time, that this second fanction was absolutely necessary for obtaining what he desired. At length this prince, after having displayed the utmost repugnance, promised to give his assent.

or There was a council that very night. The three ministers were more insolent and more violent than ever; they pressed the king in a very rough manner, either to give or to refuse his sanction, threatening, in the latter case, to resign instantly.

* There was so little secrecy observed in the palace, that, at the expiration of fix hours, it was whispered all over Paris, that Dumouriez had changed parties, and that more than twenty Feuillans had presented themselves at his door, on purpose to pay their respects to him. The council was very short; the king dissolved it with temper and dig. nity, and wrote a note to Dumouriez, in the course of the same even. ing, in which he intreated him to propose three new ministers.” P.363.

How much credit may be due to these narratives of D1mouriez, we leave to more skilful politicians to discuss, or future historians to determine ; certainly, if his own account may be credited, he was uniformly ihe friend of the king, and desirous of preventing all the finister events that afterwards tovk place. They will also ascertain how much moment 1hould be given to declarations such as this.

" When the reign of anarchy, and the triumph of villains, shall have passed away, they (the French) will then read these memoirs; and the whole nation, which cannot entertain any manner of doubt respecting the facts, that have so recently occurred before its own eyes, will recognize the real patriotism of General Dumouriez, his disinterestedness, his attachment io the constitution, and consequently to the constitutional king; and the services, both political and military, which he has rendered to his native country. They will then no longer blame his conduct; even those, who instigated the barbarous decree of proscription against him, will blush. If he be then of an age at which he can prove useful to his country, he will devote himself anew to her services; if he be dead, his wishes will have anticipated this moral revolution, which he can now with confidence predict ; because it will infallibly occur, and will be produced by the excess of evils, and the impossibility of sustaining liberty by means of an absurd government, founded on barbarity, terror, and the subversion of all the principles neces. sary for the maintenance of human societies.” P. 420.

Dumouriez relates his own campaigns with that combination of spirit, rapidity, and distinctness, which can arise only from clear and comprehensive views of the subject, and strongly impresses the idea of his being fairly equal to the fame he atchieved. He confeffus his own errors with the same frankneís with which he points out those of his adversaries, and the narrative is altogether such as could not be expected from any other hand. That it is, in general, favourable to his reputation, may be preSumed; but, if there be much distortion of the truth, it is at least cond:icted with ability, which indeed the whole book abundantly displays,

ART, Art. X.


Archæologia, or miscellaneous Tracts relating to An-
Volume XI. 460 pp. 1l. is. White, &c.

THESE volumes first began to be published in the year 1770,

and have now increased to eleven in number. They were long wanted before they began; the antiquarian knowledge of our countrymen previously flowing in a kind of subterranean current, invisible to the general eye of the world, and only seen, by a few, to bubble up at times, in a petty spring or two, within the walls of the Royal Society. The fear, however, of diverting those springs from this reservoir, We apprehend, through many years baffled all attempts to form a regular bason for them ; as the late Lord Willoughby, prefident of the Antiquarian Society, always opposed them, (we under/tand for that reason) during his poffeffion of the chair. In a few years after his death, a publication took place, which at once ensured, to the use of the public, the treasures already contributed, and called in new acquisitions of a superior kind. It lent an additional spur to the mental exertion of the members, and it fanned every spark of genius into a flame, by holding out the hopes of a publication to every writer. What was previously calculated for a mere set of acquaintances, and for a private meeting of brothers in study, would now be circu. Jated round the island, and be read by all the antiquarian scholars within it. The volumes have accordingly risen in importance, and (as we believe) have pretty uniformly risen, ever lince their first publication. They have certainly given birth 10 many differtations, which would never have been formed without them; and have as certainly secured many for the public, which otherwise would have been lost to it. They therefore constitute, in general, a very valuable body of historical intelligence. The present volume, however, strikes the writer of this article, who has been carefully watching, for years, the march and progress of the antiquarian mind in these volumes ; as not maintaining the spirit of the march, as lagging behind lome of the late volumes, and as even turning back to marshal with some of the first.' We may be mistaken in this judg. ment; but our feelings have dictated it, on a careful perusal of the whole. Nor can we at present see more than three differtations, upon which we should particularly dwell. One

