ADDITIONAL REMARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TOPOGRAPHY OF TROY, &c. 
 
ADDITIONAL REMARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TOPOGRAPHY OF TROY, &c 
 
 AS GIVEN 
 
 BY HOMER, STRABO, AND THE ANCIENT GEOGRAPHERS ; 
 
 IN ANSWER TO 
 
 MR. BRYANT'S LAST PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 BY 
 
 J. B. S. MORRITT, Es^ 
 
 SI MEN'S NON LEVA FUISSLT, 
 
 TROJAQl'E KUNC STARES, rRIAMKJUE Mfk ALTA MAKERES. 
 
 VIRCIL, L. 
 
 L N D H: 
 PRINTED FOR T. CADELL, JUN. AND W. DAVIES, STRAND. 
 
 M. DCCC. 
 
 [H. Baldwin and San, Printer!, New Bridge-Street, Lind.n.~\ 
 
ADDITIONAL REMARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TOPOGRAPHY OF THE TROAD, &c. 
 
 IN the courfe of laft fpring, Mr. Bryant publifhed in anfwer to 
 a Book of mine* fome Obfervations ; in which I was informed 
 for the firft time, that I had miftaken Vindication for.Abufe, and 
 with the moll: difingenuous malice, had blackened and detracted 
 from a character univerfally and defervedly efteemed by all m«n of 
 literature. If I was in fact guilty of this charge, I merited, for 
 I provoked, the anfwer Mr. Bryant has honoured me with ; but as 
 it did not appear to me to contribute at all to the fupport of his 
 hypothefis, I difregarded the perfonal cenfures which he was pleafed 
 to inflict upon me. Unfortunately for himfelf the learned Con- 
 ductor of the Britifh Critic differed from Mr. Bryant; not only on the 
 fubject of the Trojan War, but alfo on the opinion he formed of 
 my publication j in which he did not perceive that virulence of 
 inveclive, that mean fpirit of difingenuous cavil attributed to it, by 
 that Gentleman. This has drawn upon him-f a reply, which, as it 
 might be expected, is longer and ftronger in proportion to the 
 offence, and to the literary character of the learned Conductor ; 
 who differed from Mr. Bryant on two points, whereas I had the 
 lefs misfortune of only differing upon one. My petulance, and 
 
 NOTES. 
 * Some Obfervations on a Vindication of Homer.— + Expoftulation to the Britifh Critic. 
 
 B virulence 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 virulence are of courfe alluded to a fecond time ; but as I be- 
 lieve few who read my book, and I truft ftill fewer who know 
 my character, ferioufly entertain this opinion of me, I fhould 
 have continued to acquiefce in filence, if I had not thought that 
 fome of the topographical arguments adduced by Mr. Bryant in . 
 his laft publication, were founded on a miftaken notion of the 
 country ; to which I might have contributed, by the confunon and 
 obfcurity he fometimes complains of in my narrative. I wrote at 
 firft, as I profeffed, folely with the intention of adding to Mr. 
 Chevalier, the teftimony he deferves from every traveller in the 
 Troad ; but in order to make that teftimony of any avail, it was 
 neceffary to anfwer the arguments brought forward by Mr. Bryant; 
 fince if they were unanfwerable, Troy, which never exifted 
 at all, could not exift where he places it. *' In the anfwer I have 
 made, there is," I am told, " too much Afperity, and unmerited 
 cenfure;" of this I am not a fair judge, the reader muff decide 
 between us ; but I may be allowed to add, that if there ,is, it 
 was unintentional, and certainly did not flow from the malignity to 
 which Mr. Bryant afcribes it. But I have accufed him (he fays*) 
 both with want of probity and want of erudition. One charge I 
 certainly made, and that becaufe I thought it grounded : from the 
 great ftrefs he lays upon fome writers of later ages, whilft he almoft 
 fets afide the authority of Thucydides and Herodotus ; and from 
 the very ftrong deductions, which he makes from what I thought 
 weak grounds, I conceived, that he was warped by a love of fyftem; 
 and I believe I was not lingular in that opinion. I never fuppofed 
 Mr. Bryant guilty of " wilful perverfion of the truth" from 
 any motive ; but I knew that a preconceived fyftem often makes 
 men fee every argument through a diftorted medium, and induces 
 
 NOTE. 
 * Expoftulation, p. 3, 
 
 them 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 them to imagine a thoufand proofs and allufions in paflages, which 
 either do not apply to the fubjecl., or make directly againfl: their 
 fuppofitions. This then was not aecufing him of want of probity, 
 but only of prejudice ; and I fupported the accufation by referring to 
 feveral paflages, which I thought thefe caufes had induced him to 
 mifreprefenti I added that, "the reader muft judge whether his 
 flatements were perfectly fair," and intimated that " fome of the 1 
 quotations were unwarranted ; fome of the transitions materially 
 differing from the originals ; and fome'Of the paflages erroneoufly 
 tranferibed from the originals themfelves •," all which I attributed 
 to the fame motive, namely, love of Sy/iem ; a fource, from which 
 fimilai 1 evils have very frequently flowed. It is faid alfo, that* 
 I accufe Mr. Bryant of " abfurdity, futility , and ignorance ?" from 
 this charge I appeal to my own book ; I never do. In one place-f- 
 I notice an " abfurdity avifing from Mr. Bryant's fuppoiition," and 
 I. (hew that it follows from adopting fuch fuppoiition implicitly: 
 but this mode of arguing ex 'abfurdo is extremely common, and I 
 never heard before that it implied any perfonal abfurdity in the 
 adverfary ; otherwife Euclid is very abuiivc. Of Mr. Bryant's 
 futility, I fay no more than of his abfurdity ; I accufe fome 
 of his arguments as futile, that is as not being to the purpofe ; 
 furely this futility does not attach upon Mr. Bryant, but only 
 upon the particular arguments alluded to. But, X Mr. Bryant fays, 
 that " I have given my opinion of his Erudition, by faying 
 Mr. Bryant's knowledge of the fubject with which he is engaged 
 is merely on a par with that of the moft ignorant," for which he 
 refers to his anfwer to the Vindication, p. 72. But fee the Viiv 
 dication itfelf where thefe words occur, (p. 31.} " What Mr. 
 
 NOTES. 
 * Expoftulation, p. 3. — t Vindication, p. 41. — | Expoftulation, p. 3. 
 
 b 2 Bryant 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 Bryant fays of his [Homer's] Life, farther than conjecture is of no 
 weight ; notwithstanding his zee// known crud.itio?i., his authority 
 (not his know/edge J on this fubjeel (viz. Homer's Life and Country) 
 is on a level with that of the moft ignorant." If this paffage is not 
 perverted by Mr. Bryant's reprefentation of it, I have palled a \eiy 
 wanton and odious cenfure on his ignorance ; but if it is pervert- 
 ed, as I truft is evident from this 'parallel, of. what is he guilty? 
 of an additional mifreprefentation of a cited paffage, to which I 
 leave the reader to affign a motive. My affertion is true, that no 
 man, whatever be his erudition, has been at any time able to afcer- 
 tain the country and parentage of Homer. Reading, however ex- 
 tenfive, is of no avail, where there are no documents extant but fuch 
 as are doubtful and contradictory. Now in the Expoftulation 
 (p. 67.) Mr. Bryant himfelf accufes the Britifh Critic of afchbing to 
 him too determined an opinion concerning Homer and his hiftory. 
 For fays he, " The Britifh Critic is very wrong to defcribe Mr. 
 Bryant as fo determined in his opinion concerning Homer and his 
 hiftory. Mr. Bryant propofes it with fome degree of uncertainty 
 and lays it with proper caution before the reader. In page $-$ (of 
 his firft work) his words are if I might hazard a conjecture about 
 Homer in Egypt. In another place, p. 60. he fays, I am induced 
 so believe — From the evidence given, we may I think conclude, &c. &c." 
 A little above* he fays that he cannot have entertained a decided 
 opinion about Homer, fince he mentioned three, and does not 
 know on which to determine. In what then does he contradict my 
 affertion ? All he fays of Homer is conjecture ; and his opinion fo 
 undetermined for want of data that ignorance is equally fatisfactory. 
 Had I faid Mr. Bryant was ignorant of " the fubjeel with which he 
 
 NOTE. 
 Expostulation^ p. 67. 
 
 was 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 <was engaged " viz. the writings of Homer and the war of Troy, I 
 (hould have been very defervedly cenfured {ox petulance and grofs HI 
 manners. But I only doubt his authority where he doubts it himfelf ; 
 and I afterwards pay due deference to the ingenuity of fome of his 
 conjectures about Homer;* but contend (as I always mull) that no 
 inference can reafonably be drawn from the ftories concerning him, 
 which at all affects the nature of the queftion to be difculTed ; viz. 
 the exiftence of Troy, and the hiftorical truth of the] war. If I have 
 treated Mr. Bryant's arguments with unbecoming levity, it certainly 
 proceeded not from any contempt of his perfon, or his talents; 
 but levity is fometimes the fault of youth, and I fubmit to the ani- 
 madverfions he has thought proper to beftow upon my time of life. 
 
 I own that with regard to the general queftion of the probability 
 or improbability of Homer's Story, I cannot perceive in either of 
 Mr. Bryant's late publications that he has brought any new argu- 
 ments forward, which materially affect it in either way. He has 
 rather try'd to fet afide fome of the anfwers I had made to his ori- 
 ginal work, in which I do not think, he has entirely fucceeded. In 
 the courfe of this I fhall notice fome inftances. He thinks at ail 
 events, that the geography of the plain of Ilium, as given by Mr. 
 Chevalier, Dallaway, and myfelf, is ftill entirely incompatible with 
 the Iliad; and renews objections, which appear to me toarife from 
 a mifconception of the real geography of the Coaft. The points 
 he chiefly inflfts on are, the courfe we have afligned to the Scamander, 
 and the fituations of Gargarus, and Troy itfelf. As Mr. Bryant has 
 again repeated thefe objections in his Expostulation, addrefled to the 
 Britilli Critic, if there is any obfeurity in the defcription I have 
 
 NOTE. 
 * Vindication, p. 76. 
 
 publiihed, 
 
( 6 ] 
 
 published, it is in feme meafure incumbent upon me to clear it up, 
 that the points on which we are at iffue may be fairly ftated. 
 
 The Scamander, as laid down in * Mr. Chevalier's Map, and in 
 thofeof Mr. Dallaway and myfelf, rifes in the plain immediately 
 below Troy, and fkirting the weft fide of the plain for fome miles, 
 •turns fuddenly, and pours its waters through a ftrait artificial canal 
 into the /Egean on the fouth fide of the Sigsean promontory. An 
 ancient courfe is ftill traceable from the commencement of this 
 artificial canal, which appears to have been the original natural bed 
 of the river. This being traced out, terminates in a larger ftream 
 which defcends from the mountains, runs on the eaftern fide of the 
 plain; and, after the conflux, pours itfelf into the Hellefpont on 
 the eaftern fide of the Sigsean promontory. To this fecond river 
 fo characterifed we have afllgned the name of Simois. Below the 
 confluence and at the mouth of the river, the united ftreams were 
 called Scamander. It was further ftated-, that the ftream we called 
 Scamander was a clear copious brook, and that its waters were nearly 
 the fame in every feafon of the year as far as the confluence; that 
 the- other ftream, on the contrary, was a very violent mountain river, 
 fed by the melting of the fnows, and the rains that fell on Ida, and 
 therefore was frequently very fmall, and even dry in Summer, very 
 turbulent, and confiderably large in Winter. Below the confluence, 
 the united ftream (Scamander) was of courfe proportionally variable. 
 And this defcription is afferted to be confonant to the intimations 
 of Homer. 
 
 NO TE. 
 
 * See Chevalier on the plain of Troy, Dallaway on Conftantinople. Vindication, p. 78-9, 
 alfo p. 86 and fej. 
 
 1 Mr. 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 Mr. Bryant makes feveral objections to this whole fyftem. For 
 he fays, firft * that the Scamanderof Homer was a larger river than 
 the Simois, " becaufe the waters of both took the name of 
 Scamander below the junction, and never of Simois, that river 
 together with its name was abforbed in the Scamander; the fmaller 
 in the greater, of which there* are as many inftances as there are 
 rivers." Not quite fo many, fince not to travel very far, the Oufe, 
 a very inconfiderable ftream, gives its name to the united waters of 
 the Swale and lire, each of which is above a hundred times its 
 bulk. The Scamander is in Summer generally larger than the 
 Simois, (which in great droughts entirely difappears) and therefore 
 more likely to retain its name; and this circumftance had been 
 mentioned both by Chevalier and myfelf, as a probable caufe of 
 this Angularity. And a little below -f Mr. Bryant fays, Mr. M. was 
 miftaken in fome degree, becaufe " The Scamander did not firft; 
 receive its name after the junction but far above." It certainly did 
 receive the name far above; fofar above, as at the two fources near 
 fheScaean gate; where Homer mentions the " foixi myxi 'Ztcx^xhS^pou 
 tf/fjievTo,-." Nor does Mr. M. any where intimate a word to the 
 contrary; he apprehends there is a miftake, as he cannot find the 
 paffage Mr. Bryant can here allude to. 
 
