Homer, neither the Inventor, nor the hood. ordinary, that Phantafia of Memphis celebrated the war of Ilium and the wanderings of Odyffeus; an absurdity, which, so far from being removed by transferring the ftory to Egypt, will be made ten times ftronger, as in that cafe Syagrius, Sifyphus, Helen, and Homer, were just as abfurdly employed in celebrating a transaction totally foreign to their country. Therefore assuming the antiquity and the real existence of all these authors, the story of the Phrygian war acquires a stronger degree of authority: These writers afford a testimony still stronger than that of Homer, as being more ancient, and fince they coincide with him. I leave it to the reader to draw the inference. Mr. Bryant now fays, " that * Homer borrowed his account is Tranfcriber of a falfe- manifeft, though it is not fo clear to whom he was indebted for it." While I contend for the historical truth of the story, it is very far from my purpose to prove that he invented it. Many of the accounts tranfmitted differ widely from Homer; to the list Mr. Bryant gives one ftill more numerous might be added, we might quote from † Herodotus the traditions of Afia concerning Troy as well as thofe of Egypt, and I would then call upon Mr. Bryant even from the traditions of his favourite country, to bring one paffage out of all this contradictory evidence which tends to remove Ilium out of Phrygia, or to make the Troja of Egypt the Ilium of Homer. What then is the inference which commonfenfe points out to us; that the articles in which thefe variable teftimonies NOTES. * Concerning the different accounts tranfmitted. Bryant, p. 66. As the inference here drawn from the inconfiftency of the ancient accounts is in effect the fame which I deduce from the accurate and uniform confiftency of Homer, I may appear to draw the fame conclufion from contrary premifes. To obviate fuch an objection I will remind the reader that teftimonies agree are indifputable facts, whilst those in which they differ are the strongest proofs, that instead of transcribing from one another their authors confulted the imperfect though decisive testimony of general tradition. As Mr. Bryant himself has made use of this very mode of reafoning to prove the Mofaic account of the Deluge, and as he has difplayed the greatest ingenuity in tracing that fact through the different traditions of different nations, how can he refift this inference? The accounts of the Trojan war are furely not more various than the accounts of the flood; in both cafes their variety proves their generality and their generality proves their truth. Let us however confider who are the authors on whofe contradictions he lays fo great a ftrefs. Different anecdotes concerning Achilles and Iphigenia are differently related by Eufebius (apud Scaligerum); Ptolemy Heph. apud Photium; Scholia of Apollonius, Philoftratus, Tzetzes, Antoninus Liberalis, Hyginus, and the poetical writers Lucretius, Propertius, Euripides and Ovid. Obfcurity, comparative modernisin or poetical licence form the characteristics of the whole lift. The common tradition, or rather the tradition which has become common fince Virgil and * Ovid adopted it in their writ NOTES. that the inconsistency of an author with himself does invalidate the whole of his testimony, but that the variations which always take place when two people relate the fame ftory, have directly the contrary effect, as it fhews the fources of each to have been different though concurrent in their general tenor, and therefore implies a more extenfive belief of the fact than if they could be fuppofed to have copied from one another. This mode of arguing is directly the reverse of Mr. Bryant's, who contends that these inconfiftent traditions deftroy their own credibility, and that the confiftency of Homer is a proof of his falsehood. I am aware that the death of Aftyanax is mentioned prior to this by Euripides. Whatever was his fate, however, it is not celebrated by Homer; who only names the pofterity of Æneas as fucceeding to the government. His story then is uncontradicted by the early writers, and confirmed by the tradition of the Scepfians.-Eurip. Troad. ings, ings, afferts that Aftyanax was killed in Troy, and that Ascanius fled with his father to Italy. But there were writers who affirmed that this account was by no means true. Strabo* feems to have obtained a tradition from the people of Scepfis deriving their origin from these very perfons, whose posterity are faid to have reigned there a long time; and this is favoured by the evidence of Homer, who says that the family of Æneas fhould fucceed to the rule over the Trojans. Why then, fays Mr. Bryant, should not this story be as true as any other? Why indeed? But fince it bears every mark of authenticity, fince the Scepfians had fuch a tradition and lived fo near the fpot, fince Homer's prophecy can only be confidered as the record of what happened after the fall of Ilium their coincidence is of the greatest confequence. It illuftrates and confirms the account of Homer, and puts Mr. Bryant under the disagreeable neceffity of transferring not only Troy, but Scepfis, Cebrenia, and Ida, to the borders of the Nile.