were covered by mounds of earth; and he proposes to divide History. the cromlech into only two classes. 1. Simple chamber, without passages; and, 2, The like with passages, or covered ways, leading into them. The chief difficulty in treating of these curious erections of stone is to ascertain their age. That they are the work of persons in a rude state of civilisation is clear. Still, the vastness of such stones, as at Stonehenge, would show they Stonemust have been a people of great energy and resources, to henge. effect such an extraordinary labour. All sorts of conjecture have been made as to this latter work. Some have supposed it to be Roman, others have even considered it to be antediluvian. The mortises and tenons, however, show clearly it must belong to the period when iron tools were used; it is impossible to conceive they were worked with flint instruments. The most rational supposition seems that it was erected to commemorate the treacherous murder of the British chiefs at the banquet given by Vortigern to Hengist. It is surrounded by numerous barrows, evidently the graves of men of great importance, a circumstance that adds much probability to the tradition. History. tion would be to make such memorial as durable as possible, and this circumstance would lead to the use of stone instead of wood. The piling a few stones on each other to form altars can scarcely be called anything more than preparing a place for fire. Probably the first act which might be called the erection of anything designed to be a lasting memorial, would be the setting up a large stone or pillar as a memorial of any event. In the earliest records of the Scriptures this is frequent. Jacob sets up a stone as a memorial of his agreement with Laban; Joshua, after the covenant, by Shechem; and Samuel, after the battle with the Philistines, at Mizpeh. And though it has lately been pretty clearly proved, that what have been commonly called cromlechs, that is, three or four stones placed on each other like a small chamber or hut, are really sepulchres which have been covered with earth, and are not temples; yet it is clear that such constructions of stone as the circles at Avebury, those in Brittany, and particularly the great monument at Stonehenge, have been used by a rude people for the purposes of assemblage either for civil or religious ceremonial. The existence of an altar, if there be such, would prove it to have been for the latter. The earliest record we have of such a construction is in Exodus xxiv. 4, where Moses builds an altar on Mount Sinai, and sets up twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel. Joshua (iv. 20) also directed twelve stones to be taken from Jordan in Gilgal, as a memorial of the passage of that river. It formerly was the custom to call every construction of ture of this kind a cromlech. But the subject has lately been thoroughly investigated, particularly by Dr Lukis, in a paper read before the Society of Antiquaries, vol. xxxv. 233, and in another, printed in the Journal of the Archæological Association, September 1864, and the following nomenclature is now generally adopted. The single upright stone (see Plate I. fig 1), is called a Maenhir. One stone supported on another, or "half table stone," as it has sometimes been called, is (fig. 2) a demi-dolmen. A stone supported on two or more such stones, or a "table stone" (fig. 3) is a dolmen. One large stone supported on several smaller, so as to form a small chamber, is a cist-vaen. Several dolmens in succession form a cromlech. Nomencla cromlechs. A single Maenhir is also called a monolith. Several in a straight line, as those in Brittany and Germany, are called ortholiths. If in parallel lines, as at Abury, Dartmoor, Carnac, &c., are paralleliths. If in circles, as in the Ring of Brogar near Stennis, Stanton Drew, and Arbor Low, they are called cycloliths. Dolmen standing in a circle, like Rollrich, L'Ancresse, Stennis Circle, &c., are termed peristaliths. Le Couperon, at Jersey, is square, and Abdon Burf is concentric. Stonehenge, from its trilithons arranged in a circle, is called a cyctotrilith. It has been pretty clearly proved from excavations, that the cist-vaen and cromlech were sepulchral, all the others were ceremonial, in all probability religious, though Dr Lukis is of opinion, after excavating and otherwise examining about forty of those curious relics of antiquity, that the large, flat, "inclined stones" were not altars, but probably sepulchral memorials. In all instances in the Channel Islands, and in some in England, where a cromlech is surrounded by peristaliths, the circle is exactly sixty feet in diameter. Sir Gardner Wilkinson, in a very able paper (see the same Journal, March 1862), divides the cromlechs into five classes-1. which he designates the cromlech proper, as one large, flat, cap-stone, supported on three upright stones; 2. The cist-cromlech, on four stones; 3. The many pillared cromlech, on more than four stones; 4. The chamber cromlech, having a roof; and, 5, the subterranean chambers. The author supposes the four first divisions never to have been covered with earth. Dr Lukis, however, denies this, and says all stone chambers, whether cist-vaen or cromlech, Having now discovered the art of quarrying large stones, Places for moving them to different sites, and erecting them in sym- public ametrical forms-having found out the way to construct sembly. places for civil, military, or religious assemblages, the next step was to cover these large places by roofs. In all probability this was first attempted in the adytum, or cella of temples, and there is every reason to suppose the earliest of these were the Egyptian. The oldest historian, Herodotus, (Cli. 13) tells us the Persians erected neither statues, nor temples, nor altars, and they considered them as foolish who did so. He also says (Euterpe, 4) that the Egyptians were the first to give altars, images, and temples to the gods, and to carve the