Ericthonius died 1374 B. C. after a reign of seventy-five years. He had one son, named Tros; and Tros had three sons, of whom Ilus was his successor. His barrow is mentioned in the Iliad, as still remaining in the plain before the city. He married Eurydice, the daughter of Adrastus, by whom he had Laomedon, the father of Priam. He greatly embellished the city of Dardanus, which from him was called Ilium; as from his father it had been called Troja.
Ilus was succeeded by his son, Laomedon. This prince surrounded the city with walls; in which he is fabulously stated to have been assisted by two deities. For an account of this, the reader, if he please, may consult Homer, Virgil, Ovid, and other ancient poets. Not long after he had built the walls, they are said to have been thrown down by Hercules, the streets made desolate, and Laomedon slain.
Priamus, one of the most unfortunate as well as one of the most celebrated of princes, succeeded his father. The city, in his time, had recovered the damage it had sustained, and became famous for its wealth; more especially in brass and gold. Homer, too, celebrates it for its walls and buildings. It was situate on a rising ground amid morasses, which were formed by the waters which, at certain seasons of the year, descended in torrents from Mount Ida. The language, as well as the religion, of this city was the same as those appertaining to Greece; and the dominions of the king comprised the whole of the country lying within the isle of Lesbos, Phrygia, and the Hellespont.
The reign of Priam is celebrated for the war, which took place between the Trojans and Greeks. This was made a subject of the finest poem that ever honoured civilised society; but as the history of the transaction differs, when treated by the poets, we, as plain matter-of-fact persons, adopt that which has been given us by Herodotus. We must, however, first of all remark, that some, and most especially Monsieur Pascal, have treated the whole as a mere fable. “Homer,” say they, “wrote a romance: no one can believe that Troy and Agamemnon had any existence, any more than the golden apple. He had no intention to write a history. He merely intended to amuse and delight us.” And here we may advantageously give place to several particular observations of that accomplished traveller, Sir William Gell:—“In approaching the Troas,” says he, “each bay, mountain, and promontory, presented something new to the eye, and excited the most agreeable reflections in the mind; so that, in a few days, I found myself in possession of a number of observations and drawings, taken in a part of the world concerning which, although much has been written, there still exists a great deficiency of those materials, which might enable a reader to form a satisfactory opinion, without encountering the difficulties of a tedious voyage. I thought that such information would gratify men of literature and inquiry. I was confident that delineations and descriptions of a fertile plain, watered by abundant and perennial streams, affording almost impregnable positions, and so situated as to command one of the most important passes of the world, must be interesting, not to say valuable, to politicians and statesmen. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to add, that I was not without the hope of convincing others, as I had been myself convinced, that the history, as related by Homer, is confirmed by the fullest testimony, which a perfect correspondence between the present face of the country and the description of the poet can possibly give to it.”
That the Trojan war absolutely took place is, however, not so much to be believed on poetical authority, as it is upon that of history. Not only Herodotus and Thucydides have left records of it, but all the biographers of Alexander. The testimony of Thucydides is remarkable:—“The power of the Greeks gradually advancing, they were enabled, in process of time, to undertake the Trojan expedition. It is further my opinion, that the assemblage of that armament, by Agamemnon, was not owing so much to the attendance of the suitors of Helen, in pursuance of the oath they had sworn to Tyndarus, as to his own superior power.” “To these enlargements of power Agamemnon succeeding, and being also superior to the rest of his countrymen in naval strength, he was enabled, in my opinion, to form that expedition more from awe than favour. It is plain that he equipped out the largest number of ships himself, besides those he lent to the Arcadians. We ought not, therefore, to be incredulous, nor so much to regard the appearance of cities as their power, and of course to conclude the armament against Troy to have been greater than ever was known before, but inferior to those of our age; and whatever credit be given to the poetry of Homer in this respect, who no doubt as a poet hath set it off with all possible enlargement, yet even, according to his account, it appears inferior.” “On their first landing, they got the better in fight. The proof is, that they could not otherwise have fortified their camp with a wall. Neither does it appear that they exerted all their strength at once; numbers being detached for supplies of provisions, to till the Chersonesus, and to forage at large. Thus, divided as they were, the Trojans were the better able to make a ten years’ resistance, being equal in force to those who were at any time left to carry on the siege.”
