moderate value; and Mr. Urban is acquainted with the rector and the rectory. Annual extended value £. 199 0 0 Outgoings in one year, viz. Repairs of houfe'

Total clear receipt £. 17 7.10 Note. Income-tax is not reckoned; nor other taxes, houfe, window, &c. which would be to be deducted from the 171. 7s. 10d.

It is to be hoped, and may be justly expected, Mr. Urban, that any future regulations refpecting the incomes of the Clergy will never be influenced by the reforming folly of fchemers, agriculturifis, tourists, &c. but be the refult of the fage counfels of those diftinguished men, whole probity and talents are adequate to the good government of the State. CLERICUS.

Mr. URBAN,

A

July 19. FTER having fhewn the advantages of reading (p. 515), and the utility of a library, its arrangement and difpofition accurately into index-order mult appear of the first importance to literature, more particularly at a period when there is far more literary enquiry, true criticifim, and profitable reading, than ever was known in any age before the prefent throughout the regions that are civilized; which, notwithtianding the fury of gaming and diffipation that now exifts, may be denominated the æra of good letters. But the purfait after books fhould not be fo eagerly followed as to lofe fight of the proper end for which they are acquired. Could any mental alchemy reduce them to their quinteffence, great books would not long be great evils, for then a fingle fhelf would contain the fabftance of a whole library. But perfection is not the lot of humanity; the longent life of leifure is not fufficient to perufe the tenth part of the books extant; and whoever reflects on the fhortnefs and fatal uncertainty of life, muft lament with my Lord Bacon, tha: “arts are long, and life's but brief." Though the unequal diftribution of

riches prevents many ingenious perfons from attaining to their favourite point; yet, upon recollection, it will be found by daily obfervation, that Learning, like beaten gold, fpreads very wide, and may be acquired at a moderate price by convenient means unknown to our grandfathers; for it is not much more than threefcore years fince the first eftablishment of a circulating-library in Loudon. Affittance cannot be wanting in any branch of fcience; but fplendid editions and magnificent bindings muft be difpenfed with. Thus the narroweft income will not wholly preclude the ftudent from the means of acquiring thofe aids which are to be derived from the works of learned and able authors.

In the difpofition of a library, theology fhould rank in the first order of faculties; divinity being one of the largeft portions of books in general, more choice in the felection is neceflary. With regard to the distinguishing character of thefe books, the principal object fhould be, to chufe only fuch as are moft obviously employed in maintaining the fundamental doctrine of our faith, and in vindicating and illuftrating the articles, rites, and ceremonies of our Church; nor would I advife a total difregard of the adverfaries of our faith: many hetorodox writers have been illuftrious characters: and Learning was the juft attribute of fome of the hereticks of the Chrifiian church. If they had not poffeffed a confiderable fhare of human knowledge, they could not avowedly have controverted thofe doctrines and orthodox opinions, or indirectly oppose them. Thefe writers are not particularly recommendable to thofe who have had but few advantages from education, or who, from their fitnation in life, have least leifure for reading. Though argumentative and fcholaftic Divinity is very much out of fathion, yet there are fome prime books in this way, which are too often overlooked, and moftly too common to become valuable in a pecuniary light. Every one can form to himfelf an idea of these books, which were the admiration and ornament of the times producing them, and which, however negligently laid by as the infruments of a temporary triumph, will be found, upon a proper investigation, to be good manuals of defence of our Creed and Church, and laft as long as their fafety fhall reft upon the firength and force of argument."

It would make this page refemble that of a fale-catalogue to enumerate thefe books particularly, and directions for fudy are to be found in many places. Dufrefnoy's Tables exhibit a courfe of fiudy for hiftory; and philological remarks upon various feiences are difperfed abroad by the writers moft converfant in their particular ftudies. The Appendix to Dr. Kett's laft work is particularly upon this fubject; but my obfervations are here entirely confined to the art of arranging books according to priority of ftudy, beginning with the moft ferious concern of

man:

Religion firft demands our chief regard;
For that beftows, and promises reward.

I know it has been ufual with Catalogians to begin with the Inftitutes of Grammar and Languages, as the first introduction to general letters; and fome have fet out with the first elements of Jurifprudence; but, for the reafons before given, I would advife the texts, tranflations, and verfions of the Bible, to precede all other books in a welldifpofed library; after which Canonlaw may follow, as fomewhat attached to the former fubject by its alliance in the government of the Church. The

third clafs difplays Arts and Sciences, opening with the origin and progrefs of Philofophy. Grammar introduces the Belles Lettres as the fourth clafs; and Hiftory, with all its dependencies of Geography and Chronology, forms the fifth, and a great portion must be allotted to this part, as facred and profane, antient and modern, and even all the remains of antiquity must be ranked with it. Biography and hiftorical extracts and Dictionaries rife in the rear, and close the first part of what may be denominated a philological chart of human learning.

The fecond part commences with the father of the Greek claflicks. Thele monuments of antiquity form an arrangement which, under neceffary fubdivifions, exhibit at once the whole extent of human learning during the bright ages of Greece and Rome, clofing with the feries of Byzantine hiftorians, who write the hiftory of the empire of Conftantinople, from Conftantine's reign to the conqueft of that capi

l be the Turks.

