τῶν δὲ κελαδεννὴν ὕβριν μετῆλθε τίσις, χώ μεγάλαυχος τότε σὺ γάθησας, Δίκα, τότε δὴ Σαυρόμαται, Σκυθῶν τε πολέμου νεφελὰν κατέχευαν. ἀπεδρέψατ ̓ ἐς ἀεὶ, φυλάξαντες γλυκυτάταν ἐλευθερίαν, ἀρετῆς τε συμμαχία καλλίστα πελώριον τελέσαντες ἔργον. Spoken by the Hon. G. J. W. Ellis, of Christ Church. COMPOSITIS jam tandem armis, dum tota quiescit Seu quibus acta modis coeant, iterumque figuras Otia, subsidiumque tuo de munere jactat. Dum colit, et Phoebo doctum vacat Isidos agmen, Victoris titulo, et belli potiora tropæis. Spoken by Lord Clifton, of Christ Church. Ὦ γαῖα πατρὶς, ᾗ παρῆν ἐν ἤματι VOL. XIV. G οὐκοῦν τὸ μὲν σὸν ἔσχεν ἐν κακαῖς τύχαις κόσμοισιν· ὁ δ ̓ ἄναξ οὖχι τὴν ἄγαν φυγὴν ὦ μακαρίων τόδε φασμάτων ήμαρ πλέον, Spoken by C. St. John Mildmay, Commoner of Brazen Nose ON THE ELGIN MARBLES. As the author of an article on the Elgin Marbles, in No. XXVIII. of the Quarterly Review, expresses a wish to hear Mr. Payne Knight's explanation of the parts of his evidence concerning them, which he has so grossly misrepresented, he shall be very concisely gratified; and if his motives are such as he professes, he will forthwith avow and retract his calumnies. As to his observations on pèv, yàp and dè, they only betray his extreme ignorance of the Greek language, in which the former is merely the initial, and the latter the consecutive connective in a sentence; and, as the words which were initial in Plutarch's sentence were consecutive in the witness's, he thought himself at liberty to introduce them grammatically, when he could do it without altering the sense, which he conceives (with all due deference to these heaven-born Hoogeveens) he has not altered in the slightest degree. As for believing this mass of architectural sculpture to be the work of Phidias, it is a sort of belief which defies argument. Plutarch states that Pericles contrived to employ all the artists and artisans of Athens, who had votes, in his public works; and in the figures of the Metopes alone there is evidence of many diffe rent hands of various degrees of merit. In those of the pediments too, there is equally distinct evidence of their being of different and remote ages; if any reliance is to be placed on what have hitherto been deemed certain criteria in the Chronology of Art. The figure of Hercules, called a Theseus, is the Crotoniate Hercules, extant upon many coins of that city, some anterior, some posterior, to the time of Phidias, and with the title xporwviάTag always inscribed over it. Croto having perished long before the time of Hadrian, the statue was then without doubt at Rome; and it is extremely probable that he should have a copy of it made as a symbol to accompany his own image in the additional decorations of the Parthenon; but extremely improbable that Phidias, Callicrates, or Ictinus, should have borrowed the guardian god of a Dorian city of Italy to adorn the temple of the guardian goddess of Athens. That the image of Hadrian was there, such as it appears on his coins, Wheeler says positively; and when Mr. Visconti undertakes to prove that it was a Vulcan, he should have first proved that it had a cap, or that Vulcan was ever represented without one. As for the head of Ajax, at Petworth, Mr. Knight assures the Reviewer that, had it not been in a much better state of preservation than that of the Hercules above-mentioned, neither he nor any of his colleagues would have praised it, or even admitted it into their publication. It has brows and features, of which the grandeur of the expression still remains, though the delicacy of the finishing is lost; but in all these remnants of the Metopes and pediments of the Parthenon there is not a single feature left. The Frieze of Phigaleia is unquestionably inferior to the best specimens from Athens, but it is as unquestionably superior throughout to the worst even of the Metopes; and the Reviewer, by calling it low relief, proves that he is unacquainted with it, the figures being very highly relieved; while those of the Frieze of the Parthenon are in low or flat relief. As for the scale of pecuniary value, Mr. Knight formed it as accurately as he could from what his experience furnished of prices paid for articles of the same class; and if the Soros and Ægyptian Beetle are worth no more than the Reviewer supposes, why did the proprietor bring them to England at so great an expense, and then expect the public to pay it? quo In page 541 of the Review, occurs an instance of fraud in tation, unparalleled, it is to be hoped, in the malevolence of controversy or libel. The witness was examined as to the modes in which ancient artists described or recorded the execution of their own works, with their own names, of which he mentions three; and is then immediately asked whether the word eipyάlero is ever so employed. To this he answers: No; I believe no artist would describe it (his work) so himself; it is the historical expression. (See printed report, page 42.) But the Reviewer quotes the single syllable no as the whole of the answer; and then applies it to what the witness had clearly and distinctly answered in the affirmative; namely, the historical use of the word sipyatero in describing the works of others, by Plutarch, Pausanias, and every other historian of art; while the artists themselves use ἐποίει or ἐποίησε. It is charitably to be wished that the confusion of ideas imputed to the witness could, on this occasion, be reasonably imputed to the Reviewer; since, if he has acted knowingly and with design, there is no epithet of scorn and detestation which language can supply, that will not appear feeble and inadequate when applied to him. At the bottom of page 539 of the Review, is a note containing a narrative of a private transaction, which would be too trivial and unimportant to be obtruded upon the public, did not the gross and continued falsehoods of it implicate the reputation of another person, to whom it may be of serious consequence. The real transaction was as follows: About three years ago Mr. Bonelli, of Golden Square, sold to Mr. Payne Knight some engraved gems, and among them a fragment of a head of Flora, valued at one hundred, not two hundred and fifty, pounds; and paid for partly in money, and partly in duplicate medals. Though M. Bonelli gave no assurances of its being ancient, not only the purchaser, but the late Mr. Marchant, whom he consulted as usual, and other experienced judges, held it to be so; nor was it doubted till about four months ago, when Mr. Pistrucci, an artist from Rome, proclaimed it at Sir Joseph Banks's to be his own work, executed for Mr. Bonelli for twenty Roman crowns, exclusive of |