Page images

Troy had stood in the open plain. Now this was the local belief which actually existed at the Greek Ilium. The Ilians showed the lyre of Paris, the shield of Achilles, the stone on which Palamedes played draughts. The passage (v. 216) speaking of Ilios as "in the plain" was doubtless composed after the foundation of the Aeolic Ilium at Hissarlik-later, that is, than circ. 700 B.C. As to the speech in which it occurs, Mr. Leaf well observes (" Achilleid," p. 402):

"Most critics reject the greater portion of this long speech, which undoubtedly clogs the action of the poem, though it is interesting in itself. It looks like a specimen of the genealogical composition which was so popular in the Hesiodean age."

The Homeric hymn to Aphrodite, glorifying the Aeneadae, and repeating the prediction of their sway in the Troad, is very probably of the same age (the seventh century B.c.), if not from the same hand, as the interpolated part of the twentieth "Iliad."1


6. Such are the outlines of a view which harmonises the facts of Hissarlik with the Homeric data. The prehistoric town at Hissarlik may have originated the legend of a great siege. But most certainly it is not the "lofty Ilios" of which the conception pervades the Homeric poems. That conception is based on the site at Bunárbashi. With the principal traits taken from Bunárbashi, the Homeric poems combine some other traits, either invented, or borrowed from other sources. In one case, the presence of a later hand is apparent, viz., where Ilios is said to be "in the plain." This was probably added after 700 B.C., when a Greek town called "Ilium," and claiming identity of site with Homer's Troy, actually existed in the open plain.

The ultimate elements of uncertainty in the problem of Troy reside in the nature of our sole documents. The Homeric data are (1) of the mythical class, (2) of inadequate precision, (3) of uncertain origin. For my proposed solution I claim no more than that, so far as the conditions of the problem have yet been defined, it appears to satisfy them. If any view can be propounded which satisfies them better, no one will rejoice more than I. Meanwhile it is gratifying to know that the opinions expressed here have secured the approbation of scholars and archæologists whose judgment on the questions involved is the weightiest that could be given. R. C. JEBB.

(1) Professor Michaelis remarks: "The difference of such qualities of Ilios as lying lv medie, and, again, as being in a lofty position, is certainly due to different poets; and, if I am not mistaken, it would not be difficult to show that the whole part in Y (Il. 20), in which Dios ἐν πεδίῳ πεπόλιστο belongs to an ἐμβόλιμον which is not in good accord with the main part of the book." Professor Michaelis agrees with what I have said here as to the relations of Hissarlik and Bunárbashi to the Iliad.

(2) If anything in Troja could astonish, it might be the fact that on p. 287 Dr. Schliemann claims my articles in the Edinburgh Review (April 1881) and in the Journal of Hellenic Studies (ii. 7 ff), as recognising the identity of Ilium with the site of Homeric Troy'! (p. 285). Their whole purport was the opposite.



(3) Certainly, footrai pap örav Toré the full truth will come to light; and I have little doubt that this will not be far from what you have exposed in your articles in the Journal of Hellenic Studies." With these words of Professor Michaelis, lately written to me, I am content to close.


IRELAND, it is to be hoped, is now settling down for a few years of rest and cessation from crime. The vindication of the laws, albeit those laws are coercive and extraordinary, has put a temporary stop to agrarian offences and political assassinations. The farmers, unless disturbed by some fresh agitation, are bent on making the most of the Land Acts, and have obtained such large advantages in the way of reductions of rent, that if they prove industrious for the next decade and a half and the seasons are tolerably favourable, they may lay up sufficient money to enable them to buy out their landlords and become owners as well as occupiers. But it is not always the interest of the farmer to pay large sums to purchase his rent. If the rent be moderate, and if security of tenure be obtained by the recent legislation, many farmers will decline to invest their capital in extinguishing rents at five, or even four per cent. as long as they may possess opportunities for making ten per cent. by jobbing in cattle, or by other investments. Hundreds or thousands of poor farmers, holding from one to ten acres, although not subjected to rent, would be little better than labourers, and in severe seasons would be forced to sell or starve. Most of them would prefer to sell, and in a brief course of years these pauper peasant proprietors would altogether disappear.

