of September, and safely reached Havre de Grace, at the mouth of the
Seine. Here her old companion, the Sphynx, which drew too much water
to be able to ascend the river, left her, and she was taken in tow by
the Neva steam-boat. To conclude with the words of our author: ‘At
six o’clock (on the 13th) our vessel left the sea for ever, and
entered the Seine. By noon we had cleared all the banks and
impediments of the lower part of the river; and on the 14th of
September at noon, we arrived at Rouen, where the ‘Luxor’ was made
fast before the quay d’Harcourt. Here we must remain until the
autumnal rains raise the waters of the Seine, and permit us to
transport to Paris this pyramid,—the object of our expedition.’ This
event has since happened, and the recent French papers announce that
the obelisk has been set up in the centre of the Place Louis XVI.”
For a more detailed account of this wonderful city, we must refer to the
learned and elaborate account, published a few years since, by Mr.
Wilkinson. We now have space only for impressions.
“That ancient city, celebrated by the first of poets and historians that
are now extant: ‘that venerable city,’ as Pococke so plaintively
expresses it, ‘the date of whose ruin is older than the foundation of
most other cities,’ offers, at this day, a picture of desolation and
fallen splendour, more complete than can be found elsewhere; and yet
‘such vast and surprising remains,’ to continue in the words of the same
old traveller, ‘are still to be seen, of such magnificence and
solidity, as may convince any one that beholds them, that without some
extraordinary accident, they must have lasted for ever, which seems to
have been the intention of the founders of them.’”
“Their very aspect,” says Savary, “would awaken the genius of a polished
nation; but the Turks and Copts, crushed to dust beneath an iron
sceptre, behold them without astonishment, and build huts, which even
scarcely screen them from the sun, in their neighbourhood. These
barbarians, if they want a mill-stone, do not blush to overturn a
column, the support of a temple or portico, and saw it in pieces! Thus
abject does despotism render men.”—“All here is sublime, all majestic.
The kings seem to have acquired the glory of never dying while the
obelisks and colossal statues exist; and have only laboured for
immortality. They could preserve their memory against the efforts of
time, but not against the efforts of the barbarism of conquerors; those
dreadful scourges of science and nations, which, in their pride, they
have too often erased from the face of the earth.”—“With pain one tears
oneself from Thebes. Her monuments fix the traveller’s eyes, and fill
his mind with vast ideas. Beholding colossal figures, and stately
obelisks, which seem to surpass human powers, he says,—‘Man has done
this,’ and feels himself and his species ennobled. True it is, when he
looks down on the wretched huts, standing beside these magnificent
labours, and when he perceives an ignorant people, instead of a
scientific nation, he grieves for the generations that are past, and the
arts that have perished with them; yet this very grief has a kind of
charm for a heart of sensibility.”
“It would be difficult,” says Sonnini, “to describe the sensations which
the sight of objects so grand, so majestic, raised within me. It was not
a simple adoration merely, but an ecstacy which suspended the use of all
my faculties. I remained some time immoveable with rapture, and I felt
inclined more than once to prostrate myself in token of veneration
before monuments, the rearing of which appeared to transcend the
strength and genius of man.”
“Let the so much boasted fabrics of Greece and Rome (continues he) come
and bow down before the temples and palaces of Thebes and Egypt. Its
lofty ruins are still more striking than their gaudy ornaments; its
gigantic wrecks are more majestic than their perfect preservation. The
glory of the most celebrated fabrics vanishes before the prodigies of
Egyptian architecture; and to describe them justly, a man must possess
the genius of those who conceived and executed them, or the eloquent pen
of a Bossuet.”
“On turning,” says Denon, “the point of a chain of mountains, we saw,
all at once, ancient Thebes in its full extent—that Thebes whose
magnitude has been pictured to us by a single word in Homer,
_hundred-gated_—renowned for numerous kings, who, through their wisdom,
have been elevated to the rank of gods; for laws which have been revered
without being known; for sciences which have been confided to proud and
mysterious inscriptions; wise and earliest monuments of the arts which
time has respected; this sanctuary, abandoned, isolated through
barbarism, and surrendered to the desert from which it was won; this
city, shrouded in the veil of mystery, by which even colossi are
magnified; this remote city, which imagination has only caught a glimpse
of through the darkness of time, was still so gigantic an apparition,
that, at the sight of its ruins, the French army halted of its own
accord, and the soldiers, with one spontaneous movement, clapped their
hands.”
