SOME REMARKS ON THE COMPARATIVE GEOGRAPHY OF THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN
PARTS OF ASIA MINOR.
_Principal places in Peræa Rhodia—in Doris—in Caria—in the
valley of the Mæander—in the valley of the Caystrus—on the coast
of Ionia—in the valleys of the Hermus and Caicus, and in the
adjacent country—in Troas—in Bithynia—in Paphlagonia._
It remains to submit to the reader some observations in justification
of the ancient names in the western and northern parts of the map which
accompanies the present volume. It will not be necessary to enter into
this part of the subject so fully as into those which have already
been under consideration. The western provinces, in consequence of
their celebrity and greater advantages of climate, soil, and situation,
have been more fully described, both by ancient and modern writers; so
that, in conducting the reader to the results recorded on the map, a
general reference on the one hand to the travellers whose routes are
there marked, and on the other to the ancient historians, geographers,
and itineraries, will be sufficient. In those instances only, it may
be necessary to be more particular, where the ancient positions are
determined by less obvious authorities or by unpublished documents,
or where the question is rendered doubtful by deficient or conflicting
evidence. As to the north-eastern part of the peninsula, we must be
contented with a brief notice of its geography, for a reason the reverse
of that which induces me to abridge the geographical notice of the
provinces bordering on the Ægæan sea. The distance of Paphlagonia and
Eastern Bithynia from the centre of Grecian civilization, and the little
attention which those countries have received from ancient history,
have hardly tempted a single traveller to trust himself among their
barbarous tribes, or to explore their mountains and forests; and hence
the evidences of the geography of that country, both ancient and modern,
are extremely imperfect.
I shall begin from the western extremity of Captain Beaufort’s Survey,
and shall proceed to the westward and northward from the same point
at which the remarks of the preceding chapter set out in the opposite
direction. It so happens that Dædala is precisely the point at which
Strabo also changes the course of his observations; and from which, after
describing the coast of Caria with the adjacent islands and continent
in a western direction, he proceeds, as we have seen in the translated
extract at the beginning of the last chapter, to direct his description
of Lycia, Pamphylia, and Cilicia, from west to east.
Captain Beaufort not having surveyed any part of the coast between
Telmissus and Halicarnassus, excepting that near Cnidus; and no
traveller having pretended to publish a delineation of it, except M.
de Choiseul Gouffier, whose map is too obviously incorrect, both in
construction and in detail, to merit much attention; this part of the
coast-line of Asia is more subject to a suspicion of inaccuracy than any
other. The important positions of Rhodus, Cnidus, Cos, and Halicarnassus,
are indeed ascertained by the observations of Captain Beaufort, and I
have derived some assistance from a few measurements taken with the
compass and sextant from the same places, by Sir William Gell; but no
reliance can yet be placed on the outline of the gulfs of Syme and Kos:
even the extent of those magnificent bays is very uncertain, and nothing
is known of the situation of the numerous towns and islands placed in
them by the ancient authors, especially by Pliny: in short, the exploring
of these two gulfs with that of the coast in the vicinity of Caunus, is
now one of the most interesting desiderata in the geography of Asia Minor.
Strabo[300] describes Peræa as beginning at the fort and mountain Dædala,
near Telmissus, and as ending at mount Phœnix, both places included.
“Next to the gulf Glaucus occurs the cape and temple Artemisium, and
then the grove of Latona; above which, 60 stades inland, is the city
Calynda, then Caunus, a city with docks and a closed port; and near it
the Calbis, navigable by boats. Between Caunus and the Calbis is Pisilis;
and on a height above Caunus is a fort named Imbrus. The next place on
the coast to Caunus is Physcus, a small city which has a harbour and a
grove of Latona; then the rugged coast of Loryma, the highest mountain
above which is named Phœnix, and has a castle of the same name on its
summit. Before this coast lies Elæussa, 4 stades from the sea, 8 stades
in circumference, and 120 stades distant from Rhodus. Beyond Loryma is
the cape Cynossema and the island Syme.”
As it appears from another passage in Strabo[301], where he cites
Artemidorus, that the common road from this coast to the northward, was
from Physcus by Alabanda and Tralles, there seems little doubt that
Physcus was at Mármara, which is still the usual place of debarkation
from Ródos to those going towards Ghiuzel-hissár and Smyrna.
The distances of Elæussa and port Cressa from Rhodus, as given by Strabo
and Pliny[302], are sufficiently accurate to identify those two places.
The excellent harbour of Cressa is now called Aplothíka by the Greeks,
and Porto Cavaliere by the Italians, and on its western shore are the
ruins of a Hellenic fortress and town, which are undoubtedly those
of Loryma; for Loryma is called a city by Seneca[303] and Stephanus,
although not so designated by Strabo or by Pliny; and port Loryma is
described by Livy as being opposite to Rhodus[304], at a little more
than the distance[305] which Pliny assigns to Cressa. The order of names
on this coast in Ptolemy[306] is in exact agreement with the other
authorities which I have cited in proof of their position, as marked on
the map, if we suppose his cape Onugnatus to be the same as the Cynosema
of Strabo.
Although Choiseul Gouffier must have nearly crossed the sites of Dædala
and Calynda, he did not ascertain the position of either of them: nor
has that of Caunus, the chief city of Peræa, yet been explored. The
promontory called by Strabo Artemisium, from the temple of Diana which
stood upon it, appears to have been the same as the Pedalium of Pliny
and the Stadiasmus, and to be the cape now called Bokomadhi.
The Clydæ, which the Stadiasmus[307] names between Pedalium and Crua
(Crya) is evidently the same as the Chydæ, which Ptolemy places a
little to the westward of Crya, and Crya is undoubtedly the Cryassus
of Stephanus and Plutarch[308]. We are not surprised at finding in the
modern town of Ródos an inscription[309], in which Cryassus and Chalce
(the island still called Khalki) are alluded to, both these places
having been dependencies of the Rhodian republic. The islands off the
coast of Dædala and Crya are noticed by Pliny[310], who says there
were two belonging to the Dædalenses; and three, two of which are by
Stephanus[311] named Alina and Carysis, belonging to the Cryenses.
In consequence of our ignorance of the actual topography of the gulfs
of Doris and Ceramus, I have not attempted to place any of their towns,
even conjecturally, except Euthenæ, which is stated by Mela[312] to have
been in a bay between Cnidus and the Ceramic gulf: Bargasa and Ceramus
are described by Strabo[313] as being near the sea, between Cnidus and
Halicarnassus; and Passala, an island in the same gulf, was the port
of the Mylassenses[314]. The modern name Kéramo, which, if it exists,
identifies the site of Ceramus, rests, I believe, solely upon the
authority of D’Anville.
The Dorian colonies from the Peloponnesus, which settled in
Halicarnassus, Cnidus, Cos, and in the three cities of Rhodus, introduced
the use of Doric architecture, and of the Doric dialect, into this angle
of Caria. Remains of Doric buildings are found at Lindus, Cnidus, and
Halicarnassus[315]; and inscriptions in the Doric dialect have been
found in most of the cities of the Hexapolis. It appears that they had
not neglected the latter mark of their origin in the early ages of the
Roman empire[316].
The conversion into a peninsula of the island on which Strabo and
Stephanus represent Jasus (now Asýn Kale) to have stood, is probably a
remote effect of the encroachments of the Mæander upon the sea. We find
another instance of the same kind at Caryanda: for there can be little
doubt that the large _peninsula_, towards the western end of which is the
fine harbour called by the Turks Pasha Limáni, is the ancient _island_ of
Caryanda, now joined to the main by a narrow sandy isthmus. Pasha Limáni
(the port of the Pasha) is the _harbour_ of Caryanda, noticed by Strabo,
Scylax, and Stephanus; its position according with that of the other
places along this coast, as described by Strabo. “Next to Halicarnassus,”
he says, “is Termerium, a cape of the Myndii, opposite to cape Scandaria
of Cos.... Proceeding towards Myndus are the capes Astypalsæa and
Zephyrium; and immediately beyond the latter, the city Myndus, with a
harbour; then Bargylia, also a city, between which and Myndus is the
harbour and the island of Caryanda[317]. Near Bargylia is the temple of
Diana Cindyas. Next occurs Iasus.”
We can hardly doubt that Myndus stood in the small sheltered port of
Gumishlú, where Captain Beaufort remarked the remains of an ancient pier
at the entrance of the port, and some ruins at the head of the bay. The
cape to the southward of this port will consequently be Zephyrium; and
it is not improbable that the ruins which the same traveller observed
at Kadí Kálesi, in a bay on the south side of that cape, are those of a
small ancient town of the same name, which has not been noticed by the
ancient authors.
Such having been the situation of Myndus and of Caryanda, Bargylia
(called Andanus[318] in the Carian language) should be sought for on the
coast between Pasha Limáni and Asýn Kálesi: this position, it may be
added, agrees with that which Mela[319] ascribes to Bargylia, as well
as with the fact that the gulf of Iasus was often called the gulf of
Bargylia[320].
Of the interior cities of Caria, Stratoniceia is shown to have been at
Eski-hissár, by the important ruins which have given rise to the modern
name, in conjunction with an inscription[321] found there, which relates
to Jupiter Chrysaoreus, the deity particularly worshipped at Stratoniceia.
The names of Lagina and Mylasa still subsist, slightly corrupted. Of
the latter city there are many remains; but that which constituted its
most remarkable antiquity in the time of Pococke, the temple of Rome
and Augustus, was destroyed about the middle of the last century by the
Turks, who built a new mosque with the materials[322].
The situation of Alabanda is still doubtful; and the ancient testimony on
that of Labranda is so much connected with it, that the same uncertainty
prevails as to the site of the latter. The following is the substance of
what Strabo says of these places:
Labranda was a dependency of Mylasa, distant from thence 68 stades,
and situated in the mountain over which lay the route from Mylasa to
Alabanda. As far as Labranda there was a paved road, which, as leading to
the temple of Jupiter Stratius, (otherwise named Labrandenus,) was called
the Sacred Way[323]. Alabanda stood at the foot of a hill with a double
summit, which resembled an ass bearing a pack-saddle. It was situated
near a very winding river, and its territory was separated by a ridge of
hills from that of Mylasa[324].
Pococke and Chandler supposed Alabanda to have been at Karpúsli, where
they found sepulchres and the remains of public buildings, of a theatre,
and of town walls; and Chandler was the first to describe the ruins
(at Iakli, not far to the southward of Kizeljik or Mendeliat,) of a
small fortified town containing a theatre, and a ruined temple of the
Corinthian order, of which 16 columns of 2½ feet in diameter, with a
part of the entablature, were standing in the year 1776. This, Chandler
supposed to have been the temple of Jupiter of Labranda[325]. M. de
Choiseul Gouffier[326] and M. Barbié du Bocage[327] were of a different
opinion. Without pretending to determine the position of Alabanda,
they agreed in thinking that the ruins at Iakli are those of Euromus,
which we know from Polybius and Livy[328] to have been one of the most
important places in this part of the country, at the time of the Roman
wars; and from Strabo, to have been situated, as the ruins at Iakli are,
near the eastern extremity of Mount Grium[329]. It appears, moreover,
from a coin of the emperor Caracalla[330], that the Jupiter of Euromus
had considerable celebrity; to him, therefore, the existing temple may
have been sacred, and not to Jupiter of Labranda: in favour of which
opinion, it may be added that the temple of Labranda was noted for its
antiquity, whereas the architecture at Iakli is of Roman times.
On the other hand, it may be remarked that the distance of Iakli from
Mylasa agrees tolerably with the 68 or 70 stades between that place and
Labranda; that supposing Alabanda to have been at Karpúsli, the direction
of Iakli from Mylasa is not much to the left of a line drawn from thence
to Karpúsli: and that the deviation is a natural consequence of the
projection westward of the range of hills, a part of which overhangs the
temple at Iakli.
There are some reasons, however, for thinking that Alabanda was not at
Karpúsli, but at Arabissár. 1. Pococke describes the ancient remains at
Arabissár as consisting of town-walls, a theatre, and a large oblong
Roman building with windows, which appeared to him to have been intended
for public assemblies: he adds that the city occupied the slope and
foot of two hills. Now the two hills accord with Strabo’s description
of Alabanda; and the oblong building may have belonged to the Roman
conventus of which Alabanda was the chief town[331]. 2. The river Tshina,
near Arabissár, accords extremely well with the river upon which Alabanda
was situated; as do the mountains which separate its valley from the
plain of Mylasa, with the geographer’s words, ἡ μεταξὺ ὀρεινὴ, relating
to the mountain between Mylasa and Alabanda.—3. The other words of
Strabo, descriptive of the situation of the temple, ἐν τῷ ὄρει, and of
the road which led to Labranda from Mylasa, tend to show that the temple
was on a mountain, and that the road thither did not lead through a plain
like that from Mylasa to Iakli. It may be added, 4. that the ancient gate
at Mylasa, upon which Chandler observed the figure of a hatchet, the
symbol of Jupiter Labrandenus, and from which he inferred that it was the
gate leading to Labranda, does not open towards Iakli, but faces the east
towards the mountain and Arabissár[332]. Upon the whole, therefore, I am
inclined to think that Alabanda was at Arabissár, and Euromus at Iakli;
and that the vestiges of Labranda will hereafter be found on the mountain
to the north-eastward of Mylasa. The ancient remains at Karpúsli are
perhaps those of Orthosia. This was a place of some importance; and we
know that it was situated in the country to the southward of the Mæander,
opposite to Tralles and Nysa; that it was not far from Coscinia[333], and
that Coscinia was upon the same river as Alabanda[334].
If Alabanda was at Arabissár, Tshina, where Pococke[335] found
considerable remains, may be the site of Coscinia, and its modern name
may possibly be a corruption of the ancient.
M. Barbié du Bocage[336] has with great reason supposed that the river of
Tshina was the branch of the Mæander called Marsyas by Herodotus[337].
