thence, or at least from thereabouts, that they made immediately for the ocean; just as we learn from Diodorus Siculus,' that the island Melita (now Malta) was to those perhaps who sailed along the African coast instead of the coast of Europe. There was reported, too, to be a descent to the shades on the coast of the Mariandyni, in Pontus: Γῆν Μαριανδυνῶν ἐπικέλσετε νοστήσαντες. Ενθα μὲν εἰς 'Αΐδαο καταιβάτες ἐστὶ κέλευθος, Apollon. Rhod. Argon. lib. ii. v. 352. vide Schol. This was situated on the Euxine; but this sea was believed by the ancients to be connected towards the north, with the ocean. And it is worthy of remark, that there was here a cave similar to that at Tænarus.3 There was a Nexvoμavría in Thesprotis, which was also called Avernus. And there was, moreover, an Avernus, or "Aopvos, near Tartessus.4 Virgil has, doubtlessly, placed his Nexvouavría in Italy. But even in Virgil's description of the infernal regions, there are many marks which identify its real situation with that of the Hades of Homer. Deiphobus, for instance, asks of ÆneasSed te qui vivum casus, age fare vicissim, Attulerint: pelagine venis erroribus actus? An monitu Divum? An quæ tu fortuna fatigat, Ut tristes sine sole domos, loca turbida, adires. Æn. vi. 531. "Non ad inferos," says Servius," sed ad locum in quo inferorum descensus est, i. e. ad Avernum, si intra terram sunt inferi." But if this were the meaning, the question would be quite absurd; as being shipwrecked on the coast of Italy, could imply no necessity of going to Hades. This was seen by Servius, who therefore adds-"Alii aliud intelligunt, qui sub terra esse inferos volunt secundum chorographos et geometras, qui dicunt terram opaipoɛidñ esse, quæ aqua et aëre sustentatur; quod, si est, ad antipodes potest navigatione perveniri, quia, 1 Ὡς θεοῖς μὲν τὰ ἀνατολικά· δαίμοσι δὲ τὰ δυτικά. Porphyr. de Antro Nympharum, p. 268. 2 Lib. V. 3 "In eo primùm Mariandyni urbem habitant, ab Argivo (ut ferunt) Hercule datum. Heraclea vocitatur: id famæ fidem adjicit. Juxta specus est Acherusia, ad Manes (ut aiunt) pervius; atque inde extractum Cerberum existimant." Mela, lib. 1. c. 20. "In ipso Tænaro Neptuni templum, et specus, illi, quem in Pontó Acherusium diximus, facie et fabula similis." Mela, lib. ii. c. 4. 4 Ἡ δὲ Τάρτησσος πόλις Ιβερικὴ περὶ τὸν ̓́Αορνον: λίμνην. Schol. Aristoph. in Ran. quantum ad nos spectat, inferi sunt, sicut nos illis. Hinc est quare sub terra inferos dicimus esse, quamque illud sit, quia novem cingitur circulis. Tiberianus inducit epistolam vento allatam ab antipodibus, quod habet, Superi inferis salutem,'" &c. He need not, however, have removed them quite so far, as the passage evidently refers to the situation of the Homeric Hades, and the notion is stolen from the question put to Ulysses in the Odyssey: Τέκνον ἐμὸν, πῶς ἦλθες ὑπὸ Σόφον ἠερόεντα, Πεζὸν ἐόντ', ἢν μή τις ἔχῃ εὐεργέα νῆα. Οd. Χ'. 154. Where Eustathius observes, ὅτι φανερῶς ἐνταῦθα ὁ Ποιητὴς δηλοῖ τὴν ̓Οδυσσέως μυθικὴν εἰς ᾅδου κατέλευσιν ἐπὶ τὰ πέραν ἐκεῖθεν τέρω ματα γενέσθαι τοῦ ̓Ωκεανοῦ, ἔνθα καὶ τοὺς ἀστέρας δηλαδή φασὶν δύνειν. T. W. PHILOLOGICAL EXTRACTS From E. H. BARKER's Letters on the Authorship of Junius' Letters. No. II. [Concluded from No. LXXV.] 5. THE only other instance of the kind, which I have seen in the writings of Sir Philip, is that about the Elgin marbles and the statues of Phidias, in the Letter Missive to Lord Holland, 1816. pp. 61-73. and it is an admirable specimen of his talents for philosophical criticism:"In reading the Report of the select Committee, (of the House of Commons on the Elgin marbles,) one of their first propositions, including an historical assertion, seems to me a paradox, the truth of which however I am not bound or disposed to deny, viz. that the date of these works must be referred to the original building of the Parthenon, and to the designs of Phidias, the dawn of every thing which adorned and ennobled Greece.' From this position, compared with what we know of the architecture and statuary of Athens, it follows that the first productions of those arts were at once perfect, without previous defect or gradual improvement. The dawning light is in the meridian. Birth and maturity have but one date. This discovery is new in the natural history of man. In all other attainments of human skill, the arrival at perfection is by progression. Were there no temples or statues in Athens or in Greece, before Phidias? By whom, and when was the temple of Jupiter built at Olympia; or the temple of Theseus at Athens? On questions of date it is in vain to look for accuracy in the Greek historians, nor is it always safe to rely on their veracity. On this point I speak with more moderation than I think. A peremptory language in matters of opinion, is always offensive and never in its place, but when it is called on to command. In me, who court instruction, because I want it, a tone of authority would be worse than unbecoming. Græcia mendax was proverbial among the Romans. Plutarch and others speak of the Hecatompedon and the Parthenon, as of one and the same