The Works of Lord Byron, Letters and Journals, Volume 1

REVIEW OF GELL’S GEOGRAPHY OF ITHACA’, AND ‘ITINERARY OF GREECE’.

(From the Monthly Review for August, 1811.)

That laudable curiosity concerning the remains of classical antiquity, which has of late years increased among our countrymen, is in no traveller or author more conspicuous than in Mr. Gell.  Whatever difference of opinion may yet exist with regard to the success of the several disputants in the famous Trojan controversy [1], or, indeed, relating to the present author’s merits as an inspector of the Troad, it must universally be acknowledged that any work, which more forcibly impresses on our imaginations the scenes of heroic action, and the subjects of immortal song, possesses claims on the attention of every scholar.

Of the two works which now demand our report, we conceive the former to be by far the most interesting to the reader, as the latter is indisputably the most serviceable to the traveller.  Excepting, indeed, the running commentary which it contains on a number of extracts from Pausanias and Strabo, it is, as the title imports, a mere itinerary of Greece, or rather of Argolis only, in its present circumstances.  This being the case, surely it would have answered every purpose of utility much better by being printed as a pocket road-book of that part of the Morea; for a quarto is a very unmanageable travelling companion.  The maps [2] and drawings, we shall be told, would not permit such an arrangement; but as to the drawings, they are not in general to be admired as specimens of the art; and several of them, as we have been assured by eye-witnesses of the scenes which they describe, do not compensate for their mediocrity in point of execution, by any extraordinary fidelity of representation.  Others, indeed, are more faithful, according to our informants.  The true reason, however, for this costly mode of publication is in course to be found in a desire of gratifying the public passion for large margins, and all the luxury of typography; and we have before expressed our dissatisfaction with Mr. Gell’s aristocratical mode of communicating a species of knowledge, which ought to be accessible to a much greater portion of classical students than can at present acquire it by his means:—­but, as such expostulations are generally useless, we shall be thankful for what we can obtain, and that in the manner in which Mr. Gell has chosen to present it.

The former of these volumes, we have observed, is the most attractive in the closet.  It comprehends a very full survey of the far-famed island which the hero of the ‘Odyssey’ has immortalized; for we really are inclined to think that the author has established the identity of the modern ‘Theaki’ with the ‘Ithaca’ of Homer.  At all events, if it be an illusion, it is a very agreeable deception, and is effected by an ingenious interpretation of the passages in Homer that are supposed to be descriptive of the scenes which our traveller has visited.  We shall extract some of these adaptations of the ancient picture to the modern scene, marking the points of resemblance which appear to be strained and forced, as well as those which are more easy and natural; but we must first insert some preliminary matter from the opening chapter.  The following passage conveys a sort of general sketch of the book, which may give our readers a tolerably adequate notion of its contents:—­

“The present work may adduce, by a simple and correct survey of the island, coincidences in its geography, in its natural productions, and moral state, before unnoticed.  Some will be directly pointed out; the fancy or ingenuity of the reader may be employed in tracing others; the mind familiar with the imagery of the ‘Odyssey’ will recognise with satisfaction the scenes themselves; and this volume is offered to the public, not entirely without hopes of vindicating the poem of Homer from the scepticism of those critics who imagine that the ‘Odyssey’ is a mere poetical composition, unsupported by history, and unconnected with the localities of any particular situation.

“Some have asserted that, in the comparison of places now existing with the descriptions of Homer, we ought not to expect coincidence in minute details; yet it seems only by these that the kingdom of Ulysses, or any other, can be identified, as, if such an idea be admitted, every small and rocky island in the Ionian Sea, containing a good port, might, with equal plausibility, assume the appellation of Ithaca.

“The Venetian geographers have in a great degree contributed to raise those doubts which have existed on the identity of the modern with the ancient Ithaca, by giving, in their charts, the name of Val di Compare to the island.  That name is, however, totally unknown in the country, where the isle is invariably called Ithaca by the upper ranks, and Theaki by the vulgar.  The Venetians have equally corrupted the name of almost every place in Greece; yet, as the natives of Epactos or Naupactos never heard of Lepanto, those of Zacynthos of Zante, or the Athenians of Settines, it would be as unfair to rob Ithaca of its name, on such authority, as it would be to assert that no such island existed, because no tolerable representation of its form can be found in the Venetian surveys.