likenesses of animals in stone. History of the Progress of Architecture. We now proceed to trace the progress of the science from its earliest regular formations, of which we have sufficient information, down to the present day. Indian chronology being so vague and undefined, and the Indian connection of the Hindoos with the civilized nations about architeethe Mediterranean Sea having been so much restricted ture. in the earlier ages that we can get little assistance from the Greek historians on the subject, the date of their architectural monuments can be determined only by analogy. That, however, is an uncertain guide, without proper delineations, and, indeed, without any work that gives a competent idea of them. Though we have held India so long, and by a so much more honourable tenure than the French did Egypt, if we were now to be dispossessed we should leave nothing, and we should certainly retain nothing, to show to our credit that we had ever held it. Such an undertaking as the great work of the French Institute on the Architectural Antiquities of Egypt is far beyond the means of individuals; the constitution of our government appears to preclude the application of funds from the public purse to such purposes; and the East India Company, from whom, perhaps, something of the kind on the archæology of India might have been expected, had, it would appear, occupations of more interest to them than the advancement of science and art. It may be generally stated, that, in its leading forms and more obvious features, Hindoo architecture strongly resembles Egyptian, and may be considered as of the same family with it. No nation that ever existed within the annals of the Egyptian human race has left structures that, in extent, magnifi- architec cence, and grandeur, can vie with those of ancient Egypt. ture. We have the authority of historians for believing that History, there were others in the same country which no longer exist, that must have surpassed those which do remain; and they speak also of the cities of Assyria, as unparalleled in the extent and splendour of their edifices, whose sites, even, are not now determinable. The pyramids, however, mausoleums of a nation-and the temples, monuments of human folly-speak more strongly than any historian can, and compel our belief of what they have been by what they are; whereas the others do not exist but in name. Nineveh and Babylon were-but Thebes and Memphis still remain. It is strange, indeed, that a people who displayed such energies in the construction of tombs, pyramids, and temples, should have left no work of any description that could be applied to any really useful purpose. Denon, speaking of Thebes, says, "Still temples-nothing but temples-not a vestige of the hundred gates, so celebrated in history; no walls, quays, bridges, baths, or theatres; not a single edifice of public utility or convenience. Notwithstanding all the pains I took in the research, I could find nothing but temples, walls covered with obscure emblems, and hieroglyphics which attested the ascendency of the priesthood, who still seemed to reign over the mighty ruins, and whose empire constantly haunted my imagination." Champollion, however, in his late researches, speaks of the remains of quays, and calls some of the structures palaces instead of temples; but as the former exist only in connection with the latter, they can hardly be considered as any thing more than mere embankments; and the regal and hierarchical offices having been so closely connected in the economy of ancient Egypt, it is of little or no consequence to our position whether the same edifices be called palaces or temples. Diodorus Siculus says, in one place, that "Busiris," believed to be one of the Pharaohs who persecuted Israel, "built that great city which the Egyptians call Heliopolis and the Greeks Thebes, and adorned it with stately public buildings and magnificent temples, with rich revenues;" and that " he built all the private houses, some four, and others five stories high." Shortly after, speaking of Memphis, to account for the splendour with which the Egyptians built their tombs, and the comparative meanness of their houses, the same author says, "They call the houses of the living inns, because they stay in them but a little while; but the sepulchres of the dead they call everlasting habitations, because they abide in the grave to infinite generations. Therefore they are not very curious in the building of their houses; but in beautifying their sepulchres they leave nothing undone that can be thought of." Strabo also speaks of a splendid dwelling which was erected for the priests at Heliopolis, but that probably was one of the sacred palaces just referred to; for none of the ancient writers describe the domestic structures of the Egyptians, from personal knowledge of them, as being worthy of any notice; and that assertion of Strabo is too loose and unsupported by contemporary authority or analogy to deserve confidence of itself. To the statement of Diodorus, that private houses were built to four and five stories high, we can give no credence whatever; for the construction of edifices in tiers or stories was very imperfectly understood even in his time, which was many centuries after the destruction even of Thebes; and none of the existing remains of that city give the slightest indication of a second story, or indeed of aptitude to construct one, except the rude landings in some of the propylæa. Herodotus says that the Egyptians were the first who erected altars, shrines, and temples; but of their private houses he says nothing; History. neither does he describe any of the temples as they existed in his time in Egypt; so that he in fact affords no assistance in determining the comparative antiquity of the various architectural structures which remain to the present time in that country. Indeed the ancient historians and topographers speak for the most part so widely of dates and