divide the waters of the more copious spring, or prevent them from rushing to the open air in a full volume, would destroy the peculiarity on which the appearance of a hot spring depended. It is possible, therefore, that the celebrated springs may yet be found in an unsuspected form. At any rate, springs rising near T must fall into the brook of Califat, and could only be made springs of Scamander, by the violent assumption, that the brook itself, as well as all the fountains or torrents which flow into it, are springs of that river. To springs near the positions S or R this objection would not apply. 66 Troy had a citadel named Pergamus, which is termed "high," or lofty," (B. v. v. 460,) and described as having a pointed summit, (B. xx. v. 52.) It had rocks under it, for when the wooden horse was standing in the citadel, some of the Trojans proposed to drag it to the summit, and throw it down from the rocks," (Odyss. B. viii. v. 508.) This citadel seems to have been placed towards the eastern side, for Hector proceeding from it to the Scean (or western) gates, passed through the city, (B. vi. v. 390.) Whether there is any spot higher than the rest, with rocks under it, within the circuit of the ruins at S, travellers have not informed us. But it may satisfy us for the present, that New Ilium, as Strabo tells us, had a citadel which stood high, and commanded an extensive view, (p. 895,) and therefore agreed generally with Homer's description. Perhaps the epithet pointed applies to the buildings rather than the ground in the ancient Acropolis, for there were temples in it, and Priam, Paris, and Hector, had palaces there, (B. vi. v. 297, 813.) The expressions generally employed by the poet seem to correspond best with the supposition, that the citadel was not an insulated rock, but merely the summit or highest part of the hill, the body of which was occupied by the town. It ought to be observed farther, in favour of the position S, that a town was found there bearing the name of Ilium, which had existed from a period approaching to the time of Homer. Strabo allows that it had existed from the time of the Lydian empire, which began A.A.C. 797, and ended A.A.C. 550. It was therefore the Ilium which Xerxes visited, (480 years A.C.) under the persuasion that it was the identical Troy overthrown by the Greeks, and whose wrongs he pretended to revenge, by invading Greece. From the account of Xerxes's visit given by Herodotus, the latter also evidently considered the ancient and modern city as the same. It was, moreover, the town which Alexander enriched with gifts, and endowed with immunities, (Strabo, p. 886,) on account of its supposed connection with ancient Troy. It seems, therefore, very reasonable to believe, that after the departure of the Greeks, the Trojans, who still existed as a people, rebuilt the new city out of the ruins of the old, and on the same ground. This was the account given by the Ilians themselves, who affirmed that the city was not totally destroyed by the Greeks, (Strabo, p. 896.) The barrow K, which we have identified with the tomb of Ilus, seems to be the same which was pointed out by popular tradition in Strabo's time as the tomb of Esyetes, five stadia from the city on the road to Alexandria Troas.* To this tradition Strabo does not seem to attach much eredit, (p. 895.) As the tomb of Esyetes was the station of the Trojan scout, Polites, it should be comparatively near the camp, and far from the city, (B. ii. v. 791,) and of course it could not be at K. Perhaps F may represent its position, but, without some more precise indications, we cannot pretend to speak with decision. Besides, it is too much to expect, that all the monuments of this kind, standing in Homer's day, and consisting merely of heaps of earth, should have survived the storms, inundations, and changes of 3000 years. It would be still more idle to look for the entrenchment of Hercules, mentioned in the 20th Book, (v. 145,) or to pretend to determine its situation. Holding that the station of Ajax was on the west side of the Seamander, we are disposed to reject the idea of the barrow at Tepe Gheulu being Chevalier, in quoting this passage, with his usual bad faith, leaves out the distance, which would have been fatal at once to his argument. As in quotation shrewd divines leave out Those words that would against them clear the doubt. his tomb. This idea seems to have sprung from the vulgar error respecting the position and extent of the Grecian camp. The barrow E has, in our opinion, a better title to be considered as the tomb of that hero, if such a monument must be found. The other two barrows, C and D, may be those of Achilles and Patroclus, unless the former was placed on the summit of the hill of Sigeum, as Mr Hobhouse conjectures. But one of these three tumuli may be that which was erected to the Grecians, who fell in the first battle recorded in the Iliad, (B. vii. v. 435.) We cannot spare room to apply our views of the Trojan topography to illustrate the details of the four battles described in the Iliad; but, before concluding, there are two passages of some intricacy we wish to notice. In the 21st Book we are told, that Achilles drove the Trojans to the banks of Scamander, (which had swelled during the preceding night,) and, separating them into two bodies, forced the one into the river, while the other fled by the same road by which Hector had pursued the routed Grecians the preceding day, (B. xxi. v. 