FOR THE YEAR 1802. Embellished with. Prefpective Views of St. KENELM'S Chapel; and of RAVENSTON- HA Mr. URBAN, Shrewsbury, Feb. 1. AVING in vol. LXVII. p. 738, given a very accurate N. W. view of St. Kenelm's Chapel, I am induced, to fend you a S. E. view of that remarkable ftructure. The other view was accompanied with a legendary account of St. Kenelin; with this, you have a few obfervatious on the building, &c. The general appearance of the building feems not of higher antiquity than Henry the Third's time; but the South entrance, over which is fome ancient fculpture, is undoubtedly part of the old Saxon Chapel, which was erected foon after the difcovery of king Kenelm's body. The tower is a very elegant fpecimen of Gothic architecture. On the outfide the chapel wall, fronting the South, is carved a rude figure of a child, with two of his fingers lifted up, in the ancient form of giving the benediction. Above the head of the figure is carved a crown, which projects confiderably from the wall: no doubt the whole was intended to reprefent St. Kenelm; fee fig. 2. As this chapel was never privileged with the right of fepulture, no monuments or inferip tions appear, nor are there any arms, &c. in the windows. Fig. 3. reprefents the end of a feat facing the South entrance, which feems the only original feat left, the other being of modern erection. The following is an inventory of the plate, &c. which belonged to St. Kenelm's chapel, before the diffolution. A lytyll thryne with odur relyques therein. A heade of Seynt Kenelme, fylver and gylt. A crowne of cepter of fylver. A pyx of fylver. A chalys gyld with pax-brede fylver and gyld. fylver and gylt, with a A fehypp of fylver for incenfe. INC D. PARKES. Mr. URBAN,Dec. 6. NCLOSED, is a fketch of a bottle found fome years ago, with fome others, in a vault, under the ruins of GENT. MAG. Supplement, 1802. Mr. URBAN, the old Abbey Church, at St. Edmund's Bury, Suffolk.-It is faid this grand monaftery was built in 1028. The hottle, which I have in my poffeffion in a perfect ftate, appears to be compofed of a fine light red earth, and of very hard confifience; and the drawing is a pretty exact reprefentation of it. J.O. 02. 16. CHE inclofed are tolerably correct drawings of two antique rings, the one (fig. 5) of filver, the other (fig. 5) of gold. I had no opportunity of exactly afcertaining their weight or dimenfions; but judge them, from handling, to be nearly four inches in diameer, and that the gold ring might weigh about twelve or thirteen ounces, and that of filver about ten ounces. The gold ring I felested, as the largest and beft wrought, from among eleven others, fome of which were quite plain, with double and treble ferolls, not unlike the feroll mouth-pieces of a French horn. The filver rings exceeded thofe of gold, in number, fize, and variety of forms. (The fpecimen from which the drawing was made, reprefents a fillet.) But they are far inferior in point of workmanfhip, being very coarfe, and rude. They all bear evident marks of having been hammered out, and not caft. There were befides, with this col lection, feveral wedges of filver, of the weight of from 12 to 20 ounces each; but whether thefe wedges were found fo, or whether they were inelted down from fome of the rings, I could not learn. This treafure is, or was very lately, in the pofieflion of Mr. DeLandre, goldfmith, of Skinner-Row, Dublin. The account of it is very unfatisfactory. They fhy it was found not long fince in a bog, in the county of Weft Meath, but the poffeffor declines communicat ing any particulars of the finding. It is not cafy even to conjecture fo. what nfe or purpofe thefe rings were intended. A certain Antiquary maintains that they appertained to a great temple, temple, which, according to him, once exifted in the county of Weft Meath, dedicated to the Sun, under the name of Bal or Bel. That the worthip of the Solar Fire did once fubfift in the country, he alerts, is proved by feveral heathen ceresoares yt in ufe among the natives; as alfo from the names of feveral well-known places, which fignify as much, as Bal-tien-glas, Bal timore, Bel-turbet, &c. and he adds that the furpentine forms of the greater number of thefe rings, do clearly prove them of oriental derivation, inafinuch as the creature they reprefent was never found in Ireland. In confequence of draining the bogs, and interfecting