 In the next place, % Mr. Bryant afferts, that the Scamander was the 
 principal river, becaufe of the epithets applied to it by Homer. I 
 have fhewn that fome of thefe epithets are not incompatible with a 
 fmall ftream, as tvgooo;, y.a.Kiooso<, &c. I have alfo fhewn that in 
 winter the united Jlreatns , were often very considerable, and that the 
 Scamander in that part was iro\«.iLo- [xeyxs, &imii> fiaSruSirw, &c. 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Obfenrations, p. 6t. — + Obfervations, p. 61. 
 X Obfervations p. 62 ; and Expoftulation p. 102 
 
 and 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 and amply juflified all thefe epithets. Now a very exadl: idea of its 
 fize above the confluence may be gathered from many paffages in 
 Homer, which are diametrically oppofite to Mr. Bryant's fuppo- 
 fition, and are fo particular, that they are worth a hundred epithets. 
 A fingle tree torn down by Achilles formed a bridge acrofs it, which 
 is thus defcribed : * 
 
 O S'i irnXiw eAg KSpin 9 
 Eu'^>i/g«, fJ.£yuXr)v t £ cT'ex. gl^av i^iTrouaa. 
 
 It alfo appears from feveral paffages, that it was fordable-f- near the 
 Camp, therefore not very far from the Sea, a circumftance totally 
 inconfiftent with the character Mr. Bryant wifh.es "to affign to the 
 river. Of thefe intimations he takes little or no notice, but 
 they are to be reconciled to the epithets given us by J Homer, and 
 in order to do it, I fuppofed that the ^eyag irolapioi fictSuftvn; and 
 the other founding epithets of Homer, were alluflve of the fize and 
 raging of the ftream in winter., below the confluence; and that the 
 facls, which prove the Scamander to have been lefs confiderable, 
 either happened in Summer, when the water from the Simois failed, 
 or took place above the confluence. Should this folution not be 
 deemed fatisfaclory, perhaps fome other may be given, but none 
 is admiflible, which fuppofes the Scamander to be larger than 
 Monf. Chevalier defcribes it, fince it will be inconfiflent witli 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Homer, II. ^. v. 242. — + Homer, H. <p. v. 1, and pafiim. 
 J Indeed in II. <p. v. 1. and/^. in the very place where he mentions x\xtfordol the Xanthus, 
 he calls the river hnm, and almoft immediately after fix^v^sm; ugyvge&sr,*; ; yet it is a fordable 
 ftream. So we fee that according to Homer even a ford may be called »W'?, &c. but Mr. Bryant 
 fays afterwards, " this Xanthus is only an arm of the Scamander, which laft river was never 
 forded;" being hwv, fiuSvtfocc, & c . See Expoftulation, p. 109.- 
 
 2 Homer's 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 Homer's defcription where he is mofl precife ; and fuch a charge 
 of inconfiftency ought to be founded on furer grounds than a 
 poetical epithet. Let us alfo confider the nature and comparative 
 fize of the other river, the Simois. * I had quoted a paffage from 
 Pope's verfion of Homer, (referring to the greek in the notes,) in 
 which the Xanthus (as I laid,) implores the aid of his ally, the 
 Simois : 
 
 Hafte my brother flood, 
 And check this mortal, whocontrouls a God : 
 Call then your fubject ftreams, and bid them roar; 
 From all your fountains fwell your watry ftore, 
 With broken rocks, and with a load of dead, 
 Charge the black furge, and pour it on his head. 
 
 This is perhaps rather a loofe verfion, but the fehfe is nearly the 
 fame, and in the very next page I had given a part of the original, 
 moft material to my purpofe. I quoted alfo two lines of Pope from 
 the twelfth book, which either I or the printer made the feventh \\ 
 
 And gulphy Simois rolling to the main, 
 Helmets and fhields and godlike heroes flain. 
 
 In thefe two defcriptions, I faid, the Simois was characlerifed as a 
 violent unequal mountain torrent, rolling down in his " black furge," 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Vindication, p. 88. 
 t Horn. M. 22. K«i SIMOEIS e.9-1 iroXte. £o«ypi« x«( Tpv<pct\nx 
 
 Mr. Bryant fuppofed Pope's two lines to be a verfion of mine, and concluded that I had mif. 
 taken the Scamander for the Simois, as the Scamander is mentioned in the 7 th Book. I neither 
 wrote the linei, nor was I guilty of the blunder. 
 
 C flones, 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 ftones, trees and dead bodies. But in the original, Mr. Bryant 
 fays, * " we find not the leajl intimation of a mountain torrent, nor 
 of broken rocks, nor load of dead, nor of this black furge," The 
 original is 
 
 ■f lip!) <T« fJLSyX KVfACt TOXVV S O^VfJLO.yS'OV ooive 
 $ITp&)V KCLL 7\O.0iV* 
 
 " Lift up your mighty wave, and raife a great uproar of trunks of trees 
 and Rocks," I certainly quoted Pope as moll familiar to many readers, 
 but I mould be glad to know whether the fjaya xuua, irohui opujj.ayS'o; 
 (pnpcov y.a.i Aacov, is not juft as conclusive, with refpect to the fize 
 and nature of Simois, as any thing I have faid. J I believe Pope 
 made a blunder in translating Aa&tc a load of dead, as fuppofing it 
 the genitive plural of Aaos j but, when I mentioned the dead bodies, I 
 alluded to the vuiSreov yevos avfeoov in the 1 2th book. What further 
 proves, it is faiJ, that I was entirely mifled by Mr. Pope, is my call- 
 ing the Scamander the Xanthus. It is very true, and fo does Homer 
 repeatedly, who tells us they were fynonimous, 
 
 Or EANGON xctteouu Sreot av^egrt 2KAMANAP0N. T. 74. 
 
 But, what fhews that I confulted at leaft fome other tranflation 
 befides Pope's, is, that I tranflated yPigw , trunks of trees, which 
 are not mentioned in his verfion. Nor did I, in the fecond quota- 
 tion, miftake the Simois for the Scamander, fince the Simois is 
 named in the original. Now this river, is very feldom mentioned 
 in the Iliad, but the Scamander very frequently ; becaufe the Sca- 
 mander lay directly between the Grecian Camp, and the field of 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Obfervations, p. 63. — i Horn. (p. hi. 308. &x. 
 J A«o5 certainly never means dead people. 
 
 2 batle, 
 
( " ) 
 
 battle, and becaufe, below the junction, and near the Camp it was ftill 
 called Scamander. Its fountains alfo are mentioned near Troy ; the 
 Simois was more remote from the Scene of action, and as the river 
 is never croffed by either party, it is poffible, that thefe reafons 
 might have induced Homer to mention it lefs frequently than the 
 other, without any reference to their comparative fize. I have 
 throughout ufed the terms Xanthus and Scamander indifferently, 
 but in the expoftulation to the Britifh Critic Mr. Bryant gives 
 us a *map of the Grecian Station, and a defcription of it accord- 
 ing to the Poet, which agrees fo exactly with my conceptions, ex- 
 cepting in the diftance he affigns to Troy, and the difference he 
 makes between the Xanthus and Scamander, that I muft avail 
 myfelf of his conceffions, fince I think they completely prove 
 the truth of my own narration. -f-The fituation of the Camp 
 and the Ships was bounded to the left by the River Scamander. 
 At one end of the camp were the tents of Achilles, and the Myr- 
 midons ; to the right. At the other end, thofe of Ajax and his 
 people, and, in the centre, were the tent and fhip of Ulyffes. 
 Farther, in p. 106, the Scamander, we find, is reprefented by Strabo, 
 as refembling the Greek letter T, for it had two ftreams above, the 
 Simois and Xanthus, which, at laft, united, and fell into (or rather 
 formed) the main river below. Of thefe, the Simois was to the 
 left; the other, the Xanthus, to the right. As the Grecian Camp 
 lay upon the + right bank of the Scamander (for the left of the Camp 
 was bounded by the river), the Xanthus was at fome diftance 
 higher up, and oppofite to it, and it's fords lay in the way to Troy, 
 and from it — Here was the chief fcene of battle. IVWo-m^us Xipoivroi 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * P. 104. — + Expcftulation, p. 102. et/ej. 
 
 J By the righthmk Mr. Bryant evidently means the bank to the right of a perfon looking up 
 t'he river. This is ufually called the left bank of the river, but the conteft fully explains the 
 e.xpreflion ; and I would not with to cavil about words. 
 
 C 3 , i£t 
 
( u ) 
 
 iSe "Zxvboio oaxv-j. In page 109, Mr. Bryant fays, the Scamander 
 was never forded by the Greeks, it was only the Xanthus, an arm 
 of the chief ftream. Mr. Bryant then calls neither of the rivers 
 Scamander, above the confluence ; * an error of which he had al- 
 ready accufed me, and of which I had never been guilty. Now 
 Homer positively fays, the Xanthus and Scamander were the fame ; 
 and it may be proved, fince many battles were fought between the 
 Xanthus and the Simois ; and the conflux is defcribed to be that of 
 the Simois and Scamander. Juno and Minerva defcend H^< poas Xi- 
 u.om cvyAaXKiiov vfe XKAMANAPOS. Therefore the ^Simois, or 
 the river on the left, was not the Scamander; and if fo, the Xanthus 
 was, fince the name was retained above the confluence. This 
 confluence took place, according to Mr. Bryant, immediately under 
 the city, becaufe it is faid that the two Goddeffes Tpoi;,v '&ov, but 
 Tpoin is fometimes ufed, not merely for the city, but the diflrict, 
 for in the 9th Book Achilles fays, 
 
 rie£os ^evfexa. (pv/JLi Kara. "Tgoiwv tgifiwKov. II. I. 3 2, °- 
 
 This paflage Mr. Bryant himfelf refers to in the Obfervations, page 
 70. Bcjides, if, in fact, the city flood at the confluence, how could 
 two armies fight between the rivers in front of the city ? Since 
 then the Scamander and Xanthus were the fame, and the city 
 higher up than Mr. Bryant places it, in every other point his de- 
 scription correfponds to the map I have given exactly ; for what I 
 have marked as the old bed of the Scamander, was his Xanthus, 
 before the courfe was turned, and it lay directly between Troy and 
 the Grecian camp; Achilles's flation I have fuppofed at the Sigaean, 
 and, therefore, on the right; the left I have bounded by the river, 
 for which I have now Mr. Bryant's own authority. Mr. Bryant 
 
 .V T E. 
 * See Obfervations, p. 6i. 
 
 adds, 
 
( M ) 
 
 adds, *" From this evidence we learn, that the Grecian camp and 
 the river Xanthus, and particularly it's fords, alfo the city Troy 
 itfelf, were, in refpect to each other, nearly in a diredl line from 
 the fea upwards." In every part of this inference, I have the 
 greateft fatisfadlion in having my map fo very ably fupported. 
 
 The fituation of the two rivers in the plain of Bounarbachi, 
 agrees then fufficiently with Homer's defcription ; but Mr. Bryant 
 fays, that the fituation of the plain itfelf is incompatible with it ; 
 becaufe the City of Troy flood in this Plain, and -f there are good 
 reafons to believe it was near to Troas and Mount Ledum, and in 
 view of the ifland Tenedos to the South. Now, that the plain of 
 Troy was bounded by the Hellefpont is evident, from many paf- 
 fages in the Iliad ; and the Hellefpont is far to the North of Troas, 
 and Leclum. If then ^the Hellefpont of Homer was the fame 
 as that of every other Greek writer, (and that it was not, has never 
 been proved, though Mr. Bryant has attempted it,) there remains 
 for us to confider, whether fuch a fituation upon thefe celebrated 
 ftraits, is really confident with the other paflages of the Iliad, 
 which mention Leclum and Gargarus. §Ledtum is the promon- 
 tory, which forms the northern point of the Sinus Adramytenus ; 
 the deep bay in which Antandros and Adramyttium were fituated. 
 || Gargarus is the fummit of the fame ridge, of which Ledlum is 
 the extremity ; and that ridge bounds the whole fide of the bay 
 in a line from Weft to Eaft, turning Northward, at the Eaftern 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Expotulation, p. 107 — + Obfervations, p. 6_|, et paj/im. 
 
 \ See Vindication, p. 80, where the epithets and fituation of Homer's Hellefpont are taken 
 intoconfideration. See alfo Bryant on the War of Troy, p. 157. 
 
 § See Strabo, 1. 15. p. 583.— 1| Id. ibid. 
 