“The rare medals of the Island, of which three are represented in the title-page, might be adduced as a proof that the name of Ithaca was not lost during the reigns of the Roman emperors.  They have the head of Ulysses, recognised by the pileum, or pointed cap, while the reverse of one presents the figure of a cock, the emblem of his vigilance, with the legend [Greek:IThAK_ON].  A few of these medals are preserved in the cabinets of the curious, and one also, with the cock, found in the island, is in the possession of Signor Zavo, of Bathi.  The uppermost coin is in the collection of Dr. Hunter; the second is copied from Newman; and the third is the property of R.P.  Knight, Esq.

“Several inscriptions, which will be hereafter produced, will tend to the confirmation of the idea that Ithaca was inhabited about the time when the Romans were masters of Greece; yet there is every reason to believe that few, if any, of the present proprietors of the soil are descended from ancestors who had long resided successively in the island.  Even those who lived, at the time of Ulysses, in Ithaca, seem to have been on the point of emigrating to Argos, and no chief remained, after the second in descent from that hero, worthy of being recorded in history.  It appears that the isle has been twice colonised from Cephalonia in modern times, and I was informed that a grant had been made by the Venetians, entitling each settler in Ithaca to as much land as his circumstances would enable him to cultivate.”

Mr. Gell then proceeds to invalidate the authority of previous writers on the subject of Ithaca.  Sir George Wheeler and M. le Chevalier fall under his severe animadversion; and, indeed, according to his account, neither of these gentlemen had visited the island, and the description of the latter is “absolutely too absurd for refutation.”  In another place, he speaks of M. le C. “disgracing a work of such merit by the introduction of such fabrications;” again, of the inaccuracy of the author’s maps; and, lastly, of his inserting an island at the southern entry of the channel between Cephalonia and Ithaca, which has no existence.  This observation very nearly approaches to the use of that monosyllable which Gibbon [3], without expressing it, so adroitly applied to some assertion of his antagonist, Mr. Davies.  In truth, our traveller’s words are rather bitter towards his brother tourist; but we must conclude that their justice warrants their severity.

In the second chapter, the author describes his landing in Ithaca, and arrival at the rock Korax and the fountain Arethusa, as he designates it with sufficient positiveness.—­This rock, now known by the name of Korax, or Koraka Petra, he contends to be the same with that which Homer mentions as contiguous to the habitation of Eumæus, the faithful swineherd of Ulysses.—­We shall take the liberty of adding to our extracts from Mr. Gell some of the passages in Homer to which he refers only, conceiving this to be the fairest method of exhibiting the strength or the weakness of his argument.

“Ulysses,” he observes, “came to the extremity of the isle to visit Eumæus, and that extremity was the most southern; for Telemachus, coming from Pylos, touched at the first south-eastern part of Ithaca with the same intention.”

[Greek: 

  Kai tote dae r Odysaea kakos pothen aegage daim_on
  Agrou ep eschatiaen, hothi d_omata naie sub_otaes
  Enth aelthen philos uhios Odyssaeos theioio,
  Ek Pylon aemathoentos i_on sun naei melainae.

  Odyssei O.

  Autar epaen pr_otaen aktaen Ithakaes aphikaeai,
  Naea men es polin otrunai kai pantas etairous
  Autos de pr_otista sub_otaen eisaphikesthai, k.t.l.

  Odyssei O.]

These citations, we think, appear to justify the author in his attempt to identify the situation of his rock and fountain with the place of those mentioned by Homer.  But let us now follow him in the closer description of the scene.—­After some account of the subjects in the plate affixed, Mr. Gell remarks: 

“It is impossible to visit this sequestered spot without being struck with the recollection of the Fount of Arethusa and the rock Korax, which the poet mentions in the same line, adding, that there the swine ate the sweet [4] acorns, and drank the black water.”

