consider that it must have been erected during the period of the Persian dominion; that it served as a tomb, or rather was raised over the tombs of those who fell in the seige; that it was designed and executed by the Ionians, who, with patriotic feeling, represented themselves as fighting equally against Lycians-Greek against Greek; and studiously avoided the introduction of more Persians than they were obliged to admit by the will of their masters; and, with the cunning for which they were so noted, at the same time that they were compelled to represent them in the action of victory (see stones Nos, 39 and 47 in the British Museum), they have so cleverly managed one figure that, while they could persuade the Persians that their countryman was striding to victory, he was in reality flying ignobly before his foe."

Mr. Falkener attributes this monument on good evidence to about B.c. 500; if so, the arts must have ripened much more quickly in Asia than in European Greece. The whole of the article by Mr. Falkener is argued in a masterly style, which deserves every credit that can be bestowed upon his professional acuteness as an architect, his knowledge as a scholar, and his perseverance as a traveller.

We now recur to Mr. Vaux's historical survey as elucidating the above important monument :

"During the Persian invasion of Greece, about sixty years later, we find that the Zanthians sent fifty ships to aid Xerxes against the Greeks, and continued to pay an annual tax, the amount of which proves that they formed one of the wealthiest divisions of the Persian empire, while they retained the free government for which they had devoted their lives and had their own monarchs for satraps. During the contest between Alexander and Darius, Alexander descended into Lycia in the depth of winter, and having taken Patara is said to have met with an obstinate though unsuccessful resistance from the Xanthians. In the wars of Alexander's successors the Lycians appear to have taken the part of Antigonus; hence the assault and capture by Ptolemy as a garrison town manned by the forces of his rival. During the civil war between Brutus and the Triumvirs the former entered Lycia with the intention of levying a contribution, and a bloody attack and siege of Xanthus was the consequence. The Roman general, aided by the people of Ananda, laid siege to it in a regular manner. By the stratagem of feigning a careless watch he induced the Xanthians to make a sortie, and the besiegers rushed in along with the besieged, who had been driven back from the Roman lines. The gates were then lowered and a large body of Romans were shut up in the town and seized the Sarpedonion: their comrades, urged on by the people of Ananda, scaled the walls, and the Xanthians then gave a third instance of their love of liberty, destroying themselves, their wives, and their children, and few surviving the capture.

"From that time the people of Xanthus appear to have followed the destinies of the Roman empire; but to have suffered severely in two

earthquakes which happened in the reign of Tiberius and Antoninus Pius respectively.”

The position of the city itself demonstrates the three epochs and transitions through which it passed: at present the city is about twelve miles distant from the sea, while in ancient times it was on the sea coast. This change has been produced by the alluvial deposit of ages brought down by the river, which, as its name implies, is of that nature. Its desolate state and the absence of cultivation have rendered it so unhealthy that it is impossible to visit it during the end of the summer and the beginning of autumn: it is death to sleep there, and the vessel under Captain Graves lost many men from fever during the removal of the monuments.

Mr. Vaux divides Greek art into five periods: the infancythe youth-the manhood-the old age, and the imbecility; or that period in which Greek art was transferred to Rome. The works of the first period were of the roughest description. This period may be fixed at B.c. 500, during which the superstition of consecration conferred upon the idols all their virtue. Most were of wood, like the statue of Pallas, which fell down from heaven and was the safeguard of the Trojans. These statues consisted of many pieces joined together; nay, the trunk was often of another material. The name given to these was "Acrolith," and statues of men were not attempted; but no specimens of this period exist in the Museum. In the working of metal they were more advanced :—