It has been often regretted that many of the Irish Catholic priests have shown active sympathy with the extreme Nationalist or Separatist party; but the priests, in general, are sons of farmers, and naturally share the sentiments and prejudices of the class from which they sprang. As long as the farmers are discontented, or inclined to disloyalty, so long will many of the priests dislike and oppose the British Government. And as long as Irish farmers are mere slaves of their landlords, and kept by poverty and serfdom low down in the social scale, so long will the priests partake in that galling sense of undeserved social inferiority, which makes them regard the men of the governing class as enemies and strangers. The independence and prosperity, however, to be derived from the Land Acts, will cause the farmers to rise in the social scale, so that many of them will become magistrates, and all of them will feel that their interests and those of their governors are identical. Then will the priests, by reason of their sympathy with their parents and relatives, be rendered more willing to obey those precepts of loyalty which have been always inculcated by their religion. Hitherto the priests have been loyal mainly by virtue of their religion, in spite of the prejudices in a contrary direction inherited from their fathers. Henceforward, it is to be hoped, their class feelings, as well as the

injunctions of their Church, will make them foes of revolutionary agitators.

One result, and that the worst, which has proceeded from the recent land agitation, is the general demoralization of the country. The ideas of right and wrong have been confounded. The laws of God as well as of man have been brought into contempt. The Irish people have learned to seek temporal gain by disobedience to divine and human laws, and to set up as the ultimate tribunal their own will in place of the law of the land. The standard of rent, as proclaimed by the Land League and proclaimed by Mr. John Dillon and the Archbishop of Cashel, was neither the valuation of Griffith, or that to be reached by arbitration between landlord and tenant, but was the valuation to be fixed by the tenant alone. It is not surprising to find that some tenants pushed the doctrine, thus laid down, to its limits, and, according to the testimony of "a distinguished clergyman never "paid a penny of rent."

[ocr errors]

Not very long ago a spirit of loyalty to the British Crown existed in Ireland, to an extent which was extraordinary, when it is considered how few inducements and opportunities Irishmen have had to exhibit it. Her Majesty Queen Victoria twice landed on the shores of Ireland, and on each occasion was received with rapturous welcomes. To her levées and drawing-rooms in Dublin Castle flocked all the Irish nobles and gentry, and it was curious to observe the antiquated costumes and equipages which were then drawn from retirement, rust, and decay, to do honour to the Queen. The streets of Dublin were thronged with multitudes anxious to get a passing glance from her adored countenance. And when she went to Killarney, the neighbourhood for miles around was denuded of horses and conveyances. From Tarbert to Tralee, not a horse or mule or carriage of any kind could be procured, for all the animals of draught were employed in transporting to the Lakes the farmers and the peasants who hoped to see for once in their lives the face of their Sovereign. Loyalty seems a duty which once came naturally to Irish Catholics, and of which they were proud. The late Cardinal Cullen, as appears from his published writings, regarded loyalty to the British Crown during long periods of persecution and distress, as a distinguishing merit of Irish Catholics. His episcopal charges are full of injunctions to his flock, to preserve under all circumstances their loyalty to the British Government as a Christian virtue. Yet the British Government took little pains to encourage this virtue among Irish Catholics. The Queen paid but two short visits to her Irish dominions, and never spent a single Sunday upon Irish terra firma. On the occasion of her last visit, she went on board her yacht on a Saturday night and steamed out of Kingstown harbour on the following morning. She never once entered a Catholic place of worship in Ireland. Yet when on the Continent of Europe she has been known to witness functions

in Catholic churches. Her sons have visited St. Peter's and the Pope, and gave their photographs, in token of friendship, to Irish Catholic ecclesiastics in Rome. The Queen, when in Scotland, attends Presbyterian worship, and receives communion in a sitting posture. Her representatives in India pay respect to the idolatrous religions of the natives, and her troops in Egypt did homage to the Holy Carpet. Her Majesty would have set a striking example of tolerance to her Protestant subjects and would have gained the hearts of many of her Catholic lieges, had she attended High Mass or a Te Deum in the Dublin Catholic Cathedral. If she had repeated her visits to Ireland, and made them annually or even triennially, no Fenian would have dared to show his face in that country.