the country with canals, which is now profecuting with fo much profitable indufiry, curious antique articles are conflantly difcovering; and if thefe difcoveries reflect no new light on the old Milefiam Romances, they however prove that the precious metals formerly abounded in Ireland, and that the inhabitants were not ignorant of the manner of working them. It is proper to mention, that there is another report current in Dublin refpecting thete articles, viz. that they were brought from Egypt, and formed part of the plunder obtained by fome individuals of our army employed in the Egyptian expedition. This report, however, is pofitively contradicted by the poffeffor; who fays, moreover, that general Vallancy has made draw ings of the whole, which he intends to publish with a memoir. E. W. Mr. URBAN, Portfeɑ, Oct. 10, INCE Obfervator, p. 735, once more takes the field of controverfy on the fubject of the Ephefian Diana, Philo-technon relies on your impartiality for as early a place as convenient to this rejoinder. It was not for the much-fpoken-of ua ant feruice of fetting Pt right, as well as himfelf, about a temple of Diana, not the Ephefian, that Oblervator was charged with want of candour, but for the unfair inference drawn as a confequence of that topographic miftake. For whether the example cited exifted at Mognetia, or at Ephefus, fince in both places the temples were Ionic, the columns in either of them not being more than eight diameters and a half, and perhaps les, the intercolunniation af fuch, according to Vitruvius, chap. II. book III. is argued to have been either diafivle, or enfivle it was uncandid, therefore, in Obflrvator, to pretend that this argument was out of the queftion as applicable to the Ephefian Diana; fince it obtains in any Ionic temple, (fee the cited pallage), item in diaftylo, &c.-Uncandid alfo in pouring out a volley of lellening" epithets to difere dit a fair demontiration, proving that by fimilar liberties taken with the central intercolun.n in an octafiyle, as Viator took in his dodeca@yle. a like coincidence with Pliny's dimenfions may be obtained; it was incumbent on Obfervator to hold up to his readers the deficiency of that demonftration, before he indulged in thofe intemperate expreffions, of having found the claborate calcul tions, groundless affertions, and fpecions arguments of Philo-technon, have not the leaft folid foundation for their topport, &c. Gentleman's Magazine for April laft, p. 312. Ꭵf not To the retorted question, where is the good fenfe, &c.? the answer is, that had the immenfe marble coluinns erected by Ctesiphon been confumed, as well as the timber, by the fire kindled by Heroftratus, it is quite confonant with good fenfe to fuppofe them refiored as they were before. there be any want of fenfe in merely fuppofing, but circumftancially affering, that the Ephefian Diana was an octaftyle diptere, a Ctesiphonte confitma; that it was the moft magnificent of all Grecian * temples; that it was $20 feet in front; that the height of its columns was a third of its width; that its architect was Ciefiphon; that it was not completed in less time than 220 years, nor by lefs efforts than the concurrence of all Afia, (no difficult matter to find out 27 rulers called kings, in fuch a lapfe of time); if all thele affertions and circumstances applied to the Ephefian Diana as exifting in and fome time after the Augufian age, are all or any of them fenfelefs, the reflection thikes at Vitruvius and Pliny, not at P-1.-But would Obfervator feel fatisfied that his title in the reputation of good fense should refi on the fuppofition, that fo many external immenfe marble columns were deftroyed and levelled with the ground, by one night's conflagration of the timber within walls feren or eight feet thick? Were we not lately witnefles to a lamegable conflagration of the *See a plan of it in page 1185. timber timber work in St. Paul's Covent Garden, where there was a much greater proportion of combustible matter than at the fire at Ephefus; yet do we not fill enjoy the remarkable portico of Inigo Jones's temple? and will he not ftill be called its architect? To the fecond part of the retorted question; it is anfwered, there was nothing fenfelefs in afferting, that Vitruvius referred Auguftus to the Ephetian Diana, as an infiance of an Octaliyle diptere, becaule firictly true; and P-t cited