 3 end 
 
( *4 ) 
 
 end of the Bay. * Gargarus was alfo the higheft fummit of Ida; 
 and-f at no great diftance from Antandros. Farther on in the fame 
 ridge was another fummit called JCotylus, and the northern point 
 where the mountains approached the Hellespont was called Dar- 
 danus. This whole chain of mountains went by the general name 
 of Ida, which however appears fometimes to be appropriated to 
 §Gargarus as the higheft fummit of the chain. That Ledum and 
 Gargarus are not the fame, is evident ; fince Ledum is by no means 
 the higheft point of Ida, but is only a rocky promontory, which 
 terminates that mountain. From Ledum the mountains gradually 
 rife on the Eaft, and this rife terminates in a high point about 
 half way between Ledum and the bottom of the gulph, at 
 about twenty-five miles diftance from each. This point is ftill 
 the Summit of this branch of Ida, and is therefore fuffici- 
 ently apparent, and there is no higher fummit nearer Ledum, 
 therefore it is impofiible to make Gargarus, and Ledum, nearer 
 than twenty-five miles, fince the lafting features of nature will 
 not bend to our Syftems. The South fide of. Ida falls from 
 Gargarus very rapidly down to the gulph of Adramyttium. I landed 
 in this part near a village called Nara, and croffed over the moun- 
 tain to Alexandria ; this fummit of Ida was on our right hand ; it 
 was pointed out by the inhabitants ; and indeed it is as well known 
 as the fummit of any mountain in Switzerland or Wales. If Gar- 
 garus then was the higheft point of this ridge, it was here. Now 
 this point is a considerable diftance from the plain of Bounarbachi ; 
 but it is in fight of the plain, and I have given in one of the Plates || 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Servius, Notes on Virgil, JEn. 9, 86. Now it is poflible that the fummit of a mountain 
 mould be twenty-five or thirty miles from Its ext remit v, and it frequently happens. 
 
 + Hefychius, as quoted by Mr. Bryant, Obfervations, p. 65. 
 
 I Homer'i II. paflim. So Herodotus : T> I^V Xzfiav h acts-icy %<pci. L.70. 42. 
 
 $ See Vindication, p. 116. — || Annexed to the Vindication, p. 84. 
 
 a view 
 
( ij ) 
 
 a view of it * from the Sigsean promontory, in the out-line of which 
 it is a confiderable feature. When Jupiter therefore views the plain 
 and the fhips of the Grecians from this fummit, there is nothing 
 Ji range in Homer's defcription, becaufe they were all in fight ; and 
 here \ Mr. Bryant remarks, that / " believe in 'Jupiter, and his 
 fuperior faculty of fight," becaufe I attribute to him optics which 
 are evidently fuperior to thofe of men. My Paganifm, however, 
 fully proved, has, I conceive, nothing to do with the queftion ; 
 Homer gives the all-feeing Jupiter an exalted ftation on the fum- 
 mit of Ida •, the image, is grand, confident and poetical. The point 
 from which Jupiter takes his view of the plain does in fact com- 
 mand it, and therefore I can find ho reafon why we mould conclude 
 from the fituation of Gargartis, Jthat the plain was farther to the 
 South, and that Troy flood near Alexandria Troas. Homer does not 
 infinuate any thing about the diftance of Gargarus, when he tells 
 us the plain was feen from it by Jupiter. I certainly conceive the 
 Eye of Homer's Jupiter to have been very ftrong and piercing, and 
 cannot argue from the Eyes of Men in this cafe, whatever idea Mr. 
 Bryant may form of my belief in the Grecian Mythology. §Cer- 
 
 XO T E S. 
 * Vindication, p. 84. 
 
 Jupiter viewed the city *i »«*? ^z"- tm t which Mr. Bryant fays were, according to my pofition, 
 a.great way beyond Ilium, and therefore (becaufe I argue from Strabo that Ilium was in fight of 
 Gargarus,) that I am guilty of a dijiugcmtous e-vaSm, in directing Jupiter's view to a nearer ob- 
 jecl. There is no evafion in the drawing, which is taken very near the Shore, nor is Ilium much 
 nearer ; for the town I mean is new Ilium, mentioned by Strabo, 1. 13, p. 605, which was only 
 a mile, or a mile and a half from the Port of the Greeks, and the mouth of theJScamander. See 
 Obfervations, p. 70. 
 
 + Obfervations, p. 69. 
 
 | Mr. Bryant tells us in another place, that Ilion, according to Homer, was mAoSv, a con- 
 fiderable diftance from Ida ; — does not this ruin his own argument ? Obfervations, p. 54. 
 
 § Horn. II. N. 20. Neptune ftrode at four ftrides from Salamis to Agae ; Mr. Bryant therefore 
 muft either fuppofe that mortal men walked about much quicker in thefe days than they do now, 
 ,or he muft allow fuperior power to Homer's Neptune ; and implicate himfelf in this fame dread, 
 ful Sin of Polytheifm. 
 
 tainly, 
 
( 1-6 ) 
 
 Mainly, Neptune's four ftrides are more difproportionate to human 
 power than Jupiter's Eye fight. The plain of Bounarbachi is, there- 
 fore, in a fituation fufiiciently agreeable to Homer's defcription of 
 the plain of Troy ; and Strabo, * with all the bell: Geographers, 
 fuppofed them to be the fame. What puts it beyond a doubt that 
 it was not farther South is, that there is no plain nearer GargaruSj 
 and no rivers of any fize. -f Mr. Bryant certainly miftook the 
 nature of the itreams near Alexandria, if either from Pocock's de- 
 fcription, or any other, he could for a moment imagine them to be 
 defcribed by Homer, either as the Simois or Xanthus. They are 
 mere fprings that rife above and fupply fome baths, and are not 
 large enough (as Belon owns,) for a goofe to fwim in even in 
 Winter. I have inferted this % " river" as, Mr. Bryant calls it, in my 
 Map ; but I thought the fize could not be miftaken, as I have de- 
 fcribed it in the §Vindication, and as Chevalier gives a full account 
 of it. || " There it Jlands then in my Map, — indelible,'''' and in 
 my book Hands the defcription of it, and both are equally " obvious 
 to any per/on who will look after them : There alfo it Jlands in Cheva- 
 lier, and in his book too ; yet becaufe we mark a water courfe near 
 Alexandria, and in our writings deny the exiftence of a river there, 
 Mr. Bryant afks, " How we can be expected to underftand Homer, 
 fince we do not underftand our own meaning ?" 
 
 The whole of the argument, as far as it relates to Homer's de- 
 fcription of the fituation of the plain, feems to me to amount to this. 
 If, according to Homer, the fcene of the Iliad mull neceffarily be 
 transferred to the vicinity of Leclum, and Gargarus, the whole of 
 this defcription is (as Mr. B. juftly obferves in this fuppofition,) 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Strabo, 1. iy, p. 595, x.t.>„ — + Expoftulation, p, 98. — j Expoftulatien, p. 99. 
 § Vindication, p. 82, and Chevalier, p. 7. — 1| See the Expoftulation, p. 100. 
 
 purely 
 
( i7 ) 
 
 purely ideal; fince the country is in every refpecT: totally different 
 from the region defcribed. The only proof of its vicinity to Gar- 
 garus, which Mr. Bryant has adduced from Homer's writings, is, that 
 he places Jupiter upon that fummit to view the plain. Admitting 
 the fact, I deny the conclufion ; and as a proof on the other fide, I 
 obferve, that Homer certainly places the plain on the fhore of the 
 HeJkfpont. Since in this fituation we find a plain and two rivers 
 in every refpecr. agreeing with Homer's account, the fcene of the 
 Iliad was not ideal ; and one argument againft the hiftorical truth of 
 the Poem is thereby taken away. 
 
 The plain of Bounarbachi, and the ancient courfes of the two 
 rivers, which are found there, correfpond with the plain of ancient 
 Troy, and the defcription afforded by the Iliad of the Simois and 
 Xanthus, or Scamander. Here alfo we find the * Thymbrius men- 
 tioned by Homer, and feveral tombs, which agree in a very extra- 
 ordinary manner, (confidering the number of ages which have 
 intervened,) with all that Homer has faid of the tombs of the 
 Grecian and Trojan heroes. Surely thefe additional corroborating 
 circumftances cannot be entirely paffed over ; and they outweigh any 
 inference, that can be drawn from the Eyefight which Homer allots 
 to Jupiter. It remained then to fix the fituation of Troy, and in this 
 I have followed Mr. Chevalier; not " blindly," nor "implicitly;" 
 but becaufe I thought him right in the fituation he affigned to the 
 city; at the fame time that I thought he carried the walls on the South 
 and Eaft fide too far back. I had faid, that Bounarbachi \ was fet 
 above a fhort afcent upon a plain ; the plain in which the rivers 
 run is below it, on the North and on the Weft, and the difference of 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Now the Thimbreck. See Chevalier, and the Vindication. 
 + See Vindication, p. 93, e t feq. 
 
 D level 
 
t 18 ) 
 
 level between thefe two plains is not confiderable. The flat ground 
 behind Bounarbachi is delineated in the view taken from the tomb 
 of Hector, as well as the larger plain below ; and the flope between 
 thefe two plains is alfo delineated in the view taken from the cold 
 fpring of the Scamander, as well as the much higher hill in the 
 right hand of the picture, on the top of which the tombs of Hector 
 and the other Trojan warriors are fuppofed to be fituated. This 
 high hill bounds the upper plain on the South and South-Eafl, and 
 behind it runs the Simois in a deep dell, with high rocky precipices, 
 which ceafe jufl to the Eaft of Bounarbachi, and terminate in the 
 flight acclivity above which the village (lands, with a level plain 
 behind it, extending to the foot of the hills that rife on the South. 
 I do not place Troy " high up beyond" * Bounarbachi, but I believe it 
 to have occupied what is now the fituation of that village, and to 
 have extended behind, and on each fide of it, over great part of the 
 flat table land between the lower plain, and the hills on the South. 
 Part of the City might alfo have extended along the bank of the 
 Simois on the North, and North-Eafl, into the lower plain ; Troy, 
 however, is here ge^g^w, on a plain, which in fact does not ter- 
 minate but at the high range of hills, on which, I conceive, the 
 Acropolis to have flood. Homer faid the city was t«Ao9/, " a great 
 way" from Mount Ida, I agree with him. \ Mount Ida, properly 
 fo called, rifes far behind the hills of Bounarbachi, which I have 
 fhewn in what I faid about Gargarus. But if Jupiter fate on 
 
 NO T ES. 
 
 * Some Obfervations, &e. p. 53. The word Bounarbachi fignifies the " head of a Stream;" 
 and, therefore, the reader will not imagine the village to be on the top of a hill above a mile from 
 the fources which it takes its name from. 
 
 + Mr. Bryant himfelf allows that Homer's Ida is properly the fame as Gargarus; but in faft 
 in the place quoted, the words are TuAofli oito. 
 
 AJrSjtfcW i|o»<»>?. Ii 662. 
 " We bring wood from the mountain from a confiderable diftance." The woody parts of the moun. 
 fain might be at fome diftance without any juft inference as to the diftance of the mountain itfelf. 
 
 6 Ida, 
 
( i9 ) 
 
 Ida, and Troy, according to Homer, was tjjAoAi a great ivay from 
 it, what becomes of the whole argument founded on the immediate 
 vicinity of Gargarus and Lectum ? I had tried in the *Vindication 
 to ftrengthen my argument by a fuppofition, that the wall ran along 
 the flope below Bounarbachi, and then above the fprings cut acrofs 
 the flat platform, on which it is fituated to the foot of the higher 
 hills. I had obferved, that in this cafe, if the Scaean Gate flood above 
 the fprings, the wall to the South of the Gate would crofs over a 
 level plain from the top of one flope to the bottom of a much 
 higher, that here was propably the egivsoc. ErSa ju.aAisTa a.u.[iaro? e^i 
 iro>.i<; $ giriJVojUw nrKiro tuyja. ^iri^fofjio;, is rendered by fome lexi- 
 cographers accejfu facilis, planus ;\ which I accounted for by 
 (hewing, that according to my plan, the wall which every where 
 elfe was upon an acclivity, here would be upon a level plain. The 
 whole of this paffage was, therefore, mifunderftood by Mr. Bryant, 
 or he would not have cenfured me fo feverely as he has done in his 
 Obfervations, page $3, and 54; but it is very difficult fometimes 
 to defcribe fituations by words, and the obfcurity and confufion of 
 my defcription, no doubt, milled him. I certainly intended no 
 evajion or duplicity here, and I hope I have explained my meaning 
 to his fatisfaclion. 
 
