opinion of antiquity, till a sceptical grammarian invented another site, which all scholars now reject—as was also the opinion of modern scholars, till the new site of Bunarbashi was invented by Lechevalier to suit the Iliad, and accepted by many critics, but rejected by others, including the high authority of Grote—then the conclusion is irresistible, that Schliemann has found the Troy of which Homer had heard through the lasting report of poetic fame: Ἡμεῖς δὲ κλέος οἶον ἀκούομεν.[8] But the corresponding negative does not follow; for, if Homer’s Troy was but a city built in the ethereal region of his fancy, his placing it at Bunarbashi, or on any other spot, could not affect the lost site of the true Troy, if such a city ever existed, and therefore can be no objection to the argument, that the discovery of an ancient city on the traditional site of the heroic Troy confirms the truth of the tradition on both points—the real existence of the city, as well as its existence on this site. The paradox—that Troy never existed and that Bunarbashi was its site—was so far confirmed by Schliemann that he dug at Bunarbashi, and found clear evidence that the idea of a great city having ever stood there is a mere imagination. The few remains of walls, that were found there, confirm instead of weakening the negative conclusion; for they are as utterly inadequate to be the remains of the “great, sacred, wealthy Ilium,” as they are suitable to the little town of Gergis, with which they are now identified by an inscription. In short, that the real city of Troy could not have stood at Bunarbashi, is one of the most certain results of Schliemann’s researches.

The same sure test of downright digging has finally disposed of all the other suggested sites, leaving by the “method of exhaustion” the inevitable conclusion, that the only great city (or succession of cities), that we know to have existed in the Troad before the historic Grecian colony of Ilium, rose and perished—as the Greeks of Ilium always said it did—on the ground beneath their feet, upon the Hill of Hissarlik. And that Homer, or—if you please—the so-called Homeric bards, familiar with the Troad, and avowedly following tradition, should have imagined a different site, would be, at the least, very surprising. This is not the place for an analysis of the Homeric local evidence; but, coming fresh from a renewed perusal of the Iliad with a view to this very question, the Editor feels bound to express the conviction that its indications, while in themselves consistent with the site of Hissarlik, can be interpreted in no other way, now that we know what that site contains.[9]

Standing, as it does, at the very point of junction between the East and West, and in the region where we find the connecting link between the primitive Greeks of Asia and Europe,[10] the Hill of Hissarlik answers at once to the primitive type of a Greek city, and to the present condition of the primeval capitals of the East. Like so many of the first, in Greece, Asia Minor, and Italy, the old city was a hill-fort, an Acropolis built near but not close upon the sea, in a situation suited at once for defence against the neighbouring barbarians, and for the prosecution of that commerce, whether by its own maritime enterprise, or by intercourse with foreign voyagers, of which the copper, ivory, and other objects from the ruins furnish decisive proofs.[11] This type is as conspicuously wanting at Bunarbashi, as it is well marked by the site of Hissarlik.

Like the other great oriental capitals of the Old World, the present condition of Troy is that of a mound, such as those in the plain of the Tigris and Euphrates, offering for ages the invitation to research, which has only been accepted and rewarded in our own day. The resemblance is so striking, as to raise a strong presumption that, as the mounds of Nimrud and Kouyunjik, of Khorsabad and Hillah, have been found to contain the palaces of the Assyrian and Babylonian kings, so we may accept the ruins found in the mound of Hissarlik as those of the capital of that primeval empire in Asia Minor, which is indicated by the Homeric tradition, and proved to have been a reality by the Egyptian monuments.[12]

This parallel seems to throw some light on a question, concerning which Dr. Schliemann is forced to a result which disappointed himself, and does not appear satisfactory to us—that of the magnitude of Troy. As the mounds opened by Layard and his fellow labourers contained only the “royal quarters,” which towered above the rude buildings of cities the magnitude of which is attested by abundant proofs, so it is reasonable to believe that the ruins at Hissarlik are those of the royal quarter, the only really permanent part of the city, built on the hill capping the lower plateau which lifted the huts of the common people above the marshes and inundations of the Scamander and the Simoïs. In both cases the fragile dwellings of the multitude have perished; and the pottery and other remains, which were left on the surface of the plateau of Ilium, would naturally be cleared away by the succeeding settlers. Instead, therefore, of supposing with Schliemann, that Homer’s poetical exaggeration invented the “Pergamus,” we would rather say that he exalted the mean dwellings that clustered about the Pergamus into the “well-built city” with her “wide streets.”

We cannot sympathize with the sentimental objection that, in proportion as the conviction grows that the Troy of Homer has been found, his poetry is brought down from the heights of pure imagination. Epic Poetry, the very essence of which is narrative, has always achieved its noblest triumphs in celebrating events which were at least believed to be real, not in the invention of incidents and deeds purely imaginary. The most resolute deniers of any historic basis for the story of Troy will admit that neither the scene nor the chief actors were invented by Homer, or, if you please, the Homeric poets, who assuredly believed the truth of the traditions to which the Iliad gave an immortal form. Any discovery which verifies that belief strengthens the foundation without impairing the superstructure, and adds the interest of truthfulness to those poetic beauties which remain the pure creation of Homer.

Leaving the Homeric bearings of the question to the discussion of which no speedy end can be anticipated, all are agreed that Dr. Schliemann’s discoveries have added immensely to that growing mass of evidence which is tending to solve one of the most interesting problems in the history of the world, the connection between the East and West, especially with regard to the spread of Aryan civilization.