TROY AND HOMER.
REMARKS ON THE DISCOVERIES
OF
DR. HEINRICH SCHLIEMANX
IN THE TROAD.
Wart of the Raeport of tie   ountcfI of the Smerican  nrtiquarian $ocriet, prezenteb;pril t, 1875,
BY STEPHEN SALISBURY,
PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY.
WORCESTER:
PRINTED BY CHARLES HAMILTON.
PALLADIUM OFFICE.
1875.




WITH RESPECTS OF THE WRITER.
PRIVATELY PRINTED.




REMARKS
ON THE DISCOVERIES OF DR. HEINRICH SCHLIEMANN IN THE TROAD.
Tins Society is called American to indicate its first object
of attention, and the point of view from which the antiquary
is expected to direct his survey.  It is, however, not
unusual and entirely proper to consider in these reports the
developments of history even beyond the bounds of this
Continent.
There is not, at this time, ally kind of research that engages
the attention of scholars with more curiosity and more diversity of opinion, than the spade culture of history. It is carried on with increasing system and energy in every quarter of
the globe. The Peabody Museum of American Archaeology,
a young and vigorous co-worker with this Society for one of
our objects, the discovery of the character and condition of
the Aborigines of this country, gathers in this way a rich
and well winnowed harvest. The recovery of relics from
the accumulated debris in ancient Rome is interesting to
you, not only for the discoveries in history and art, but also
because of the participation in the work of that distinguished scholar, Signor Visconti, who accepted membership
in this Society with a cordial promise of service. A recent
letter from our associate, Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, gives
the pleasant information that Signor Visconti intends soon




4
to fulfil his promise. The enterprises at Ephesus and Jerusalem will hereafter receive your attention.
But these explorations at home and abroad will be overlooked for one, that is freshly presented with equal interest
and greater completeness, the reported discovery of the site
of Ancient Troy and the treasures of King Priam, by Dr.
Heinrich Schliemann. The account of this, under the tite
of Trojanische Alterthiimer, published in German, in the
beginning of the year 1874, by Dr. Schliemann, was followed by a great variety of learned criticism and suggestion;
and within the last two months we have an English translation of the original account with some changes, made by
Philip Smith, B.A., a publisher of ancient histories, " WITH
THE AUTHOR S SANCTION."  The translation is entitled "Troy
and its Remains." Mlvr. Smith says the criticisms called forth
in England and on the continent, during the one year after
the first publication, are an earnest of a war of " more than
ten ye.ars duration." But he does not unkindly add, that the
examination of remains of the contest will be like the labor
of Dr. Schliemann.  While this subject is recent, and occupies much attention, it mlay be permitted to take notice of
some peculiar features of the evidence, and to offer some
thoughts connected with them. And the Society will be
happy to remember, that, in the reports of the Council, the
writer only is responsible for speculations that go beyond
the statement of the condition of the Society.
The first question is, by whom and in what manner was
the reported discovery made? From  an autobiographical
notice it appears that Heinrich Schliemann was born in 1822,
at Kalkhorst, in Mechlinburg-Schwerin. He says, " As soon
as I could learn to speak, my father related to me the great
deeds of the Homeric heroes. I loved these stories; they




enchanted me and transported me with the highest enthusiasm. At the age of tell I presented to my father, as a
Christmas gift, a badly written Latin essay upon the principal
events of the Trojan war and the adventures of Ulysses
and Agamemnon. It was my lot, at the age of fourteen, to
be apprenticed in a small shop, where I was employed for
five years in.retailing herrings, butter, brandy, milk and
salt, and in labor about the shop. I only came into contact
with the lower classes of society. I had not a moment free
for study. Moreover, I rapidly forgot the little I had learnt
in my childhood; but I did not lose my love of learning. I
shall never forget the evening when a drunken Miller, the
son of a protestant Clergyman, who had almost completed
his studies at the Gymnasium when he was expelled, came
into the shop and recited about one hundred lines of Homer,
observing the rytlimic cadence. Although I did not understand a word, the melodious speech mnade a deep impression
upon me, and I wept bitter tears for my unhappy fate.
Thrice I got him to repeat to me those god-like verses, paying him with three glasses of brandy, which I bought with
the few pence that made up my whole fortune. From that
moment I never ceased to pray God, that by his grace, I
might yet have the happiness to learn Greek."
He was relieved fiom this shop by a hurt in his chest,
caused by lifting a heavy cask. He spat blood and was
no longer able to work.  After this he suffered shipwreck and other disastrous chances, until a kind friend
obtained for him a sort of clerkship, with an annual salary
of ~32.  He lived miserably on half of this salary and
devoted the other half to his studies. He says, "I applied
myself with extraordinary diligence to the study of English.  Necessity  showed me a method, which greatly




6
facilitated the study of the language. This method consists
in reading a great deal aloud without making a translation; devoting one hour every day in writing  essays
upon subjects that interest one, correcting those under a
teacher's supervision, learning them by heart and repeating
in the next lesson what was corrected in the previous
day. My memory was bad, since from my childhood it had
not been exercised upon any object; but I made use of
every moment. In half a year I had succeeded in acquiring a thorough knowledge of the English language." He
applied the same method to the study of French and overcame the difficulties of it in another six months.  In less
time he was able to write and speak fluently in Dutch,
Spanish, Italian and Portugese. By his method, without-a
teacher, he learned the Russian language, and in the course
of six weeks he wrote his first Russian letter to a Russian in
London, and was able to converse fluently in that language
with Russian merchants. This increased his compensation
and gave him the employment of agent at St. Petersburg.
After a year he established a mercantile house on his own
account. hlis business was prosperous, but he says, " Great
as was my wish to learn Greek, I did not venture upon its
study till I had acquired a moderate fortune. I at last set
vigorously to work at Greek with Mr. N. Pappadakes, and
then with Mr. Th. Vimpos of Athens, always following my
old method. It did not take me more than six weeks to
master the difficulties of modern Greek; and I then applied
myself to the ancient language, of which, in three months,
I learned sufficient to understand some of the ancient
authors, and especially Homer, whom I read and re-read
with the most lively enthusiasm."
Such a facility of learning languages is a gift which few




men possess. The method that Dr. Schliemann calls his
own, and which he considers to be his great advantage,
seems to consist in committing to memory many passages
of the language, and writing his own thoughts in it, not
occasionally, but frequently and almost continuously, with
no more use of the grammar than was necessary to show the
relation of the words. That this is substantially Dr. Schliemann's method, appears to be the opinion of a learned writer
in the London Quarterly Review,* who has given an account
of Dr. Schliemann's discoveries, that is replete with classic
lore and fresh suggestions.  He says, "To this point we
would direct special attention, believing as we do, that the
first and most needful key to all questions about Homer is a
deep and familiar knowledge of the text, such knowledge,
which was the great glory of our old English scholarship,
has been perhaps too much neglected in the recent times of
scientific criticism. No amount of writing about the classic
authors, even in the latest German treatises, can compensate
for an imperfect knowledge of the authors themselves;
and more than this, the want of such knowledge unfits the
scholar from being an independent judge of the criticism,
which he so'eagerly follows. Among the services rendered
by Mr. Gladstone to Homeric studies, none is greater than
the earnestness with which he insists on this knowledge of
the text, which his own example so well illustrates."t
Rev. Dr. Andrew P. Peabody, in an address on the
Elective System in Colleges, delivered before the Educational Association, in August, 1874, takes notice of the
inevitable fact, that the change in the teaching of Latin and
Greek that prevails in Europe, has reached the Colleges of
America.  He says of our colleges fifty years ago, " The
*April, 1874. t Ibid. p. 284.




classical languages were studied indeed and in a certain
sense more efficiently than now; for the chief aim was to
make the student conversant with the mind of the author he
read, and a larger proportion of life-long readers of the classics was trained under the former than under the present
system; but for minute grammatical and philological study
if the fit teachers existed, which is very doubtful - there
certainly was not the requisite apparatus accessible to the
student."  The wise Professor adds no censure and expresses no regret, but leaves this important truth, as he
leaves his moral instructions, to have a proper influence on
the good sense that lie has awakened. What greater good
can be got from a language than the thought, the meaning
which it contains. A diet of dry bones of grammar cannot
satisfy a vigorous and growing intellect. The teachers of
Greek in our age are learned above the degree of their predecessors, and their instructions make a few accurate scholars.
But it is too often seen that they direct more attention to
the machinery of language than to the closeness and spirit
of translations. The larger number of scholars do not continue in mature life a reading, that was never pleasant, and
after engaging in active business for five years, they retain
little more than accents and quantities, and the refinement,
that is produced by the atmosphere of learning. Hence we
hear the unfounded complaint, that boys learn too much
Greek, and the literature of the language is not respected
as it was one hundred years ago.  The method of Dr.
Schliemann is the same that is commonly used in learning
modern languages, with the important addition of abundance
of writing, which, as Lord Bacon teaches, " maketh an exact
man."  It will be said that Dr. Sebliemann is not a scholar,
and is a poor product of his boasted method. The justice