 I have already noticed many other particulars, in which this 
 affigned fituation agrees with Homer, fo I will not recapitulate 
 them here. It is only my bufinefs to take away the objections, that 
 have fince been made; particularly, where any mifconception may 
 
 NOTES. 
 • Page 96. 
 
 t Stephanus renders it expojltiu run txifyc/Attii, bicurfionihm. I tranflated it level, or eafily 
 accejfible; Mr. Bryant fays that it means eafily over.run, or eafily afcended. But i-t means — 
 " clofe up to," as well as" locally upon," as I have fhewn ; (Vindication, p. 9;.) and in com- 
 position, I apprehend, it may be rendered in that fenfe. EtiAo^os may mean ea/y to be approach- 
 id, as well as " eafy to be qfcended;" and it is in faCl fo underftood by Stephanus. 
 
 d 2 have 
 
( ^o ) 
 
 have originated from my want of perfpicuity. In my Map *I am 
 told, that the fountains of Scamander are a long mile from Bounar- 
 bachi, and Troy ftill higher ; however my book corrected the 
 inaccuracy of my Map, for I repeatedly ftate that the -j- Scaean Gate 
 was immediately above thefe fprings, and in the \ view taken from 
 the fprings Bounarbachi is delineated as it really is, greatly within 
 half that diftance. If then it was nine miles and a half from the 
 fprings (and confequently the Scaean Gate,) to the Sigean promon- 
 tory, §1 argued that it would not be more than feven or eight miles 
 to the neareft part of the camp ; and, that a lefs diftance than is here 
 ailigned would be fcarcely fufficient for the two armies to encamp 
 and march, or for the different events to take place, which are re- 
 corded in Homer's poem. AiTuming the hot fpring as a mark of 
 the fituation of the Scaean gate, I have conjectured the fituation of 
 the city. Certainly no ruins remain; but as I have ftated, the 
 ground in fome parts appears to have been built upon ; and many 
 other cities are equally deftroyed without the fame caufes of deftruc- 
 tion. It fuffices then to have (hewn that this fituation, in other 
 refpects, agrees with Homer, and that no other fituation in the 
 plain does, fince the Scaean gate muff, be near the fprings. This 
 has, I truft, been done, and if fo the fcenery of the Iliad is founded 
 on reality ; and Homer, at leaft, adapted his ftory to the geography 
 of Phrygia. 
 
 In the Vindication I had ventured an opinion that Strabo in per- 
 fon never vifited the Troad, and I founded that opinion, not on his 
 contradicting my hypothefis, but on his contradicting himfelf more 
 than once, and on his frequent references to Demetrius of Scepfis. 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Obfervations, p. 53. — + See Vindication. Plate. — J Vindication, p. 97, tt pa$m. 
 
 § Vindication, p. j id 
 
 3 Whether 
 
( *« ) 
 
 Whether he was in the Troad or not however, he defcribes a great 
 part of it with the utmoft accuracy. * Mr. Bryant fays that " the 
 author of the Vindication, (M. Morritt,) and his friend, (Mr. Che- 
 valier,) act very politicly in depreciating Strabo, however high his 
 authority; for if he is to be trufted , almofl every article which 
 they have maintained is wrong." I beg the reader's attention while 
 I (hew from Strabo, "if he is trufted," how many articles which 
 we have maintained are right, and thofe chiefly articles, for which 
 he does not cite Demetrius j and which, if he was there, were 
 apparently his own obfervations. -fin tracing the coaft of the Hel- 
 lefpont, he comes to Dardanus ; a city feventy ftadia diftant from 
 Abydos, on a promontory of the fame name. Between this city 
 and Abydos he places the river Rhodius ; and oppofite to its mouth, 
 in the Thracian Cherfonefus, the Cynos-fema, or tomb of Hecuba. 
 Near Dardanus is Ophrynium, on which flood a grove confecrated 
 to Hector, and then he comes to the lake Pteleos. %l always thought 
 the Geography of this part of the country fufficiently afcertained by 
 D'Anville, and the § travellers who have vifited the Hellefpont, and 
 as it was not the immediate object of my book, I gave the plan of 
 the coafl no higher than the point I fuppofe the Rhoeteum. || Here, 
 however, Mr. Bryant fays I have, to all appearance, miflaken the 
 Rhodius for the Scamander ; and adds, that the lake Pteleos is by 
 Strabo placed juft where the neareji land appears now near Ophry- 
 nium, which feems to be the Cape Janifary of the moderns, which 
 they have confidered as the ancient Sigeum. Between the Rhodius 
 and Ophrynium flood <| Dardanus ; a part of Ida with the city Dar- 
 danus upon it. Where is this mountain and city ? certainly not 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Obfervations, p. 59. — + Strabo, r3; 59J, x. r. >. 
 
 J This then is the ordeV given by Strabo, in which the places he mentions were ranged along 
 the coaft from Abydos fouthward : — Abydos, Rhodius, Dardanus acra, Dardanus, Ophrynium. 
 
 § Sandys, Pocock, Chandler, Sec. — 1| Obfervations, p. 56, $7, &c. — %. See Strabo ad. lac. 
 
 between 
 
( « ) 
 
 between Cape Janifary and the river we defcribe. This fingle 
 fact deftroys the whole hypothefis ; but if any one will con- 
 fult D'Anville's plan, given by Bocage in the Voyage D'Ana- 
 charfis, and compare it with the modern Map of Greece by De La 
 Rochette, who is however lefs exact than D'Anville, he will fee 
 that thefe places are placed higher up, and confidently with Strabo's 
 defcription. Abydos is a fituation ftill known; the traces of its 
 foundations are fcattered over the fide of a hill, and a maffy 
 fragment of its wall (lands on the fhore. The narrownefs of the 
 Hellefpont near this place marks its fituation as well that of Seftos. 
 As I made the journey by land from the Troad to the Dardanelles, 
 and afterwards went to Abydos, and returned by fea to the Troad, 
 I can affure the reader that the outline of the Hellefpont, as given by 
 D'Anville, and La Rochette, is tolerably exact; near the modern 
 townof the Dardanelles, wherethe Afiaticfcrtrefs of the Turks is fitu- 
 ated, * a large and rapid river runs into the fea; it is about five miles 
 from Abydos, and therefore as Dardanus is at about nine miles, or 
 feventy ftadia, it would be between the two. This then muff be the 
 Rhodius, for if Dardanus was beyond the other river we call the 
 Scamander, it would be near twenty miles from Abydos. A little 
 below this river, which runs in a plain, the mountain of Ida borders 
 the Hellefpont, and we know Dardanus was the name of this ex- 
 tremity of Ida. -f Ophrynium was " irhwiov., near it ;" how then 
 could it be at Cape Janifary ? in facl:, Ophrynium was another 
 promontory of Ida which here juts into the fea. This part of the 
 country correfponds completely with Strabo, and the CynofTema is 
 directly oppofite the mouth of the Rhodius, for at its foot is built 
 the Eurqpean Caftle of the Dardanelles, directly oppofite the Afiatic, 
 
 NOTE s. 
 
 * This is the river Leunclavius feems to have miftaken for the Simois. See Notes on Cheva- 
 lier, p. 102. 
 
 + Strabo, lie. fufrac. 
 
 which 
 
( n ) 
 
 which ftands on the Rhodius, (now the Dardanelle river). Near 
 it are Madytos and Koilos, now Maita and Koilia, and beyond them 
 the promontory of Seftos. The CynofTema is a high promontory, 
 and upon it there ftill remains a tomb exactly fimilar to the tumuli 
 of the Troad, as I had already mentioned *in the Vindication. 
 (See page 107.) Now thefe promontories and rivers agree with 
 Strabo, and are totally inconflftent with every attempt to convert 
 the rivers of the plain of Bounarbachi, and the Cape Janifari into 
 the Rhodius and Ophrynium ; and when -f Mr. Bryant confiders 
 that this larger river was Strabo's Scamander, (for, certainly, it 
 wafhes Palae Scepfis, and receives the Andrius of that author,) 
 he mu it entirely abandon his opinion. | He declares, however, 
 that the marines which exift to the eafl of Koumkale in the plain, 
 were undoubtedly the Pteleos of Strabo. Let us fee how Strabo 
 continues his defcription of the coafl, having flrft premifed that 
 fome very marfhy land exifts nearer Dardanus. After Pteleos is 
 Poileoy iroKn tvi Mfv-x.tiy.ivn, Rhceteum a city on a bill; (beyond the 
 marfhes on the weit there are no hills j) alfo at Rhaeteum was a tomb 
 on the fhore, called Aianteum, with a fane and monument of Ajax. 
 The remains of this tomb, and the foundations of this very fane, 
 exift, and mark the Rhcetean promontory ; and the tomb is proved 
 to be the fame Strabo mentioned, being fituated near the fhore, and 
 broken open in the very manner defcribed by Paufanias, who alfo 
 takes notice of it. Here is alfo Aotpos, a rifing ground on which the 
 city flood, and therefore Pteleos was not in the plain, but undoubt- 
 edly nearer to Dardanus. Thefe marfhes in the plain a*e mentioned 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Vindication, p. 107. — + Obfervations, p. 57. 
 
 X Strabo thus continues his defcription : Pteleos — Rhceteum — Aianteum — Sigeum — Nauftath- 
 mus Achivorum — [A</*ij».] Portus Achivorum — Caltra. Achiv. — Stoma limne — Scamandri oftia, 
 Sigeias Acra, oppofue the Cherfonefus. Achaeum, a promontory commanding the fhore of Tenedos, 
 and the plain of Troy lying inland above all thefe places towards Ida, 
 
 by 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 by Strabo, however, under a different name. " Beyond the Rhce- 
 teum, he fays is Sigeum, a city now ruined, and the Naval ftation 
 and the port of the Greeks, and the Grecian camp, and amarfh called 
 Stoma, and the mouths of the Scamander. For the Simois and 
 Scamander joining in the plain, bringing down a quantity of mud 
 in their courfe heap up the fhore, and form ro^Aav q-o/xa. is xj A<,u.rc- 
 dz^ctTrca ^ zM." This blind mouth, and fait marfhes formed 
 by the Scamander, are not then the lake Pteleos, nor were they ever 
 confounded with it. Then Strabo mentions the Sigean promontory, 
 and the tomb of Protefilaus which ftood oppofite to it in the Thra- 
 cian Cherfonefus ; but as Cape Janifary is the lafl point oppofite 
 Thrace, if Ophrynium was here, Sigeum was more to the South, 
 and not oppofite the Cherfonefus, nor near it. In fhort, there is 
 not one reafon in Strabo for placing either Ophrynium or Pteleos in 
 this part, and inexplicable confufion would refult from it. The 
 objects mentioned above, Sigeum (the city,) the Naval ftation, &c. 
 all come in between Rhaeteum, and the Sigean promontory ax^a. 
 1,iyeicx.g> on which he places the tomb of Achilles, and near it thofe 
 of Patroclus and Antilochus. Hitherto then if Strabo is to be trufted, 
 the articles Chevalier and I have maintained are not wrong. Per- 
 haps alfo fome others will be found equally confonant to his evi- 
 dence. In one point, however, we both of us differ from him. 
 *For, fays he, " the length of this more from the Rhceteum to 
 the Sigaean promontory, and tomb of Achilles, is fixty ftadia." 
 ■f Pliny fays thirty, and this number agreeing with the breadth of 
 the plain, and being fupported in our conjectures about the fite of 
 the Rhceteum by the exiftence of the broken tumulus above men- 
 tioned, we fuppofed that Strabo's text might here be - defective, 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Strabo, ibid. 
 
 + Pliny fays the diftance from the Aianteum was thirty ftadia, which Strabo places at the 
 Rhcetean Promontory. Plin. Hift. Natur. 1. 5. cap. 30. 
 
 fince 
 
( 2 5 ) 
 
 fince it depends on a Greek numeral; and we adopted the mea- 
 furement of Pliny as more confonant to truth; *but we gave our 
 reafons for fixing the Rhceteum near the tomb of Ajax, and alfo for 
 fuppofing the broken tumulus now feen on the fhore to be that tomb, 
 as defcribed by Strabo himfelf and Paufanias. I apprehend, that 
 this correction of Strabo's meafurement, by the exifting topogra- 
 phy of the country, fupported by the authority of Pliny, is agreeable 
 to the exacteft rules of geographical criticifm. Indeed the ej-ixovrai 
 q-aJix of Strabo are doubtful, fince other manufcripts have fubfti- 
 tuted efZfofs.exoinx in fome copies, and Euftathius propofes to read 
 £ttt«. A doubtful reading is belt, corrected by the real geography 
 of the Plain, and the comparifon with another author; efpecially in 
 Strabo, where the text is in general acknowledged to have been 
 much mutilated. " The whole of this coaft then," fays Strabo, 
 " lies below Ilium ; it being about twelve ftadia from the pre lent 
 town of that name to the Port of the Grecians ; from the ancient 
 Ilium it is thirty ftadia more, meafured upwards towards the region 
 of Ida." The exact (ituation of NewTlium has not yet been af- 
 certained I believe. I own I have little doubt that it was above the 
 junction, for -f-in Pliny we find that New Ilium was a Roman 
 mile and a half from the Port, that is certainly from the Jhore ; 
 and I believe this word Portu refers to the Portus Achivorum men- 
 tioned three line6 before ; as it agrees exactly with the twelve 
 ftadia of Strabo, both here, and in p. 598. |New Ilium 
 was alfo twenty Stadia diftant from the mouth of the Simois ; and 
 below the junction there does not appear to have been room for a 
 confiderable city, and alfo for thefe diftances from the more. No 
 part of the more is nowmuch above twenty ftadia from the junction, 
 therefore I am inclined ftrongly to believe the city ftood abo^e it. I 
 
 NOTES. 
 * Vind. p. 105 — no. Chevalier, p. 107.— t Pliiu Hid. Nat, L. 5". Chap. 30. 
 J Strabo. L 13. p. 598. 
 