Dr. Richardson, who visited Thebes many years after Denon, tells us,
that as he approached it in the night, he could not judge of the awful
grandeur of that first appearance, which so powerfully affected the
enthusiastic Frenchman. “But the next morning’s sun convinced us,” he
says, “that the ruins can scarcely be seen from the river; that no where
does the traveller turn the corner of the mountain to come in sight of
them; and that he must be near them, or among them, before he can
discover any thing.” Yet both Denon’s drawings, and the more recent ones
of Captain W. F. Head, give some distant views of the ruins, which are
very effective.
Mons. Champollion speaks of Thebes in terms of equal admiration:—“All
that I had seen, all that I had learned on the left bank, appeared
miserable in comparison with the gigantic conceptions by which I was
surrounded at Karnac. I shall take care not to attempt to describe any
thing; for either my description would not express the thousandth part
of what ought to be said, or if I drew a faint sketch, I should be taken
for an enthusiast, or, perhaps, for a madman. It will suffice to add,
that no people, either ancient or modern, ever conceived the art of
architecture on so sublime, and so grand, a scale, as the ancient
Egyptians. Their conceptions were those of men a hundred feet high.”
Mr. Carne speaks to the same effect:—“It is difficult to describe the
noble and stupendous ruins of Thebes. Beyond all others, they give you
the idea of a ruined, yet imperishable, city: so vast is their extent,
that you wander a long time, confused and perplexed, and discover at
every step some new object of interest.”
“The temple of Luxor,” says Belzoni, “presents to the traveller, at
once, one of the most splendid groups of Egyptian grandeur. The
extensive propylæon, with two obelisks, and colossal statues in front,
the thick groups of enormous columns, the variety of apartments, and the
sanctuary it contains, the beautiful ornaments which adorn every part
of the walls and columns, described by Mr. Hamilton, cause, in the
astonished traveller, an oblivion of all that he has seen before. If his
attention be attracted to the north side of Thebes, by the towering
remains that project a great height above the wood of palm-trees, he
will gradually enter that forest-like assemblage of ruins, of temples,
columns, obelisks, colossi, sphinxes, portals, and an endless number of
other astonishing objects, that will convince him at once of the
impossibility of a description. On the west side of the Nile, still the
traveller finds himself among wonders. The temples of Gournou,
Memnonium, and Memdet Aboo, attest the extent of the great city on this
side. The unrivalled colossal figures in the plains of Thebes, the
number of tombs excavated in the rocks; those in the great valley of
their kings, with their paintings, sculptures, mummies, sarcophagi,
figures, &c., are all objects worthy of the admiration of the traveller;
who will not fail to wonder how a nation, which was once so great as to
erect these stupendous edifices, could so far fall into oblivion, that
even their language and writing are totally unknown to us. Very
imperfect ideas,” continues this celebrated traveller, “can be formed of
these extensive ruins, even from the accounts of the most skilful and
accurate travellers. It is absolutely impossible to imagine the scene,
displayed, without seeing it. The most sublime ideas, that can be formed
from the most magnificent specimens of our present architecture, would
give a very incorrect picture of these ruins; for such is the
difference, not only in magnitude, but in form, proportion, and
construction, that even the pencil can convey but a faint idea of the
whole. It appeared to me like entering a city of giants, who, after a
long conflict, were all destroyed; leaving the ruins of their various
temples as the only proofs of their former existence.”
