The Classical Journal

THE writers who have examined the question, whether the city of Priam ever existed, are entitled to our approbation and gratitude, though they annihilate our earliest and pleasantest associations. The scenes and the characters of Homer are not only delightful to us as children or young men; the leisure of manhood and age is equally gratified with the life and spirit, the nature, the imagery, the language, and varieties of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and of their majestic imitation, the Æneid. If Mr. Bryant and his coadjutors could succeed in overthrowing the general opinion in favor of the real existence of Troy, they would destroy the noblest illusions which have attracted and fascinated all classes of readers for nearly thirty centuries. For though it is not necessary to the pleasure arising from poetical composition, that we should consider the splendid pictures of the poet, either as mere matters of fact, or as a more vivid coloring of real history, than is usually given by the sober historian, we are little interested in the Epic dramas, which rest on no other foundation, than the imagination of their author, or the fables of romance. We care less about Kehama and Thalaba, than Achilles and Hector; because we know that these beings could not have been placed in the situations represented by the poet. If Jerusalem had never existed, we should have no interest in the heroic Godfrey, or the good Raymond: if the wood had not been cut down by the crusaders, we should have thought the poet was raving when he described the enchantments employed to prevent the VOL. XX. Cl. Jl. NO. XXXIX. A

felling of the trees. The works of Fancy must be founded on fact, knowledge, or memory, or they can neither interest nor please. This reasoning will apply to the Iliad and the Eneid; if the persuasion that Troy had no real existence, and therefore that there were no such men as Achilles, Ajax, Hector, Paris, &c. be once universally received; the admirable talents of Homer and Virgil will be no longer appreciated: their works would gradually be esteemed as ingenious romances, to be neglected, though not entirely forgotten.

So far from esteeming the Iliad and the Odyssey in this inferior point of view, we ought rather to receive them as a valuable and interesting collection of exact and perfect representations of the earlier manners, customs, and modes of thinking among the first postdiluvian and patriarchal governments. Though we reject all the fabulous parts of the story, and doubt the truth of many possible events recorded, there seems to be such an air of reality in the whole narrative of the Siege of Troy, that it challenges our belief in the existence of the city, and in the certainty that it was besieged, in spite of all the arguments which have been adduced by Mr. Bryant and his admirers. There is such keeping, uniformity, and connexion, that the human mind never could have invented what Homer must be supposed to have done, if the "tale of Troy divine" was not founded on fact. Its internal evidence, in short, appears to decide the controversy. Many instances, in which these observations are applicable, could be pointed out; from others I have selected the curious Episode of the Trojan Horse: the coincidences which I shall enumerate will not perhaps appear too fanciful.

The Greeks, says the history, were unable to take the city. They pretended to return home, but sailed only to Tenedos, to await the result of a stratagem, by means of which they trusted to capture Troy. They leave an immense statue of a horse on the plain before the town, which contained within its spacious recesses a large body of armed men. On the departure of the Greeks, the Trojans, as Virgil so beautifully describes the scene, open their gates, and fight their battles over again; they mark where Achilles had fought, where the tents of the several nations had been pitched, and the ships drawn up. While many were thus engaged, and others wondered at the immense horse, Sinon is found lurking on the shore. He is requested, after the first insults of the crowd, and when protection had been promised by Priam, to explain the reasons why this immense statue had been left by the Greeks. He replies, after a solemn and suspicious assertion of his veracity, that when Ulysses and Tydides stole the Palladium from the citadel, they had touched the fillets of the Goddess with hands stained

with blood. The Goddess had expressed her indignation; Calchag directed them to return to Argos, to renew their former sacrifices, and appear again before Troy with fresh forces. To propitiate the Goddess however in this interval, the Greeks erect the figure of the horse. Since the Palladium, on the preservation of which the safety of the city depended, had been removed from the citadel, it was essential to the ultimate safety of Troy that another image should be placed there. If this horse be taken within the walls, the city never could be captured; but to prevent the possibility of its removal, the Greeks had framed it of this enormous size. The most incredulous are convinced of the truth of this story by the fate of Laocoon, and the horse is received into the city. The doors are opened by Sinon in the night, and Troy is taken.

