to

hibits to us, that foliage on the fhafts of the columns,' which Mr. Falconer has remitted fo unjustly to the jeweller's fhop, and which we now want at the temple for the explanation of Pliny. All the columns had Mr. Falconer's ornaments, but thirty-fix had Mr. Windham's. Yet thefe thirty-fix were not all ornamented by the hand of Scopas. The words of Pliny indeed are violently altered by Salmafius and Mr. Falconer, in that fpirit of hypothefis which will make what it cannot find, and which always takes refuge in making from what it actually finds. In fome copies the words are, quarum una a Scopa,' as they are in Mr. Windham's, where the alteration is precluded at once. Even in our copy, Mr. Falconer's, and Salmafius's, where the words are, una a Scopa,' without quauno a Scopa,' would be to fix rum,' to alter them into falfe Latin upon Pliny, as true Latin requires ab uno Scopa,' or a Scopa uno; and to give him a meaning directly contrary his words, Scopas having twined his foliage round only nine columns of the maufoleum of Caria, and round only one of the temple of Diana: the thirty-fix columns of Pliny, therefore, were all engraved or foliaged, whatever Mr. Falconer may alledge; one by Scopas, a moft eminent ftatuary, and the reft by others. So far have we argued against Mr. Falconer alone. But we now turn against him and Mr. Windham together. It is a conjecture not improbable,' obferves Mr. Windham, that most of thefe ancient buildings were hypethras, or open of them were fo, is certain.' This is at the top; all which he fays; but he has actually reprefented the temple in his plan, as all open in a long fquare at the top. But Mr. Falconer adopts the idea thus propofed conjecturally, and realized in the plan, only to render it conformable to the text. One difficulty now occurs,' notes Mr. Falconer, was the mode of giving light to fo extended a building. Neither Pliny nor Vitruvius mentions it; fo we own only fron conjectures. The Marquis Poleni fuppofes a wall, above the columns, pierced with windows; but this is not confonant to the general form of Grecian temples.' I agree, therefore, with Mr. Windham, that there was an hypethros, or open fpace in the roof, large enough to diffuse a light over the infide of the cell. It is marked in the plan, but occupies only half of the long fquare given it by Mr. Windham : fo much do thefe authors differ, even when they moft agree! They both Convenit,' as Pliny tells us, conalfo difagree with Pliny. cerning this very temple, tectum ejus de cedrinis trabibus.** " etiam nunc fcaOr, as he farther tells us in another paffage, lis tectum Ephefiæ Dianæ fcanditur,—ibi ad præcipuam altitu

that

many

⚫ what

dinem exeunt*. In this manner do vifionary architects erect their temples, while the cotemporary defcribers all the while ftand by them, mocking their vain labours, and ready to level them at once! But Mr. Falconer contradicts not merely Pliny in this, but himself. He fhall, therefore, convince us against himself and Mr. Windham, that, in the fift temple, the roof, of whatever wood it was compofed, mult have been very combuftiblet; and that, in the fecond, the roof was repaired with cedart. Nor are thefe merely cafual expreffions, the effufions of momentary hafte and unthinkingnefs; Mr. Falconer dwells upon the point largely, at the very time. He cites and tranflats himfelf a paffage in Strabo, and then comments upon it thus. "Apollodorus fays, they reftored the temple, from effects which the Perfians had depofited there. Now there were no fuch depofits at that time; and, if there had, they must have been confumed together with the temple. After the fire, the adytum of the temple being open to day, who would have chofen to lay any depofit there?" No words of mere implication, furely, can more clearly fignify in opposition to Mr. Falconer, that, before the burning of the temple, the adytum, the cell, the very temple itfelf, was not open to day!' Yet Mr. Falconer proceeds, unaffected, and unimpeded, thus. Such are the words of Strabo, none of which imply, that more than the aos or cella,' the very cell or temple itself, was injured by the flames. The raf must have been very combustible. I cannot but lay fome ftrefs on the word enos, tranflated by the Latin word adytum, which was left without a roof' after the fire; for this expreffion feems to imply, that no other parts were materially damaged, and confequently the walls, as well as the double periftyle, were preferved.' The author thus overfhoots one object entirely, in his keen pursuit of another. But he gives us a full confellion, as the laft of the only two who ever fuppofed this temple to be open above, that it had a roof of cedar, or fome other wood, at both periods of its erection. We have one more argument to urge, and it is against Mr. Falconer alone. The itair-cafe,' to the roof, was made, as Pliny fays, "ex vite unâ Cypria;" not of a fingle vine-ftem, as fome have thought, but of no other.' The words of Pliny run thus at full length, etiam nunc fcalis tectum Ephefiæ Dianæ fcanditur ex vite urâ Cyprià, ut ferunt, quoniam ibi ad præcipuam altitudinem excunt.' Thefe evidently imply, by their reference to tradition, and their intimation of the height, that the flair-cafe was not made in any common way, or of feveral vine-flems. No! This would be too petty for fuch an intimation, and fuch a reference. They affert