"During the first period art was in its infancy, and sculpture in its germ, the artistic genius of the people being devoted to the ornamenting and embossing of metal objects, whether weapons of war or vessels of domestic furniture, or to the manufacture of idols for the service of religion. The descriptions of Homer show the value attached to the rich and elegant workmanship of furniture and vessels; and the story of the shield made by Hephaestus for Achilles indicates that the use of metal was extensively known. In the manufacture of metallic works it appears that the metal was first softened and hammered out into thin plates and then subsequently worked up by sharp instruments, as the earliest bronzes which have been preserved show marks of having been hammered out, a fashion which long prevailed in the case of the more precious metals. The invention of casting in metal (attributed to a Samian) and that of soldering, the discovery of a Chian artist, were of great value for the mechanical advancement of the arts, which were still further promoted by the use of pottery in remote ages, an extensive trade at Corinth, Ægina, Samos, and Athens, and to which may probably be attributed the first real commencement of the sculptural art. The art of pottery directly called forth an exercise of the skill of the individual workman in that its success depended on a reliance on

the artist's own resources rather than on copies or models. In the ornaments and the reliefs which were placed on the handles of vases the potter's wheel could not be used, and a free exercise of the hand was the natural and immediate result."

In the works of the second period ending B.C. 460 a manifest improvement is perceptible. The human figure was attempted, but the abominable acrolith still maintained its place: still a certain amount of boldness, combined with too much mathematical accuracy, to admit of elegance, prevailed. Nevertheless, it is easy to foresee from these attempts the probable perfection to which Greek sculpture ultimately arrived:

"The earliest works of the second period appear to have been a contiuuation of those we have mentioned in the last-viz., those peculiar representations which were called acroliths' figures, in which the kernel or central block was of wood; and the hands, head, and feet, of stone or some other materials. The character of the art of this period appears to denote, in the gods, majesty, tranquility of posture, and great strength of limbs: in the athletes a bodily energy and an attempt at portraiture, so far as the positions in which they are placed recal the posture and action of individual combatants."

We are indebted to Lord Elgin for the sculptures which go by his name: they were obtained during his embassy at the Porte, to which Government Greece was then subject. In consideration of waiving certain commercial claims and stipulations with respect to British commerce, he was permitted to take all friezes and sculpture which he found on the ground; and by the ingenuity and active co-operation of the late Austrian consul-general, Mr Gropius, many more were found in that sition than those who had visited the spot a few days before had the least conception. The merchants of Constantinople, however, discovered the price of this Ferman, and his Excellency was constrained to find another means of arranging with the Porte. These are the finest friezes which ever were executed by the chissel of the finest sculptor the world has yet produced.

po

The mass of the sculptures in the Museum belong to the third period, and this has never been equalled, far less surpassed, in any age or country. Nevertheless, although the artof sculpture was, doubtless, respectable, few artists attained the celebrity of that Greek Flaxman or Schwanthaler, Pheidias. The Greeks truly said that every age had its hundred builders, but few centuries an architect; and the same was evidently applicable to sculptors in a far greater degree :—

"The third period is the golden age of Greek art, and to it all the

finest works of ancient times are referable. During this period arose a spirit of sculpture which combined grace and majesty in the happiest manner, and by emancipating the plastic art from the fetters of antique stiffness attained under the direction of Pericles, and by the hand of Pheidias, its culminating point. It is curious to remark the gradual progress of the arts; for it is clear that it was slowly and not per saltum that the gravity of the elder school was changed to the perfect style of the age of Pheidias indeed, even in his time a slight severity of manner prevailed-a relic of the rigidity which characterized the art of the earlier ages. In the same way the true character of the style of Pheidias was maintained but for a little while after the death of the master himself. On his death, nay, even towards the close of his life, its partial decay had commenced; and, though remarkable beauty and softness may be observed in the works of his successors, art never recovered the spiritual height she had reached under Pheidias himself.

"In the re-building of the Parthenon, which was the chief seat of the labours of Pheidias, he is believed to have filled the office of master of the works, and to have under him a large body of artists. He himself worked chiefly at colossal statues in gold and ivory (chryselephantine), of which the two most celebrated were the colossal statue of Pallas Parthenos in the Parthenon, and that of Zeus Olympius. No portion of these statues now remains. These figures were remarkable for the richness of decoration with which all the details of the costume, throne, pedestal, &c., were elaborated; while at the same time the grandeur of the general conception not was impaired."