the paffage, book III. chap. I. Obfervator's affected unacquaintance with this paffage and his pretence of being drawn into an error by P-t, becaufe no foch reference to any particular temple is made in the preface to 7th book, is another fpecimen of his want of candour. given by Vitruvius, therefore they are fet off with the crepidines, which were the projectures of cornice of ftylobates when there was a podium, or the fallies of the upper tread over the top rifer of the flight of steps, which were adjufied by feet and inches, not by modules: and this was the reafon of their exemption at each end of the front line; the crepidines, because they were never of a commenfurate quantity; the projectures, becaufe unfettled as to their number of minutes which, unlefs juft 15 or 4 of a module, would caufe the divifor to have a troublesome fraction, for there appears no other reafon for their exemption.-But it is an utterly falfe idea that Vitruvius bounds the front of a temple at the an gular fhafts; his words are; Frons loci, quæ in æde conftituta fuerit, fi tetraftylos facienda fuerit, dividatur in partes undecim femis præter crepidines et projecturas fpirarum: fi fex erit columnarum in partes 18; fi octaftylos na pars erit modulus." In English, "The local front appointed for a temple when four columns, is to be divided into eleven parts and a half betides the marginals and projectores of (angular) bafes, (can words more clearly fay that the projectures and marginals are a part of the local front line); when fix columns into 18 parts; when 8 into 24 parts and a half; one fuch part fhall be the module." It is not true, therefore, that Vitruvius fixes the breadth of the temple in front at the extent of the shafts of the angular cohunns, excluding the projecture of the bafes and platform; nor are Pt's arguments, vol. LXXI. p. 1084, and calculations, founded upon a vague and false bafis, but upon the clear documents and affertions of Vitruvius, who inflitutes the above divifions for the exprefs purpofe of finding the module, which is injudiciously denied by Obfervator. The vain evidence, therefore, fo pertinacioully triumphed in, of an unfractional coincidence of a dodecaflyle with Pliny's dimenfions, is truly founded on a glaring misapprehension of the meaning of Vitruvius, as herein proved, and Pt's former expofition, it is infified on, is truc and accurate. There muft either be an error of the prefs, or an abfence of mind, when Obfervator wrote the following lines: "Vitruvius-on the euftyle fpecies, by dividing the place defigned for the front...... in partes 24 et femiflem........... of the temple into a number of paris, obtains the part for the module and diameters of the columns, upon this divifion, previous to the exclufion of the projecture of the bafes, which, if admitted into the space fet out for the front of the temple, would contract it, and the fpecies would no longer be the enftyle." Now P-t, unwilling to take advantage of this paffage, which as it lies is abfolutely unintelligible, gives Obfervator credit, that he wrote, or intended to write admiffion, inftead of exclufion, after the words, previous to the. This will make fenfe of the reading, but the inference drawn is miferably inaccurate, and the affertion that follows it void of truth. For the admiffion of the angular projectures would only change the divifor and contract the fcale, but noways interrupt the euftyle fymmetry. And Vitruvius most certainly inflitates the divifion in quettion, on purpofe to recover a modulus, which, being a commenfurate quantity, can only be obtained from a divition of a line that h th commenta rability, which is not the cafe with the whole extent of the front line of a temple; for the crepidines and projectures of augular bafes, though they certainly belong to the front line of a temple when bafes are employed, yet, as the Doric columns have no bafes, and as their projectures are disputed, and feldom allowed the 15 minutes Vitruvius pointing out &c. and the thirteen lines following, are altogether unintelligible; there is no fuch pallage in Vitruvius. If it is rightly conjectured, he means to infinuate as a de duction duction from the documents of VitruVies, that the pycnoftyle and fyftyle may have their central intercoluinn widened, as they require it fill more than the eufiyle; if this be Obfervator's meaning, it is answered that in