« AnteriorContinuar »
to be sure, preserved, but they are all dark and unsatisfactory. Such, for instance, is the account of Malacus; Malacus' says that some Samian slaves, driven from their home, settled near Ephesus, and called their settlement Samorna, the original form of Smyrna, the name being derived from the name of Samos. We must observe, however, that Malacus is here speaking, not of the founders of the suburb, but of the founders of Ephesus itself. The absurdity of supposing Ephesus itself to be a Samian colony is apparent. It is mere etymological play. But even granting that Malacus misquotes or misunderstands his authorities, and that the author he follows merely means to say that the Samian slaves settled not Ephesus, but the Smyrna of Ephesus, it is still difficult to account for the form of the name. In the absence of direct evidence then, we are left to one of two suppositions with regard to the Smyrna of Ephesus; first, that it was the seat of an ancient Lydian Amazon-cult, where the same deity occurs who is found in other places formerly occupied by the Lydians in the Aeolian Smyrna, in Myrina, where she appears in the two forms of Myrina and Smyrna, and in Cyme, where she appears in the form Myrina. Or secondly, we may assume that the cult is not indigenous at Ephesus, that it is not there a relic of the ante-Hellenic or Lydian period, but was transferred thither by the Greeks. The form of the name, which seems to bear a trace of Aeolism (Athen. 15, p. 688, C. pvppa fj crfivpva irap AioKevo-i2), is in favor of the latter theory. We may suppose that in some civil dissension a party of the Smyrnaeans were driven forth from the city, took refuge in Ephesus, and settling close by the town, like Horace's Salaminian Teuccr, gave to a portion of the Ionic town the cherished name of their Aeolic home.
The cult of Nemesis at Smyrna is cited by Miiller in proof of the Ionie-Ephesus-Athens origin. Nemesis, says Miiller, was worshipped at Smyrna; she was also worshipped at Rhamnus; hence, he infers that she was probably
1 Apud Athen. 6, p. 267, B. Cf. Guhl. Ephesiaca, p. 31, n. 37.
transferred from Athens by way of Ephesus, to Smyrna. This is a specious argument at first sight, but critically analyzed, falls away to nothing.
The proofs of the antiquity of this worship at Smyrna are not very strong; yet, perhaps, they are enough to convince us that she had a temple in the older prae-Alexandrian town. Pausanias informs us (9, 35, 2) that in the temple of the Nemeses at Smyrna were placed the Graces, the work of Bupalos. This passage alone is not decisive; it does not necessarily follow that the temple of Nemesis was in existence at the time of Bupalos, as the statues may have been transferred there at a later period. But as Nemesis in some of her types bears a near resemblance to Aphrodite, it is not improbable that Bupalos's Charites were designed as her attendants. And taken in connection with another passage of Pausanias (7, 5, 1), not much room is left for doubt. In the second passage Alexander is said to have slept near the temple of the Nemeses, consequently the temple existed before the new or Alexandrian city. These two passages of Pausanias are the only passages where the older Smyrnaean Nemesis is mentioned, but there seems no ground for questioning them.
But whether this Nemesis came from Rhamnus is a very different question. If other facts proved the Ionian origin of Smyrna, then, indeed, we might suppose that in accordance with old Greek ways the Rhamnusian Nemesis was brought by the early colonists by way of Ephesus. Or, if there were any traces of a direct emigration from Attica or Rhamnus, we might infer that the Smyrnaean Nemeses came at some later period direct from Attica. But of this we have no evidence except the worthless talk of Aristides, and we are left to an entirely different theory.
The origin of the Rhamnusian Nemesis herself must be more definitely established before we can draw conclusions about the Nemeses of Smyrna. Is this deity indigenous in Attica, or was she carried there from abroad? The evidences of a foreign origin are many. The traditions of the Greeks refer her back to Asia; the first temple of Nemesis, according to Callisthenes,1 was built by Adrastus, near the river Aesepus, in Northern Mysia, and from him came the name of Adrastea. The etymology of Callisthenes is bad, his evidence for the origin of the cult, is good. The Nemesis of Rhamnus bore the name of Upis;s whether this is Hyperborean or Pelasgic we will not undertake to decide, but in either case it lies outside of the genuine Greek mythology. 3 The worship of Nemesis is said to have been introduced into Attica by king Erechtheus;« and the Egyptians cut on the cup held in the hand of Phidias's statue, dark as their connection may be with the goddess, point to an origin beyond sea.
