it, an embarrassed one, are roundly declared by some to be nothing better than "resetters of stolen goods," and even more temperate people join in the indiscriminate abuse which is heaped upon this body. "If the Stock Exchange is to maintain its hold on public confidence, it must reform its ways, check the reckless gambling which prevails, and take better measures for securing the probity of the brokers who stand in a fiduciary relation towards the outside pub lic," it is often said. From one point of view this appears to be sound doctrine. Unfortunately, however, all such dicta are based upon the assumption that the Stock Exchange is an institution primarily designed to facilitate the investment of individual savings in interestbearing securities. Were that really the case, then we should say no words could be too severe when applied in condemnation of the habit of business which facilitates crimes like those of Warden and Blakeway. But this is not the primary object of the Stock Exchange at all, and never has been so, any more than the primary object of Tattersall's is investment in horses. The Stock Exchange is a gambling institution first and a resort for investors afterwards. As a gambling institution it is admirably constituted; its rules are as perfect and as honest as all reasonable men could desire, and its character is neither better nor worse than that of those who frequent it, and who put its machinery in motion. To all the accusations flung at the institution in times like these its members usually reply, "We are not the sinners. The public will gamble and cheat, and the public should bear the blame." This argument scarcely applies in Blakeway's case, but it is usually pat enough, and not without cogency at any time. Gambling, more or less veiled, forms ninety-nine hundredths of the business done by every member of the Stock Exchange and by his clients from one year's end to the other. The spirit of speculation is deep rooted in the habits of the English people, and has its good as well as its bad side. Occasionally the Stock Exchange, which exists as one means of gratifying this adventurous spirit, reveals a very ghastly story of ruin, and it is therefore hooted at. That is unfair. The Stock Exchange is what its habitués have made it-neither better nor worse. If frauds and stealing predominate, then it must be because the public, whose bets on the prices of stocks support the Stock Exchange, have become demoralised. This itch to obtain wealth without labour, to flourish and live at ease by throws of the dice, must have made men reckless and impervious either to moral considerations or to shame. The Stock Exchange reflects this state of society, just as it will reflect a worse or a better state when these exist. The habit of raving at it as the cause of the crimes occasionally perpetrated by its agency is therefore a mere attempt to lay the blame in the wrong quarter.

February 26, 1884.

THE

FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW.

No. CCVIII. NEW SERIES.-APRIL 1, 1884.

HOMERIC TROY.

"Troja" is the third of the volumes in which Dr. Schliemann has related and interpreted his excavations on the mound of Hissarlik. "Troy" (1875) expounded a theory which was modified in "Ilios" (1880). The theory of "Ilios" is now fundamentally changed in "Troja." "Troja" has one advantage over its predecessors. The excavations at Hissarlik have been examined by two eminent architects, Dr. W. Dörpfeld and Dr. J. Höfler. So far as their observations are embodied in "Troja," it possesses a value which was wanting to "Troy" and to "Ilios." For me, who have always fully recognised Dr. Schliemann's distinguished merits as an explorer, while I have been unable to accept his theories, the appearance of "Troja" may reasonably be a source of gratification. It is an admission that my criticisms on "Ilios" were essentially correct. Nor can the satisfaction derived from this source be impaired by the circumstance that, like other critics, living and dead, of Dr. Schliemann, I experience in “Troja” treatment of a kind which is, happily, almost obsolete in literature.1 As to Messrs. Sayce and Mahaffy, the manner in which they have thought proper to write concerns themselves alone. It is of no practical moment to students of the questions at issue. Mr. Sayce says that "nowhere but in England" would such a person as myself have had the presumption to express any opinion on the subject of Homeric Troy; and the rebuke could scarcely have been formulated with graver severity, since our island is the same in which Mr. Sayce has lately published three books of Herodotus. With regard to Dr. Schliemann's remark, "that it is no part of the duty of a discoverer to waste his time in giving his critics elementary lessons in archæological science," instructed persons will generally concur with him. Lessons of that character could not profitably be imparted