9
of these reproaches need not be discussed here.  He is
noticed with respect by the learned, and he has done a good
work in rousing teachers of this age to an improved and
more liberal culture.
After Dr. Schliemann began to be rich, he made visits
connected with his business to many countries, including
Egypt, where he learned the Arabic language. He says,
"Heaven had blessed my mercantile undertakings in a wonderful manner, so that at the end of 1863 I found myself in
possession of a fortune, such as niy ambition had never ventured to aspire to. I therefore retired from business, in
order to devote myself exclusively to the studies which have
the greatest fascination for me.  At last I was able to
realize the dream of my whole life and to visit at my leisure
the scene of those events which had such an interest for
me, and the country of the heroes whose adventures had
delighted and comforted my childhood."  Dr. Schliemanu
began his search for Troy in the Troad in 1871, on the hill
fHissarlik, whose name, meaning tower or fortress, was an
encouragement. He carried on his excavations in the practicable seasons of three years, almost or entirely without the
cooperation or inspection of any persons but his wife and
the Grecian and Turkish laborers that lie hired.  His wife,
an Athenian lady, shared his tastes and his studies and was
present at the work from morning to night. When the finding of the deposit of gold and silver articles, which has been
called " King Priam's Treasure," was indicated, " to save it
fiom the greed of the workmen," he ordered thlem all to
depart for breakfast, though the time had not come. While
they were absent he cut out the treasure with a large knife,
with the greatest exertion and the most fearful risk of life;
2




10
for the wall, beneath which he dug, threatened every moment
to fall upon him. He adds, " It would have been impossible
for me to remove the treasure without the help of my dear
wife, who stood ready to pack the things I cut out in her
shawl to carry them  away."  The malaria affected their
health, so that they took four grains of' quinine every morning as a precaution. Frequent fevers and other diseases
occurred among the laborers. He had constant embarrassment, loss and fatigue, from  the frauds and unfaithfulness
of his laborers and other undesirable occurrences.  His
expenditure is spoken of as enormous, and it is apparent that
it was very large. At the beginning of the year 1874 he
made his report of the product of all these labors and sufferings in the octavo volume in the German language, containing a sort of journal with explanations and discussions,
accompanied by a large atlas of views, maps and plans and
217 photographic plates of 4000 objects selected from the
100,000 which he brought to light. A descriptive list of
these objects is also given.  The photographs are made
from  DRAWINGS and it is said that "Dr. Schliemann was
the first to acknowledge, that their execution left much to be
desired."
The question, what has been discovered by Dr. Schliemann, would receive a ready and appropriate answer in a
reference to his volume, now within your reach. But his
statements are necessarily so mixed up with defense against
criticism, that they provoke more discussions than they settle.
It may help on these discussions toward their result, if
unprejudiced eyes shall look at the prominent features that
are exhibited.  The worthy and professed object of Dr.
Schliemnann was not to find curiosities, but to find the site of
satc uent Troy, the sacred Ilium of Horner. At the first step




11
he found himself in the midst of a topographical war, which
has increased in numbers and activity. It is an embarrassment to readers, that the Doctor feels obliged to contend
with one hand, while he describes with the other. The first
attack was from the position of Demetrius of Skepsis, born
190 B. C., who is supported by Strabo, who followed more
than 200 years after. It is objected that the elevated plateau
of Hissarlik, to which tradition and general belief pointed
as the true locality, was too small for the population, and
unsuitable especially for the thrice repeated race around the
walls of Troy. The location offered in preference to Hissarlik is the small village of Ilium, which has never had any
considerable party in its favor. In 1778 M. Lechevalier
brooughlt forward the claims of the heights of Bunarbashi
to this historic glory, and the number of distinguished
scholars in England, France and Germany, that support
these claims, is large.* Our learned Prof. Felton, and Prof.
Forchhammer and Lord Carlisle, after ample local examination, agree that Bunarbashi is the place.t When Dr. Schliemann, with shallow digging, reached the virgin soil with no
de6bris at the Village of Ilium and at Bunarbashi, this was
taken by the advocates of those places as favorable evidence,
for are we not told that even the ruins perished, "Etiamn
periere ruinae." t, To modern opinions and arguments like these, and they are
numerous and confident, the highest ancient authority may
be opposed. Herodotus says, "when Xerxes arrived at the
river, the Skamander, he ascended the Pergamos of Priam,
having a desire to make a survey; and when he had made a
* Troy and its Remains, 41, 43. t Lord Carlisle: Diary in Turkish and Greek
Waters, 70. + Quar. Rev., April, 1874, p. 282.




12
survey and inquired about everything, he sacrificed a thousand bullocks to the Minerva of the Iliad, and the Magi
poured out libations to the heroes."* After satisfactory
examination, Xerxes had no doubt about the locality of Troy.
And Plutarch records that Alexander of Macedon, who was
born 70 years later than Xerxes, sacrificed at Troy to
Minerva and offered solemn libations to the heroes buried
there; and "While he was viewing the antiquities and curiosities of the place, being told that he might see Paris' harp
if he pleased, he said he thought it not worth looking at,
but lie should be glad to see that of Achilles."t Dr. Otto
Keller quotes from Arrian, that Alexander came up to Ilium
to sacrifice to Minerva, and to place his armor in the temple,
in exchange for some of the sacred armor saved from Troy.:
Livy also relates that Publius Scipio, more than one hundred years after, pitched his camp below the walls of Ilium
and ascended the City and tower to sacrifice to lMinerva.~
This display of antique objects to Alexander gives some
probability to the finding of Dr. Sehliemann, and accounts
also  for the  smallness  of the  amount.  The visit of
Alexander to Troy cannot be regarded as an unconsidered excursion.i Plutarch  states, on the authority of
Onesicritus, that Alexander  constantly  laid  under  his
pillow Homer's Iliad, in the copy corrected by Aristotle. This was called the casket copy, because Alexander
kept this literary treasure in a beautiful casket, which
he appropriated from the spoils of Darius.ll This incident
seems to combine the authority of the most learned man of
that age and his associates in favor of Hissarlik.  Moreover,
* Herodotus, H. 43. "Oe frfnaEvog aE, Kal,rvO6jEv'o; KFiVOV &,aVa."y
t Clough's Plutarch, 4, 17. + Arrian Exped. Alexand. ic. II. ~ Livius 37c, 37.
I Clough's Plutarch, 4, 168.




13
Mr. Grote, whose judgment on such subjects is always
respected, affirms " that there is every reason for presuming
that the Ilium visited by Xerxes and Alexander was really
the Holy Ilium present to the mind of Homer."  Lord Carlisle and Prof. Felton admit that iHissarlik is the place
intended by Mr. Grote, but they dissent from his opinion.*
Dr. Schliemann gives 20 metres (651 feet) as the height
of the primary soil of the plateau of Hissarlik above the
plain. This elevation justifies the Homeric epithets, " high
browed and windy," and commands an extensive prospect.
Above this plateau he found debris 16 metres (about 521
feet) in depth, in strata indicating at least four successive
settlements and destructions below the surface. Dr. Schliemann wrote his account from day to day as the work went
on, and was obliged to modify his previous descriptions.
Hence it was difficult to ascertain the dividing lines of the
strata and the original position of articles. This embarrassment was increased by frequent caving down. It appears
that the lowest stratum presented pottery, and rude stone,
and few articles of ivory, copper or bronze, and silver
of a low degree of art.  On this was deposited the second stratum, a bed of ashes and rubbish, in which were
the effects of a great fire and remains of structures of
polished stone and implements, weapons and ornaments
in terra cotta, stone, gold, silver and bronze, and other
materials, which are evidence of wealth, taste, and skill
in art. In the stratum above this, the third, it does not
appear that the advantages of those who dwelt below were
improved or retained; for the articles are chiefly of clay
and stone, and they are comparatively poor. The theory of
* Lord Carlisle's Diary, Turkish and Greek Waters, 70.