of these is,

" I. Obfervations

« J. Observations on Pliny's Account of the Temple of Diana, at

Ephesus. By Thomas Falconer, F/2. of Chifter. . This gentleman is now gone into that world, in which our prailes or our censures can have no influence. But we knew him personally about twenty years ago, and found him a man of taste and science, singularly comprehensive in his range of reading, judicious, and communicative. He was then particularly knowing in history and travels ; and the disfertai108, now under review, Thows that he rejained his fondness for both to the latt. Ai ihat period he projected a new edition of Strabo, to be printed at the press, and from the purse of the University of Oxford ; made a considerable pros gress in it, but lived not to publith is. His papers, however, arę in the hands of the Universiy, and some advance is made towards the publication. He fell, we understand, in:o such a lazy luxury of ficdy, as to lie prone in bed all morning, and to read a Greek folio laid upon his pillow. He thus reduced himself to such a debility of mind and body, as 10 fancy he could not fit a horie, when he was Itrongly urged to mount one. A journey into Scotland reftored him for a time, but he sunk under his complaints about two years ago, we believe, leaving no other memorial f himself than the Srabo, yer unpublished, and this difloria inn on the temple of E helus. Upon Strabo, as the child of his mind in iis fullest vigour, whenever our “ alıną mater" fhij be delivered of it, and

Cafla fave Lucina, tuus jam regnet Apollo ; mul his reputation, in our opinion, be reted with posterity. The present eslay is 100 small, too slighe, and too erroneous, 10 be cited as ihe healthy offspring of a nao, fo extraordinary in his talents and attainments. This we Mall attempt to show, in deference to the author's memory, and in juitice to an important object of ant quity, by a very minute examination.

In Archaol. Vol. VI. is another diflertaiion upon the same temple, written by Joseph Windham, Esq. of Salisbury.

• In the memcirs of the academy of Cortona,” Mr. Windham tells us, " is a treatise written upon this subject by the Marchese Poleni, who, from his acknowledged skill in architecture, and profound erudiiion as an antiquary, has been enabled to throw light upon many pattages, till his iime held obscure. If, in the present in. ftance, his ideas fail of their usual clearness and perfpicuity, it is surely to be inierted, that the text itself, when rendered agreeably to its common acceptation, is deficient, and that some further illustration is necefiary ; his interpretation certainly deviates, in many respects, from the rules of that art by him, in other places, so weil explained.”

Thus Thus does Mr. Windham reprobate the Marchese Poleni's plan of the temple, to introduce his own; and Mr. Falconer reprobatus both, to introduce a third.

" When I engaged myself to some friends,” says Mr. Falconer, in a strain that apparently betrays his haitintis, “to vindicare Pliny, in relation to the description of the temple of D ana at Ephesus, I was not aware how many ingenious writers had disculled the fame subject. Having, however, been lately favoured, by a learned and noble friend, with the memoirs of the academy of Cortona, I have read the Marchefe de Poleni's curious and instructive paper on this bubject, and have also considered Wr. Windhan's description of that tiructure.--I owe much to these learned persons, but am not discouraged iron attempi. ing a farther explanation of the text of Pliny:-) muil ack!!owledge my obligation to Mr. Windham for correcting the punctuatin, and reading “ culumnæ centum; viginti feptem a lingulis regibus factæ,” To suppose otherwise would introduce an odd number of columns, the disposition of which has made the Marchese Poloidd a circular pe. siityle of columns at the back of the temple, and suppress both the pronaas and pufticum, which seem to have been leniial parts of a sacred 'edifice in ti ele ages. On the other hand I muit own, that I disagree with the learned describer, Mr. Windhami, in more than one part of his discourse."

