3. The beehive-like building, which is rather loosely called the Treasury of Atreus, presents to us over the doorway (p. [43]) two enormous slabs, one of them supposed to weigh from 130 to 135 tons. I only refer to them for the sake of reminding the reader that, as I think, we must be prepared, in this and other matters, freely to recognise the hand of the foreigner at work; who brought with him into Greece attainments, not to be despised, of material civilisation. More pointedly I wish to observe that in the interior of the Treasury, from the fourth course upwards, there are visible (p. [44]) in each stone two bored holes, and in many of them the remains of 'bronze' nails still existing. Similar holes, it appears, are found (p. [45]) in the Treasury of Minyas at Orchomenos. The purpose of these nails, says our author, could only be to attach to the wall what in one place he calls the bronze, and in another the brazen plates, with which the whole interior was once decorated. On the secondary question, what was the exact material employed, let me here observe that of brass those ages knew nothing, and that bronze, particularly in that stage of material development, was wholly unsuited for sheeting. But, as to the structural point, we have here a remarkable point of contact with the Homeric text. For in the palace of Alkinoös, king of the Phaiakes, a splendour as of sun or moon dazzled the eye, for the walls were of chalkos (Od. VII. 86, cited p. 44), which I hope I may now boldly translate copper: a metal unlike bronze (a) in being readily malleable, (b) in being throughout the Poems most usually lustrous, a character I do not suppose we should assign to bronze. On the other hand, the comparative softness of copper was not well suited for the nails, so bronze might very well be employed. Nor does this conjunction of the two metals, pure and mixed, in the same work, carry us away from the text of Homer: for his wall-sheets of copper in Scheriè were crowned with a cornice of his dark kuanos, which I take to be bronze. This copper sheeting is a feature of the supreme Olympian Palace (Il. I. 426, Od. VIII. 321), built by Hephaistos of the skilful mind. I think I could show that it also adorned the palaces of Menelaos and Odysseus, and could point out, moreover, why all this is in accordance with the distinctly foreign and eastern character of the embellishment: but an exhibition of the evidence would lead me into too great length; and I note only for the present purpose the remarkable correspondence of the archæology with the Poems.
4. Passing from architectural to moveable objects, I observe that Dr. Schliemann found both knives and keys of iron in Mycenæ, but that from their form he assigns them to a later and strictly historic period. Old Mycenæ, therefore, in accordance with Hissarlik, has afforded us, up to the present time, no remains of this metal. In the Poems it is freely mentioned, but as a rare and valuable substance, used where great hardness was required, and for objects comparatively small and portable; except, indeed, in the case of the Gates of Tartaros (Il. VIII 15), where the Poet could dispose of as much material as he pleased. The aggregate quantity, then, was small; and the instruments were likely to be carried away on the abandonment or destruction of a city. Its absence may therefore be accounted for, in part by its value, but also, and more especially, because it so readily corrodes.[3] Therefore, although we cannot here establish a positive correspondence, neither have we any occasion to admit a discrepancy.
5. Neither need we, I think, suppose any variance between the chariot, as our author found it on the second tombstone of the Acropolis (p. 84), and the Homeric picture. True, he finds a wheel of four spokes, and the Olympian car of Hera had eight (Il. V. 723); but this diversity of structure is probably introduced, like the diversity of material, by way of divine distinction, and to show the superior elaboration and strength of the vehicle.[4]
6. We have at Mycenæ the Agora, or place of Assembly, in full agreement with the Poems on the two points, first of its circular form (pp. [338], [339]), and secondly of the smoothed horizontal slabs, bounding the circle, on which the Elders sate. I do not dilate upon these, as they are fully noticed in the text: but I shall return to the subject, in connection with the situation chosen for the tombs, and the inferences which are to be drawn from this important circumstance.
I will now hazard, before proceeding further with my list, one or two general remarks on the works of art and ornament, referring again to the reports of Mr. Newton and Mr. Gardner, as the most trustworthy comment on the text of our author concerning them.
First, I have to offer some reflections on the general character of the discoveries, and on its relation to the state of Art exhibited in the Poems. It seems reasonable to believe, especially after what has been shown by Mr. Gardner respecting the four tombstones, that they constituted the contemporary seal of a great deposit. It results, I think, from the evidence before us that it is impossible to reduce to one school or style or stage of art the whole of the objects exhumed. But on this I would observe first that, although they were simultaneously deposited in honour of the dead, they might have been the productions of more than one generation: secondly, that not only are we not required, but, in so far as we draw light from the Homeric Poems, we are hardly permitted, to refer them collectively to a domestic origin.
I gather from Mr. Gardner's report that the Art exhibited on the Pottery is more uniformly backward, than that exhibited by the works of metal. But this pottery, which was, whether wheel made or hand-made, of an early stage in the manufacture, was far more likely to be domestic; while the works in the precious metals might be imported. Or they might be the productions of foreign artists, attracted to the Court of Agamemnon; in the same manner as we find that Daidalos, whose name, however mythical, represents a foreign influence, executed in Crete, for Ariadne, the representation of a dance in metal.