The historian describes the Marsyas as flowing from the country of Idrias
into the Mæander; and he relates that the Persians under Daurises having
met the revolted Carians not far from the junction of the two streams,
the Carians were defeated, and retired to Labranda, where they took up a
position in the sacred grove, and were joined by the Milesii and others
of their allies. They were defeated a second time, and the Persians
continued to advance into Caria, until the Carians, attacking the
invaders by night on the road to Pedasus, were in their turn victorious,
and slew Daurises and several others of the Persian leaders. It is
evident that the Marsyas of which the historian here speaks was a Carian
river, totally different from the stream or fountain of the same name at
Celænæ, the course of which was not longer than that city itself[338].
Idrias was one of the earlier names of the city, which under the
Macedonians assumed the name of Stratoniceia, and its territory included
Lagina, celebrated for a temple of Hecate[339]. The latter place still
preserves its ancient name, and not far from it are the sources of the
Tshina. It may be further observed, in confirmation of the identity of
this river with the Marsyas of Herodotus, that the retreat of the Carians
from its valley into the hills to the westward was a very natural
movement, and perfectly conformable with the other circumstances of these
transactions.
In opposition to the placing of Alabanda at Arabissár will perhaps be
adduced the distances on the road which led from Physcus by Tralles to
Smyrna, as stated by Artemidorus, and preserved by Strabo[340]. These
distances are from Physcus to Lagina 850 stades, to Alabanda 250, to the
Mæander, which was the boundary of Caria, 80, to Tralles 80, to Magnesia
140, to Ephesus 120, to Smyrna 320,—total from Physcus to Tralles 1260,
from Tralles to Smyrna 580. The numbers from Tralles to Smyrna agree
tolerably well with the reality: but it is sufficient to refer for a
moment to the map, to perceive how totally unworthy of credit those
on the road from Physcus to Tralles must be, both in the aggregate
and in detail. The 1260 stades are represented on the map by only 60
geographical miles in direct distance, making more than 20 stades to a
mile. Instead of 850 stades from Physcus to Lagina, there could not have
been with all the windings of the road more than 300; nor are there more
than 50, instead of 80, from the Mæander to the ruins of Tralles. The
evidence of position derived from this passage may therefore be rejected,
except inasmuch as it shows that Alabanda lay in the road from Physcus to
Tralles.
The second-rate places of Caria, dependent upon the chief cities of the
coast, or upon the three great towns of the interior, were Euromus,
Chalcetor, Heracleia, and Amyzon[341].
As Mount Grium extended from the Milesia eastward to Chalcetor and
Euromus[342], Chalcetor would perhaps be found, supposing Euromus to have
been at Iakli, at the foot of the mountain which lies between that place
and Asýn Kálesi.
The Heracleia mentioned by Strabo among the four smaller towns of the
interior of Caria, is not the same as the Heracleia under Mount Latmus
which he describes elsewhere, for this was a maritime town. It must
therefore be the same which Ptolemy distinguishes from Heracleia of
Latmus (πρὸς Λάτμῳ) by the name of Heracleia of Albanum (πρὸς Ἀλβάνῳ).
Whether Albanum was the name of a river or mountain it is difficult to
say;—but the traveller might perhaps seek for the site of this Heracleia,
with some prospect of success, in the situation in which it stands in the
enumeration of the towns of this country by Pliny[343], namely, between
Euromus and Amyzon.
The ruins of the citadel and town-walls of Amyzon are to be seen on
the eastern side of Mount Latmus on the road from Bafi to Tchisme,
one hour short of the latter, and a little above some villages called
Kafaslár. Mr. Hamilton here copied an inscription in a very defective
state of preservation, of which however some of the expressions are
distinguishable. Towards the beginning I observe ΑΜΥΤΟΝΕΩΝ and ΧΑΙΡΕΙΝ.
When the letters of the inscription were perfect, the former word was
undoubtedly [Illustration: ΑΜΥΖΟΝΕΩΝ], and it proves that these remains
belonged to Amyzon[344]. Mixed with Hellenic ruins, there are others at
this place, of the date of the Byzantine empire,—a circumstance which
agrees with the mention made of Amyzon among the places of Caria in
Hierocles, and in the list of Greek bishoprics.
The city of Latmus or Heracleia at Mount Latmus has preserved
considerable remains of its walls, together with many sepulchres and a
small temple. These ruins are found at the foot of a rocky mountain, the
ancient Latmus, on the shore of a lake, which takes its name from the
village of Báfi near the eastern extremity. This lake is the Latmic Gulf
described by Strabo[345], but which since his time has been separated
from the sea by the new plain formed at the mouth of the Mæander.
Chandler, not adverting to this remarkable change, mistook the lake of
Báfi for that of Myus, and consequently the ruins of Heracleia for those
of Myus—an error which was corrected by M. de Choiseul Gouffier. With
this adjustment, and the undoubted landmarks afforded by the fine ruins
of Priene at Samsún[346], and by the theatre of Miletus at Palátia, we
have accurate data for judging of the progress of the encroachments of
the Mæander upon the sea, as well as for determining the sites of the two
towns of Pyrrha and Myus, the situation of which relatively to Miletus is
accurately described by Strabo[347].
The reader has perceived that in the question concerning the site
of Alabanda, that of Tralles has been assumed to have been at
Ghiuzel-hissár. It is now time to show that Smith, as well as Pococke
and Chandler, who too blindly followed the opinion of Smith, were wrong
in supposing that town to stand on the site of Magnesia—an error which
infallibly led to others of equal importance. M. Barbié du Bocage in the
notes to his translation of Chandler gave convincing reasons for thinking
that Ghiuzel-hissár occupied the position of Tralles: but it was not
until Mr. Hamilton explored the ruins of Magnesia at Inekbazar[348], and
discovered the ruins of the celebrated temple of Diana Leucophryene,
(which has since been measured and drawn by the Mission of the Society
of Dilettanti,) that the question could be considered as satisfactorily
determined. The decisive reasons in proof of the positions of Magnesia,
Tralles and Nysa, as marked on the map at Inekbazar, Ghiuzel-hissár and
Sultan-hissár, respectively, shall here be stated as briefly as possible.
1. Magnesia was according to Pliny 15 miles[349], and according to
Artemidorus 120 stades[350] from Ephesus. This is about the real distance
of Inekbazar, and not half that of Ghiuzel-hissár, from the ruins of
Ephesus at Aiasolúk.
2. Tralles was on the road from Physcus to Ephesus[351]. But had Magnesia
been at Ghiuzel-hissár, Tralles, which was 18 miles according to one
author[352], or 140 stades according to another[353], to the eastward
of Magnesia, must have been about Atshá, which is very much out of the
direction from Mármara to Ephesus.
3. We are told by Strabo, that to the traveller going from Magnesia to
Tralles, with Mount Messogis on his left hand, the plain on his right
belonged to the Magnetes, and to the people of Myus and Miletus[354]. But
the two last places were too distant to have possessed any part of the
plain opposite to Ghiuzel-hissár and Atshá.
4. Strabo describes Magnesia as situated in a plain at the foot of a
mountain called Thorax, not far from the Mæander, but nearer the Lethæus
a stream flowing from Pactyas a mountain of the Ephesii[355]. This
description agrees precisely with Inekbazar, in face of which are two
insulated hills, which, when all the plain of the Mæander below Inekbazar
was sea, were two islands called Derasidæ and Sophonia[356]. Besides the
town-walls, theatre, stadium[357], and other indications of the site of
a great city, are the vast prostrate fragments of an octastyle Ionic
temple, the peristyle of which was near 200 feet in length, and was
formed of columns more than 4 feet and a half in diameter. It agrees
perfectly with the description given of the temple of Diana at Magnesia
by Vitruvius[358] and Strabo[359]; the former of whom informs us that
this building was a pseudodipterous octastyle of the Ionic order, and the
latter that it was larger than any temple in Asia except those of Diana
Ephesia and of Apollo Didymeus, and that it surpassed even the Ephesian
temple in harmony and in the construction of the cell (τῇ εὐρυθμίᾳ καὶ τῇ
τέχνῃ τῇ περὶ τὴν κατασκευὴν τοῦ σηκοῦ πολὺ διαφέρει). Among the ruins
are seen inscribed pedestals which formerly supported statues of Nerva
and Marcus Aurelius; one of these is dedicated by a high priest and
scribe of the Magnetes; and on another fragment were found the names of
some priestesses of Artemis Leucophryene[360].
5. The ruins of Tralles are found above the modern town of
Ghiuzel-hissár, in a situation such as Strabo[361] has described—a table
summit strong by nature (ἵδρυται ἐπὶ τραπεζίου τινὸς, ἄκραν ἔχοντος
ἐρυμνήν). The only ruin well defined is that of the theatre and stadium,
which formed one building. The Ionic temple of Æsculapius built by
Argelius, which Vitruvius mentions[362], as well as the other works of
the purer times of Grecian art, seem to have been buried by earthquakes
beneath the ruins of later buildings; among which are many remains of
the architecture of the Lower Empire, vestiges of the restoration of
Tralles by Andronicus Palæologus[363]. Pococke copied a Latin inscription
at Ghiuzel-hissár in which the name of Tralles occurs, but without
having observed it. It is found also in two inscriptions copied at
Ghiuzel-hissár by Sherard. The site of Tralles is traversed by a torrent
answering to the ancient Eudon.
6. At Sultán-hissár, not far to the westward of Nasli, are the remains
of a large city, corresponding with the description which Strabo has
given of Nysa. Nysa was situated for the greater part on the slope of
Mount Messogis, and was divided by a torrent so as to appear like two
separate towns—a bridge traversed this torrent in one place, and in
another the valley was occupied by an amphitheatre, beneath which flowed
the torrent[364]. Chandler’s account of the ruins at Sultan-hissár is
exactly conformable with this description of Nysa,—so perfectly in regard
to the remark of Strabo on the appearance of a double city, that Chandler
supposed the western division to be Tralles, and the eastern Nysa.
Pococke has reported an inscription found at Nasli, which contains the
words ΝΥΣΑΕΙΣ and ΜΑΣΤΑΥΡΕΙΤΟΥ. Possibly Nasli may have been the site of
Mastaura.
The situation of the other dependencies of Nysa,—namely Briula, Aromata,
celebrated for its vines, and Acharaca where was a Plutonium and
cavern,—have not yet been discovered. The latter was not far from Nysa on
the road to Tralles[365].
It may be inferred from Strabo that Hydrela also was in this part of
the valley; and notwithstanding his remark[366]—that when the three
towns founded by Hydrelus and his two brothers fell into decay, their
united population formed the single one of Nysa,—Hydrela appears to have
flourished at the time of the Roman wars in Asia[367].
To the eastward of the Marsyas, or river of Tshina, several other smaller
streams join the Mæander on its southern bank. That which is nearly
opposite to Nasli may perhaps be the Harpasus, which flowed near the town
of Harpasa[368]; for we learn from Pococke[369], that some ruins in this
situation are called Arpás-Kálesi. Not far to the eastward of this stream
is another, which descends from Gheira and Karajasu. On the eastern side
of its junction with the Mæander are the remains of an ancient city.
This was probably Antiocheia, which stood at the junction of the Mosynus
with the Mæander; having a bridge over the latter river, and a fertile
territory on either bank[370]. At this bridge it appears that the great
eastern road from Ephesus to Mazaca—which passed through Magnesia,
Tralles, and Nysa—crossed the river, leading afterwards from Antiocheia
along the left bank to Carura and Laodiceia[371].
Other ancient sites were observed in this region by Sherard[372] and
Pococke: but all the ancient geography of the country to the southward of
the Mæander is still involved in great uncertainty, there being no points
absolutely certain except Laodiceia ad Lycum, Aphrodisias, and Mount
Cadmus, now called Baba-dagh.
Aphrodisias is proved to have been at Gheira, by the numerous remains
of antiquity still to be seen at that place. Among these are several
inscriptions containing the name of the people; and ruins still exist
of the temple of Venus[373], from whose worship was derived the name by
which the city was most commonly known[374].
There can be little doubt that the hot springs observed by Pococke[375]
and Chandler[376] on the south bank of the Mæander, about 12 miles west
of Denizlú, mark the site of Carura, which was celebrated for its hot
baths in the time of Strabo, and was then the boundary of Caria and
Phrygia. It was the same place, probably, as the Cydrara of Herodotus;
for either here, or at no great distance, must have been the meeting of
the three great roads which the historian mentions[377], one leading into
Lydia through the opening of Mount Messogis by Tripolis to Philadelphia;
a second down the valley of the Mæander into Caria; and the third into
Phrygia by the valley of the Lycus and Celænæ. Cydrara, in the time of
Herodotus, was near the frontier of the three provinces.
Smith, in his Journey to the Seven Churches in 1671, was the first to
describe the sites of Laodiceia, Hierapolis, Tripolis, and Colossæ. In
all these places, except Tripolis, he has been followed by Pococke, or
by Chandler; and at Hierapolis, recently, by Mr. Cockerell: the general
topography and the antiquities which exist in these places are therefore
known, although they have not yet been described to the public with
sufficient accuracy or detail[378].
Laodiceia[379] preserves great remains of its importance as the
residence of the Roman governors of Asia under the emperors; namely, a
stadium in uncommon preservation, three theatres, one of which is 450
feet in diameter, and the ruins of several other buildings[380].
There are few ancient sites more likely than Laodiceia to preserve
many curious remains of antiquity beneath the surface of the soil: its
opulence, and the earthquakes to which it was subject[381], rendering
it probable that valuable works of art were often there buried, beneath
the ruins of the public and private edifices[382]. And a similar remark,
though in a smaller degree perhaps, will apply to the other cities of the
vale of the Mæander, as well as to some of those situated to the north
of Mount Tmolus: for Strabo informs us that Philadelphia, Sardes, and
Magnesia of Sipylus were not less than Laodiceia and the cities of the
Mæander, as far as Apameia at the sources of that river, subject to the
same dreadful calamity[383].