Such is the narrative. Omitting the beautiful episode of Laocoon, which is evidently fictitious, I think it may be shown that there is nothing improbable in the incidents: but on the contrary that they are so consistent with the manners and state of society in the early postdiluvian ages, that they confirm the general opinion of the reality of the Trojan War.

Though the chronology of this ancient period, even after the most accurate researches, is very uncertain, we may affirm that Troy could not have been captured subsequently to the time at which Jephthah was Judge in Israel: it is most probable that Priam, if he had any existence, lived much earlier. Assuming this latter date, and taking into consideration the several scattered notices respecting these times, we are warranted in the following conclusions.

Priam was a patriarchal king, ruling over the children and descendants of one family, to which some few strangers had become attached, as was usual in the patriarchal age. He is said to have been lineally descended from Dardanus, who introduced among his subjects the worship of Minerva, and first established the celebrated Palladium. As idolatry had originated chiefly at Shinar, though it is most probable that there were some corruptions of the worship of the true God prior to that event, it may naturally be supposed that the several heads of tribes or families would take with them to their respective settlements the insignia, the Penates, and other emblems of their idolatrous rites. Dardanus conducted one branch of the Apostates, who took refuge in Samothrace, from whence he came to Asia Minor, and founded Troy. Samothrace is well known to have been the spot, where the mysteries were celebrated with great splendor; it was the centre and university of the surrounding idolatrous nations; and Dardanus, with the colony under his guidance, planted in Troy the superstitions common to Shinar, Egypt, Samothrace, and all the

Cuthite settlements. Priam was the lineal descendant of Dardanus, and succeeded, according to the custom of that age, to the sacerdotal and kingly power.

But the patriarchal form of government could not have continued in a large community. We may justly conclude that Troy was similar to the cities conquered by Joshua; and Priam possessed therefore the same command as the kings of Ziklag, &c.; that is, he could raise and send to war a few thousands only of the inhabitants of Troy, and the natives of the territory immediately adjacent: whatever was done beyond this, must have been accomplished by means of the confederacies, of which we read so much. Thus Asius brought to the assistance of Troy the troops of the neighbouring cities. All the chieftains of Greece and Troy seem to have been independent of each other, though they might have associated for the common good. Their cities therefore must have been small, and their people few in number.

The ancients supposed that the images of their Gods possessed a protecting or talismanic power. They were anxious on all occasions to take with them their Penates, and Lares, and the sacred fire. Laban was more desirous of recovering his images, than of taking revenge. Æneas would not leave Troy without his Gods. The statues in moments of danger were fastened to their pedestals. Before war was declared, the Gods of the country were invoked by the invading armies to leave the invaded territory. The Trojans believed their city to be in safety so long as they possessed the celebrated Palladium, which their ancestor placed in their citadel, when their original settlement was made. This Palladium had been stolen, and they considered themselves in danger. If a talisman was removed, the believers in such absurdities would naturally be anxious to obtain it again, or to find a substitute which would be equally efficacious. On this very natural principle Sinon acted. "The Greeks," he says, "wished to destroy you; they therefore took away the image which saved you: when they return with their reinforcements, you must fall, unless another talisman is provided. The Palladium preserved you in many dangers, but you have now lost its protection. The horse will again save you, and the Greeks know it, and have endeavoured to prevent you from profiting by its presence in your citadel, by building it of the magnitude you see."

We now come to the main question, why did the Greeks build a horse, and how was it possible that it should be built of the size represented?

It is well known that the horse was venerated from the earliest ages by the postdiluvian idolaters. The origin of this singular custom is not known. The religion of Japan is essentially the

« Previous Continue »

Books

The Classical Journal, Volume 20