Page images

alledged a variety of prefumptive arguments in confirmation of it, there are many remaining difficulties, which it does not fatisfactorily resolve.

Account of a mineral Substance, called Strontionite, in which are exhibited its external, phyfical, and chemical Characters. By Mr. John Godtrey Schmeifier, F.R.S.

This fubftance obtained its name from Strontion in Scotland, where it is found in granite rocks, accompanied by galena and witherite. For a detail of its properties, and for the experiments by which they are afcertained, we must refer to the article itself.

Account of a fpontaneous Inflammation. By James Humfries, Efq. In a Letter from Thomas B. Woodman, Efq. to George Atwood, Efq. F. R. S.

Linfeed oil accidentally fell into a cheft containing coarse cotton cloth. On opening the cheft, the cloth was found very much heated, and partly reduced to tinder: the wood of the box was alfo difcoloured, as it would have been by the effect of burning. Mr. H. was led by a paffage in Hopfon's Chemistry to account for this fact; and in order farther to afcertain the true cause of it, a piece of the fame kind of cloth was wetted with linfeed oil, and put into a box. In about three hours, the box began to fmoke, and the cloth was found in the fame ftate with that first mentioned. When the cloth was opened and exposed to the external air, the fire burft out. This experiment was repeated three times with the fame fuccefs.

The volume concludes with the ufual Lifts, Index, &c.

ART. X. Antiquities of Athens, by Meffrs. Stuart and Reveta
[Article concluded from p. 57.]

[ocr errors]

IN conftructing the map of Attica, with a lift of the names of towns, villages, &c. compared with the antient names, Mr. Stuart informs us that he endeavoured to trace the original names of the modern villages, or, which is the fame thing, the fituation of the ancient Demoi :' a part of the work which is likely to prove of much utility to future geographers, and which does much credit to the induftrious researches of the author.

Chap. I. of the Temple of Thefeus.

The travellers who have vifited the city of Athens, and the authors who have defcribed its antiquities, all agree, that this Doric temple, one of the nobleft remains of its ancient magnificence, and at prefent the most entire, was built in honour of 'Thefeus. This opinion is abundantly juftified by the fculptures in fome of the



metopes; for, mutilated as they are, it is evident feveral of the ex-" ploits of that hero are there represented.'

The circumftance relative to the removal of the bones of Thefeus to Athens, together with the erection of the temple dedicated to him, and the inftitution of the feftivals to his honour, took place in the year in which Aphepfion was Archon, which the best authorities place in the fourth year of the 77th Olympiad, 467 years before Chrift; that is, exactly 40 years before the death of Pericles, or precifely when he began to acquire popularity and power in Athens: fo that this temple may well be accounted a work of the age of Pericles.

It is built, (fays Mr. Stuart,) of Pentelic marble, and, in the language of Vitruvius, is a peripteres.... The principal front faces the ealt; and the pediment of that front appears to have been adorned, like thofe of the Parthenon, with figures of entire relief, fixed in their places by cramps of metal; for on the face of this pediment remain feveral holes, in which the ends of those cramps have been inferted, though the figures they fupported are all of them destroyed.

On the metopes in this Eastern front, are represented ten of the labours of Hercules; and on the four metopes next that front, both on the Northern and Southern fides, are eight of the atchievements of Thefeus. It will appear the lefs extraordinary, that the labours of Hercules fhould make fo confiderable a part of the ornaments of this temple, when we recollect the refpect which Thefeus profeffed for that hero, who was his kinfman, who had delivered him from a tedious captivity, and had reftored him to his country; on his return to which, Thefeus confecrated to Hercules all the places that the gratitude of his citizens had formerly dedicated to himself, four only excepted; and changed their names from Thefeá to Herculeá. Nor could it be esteemed a flight compliment to Thefeus, when on building this temple to his honour, their labours were then placed together. The remainder of the metopes, and the pediment of the pofticus, or western front, have never been adorned with sculptures.