1 fhall conclude this paper by taking the liberty to ufe Dr. Gregory's words upon the fubject of fundying the clafficks, only including thofe before the

time of Procopius; for after that writer's time the Roman cagle as well as language declined apace and we are only indebted to thofe that follow for hitorical information, being the only lights to guide us in the dubious path of the dark ages. Dr. Gregory obferves,

"The ufe of reading the clafficks prodoces a more accurate knowledge of grammar and derivative etymo ogy, together with the innocent and elegant amusement they afford, and the acquaintance they give with antient manners and fentiments. They improve the heart by excellent maxims of morality, and cultivate the talte by admirable fpecimens of beauty in compofition."

Thus books have powers'over man, we

Mr. URBAN, July 19. BSERVATOR. for reafons he gave in his laft letter, p. 312, thought not to have entered any further into the controverfy upon the Ephefian Diana: but Philo-technon, in the Poftfcript to his tenth Number, p. 405, having charged him with being uncandid upon the correction of Pliny's 127 columns, he antwers, fo far from that, he conceives one perfon has as good a right to give his fentiments upon a fubject as another, though not conge nial with his, and, if required, to fupport them. Ile is likewife accused of being uncandid in obferving, that the temple of Diana, a Diafylos, at Magnetia, or Rome, it does not fignify which, was mistaken for the Ephefian Diana; upon which account the latter was fuppofed to be either of the diaftyle or enfiyle fpecies (fee vol. LXXI. p. 326); whereas no example of an edifire upon fo large a feale having occur red either in the diafiyle, euftyle, or fyfiyle fpecies, it was thought to be more probably between the pycnostyle and feftyle, like the Jupiter Olympius at Athens, and the Apollo Didymius near Miletus; but to point out conclufions from premifes foreign to the fubject, as from the Magnelian to the Ephefian Diana, and to be fet in the right road, is deemed uncandid, and the

error

error trifling. The temple of Jupiter at Rome, the largest and most splendid in that city, was of the pycnoftyle fpecies, with 12 columns in front; and, if Philo-technon will take the trouble to turn over the fourth book of Andrea Palladio's Architecture, he will fee that the pediment of a dodecaftyle does not appear fo enormously out of proportion as he reprefents it. Obfervator well knows, that the Ephefian Diana, in the days of Vitruvius and Pliny, was that by Dinocrates, a Clefiphonte inftituta, of which Pliny gives the dinienfions, and fays, it was 220 years in building, at the expence of all Afia, and not that a Clefiphonte conflituta, which no longer exified. Moreover, relying upon Philo-technon's affertion, that Vitruvius referred Auguftus to the Ephefian Diana, Obfervator has been drawn into an error, having found, by looking over with more attention the Preface of Vitruvius to his 7th book, that he referred Angulus to no temple in particular, but to a lift of architects and other artists, many of whom published volumes on the temples and other works they erected. As a proof of this affertion, Vitruvius, after having referred Auguftus to Agatharcus, Democritus, and Anaxagoras, authors upon the fcenery of the theatre, goes on, and favs, "poftea Silenus de fymmetriis Doricorum eddidit volumen. De æde Junonis, quæ eft Sami, Dorica, Theo{dorus. Ionica, Ephefi quæ eft Diane, Ctefiphon et Metagenes. De fano Minervæ, quod eft Priene, Ionicum, Phileos." This temple was inferibed by Alexander the Great. Thus, after a long detail of architects, artifis, and their most celebrated works, he finishes his narrative with telling Auguftus, that not only the writings of Collutius but alfo of C. Mutius were loft. Now

it may be afked in turn, where is the good fenfe and accuracy in the infinuation, that the temple was reftored with only eight columns in front; to do which there was no probability of 220 years being required, or that Alexander in that cafe would have been ambitious of inferibing it? That Vitruvius likewife referred Auguftus to the Ephefian Diana? The arguments on which are of courfe fuperfeded, as foreign and of no importance to the fubject. Vitruvius, in his treatife upon the entiyle fpecies, by dividing the place defigned for the front of the temple into a number of parts, obtains the