14
the succession of the ages of clay, stone, bronze and iron,
finds no support here. The fourth stratum, which is immediately below the present surface, is considered less important, as it contains the ashes of wooden dwellings, and articles of terra cotta and copper, of less comparative interest,
and very few stone implements. We can give but a hurried
glance at the collection of objects from  the second stratum
above the virgin soil, which Dr. Schliemann believes to be
the remains of the city of Troy described by Homer.
These objects are said to be 4000, selected from 100,000
brought to light by him. The larger part of this collection
are the vessels and implements in pottery and stone, many
of which resemble those found in Cyprus and Rhodes, and
other places. The objects in metals, which have great value
and startling curiosity, are not numerous. The treasure of
Priam, as it is called, was found on the wall, surrounded
with ashes, as of an enclosing box, and Dr. Schliemann took
the articles from the rubbish, and Madam Schliemann carried
them to a safe place in her shawl, while the laborers were
absent at breakfast. They are armor of copper or bronze,
vessels in gold, silver and copper, or bronze, talents in silver,
the bronze key of the chest, a few other articles in metal of
more uncertain description, and a due proportion of female
ornaments of gold, diadems, a mantilla (kredemnon) such as
Andromache tore from her head in her grief for Hector,
ear-rings and small jewels. It was a specimen for posterity,
such as Hecuba and her faithful attendants might have prepared. A general photograph bringing this treasure together, enables us to ascertain, that the number of the
articles is about seventy, in addition to the small jewels.
Among the vessels is a drinking cup of pure gold, which




15
Dr. Schliemann calls a depas amphikupellon, weighing 1 lb.
6 oz. troy; a bottle of pure gold, weighing 1 lb. troy; a
cup of pure gold, weighing 71 oz. troy; a silver vase 81 in.
high, and 8 inches in diameter; a second silver vase, 6-9p
inches high. The list of illustrations enumerates as made
of Gold, one bottle, two cups, two diadems, aflllet 18 inches
long, six bracelets, four ear-rings or tassels, each 31 inches
long, and 8750 small jewels, which may be part of the
diadems and other ornaments.  There are eight cups of
silver and six silver talents, and two cups of electrum, having four parts of gold to one of silver, and one great bronze
or copper cauldron.
In view of the suspicion, that may be excited by the rich
quality and small number of these valuable objects, justice
to Dr. Schliemann requires that it should be considered, that
his veracity is supported by negative evidence of the strongest character. His vivid imagination and energetic temper
have exposed him to opposition and unfavorable construction
from the first. As soon as he showed some success, he had
a quarrel with the Pacha, who permitted him to dig on part
of the hill Hissarlik.
On June 1st, 1872, he writes that he has been excavating
on shares, with the consent of his honored friend, Mr. Frank
Calvert, on that part of Hissarlik which belongs to him.
On May 10, 1873, we read that "The excavations on the
north side of the field belonging to Mr. Calvert have been
stopped for some time, because I can no longer come to
terms with him." Under the same date. he mentions that
" He allowed himself to be deceived by the statements of his
esteemed friend, Mr. Frank Calvert," in regard to what was
proved by certain documents, and previously he dissents from




16
the opinions and impressions of Mr. Calvert, as to objects
that he found. Mr. Calvert replies in the Athenaeum of November 7, 1874, with some warmth. He says "Dr. Schliemann has criticised my views and questioned my statement
of facts, and represented me as an adversary of his explorations of the identity of Troy and Hissarlik. In truth I first
convinced him of that identity, and persuaded him to make
excavations, which have yielded such advantageous results.
I did not expect he would acknowledge the obligation, but
it was unpardonable that it should be an occasion of censure."  He adds that Dr. Schliemann claims discoveries that
Mr. Calvert had made before, and was indebted to him for
learned authorities.  With all this sense of wrong, there is
no  charge  of direct falsehood.  In the Athenoeum  of
Aug. 8, 1874, Prof. S. Comnos, a native of Greece, in a
letter dated Athens, July 18, 1874, accuses Dr. Schliemann
of violating his contracts with the Ottoman Government as
to a share of his findings, and of disappointing the expectations of the Athenians, and of attempting to sell his collection in England or France.  He adds, "Judging from all
this, one would be very cautious in believing the discovery of
Ilium  and the treasure of Priam."  lie says, Mr. Conza, in
the Deutsche Zeitung, and other writers, "have so thoroughly
proved that the Troy of Dr. Schliemann does not agree
with the Troy of Homer, that it would be a waste of time
to say more." After criticising several particulars he coneludes thus, "'I content myself with saying the supposed
Trojan objects of Dr. Schliemann make no greater impression
on me than the manuscripts of Simonides." The Athenreum
of August 20th, 18-74, mentions the receipt of another letter,
in which Prof. Comnlos repeats his charges against Dr.




17
Schliemann, and censures him for not complying with the
demands of the Pacha. The letter is not printed. Of all
his associates, the Pacha of the District and Mr. Frank
Calvert and Prof. Comnos had the best opportunity to know
what Dr. Schlielnann did, and to detect any wilful misrepresentations or imposition, and they show no disposition to
spare him, yet they do not accuse him of fraud or forgery.
His own pen has injured his credit more than any enemy.
In his original German journal we read, that to protect the
valuable objects near the Skoean Gate from the laborers,
Dr. Schliemann told them that Christ had gone up by that
road to visit King Priam, and he set up a picture of Christ
to sanctify the place.*  In the English translation this
odious incident is not found. But its influence will remain
like the warning of the father of Desdemona to Othello,
" She has deceived her father and may thee."
It may be pardoned, that Dr. Schliemann in the weakness
of excitement and disease and strong temptations, should
commit this fault and hastily record it.  But it is inconceivable, that the learned writer in the Quarterly Review
should commend the act as "an example of the power of
impressing the minds of those under him, which is a main
element of success."
Dr. Schliemanni doubted whether pure copper or bronze
was the metal of some of the articles, and sent specimens
for analysis to a distinguished chemist, 1M. Damoret, at
Lyons, who found that they were bronze, not differing much
in the proportions of copper and tin from the best Greek
bronze. This bronze and the cups, made of electron, a comnbination of gold and silver, show an astonishing knowledge
* Trojanischer AlterthUimer, p. 254.
3




18
and skill in metals in pre-historic time.  In view of the helmets, spears and shields, and the articles suited to the luxury
and state of King Priam, the reader will be ready to exclaim
Hic illius arma
Hic currus fuit.
But where is the Chariot?  We know there were many
chariots beside that one, of which we are told, that
"Hebe rolled the wheels,
Each with eight spokes and joined to the end
Of the steel axle - fellies wrought of gold
Bound with a brazen rim, to last for aye,
A wonder to behold. The hollow naves
Were silver; and on gold and silver cords
Was slung the warrior's seat. On silver hooks
Rested the reins; and silver was the pole,
Where the fair yokes and poitrels, all of gold,
Were fastened."*-Bryant.
Though this chariot of the goddess Juno should be more
costly and elaborate than the ordinary war chariots, the description shows, on the authority of Homer, that the use of
Gold, Silver, Brass and Iron, in the construction of war
chariots, was known and practised at the time of the Trojan war.
Minerva had a more humble outfit, when, desiring to act as
the charioteer of Diomede, she took possession of the chariot
of Sthenelus, which had an oaken axle, that groaned under
the weight of the Goddess and the Hero.t Many chariots
are mentioned in the poems, but it is not remembered that
chariots or harnesses are described as being made of metals.
Yet the battle was brilliant with the brass of horses and of
men.;  No part of a chariot or its harness has been brought
up from excavations, which Dr. Schliemann says extended
"firom, east to west and from north to south, through the
entire hill."  Dr. Otto Keller says, "two-thirds of the hill
was opened."~
* Iliad, 5, 722. t Iliad, 5, 838. + Iliad, 20, 157. ~ Entdeckung Ilions von Dr.
Otto Keller.




19
It is not surprising or censurable, that the first descriptions
of Dr. Schliemann, under all his embarrassments, should
have been sometimes confused and unsatisfactory.  But
sufficient time passed, between the first publication of the
Journal and the issue of the English edition, for such additions as would have made the statement more clear and
complete. Such a strengthening of his facts would have
been worth more than the defence of his conclusions. The
wish that he had made this improvement, is strongly excited
by his account of a house on the " Great Tower." He says,
"By the side of the house, as well as in its larger apartments, I have found great quantities of human bones, but
as yet only two entire skeletons, which must be those of
warriors, for they were found at a depth of seven meters
(23 feet), with copper helmets upon their heads. Beside
one of the skeletons I found a large lance, a drawing of
which I give."  "Unfortunately both helmets are broken;
however, I hope to be able to put one of the two together
when I return to Athens. The upper portions of both helmets have, however, been well preserved, and these parts
form the q6Xog or ridge, in which the 1Sqpog Ftnovugs  or horse
hair plume was fixed."* It will excite surprise and deep
regret that such careless violence was used and that the
scattered bones were not examined to ascertain their position and their sex, and their development as to age and
size. They might have belonged to the female attendants
of Hecuba or to the courtiers of Priam. It is a fair supposition that the lives connected with these bones were destroyed by war or sudden violence, without the opportunity
* Troy and its Remains, 279, 280.




20
of cremation, which was then practised. We cannot conjecture, why the two warriors should have worn such elaborate helnets and no other protective metallic armor. In
the great battle, in which Achilles again took his place in
the army, the whole field is described as being "brilliant
with the brass of men and horses."*  If we do not admit
the suggestion, that the exchange of the brass armor of
the Greek Diomede for the gold armor of Glaucns, the
Trojan ally,t is evidence of the more costly equipment of
the Trojans, it is believed to be true, that the Trojans are
not represented as inferior in this respect. If Dr. Schliemann had "put together" one of the helmets as he intended,
we should have had the most desirable sight of a part of
armor often mentioned, as if it were of great importance.
The list indicates that his collection at Athens only contains
what he calls a "p xio;, or helmet crest," of which we have
an engraving, and ambiguous pieces of such a helmet apparently distorted by fire, also engraved. The qprAo; is a
clumsy projection, that would make the helmet difficult to
wear and would expose instead of protecting. Liddell and
Scott's Lexicon defines chaos to mean "a metal rim round
the top of the helmet, in which the horse-hair crest was
fixed," with no hint, that it was a kind of arm projecting
into the air.
In the plates Dr. Schliemann represents two blocks of
Mica-Schiste, with moulds for casting metal into forms of
weapons and ornaments, and there is a crucible with brass
remaining in it. These moulds are rude in form, and they
agree with the shape of the spears and other objects in the
* Iliad, 20, 156. t Ibid. 6, 235.




