« السابقةمتابعة »
erection of a lighthouse; Prasiae, Port Raphte, from the imagined resemblance of the statue of a Roman emperor to the attitude of a tailor; Salamis, Colouri, from the similarity between its twisted shape and that of the small circular cakes, so common at Greek meals. "Colonna," or "Palaio Castro," or "Hellenica," or rovr oriJXour, are the universal answers by which an uneducated Greek describes any of the vestiges of antiquity. And it is still more necessary to observe, that hopeless as it is to extract any truth from this profound ignorance, it is equally hopeless to extract any from the apparent knowledge which we sometimes meet in its place. This knowledge, wherever it exists, is almost always the result merely of later traditions, which have been introduced by the conjectures of travellers, eagerly caught up and propagated by the native Greeks, but resting themselves on no historical basis whatever. Such were the names given to almost all the great ruins of Athens in the middle ages, in which it is difficult whether most to wonder at the undoubting confidence or the utter inappropriateness with which they are applied. Every thing was a palace or a school, unless they made an exception in order to find in the Parthenon the Temple of the Unknown God24; and so tenacious a hold did these fancies retain over the mind of the inhabitants of Athens, that the broken landmark at the mouth of the Piraeeus is still known as the Tomb of Themistocles, and the Monument of Lysicrates as the Lantern of Demosthenes. Even in the case of towns, which seem to retain the existing names, it is necessary to be on our guard against hasty inferences; for, first, it is easy sometimes to fall into the snare of confounding an Albanian with a Greek word—as, e.g. "Liopeshi," which is a common Albanian name for a village, has sometimes led travellers to identify it with Alopece, the birth-place of Socrates; secondly, in the course of ages it has happened that the inhabitants of a village have migrated, carrying the name of their old residence with them—as is thought to have been the case with the name of Marathon,
** See the curious description of Athens by a Greek in the 15th century, given in the Appendix to Col. Leake's 2nd edi
tion of his Topography of Athens, (Vol. I. 479.)
which seems to have moved from the southern side of the plain on which the town stood to the northern (Leake's Athens, n. 89); thirdly, the use of the ancient instead of the modern names, in all the official acts of the government, is so rapidly substituting the former for the latter in the mouths of the people, that it will daily become more difficult to believe that they are of recent introduction.
But when from the darkness or uncertainty which besets all external evidence in Greek topography, we turn to the clearness and certainty of all its internal evidence, the change is most satisfactory. The general outline and physical features of the country are but little altered. Wood doubtless has diminished, and with wood the rivers. Hymettus was indeed as bare in the days of Plato as it is now; but the remains of the bridge over the Ilissus show that when its banks were shaded by plane-trees, it must have had a fuller stream than it has at present. At Thermopylae again, the fir is said so far to have driven out the oak, that it is hard to recognise the forest, the trampling of whose leaves by the Persian army first aroused the Greeks; and the pass itself has ceased to be such by the retiring of the sea from the coast. And the view of Athens, which Demosthenes enjoyed from the island of Calaurea has since been intercepted by the volcanic eruption of the ridge of Methana (Leake's Morea, n. 453). But these are exceptions: and one of the greatest delights of travelling in Greece is still to be found in the consciousness that we have before us the same general outline of landscape which was seen by Pericles and Plato. At Athens this delight is enhanced by the certainty with which all the most interesting points are fixed: in this respect a most pleasing contrast to the Roman Forum. To this certainty the rocky character of the soil has greatly contributed: no lapse of time can efface the vestiges of the Pnyx, the Areopagus, and the Dionysiac theatre—or of the sanctuaries of Pan, Apollo, Dionysus, Demeter, and the Furies; now reduced again to their original condition as natural caverns. And the remains of buildings,—though they have often disappeared entirely, and some, such as the Temple of Triptolemus on the Ilissus, even within the last century; and though (as Col. Leake observes) there is hardly a Greek village that does not bear marks of having been built or repaired with the materials of ancient edifices (Athens, i. 99),—yet have escaped wonderfully the wholesale destruction and depredation which in Italy turned the Colosseum into a quarry, and has swept away the vast city of Capua, without leaving a trace of any building except its amphitheatre.
Nor have the actual discoveries been disproportionate to these advantages. There is no case perhaps where knowledge advances with more rapid and sure steps than where scientific and sensible research is first applied to the topography of an interesting but imperfectly known country. Let any one compare the account of Athens by a Greek of the 15th century, (in Leake's Athens, i. 479) in which not one single ruin is called by its right name — or again the Travels of Spon and Wheler in the year 1676, in which the only ruins rightly designated are those in the Acropolis and the Theseum, and the Tower of the Winds—with the first edition of Col. Leake's work; in which the only doubtful names affixed are the gate of the New Agora, and the Stoa of Hadrian.