Hierapolis, now called Tabúk-Kale or Pambúk-Kale, owed its celebrity,
and probably the sanctity indicated by its name, to its very remarkable
sources of mineral water, the singular effects of which, caused by
the rapid accumulation of its deposit, are shown by the narratives
of Pococke and Chandler[384] to have been accurately described by
Strabo[385]. A great number and variety of sepulchres are found on the
different approaches to the site, which is a commanding hill overlooking
the valleys of the Lycus and Mæander, and terminating on that side
in a precipice. The town-walls are seen on the other sides, and the
main street is traced in its whole length, bordered by three Christian
churches, one of which is upwards of 300 feet long. About the middle of
the street, just above the mineral sources, Pococke, in 1740, thought
that he distinguished some remains of the temple of Apollo, which
according to Damascius, quoted by Photius, was in this situation[386].
Chandler distinguished the area of a stadium in a recess of the mountain.
But the principal ruins are a theatre and gymnasium, both in a state of
uncommon preservation; the former 346 feet in diameter, the latter nearly
filling a square space of 400 feet the side.
Of Tripolis we have a very imperfect description by Smith. Chandler saw
at a distance the theatre which Smith mentions. Lucas, the only other
traveller who has visited the site, was incompetent to give a description
of its antiquities; and all that can be understood from his narrative
is, that he really did pass by Tripolis, though he writes Kosh-Yenije,
a village near the ruins of Tripolis, Kashashead, and Pambúk-Kálesi,
Bambour-quezer.
The remains of Colossæ were found by Smith and Pococke below the modern
Khónas; which name serves to identify the site, as we learn from
Constantine Porphyrogennetus[387] that Colossæ was in his time called
Chonæ (Χῶναι). Herodotus[388] mentions a subterraneous course of the
Lycus for about half a mile near this place; but no traveller has yet
verified this observation of the historian, or has ascertained the
existence of the salt lake of Anava between Colossæ and Apameia[389].
M. Barbié du Bocage, in his notes to the French translation of
Chandler’s Travels, has justly remarked that Chandler very improperly
blames Pococke for having misunderstood the geography of this part of the
country. It was Chandler himself who erred, in mistaking the river Caprus
for the Lycus, and the Lycus for the Mæander. But although Pococke was
right, he did no more than follow Smith, who clearly saw that the river
which he crossed between Kosh-Yenije and Tabúk-Kálesi is the Mæander;
that the stream between Tabúk-Kálesi and Eski-hissár (Laodiceia) is the
Lycus; and that the small rivers which meet at the site of Laodiceia are
the Caprus and the Asopus.
* * * * *
The valleys of four parallel rivers with the interjacent ridges of
mountains, form the leading features of that beautiful and fertile
country in the middle part of the western extremity of Asia Minor, which
comprehended the ancient provinces of Ionia, Lydia, and Mysia.
The Mæander and Hermus, which (in proceeding from south to north) are the
first and third of those rivers, are nearly equal as well in magnitude
as in the length of their course, which is between two and three hundred
miles. The fourth or northernmost river, the Caicus, although not so
celebrated as the Caystrus, which is the second in the above-mentioned
order, is much more considerable in size. Deriving its origin from the
same mass of Olympene mountains which give rise to the Hermus and the
Rhyndacus, it is formed of two large branches, either of which is as long
in its course as the Caystrus. But the latter, although little more than
70 miles in length, collects all the waters from the adjacent slopes of
the great mountains Tmolus and Messogis; and thus becomes a stream of
considerable magnitude at Ephesus, where it joins the sea.
There is very little certainty as to the names and positions of the
ancient cities which occupied the valley of the Caystrus. The evidences
of ancient history are so scanty with regard to them, that it is only
from the discovery of their ruins, and of ancient inscriptions, that we
can hope to ascertain either their situations or their names.
The remains of antiquity at Beréki, on the southern side of Tmolus,
seem from Strabo and Ovid to have belonged to Hypæpa[390]; and it is
not improbable that, in the fertile and delightful region on the
summit of the mountain between Beréki and Sart (Sardes), a part of
which is occupied by a large lake, there might be found some remains of
the city Tmolus; which, together with many of the surrounding places,
was destroyed by an earthquake in the fifth year of the reign of
Tiberius[391].
From the many remains of antiquity at Tyre, it appears that this large
and advantageously-situated modern town is the successor of the chief
Grecian city of that part of the country. It is known from Strabo and
Pliny[392], that the valley of the Caystrus was divided into that of
Ephesus towards the sea; the plain properly called Caystrian; and the
Cilbian plain: above the last were the Cilbian mountains, in which
the Caystrus had its sources. We find that the Caystriani, the lower
Cilbiani, and the upper Cilbiani, coined each their own money, with the
name of the people inscribed[393]; and they had undoubtedly each a chief
town in which the coinage took place. As Tyre stands in the central part
of the Caystrian valley, it probably occupies the site of the city of the
Caystriani: whether this place had any other name cannot be discovered
in ancient history. Larissa Ephesia, which possessed a temple of Apollo
Larissenus, and was supposed to have been anciently a city of much
greater importance than it was in the time of Strabo, stood in another
part of the Caystrian plain, 180 stades from Ephesus, towards Mount
Tmolus[394]. There was another Larissa, 30 stades distant from Tralles,
on the road leading from thence across the Messogis into the plain of
Caystrus, from whence the worship of Jupiter Larissius at Tralles had its
origin[395].
Although the remains of Ephesus are still very considerable and of easy
access, they have hardly yet been sufficiently explored, or at least
they have not yet been described to the public with the accuracy and
detail which they merit. The temple of Diana Ephesia, the largest and
most celebrated of the Asiatic Greek buildings, is the only one of
the great examples of the Ionic order, of which we do not now possess
particulars more or less satisfactory. The temples at Samus, Branchidæ,
Priene, Magnesia, and Sardes, have been measured and drawn by experienced
architects;—but not a stone has yet been discovered that can with
certainty be ascribed to the Ephesian temple, although very little doubt
remains as to its exact situation[396].
There has been some difference of opinion with regard to the ancient
maritime sites between Ephesus and Cape Trogilium, which was the extreme
point of Mount Mycale. Strabo[397] describes this coast in the following
terms: “Beyond the strait formed by Samus and Mycale, in sailing towards
Ephesus, a part of the coast on the right hand belongs to the Ephesii and
a part to the Samii;—the first place is Panionium, situated three stades
above the sea. Here is held the common festival of the Ionians, who
sacrifice to Neptune Heliconius; the priesthood belongs to the people of
Priene. Next occurs Neapolis, which the Ephesii exchanged with the Samii
for Marathesium, the latter being nearer to them; then Pygela, a small
city; then the port Panormus, and the temple of Diana Ephesia.”
The uninhabitable aspect of the rocks and forests of Mycale from Cape
Trogilium to the modern Tshanglí, is such as make it impossible to fix
upon any spot, either on the face or at the foot of that mountain, at
which Panionium can well be supposed to have stood. Tshanglí, on the
other hand, situated in a delightful and well watered valley between two
projecting points of the mountain, was admirably suited to the Panionian
festival: and here Sir William Gell found, in a church on the sea-shore,
an inscription in which he distinguished the name of Panionium twice. I
conceive, therefore, that there can be little doubt of Tshanglí being on
the site of Panionium.
Several travellers in passing from Ephesus to Skalanóva have remarked the
ruins of a small town near the sea, at about one-third of the distance
from the former place to the latter. These are probably the remains of
Pygela; though I am not aware how far the neighbouring coast will answer
to Livy’s description of Pygela as a harbour[398]. Between this spot and
Tshanglí there are only two places which we can suppose to have been
anciently occupied by towns: one is Skalanóva; the other is half-way
between Skalanóva and Tshanglí; where, in a valley watered by a stream,
is a source of hot water, near the ruins of a fortress, which, although
it appears to have been a work of the Lower Greek Empire, contains some
remains of an earlier age. This latter I take to be the site of Neapolis,
which the Ephesii built, and afterwards exchanged with the Samii; and
Skalanóva stands probably on the ancient Marathesium.
The survey by Captain Beaufort of the coast between Skalanóva and the
canal of Khio, illustrates ancient history in the most satisfactory
manner. There still exist on this coast some remains of two celebrated
buildings—the Ionic temple of Bacchus at Teos, and the temple of Jupiter
Clarius at Notium, the port of Colophon[399]. The chief written evidence
is supplied by Livy and Strabo; and upon this the map will be found a
sufficient commentary.
Although the ancient names to the westward of Teos are not so certainly
fixed as those to the eastward of that place, one can hardly doubt that
the harbour of Sykiá, on the west side of Cape Corycus, now Kóraka, was
the port called Corycus; for Livy describes Corycus both as a promontory
of the Teii and as a harbour. In the war between Antiochus and the
Romans, in the year B.C. 193[400], Polyxenidas, commander of the fleet
of Antiochus, hearing that the Roman fleet was approaching from Delus,
and being desirous of coming to an engagement with them before they
should be joined by Eumenes and the Rhodii, sailed from Phocæa with a
hundred vessels of a small class, of which seventy were covered. Having
passed through the channel of Chius, he anchored in Cyssus, a port of
the Erythræi. The Romans sailed from Delus to Phanæ in Chius, and from
thence, after taking in provision at the city of Chius, they proceeded
to Phocæa; where they were joined by Eumenes from Elæa, the port of
Pergamum, with twenty-four covered, and many open vessels. The combined
fleet, amounting to 200 ships, (a fourth of which were uncovered,) then
sailed along the shore, with the view of passing into port Corycus, which
was beyond Cyssus. Polyxenidas, when he saw the enemy approach, advanced
against them, and was defeated. Cyssus, from this transaction, seems to
have been the harbour now called Latzáta, the largest on this part of
the coast; and it is probably the same which Strabo calls Casystes[401].
Tshisme, noted for more than one Turkish disaster, seems to be the port
Phœnicus of the Erythræi, in which the Romans anchored after the action,
on their way to the city of Chius. The remains of Erythræ are found
considerably to the northward of Tshisme, in a port sheltered by the
islands, anciently called Hippi[402].
As Strabo[403] states the entrance into the canal of Chius on this side,
between Cape Argennum of the main land and Cape Poseidium of Chius, to
have been sixty stades in breadth, these two capes could be no others
than the promontories marked with those names in the map; the real
distance agreeing exactly with the ancient number.
The next place to Poseidium, in coasting the island with the shore on
the light hand, was Phanæ[404], which is described by Livy as a harbour
turned toward the Ægæan (portum Chiorum in Ægeum mare versum), and in
another place as a promontory (promontorium Chiorum). We have already
seen that it was the place at which the Roman fleet touched in proceeding
from the isle of Delus to the Pergamenian coast; on another occasion they
assembled at Phanæ, previously to their sailing to the same island[405]:
it seems therefore to have been in the bay on the western side of the
southernmost cape of Chius.
The other ancient names of this island have been placed on the map, as
well as the information afforded by the ancient authors[406] compared
with the blind accounts of the modern travellers Pococke and Heyman would
admit.
* * * * *
The rivers Hermus and Caicus, each of which is formed by the union of
two branches meeting at thirty or forty miles above the mouth, water
two extensive valleys equal in natural advantages to those of the
Mæander and Caystrus, and not exceeded in beauty and fertility by any in
the world. Sardes was the chief city of the valley of the Hermus, and
Pergamum in that of the Caicus. Both have retained the ancient name a
little corrupted by the Turks: but while Pergamum continues to be the
capital of the surrounding country, Sardes has yielded to Magnesia of
Mount Sipylus, and has dwindled to a small village. This village however
and its vicinity have to boast of two of the most interesting remains
of antiquity in Asia; the colossal tumulus of Alyattes near the lake
Gygæa[407], and the vast Ionic temple of Cybebe[408] or the Earth, on
the bank of the Pactolus[409]. Here is also a theatre connected with a
stadium, and the ruins of a large church, perhaps the only one of the
Seven Churches of Asia of which there are any distinguishable remains.
Pergamum retained under the Romans that superiority over all the cities
of Asia which it had acquired under the successors of Philetærus: and
it still preserves many vestiges of its ancient magnificence. Remains
of the Asclepium and of some other temples; of the theatre, stadium,
amphitheatre, and several other buildings, are still to be seen[410].
There is a confusion of names in regard to the two branches of the
Hermus, similar to that which I have already had occasion to notice
in the instances of the Sangarius and Mæander. It seems clear from
Homer[411] and from Strabo[412], that the branch of the Hermus which
waters the plain of Ak-hissár, and which joins the main stream not far
from Magnesia, is the ancient Hyllus, which in the time of Strabo was
called Phrygius; for we find no mention in ancient history of any other
tributary stream of the Hermus, with the exception of the Cogamus near
Philadelphia, that of Sardes the famed Pactolus, and a third the Cryus,
obscurely named by Pliny, and which was probably of no greater magnitude
than the other two just mentioned. Nor in fact is there any stream of
importance joining the main river now called Kodus or Ghedis, in the
lower part of its course, except the river of Ak-hissár. The course of
the main stream, moreover, agrees exactly with the description which
Strabo has given of the Hermus. “It rises,” he says, “in the sacred
mountain Dindymene, flows through the Catacecaumene into the district of
Sardes, and from thence through the subjacent plains into the sea[413].”