† There was also a town in the district of Scepfis which bore the name of Æneas; the town exists to this day and retains the name Ené. Every circumstance then in this story whilft it confutes the ornamented relations of fubfequent writers, corroborates the simple tale of Homer, whose unembellished account, independent of fuch corroboration, bears the strongest internal marks of historical veracity. But according to Mr. Bryant many of these variations in the story existed before the time of Homer, fince in his opinion his excellence was fuch as to preclude any fubfequent deviations. That there were traditions coeval with Homer, and NOTES. Strabo, 1. xiii. p. 607.-Homer, 11. xx. ver. 306. Strabo, 1. xiii. p. 603. poffibly poffibly differing from him, is more than probable; yet, even allowing the fact, I do not perceive what inference can be drawn from it in favour of Mr. Bryant, as these varying traditions do not any where appear to have removed Ilium in Phrygia to Troy in Egypt, or to have ever differed from Homer in the effential outline of his ftory. I own however I am inclined to afcribe many of the wonderful stories we read on this fubject to the fertile imagination of after-ages, and the emulative spirit of fiction with which Homer's fame inspired the later poets. But Mr. Bryant attributes this inconfiftency to the difference of the times at which the accounts were brought over from Egypt, and their being adopted in various parts of the world. The Greeks he fuppofes substituted Greek names for Egyptian ones, or at least hellenized them according to their own taste. Does this account for the inconsistency observed? * and if I fhould allow it to be a difficulty, still will Mr. Bryant say that his system removes it? Upon this fuppofition we see colonies from Egypt bringing over at different times contradictory traditions relative to a war in Egypt, these traditions affume in Greece a new form, are adorned with Grecian names, are adapted by piecemeal to a real scene in Phrygia in the plain of Ilium, and Ilium is new-named Troy, from a Troy in Egypt to which every one of these stories should again be referred. It is extremely fingular that not one of these traditions, however contradictory, fhould be adapted to any other country but Phrygia, and I would ask how this story was fo intimately analogous to Ilium in Phrygia, as to be uniformly referred to that NOTE. * I would have it understood that this conceffion is only made to fhew the weakness of Mr. Bryant's argument on his own fuppofition, fince I by no means allow that such inconsistency invalidates the different narrations. On the contrary it is the strongest proof of their truth when they agree. (See note on p. 42.) Inferences from fuch by the refutation of those premises. spot only, if it really belonged to another? These are arguments which every reader will suggest to himself so immediately, that I wifh only to point them out and will not waste his patience by commenting on them. pre The inferences are fuch as his foregoing arguments were inpremifes invalidated tended to prove; that the ftory of Troy was foreign to Greece, and imported from Egypt. Having fo much invalidated the mifes, I can hardly join in the conclufion. A further argument which he places here is this—“ No genuine history of any country was ever rendered fo inconfiftent by the natives. Of this there is not one instance upon record." Let us read every passage relative to the heroic ages of Greece. We fhall find allegory and fiction perpetually interwoven with truth. Homer alone drew out of obfcurity one bright page of their venerable annals, but are we therefore to fuppofe that all the other names celebrated by poets and historians as the founders or protectors of the Grecian states, were foreign to Greece because their stories are not accurately confiftent. It was not till the time of Herodotus that history emerged from her night of fable; but ftill through that gloom we can diftinctly mark a few great events in which different writers agree. As the fources from which they draw their information are evidently not the fame,their traditional inconfiftencies prove the general facts. Caufes of obfcurity in the early parts of Grecian hiftory, con fidered. Mr. Bryant then hints at the improbability of the Phrygians, (whom he confiders as a totally distinct race from the Greeks) having names that feem to be derived from a Grecian origin. For the prefent, however, he difmiffes this fubject, and as he recurs to it with more detail in the subsequent chapters, NOTE. Inferences made from the ancient accounts. we |