It is now a church dedicated to St. George, for whom the present Athenians have as high a veneration as their ancestors had for Thefeus; and to this we probably owe that it is not in a more ruinous condition.'

This building exhibits a fine example of the old Doric order; the columns are about 5 diameters high, having no bases, a fimple but bold capital, maffive architrave, large frieze, and fmall cornice; very fimilar to the order employed in the Parthenon. The whole length of the building, from outfide to outfide of the columns, is 104 feet; the breadth 45 feet. In addition to ten plates of the building, with the accurate meafurement of Meffrs. Stuart and Revett, there are fourteen plates of the sculptures, from the excellent drawings of the late Mr. Pars. It may be proper, (fays the author,) to obferve that the fculpture on this temple is very fine and much relieved;


the limbs being in many places entirely detached, which is perhaps one reafon that they are fo much damaged.'

The IId Chapter; Of the Temple of Jupiter Olympius, called alfo the columns of Hadrian.

This chapter elucidates fome interefting facts, relative to thefe important remains of antiquity which led to the system that guided Mr. Stuart in his topography of the greater part of the buildings in Athens. He took infinite pains to establish his conjecture that thefe were the remains of the Temple of Jupiter Olympius: he has treated of it in the fifth chapter of the first volume, again in the first chapter of the fecond volume, and, in the prefent volume, it is a third time brought forwards, with additional arguments in favour of his system. In the first volume, the argument is founded on the proximity of this building to the fuppofed fountain Enneacrunos on the Ilyffus: but, as the fituation of the fountain Enneacrunos does not seem to be well established, and as, from what can be collected from various authors, there feems to have been more than one fountain of that name, this argument cannot be deemed decifive.

The fecond volume contained Mr. Stuart's plan of these remains, now stated, on the authority of Mr. Revett, to be incorrect; and an extract from Vitruvius, Proem to Book 7; wherein he mentions this as being a depteral temple, and furnishes Mr. Stuart, in the prefent volume, with reafons for adopting a different reading on that paffage of Vitruvius, in Book 3, Chap. 1, in which that antient author had always been interpreted as calling this temple an octaftylos. It must be allowed, in favour of Mr. Stuart, that many of the manu fcripts have the (et) in the text, and that it does very fairly admit of his interpretation: likewife that this propofed reading' of Vitruvius will render the two paffages coincident; making the Temple of Jupiter Olympius, at Athens, a decaftylos. His very ingenious deduction from Paufanias, elucidating that the Elian Temple of Jupiter Olympius was an hypethros, and octaftyles, adds much confirmation to his argument in that refpect. The principal evidence, however, i. e. locality, is ftill wanted. Thefe remains are called the Columns of Ha drian; and though we admit, with Mr. Stuart, that we are not always to rely on traditionary accounts, yet they are frequently true, and they often lead to the greatest discoveries. In objects of little note, a corruption of the name is likely to take place; thus a fmall monument is called the Lantern of Demofthenes, &c. but buildings of more confequence maintain their antient names; as for example, the Temple of Thefeus, Parthenon, &c. The name of the Temple of Jupi



ter was, no doubt, as likely to be maintained as any other, while there continued fuch magnificent remains as these coJumns: but that tradition has continued them as the columns of Hadrian is ftrong prefumptive evidence that they belonged to fome remarkable building, erected by that Emperor; and very likely they are the remains of the 120 columns mentioned by Paufanias,whether as belonging to the Pantheon, or not, is immaterial. It feems, from his manner of expreffion, that, in his time, they were called the Columns of Hadrian; at leaft, that the building was the more noticed on account of the coJumns. Mr. Stuart has endeavoured to controvert the idea of thefe being the columns mentioned by Paufanias, ftating that they are of Pentelic marble, and not of Phrygian stone, as mentioned by Paufanias: it will, however, be very difficult to prove that Phrygia did not produce a fimilar ftone.