  [Greek: 

  Daeeis ton ge suessi paraemenon ai de nemontai
  Par Korakos petrae, epi te kraenae Arethousae,
  Esthousai balanon menoeikea, kai melan hud_or
  Pinousai.

  Odyssei N.]

“Having passed some time at the fountain, taken a drawing, and made the necessary observations on the situation of the place, we proceeded to an examination of the precipice, climbing over the terraces above the source among shady fig-trees, which, however, did not prevent us from feeling the powerful effects of the mid-day sun.  After a short but fatiguing ascent, we arrived at the rock, which extends in a vast perpendicular semicircle, beautifully fringed with trees, facing to the south-east.  Under the crag we found two caves of inconsiderable extent, the entrance of one of which, not difficult of access, is seen in the view of the fount.  They are still the resort of sheep and goats, and in one of them are small natural receptacles for the water, covered by a stalagmatic incrustation.

“These caves, being at the extremity of the curve formed by the precipice, open toward the south, and present us with another accompaniment of the fount of Arethusa, mentioned by the poet, who informs us that the swineherd Eumæus left his guests in the house, whilst he, putting on a thick garment, went to sleep near the herd, under the hollow of the rock, which sheltered him from the northern blast.  Now we know that the herd fed near the fount; for Minerva tells Ulysses that he is to go first to Eumæus, whom he should find with the swine, near the rock Korax and the fount of Arethusa.  As the swine then fed at the fountain, so it is necessary that a cavern should be found in its vicinity; and this seems to coincide, in distance and situation, with that of the poem.  Near the fount also was the fold or stathmos of Eumæus; for the goddess informs Ulysses that he should find his faithful servant at or above the fount.

“Now the hero meets the swineherd close to the fold, which was consequently very near that source.  At the top of the rock, and just above the spot where the waterfall shoots down the precipice, is at this day a stagni, or pastoral dwelling, which the herdsmen of Ithaca still inhabit, on account of the water necessary for their cattle.  One of these people walked on the verge of the precipice at the time of our visit to the place, and seemed so anxious to know how we had been conveyed to the spot, that his inquiries reminded us of a question probably not uncommon in the days of Homer, who more than once represents the Ithacences demanding of strangers what ship had brought them to the island, it being evident they could not come on foot.  He told us that there was, on the summit where he stood, a small cistern of water, and a kalybea, or shepherd’s hut.  There are also vestiges of ancient habitations, and the place is now called Amarâthia.

“Convenience, as well as safety, seems to have pointed out the lofty situation of Amarâthia as a fit place for the residence of the herdsmen of this part of the island from the earliest ages.  A small source of water is a treasure in these climates; and if the inhabitants of Ithaca now select a rugged and elevated spot, to secure them from the robbers of the Echinades, it is to be recollected that the Taphian pirates were not less formidable, even in the days of Ulysses, and that a residence in a solitary part of the island, far from the fortress, and close to a celebrated fountain, must at all times have been dangerous, without some such security as the rocks of Korax.  Indeed, there can be no doubt that the house of Eumæus was on the top of the precipice; for Ulysses, in order to evince the truth of his story to the swineherd, desires to be thrown from the summit if his narration does not prove correct.

“Near the bottom of the precipice is a curious natural gallery, about seven feet high, which is expressed in the plate.  It may be fairly presumed, from the very remarkable coincidence between this place and the Homeric account, that this was the scene designated by the poet as the fountain of Arethusa, and the residence of Eumæus; and, perhaps, it would be impossible to find another spot which bears, at this day, so strong a resemblance to a poetic description composed at a period so very remote.  There is no other fountain in this part of the island, nor any rock which bears the slightest resemblance to the Korax of Homer.

“The stathmos of the good Eumæus appears to have been little different, either in use or construction, from the stagni and kalybea of the present day.  The poet expressly mentions that other herdsmen drove their flocks into the city at sunset,—­a custom which still prevails throughout Greece during the winter, and that was the season in which Ulysses visited Eumæus.  Yet Homer accounts for this deviation from the prevailing custom, by observing that he had retired from the city to avoid the suitors of Penelope.  These trifling occurrences afford a strong presumption that the Ithaca of Homer was something more than the creature of his own fancy, as some have supposed it; for though the grand outline of a fable may be easily imagined, yet the consistent adaptation of minute incidents to a long and elaborate falsehood is a task of the most arduous and complicated nature.”