1.) As the battle began almost close to the entrenchments, it would appear that Achilles, routing the troops immediately opposed to him, pierced the Trojan army, and pushed on to the river at or below I. Those Trojans between him and the camp had then no alternative but to throw themselves into the river, at a point near the junction, (which may explain the fiction of Scamander calling to Simois for assistance,) and where fording was probably difficult. The other division of the Trojans could fly no way but up the bank of the river, probably to the usual ford near K, or to some point beyond it, where the waters might be more easily crossed. Now, when the armies fought the preceding day in the field near Troy, it is evident, from the nature of the ground, that it must have been the Grecian right wing which was posted towards this fording place, and fled by this route. And, accordingly, we find that the heat of the battle that day was entirely on the right wing of the Grecians, where the contest for the body of Patroclus was maintained by Hector, and the other chiefs on both sides, with unabating fury, from the vicinity of the town to the camp. As the left wing gave way early, (B. xvii. v. 118,) we can easily understand that the right, hemmed in on that side, instead of retreating towards F, might be forced towards the modern village of Califat, and, after crossing, descend the west bank of the river. We notice this circumstance as an evidence of Homer's consistency. Had the death of Patroclus taken place on the left wing of the Greeks, we should have been unable to give a satisfactory explanation of this passage. The other passage, which is in the 11th Book, states, that Hector was ignorant of the defeat of a certain part of his army, "for he fought at the left of the whole battle, at the banks of Scamander," (v. 497;) and has been cited by Chevalier, Clarke, and others, to prove that the Scamander was on the Trojan left, and was, therefore, the river nearest Sigeum. Now, it is not a little singular, that, though this opinion as to the position of the rivers is correct, it is here founded on a totally false construction of the text, for it was the Trojan right that was at the banks of Scamander on this occasion. The poet, in his account of the contest, follows the motions of the Greeks, and he means the Grecian left when he speaks of the left of the battle. Whoever will trace Homer's details will find, that, when the army was in the field, the principal leaders of the Grecians were always posted in the same order, except when they are formally called away for some special purpose. Idomeneus and Ajax are always on the left wing; Tydides, in the absence of Achilles, on the right; Ulysses and Menestheus between the centre and right wing; and Menelaus and Nestor between the centre and left. If we trace the progress of the battle from verse 256 to verse 556, we shall find, that, Agamennon being wounded at Troy, and obliged to withdraw, the Greeks began to retreat; that Hector, opposing Tydides, (on the Grecian right,) was knocked down, and then withdrew to another part of the battle, (that is, to the Grecian left;) that, after this, Paris, standing behind the column of the tomb of Ilus, wounds Tydides with an arrow, (v. 369,) hence the right wing of the Greeks was now close to the river; the Greeks continue to retire, and, of course, pass the river, (v. 406;) U lysses is wounded, and retires still farther; Ajax comes (from his usual position, the left wing) and rescues him; Ajax repulses the Trojans here, (that is, on the Grecian right,) which was unknown to Hector, for he fought at the (Grecian) left, opposed to Idomeneus and Nestor, (v. 497.) The narrative, when followed out, is perfectly clear and consistent. The armies were at this time on the Throsmos, or Grecian side of the plain, and Hector, fighting at the banks of Scamander, was, beyond a doubt, on the Trojan right. Had he been on the Trojan left, he would not have been at a distance from Ajax, who had been called off to the Grecian right,-he would not have been opposed to Idomeneus and Nestor, who were always posted on the Grecian left, and he would not have been at the banks of Scamander, since the armies were now a good way beyond the tomb of Ilus, and, of course, on the west side of the river. It is of some consequence to determine what ancient town occupied the hill of Bournabashi. The following circumstances afford a presumptive proof that it was Cebrene. The territories of this town were contiguous to those of Alexandria Troas, on one side, and Palæscepsis on another, from which last they were divided by the Scamander. The town was, as it were, in the centre of Dardania, which extended from beyond Dardanium along the side of Mount Ida near to Lectum, and it was at the beginning of one of those two elbows or angles of Mount Ida, which seem to mean the two vallies of the Scamander and Simois. The country from Cebrene to Sigeum, in the opinion of Demetrius, was the country ruled by Hector, which we may suppose to be the Scamandrian plain, or the country of the Trojans. At Cebrene were shown the tombs of Paris, and Oenone his first wife, (Pliny, B. v. cap. 30. Strabo, B. xiii. p. 891, 892.) These are most probably the tumuli, to one of which Chevalier, on very different grounds, has given the same name. Objections may be brought against this conclusion, with regard to the site of Cebrene, but we think it involves fewer difficulties