroA/s, Mark 1. 38. The 
 persons, who gave the interpretations above were, we believe, men 
 equ.il in learning to the Author. The learned Albertus in his notes 
 to Hesychius mentions from a Lexicon--— xu^ai, ui #:,*%?«* -aoXuz. 
 The word therefore did not, as has been wrongly supposed, always 
 signify a village. If is farther said (Joshua x. V. 3'/.) Both in the 
 original, and English version, that Joshua smote all their cities : this 
 by the Seventy is rendered uwas ?«? noo^u;. Li Jeremiah, 49. v. 25V 
 
 E ihere 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 there is mention made of the City of praise : this like the former Is 
 rendered kw^. Strabo himself calls the city in Egypt (ppxpiov spvuvov, 
 a garrison of strength, which cannot signify a Village. The persons, 
 who have thus rendered this word, were Grecians : and we conceive, 
 that their authority cannot well be disputed. Numberless instances 
 to this purpose may be seen in the Greek Version of the Bible. 
 
 P. 35, 36. The Author continues his animadversions, and says, In 
 the next page Mr. B. calls it (Troy) a city in Arabia ; then proves it such 
 by a quotation from Stephanus. It is of no great consequence : but the 
 fadl is stated wrongly. Mr. B. does not affirm first, and bring the autho- 
 rity afterwards : but applies at once to the Greek Author mentioned. 
 
 He adds- It may be observed, that we have here no translation; 
 
 but in fat~l the quotation will not bear this construction. The words of 
 it are, — There is also a Troy in Egypt. The truth is that the principal 
 word has been by an oversight omitted : and had the Author confulted 
 the original, he would have found tvoXis there expressed. The true 
 
 reading is Es - / xxi t»\<; Aiyvma tjnohig (Tpiza.) The Author not being 
 
 apprised of this, has by his too great keeness given his supposed 
 opponent an opportunity of having his argument strengthened by this 
 additional evidence. 
 
 P. 41. Many exceptions are here made to the Writers applied to 
 in the Treatise, which he opposes. We are sorry to say that we find 
 too much asperity: for he goes so far as to accuse Mr. B. of falsehood 
 
 and 
 
( 2 7 ) 
 
 and absurdity: of which he takes notice in the margin. Absurdity 
 arising from Mr. Bryant's supposition: whose insidious art and perver- 
 sion of the truth are intimated in a note, and his abuse of a passage 
 in .-Elian. The words of Mlian, says the Author, concerning Syagriuf 
 are, 6$ Xsynxi tov Tpwrnov ^oXc^ov •arponos <x,<roct. A?id Mr. B. by writing, 
 os wpwTo; tov Tpotiixav i\tb 'stoXsjx.ov, makes JE,lian responsible for an assertion, 
 which he onty mentions as a prevalent tradition. The Reader will have 
 clready found specimens in Mr. B. of this mode of quoting : which I 
 am sorry to observe is extremely unfair* Undoubtedly nothing can be 
 more unfair, and tcan lal >us. But the Reader perhaps- will be led 
 to ask, did Mr. B. write anv thing to this purpose ? Our answer is, 
 not one syllable. Was he guilty of this duplicity? of this wilful 
 and shameful perversion ? \'ot in the leaft. He applies to /Elian, 
 but does not quote fro n him. The words, which the Author attri- 
 butes to Mr. B. as of /Elian perverted, are those of Eustathius, whose 
 name is -mentioned, and referred to in the notes. N. 4, And this 
 notice is given, as plainly, as can be desired. It stands obvious to 
 every eye. Notwithstanding which this allegation of falsehood is 
 subjoined : and it is intimated that specimens of this fraud and artifice 
 must have been observed before. We are sorry to say, that these 
 censures have been urged very indiscretely : as have others before, 
 p. 5. where a like accusation of fraud is exhibited ; and without 
 the least ground: the whole aiising from the misapprehension of the 
 Accuser. 
 
 E 2 P. A3» 
 
{ # ) 
 
 '. P. 43. Much had been said about the history of Iphigenia, who was 
 supposed to have been sacrificed at Aulis. The Author asks, who are 
 the Authors, on whose contradiStions Mr. B. lays so great a stress? Diffe- 
 rent anecdotes concerning Achilles and Iphigenia are differently related by 
 Eusebius, fapud Scaligerum) Ptolemy Heph. apud Pbotium; Scholia of 
 Apollonius, Philostratus, Tzetzes, Antoninus Liberalis, Plyginus ; and the 
 poetical writers, Lucretius, Propertius, Euripides, and Ovid. Obscurity, 
 comparative modernism or poetical license, form the characteristics of the 
 ichok list. To these must be joined Plutarch and Pliny, who speak of 
 the same history : and to them many others might be added, who 
 were of the same antiquity and in the like predicament. The Author 
 sets out, as we see by his Title Page, to vindicate the Poets and Writers 
 of old. But he has certainly mistaken abuse for vindication ; and in- 
 stead of shewing them favour, he has said every thing he could against 
 them. Whoever talks in this way, must be little acquainted with the 
 Writers, of whom he treats. It is to be observed, that he gives the 
 .name pf anecdotes to articles, of which many have been publifhed above 
 these two thousand years. He also introduces Euripides of the Grecians, 
 and Lucretius of the Romans, without any discrimination, among Writers, 
 whom he styles obscure, or comparatively modern. If so : who were 
 either ancient or excellent of those two nations ? How many noble Writers 
 for the same reason must be banished, if these are excluded ? As for 
 Euripides being a poet, and using poetical licence : we have said before I 
 ghat Homer was a poet, and used the like liberties: and Euripides pf ! 
 
 Hellas i 
 
( *9 ) 
 
 Hellas is as worthy to be regarded concerning events of his Country, as 
 Homer, or any foreigner. They both dealt largely in fable, et bene 
 sunt comparati. The Author himself, who rejects Euripides, applies 
 at times to Tzetzes, who lived above a thousand years later : and 
 even to Freinshemius, p. 117. He should have considered, that among 
 the Writers, whom he styles comparatively modern, are to be found 
 of the same age persons, to whom we are beholden for large Bnd curious 
 portions of ancient events : which but for them would have been lost. 
 Even Photius who came later, and whom he affects to despise, has 
 laid us on this account under great obligations. What numbers of 
 antecedent historians are quoted in the Parallela of Plutarch ? And 
 as he has, like many other Writers, transmitted intelligence to a great 
 amount from the most early Writers, he together with them may be 
 esteemed virtually as of the highest antiquity. The same may be 
 said of Athenaeus, Stobsus, Strabo, Pliny, A. Gellius, and many of 
 the learned Fathers ; who have afforded much ancient intelligence, 
 and to whom we are greatly indebted. 
 
 P. 54, 55. It had been mentioned, in order to fhevv, that the Heroes 
 in Homer never exifted, that their names were often borrowed from 
 circumstances after their death ; also, because many of them, are re- 
 presented as having no real father j but were supposed to be the 
 offspring of lakes, rivers, and nymphs ; and those of a higher class 
 were the sons of Jupiter, Mars and Venus -, or of some other Deity. 
 To obviate this the Author tells us— Mr. B. had told us however in the 
 
 page 
 
( 3° ) 
 
 page before that Homer was engaged in a period of obscurity. Yet Be 
 
 blames him for not possessing the genealogies of his Heroes more than ont 
 or two generations. Nobody deals more than, the Author in false at- 
 tacks, and evasions. We cannot see any appearance of that blame 
 cast on the Poet by Mr. B. which is here unduly intimated. And 
 if there had, it would not have been, because Homer could not carry 
 up his genealogies above one or two generations : but because he could 
 not often carry them up at all ; not even one generation. He made 
 many of his Chieftans tlte immediate sons of Mars, Jupiter, Venus, 
 Thetis, Mercury, and other imaginary Parents. As the names and 
 genealogies of Princes are to be found in the early annals of Fgypt, 
 Babylon and Aflyria, and in other regions j we might expect to find 
 them here. The Heroes of Homer have therefore been set aside by 
 Mr. B. on account of this deficiency. In opposition to this, the 
 Author gives for an instance to the contrary, the divine birth of 
 Alexander, p. 55. But this is by ho means competent. He was never 
 seriously looked upon as the son of Jupiter: nor had he any divine 
 name, or patronymic to that purpose. He is mentioned as the son 
 of Philip by Plutarch, Arrian, and every other writer; and uniformly 
 called Alexander. The Author tries to shew the truth and propriety 
 of these names in Homer, by an instance, which never took place. 
 We can never from the idle notion about Alexander, prove that Sar- 
 pedon was the son of Jupiter, or Achilles of Thetis : nor that any 
 person passed for the son of a Deity, that had a true father of his 
 own. One absurdity can never give sanction to another, 
 
 P. jo. 
 
( 3i ) 
 
 P. 59. It had been observed, that among the national Deities 
 from whom Homer borrowed the names of his Heroes, one was 
 Agamemnon, a title of Jupiter. And it was shewn from Staphylus 
 Naucratites, Lycophron, and others, that under this denomination he 
 was worshipped in Sparta, Attica, and at Troy. Lycophron says of 
 Priam before the aera of the Grecians coming there, (for it is said 
 prophetically) — that the old king should die at the altar of "Jupiter Aga- 
 memnon, v. 335. The Author however insists, that this title of Aga- 
 memnon related to a man : and he argues in this manner in defence 
 of his notion. Supposing Agamemnon, however, to have been, one of the 
 Various names or epithets under which Jupiter was honoured, is it not 
 just as probable, that it should be given to men by the custom of the 
 times, as that Homer in violation of every custom, should adopt a name 
 which could only be given to men. The sentences are so long, and so 
 confused, that we really do not see precisely the Author's scope: 
 but this may be owing to our want of discernment. As to its being 
 probable that the name might be given to men, it is idle to have re- 
 course to probability ; for the thing is certain, and was never disputed. 
 The great Commander of the Grecian army is continually so called 
 by Homer. The Author tries with great labour to prove what was 
 always granted. The great question is, whether it was not previously, 
 given to a Deity. Let us adhere to this, and not wander from the 
 question. This is in the notes denied ; and he says that the two 
 
 verses from Lycophron, which Mr. B. quotes very rightly. are pro* 
 
 phetic 
 
( 32 ) 
 
 phetic of the future dignity of ' the Hero, they cannot be construed in'td a 
 proof, that Agamemnon had been previously a title of Jupiter. Of all 
 assertions this seems to be the most rash and blind, that was ever 
 made. The hero, of whom he speaks is neither mentioned, nor al- 
 luded to in those two verses ; the person spoken of is Priam of Troy, 
 whose hoary hairs were to be basely violated. 'O Y a^i tv/aSm ?x 
 
 ^ya^s^yovog <}%y.£i;, xpqTri'Soc WYiyoc vspQs kccXXwzi t&Kokoo. He Was to be (lain 
 
 at the altar of Agamemnon Jupiter. This however is said to relate to 
 quite a different history. They are, savs the Author, prophetic of the 
 future dignity of the Hero : they cannot be construed into a proof, that 
 Agamemnon had been previously a title of Jupiter. Notes to p. ^9. Who 
 would think, that there could possibly be such misapprehension ? 
 He supposes the death of old king Priam to be prophetic of the future 
 dignity of another king: so that death and dignity are synonymous. 
 And as he insists that this controverted title did not belong to the 
 Deity, he says that the Commentators upon [ ycophron, such as 
 Canterus Meursius, and Potter are of his opinion : that is, it was not 
 a title of Jupiter, notes p. 59. First then let us see, what Canterus 
 maintains upon this head. His words are— Agamemnonis nomen Jovi 
 Iribuitur — colebatur autem hoc numen Spartas. p. 12. Let us next 
 observe the opinion of Meursius. p. 62. Reprehendit I ycophroncm 
 Lamb. Hortensius; quodCassandram inducat vaticinantem, moriturum 
 Priamum ad jovis Agamemnonis aram p. 62. How justly Lycophron 
 is blamed, we shall not here debate. It is certain that the verses 
 
 according 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 according to Meursius rebate to Jupiter Agamemnon at Troy quite) 
 contrary to the Author's assertion. The last application must be to 
 the learned Potter, who referring to the altar of Aga/memnon says— > 
 id est Jovis. p. 140. The Author has appealed to these three judicious 
 Commentators upon Lycophron for a sanction to his notion, who ar© 
 all decidedly against him. To these may be added Eustathius, as 
 quoted by Potter : 2oxei ivKoyuig -zrapa Aootuxrt Zsvg hya^^vccv sntQiTtrMg 
 uvui. We find that among the Spartans Agamemnon-, was an epithet 
 of Jupiter. And it has been shewn, that in Attica and at Troy it was 
 used in the same manner. 
 
 We have the like evidence from Athenagoras, who informs us, that 
 Helena also had the same worship among the Uienses. But the 
 Author denies the veracity of this early Father upon the authority 
 of Tzetzes. Now as he has shewn such aversion to modern evidence, 
 how came he above to set aside the testimony not only of this Father* 
 but of Euripides, and Lycophron; and now embrace the opinion of 
 a Person, who was far above a thousand years later than either ? 
 After mentioning Tzetzes, p. 59, he says, The passage from Athenagoras 
 has the same tendency, however perverted by Mr Bryant. He (Athenagoras) 
 is aclually summing up the tiames of the Heroes, and Heroines, who were 
 afterwards worshipped. Let us observe the passage, to which he refer?. 
 O fjnv iKuvg jsov 'ExTopa Xsyst, next tyjv 'EA?v»jy A<5pct~£tccv svris'ocjxcvog ■Erpocrjoivf.'. 
 'O h AauMupmog Kyapipvom A<«. p. 277. Now, says the Author, notes 
 P* 5f • if dgamemnon was a name of Jupiter, and dist mil from the Hera, 
 
 F the 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 the introduction of him here is totally foreign to the purpose : And the 
 ^Author (Athenagoras) sufficiently explains his own meaning by the context. 
 He certainly does : but we are sorry to say, that this meaning the Author 
 of the Vindication never arrived at. The intention of this learned 
 Father was to address the two Ca?sars of his time in favour of the 
 religion, which he professed. And this he performed in a glorious 
 appeal, in which he laid before them, as matter of just complaint, 
 that every Religion, however base, and every Deity, however strange, 
 were tolerated in the Roman Empire, excepting Christ, and Christianity. 
 Among other uncommon Deities was Helena Adrastea, the same as 
 Nemesis, worshipped by the Ilienses : also Jupiter Agamemnon, re- 
 verenced both in Ilium and at Sparta ; and Hedlor both at Ilium and 
 Thebes in Bceotia; to which place according to Pausanias his worship 
 was brought from Phrygia. These three were very obscure Divinities, 
 and the rest will be found to be as little known, though of great 
 antiquity. Hence we may perceive, that these, and many others, were 
 ancient and uncommon names of Deities, which Homer borrowed, and 
 gave to his Heroes, and other personages. 
 