21
plates. These objects are like some of the copper articles
found among the relics of pre-historic races in Europe and
America, and they do not show the skill and taste that produced the golden cups and other costly things found in "the
Treasure." Still less do they indicate the perfection of practical mechanism that is displayed in two kinds of self-moving
machinery in the work-shop of Vulcan, and in the strong
plating of metals in the shield of" Achilles, and the beautiful
pictures formed of inlaid metals on its face;* and in the gold
and silver watch dogs of Alcinous.t If it is admitted that
Homer, like Shakespeare and other poets, invested the subjects of his description with the intelligence and capacity of
his own age, though it was some centuries later than
the true time, the wonder will not be less. For it is not
supposed, that the mechanic arts ever attained such perfection in ancient Greece.
The gem of Dr. Schliemann's collection, in his own opinion,
and in the estimation of an antiquary, is the drinking cup
of pure gold, weighing 1 lb. 6 oz. troy, 7t inches long, 7inches broad, and 3} inches high. It is in the form of an
old fashioned table butter-boat, with a spout at each end.
It has a massive handle, projecting like a band round the
middle and rising no higher than the edge of the cup. It is
said that the cup was cast, and the handles which are hollow,
were fused on. The spouts are of different size, and it is
supposed that the host tasted at the small spout and handed
the cup to his guest, who drank from the other. Dr. Schliemann mentions four goblets or cups of the same form and
of larger size, made of red clay, which he found broken, and
* Iliad, 18, 376-418. t Odyssey, 7, 91.




22
has not been able to repair them. He argues confidently
and repeatedly, that these are the depa amphkikupella mentioned by Homer, and that Aristotle erred inl supposing
amphiikupellon meant double cupped, or two cups joined at
the bottom, like the cells of a bee. The decision of Dr.
Schliemann, that "in the Homeric Troy there were no such
cups, otherwise I should have found them," is alln instance of
his undoubting conclusions.*
The questions and suggestions connected with this cup are
numerous and attractive to antiquarian taste, but there is
not time to take notice of more than one of them. The
learned author of the article in the Quarterly Review, on Dr.
Schliemann's discoveries remarks, that the smallness of this
and other cups found there "'recalls Homer's lamentation
over the decline of convivial power.t The writer has not
been able, with the aid of good scholars, to find the passage
in Homer that is alluded to. It is not remembered that he
commends the pleasures of wine, and in the Odyssey particularly, he strongly describes the evils of excess. Wine is constantly mentioned as a part of diet, but it is taken with much
water.  The wine with which Polyphemus was made drunk
and overcome, was such, as should have been diluted with
twenty parts of water.; Few temperance lectures have had
so much power on the habits of men, as the often quoted
reply of Hector to his mother offering to him, as a loving
mother would, the refreshment of wine, when he returned
weary with battle, for a brief visit to those he loved:
"Far hence be Bacchus' gifts, the chief rejoined;
Inflaming wine, pernicious to mankind,
Unnerves the limbs and chills the noble mind.
*Troy and its Remains, 313. t Quar. Rev. April, 1874, page 288. + Odyssey, 9,
209.




23
Let chiefs abstain and spare the sacred juice,
To sprinkle to the Gods, its better use."*-Pope.
Yet it was considered, that the moderate use of wine was
necessary, aswhen Ulysses advised Achilles not to send his
troops fasting to an expected battle. His words were,
" Order the Achaians in the swift ships to be fed with bread
and wine, for this is strength and spirit."t
In the slightest glance at the discoveries of Dr. Schliemann, the inscriptions cannot be overlooked, for they may
be the keys to all the secrets of history. A list of 18 distinct inscriptions is given, in which resemblance to known
letters and characters has been pointed out. As there will
be a general assent to the opinion of Prof. Max Muller, that
they " are most disappointing," they need not detain us long.
The most complete is an inscription on a vase, that has been
explained by the learned Prof. Burnouf, of Athens. lie
writes, "I sought to read it by means of all the alphabets
that I had at my disposal, and my researches were in vain.
All at once, on applying to it the elementary signs of Chinese writing, I read it with the greatest facility, not in Cllinese, a language of which I was entirely ignorant, but in
French."I
Prof. Burnouf does not add the French explanation, but
Dr. Schliemann gives it, without expressing an opinion, as
follows:
1         2              3          4       5        6
Pnuisse   (la) terre   faire germer   dix  labours   dix
7    8   9   10         11. dix, dix, dix   pieces d'6toffes,
mille.
*Iliad, 6, 264. t Ibid. 19, 160. +Reveu des Deux Mondes, Jan'y 1, 1874,
p. 74.




24
The eleven characters are translated as follows:
1         2                 3             4       5
Could   the earth   cause to germinate   ten   tillings
6    7    8    9   10         11
ten.      ten, ten, ten   pieces of cloth.*
one thousand.
Mr. Smith, the English translator, expresses a doubt if
M. Burnouf " meant this seriously," "' and considers it only
as a curious coincidence."  We learn from  Dr. Schliemann
that there is need of caution in admitting the genuineness of
these inscriptions.' Under date of Nov. 3, 1871, he writes
thus, " Upon some articles of very hard black clay without
decorations, some hand has endeavored to make them after
the clay was burnt, and, when looked at through a magnifying glass, these marks leave no doubt that they have been
laboriously scratched with a piece of flint." And he adds,
on July 13, 1872, " my workmen have occasionally attempted
to make decorations on unornamented articles, to obtain the
reward. I of course detect the forged symbols at once and
always punish the forger." But forgery is still attempted
from time to time. Dr. Schliemann compels us to remember that the ingenuity of the Greeks is unsurpassed, and
may sometimes be successful.
It may be asked, if the infrequency or absence of inscriptions is inconsistent with the Trojan origin of these
remains.  The Iliad mentions one instance of the communication of thought by inscription, and that is related
as if it was not uncommon.t It is found in the amusing
episode, in which the Grecian Diomede, with the address of
Sam Slick, talked his enemy Glaucus, leader of the Lycians,
* Troy and its Remains, 51. t Iliad, 7, 175. That the Grecian warriors put
private marks op the lots they cast to decide who should fight with Hector, is
no proof that they could write.




25
into such a fit of generous chivalry, that he exchanged his
golden armor worth one hundred oxen, for the brazen
armor of Diomede worth nine oxen. In the interchange
of family glorification, Glaucus relates that King Prcetus,
desiring to kill Bellerophon the grandfather of Glaucus,
"gave him  deadly tokens, writing in folded tablets many
fatal things, which he ordered him to show to King Jobates,
that he might destroy him."  Jobates asked for the token of
introduction, and in compliance with it sent Bellerophon
into dangerous contests, in which he obtained victories and
the highest favor of Jobates.*  The general opinion of
scholars is, that the tablets contained symbols and not
letters. It is difficult to give a better description of a modern epistle, than to say in the words of Homer, it is a
folded tablet with an inscription, which may be in letters, in
symbols or in cypher.
What reception has been given to the announcement of Dr.
Schliermann's discovery? Howhas it been received byscholars,
in their responsibility for the truth and purity of literature?
And how has it been received by the readers of our time?
The scholars, whose publications are generally accepted as a
sufficient representation of the discoveries for English readers, were excited, but not beyond measure. Did they hasten
to Hissarlik, to the spot where the credibility of the narrative might be tested? No.  They hastened to their desks
and their libraries and sent out the fruits of their studies,
with entire reliance on the discoverer, and on one or two
visitors of the collection which he exhibited at Athens. The
eminent classical scholar, Dr. Otto Keller, of Freiburg, in
Breisgau, is conspicuous for qualifying himnself to judge Dr.
* Iliad, 6, 119.
4




26
Sch]iemann, by the place of his discovery, by the material
product of the discovery, and by the descriptions and conclusions offered by the discoverer.
Such neglect of local examination is inexcusable, but
it is not unprecedented.  We need not look to past time
and remote places for a similar oversight. In the last
year there were discussions by very learned men in
Germany on the strength given to evidence of a Phoenician settlement in America, by the discovery of a buried
gypsum statue, at Cardiff near Syracuse in the State of
New  York, which Dr. H. Ilartog t eys von Zouteveen
regarded as the "Baal in Atlantis."  These respected scholars were misled by incautious reliance on second-hand and
sensational statements.  If they had stood with the writer
to inspect the figure, before it was raised from its watery
bed, they would have assented to the opinion of Dr. Schlottman, that it was "a representation of' Adonis;"* for, like
Venus, rising from the sea, it was beautiful, and more beautiful for its bath, if it was enjoyed with brief discretion. If
they were chemists, they would remember that gypsum is
dissolved by 400 parts of water, and observe that the rapid
flow of four or five inches depth of water through the pit
had shown its effect on the ear and so much of the figure as
was submerged.  So they would have been prepared to
believe the statement which Burckhardt, a jolly German,
made to the writer, at the marble warehouse of Messrs.
Volkes, at Chicago, that he was the designer and director of
the sculpture, and that the statue lay buried about one year,
and that he, Burckhardt, had ability to make it, with the
skill apparent in a beautiful design for a soldier's monument
* Proceedings Am. Oriental Society, May, 1874.