The discovery, or the inspection, of the works must without doubt in the first instance suggest a reference of them to a local school of goldsmiths. But, considering the numerous points of contact between the discoveries and the Homeric Poems, it is important to know whether, and how far, they really favour such a supposition. This is not the place for an examination in detail of all the works of Art mentioned by Homer. I believe there is no one of them, of which the purely Greek origin can be established by proof from the text, while the manufacture abroad and importation are frequently mentioned. At the same time, there are some considerations which tend to show that, if there were local workmen in Greece capable of producing objects such as those now exhumed, it is at Mycenæ that we should expect to find them. First, on account of the wealth of the city, and of its position as the capital of the country. Secondly, on account of the wealth of Agamemnon personally, and his acquisitiveness if not his avarice, which made him eager to spoil those whom his spear had slain, and which is the subject of varied allusions in the Iliad. It must be remembered that in those days works of art were not merely ornamental, but were a favourite form, as their name (keimelia) shows, of stored wealth: and of these, even in Troas, Agamemnon possessed many (Il. IX. 330). Thirdly, an indication, perhaps, more significant, may be drawn from the remarkable passage in the Eleventh Book (15-46), which describes the arming of Agamemnon for the field. The first portion of the armour, that attracts observation, is an elaborately wrought breast-plate, which had come from Cyprus, a seat of Phœnician settlement. We next come to the sword, which I shall presently describe. This is followed by the shield, adorned with many bosses of metal, but also carrying a representation of the Gorgon with the heads or figures of Fear and Panic. This shield must be considered as a work of art; and the same may be said of its band or strap, which carried the figure of a three-headed snake. There is nothing said to connect these works with foreign manufacture. The family of Agamemnon was of a foreign origin comparatively recent; but it may remain an open question, whether these arms are presumptively referable, or not, to a domestic manufacture.
The deposits appear, again, to differ extremely in point of merit. I set aside the objects directly symbolical, because, where religion, or idolatry, is in question, excellence in workmanship becomes secondary, or even ceases to be desired. Among the other objects, I gather that none exhibit a very high order of technical qualities. But, if we may rely upon photographic representation, they surely exhibit lively and forcible movement, as well as many of the elements of nobleness, beauty, and fertility of invention; particularly in ornamentation, as distinguished from the representation of life, either animal or vegetable. Some of this diversity may be due to difference of date; some, perhaps much, to the superiority of the immigrant hand, or of imported works. That there were foreigners resident in Greece at the time of the Troïca, we have every reason to infer from one conspicuous case, that of Echepolos, a son of Anchises, who was allowed to present the mare Aithè to Agamemnon, as the price of his exemption (Il. XXIII. 296) from service against Troy. If there be anywhere in the Poems an account of a work of art produced in Greece or by a Greek, it is the bedstead of Odysseus,[5] wrought by himself (Od. XXIII. 190-201); and to him, after a good deal of consideration, I am inclined to ascribe a close connection with the immigrant or Phœnician stock; though this representation might also be due to his unequalled versatility and universality of accomplishment. There was indeed a Chrusochoös or gold-plater at the Court of Nestor (Od. III. 425); but the very same man goes by the name of Chalkeus or coppersmith (Ibid. III. 432). And it would even seem that working in metals cannot have been a principal or prominent employment in an Achaian community, for no such person is named in the remarkable passage of the Odyssey (XVII. 384) which supplies a sort of list, and where the wood-worker, or carpenter, appears.
The list of these objects, and of their ornaments, is on the whole richer and more diversified than the Poems, with the exception of the famous Shield of Achilles, would have led us to expect. Possibly a knowledge of the Mycenean treasures may have prompted or aided a vigorous imagination, in that wonderful anticipation of excellences which had not been realized in practice. The most remarkable feature, I think, of all Homer's delineations of art is the force and reality with which he confers animation on things inanimate. And perhaps the eye may be struck, in examining Schliemann's illustrations, with the vigour of life and motion which asserts itself in many of the Mycenean works, where the delineation is technically most imperfect. But we cannot compare the text with these remains alone; we are bound also to avail ourselves of such light as can be had from Hissarlik, whatever its effect upon our prepossessions or our arguments. Now I, for one, am struck with the wealth of Mycenæ, and the comparative poverty of what is probably Troy. I do not mean merely as to the small number of valuable remains, for this may be due to chance; though, indeed, fortune, for once renouncing her caprice, seems in both cases to have obeyed the dictates of archæological justice, and to have treated Dr. and Mrs. Schliemann as her favourite children. But I mean that there is far less of luxe in the ornamentation of the works at Hissarlik; I might, perhaps, say no representation at all of life, except in the rudest and most barbarous form. There seem to be very good forms in the gold and silver objects of Hissarlik, but always associated with plain work; no animal or even vegetable representation calling for notice from the present point of view, none of the repoussé work, nothing resembling the (apparently) beautiful cylinder (p. [287]), or the elaborate rings photographed in this volume. How are we to account for this? And does an argument hence arise, that the Hissarlik remains belong to a period different from, and anterior to, that which produced the works at Mycenæ? That the adverse case may be made as strong as possible, let it be borne in mind that while Homer indicates Orchomenos, and above all Egyptian Thebes, as the wealthiest cities of his little world, he seems designedly to assign the very same stage of opulence to Troy, which he gives to Mycenæ; for he describes by one and the same epithet, poluchrusos, which means gold-abounding, these two cities and these two alone. Troy has it in Il. XVIII. 289. For Mycenæ it was almost a formula; see Il. VII. 180, XI. 46; Od. III. 305.