Travellers have sometimes taken a fancy to visit these ruins by
moonlight; and the view which they then present, though of course
wanting in distinctness, is described as extremely impressive. Mr. Carne
paid his second visit in this manner, and he says that it was still more
interesting than the other. “The moon had risen, and we passed through
one or two Arab villages in the way, where fires were lighted in the
open air; and the men, after the labours of the day, were seated in
groups round them, smoking and conversing with great cheerfulness. It is
singular, that in the most burning climates of the East, the inhabitants
love a good fire at night, and a traveller soon catches the habit; yet
the air was still very warm. There was no fear of interruption in
exploring the ruins, for the Arabs dread to come here after daylight, as
they often say these places were built by _Afrit_, the devil; and the
belief in apparitions prevails among most of the Orientals. We again
entered with delight the grand portico. It was a night of uncommon
beauty, without a breath of wind stirring, and the moonlight fell
vividly on some parts of the colonnades, while others were shaded so as
to add to, rather than diminish, their grandeur. The obelisks, the
statues, the lonely columns on the plain without, threw their long
shadows on the mass of ruins around them, and the scene was in truth
exquisitely mournful and beautiful[281].”
NO. XXXIX.—TROJA, AND OTHER CITIES OF THE TROAS.
“It has been asserted,” says Sir William Gell, “and confidently
maintained, that there does not exist the smallest vestige of the
ancient city of Priam; and it is not the only capital concerning which
the same erroneous idea has prevailed. The ‘etiam periere ruinæ’ of
Virgil[282] seems to have been the foundation of this opinion; and it is
not wonderful, that it should maintain its ground until the truth was
investigated, when we recollect that the ignorance of travellers for a
long time countenanced the idea, that not the smallest trace of the
great and powerful Babylon remained, though destroyed at a period when
the credibility of history is universally admitted. The existence,
however, of the ruins of Babylon is now perfectly established. If the
situation of the most magnificent capital of the four great monarchies
of the world could have so long escaped the researches of modern
inquirers, it will be granted that the vestiges of a city, comparatively
inconsiderable, the capital but of a small territory, and destroyed in a
very remote age, might be easily overlooked.”
Diodorus Siculus relates, that the Samothracians were accustomed to say,
that the Pontic sea had once been a vast pool of standing water, which,
swollen by rivers running into it, first overflowed to the Cyanæ, two
rocks of the Thracian Bosphorus; and afterwards, forcing a way and
flooding the champaign country, formed the sea, called the Hellespont.
The Samothracians, also, related that Dardanus passed over from their
island, the place of his birth, in a boat to the continent of Asia, and
settled in the Troia. Here this enterprising person, forming a
community, built a city, from him called Dardania, situated on a small
eminence near Mount Ida, and the promontory of Sigæum, at the distance
of about four miles from the sea-shore.
This Dardanus is said to have espoused Asia, called also Arisba and
Batia, daughter of Teucer, king of Teucria. He was succeeded by
Ericthonius, his son, who is celebrated in the Iliad for having
possessed three thousand horses; and for his being, moreover, the
richest of men. We ought to have first stated, however, that Dardanus
was accompanied by his nephew Corybas, who introduced the worship of
Cybele; that he himself taught his subjects to worship Minerva; and that
he gave them two statues of that goddess, one of which is well known by
the name of Palladium.
Ericthonius died 1374 B. C. after a reign of seventy-five years. He had
one son, named Tros; and Tros had three sons, of whom Ilus was his
successor. His barrow is mentioned in the Iliad, as still remaining in
the plain before the city. He married Eurydice, the daughter of
Adrastus, by whom he had Laomedon, the father of Priam. He greatly
embellished the city of Dardanus, which from him was called Ilium; as
from his father it had been called Troja.
Ilus was succeeded by his son, Laomedon. This prince surrounded the city
with walls; in which he is fabulously stated to have been assisted by
two deities. For an account of this, the reader, if he please, may
consult Homer, Virgil, Ovid, and other ancient poets. Not long after he
had built the walls, they are said to have been thrown down by Hercules,
the streets made desolate, and Laomedon slain.
Priamus, one of the most unfortunate as well as one of the most
celebrated of princes, succeeded his father. The city, in his time, had
recovered the damage it had sustained, and became famous for its wealth;
more especially in brass and gold. Homer, too, celebrates it for its
walls and buildings. It was situate on a rising ground amid morasses,
which were formed by the waters which, at certain seasons of the year,
descended in torrents from Mount Ida. The language, as well as the
religion, of this city was the same as those appertaining to Greece; and
the dominions of the king comprised the whole of the country lying
within the isle of Lesbos, Phrygia, and the Hellespont.