After this long extract, by which we have endeavoured to do justice to Mr. Gell’s argument, we cannot allow room for any farther quotations of such extent; and we must offer a brief and imperfect analysis of the remainder of the work.  In the third chapter the traveller arrives at the capital, and in the fourth he describes it in an agreeable manner.  We select his account of the mode of celebrating a Christian festival in the Greek Church:—­

“We were present at the celebration of the feast of the Ascension, when the citizens appeared in their gayest dresses, and saluted each other in the streets with demonstrations of pleasure.  As we sate at breakfast in the house of Signer Zavo, we were suddenly roused by the discharge of a gun, succeeded by a tremendous crash of pottery, which fell on the tiles, steps, and pavements, in every direction.  The bells of the numerous churches commenced a most discordant jingle; colours were hoisted on every mast in the port, and a general shout of joy announced some great event.  Our host informed us that the feast of the Ascension was annually commemorated in this manner at Bathi, the populace exclaiming [Greek:  anestae o Christos, alaethinos o Theos], Christ is risen, the true God.”

In another passage, he continues this account as follows:—­

“In the evening of the festival, the inhabitants danced before their houses; and at one we saw the figure which is said to have been first used by the youths and virgins of Delos, at the happy return of Theseus from the expedition of the Cretan Labyrinth.  It has now lost much of that intricacy which was supposed to allude to the windings of the habitation of the Minotaur,”

etc., etc.  This is rather too much for even the inflexible gravity of our censorial muscles.  When the author talks, with all the ‘reality’ (if we may use the expression) of a Lemprière, on the stories of the fabulous ages, we cannot refrain from indulging a momentary smile; nor can we seriously accompany him in the learned architectural detail by which he endeavours to give us, from the ‘Odyssey’, the ground-plot of the house of Ulysses,—­of which he actually offers a plan in drawing! “showing how the description of the house of Ulysses in the ‘Odyssey’ may be supposed to correspond with the foundations yet visible on the hill of Aito!”—­Oh, Foote!  Foote! why are you lost to such inviting subjects for your ludicrous pencil!—­In his account of this celebrated mansion, Mr. Gell says, one side of the court seems to have been occupied by the Thalamos, or sleeping apartments of the men, etc., etc.; and, in confirmation of this hypothesis, he refers to the 10th ‘Odyssey’, line 340.  On examining his reference, we read—­

  [Greek:  ‘Es thalamon t’ ienai, kai saes epibaemenai eunaes’]

where Ulysses records an invitation which he received from Circe to take a part of her bed.  How this illustrates the above conjecture, we are at a loss to divine:  but we suppose that some numerical error has occurred in the reference, as we have detected a trifling mistake or two of the same nature.

Mr. G. labours hard to identify the cave of Dexia near Bathi (the capital of the island), with the grotto of the Nymphs described in the 13th ‘Odyssey’.  We are disposed to grant that he has succeeded; but we cannot here enter into the proofs by which he supports his opinion; and we can only extract one of the concluding sentences of the chapter, which appears to us candid and judicious:—­

“Whatever opinion may be formed as to the identity of the cave of Dexia with the grotto of the Nymphs, it is fair to state, that Strabo positively asserts that no such cave as that described by Homer existed in his time, and that geographer thought it better to assign a physical change, rather than ignorance in Homer, to account for a difference which he imagined to exist between the Ithaca of his time and that of the poet.  But Strabo, who was an uncommonly accurate observer with respect to countries surveyed by himself, appears to have been wretchedly misled by his informers on many occasions.

“That Strabo had never visited this country is evident, not only from his inaccurate account of it, but from his citation of Apollodorus and Scepsius, whose relations are in direct opposition to each other on the subject of Ithaca, as will be demonstrated on a future opportunity.”

