Of the Parthenon at Athens, it is faid by Paufanias, that Xenocles of Cholargus, completed the dome or cupola that covered the fanctuary; if, in fact, the words oralov can be juftly interpreted to mean an arched dome or cupola. Paffages are next quote from Ariftotle, Plato, Seneca, Vitruvius, and fome modern commentators, to prove that the conftruction of the vaulted arch was known at a period far more remote than the age of Alexander; but here it must be observed, that the words avis, aλís, óños, and fornix, are without hesitation adopted as meaning the arch, cupola, dome, or rotunda, conftructed in the manner now practifed, by building over a centre, and compacting the whole by a keyftone at the fummit.

The Etrufcans, continues this author, were likewife well acquainted with the ufe of the arch, of which fome remains, he fays, are still to be feen in the vicinity of the ancient town of Nola. An ample volume, he adds, would fcarcely fuffice to defcribe all the monuments that are to be met with in Sicily, which prove his affertion; and in confirmation of this he quotes the work of Prince Bifcari, who describes at large the temples of Jupiter and of Concord, near Agrigentum; the Odeum with its cupola near the theatre at Catanea, the tomb of Hiero, the vaulted arches which fupported the caftle of the tyrant Dionyfius, near Syracufe, a temple of Bacchus, and many others. All these buildings are afferted to have been erected between four and five hun dred years before the chriftian æra.

on

The great gate at Pæftum, is an evidence which, to Mr. D., appears decifive; the Syren fculptured in bafs relief the keystone of the arch, being manifeftly of Etrufcan workmanship; and hence he adds an inconteftible proof of the antiquity of the conftruction. The remains of an aqueduct at Carthage, defcribed and figured by Pocock and Shaw, are likewife brought into the array, to prove the high antiquity of arches.

But none of these evidences appear to the author fo conclufive, as the arches ftill extant of the great Sewer, or Cleaca Maxima, at Rome, the construction of which is by Dionys. Halicarn. afcribed to the elder Tarquin. The aqueduct of Ancus Marcius, built, it is faid, by the king of that name 650 years before Chrift; the triumphal arch raifed in honour of Fabius the Cenfor; and the tomb of the Scipios difcovered at Rome in the year 1781. All these, together with the temples of Venus, Hope, and Vesta, the Porta and Ponte Salaro, the Ponte Rotto, and the fountain of Egeria, are brought as irrefragable proofs that the vaulted

or architectural arch is of much higher antiquity than is admitted by fome of our moft eminent antiquaries.

This fhort view of Mr. Dutens's treatise, however fuperficial, will yet, we truft, fufficiently evince the moft extenfive erudition, and, although he gives it as the production of only a few leifure hours, the unremitted induftry of the author, in accumulating fuch a flock of evidences in favour of his darling hypothefis. Whatever doubts we may have conceived during the perufal, we fhall not arrogate to our felves the arguments ufed by Mr. King; who has difcuffed, ftep by step, both the facts and the conclufions laid down in that treatile and pointed out his reafons for differing in every inftance from his learned antagonist.

His firft objection, which is of an etymological nature, goes to the meaning of the words in the ancient languages, to which Mr. Dutens, without exception, alcribes the fenfe that beft fuits his purpose. Mr. King admits, that after the invention of the arch, thofe words, for want of more copious expreffions, and inftead of forming new ones, were frequently ufed by Greck writers to defcribe arched buildings: but he maintains that there are abundance of inftances where the context, and even the precife defcription of the manner in which the buildings were conftructed, fhow that no real arch was intended to be defcribed by the word. Thus, in fact, the word is can only be derived from anlw, neto, alligo, whence the derivative has been used to denote a wheel as well as an arch, and axis is more frequently ufed to denote fhears or fciffars than an arch of even any denomination.

We hope to afford much facility to our readers in the contemplation of this fubject, by collecting from Mr. King's reply a few general remarks, which Mr. Dutens feems not to have duly confidered in the course of his difquifition, and which apply to moft of the inftances he adduced in proof of the opinion he fo ftrenuoufly defends.

1. Of the actual existence of very ancient buildings, and the remains of fuch buildings, where fuperficial oblervers difcover what they confider as manifeft appearances of architectural arches, we fee abundance of examples; but that thefe are not the kind of arches that are the fubject of this prefent enquiry, will, on a nearer examination, be found equally capable of demonftration. All thofe edifices of the oldeft dates, which have been hitherto clofely infpected, fuch as the gallery and chamber of the great pyramid at Giza, the remains of the tomb of Agamemnon at Mycena, &c. are actually found to owe their apparent arches, which

are more frequently, and with much propriety called conical roofs, to a combination of ftones fucceffively projecting inwards towards the fummit, where they nearly met, and where the small interval that remained was covered by a single and generally a flat flone, which by its weight gave folidity to the whole. This ftructure, fuppofing the ftones projecting inwards to be shaped into the fegment of a circle, will ftill more miflead an unguarded obferver, and induce him firmly to believe in the existence of very ancient architectural arches; where in fact they are only the effect of fuperimpofed blocks of ftone. Even the descriptions of the ancient authors ferve, in many inftances, to corroborate this, affertion; Paufanias, in particular, defcribing the roof of the tomb of Agamemnon to be of the ftructure juft now defcribed. It is added, that as to the famous labyrinth of Egypt, we have the authority of Herodotus that the longues voutes, mentioned by Maillet, and eagerly appealed to by Mr. Dutens, were, in fact, large flat ftones of fuch length as to be laid from wall to wall, and thus covering the chambers or corridors; and that respecting the hanging gardens and fubterraneous paffages at Babylon, neither of them could, according to the defcriptions given us by Diodorus and Q. Curtius, be fupported or clofed in by arches, but were, moft probably, of the fame conftruction as the above-mentioned edifices.