 The Author mentions (p. 59. notes) that Athenagoras in this passage 
 is summing up the names of the Heroes and the Heroines that were after- 
 wards (that is after the ruin of Troy) worshipped. But they were 
 antecedent to Troy : and there was no occasion for any deep calcu- 
 lation, or summing up ; for including the three preceding, the number 
 amounts to but eight. Among these is Tenes, the founder of Tenedos, 
 
 and 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 and Phylonoe, little known : also Agraulos, Pandrosus, and Erechthtfusi 
 none of which had the least concern with the war of Troy, nor" 
 are they to be judged by that aera. They seem to have been obscure 
 local Deities ; and, according to their history, far antecedent to that 
 war. Erechtheus is said to have been the same as Neptune } and 
 who Tenes was, we learn from Cicero. Tenem apud Tenedios putant 
 esse sanctissimum Deum, ac eorum urbem condidisse. He was ante- 
 cedent to the City Tenedos ; see Cicero Orat. in Verrem prima. C. 19. 
 p. 275, Gronov. Phylonoe was by some supposed to be Proserpine J 
 Aglaurus and Pandrosus, with their sister Herse not here mentioned, 
 were the daughters of Cecrops ; who was supposed to have reigned 
 between three and four hundred years before the siege of Troy, and 
 many years even before the foundation of the City. We may therefore 
 be assured, that these persons mentioned by Athenagoras were not the 
 Heroes and Heroines, who were afterwards worshipped. They were 
 according to their history far more early, and had no relation to Troy. 
 
 P. 66. The Author tries continually to evade the force of the 
 arguments, which he cannot answer : and often founds his objections 
 upon articles, which were never denied. Metrodorus Lampsacenus 
 was mentioned as a person, who lived very near Troas ; and must have 
 been well acquainted with that region. The same was said of Anaxago- 
 ras, who resided in the same place ; and was a philosopher of great 
 eminence, and had Pericles, Euripides, and Socrates for his disciples. 
 They did not allow, that there was any Grecian invasion, nor any war 
 
 F 2 of 
 
( it ) 
 
 of Troy. To this the Author answers with a question : Were they 
 the most ancient, and does Mr. B's chronology inform him of no writers 
 whose births were prior to the ijth. Olympiad? We are not here con- 
 cerned about antiquity : though these persons were fufficiently ancient : 
 but about the opportunities of knowing, which these Writers had 
 from their situation. The Author proceeds— If Mr. B. will consult 
 his JEschylus, whose antiquity is at least some few years higher ; that 
 Author will show him, how common the different traditions were in his 
 time. (p. 66.) Nobody denies it. The Grecians had universally tra- 
 ditions without number, and they had early Writers : but what is all 
 this to the purpose ? Here were two Persons, of high repute in their 
 time, who had the best opportunites of knowledge : and the result was, 
 that they believed the two poems of Homer to have been allegories. 
 This is the point, on which we are to dwell, and not suffer our atten- 
 tion to be taken off by details about antiquity ; or by any thing foreign 
 to the subject. 
 
 The Author certainly indulges too much in resentment, and obloquy; 
 which he expresses very severely to persons long since departed. Homer's 
 story, he says, has survived— -whilst Metrodorus, and Anaxagoras have been 
 consigned to that oblivion from which Mr. B. has raked their memories. 
 p. 66. This is unnecessarily contemptuous: and very unbecoming. 
 How little must the Author be acquainted with Plato, Cicero, and 
 Laertius, who bear such honourable testimony of these persons ? He 
 has taken up two pages in the abuse of Anaxagoras, mentioning some 
 
 idle 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 idle and doubtful traditions concerning him : not at all considering his 
 profound philosophy, and celebrated character, which was never con-* 
 signed to oblivion. We have seen above how he has treated the memory 
 of Euripides, Lycophron, Ptolemy Hephjestion, Eusebius, and others -, 
 and from several passages to which he applies, he shews, that he did 
 not truly understand them, nor could he be conversant with them. 
 We generally say, that familiarity breeds contempt ; but we here see the 
 most sovereign contempt with very little acquaintance. This very 
 Author, who sets aside Writers of such excellence, introduces Dares 
 Phrygius and Dictys Cretensis as genuine Greek Writers, and applies 
 for their sanclion. p. 77. 
 
 P. 6y, 68. The Author here speaks of Mr. B. bringing evidence 
 against Aim. But how could he bring evidence against a treatise, which 
 be never saw: or oppose a person, who wrote two years after him? 
 The passage alluded to is, where Herodotus says, that Helen never was 
 at Troy. And if she were not at Troy, the inference drawn from it is, 
 that there could be no expedition upon her account. This is the 
 article to be obviated. But our attention is taken off from the con- 
 sideration of this argument, to quite a different object. There were 
 some Cyprian verses mentioned by this Historian, in which, as well 
 as in Homer, the flight of Helen with Paris was asserted. Hero- 
 dotus treats of these for a while, and at last gives them up with some 
 disgust. Upon this, the Author of the Vindication makes the following 
 remarks, p. 67. Herodotus /having long argued against this facl (tbe 
 
 fight 
 
( 3* ) 
 
 flight of Helen) and against the authenticity of some Cyprian verses which 
 mention it ; having endeavoured as much as he could to illustrate Homer, 
 reverting to his history, he says, adieu now to Homer and the Cyprian 
 verses. These words J will just observe are translated by Mr. B.—Away 
 with them together, a long farewell to each, both to Homer and the 
 Cyprian verses. This specimen will put the reader on his guard against 
 Mr. B's translations. The Author does not comprehend the meaning 
 of the Historian, and passes over too hastily the article to be decided, 
 that Helen never was at Troy. Instead of this, he enters into a cavil 
 about words; in which he is totally mistaken. He admonishes the 
 reader here, as in other places, to be upon his guard against Mr. B. 
 and places him in such a light, that a stranger must suppose him to 
 be a person of the greatest falsehood. And all this resentment is 
 shewn, because Mr. B. has given a paraphrastical interpretation, in- 
 stead of a literal version : as such a version would not express the 
 
 meaning and disposition of the Historian. 'Opjpoj ju,a> wv kki ra Kurpa 
 
 s-mpc yjxi^tu). Away with them : I will have nothing mere to do with 
 them. The same manner of expression is in many instances to be ob- 
 served; though it has been said by others, as well as the Author, 
 that it is never to be found. Take the following example. 
 
 Ov&zv £jj.ci % vy.iv, voters rn; /Afr ?ju.5* 
 Away with ye, fond Hope, and Fortune : I have gained a safe harbour : I 
 lave nothing more to do with ye. Sport with others for the future, who 
 
 may 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 may come after me. This is the true purport which a literal translation 
 cannot express. Xai^s and xxiptrw, are not always used, as a compliment, 
 and a benediction, as some have insisted, but quite the reverse. What 
 says the learned Stephanus ? Porro et iis %<xipuv dicimus, quos in ma- 
 lam rem abire jubemus : quos in malam crucem relegamus j seu quos 
 cum contemptu relinquimus. This objection therefore originated from 
 a mistake. In the mean time our attention has been drawn off from 
 the true object, viz. Helen being carried to Troy, which Herodotus 
 denied : and all the evidence, which had been afforded the Author to 
 that purpose, is unduly omitted. 
 
 P. 69. In this place, and many others, the Author would maintain 
 the certainty of the war from its being universally credited, and cre- 
 dited by persons of the greatest learning and knowledge. He men- 
 tions (p* 122.) Hesiod, Herodotus, Thucydides and Diodorus. To 
 these he might have added, Solon, .^schylus, Sophocles, Euripides, 
 Plato, Socrates, Xenophon, Aristotle, and others without number, who 
 were the most brilliant luminaries of Greece. We may therefore 
 allow this belief in the most enlightened part of the world. But at 
 the same time we must consider, that the wisest men have often 
 the greatest weaknesses. These very persons believed in Satyrs, 
 Nymphs, and Centaurs -, also in Gods of the woods and rivers: and 
 in monstrous Deities of the Deep. They were slaves to the basest rites ; 
 nd maintained the vilest 1 heology that ever was adopted. They were 
 devoted to Augury and Aruspicy ; and dreaded phantoms and furies. 
 
 Even 
 
( 4o ) 
 
 Even Homer, that accurate describer of manners, who, it is said, could 
 not be guilty of any violation of truth, maintained that the horses of 
 Achilles could speak ; that Diana was boxed and beaten by Juno ; 
 that Jupiter was deceived by an owl, and dozed upon Mount Ida; 
 lastly, that Mars and Venus were caught in bed together by Vulcan, 
 and ensnared in a net : cum multis aliis. 
 
 The Athenians and their neighbours looked up to Homer, and his 
 writings, as numberless nations do to Mahomet and his Koran. If 
 extent of faith, and universality among any people can determine the 
 truth, it must be allowed to the Mahommedans, above all others. 
 Their religion is established in a large portion of Europe; and through 
 the whole of Asia Minor: and it occupies all Arabia, and Persia, and 
 is extended to some of the farthest islands in the east. To these must 
 be added a large share of Africa : to all which Hellas of old if com- 
 pared, would not amount to the fiftieth part. Their faith is extensive 
 and absolute, yet founded in errour. But it may be urged, that these 
 rations are base and illiterate, and no just comparison can be formed. 
 Let us then consider Europe, the most enlightened part of the world. 
 We shall here find articles maintained universally in some nations-, 
 which are by many thought to be repugnant both to reason and truth. 
 Among those, who have held these tenet3, have been some of the 
 most learned persons, that ever graced the world. Thucydides there- 
 fore, and the Sages of Greece, however knowing and excellent, were 
 still liable to err, and to believe a fable. 
 
 P. 75- 
 
( 4> ) 
 
 P. j$. The Author takes notice that Mr. B. for several pages Con" 
 tends strongly, that Homer was not an Astatic, but a native of Greece? 
 probably of Ithaca. The argument was certainly extended through 
 many pages, but it seems wrong to say, that he contends strongly j 
 for he only lays his evidence before the Reader, and leaves to him 
 to conclude : for he does not presume to be certain. This evidence 
 was very curious, and collected with much labour from a variety of 
 ancient Writers. But the whole goes for nothing with the Author-, 
 he never concerns himself about the authorities produced; but has 
 omitted them all, and then too superciliously tells us-— mere conjetlun 
 requires no answer. I have waved the contest, p. 76. The strongest 
 proofs are to him mere fancy, and demonstration itself a delirium-, 
 or dream. What is extraordinary, he immediately after this pays 
 Mr. B. a compliment and says-, p. 76. that he has the pleasure of agreeing 
 with him in some points, and not knowing any real authority, that either 
 contradicls, or confirms one tittle of his assertions. This is doing Mr. B. 
 great honour: yet upon consideration it appears to be a blind concession. 
 For why does he so continually dissent from Mr. B. where there is 
 accumulated proof ; and now agree with him, when he confesses, 
 that he does not know any real authority to- confirm one tittle of what 
 he asserts? 
 
 P. 12. He observes, that Mr. B. has made a wrong calculation 
 of the Grecian forces at the battle of Plataea : and that they did not 
 consist, as he has stated them, of 72500 men; but of 73200. Mr. B. 
 
 G is 
 
( 4* ) 
 
 is obliged to him. for this intimation : and if any opportunity should 
 he afforded, he will avail himself of this intelligence. But if wc 
 allow the Grecians both with light armed, and unarmed troops, to 
 have amounted in the whole to i ic,ooo, as they are stated by Herodotus, 
 yet these will never countenance an hundred thousand, some centuries 
 before at the supposed aera of Troy. It is difficult to assent to many 
 articles, which the Author upon this occasion lays down as certain. 
 As I have before said, I cannot believe, that grand alliances were formed, 
 where there was little or no connexion: that freedom subsisted, where 
 there was no police, nor security : that a distant correspondence was 
 maintained, when there was no commerce: and that honour prevailed, 
 where every petty chief was a thief and marauder. Plutarch tells us, 
 that when Theseus arrived at a state of manhood, which was about 
 the time of Helen's birth, Greece swarmed with banditti. Ovhv fispas 
 
 xaQetpov Kai otxtvovvov inro Xrisoov^ vmi xixTtovpyuiv. Theseus, p, 3. No part 
 of it was exempt, and safe, from thieves and villains : of whom he gives 
 a fearful account, p. 3. The like is to be found in Thucydides. L. 
 j. C. 2. p. 2. who says, there was no commerce, nor correspondence 
 carried on either by sea or land, without dread and danger. Yet 
 the Author supposes, that this was an azra of general liberty. As to 
 the Godlike Chiefs, the Men of Justice, of whom he has before treated, 
 we may suppose Hercules, Pirithous, and Theseus, to have been of 
 that order. Yet notwithstanding their specious character on one hand, 
 they are on the other represented as men of violence, and guilty of 
 
 rapes 
 
( A3 ) 
 
 rapes and rapine. Theseus and his comrade are supposed to have beene 
 condemned to prison, and to everlasting durance after repeated outrages 
 of this sort. Their first intercourse happened on account of a depre- 
 dation ; when a herd of Cattle was stolen, which one had purloined 
 from the other. Plutarch, p. 14. The characters of these pretended 
 Heroes, these Men of Justice, are always upon the extreme. They arc 
 one minute represented as Demi-gods, and the next as noxious Demons: 
 and the latter character seems to prevail, like the Oak in the Poet- 
 Quantum vertice ad auras 
 ^thereas, tantum radice ad Tartara, tendunt. 
 Thucydides takes notice, that robbery and plunder were common, 
 and not discouraged. L. 1. C. <;. p. 5. Neleus, the father of Nestor, 
 made the price of his daughter's nuptials the flocks and herds of his 
 next neighbour; which he, who would win her, was to steal. Odyss. 
 A. v. 288. Pausanias. L. 4. p. 374. He was in his turn robbed; 
 and his son Nestor made ample reprisals, of which he gives an account. 
 11. A. v. 676. These deeds of misrule and injustice were so common, 
 that Ulysses is made to ask the Godlike Agamemnon in the shades 
 below, whether he did not loose his life in acts of piracy and sheep- 
 stealing ? < 'dy- s. A. v. 401, Agamemnon puts the same question to 
 Amphimedon. Plow came you, and your companions to loose your 
 lives ? Were ye overwhelmed in a tempest : or were ye slain in art 
 attempt to plunder other people's sheep and cattle? Odyss. Cl. v. 112. 
 Their God Mercury served for an example : who was said to have 
 been born in the morning; to have played a tune upon the harp at 
 
 G 2 noon, 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 noon, and to liave stolen a herd of oxen in the evening. 'Ea-Treptoi 
 @x; xK^ev. Hymn, to Merc. v. 17. Such were the customs, and 
 such the principles, of these times. For if the Deity was a rogue, 
 what must have been his votaries? The Author has mistaken Homer, 
 and thought, that the pictures drawn by him were copies of those times. 
 But the characters afforded by the Poet were formed by his own exalted 
 genius, which is said to have raised men to Gods. He exceeded Nature, 
 and we may use the words of Thucydides upon another occasion— iju 
 
 ukoz i-ni to ^siQv [i-v ttor/jrriv ovtcc y.o<ry.;i<rcci. L. 1. C. IO. p. IO. But 
 
 though he dresses up his chief Heroes in a complete and shining 
 panoply j yet we may semetimes descry strong marks of primitive 
 ferity and rudeness. 
 