Herodotus treats it, also, as a matter of actual history: and as the first portion of his work affords a very curious and beautiful example of ancient manners, we shall abbreviate the version, rendered by Mr. Beloe. Paris, having carried off Helen from Sparta, was returning home (to Troy); but meeting with contrary winds in the Ægean, he was driven into the Egyptian Sea. As the winds continued unfavourable, he proceeded to Egypt, and was driven to the Canopian mouth of the Nile, and to Tarichea. In that situation, continues Herodotus, was a temple of Hercules, “which still remains.” To this temple, should any slave fly for refuge, no one was permitted to molest him. The servants of Paris, aware of this privilege, fled thither from their master. There they propagated many accusations against him; and, amongst other disclosures, they published the wrong that Paris had done to Menelaus. Hearing this, Thonis, the governor of the district, despatched a messenger to Proteus, king of Memphis. “There is arrived here a Trojan, who has perpetrated an atrocious crime in Greece. He has seduced the wife of his host, and carried her away, with a great quantity of treasure. Adverse winds have forced him hither. Shall I suffer him to depart without molestation? or shall I seize his person and property?” In answer to this Proteus desired, that the malefactor should be sent to him. Receiving this command, Thonis seized Paris, and detained his vessels, with Helen and all his wealth. Being taken before Proteus, and asked who he was and whence he came, Paris gave a true account of his family and country, and whence he had last sailed. But when Proteus inquired concerning Helen, who she was, and how he got possession of her, he faltered. His servants, however, proved the particulars of his guilt. On this, Proteus addressed him after the following manner: “If I did not esteem it a very heinous crime to put any stranger to death, whom unfavourable winds have driven to my coast, I would, most assuredly, thou most abandoned man, avenge that Greek whose hospitality thou hast so treacherously violated. Thou hast not subdued his wife, but having violently taken her away, still criminally detainest her; and as if this were not enough, thou hast robbed and plundered him. But as I can by no means prevail upon myself to put a stranger to death, I shall suffer you to depart; in regard to the woman and her wealth, I shall detain both.”
After a few observations in respect to Homer’s knowing, and yet neglecting, the true history, in order to make his poem the more interesting, the historian goes on to relate, that being desirous of knowing whether all that the Greeks relate concerning Troy had any foundation in truth, he inquired of the priests of Egypt; and that they informed him, that, after the loss of Helen, the Greeks assembled in great numbers at Teucris, to assist Menelaus, whence they despatched ambassadors to Troy, whom Menelaus himself accompanied. On arriving at that city, they made a formal demand of Helen, and the wealth Paris had taken away; and also a general satisfaction for the injuries received. In answer to this, the Trojans replied, and persisted in the truth of their assertion, that neither the person nor the wealth of Helen was in their city or territory; but that both were in Egypt; and that they esteemed it hard, that they should be made responsible for what King Proteus possessed. The Greeks, however, believing themselves to be deluded, laid siege to Troy, and, after ten years, took it.
When they had done so, they were surprised and chagrined to find, that Helen was not in the captured town. On learning this, Menelaus himself was despatched into Egypt, where, being introduced to Proteus, he was honourably received, and Helen was restored to him with all his treasures. This is related by Herodotus as the true history[283].
With such testimony it is rather curious, that so many writers,—respectable ones too,—should have not only doubted the war, but even the existence of the town against which it was directed. “We do not know,” says Sir John Hobhouse, “that Strabo had not himself been in the Troad; but we are sure that no one could speak more to the purpose than Demetrius, who was a native of Tcepsis, a town not far from Ilium, and who wrote thirty books on sixty lines of Homer’s catalogue. From this authority we know, that not a vestige was left of the ancient city. Neither Julius Cæsar, nor Demetrius, nor Strabo, had any doubt of the former existence of the city of Priam; and the orator Lycurgus, quoted by the latter author, at the same time that he declared the total desolation, and as it were death of Troy, to be known to all the world, spoke of its destruction as equally notorious.”