building. Now it appears to me that either this must be a mistake, or the text is not correct, or it is a mere epithet carelessly used. The Hecatompedon was a square temple of a hundred feet, and if it were fifty feet high, would make half a cube. Mr. Wilkins says that the area embraced by the uppermost step of the Parthenon, is little more than two hundred and twenty-seven feet in length and one hundred and one in breadth. The former then must have been a moderate building compared to the latter. But Herodotus affirms that Xerxes burnt the citadel, and with it the temple of the Goddess, of which last he repented; and that the utter destruction of the whole city was completed by Mardonius. Yet Mr. Stuart says: The temple of Minerva in the Acropolis was called the Parthenon and Hecatompedon. To me it is plain, that they were different temples, on the same site, with very different dimensions. The former was built about fifty years after the Hecatompedon was destroyed. Be all this as it may, I shall leave it to the learned to discover the meaning of Plutarch's words, and proceed to other questions in my mind of much greater interest and curiosity, concerning the two celebrated statues of Minerva and Jupiter, undoubtedly the works of Phidias, and placed by him in their respective temples at Athens and Olympia." Here again we have a singular proof of the inaccuracy and carelessness of Grecian historians. Pausanias and all of them say that these two statues, one of which was fifty-four feet high, sitting, the other thirtynine feet, standing, were positively made of ivory and gold. Of the latter Pausanias says: Αὐτὸ δὲ ἔκ τε ἐλέφαντος τὸ ἄγαλμα καὶ χρυσοῦ πεποίηTal, (p. 41.) Some of these careless writers, quoted by Meursius, describe the Minerva as made all of pure gold; others, as all of ivory, without a qualification, abatement, or explanation of any kind. Even Pliny, on this point, is full as inaccurate and obscure, as if he had never seen the two statues, or never considered or inquired what they were made of. He says, (lib. 34. cap. 8.) Phidias, præter Jovem Olympium, quem nemo æmulatur, fecit et ex ebore æque Minervam Athenis, quæ est in Parthenone adstans;' which words, as long as words express meaning, affirm that both the statues were made of ivory. Now my conviction is, that every one of these writers, in the 1 "After a long search, I cannot discover with certainty, by whom, or when the temple of Theseus was built. On the whole, however, it seems probable that it was erected by Cimon, or in his time, or about forty years before Pericles. I leave it to the learned to consider, whether that date of such a temple, with such a statuary, can be consistent with the assertion of the Committee." 2" Pausanias says that the temple of Jupiter at Olympia was built, but not when, by a native architect called Libo; that it was sixty-eight feet high, ninetyfive feet wide, and two hundred and thirty feet long. He says that the god, sitting on a throne, was made of gold and ivory. (1. 5. p. 304-5-6.) The temple must have been built long before the Peloponnesian war!" literal and indisputable sense of their own language, asserts a gross, ridiculous falsehood. Such enormous statues neither were, nor could be made of gold or ivory, in their solidity, as they might have been of marble. A quantity of gold or ivory, or both, sufficient for the purpose, could not have been found in all Greece, much less in Attica; and, even if it had existed, Phidias and Pericles, and indeed the people of Athens and Elis must have been frantic to lavish and waste such precious materials on the inside of such statues. The fact is, they were hollow, and covered in some parts with laminæ, or thin plates applied of ivory, in others of gold, which on occasion might be and actually were taken off. All the gold, furnished by Pericles to Phidias for the statue of Minerva, amounted only to forty-four talents of pure gold, equal to about 8,5251. in our standard. The intrinsic value of the Attic talent is by no means ascertained by comparison with any modern coin, much less is it a clear case among the learned. This quantity might be sufficient to cover as much of the statue as was not plated with ivory, but would go a very little way to fill it. The outside, so formed, was supported by an internal construction or machinery of brass and cedar-wood. As far as I have been able to trace this question, the first person who discovered the fallacy imposed on us by the Greek writers, and swallowed without hesitation or inquiry by the moderns, was M. de Pauw, a merciless inquisitor into literary frauds, and a fatal foe to learned impostors. The following extract from his Recherches Philosophiques sur les Grecs (Vol. ii. p. 112,) printed at Berlin in 1788, ought to excite the reader's curiosity. After proving to demonstration that the ivory and gold in question consisted of plates laid on, or appliqués, par pièces rapportées, &c. he says: "Pour communiquer à toutes ces pièces rapportées le degré de consistance dont elles avoient besoin, il faut que la Minerve de Phidias