2. The daily examples we have of the repairs and reconftruction of buildings, when in a state of decay, and of additions made according to the fancy or exigencies of the proprietors, may well be applied as another caution which we fhould ufe in pronouncing on the antiquity of a structure, appearing from hiftorical evidence, to be of the oldeft date. Hence the fallacy afcribed to Mr. Dutens, in maintaining the antiquity of arches, which it may be proved are of more modern construction, many of them being built by the Emperor Adrian; whofe reign, it is well known, was chiefly employed in travelling over the empire, and in caufing every where new ftructures to be erected. Such are many of the arched edifices feen in Egypt, while others, in the fame country, are by various infcriptions proved to be of the times of the Saracens. The cloaca maxima, which come before us as a fheet anchor, in fupport of Mr. Dutens's hypothefis, appears, indeed, to have been originally conftructed by one of the Tarquins, but the authorities of Dionyfius Halicarn. Strabo, Diodorus, and Pliny, are produced by Mr. King, in proof that the work of Tarquin was merely the opening

T

BRIT. CRIT, VOL. XXVIII. SEPT. 1806.

trenches

2

trenches or channels through the rock, and that they were not covered with arches till the time of Auguftus, probably by his fon-in-law Agrippa. The gate at Paflum is likewife rejected by Mr. King as an evidence; the Syren in bas relief, fculptured on the keystone, to which Mr. D. appeals as evidently d'ouvrage Etrufque, affording no decifive proof; fince thoufands of other pieces of fculpture might be produced, much in the fame flyle, which have unqueftionably been wrought either in the time of Adrian, or long after that emperor's reign.

Mr. D. feems to lay much ftrefs on the following paffage in Seneca's 90th epiftle. "Democritus, inquit (Polidonius) inveniffe dicitur fornicem, ut lapidum curvatura paulatim inclinatorum medio faxo alligaretur. Hoc dicam falfum effe. Neceffe eft enim ante Democritum, et pontes, et portas fuiffe quarum fere fumma curvantur."-In referring to this paffage, he adds, that the affertion of Pofidonius that the arch was invented by Democritus is "contre le témoignage évident, de tant de monumens de cette espèce qui etoient élevés avant lui." Mr. K. on the other hand maintains, that the authority of Seneca will not avail much against that of Pofidonius, a contemporary of Cicero, who was both a philofopher and an extraordinary mechanical artift, and who believed the tradition of the recentness of the invention of the arch, and of its having been first introduced by Democritus.

Mr. K. concludes his differtation with the following general inference.

"I have confined myfelf to trace, with caution, pofitive fals. And from the detailed confideration of the gates and arches in Rome, it appears to me that almost every arch in Rome may be afcertained to have been either of the very age of Auguftus Cæfar, or constructed in some subsequent period. It appears alfo that no arches are mentioned in our English translation of Holy Scripture, except in one chapter (Ezek. xL. 16.) and that by miftranflation; or by Homer; or by Herodotus: And that no arches existed at Thebes, or elsewhere in Egypt; or in Babylon; or at Perfepolis; or even at Athens; before the time of Auguftus Cæfar, or at leaft before that of Democritus.”

Thus have we, with all the impartiality we could mufter on the occafion, laid before our readers the principal and moft relevant arguments that have been used by the two controverfialifts, in this curious, though we cannot fay very momentous conteft. Non noftrum eft tantas componere lites. Were our statement, however, of the impreffion the whole controverfy

controverfy left upon our mind, to be accepted, we fhould acknowledge that Mr. K. has in our opinion given fufficient reafons for rejecting the authorities of his antagonist, and for withholding the thanks the latter claims for having afforded him an opportunity of rectifying his error. At the fame time, we must confefs that we do not feel a conviction that the negative contended for by Mr. K. is fully proved; and that, owing to the remotenefs and obfcurity of the times, and to the want of pofitive documents and unquestionable monuments, this matter will, perhaps, never be elucidated in a more fatisfactory manner, than has been done by the two able champions who have here entered the lifts; and whofe refpective works we recommend to the attention of the inquifitive.

ART. VI. Tranflations, chiefly from the Greek Anthology, with Tales and Mifcellaneous Poems. Cr. 8vo. 7s. Phillips.

1806.

OFTEN have we wished to fee, and sometimes gone fo

far as even to plan, and make preparation for fuch a work as this, in which fpecimens fhould be given of the best parts of the Greek Anthology; with fuch illustrations for the English reader as might render the fpecimens acceptable. Of the prefent pleafing collection we cannot but fay,that both the plan and the execution meet our entire approbation. The fpecimens, arranged in chronological order, are preceded by a very clear and well-written introduction: giving an account of the feveral anthological collections of Meleager, Philip, Agathias, Conftantinus Cephalas, and Planudes formed fucceffively, in the century immediately preceding the chriftian æra; in the fecond, fixth, tenth, and fourteenth of that æra. The selections are not entirely confined to the Anthology. Both at the beginning and at the end are specimens not ufually comprised in that collection, except, indeed, in the edition of Brunck, which is more comprehenfive than any other. At the end are fome paffages from Menander, concerning whom a part of the account given in the introduction may very properly be introduced, as a fpecimen of that divifion of the work. The author complains that the fragments of that great dramatift have been felected with partial views, which have given us only the darker fide of his character, leaving us totally uninformed, except by report, of that for which he was most celebrated, his Spure

Та

and