 E think 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 think alfo, but with great diffidence, that the word *gjUTfo«8sr means 
 in front of New Ilium, and that this is the more ckffical fenfe 
 of the word, which more frequently, I believe, is ufed with refe- 
 rence to place than to time, and I conceive Strabo to view the 
 country from the fhore as he ufually does. This fituation above 
 the Confluence was firft fuggefted by the learned author of the 
 Britifh Critick, who notices it p. 35, and is further ftrengthened as 
 he juftly obferves, by the exiftence of the ancient Bridge, marked 
 in Mr. Wood's map, -f* which is above the confluence. I could not 
 find any certain traces of the city itfelf, fuch as foundations, or 
 walls undoubtedly ancient, either above or below the junction ; 
 many pieces of ancient fculpture, and remains of ancient magni- 
 ficence are now ftuck without order in the walls of one or two poor 
 villages in this part of the plain, above the junction ; a certain 
 proof of the vicinity of fome ancient monuments. " Going for- 
 ward a little beyond this fhore Strabo fays you come to Achaeum, 
 which commands the fhore of Tenedos. The plain of Troy lies 
 above thefe places on the fhore, fbretching eaftward for many fladia 
 as far as Ida. That part near the mountains is narrow, partly 
 extending on the South fide to the vicinity of Scepfis, (this certainly 
 is the defcription of the narrow dell in which the Simois runs.) J 
 partly on the North fide to the Lycians of Zeleia. (This I conceive 
 to be the valley of the Thymbrius.) This place the poet fays was 
 fubje<ft to ^Eneas and the fons of Antenor, and he calls it Dar- 
 dania." Now hitherto, except in the diflanceof Troy, I completely 
 agree with Strabo. I think it cannot be faid, that if he is right 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Strabo fays the confluence of the rivers was t/Mr(eih> rev iAioi/, L. 13. p. 597. 
 
 + Though Mr. Chevalier does not infert this bridge in his map, he mentions it in his Book, 
 p. 24. The bridge certainly does exiil in that fituation as he defcribes it. 
 
 % See the map annexed to the Vindication, or that of Chevalier. 
 
 almofr. 
 
( 2 7 ) 
 
 almofl every article I have maintained is wrong. With refpect to 
 the fituation of the city, I differ from his. authority however refpec- 
 table, becaufe it appears not to agree with the description left us 
 by Homer. *The two fources of the Scamander rofe near the 
 road in front of the Scaean gate ; Troy therefore was above thefe 
 fources in the plain. But thefe fources are found much higher up 
 than the village of the Ilians, which Strabo conjectured, perhaps 
 from fome vague tradition, to have been at or near the fituation of 
 ancient Ilium. It has alfo been fhewn by M. Chevalier, that Strabo 
 had afligned it a different fituation in another paffage, p. 892. For 
 he had there faid, that " from the mountainous part of Ida two 
 a.yy.uvic, or projecting ranges of hills, flretch to the fea, one towards 
 Rhceteum, theother towardsthe Sigeum, in a femicircular direction; 
 but they terminate about the fame diflance from the Sea with New 
 Ilium." By this termination, I fancy the point of their greatejl 
 projection whence they retire to the Sea, is alluded to; fince he had 
 already faid they run to the fea, which would not happen if they 
 ceafed at new Ilium. Indeed New Ilium is nearly in the narroweft 
 part of the plain, and this defcription agrees entirely with the plain 
 of Bounarbachi. But Strabo fays, that New Ilium flood indeed at 
 the termination of this range, but ancient Ilium flood at their com- 
 mencement. Therefore according to him, it flood at the foot of the 
 mountains of \ Ida; and Bounarbachi is found there, but the 
 village of the Ilians (if Strabo 's thirty fladia are exactly mea- 
 fured) flood lower down in the vale, and lower than the fprings ; 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Horn. II. X. 147. Mr. Bryant has explained this paffage differently, but as Strabo evidently 
 confiders it as defcriptive of the fources of the Scamander, even while he owns the Scamander of 
 Demetrius did not agree with Homer's defcription ; I mud confider him as the better Commen- 
 tator of the two. Strabo, L. 1 3. p. 602. 
 
 + Ida is here ufed as the general name of the whole range. Homer fometimes ufes it in a more 
 tonfined fenfe. \ 
 
 E 2 
 
 whiVh 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 which pofition would be inconfiftent with Homer's defcription, 
 and alfo. with the Situation affigned to Troy, by Strabo's own conjec- 
 ture in the paflage above quoted. Surely a greater attention is to 
 be paid to this excellent geographer's pofitive defcription of 
 the features of nature, than to any meafurements he gives ; fince 
 befides the frequent corruptions of Greek numerals which have 
 happened from the careleffnefs of tranfcribers, we know that com- 
 puted diftances are often extremely vague and erroneous even now, 
 and we know riot that they are here affigned by actual meafurement. 
 Befides, if New Ilium was of any extent, fuppofe for example, twoor 
 three miles above the confluence, thirty ftadia further might bring us 
 not very far fhort of the fituation affigned by us. In this uncertainty 
 however it cannot be faid, that if Strabo is to be fruited we are 
 wrong, fince we agree in every thing but in the length of thefe 
 thirty ftadia, and in that part we have fhewn that he contradicts 
 himfelf. " Thefe two ranges of hills enclofed the vallies of Sca- 
 mander and of Simois ; and this enclofed part is properly called 
 the plain of Troy, and was the fcene of rnofl: of the Poet's Battles ; 
 he then * mentions the other monuments, and the conflux, and alfo 
 the Stoma limne. See Strabo, p. 89a. Chevalier, p. 63. He 
 alfo mentions the Thymbrius, and this is ftill called Thimbreck, 
 therefore cannot be miftaken ; and then argues at fome length that 
 ■f New Ilium was not the feat of ancient Troy ; as it clearly was 
 not. He afterwards fays, not a veftige remained of the ancient 
 city, which he thinks very eafily accounted for ; (See Strabo p. 
 59.9^ See Vindication, p. 72.) With regard to the paffages for 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Strabo fays ogufiuw, 597, ive fee there the places mentioned by Homer, the Erineos, the tombs 
 of jEfyetes, Myrinne, and Ilus, which are ftill (hewn. 
 
 + This debate, fays Mr. Bryant, fhews that neither New Ilium nor the Pagus Ilienfium had 
 any pretenfions to be confidered as Troy. I think it appears that they had not, but yet fome 
 third fpot might, for this uncertainty by no means proves the non-exiftence of any place. 
 
 6 which 
 
which he cites Demetrius, and which induced me to think he had 
 not vifited the Troad, much has been laid, they chiefly relate to the 
 fituation of places more inland, fuch as Scepfis, JEne, &c. De- 
 metrius certainly fuppofed the river we called Simois to be the Sca- 
 mander, but Strabo owns it had only one fountain, and did not 
 agree with Homer. He then fuppofes the warm Spring loft; but 
 even in that cafe it does not agree, fince Troy flood near the'fe 
 fprings ; and he places the city many miles lower, where Ida ter- 
 minates in the plain. Here then he is inconfiftent with himfelf, 
 and whenever that is the cafe, we mufl have recourfe to the exift- 
 ing topography, and to other authorities, in order to clear up dif- 
 ficulties and remove doubts, if we really wifh to illuftrate Strabo 
 and Homer. If however we wifh to invalidate their evidence, 
 the more doubts and difficulties we can accumulate the better. I 
 only doubt Strabo's authority where he doubts it himfelf, or where 
 other authors contradidt him, and are more confonant to modern 
 evidence. 
 
 I truft then, that I have at leaft fhewn that Mr. Chevalier and I 
 do not depreciate Strabo's account, from any politick motives af- 
 figned to us by Mr. Bryant. That the Scamander of that author was 
 not, and could not be the Scamander of Homer, Mr. Bryant muft ac- 
 knowledge ; fince his own plan of the Simois and Xanthus contra- 
 dicts it, and I have fhewn that the Xanthus and Scamander of Homer 
 were the fame; the names had been changed after Homer's time, 
 and hence originated all the confufion. If indeed the courfe of the 
 original Scamander had been turned previous to Strabo's time (which 
 is notimpoffible) the confufion may be accounted for, fince the mouth 
 being always called the ojlia Scamandri, the name would naturally 
 be retained all the way up, tho' the real Scamander no longer joined 
 it. * Pliny however pofitively mentions the prefent Mouth of the 
 
 NO TE. 
 » See Hift, Natur. L. $, Cap. 30. 
 
 Scamander 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 Scamander South of Sigeum, and alfo the Palae-Scamander, the 
 ancient bed of the river, and the Simois on the North fide. I truft 
 then that we are fupported in our conjectures by the moft refpect- 
 able authors of antiquity ; and certain it is, that Mr. Bryant's con- 
 jecture about Ophrynium, and the map he gives oT Troy near 
 Lectum, is pofitively contradicted by them all, in numberlefs places; 
 and his. Situation of Ophrynium is, indeed, contradicted by himfelf. 
 Allowing him therefore the authority of Virgil, Ejl in confpeftu 
 Tcnedos, (which is not in fight from the plain, only on account of the 
 height of the coaft) and alfo of *Monf. Belon, who owns he could 
 net find the rivers at Alexandria Troas ; I only oppofe to them the 
 authorities above mentioned, and upon that iffue I reft the caufe. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 * Mr. Bryant adds to Belon, Sandys, Lithgow, and Gerr.elli ; Sandys however is en- 
 tirely contrary to his fuppofition, for he landed at Cape Janifary, which he calls alfo the Siga;an 
 promontory, to view the plain of Bounarbachi ; which he, with us, confidered as the fcene of 
 " thofe renowned bickerings," the combats of the Greeks, and Trojans. He alfo places the 
 ancient City of Ilionin this plain. He pofitively points out the miftakeof Belon, with refpeft 
 to the two rivers, which he obferves in all likelihood had alfo taken place in the fituation af- 
 figned by him to the city. " For the ruins (of Alexandria) defcribed by him, (land too near 
 the naval ftation, to afford afield for the events of the Iliad." He mentions the marfhes in the 
 plain, but, as he did not penetrate on land beyond Cape Janifary, he could not give the courfe 
 of the Scamander, and the fituation of Bounarbachi with accuracy. He places the plain and 
 rivers in his map, oppofite the Cherfonefe, and on the fhore of the Hellefpont ; and he no where 
 confounds old Troy, which he places inland, with Alexandria Troas. What induced Mr. Bryant 
 to affert that Sandys agreed with Belon, I cannot conceive. Lithgow certainly miftook Alex- 
 andria for Troy, a^d talks of the ruins of Priam's palace, and gives drawings of the tombs of 
 Priam and Hecuba from thefe remains. His account is very lingular, and his miftakes in fome 
 points evident ; why then fhould his authority be uncontrovertible ? Gemelli Careri faw the 
 fame ruins and landed on the fhore, he fays the ancient Troy was here, but he could not go 
 inland as the hade of the Rais (or mafter of the (hip who conduced him) prevented his longer 
 ftay. He never mentions the rivers or the plain. He afterwards calls the two caftles of the 
 Dardanelles, Seftos, and Abydos ; in which he is alfo entirely miftaken. Neither of thefe two 
 travellers feem to have paid much attention to this part of the coaft ; nor do they take any 
 pains to afcertain the accuracy, or the defects of ancient topography. The manner of Sandys 
 forms a ftriking contraft with theirs, and his teftimony is throughout favourable to Mr Cheva- 
 lier's hypothefis j indeed he was fo learned, and fo indefatigable, that his authority would hardly 
 be difputed, and therefore it is of importance to (hew that he agrees with us. Vide Sandys' 
 Travels, p. ic.and/^. Lithgow, p. 122. Gemelli Careri, Vol. I. p. 233. French Edition. 
 