But it will be sufficient to indicate the discoveries made within the last twenty years. Those of Col. Leake, Ulrichs, and Miiller, with regard to Delphi, and of General Gordon with regard to the Herseum of Argos, have been already mentioned. The ruins of the fortress of Decelea were accidentally found only two years ago by the French surveyors of Greece, though the general locality had long been known. And with regard to Athens itself, it may be of some use, as well as of some interest to point out the chief improvements of the 2nd edition of Col. Leake's Athens in detail. (1) He has adopted the true site of Lycabettus, as fixed on the hill of St. George by Dr. Forchhammer and Dr. Wordsworth (comp. 1st ed. 70, 2nd ed. i. 204). (2) The account of Callirhoe is much enlarged and elucidated (1st ed. 47. 2nd ed. i. 70). (3) Some of the most striking features of the Areopagus—the church of St. Dionysius—the hewn steps in the rock—and the cavern of the Eumenides—are here supplied (2nd ed. i. 356. 1st ed. 289). (4) The subterraneous passage in the Stadium, apparently for the purpose of Roman spectacles, is here first mentioned (1st ed. 51, 2nd ed. i. 194). (5) The accounts of the Pnyx and the Olympieum are much amplified and enriched, (1st ed. 40. 43. 2nd ed. 183. 518. 18. 513). (6) The Eleusinium is transposed from the island in the Ilissus (1st ed. 113), (to which position he was led only by a very doubtful passage of Pausanias) to the large (and hitherto nameless) cavern under the east end of the Acropolis, which was the only one of the caves not. accounted for, and which exactly accords, from its size and form, with the mystery and seclusion in which the Eleusinium was involved. This (considering that the true site of Lycabettus, is not his own discovery) appears to us the most important detail which occurs in this edition (2nd ed. 296). For much of this Dr. Wordsworth had indeed prepared the way in his book on Athens and Attica, which probably as a picture of the actual place, and as illustrating it from ancient writers, will always possess more interest for the general reader than the more systematic work of Col. Leake. There are still many points to be determined, and which we trust will ere long be determined; the real name of the hill behind the Areopagus, formerly called by Col. Leake "Lycabettus;" the true position of the Colonus Agorseus, which an ingenious conjecture has identified with this very hill, as it seems to us, with some plausibility; the true site of Anchesmus, if indeed any further data can be procured than the present evidently insufficient ones; the object of the structure above the Pnvx, called by Dr. Wordsworth the Bema of Themistocles. And in Greece generally what may we not expect from greater excavations in the plain of Olympia, where the Alpheus may in its shifting course have embedded much of the ruins in its channel; at Lebadea, where the cave of Trophonius has certainly not yet been discovered, yet almost as certainly has not yet been sought in the right direction; at Mycenae, where the rubbish of centuries is heaped up under the very gate of the Lions itself25?
Some of the questions of Greek geography belong indeed rather to the scholar than the topographer. The difficulties respecting the third long wall of Athens, and the iympcriov re^os in Thucydides' account of the fortifications of Syracuse are to be solved, if at all, not by any existing vestiges, but by discovering
25 For an enumeration of the chief | pected, see Col. Leake's 2nd edition, places where new discoveries may be ex- I Athens, i. 100.
the true meaning of the passages in question. But as a general rule the topography of ancient countries is one of the few points in which philology and physical science converge. "Ancient geography," it was well observed by Dr. Arnold, "is full of difficulties—nor is it possible to solve them without possessing the double advantage of the exact knowledge of the ancient accounts, and a personal examination of the places themselves... Mere literary men might be inclined to follow the authority of ancient writers too implicitly, and to suppose extravagant changes in the outward appearance of things rather than question their testimony... Mere scientific men, on the other hand, might err on the opposite side, and where no physical causes of change are now apparent, might too hastily conclude that the accounts of the ancients are erroneous, whenever they do not correspond with existing phenomena." (1st edition of the second volume of Dr. Arnold's edition of Thucydides, p. 398). This union however is yearly becoming more realized. The edition of Thucydides which we have just quoted is one remarkable instance of it. The paper on the Troad, recently published in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, by Dr. Forchhammer, as the result of the united investigations of himself and the officers of H.M.S. Beacon, is another, and Col. Leake himself is a third.
And if in the foregoing remarks anything like justice has been done either to the subject of which they treat, or to the several works from which they have been for the most part derived, it will be clear that the interest and importance of the study is not unequal to any labour that is likely to be bestowed upon it.
A. P. Stanley.