than any other which can be suggest ed. The results of the preceding discussions may be comprehended in the following summary : The plain at the mouth of the Mendere is the Trojan plain of Homer. The Mendere is the ancient Scamander. The Thymbrek is the Simois. The sandy shore from the Sigean promontory to the mouth of the Mendere is the naval station of the Greeks, and the site of their camp. The sloping plain, extending southward from that station to the rivulet of Bournabashi, is the Throsmos, or hill of the plain. These points, we think, may be considered as placed nearly beyond controversy. The ruins at Palaio Califat mark the site of New Ilium, and there can be little doubt that this city and Old Troy stood on the same ground. There are strong reasons for identifying the ancient Thymbrius with the rivulet of Bournabashi. It is proba ble that C, D, E, are respectively the tumuli of Achilles, Patroclus, and Ajax, and K that of Ilus. Lastly, the springs of Bournabashi are all cold springs, and the tumuli on the adjoining hill very probably mark the situation of Cebrene. After so much has been written on the Troad, it would be vain to expect that the opinions here advanced should satisfy every one. We think, however, it may be said, without presumption, that they have been deduced from a more careful comparison and consideration of the text of Homer than most of those which have preceded them,-that they involve few gratuitous assumptions, and no incredible suppositions, and that they enable us to unravel some difficulties which have hitherto perplexed inquirers. Whether our construction of the poet's topography be correct or not, it at least shows that his incidents and descriptions are perfectly capable of being reconciled with the present face of the country, and that they may even derive considerable illustra tion from it. It shows, too, we think, that they are themselves neither obscure nor incomprehensible, but, when rightly understood, have a degree of distinctness and consistency which furnishes additional evidence of their intrinsic truth. REMARKS ON THE MISCELLANEOUS POETRY OF GOETHE. MR EDITOR, In looking over any great collection of poetry, such as Campbell's Specimens of the British Poets, it is impossible not to remark, to how few subjects the ingenuity of the writers of miscellaneous poetry has in general extended. A few odes on the common feelings of love and friendship-some verses commemorative of the delight with which spring, and summer, and autumn are beheld-a poetical epistle to some absent friend, detailing the occupation or plans of the writer, and it may be an attempt at satire, awakened by the occurrence of some of those cross accidents to which poets, above all men, appear to be liable, these, I apprehend, are the staple ware of by far the greater number of those traders who deal in the small traffic of verse-making and love; and when these goods are seen exhibited in every variety of shape and contexture which the genius of poets has been able to give them, during, it may be, many hundred successive years, there is really nothing that has a greater power of lulling the mind into profound carelessness or disgust, respecting every future exhibition of the same kind. It must be confessed, however, that things have undergone a considerable change for the better, within the last century which has just elapsed. The present era of British poetry is not only remarkable for the number and general talents of its authors, but still more, I imagine, for the freedom and wide range which poets of all kinds have taken in the composition of their works. Instead of confining themselves to a repetition of remarks that have already been made in every variety of language, or of stringing to gether images that have a thousand times been employed to illustrate or embellish the same topics, they have looked with a closer, and finer, and keener eye upon the more secret movements of the human heart, and the more evanescent shades of human character; much excellent philosophy has thus been embodied, and in by far the most delightful of all shapes, with the fanciful and pathetic delineations of our modern authors, and future writers on the science of mind, VOL. VI. or critics who wish to be philosophical and pleasing at the same time, may find abundant illustrations of every more subtle operation of intellect or of taste in those delightful pictures which have been so profusely given to the world from the poetical workshops of Wordsworth and Crabbe, of Southey and of Byron, of Campbell and of Scott. The poetry of the Germans has kept pace with our own, and perhaps preceded it, in this splendid career. The fine and contemplative enthusiasm of that people is peculiarly adapted, according to the very just observation of Madame de Stael, to the observation and treasuring up of those more recondite feelings which pass unnoticed over the minds of the generality of men, or which are scarcely ever awakened, indeed, but in minds that can indulge the quiet of romantic thought, and the liberty which this nation has assumed in all its late literary efforts, has enabled them to bring within the sphere of their compositions many beautiful and most valuable subjects of poetry, which preceding authors either might not have noticed, or which they did not possess the courage to dress up in the conse crated garb of poetical language. The genius of Goethe has always appeared to me to be especially adapted