 In 
 
( 3i ) 
 
 In the defcription I have given of the plain of Bounarbachi, I 
 fear I have alfo been acceffory to fome miftakes Mr. Bryant feems 
 to have made, which it is therefore incumbent upon me to redlify. 
 I have juft fhevvn that Strabo mentioned an accretion of land at the 
 mouth of the two rivers. I had faid that Chevalier alfo mentioned 
 it ; but I had not referred to the paffage. Mr. Bryant fays that 
 *" Not one word to the purpofe is to be found in the author ap- 
 pealed to." However in Chevalier's defcription, p. 17. he ex- 
 prefsly mentions Koumkale, the cajlle of the Sands, fo called becaufe 
 it is built " on the fands which are accumulated at the mouth of the 
 torrent." His learned Editor, Dalzel, has expreffed his opinion on 
 this fubjecl: very juftly. -f " It is not to be doubted," he fays " that 
 the prominence of Soil now obfervable at the mouth of the river, is 
 an accumulation of fand, gradually formed by the repeated torrents 
 of the Simois upon the fpot, which might have been a bay in the 
 time of Homer, (II. 7th, 46a.) though the current of the rapid 
 Hellefpont muft render it impoffible for any accretion to be formed 
 thereof the magnitude which Mr. Wood has fancied." Mr. Wood 
 fuppofes this increafe at leaft twelve or thirteen miles, and cer- 
 tainly there is no contradiction in refufing our affent to that conjec- 
 ture, and yet mentioning an accretion, which is allowed by Strabo, 
 who fays that the more had increafed fix fladia from Homer's time 
 But I had further obferved J that the nature of the ground was fuch 
 as to confirm this idea of Strabo, Chevalier, and Dalzel, and I 
 referred for the proof of it to the ", drawing of that part of the 
 plain, where the long low points of flat marfhy ground running 
 forward into the fea, fufficiently evince their origin." Mr. Bryant 
 is fomewhat fevere upon thefe § " long low points," to which 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Obfervations, p. 53. — + Chevalier, pages 99, 100. See Note. 
 $ See Vindieation, p. 91, 109. — § Some Obfervations, &c. p. 5$, $6, 58. 
 
 he 
 
( 3* ) 
 
 he fays I refer in the drawing of the map of Mr. Chevalier ; and 
 argues that, " no low, faint, imperceptible dots, and points, mould 
 be oppofed to plain, intelligible writing." To this I have only two 
 words to fay j firft, that Mr. Chevalier's writing does not contradict 
 me ; and fecondly, that the drawing I refer to has nothing to do 
 with any map, but was taken on the fpot from the tomb of Ajax, 
 and is engraved and given in my book after page 90. " Ibi omnis 
 cffufus labor . " Thefe points of marfhy land do run forward into 
 the Sea, and are evidently a depofit of mud, brought down by the 
 rivers. * Mr. Bryant accufes me of artifice in this defcription, and 
 fays " they may run backwards into the country." I can only 
 anfvver, that in a queftion of fact, having been on the fpot, my 
 authority is equal to Mr. Bryant's, however inferior in every other 
 refpecl: ; that my drawing corroborates it, and the teftimony of 
 other Eyewitneffes is alfo in my favour. Indeed I had mentioned 
 this accretion in commenting on this very plate, -f and had there 
 pointed out the form and origin of thefe long promontories . J *• This 
 fwampy foil" he fays, " may be in fome degree traced in the 
 map of Mr. Chevalier, but is far more accurately defcribed in that 
 of Mr. Wood." I am forry to differ from Mr. Bryant alfo in this 
 aiTertion ; Mr. Wood's map of the coaft is by no means fo accurate 
 as Mr. Chevalier's, and how Mr. Bryant could in his Study 
 eftimate their comparative exactnefs, is to me entirely a fecret. lam 
 called on here § to anfwer a queftion Mr. Bryant calls an untoward 
 one; viz. how I came to apply to Mr. Chevalier for intelligence, 
 and not to have been myfelf fufficiently informed on the fubjeel 
 of this marfh ? With all due deference I reply, that fo far from 
 applying to Mr. Chevalier, I refer to my own plate; and that 
 
 NOTE S. 
 
 *Some Ob'feivatioiis, p. j6. 
 + Vindication, &c. p. 91 . — j Some Obfervations, p. 57.— § Some Obfervations p. 58. 
 
 wherever 
 
< 33 ) 
 
 wherever I bring forward Chevalier's teftimony, I make ufe of 
 it to corroborate my own affertions. But this * friend. of mine 
 (whom, by the way, I never law in my life,) -f- had conftru died, 
 it feems, a moft inaccurate map, which I copied, without confider- 
 ing that Troy was near the junction of the two ftreams, becaufe 
 Juno and Minerva T^omv i|t*f, near the conflux. This fact as to 
 Troy, is anfvvered already above ; but, fince Mr. Bryant confiders 
 our agreement as a proof that my map was a copy, I beg leave 
 to afk him, what inference he would have drawn, if our maps 
 had materially difagreed? In the % 74th page however, Mr. 
 Bryant fays " in many ref peels Mr. Morritt's map differs from Che- 
 valier's" (which is true), and then he concludes they were both 
 the work of fancy ; or perhaps of recollccTion ; according to him 
 then, firft we agree, then we dif agree, then my map is a copy 
 from Mr. Chevalier's, then it was not a copy but a work of fancy. 
 Ohe jam fat is. 
 
 That fome errors and inaccuracies exift. in my delineation of the 
 country, and muft exift, I am well aware. At the time I w r as in 
 the Troad I was perfectly fatisfied with Chevalier's defcription, 
 and had no idea of the doubts which have fince been ftarted, on a 
 fubject which, in that lituation, appeared to me inconteftably decided. 
 I had no inftruments with me to make a geometrical furvey of the 
 plain, but I had Chevalier's map, and a compafs. With thefe I 
 obferved the general outlines, and bearings of places, and correct- 
 ed what feemed to me materially deficient; as for inilance §the 
 relative fituation of the fprings, and a few other points of that 
 fort. Since I came home, I alfo converfed with Mr. Dallaway, 
 
 NOTES. 
 * Some Obfervations, p. 61. — + Some Obfervations, fajjfim. -J See Obfervations. 
 
 $ See the two Maps. 
 
 F who 
 
C 34 ) 
 
 who took a fecond rough furvey of the plain, the year after he had 
 been there with Mr. Stockdale and myfelf ; furnifhed with thefe 
 materials I could not hefitate about the map I gave, which was 
 calculated to convey a good general idea of the plain, and was quite 
 accurate enough to anfvver the purpofe for which it was wanted ; 
 but I have no doubt that a more accurate furvey maybe taken, and 
 I believe will ftill farther illuftrate Homer. I muft beg the reader's 
 pardon for not having done this myfelf; but he will recollect that 
 I knew nothing then of the doubts of Englifh literati, or the 
 objections Mr. Bryant had made to M. Chevalier j neither had I 
 the leaft idea of a controverfy on this fubject, much lefs that I 
 fhould take a part in it. I hoped alfo that my engravings would 
 in fome degree compenfate for the inaccuracy of my map. I do 
 not think, however, any blame attaches either upon Mr. Chevalier 
 or myfelf, for giving a map of the plain and immediate environs 
 as they now appear, inftead of giving what Mr. Bryant feems to 
 have expected, *a map of a whole diftrict, including Dardanus, 
 Cotylus, Gargarus, &c. For the the relative iituation of thefe we 
 muft refer the reader to D'Anville, and other good geographers, par- 
 ticularly to -j" thofe who have been upon the fpot. Neither were 
 we bound to conjecture the fituations of other ancient towns. But 
 we have given merely the \ topography of Troy, and we have af- 
 ferted that the Geography of the reft of the diftrict fumifhes no 
 arms to combat our hypothefis ; if it does, others may produce 
 them. A fimilar objection may be made from the clofet to every 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Some Obfervations, p. 51. — + See Chandler. 
 
 J In a map of Middlefex does any one object the omiflion of Surrey, Hertfordthire, or Berk- 
 shire, or does any one infer from thence that the map is erroneous, and would be proved fo by a 
 more extended furvey ? that furvey fhould be taken, and the faults proved before the afTertion is 
 (o boldly hazarded. 
 
 ancien 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 ancient map. * All this, you may fay, is very plaufible ; but why 
 not give the country farther to the North, South, Eaft, or Weft ? 
 And then conclude that it " is not fnfferedja appear, becaufe it 
 would ruin the author's plan if admitted." It is enough for me 
 if the map is confiftent with itfelf and with Homer. That it is 
 at leaft more like the country it reprefents, than any other, formed 
 (however ingenioufly) by a fire-fide in England, will, perhaps, to 
 many readers feem highly probable. Of the miftakes made in 
 his, however, Mr. Bryant fays, I have not produced one inftance ; 
 when a map taken on the fpot contradicts his in almoft every point, 
 one would think that thofe inftances had been furnifhed, and per- 
 haps in the moft efficacious manner poftible. Nor do I differ with 
 M. Chevalier about the fituation of Tenedos; it is exactly where 
 he placed it ; but it is not in my map, which was confined to the 
 plain ; the fcale I had made ufe of not admitting the ifland ; and I 
 thought the objection arifing from a line in Virgil not worth notice. 
 Virgil never was looked on as an accurate geographer, and what 
 he fays is unfupported by other authorities. Tenedos is vifible 
 every where from the fhore, and from the hills on which the 
 Trojan tombs are found, but a range of low hills fhuts out the plain 
 from the ^Egean. 
 
 As a very refpectable and learned character has incurred Mr. 
 Bryant's cenfure, for publiftiing in the Britiih Critic a favourable 
 opinion of my work, and alfo for having been milled by me into 
 a fupport of the moft erroneous, and fanciful fyftem of topography 
 that could be devifed ; I thought it my duty to ftate thofe facts 
 clearly (if I could,) on which that fyftem was founded. Mr. 
 Bryant has alfo affociated this gentleman with me as my friend • 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 * See the whole argument advanced by Mr. Bryant— Some Obfervationt, p. 51. 
 
 J 2 this 
 
( 3* J 
 
 this is an honour to which I had no title, not being in the leaft 
 degree acquainted with him, except by name ; and that advantage 
 I poffefs in common with, I believe, every literary man in England. 
 Among the cenfures Mr. Bryant inflicts upon me, I acknowledge 
 this flattering compliment, which overbalances them ; although 
 I am not forry the learned critic is not really leagued with me; as 
 I would rather owe his good opinion to hisjuftice, than to his 
 partiality, however highly I fhould efteem myielf honoured by it. 
 
 If I have fucceeded in anfwering thefe topographical arguments, 
 the queftion ftands as it did * before Mr. Bryant wrote. Homer's 
 flory is certainly adapted to Phrygia, and this is already a preemp- 
 tion in favour of its hiftorical truth. To prove that it was falfehas 
 been attempted, but I think cannot be accomplished ; I do not fee 
 any arguments-brought forward but what have been already refuted, 
 •f Mr. Bryant however not only attacks my arguments but my ftile, 
 and almoft every expreflion in the firft two pages of my book. 
 Thefe I entirely abandon; my ftile is poflibly very bad, and the 
 reader's own tafte will induce him to cenfure me, perhaps, much 
 more than a critical judgment, though coming from Mr. Bryant's 
 very highly refpe<fted authority. When he however charges me 
 with \hatred, ill-will, malignity, contempt, &c. I am more deeply 
 concerned, and I can never acquiefce in his decifion ; I muft 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * I by no meant feel inclined to acknowledge the force of any ether arguments urged in his 
 laft two works. I cannot perceive any that are not a repetition of his firft work, illuftrated how- 
 ever, and put with much ingenuity. I think they have been fufficiently anfwered by the Britifli 
 Critic for January 1 800 ; but even if Mr. Bryant fhould have eftablifhed fome probabilities 
 againft Troy, while much ftronger remain oppofed to him, we cannot accede to his opinion j 
 and we have his own fanftionfor this. He tells us " afyftem founded on a variety of arguments, 
 cannot be in the leajl affetted, fhould one or two be arraigned as inconclufive." Can the united 
 evidence of the ancient Hiftorians be fet afide on the fcore of one or two contradictory fables ? 
 
 + Obfervations, 78. — % Expoftulation, p. 6. Obfervations, pajjjm. 
 
 therefore 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 therefore examine his proofs upon this fubject. Now to read his 
 account of me in his laft two publications, the reader would conclude 
 naturally that I was the mofl violent, malicious, unmannerly, 
 petulant reptile, that ever put pen to paper. " Tan t eerie animis 
 coclcjlibus irce f But in truth I had no fort of intention, had it been 
 in my power, (as it moft certainly was not) toleffen Mr. Bryant's 
 literary character ; to which my ill-will and hatred muft have been 
 directed ; as perfonally I could not well hate a man I never faw. 
 That character ftands upon other grounds far different from any 
 difcuffion about the exiftence of Troy ; nor did I ever know that 
 Mr. Bryant chofe to ftake it upon the iffue of this queftion. He 
 had brought forward arguments, which *came from him with a 
 weight, they feemed to me very little entitled to, from their intrinfic 
 value; and his very extenflve reading, fupplied him with a variety of 
 quotations, which he interpreted in a manner, I thought, unwar- 
 ranted by the ancient authors to whom he referred. I brought 
 forward thefe paffages, and I fuppofed that a partiality natural 
 enough to his own hypothefls, had induced him to fee in them 
 much more than the reader could ; as for inftance, -fin the 
 paffage relative to Daphne of Thebes. It was Mr. Bryant's ob- 
 ject to prove that Homer probably compofed his ftory from Egyp- 
 tian materials ; to accomplifh this he mentions Daphne, and refers 
 to Diodorus, who fays " Homer borrowed many of his verfes from 
 her ;" by Thebes, Mr. Bryant fays, was originally meant, Thebes 
 in Egypt. To this I had objected, that in Diodorus the whole 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * The perfbnal refpeel due, and moft highly due to -the character of Mr. Bryant, had it been 
 extended to an acquiefcence in his arguments, might have led tofome miftakes, which he himfelf 
 will now acknowledge, when he recollects the opinions he entertained on the authenticity of 
 Rowley ; his charafter was, I believe, very little injured by the refraftory difl". nt of the author 
 of the Archaeological Epiftle ; even a ludicrous reply to a bad argument, was not then confidered 
 as a perfooal inveftive. 
 