From Livy however, in his narrative of the transactions which preceded
the decisive victory gained by the Romans over Antiochus at Magnesia,
it seems evident that Phrygius was the name by which the southern or
main branch of the Hermus was better known to the Romans. Antiochus
had collected his forces at Thyateira, when his opponent the Consul
Lucius Cornelius Scipio crossed the Hellespont, and moved in six days
from Ilium to the sources of the Caicus. Here he was joined by Eumenes
from Elæa; and from hence, on the supposition that the king was still
near Thyateira, he marched to meet him, and moved in five days into the
Hyrcanian plain. But Antiochus in the mean time had quitted Thyateira,
and after having _crossed the river Phrygius_, had entrenched himself at
Magnesia. The Consul followed on the opposite side of the river, until
he arrived in the enemy’s presence. When the armies had remained in this
position, with the river between them, for two days, the Romans crossed
it and took up a position with their left to the stream, consequently
to the westward of the position of Antiochus, which was probably done
for the sake of securing a communication with the fleet at Elæa, and
a retreat in that direction in case of necessity. After his defeat
Antiochus fled to Sardes and Apameia.
From these transactions it cannot well be doubted that Livy applies
the name of Phrygius to the southern or main branch of the Hermus, in
contradiction to Strabo, who identifies it with the northern. And in this
the historian agrees with Pliny[414], who by distinguishing the Phryx
from the Hyllus, and by observing that the Phryx gave name to Phrygia,
and that it separated that province from Caria, shews clearly that he
applied the name Phryx to the largest, and at the same time to the
southernmost branch. This instance serves, like that of the Sangarius,
to prove how easily a confusion of names occurs in regard to the branches
of a river.
From the direction of Scipio’s route from Troy to the Hyrcanian plain,
and from the proportion of his marches, it may be inferred that the
north-eastern branch of the river of Bergma, which flows by Menduria and
Balikesri, is that which was anciently called Caicus;—of the name of the
southern branch I have not found any trace in ancient history.
Strabo[415] informs us that the Caicus was joined by the Mysius flowing
from Temnum; and that this mountain separated the valley of the Caicus
from the plain of Apia, which bordered on Thebe and Adramyttium. Such is
our ignorance of the real structure of this part of the country, that it
is only from the ancient geographer that we have any knowledge either of
the mountain or the river.
Notwithstanding the facilities which were so long given to the researches
of travellers by the favourable disposition of the ruling Turkish family
of Kara-Osmán-Oglu, added to the influence of the European factories at
Smyrna, even the most accessible parts of the valleys of the Hermus and
Caicus and of their interjacent ridges are still very insufficiently
explored. It seems strange to say, that of a coast so near to Smyrna
as that between the mouths of the Hermus and Caicus, we possess no
delineation that can be relied on; and consequently no satisfactory
information upon the very interesting positions of Leucæ, Phocæa, Cyme,
Ægæ, Neontichus, Myrina, and Grynium; the latter noted for a magnificent
temple of Apollo, of white marble[416].
In short, with the exception of Temnus, which appears from the Peutinger
Table to have been at Menimen; and of Nacrasa, which an inscription
mentioned by Chishull[417] shews to have been at Bakír,—we have no
accurate information on the sites of any of the second-rate towns of
this part of Asia Minor—and all to the east and north of Philadelphia,
Thyateira and Pergamum, as far as the Thymbres, Mount Olympus, and the
coast of the Propontis, is little better than an unknown land, in which
there are very few ancient names that I have been able to place with any
degree of certainty.
The site of Cyzicus has been visited and imperfectly described by Pococke
and Sestini, and Miletopolis appears from Chishull’s description of
the neighbouring lake to have been at Miniás[418]. And hence we have
two lines in the Table of which the extremities are known—namely, that
leading from Pergamum to Miletopolis, and that leading from Pergamum to
Cyzicus. On the former was Hadrianotheræ[419], for such undoubtedly is
the correction that should be made of the corrupted name in the Table,
though the distance there assigned to it of 8 M. P. from Pergamum cannot
be implicitly relied on, as the 41 M. P. which forms the whole interval
between Pergamum and Miletopolis is not half the reality. On the road
from Pergamum to Cyzicus we find two names in the Table, which do not
occur elsewhere in ancient history—Phemeneo—Argesis. The distance of
Phemenium from Cyzicus is omitted in the Table: but if the other two
distances on this line are correct, the mines of Ergasteria mentioned by
Galen were between Phemenium and Argesæ[420].
The name of Kesri or Balikesri seems to be a corruption of Cæsareia[421].
It is the chief town of the Turkish district of Karasi, and is situated
on the Caicus, near the great road from Smyrna to Constantinople: it is
probably the site of one of the numerous places which under the Romans
changed their more ancient name to Cæsareia.
In some part of Mount Olympus, to the westward of Brusa, we find mention
made by the Turkish geographer Abubekr, of a town called Edrenús. There
can be little doubt that this is the ancient Hadriani ad Olympum or in
Olympo, of which coins inscribed with this local distinction are still in
existence[422]. Edrenús is no other than Ἀδριανούς, a slight corruption
of Hadriani in the usual modern Greek form of the accusative, like Kodus
for Cadi.
* * * * *
The geography of the western side of the Idæan range, which slopes to the
Ægæan sea and the Hellespont, is in a very different state from that of
the country to the eastward of that mountain. The natural beauties of the
Troas, its accessibility by sea, but above all its celebrity as the scene
of the Ilias, have attracted a greater number of travellers to it, than
to any other part of Asia Minor[423].
[Illustration: The TROAS from _RHŒTEIUM and ALEXANDREIA to the SUMMITS OF
Mᵗ. IDA_.
_W.M.L. del. Published Febʸ. 1824 by John Murray Albemarle Street London.
J. Walker Sculpt._]
[Illustration: _SKETCH to explain the supposed alteration in the_ coast
_and in the_ rivers _of TROY since the time of the_ Trojan War.
_The strong lines represent the supposed state of the rivers and coast in
the time of the War. The dotted lines shew the course of the rivers and
line of coast at the present day._
_W.M.L. delᵗ. Published Febʸ. 1824 by John Murray Albemarle Street London.
J. Walker sculpᵗ._]
The most remarkable places in the Troas were Assus, Lectum, Hamaxitus,
Larissa, Colonæ, Alexandreia, Cebrene, Neandria, Cenchreæ, Scamandria,
Sigeium, and New Ilium.
The two most important, and to which the greater part of the population
of the others was drawn as early as the time of the successors of
Alexander, were Alexandria and New Ilium; and these continued to be
the chief towns under the Roman emperors. Alexandria has preserved
considerable remains to this day. Of New Ilium only the foundations of
the walls with a few other fragments are to be seen.
As Hamaxitus, Larissa, and Colonæ, were from their proximity to
Alexandria absorbed by that city at the time of its foundation[424],
we are not surprised that no remains of them have been remarked by
travellers. Some circumstances, however, mentioned by Strabo[425], are
sufficient very nearly to fix their positions. Hamaxitus in particular
is determined by the salt-works of Tragasæ, which are still in a state
of operation on the sea-coast near the mouth of the river of Tuzla.
This river (perhaps the ancient Satnioeis) does not, however, take its
name, which means _salt_, from the maritime salt-works alone: there are
other salt-works at some very copious sources of hot salt water, at a
considerable distance from the sea, on the northern side of the valley,
where is a village called Tuzla, and where the neighbouring hills are
composed of rock salt. This curious fact accounts for the name Halesium,
anciently applied to the district[426].
As it appears from Strabo that Cebrenia bordered on the territories of
Antandrus, Hamaxitus, Neandria, New Ilium, and Scepsis[427], and that
the Scepsia was on the Æsepus[428], consequently on the eastern side of
the summit of Ida,—Cebrenia seems to have occupied the higher region of
Ida on the western side, and its city very probably stood at Kushunlú
Tepe, not far from Bairamitsh, where Dr. E. D. Clarke, proceeding from
the latter place towards the sources of the Mendere and the summit of
Ida, found very considerable remains of antiquity. The fine valley which
extends from thence to the modern town of Ene, seems to answer in its
upper part to the level country of Cebrenia, mentioned by Strabo[429];
and in its lower or western to the plain called Samonium, which belonged
to Neandria[430]: for Neandria being described by the geographer as
inland from Hamaxitus towards New Ilium, and as 130 stades distant from
the latter[431], corresponds exactly in position with Ene.
In the plain of Troy, or region watered by the lower course of the
Mendere and its branches, the only positions proved to be ancient sites,
by remains of buildings existing in their original places, are—
1. That of New Ilium on a hill which rises to the eastward of the
villages of Kum-Kiúi and Kalafátli, about 5 miles to the S.E. of Kum-Kalé
or the lower castle of the Dardanells, and three miles from the nearest
shore. The vestiges of the walls of the citadel are to be traced on the
summit of the height; and some of the buildings of the town, on the
western slope and at the foot of the hill: but very little now remains
in its place, the site being resorted to (as it probably has been
ever since its abandonment), as to a stone-quarry, for the materials
of modern constructions—whence we find all the villages, farms, and
particularly the Turkish cemeteries of the surrounding country, full
of the inscribed or decorated marbles of New Ilium. 2. Paleó Aktshi
Kiúi. This, by its direction and distance from New Ilium, corresponds
exactly with the Ἰλιέων κώμη, or village of the Ilienses, described by
Strabo[432] as being 30 stades eastward of New Ilium towards Ida and
Dardania. 3. Paleó-Kastro, near the Turkish village of It-ghelmés, on
a height overlooking the Bosphorus. This is probably the site of the
town Rhœteium, on a part of the sea-shore of which was the Æanteium or
tomb of Ajax[433], still existing. 4. Yenishehr, the ancient Sigeium.
5. Another Paleó-Kastro, near the mouth of the small river which
receives the canal derived from the river of Bunárbashi. This has been
supposed, with great probability, to have been a small town and port
called Agameia[434]. 6. The hill which rises above the less or lower
Bunárbashi to the S.E., and which is bounded in the same direction by the
deep valley of the Mendere. This, it is not improbable, was the site of
Scamandria; for it may be presumed that Scamandria being named by Pliny
together with New Ilium[435], was in some part of the lower plain of
the Scamander, near that river; and there is no site on the Mendere so
remarkable as that of Bunárbashi. Pliny describes Scamandria as a _small_
town: but it seems from an extant inscription to have been of sufficient
importance to make a recorded treaty with New Ilium concerning the sale
of corn[436].
The same heights are by many persons supposed to have been in an earlier
age the position of the renowned capital of Ilus and his successors:
indeed, so many of the most intelligent _travellers_[437] in the Troas
are agreed in placing the Homeric Ilium at Bunárbashi, that I should
have been satisfied on the present occasion with stating my concurrence
with their opinion, and with referring to the arguments of such of them
as have supported it by their publications, had not some adverse systems
been recently maintained with great learning and ingenuity; though
chiefly, it must be admitted, by those who have considered the question
in the closet only. I shall here offer, therefore, a few observations
on this subject; first stating what appear to me to be the strongest
grounds for thinking that Bunárbashi was the site of Troy, and then the
principal objections that have been made to that opinion, together with
the arguments which occur in reply to them[438].
As even the identity of the country on the Asiatic side of the entrance
of the Hellespontine strait with the scene of the Ilias has been
doubted, it may not be useless to premise, that if the war of Troy was
a real event, having reference to a real topography (and to doubt it
would shake the whole fabric of profane history), no district has yet
been shown that will combine even a few of the requisite features of
the plain of Troy, except that between Kum-Kalé and Bunárbashi: whereas
in that district, and in the surrounding country by land and by water,
we find the seas and mountains and islands in the positions which the
poet indicates, and many of them with the same or nearly the same names.
The features which do not accord so well with his description are those
which are the most liable to change in the lapse of ages,—the course and
size of the rivers, and the extent and direction of the low coast where
these waters join the sea. Instead of a river with two large branches,
which Homer seems to describe, we find on one side of the plain a broad
torrent, reduced in the dry season to a slender brook, and a few stagnant
pools; and on the other side a small perennial stream, which instead of
joining the former is diverted into an artificial channel, and is thus
carried to a different part of the coast. But the diminutive size of some
of the most celebrated rivers of antiquity is well known to those who
have travelled in Greece; and it must be considered that a poet writing
of a real scene is obliged to magnify those features, which without
exaggeration would be beneath the dignity of his verse. In regard to
the course of the streams, it seems sufficient still to find, at the end
of three thousand years, two rivers which, if they do not now unite,
evidently did so at a former period of time: and for the sources of that
stream which Homer describes as rising under the walls of Troy, to find
some very remarkable springs, not very different in their peculiarities
from the poet’s description, and rising at the foot of a commanding
height on the edge of the plain.
For poetry this coincidence appears sufficient: and in regard to the
position of Troy itself, it seems enough to find a hill rising above the
sources just mentioned, not only agreeing in all particulars with the
kind of position which the Greeks[439] usually chose for their towns, but
the only situation in this region which will combine all the requisites
they sought for; namely, a height overlooking a fertile maritime
plain,—situated at a sufficient distance from the sea to be secure from
the attacks of pirates, and furnished with a copious and perennial supply
of water,—presenting a very strong and healthy position for the city; and
for the citadel a hill beyond the reach of bowshot from the neighbouring
heights, defended at the back by steep rocks and precipices, surrounded
by a deep valley and broad torrent, and backed beyond the river by
mountains which supplied timber and fuel. That it was precisely such a
situation as the inhabitants of Greece and Asia in remote ages preferred,
might be shown by a great variety of examples: and it can hardly be
doubted that a person totally unacquainted with the Ilias, but accustomed
to observe the positions of ancient Greek towns, would fix on Bunárbashi
for the site of the chief place of the surrounding country.