to this species of labour. Possessing powers of thought which enable him, almost without an effort, to pass from the most erudite and fine, to the most obvious and even vulgar subjects, his fancy is at the same time characterized by that beautiful, touch of a philosophical spirit, which disposes it not to waste its incursions in unprofitable admiration, but to fix its regard on those valuable flowerets, which may be embalmed for the delight and welfare of posterity; and as all his great works, accordingly, are remarkable for the distinct exemplification which they afford of the power of some energetic and instructive passion, his lesser pieces, which make up what is called his miscellaneous poetry, are almost in every instance so finely and even philosophically conceived, that they may be regarded as poetical exhibitions of some of the most valuable remarks which a scientific student of human nature could choose to see made. I do not mean to assert, that there Tt 1 are no trifling subjects among those which make up the list of these pieces. The genius of this author, on the contrary, is of such a nature, that a trivial subject seems sometimes to have had charms for him, from the consciousness which he felt of his power of investing it with unusual attractions; and, instead of confining his observations to such objects or occurrences only as are possessed of native dignity, it is the talent of Goethe to view with interest every variety of human creatures, and apparently to be as much pleased when he is describing the gypsies, and besom-sellers and hawkers of Dutch toys, and venders of grease for cart-wheels, and finally the stage-doctors and mountebanks of a German country fair, as when he is dissecting and exhibiting, in the finest preparation of poetry, those many convolutions and hid den strings of the human heart or fancy, the illustration of which gives such an unspeakable charm to his Torquato Tasso, or his Faust. In reading some of these descriptions of vulgar and familiar life, as they are given in the exquisitely imitative language of this author, I confess, that I have frequently been reminded of a talent which, if I mistake not, belongs in a greater degree to the generation of blackguards of this our good town, than to those of the same rank in any other country of Europe; and as we have heard a vast deal, during some past years, of the literature and science, and intellectual accomplishments of the great men of this metropolis, and have read some flaming descriptions of the unrivalled skill with which her University is conducted, and have seen her boldly claiming the palm of pre-cminence from any rival establishment of our southern neighbours, permit me, Mr Editor, to remind your readers, for a moment, of the vast quantity of fine talent of another description, which seems native to some of our fellow citizens, of whom Reviews, and Magazines, and Supplements, and Descriptive Tours, take little notice. Every person who has had the sad duty imposed on him of witnessing the conversation of the most worth less of our town's folk, and especially of those young men whose chief occupation it is to patrole the streets of our metropolis, filching wearables, and imitating extravagants, must have remarked, that they have not only a language which is peculiar to themselves, but a slang of thinking and expressing things, which is quite cha racteristic, and which often is displayed in the most striking and clear exhibition of such characters, or serves as they wish it, their favourite amusement of ridicule. I have repeatedly followed a troop of these incurables during a holiday excursion into the country, for the very purpose of studying and being amused by this talent. It has also been my lot to have seen individuals who originally had belonged to the lower rank of life, but whom favourable accidents had afterwards raised to respectability and distinction, and who yet retained a perfect command of all their former acquisitions in the style I have been describing; and I can assure you, that I have heard ludicrous scenes in common and vulgar life, depicted with a force, and exhibited with a drollery by persons of this description, which are not given with greater power, though no doubt with greater skill in language, and a more becoming attention to rule, in the works of the great author whose miscellaneous poetry, by the character of some of its pieces, has called forth these remarks. I do not wish it to be understood, however, by the unlearned reader, that all the miscellaneous pieces of Goethe are of this nature. I have already said, that along with these more familiar pieces, there are many little poems in the volume, which, the author of the Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind, or any tasteful lecturer upon that subject, might transfuse with much effect into his public disquisitions. Besides these, there are also several exquisite pieces of a lyrical character, and in a strain almost peculiar to Goethe. In these the author has carried forward a fine but distinct allegory, in such a way, that the most common understanding can follow his meaning, while, at the same time, the thought is possessed of an elevation and richness that fit it for conveying delight to the most accomplished mind. Among these pieces may be classed the Song of Mahomet, in which the progress of that heretic, from the obscurity and peace of his infant days, to that overboding extent of power which his |