27
exhibited in the warehouse, which he prepared in a very
short time, and obtained a premium for it.
The objects described by Dr. Schliemann naturally lead
him to speculations and inferences. As the figures on pottery, having some likeness to the face of an owl, suggest the
probability that they represent the goddess Minerva, who
is described by the epithet Glaucopis, if it means owl-faced
and not having bright searching eyes, as it is sometimes
translated. A discussion of this carries him into Indian
mythology; and in the same direction are the inquiries about
the ancient cross, the suastika, and other figures, on the thin
small circles of pottery, of which it is difficult to discover the
use. Though his commentators censure him for adding to
his testimony such speculations, they do not deny themselves
the pleasure of pursuing them, and they have not added much
to what he presents. We look to those who have undertaken to pass judgment on Dr. Schliemann's work, first of
all, for their opinion of his veracity and the character of his
alleged discoveries.
Mr. C. F. Newton, of the British Museum, reports in the
Academy, under date of February 14, 1874, his visit at Dr.
Schliemann's collection at Athens. He does not appear to
have been a suspicious observer.  When he read Dr.
Schliemann's narrative and examined his photographs, he entertained no doubt, and his opinion was confirmed by
inspection of the collection, and by opinions of respected
archaeologists. The articles in gold and silver resemble others
found in the Troad, and other things have a similarity to certain objects found in Rhodes and Cyprus, which cannot be the
result of chance. His "present theory" is that they are prehistoric. He mentions that some few receive the narrative




28
with scornful incredulity and insinuate that the gold and silver
was made at Athens.  He takes no other notice of this
calumny, which is not known to have been supported or repeated elsewhere. The distinguished philologist, Max Muller,
under date of January 10, 1874,* writes, " The discoveries of
Dr. Schliemann have not been received with the recognition
that they deserve. If he had described his discoveries without adding his theories, he would have earned nothing but
gratitude, but his speculations have roused opposition and
incredulity. The myth of Helen and Paris and Achilles is
localized at Troy. No one in his senses ever believed that
these are truly historical events. It was imagined that, after
removing from the Iliad all that is mythological, there is a
historical foundation of some war carried on by the Greek
tribes against the inhabitants of Troy. But if we take away
from the Iliad all the marvellous and impossible elements, the
whole poem collapses and vanishes. The locality of the war,
as described by the poet, may have some amount of reality
compatible with the mythical character of the war and
the ruins of an old fortress." "If without having seen the
actual treasures, which Dr. Schliemann has safely conveyed
to Athens, one may venture to express an opinion of their
real character, they would seem to belong to that large class
of pre-historic antiquities, which of late has excited so much
interest.  With the exception of two or three works of art
they seem  to be of rude workmanship."  He adds, "the
inscriptions are most disappointing." There are Phoenician
letters and some others. Eight or ten signs are decidedly
Phoenician letters of the oldest form; but great care will be
required before allowing the inscriptions a really historical
X Academy, No. 88, p. 39.




29
value. The mythological bias of Prof. Max Muller does
not prevent him from giving a favorable opinion of the
reality and worth of the discoveries.
M. Frangois Lenormant writes that, he is happy to find
such a complete conformity between Dr. Schliemann's judgment, based on examination of the originals, and the impression left on his own mind by the sight of the photographs.
After Mr. Newton's expression of opinion, there remains
nothing more to be said as to the authenticity. He agrees
with that eminent English scholar that the objects are prehistoric, and like those found at Rhodes and Cyprus. He is
one who believes in the siege of Troy, and thinks Homer is
confirmed by Egyptian authorities.*
A writer in the Edinburgh Review of April, 1874, relies
on the report of Mr. Newton, the narrative and plates of
Dr. Schliemann, and the papers of M. Burnouf and Max
Muller. He censures Homer for inaccuracy as to space and
numbers. He comments with learning on the objects found,
discusses the locality of Troy at large, and agrees with Dr.
Schliemann. He concludes that he does not think Dr.
Schliemann's theories will find general acceptance, though we
cannot be too grateful for the zeal and energy of his
researches, and the conscientious manner in which he has
given them to the public.
A writer in the Quarterly Review of April, 1874, on the
authority of the papers of Newton, Burnouf, and Max
Muller, illustrates the subject of Dr. Schliemann's narrative
with a wealth of learning and ingenuity. He says, " We
mnay adopt, though with a smile, the words of the enthusiastic
* Academy, March 21, 1874.




30
friend and interpreter of Dr. Schliemanln,*'that the hill of
Ilium  had been a solitude for 1500 years, till a man and
a woman encamped there three years ago, like another
Deucalion and Pyrrha, to evoke the forms of heroic life
from the buried stones."'
The admirable scholar and able statesman, Mr. Gladstone,
always honors an introduction from Homer with the richest
classical feast. In his essay on "Homer's Place in tIistory," he uses no other authorities for his remarks on Dr.
Schliemann's discoveries than those quoted in the English
Quarterlies.  He contends that there is a solid nucleus of
fact in Homer's account of the Trojan war, and therefore
his poems are in the highest sense historical. He welcomes
Dr. Schliemann's discoveries as important evidence in the
case, and represents, in striking juxtaposition, the conformity
of the narrative to the poem.
Our brilliant countryman, Mr. Bayard Taylor, has furnished for the daily press an abstract of Dr. Schliemann's
narrative, in which he has painted the surprising and interesting features in strong relief, with his peculiar power.
He presents the views of Dr. Schliemann with respect and
admiration, and does not discuss them.
The evidence furnished in this investigation by Prof. Otto
Keller, of Freiburg in Breisgau, comes to us with the highest authority and the advantage of personal communication.
The Nation, of January 28, 1875, stated that this ripe
scholar had written to an American correspondent that he
had studied the collection at Athens, with every opportunity
* M. Emile Burnouf, who gave one of the most ample, learned and interesting accounts of Dr. Schliemann's labors and results, in the Reveu des Deux
Mondes, January 1, 1874.




31
cordially afforded by Dr. Schliemann. He was struck with
the marked contrast between Dr. Schliemann's collection
and the familiar creations of Hellenic art, and with the
strong resemblance of the objects to those found in the
oldest sepulchral monuments, caves, and pile buildings, in
Europe or Asia. The golden ornaments are suggestive in
their richness of the neighboring Lydia and the golden Pactolus, and in their form of the golden pendants worn by the
priests of Asia Minor. Other objects are like those found
in Cyprus. And last of all, the written characters on some
of the pottery bear the strongest resemblance to the Cyprian
characters probably used before the introduction of the
Phoenician alphabet into Greece. From the museum Dr.
Keller went to the Troad, and examined the localities and
the bed from which the antiquities were taken, and came to
the conclusion that Dr. Schliemann was true in his statements and justified in his conclusions. He writes, " the conclusion of the whole matter is this: We have in Schliemann's collection, unmistakable relies of Troy of immense
age, and the spot on which he made his investigations is not
simply New Ilium but the Ilium of all time." As this testimony, of the greatest importance, had been furnished to one
of our countrymen, we yielded to the temptation of
addressing a letter to Dr. Keller to ask if his opinions were
truly reported by his correspondent. He promptly replied
that he retained the same opinions, with some modification
of particulars; and he sent a very learned pamphlet, entitled
"Die Entdeckiing Ilions zi Hissarlik," in which he fully
illustrates his views. It is regretted that an abstract of the
essay cannot be given here, but it lies on your table for the
use of members of the Society.  This act of courtesy in




32
reply to inquiries made for this Society, seems to deserve a
special acknowledgment.*
The offer of Dr. Schliemann to give to his contemporaries
a lively sense of the reality of the heroes and incidents
described by Homer has not excited the interest and enthusiasm, which would have greeted it a hundred years ago.
The great Epics no longer retain the first place, though their
dethronement has left it vacant. The overturn, that men
call progress, has crushed to earth for a time the greatest
benefactors of our own race, and their noblest works. It
would be instructive to recall the names of this noble army
of martyrs.  Herodotus, the father of history, was not long
since scorned as the father of lies, and he stood for a while
in mute merit on the shelf, until respect and authority have
been restored to him. And at this moment the most perfect dramatist of all time is assaulted, to rob him of his sock
and his buskin, to give them to one who never desired thenm
and could never wear them.  Homer has suffered the common fate.  It is in vain that he is always genial and attractive, elevating in sentiment, and in moral purity superior to
the  customs of his age.  He scatters, broadcast, gems of
truth, that sparkle with new light as human intelligence is
illncreased.
* At the meeting of the American Philological Society, in July, 1874, Prof.
J. C. Van Benschoten, of the Wesleyan University, in~ iddletown, Conn., read
an interesting account of his visit to the Troad in 1891, with remarks on Dr.
Schliemann's discoveries. He went there with his Hbmer and his Strabo, prepared to be confirmed in Le Chevalier's opinion; but he was convinced by a
deliberate and careful examination of ten days, that Hissarlik is " the site of
Homer's Troy." He " could not question a statement of facts from Dr. Schliemann," but he does not so readily assent to his conclusions. The inscriptions
"are attracting the profoundest interest." He says, " Of the existence of an
actual Troy there can hardly be a question any longer. Egyptologists have
established beyond a reasonable doubt, what concurrent tradition had long tried
to settle." It is pleasant to bring respected testimony from our own country
into the case.