It is a necessary consequence of placing Troy on the heights to the
S.E. of Bunárbashi, that the river flowing from the sources which give
that village its name (meaning Spring-head), is the Scamander of Homer:
that the large torrent which flows through a deep ravine on the eastern
side of the heights, is the Simoeis: and that notwithstanding the much
greater magnitude of the bed of the latter and occasionally of that
stream itself, the united river after the junction in the plain was
called by the name of the former, Scamander. In support of this opinion,
it has been justly observed by Lechevalier, that Homer’s description,
allowance being made for poetical exaggeration, is correct, both as to
the springs themselves, and as to the very different character of the
two rivers: nor can it be denied that the two hills, that of Bunárbashi
and the higher eminence behind it, correspond to the mention by Homer
of Ilium and its citadel Pergamus. The termination of the slope towards
the springs accords also with the idea which we receive from the poet of
the extent of the city on that side, and of the position of the gate Scææ
or Dardaniæ, which was near the sources of the Scamander, and was the
principal outlet towards the plain[440]. But if these assumptions are not
unreasonable, it cannot be denied on the other hand that in attempting
to identify such objects as the tombs of Ilus, Myrinna, and Æsyetes,
Lechevalier has exposed himself to reasonable objections from his
opponents, and has rather injured than strengthened his cause. For it is
not certain that all the monuments mentioned by Homer were tumuli; and it
is very possible that if they were, several of them have been obliterated
by time. Nothing can be more likely than that the real history of
the monuments should have been forgotten in the interval between the
destruction of Troy and the foundation of New Ilium, and that names
should have been ascribed to them by the inhabitants of the latter place,
suited to their own system of Trojan topography, and favourable to the
pretensions which they held, that their city stood upon the ancient site.
With regard to the existing barrows, it seems incontrovertible only that
those which stand in conspicuous situations on either side of the mouth
of the Scamander, are the tumuli, supposed in the time of the Romans,
and probably with reason, to have been the sepulchres of Ajax, Achilles,
and some other chieftains; and these monuments are so far important, as
they prove the identity of the plain of the Mendere with the scene of the
Ilias[441].
It is objected to the springs of Bunárbashi, that instead of being only
two,—one hot and the other cold, as described by Homer[442],—they are
in one place so numerous as to have received from the Turks the name of
Kirk-Ghiuz, (the Forty Fountains), and that they are all of the same
temperature.
But viewing them as the springs of a river, they may in poetical
language, or even in common speech, be considered as two, since they
arise in two places, distant from each other about 200 yards: in one
the water appears in a deep basin, which is noted among the natives for
being often covered with a thick vapour like smoke: in the other place,
there are numerous rills issuing from the rocks, into a broad shallow
piece of water, terminating in a stream which is joined by that from the
smoking spring. As to the temperature of the water, the observations
of travellers give various results. Some have observed a difference:
according to others, it would appear that being all deep-seated springs,
their temperature is the same at all seasons, or about 60° of Fahrenheit
at their eruption from the ground; consequently that they will feel cold
when the air is at 70° or 80°, and warm when it is at 40° or 50°[443].
But even in this case it is obvious that there will be a real difference
between the heat of the shallow recipient of the springs called the
Forty Fountains, and that of the single deep pool. It seems sufficient
to justify Homer’s expression, that a difference of temperature was
believed, and that an occasional appearance of vapour over one source was
often observed by the natives: for the poet would probably flatter the
local prejudices, even if he had examined the fountains so attentively as
to be convinced that the warmth of all the sources was the same.
Another and a more weighty objection to the placing of Troy on the
heights of Bunárbashi, is that the much greater magnitude of the river,
which flows on the east side of those heights, concurs with its modern
name Mendere in showing it to be the Scamander of Homer; and that such
was evidently the opinion of several authors of antiquity, particularly
of Demetrius, a native of Scepsis in the Troas, from whom Strabo
principally derived his information on the geography of this district.
In fact there can be no doubt, that in the time of Demetrius, who wrote
in the second century before Christ[444], the Mendere from its source in
Mount Kazdagh to its junction with the sea was called Scamander. But was
it so in the time of the Trojan war? In this inquiry we have nothing to
do with any authority but that of the Ilias itself: for it is evident
from the remarks of Demetrius and Strabo, that the topography of the
poem and the site of Troy were as much a subject of doubt and dispute
in their time as they are at present. Nor is this surprising. The result
of the Trojan war was the subversion of Ilium and the extinction (with
the exception of a single branch of the royal family) of the colony which
had settled in this part of Phrygia[445]. Strabo repeatedly remarks that
the revolutions following the Trojan war were the great cause of the
difficulty which he experienced in adjusting the Homeric chorography.
The barbarous people of Thrace, called Treres, who then established
themselves in the Troas, could not have taken much interest in any thing
relating to the former colony, to whose language they were strangers, and
whose history was recorded only in the songs of an Ionian stranger. It
was not till long afterwards that the Æolian Greeks of Lesbus extended
their settlements into the Troas. It was not even by them that New
Ilium was founded, but by a Lydian, and consequently a semibarbarous
colony[446], about the eighth century before Christ; and it was not
till a taste for the poems of Homer having begun to prevail in European
Greece, and the Athenians having taken possession of Sigeium[447] and a
part of the Chersonesus, that their enlightened sovereigns Pisistratus
and his sons[448], if they were not the first to collect, arrange, and
edit the Ilias,—were at least the first to bring it into notice among
the most lettered of the European Greeks[449]. We cannot wonder that the
Homeric topography should at that time have become subject to the same
kind of uncertainty now found to prevail in regard to such places as
Athens, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria of Egypt, and even many cities much
more modern.
For the New Ilium founded by the Lydians, colonized afterwards by the
Æolians, and augmented and first fortified with a circuit of forty stades
by Lysimachus[450], a situation was chosen which, being nearer to the sea
than that of the ancient city, was better adapted to the more advanced
state of commerce and civilization[451]. It was very natural that its
inhabitants the Ilienses[452] should pretend that their town stood on
the site of the ancient city[453]; and no less so, that a historian of a
neighbouring and kindred race should flatter them by concurring in their
opinion[454]. That the conquerors of Asia likewise, and so many other
illustrious visitors of Ilium from Xerxes to the Cæsars, when they found
it useful to their purposes or grateful to their vanity to sacrifice to
Minerva Ilias, should have willingly followed the guidance of the priests
to the temple in New Ilium, and should have admitted without inquiry that
it stood on the site of the Pergamus of Priam—is nothing more than we
should expect under such circumstances. But we know that the claim of the
Ilienses was strongly contested during the whole period in which their
city flourished. Demetrius of Scepsis and Hestiæa of Alexandria Troas
opposed it about the time of the Antiochian war, and Strabo subscribed to
their opinion in the Augustan age[455].
Although Demetrius found it impossible to assent to the claim of the
Ilienses in this respect, and seems to have been far from implicitly
believing in the identity of all the Homeric places pointed out by
them[456]; he appears never to have suspected that the Scamander was any
other than the large torrent, to which he found that name then applied
from its mouth in the Hellespont to its distant source in the summit of
Ida called Cotylus[457]. It was a necessary consequence (as all those
who have concurred in the same belief have experienced) to identify
the Simoeis with one of the branches of the Mendere flowing from the
eastward. The Ghiumbrek-su, the most important of the Trojan streams
after the Mendere and Bunárbashi river, seems to have been that which
Strabo (probably following Demetrius[458]) supposed to be the Simoeis,
as may be inferred from his observation that the site of Troy, which
he places at the Pagus Iliensium (Paleó Aktshi), was near the river
Thymbrius; and that the temple of Apollo Thymbræus at the junction of
this river with the Scamander, was 50 stades from New Ilium[459]; for
these data concur in showing that the Kamára-su[460] was the Thymbrius,
and consequently that the Ghiumbrek-su was the Simoeis of the geographer.
But although a site had been found for Troy at Pagus by those who did
not subscribe to the claims of the Ilienses in favour of their own
site, neither Demetrius nor Strabo was able to discover any springs
corresponding to the Scamandrian sources of Homer. Demetrius, having
observed how utterly irreconcileable the single source of the Scamander
in the distant summit of Mount Ida is with Homer’s description of the
Scamandrian springs, was under the awkward necessity of imagining
that those fountains, wherever they might be, were called the springs
of Scamander, not as being in reality the sources, but only because
they were near the Scamander, or because they afforded a stream which
joined that river[461]. And as the valley and river of Ghiumbrek do not
unite with the plain and river of the Mendere till very near the sea,
Demetrius distinguishes the Simoeisian from the Scamandrian plain[462]—a
distinction, it may be observed, which no where occurs in Homer, and is
in fact inconsistent with his topography.
There seems no other mode of obviating these difficulties, inevitably
attendant upon taking the Mendere in its whole course for the Homeric
Scamander, but to suppose that the river of Bunárbashi was the _ancient_
Scamander, that it gave name to the united stream, and that the part of
the Mendere above the junction was the Simoeis. The latter name appears
to have become obsolete during the ages in which the events of the war
of Troy had been almost forgotten on the scene itself, and in the time
of Demetrius and Strabo to have been known only to antiquaries inquiring
into the topography of the Ilias. The name of Scamander on the other
hand, being the more illustrious of the two, and a name apparently of
familiar import in Asia Minor[463], was retained in use: but as the river
of Bunárbashi had lost much of its local importance, and had now become
of inferior consideration, the name of Scamander before attached to the
united stream and to the Bunárbashi-su, was after the revival of New
Ilium by Lysimachus (and perhaps long before that time) applied to the
united stream and to the whole course of the Mendere.
In some of the preceding pages we have had occasion to remark in the
instances of the Sangarius, Mæander, and Hermus, how easily the names
of two branches of a river are confounded with one another or with the
united stream, and how readily they are transferred from the one to
the other. In addition to these examples, it may be observed that a
similar transmutation of name in two branches of the same river, under
circumstances which cannot so easily be accounted for as in the Trojan
rivers, is to be found in Thessaly, where the river called by Herodotus
and Thucydides Apidanus, is undoubtedly the same as the Enipeus of later
writers, whose Apidanus is at twelve miles distance, and joins the other
branch not far from the confluence of the united stream with the Peneus.
The principal causes of the obscurity into which the Homeric Scamander
(or river of Bunárbashi) had fallen at the time of Demetrius, are
sufficiently manifest. When Troy stood at Bunárbashi, it was natural
that the river which had its sources under the walls should be one
of the _deified_ rivers of the district. In the climate of Greece a
perennial fountain, however small, was held in at least equal honour
with a large torrent affording only water that was either turbid or
stagnant: and we find many proofs in ancient history, and upon ancient
monuments, especially coins, of the importance often attached to streams,
however diminutive, which flow near the sites of large cities. It is
not surprising, therefore, that the river, which from the position of
its sources and from its utility was more peculiarly the river of Troy,
should, while Troy flourished, have had a preference over the broad
torrent in giving name to the united stream; or that its local importance
should have ceased when the capital of the district was removed to a
situation nearer the sea.
But besides these accidental causes, there were others arising from
physical changes which tended to destroy the importance of the river
of Bunárbashi. The Mendere and its tributary streams, which flow from
Aktshi-Kiúi, from the Kamára valley, from Tshiblak and from Ghiumbrek,
being all torrents descending from lofty mountains, bring down with them
a great quantity of stones, earth, and other matter: while the Bunárbashi
stream, deriving all its water from pure deep-seated veins, has little
or no deposit. Hence during the ages which have elapsed since the Trojan
war, the eastern side of the plain has been gradually rising; the course
of the Mendere has been gradually receding from that side[464], and
the western side has become more and more marshy; until at length the
Bunárbashi, instead of uniting with the Mendere about the middle of the
plain, as in the time of the Trojan war, is now forced to find its way
through the marshes on the western side, and from those marshes into
the Mendere by two exits not far from Kum-Kale, or towards the ancient
Sigeium. Its waters in the plain have been still further diminished
by a canal, which carries off a large portion of them into another
stream, which joins not the Hellespont, but the Ægæan, at a part of the
coast situated not less than seven miles from the ancient mouth of the
Scamander. Whether this canal is the remains of an ancient work made for
the purpose of draining the plain, when it became marshy by the operation
of the causes above stated, or whether it was formed by the Turks merely
for its present use, of turning some mills, may be doubtful: its effect
has been to cut off in summer all communication between the Bunárbashi
springs and the marshy ground on the western side of the plain; so
that it is only in rainy seasons that the old bed of the river, which
is still very traceable, is now filled with water. I shall here take
occasion to remark, that the manner in which the alluvion collects in
this plain, as already described, will account for an apparent difficulty
in regard to those passages of the Ilias which shew that the Scamander
(the united stream) flowed on the left of the Grecian encampment, or
toward Rhœteium[465], instead of towards Sigeium, as might be inferred
from Strabo[466] and present appearances: for it is evident from the
causes mentioned, that the altered course of the river would be to the
westward of the former course; and consequently that when there was a
bay at the mouth of the Scamander, the river probably issued into that
bay, not towards its western, but towards its eastern side[467]. No
appearance of a bay indeed is now visible; but its former existence is
undoubted, as well from the testimony of Homer as from the physical
structure of the land. Instead of two promontories with a beach between
them, as described by the poet, there is now only one low point of land,
which has been formed between the two ancient capes by the soil brought
down from the upper country by the river, and deposited at its mouth in
the course of ages. The rate at which the new land has accumulated may
be inferred from Strabo and Pliny, from whom it appears that in their
time New Ilium was distant about a Roman mile and a half from the nearest
shore[468]. Now it appears from the existing vestiges of New Ilium, by
those of its citadel on the summit of the hill of Paleó Kastro, which
rises behind Kalafatli, and Kum Kiui, and by other remains on the western
slope of that hill,—that the lower part of the town reached nearly to the
position of Kum Kiui, which is three miles from the shore, or more than
double the distance assigned by Strabo. Allowing therefore the same rate
of accumulation between the Trojan war and the Augustan age, as since
that period, it becomes probable that in the former age the sea reached
to about half a mile below the position of Kum Kiui: and consequently
that Hestiæa of Alexandria was nearly correct in supposing that all the
plain below the hill of New Ilium had been gained from the sea since the
time of the Trojan war[469],—the sandy ground at the extremity of the
slope of that hill, which gives name to Kum Kiui (Sand-village), marks
perhaps what was at one period the sea beach. To those who may think this
formation of new land over-rated[470], it is to be observed, that in
every instance in which the history of Greece has left us the means of
comparison, the same phenomenon has occurred in the maritime plains; and
that in the instances of the Spercheius and Mæander, but particularly of
the latter, the soil has been formed in the same period of time with a
much greater rapidity.