 The Author, to shew how easily such a great armament might be 
 formed, tells us, p. 6. that Greece at this time swarmed with warlike 
 Adventurers, and whilst Agriculture was negleQed, and Commerce unknown, 
 her bands of warriors, led by enterprising chieftains, were ever ready to 
 assemble, when the standard of war was creeled. This is a specious 
 picture, but whence was it copied ? Nobody knows, Yet he assures 
 ns, that the same spirit exists in modern Greece, as prevailed in the 
 ancient. Greece, at this moment, swarms with adventurous hordes who 
 are ever ready to join in the wars of the Turkish Governors, and are 
 frequently employed in the heart of Asia, on whatever side the greatest 
 fay is to be acquired, or the greatest plunder is to be expecled. He adds 
 some other circumstances, which he thinks similar, and says, (p. 8.) 
 
 this 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 this analogy is unanswerable. I fear it will be found upon inquiry, 
 that no analogy subsists between them; and that he is mistaken in his 
 notions of both. I never heard of any hordes of Grecians, nor can I 
 believe, that they are so eager to join in 'Turkish wars. It is not 
 credible, that Chriftians should so readily list under the banner of 
 Mahomet. I must have some good authority, before I credit the 
 assertion : but I have never met with any ; and the Author affords 
 none. He seems to be equally mistaken in his account of ancient 
 Greece ; which he embellishes greatly. We have seen that he speaks 
 of bands of warriors, and enterprising Chieftans, who were ready to 
 unite at the display of a standard. But how does he know this, when 
 there is not the least intimation given ? On the contrary, the country 
 is represented as divided into small districts, and abounding with 
 banditti, who were always in a state of hostility, and making depre- 
 dations upon one another. Thucyd. L. i. C. 5. p. 5. There was no 
 union in those times ; no common cause. Uao tuv TpuiKuv ahv (pouvsrac 
 wporjpoi/ vjotvn spyaira[jLsv,] 17 E\Aaf. The Grecians never engaged in any 
 common cause before the war of Troy. ibid. p. 5. Nor even then ; for 
 the reasons mentioned by Plutarch, and this very Historian; how- 
 ever they may credit the war. The Author of the Vindication sets 
 off these times of mjsrule to the best advantage ; and makes use of 
 this luxuriant colouring too often in the course of his work. He 
 tries also to ascertain the Poet's veracity by the Poet's own evi- 
 dence. It was thought not credible, that so many persons should 
 
 engage 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 engage in a confederacy and war, who had no connection, and had 
 received no injury. To this the Author replies, by saying : to this con- 
 federacy -a number of warriors acceded, who were by no means per- 
 sonally injured; and who had little or no connexion with Menelaus, p. J. ' 
 Achilles is particularly mentioned. He here makes use of the very 
 thing controverted, for a decisive proof in its favour; and begs the ques- 
 tion. But this is not sufficiently logical, as I believe most will agree. 
 
 I had omitted an article of reprehension which the Author here 
 brings, in consequence of an argument, which I had advanced. It 
 was a long time, he (Mr. B. ) says, before the Greeks ventured to traverse 
 the Mgean, and quotes Libanius to prove, that they never ventured farther 
 than Delos. And in the Notes he adds : Libanius was tutor to Julian ; 
 and his authority therefore respecting the state of early Greece, is entitled 
 to very Utile attention, (if any) when controverted by the ancient historians. 
 p. 16. The Author, as I have said before, never considers, that 
 Writers like Libanius, had access to many ancient histories, which 
 are now lost : and they deserve far more regard, than he is willing 
 >to allow. The Persons, who, as he intimates, controvert the words 
 of Libanius, I know not : nor does the Author produce a single instance, 
 ancient or modern. Let us then see, by whom Libanius is supported. 
 It is by the evidence of Herodotus, upon which the argument of Mr B 
 was chiefly founded. The words of this Historian were introduced by 
 Mr. B. immediately subsequent to the former, and ought to have been 
 taken notice of at the same time. But they are very improperly omit- 
 ted; 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 ted; and the truth is for a while suspended, that the reader may be 
 left to believe, that Libanius was the only Writer, to whom Mr. B. 
 appealed. After a delay of two pages, the Author mentions the pas- 
 sage in Herodotus, which he introduces in the following manner, p. 
 1 8. But he (Mr. B.) strengthens his argument still farther by a quotation 
 from Herodotus, who says, that a fleet from Argolis and Sparta, refused 
 in the Persian -war to sail beyond Delos. Mr.. B. it will be observed in 
 this passage, puts a little dash •where apart of the sentence is omitted. The 
 intention of Mr. B. has been above mentioned. This was to fhew, 
 that the Grecians, and particularly the Lacedaemonians, were in these 
 times very little skilled in the art of navigation. ' He therefore very 
 innocently omitted, what he thought not at all either to his purpose, 
 or against it. And of this omission he gave fair notice : not thinking 
 that any exception could by any reasonable person be made. The Au- 
 thor proceeds But the Reader should be informed, that the rest of it 
 
 runs thus. All beyond seemed full of danger ; as they had little knowledge 
 of those parts, which appeared to them to be full of enemies. Their fears 
 then proceeded from the dread of falling in with a superior feet. How 
 can the Author, when he imputes to Mr. B. a deficiency, be himself 
 so defective, and untrue in his representation ? I have said, that the 
 circumstance to be proved was the insufficiency of the Grecians in 
 navigation. And to evade this, the Author first cavils about a dash : 
 and then tries to extenuate and pervert the true meaning of the Histo- 
 rian. The passage, which the Author says, runs thus, is attended with 
 
 some 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 some material difference, and will be found to be as follows. When 
 the Ionium solicited the Helladians to pass over to their coast, the utmost '» 
 that they could obtain, was to get them as far as Delos, AH beyond 
 seemed full of danger, as they had little knowledge of these farts, and 
 the whole seemed to be filled with the enemies forces. An expedition as 
 far as Samos appeared to them a voyage to the Pillars of Hercules. 
 Herod. L. 8. C. 132. p. 682. Here it is to be observed, that when the 
 Author says in his version, that the Grecians refused to sail beyond Delos, 
 the Historian tells us, 'Oi lwvcj i&poviyayov auTUg poyig y.e%pi Ar,\h£. They 
 had much ado to get them so far. Some other articles he has either 
 extenuated or omitted, in order to evade their force. He sets aside 
 the chief reason, mentioned by Herodotus, for tire backwardness of the 
 Grecians, and would persuade us, that it was owing intirely to another 
 cause. Their fears then, he says, proceeded from the dread of falling in 
 with a superior fleet. Not a word of any fleet is mentioned by the 
 Historian, nor does the word spancc necessarily signify a fleet. What- 
 ever additional fears they may have had upon the occasion, I shall 
 not dispute. It is intimated, that they were rather imaginary, by the 
 word eSuuc. The first and true cause of their not venturing farther 
 than Delos, is said expressly to have arisen from their not being ac- 
 quainted with those parts---« rav %upuv can tpnupovri. Then come the 
 words- --rpccTf/js it zjoena. zrXioc tloKie uvea, and ail places seemed to be filled 
 •with the enemies forces. These subsequent fears could not cancel their 
 antecedent ignorance. We have seen, that it was farther said, that 
 
 they 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 they looked upon an expedition to the island Samos as a voyage to the 
 Atlantic : which the Author unduly omits. These articles he had 
 before his eyes' ; and accuses Mr. B. of omitting, what did not seem 
 at all necessary to be mentioned : at the same time he is himself 
 guilty of omissions of consequence; and of perverting the Historian's 
 meaning. 
 
 After all, if the Author's obje&ion was better founded, it would be 
 of little consequence, excepting only, that it draws off the attention 
 of the Reader from the main object to be considered. For let the 
 cause be what it may, either the ignorance, or the fears, of the 
 Grecians, still we are told, that they ventured not beyond Delos j that 
 they were unacquainted with the opposite coast ; and not experienced 
 in the art of navigation. If then they knew so little in the time 
 of the Persian war, there is no reason to think, that they were more 
 knowing in times of far higher antiquity. 
 
 PART 
 
(( 5° ) 
 
 PART the SECOND. 
 
 P 
 
 . 7S. The Author of the Vindication has shewn uncommon as- 
 perity against the person, whom he opposes, and speaks repeatedly of 
 his futility and absurdity ; and this contemptuous behaviour pervades 
 his whole Treatise. He therefore cannot be offended, if on the other 
 hand some mention should be made of his prudence. His purpose 
 in this Second Part of his work, is to shew the situation of Troy j and 
 this, if it can be ascertained, must be best effected by the places in 
 its vicinity, which had a connexion with it. They must certainly 
 afford to one another reciprocal light. They are mentioned by Strabo, 
 Pliny, Ptolemy, Antoninus, and occasionally by others : and when 
 compared, may afford the light mentioned. We should therefore 
 expect, that the Author, and his Friend, in their Maps, would avail 
 themselves of these advantages. Without these helps we may form 
 numberless imaginary positions : and if such evidence be neglected, 
 there will be nothing to confute them. I say then, that we should 
 expeel, that these Gentlemen would introduce the chief Cities and 
 Towns, mentioned by Homer, in this part of the world. But this 
 is not done. For they have prudently omitted most of the ancient 
 places in the region of Troas, as they could not be made to corres- 
 pond 
 
, ( 5i ) 
 
 pond with the situation, which -they have given to the City. Abydus 
 to the north, and Ledum to the south, are not to be found in their 
 maps, though they were the boundaries of the Region, with which 
 the Poet was principally concerned. From the distance of these two 
 places proper measurement might be made of the situation of others. 
 On this account they are prudently left out. The Author has not 
 mentioned, in his map, Dardanum, or Dardania : nor Ilium, Pagus 
 Iliensium, Chryse, Aehaeum, Portus Archivorum, Colone, Cebrene, 
 Scepsis, or Hamaxitus. Even Ida is omitted, though so necessary to 
 be known. However widely it may have been extended, the name of 
 it never occurs. Cotylus and Gargarus are in like manner excluded. 
 
 It is said by Virgil, Est in conspeclu Tenedos ; which notice is 
 
 quite contrary to the Author's opinion: and the Island in consequence 
 of it is not suffered to appear. He saw, that it was situated low to- 
 wards the south, and nearly opposite to the City Troas ; and far re- 
 moved from Bounarbachi, and consequently would ruin his plan, if 
 admitted. In the room of all these ancient places, he has brought 
 others of modern date, which draw off the attention of the unwary 
 Reader. We are accordingly treated with Tchiblack, Jeni Cheyr, 
 Erkissiqui, Jeni Keu, Dahri, Feranli, and Bos, with which we are not 
 at all concerned in the inquiry. He might as well have inserted De- 
 marary, Issiquibo, and Nantucket; they would have afforded just as 
 much emolument to the Reader. In the execution of this work, he 
 follows Mr. Chevalier, whose map, he says, be found as accurate, as 
 
 H z that 
 
( S^ ) 
 
 that of Mr. B. was erroneous. But of these supposed mistakes not one 
 single instance is produced. He however acknowledges, that in some 
 trifles be differs even from his Friend. This difference in respedt to 
 one article, is by no means trifling ; but of great consequence. It 
 relates to the island Tenedos above mentioned; which by most wri- 
 ters was supposed to have been within view of Troy, and lay opposite 
 to the coast of Troas. This Mr. Chevalier had introduced: but I 
 have shewn that the Author, for particular reasons, omits it. 
 
 The Author having with much art and industry got rid of this 
 obstacle, now ventures to prosecute his scheme; and places the City 
 Troy some miles inland, upon the hill Bounarbachi, one of the emi- 
 nences of ancient Ida ; and so acknowledged by Mr. Chevalier. But 
 here an unexpedled difficulty arose : for looking more accurately into 
 the Treatise, which he opposed, he found that Troy was situated 
 in a plain, sv irshu : whereas he owns, that the village of Bounarbachi 
 stands above the plain, p. 96. It is a place, says Chevalier «p. 30.) 
 on every side encompassed with precipices. About a mile beyond the 
 village this Traveller places in his Map, T'roja Fetus : and it is repeated 
 in another Map (p. 115.) where he places Troja at large. The 
 Author of the Vindication says himself — We ascended the opposite hill 
 to Bounarbachi (p, 91.) How could he possibly suppose a City, situated 
 on these heights, to be in a plain ? He has hampered himself past 
 remedy : and we may say— 
 
 Verte 
 
 
( S3 ) 
 
 Verte emnes tete in facies, et contrahc quicquid 
 Sive animis, sivc arte vales. 
 
