Ruins of Ancient Cities (Vol. 2 of 2): With General and Particular Accounts of Their Rise, Fall, and Present ConditionBucke, Charles
History
Ruins of Ancient Cities (Vol. 2 of 2): With General and Particular Accounts of Their Rise, Fall, and Present Condition
Bucke, Charles
Cities and towns, Ancient
“It is not,” says Dr. Clarke, “merely the circumstance of seeing the
architecture and the sculpture of the heroic ages, which renders a view
of Mycenæ one of the highest gratifications a literary traveller can
experience; the consideration of its remaining at this time, exactly as
Pausanias saw it in the second century, and in such a state of
preservation, that an alto-relievo, described by him, yet exists in the
identical position he has assigned for it, adds greatly to the interest
excited by these remarkable ruins: indeed, so singularly does the whole
scene correspond with his account of the place, that, in comparing them
together, it might be supposed, a single hour had not elapsed since he
was himself upon the spot.”
Everything[7] conspires to render these ruins pre-eminently interesting;
whether we consider their venerable age, the allusions made to them in
such distant periods, when they were visited by Sophocles, Euripides and
other poets and historians of Greece, as the classical antiquities of
their country; or the indisputable examples they afford of the
architecture, sculpture, mythology and customs of the heroic ages.
The walls consist of huge unhewn masses of stone, so fitted and adapted
to each other, as to have given rise to an opinion, that the power of
man was inadequate to the labour necessary in building them.
One of the first things that is noticed is a tumulus of an immense size.
This has been opened, and the entrance is no longer concealed. This
sepulchre has been erroneously called the “treasury of Atreus;” and the
“monument of Agamemnon.” “That this sepulchre,” says Clarke, “could not
have been the treasury of Atreus, is evident from Pausanias’s
description, because it was _without_ the walls of the Acropolis; and
that it cannot be the monument of Agamemnon, because it was _within_ the
citadel.”
In regard to the tomb of Agamemnon, the following account has been given
by Mr. Turner: “I entered by a subterraneous passage, opened by Lord
Elgin, and was surprised to find myself in an immense dome, about ninety
feet high, and fifty round the bottom. It had two doors, one into the
open air, and another into an interior chamber, which was thoroughly
dark, and, I was told, very small. It was built of immense stones, and
was in excellent preservation. The tomb being subterraneous, there are
no traces above-ground, and you might walk over it for years, without
suspecting that you were walking over so interesting a ruin.”
The other antiquities must remain for the more attentive examination of
future travellers; who, as it is hoped, will visit the ruins provided
with the necessary implements for making researches, where, with the
slightest precaution, they will be little liable[8] to interruption, the
place being as destitute of inhabitants, and almost as little known, as
it was in the time of Strabo; when it was believed that not a vestige
could be found[9].
NO. III.—MILETUS.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account