THE BRITISH CRITIC, For JULY, 1795. No man is the Lord of any thing SHAKSPEARS. ART. I. The Antiquities of Athens, by James Stuart, F. R. S. and F. S. Painters and Architects. Vol. III. in Sheets. Nichols. 1794. THE measured and delineated A. and Nicholas Revet, Large Folio. 51. 5s. HERE is not perhaps any work which has done more honour to the study of the arts in this country, in the eyes of foreigners, than the fplendid and scientific publication of Mr. Stuart, which is deftined to receive its completion long after the death of the author. The effect produced upon the mind by this interpofition of mortality, in a work fo full of elegance, in fome degree resembles that of the firft plate to chap. 4, in Mr. Stuart's first volume: where, in fight of one of the most curious and elegant fpecimens of Attic art, the choragic monument of Lyficrates, fits a melancholy reclufe, in deep and folemn meditation, with a crucifix and a fkull before him. vanity of human grandeur, the frailty of our monuments, and the futility of our anxious hopes, are strongly urged upon us: В BRIT. CRIT. VOL. VI. JULY 1795. The and and we recollect. in fpite of ourselves, the truth of the famous medical aphorifm, which expreffes the flow progress of art, and the brevity of life.. The first of these volumes appeared in 1762; the fecond bears the date of 1787, but was not published till three years after the death of the author, which happened in 1787; being completed by the care of Mr. Newton of Greenwich. A particular account, of the defects in Mr. Stuart's papers, and the manner in which they were fupplied, was prefixed to that volume. Mr. Newton alfo being dead, (fo hoftile has mortality been to this work) the publication of the remainder was undertaken, at the request of Mrs. Stuart, by Mr. Revely, who has executed this part of his task in a manner worthy of his ingenuity and architectural knowledge. As it is always fatisfactory in fuch cafes to know what part of the work proceeds from the original author, and what is fupplied from other materials, we fhall extract Mr. Revely's candid explanation of these points. "When the materials were firft delivered to me, feveral chapters were fairly transcribed; to most of them, however, additions have been made, and other chapters have been fince entirely collected from loofe papers. Of the former defcription are chapters, the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth; and of the latter "are the fecond, fixth, feventh, eighth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth, together with the addition of several plates, and all the maps. As from this defcription the reader may apprehend that he has before him rather a production of mine than an original work of Mr. Stuart's, it is proper to mention, that the first step taken, and indeed the only one that could render Mr. Stuart's materials (confifting of numerous memorandum-books and loofe paper) intelligible, was, to form a general index to the whole; and, with this affiftance, no difficulty was found in collecting Mr. Stuart's opinions on each fubject. I hope therefore it will appear that I have fpared no pains to do juftice to the fubfcribers, and fupporters of this invaluable work; as well as to the ability of its ingenious and accurate author." Mr. R. then proceeds to fpecify exactly the obfervations he has added of his own. Nothing could be more judicious and. fatisfactory than the method here defcribed, which, though laborious, was perhaps the only plan by which the full advautage could have been made, of thofe confufed materials which the latter infirmities of Mr. Stuart had rendered bim unable to arrange. We shall take an early opportunity in the courfe of this article to give our readers a fpecimen of the manner in which the editor has executed what he thought it neceflary to add. It is fatisfactory to know that among the perfons who contributed. their affiftance to Mr. Revely in continuing this work, was Mr. Revett, the original joint labourer with Mr. Stuart, from whom have been derived, in the courfe of the work, many im portant portant points of information. It is obferved alfo, in a note upon the preface, (p. x) in juftice to that gentleman, that a mistake has been committed in feveral of the architectural plates, by inferting Mr. Stuart's name as draughtsman, instead of that of Mr. Revett, who really drew them; an error difcovered too late to be corrected in its proper place. Mr. Revely, as the nature of his work almost exacted of him, ftrongly cenfures the decifion of Sir William Chambers, against the study of Grecian models in architecture. The expreffions of the worthy knight on this fubject are indeed rather violent and unguarded; but, without entering into this argument, in which there feems but little foundation for a real conteft, we shall extract the ingenious defence of the ancient Grecian Doric, as it is penned by the editor of this volume. It clearly explains fome difficulties which naturally occur on a hafty contemplation of the views of the Parthenon at Athens, the ruins of Pæftum, and other fimilar monuments. "There is a masculine boldness and dignity in the Grecian Doric, the grandeur of whofe effect, as Sir William juftly obferves of the Roman antiquities, can scarcely be underftood by those who have never seen it in execution; and which, if understood, would certainly fuperfede a whole magazine of fuch objections as the above. The column has no base, because its great breadth at the bottom of the shaft is fufficient to overcome the idea of its finking into its fupport. ing bed. The general basement is compofed of three fteps, not proportioned to the human ftep, but to the diameter of the columns it fupports; and forms one fingle feature extending through the whole length of the temple, and of ftrength and confequence fufficient to give ftability and breadth to the mafs above it. The columns rife with confiderable diminution, in the moft graceful, fweeping lines, and, from the top of the fhaft, projects a capital of a ftyle at once bold, maffive, and fimple. The entablature is ponderous, and its decorations few in number, and of a ftrong character. The awful dignity and grandeur in this kind of temple, arifing from the perfect agree ment of its various parts, ftrikes the beholder with a fenfation, which he may look for in vain in buildings of any other description." Pref. p. xiii. The nature and caufes of this fublime-effect are then explained with great judgement. But we must proceed to the body of the work. This volume then prefents to the public, first, the excellent map of Greece, and the coaft of Afia Minor, Namely, Sir William's reproaches of "gouty columns, narrow intercolumniations, difproportionate architraves," &c. Sir W. fpeaks, rather inaccurately, of the Parthenon, as lefs confiderable than the church of St. Martins in the Fields. Whereas the former is in length 227 feet, the latter only 161. The Parthenon is in breadth 101 feet, St. Martins 80, &c. He adds (Dii voftram fidem!) that the Parthenon would be improved by a steeple !!! by M. de la Rochette, publifhed by Faden. 