Ruins of Ancient Cities (Vol. 2 of 2)

“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 beautiful281.”

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 Virgil282 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 history283.

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.

From this period the history of the country is exceedingly obscure. Whether Æneas did succeed or not, certain it is that this and the adjacent countries were laid open, at no great distance of time from the destruction of Troy, an easy and tempting prey to adventurers, Greek as well as Barbarian. Among these, the best known are the Æolian colonists, who are supposed to have put a final period not only to the unfortunate city, but to the name of its people.

The Troia was next invaded by the Ionians and Lydians; then there was a war between the Æolians and Athenians about Sigéum284 and Achilléum285. This war was of considerable duration. Several melancholy circumstances are there related, as arising out of the possession of the Troia by Darius. Xerxes, too, visited it during his expedition into Greece, and the Persians lay one night encamped beneath Mount Ida. A considerable number of them were destroyed by thunder and lightning; and on their coming to the Scamander, that river was found to possess no water; a circumstance far from being unusual in a mountainous country. On his arrival at this river, Xerxes, having a wish to see the Pergamus of Priam, went thither; and, having listened to the accounts which were given to him in respect to it, he sacrificed a thousand oxen to the Ilian Minerva.

Many interesting occurrences are related of Troia during the first and second Peloponnesian wars. An adventure of Æschines, the famous orator of Athens, it may not be unamusing to relate. Dr. Chandler has given an abstract of the epistle, in which the orator relates it. It is this: – “After leaving Athens, the author says, that he arrived at Ilium, where he had intended to stay until he should have gone through all the verses in the ‘Iliad,’ on the very spot to which they severally had reference, but was prevented by the misconduct of his fellow-traveller, a young rake, named Cymon. It was the custom, he tells us, for the maidens who were betrothed, to repair on a certain day to bathe in the Scamander; among them was at this time a damsel of illustrious family, called Callirhoe. Æschines, with their relations and the multitude, was a spectator of as much of the ceremony as was allowed to be seen, at a due distance; but Cymon, who had conceived a bad design against this lady, personated the River-God, and wearing a crown of reeds, lay concealed in the thicket, until she, as was usual, invoked Scamander to receive the offer which she made of herself to him. He then leaped forth, saying, ‘I, Scamander, willingly accept of Callirhoe;’ and with many promises of kindness, imposed on and abused her simplicity and credulity. Four days after this ceremony, a public festival was held in honour of Venus, when the females, whose nuptials had been recently celebrated, appeared in the procession. Æschines was again a spectator, and Cymon with him; so when Callirhoe respectfully bowed her head as she passed by, and, casting her eyes on her nurse, said, ‘that is the God Scamander,’ a discovery followed. The two companions got to their lodging and quarrelled, a crowd gathered about the gate of the house, and Æschines with difficulty made his escape by the back-door to a place of security.”