(1) “In this vast volume there are three or four most personal and bitter onslaughts on Mr. Jebb, who has ventured to hold an opinion different from that of Dr. Schliemann, as to the precise meaning of his discoveries. Terms of personal insult are freely tossed about, chiefly by the mixovpoɩ" [Prof. A. H. Sayce, of Queen's College, Oxford, and Prof. J. P. Mahaffy, of Dublin]; "pedantry,' envy,' and 'charlatanism,' are charges made or coarsely insinuated."-Saturday Review, December 8, 1883.

by an eminent excavator, who was under the impression that a certain building was a Greek temple until his architects explained to him that it was "merely the substruction of a Roman portico ("Troja," p. 207). Nor would the value of the lectures have been enhanced by the novelty of such discoveries as that which Dr. Schliemann possibly owes to his English ally, Mr. Sayce-that swords were unknown to the English before the Norman Conquest. On this, Mr. Freeman has lately observed1: “When Dr. Schliemann goes out of his way to make such an astounding misstatement as this, out of his own department, one begins to put less faith in him in his own department."

The department which Dr. Schliemann has really made his own is not "archæological science" of any period. It is practical exploration by the spade. To his pre-eminent merits in that province no one could easily have given more emphatic or more cordial acknowledgment than has repeatedly been rendered by myself. The intrinsic merit of Dr. Schliemann's persevering excavations is not diminished-it receives a new and almost pathetic commendation -by the fact that his early education had not qualified him to form a critical estimate of their results. Only the other day, I received a letter from a most eminent German archæologist,2 whose name is known wherever Greek archæology is seriously studied; and, with his permission, I may quote some words from it:-"In Germany, at least, we are wont to make a strict distinction between Dr. Schliemann's real merits as an enthusiastic, energetic, and extremely fortunate explorer, and the conclusions which he uses to draw from his finds, as well as the dilettantism with which he deals with scientific questions." That is precisely the distinction which I have always most carefully drawn. Injudicious partisans of Dr. Schliemann, such as Messrs. Sayce and Mahaffy, seek to represent criticism of his theories as if it were disparagement of his labours. This is an expedient which they can scarcely hope to render successful by the habitual use of unmeasured language. The charge of detraction is one which recoils. No disparagement is so damaging as that which obscures a man's genuine merit by noisily claiming for him a kind of merit which he does not possess.

I shall now endeavour to state, briefly and clearly, the main points of the question as it stands. Such a statement is not superfluous. "Ilios" and "Troja" must be read together. The latter constantly refers to the former, and is not intelligible without it. These two volumes together contain upwards of 1,200 pages. Whether they are diffuse is a matter of opinion; to me they appear so. That they are confused, is unquestionable.

(1) Spectator, January 5, 1884.

(2) Professor Michaelis.

3 (3) "No authority in archæology has pronounced in favour of Dr. Schliemann's theories," as Mr. Stillman truly says (New York Nation, March 6, 1884).

In "Ilios," seven "cities" are distinguished among the remains laid bare at Hissarlik. The topmost, according to Dr. Schliemann, was the historic Greek Ilium; below this, a Lydian city; then, five prehistoric cities, one below another. The third from the bottomcommonly called the "Third City "-was Homer's Troy.