part for the module and diameter 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 species would no longer be the euftyle; for this reason their projecture was excluded, and not for recovering the module and diameter of the columns, as fuggefted by Philotechnon. This appearing to be the true expofition of the paffage, there is no doubt but Vitruvius fixes the breadth of the temple in front at the extent of the fhafts of the angular columns, excluding the projecture of the bases and platform, taking no notice of the latter. Upon this authority, applying the dimentions of Pliny to a dodecaftyle, they perfectly coincided with it, (fee p. 311); and he confidently aflerts, that this coincidence, inflead of being fairly confuted, as boasted by Philo-technon (fce vol. LXXI. p. 184), his arguments and calculations are founded upon a vague and falfe batis. Moreover, he can candidly fay, that, in his opinion, this coincidence is a proof of Pliny's dimensions having been taken at the extent of the shafts of the columns, though pofitively denied by Philo-technon, without being able to fix them either at the extent of the bafes, platform, or fleps. Vitruvius pointing out the pycnottyle and cuftyle as the two extremes in regulating the widening of the central intercolumns in the front of temples, it is understood that the space between these two extremes is configned to the fame purpose, and requires no farther explanation;, upon which, the fyftylos being comprited within this face, no notice was taken of it: the reflection, therefore, on widening its central intercolumns in front, being left to the difcretion of the architect, naturally followed (fee p. 310). Can Philo-technon fay, that au intercolumn of two diameters does not require this regulation more than one of two and a quarter? This queftion alone proves his remarks upon the entlyle to be right, and that Philo-technon has mistaken the meaning of the author. Obfervator has fullicient knowledge of Grecian temples to pronounce, that columns are as necellary in the cell and pofticum of periptere and diptere temples as in the pronaos, if upwards of 40 feet wide, and that for this reason, to fupport the cicling and roof of the editice; a cafe fo obvious that Vitruvius no

doubt

doubt deemed a repetition of them in thofe parts unneceflary. But, according to Philo-technon's mode of reafoning, there was likewife no pofticum, for Vitruvius mentions none, though an effential part of periptere and diptere afpects. On the other hand, that the antients made ufe of columns in the cell of their temples, the Apollo Didymeus fufficiently tetifies, whofe cell was about 80 feet wide, and within it, near the end next the pronaos, was found the capital of a half column, a fpecies of Corinthian, which proves there were ranges of columns in the cell, terminating at each end with halfcolumns. And can it be fuppofed that the Ceres and Proferpine at Eleufis had no columns in the cell, at leaft 150 feet fquare, including the walls? The cell of Viator's dodecaftyle is 130 feet wide; and Philo-technon has banifhed its columns and pofticum; can it be thought he is ferious? Innfwer to Philo technon on the paffage in Pliny, chap. XXIII. b. 36, that the height of the columns were one-third of the breadth of the temple, which if 220 feet wide, as probably the new temple by Dinocrates was, it is replied, the text is manifeftly corrupted, no Ionic columns of that gigantic fize, as upwards of 8 feet 7 in. in diameter, and 73 feet 4 in. in height, have ever been heard of in the firucture of any edifice whatever. Philotechnon having given the hint, Obfervator will now examine the ordination of his plan for the Ephetian Diana, which he underftands to be an octaftyle diptere of the euftyle fpecies, containing 100 columns, allowing 16 to the length, and three diameters to the central intercolumns, in each front. In this difpofition of the plan, the length of the interior parts, or body of the edifice, will be three times its breadth; and, if the breadth be divided into four parts, the length will contain twelve; whereas Vitruvius, ch. I. b. 4, makes the length double the breadth, which divided into four parts, the length will contain eight, five of which he gives to the cell, and three to the pronaos; but, if Philo-technon gives only five to his cell, he will have feven for the pronaos, which he appropriates to two ranges of nine columns each; and thefe, with two in the front of the pronaos, and 80 in the dipteros, he makes up his 100 columns. The fact is, that temples furrounded with columns, varving in the proportion of their interior parts

according to their different afpects and fpecies, are under no precife rules of regulation; and Vitruvius has given none. It is evident therefore, that he gives here the plan of a temple in Antis, of which that at Heraclea is an example, with this difference, the length is divided into two parts, one to the pronaos, the other to the cell; and taking no notice of the pofticum, eflential to periptere and diptere temples, is a farther proof in favour of this propofition, which not only fets afide Philo technon's correction of Perrault, but alfo the ordination of his ichnographic plan, which is fo far from being conformable to the documents of Vitruvius, that, to make ufe of Philo-technon's fiyle of reafoning, it is a mere unprecedented whim; whereas Viator's is a true plan of the diptere afpect, with all its parts, whether octaliyle, decaftyle, or dodecaftyle. In order to complete the correction of Pliny's 127 columns, it till remains to produce the 27 kings. Now, it may be obferved, that Philo-technon knows, or ought to know, that parafiatæ, or pilafters, are continued along walls, and not antæ, which terminate the ends of them only, as in the front of the pronaos, and pofticum of temples. Obfervator, moreover, defies him to produce any one example in Vitruvius, or in the Grecian temples, whether in antis, the profiyle, or amphiproftyle afpects, having pilafters (or antæ, as he is pleafed to call them,) continued along the fide walls, fubject to the fame laws of fymmetry as columns; an affertion impofed without authority. After all, it is not conceived with what propriety the disposition of the Ephefian Diana has been to ftrictly tied down to the documents of Vitruvius, when there is no reafon to fuppofe that this temple had any greater conformity with them than thofe more autent than his time, from whofe remains it is evident they agreed in very few inftances with his documents -Now, Mr. Urban, having fully declared ny fentiments upon the fubject of this controverfy, and at the fame time having proved that, according to the documents of Vitruvius, the dimentions of Pliny perfectly coincide with a dodecafiyle, I finally take my leave. OBSERVATOR.

* At the foot of Mount Latmus, upon the borders of the Latmicus Sinus, near Miletus, now a lake, through the encroachment of the land upon the fea. 211. The