the prefent purfuit we feek, not what P-t or Obfervator may think an improvement on Vitruvius, but what Vitruvius did, or did not, really teach. He objects to the pycnoftyle and fyftyle, becaufe thofe narrow intercolumns were inconvenient; to the diaftyle, becaufe the intercolumns were fo wide that the epiftyles were apt to break: he extolls the invention of the euftyle as a remedy for both: this is the fubftance of what Vitruvius fays on the fubject, which, clear as it is, Obfervator has obfcured, to conceal fome ftrange inference of his own, from the glare of noon-day funshine. Obfervator tells us he has fufficient knowledge of Grecian temples, to pronounce that columns are as necellary in the cell and pofticum, as in the promans..... to support the cieling and roof when the fpan was above 40 feet. Now to cut this part of the controverty fhort, P-t pronounces, from his know ledge of the geometrical principles of carpentry, that any fan, even of an hundred or an hundred and fifty feet, provided the walls are proportionably thick (which is always the cafe in Grecian temples), may have a cieling and roof fupported without either column or fulcrum of any kind under, befides the walls. and that the ancients knew thefe principles of carpentry, we learn from Pliny, Julius Cæfar, and others. Therefore if Obfervator knows no more of the other documents of Grecian temples, than of their roofs, he has much more to learn than he probably fufpects.-Moft undoubtedly the ancients placed columus in the cells of fuch temples as were dedicated to the imaginary divinities fuppofed to delight in the open air; and thefe teinples were accordingly called hypethros, and ufinally decafiyle, though the Japiter Olympius is faid by Vitruvius to be oétaftyle and hypethe: thefe had columns in their cells; but not there to fupport the roof, for the cell was open at top to the fky. Concerning thefe temples Pt will fully treat in No. XXIX. and XXX. when it fhall come to their turn to appear.-At prefent Obfervator may reft fatisfied that the Ephefian Diana was not an hy pethros, nor will he, or any perfon, prove that it had columns in its cell.As to Obfervator's idea of what Vitruvius calls the pofticum, it is to foreign to the reality and erroneous, that he will find reafon enough to coniplain of being drawn into an error by accrediting Perrault and other moderns. This fubject will be difcuffed in No. XXVIII. P-t, in the mean time, informs Obfervator, that he will find at laft, that what Vitruvius means by Pollicum is, that in peripteres a fingle, in dipteres a double walking-place at the backs of thefe temples, with columns ia number and difpofition like thofe in the portico, and the back wall of the cell folid without aperture, is the only diftinguifhing characteriftie of the Poiticum from the portico in front, where, inftead of a folid wall on the fide of the inner walk, there are in front of pronaos two columns and three intercolumns enclofed to a certain height with baluftrades and three doors leading to the interior part of pronaos. Whatever other idea of a pofticum and portico may be fuggefted, it has nothing to do with Vitruvius. And Obfervator will alfo find that he has been too hafty in his retort on P-t's plan of the Ephetian Diana ordained as directed by Vitruvius, and is not, like the dodecaftyle, an unprecedented whim. Obfervator knows his darling dodecastyle has its death warrant figned in the chap. 23, book 36, of Pliny's Natural Hiftory, where it is faid the antients made the columns in the Ephefian Diana a third of the temple's breadth in height; and fo far is this pallage from being corrupted, that it clearly accords with what Vitruvius has faid of this temple, and with what he has taught concerning Ionic columns; for this paffage proves that it was octaftyle eutiyle, fiuce the divifor for fuch a front without the projectures is 244; and as the projectures at laft are to have their places in the front, we will add thefe two projectures a diameter to the divifor, and make it 25, one third whereof is equal 81, the commenfurate height of the column therefore was. 8 diameters and §, and the abfolute, 73 feet 4 inches." Obfervator fays the text is corrupted becaule fuch gigantic columns were never heard of. He thould have added, never heard of before the Ephefim Diana was heard of, which for that very quality which he calls gigantic, more