Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

cynthus, and the other to the fouth of Cape Matapan, or Tænazum, directly west of the most southern point of the island of Cythera. 3. The latitude of Volo, formerly Pagafe, at the bottom of the Pagafitic Gulf, in Theffaly, given by Dapper, though I know not whence he obtained it. 4. That of Corfic, from the tables of Riccioli and Pimentel. 5. That of Durazzo, or Epidamnus, in Illyricum, according to the table of Philip Lanfberge. And, 6. The latitude and longitude of Salonichi, to which I have had recourse to determine the longitude of all Greece in the greatest map.

The latitude of Athens, from which I have taken my depar ture for all my particular maps, according to the obfervations of Vernon, is 38°5'. M. D'Anville mentions another observation, which places that city in 38° 4′ only; but as I have not found it among his papers, I have followed that of Vernon.'

The other fituations on the particular maps are ascertained with equal discrimination and accuracy. Our author's affiftants were numerous, and his opportunities of attaining information, from the manuscripts of individuals, the observations of travellers, and the archives of the king's library were fuch as few could procure, and fewer make a proper ufe of. Later obfervations, he allows, have fhown fome errors in the maps of the Euxine and Palus Mæotis, which require them to be laid down anew. We cannot follow him in his particular obfervations, but fhall extract his remarks on the map prefixed to Wheler's Travels,

For the interior part of Attica, Boeotia, and Phocis, it would at first view feem to admit of no doubt that we ought to follow the map of Wheler; but if we examine it with attention, we fhall find that it is not to be confided in. The map of this traveller differs effentially from his journal. The bearings he has given in the latter are not found the fame in the map. I fhall instance only in the pofition of Corinth. We have feen that, according to the bearings given by Wheler, that city must be more to the fouth than Athens; yet in the map, in whatever manner it be taken, it will be found to lie more to the north. I know well that the difference of latitude found between the two cities on the map, may be diminished by taking the north for that indicated, by the compafs; but, even thus, Corinth cannot be brought down to its true place. It is the fame with other places obferved by Vernon. If we take the map of Wheler as it ftands, we shall find they are all in the latitudes he has given: Wheler has then adjusted his map to the obfervations of Vernon. But of this proofs are unneceffary; Wheler has himself told us fo in his preface. He has not perceived that these latitudes, for the most part erroneous, defroy the accuracy of all his own operations. Befides, how

Q4

could

could he lay down places, according to their latitude on a map taken by the compaís, without correcting the variation? We can therefore only make ufe of this map partially; it is rather to be had recourse to as containing memorandums that have their va lue, than as an exact reprefentation of the country.

I have taken all the bearings given by Wheler, and have followed the English original, becaufe the French tranflation is frequently faulty Wheler indeed has only given the points of the compafs, which leaves us in an uncertainty of 11° 15'; but, by comparing a great number of these bearings, I have been able to afcertain fome points with tolerable accuracy; and have reafon to believe that I have reftored his map to what it was before he had adjufted it to the obfervations of Vernon. I have only corrected, in all his bearings, the variation; which I have taken with M. D'Anville, at a point of the compafs towards the weft.'

Perhaps it was an unneceffary refinement to adapt the maps fo clofely to the æra of the Travels, as to exclude the towns, &c. founded fubfequent to the battle of Cheronæa. Cities, which were not celebrated till after that period, when they obtained new names, are inferted with their ancient titles; and the old fituation of cities, &c. is adhered to. The particular maps have alfo very different dates from the æra at which Anacharfis vifited them; thus, in the map of Phocis, all the cities that were deftroyed after the focial war are inferted. These refinements we confider as errors, for though they pe culiarly adapt the maps to the work they are defigned to illuf trate, they render them lefs ufeful as general ones: it would have been much better to have added each name, or a name in each fituation, with a line drawn under one of the titles, to diftinguish the æra,

After the general map, in which there is a scale of Pythian and Olympian stadia, as well as of French leagues, we find a very curious plan of the pafs of Thermopyla. This pa's is formed on the weft by Mount Eta, and one of its principal chains Mons Tichius, and on the east by marfhes, or the adjoining fea, the Maliac Gulph. The principal pafs where Leonidas and his chofen band made their memorable exertions, was not more than ninety-five yards wide, precifely in the part where the ground is firm, down to the fhore. The road, both beyond and nearer to Greece is much narrower, but there are marfhes interpofed between the fea and the road, fo far as to render it more dangerous and lefs eafily defended. The path by which the Perfians came round through the defiles of the mountains, in the rear of the Grecians, is alfo carefully pointed out. This, however, was not decifive of the fate of Leonidas: had the Spartans been led by an able general, as well as

by

by a brave foldier, the whole army of Xerxes would have been infufficient to have penetrated through the ftrait. The plan of the battle of Salamis follows, but it affords little subject of remark: the manœuvres were not difficult, and the whole is eafily comprehended.

The battle of Platea, of which a plan follows, is a little more intricate, nor could it be easily understood without the affiftance of a chart. This before us is very accurately laid down from the best hiftorians, but it fhould have been coloured; the different armies and the pofitions are now not fufficiently distinct.

The chart of the Palus Mæotis and the Euxine fea is confef fedly lefs accurate than they ought to be; but a very modern geographer, with the recent improvements and difcoveries before him, can alone detect the errors. The map of the Thracian Bofphorus is clear, correct, and very neatly engraved. The Hellefpont is chiefly copied from D'Anville's plan in the Memoirs of the Royal Academy of Sciences.