 + See Bryant on the war of Troy, and Vindication, p. 33. 
 
 paflage 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 paffage alludes to Thebes in Bceotia, and is therefore grofsly per- 
 verted in order to fupport a fy ftem ; * fo thought alio the Britifh Critic. 
 The charge we brought againft him was certainly " the quoting 
 Diodorus, and going diredtly contrary to what he exprefsly faid ;" 
 and -{-Mr. Bryant fays, that this is undoubtedly true, nay more, that 
 he has acted in this manner a hundred or perhaps five hundred 
 times. To quote an author we differ from when we try to con- 
 fute him, is indeed ufual enough ; but certainly the cafe is dif- 
 ferent, when we quote him as an authority, and ftill worfe when 
 he is the only authority, as Diodorus is in this cafe. But Mr. 
 Bryant fays, and proves with much learning, that the city Ta- 
 phanes in Egypt was called J Daphnes and Daphne by the Greeks. 
 Afterwards " fhe was a fuppofed Sibyl," little better than a gipfey, 
 whofe father (Tirefias) was turned into a woman, then back 
 again into a man, and whofe whole hiftory is a fable ; if fo, how in 
 the name of common fenfe can we draw inferences from the ftory 
 of Diodorus ? If Daphne never exifted, how could Homer borrow 
 her verfes ? If fhe did exift, where is the proof of her being an 
 Egyptian ? in fhort, why is fhe mentioned at all, if all that is told 
 us is vague and contradictory ? 
 
 In another § place it was requifite to fhew that Homer's autho- 
 rity, as an hiftorian, was looked upon by Herodotus as of no value. 
 
 NOTES. ' 
 
 * Britifh Critic Review for January 1799. 
 
 + Expoftulation, p. 49. He inftances the quotations he gives from the Britifh Critic, and yet 
 he fays, he differs from him in every article. Is this a fimilar inflance ? 
 
 I I fuppofe it muft be from want of comprehenfion that I cannot perceive the tendency of 
 this argument ; but what inference can poffibly be drawn from this Greek verfion of an Egyptian 
 name ? It was not the name of a prieftefs, and Mr. Bryant owns that many places of this name 
 occur in different parts of the world; and yet this is all he can bring forward to fhew that " he 
 had fome reafon for his opinion :" furely this is very little reafon, either to agree with, or to 
 diffent from Diodorus. 
 
 § See Bryant on the war of Troy, p. 86. et fe$. 
 
 2 A dif- 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 A difference between them is ftated, in which the hiftorian fup- 
 ports the account given by the Egyptian priefts againfl that of the 
 Poet. He alfo mentions the Cyprian verfes, and then Mr. Bryant 
 faid, he difmiffes them with the utmoft contempt ! " Away with 
 them together, a long farewell to each ; both to Homer, and the 
 Cyprian Verfes." *I guarded the reader here againft Mr. Bryant's 
 translation, and gave the original; but, fays -j~Mr. Bryant, %a.ipe is 
 fometimes ufed as a term of contempt, and that in many inftances. 
 As for example, Eaxj? kj crv tvyj\ y-eya. ^aipsre, &c. Spes et fortuna 
 valete. A long farewell to Hope and Fortune ; this does not feem 
 very contemptuous j but fuppofing %<xa.i£i is fometimes ufed as an 
 expreffion of contempt, what can any one think of Mr. Bryant's 
 tranflation in this place ? where Herodotus has for fome pages en- 
 deavoured to affert the truth of Homer's ftory. For he fhews in 
 how many points it agreed with the hiftory of Thone, and Proteus, 
 with which he was acquainted through the Egyptian priefts. The 
 point Mr. Bryant mould have attended to, perhaps was the coinci- 
 dence of thefe accounts ; the Egyptians were acquainted with the 
 occasion of the war, they fuppofed Helen the wife of Menelaus, 
 and Paris a prince of Phrygia ; the annals of the Perfian Empire 
 alfo correfponded with thofe of Greece. According to the Egyptian 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 •Vindication, p. 67. See Herodotus, L 2. c 118. p. 157. 
 + Obfervations 38. 
 
 EAar<{ xj <ru tv%yi fijtyc. yjtictn, rov Mftiit ti/£o>; 
 
 Away with ye fend Hope and Fortune ; I have gained a fafe Harbour ; I have nothing more to 
 do with you : Sport with others for the future who may come after me. Bryant. 
 
 J I cannot fuppofe it myfelf ; it is true that Stephanus remarks, " et iis x*y» dicimm quos lit 
 malam rem abin juiemus ;" So good b'w'ye, or farewell, maybe ufed ironically ; but this 
 Irony would hardly find a place in the pages of an hiftorian ; and fcaifw, like farewell, cannot 
 be ufed in a literal bad fenfe, 
 
 ftory, 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 ftory, Helen never was fuffered to leave Egypt ; this fhows that 
 Homer was not the inventor of the ftory which they told, and 
 furely their agreeing in every other point with the poet, if his ac- 
 count was entirely fabulous, is more extraordinary than their dif- 
 fering in one point of a real hiftory, which is not at all uncommon. 
 Mr. Bryant accufes me of neglecting this part of the argument, 
 and drawing off the reader's attention, by cavilling at a loofe tranf- 
 lation of %aupi, the meaning of which was rightly exprefled, as he 
 ftill thinks. The queftion however is not altogether indifferent j 
 I think that if Herodotus defpifed Homer, his authority ought 
 very much to influence our judgment i but fince fcarce any man 
 has fhewn a greater veneration than he did for the Poet, a proof 
 of contempt muft be better founded than on a dubious meaning of 
 the word x xi ? s - ^ ' s not Sufficient evea-to prove that it may fome- 
 times be ufed in a bad fenfe j there is pofitive proof it cannot be 
 fo underftood here, for let any one examine the context and de- 
 cide. If Mr. Bryant therefore brings the opinion of Herodotus 
 forward to influence that of others, he muft allow me to bring 
 forward the whole of the paflage alluded to, and he muft excufe 
 me if I take fome notice of the very Angular tranflation he gave. 
 He alfo fays it is of trifling moment ; why then give it at all ? 
 certainly I was not the firft perfon who trifled about the meaning 
 of this word, but I could not pafs it unnoticed, as it appeared to 
 me a very ftrong proof, that anxiety for the fupport of hisfyftem, 
 had induced Mr. Bryant to fee that contempt of Homer in Hero- 
 dotus, which Herodotus never exprefled and never felt. 
 
 Thefe and fimilar paflages certainly decided my opinion that Mr. 
 Bryant's mind was not fo neutral as he himfelf perhaps imagined 
 in this affair. By fhowing this I leflened the weight of his autho- 
 rity, which in all cafes where he is really impartial, has and muft 
 have great influence on every reader. This appeal then from his 
 Judgment was of ufe to my argument ; where truth is the object 
 
 6 of 
 
( 4* ) 
 
 of invcftigation, it is fafer to depend on the unbiaffed judgment 
 of the world, than on the prejudiced opinions of any man, how- 
 ever acute his penetration, or however extenfive his erudition. But 
 this charge of prejudice muir. be proved in order to authorife the 
 appeal. It refts partly upon the fac~ls I have mentioned; if thefe 
 things are true, could I affign a motive more excufable than Pre- 
 judice for Mr. Bryant's conduct ? or was it uncandid in me to 
 fuppofe that he was himfelf milled, where attempts were made 
 that feemed evidently calculated to miflead others ? But if the 
 charge was really fo unpardonable, why has Mr. Bryant given me 
 an opportunity of renewing it ? Why has he afferted that *I tax 
 him with ignorance ? that in my book, all that he has faid is treated 
 as conjecture? that, -jT tell the world his knowledge on the fub- 
 ject in which he is engaged, is on a par with the molt ignorant ? 
 when on turning to Jthe paffage alluded to in the Vindication, there 
 is not one word to this purpofe. So far from his ignorance I men- 
 tion his erudition, and the whole fentence is relative only to the 
 very dubious information we poffefs of the life, and country of 
 Homer. This is then a mifreprefentation throughout, of the very 
 book he was attacking. 
 
 § There is another paffage from my book, of which, I believe, 
 and hope, the negligence of Mr. Bryant's Printer has caufed the 
 mifquotation. Agamemnon was a title, it is faid, fometimes given 
 to Jupiter; Mr. Bryant hence concludes, that Homer borrowed 
 the names of his heroes from provincial Deities ; and that of 
 courfe the hiftory was all fabulous. Mr. Morritt faid, that " fup- 
 pofing Agamemnon to have been one of the various names, or 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Observations, p. 71— 9J — + Expoftulation, p. $.■ — $ Vindication, p. 31. 
 
 $ Obfervationi, p. 31. Vindication; p, $$, 
 
 G epithets 
 
( 4* ) 
 
 epithets, under which Jupiter was honoured, it was juft as pro- 
 bable that it fhould be given to men, by the cuftom of the times, 
 as that Homer, in violation of every cuftom, fhould adopt a name, 
 which could not be given to men." The meaning is, I truft, not 
 very obfcure j if Agamemnon was a name of Jupiter, and alfo 
 a ufual name of mortals, as Eurycreon, Eurymedon, &c. the 
 hero of that name might exift, and Homer's ftory be true. If the 
 name could not be given to men, in real life, but was confined 
 to the God, the falfehood of the ftory is evident; but this is not 
 proved, nor is it probable Homer would have adopted fuch a 
 name. In transcribing this paffage, the word not in the laft line is 
 changed into the word only, by -mi/lake, I truft, and not by defign ; 
 however, fince Mr. Bryant here taxes me with confufion, and, in 
 other words, with talking nonfenfe, I muft obferve that the con- 
 fufion and nonfenfe is chiefly owing to this alteration, which cer» 
 tainly turns the whole argument into a mafs of abfurdity. 
 
 In anfwer to another argument of *Mr. Bryant's, founded on the 
 ftze of the Grecian fortifications, I had obferved, that they were 
 probably not very durable, becaufe, in the firft place, they were fmifhed 
 in one day by the Grecian army; becaufe the wall was pulled down, 
 and a breach made in it by Sarpedon, and becaufe Hector and 
 Patroclus leaped over the ditch which defended it. In the feventh 
 Book, after defcribing the Funerals of the Trojan warriors, Homer 
 continues to "f-defcribe thofe of the Greeks, after the bodies were 
 burnt the army retired to their fhips. " Then before the day broke, 
 while it was yet night, they raifed a mound of earth over the 
 bodies ; and then they built the wall ; " afterwards it is faid," the 
 fun went down, and the work of the Grecians was finifhed. 
 They feaft in the night, and then retire to reft." I agree with % 
 
 NOTES. 
 * Vindication, p. £7.— t Horn. II. H, v. 433— 47J.— $ Obfervations, p. 18. 
 
 Mr. 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 Mr. Bryant, that there was more than one day allotted for the 
 performance of all thefe duties, for the poet allots two ; one for 
 burning the dead, and one for raiflng the wall. Mr. Bryant fays, 
 the Poet fpeaks only of the parts of the civil day, in which the 
 people were occupied. It does not appear fo from Homer's 
 expreffions here ; and his continuation, after the building of 
 the wall, of what paft in the night, appears as if he was giving 
 a connected account of their conduct. It was thus underftood 
 by many ancient critics. For in a fubfequent book it is faid, 
 that the Gods employed nine days in the destruction of the 
 rampart: KwnfAdp. *Some of the ancient writers had objected, 
 that the Gods were employed very long, considering the wall 
 was only the work of one day, and built by human hands. 
 Crates wiflied to folve the difficulty, but he did not folve it by 
 fuppofing the Greeks to have been longer employed, but by 
 lelfening the efforts of the Gods, and propofing to read Ev »ft«*£, 
 one day, inflead of nine, in this place. Euftathius does not 
 adopt this hypercriticifm ; but he alio never feems to attack the 
 principle of it, viz. that the wall was built in one day. Such 
 were my inducements for fuppofing this to have been -Homer's 
 meaning, and I cannot therefore abandon my opinion, without 
 fancying I underftand him better than the ancient Greeks them- 
 felves. 
 
 The next obfervation I had made, is that Sarpedon pulled the 
 Battlement down, and a breach was thereby made in the wall, a 
 circumstance which implied no great height, and very little Strength 
 of mafonry. He pulled down one of the battlements, which 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 * See Notes of Euftathius. Homer. It M.l. 16. (Jtmii, BaJH. 1558.) 
 