Paufanias fays that the Emperor Hadrian (only) dedicated the Temple of Jupiter Olympius. The ftyle of these remains proves them to be, with little doubt, the works of Hadrian's time, and makes it very improbable that the work of Coffutius, fo long antecedent, fhould be fimilar to that of the age of Hadrian.

Allowing Mr. Stuart all credit for the very able manner in which he has endeavoured to prove and eftablish his hypothefis, we feel ourselves obliged to confefs that it is not fufficiently confirmed to induce us to ftep out of the course in which Pau fanias conducts us through Athens.

Chap. III. Of the Arch of Thefeus, or of Hadrian.

This arch ftands nearly N. E. and S. W. and is about a quarter of a mile fouth eastward from the Acropolis. The front towards the N. W. and the Acropolis bears an infcription, importing that it faces "Athens formerly the city of Thefeus" and the front towards the S. E. and the Iliffus, “This is the city of Hadrian and not of Thefeus."

As the front laft mentioned alfo looks towards the remains called the Columns of Hadrian, the peribolus of which it nearly joins at one of the angles, it affords a moft powerful argument against the hypothefis of Mr. Stuart, that thofe columns were the remains of the Temple of Jupiter Olympius.' Mr. Stuart feems to have been fenfible of this, and has accordingly recapitulated most of his former arguments in vindication of his hypothefis, which we have already combated. This tedious difquifition on fituation, he fays, is here introduced, in order to afcertain the true reading of a paffage in Thucydides, on account of a mistake made by Valla, who instead of weas με τον has read προς άριτος.


Neither in this, nor in any other part of his work, however, does Mr. Stuart refute the reading of Valla; nor bring forwards any good reafon for varying from it, unless he fuppofes himself juftified in the alteration by fome modern commentators, who, finding that Thucydides was fpeaking of parts on the fouthern fide of the city, thought that thofe parts must alfo be on the fouthern fide of the cidadel; and that Valla's reading, on the northern fide of the citadel, must be a corruption. Unfortunately for thofe commentators, this arch remains a ftanding memorial of the truth of Valla's reading; placing antient Athens to the north of the Acropolis; and, confequently, -fuch buildings as were in the fouthern parts of the city, would ftill be on the northern fide of the Acropolis.

This ftructure confifts of two orders of columns, one over the other, the arch being included in the heighth of the lower order it is undoubtedly one of the works erected during the time of Hadrian, and must not be ranked among the productions of Grecian tafte. It exhibits fome of the groffeft abufes of the principles of found architecture, having folid over void, and archivolts piercing and dividing architraves; and it is altogether deftitute of the gracefulness even of works of that age. Chap. IV. The Aqueduct of Hadrian.

The columns refemble the antient Ionic examples ftill remaining at Rome, rather than thofe of the best age of Greece; the mouldings in general, it must be allowed, are fimple, and in good tafte, though not finished with that delicacy which, (fays Mr. S.) we have admired in the Ereitheum and the temple of Minerva Polias; it is perhaps to be accounted a more complete fpecimen of this kind of the Ionic than any which Rome can at prefent furnish.

Of this frontifpiece only two columns were ftanding. On digging, were discovered the veftiges of the other two. Between them an arch was conftructed, refting on the archi


Those who have been accuftomed to fee what are commonly called Venetian windows resembling this form, but with the arch fpringing from the cymatium of the cornice, will look on this ex. ample as a deviation from the approved practice: but, if we allow that the mouldings of the cornice reprefent the timbers of the roof, as our Master Vitruvius teaches, the cymatium or upper moulding must reprefent the gutter, as thofe, who fhall prefer as a more rational practice, the fpringing the arch from the architrave, the most firm and folid part of the entablature, may think this example a fufficient authority.

The city of Athens was fo ill provided with water, even in the moft flourishing times of the republic, that the inhabitants were obliged to fink wells, to fupply themfelves with that neceffary of life.


« EelmineJätka »