We must, however, observe that “demonstration” is a strong term.—­In his description of the Leucadian Promontory (of which we have a pleasing representation in the plate), the author remarks that it is “celebrated for the leap of Sappho, and the death of Artemisia.”  From this variety in the expression, a reader would hardly conceive that both the ladies perished in the same manner; in fact, the sentence is as proper as it would be to talk of the decapitation of Russell, and the death of Sidney.  The view from this promontory includes the island of Corfu; and the name suggests to Mr. Gell the following note, which, though rather irrelevant, is of a curious nature, and we therefore conclude our citations by transcribing it:—­

“It has been generally supposed that Corfu, or Corcyra, was the Phæacia of Homer; but Sir Henry Englefield thinks the position of that island inconsistent with the voyage of Ulysses as described in the ‘Odyssey’.  That gentleman has also observed a number of such remarkable coincidences between the courts of Alcinous and Solomon, that they may be thought curious and interesting.  Homer was familiar with the names of Tyre, Sidon, and Egypt; and, as he lived about the time of Solomon, it would not have been extraordinary if he had introduced some account of the magnificence of that prince into his poem.  As Solomon was famous for wisdom, so the name of Alcinous signifies strength of knowledge; as the gardens of Solomon were celebrated, so are those of Alcinous (’Od’. 7. 112); as the kingdom of Solomon was distinguished by twelve tribes under twelve princes (1 Kings ch. 4), so that of Alcinous (’Od’. 8. 390) was ruled by an equal number:  as the throne of Solomon was supported by lions of gold (1 Kings ch. 10), so that of Alcinous was placed on dogs of silver and gold (’Od’. 7. 91); as the fleets of Solomon were famous, so were those of Alcinous.  It is perhaps worthy of remark, that Neptune sate on the mountains of the SOLYMI, as he returned from Æthiopia to Ægæ, while he raised the tempest which threw Ulysses on the coast of Phæacia; and that the Solymi of Pamphylia are very considerably distant from the route.—­The suspicious character, also, which Nausicaa attributes to her countryman agrees precisely with that which the Greeks and Romans gave of the Jews.”

The seventh chapter contains a description of the Monastery of Kathara, and several adjacent places.  The eighth, among other curiosities, fixes on an imaginary site for the Farm of Laertes; but this is the agony of conjecture indeed!—­and the ninth chapter mentions another Monastery, and a rock still called the School of Homer.  Some sepulchral inscriptions of a very simple nature are included.—­The tenth and last chapter brings us round to the Port of Schoenus, near Bathi; after we have completed, seemingly in a very minute and accurate manner, the tour of the island.

We can certainly recommend a perusal of this volume to every lover of classical scene and story.  If we may indulge the pleasing belief that Homer sang of a real kingdom, and that Ulysses governed it, though we discern many feeble links in Mr. Gell’s chain of evidence, we are on the whole induced to fancy that this is the Ithaca of the bard and of the monarch.  At all events, Mr. Gell has enabled every future traveller to form a clearer judgment on the question than he could have established without such a “Vade-mecum to Ithaca,” or a “Have with you, to the House of Ulysses,” as the present.  With Homer in his pocket, and Gell on his sumpter-horse or mule, the Odyssean tourist may now make a very classical and delightful excursion; and we doubt not that the advantages accruing to the Ithacences, from the increased number of travellers who will visit them in consequence of Mr. Gell’s account of their country, will induce them to confer on that gentleman any heraldic honours which they may have to bestow, should he ever look in upon them again.—­’Baron Bathi’ would be a pretty title:—­

  “‘Hoc’ Ithacus ’velit, et magno mercentur Atridae’.”

  VIRGIL.

For ourselves, we confess that all our old Grecian feelings would be alive on approaching the fountain of Melainudros, where, as the tradition runs, or as the priests relate, Homer was restored to sight.