33
"Age cannot wither him, nor custom stale
His infinite variety."
Philosophers and historians, who have, for the longest
time, been honored with the confidence and admiration of
mankind, appeal to Homer as their oracle. And if modern
statesmen would acquaint themselves with the policy and
the divine right of kings, they may go back to the ancient
compendium, which Alexander declared to be, in his opinion,
" a perfect portable treasury of military virtue and knowledge."*  Though civil freedom  was then unknown, Homer
has expressed the value of personal liberty in words that
cannot be forgotten:
I" Jove fix'd it certain, that whatever day
Makes man a slave takes half his worth away."t —Pope.
There are other causes of this change than the caprice of
fashion, the "giddy and unfirm" fancies of men, to which
literature not less than love is subjected. The Greek language has been one of the foundations of the intellectual
power of past time. But now the learned and unlearned
have conspired to deprive it of its preeminence, and to
restrict or discontinue its use in colleges and schools of the
highest grade. The first effect of this is already perceived,
and Greek literature has faded from the knowledge of English readers. So far as the privileges of scholarship are
concerned, this movement is of little importance. Scholars
will only be more conspicuous, if they enjoy a culture in
which the active community have no share.  When the
teaching of Greek is continued in our schools, the Homeric
poems are not, as formerly, studied and committed to memory more than any other books in the language. They have
given place to works of a later period, that are fitted to
*Plutarch, Clough, 4, 168. t Odyssey, 17, 8322.




34
teach the language in its systematic and perfect form; and
these influences, adverse to these poems, are strengthened
by the criticism, that suggests the probability that an indefinite number of Homers have made up unfitted parts, which,
for thousands of years, have been admired as well-framed
structures; and that the pictures which they present, are not
historical nor even poetical representations of human passions
and experience, but mere allegorical myths. And to all these
are added charges of contradiction, inconsistency, and general
want of skill with many specifications. This storm of obloquy
has not been conjured up by the wit or folly of modern times,
in which it has had its greatest power.? For more than two
thousand years the Homeric poems have endured the pitiless
pelting, while they have been revered and loved, probably
more than any other but the sacred books. We are told that
Pythagoras, Heraclitus and Anaxagoras, and others of their
time, attacked and defended the moral and religious character
of the poems. And in regard to the theory that resolves this
poetry into moral allegories, it is said " that this broad and
extravagant interpretation, which Socrates ridiculed and
Plato refuted, and Aristarchus contradicted with all his
learning and good sense, remained in favor with rhetoricians
and grammarians of ancient times, and some traces of it are
found at this day."* An ample account of the discussion of
the unity of the composition of the Iliad and Odyssey is
presented in a learned and brilliant memoir by M. Leo Joubert.t To this memoir we shall be much indebted for a few
remarks, that may show the variety and tendency of the
arguments. The boast, that seven towns contended for the
honor of being the birthplace of Homer, is turned into
* Biographie Generale, Homere. t Ibid.




35
ridicule by admitting its justice. So many towns might
claim this honor, because their inhabitants were the Homers,
the authors of the ballads of which the poems were made.
M. Wolf, the most acute and learned modern critic of
Homer, admired the poems too much to be willing to take
part in this abuse, but he argued strongly against the unity
of the composition. John Baptiste Vico (1668-1744), who
has been admired as a leader in what is called "the philosophy of history," is an earlier and more savage critic of
Homer than M. Wolf, to whom he is inferior in learning
and judgment. M. Vico denies the individuality of Homer,
and is represented as saying, "His heroes are fierce, unstable, obstinate and unreasonable. His gods are no better
than his heroes. The characters and manners of the Homeric personages, far from being the work of a philosopher,
could only be conceived by beings of a weak mind, a
vigorous imagination, and violent passions."* The denial of
MN. Wolf, that these poems were made public by writing, is
well supported. The absence of mention of continuous
writing in the poems is a strong circumstance; but the
non-existence in that country, at that period, of any other
material for inscription than stone, metal and wood, and still
later skins of animals, until 630 B. C., when papyrus was
imported from Egypt into Greece, seems to settle the question; for papyrus, or modern paper, only, is adapted to such
long compositions. M. Wolf has gained little by proving
that the poems were not originally written. For the difficult question remains unanswered and unapproached, how
were they preserved and transmitted in a rude and unlettered age.
* Biographie Generale, Article Homere, p. 82.




36
The pleasure we receive from any gift, and especially from
contributions that afford the highest intellectual enjoyment,
is always increased by friendly acquaintance with the giver.
The love and reverence for Homer in ancient times were
personal sentiments; and when they are ingeniously argued
away, the poems must lose much of their attractive power,
and any discoveries in regard to them will have little
interest. What have the mass of English readers been
taught to think about the authorship of these poems? It
will be sufficient to quote from Mr. Grote's "History of
Greece," which is justly called " the most complete and
exact picture of the intellectual and political development
of the Grecian people."*  He writes, "There were a poetical gens, fraternity or guild in the Ionic island of Chios
(Scio). To them HIomer was not a mere antecedent man, of
kindred nature with themselves, but a divine or semi-divine
eponymus and progenitor, whom they worshipped in their
gentile sacrifices, and in whose ascendant name and glory
the individuality of every member of the gens was merged.
The compositions of each separate Horncrid, or the combined
efforts of many of them in conjunction, were the works of
Homer; the name of the individual bard perishes and his
authorship is forgotten, but the common gentile father lives
and grows in renown, from generation to generation, by the
genius of his self-renewing sons. Such was the conception
entertained of Homer by the poetical gens, called Homeridoe
or Homerids, and in the general obscurity of the whole case
I lean towards it as the most plausible conception." "To us,
the name of Homer means these two poems and little else."
A note informs us that "Nitzsch and Ulrici question the
* Biographie Generale, Grote.




37
antiquity of the Homerid gens, and limit their functions to
simple reciters, denying that they ever composed songs or
poems of their own." The opinions of Nitzsch and Ulrici
will have much weight on such questions. Mr. Grote has
no doubt of the reality of the Homerids in the Island of
Chios, and of their continued existence to the time of
Pindar and Plato, "when," he remarks, "their productive
invention had ceased, and they had become only guardians
and distributors in common with others, of the treasures
bequeathed by their predecessors."* It is unnecessary to
examine the arguments of Mr. Grote, which on this subject
generally aim at nothing better than probability. As when
he refers to the existence of such fraternities for composition
as well as recitation in different countries, through many
centuries. It is not unfair, and it is an amusing thought, to
test this theory of the origin of the Iliad, by applying it to
our own times, and within the circle of our own knowledge.
In an area not larger than Chios, surrounding a peninsula,
there are many more poets than Chios could ever boast of.
The names of the poets of Chios are unknown, and their
separate works were never preserved.  But the modern
poets have a world-wide and enduring renown. Let us
suppose, that these poets have now formed a fraternity to
make up an epic like the Iliad, by their ballads independently composed. We will allude only to those who are now
receiving the plaudits of the world. Is it possible that
Longfellow and Holmes and Lowell and Whittier could paint,
in separate pieces, the character and doings of Achilles and
Ulysses, in connection with other personages, in a great
variety of scenes, with so much uniformity that their united
* Grote's Greece, II. 131, 132, 133.




38
work would not be distorted by shades and contrasts? And
the confusion would increase with the number of contributors.
Frederic Augustus Wolf, (1759-1824), the herald and
champion of the theory of the conglomerate origin of the
Homeric poems, seems to differ from Mr. Grote, in thinking
that the ballads were composed separately, with no attempt
to harmonize or unite theml, and that the union and conformity were made by Lycurgus or Peisistratus and his son.
The learned arguments against the reality of the man
Homer, urged by M. Wolf and others, are founded on scraps
of tradition and history, and ingenious analogies and conjectures; and they have led to the disregard of a well known
historical fact, which has weight that it is not easy to resist.
We have almost the strength of contemporary testimony,
when we find Herodotus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and all
the learned men of the earliest age of Greece referring to
Homer, as the one author of the poems. And these references are not made without due consideration, for these
scholars quoted Homer with reverence, as the source and
authority of their best thoughts.
In discussing the question of unity of composition, many
strange fancies have been offered.  Longinus writes "The
Odyssey is but an epilogue of the Iliad. The Iliad was
written in the vigor of life, and is full of action and
contest.  The Odyssey is chiefly filled with narrative, to
which old age is prone."* Bentley thinks the Iliad was
composed for men and the Odyssey for women. Godfrey
Hermann conjectured that Homer, or some other poet, made
"two short poems," and a "series of poets" successively
*Lo nginus, 54-56.