Pliny xiv. 1. † Arch. 19.

‡ Ibid. Ibid.

the

the ftairs to have been formed out of a fingle fem, they fpecify the ftem to have been a vine of Cyprus, and they appeal (notwithstanding the neceffary length of the whole) to tradition for the fact. Thus the very marveloufnefs of the fact, which has been urged against the truth of it by Montfaucon*; and against the obvious meaning of the words by Mr. Falconer, was the very reafon that induced Piiny to record it.

Here we fhould naturally terminate our revifal of the effay, but knowing how much the name of Mr. Falconer will impofe upon the too eafy faith of fome antiquaries; and having fully convinced ourfulves of the fallacioufnefs of all thefe fpeculative conftructions, we are willing to impart the conviction to our readers. We fhall, therefore, clofe at once with our author, and show his whole fabrication to be a falfe model of the temple. The original temple ftill exifts in its ground-works, we are firmly perfuaded, and cries out against thefe imaginary reprefentations of it. All the local circumftances unite to appropriate the ruins, and to exhibit the templet.

This wonder of the world,' notes Mr. Falconer, was erected under Mount Pion, or Prion, in a low fituation. The fea at one time flowed very near its walls; but the mud, brought down by the Cayfter, which has now filled the whole harbour, had ufurped on the fea before the days of Pliny, as he himself exprefsly declares,'" Ephefi, ubi quondam ædem Dianæ alluebat ." Hence I conclude, that the temple was farther from the fea than the city; for the fame author fays, that Ephefus itself was in ord, and confequently nearer the mouth of the river.' That a temple, which was actually wafhed by the fea, and which is argued by Mr. Falconer to have been fo, could poffibly be farther from the sea than its accompanying city, is fuch a folecifm in thinking, as we did not expect to find in fuch a writer. But it refults entirely from that impulfe of fyftematic prejudice, which has here infringed upon the understanding, and deranged its ideas. We fee its influence again, in the fentence immediately following; which infers the temple to have been farther than the city from the fea, because the temple was only wafhed by the waves, and the

*Ant. Exp. II. Part I. p. 55. Humphreys.

+ Mr. Falconer, p. 10, fays, Mutianus (Pliny, 1. xii. c. 4, 1. xvi. c. 40) thought it," the ftatue of Diana "was vine-wood, but owns it was covered with a varnish of nardus, to conceal the joining of the pieces." Yet the words of Pliny carry a very different meaning; adjicit [Mutianus] multis foraminibus nardo rigari, ut medicatus humor alat teneatque juncturas." So wildly devious is the vernon from the original!

Lib. ii. c. 35, as cited,, but ii. 85, really.

city was placed upon the coaft. But indeed the meaning of Pliny, when he places Ephefus in orâ,' was merely this; that Ephefus was a maritime town, while fome other towns were inland. "Litori appofita Derafidas-," he says, "intus et Thyatira-, in orá autem-Ephefus-et intus ipfa Colophon*.' The temple, therefore, and the city, were both upon the fea, and the temple was fo near to the fea as to have had its walls once washed with its waves. For thefe paffages of Pliny, let us remark, fpeak of the whole city of Ephefus, and of the temple as a part of it. The whole, the city including the temple, lay in orâ.' It was at the city, that the fea once washed the walls of the temple; Ephefi-Ædem Dianæ allucbat. And the temple was within the city, in the days of Pliny.

