than fifty years' communication with the periodical press in England, Scotland, and Ireland, he has not met with any instance of so much earnest devotion to the interests of the fine arts, as in the Editor. This is no common claim on the support of those, who profess to be lovers of the arts and friends of native genius. It also shews to artists that it is their own interest and the interests of their profession, which they are called on to support. A similar attention has been paid in his pages, to the valuable lectures delivered at the various institutions. Where so fortunate an opportunity is open for the promotion of their public objects, the zealous aid of the members, in subscribing and endeavouring to increase the number of subscribers, is due to the interests of literature and science, as well as to their own good feelings, consistency, and self-respect. The local periodical is their artillery, and a General, who would march into the field without his artillery, would be thought rather playing a part to shew off himself, than marching in earnest against the enemy. That single neglect would excite suspicion and discontent among his troops, and deprive him of the confidence of his country. It is so with all individuals or associations, in every nation, who appeal to public opinion and can only hope to extend their influence by earning public confidence. If, even with a warm interest at heart, having the most powerful means of obtaining their end within their reach, they overlook or appear by delay, to neglect that means, they unconsciously defeat their own purpose. Such a neglect and public confidence cannot be co-existent; they are incompatible. The meritorious labours of the numerous midland Institutions, and the concentration of high rank, property, talents, distinguished men of learning, science and zealous public spirit, in the immediate circuit, render success easy and certain, with timely exertions to increase the list of subscribers. In the language of Shakspeare— "An it were well 'twere done, "Twere well 'twere done quickly." Fortunately, here, all agree in the propriety and necessity of promptitude to obtain that increase. A new periodical may be compared to a fort besieged: while the garrison manfully stand the breach, is the hour for the aids to pour in. When, as at present, the drum beats the call "to arms" within the citadel, the auxiliaries without, in the true spirit of the chivalrous ages, cry "to the rescue," and press forward with redoubled speed and alacrity to "strike while the iron is hot"-and decide the victory. It would be a painful matter for after reflection, if any neglect, leaving too heavy a part of the burden on the proprietor, should risk the loss of so indispensable a means of public improvement. The first volume will be finished with this number; and the editor, by judiciously interspersing tales of elegant fancy and interest, with moral essays, sallies of wit and pleasantry, instructive and entertaining anecdotes, sound literary criticism, eloquent articles of science and tasteful poetry, has already obtained for the preceding numbers a place in many family libraries, as a specimen of a periodical, which reflects credit on the vicinity. It has gone through the ordeal, and its intrinsic merits are its best recommendation. Dec. 24th, 1834. THE ANALYST. AUGUST, 1834. ON THE ARCH. To the Editor of the Analyst. SIR,-It has been remarked by Mr. Locke that the mind receives more pleasure in the contemplation of things past than in those which are present, and that the former, handed down by the pages of history, reach us through a medium mellowed by the hand of time, and sanctified by the admiration of intermediate ages. This study has not only its advantages in delighting the imagination, but also in tranquillizing the mind and improving the better faculties of humanity. We war not with the past, for even if we dissent from the conclusions of those who have gone before us, we at least venerate their authority, and whether we contemplate the virtues of eminently good men of former days-whether the deep researches of the philosopher -the charmed voice of the poet-the luminous pages of the historian, or the gigantic efforts of the scientific-we see them unmixed with prejudice, unswayed by passion. We behold through the mind's eye "the great of old" with wonder and delight, nor is our astonishment less excited by the fruits of their superior knowledge in those splendid remains, both in science and in art, which at this day direct our judgment and induce our imitation. To this subject my attention has been lately more particularly called by looking over some splendid representations of Greek architecture, the perfection of taste and durability, and upon whose model almost all our public and private buildings, pretending to distinction, have, since their introduction by Inigo Jones, been erected. It is not, however, with a view of dilating upon their excellence that I have introduced these splendid remains to your notice, but I have done so with the view of affording a few remarks upon a long disputed point connected with one of these works of former days-the arch of Adrian—but by some called the arch of Ægeus. Were NO. I. B it really the arch of Ægeus, or had that monarch ever erected a similar structure, the often discussed and still undecided question as to the origin of the arch would long since have been put to