39
developed and enlarged them.* To this notion two objections will occur. First, the memory of such " short poems,"
or even of their existence, could not be wholly lost. Second, there is no evidence of the existence at that early age
of the supposed " series of poets," similar to each other in
taste and talent, and not inferior to their successors in all
time. The notion that the Homeric poems were small in
their infancy, because otherwise they could not have been
preserved and handed down, is not favored by Mr. Grote.
He says, "As far as the evidences in the case, as well external as internal, enable us to judge, we seem warranted in
believing that the Iliad and Odyssey were recited substantially as they now stand (always allowing for partial
degeneracy of text and interpolations) in 776 B. C., our first
trustworthy mark of Grecian time." t The cautious parenthesis added above probably refers in part to passages not
now included in our text of these poems, to be found in
the writings of Aristotle and elsewhere. No improbability
of great age arises from  mere size.  Mr. Grote mentions
that "the ~Ethiopis  of Arktinus of Miletus contained,
in four books, 9100 verses," more than half of 15,690, the
number of the Iliad. " Nitzsch states it as a certain matter of
fact that Arktinus recited his own poem alone, though it was
too long to admit of his doing it without interruption."  Mr.
Grote adds, "There is no evidence for this assertion, and it
appears to me highly improbable." t Mr. Grote had occasion
to dispose of many historical dicta in the same manner.
Arktinus, whose era is fixed at.770 B. C., about 200 years
later than Homer, was the author of several poems, famous
in their time, "of which we have only some weak fragments
*Biog. Gen. IHomere, 40. t1 Grote's Greece, 2, 161. + Ibid. 156.




40
and summaries." If it is thought that the preeminence and
preservation of the poems of Homer were in some degree
promoted by the absence of similar objects for the attention
and memory of those who first heard them, this opinion may
be changed by this fact given by Mr. Grote. " Beside the
Iliad and Odyssey we make out the titles of about thirty
lost epic poems, sometimes with a brief hint of their contents."*  Even the cautious Mr. Grote is led by Homer
into an unwonted extravagance. He says, "looking at the
Odyssey by itself, the proofs of a unity of design seem
unequivocal and are everywhere to be found." " That the
Iliad is not so essentially one piece as the Odyssey,
every man agrees."t He finds in the Iliad two poems,
"' the Achilleis " destined to celebrate the wrath of Achilles,
and the Iliad, that describes the siege of Troy, and
he carries out the idea by a dissection that destroys life.
The separated poems become more regular but infinitely
less interesting. He strongly says that " Nothing is gained
by studying the Iliad as a congeries of fragments once independent of each other; no portion of the poem can be
shown to have ever been so, and the supposition introduces
difficulties greater than those which it removes. But it is
not necessary to affirm that the whole poem, as we now
read it, belonged to the original and pre-conceived plan. In
this respect the Iliad produces upon my mind an impression
totally different from the Odyssey. In the latter poem, the
characters and incidents are fewerm and the whole plot
appears of one projection, from  the beginning down to the
death of the suitors. But the Iliad, on the contrary, pre* Grote's Greece, 2, p. 120. t Ibid. 166, 172.




41
sents the appearance of a house built upon a plan comparatively narrow and subsequently enlarged by successive additions."*  With these clear convictions of the pre-conceived
plan of the Odyssey, and of portions of the Iliad, Mr. Grote
could say, "Homer then is no individual man, but the
divine or heroic father of the gentle Homerids, a poetical
fraternity."t Yet with his usual candor, he takes notice
of the significant fact, that Solon "enforced a fixed order
of regulation on the rhapsodies of the Iliad at the Panathenaic festival; not only directing that they should go
through the rhapsodies seriatim  and without omission or
corruption, but also establishing a prompter or censorial
authority to insure obedience.": Thus it appears that Solon,
who was born in. 638 B. C., eight years before the introduction of papyrus into Greece made it possible to commit the
Homeric poems to writing, found a certainty in the substance and form of the Iliad, that was known and respected
by the people that he governed. In a note, Mr. Grote says,
"Lachmann, after having dissected the two thousand two
hundred lines in the Iliad, between the beginning of the
Eleventh Book and line five hundred and ninety of the
Fifteenth, into four songs,'in the highest degree different in
their spirit,' tells us that whosoever thinks this difference of
spirit inconsiderable — whosoever does not feel it at once.
when pointed out -whosoever can believe that the parts, as
they stand now, belong to one artistically constructed Eposwill do well not to trouble himself any more either with my
criticisms or with epic poetry, because he is too weak to
understand any thing about it."ll  From  the fury of such
* Grote's Greece, 2, 175. t Ibid, 2, 133, +Ibid. 2,153.  Ibid. 2, 163.
6




42
critics we are glad to take the shelter offered by another
note of Mr. Grote, " Plato and Aristotle, and their contemporaries, generally read the most suspicious portions of the
Homeric poems as genuine."*  These ancients were wise
enough to prefer the refined enjoyment of poetry to the
pleasure of a puzzle.
About one hundred years after the probable date of the
introduction of the use of papyrus into Greece, Peisistratus
and Ilipparchus have the credit of causing the Homeric
Poemls to be put into their present form. M. Joubert says,
" We think M. Wolf has greatly exaggerated the importance
of the labors of Peisistratus and his son. Their work, however valuable, was only an arrangement, and it is impossible
that a simple arrangement of separate songs should produce
that admirable literary form which the greatest poets of
succeeding ages have imitated without ever equalling it."t
It is asserted that one cannot deny that an attentive examination is unfavorable to the unity of the composition of the
Iliad, on account of the parts which seem to be added to the
original structures, and the contradictions in detail. A few
specimens will be sufficient to show the character and force
of very numerous specifications supposed to have a bearing
on this point. That Agamemnon should have waited till
the tenth year of the war to review his troops is strange, but
it is admitted that it is not unfavorable to the course of a
popular poem. Nor can it be understood, why the single
combat between Paris and Menelaus should not have taken
place till after the ninth year. And Helen, on the Tower,
pointed out the Grecian chiefs to Priam, who had been look* Grote's Greece, 164. t Biog. Gen. Homere, 40.




43
ing at them for nine years. And Helen is anxious to see
her brothers and inquires if they are living, and if they
are ashamed of her and disown her, when she must have had
opportunities to be perfectly informed about them. If these
two last errors had been avoided, two of the most admired
passages would have been lost.  Jupiter promises in the
first book to avenge Achilles, and does not keep his promise
until the eleventh book. Eustathius, A. D., 1155, says, "The
ancients pretended that the tenth book was a separate poem,
composed by Homer, which Peisistratus inserted in the
Iliad."*  But this tenth book and the ninth containing the
splendid description of the embassy to Achilles, and other
passages, also censured because they do not carry on the
course of the poem, have given to that course the brilliancy
and power which have made the Iliad one of the most wonderful productions of human genius.
Mr. Grote says, "The last two books of the Iliad may
have formed part of the original Achilleis. But the probability rather is, that they are additions; for the death of
Hector satisfies the exigencies of a coherent scheme." "And
some weight is due to the remark about the twenty-third book,
that Ulysses and Diomede, who have been wounded and
disabled during the fight, should now re-appear in perfect
force and contend in the games. And the inconsistency is
more likely to have been admitted by a separate enlarging
poet than by the schemer of the Achill6is."t What listener
or reader would stop the grand march of the Epic, to ask if
Ulysses and Diomede really had time and proper treatment
* Biog. Gen. Bonmere, 39. t Grote's Greece, 2, 199, 200.




44
to recover from wounds, and take part in:funeral games,
when their presence was so desirable. The critic would
have made a different poem. He would have left us with
Achilles in the hatefulness of brutal rage, forgetting to give
the funeral honors necessary to admit his fiiend to the
Elysian fields; while the body of warm hearted Hector lies
in the dust, a dishonored prey for dogs and birds. The
introduction in this book of the ghost of Patroclus has been
ridiculed.* But it came with a worthy errand, to remind
Achilles of his duty and to enforce the admonition by the
assurance that the parting of the soul from the bodily
senses does not destroy the love of fiiends, or their longing.
for continued affection. A thought as welcome to the first
group of listeners as to the readers of to-day. The funeral
games belong to the belief and customs of the time; and
they do for the poem, what they were designed to do for
those who took part in them, they bring back cheerfulness
and the feelings of ordinary life. So the twenty-third book
carries on the plot of the poem. The twenty-fourth book
will never be sacrificed to the critics.  It was not enough
that we should know that Achilles could love his friend.
The poet desired to show how much generosity such a passionate nature could offer in his triumphant revenge, to an
enemy who had slain that friend, so that no disgust may be
excited by his story. The visit of old Priam to Achilles, to
ask for the body of Hector, is described with tihe greatest
dramatic power.  Achilles respectfully raises the king frbm
a suppliant posture at his knees, sympathizes to tears with
an appeal to his own filial love, expresses counsels of
+ Iliad, 23, 69.