ait été intérieurement soutenue par un corps prodigieux de fer ou d'airain, revêtu dans sa principale longueur de lames de bois de cédre, qui formoient l'ame de ce colosse, dont toute la capacité étoit vuide; et Lucien avoue que ces ouvrages d'ostentation, si riches en apparence, et où l'on ne voyoit briller que l'or et l'ivoire, étoient intérieurement garnis de toiles d'araignées, et servoient l'asyle aux insectes et aux animaux immondes, qui fréquentoient les temples et les autels de la Grèce.' "Lucian's words, to which M. Pauw refers, are: The richest of these statues were covered with ivory, and here and there, (¿Alyov öσov,) glittered with gold. Withinside they were supported by frames of wood, (vπóğuλo,) in which whole troops of mice took shelter, and formed their common wealth.' (àyéλai μvŵv.)1 "It seems to me remarkable that it is not stated by Pausanias or Pliny that the statue of Victory, of four cubits high, (therefore not a Victoriola,) stood, or was placed standing, on the extended right-hand of Minerva, which must include the arm, or there would be no extension. But Epictetus2 does say so distinctly. Now if the Victory were solid of any metal, it must weigh down the arm, or break it, unless the inside of the limb were of brass, and that too attached to a metallic frame supporting the statue. Supposing this state of the case, as far as relates to the outward appearance and internal machinery of the statues to be indisputable, a In the Jupiter Tragœdus. * Lib. ii. cap. 8. question remains, which he, who can answer it in plain intelligible language, and not in terms of art, must have much more skill and sagacity than I can pretend to. My own superannuated thoughts have been wasted on it in vain. The figures of the god and goddess must have been composed and formed on a covered frame of some kind or other, and that frame supported throughout by internal bars of brass or wood. I ask what was the composition of that frame, and of the figures or shapes which were supported by it; and how, or by what medium or contact they were supported by the inside machinery? To me it appears that the forms, at least, of the statues must have been finished, before the lamina of gold and ivory could be applied to those forms by way of ornament or dress. Here I shall conclude this part of my meditations, with one note of admiration more to the statues. Is it possible, or is it conceivable, that Pausanias, Plutarch, and Pliny, should not have known the internal construction of these colossal statues, or that they should have believed or imagined that they were literally made of solid gold and ivory! On the subject of these wonderful works of art, there remains still one consideration, worthy of your taste and genius, and then you shall be at liberty, portâ mittendus eburnâ. "The enormous disproportion of the size of these statues to the temples, which held them, must have been obvious to every eye. Nay, I should think, it must have been the first impression made on the spectator, the moment he entered the temple. Yet, if my utmost researches have not failed or misled me, it is certainly true that no ancient writer has taken notice, or, if at all, very slightly, of this manifest and striking disproportion, except Strabo, much less to account for it. The geographer says only that the greatest of all was the ivory statue of Jupiter, (èλepávтivov ¿óavov,) made by Phidias, of such a magnitude that, although the temple was of the greatest size, the artist seemed to have missed the mark, or failed, of symmetry (between the statue and the temple). He made the statue sitting, yet almost touching the roof with the summit of its head, giving an impression on the eye, that if the god were to rise and stand upright, he must unroof the temple.' In this place it is natural to ask a question, which, as far as my little learning reaches, has never been answered, Why, of all the single statues of the heathen celestial gods, the Jupiter alone is represented sitting? Because he was their supreme divinity. The others, even the Minerva, or Goddess of Wisdom, were his ministers or agents, and, as his inferiors, stood in his presence, whenever they were personified. He alone is not in action. His power is in repose, serene and majestic, and executes his pleasure, not by motion or command, but by pure volition. "Is it to be believed that Phidias was not aware of a palpable violation of the laws of symmetry between his own work and the case which contained it? or that, seeing the fact, he should not have intended it? or that, with that intention, he should have had no rational purpose to be answered by it? I'll not believe it. The dimensions of so great an artist are not to be measured by the mere visual faculty of vulgar eyes. The altitude of such a being must be taken with a quadrant. First, undoubtedly he meant to magnify his statue at the expense of the temple; and, so meaning, the disproportion he resorted to, could not fail of its effect. So far a common caviller might accuse him of vanity. A critic of a higher order might content himself |