more than for any other confideration, was celebrated as one of the wonders of the world; and the largest of all temples then exifling, and now conclufively proved to have been an octaftyle euftyle diptere. Laftly, Pt did not affert that the ædes in antis had the ante on the fides, on the authority of Vitruvius; but on the authority of common fenfe and common practice in regular and elegant buildings: thefe will be difcuffed in their place; in the mean time Pt can but thank Obfervator for furnishing him with a proof from Vitruvius, though unintentionally, that there were pilafters along the fides; but not ante, which he fays belong to the ends of walls as their termination, and that the parafiatæ are continued along the walls; and then defies P-t to produce any one example in Vitruvius for having along the wall pilafters which he fays are paraftate not ante as P-t calls them: this is fairly ftated; now Vitruvius book III. chap. 1. has thefe words, ædium principia funt et primum in Antis, quod Græcè vxwe in magnora dicitur: here let the reader decide whether antæ the Latin name, and paraftate the Greek, are not the fame things.-It remains to apologize, for the length of this letter; it is an amlwer to a long one. Yours, &c. .... Mr. URBAN, A PHILO-TECHNON. Dec. 20. MONG the various advantages accruing to the community from the publication of Magazines or Journals at flated periods, one, and not the leaft, is the opportunity afforded of examining into the conduct of individuals, or of focieties of men, whofe acts have an influence on the learning, the morals, or the happiness of the people. This, when done with temper and moderation, may be productive of fingular benefit, not only to the publick, but to the perfons or focieties, whole conduct is fcrutinized. Under the impreffion of this opinion, and with the view of effecting fome change in the management of a learned and refpectable hody, the Society of Antiquaries, with which you, Mr. Editor, have long been connected, I fhall request the infertion of the following obfervations. I have been feveral years a member of very refpectable Society, am pretty that conftant in my attendance, and have frequently been entertained and inftructed by the very ingenious and learned papers that are from time to time read at their meetings, as well as by numerous curious objects fubinitted to their infpection. I have allo received, in common with the reft of the members, fuch a number of rich and fplendid publications from them, as often to excite my admiration from what fund they were produced, or how the Society could poffibly afford to publifh, and give them to their now very numerous brethren. In fact, fo very fplendid have their publications been, of late particularly, that it has proved an incitement, on the one hand, to numerous perfons to offer themfelves as candidates, who had no pretenfions whatever to belong to that or any other literarySociety; and, on the other, it has led, or rather compelled the Society (in order to enable them to fupport the expences they were engaged in), to confent to the admillion of fuch an indifcriminate rabble, as has very much leffened and degraded the title of Socius, or Fellow, once fo honourable and fo much valued. But though by this indifcriminate admillion of members a confiderable quantity of ready money was brought into the treafury of the Society, yet by that means the number of copies of their works they were obliged to give away (each member being entitied to one) were fo increased, that, in lead of relieving, it added to their embarraffinents. Accordingly, in the courfe of the laft feffion, the Council propofed and recommended, that the members of the Society fhould be affeffed in the following nanner; that is, "that all the members, who were now paying two guineas, fhould hereafter pay three guineas annually; and thofe members, who had compounded for their annual payments by paying 26 guineas on their admiflion, should now pay a farther fum of 10 guineas;" and, in failure of making thefe additional payments, they were to be rejected from the lift of members. This propofal was hung up the time directed by the ftatutes in the meeting room of the fociety, to receive the fanction of a general meeting of the members; by whom it was almoft unanimouily rejected, there being fcarcely any but the members of the Council who voted for eftablishing |