« AnteriorContinuar »
following inscription, claiming the " golden citizen," Homer, as an Athenian; (auct. vit. Horn., p. 27, Westerm.)
H/AtTcpos yap tKtlvos 6 xpiVeos r/v irdkirjrirjs,
This theory of a direct colonization from Attica may therefore be dismissed, as founded originally on a confusion of names, and propagated by interested literary speculators like Pisistratus and his school in Athens, or by declamatory mvinicipal patriots like Aristides 1 in Smyrna.
The Amazon founder of the city, who is the connecting link between Theseus of Cyme, and Theseus of Attica, is curiously interwoven with all stories of the early history of the town. Some meaning there must be in these myths, if we take care not to interpret them too literally, and look upon the Amazon as a real, concrete person. The Amazons are, of course, not a historical nation, but belong to the Asiatic mythology. They are either divinities2 or attendants on some divinity (lepoSovXoi), like the Artemis Tauropolus, who was, according to Diodorus, a deity of the Amazons. Historically analyzed, all traditions of the Amazons as conquerors of men and founders of cities melt away; mythologically analyzed, they are an important connecting link between the Greek mythology and the older local traditions and modes of worship which the Greeks, with, their pious veneration for things existing, were reluctant to displace. Hence, a victory of the Greeks over the Amazons, or the marriage of a Greek with an Amazon, stript of its mythical garb, means nothing more than this, that a new cultus was set up where the Asiatic cultus had prevailed, or the Asiatic cultus was engrafted on the Greek. The Amazon Smyrna, the eponymus heroine, afterwards adopted as the personification of the town, was the ancient local Lelegian or Lydian divinity. The myths which celebrated her attributes and deeds were gradually wrought into the form of epic lays;
1 In npos<p. 2ju. I. p. 443, Athens is called fiTj-rpdiroAir.
2 See Miiller's Dorians, I. p. 404, English translation, and the authorities in note c.
in the reign of Gyges, Magnes1 a Smyrnaean went round the cities of Lydia singing the deeds of the Amazons, and the victories won by the Lydians. From the epos to history it is but a step, and thus the shadowy representative of natural forces or divine attributes becomes a flesh and blood reality.
We may notice in this connection a two-fold, or even a three-fold form of the name. The word apvpva or afivpvrj, probably connected with the name of the town, is a dialectic form of /xvppa. The personal name is found in both forms also. Panyasis, quoted by Apollodorus,2 tells the well known story of Smyrna, the mother of Adonis, which Lycophron tells of Myrrha. C. Hclvius China, in his elaborate poem, calls her Smyrna, Ovid calls her Myrrha. This explains what Syncellus3 says of the Aeolic town, Myrina, that " it is called by some Smyrna." Mvptva (only a lengthened form of Mvppa or 'Xfivpva) is said by Strabo to be the name of the Amazon who founded the town of Myrina.4 This town, then, was a seat of the same ancient Amazon-cultus with Smyrna, though the name of the divinity is a little disguised.5
The story of the Amazon appears in still another form in the Ionic account of Strabo." The city of Smyrna, according to Strabo, was named from the suburb of Ephesus, which again derived its name from an Amazon Smyrna who ruled in Ephesus. In proof of this he quotes Callinus's hymn to Zeus, "Pity the Smyrnaeans," that is, the Ephesians; and this Ephesian Smyrna he goes on to prove
1 Nicol. Damasc. fr. 62; Suid. s. v. Maynjs.
2 Bibl. 3, 14, 3. 8 P. 181. A.
4 On the Trojan plain, according to Strabo, 12, p. 66, Tauclin., was a hill, called by the gods Batieia, but by men, the sepulchre of Myrina: another scat of this culms.
s Mr. Sclimitz makes no reference to the orthography Zfiipva, found in countless inscriptions, coins and manuscripts. The letter 2 complains in Luciau, judic. vocalium 9 (quoted by Eckhel, I. 2, p. 545). that Z has robbed it of Smyrna. Cf. also Sext. Empir. adv. math. pp. 638 and 639 Bckker. What Weichert, l'oett. Latt. Hell. p. 169, advances in favor of Smyrna, is fully borne out by recent texts.
6 XIV. p. 632. Steph. Byz. follows him, 8. v. Zfiipva.
from Hipponax, was situated between Tp^yeirj and Aeirpt) 'A/crrf. The inhabitants of this suburb went on an expedition against the Leleges, conquered them, drove them out, and built the town. But their stay was not long; the intruders were soon displaced by the Aeolians, and retired to Colophon, and sallying out in conjunction with the Ionian Colophonians, they regained their own. This again he attests from a poet, Mimnermus in his Navvw:
'Hpcis 8" ahrv YliXov N17A.7710J/ axrrv \nr6vrts
'\p.ip-ri)V 'Ko-lrrv vtjvaiv a(piKop.eSa.