From all these considerations, therefore, it seems highly probable that
the mouth of the Scamander in the time of the Trojan war was not far from
the situation now occupied by the village of Kum Kiui, and that the
river of Bunárbashi or Scamander, instead of then creeping along the foot
of the southern and western heights, crossed the plain from near Erkessi
in the direction of Kum Kiui, and that it joined the Mendere or Simoeis
towards the middle of the plain, perhaps not far from the present village
of Kalafatli. The passages of the Ilias in which the πόρος, or ford of
the Scamander is mentioned, tend to show that such must have been the
course of the river, if Troy stood at Bunárbashi; and we have seen that
the nature of the plain, and the manner in which the alluvion has been
accumulated, render such a state of the river in ancient times highly
probable.
A third objection to Bunárbashi as the site of Troy is, that its distance
from the Grecian station at the mouth of the Scamander is so great as
to render impossible some of the events of the Ilias. In considering
this distance, however, we must first deduct from the actual distance
of Bunárbashi from the nearest shore, the new land formed since the
Trojan war, together with the _depth_ of the Grecian encampment, which in
_length_ extended from the foot of the hill of Achilleium on the right,
to the mouth of the Scamander on the left. The new land we have already
seen to have been nearly all that which now lies below Kum Kiui. The
following are the only circumstances upon which we may build a judgement
as to the extent of the Grecian encampment.
According to the poet, the bay was too narrow to contain the whole fleet,
which was therefore arranged in several lines[471]. Although nothing
but necessity could have made the Greeks submit to having any of their
vessels at a distance from the sea, and that we may therefore suppose the
number of lines to have been as few as possible, the poet’s expression
will hardly allow the supposition that there were fewer than four or
five lines. And this number agrees very well with the dimensions of the
ground: for if we allow 25 feet for the breadth of each ship, added to
the interval between it and the next, we shall find that about one-fifth
of 1200, which is the amount of Homer’s enumeration[472], would have been
sufficient to occupy the space of one mile and a quarter, to which the
rear of the Greek encampment was confined by the hill of Achilleium on
the right, and by the river on the left, supposing its mouth to have been
near Kum Kiui[473].
For the breadth or depth of the encampment it would not be necessary to
assign more than three or four hundred yards, if it were measured only
by the length of the ships, added to the necessary interval between the
rows: but it is obvious that a large space must, either in the length or
depth of the encampment, have been required for the tents of the leaders,
for the chariots and horses, for the market, and for the places to
contain the cattle and other commodities which the Greeks collected for
provisions, or to be exchanged for wine[474]. In short, for a permanent
encampment of between 50,000 and 100,000 men[475], with a front of a mile
and a quarter, a depth of not less than half a mile would be necessary.
Such a space would not be greater than was required by the Romans for
their encampments[476]; in which, although there was ample accommodation
for the several departments of the army, there was no necessity for the
space required in the camp before Troy, for the ships, and for some of
the other incumbrances incidental to its permanence. On the one hand
we can hardly restrict the Greek camp to a smaller space than I have
mentioned, because it would have been insufficient to contain the ships
and tents: on the other, a much larger can hardly be assigned; because
the inconvenience of having any of the ships at a distance from the
sea-shore would be a powerful motive for contracting the space towards
the plain, and because the poet expressly states that the army was
crowded[477].
In considering, therefore, the transactions of the Ilias, the present
distance of Bunárbashi from the mouth of the Scamander must be diminished
about three miles and a half, in order to give the distance between Troy
and the Grecian rampart, which will thus be reduced to about six miles.
The events which have been considered most inconsistent with the distance
of Bunárbashi from the Hellespont, are those occurring on the days called
by Pope the 23d and 28th; the former day occupies the 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th,
6th, and the greater part of the 7th books of the poem; the 28th day
extends from the beginning of the 11th to the middle of the 18th book.
On the 23d day the Greeks are drawn out, after their forenoon’s repast,
in the plain lying between the rampart and the Scamander; and from thence
they advance to the city, where, after the duel between Menelaus and
Paris, the armies join battle with alternate success. At one time the
Trojans have so far prevailed as to have approached the Greek camp[478];
and at another, the Greeks are again near the city[479]. Hector then
rallies his army; a duel ensues between him and Ajax, which is put an
end to by the approach of night[480], and the Greeks retire to their
encampment. It does not seem necessary to suppose that the ground passed
over by the Greeks on this day is more than 20 or 22 miles; six of which
were performed after the close of day.
On the 28th day the two armies drawn out in the plain before the Greek
encampment, fought only with the light troops until the hour of the
woodman’s meal[481], which, to judge by modern customs, was about 9 or 10
o’clock in the forenoon. The charioteers of the two armies having then
come to action, the Greeks had the superiority, and beat back the Trojans
quite to the walls of Troy[482], where Agamemnon being wounded, Hector
in turn leads the victorious Trojans to the Grecian rampart, forces it,
and fights at the ships. Patroclus then advances to battle in the armour
of Achilles, and drives the Trojans back to the city. Here he is slain,
and the Trojans again advance near to the Greek camp before the day
closes[483]. As the movements on this day carry the parties quite up to
the hostile fortifications, the distance passed over is in so much, but
no more, greater than on the 23d day; and 24 miles seems to be the utmost
distance that we are obliged to suppose the Greeks to have passed over on
this day.
In considering the probability of these exploits, we must take into
consideration that whatever may have been the proportion of the infantry
to the chariots, the extreme distances appear to have been performed only
by the latter; for Homer, in all the great movements from the Greek camp
to Troy, and from Troy to the Greek camp, as well as in all the principal
actions, notices the chariots only. Even in the assault of the wall, in
the beginning of the 12th book, Hector descends from his chariot; and all
the other Trojans, adds the poet, follow his example.
Not much argument, however, seems necessary against objections
which, when allowed in their fullest force, are founded only on the
exaggerations of a poet, to whom, however accurate as a geographer and
historian when it was his object to be so, we cannot refuse the usual
poetical liberties in some of the most animated descriptions which his
work contains. If the labours of the Trojan and Grecian heroes in the
two days the events of which are thought to disprove the position of Troy
at Bunárbashi, were too great for ordinary men; they were not beyond the
power of heroes who could hurl such rocks as two men in the time of the
poet were unable even to lift[484]; who could make their voices heard
from the centre to either extremity[485], or even from the one end to
the other[486] of an encampment of sixty or eighty thousand men; and
who could see so clearly, that Helen is able from the walls of Troy to
point out and minutely describe all the leaders of the Grecian host,
when the whole Trojan army lay between[487]. It is evident that these
are fictions which the Muse allows and encourages; and instances of them
are so frequent throughout the poem, that it cannot be necessary to make
any more particular reference to them. At one time the poet found it
convenient to magnify beyond probability, or even beyond possibility,
the common occurrences of war; at another, to bring together the actions
of an extensive field, in order to present them to view in one continued
scene.
A fourth objection which has been made against the site of Bunárbashi
is, that in this position it would have been impossible for Achilles
to have pursued Hector three times round the walls of Troy, as Homer
relates. But does Homer really so relate? It cannot be denied that many
interpreters, ancient and modern, have understood the poet in this sense;
and it is perhaps the most obvious meaning to a cursory reader, who does
not particularly consider the fact described, or who has not, by a view
of the site of Troy, been convinced of its extreme improbability. Virgil,
however, who in the latter part of the 12th book of the Æneis, has very
closely imitated every part of Homer’s description of the encounter
between Achilles and Hector, seems to have understood his prototype very
differently. He does not represent Turnus as pursued by his adversary
_round_ the walls of Laurentum, but as forming a circle in a plain which
was bounded by those walls, by a marsh, and by the Trojan army. In
like manner the pursuit of Hector by Achilles occurred in sight of the
Trojans, collected on the ramparts on one side, and of the Grecian army
drawn out in the plain on the other. And the poet, in describing the
action, mentions no objects passed by Hector and Achilles, except the
Scæan or Dardanian gate, the carriage-way under the walls, the Erineus,
and the source of the Scamander[488]; all places which we know to have
been on the side of the city towards the plain. Can it be supposed that
Homer intended to describe the heroes as following such a track as must
have concealed them entirely from the view of both armies, except in a
small portion of the circle?
It has justly been observed by Lechevalier and Choiseul Gouffier that
the word περὶ, which has given rise to the erroneous interpretation of
this passage, means, in other passages[489] perfectly similar, _near_
or _before_ the city, and not _around_ it. To this I may add, that no
supposed situation of the city, which is not entirely in the plain, will
suit the idea of a course round the entire circuit of the walls; and that
such a situation would be totally unadapted to the description which
Homer has given of Troy, as windy[490], lofty[491], and as surmounted
with a citadel bordered by precipices[492]. Strabo in fact, following
Demetrius, makes use of this very argument to prove that the ancient
city did not stand at New Ilium; round which, he remarks, it would have
been impossible for Achilles to have pursued Hector[493]. It would seem,
therefore, that the poet, as a keen observer of nature, intended to
describe that circular course, which a person invariably takes when he
runs from another, and finds no shelter or advantageous position for
defending himself. The track of the two heroes was from the Scæan gate,
along the road under the walls, by the Erineus, and by the fountains of
the Scamander back again to the Scæan gate. Ὣς οἳ τρὶς Πριάμοιο πόλιν
περὶ δινηθήτην[494].
* * * * *
It remains to offer a few remarks in justification of the north-eastern
portion of the map which accompanies the present volume. This part of
Asia Minor was called Pontus by the Romans, from its bordering on the
Euxine _sea_: though it still retained the divisions of its ancient
inhabitants, the Bithyni, Maryandini, Caucones, and Paphlagones. Here,
as in many other parts of the peninsula, modern travellers have not yet
afforded us sufficient information to enable us to make the best use of
the evidence of ancient history. The astronomical observations of M.
Beauchamp and Capt. Gauttier have been of great importance in giving the
correct length of the coast, its general outline, and the exact position
of the principal places: but it requires such a careful survey as that
of the southern coast by Capt. Beaufort, to illustrate fully the three
ancient Periplus of the Pontic coast[495], and to correct the numerical
errors which their disagreement with one another proves to exist in them.
On the sea-coast all the most important sites of antiquity are determined
by the actual names.—These sites are _Rhebas_, now Ríva; _Calpe_,
Kerpe; the river _Sangarius_, Sakaría; _Heraclia_, Erégri; the river
_Parthenius_, Bartan, in Greek Parthéni; _Amastris_, Amásera; _Cytorus_,
Kídros; _Thymena_, Temena; _Carambis_, Kerempe; _Abonuteichus_, afterward
_Ionopolis_, Aináboli; _Cinolis_, Kinóli; _Stephane_, Istefán, in Greek
Stéfanos; _Sinope_, Sinub, in Greek Sinópi; _Carusa_, Kerze; _Amisus_,
Samsun. With these data it will not be difficult for the future traveller
to fix the intermediate names of the three Periplus: especially as
existing vestiges of antiquity, and the rivers which form a large
proportion of the ancient names, will greatly facilitate the task.
Although the route along this coast, in the Peutinger Table, is unworthy
of much notice, and conveys very little information, it is right to point
out the obvious correction of one remarkable error which it contains. The
author, misled by the similarity of the name of Amastris (written Mastrum
in the Table) with that of Amasia, has substituted the coast-road from
Amastris to Sinope for that leading from Amasia to Sinope. Of this the
names along the latter route in the Table, although disfigured, leave no
doubt.—Cromen, Cythero, Egilan, Carambas, Stefano, Syrtas, are obviously
intended for Cromna, Cytorum, Ægiali, Carambis, Stephane, Syrias; and the
sum of the distances, 149 M. P., is tolerably correct. It is probable,
therefore, that the two roads should change places in the Table; although
it must be confessed that no proof of this inference is to be found
in the road of the Table from Mastrum to Sinope; for the sum of the
distances of the three places on that route is not above half the real
road-distance, and I can find no traces of their names (Tycæ, Cereæ, and
Miletus) in any other ancient author.
Another and a more important defect in the routes of the Table through
Paphlagonia, is the omission of the name of the place which by its _two
towers_ is shown to have been the most remarkable on the road leading
from Nicomedia to Gangra, with a branch to Amasia. As this route of
the Table lies between the coast road and that leading from Nicæa to
Amasia by Juliopolis, Ancyra, and Tavium, it seems evidently to have
been the same as the modern road from Nicomedia to Amasia by Boli;
for the structure of the country, and the direction of its mountains,
passes, valleys, and rivers, must naturally have led the main ancient
road in the same direction as the modern. The position in the Table of
the place with two towers without a name, relatively to the two ends
of the route, shows that it stood on or about the site now occupied
by Boli. Now Boli is evidently an abbreviation of some name ending in
Polis, which in process of time was vulgarly used in that form, like ἡ
πόλις for Constantinople. In Honorias, which under Constantine formed a
district separate from Paphlagonia proper, lying between it and Bithynia,
there were three places with the termination of polis—Claudiopolis, or
Bithynium; Flaviopolis, or Cratia; and Hadrianopolis[496]. The other
towns of Honorias were Tium, Heraclia Pontica, and Prusias on the Hypius;
so that the district seems to have chiefly comprehended the country lying
between the Sangarius and the Billæus. Bithynium or Claudiopolis was on
the Sangarius[497]; and having been originally a colony from Greece[498],
was probably not far from the mouth of that river, Greek colonies
having generally settled in maritime situations, as we see instanced in
several cities on this coast. Flaviopolis was twenty or thirty miles
from Claudiopolis, on the road leading from that place to Ancyra[499];
consequently to the westward of Boli. Boli, therefore, seems to have
been the ancient Hadrianopolis. It is singular that among the numerous
inscriptions which so many travellers agree in having observed near
Boli, not one should yet have been copied, containing the name of the
ancient city.
