time, that this fecond fanction was abfolutely neceffary for obtaining what he defired. At length this prince, after having difplayed the utmost repugnance, promifed to give his affent. "There was a council that very night. The three ministers were more infolent and more violent than ever; they preffed the king in a very rough manner, either to give or to refufe his fanction, threatening, in the latter cafe, to refign inftantly. "There was fo little fecrecy obferved in the palace, that, at the expiration of fix hours, it was whifpered all over Paris, that Dumouriez had changed parties, and that more than twenty Feuillans had prefented themfelves at his door, on purpose to pay their refpects to him. The council was very fhort; the king diffolved it with temper and dignity, and wrote a note to Dumouriez, in the course of the fame evening, in which he intreated him to propofe three new minifters.” P.363. How much credit may be due to these narratives of Dumouriez, we leave to more fkilful politicians to difcufs, or future hiftorians to determine; certainly, if his own account may be credited, he was uniformly the friend of the king, and defirous of preventing all the finifter events that afterwards took place. They will alfo afcertain how much moment fhould be given to declarations fuch as this. "When the reign of anarchy, and the triumph of villains, shall have paffed away, they (the French) will then read thefe memoirs; and the whole nation, which cannot entertain any manner of doubt respecting the facts, that have fo recently occurred before its own eyes, will recognize the real patriotifm of General Dumouriez, his difinterestedness, his attachment to the conftitution, and confequently to the conftitutional king; and the fervices, both political and military, which he has rendered to his native country. They will then no longer blame his conduct; even thofe, who inftigated the barbarous decree of profcription against him, will blufh. If he be then of an age at which he can prove ufeful to his country, he will devote himself anew to her fervices; if he be dead, his wifhes will have anticipated this moral revolution, which he can now with confidence predict; because it will infallibly occur, and will be produced by the excefs of evils, and the impoffi bility of fuftaining liberty by means of an abfurd government, founded en barbarity, terror, and the fubverfion of all the principles neceffary for the maintenance of human focieties." P. 420. Dumouriez relates his own campaigns with that combination of fpirit, rapidity, and diftinctnefs, which can arife only from clear and comprehenfive views of the fubject, and ftrongly impreffes the idea of his being fairly equal to the fame he atchieved. He confeffes his own errors with the fame franknefs with which he points out thofe of his adverfaries, and the narrative is altogether fuch as could not be expected from any other hand. That it is, in general, favourable to his reputation, may be prefumed; but, if there be much distortion of the truth, it is at leaft conducted with ability, which indeed the whole book abundantly difplays, ART, ART. X. Archæologia, or mifcellaneous Tracts relating to Antiquity. Volume XI. 460 PP. Il. IS. White, &c. THESE volumes firft began to be published in the year 1770, and have now increafed to eleven in number. They were long wanted before they began; the antiquarian knowledge of our countrymen previoufly flowing in a kind of fubterranean current, invisible to the general eye of the world, and only feen, by a few, to bubble up at times, in a petty fpring or two, within the walls of the Royal Society. The fear, however, of diverting thofe fprings from this refervoir, we apprehend, through many years baffled all attempts to form a regular bafon for them; as the late Lord Willoughby, prefident of the Antiquarian Society, always oppofed them, (we understand for that reafon) during his poffeffion of the chair. In a few years after his death, a publication took place, which at once enfured, to the ufe of the public, the treasures already contributed, and called in new acquifitions of a fuperior kind. It lent an additional fpur to the mental exertion of the members, and it fanned every fpark of genius into a flame, by holding out the hopes of a publication to every writer. What was previously calculated for a mere fet of acquaintances, and for a private meeting of brothers in ftudy, would now be circuJated round the ifland, and be read by all the antiquarian scholars within it. The volumes have accordingly risen in importance, and (as we believe) have pretty uniformly rifen, ever fince their first publication. They have certainly given birth to many differtations, which would never have been formed without them; and have as certainly fecured many for the public, which otherwife would have been loft to it. They therefore conftitute, in general, a very valuable body of historical intelligence. The prefent volume, however, ftrikes the writer. of this article, who has been carefully watching, for years, the march and progrefs of the antiquarian mind in these volumes; as not maintaining the fpirit of the march, as lagging behind fome of the late volumes, and as even turning back to marshal with fome of the firft. We may be mistaken in this judg ment; but our feelings have dictated it, on a careful perufal of the whole. Nor can we at prefent fee more than three differtations, upon which we fhould particularly dwell. One of these is, "I. Obfervations' "I. Obfervations on Pliny's Account of the Temple of Diana, at Ephefus. By Thomas Falconer, Efq. of Chester. This gentleman is now gone into that world, in which our praifes or our cenfures can have no influence. But we knew him perfonally about twenty years ago, and found him a man of tafte and fcience, fingularly comprehenfive in his range of reading, judicious, and communicative. He was then particularly knowing in hiftory and travels; and the differtation, now under review, fhows that he retained his fondnefs for both to the laft. At that period he projected a new edition of Strabo, to be printed at the prefs, and from the purfe of the Univerfity of Oxford; made a confiderable progrefs in it, but lived not to publifh it. His papers, however, are in the hands of the Univerficy, and fome advance is made towards the publication. He fell, we understand, into fuch a lazy luxury of fludy, as to lie prone in bed all morning, and to read a Greek folio laid upon his pillow. He thus reduced himself to fuch a debility of mind and body, as to fancy he could not fit a horfe, when he was ftrongly urged to mount one. A journey into Scotland reftored him for a time, but he funk under his complaints about two years ago, we believe, leaving no other memorial of himself than the Strabo, yet unpublished, and this differtation on the temple of Ephefus. Upon Strabo, as the child of his mind in its fulleft vigour, whenever our "almą mater" fhan be delivered of it, and Cafla fave Lucina, tuus jam regnet Apollo; muft his eputation, in our opinion, be reted with pofterity. The prefent eflay is 100 fmall, too flight, and too erroneous, to be cited as the healthy offspring of a man, fo extraordinary in his talents and attainments. This we fhall attempt to fhow, in deference to the author's memory, and in juftice to an important object of antiquity, by a very minute examination. In Archaol. Vol. VI. is another differtation upon the fame temple, written by Joseph Windham, Efq. of Salisbury. "In the memoirs of the academy of Cortona," Mr. Windham tells us, "is a treatife written upon this fubject by the Marchefe Poleni, who, from his acknowledged kill in architecture, and profound erudition as an antiquary, has been enabled to throw light upon many paffages, till his time held obfcure. If, in the prefent infance, his ideas fail of their ufual clearnefs and perfpicuity, it is furely to be inferred, that the text itself, when rendered agreeably to its common acceptation, is deficient, and that fome further illuftration is neceffary; his interpretation certainly deviates, in many respects, from the rules of that art by him, in other places, fo weil explained.' Thus Thus does Mr. Windham reprobate the Marchefe Poleni's plan of the temple, to introduce his own; and Mr. Falconer reprobates both, to introduce a third. "When I engaged myself to fome friends," fays Mr. Falconer, in a ftrain that apparently betrays his haftiness," to vindicate Pliny, in relation to the defcription of the temple of Diana at Ephefus, I was not aware how many ingenious writers had dilculled 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 inftructive paper on this abject, and have alfo confidered vir. Windhan's defcription of that fructure.