gaged among them and it must not be imagined, fays Pliny, that the labyrinth of Crete had a refemblance to those which we execute in gardens, where, by means of a great number of multiplied alleys, we find the fecret of making many ways in a very small space. The labyrinth of Crete was a very spacious edifice, distributed into a num ber of separate pieces, which had on all fides openings and gates, the number and confufion of which hindered us from diftinguishing the way out. This is what the ancients have related of the works executed by Dædalus. It appears at first fight very fingular, that fuch like edifices fhould have been built in ages fo grofs and fo ignorant as those of which we are speaking at prefent: it is ftill more furprising, that one fingle man fhould have been equal to fo many labours of fuch different kinds, and thefe executed in countries fo distant from each other *. Nothing, at first fight, appears to be better established, than the long poffeffion in which Dædalus has been fupported to the present time of having been a univerfal genius. The fact is attefted by a croud of authors as well Greek as Roman. Their teftimony nevertheless does not perfuade me, and I think, that all that the writers of antiquity have handed down to us on this fubject, may be found. ed on no reality. How could we perfuade ourselves in effect, that the E gyptians, who avoided all commerce with other nations, fhould have chose a stranger to decorate the temple of their principal divinity? This fingle confideration would fuffice to render the fact very dubious; but it entirely destroys it, when we fee that Herodotus, who fpeaks of the fame monument, does not speak a word of Dedalus, nor of his ftay in Egypt. I pafs over in filence the other works attributed to this artift, of which I could equally make a cri ticifm: I confine it to the labyrinth of Crete, an edifice fo boasted of by the ancients, and which appears alone to have caused the greatest reputation of Dædalus. * In Greece, in Egypt, in Crete, in Italy, &c. See Herod. 1. 2. n. 91,; fee alfo part. 1. book 6, * L. 2. n. IOI. VOL. II. D d Let Let us examine the age of the authors who have made mention of this monument, and we shall fee that they all lived more than 1200 years after the time to which they have referred its conftruction. Befides, they only fpeak by tradition they agree, that though the labyrinth of Egypt exifted ftill in their times, that of Crete was destroyed £. Neither are they agreed as to the form and species of this work. Diodorus and Pliny fay, that the labyrinth of Crete was an immenfe edifice, and of a wonderful ftructure . But Philocorus, a very ancient author, did not think the fame. It was, in his opinion, a prifon where the criminals were fhut up very fafely . Cedrenus and Euftathius advance, that this fo boafted monument was only a cave where they found many avenues, turnings, and windings, and that art had helped nature a little i. This fentiment is confirmed by M. de Tournefort, who, in the year 1700, vifited thefe places with great exactness *. The teftimony of this able traveller, joined to the diverfity of opinions which reign among the authors who have spoken of the labyrinth of Dædalus, fhews the little regard we ought to pay to their recitals, Let us finish by giving the proof. Why has not Homer, who was, without comparison, much nearer to the age of Daedalus than all, these writers, faid any thing of the labyrinth of Crete? If fuch a work had exifted in his time, is it to be believed, that he would have paffed it in filence? He who fo often makes mention of the ifle of Crete, he who very feldom fails to give to the cities and the countries of which he speaks fome epithets, which are always taken from their arts or their natural history? But further, Homer speaks of Dædalus', and of the taking away of Ariadne by Thefeus ; but he does not fpeak one word of the labyrinth. Yet an occafion of fpeak Diod. 1. 1. p. 71.; Plin. 1. 36. fect. 19. p. 740. * Voyag. du Levant, t. 1. p. 65. &c. in i Cedren. p. 122. Odyff. 1. 11. v. 320. &c, ing of it prefents itself too naturally for the poet to let it escape him, if the tradition about that monument had had place in his time. Herodotus, who, after Homer, is the most ancient writer which now remains to us of antiquity, has likewife kept a profound filence about the monument of Crete. Yet he speaks of Minos: he relates, that that prince died in Sicily about the time when he pursued Dædalus". He might have made fome digreffion on this occafion, on the adventures and works of that artist; and we cannot reproach Herodotus of lofing occafions to entertain his readers with curious and interesting anecdotes. For what reasons then, describing the labyrinth of Egypt, fhould he fay nothing of that of Crete? It was nevertheless the place to call it to mind, by fo much the more, as, on this subject, he cites the celebrated works on which Greece plumes itself •: Herodotus then would not have forgot a monument, which, though inferior to that of Egypt, would not have failed to have done honour to the Greeks. Paufanias, who has, moreover, entered into a grand detail of the works attributed to Daedalus, does not fay, that the labyrinth of Crete had been conftructed by that famous artist. Laftly, if it is true, as I hope to fhew, that the labyrinth of Egypt, from which all these authors aVow that Dedalus had taken the model of his, was not conftructed till above 600 years after the time we now speak of, they will grant how little reality there was in the monument of Crete. This is alfo the fentiment of Strabo. He gives us to understand very clearly, that all that the Greeks have uttered of the labyrinth and of the minotaur, was only a fable. I think further, that it is the fame with "L. 7. h. 170. See part 3. book 2. L. 2. n. 148. 