 What expedient can be found ? The Author thinks that he has discovered 
 one. He accordingly says, that the City indeed was in the plain : but 
 the Citadel stood on the top of the hill. (p. 93.) But his evasion 
 will not serve. He himself has placed the City high up beyond the 
 Village: and the Scsean Gate (how justly I will not say) is placed 
 upon the hill. Here is Troja Situs, as determined under his own 
 hand in his Map, and in his Plate, p. 92. and he represents himself 
 as an eye witness. As he is so very severe, he should have been 
 more cautious: for this contrariety must be deemed very reprehensible. 
 Had the person, whom he attacks, been guilty of such an instance of 
 inconsistency, he would have pronounced— Ysvhtr9ai cSonropcv avfya, and 
 have given him no quarter. 
 
 He however tries to strengthen his argument (p. 94.) by a line 
 in Homer. 
 
 A^&XTOg £5"/ ttoXig, KOCl tTTlSpoy.OV STTXzTO TSI%0(. 
 
 The words —sk fyopov r;i%eg he renders--- -T^ wall was on a level plain: 
 and immediately in the very next line tells us, that the wall stood 
 upon uneven and sloping ground, p. 94. 
 
 Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo ? 
 After all, what can be more strange, than to suppose, that the words 
 tu%os iTrfyoycv, by which is meant any thing pervious, and easily 
 
 overrun, 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 overrun, and in this place easily ascended, signified a flat ? He him- 
 self, suspecting his mistake, renders the words m%og erriSppov after- 
 wards where the foot of the wall was easily accessible, p. 94. But 
 
 how can the same words signify at one time a wall in a level plain: 
 and at another, the foot of a wall easily accessible f Though he has 
 tried with much art and industry, to rid himself of the difficulties, 
 into which his own evidence has brought him, yet haret lateri lethalis 
 arundo. He cannot free himself from it. Though he has at last 
 brought Troy down to the plain, and leaves only the Citadel on the 
 mountain: yet he confutes himself in an instant; and in his plate of 
 the City, p. 92, he reinstates it, and places it, as appears on a very 
 high eminence; which he acknowledges to be Bounarbachi. There 
 was another article, which he did not consider, when he placed Troy 
 at, or towards, the foot of the hill. Homer does not say only, that it 
 was in the plain of Ida, but it was Tr,\o8t, a great way from Mount 
 Ida: (Ct. 662,) with which, after all his trouble, his pofition does not 
 agree. 
 
 He assures us that the situation, which he has given to Troy, 
 accords in every article, and amounts to a demonstration. Yet it 
 ' does not coincide in any one instance. The distance from the camp 
 is far too great, which has been noticed : but that notice is past over 
 without any just reply. He says, p. 109. that tie distance from the 
 sources of the Scamander, (so he calls some little fountains below Bou- 
 narbachi) to tie Sigcean is there laid down (by Mr. Chevalier) at about 
 
 mat 
 
( fJ ) 
 
 nine miles and a half: and indeed this is nearly constant ta the truth. 
 Now in his own map these fountains are a long mile from Bounar- 
 bachi, and Troy is still higher. Let us therefore take the most mo- 
 derate computation, and suppose the camp to have been ten miles only 
 from his Trojas Situs ; yet how could those marches and retreats have 
 happened in so small a space, as they are described by the Poet ? In 
 that day, wherein Patroclus appears, the Grecian Army is supposed to 
 have fought their way in a stubborn dispute, to the w alls of Troy, and 
 back again to the ships ; then to have advanced a second time, and to 
 be driven back : the whole of which amounts to forty miles. How 
 could a hundred thousand men, or one hundred men, with such ob- 
 stacles, go over the space mentioned, in the time given? It is impossi- 
 ble. This also has been urged by Mr. B. but not duly regarded. 
 To remedy the difficulties which arise from this distance, the Author 
 places the Grecian Camp three miles inland, and nearer ; and supposes 
 the land below, to have been an increment from the sea; for which he 
 has not in this place the least evidence. Yet he assures us, that Mr. 
 Chevalier takes notice of— a confiderable accretion of land at the mouth 
 of the Simois (p. 109.) Not one word to this purpose is to be found 
 in the Author appealed to. On the contrary, Mr. Chevalier accuses Mr. 
 Wood for having entertained so wild a notion. He asks h*im, (p. 77.) 
 iv hat proof he had — and in what particular part this accretion has hap- 
 pened? He adds : It is even easy to prove, that no considerable increase 
 can exist there, because the impetuous currents of the Hellespont constantly 
 
 prevent 
 
( 5^ 5 
 
 prevent this, by sweeping the sands away, as fast as they accumulate at 
 the month. He says, Mr. Woods own account compleatly refutes his hy- 
 pothesis of an accretion. Note to p. 77. The Author however persists, 
 and begs the Reader only to look at the drawing in the Map of Mr. 
 Chevalier— -Jhe long low points of fit marshy land running forward into 
 the sea evince their origin. But what are long low points against plait* 
 and intelligible writing, by which the truth is signified ? What are 
 these uncertain dots to the decisive, and positive declaration of the 
 Writer j who denies what is blindly affirmed of him, and gives a direcl: 
 contradiction to the whole ? 
 
 The Author of the Vindication speaks of this part of the region 
 
 somewhat artfully, and describes it, as flat marshy land, running forward 
 
 into the sea. The converse may equally be maintained, and it may just 
 
 as reasonably be described, as a flat marshy land, running backward into 
 
 the Country : so that this artifice will not avail. In short this marsh 
 
 has arisen from an ancient lake; which is taken notice of by more 
 
 f 
 authors than one. Strabo gives a very clear, and accurate account o 
 
 t he coast, from Abydus downward, and says, that the next City below 
 
 was Dardanus : between which and Abydus ran the river Rhodius, 
 
 opposite to Cunosema, upon the Thracian Chersonesa. Near to these 
 
 was the promontory Ophrynium, and the lake Pteleos. Strabo. L. 13. 
 
 p. S89. This river Rhodius, just above Ophrynium, is what the Author 
 
 of the Vindication, and othe» Moderns seem to have taken either for 
 
 the Simois, or Scamander ; though neither of these rivers are to be 
 
 looked 
 
C 57 ) 
 
 looked for In the^e parts. The lake Pteleos is by Strabo placed just 
 where the marsh land appears now, near Ophrynium, which seems to 
 be the cape Janisary of the Moderns. The Map of Mr. Wood give» 
 the best view of this fenny ground, and of a lake, which still 
 subsists with a small river, which run9 into it. p. 306. The water 
 was also observed by Dr. Pocock. vol. 2. p. 104. This was undoub- 
 tedly the Pteleos of Strabo : for it lies below Abydus, towards the 
 mouth of the Propontis, or Hellespont, precisely as it is described 
 by that Writer. L. 13. p. 883. It lies inland, and is secluded from, 
 the sea. Hence it appears to have been never drained. And in this 
 marshy situation the Author places the camp of the Grecians. These 
 marshes remain now ; and were to be seen in the time of Strabo, 
 seventeen hundred years ago. There is reason to think, that they were 
 always the same, a3 they are fed by a spring and rivulet ; and therefore 
 they could not be produced by any accumulation of swampy soil 
 from the sea, for they are inland, and secluded from the coast. This 
 may be in some degree traced in the Map of Mr. Chevalier : but 
 it is far more accurately described in that of Mr. Wood. The Author 
 of the Vindication was not apprised of this, when he gave a delinea- 
 tion of the coast: but he afterwards observed some faint traces of 
 it, in the exhibition of Mr. Chevalier, and adopted it in his texi, 
 when he thought it countenanced his opinion. But in his own map 
 it is not to be seen. He therefore applies to his friend for intelli- 
 gence : and refers the Reader to his low faint dots, in order to shew 
 
 I the- 
 
t 58 ) 
 
 the existence of this fenny ground. Here we cannot help asking an 
 untoward question. As the Grecian Camp is by him here fixed; 
 and as it is a part of the region of particular consequence, towards 
 the determination of the City above, as described by him : how came 
 he to apply to Mr. Chevalier for intelligence, and not to have been 
 himself sufficiently informed ? From the account, which he gives, one 
 would imagine, that he had personally and accurately observed every 
 thing material in this particular part, as it more efpecially demanded 
 his attention. Eut he intimates, that he knew nothing himself: and 
 refers us to seme long low, and almost imperceptable, points in the Map 
 of his friend, from whom he borrows this intelligence, and mistakes 
 it. For he quotes this evidence to shew, that there had been an 
 accumulation of land from the sea, and that this meer was owing to 
 it. But Mr. Chevalier expressly says, and proves, that there has not 
 been any accession of soil upon the coast : nor could there have been 
 on account of the rapidity of the current at the Hellespont, and 
 Dardanels: which rapidity is mentioned by Tournefort and other 
 Writers. Hence, notwithstanding his zeal for his Friend, he has 
 never read his book, or at least imperfectly, and to no good purpose. 
 Strabo indeed takes notice, that the Scamander brought down a great 
 deal of soil from above, and that there was a large profusion of mud 
 at its mouth. But this was not the river, of which, the Author of 
 the Vindication treats, and which is by him and others placed, between 
 Abydus and Dardanus at the mouth of the Propontis. On the contrary, 
 
 it 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 I it was far below, and its situation may be known from the places* 
 which were above it. These were according to the Geographer before 
 mentioned, in order downwards, as follows : Abydus, Rhodius ft. 
 Bardanus, Rhceteum, Sigeum, Achivorum Portus, Achivorum Castra,- 
 and Ostia Scamandri. L. 13. p. 889. 90. And he describes Achaeum 
 which was just above the Scamander, ^ rtis Tev3iuv <mp!stug vVap%o>>, as 
 at the passage to Tenedos, and below Ilium. Here the Troy of 
 Homer, and the Grecian Camp, is to be looked for, in the vicinity 
 of the island above, and near Troas Alexandrea, Gargarus andLeclum, 
 If it ever existed, here only it can be found. The Author of the 
 Vindication, and his Friend, act very politickly in depreciating Strabo^ 
 however great his authority : for if he is to be trusted, almost every 
 article, which they have maintained, is wrong. 
 
 The Author however, having fixed the Grecian camp in a very 
 different situation,, describes it farther, as being bounded to the left and 
 north by the river Simois, which is represented by him, in his map, as 
 here entering the sea. And to shew, that it was not the subordinate 
 and ignoble river described by Mr. B. he quotes from the seventh, Book 
 csf Homer the following ^version, p. 88.) 
 
 The gulphy Simoi's rolling to the main 
 Helmet and Shields,, and godlike H roes slain'. 
 
 But in the original there is nothing of the gulphy Simois ; nor of its 
 rolling helmets to the main;, nOr of godlike Heroes. The name of 
 
 I %■ the 
 
i 60 ) 
 
 this river does not once occur in the Book mentioned : nor are these 
 circumstances, which are here attributed to the Simois, to be found in 
 any book of Homer, where the river is spoken of. The Author has 
 some how been greatly misguided. The river mentioned in the seventh 
 Book is the Scamander, which (strange to tel).) he has totally mistaken. 
 The words are— =■--<* 
 
 Toov vw ccipoi xzXaivov evppoov aytpi SttauaySpflK 
 Eo-x.;^x<r' o%vg Apyg. L. VII. v. 328, 329. 
 
 The Scamander in these lines is by the Author converted into the 
 gulphy Simois; and (di^x xiXcuvov) the black gore, is turned into shields 
 and helmets : and what is said of one river, he attributes to another. 
 
 When he has thus in his Treatise, and in his Maps, given the name 
 of the Simois to the river, which by the Grecian Camp entered the 
 sea; he informs us soon afterwards, (p. 89.) that it was the Xanthus ; 
 and quotes the authority of Mr. Chevalier. And seven lines afterwards 
 he informs us, that the river went by neither of these two names, but 
 was called uniformly the Scamander. Speaking of the epithets hvrjsig, 
 uiyag 'sroj-a/y.o?, and (ia.%^iv^ig, he adds, In short, if' these epithets are 
 found in the Iliad, they are always allusive to the united waters of the 
 (wo rivers, which as I have already observed, bore the name of Scamander 
 on>y- Iff another place (p. 8S.) he says, // appears also, that below the 
 junction, the waters of both took the name of Scamander : and, he should 
 
 have 
 

 I 6r ) 
 
 have added,-*-never of Simo'is. For that river, together with its name, 
 was absorbed in the Scamander ; the smaller in the greater ; of which 
 there are as many instances, as there are rivers. Who would think 
 It possible, that contrary to his own evidence he should change this 
 very river, the Scamander, into the gulphy Simo'is ? But even here he 
 is in some degree mistaken : for the Scamander (supposing this to be 
 the true river) did not first receive its name after the junction , but 
 far above. Its fountains according to Homer, and the best Authors, 
 were supposed to have been in Mount Ida: E§ lluiuv opewv—rpjjvwiws 
 <rs taxi KirnTTos, hog re 2*ap*v5poff. M. v. 19. Yet contrary to the express 
 authority of the Poet he places the source of it in the plain beneath 
 Bournarbachi; and makes the Simo'is the principal river j being misled 
 by some lines of the Poet, which had been explained, but the expla- 
 aation not thoaght worthy of notice. 
 
 In what part of the plain this junction of the two streams was 
 effe&ed, may be easily known : and will be found to have been high 
 up near the City. For it is said of the two Goddesses, Juno and 
 Minerva, that they arrived at Troy, where the two streams united. 
 