The other places on this road in the Table have been inserted in the Map,
in the situations which I have thought the most probable, trusting less
to the distances in the Table, (which are probably not more correct in
detail than they are in the general result,) than to the situation of the
valleys and fertile districts. Potamia, a place which Strabo has noticed
as being in this part of the country[500], seems to have stood in the
valley of Beinder, where the branches of the Parthenius first unite into
a considerable stream.
On another route in the Table, which crosses the preceding nearly
at right angles, the only place named between Gangra and Sinope is
Pompeiopolis. This place seems to have occupied the site of Tash Kiupri,
as well from the position of that modern town, as from the considerable
remains of antiquity found there, and which are apparently of the date
when Pompeiopolis may be supposed to have flourished.
Of Germanicopolis, or Germanopolis, we know only that it was one of the
principal places of the interior of Paphlagonia, and that it continued
to be so in the sixth century[501]. It has probably left some remains
similar to those of Pompeiopolis, though they have not yet been
discovered by modern travellers. D’Anville supposed Germanicopolis to
have occupied the site of Kastamúni; but the words in the Novellæ of
Justinian seem to place it near Gangra[502].—Kastamúni is the modern
corruption of Castamon, which we find mentioned in the Byzantine
history[503], and which may have been a more ancient name, although it is
not found in Ptolemy, nor in any authority earlier than the 12th century.
The subordinate districts of Paphlagonia and Cappadocia Pontica; namely,
Timonitis, Bogdomanis, Zygiani, Marmolitis, Blaene, Domanitis, Cimiatene,
Gazelonitis, Saramene, Phamezonitis, Diacopene, Babamonitis,—have been
inserted in the map, from the information, as well as it could be
understood, of Strabo and Ptolemy; and some of the Turkish names from the
still obscurer description of Abubekr Ben Behrem.
It is much to be regretted that no modern traveller has visited Tshorúm,
which there is the strongest reason to believe occupies the site of
Tavium, the chief fortress of the Trocmi, and a very important point in
the ancient itineraries.
Upon comparing the road from Tavium to Cæsareia (Mazaca) in the Table
with that in the Antonine itinerary, we find that none of the names
agree—that the distance in the Table is nearly double that in the
Antonine—and that both of them give an incorrect rate to the Roman mile.
It might be supposed, in explanation of this difficulty, that there were
two roads from Tavium to Cæsareia; but I am inclined to think there is
some error here in the Antonine, as it places Soanda on this road, which
we have good authority for believing to have been in a very different
situation, namely, on the great western road from Cæsareia, between that
city and Garsabora[504].
ADDITIONAL NOTES.
I have reserved to this place all observations on the geographical
information contained in the Latin historians of the 12th century,
who have described the first crusade[505]; because, upon a careful
examination of it, I have not found any thing either to invalidate or
materially to confirm that which is deducible from the ancients or from
the Byzantines. At the same time there are several passages in the Latin
historians which may receive some illustration from the cotemporary
Greeks, or from the ancient geographical authorities.
NOTE TO PAGE 9.
The following is the substance, of a short account, by Anna Comnena,
of the military operations in Bithynia in the autumn of the year 1096,
which proved fatal to so many of the followers of Peter the Hermit.
Peter having passed over into Asia, contrary to the advice which the
Emperor Alexius gave him to wait for the other crusaders who were then
on the way, encamped at Helenopolis, from whence the Normans proceeded
to ravage the country around Nicæa; and having successfully defended
themselves against a body of Turks, which advanced against them, they
carried back their spoil in safety to Helenopolis. In a second expedition
they occupied the fort of Xerigordus, but the sultan Kilidj Arslan,
having sent one of his officers against them, retook that place, slew
many of the Normans, and made many of them prisoners. He then sent two
men to raise a report in the camp at Helenopolis, that the Normans had
taken possession of Nicæa, and were plundering it; when the other troops,
desirous of sharing in the spoil, proceeded in a disorderly manner
towards Nicæ: and thus they fell into an ambuscade which the Sultan had
stationed in a place called Draco, and were cut to pieces. The number
that fell was so great that their bones formed a mountain. Peter then
retired to Helenopolis, where he was invested by the Turks: but the
Emperor, unwilling that he should be taken, sent his officer Catacalon
with some ships to his succour, upon whose arrival the Turks retired, and
Peter returned with his surviving followers into Europe.
From the Latins there is great difficulty in extracting any clear account
of these events, which may partly be ascribed to the want of a good map,
partly to the ignorance of the authors in ancient geography, but chiefly
to the circumstance of none of those writers having been personally
engaged in Peter’ s imprudent expedition. They agree tolerably well with
the Greek Princess in regard to the principal events, but are at variance
both with her and with one another as to many of the particulars. They
relate that the crusaders, having crossed the Bosphorus, marched to
Nicomedia, and from thence to a place on the sea-side called Civitot
or Civito, where they were amply supplied with provisions by sea. The
French troops, separating from the others, spread themselves over the
country and took possession of an abandoned fortress called Exerogorgo
(the Xerigordus of Anna Comnena), the situation of which is variously
described as four days beyond Nicomedia, as four days beyond Nicæa, and
as three or four miles from the latter. Here they were soon surrounded
by the Turks, who cut off their supply of water, slew many of them,
and at length, by the treachery of one of the French chieftains named
Reynald, captured many more. Soon after this event there was a general
action in the field, which was fatal to the gallant military commander of
Peter’s army, Gauthier Sansavoir, (Walter the moneyless,) as well as to
several other distinguished leaders. The exact scene of action it is very
difficult to understand, though it rather appears from a comparison of
Anna Comnena with Albert of Aix-la-Chapelle, and William of Tyre, the two
Latin authors who have given the fullest account of these transactions,
to have been at the northern extremity of the plain of Nicæa, and on
the adjoining hills. The chief slaughter of the Franks seems to have
occurred in the passes leading from thence to the sea, of which passes
the Turks had made themselves masters during the action, unknown to the
enemy. According to the Latin historians, a part of their army found its
way back to Civitot, where they were speedily surrounded by the Turks,
and where they would have been in great danger of being all slain or
taken, had not the Turks been induced, by the mediation of Alexis, to
retire, and to leave the crusaders at liberty to return to Constantinople.
It naturally occurs, on reading these two accounts of the same events,
that Helenopolis, which name is not found in the Gesta Dei per Francos,
was the same place which the authors of that collection mean by Civitot;
but a little further examination will show this supposition to be
inadmissible. In the first place, the passage of Procopius referred to
in page 8 of this volume[506] is a convincing proof that Helenopolis
was on the shore of the Gulf of Nicomedia. Procopius, in complaining
of the injury which Justinian had done to the imperial establishment
for the relay of horses on all the great post roads of the empire[507],
remarks in particular, that the abolition of the post from Chalcedon to
Dacibyza had obliged all persons who were going from Constantinople to
Helenopolis to cross the sea in small boats, which often exposed them
to great danger. It is evident, as well from this passage of Procopius
as from several others in Anna Comnena, that Helenopolis was the usual
place of debarkation for those going from the capital to Nicæa and
the south eastward, as the Dil or Glossa is at present; and hence
Constantine turned his attention to this important point soon after he
had established the seat of empire at Byzantium, giving to the village
of Drepanum[508], which before stood there, the name of Helenopolis in
honour of his mother. From the same sense of its importance, Justinian
augmented Helenopolis, and constructed there an aqueduct, a bath, and
other buildings[509].
Secondly, it cannot be doubted that the barbarous name Civitot or
Civito, which, like many other parts of the narrative, the authors of
the Gesta Dei have copied from one another, is no other than the Κιβωτὸς
(pronounced Kivotó in modern Greek) of Anna Comnena. In the following
year we find that it was the place of debarkation and maritime supply for
the crusaders, especially during their operations before Nicæa; and it
clearly appears, upon a comparison of the Latin historians with Anna, to
have been in the Gulf of Cius, and not far from that city: for the former
state that, in order to complete the blockade of Nicæa, and to prevent
the Turks in the city from receiving succours by the lake, boats were
collected at Civitot and conveyed from thence overland into the lake;
while from the Greek princess we learn[510] that this operation, which
according to her was performed by placing the boats in chariots, took
place on the side of the lake towards Cius. Here, in fact, the ground was
more favourable to it than in any part of the borders of the lake, and
here also the lake approaches nearest to the sea, the interval being, as
Albert of Aix remarks, about seven miles.
As to the statement of Anna, that Alexius sent ships to the assistance
of Peter, when invested by the Turks at Helenopolis, compared with that
of the Latin historians, who represent Civitot to have been the last
retreat of the crusaders, the only mode of reconciling this apparent
contradiction is to suppose that the defeated and dispersed crusaders
retreated through the woods to both those places, that both were invested
by the victorious Turks, but that it was to Helenopolis that Alexius sent
his admiral, whose interference with the Turks liberated the Franks at
Cibotus, as well as those who were shut up in Helenopolis.
NOTE TO PAGE 18.
The Latin historians are at variance with one another, and with Anna
Comnena, in many of the circumstances attending the march of the
crusaders, after the capture of Nicæa, to the plain of Dorylæum, and
relating to the great battle which took place there. Thus much however
may be gathered from them: that the crusaders moved in a single line in
two days from Nicæa to Leucæ; that at Leucæ they crossed the Gallus by a
bridge, and halted for two days to refresh themselves and their cattle
in that fertile valley. They then divided themselves into two bodies;
that which was accompanied by Godfrey took the road to the right, (the
road probably which now leads through Bozavik,) while Bohemond and the
remainder of the forces pursued the direct route to Dorylæum. On the
fourth day, the latter corps being then, as it appears, encamped on the
banks of the Thymbres in the plain of Dorylæum not far to the westward
of that town, was attacked by an immense army of Turks under Kilidj
Arslan. They supported the unequal contest from the 2d to the 8th hour of
the day, when Godfrey, who had received from the messengers of Bohemond
intelligence of what was occurring, arrived, and, making an immediate
attack on the flank and rear of the Sultan’s army, gained a complete
victory over them.
NOTE TO PAGES 37, 58.
The crusaders now marched in a single body and suffered extreme distress
from a want of water in the dry and barren country which they had to
traverse, until they arrived at a river which appears to have been at no
great distance from Antioch the Less, or Antiocheia of Pisidia. At this
city several chieftains with their followers separated themselves from
the main body and pursued different routes; the remainder moved forward
to Iconium. It must be admitted, that if the evidence as to the position
of Antiocheia of Pisidia contained in this part of the Gesta Dei is not
sufficient to overthrow that of Strabo and the Peutinger Table,—both
which authorities tend to show that it was not exactly on the modern
route from Eski Shehr to Konia by Bulwudun and Ak Shehr,—it is at least
a proof that Antiocheia lay not far from that line. The river which
relieved the sufferings of the crusaders seems to have been that which
flows through the plain of Karahissár to the lake of Bulwudún.
NOTE TO PAGE 65.
The princess Anna is silent as to all the proceedings of the crusaders
between the battle of Dorylæum and their arrival before Antioch of Syria.
But the Latins agree in stating that, after marching from Iconium, they
arrived at a place which is variously spelt Erachia, Eraclia, Heraclea,
Reclei; and that here they turned to the right through the mountains to
Tarsus. Some of them add, that on the first day from Iconium they were
obliged to take a provision of water in skins, because none was met with
at the end of that day’s journey; that on the second day they arrived
at a river, and on the third at Heraclea. This account of the country
through which the crusaders marched after quitting Iconium, is in every
respect so accurate a description of the route from Konia to Tarsus
through Erkle, that no doubt can remain of Erkle having been the place at
which they arrived at the end of the third day’s march from Iconium,—and
hence the authority of their historians may perhaps have been considered
a proof that Erkle is the position of one of the many Greek cities called
Heracleia. I have already remarked, however, that there does not appear
at any period of ancient history to have been a Heracleia in this quarter
of Asia Minor; and I have stated my reasons for thinking that Erkle is
a corruption not of Ἡράκλεια but of Ἄρχαλλα. It must be recollected
that the Mussulmans had been in possession of that part of the country
400 years before the arrival of the crusaders, and that sufficient time
therefore had elapsed for the Greek name to have assumed the form of
corruption which it now bears: Albert of Aix, who writes it Reclei,
which nearly represents the present sound, furnishes us with a strong
presumption that it really had then assumed that form.
It is natural that the historians of the crusade, having a sufficient
degree of learning to write in Latin, but no profound knowledge of
ancient geography, should have had just so much familiarity with the name
of Heraclea as would lead them to suppose Erkle to be a corruption of
Heraclea, and would induce them to translate it in Latin by that word. It
has been seen, however, that they did not all so convert it. Tudebode,
Archbishop Baldric, and the Abbot Guibert, all write it Erachia. Upon
the whole, therefore, I find nothing in the Gesta Dei which invalidates
the conjecture of Erkle being the site of Archalla.
NOTE TO PAGE 60.
In addition to the other proofs which I have given in the note to
this page of the little dependence that can be placed on Xenophon’s
description of the route of Cyrus through Asia Minor, the following may
also be mentioned: Xenophon states that there were three stations or
thirty parasangs between Colossæ and Celænæ: the distance by the road is
not more than 30 miles.
NOTE TO PAGE 117.
The following is the description of Cilicia by Ammianus: “Superatis
Tauri montis verticibus, qui ad solis ortum sublimius attolluntur,
Cilicia spatiis porrigitur late distentis, dives bonis omnibus terra
ejusque lateri dextro adnexa Isauria; pari sorte uberi palmite viret, et
frugibus multis; quam mediam navigabile flumen Calycadnus interscindit.