rest; but as that is not the case, I shall, with every respect for those learned disquisitionists who have so ably treated the subject, offer a few remarks upon this elegant and useful order. It may be difficult to fix the exact period of the reign of Ægeus, but it is universally allowed to be much anterior to the retreat of Xerxes, and it appears more than probable, had an arch been understood in his day, that it would have been introduced into some at least of those magnificent structures whose erection followed that important æra of Greek history. It must be admitted that the applicability of the segment of a circle to architectural purposes, as exhibited in the lanthorn of Demosthenes, was known to the Greeks, but the applicability of the arch was not known, consequently, so far as I am acquainted with early Greek architecture, never used by them at the time or anterior to such retreat. Although Mr. Pope, in his beautiful paraphrase of Homer's Iliad, repeatedly describes domes and arched columns, yet little is he borne out by the original text, in which not one word is discoverable warranting their use, or which could convey to the reader the inference even that in the whole of Priam's spacious palace one arch existed; nor has one been discovered in the ruins of Persepolis, nor in the other ancient buildings upon which time has laid a more gentle hand. It is well known that there are writers who maintain an opposite opinion. A late very entertaining traveller maintained that the pointed arch had existed in Asia Minor from the earliest periods, but the investigations of a friend proved the fallacy of the hypothesis, and shewed to him that it existed only in his sanguine expectation. The supposed tomb of Ajax presented the wished for construction, but a little cool enquiry discovered that the keystone was wanting, and that the approach of two walls, even to contact, could not by possibility form an arch. The friends to the antiquity of the arch have not been more fortunate in their Egyptian researches, nor is a single unquestionable authority to be found through the whole of its architectural range, of a date preceding the invasion of Cæsar. Belzoni, a traveller of great perseverance and industry, found a single arched doorway in one of the pyramids, a model of which pyramid was, years back, exhibited in London; but, be it remembered, that the Romans were in possession of Egypt for several hundred years after the introduction of the arch into their own country, and there can be little doubt that, after breaking through the solid wall, they adopted the then Roman method of making an arched doorway as the means of future entrance into the pyramid. The Romans were accustomed to make architectural alterations in all countries which they conquered, and were peculiarly fond of introducing the arch wherever opportunity allowed. This opinion is farther confirmed by the absence of any other arch in the pyramid above alluded to, or in others of those wonderful structures wherein, at this period of time, it is clearly demonstrable that the chambers were not coved or vaulted, but were formed by stones projecting inwards, as the wall increased in height, and thus gradually sloping until the sides approaching each other, the roof was completed by cross stones. This will be seen more at large by reference to Norden's Travels in Egypt. The internal structure of the pyramid of Sakhara, which has been deemed an authority for the antiquity of the arch, is shewn by Mr. Burckhardt to have a roof of two plain surfaces, meeting at a point. The same principle of building by walls sloping inwards appears to have been applied to ancient bridges, and, judging from the remaining ruins, modern travellers have concluded that a similar plan was used in the erection of some of the stupendous structures which formed the once celebrated Babylon. How strongly is the view here taken, that the arch was unknown, antecedent to and during the time of Pericles, confirmed by the fact that the Greeks had not then a word descriptive of that order. It has been asserted by Mons. Dutens, in his work "Recherches an le tems le plus reculé des l'usage des Vontes chez les Anciens," that Aristotle applied the word as to the expression of that figure. Had there been any Greek word in general use at that period, the Seventy must have known it, nor would they have used TOEOY to describe the rainbow. Supposing Aristotle was in possession of so much geometrical knowledge, a fact much doubted, let it not escape our recollection that he lived one hundred years after Pericles, the patron of the arts, and under whose sway Athens was ornamented with the greater part of its public buildings, and by whom others raised before his time were repaired and improved. But even if Aristotle discovered the principle of the arch, it by no means follows that it was applied in his day any more than gunpowder was used in that of Friar Bacon, who fully understood its power, or than steam in that of the celebrated Marquess of Worcester, who foresaw its extraordinary properties; and we know that neither were applied until long after the decease of their respective discoverers. By pursuing this subject further at present, I shall intrude too much upon your space; I will therefore take my leave with requesting permission to resume it in a future number, when I will endeavour to shew when the arch was first used. I am, Sir, R. F. |