 Tporrjv i^ov, 'H%f poag Hi^oug <rvjj.hxXK3T0v, -<j5. : Sxajutaiopoj. II. E. V. "]"]2>- 
 
 The Author should have considered this evidence, before he copied 
 the Map of his Friend, which seems to be the most ill constructed 
 and inaccurate, that ever was devised. He has indeed made a junction 
 of the two rivers : but this junction is below, near the coast, and parallel 
 to it : and far removed from the City, and the scene of action. It 
 
 is 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 is effected by his arbitrarily forming in his Map a ditch, or canal, 
 (call it which you please) and this the Author has too readily adopted r 
 and styles it, Amnis navigabilis Plinii, j§. Yet not only Homer, a* 
 we have seen, but the Author himself says, that the battle was fought 
 
 below the confluence, p. 88. line ult. Again In the 2uL Book, the 
 
 battle was below the juncl :n. p. 89. line 20. Yet in contradiction to 
 hi.; own evidence he has placed the scene of action above, and made 
 the junction below. 
 
 In short, he has been led into' an errour r and has made the Simo'is 
 the principal river : as may be seen in his Map. He therefore labours 
 to give it the pre-eminence, and to lower the character of the other 
 river : though he confesses, that it was called hvyetsj ^sycc; 'viroTcx^og,. 
 iSzSvliivig. To shew the superiority of the Simo'is he quotes (p. 88.) 
 some lines from Homer, where he says, the River Xanthus calls on his- 
 Aily, the Simo'is, upon a particular occasion.- 
 
 -Hasre, my Brother floods 
 
 And check this mortal, who controuls a God, 
 Call then your subject streams, and bid them roarv 
 From all your fountains, swell your watry store. 
 With broken rocks, and with a load of dead,. 
 Charge the black surge, and pour it on his head. 
 
 In consequence of this he tells us — The Simo'is is characterised, as a 
 ■violent, unequal, mountain torrent, rolling down in his " black surge" stones, 
 trees, and dead loJies, This is very plausible,- But when we apply to 
 
 the 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 the original, to which he should have applied, we find not the least 
 intimation of a mountain torrent, nor of broken rocks, nor load of dead \ 
 nor of this black surge. See. II. <t>. v. 308. His giving the name of 
 Xanthus to the former River in this place, shews, that he has been mis- 
 led by Mr. Pope's translation : for in the original, v. 305, it is the 
 Scamander. And the chara&er given to the Simoi's is only occasional, 
 and described upon a particular event. 
 
 And as he has tried to enhance the character of the Simoi's, so he 
 tries to lessen that of the other river. He accordingly tells us, the 
 Scamander is pointed out as a clear, beautiful and perennial stream, p. 88. 
 What a very inadequate, and unfair description this is of the river; 
 and how contrary to the character to be found in Homer ? He owns 
 it was called by the Poet -ro-cra/xcj pya?, hvyeig, fixQvhvqg, yet represents 
 it above, merely as a clear, beautiful, and perennial stream. And as the 
 former epithets are very strong, and not easily to be made void, he 
 endeavours to evade the force of them, by saying, (p. 87.) that they 
 occur but once, or twice, particularly in the zxst. Book. How can a 
 gentleman of character, liberal, I dare say, and ingenuous, condescend 
 in this instance, to such poor and unworthy evasions ? The river is 
 represented as ^aOvhr/jg and $xQvltr/iug t not less than six times in this 
 very book. Also the terms $a.$vcooc$, XuZ^cg, eu%v puiv, and psyag, are 
 here repeatedly mentioned, and in many other places : whereas the 
 name of the Simoi's occurs, I believe, not above seven times in the 
 
 twency 
 
( ^ J 
 
 twenty font Books of Homer; and never with any epithet. Yet this. 
 is the river, to which he has given the superiority. 
 
 The Author speaks with great contempt of Mr. B. for differing 
 from him in respect to the situation of Troy. But Mr. B. is merely 
 a neutral in this affair j and only shews the evidence of Homer, and 
 other Writers in respect to the place in question. Hence he is induced 
 to say, that the Camp of the Grecians was in a very different part of 
 the region ; and far distant from the marsh, near which the Author 
 has placed it. Consequently neither the Simoi3, nor the Scamandery 
 nor the City itself, were to be looked for there. He has been led> 
 by good authorities, to suppose that the City Troy of Homer, was- 
 near Troas, and Mount Ledum, and in view of the Island Tenedos, 
 to the south. The Author, on the contrary, p. 82, says-, It has been 
 en aE hands granted, that 'Troy' was not here. Yet in five lines after- 
 wards he tells us, that Monsieur Belon, did not. grant it, but insisted, 
 that Troy was there : and the same opinion was held by Sandys, 
 Lithgow, Gemelli, and others: also by Strabo,- and even by Homer 
 himself. The Author says, that neither of the two rivers can be found 
 here. Mo: nor any where else: for they have been looked for but 
 never truly determined, by the best Geographers of old. They differ 
 greatly in their accounts of them. But, that nobody ever supposed, 
 as the Author asserts, that the City and rivers were situated to the 
 south, near Alexandria, and Ledum, is a mistake: for not only sonic 
 of the moderns allowed it, as 1 have shewn, but also several of the 
 
 Ancients. 
 
( 6 5 ) 
 
 Ancients. Hierocles ranges the places downward In the following 
 crde/. Abydus, Dardanum, Ilium, Troas, and the Scamander. p. 662, 
 And we have seen that according to Strabo they eome in the following 
 manner. Abydus, Dardanus, Rhceteum, Sigeum, Portus Achivorum, 
 Ostia, Seamandri, Ledum. L. 13. p. 891. Here is the very part 
 of the Region to the south, where the river Scamander, according to 
 these writers, must have run; and consequently where the City stood 
 in their estimation j and according to the evidence of other Writers. 
 And this situation was sometimes of old granted. And it was upon 
 this account, that Lysimachus, and Antigonus, built Troas in memory 
 of Troy ; because they thought that the original City stood here or 
 near it. Hesychius was of the same opinion, and places the City near 
 Gargarus and Antandros, at the extremity of the Region of Troas. 
 Tccpyapov., ooipuTTipiov cpVc, I'5fS"» Ka; •zso'his Tpoiocg t r uj'hy\<riQv Avtoc^jU. 
 
 We have hence another reason for supposing that Homer placed 
 his City in these parts, as it was from this mountain, that he makes 
 Jupiter take a view of it, as well as of the ships $ and at the same 
 behold the two armies* when engaged in battle. This could not have 
 happened if the Camp and plain of Troy, had been high to the north 
 in the vicinity of Abydus. Lecton and Gargarus were two eminences 
 of Mount Ida, a-nd in the vicinity of each other : as may be seen from 
 the history of the two Goddesses, who came to Lectum, where they 
 for a while left Morpheus in the shape of an Owl ; till Juno had 
 prepared every thing for his reception on the top of Mount Gargarus. 
 
 K II. g* 
 
{ 66 ) 
 
 II. 2. v. 284. and v. 292. The Author will not allow this. On 
 the contrary he insists, that Gargarus was 260 stadia, or about 30 miles 
 from Ledum, p. 84. He is induced to make this computation from 
 Strabo: by whom it is said, that after Ledon was a place called Poly- 
 medium, at the distance of forty stadia; then a small grove upon the 
 sea coast £C stadia beyond; and after an huadred and forty Gargara, 
 Strabo, L. 13. p. 903.. The Geographer here is speaking of places, 
 with their distances in resped to one another, as they lay below 
 Ledon, and near the sea. One of these was the City Gargara. But 
 the Axp w,ipio:>, or summit of that name, was, as has been aboye shewn, 
 just above Mi. Ledon. This may be seen from the situation of the 
 latter eminence. Strabo accordingly tells us, that it stood upon the 
 verge of the sea,: and to the south below was the sinus Adramyttenuj 
 
 t Ka^xni 1:- to Anuov — —-6 AfyocfMVTTVivog noKmog zvh%S7ut. The Author 
 has been misled, and has supposed the number of stadia below Ledum, 
 which amount in all 260 stadia in length, denoted the distance of 
 Gargarus from Ledum. But if he had gone but one line farther, 
 he would have found the true situation of this eminence, and would 
 have perceived, that it was the highest part of Ledum ; and that it 
 ttood at the extremity of the land, like Ledum, and upon the same 
 bay of Adramyttium. Ksnat S. : Ta^yapct ejf xKgag ■uro/atnjf rev thug Afyx- 
 
 , n.v7j7ivov xa?.v u.c-vov noKirov. The emimnce called Gargara is situated upon 
 that fart of the promontory, which forms the Sinus Adramyttenus. This 
 very circumstance has just before been mentioned of Ledum ; and 
 
 below 
 
( 6 7 > 
 
 below was Autandros, where JEnezs is supposed to have built his 
 
 ships. And Hesychius has told us ctoA/j T^oiac •srKije'uv AvTtxvfyv: near 
 
 this same Antandros was "Trey. Hence it is manifefl:, that Gargarus wa9 
 in some degree the same as Ledum, being a part of it, and the anpu- 
 r,;uov or summit. When therefore the Author says Gargarus was 30 
 miles from Lecture, he is just 30 miles beyond his mark. Some may 
 perhaps say, that the Gargara mentioned above, was the city of that 
 name; but still the city points out the mountain near which it stood, 
 and from which it was denominated. No mistake in- situation can' 
 hence ensue. Macrobius places the city towards the bottom of the 
 
 mountain Gargara cacumen Montis Ida;, et oppidum sub eodemi 
 
 monte. Saturn. L. v. C. xx. P. 36-4. 
 
 In order to lessen the authority of Strabo, the Author insists with- 
 
 - 
 
 out any evidence, that he got the whole account from Demetrius of 
 Scepsis, (p. iir.) and he says, p. 55. that there are good grounds for 
 believing that he (Strabo) never was in the Troad. 'That Strabo had not! 
 visited the Tr\ide in person is certain, p. 71. These tilings are intro- 
 duced more than once, but what the grounds were, upon which the 
 Author built his opinion, he never sufficiently declares, nor was is in 
 his power. Now let us attend to what Strabo affirm concerning him- 
 self. He accordingly tells us, that he personally visited all the countries 
 from Armen a westward, as far a- Hctruri'a. L. 2. p. 177. D. And he 
 adds, that he believes no Geographer at any time went over so many of 
 the regions, which he described. How then are we to determine in this 
 
 K z case? 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 case ? Strabo ait : Morrittus negat. Utri creditis, Quirites ? The ques- 
 tion will not admit of a moments consideration. The Author, in 
 making Strabo so much beholden to Demetrius did not consider, in- 
 stead of lowering his authority, how much he increased it to the ruin 
 of his own purpose. For as Strabo was of Amasia in Asia Minor, he 
 had the best opportunities of getting intelligence concerning the places 
 in that part of the world. And when he travelled westward towards 
 Greece and Italy, as the common place of passage was at Abydus we, 
 may well suppose, that he stopped at that city, which by some is 
 included in the region of Troas. And it surely cannot be thought 
 any great presumption, if we should take for granted, that as a diligent 
 Geographer he visited Ilium, and Troas itself; and the places in their 
 vicinity, when he was so very near. Few therefore could be better 
 judges of this part of the world than Strabo. If then to this ex- 
 perience we add the information he obtained from the writings of 
 Demetrius, who had been a native of this country, and lived within a 
 very few miles of the Ilienses : where is it possible to meet with better 
 authority ? Whoever will read the account given by him of the region 
 Troas, will find that he speaks of himself as an eye witness almost in 
 every line. It is therefore in vain to depreciate Strabo, and to make 
 light of his evidence. 
 
 The Author takes notice of the Erineos or fig-tree, together with 
 «ome other objects, mentioned by Homer, as near Troy : and he has 
 determined their situation, so as to make them according to his fancy 
 
 correspond 
 
( 6 9 ) 
 
 correspond with the City. But as his determination of the city is cer- 
 tainly wrong, their situation cannot be right. If the Gnomon be 
 faulty, every line from it must be in a wrong direction. The reader 
 will therefore excuse me, if I say nothing of the pretended Callicolone, 
 the tomb of Ilus, the tomb of Myrina, or of the Scaean gate : and if 
 I pafs over the arguments used in describing them. These objects 
 are mentioned by Strabo, but placed in a very different situation, and 
 nothing certain can be determined about them. 
 
 The Author certainly has been hurried away by too great zeal; 
 and dealt in a very inconclusive mode of reasoning. He took a Trea- 
 tise before him, and began from the firft page onward to object: to every 
 article. From the very outset he betrays a very hostile disposition ; 
 however he may disavow it. We find him pursuing every vage idea, 
 wlHch like an ignis fatuus plays before him : not once considering into 
 what mazes it may lead him. It was thought strange, that the Poet 
 should place Jupiter to the south upon Mount Gargarus, if he was 
 to view Tpw&iv -re "ssctKiv v.ki vtjas A%cuuv, which according to the Author's 
 position must have been thirty, or as some have thought, forty miles 
 from that eminence. This objection the Author (p. 85.) tries to ob- 
 viate. He says, If human eyes could see the altar of LeSlum from Ilium, 
 much more could those of Jupiter view Ilium from Gargarus ; a less dis~ 
 tance from a higher summit. We here find, that the Author, who gave 
 credit to the fable of the wooden horse, has an equal belief in Jupiter, 
 and his superior faculty of sight. And because I do not shew that 
 
 deference 
 
( 7° ) 
 
 deference to Jupiter, or to his optics, he accuses me of a short-sighted 
 system, (p. 86.) But in effe&ing all this he tries to lessen the difficulty 
 by an improper statement of the distance. In the firft place Gargarus 
 was not at a less distance; and there was nothing said about Ilium in 
 the passage by Homer: but the ultimate of Jupiter's view was the 
 city xcci y/\us A%aiu)v, and the Grecian ships, which according to his own 
 position were a great way beyond Ilium. The situation of this place 
 we learn also from Strabo. L. 13. p. 902. He therefore seems after 
 all to entertain some doubts concerning the extent of Jupiter's vision ; 
 and by contraifring the distance he thinks to make it more plausible. 
 He accordingly directs his view to a nearer object. But this evasion 
 is not ingenuous ; and I am sorry the Author would submit to it y 
 though in favour of Jupiter. 
 