He disagrees in two points. He cannot concede to Mr. Wiudham, • that the intercolumniation was the eustyle,-as

Vitruvius expressly tells as, that the temple of Diana was a Diallylos.' This objection is as un inswerable in itself, as it is fatal in its efficacy ; the very words of Vitruvins being cited in the margin, and decisive in their evidence. • The figure of the temple,' as Mr. Falconer objects again, but uhappily. ris often represented in a teple of fix or eight columns; of one of which Mr. Windham has given us an elegant engraving. I differ, however, from that learned genileman, in supposing that it represents the real temple. The foliage on the tha'is of the columns, and the flower-work above the pediment, indicate rather the minutiæ of a jewelier, than the omplicity of a great architect. I thould rather suppose these represent the raoi agyugai, mentioned in the Acts of ihe Aposties, Glver shrines. But this objection is of no avail. The representation is apparently from the Greek inscription round it, not derived from a thrine, but taken from a medal, ftruck at Ephesus, and familiar toanliquarians. As to the flower-work above the pediinent, Mr. Wirdham adduces a pofarave proof of its existence in anotl:er temple ; saying, that : at Athens, in the choragic monument of Lyficrates, it is still preserved very perfect.' This fact repels Mr. Falconer's objection for ever. Noris Mr. Falcorer's reply, it • is not, as I conceive, applicable to fo Vait an edinice as the temple of Diana ;' any thing more in the estimate of fair reasoning, than the mere voice of prejudice, linking under conviction reluctantly. The fact proves ihe exift. ence of the ornament, not in a jeweller's Thop, but in a build. ing; a building, Grecian and ancient, like the temple of Diana ; and the valtness of the temple can certainly not be urged against an ornament, actually found upon this very iemple, in a coin of the city.


But we have ourselves some objections to'urge, equally against Mr. Falconer and against Mr. Windham, Mr. Fala coner enquires,

" What Pliny means by these words, “ triginta fex (Scil. columnæ) coelatæ, una a Scopa.” The Marquis Poleni places them on each fide of the cell of the templo; and, if there were any certain number more adorned than the rest, they could not have a place in the peristyle. As I cannot allow more than sixteen within the walls, I am inclined to think the emendation of Salmafius is right, “ uno a Scopa.” The columns had capitals, bases, and Autings; and what more ornaments could they have? The most obvious meaning is, that thirty-six columns were raised while Scopas had the sole direttion of the works,

This passage, in our opinion, is pregnant with errors. Scopas wus never the director of the works, as the words immediately subsequent, in Pliny, tertify of themselves, “operi præfuit Cheriiphon architectus.' Strabo also confirms what Pliny thus reports concerning the fr/t erection, πρώτος μέν Χερσίφρων ής χίεκίοyncev; and subjoins cerning the second, or choix sivan. Aesyoxpales ze you. Concernis the second, Solinus speaks more peremptoFily, faber opeu Dinucrates præfuit,' Scopas then had no direction over the works, either in the second or the first rem. ple. He was only at it when he was ordinarily a mere statuary *.' The word 'coelatæ,' fhows this decisivelyt. Yet what was this coelatio' of the columns at Ephesus? They had • capitals, bases, and fiutings,' notes Mr. Falconer; and what more ornaments could they have?". The very onament, we reply, which Mr. Windham's engraving of the temple ex

• Pausanias calls Scopas an architect, saying he built a temple of Minerva at Tegea, and was alfo a ftatuary, τον αρχιτέκιονα επυνθάνομεν Exóto my aula yavés Oxu zèv Ilá poov, os xài ayoluxlx x. 7. a. But Pliny confi. ders him as a mere statuary; and a mere itatuary he was at Epheftis.

+ Pliny xxxvi. 5, of the shield of Minerva, in her fatue at Athens, • in quo Amazonum prælium coelarit [Phidias] intumescente ambitu parmæ, in base autem quod coelatum eft, Panderas genesin appellavit, --Scopas habuit æmulos eâdem ætate, Bryaxin et'limotheun et Leocharem, de quibus femel dicendum eft, quoniam pariter coelavêre maula foleum ;- cingitur columnis xxxvi. ab oriente coelavit Scopas, a sep. trentrione Bryaxis, a meridie Timotheus, ab occasu Leochares.'



« VorigeDoorgaan »