9 L. 10. p. 730. & 731. We find, it is true, ancient medals and ancient ftones, on which this labyrinth is represented with its turnings and windings. We fee the minotaur in the middle of that edifice. See Goltzius, Aug. tab. 49. 11.; Montfaucon, antiq. expliquée, t. 1. p. 76. Thefe monuments would then equally prove the exiftence of the minotaur and the labyrinth. I doubt whether any one would maintain at this time Dd2 with all the inventions attributed to Dædalus. They are pure imaginations, founded on fome idioms of the Greek language. I shall not enter into a particular detail of the manner in which the houses of private perfons were then built: Homer only fupplies us with flight hints on this object. We are very little affured of the fignification of the greatest part of the terms which he uses to defign the different parts of an edifice. We fee that anciently the roofs were a terrafs. This was a custom almost general in all the east. But the practice of the Greeks, of making the doors of their houses open outwards into the street, muft appear very fingular they were obliged each time they wanted to ge out, first to make a noise against the door, to give notice to paffengers to keep at a distance". It is very difficult to comprehend, and ftill more to explain, the manner in which, according to Homer, the doors could be opened and fhut. We fee plainly, that the locks and the keys which the Greeks used, did not resemble ours; but it is not eafy to comprehend the contrivance and the mechanism of these inftruments. We may conjecture, that there was on the infide of the door a fort of bar, or bolt, which they could let down or raise up by means of a latchet. The keys which they used for this purpose were made in the manner of a pick-lock; it was a piece of copper pretty long, turned like a fickle, and had a handle of wood or ivory. There was in the door a hole time that there really exifted a monfter, fuch as these medals and ingraved ftones reprefent to us. We ought to put the labyrinth of Daedalus and the minotaur among the number of those popular traditions which certain cities adopted, and with which they loved to decorate their monuments. r Aadanos fignifies in general a workman very ingenious, very able, and even a work made with art This is an obfervation which has not escaped Paufanias. He adds, that they gave the name Aardaλes to ancient ftatues of wood, even before Daedalus, 1. 9. c. 3. Odyff. 1. 10. v. 552. &c. 1 Odyff. 1. 21. v. 391. See Madam Dacier's notes. Phot p. 196.; Terent. Andria, act 4. scen. 1. v. 687. The Andiian was tranflated from Menander, and the scene was at Athens. * Odyff. 1. 1. v. 441. 442. 1. 4. V. 802. y Odyff. 1. 21. v. 6. & 7. We may fee the figure of thofe keys in the rerarks of M. Huet, in Manil. 1. 1. p. 8. which was juft under the bolt: they put in the key by the hole, and feized on the latchet which held the bolt; and fo lifted it up, and opened the door. The locks which the negroes of Guinea ufe at this time, may give us fome idea of all this mechanism, almost unintelligible in the writings of the ancients. It appears, that, in the heroic times, they were very curious to adorn and enrich the infide of their houses. The apartments of the palace of Menelaus were very sumptuous and very magnificent: but there is great reafon to think they did not then know the art of decorating the buildings on the outside. Of all the edifices defcribed by Homer, not one of them prefents us with what may be called the ornaments of architecture. This poet only fpeaks of porticoes, and yet we have not a fufficiently clear idea of these sorts of works. We are ignorant of what could have been their structure and difpofition. The ufe which the Greeks then made of thefe porticoes is abfolutely contrary to what we now understand by that fort of building. It was in effect under these porticoes that they lodged their friends and other ftrangers of confideration. This reflection fuffices to destroy the ideas which that name naturally presents in our language; and we must agree, that we cannot explain at this time what Homer underftood by the word which we commonly tranflate by that of portico *. From all that I have faid, it follows, that we can determine nothing of the ftate and the progrefs of architecture in Greece for the ages we are at prefent about. We should not be in this difficulty, if we would adopt the fen 2 Nouv. relat. de la France Equinox, p. 143. & 144. a Odyff. 1. 4. v. 72. &c. b Ibid. 1. 4. v. 297. & 302. Iliad. 1. 24. v. 644.; Odyf. I. 4. v. 297. It is only by a fort of tradition that we are used to tranflate by the term portico, the word asσa, ufed by Homer in the defcription of these palaces. The grounds of that explication are entirely unknown to us. It is plain, that aitsoa comes from abw, uro, luceo; but it is not equally proved, that they were formerly in conftant ufe, as the fcholiafts fay, that they lighted fires under the porticoes of great houses. It is, notwithstanding, on this pretended ufe that they ground their explication. |