The reign of Priam is celebrated for the war, which took place between
the Trojans and Greeks. This was made a subject of the finest poem that
ever honoured civilised society; but as the history of the transaction
differs, when treated by the poets, we, as plain matter-of-fact persons,
adopt that which has been given us by Herodotus. We must, however, first
of all remark, that some, and most especially Monsieur Pascal, have
treated the whole as a mere fable. “Homer,” say they, “wrote a romance:
no one can believe that Troy and Agamemnon had any existence, any more
than the golden apple. He had no intention to write a history. He merely
intended to amuse and delight us.” And here we may advantageously give
place to several particular observations of that accomplished traveller,
Sir William Gell:—“In approaching the Troas,” says he, “each bay,
mountain, and promontory, presented something new to the eye, and
excited the most agreeable reflections in the mind; so that, in a few
days, I found myself in possession of a number of observations and
drawings, taken in a part of the world concerning which, although much
has been written, there still exists a great deficiency of those
materials, which might enable a reader to form a satisfactory opinion,
without encountering the difficulties of a tedious voyage. I thought
that such information would gratify men of literature and inquiry. I was
confident that delineations and descriptions of a fertile plain, watered
by abundant and perennial streams, affording almost impregnable
positions, and so situated as to command one of the most important
passes of the world, must be interesting, not to say valuable, to
politicians and statesmen. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to add, that I
was not without the hope of convincing others, as I had been myself
convinced, that the history, as related by Homer, is confirmed by the
fullest testimony, which a perfect correspondence between the present
face of the country and the description of the poet can possibly give to
it.”
That the Trojan war absolutely took place is, however, not so much to be
believed on poetical authority, as it is upon that of history. Not only
Herodotus and Thucydides have left records of it, but all the
biographers of Alexander. The testimony of Thucydides is
remarkable:—“The power of the Greeks gradually advancing, they were
enabled, in process of time, to undertake the Trojan expedition. It is
further my opinion, that the assemblage of that armament, by Agamemnon,
was not owing so much to the attendance of the suitors of Helen, in
pursuance of the oath they had sworn to Tyndarus, as to his own superior
power.” “To these enlargements of power Agamemnon succeeding, and being
also superior to the rest of his countrymen in naval strength, he was
enabled, in my opinion, to form that expedition more from awe than
favour. It is plain that he equipped out the largest number of ships
himself, besides those he lent to the Arcadians. We ought not,
therefore, to be incredulous, nor so much to regard the appearance of
cities as their power, and of course to conclude the armament against
Troy to have been greater than ever was known before, but inferior to
those of our age; and whatever credit be given to the poetry of Homer in
this respect, who no doubt as a poet hath set it off with all possible
enlargement, yet even, according to his account, it appears inferior.”
“On their first landing, they got the better in fight. The proof is,
that they could not otherwise have fortified their camp with a wall.
Neither does it appear that they exerted all their strength at once;
numbers being detached for supplies of provisions, to till the
Chersonesus, and to forage at large. Thus, divided as they were, the
Trojans were the better able to make a ten years’ resistance, being
equal in force to those who were at any time left to carry on the
siege.”
Herodotus treats it, also, as a matter of actual history: and as the
first portion of his work affords a very curious and beautiful example
of ancient manners, we shall abbreviate the version, rendered by Mr.