45
patience, and grants all that is asked.  But when Priam
begins to speak of Hector,
" Move me no more," Achilles thus replies
While kindling anger sparkled in his eyes;
Nor seek by tears my steadfast soul to bend.
To yield thy Hector, I myself intend.
Cease; lest, neglectful of high Jove's command,
I show thee, king, thou tread'st on hostile land."* —Pope.
Tlhis imperfect sketch may give some idea of the character
and temper of the discussion, but it does not show the wealth
of learning arid ingenuity, and the extravagance of conjecture and assertion, that are brought into it.  One fact is
prominent above every other. These poems have been the
victims of learned torture, sharp and cruel enough to deface
and destroy the most perfect beauty. The effect of modern
criticism is to diminish the authority and popularity of these
ancient poems, and to create, among intelligent and unlearned
readers, an indifference to any discoveries, however valuable,
that Dr. Schliemann may have made, in regard to their historical reality.  The conclusion of M. Joubert, "That the
hypothesis that denies the unity of the composition of the
Iliad and the Odyssey raises many difficulties, and removes
none of them,"t is supported by good scholars.:  This may
not be the prevailing opinion of thle learned of this day; so
Mr. Gladstone seems to have thought, when in his argu.
ment on "the place of Homer in history," he waived the
*Ilia]d, 24, 559. t Biog.-Gen. Homere.  + Mr. George Bancroft, who was
respected as a Greek scholar before he was known as a historian, in a recent
letter to the Committee for the Concord Centennial, says, " the encounters at
Lexington and Concord are as much the flowering out of a succession of the
ages, as the Iliad of Homer, or the Cologne Cathedral." His reply to the
inquiry of a friend, whether he intended to intimate, that there was a succession of authors, permits us to say, that he " remains a believer that the poem
came essentially Irom one mind, building with the materials which his own
age and preceding ones furnished him."




46
question of "one or several Homers" and of " the reference
of the two poems to the same authorship," and added, " By
the word Homer, which probably means no more than composer, it is not necessary at this stage to understand more
than the poet or poets from whom proceeded the substance
of the Iliad and Odyssey." Yet no one in this age, has done
more to bring out in strong light the unity of design of these
poems, and the life-like character of the persons described,
than Mr. Gladstone. If he does not succeed in vindicating
" the place of Homer in history " he will do a better work,
in restoring Homer to his place in literature; and in this he
will be aided by the discussions occasioned by Dr. Schliemann. The opinion, which Mr. Gladstone treated with so
much deference, shall be accepted on trial. For a moment
we will repeat the experiment, that has been attempted so
often without success, to look at the Iliad as an aggregate of
ballads composed by different authors in separate villages
of Greece, in the infancy of the culture and methods of literature, and preserved only by the memory and taste of a
people not superior to the authors. In this view, they are
more wonderful than the best arranged products of modern
cooperative manufacture.  And the wonder is increased,
when we are told that these unconnected pieces were
brought together and trimmed and matched by some Lycurgus or Peisistratus, with so much skill, that no local partiality has preserved any rival versions.
It is an idea that is only transcended when we look at the
material universe, with its immensity and its mystery, with
its pervading beauty and its unfailing fitness in the whole
and in every minute part, and arrive at the conclusion, that
it is the work of a fortuitous concurrence of atoms under




47
the superintendence of natural selection.  It is commonly
expected, that the multitude of partners will relieve responsibility; but this advantage is not enjoyed here.  The Homers
are held to time and dimensions as closely as any apprentice.
And in reference to recent discoveries, they are reproached
by more than one of the critics for inaccurate description
of the localities of Troy. It is certain that Homer never
was there, is emphatically said by those who fail to make
the visit with the modern facilities of transit, to find support
for the censures they pronounce against him. It is one of
the many marvels of the Iliad, that the Homers protect
themselves against this very criticism, in the second book
where a descriptive enumeration of the Grecian and Trojan
forces is introduced, which would probably excite local
jealousy.  The passage is often quoted, but it is pleasant to
repeat it,
" Say now ye nine, who on Olympus dwell,
Muses-for ye are Goddesses, and ye
Were present and know all things; we ourselves
But hear from rumour's voice, and nothing know
Who were the chiefs and mighty lords of Greece."*
-Lord Derby.
Here is a plain declaration, that the poets will enlarge
and illustrate, with the aid of inspiration or imagination, the
tradition that they have received. The great English Epics
are liable to similar censures, and have the same defence.
Paradise Lost is inaccurate in geography and other matters
of fact. Without citing other instances, we may remember
that the route of Satan, to find " unsuspected way" to the
Garden of Eden, is laid in part,
"West from Orontes, to the ocean barr'd,
At Darien."
* Iliad, 2, 484.




48
But Milton appeals to the authority, higher than his own
studies,
"Of that celestial patroness, who deigns
I-er nightly visitation unimplored and dictates to me slumbering,
Or inspires easy my unpremeditated verse."
About one thousand years before Milton sang of Paradise
Lost, an Anglo-saxon named Coedmon, born in Northumberland, treated the same subject in verses, of which a manuscript half as large as the Iliad is preserved in the Bodleian
Library.  They were called "most mellifluous poesy" by
the venerable Bede, who was a poet and a classical scholar.
The English version, by Benjamin Thorpe, reminds us of Milton, in the account of the "Rebel Angels " and of the temptation of Eve, and in other passages.*  But the resemblance is
not greater than we should expect, in the common origin of
the two-, and the liability of the modern versifier to conform
to the language of Milton. In every age, these parts of the
Bible have been favorite subjects of the devout and imaginative. The originality of Milton is in his treatment and not
in his topics; and he wrote in a period of too much light to
be exposed to the accusation of borrowing thoughts, which
he expressed with unprecedented richness and strength.
The deference that has been paid in English literature to
German philosophy and German criticism, has created a
mythical taste, that has aided other influences to make the
Homeric poems less popular. What can we gain from the
laborious ingenuity which would prove that Achilles is the
sun, and Helen is the moon, and that the other personages
have become things? Is the poem strengthened in the work
for which it was designed, in its effect on the imagination and
* Beeton's Book of Poetry.




49
the passions? Can we feel that the living, breathing Iliad,
is an ideal poem? We know what an ideal poem is, for we
have the splendid "Fairy Queen," which has been always
much praised and never much read. But the sentiments
and passions of the Homeric poems run parallel with the
course of common life. As one of many proofs of knowledge of human'feelings, consider the allusions to the
close pressure of the hand (<ov xZp' planted in the hand) as
an expression of love, in the 6th, the 18th and 19th books
of the Iliad, and in the 10th, the 11th and 24th books of
the' Odyssey.  By our theory these passages must be
credited to several bards. How rarely is this magnetism
alluded to in modern poetry. Yet mourners are not tired
of repeating the desolate cry of Tennyson,
"0O for a touch of the vanish'd hand,
And the sound of a voice that is still."
When we regard the Iliad as a contribution of authors
acting without conference or concert, how wonderful are the
unity of the plot and the striking and unvarying peculiarities
of the personages, exhibited in action, and in epithets accurate as a photograph and more descriptive than many words.
And these peculiarities must be more apparent to the scholars, who can detect them in the speech attributed to each.
When Agamemnon appears, we see the official dignity of
one born to command, unlike the quiet independence of that
gallant warrior, his brother Menelaus. And the fierce passions of Achilles, and the hearty and showy bearing of
Hector, are in strong contrast with the gentle force of the
irresistible movement of the wise and always ready Ulysses.
These personages are not more likely to be mistaken for
each other, than Macbeth, Hamlet, Coriolanus, and Tilnon
7




50
would be. And at that period, when woman's rights were
unclaimed, the delicacy and strength of female character
were admirably painted. Look at the haughtiness, jealousy,
and assumption of Juno; how different from the smiling
policy of Venus, and the calm dignity and winning grace of
the matron Andromache. Above all, observe the unhappy
heroine the peerless Helen, distracted by admiration for the
gallant husband she has lost, and contempt for the cowardly
fop to whom she is united; and tormented by the numerous
family that surrounds her, to whose abuse she repeatedly
alludes, in saying, she is but a mischievous female dog. See
how unconscious of her charms she is, as she sits humbly
and fondly at the feet of good old Priam, and is comforted
by his kindness and charitable construction.
But these rambling digressions cannot be prolonged.
The antiquary should remember that strangers cannot
enter into his joys. If any thing has been said to draw
attention to truth and beauty, that have been neglected, and
to recommend the more common enjoyment of classical
learning, not ill vain has your patience endured this exercise.