Page:Troja by Heinrich Schliemann.djvu/275

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

§ 11.]

END OF THE HISTORIC ILIUM.

225

hardly occupies one-eighth part of the Acropolis. The moat is entirely filled with river sand, which proves with certainty that, at the time the fort existed, the great Roman aqueduct, by which the water was brought to Ilium from the upper Thymbrius, was still in use. A large arch of this aqueduct may still be seen spanning the Thymbrius, about three miles above its confluence with the Scamander. We found on the surface or at a small depth in the sand many marble fragments of the edifices of the Acropolis, and we conclude from this, with much probability, that the moat was already filled up as far back as the time when the temples were destroyed.

But though the sanctuaries and other large edifices still existed in the 5th century A.D., and there may have been a monastery, perhaps even a bishopric, with a small fort on the Acropolis, up to a later time, the city of Ilium seems to have been deserted and lying in ruins when it was visited by the Empress Eudoxia (421–444 A.D.), the consort of Theodosius II., for in her Ionia she breaks out into the lamentation: "Ilios between the Ida and the sea, the city once so magnificent, merits that we shed tears over it, for it is so completely ruined that not even its foundations remain. She who saw it bears witness to this, to speak according to the gospel." But again it may be that, especially as Eudoxia does not call the city Ilion, but Ilios, she speaks here solely of the disappearance of the Homeric city,^[1] for she was so excellent a Homeric scholar that she was able to write a Life of Jesus Christ in Homeric verses.

↑ If this interpretation be admitted, it may furnish another example of that constant habit of speaking of the destruction and desolation of heroic Troy, without regard to the existence of the historic Ilium, which appears to be the key to the true meaning of such passages as that cited, as if it were conclusive, from the orator Lycurgus. Such utterances indicate a sentiment rather than a site, a religious and poetical tradition, not a topographical opinion.

[1] If this interpretation be admitted, it may furnish another example of that constant habit of speaking of the destruction and desolation of heroic Troy, without regard to the existence of the historic Ilium, which appears to be the key to the true meaning of such passages as that cited, as if it were conclusive, from the orator Lycurgus. Such utterances indicate a sentiment rather than a site, a religious and poetical tradition, not a topographical opinion.

[1]