If we may infer then, that the Rhamnusian Nemesis was herself brought by some early migration from Asia to the Attic soil, which is the most natural hypothesis? That the Smyrnaean Nemesis went a round-about path from Asia to Rhamnus, from Rhamnus to Ephesus, and from Ephesusto that doubtful migration, to Smyrna? Or that she was to the manor born, indigenous to the soil and borrowed by the Greeks from the Leleges? Uncmestionably the latter. Like the Amazon considered above, like the Artemis Tauropolus, and possibly like the, Boubrostis who is found only at Smyrna, the Nemesis is a relic of the older Asiatic mythology. In fact the type of the Smyrnaean Nemesis differs from the Rhamnusian, and differs in such a way as to show that the Smyrnaean type is the older one; the Nemesis of Rhamnus, says Pausanias, had no wings; the Nemesis of Smyrna had.s The Smyrnaean deity therefore resembles the winged figures found on Asiatic monuments;s the Rhamnusian shows the anthropomorphic Greek element, which is certainly later.
One argument more may be added as a cumulus, which might be enough without the preceding. The cult of Ne
mesis does not appear either at Ephesus or Colophon. The connecting link, therefore, between Smyrna and Rhamnus is entirely wanting.
To recapitulate briefly the foregoing considerations: the accounts of the foundation of Smyrna connected with the name of Tantalus belong to an ante-Hellenic city, to traditions of the Leleges or Lydians; those connected with the Amazon Smyrna belong not to history, but to mythology. Of the two Greek versions, the Ionian version of Strabo and the Aeolic version of Herodotus, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the latter. It remains for us to inquire whether we can determine the particular Aeolic city whence the emigrants started.
Two Aeolic towns claim this honor. To adjudicate their claims is an easy task. The island of Lesbos is mentioned as the metropolis; the authority for this is the questionable authority of Vellejus Paterculus,1 and his assertion is not confirmed by any internal probability, nor by a single passage of any other writer. On the other hand we have testimony which goes back beyond the oldest logographers, into the shadowy times of epic song. We mean the epigram already referred to, and preserved by the author of the life of Homer, ascribed to Herodotus. The aoidos who wrote this epigram cannot, according to Welcker, Midler, and other eminent philologists, have lived long after the composition of the Iliad and Odyssey; he says in explicit words that Cyme is the metropolis of Smyrna; "the people of Phricon built the Aeolian Smyrna."
Ephorus, himself a Cyrnaean, and well acquainted with the history of his native town, arrives at the same conclusion. These direct testimonies in favor of Cyme are certainly not refuted by such historical notices of Cyme as have reached us. We cannot, indeed, lay much stress on the name of the mythical founder of Cyme, Myrina, identical with Smyrna, because, as we have seen, the worship of this deity was wide-spread before the Hellenic period, and the recurrence of the name simply proves an affinity between the Lydians or Lcleges who were driven from their homes in the two places by the aggressive Greeks. But the colonizing tendency of the Cymaeans was famous. While Ephesus, during her long and splendid career, never sent forth a single colony, Cyme and Larissa sent forth some thirty. Smyrna was without question one of these. And hence both the Colophonians and Cymaeans claimed Homer as their citizen. The Colophonians, because they took Smyrna; the Cymaeans, because they founded it.
The founder of the town, according to the Aeolic account, was, as we have seen, Theseus, who was sprung from the royal stock of Pherae, in Thessaly. The same family of Admetus are said by Parthenius to have founded Magnesia, on the Maeander; it is a coincidence to which Miiller himself calls attention, that Magnesians are named among the founders of Cyme. Thus two entirely independent traditions agree, and guide us back by way of Cyme, to Pherae and Mount Phricion, to the Thessalian and Locrian tribes. Perhaps it will not be going too far to find in a Smyrnaean festival a trace of this Thessalian descent. The chief gymnastic festival of the Thessalian race was the Tavpo/caSdyfria, a kind of bull-fight, in which the horseman leapt from the back of his horse on the back of a bull, seized him by the horns, and despatched him. On a Smyrnaean monument — of late date to be sure — a representation of this combat is found, and it may be that it was propagated from the earliest times.'
The date of the foundation is fixed at the eighteenth year after the foundation of Cyme, or one hundred and sixtyeight years after the fall of Troy, that is, eleven hundred and two years before Christ. From this period a dark gap follows in the history of Smyrna. Of the Aeolic period hardly a vestige is left. And very naturally, since the subsequent Colophonian occupants brought with them their own Ionic traditions, and allowed the memory of Aeolic
1 C. 1.3212. In the epigram of Antipater (Pseudopl. T. Horn. 1, 4) '• Thessaly, the mother of the Lapitlme," is mentioned among the birthplaces of Homer; this is also a trace of the Cymaean-Thcssalian account of the town of Smyrna.