1. In criticising "Ilios," the first point to which I drew attention was that the scheme of stratification appeared arbitrary, and was probably, in some respects at least, incorrect. On the showing of "Ilios" itself, it was manifest that the lines between some of the strata were drawn on the strength of evidence which was either ambiguous, or altogether inadequate. "Troja" now admits that the stratification as given in "Ilios" was incorrect. When the two architects had examined the remains in 1882 they convinced Dr. Schliemann of this. And the errors affect precisely that region of the deposit which was most important to his Trojan hypothesis-viz., the lower strata. The line between the "Third City", (the "Troy" of "Ilios"), and the Second City, next below it, had been wrongly drawn. Remains which really belonged to the latter had been ascribed to the former. The "Second City" of "Ilios" proves to have been merely the acropolis of a town which had extended beyond the mound into the plain. But this is not all, nor does "Troja" tell all. "Ilios" distinguished seven cities, the second from the top being a "Lydian city." The sole ground for assuming its existence was that, at a depth of six to six-and-a-half feet, pottery had been found which was said to be unlike any other found at Hissarlik. In the "Allgemeine Zeitung" of September 29, 1882, Dr. Dörpfeld gave an outline of the results which he had obtained by his prolonged examination of Hissarlik in that year. He distinguished six settlements only. "When Dr. Schliemann reckons seven cities," wrote the architect, called Lydian city of which, however, as he 'Ilios,' no walls whatever are extant, but only pottery." Is it not a reasonable, or rather an unavoidable inference, that in Dr. Dörpfeld's opinion the "Lydian city" was imaginary? In "Troy" (1875) the "Lydian city" had as yet no existence; and we might have expected that it would have disappeared from "Troja." But this, it was perhaps thought, would be too much of a victory for the unbelievers. In "Troja," therefore, the Lydian city still exists, though its existence is obviously slurred over: and the statements about. the "Lydian pottery" are very remarkable. At page 238 this pottery is described as "entirely different," not only from the other "prehistoric pottery," but "from all Greek and Roman pottery ever met with." But at page 218 we had been told that certain pottery found in the stratum of the historic Ilium "somewhat resembles the Lydian pottery"! Again, the "Lydian pottery" has "some resemblance to Hellenic pottery of date "between the fifth and ninth centuries

"he counts the sohimself remarks in

B.C." found at Bunárbashi ("Troja," page 268.) This "Lydian" pottery, then, seems to afford but slender cause for assigning a stratum of six inches to a hypothetical city, of which the most skilful architect was entirely unable to recognise the slightest vestige! Whatever Dr. Schliemann and Mr. Sayce may see fit to do, most other people will probably efface this "Lydian city" from the list of settlements. In "Troy," and also in "Ilios," a diagram of the strata was given. In "Troja" there is no diagram. Possibly it was thought undesirable to exhibit in so lucid a form the errors of the stratification in "Ilios." And perhaps the architects would have declined responsibility for the "Lydian city." Thus I am now confessed to have been right on my first main point. The stratification, as given in "Ilios," was incorrect.

2. My next point was that if any "city" at Hissarlik could be regarded as having given rise to the Homeric legend, it certainly could not be the "Third City"—the Troy of "Ilios." The destruction of the Third City had been only partial; that of the Second City had been complete: so far, I urged, the Second City had a better claim. Here, again, my criticism is justified by "Troja." The "Third City" is Dr. Schliemann's Troy no longer. He now adopts as Troy the very city which I recommended to his attention-the Second City! But, while the attacks on me in "Troja" are so frequent and so violent, there is not a word in acknowledgment that this radical change in his entire theory of Hissarlik is one which my criticisms had anticipated.

While the Third City was still his Troy, Dr. Schliemann was obliged to assume that the Homeric city had been wholly confined to the mound, an area of some 235 yards by 325. Where, then, was the famous acropolis? A less daring theorist might have hesitated; but not so the distinguished explorer. He replied that "lofty" and "windy" Troy had really possessed no acropolis at all.

"I now therefore assert most positively that Troy was limited to the small surface of this hill; that its area is accurately marked by its great surrounding wall, laid open by me in many places; that the city had no acropolis, and that the Pergamus is a pure invention of Homer." ("Troy," p. 18, 1875).

For Dr. Schliemann, who believed in the historical accuracy of the "Iliad," to use his own words, "as in the Gospel itself" ("Troy," p. 17), this must have been somewhat of a trial. But, as he then could "assert most positively " that Troy had no acropolis, so he can now assert most positively that it had one. The Second City was the acropolis of Troy, according to the new theory. The lower town of Troy was in the plain. Meanwhile, the Third City has not only been stripped of its Homeric honours, but has been pronounced by

(1) "Dr. Schliemann has recognised that Mr. Jebb was right.”—Saturday Review on "Troja," Dec. 8, 1883.