'F,£6p.e&' apyaktris vfjpios r/ytpovts'
©cclv y3ovAij ~%p.vpvr\v t"Xop.tv AloXiSa.
According to the Ionic version, therefore, which Strabo follows, the founders came not from Aeolis, but from the Ionian Ephesus. But here Strabo is at direct issue with a greater authority than himself; Herodotus' enumerates Smyrna among the twelve towns of the Aeolic confederacy. He adds, to be sure, that the town was taken from the Aeolians by the Colophonians, and in so far the two accounts agree. But in the one vital point there is an essential difference between Strabo and Herodotus. Herodotus regards the Aeolians as the founders and legitimate owners of the town; Strabo regards them as the temporary occupants, who were ejected from a place they had seized by the force of arms. One thing is certain, that the Colophonians dispossessed the Aeolians. Strabo errs in intimating,, though his language is vague, that the Colophonians did it maid of original Ephesian founders. This could not have been the case; we do not know, to be sure, how long a period intervened between the foundation of the town and the Colophonian capture, as all dates at this period are necessarily uncertain. We shall endeavor to show hereafter that it was probably a hundred years or more. At any rate it was a tolerably long time. Now, if Smyrna had been
founded by Ionians and occupied by Ionians, some hint of the older Greek writers would have given a gleam of the truth. But on the contrary the belief of the Aeolian origin is deeply rooted; it seems never to have been questioned; the stereotyped epithet of the town is AloXk. Indeed the lines of Mimnermus, with which Strabo defends his position, may be turned against Strabo; Mimnermus does not say, as he undoubtedly would have said, if he sided with Strabo, "we recaptured the Ionian Smyrna from the Aeolians ;" he says in a naive straightforward fillibustering strain," leaving Pylos, we (i. e., the Colophonians) came to Asia in our ships; we sate down at Colophon; and sallying thence, in accordance with our manifest destiny (&ea>v fiovXy), we took the Aeolian Smyrna." Furthermore, Mimnermus's ~Zp.vpvr\v Alo\lSa is not original with him; it goes back to a much more venerable authority, an epigram of the Homerids :1 AloKiha SfMvpvrjv, aXijehova, iromorlvaKjov: and we find the same thing repeated by Callimachus,2 icai 2(ivpw)s iarlv air AloXiSo'i. Of prose-writers, besides Herodotus, Pausanias and Plutarch speak of the Aeolic origin as a settled thing; Pausanias3 says: "Smyrna was one of the twelve Aeolic cities, and Ionians from Colophon took it and kept it;" and Plutarch,4 who touches the matter incidentally, quotes one Metrodorus (probably the Chian Metrodorus), as saying that " the Smyrnaeans were of old Aeolians."
Besides these direct evidences, two strong arguments from probability may be adduced in support of Herodotus and against Strabo. In the first place, the Ephesians never were a colonizing people. No colony of Ephesus is any
where mentioned. Secondly, the importance attached in ancient times to particular numbers is well known, and especially to the nutnber twelve. Counting Smyrna among the original Ionic cities, we find the Ionian league would embrace thirteen cities, the Aeolian eleven. Counting it among the Aeolic cities, we have twelve cities in each confederation, as in the old Etruscan confederation.
The conclusion, therefore, to which we are forced is, that Smyrna was not settled from Ephesus. The testimony of S*trabo has been followed in modern times by Karl Otfried Miiller. The respect to which this great man's opinions on any subject are entitled, makes it necessary to consider his arguments, and show the fallacy of his conclusions.
It is but fair to say that Miiller touches this question incidentally only, in the course of a literary-historical investigation in his popular work, the History of Greek Literature. If his investigation had been a historical one, he would, doubtless, have come to a different conclusion. He shows that the Iliad and Odyssey contain both Aeolic and Ionic elements, the latter predominating. Homer is a native of Smvrna: and hence he accounts for the Aeolic-Ionic mixture, by assuming1 that " the two races met about the same time in Smyrna, although perhaps it may be allowed that (lie Ionians had somewhat the precedence in point of time, as the name of the town was derived from them. It is credible, although it is not distinctly stated, that for a long time the two populations occupied Smyrna jointly." He adopts the story of the Ephesian colony, and so positively as to say "Homer was an Ionian, belonging to one of the families which went from Ephesus to Smyrna." Nay, he even traces the Ionic inhabitants of the Ephesian suburb back to the Athenians, to the Athenae Atticae.
With the Ephesian Smyrna the case is not so simple as Miiller makes it. The probability is that Strabo's account is to be inverted; it is, in all probability, not the metropolis of the city of Smyrna, but itself a colony of the city of Smyrna. Other accounts of the origin of this suburb are,
1 Page 43, English translation.