-I owe much to thefe learned perfons, but am not difcouraged from attempt. ing a farther explanation of the text of Pliny - mail acknowledge my obligation to Mr. Windham for correcting the punctuation, and reading "columnæ centum; viginti feptem a fingulis regibus factæ.” To fuppofe otherwife would introduce an odd number of columns, the difpofition of which has made the Marchefe Poleni add a circular periftyle of columns at the back of the temple, and fupprefs both the pronaos and pofticum, which feem to have been effential parts of a facred 'edifice in ti efe ages. On the other hand I must own, that I disagree with the learned defcriber, Mr. Windham, in more than one part of his difcourfe." He difagrees in two points. He cannot concede to Mr. Windham, that the intercolumniation was the euftyle,-as Vitruvius exprefsly tells us, that the temple of Diana was a Diaftylos.' This objection is as unanfwerable in itfelf, as it is fatal in its efficacy; the very words of Vitruvius being cited in the margin, and decifive in their evidence. The figure of the temple,' as Mr. Falconer objects again, but unhappily, is often reprefented in a temple of fix or eight columns; of one of which Mr. Windham has given us an elegant engraving. I differ, however, from that learned gen leman, in fuppofing that it reprefents the real temple. The foliage on the fhafts of the columns, and the flower-work above the pediment, indicate rather the minutiae of a jewelier, than the fimplicity of a great architect. I thould rather fuppofe thefe reprefent the vai agyugot, mentioned in the Acts of the Apolles, filver fhrines.' But this objection is of no avail. The reprefentation is apparently from the Greek infcription round it, not derived from a thrine, but taken from a medal, ftruck at Ephefus, and familiar to antiquarians. As to the flower-work above the pediment, Mr. Windham adduces a pofitive proof of its exiftence in another temple; faying, that at Athens, in the choragic monument of Lyficrates, it is fill preferved very perfect. This fact repels Mr. Falconer's objection for ever. Nor is Mr. Falcorer's reply, it is not, as I conceive, applicable to fo valt an edifice as the temple of Diana;' any thing more in the efti mate mate of fair reafoning, than the mere voice of prejudice, finking under conviction reluctantly. The fact proves the exiftence of the ornament, not in a jeweller's fhop, but in a building; a building, Grecian and ancient, like the temple of Diana; and the vaftnefs of the temple can certainly not be urged against an ornament, actually found upon this very temple, in a coin of the city. But we have ourfelves fome objections to urge, equally against Mr. Falconer and against Mr. Windham. Mr. Falconer enquires, What Pliny means by thefe words, "triginta fex (Scil. columnæ) coelatæ, una a Scopâ." The Marquis Poleni places them on each fide of the cell of the temple; and, if there were any certain number more adorned than the reft, they could not have a place in the periftyle. As I cannot allow more than fixteen within the walls, I am inclined to think the emendation of Salmafius is right, uno a Scopa," The columns had capitals, bases, and flutings; and what more ornaments could they have? The moft obvious meaning is, that thirty-fix columns were raised while Scopas had the fole direction of the works, ་ This paffage, in our opinion, is pregnant with errors. Scopas was never the director of the works, as the words immediately fubfequent, in Pliny, teftify of themselves, operi præfuit Cheriiphon architectus.' Strabo alfo confirms what Pliny thus reports concerning the firft ereétion, πρῶτος μὲν Χερσίφρων ἧς χιιεκιά νησεν ; and fubjoins ncerning the fecond, ὃν φησὶν εἶναι Δεινοκράτες Concerni the fecond, Solinus fpeaks more peremptoFily, faber open Dinocrates præfuit.' Scopas then had no direction over the works, either in the fecond or the first temple. He was only at it when he was ordinarily mere ftatuary. The word coelatæ,' fhows this decifivelyt. Yet what was this coelatio' of the columns at Ephefus? They had capitals, bafes, and flutings,' notes Mr. Falconer; and what more ornaments could they have? The very ornament, we reply, which Mr. Windham's engraving of the temple ex Paufanias calls Scopas an architect, faying he built a temple of Minerva at Tegea, and was alfo a ftatuary, τὸν ἀρχιτέκτονα ἐπυνθάνομεν Σκόπαν αυτό γενέσθαι τὸν Πάριον, ὃς καὶ ἀγάλματα κ. 7. λ. But Pliny confiders him as a mere ftatuary; and a mere ftatuary he was at Ephesus. + Pliny xxxvi. 5, of the fhield of Minerva, in her flatue at Athens, in quo Amazonum prælium coelavit [Phidias] intumefcente ambitu parma,-in bafe autem quod coelatum eft, Panderas genefin appellavit. --Scopas habuit æmulos câdem ætate, Bryaxin et Timotheum et Leocharem, de quibus femel dicendum eft, quoniam pariter coelavêre maufoleum-cingitur columnis xxxvi. ab oriente coelavit Scopas, a feptrentrione Bryaxis, a meridie Timotheus, ab occafu Leochares.' |