We now come to the “Grecian Patterson,” or “Cary,” which Mr. Gell has begun to publish; and really he has carried the epic rule of concealing the person of the author to as great a length as either of the above-mentioned heroes of itinerary writ.  We hear nothing of his “hair-breadth ’scapes” by sea or land; and we do not even know, for the greater part of his journey through Argolis, whether he relates what he has seen or what he has heard.  From other parts of the book, we find the former to be the case; but, though there have been tourists and “strangers” in other countries, who have kindly permitted their readers to learn rather too much of their sweet selves, yet it is possible to carry delicacy, or cautious silence, or whatever it may be called, to the contrary extreme.  We think that Mr. Gell has fallen into this error, so opposite to that of his numerous brethren.  It is offensive, indeed, to be told what a man has eaten for dinner, or how pathetic he was on certain occasions; but we like to know that there is a being yet living who describes the scenes to which he introduces us; and that it is not a mere translation from Strabo or Pausanias which we are reading, or a commentary on those authors.  This reflection leads us to the concluding remark in Mr. Gell’s preface (by much the most interesting part of his book) to his ‘Itinerary of Greece’, in which he thus expresses himself:—­

“The confusion of the modern with the ancient names of places in this volume is absolutely unavoidable; they are, however, mentioned in such a manner, that the reader will soon be accustomed to the indiscriminate use of them.  The necessity of applying the ancient appellations to the different routes, will be evident from the total ignorance of the public on the subject of the modern names, which, having never appeared in print, are only known to the few individuals who have visited the country.

“What could appear less intelligible to the reader, or less useful to the traveller, than a route from Chione and Zaracca to Kutchukmadi, from thence by Krabata to Schoenochorio, and by the mills of Peali, while every one is in some degree acquainted with the names of Stymphalus, Nemea, Mycenæ, Lyrceia, Lerna, and Tegea?”

Although this may be very true inasmuch as it relates to the reader, yet to the traveller we must observe, in opposition to Mr. Gell, that nothing can be less useful than the designation of his route according to the ancient names.  We might as well, and with as much chance of arriving at the place of our destination, talk to a Hounslow post-boy about making haste to ‘Augusta’, as apply to our Turkish guide in modern Greece for a direction to Stymphalus, Nemea, Mycenæ, etc., etc.  This is neither more nor less than classical affectation; and it renders Mr. Gell’s book of much more confined use than it would otherwise have been:—­but we have some other and more important remarks to make on his general directions to Grecian tourists; and we beg leave to assure our readers that they are derived from travellers who have lately visited Greece.  In the first place, Mr. Cell is absolutely incautious enough to recommend an interference on the part of English travellers with the Minister at the Porte, in behalf of the Greeks.

“The folly of such neglect (page 16, preface), in many instances, where the emancipation of a district might often be obtained by the present of a snuff-box or a watch, at Constantinople, and without the smallest danger of exciting the jealousy of such a court as that of Turkey, will be acknowledged when we are no longer able to rectify the error.”

We have every reason to believe, on the contrary, that the folly of half a dozen travellers, taking this advice, might bring us into a war.  “Never interfere with any thing of the kind,” is a much sounder and more political suggestion to all English travellers in Greece.

Mr. Gell apologizes for the introduction of “his panoramic designs,” as he calls them, on the score of the great difficulty of giving any tolerable idea of the face of a country in writing, and the ease with which a very accurate knowledge of it may be acquired by maps and panoramic designs.  We are informed that this is not the case with many of these designs.  The small scale of the single map we have already censured; and we have hinted that some of the drawings are not remarkable for correct resemblance of their originals.  The two nearer views of the Gate of the Lions at Mycenæ are indeed good likenesses of their subject, and the first of them is unusually well executed; but the general view of Mycenæ is not more than tolerable in any respect; and the prospect of Larissa, etc., is barely equal to the former.  The view from this last place is also indifferent; and we are positively assured that there are no windows at Nauplia which look like a box of dominos,—­the idea suggested by Mr. Gell’s plate.  We must not, however, be too severe on these picturesque bagatelles, which, probably, were very hasty sketches; and the circumstances of weather, etc., may have occasioned some difference in the appearance of the same objects to different spectators.  We shall therefore return to Mr. Gell’s preface; endeavouring to set him right in his directions to travellers, where we think that he is erroneous, and adding what appears to have been omitted.  In his first sentence, he makes an assertion which is by no means correct.  He says, “We are at present as ignorant of Greece, as of the interior of Africa.”  Surely not quite so ignorant; or several of our Grecian Mungo Parks have travelled in vain, and some very sumptuous works have been published to no purpose!  As we proceed, we find the author observing that “Athens is ‘now’ the most polished city of “Greece,” when we believe it to be the most barbarous, even to a proverb—­