Having thus turned thefe two paffages directly againft their producer, we proceed to a proof in him more historical, more plaufible, but equally falfe. In the days of Herodotus,' he remarks, the temple was feven ftadia distant from the city. Lyfimachus, one of Alexander's fucceffors, enlarged Ephefus, by removing thither the inhabitants of Colophon; fo that, in the time of Strabo, the diftance of the temple was scarcely two ftadia.' Mr. Falconer has here traced the hiftory of Ephefus with a careless hand. The city was firft fixed at the Athenæum, without the pofterior walls of Lyfimachus, and to the eaft of that Mount Prion which afterwards had a part of the walls upon it; ἡ πόλις ἦν τὸ παλαιὸν, Strabo tells us, περὶ τὸ ̓Αθήναιον, τὸ νῦν ἔξω τῆς πόλεως, and ὁ Πριών— ἔχων μέρος το τείχος αυτής. This was its fite in the days of Herodotus, when it lay feven ftadiia from the temple. But, before the days of Lyfimachus, the city had croffed over Mount Prion, and fettled on a plain between it and the temple; as he induced them by a ftratagem, to remove again, and fettle upon the mount itfelf. The ftratagem which he ufed, thows the nature of the fite; he, taking advantage of a violent ftorm of rain, fays Strabo, ngas κατάλλακτον όμβρον, Πopping up all the fewers, συνήργησε καὶ αὐτὸς, καὶ τὰς ῥινέχες ἐνέφραξεν, and fo flooding the town, ὥστε καλακλῖσαι Tho. The city was then pitched upon the hill where Pliny pitches it, attollitur Monte Pione;' and was only two ftadia from the temple, the plain between the temple and the city being about a quarter of a mile broad, from the east to the weftt. The temple was then very near the city, and (what is much more, yet very plain) was actually inclosed within the walls of it, at the very removal of the town from the plain to the mount. The walls of Lyfimachus are still remaining,

*Plin. v. 29.

+ Pococke 11. Part II. p. 49.

almoft

almost entire in fome places, fhowing in others their foundation, ten feet in thicknefs, ranging at the east end, as they ranged in the days of Strabo, along the fummit of Mount Prion; and, at the weft, inclofing the temple with its plain before it *. So apparently was the temple within the walls of the city, from the days of Lyfimachus to the days of Strabo and of Pliny.

Yet Mr. Falconer perfifts in removing the temple, and banishing it from the city. As the old authorities,' he cries, fix the temple out of the inclofure of the walls, we may juftly wonder that all the modern travellers I have read, except my ingenious friend Dr. Chandler, have looked for Diana's temple within the walls of Lyfimachus.' We have already feen Pliny, one old authority,' plainly twice including the temple within the city. We have actually feen Strabo, another old authority, planting the very city itfelf in the plain immediately before the temple. Thence indeed he tranfplants it to the mount behind, yet fixes it even there at only two ftadia distant from the temple, the very breadth of the plain at prefen'. But we have another old authority, much older than either of the two former, exifting to this very day, and fpeaking to our very senses; that, at the removal of the town to the mount, and during the very re-conftruction probably of the temple itfelf, Lyfimachus drew his walls to take the whole plain, and fo to take the very temple, at the weft end of it, within the circuit of them. So fully do the old authorities,' unite against Mr. Falconer! But let us turn to a modern authority, even to Mr. Falconer himself; and we fhall fee him teftifying the fame with all. This wonder of the world,' he fays in a paffage cited only a little before, was erected under Mount Pion or Prion, in a low fituation—; the fea at one time flowed very near its walls.' He thus, in a moment of freedom from the preffure of prejudice, places the temple where all have placed it before him, on the plain under Mount Prion, and clofe to what was once the fea and the walls of Lyfimachus, which mount up fo high in antiquity, actually appear at this day pointing into the heart of the fea, but bending inwards to avoid it, then running close along the city border of it, and fo forming the back wail to the reputed temple.

Mr. Falconer then applies himself to difcredit the remains which have been difcovered there, as different in form and fashion from the ancient defcriptions of the temple. But he is almost as little fuccefsful as he was before. Spon and