2. A plan, on a large fcale, of the Antiquities of Athens, as furveyed by Mr. Stuart, and engraved from an accurate drawing left by that artist. 3. An actual Survey of Attica, taken alfo by Mr. Stuart; with a lift of the 174 ancient Demoi, fpoken of by Euftathius, and illuftrated as far as the author had been able to trace that difficult fubject. These are placed as introductory matters. Then follows, 4. Chap. 1. On the Temple of Thefeus, accompanied by twenty-four plates. 5. Chap. 2. On the Temple of Jupiter Olympius, with three plates. 6. Chap. 3. On the Arch of Thefeus, or of Hadrian, with ten plates. 7. Chap. 4. On the Aqueduct of Adrian, four plates. 8. Chap. 5. On the Monument of Philopappus, eleven plates. We here feem to leave Athens, and to be introduced to the description of a few felect monuments from other parts of Greece; but this order is not preferved, and we get back unaccountably to Athens. We find then, in the 9th place-Chap. 6. On the Temple at Corinth, accompanied by four plates. 10. Chap. 7. The Bridge over the Iliffus*, and the Stadium Panathenaicum, three plates. 11. Chap. 8. The Odeum of Regilla, one plate. The fmall remains of this building being at Athens, the defcription certainly comes in here irregularly: and, indeed, the Bridge over the Iliffus and the Stadium Panathenaicum, fhould have been connected with the account of Athens, and the Temple of Corinth, referved for these fupplemental delineations. This defect in arrangement is chiefly reprehenfible, as a fault which might have been moft easily avoided t. 12. Chap. 9. Of a Ruin at Salonicha, called the Incantada, with thirteen plates. 13. Chap. 10. On the Ifland of Delos, five plates: though, by fome accident, four only are enumerated and defcribed in the letter-prefs. There is fubjoined also a plan of Delos. 14. Chap. 11. Of an Ionic Colonade, near the lantern of Demofthenes, two plates. Here again we are at Athens, Ut magus. Modo me Thebis modo ponit Athenis So it fhould be printed. In this volume it is printed throughout, erroneously, yffus. + Mr. Stuart's first plan was to give the Antiquities of Athens, including the Bridge over the Iliffus, in two volumes; and to dedicate a third to the Antiquities of Eleufis, Megara, Sunium, &c. See Vol. I. Preface vi. He afterwards changed the plan; but, in winding up the work, it would certainly have been right to keep the diftant ruins diftinct from the Attic. Perhaps, however, the contents of the fourth volume, which is promifed, will explain this feeming fault. This defect is fupplied in the errata. 1 15. To 15. To conclude the whole, we have, in Chap. 12. a fhort account of fome antiquities of Athens, which, from their ruined ftate, are lefs confiderable than the reft. Two of these, however, Mr. Stuart could fpeak of only by report, their fi tuation forbidding an examination. He explains the circumstance in the following manner: "Befides the ruins already defcribed in this volume, feveral lefs confiderable remains are to be feen in different parts of Athens. Of these the Gymnafium of Pompey occupies by much the largest space; detached fragments of its ruined walls remain in that part of the city near the Bafar, and are there intermixed with a number of habitations, many of them the refidence of Turkish families, among whom an extreme regard for the honour of their women renders accefs difficult and a diligent refearch impracticable. This was, however, the lefs to be regretted, fince, from the fulleft information we could, after the ftricteft enquiry, obtain, we were affured, that not any fragment of fculpture or architectural ornament was to be found there. There is likewife a building, near the tower of the winds, that attracted our notice; it is of undoubted antiquity, and not void of elegance; but, as it was inhabited by a Turkish lady, a widow, refpected for her exemplary life, her auftere manners, and extenfive bounty, we did not prefs with unbecoming folicitation for admiffion into her houfe; for, had the complied, it would have been efteemed a high breach of Turkish decorum; this, together with her moft religious deteftation of all who were not true believers, effectually excluded us, and difappointed our curiofity. We, however, meafured and made drawings of the external face, next to the ftreet, but have not been able to form fo much as a guess at its original name or deftination; but the fragment of an infcription on its frieze, proves it to have been a public edifice, and its form fhews that it was not a temple." P. 63. This little trait of manners is a luminous point for the general reader, in a book of architecture. One of the moft fingular architectural circumftances that caught our attention in examining this publication, is the form of three Doric columns belonging to the Temple of Apollo at Delos. They are fluted, for a space not broader than a small moulding, at the top and bottom of the fhaft, while the whole intermediate part is not only plain, but projects beyond them, and gives the effect of a fluted column inclofed in a case of plain ftone. The conjecture given in the defcription of the plate is very ingenious." It is poffible that on folemn occafions the plain part was covered with tapestry." From the great religious magnificence, of which this temple was the fcene, we conceive this fuppofition to be much more than a mere poffibility; it is probably the truth. The grandeft monument described in this volume, is the Temple of Thefeus, The most beautiful, and, in fome refpects fingular enough, is the |