  Greek:  O Athaena, protae ch_ora,
  Ti gaidarous trepheis t_ora;

is a couplet of reproach now applied to this once famous city; whose inhabitants seem little worthy of the inspiring call which was addressed to them within these twenty years, by the celebrated Riga:—­

  [Greek:  Deute paides t_on Hellaen_on, k.t.l.]

Iannina, the capital of Epirus, and the seat of Ali Pacha’s government, ‘is’ in truth deserving of the honours which Mr. Gell has improperly bestowed on degraded Athens.  As to the correctness of the remark concerning the fashion of wearing the hair cropped in ‘Molossia’, as Mr. Gell informs us, our authorities cannot depose; but why will he use the classical term of Eleuthero-Lacones, when that people are so much better known by their modern name of Mainotes?  “The court of the Pacha of Tripolizza” is said “to realise the splendid visions of the Arabian Nights.”  This is true with regard to the ‘court’; but surely the traveller ought to have added that the city and palace are most miserable, and form an extraordinary contrast to the splendour of the court.—­Mr. Gell mentions ‘gold’ mines in Greece:  he should have specified their situation, as it certainly is not universally known.  When, also, he remarks that “the first article of necessity ‘in Greece’ is a firman, or order from the Sultan, permitting the traveller to pass unmolested,” we are much misinformed if he be right.  On the contrary, we believe this to be almost the only part of the Turkish dominions in which a firman is not necessary; since the passport of the Pacha is absolute within his territory (according to Mr. G.’s own admission), and much more effectual than a firman.—­

“Money,” he remarks, “is easily procured at Salonica, or Patrass, where the English have consuls.”  It is much better procured, we understand, from the Turkish governors, who never charge discount.  The consuls for the English are not of the most magnanimous order of Greeks, and far from being so liberal, generally speaking; although there are, in course, some exceptions, and Strané of Patras has been more honourably mentioned.—­After having observed that “horses seem the best mode of conveyance in Greece,” Mr. Gell proceeds:  “Some travellers would prefer an English saddle; but a saddle of this sort is always objected to by the owner of the horse, and not without reason,” etc.  This, we learn, is far from being the case; and, indeed, for a very simple reason, an English saddle must seem to be preferable to one of the country, because it is much lighter.  When, too, Mr. Gell calls the postillion “Menzilgi,” he mistakes him for his betters; Serrugees are postillions; Menzilgis are postmasters.—­Our traveller was fortunate in his Turks, who are hired to walk by the side of the baggage-horses.  They “are certain,” he says, “of performing their engagement without grumbling.”  We apprehend that this is by no means certain:—­but Mr. Gell is perfectly right in preferring a Turk to a Greek for this purpose; and in his general recommendation to take a Janissary on the tour:  who, we may add, should be suffered to act as he pleases, since nothing is to be done by gentle means, or even by offers of money, at the places of accommodation.  A courier, to be sent on before to the place at which the traveller intends to sleep, is indispensable to comfort; but no tourist should be misled by the author’s advice to suffer the Greeks to gratify their curiosity, in permitting them to remain for some time about him on his arrival at an inn.  They should be removed as soon as possible; for, as to the remark that “no stranger would think of intruding when a room is pre-occupied,” our informants were not so well convinced of that fact.