Throughout the British Colonies, the feeling of the Catholics, lay and ecclesiastical, was originally one of unfeigned loyalty to the British Crown. The Colonial Governors almost invariably paid at least official respect to the local Catholic bishops and dignitaries. And the general testimony of all Catholics was that, in no country under the sun, did they enjoy freedom of worship so fully as within the dominions of Queen Victoria. But those sentiments of loyalty and affection towards the British Government on the part of Catholics have recently been greatly changed at home and abroad. Parnellite emissaries, in order to serve their separatist designs, have stirred up feelings of hatred to England, not only among Catholics in Ireland and America, but also among Catholics in every part of the vast Colonial empire of Great Britain. The Roman Catholic bishops in America and the Colonies were formerly loud in their praise of the British Government, but within the last few years have yielded, in many cases, to popular pressure, and tacitly or openly have countenanced the idea of resistance to England.

For this change of sentiment among Roman Catholics the Pope is not to be blamed. Leo XIII., pursuing the policy of his predecessors, has done all he could and is doing all he can, to put down treason in Ireland. Archbishop MacHale, when he imprudently took part in dangerous demonstrations of popular opposition to the British Government, was silenced by Gregory XVI.; the great O'Connell was checked by Pius IX.; and the Parnellite bishops were lately admonished by Leo XIII. And on every occasion of Papal interference to suppress overt manifestations of disaffection among Irish Catholics, the Pontiff's word was sufficient to destroy, for the time being, all treasonable organizations in Ireland, for no Irish rebellion can hope to be successful without the aid of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics; and the Catholic bishops and priests dare not head any revolutionary movement without the consent and approbation of the Supreme Pontiff. Such consent and approbation have been constantly withheld and refused. The action of the Pope has sometimes, indeed, been described as tardy and hesitating, but it should be remembered

that his action in these matters depends upon the uncertain and tardy means of information which he possesses concerning Irish political affairs, and that his hesitation is sometimes to be attributed to ignorance of the intentions and dispositions of the British Government. Any hasty action of the Pontiff, based on imperfect knowledge, would do harm rather than good. And it is manifest that the Papal policy must always be more or less guided by accurate knowledge of the policy of Great Britain. By the fault of the British Government it happens that the Pope is left to depend for authentic information concerning the policy of England upon means which are desultory, humiliating, and unsatisfactory. There are no regular diplomatic relations between St. James's and the Vatican. The absence of such relations has long been an occasion of irregularity, inconvenience, and regret.

The necessity of maintaining at Rome a regular and acknowledged diplomatic agent of Great Britain is now more evident than ever. The Pope's aid is essential, not indeed to repress Irish insurrections, but to oppose the spirit which leads to insurrection, and which renders constitutional government almost impossible in every country where it prevails. The question, however, of establishing diplomatic relations with Rome is one which it is a great mistake to term a merely Irish question, or to try to put aside by the remark that England does not require any assistance from the Pontiff, and declines to govern Ireland through Rome. In every country where Great Britain possesses interests, commercial or political, there are Catholics, whose influence, if not ranged on the side of England, may be employed against England and in favour of France or Russia. There are millions of Irish Catholics in Great Britain. and her colonies, and there are also no inconsiderable number of British Catholics in the same regions. In America the Catholies of Irish descent are so numerous as to constitute a formidable power in the United States, a power whose influence no political party can afford to despise. All these millions of Catholics, whatever be their descent or nationality, be they British, Irish, or Americans, be they Monarchists or Republicans, are spiritually subject to the Pope; and in proportion as they are true Catholics, yield to him homage and obedience in all matters within the moral as well as the spiritual domain. The spiritual master of these millions is a potentate whose aid cannot safely be despised by the temporal sovereign. During modern years, at all events, the Papal power has been confessedly exerted everywhere against revolution and rebellion, and in favour of law and order. During the first quarter of this century the Pope was at one time the only continental ally of Great Britain against Bonaparte. At present the autocrat of all the Russias finds it necessary to establish diplematic relations with Rome; and the Protestant Emperor of Germany is not ashamed to go to Canossa, and send an accredited agent

« PreviousContinue »