[4] The Anglicized form of the word is used as a matter of common sense and convenience. Dr. Schliemann does the same in German.
[5] See the Letter of Mr. S. Comnos in the Athenæum of August 8th, and the Answer of Dr. Schliemann in the Academy of November 7th, 1874.
[6] See Mr. Newton’s Report, and the discussion thereupon, in the Academy of February 14th, 1874, and in the ‘Transactions of the Society of Antiquaries.'
[7] The Athenæum, November 7th, 1874. Some of Mr. Calvert’s corrections seem of importance, but we have not felt it right to use them in the absence of the reply which Dr. Schliemann will doubtless make, as he has done to his other critics.
[8] Iliad, II. 486. See the full quotation at p. 346. Professor Max Müller quotes the same passage in favour of the non-reality of Homer’s Troy; but surely the κλέος ἀκούομεν implies a positive tradition, and the οὐδέ τι ἴδμεν confesses ignorance of details only. Are Homer’s Hellespont, and his Plain of Troy, watered by the Scamander and Simoïs, also “to be sought rather among the Muses who dwell on Olympus than” about “the Hill of Hissarlik"?
[9] The excellent dissertation by Dr. Eckenbrecher, to which Schliemann refers at [page 46], has just been republished in a revised edition, “Die Lage des Homerischen Troja, von Dr. Gustav von Eckenbrecher.” With 2 Maps and a View of Hissarlik, 1875. The Author has purposely kept his argument in favour of the site at Hissarlik, from Homer and the later classical writers, distinct from what he distinctly accepts as its confirmation by Schliemann’s discoveries.
[10] See the remarks on this point in the Appendix, p. 364. Lest the views here indicated should seem to be at variance with the frequent use of the term “pre-Hellenic” throughout this work, it may be well to explain, once for all, that “pre-Hellenic” is to be taken as signifying nothing else than “before the occupation of the site by the people of the historical Greek Ilium.”
[11] The Phrygians (of which race the Trojans were a branch) are among the nations mentioned as having held in succession the supremacy at sea (θαλασσοκρατία).
[12] The evidence of the Egyptian monuments to the power of Troy, and the bearing of that evidence on the date of the remains at Hissarlik, are among the subjects which we must refrain from discussing, as both too large and as yet too imperfectly investigated. It must suffice at present to refer to the letters by M. François Lenormant in the Academy for March 21st and March 28th, 1874, and to the two articles in the Contemporary Review for June and July, 1874, which it is understood that Mr. Gladstone is about to republish under the title of ‘Homer and Egypt; a Contribution towards determining the Place of Homer in Chronology.'
[13] Those desirous of pursuing this study from its fountain-head may consult, besides the works quoted by Dr. Schliemann, Spiegel’s ‘Iranian Antiquities’ (Eranische Alterthumskunde, Vols. I. and II., Leipzig, 1871, 1873).