The plan of the environs of Athens; that of Attica, Megaris, and part of the ifland of Eubea, and of the academy with its environs, furnish little fubject of obfervation. In the plan of Athens, the different temples and other public buildings are laid down from the defcriptions of the best authors.

The other charts are thofe of Phocis and Doris; a plan of the environs of Delphi; a map of Boeotia, Theffaly, Corinthia; Sicyonia, and Achaia; Elis and Triphylia; plan and topogra phy of Olympia; chart of Meffenia, of Laconia, with the ifland of Cytherea; topography of Sparta and Arcadia, of Argolis, Epidauria, Træzenia, Hermionis, the ifland of Ægina and Cynuria, and the Cyclades. The whole of which are laid down with a minute accuracy and generally finished with great elegance. We need not add that this volume is not only ge nerally interefting to thofe who are converfant with ancient hiftory, but highly useful to the readers of the Travels of Ana◄ charfis.

The coins are four only one of Athens, (brafs) one of Arcadia, (filver) a còin of Gnidus and Samos, both of brass, The other decorations are a plan of a Grecian Palæstra from Vitruvius; plan and elevation of the Propylæa, plan of the temple of Thefeus; elevation and view of the Parthenon; plan of a Grecian houfe from Vitruvius; Plato on the promontory of Sunium, difcourfing to his difciples (a view); and a plan of the ancient Greek Theatre.

A Review

A Review of the principal Proceedings of the Parliament of 1784. 8vo. 2s. 6d. fewed. Edwards. 1792.

THE

"HE first subject which this author mentions within the period of Review, is the India Bill of 1784: but, previously to the confideration of that measure, he takes a fhort retrospect of Mr. Fox's bill, introduced towards the conclufion of the preceding parliament. With refpect to the bill first mentioned, he obferves, that the profperous administration of Indian affairs fince that time affords the ftrongeft proof of its being founded in political wisdom; and he points out the general advantages of which it appears to have been productive. Many of his obfervations on the fubject, however, have been formerly made; and he particularly refers to a pamphlet written by Mr. Pultney, concerning the dangerous influence which it was fuppofed would refult from the operation of Mr. Fox's bill.

In the fecond fection, the author takes a view of the Irish propofitions; commercial treaty with France; confolidation of the customs; trade with America; comparative state of trade and navigation. After a concife detail of the arguments advanced for and against the ratification of the Irish propofitions, he makes the following reflections:

Such was the reception of thofe propofitions in Ireland. It had been imagined by men who had confidered this fubject with the calmnefs of philofophy and experience; that any measure which connected Ireland with a country fo much more advanced in civilization, in arts, in commerce, and manufactures, as Great Britain, would be received with avidity. It is no part of the plan of this work to enter into an invidious detail of the circum. ftances which counteracted the natural influence of thefe confiderations; from whatever caufes they proceeded, it must be the deliberate judgment of history, that they obftructed a measure, the confequences of which would have been highly beneficial to Ireland as well as to Great Britain.'

The principal arguments refpectively fuggefted by the friends and opponents of the commercial treaty with France, are next recited; and we meet with the fubfequent comparison between that treaty and the propofitions:

It was remarkable, that in the debates on the French treaty pointed reference was made by the minority to the Irish propofitions, and to the opinions of the manufacturers on that fubject, from which they argued a fimilar danger to the British manufac tures from the prefent measure, though the manufacturers themfelves, tempted by the profpect of immediate advantage, had not come forward to ftate it. Adminiftration, though they still con

tended

tended that the objections against the Irish propofitions were ill founded, endeavoured alfo to fhow the difference between the two, cafes, and to refute the analogy obferved between them. That there were differences between the two cafes must be allowed. On one hand, the Irish were to receive fome advantages which the prefent treaty did not give to the French; and Great Britain had pot in the propofed intercourse with Ireland the fame profpect of an immediate and extenfive market as in that with France. On the other hand, her clofe connection with her fifter kingdom placed her communication with that country in a very different point of view; the benefits to be derived by Ireland flowed not, as might be argued of those to France, in a rival or adverse channel, but would naturally tend to the general profperity of the empire. But, to an impartial obferver, the leading principles of both cafes were the fame; the extenfion of productive industry, and the intercourse of beneficial commerce between the two kingdoms. An impartial obferver of the present time will argue from what are the effects of the French treaty, to what would have been the effects of the Irish, the mutual advantage of both countries.

To the common eye, however, this mutual advantage is not always vifible, and ancient prejudice does not easily give way to truths which contradict her habits of thinking, however demonftrative they may seem to wisdom or philofophy. It is, I believe, a fact pretty well known, that the cotton manufacturers of Normandy remonftrated with M. de Vergennes on the ruinous effects which the propofed commercial treaty with England would have on their establishments, That fagacious statesman replied, that if the ftipulated duty of 12 per cent, added to the expences of tranfport on the English commodities, were not fufficient to protect thofe of Normandy, it was a proof either that induftry was wanting to the fuccefs of the latter, or that their industry was mifapplied to an improper object.'

The third fection relates to finance, and gives an account of the commutation act; reduction of duty on fpirits; excife upon wines and tobacco; act for the prevention of fmuggling; manifeft act; act for appointing commiffioners to audit the public accounts; regulations refpecting revenue; additional taxes; act for applying the annual million; comparative state of revenue and expenditure. All these regulations concerning finance ftand in need of no comment, and are certainly found to have proved highly advantageous to the revenue.

The fourth fection treats of the interference of Great Britain in the fettlement of the affairs of Holland; a measure which has received general approbation. The fifth fection is employed on the difpute with Spain; which likewife, without doubt, terminated honourably for the nation. The fixth fec

« AnteriorContinua »