Though we have made the above exceptions to the accuracy of Mr. Gell’s information, we are most ready to do justice to the general utility of his directions, and can certainly concede the praise which he is desirous of obtaining,—­namely, “of having facilitated the researches of future travellers, by affording that local information which it was before impossible to obtain.”  This book, indeed, is absolutely necessary to any person who wishes to explore the Morea advantageously; and we hope that Mr. Gell will continue his Itinerary over that and over every other part of Greece.  He allows that his volume “is only calculated to become a book of reference, and not of general entertainment;” but we do not see any reason against the compatibility of both objects in a survey of the most celebrated country of the ancient world.  To that country, we trust, the attention not only of our travellers, but of our legislators, will hereafter be directed.  The greatest caution will, indeed, be required, as we have premised, in touching on so delicate a subject as the amelioration of the possessions of an ally:  but the field for the exercise of political sagacity is wide and inviting in this portion of the globe; and Mr. Gell, and all other writers who interest us, however remotely, in its extraordinary capabilities, deserve well of the British empire.  We shall conclude by an extract from the author’s work:  which, even if it fails of exciting that general interest which we hope most earnestly it may attract towards its important subject, cannot, as he justly observes, “be entirely uninteresting to the scholar;” since it is a work “which gives him a faithful description of the remains of cities, the very existence of which was doubtful, as they perished before the æra of authentic history.”  The subjoined quotation is a good specimen of the author’s minuteness of research as a topographer; and we trust that the credit which must accrue to him from the present performance will ensure the completion of his Itinerary:—­

“The inaccuracies of the maps of Anacharsis are in many respects very glaring.  The situation of Phlius is marked by Strabo as surrounded by the territories of Sicyon, Argos, Cleonæ, and Stymphalus.  Mr. Hawkins observed, that Phlius, the ruins of which still exist near Agios Giorgios, lies in a direct line between Cleonæ and Stymphalus, and another from Sicyon to Argos; so that Strabo was correct in saying that it lay between those four towns; yet we see Phlius, in the map of Argolis by M. Barbie du Bocage, placed ten miles to the north of Stymphalus, contradicting both history and fact.  D’Anville is guilty of the same error.

“M. du Bocage places a town named Phlius, and by him Phlionte, on the point of land which forms the port of Drepano; there are not at present any ruins there.  The maps of D’Anville are generally more correct than any others where ancient geography is concerned.  A mistake occurs on the subject of Tiryns, and a place named by him Vathia, but of which nothing can be understood.  It is possible that Vathi, or the profound valley, may be a name sometimes used for the valley of Barbitsa, and that the place named by D’Anville Claustra may be the outlet of that valley called Kleisoura, which has a corresponding signification.

“The city of Tiryns is also placed in two different positions, once by its Greek name, and again as Tirynthus.  The mistake between the islands of Sphæria and Calaura has been noticed in page 135.  The Pontinus, which D’Anville represents as a river, and the Erasinus, are equally ill placed in his map.  There was a place called Creopolis, somewhere toward Cynouria; but its situation is not easily fixed.  The ports called Bucephalium and Piræus seem to have been nothing more than little bays in the country between Corinth and Epidaurus.  The town called Athenæ, in Cynouria, by Pausanias, is called Anthena by ‘Thucydides’, book 5. 41.

“In general, the map of D’Anville will be found more accurate than those which have been published since his time; indeed, the mistakes of that geographer are in general such as could not be avoided without visiting the country.  Two errors of D’Anville may be mentioned, lest the opportunity of publishing the itinerary of Arcadia should never occur.  The first is, that the rivers Malætas and Mylaon, near Methydrium, are represented as running toward the south, whereas they flow northwards to the Ladon; and the second is, that the Aroanius, which falls into the Erymanthus at Psophis, is represented as flowing from the lake of Pheneos; a mistake which arises from the ignorance of the ancients themselves who have written on the subject.  The fact is that the Ladon receives the waters of the lakes of Orchomenos and Pheneos; but the Aroanius rises at a spot not two hours distant from Psophis.”

In furtherance of our principal object in this critique, we have only to add a wish that some of our Grecian tourists, among the fresh articles of information concerning Greece which they have lately imported, would turn their minds to the language of the country.  So strikingly similar to the ancient Greek is the modern Romaic as a written language, and so dissimilar in sound, that even a few general rules concerning pronunciation would be of most extensive use.