Beloe. Paris, having carried off Helen from Sparta, was returning home
(to Troy); but meeting with contrary winds in the Ægean, he was driven
into the Egyptian Sea. As the winds continued unfavourable, he proceeded
to Egypt, and was driven to the Canopian mouth of the Nile, and to
Tarichea. In that situation, continues Herodotus, was a temple of
Hercules, “which still remains.” To this temple, should any slave fly
for refuge, no one was permitted to molest him. The servants of Paris,
aware of this privilege, fled thither from their master. There they
propagated many accusations against him; and, amongst other disclosures,
they published the wrong that Paris had done to Menelaus. Hearing this,
Thonis, the governor of the district, despatched a messenger to Proteus,
king of Memphis. “There is arrived here a Trojan, who has perpetrated
an atrocious crime in Greece. He has seduced the wife of his host, and
carried her away, with a great quantity of treasure. Adverse winds have
forced him hither. Shall I suffer him to depart without molestation? or
shall I seize his person and property?” In answer to this Proteus
desired, that the malefactor should be sent to him. Receiving this
command, Thonis seized Paris, and detained his vessels, with Helen and
all his wealth. Being taken before Proteus, and asked who he was and
whence he came, Paris gave a true account of his family and country, and
whence he had last sailed. But when Proteus inquired concerning Helen,
who she was, and how he got possession of her, he faltered. His
servants, however, proved the particulars of his guilt. On this, Proteus
addressed him after the following manner: “If I did not esteem it a very
heinous crime to put any stranger to death, whom unfavourable winds have
driven to my coast, I would, most assuredly, thou most abandoned man,
avenge that Greek whose hospitality thou hast so treacherously violated.
Thou hast not subdued his wife, but having violently taken her away,
still criminally detainest her; and as if this were not enough, thou
hast robbed and plundered him. But as I can by no means prevail upon
myself to put a stranger to death, I shall suffer you to depart; in
regard to the woman and her wealth, I shall detain both.”
After a few observations in respect to Homer’s knowing, and yet
neglecting, the true history, in order to make his poem the more
interesting, the historian goes on to relate, that being desirous of
knowing whether all that the Greeks relate concerning Troy had any
foundation in truth, he inquired of the priests of Egypt; and that they
informed him, that, after the loss of Helen, the Greeks assembled in
great numbers at Teucris, to assist Menelaus, whence they despatched
ambassadors to Troy, whom Menelaus himself accompanied. On arriving at
that city, they made a formal demand of Helen, and the wealth Paris had
taken away; and also a general satisfaction for the injuries received.
In answer to this, the Trojans replied, and persisted in the truth of
their assertion, that neither the person nor the wealth of Helen was in
their city or territory; but that both were in Egypt; and that they
esteemed it hard, that they should be made responsible for what King
Proteus possessed. The Greeks, however, believing themselves to be
deluded, laid siege to Troy, and, after ten years, took it.
When they had done so, they were surprised and chagrined to find, that
Helen was not in the captured town. On learning this, Menelaus himself
was despatched into Egypt, where, being introduced to Proteus, he was
honourably received, and Helen was restored to him with all his
treasures. This is related by Herodotus as the true history[283].
With such testimony it is rather curious, that so many
writers,—respectable ones too,—should have not only doubted the war,
but even the existence of the town against which it was directed. “We do
not know,” says Sir John Hobhouse, “that Strabo had not himself been in
the Troad; but we are sure that no one could speak more to the purpose
than Demetrius, who was a native of Tcepsis, a town not far from Ilium,
and who wrote thirty books on sixty lines of Homer’s catalogue. From
this authority we know, that not a vestige was left of the ancient city.
Neither Julius Cæsar, nor Demetrius, nor Strabo, had any doubt of the
former existence of the city of Priam; and the orator Lycurgus, quoted
by the latter author, at the same time that he declared the total
desolation, and as it were death of Troy, to be known to all the world,
spoke of its destruction as equally notorious.”
In what manner the city was actually taken is nowhere upon record; for
as to the story of the wooden horse, it is so absurd, that the judgment
even of Virgil may be arraigned in respect to it. That it was burned,
however, is scarcely to be denied; and that it was destroyed is not to
be doubted. The event occurred in the year coinciding with that of 1184
before the Christian era. “The name of Priam,” says a judicious writer,
“will therefore ever be memorable, on account of the war which happened
in his reign—a war famous to this day for the many princes of great
prowess and renown concerned in it, the battles fought, the length of
the sieges, the destruction of the city, and the endless colonies
planted in divers parts of the world by the conquered as well as by the
conquerors.”
When the Greeks had destroyed the city, they sailed back to their own
country. They made no attempt to appropriate the land to their own use
or authority. They were, doubtless, not only wearied, but exhausted, by
the conquest. The whole plot of Virgil is supposed to be no other than a
fable; for Homer signifies that Æneas not only remained in the country,
but that he succeeded to the sceptre of the Trojans.