Archaeology and Heinrich Schliemann 2012

45The Dream of Troy. The Literal versus the Literary.Some remarks on the present state of biographical studieson Heinrich Schliemann† David TurnerWhile Schliemann may well be the “Father ofMycenaean archaeology”, his paternity hasnonetheless been contested since the 150 th anniversaryof his birth in 1972, when he was accused of havingbeen a “pathological liar”. 1 Accusations of mendacity,fraud, deception and even psychopathia have becomea leitmotif in Schliemann studies. In the word of onescholar, “the halo [has been replaced] with uniformlyblack horns and forked tail”. 2The divisions between the two camps of Schliemannscholars, the adorants and the detractors, arealmost as unbridgeable as those between the Achaeansand the Trojans. It certainly is not news thatSchliemann could at times be less than scrupulous inhis affairs with other people, although, as papersgiven at this Congress have already shown, we stillcannot pass conclusive judgement on whether hisfoibles severely affected his archaeological work. Thepresent “state of the art”, however, has led to scholarsbeing almost forced to choose between Schliemann’shagiographers and his detractors. Should this division,so harmful to a clear-headed appreciation of theman and his work, have arisen in the first place? Dothe methodological and interpretational approachesused on both sides need radical overhauling? I thinkthey do, and as a contribution to this process I shouldlike to examine Schliemann’s so-called “dream ofTroy” in order to ascertain that while Schliemann’schildhood oath to his father to excavate Troy may, infact, have been a “romantic fabrication” as some haveclaimed, the whole process by which it was adoptedwas far more complex. It will be shown that the“dream”, along with Schliemann’s autobiographicalstatements concerning his interests in archaeologyand Homer prior to 1868, should not be treated simplyas statements to be measured for accuracy againsta corpus of facts, but as a necessary exercise throughwhich Schliemann expressed his concept of the worldand his own place in it.It has been categorically asserted that “no trace ofinterest in excavating Troy has been found in any ofSchliemann’s voluminous letters or diaries” prior tohis meeting with Frank Calvert at the Dardanelles on15 August 1868. Furthermore, interest in things Homeric,archaeological, or even Greek, are said to havebeen far from Schliemann’s mind until 1868 when -for reasons unexplained - he suddenly became interestedin, and towards the end of the year obsessedwith, antiquity.This sudden leap into the realm of things archaeologicalperplexed me. I was prepared, on a strictlyfactual basis, to allow Schliemann some licence in hisfirst published autobiography of 1869, Ithaka, derPeloponnese und Troia, but it made little sense tosuppose that the whim of a middle-aged man could,overnight, turn into a twenty-year commitment ofmental, physical and material resources to an undertakingas daunting as the sack of Troy itself. With thisin mind, I went through most of Schliemann’s lettersand diaries from 1856, when we know that he masteredmodern Greek, to August 1868, when he decidedto excavate Troy. I wanted to discover what Schliemannwas thinking during this period, how his mindwas working if it was indeed not pondering the problemsof antiquity and his own future career.Let us look then at “the literal”, namely the resultsof this research. I stress that I have not even notedany references to Schliemann’s published biographies1. Calder III 1972, 335-53. On additional revelations since1972, cf. Calder III 1986, 17-47. For a useful bibliography ofwork on Schliemann from 1972 to 1985, see Calder III andTraill (eds) 1986, 261-263.2. Arnott 1987.