 The Author often intimates, that there is a great absurdity in trans- 
 ferring Trov to Egypt: an article, which was never supposed. The 
 contrary is the truth, for it was mentioned as a probability, that Troy 
 in Egypt might have been in the Poem transferred to Phrvgia, and that 
 it was even then an ideal place ; and never existed. The Author thinks 
 that he puts a difficult question : and asks, where will you Jind Ilium in 
 'Egypt'? (p. 77.) Nobody ever entertained so idle a notion ; nor is it 
 necessary to suppose it. At trie same time he is not aware, that he 
 may be asked, — where will you find Ilium at Bounarbachi? It Ls not to 
 be met with there, nor ever was: for it stood several miles below: 
 aod Pergamum, the supposed Citadel, was still farther off, and in a 
 
 different 
 
( fl ) 
 
 diiTerent country. The situation therefore of Troy, if this be the 
 test, could never have been, where he has chosen to place it, (p. 92.) 
 His argument militates against himself. He still insists, that it couk' 
 aot have been to the south, near Troas ; for no Simo'is or Scamander 
 are to found in these parts. This may be true : for they have been 
 sought after, as I have before said, by many Writers, but were never 
 uniformly determined : no, not by Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy, or Antoninus, 
 But still, if we believe the Poet, his Troy was here. He makes 
 Gargarus thirty miles nearer the city than Ledum was, from a passage 
 in Strabo, which he has totally mistaken. See Strabo, L. 13. p. 903. 
 
 There is at the end of the Author's Treatise a list of the Writers, 
 
 who believed in the history of Troy, as described by Homer : and 
 
 who supposed the City to have existed in Phrygia. These amount 
 
 in number to near fifty. If to this collection there were to be added 
 
 five thousand, or fifty thousand, it would not affect my argument. 
 
 I believe, there were very few persons in all Hellas, that did not afford 
 
 it in some degree, credit. But the same persons afforded a like belief 
 
 to the wars of the Giants and Titans : and to other strange traditions. 
 
 Error is sometimes systematic ; and universally admitted in large bodies 
 
 of people. The Metempsychosis is at this day religiously believed 
 
 by Nations of great extent in the East. Many are persuaded that 
 
 the soul of their Grandsire may be in an ape, or an Ass. But 
 
 however popular and extensive this notion is now, or may have been 
 
 for ages, the Author I trust, will never adopt their opinion. 
 
 Towards 
 
( n ) 
 
 Towards the end of the Vindication there is a very unexpected 
 compliment introduced ; and mention is made of the well deserved fame 
 of Mr. B. p. 123. If this be true, how came the Author to en- 
 deavour to ruin that fame by the most severe, unmerited, and unjust 
 censures ? Why has he accused him of ignorance, absurdity, and 
 futility ? of faLe quotations, unfair translations, and wilful deviation 
 from the truth ? And this not once, but repeatedly. His name is 
 mentioned above an hundred times, and generally with some sneer, 
 and with the most sovereign contempt. The Reader is applied to- 
 continually to take warning, how he trusts a person, on whose word there 
 is no reliance : who perverts, what he takes in hand, and abuses shame- 
 fully the authorities to which he refers. This person of well deserved 
 fame is represented as full of low cunning and treachery j of carrying 
 on a vile hypothesis, which he tries to support by the worst means. 
 Why does not the Author look upon the character of another, as an 
 object too sacred to be trifled with ; and not found his own fame upon 
 the ruin of his neighbours ? Why has he not shewn more regard for 
 his own character : for however fair, it must suffer from that undeserved 
 censure and contempt, which he too wantonly discloses. As to this 
 severity towards me, it amounts to nothing ; I turn my back upon it 
 as I would do to an eastern blight j and shelter myself easily from 
 the noxious vapour. And while I ruminate upon these things, I think, 
 I hear a friendly spirit say, be at ease, and may all that rise against thee 
 to do thee hurt, be as that young man, 2. Samuel. C. \%, v. 32. 
 
 As 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 As the Author is a gentleman of learning, He may hereafter be 
 of service to his Country by his influence and writings. If there- 
 fore I might at my time of day presume to give advice, I would 
 recommend to him more care and caution in his mode of reasoning: 
 that He may not give way to every flimsy and inconclusive argument 
 which fancy suggests. I have shewn, that he pronounces it a mis- 
 fortune to trust to old established truths, even of undoubted authority: 
 whereas the assent is rational; and the opportunity a blessing. He 
 likewise has thought it a misfortune (for so it is still intimated) to 
 trust to those, who know better than ourselves : which however he says* 
 is net irrational: it is therefore according to him a misfortune to acl: 
 not irrationally, or in other words, according to right reason. I would 
 likewise recommend to him not to indulge in a specious, but intricate 
 flow of words : and in too florid, but embarrassed, diction. He should 
 remember, that flowering shrubs bear little or no fruit. A composition 
 of this kind is like the gawdy colours in an Indian screen. They 
 may at first glance be a Httle noticed: but are seldom looked at a second 
 time. Take for an example, what follows after the misfortunes above 
 
 mentioned, p. r. Tet this very circumstance, by 'which truth extends 
 
 the frontiers of her empire, greatly weakens her internal powers of defence,- 
 and lulled into security by the number of her adherents she is too often 
 unprepared to ward off the attacks against her person at home. In the 
 present instance, Mr. B has afforded us a striking proof of this assertion* 
 What this proof is, I do not see : nor did 1 ever read any thing so 
 
 /...• refined,, 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 refined, figurative, and so incomprehensible. We expect fruit but find 
 ^nothing but flowers. Our feelings are like those of some Indians, 
 when they were treated with a bowl of whipt-syllabub. Each took a 
 portion : but stood with open mouths and looks of amazement ; for 
 when they expected something solid, they found nothing but inanity. 
 J wtuld farther request of him not to betray himself, and shew, that he 
 was not upon the spot, by referring to the Map of another person: and 
 at the same time prove the insufficiency of his own by that reference. 
 He says, that his Friend's Chart is very accurate. How came he then 
 in many respects to differ so often from it: as may be seen by com- 
 paring ? I fear, they were both the work of fancy : or at least the 
 offspring of a remote and uncertain recollection. That the description 
 of the region afforded by Mr. Chevalier does not quite merit the 
 character given to it by his Friend, may I think be seen from an 
 account afforded us in the British Critic: October, J 798. p. 447. 
 In this is mentioned a letter from Salonika : by which we are informed, 
 lhat the Chart of Mr. Qjbevaher was not formed upon the spot on gemetrical 
 principles, but from memory only. 
 
 It is farther to be wished, that the Author, in the prosecution of 
 his purpose, had not trifled about articles of little moment, such as 
 \ioy.t) and y^i^iu ; but had considered the principal arguments afforded, 
 upon which the whole depends. These should not have been evaded, 
 but obviated, if it were in his power. It is maintained by Mr. B. 
 that the city Troy never existed in Phrygia, that the name was never 
 
 of 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 cf old acknowledged by the natives. In the march of Xerxes through' 
 upper Pyrygia, Ilium and a people styled Ilienses are mentioned; but 
 no Tpc/>7, or Troja ; no Trojani, nor region Troas. This was probably 
 one reason, why Metrodorus of Lampsacus, and the great Philosopher 
 Anaxagoras, both inhabitants of this region, insisted that the account 
 of the war by Homer was a fable. The city celebrated by the Poet 
 under the name of Troy is also called by him Ilium: and two places 
 are described by Strabo of that name, which existed in his time. L. 13. 
 p. 886. Here, if any where, we should expect to meet with Troy, 
 but it was never to be found. Nor was there any district here, or 
 place whatsoever, which had a reference to that name, till Antigonus 
 and Lysimachus built Troas. 
 
 As there were two places which belonged to the Ilienses, in this 
 part of the world ; there was a dispute, which of them was the ancient 
 Troy. Hellanicus gave it in favour of the city near the sea side ; but- 
 Strabo adjudged it to the Pagus Iliensium, some miles above, L. 13. 
 p. 898. This very debate shews that neither of the two had any 
 pretensions. For if either of them had any just claim, the name of 
 Troja, and some traditions of the siege, must have remained, upon- 
 which that claim would have been founded. But the natives of neither 
 of these places could afford any such proof; otherwise the alternative 
 would have been easily decided. 
 
 We find that many subordinate cities arc mentioned in the course of 
 
 L 3 the 
 
( 7* ) 
 
 the Poem ; swch as Sestus, Abydus, Dardanum, Lyrnessus, Larissa, 
 Thebe, Chryse, Arisba, Percote, Miletus, Mycale : also the Islands 
 Lesbos, and Tenedos ; and the mountains Gargarus, Ledum and Ida. 
 It is strange that all these should have retained their names for ages 
 afterwards, while the most celebrated place of all, Troy, was not had 
 in remembrance ; nor the region of Troy ever mentioned. We are 
 told that it was taken and destroyed. Arisba. Thebe, Chryse, and many 
 of the cities above, underwent the same fate, and some of them repea- 
 tedly. If we trust to the authority of Homer, no less than twenty 
 three cities in the vicinity of Troy, were taken by Achilles. II. I. v. 
 328. How came those specified above to have been known, and 
 identified afterwards : and the most remarkable of all, upon which 
 Homer had impressed a sanction, to have been totally obliterated ? how 
 many cities have been sacked, and more than once ruined ; yet have 
 risen again, and preserved their name ? what is extraordinary, Ilium 
 remained, and a people styled Ilienses ; but as I have before said, 
 neither Troja, Troas, nor Trojani. 
 
 Some have thought, that the stones, and remains, of ancient Troy 
 were carried away to repair Achilleum, Strabo, L. 13. p. 896. But, 
 if these were the real ruins, the name of that City must have existed, 
 by which those ruins were determined : and consequently its situation 
 been known. But the disputes, which have at all times prevailed, 
 shew the uncertainty of these notions. Besides, these stones, which 
 •were supposed to have been carried off, belonged to Ilium. This 
 
 was 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 was a city very different from Troy, and the Ilium of Homer, as Strabo, 
 past contradiction, has shewn. The account therefore of these dila- 
 pidations, as Demetrius informs us, was a fi£tion. They were intro- 
 duced, as an expedient to prove the situation of a city, which never 
 existed. Had Troy ever stood in these parts, the Poem of Homer 
 would have immortalized it. Neither the name, nor place, would have 
 been forgotten. It was however never heard off, till the later Greeks, 
 and the Romans after them, blindly introduced the name ; but did 
 not know to what part to assign the city. And here it appears extra- 
 ordinary, as both iKiog, and Tpo.?;, (Ilium, and Troja) are by Homer ap- 
 plied as names to the same city; that the former should be retained, 
 and the other (Troja), if this Ilium were that city, never occur. Above 
 all, that the people should be solely distinguished by the appellations 
 of iKi-ig, Ilienses, or Uiades, which never once occur in Homer ; and that 
 the name Tpuis (or Trojani), which with its inflexions is to be found 
 some hundred of times, should be totally lost. If Troy had existed, 
 and was to be found in Ilium ; and had these Ilienses been the descen- 
 dants of the ancient Trojans ; the authority of the Poet would have 
 prevented that title being ever annihilated. The natives would have 
 been proud of being denominated from such Ancestors. 
 
 I could have wished therefore, that the Author of the Vindication, 
 had considered more carefully these articles, and others of the like 
 consequence; and the arguments deduced from them. Instead of 
 this he has often amused himself in objecting, when there was no 
 
 opposition, 
 
( 7& ) 
 
 apposition, and proving what was never denied : that Ilium and 
 Odusseus (p. 23-) were never removed to Egypt; and that Scepsis and' 
 Cebrenia v/ere not to be found upon the Nile. p. 44. I assent fully, 
 and I farther believe, that there was no Mount Gargarus at Memphis, 
 nor Ida at Thebes. But what is all this to the purpose? The system 
 which he is pleased to controvert, depends not upon these trifling ar- 
 ticles ; but is founded upon a variety of argaments, and cannot be 
 in the least afTedtedi should one or two out of many be arraigned, as 
 inconclusive. Yet seme have thought, that if they could artfully 
 undermine one pillar out of five hundred, the building must necessarily 
 fall. But I trust, that it is too well supported. 
 
 The Author is a keen antagonist, but he should take care not to be 
 in opposition to himself, and counteract his own purpose. This we 
 saw happen, when he placed Troy on an eminence, bounded by the 
 Scaean gate : and when he afterwards brought it down below on the 
 wrong side of that gate, in contradiction to all that he had said just 
 before. Hence if we look for the city in its primary situation, it is not 
 to be found : and we may say of it, as a Pcet says of modern Rome-:: 
 
 Et Roma in- Roma nil reperis media. 
 Troy is run away from its self. 
 
 The Romans had as g-reat a veneration for Homer, when they became 
 acquainted with him, as the Grecians : and looked upon the war of 
 Troy, as a true history, They went farther, and supposed, that ^Eneas 
 
 after 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 after that war came to Italy : and that they were descended from the 
 Trojans. Bochart opposed this notion : and I never heard that he 
 incurred any obloquy, or ill will, upon the occasion. lie observes, 
 that all Colonies, wherever they may settle, always retain some traits 
 and resemblance of the people and Country, whence they came. He 
 allows, that all the Roman Poets and Historians, from Namus and 
 Fabius Pictor down to Livy, and Dionysius Halicarnassensis, speak of 
 it, and by many it was believed. Yet he contends, and very justly 
 
 iter ./Eneas in Italiam nullum habere fundamentum in rei veritate. 
 
 vol. i. p. 1077. The general opinion of Writers, all comparatively 
 late, amounts to little : for where there is an Epidemic blindness, we 
 may expect many to be affe&ed. In respect to any traces of their 
 Phrygian Ancestors he insists that none appear. And he accordingly 
 with a wonderful profusion of learning gives an account of the language 
 of the Phrygians, and their neighbours: also of their rites and Deities, 
 of which not the least resemblance was to be found among the Rb- 
 
 mans. iEneas is made by Virgil to say Sacra Deosque dabo : but 
 
 nothing of this sort was afforded. Yet among the sacred articles, said 
 to have been introduced, was the Palladium. This, when the Temple 
 of Vesta was in flames, Metellus is reported at the hazard of his 
 life to have rescued : and on that account had great honours conferred 
 upon him. Yet this must have been a different Image : for the 
 Grecians, and even Ovid, a Roman, maintained that the Palladium was 
 stolen by Diomede and Ulysses, before the City Troy was taken : 
 
 and 
 
( So ) 
 
 and it could never have returned into the hands of the Trojans. It 
 is said to have been the image of the Goddess Pallas, which together 
 with his Lares and Penates iEneas was supposed to have brought 
 with him, when he landed. 
 