We have now arrived at that portion of our subject which more particularly interests the classical scholar-the antiquities of ancient Greece. These, however, cannot be placed in one class; for the Greek sculptures differ from one another in execution and design according to the age and locality. The judicious endeavours and clever negociations of Mr. Charles Alison, the Oriental Secretary of the British Embassy at Constantinople, have succeeded in rescuing certain sculptures from Halicarnassus (Budrùn), where the author of this paper himself saw them in detached blocks immured in the walls of the knightly fortress of the year 1400. These sculptures, although of the greatest value, are nevertheless not of the first class, and sink into insignificancy when compared to the productions of the chissel of Pheidias. Mr. Vaux gives the following account of them:

"Mausolus, the eldest of the three sons of Hecatomnus, the wealthiest sovereign of the Carian dynasty, died B.C., 353, after a reign of twenty-four years. His widow and his sister Artemisias celebrated his memory by all the honour which the art and literature of the period could bestow. The mausoleum under which his body was deposited was probably commenced during his lifetime-its form being pyramidal, its height above one hundred feet, and its base surrounded by thirty-six columns. To adorn its sides with sculpture Artemisias

employed four of the most celebrated artists of antiquity-Bryaseis, Timotheus, Leochares, and Scopos. Artemisias' short reign of only two years did not enable her to see the great design completely carried into execution; but such was the emulation of the artists that they are said to have finished the work after her death for their own honour and the glory of art, and such it long remained, being called for many subsequent centuries one of the seven wonders of the world, and repeatedly mentioned under this designation till a period comparatively modern. Thus Strabo in the first, Pausanius in the second, Gregory of Nazianzus in the fourth, Constantinus Porphyrogenitus in the tenth, and Eudocia in the eleventh centuries, respectively speak of it in terms which imply that it was still existing during those periods; while Fontanus, the historian of the siege of Rhodes, states that a German knight, named Henry Schlegelholt, constructed the citadel at Budrùn out of the mausoleum. It appears to have been still only partially destroyed in 1472, when Cepio visited Budrùn, as he speaks of having seen its remains among the ruins of the ancient town. During the possession of Rhodes and Halicarnassus by the knights, the newly built citadel of Budrùn was twice repaired-in 1480 and 1522; on the latter of which occasions the masonry of the sub-structure of the mausoleum was removed to erect the citadel walls. That the basreliefs now in the Museum were inserted in these walls by the Knights of Rhodes is proved by the escutcheons, Latin sentences, and dates of 1513, which Thevenot observed in the same building; and by an inscription, now, indeed, scarcely decipherable, which is found on a shield borne by one of the figures. Whether, however, the slabs themselves were inserted at the time of its first erection, or on its subsequent repair, cannot now be determined.

"It has been thought that the peculiar pyramidal form of this building has been the prototype of two other ruined structures at Mylasa and Xanthus, respectively, in the adjoining provinces of Caria and Lycia. The building at Mylasa, the architectural details of which indicate the Roman period for its construction, certainly has considerable resemblance to the mausoleum as it has been described by ancient authors."

Mr. Vaux has evident difficulty in bringing himself to believe that the sculptures of Budrun formed part of the celebrated decorations of the tomb of that King which from its magnificence has passed into a synonym of places of sepulture. We have no hesitation in asserting our belief that they formed no part of that structure, a learned and scientific description of which may be found in the Second Part of the "Museum of Classical Antiquities," of April, 1851, edited by Faulkener, and published by J. W. Parker (vide et C. Newton, " Classical Museum," v. 170, April, 1847, et Plin., Hist. Nat., lib. 26). The sculptures we possess, too, would hardly answer the description of Lucian Dial. Mort., xxiv: ἀλλ' ουδὲ ούτως ἐς κάλλος ἐξησκημένον, ἵππων καὶ ἀνδρῶν ἐς τὸ ἀριβέστατον