« السابقةمتابعة »
so little is known of it at present, that, with the exception of the two copies in the valuable Library of Mr. Hawkins, there is not, perhaps, another in any collection of Great Britain. Although they served to throw considerable light upon the state of Greece, when that country had been little visited by modern travellers, no allusion to these two publications has anywhere occurred. Indeed, so entirely unexpected was the communication respecting them, and so great the gratification which the writer of these pages felt in perusing the pleadings of the rival disputants, that it seemed to him as if the twoauthors had been called from their graves to talk of the travels they had performed near a century and a half ago; or as if he had, in reality, been admitted to a " dialogue in the shades." A few general observations concerning the two publications are, however, all that the limits of this advertisement will allow. It must therefore be sufficient, for the present, briefly to state, that if Guillet had the advantage in the first instance, by his successful irony, and by the address he manifested in ridiculing the errors he had detected in Spon's work, the latter finally triumphed, by his greater learning and more judicious criticism. He has made out a list of one hundred and twelve errors, which
he pretended to have discovered in La Guilletiere's Athens: but many of these hardly deserve the name of errors; they are such as may be found in any book of travels, especially in his own; and in one instance his charge against La Guilletiere is founded upon an untruth, for he affirms that there are no remains of a graduated Coilon in the Stadium at Athens: "Il n'y reste," says he', "pourtant, que la situation du lieu et quelques restes des doubles murailles, mais point de degrés." The principal charge brought against Guilletiere, respects his autopsy; but this charge is by no means satisfactorily supported. Another relates to his having maintained that an inscription 'Ayvuoro Oe existed in the Parthenon; yet, for the existence of this inscription in the year 1669, La Guilletiere adduces the testimonies of four persons; namely, Barnaby and Simon, two Capu chins, who resided long at Athens; and Monsieur De Monceaux and Monsieur L'Ainé, "qui lurent plusieurs fois la mesme inscription." Spon did not arrive in Athens until the year 1676; and his antagonist, mentioning this circumstance, says3,
(1) Réponse à la Critique du Voyage de Grèce, p. 316. à Lyon, 1679. (2) Dissertation sur une Voyage de Grèce, p. 128. Paris, 1679. (3) Ibid. p. 130.
"Dans un intervalle de six à sept ans, l'inscription peut-elle pas estre détachée, ou par un scrupule des Turcs, ou par l'injure du temps. Je luy citerois encore vingt changemens plus considérables dans la masse de nos Bâtimens de Paris. Falloit-il pour cela donner le titre d'Imposteur à La Guilletiere? At this distance of time, being appealed to for the probability of the existence of such an inscription, any impartial traveller, who has witnessed the frequent instances of forgeries exhibited under the name of reliques by the Eastern Christians, would surely say it was highly probable that the Monks of Athens, who made use of the Parthenon as a Church, before it became a Mosque, had left a legend of this nature in the temple; which they had been accustomed to exhibit as the real inscription observed by St. Paul. It was exactly the sort of imposition which would have been characteristic of the priests of that age and country, and of their ignorant followers: and such, perhaps, was the inscription read by Guilletiere and his companions; but which had disappeared when Spon was at Athens, having been removed by some traveller, or destroyed by the Turks. The most curious part of Spon's answer to Guillet, is that in which he undertakes to prove that the famous Eleusinian fragment was in reality the Statue of Eleusinian Ceres, and not one
ADVERTISEMENT TO PRESENT EDITION.
of the Cariatides, as Guillet maintained that it was'. Here he musters all his erudition, and quite overwhelms his antagonist; and had the author of the present work been aware of the powerful authority upon which this point rested, when he published his "Testimonies concerning the Statue of Ceres," he would never have ventured to undertake the discussion. It is, however, highly satisfactory to him to find, after so many years have elapsed since he ushered his little treatise before the public, that all he has said upon the subject is supported by the superior judgment of so great a scholar; with whose judgment the opinions of posterity will hereafter probably coincide.
(1) "J'ay quelque chose à débiter de plus curieux touchant la réflexion d'architecture que fait M. Guillet sur une statue de Ceres que j'ay décrite et que je donne en taille-douce, lorsque je parle des mazures d'Eleusis. A l'entendre parler, j'y ay commis une effroyable faute, ayant pris pour une statue ce qui est une Cariatide. Voyons si ce nouveau Vitruve ne se trompe point luy-mesme, et si j'en dois moins croire à mes yeux qu'à ses raisonnemens." Réponse à la Critique du Voyage de Grèce, p. 137. à Lyon, 1679.
SECOND SECTION OF PART THE SECOND.
THIS addition to the SECOND PART of these Travels, will enable the Reader to form a tolerable estimate of the probable compass of the entire Work and it may serve to prove, that the author, if he should live to complete his undertaking, will not have exceeded his original estimate, in the account of a journey through forty-five degrees of longitude, and nearly forty degrees of latitude. In his endeavour to concentrate the subject, he may have omitted observations which a particular class of Readers would have preferred to those which have been inserted. He has sometimes, for example, sacrificed statistical notices, that he might introduce historical information, where Antient History is pre-eminently interesting; and again, on the other hand, he has purposely omitted much. that he had written on the subject of Antiquities, that he might insert a few remarks upon the Egyptian and Grecian scenery, and upon the