 G 2 defended 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 defended the wall, *» ^ tenmo -rxact, rei%oi eju^vu^, and that a 
 breach practicable for the affailants was made, appears by the latter 
 part of the line TroXaaai £i Gnxg xeAaiGoi . A wall however of fix 
 or feven feet in height," with battlements of fuch a construction, 
 need not be fuppofed to lad: for ages. The laft affertion was, that 
 '< the ditch, rampart and palifadoes in the ditch were not very large, 
 fince they were within the compafs of a defperate leap." By the 
 rampart I did not mean the wall, but the vallum or mound that de- 
 fended the ditch in moft ancient fortifications ; that there was one 
 however in this place, does not perhaps appear from Homer. He 
 pofitively fays that it was not eafy to leap over it, and the horfes ftood 
 neighing on the brink, \ Ovrap 'wrepttopfetv o-^e^or, whichcertainlydoes 
 not imply impoflibility. Afterwards I had faid, Hector leaped over 
 it, andTatroclus. In this paffage I was extremely wrong, as Hec- 
 tordid not leapoverit, and Mr. Bryant jufily reprehends my affertion; 
 I cannot however give up Patroclus, and the inference will ftill be 
 equally ftrong. The words are to me as decifive as pofiible. | kvuxpu 
 />' ava. lutp^ov vvrepftopov axess nnroi. Here Mr. Bryant fays, they 
 "bounded through the trench, quite through to theoppofite fide. For 
 the verb Ga^w does not neceffarily fignify to leap over, but to prance 
 or bound ; certainly ; but if Oopw fignifies to bound, u-ri^opu fig- 
 nifies to bound over, or elfe what is the meaning of the prepofition. 
 The word xv<* alfo implies afcent, and the paffage is as flrong as pof- 
 fible, " They leapt up over the ditch from fide to fide." This 
 Mr. Bryant fays was not pofiible ; for this however Homer is ac- 
 countable ; to be fure he qualifies it by faying, that the horfes were 
 immortal. But all this is not abfolutely the ftrength of my argu- 
 ment. Mr. Bryant faid that fuch a ditch was durable, and the 
 credibility of Homer's narration depended on its appearance; I 
 only brought thefe points forward to prove the work was probably 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * M. 54. — + Horn. II. II. v. 380. See obfervations, p. 22. 
 
 not 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 not very durable ; but I bad further obferved, that many fimilar en- 
 campments had been destroyed, withoutimpeaching the credibility of 
 the authors who mentioned them ; that at all events the argument 
 proved too much in this cafe, and to this point no anfwer has been 
 attempted. As to the manner it was deftroyed, an inundation 
 caufed by the Gods, operated in a very fupernatural mode ; for all 
 the rivers of Ida contributed. This article Mr. Bryant fays is either 
 believed or palliated by me. Believed it certainly" never was ; and 
 how do I palliate it ? by faying that even if this whole ftory was 
 falie, and the wall and rampart only introduced as an ornament to 
 the Iliad, I fee no reafon for difbelieving the ground work of the 
 poem ; but I do not think we have any reafon to fuppofe there 
 was no wall, or that it might not be deftroyed by floods from Ida, 
 and buried in the fands mentioned by Homer and Strabo as exifting 
 in this part of the plain. Homer exalts this facl:, (if it is one) 
 by the fupernatural intervention of the Gods ; but a fable may have 
 its original foundation in real hiftory, and we know that poetical 
 riclion is frequently fo conftrucled. This is the real argument, 
 and I hope Mr. Bryant will allow it to be more * conclujive than 
 moft of mine are admitted to be. 
 
 A fimilar reply has been made to another part of my Vindication. 
 -f-It had been faid that Anaxagoras, the great and philofophic 
 friend of Pericles, and Metrodorus of Lampfacus, difbelieved the 
 wholeof Homer's ftory; and that Anaxagoras refided at Lampfacus; 
 and both therefore lived in the vicinity of Troy. Supposing this 
 ftatement true, I had obferved that Anaxagoras was born at leaft 
 687 years after the war of Troy, and that he is faid to have been 
 the firft man who difbelieved it, that neither his work nor Metro- 
 
 NOTE S. 
 * See Obfervations, p. 73. — + Vindication, p. 63. Obfervations, p. 35. 
 
 dorus's 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 dorus's have been handed down to us. * Now many idle and 
 doubtful ftories are told of Anaxagoras by Diogenes Laertius, as 
 Mr. Bryant himfelf allows, and yet he is the only author quoted 
 for this ftory. That, according to him, Anaxagoras was poffibly 
 never refident at Lampfacus, but died at Athens; and that of 
 ■f Me trod or us very little was known. That it was not probable 
 their opinions, if well founded, fhould have no weight at the time 
 they lived and wrote, and that their being £" configned to obli- 
 vion," while Homer's ftory furvived, was a flrong preemp- 
 tion againft their arguments. The profound philofophy and cele- 
 brated character of Anaxagoras is fet up in opposition to thefe doubts ; 
 but if his arguments had {o little weight with thofe to whom his pro- 
 found philofophy and character were fo much better known, why 
 mould they have more now, when all his writings are loft, and we 
 only receive this opinion from §Phavorinus, quoted by Diogenes 
 Laertius ? But after all, did thefe philofophers difbelieve the ftory ? I 
 think it cannot be inferred from what Diogenes Laertius has told us. 
 Anaxagoras feems to have been the firft who mewed that Homer's 
 poetry treated irs^i «.%£%; x&i Sixmotrvw?, of virtue and juftice; Me- 
 trodorus thought he difcovered in it alio an allegorical allufion 
 
 NO TES. 
 
 * Obfervations, p. 37. See Diogenes Laertius, L. t. /eg. 8. and fej, 
 
 t This friend of Anaxagoras was clearly not the celebrated Metrodorus of Lampfacus, for 
 Diogenes afterwards tells us, that thislaft was the Scholar of Epicurus, and of courfe was much 
 pofterior to the age of Pericles. See Diog. Laert. 10. /eg. 1Z. 
 
 % Thefe words Mr. Bryant confiders as unneceflarily contemptuous. It is however a plain 
 matter of faft, as an author he is configned to oblivion, for his works on this fubjeft (if there 
 were any) did not exift in the time of Diogenes, or he would not have quoted Phavorinus. As 
 a man of great learning and Philofophy, his i.ame, I own, has not been configned to oblivion, but 
 his opinions have. See Obfervations, p. 37. 
 
 § The word ufed by Diogenes in mentioning the account from Phavorinus, is, that Anaxago- 
 ras /eems to have been the firft who thought Homer's ftory treated of virtue and juftice, Awui. 
 Can we adopt as proofs, arguments drawn from expreffions fo uncertain, and authors quoted 
 through quotations of other authors ? 
 
 to 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 to natural hiftory. Suppofe the one to have difcovered the moral 
 of Homer, and the other to have adapted his Gods and GoddefTes 
 to the natural philosophy of the times, by making Jupiter the Air, 
 for inflance, Neptune the Sea, &c. does it at all appear from 
 hence that they difbelieved the war of Troy ? In the firft place 
 then, it will be difficult to prove that they were of this opinion, 
 and ten times more fo to fupport them in it. 
 
 *But almoft every other writer, and many of the earlieft writers 
 believed the war, and Mr. Bryant refers to p. 69 of my work ; 
 where, he fays, " I would maintain the certainty of the war, 
 from its being univerfally credited, and credited by perfons of the 
 greateft learning and knowledge. -J- But thefe perfons alfo believed 
 in Centaurs, Satyrs, Nymphs, &c. In Augury and Arufpicy, 
 Homer maintained that horfes could fpeak, &c. &c. cum multis 
 aliis." What has religious belief to do with hiftorical facts ? is not 
 the evidence on which our faith refts in matters of Religion totally 
 different, in all its parts, from the teftimony on which we ground 
 our belief in hiftory ? In the religious belief of the ancients, the 
 evidence only tended to prove the Infpiration of fome oracle, or 
 other grofs impofture ; but in matters of hiftory, evidence of the 
 fact was required. Surely Thucydides, after carefully considering 
 the very objections Mr. Bryant makes, records the Trojan war 
 as an hiftorical fact, and certainly not as he would have recorded 
 the war of the Titans. I had obferved that thefe ancient authors 
 had accefs to many writings, and were acquainted with many tra- 
 ditions now loft ; and Mr. Bryant taking no notice at all of their au- 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 * Observations, p. 39. 
 
 + Guicciardini was a Roman Catholick, believed in miracles of Saints, tranfubftantiation, &c. 
 as all Italy and a great part of Europe did at the time hs wrote. Does any one on that ac- 
 count difpute the truth of his hiftorical narrative? 
 
 6 thority, 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 thority, except as being credulous believers in fable, quotes Li- 
 banius, and then fays, * that authors like him deferve more regard 
 than I am willing to (hew, becaufe they had accefs to many hifto- 
 ries now loft. What regard then is due to Thucydides, Hero- 
 dotus, &c ? But if the religion of the Greeks induced them to 
 believe in this fable, what influence had that religion upon the 
 priefts of Memphis, and the hiftorians of Perfepolis ? for the 
 hiftory of Troy was found by Herodotus in both thefe places, and 
 in both with little variation from the Greek ftory. If then Mr. 
 Bryant will fhew that the -f Koran of Mahomet is believed by 
 nations who are not Mahometans, we will allow him to put the 
 Iliad upon the fame footing with it, but not till then. 
 
 Contrary alfo to every principle of criticifm, Mr. Bryant in 
 another place maintains that ;£ Euripides was equally to be relied on 
 with Homer, or any other foreigner; he (Euripides) beingof Hellas, 
 and Homer being like him a Poet. But Homer's country was not 
 known ; he certainly by his language does not feem what Euripides 
 would have called a foreigner, and he lived Ave or fix hundred years 
 earlier, acircumftance Mr. Bryant entirely paffes over. Yet he fays, 
 that, while I reject Euripides, I refer to Tzetzes, (certainly not as 
 authority to difprove the'ancient writers ;) and even to Freinfhemius, 
 Vindication, p. 117. If the reader will have the goodnefs to turn 
 to this page, he will fee that Mr. Chevalier had tranfcribed a long 
 account from Freinfhemius, and that I notice it exprefsly in this 
 place only to carry it back to Arrian, of whofe account it is a po- 
 sitive tranflation. I never mention Freinfhemius or Tzetzes as au- 
 
 NOT ES. 
 
 * This argument of Mr. Bryant certainly proves too much for his purpofc. Why Ihould we 
 allow that authority to Libanius, which he denies to the earlier writers. Surely the revcrfe of 
 this mode of rcafoning would be more obvious to unbiafled minds. Obfe:vations, p. 46. 
 
 + Obfervations, p. 40. — % Obfervations, p. 28. 
 
 thority, 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 thority, and therefore this is an additional inftance of mifreprefen- 
 tation, and in a book written by Mr. Bryant to vindicate himfelf from 
 this very unpleafant charge. In the ninety-firft page, Mr. Bryant 
 himfelf brings forward Monfieur Pafchal as an evidence again (I 
 the Trojan war, fo that if I had quoted Freinfhemius, his modern- 
 ifm could not have been any objection. 
 
 I have thus gone through the moft material arguments relative 
 to the Topography of Troy. I have fhewn, I truft, that it is confiftent 
 with Homer to a very great degree, and that Strabo as well as 
 Pliny, tend greatly to confirm our Statement ; but that all three are 
 decidedly incompatible with Mr. Bryant's map and his conjecture 
 relative to Ophrynium. I have thought it neceffary alfo to reply 
 to fome of the charges advanced againit me in Mr. Bryant's Ob- 
 fervations ; efpecially fince he has repeated many .oifc them in his 
 laft work. I never thought when I wrote my firft Anfvver, that 
 it would be arraigned as abufive, or that Mr. Bryant confidered 
 his perfonal credit impeached by an attack on his arguments. Since 
 however, " unfounded cenfures cannot but affect the character of 
 the cenfurer," I have been obliged to fhew that mine are not totally 
 unfounded, and that fome misquotations and mifreprefentations of 
 cited paffages really do appear in Mr. Bryant's firft works, and are 
 repeated in his defence of them. I infer from hence that he is not 
 neutral on this Subject, that he fees all paffages in a point of view 
 more favourable for his argument, than others will. I therefore 
 caution the readers of his work, from trufting to his quotations : at 
 the fame t ; me, I believe, he himfelf, (fo far from being guilty of 
 intentional fraud,) has the greateft reliance upon the proofs he gives. 
 Prejudices of a fimilar nature, may for ought I know bias me. 
 I claim no neutrality ; but I reft the controverfy upon the argu- 
 ments I have brought forward ; Mr. Bryant fays they are incon- 
 clusive ; with great fubmiffion, I think differently, but others 
 muft decide the queftion. I have as high a veneration as any one 
 
 H for 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 for the erudition, and literary character of Mr. Bryant, but the 
 beft and greateft men have fometimes adopted very fingular opinions, 
 which no extent of literature or acutenefs of reafoning could de- 
 fend. I am very glad to find that in his laft two works the Egyp- 
 tian part of the hypothefls is abandoned for the prefent, as it cer- 
 tainly tends to Amplify the quefHon between us. I fhall therefore 
 conclude, with Mr. Bryant's favourite paffage, which I can affure 
 him, I fhall always underftand without any mixture of contempt : 
 
 Q-ungo; fA.(v vvv kcii to. BPTANTIA g7rex %a.ipere. 
 
 THE END, 
 
 [PiinteJ by H. Baldwin and Son, Nrw Br'Jgc-Jirur, Ltndtn. 
 
9o-£> 15+17 
 
 O^-G) 16*^4- 
 3^5 154^5 
 

 *j8k± J& 
 
 
 9 '.i