 Sum pius ./Eneas, raptos qui ex hoste Penates 
 Classe veho mecum. 
 
 Yet Varro affirms, that there were in early times no statues of the 
 Deities : and this mode of adoration was not introduced till the 
 17. th. year of Rome. Plutarch also tells us in the life of Numa, 
 that the ancient people of Latium had no representations of Deities, 
 either carved or painted. They insisted, that divine objects ought not 
 to be described by things inferior ; and that the Deity could not be 
 conceived, but by internal contemplation. How then could the Pal- 
 ladium of Troy exist in the time of Metellus ; especially, if it had 
 long before been stolen by Diomede and the Greeks ? 
 
 This is also mentioned by Virgil, who speaks of this theft being 
 committed by the persons above. 
 
 Tydides sed enim scelerumque inventor Ulysses, 
 Fatale aggressi sacrato avellere templo 
 Palladium. JEn. L. 2. v. 164. 
 
 In short there were no traces of Troy to be found in ancient Rome- 
 All traditions antecedent to the building of the city, and long after 
 
 were 
 
( s< ) 
 
 were dark and fabulous. This was the opinion of Livy. Qua? ante 
 conditam condendamve urbem, poeticis magis decora fabulis, quam 
 incorruptis rerum gestarum monumentis, traduntur : ea nee affirmare, 
 nee refellere, in animo est. /,. i. C. i. Hence we may infer from this 
 excellent Historian, that the fact was disputed ■, but that he would not 
 venture to decide it. Cou!d he have determined it in favour of the 
 Romans, he would not have omitted the opportunity. 
 
 There is another article, of which the very learned Bochart, has not 
 taken notice, though it appear^ of great consequence. It is extraordi- 
 nary, thrit these supposed emigrants from Troy, should not have re- 
 tained the name of the people, whence they came. We never, find 
 them of old styled Teucri, Troes, or Trojani ; but on the contrary 
 Latini. These were the people whom they are said to have conquered; 
 and contrary to all rule and custom, to have assumed their name, con- 
 tra morem, says le Cerda, as we may learn from the people of Africa; 
 vicli omnes in gentem nomenque imperantium concessere. Sallust. 
 Jugurth. The conquered people may suffer a change : but there is 
 scarcely an instance of the victors, immediately losing their national 
 appellation, and taking the name of their vassals; so that no remains., 
 no history of it, should be afterwards discovered. 
 
 Virgil thought proper to found his excellent Poem, upon a' received 
 opinion, that ^Eneas came to I atium from Phrygia, and brought a 
 Colony of T fljans with him. But this notion was certainly contro- 
 verted, as we may infer from Livy, quoted above : and more particu- 
 
 M hrly 
 
( 8 2 ) 
 
 larly from Virgil himfelf. And the objection arose from there being 
 no account of any people called Trojans, nor Teucrij nor of Ilienses, 
 in the ancient traditions of the country ; nor was there any reference 
 to Troy. Yet they were supposed to have had a regular succession of 
 kings. How was it then possible for them so soon to have lost sight 
 of their original ? Virgil must have been well acquainted with this 
 objection, for he-Tries to obviate, what was brought in opposition to 
 his system; but with what success the Reader must judge. He has 
 recourse to the higher powers : and introduces Jupiter as insisting, that 
 Juno should lay aside her inveteracy to the Trojans. She at last agrees, 
 but upon condition, that the hateful name of Troy, and Trojan, should 
 never more be admitted, and kept up by their posterity. She accord- 
 ingly addresses Jupiter in these words. 
 
 Pro Latio obtestor, pro Majestate tuorum, &c. 
 
 Ne vetus indigenas nomen mutare Latinos, 
 
 Aut vocem mutare viros, aut vertere vestes. 
 
 Occidit, occideritque sinas cum nomine Troja. 
 
 iEneidos. L. 12. 820, &c. 
 Jupiter assents to this, and adds among other things 
 Subsident Teucri : morem ritusque sacrorum 
 Adjiciam. v. 836. 
 
 We find, that he would do something more, and give them new 
 rites and form of worship. Though we may not allow the means, 
 yet we must admit the facts : and setting aside the interposition of 
 these Deities, we learn, that the name of Troy, or of Trojans, was 
 
 not 
 
( «3 ) 
 
 not admitted among the ancient Latini. In other words, they were 
 unknown to them : and all the rites, and religion, of the Phrygians, 
 were equally unknown. Hence no traces of them are upon inquiry 
 to be found. In consequence of this we may infer from the Poet, 
 that some objections had been made in his time to the account given 
 of iEneas ; and to the pretensions of the Romans, who affected to 
 be of Trojan original. To these objections, we may perceive, tha c 
 Virgil, in the speech of Juno, makes a tacit reply. This is composed, 
 and executed with much art and industry. But still in giving a reason 
 for the deficiency, he allows the fact ; which was, that no account 
 of Troy, or Trojan, was to be found in their ancient traditions. Hence 
 this short Corallary results : It is impossible to believe, that a people 
 settled, and ruled, in a Country, of whose name there was no original record. 
 Many may think, that I have taken much unnecessary trouble : for 
 whoever trusts to Homer, must know, that the Poet plainly asserts, 
 that i^Eneas never left Troas ; but, after the ruin of Priam and his 
 family, he reigned over the Trojans there, and no where else : though 
 some have thought otherwise. This is manifest from his words. 
 
 HS>? yap Ilp/a^ug yivirjv ii%Qvipe upoviw. 
 
 K«j ttoi&s zzutcjoov, to/ ksv ufioTrKrds ysvuvrecu 
 
 II. T. 306. See also v. 180, 
 
 We are here told, that the race of Priam were become obnoxious to 
 Jupiter, and in his room, iEneas would reign over the people of 
 
 M 2 Troas. 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 Troas. There was an alteration made in these verses, probably in the 
 time of Augustus Caesar, when for Tpwuvn there was artfully substitu- 
 ted ixranitra-iv. This was done, in order to countenance the Hypothesis 
 of Virgil, that if^neas came to Italy, and that the Romans were 
 descended from the Trojans. Strabo. L. 13. p. 906. The lines there- 
 fore in the iEneis corresponded with this reading. 
 
 Hie domus /Eneae cunclis dominabitur oris, 
 
 Et nati natorum, et qui nascentur ab illis. yEneid. L. 13. v. 97. 
 
 Hence, according to the lines above, Homer is made to announce 
 the future grandeur of the Romans. But how could the Bard allude 
 to this extent of Empire, who according to most accounts wrote 
 before any Romans existed, and before their City was founded? It 
 was a wretched expedient to countenance a fable ; and soon became 
 extincl. Boehart assures us, that there is not a printed copy of Homer, 
 nor any manuscript now known in which this reading is to be found 
 In Mr. Pope's Translation, Book 20. v. 355. there are subjoined some 
 observations upon this subject, well worth notice, which I recommend 
 to the Reader. 
 
 If ./Eneas had ever come to Italy, we should have heard something 
 
 of Venus, his reputed Mother, who was his tutelary Deity. Virgil 
 
 mentions, that in Sicily, which was only a place of passage, he raised a 
 
 temple to her honour. 
 
 Turn vicina astris Erycino in vertice sedes 
 
 Fundatur Veneri Idalias. iEneid. L. v. v. 759. 
 
 But 
 
( 3 5 ) 
 
 But there was nothing of. this sort in Italy, where he was, with his 
 .son and Colony, supposed to have settled. This is something extraor- 
 dinary. We read in late times of Venus Genetrix, and ./Eneadum 
 Mater ; and Sanctuaries were built, and rites instituted, in consequence 
 of her introduction: but to these, the ancient Romans were utterly 
 strangers. The second month of the year, was thought to be deno- 
 minated from her. Of these articles, the learned Bochart (v. i. p. 
 1067.) takes notice. Si venisset pius ./Eneas ille in Italiam, sine dubio 
 commendasset plurimum cultum Veneris, quam dicebat Matrem 
 suam. Sed illius nullum vestigium in Roma veteri. He then ob- 
 serves from Macrobius, that some people thought that the month of 
 April was so called from Venus Aphrodite ; as the antecedent month 
 was from Mars : and that it was by the appointment of Romulus. 
 But the same Author tells us, that this was a great mistake; though 
 at first he seems to faveur the notion, that ./Eneas came to Italy. 
 Hue usque dices eum (Macrobium) faverc sentential qua ./Eneas di» 
 citur venisse in Italiam. Sed quae sequuntur, ea ipsa penitus subver- 
 tunt. — Hindus in eo libro, quern de Festis rtliquit, ait, imperite quosdam 
 Qpinari, Aprikm Mensem Antiquos a Venere dixisse; cum nullus dies f est us, 
 nuliumque sacrificium insigne, Veneri per hunc mensem a majoribus insti- 
 tutum sit: sed ne in car minibus quidem Saliorum Veneris ulla, ut ccete- 
 rorum Calestium, laus celebretur. Cincio etiam Varro consentit, affirmans, 
 nomen Veneris ne sub Regibus quidem apud Romanos vel Latinum vel Grce- 
 cum fuisse : et idea noh potuisse mensem a Venere nominari. Mac rob. 
 
 L. 1. 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 L. i. p. 170. This passage is not now to be found in Varro ,• but 
 there is another passage still extant ; in which that Author very justly 
 blames those, who would derive the month Aprilis from Aphrodite, the 
 Grecian name of Venus ; for her name no where occurred, in any an- 
 cient memorials of the Romans. — Cujus nomen ego antiqueis littereis 
 quod nusquam inveni, magis puto dictum, quod ver omnia aperit, 
 Aprilem. Varro de Ling. Lat. Amotel. p. 5c. By this is meant, that 
 Aprilis is quasi Aperilis, and so called, because in this month blossoms 
 and fruits begin to open themselves. April therefore was by no 
 means derived from Venus Atppohrti ; for we find, that her name of old 
 was utterly unknown to the Romans. But this could not possibly 
 have happened, if ./Eneas had ever come to Latium. See Bochart. 
 Vol. 1. p 1067. 
 
 Some may perhaps think, that the I.udus Troja, or Trojanus, is a 
 proof, that the Romans came originally from Troy. But upon con- 
 sideration we shall find, that no such inference can be made. This 
 exercise is indeed described by Virgil, as performed by some young 
 persons of Troy during their residence in Sicily. These under the 
 guidance of Iiiius, go through all the intricate evolutions of Hussars, 
 or other light Horsemen of these times. This, if we consider, that 
 they had been wandering for the most part on the seas, must seem 
 extraordinary. It is true, Virgil represents Iiiius, some short time an- 
 tecedent, upon a fiery steed, and wishing to engage a lion ; forgetting 
 that a night or two before, he introduced him, or Cupid under his 
 
 semblance. 
 
( s 7 ) 
 
 semblance, as a child, whom Dido took to her besom,— internum gremio 
 fovet. Soon after, he is farther described in Italy at a council of war 
 at midnight j at which time he presents Euryalus with a warrior's 
 sword. — mira, quern fecerat arte Lycaon Cnossius. ,/Eneid. jx. v. 304. 
 This he took off from his shoulders, and gave him when he was 
 going upon a dangerous expedition. These articles were all within, 
 the compass of a few months ; and it may be worth while to know, 
 at what age he performed these atchievements. This may be with 
 tolerable exactness made out ; for Andromache says, that her sou 
 AstyanaX would have been just as old. 
 
 Sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora ferebat, 
 
 Et nunc asquali tecum pubesceret xvo. JEneid. L. 3. v. 490. 
 
 Now Astyanax was an infant in his nurse's arms, just before his father's 
 death, and the ruin of Troy : and the events above, were six years 
 inclusive afterwards. For Dido tells /Eneas— te septima portat asstas. 
 And when they were in Sicily, it is farther said — Septima poft Trojaa 
 excidium jam vertitur astas. L. v. v. 626. lulus therefore could be but 
 1 seven years, or seven years and a half old, when he was riding a fiery 
 horse ; when he was assisting at a council of war at night, at which time 
 he gave his sword, not one of lath, but a warriour's sword, to Euryalus : 
 when he is also described upon the rampart, drawing his bow, and killing 
 
 1 Livy speaks of him, after his fathet's death, as still impuber ncmdum maturus imperio : and 
 
 under the tuition af a woman. L. i, C. 3. P. 12. — Varior. This was between three and fuuC 
 years after his appearance in Sicily. 
 
 Fortem 
 
( SS ) 
 
 Fortem Numanum, the Hero Numanus Rfimulus. Mvxid. L. rx. v. 
 
 663. Lastly, this was his age, when he performed these feats of horse- 
 manship, in the Ludus Troja : and this at an asra, when we are told, 
 that the use of Cavalry in war was not yet known. Virgil with all 
 his superlative excellence certainly sometimes forgets himself: and 
 when it is said, interdum bonus dormitat Homerus, we may fairly 
 add, interdum nutit et ipse Maro. This I have mentioned to shew, 
 that there is no dependence upon Virgil, concerning this custom. It 
 seems to have been an imitation of the BtjTaopj, or Pyrrhic dance, 
 which was particularly practised in Crete, and generally by young 
 persons. It took its rise probably among the Romans, when they 
 first began to be acquainted with the Grecians ; and at the time when 
 the story about /Kneas, and the worship of Venus, were introduced. 
 The first celebration of it, that occurs in history, was, I believe, in 
 the time of S^ 11a. Plutarch. Cato. p. 70a. Nothing therefore can 
 be inferred from the udus Trojanus, concerning the origin of the 
 Romans It would be idle to suppose, because a person in these d tys, 
 practised the ! ouvre, or Allemand, or a Morisco dance, that he was 
 of France, or Germany, any more than of Fez or Algiers. The 
 usage of the ''russian exercise will never mike Sergeant Kite a Bian- 
 denburgher We may find ome very good Observations upon this 
 he.ai, made by Professor Heyne, in his b.ditiun ot Virgil, vol. 2. 
 Ex is V. p. 6 z. But the fullest account is given by my very 
 ka.nwd ri lend, Doctor G. H. JSochdtn, in a Commentary upon VirgiT, 
 
 bv 
 
( *9 ) 
 
 by him published at Brunsvvic 1794. vol. 1. p. 332. He has, I 
 believe, omitted no Greek or Roman Author, from whom any in- 
 telligence can be obtained. Hence we have afforded us an opening 
 to very curious information. 
 