Et hanc quidem, præter oppida multa, duæ civitates exornant; Seleucia
opus Seleuci regis, et Claudiopolis quam deduxit coloniam Claudius
Cæsar. Isaura ... ægre vestigia claritudinis pristinæ monstrat admodum
pauca.” Ammian. l. 14. c. 25. The situation of Mout between the two
great parallel ridges of Taurus corresponds exactly with that of
Claudiopolis as described by Theophanes: Κλαυδιοπόλεως ... τῆς μεταξὺ
τῶν δύο Ταύρων ἐν πεδίῳ κειμένης. In the 3rd year of the Emperor
Anastasius, Claudiopolis, which had been recently recovered by Diogenes
from the Isaurians, was again suddenly invested by them and reduced to
the greatest extremity, when it was opportunely relieved by John Cyrtus
and Conon bishop of Apameia, who suddenly crossing the passes of Taurus
(those between Mout and Láranda), were assisted by a sortie of Diogenes,
and thus completely defeated the Isaurians. The bishop died of a wound
which he received in the action. Theoph. Chronog. p. 119.
Strabo (p. 672) describes a very ancient Greek colony of the name of
Olbe, founded by Ajax, son of Teucer, and which had a temple of Jupiter
that preserved its sanctity and importance through many revolutions. He
places Olbe in the mountains behind Soli and Cyinda, which, although not
a very accurate description of the situation of the valley of Mout, seems
sufficient to identify the Olbe of Strabo with the Olbasa which Ptolemy
places in the Citis or valley of the Calycadnus. Nothing indeed is more
probable than that this spacious, fertile, and easily defensible valley
should have attracted a colony of Greeks at an early period. Hierocles
mentions both Olbe and Claudiopolis in the province of Isauria, of
which in his time Seleucia was the chief town. It appears also from the
Notitiæ, that they were separate Greek bishoprics.
NOTE TO PAGE 182.
The theatre of Telmissus is smaller than that of Patara. According to
Foucherot, (see Choiseul Voyage Pittoresque de la Grèce, tome 1. pl.
72) the diameter of the theatre of Telmissus was 238 French feet, equal
to 254 English. That of Patara is 265 (not 295 as stated in page 182).
At Telmissus the cavea contained 28 seats divided by a diazoma at the
fifteenth seat from the bottom. The theatre of Patara had about 30 rows
of seats. At Patara are the ruins of a bath, an inscription upon which
shows that it was erected by the Emperor Vespasian. The theatre was built
in the reign of Antoninus Pius.
[Illustration: THEATRE OF PATARA.
THEATRE OF MYRA.]
NOTE TO PAGE 183.
By the kindness of Mr. Cockerell, I am enabled to submit to the reader a
plan on a small scale of the theatre of Patara, together with a sketch
of the form and dimensions of the theatre of Myra. Their construction
resembles that of the other theatres of Asia Minor, as exemplified at
Side[511], Telmissus, Miletus, Hierapolis, Laodiceia, and in several
other smaller theatres. It differs from that of the theatres of European
Greece in the form of the extremities of the cavea, as far as we can
judge from such of the European Greek theatres as are sufficiently
preserved to show the construction of that part of the building. In the
Asiatic theatres the ends of the cavea diverged from the orchestra, so
as to form an oblique angle to the direction of the scene. We find, on
the contrary, that in the theatres of Segeste, Tauromenium, Syracuse,
Sparta, Epidaurus, Sicyon, in the theatre of Herodes at Athens, and in
that near Ioannina in Epirus, the extremities of the cavea were parallel
to the scene. In both, the cavea exceeded a semicircle; but in the
Asiatic theatres the excess was formed by producing the same curve at
either extremity of the semicircle, until the cavea occupied from 200 to
225 degrees of a circle[512]; whereas at Tauromenium, Sicyon, Epidaurus,
and in the theatre near Ioannina, the excess above a semicircle is
formed by two right lines drawn from the extremities of the semicircle
perpendicular to its diameter and to the direction of the scene, as in
the annexed figure[513].
[Illustration]
At Syracuse, the cavea was a semicircle and no more. In the theatre of
Herodes at Athens, the excess above a semicircle was a curve, and it
is therefore an exception to the European rule. The other theatres of
European Greece are too much ruined to admit of any certainty on this
point.
Vitruvius has not noticed this remarkable difference between the
Greek theatres of Europe and Asia; but he gives the following precise
distinction between the Greek and the Roman theatre: “To construct the
Roman theatre,—having described a circle of the size intended for the
lowest part of the theatre, inscribe in it four equilateral triangles,
the angles of which will divide the circumference into 12 equal parts.
Assume the side of one of the triangles for the position of the scene. A
line drawn parallel to it through the diameter of the circle, will mark
the separation of the pulpitum of the proscenium from the orchestra.
The seven angles of the triangles in the semicircle of the orchestra
determine the position of the scalæ or steps leading from the orchestra
between the cunei into the first præcinctio. The scalæ leading from these
to the second præcinctio are in the middle of the intervals between the
scalæ of the lower cunei. The five remaining angles of the triangles
determine the divisions of the scene, the length of which ought to be
double the diameter of the orchestra. The construction of the Greek
theatre differs in some respects from that of the Roman. In the Greek
three squares are inscribed in the circle of the lowest part of the
theatre, dividing the circumference into 12 equal parts as before. Having
assumed a side of one of the squares for the position of the λογεῖον
or pulpitum of the proscenium, a line parallel to it, touching the
circumference of the circle in the point most distant from the cavea,
will determine the line of the scene. Draw a diameter of the circle
parallel to the scene, and from each extremity of the diameter as a
centre describe a curve from the opposite extremity until it intersects
the line of the proscenium. These two curves, the semicircle and the
proscenium, inclose the orchestra.”
[Illustration: CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN THEATRE, ACCORDING TO VITRUVIUS.
A B C D E F A Cavea.
F D Pulpitum of the Proscenium.
G H Scene.
I Proscenium.
K K Cunei separated by Scalæ.
F E D F Orchestra.
L Postscenium.]
[Illustration: CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORCHESTRA OF THE GREEK THEATRE,
ACCORDING TO VITRUVIUS.
A C Pulpitum of the Proscenium.
A B C A Orchestra.
D D Cunei of the Cavea.
E Proscenium.
F G Scene.
H I K The three centres, from which the curve of the Orchestra
is described.]
The effect of these two modes of construction was, to give a more
spacious cavea and a more spacious orchestra to the Greek theatre than
to the Roman; a scene further removed from the middle of the cavea, and
a narrower pulpitum to the proscenium. The intention of their difference
is to be found in the different destinations of the two theatres. Among
the Greeks the tragic and comic actors only performed on the scene:
all other exhibitions took place in the orchestra; and hence their
theatrical artists were divided into Scenici and Thymelici—the latter
term being derived from the thymele or altar of Bacchus; which in
process of time was often used as synonymous with the whole orchestra.
The Roman theatres, on the other hand, being chiefly intended for
dramatic representations, it was desirable to bring the scene as near as
possible to the centre of the cavea; the orchestra was used only for the
moveable seats of privileged spectators, and the cavea seldom exceeded
a semicircle. In Roman theatres the height of the pulpitum above the
orchestra was only five feet, that the spectators in that part of the
theatre might command a good view of the stage—as in our pit; in the
Greek theatres, there being no spectators in the orchestra, it was ten or
twelve feet high[514].
As no science can less bear to be fettered by rules than architecture,
it will not be surprising to find, as we increase our collection of
ancient examples, that the speculations of Vitruvius seldom agree with
the ancient monuments. His rules, in fact, are rather to be regarded as
his own system, than that which was followed by the architects of Greece;
whose genius is in nothing more remarkable than in the variety which
pervaded their designs, according to the circumstances of each particular
work; and in the singular felicity with which they harmonized the several
parts of those designs.
The theatre of Patara may exemplify the rules given by Vitruvius for the
position of the scene in Greek theatres, and for that of the scalæ, which
determine the dimensions of the cunei: but, like all the other theatres
in Asia Minor, it is an exception to his rule for constructing the curve
of the orchestra or cavea; this curve being in all those theatres a
segment of one and the same circle, instead of being formed from three
centres.
And even in regard to the position of the scene, the theatre of Patara
is subject to the remark, that between the lower seat of the cavea and
the orchestra there is a præcinctio or διάζωμα[515], twelve feet wide,
and four feet (not ten or twelve, as he prescribes in Greek theatres) in
height above the level of the orchestra; which diazoma must be included
within the circle of the orchestra, in order to make the scene a tangent
to that circle, as the rule of Vitruvius requires. The scene of the
theatre of Myra is still more distant from the cavea.
It is impossible to determine, without further excavation, whether in
any existing theatre the curve of the _orchestra_ at the two ends next
the proscenium was formed from three centres as Vitruvius has described;
but in no instance that has yet been remarked are the extremities of
the _cavea_ constructed in this manner; they are either right lines or
continuations of the same circle which forms the middle of the cavea.
The great theatre of Laodiceia[516] is also an exception to the rules
of Vitruvius, or rather it exemplifies a mixture of his Greek and Roman
theatre; for with a cavea, spacious like that of the Greek theatre, it
has a Roman scene; as not only appears from the position of the scene
_within_ the curve of the orchestra, but likewise from the great niche
in the centre of the scene, which is found also at Hierapolis, and is
remarked at Nicopolis of Epirus, and in some other theatres of Roman
construction[517].
The advantage of the Asiatic over the European construction in Greek
theatres, consisted only in the increase of capacity derived from the
obliquity of the two ends of the cavea. As the spectators in the upper
seats of the two extremities must have had a very imperfect view of the
scene, the Asiatic construction may perhaps have been adopted to provide
accommodation for the classes who cared less for the drama than for the
dancing and dumb-show of the orchestra: and these classes may perhaps
have been more numerous in the Asiatic than in the European cities of
Greece.
In Asia Minor the lower part of the cavea was generally excavated in a
hill, and the upper part was built of masonry raised upon arches; so
that there was a direct access from the level of the ground at the back
of the theatre into the middle diazoma, either at the two ends of the
diazoma, or by arched vomitories in the intermediate parts of the curve,
under the upper division of the cavea. The same mode of construction
occurred also in some of the theatres of European Greece; though in the
more ancient theatres of that country it seems to have been the common
practice to excavate all the middle part of the cavea and even the seats
out of the rock. It seldom happened that theatres were constructed in
plains, as it added so much to the labour and expense of them: instances,
however, exist at Mantineia and Megalopolis.
As the scene and every part of the theatre relating to the spectacle
stood on level ground at the lowest part of the building, it has
invariably happened, in all the remaining theatres of Greece and Asia,
that the parts belonging to the scene have been more or less buried in
their own ruins, and in those of the cavea, which rises above them like
a crumbling mountain. It is only by excavating, therefore, that we can
arrive at an exact knowledge of the construction of that which is the
most important part of the Greek theatre: but when circumstances admit of
a complete examination of the theatres of Hierapolis, Patara, Laodiceia,
Side, of some in Syria, which are in a remarkable state of preservation,
and of two or three in European Greece, great light may be thrown on many
interesting inquiries relating to the ancient drama.
I may here take the opportunity of observing, that there are no remains
of Greek architecture more illustrative of the ancient state of society
in Greece than the theatres. Comparing them with modern works of the same
kind, we are astonished at the opulence required to collect the materials
of those immense edifices, and afterwards to construct them; as well
as at the effect of those customs and institutions, which, in filling
the theatre, could inspire such a multitude of citizens with a single
sentiment of curiosity, amusement, or political feeling. It may be said
that the theatres of Greece are an existing proof of the populousness
of the states of that country, much more convincing than the arguments
of those who have endeavoured to confute the received opinion on this
subject. No Grecian community was complete without a theatre. In the
principal cities they were from 350 to 500 feet in diameter, and capable
of containing from eight or ten to twenty thousand spectators. I have
already, in another work[518], shown some reasons for believing that the
Greeks were indebted for the invention of these buildings to the same
city, to which they owed so large a share of their civilization. The
Dionysiac theatre at Athens, in the form in which it was constructed at
the time that Æschylus brought the drama to perfection, seems to have
been the original model which, with some slight variations, was adopted
throughout the Grecian states both of Europe and Asia.
I subjoin the diameters of the principal theatres in existence. They were
all measured by Mr. Cockerell, except those marked D.; which are from the
Missions of the Society of Dilettanti. All those of Greece Proper I have
myself measured; but the reader will undoubtedly be better satisfied in
possessing the measurements of Mr. Cockerell.
Exterior Interior
Diameter. Diam.
THEATRES OF ASIA MINOR.
Ephesus 660 240
Tralles[519] 540 150
Miletus (D) 472 224
Stratoniceia (D) 390 106
Side 390 120
Sardes[519] 396 162
Laodiceia (D) 364 136
Myra 360 120
Hierapolis 346 100
Patara 265 96
Teos[519] (Roman construction) 285 70
Pompeiopolis[519] (Ditto) 219 138
Limyra 195 —
Anemurium (Roman construction) 197 —
Selinus in Cilicia 114 —
Cnidus (D) about 400 —
THEATRES IN EUROPEAN GREECE.
Sparta[520] 453 217
Near Joannina in Epirus 445 121
Argos[520] 435 217
Syracusa 342 114
Sicyon[520] 313 100
Mantineia[520] 227 —
Delus[520] 175 —
Epidaurus[520] — 91
Nicopolis in Epirus (Roman constr.) 360 120
ODEIA[521].
Nicopolis 139 93
Messene (of a singular form, being 112 feet long) 93
NOTE TO PAGE 229.
The reader will perhaps be curious to learn something more of the Latin
inscription of Stratoniceia mentioned in the note to page 229; which,
although it has been more than a century in England, and the greater
part of that time in the British Museum, has never yet been published.
It consists of a decree, very long and wordy, and written in a style
strongly indicating a declining Latinity, followed by a list of articles
of provision in most common use among the Romans, with prices annexed to
each of them.