 It seems extraordinary, as I have before taken notice, that people 
 should be so very solicitous about the reputation of Homer, when it 
 was not in the least danger. For in the estimation of the world a 
 Poet's character does not depend upon the truth of his sub; eel, but upon 
 the execution of his work. There was therefore no occasion to write 
 a Vindication of Homer, for there had been nothing hinted to his 
 disparagement. Not the least evil accrued, though I ventured to sub- 
 stitute an apologue instead of a supposed truth, or to have removed 
 the scene to another region. I believe few have shewn a greater re- 
 gard for the Poet's honour, or placed his excellence in a fairer light. 
 Those who will not allow the Ilias to be a fable, yet own that 
 it abounds with stories of Gods, and Demi-Gods ; also with many 
 supernatural events, and strange occurrences; which by every reasona- 
 ble and impartial person must be given up; and they are accordingly 
 so acknowledged. In consequence of this, those who insist upon the 
 authenticity of the history, are obliged to make great defalcations; 
 and to divest the poem of many spurious ornaments. Hence it looks 
 like a tree, stript of its leaves and branches; nothing but the bare 
 stem appears,— trunco, non fr. ndibus efficit umbram. This in great 
 measure is allowed by the Author of the Vindication : but he asserts, 
 
 N thas 
 
( 9° ) 
 
 that whatever improbabilities there may be, they do not impeach the 
 credibility of the history. But this is a great mistake ; for the truth 
 of any history must be more or less doubted, in proportion to these 
 incredible articles. What should have been said, is this, that they 
 ilo not affect the Poet. On the contrary, if they are well conducted, 
 they add to his reputation. The whole being a figment will not 
 prove any obstacle. The Poem of the Fairy Queen is an allegory; 
 and the history of La Mancha's Knight is a fiction. Yet did either 
 Spencer or Cervantes suffer in their character ? or was the reputation, 
 of their works diminished ? Why then are we so blindly solicitous about 
 the truth of any poetical work, if it was designed to be a fable ? Many 
 fictions serve to illustrate the subject matter, and to lead to truths in 
 disguise. If we admit nothing, but what is literally true, all tropes 
 and metaphors must be given up : and analogy laid aside. The greatest 
 beauties, and most useful ornaments in writing must be sacrificed. 
 Let then the war of Troy be either real or feigned ; to what does 
 it amount? The Ilias will in all respects be the same, and its excellence 
 unimpaired. 
 
 But it is objected, that I have supposed, that it originated in Egypt. 
 Something to this purpose has been laid before the Reader ; but nothing 
 determined. But if it were true, the same conclusions would follow; 
 as the Poem would be the same, from whatever quarter it came. If 
 we possess a salutary fruit, or uncommon species of flower, why are 
 we over solicitous about its native region, or climate ? And if a 
 
 person 
 
 
( 9' ) 
 
 perfon should be so indiscrete, as to say, that it came from the Desert of 
 Zara, or the snows of Greenland : still be not too much offended -, nor 
 give way to extravagant censure, and contemptuous ill-will. Mix a little 
 compassion with your severity, and thank Heaven that you are better 
 informed. To what obloqay have some people been exposed, because 
 they ventured to engage in an innocent inquiry ! There has been an 
 outcry on all sides ; that the whole of ancient history was in danger. 
 It was, they say, a great presumption to move such a question. 
 
 M>7 KlVSiV Kapccpiyav, uxurrproi; yap uuuvuiv. 
 
 Yet such questions have been agitated; and no evil has ensued. 
 We know, that the popular story of Regulus, and of his return to 
 Carthage, is mentioned by Silius Italicus, and likewise by Horace, 
 and recorded, as true. Yet whoever reads Palmerius, will find good 
 reason to doubt it. The whole history of the Trojan War is by 
 Monsr. Paschal set aside as a fable. And the evidence of Paschal 
 is of no small consequence. Homer wrote a Romance: for nobody can 
 believe, that Troy and Agamemnon had any more existence, than the golden 
 apple. Be had no intention to write a history, but merely to amuse ■ us. 
 See the Anecdotes of distinguished Persons, by W. Seward Esqr. 
 Supplement, p. 249. 
 
 3 Every body knows the excellence of Monsr. Paschal, of whom Bayle,. and many other 
 respectable Writers, speak with the highest veneration. Hence I am not the only person even of 
 the Moderns, who have esteemed the war of Troy a fable. I have the countenance of some of the 
 
( r- ) 
 
 But it is still said, if this war is doubted, to what can we trust ? 
 I answer, to every history, which is better authenticated; to the 
 history of the siege of Tyre, and of Carthage ; also of Sagunturn. 
 We may give credit to the Histories of Hannibal, and the Scipios ; 
 of Pompey, and Lucullus ; of Cato, and of Caesar j in preference to 
 any history of the son of Venus, or of Thetis ; of Jupiter, Neptune, 
 or Vulcan. Besides, the dispute about this City in Phrygia is not 
 merely, at what time it existed, or where : but whether it could 
 possibly have existed : for the nature of the Country is such,, that the 
 best Geographers could never ascertain its position. Strabo thought* 
 that there was a part of the region near Achaeum, where it might 
 have stood. But this was only opinion. The Natives had no tradi- 
 tion about it : nor was the name of Troy known there. Mr. Chevalier,, 
 as we have seen, has placed it upon a hill inland ; and the Author 
 of the Vindication follows him. But he ultimately differs from him, 
 and differs from himself; and is at variance with Homer, and all 
 the world beside. Still the alarm has been so great, that it has been 
 3aid : Our holy Religion is hazarded; and our faith in danger. But surely 
 their faith must be very lukewarm, that can be affected by the tale 
 of a wooden Horse, and a Phrygian Borough. And they do not 
 consider the injury which they do to Religion, as well as the dishonour, 
 
 wisest Men of antiquity : and I have mentioned, among others, the name of Anaxagpras ; who has 
 been treated with so much contempt. It was through him, that such improvements were made in 
 religjoiis philosophy : for he added »a?, or divine Intellect to matter ; which before was thought, 
 »or ouly to be eternal, but the universal cause of Beings, 
 
 by 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 hy making it depend upon such foreign and precarious objects. I 
 little thought, that by demolishing Babel, I should injure the Holy 
 City: or by pulling down a Pagoda, ruin the Church. 
 
 Another argument to which many have applied, and of which I 
 have taken some notice before, is founded on the authority of Thu- 
 cydides. He believed the history of this war to be true, and gave it 
 his sanction. How is it possible, they say, to oppose such evidence? He 
 was certainly a most excellent Historian: yet we may reasonably 
 suppose, that like Socrates, Plato, Solon, and other Philosophers, of 
 Greece, he had his share of credulity ; and believed, as they did, in 
 the traditions of his Country. Where they all abounded, we cannot 
 suppose him to have been exempt. If then we were to assent to any 
 strange articles, which they believed, it would be difficult to know 
 where to stop. We must give credit to the story of the Hydra, and of 
 brazen bulls ; also of Cerberus, and Typhceus ; and the war of the 
 Gods. The history of their first kings also must be received, as it 
 was implicitly believed by them. Such was CeCrops &(pua??, and the 
 serpentine Eriehthonius, proles sine matre creata ; together with num- 
 berless metamorphoses, and idle fables, with which thei: - mythology 
 and histories are filled. The rape of Ganymede, the conflagration of 
 Phaeton, the rape of Proserpine, and wandering of Ceres ; the history 
 of Argus 'ssocvc-n-T/ig ; the fable of the Cow Io ; and the enreQsuo-ts of 
 Hercules, were looked upon as indisputable fails, and admitted into 
 their Chronology. They were referred to in their calculations ; and 
 
 the 
 
( 94 ) 
 
 the tlmfs of other events were determined by them. This wc learn 
 by the accounts transmitted from Thallus, Philochorus, Eratosthe- 
 nes, and other Chronologists, mentioned by Tatianus, Theophilus, 
 Clemens, and from the Parian Marbles still extant. The most 
 incredible stories were looked upon as sacred truths y and they raised 
 altars, and performed religious rites in consequence of this belief. 
 Hence these traditions were not only credited by Palaephatus, Phur- 
 nutus, and Antoninss Liberalis ; but by Pliny, Pausanias, and the sage 
 Plutarch; and long before, by Solon, Socrates, Plato, and other Philo- 
 phers of ancient date. We must not therefore conclude, that a history 
 must necessarily be genuine, because they believed it; for they were 
 credulous to the last degree. Other reasons must be assigned for a 
 just assent, if any such can be obtained. Their authority in such in- 
 stances, cannot be deemed sufficient : for they believed more or less 
 the greatest absurdities. I say, more or less, for they were not stricfly 
 uniform in their degree of faith. Thucydides may be observed at 
 times to speak with some diffidence, and not to place an intire confi- 
 dence in Homer. He doubts in some instances, whether the Poet i& 
 to be trusted : n tw txavas rsK^ptwa-cci ; again, rj 'O^ipz xv TsoiqtrEt ei n %p?j 
 TLan&vbu. txisivitv. L. I. C. 9. p. 9. C. IO. p. IO. 
 
 It has been mentioned,, that this subject upon which I had before 
 written, had been considered by me for a great many years. And 
 I had collected many memorials from a variety of Authors, and to 
 a large amount, concerning the life of the Poet, and the history of 
 
 his 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 his family. These memorials seemed to be curious, and at the same 
 time not very obvious. But the Author tells us, that all that I 
 have said is conjecture, and of no •weight. And notwithstanding my eru- 
 dition, my authority on this subjeB is on a level with that of the most igno- 
 rant, p. 31. This is very decisive, and determinate : and the Author 
 sets off to great advantage the opinion, which he entertains of his 
 own superiority. I shall not therefore, whatever erudition He may 
 please to allow me, venture to reply ; but will timely withdraw my- 
 self from so unequal a conflict. But before I quit the field intirely, 
 I beg to hint to the Author, that however conscious he may be, of 
 his parts and powers, there are many inaccuracies, and mistakes still 
 remaining in the Treatise, which I have been obliged to oppose. 
 But as I am led to believe, that I have proved my innocence in. 
 respect to many severe articles of censure, preferred against me , I 
 shall rest contented with having performed the duty, which I owed 
 £0 my character; and omit every thing, which that duty does not 
 require. Nor should I perhaps have made any reply to the Treatise 
 above mentioned, had it not contained some popular arguments, which 
 have been elsewhere used upon the occasion. Hence by replying to 
 one, I give an answer to all. I had likewise another reason, which 
 has always been prevalent in these researches, wherein T have at all 
 controverted the early histories of Greece. It seemed to me, that, 
 if I shewed the obscurity, uncertainty, and inconsistency, of these 
 
 histories, 
 
( 9* ) 
 
 histories, I should tacitly recommend the History, of all others, the 
 most ancient, and most excellent ; and shew its superiority. 
 
 CO NCLUSION, 
 
 Thus much I thought proper to say in my justification, in order 
 to shew that my purpose was good -, and at the same time to take off 
 all undue alarm. I shall now venture to conclude with this aphorism,, 
 Ihut the detection of error can never be the bane of truth* 
 
 Parcite, propositum legitis quicunqne libellum, 
 
 Si temere opposui memet juvenilibus armis, 
 
 Lassatusque annis-, et longo debilis aevo. 
 
 Sed tamen, ur Surami voluit dementia Patris, 
 
 Non vigor omnis abestj virtus ncque pristina cessis. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 7. 1. 13. dele that. 
 15. 1. 11. read oVopai. 
 
 22. 1. II. 
 
 follows. 
 
 26. 1. 18. 
 
 keennefs. 
 
 32. 1. 20, 
 
 hie Jupiter, p. 10.' 
 
 
 for hoc numen 
 
 
 Spartx, p. 12. 
 
 33- *• 4- 
 
 P H'- 
 
 38. bottom. 
 
 you for ye. 
 
 43. I. 19& 21 
 
 . lofe. 
 
 45. 1. 10. 
 
 Chieftains. 
 
 51. 1. 8. 
 
 Acnivorum. 
 
 56. 1. 20. 
 
 Cherfonefe. 
 
 58. 1. 21. 
 
 protrusion. 
 
 61. 1. 12. 
 
 Bounarbachi. 
 
 65. 1. s- 
 
 Ostia Scamandri« 
 
 1. 17. 
 
 same time. 
 
 66. 1. 11. 
 
 Mt. Lefton. 
 
 16. 
 
 to 260. 
 
 67. I. 12. 
 
 Saturn. 
 
 68. I. 1. 
 
 negat. 
 
 5- 
 
 For, as. 
 
 S. 
 
 Abydus, we.' 
 
 69. 1. 13. 
 
 vague. 
 
 74. 1. 17. 
 
 geometrical. 
 
 75. 1. 2. 
 
 Phrygia. 
 
 83. I. 19. 
 
 K r "'.l'. i'F. 
 
 86. 1. 7. 
 
 Amflel. 
 
 91% 1. 2. 
 
 Zaara, 
 
°)o-b 1542-1 
 
 9<)'G> 16+2.4- 
 
 ■meoETTYCi 96>-£> I 5 4 2. 5 
 
 I IRRARY 
 

 y*» 
 
 .riT 
 
 £*€ 
 
 
 «% 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ! ?« 
 
 ir*„- >« 
 
 -'<•; 
 
 £ 
 
 *i> 
 
 «» 
 
 ,* 
 
 - 
 
 -4 
 
 sbbpSjI