dimensions, that they are, at the best, most unsatisfactory, if not fallacious, guides; and in the present case, that of Egypt, the style of architecture is so uniform, or so imperfectly understood, that no argument can with safety be drawn from it, as there may in other cases. In Hamilton's Egyptiaca, the author says, with reference to this question: "In Egyptian architecture there is an uniformity of structure, both in the ornaments and in the masses, which, if unassisted by other circumstances, reduces us to mere conjecture; and that not only for the difference of a century or two, but perhaps for a thousand years."3 Again: "The monuments of antiquity in Upper Egypt present a very uniform appearance; and his first impressions incline the traveller to attribute them to the same or nearly the same epoch. The plans and dispositions of the temples bear throughout a great resemblance to one another. The same character of hieroglyphics, the same forms of the divinity, bearing the same symbols and worshipped in the same manner, are sculptured on their walls from Hermopolis to Philæ. They are built of the same species of stone; very little difference is discernible in the degrees of excellence of workmanship, or the quality of the materials; and where human force has not been evidently employed to destroy the buildings, they are all in the same state of preservation or decay." But we are fortunately now about to be rid of that difficulty by the erudition and industry of those learned men who have given their attention to the hieroglyphic literature of the Egyptians. M. Champollion professes to have determined the date of every monument of antiquity in that country which is inscribed, by the inscriptions, which he has qualified himself to read. As yet, however, we are not in possession of the whole result of his discoveries. 1 Voyage dans la Busse et la Haute Egypte, p. 176. Par V Donon. "Diod. Sic. lib. 1. cap. iv. Hypogea, or spea, being caves formed by excavation, are of earlier date than any existing structures. Internally they present square piers, which were left to support the superincumbent mass of mountain or rock when their magnitude rendered it necessary. These were originally tombs; and the cave of Machpelah, of which Abraham made the purchase as a burying-place for his family, was, doubtless, one of that kind. Oratories or chapels were afterwards made in the same manner, but, it would appear, not until columnar architecture had come into use: for their entrances are generally sculptured into the resemblance of the front of a rude portico, or an actual por tico or pronaos is constructed before them. Many such are found on the banks of the Nile, in its course through Nubia and Egypt. At Ibrim, which the Greeks call Primis, in the former country, there are several of these cavern temples, the earliest of which, according to M. Champollion, bears date of the reign of one of the Pharaohs, who was contemporaneous with Abraham, or his son Isaac, or about eighteen centuries before Christ; the latest is of the time of Rhameses Sethos, the Sesostris of Greek history. To some of the cavern tombs and temples in Upper Egypt M. Champollion accords even a still higher degree of antiquity. The earliest columnar structures which are found within the same range of country do not appear to bear a higher date than that of the 3 Egyptiaca, by Wm. Hamilton, Esq. F. S. A. Part I. p. 260. Ibid. p. 18. History. earliest kings of Pharaohs of the eighteenth dynasty of that the Ptolemies and the Cæsars only restored in Nubia Histor Manetho, which began about the time of the Jewish pa- what the Persians had destroyed, and rebuilt temples where triarch Abraham and ended with the Pharaoh from whom they had formerly stood, and dedicated them to the same his descendants escaped under the conduct of Moses. gods. The temple at Amada, to which we have already referred, is of the time of Moeris, who was contemporary with the patriarch Jacob, and consists of twelve square piers or pillars, and four columns, which possess the form and character of the Greek Doric, and may it is suggested, be called protodoric. The same intention, if it may be so called, is found in others of the early monuments, but in none so perfect as in this, as almost all the structures of ancient Egypt were either destroyed or seriously damaged by the Persians at the time of their invasion under Cambyses; and they are supposed not to have ascended the Nile much above Psalcis or Dakkè, but to have turned off by the way across the desert to Ethiopia, so that the temple at Amada, which is considerably above Dakkè, escaped. Of the arrangements of an Egyptian temple we shall speak when we come to treat of Egyptian architecture as a style. In construction the Egyptians appear to have used wrought stones at a very early period: this probably was induced by the still earlier habit of excavating rocks to form tombs; for the walls in their oldest structures are composed of rectangularly cut blocks in parallel courses; whereas we shall find that the most ancient specimens of walling in Greece and Italy are not so. In the Pharaonic monuments, besides walls built in parallel courses of wrought stone, we find squared piers also; and frequently, in the same structure with them, the peculiarly formed tumescent column with a bulbous capital or head, covered with an abacus or square tablet, corresponding with the size of the piers, and warranting the supposition that that species of column is a mere refinement on the simple square pillar. What dictated its singular form must remain matter of speculation. The cylindrical column with a bell-shaped capital was the next advance, and that also is found in the same structures, though not in the simplest and earliest of them, in which piers occur. Terminal or Caryatic figures are common in those early works, not absolutely supporting an entablature, but placed before piers which do so, and having the appearance of doing gular architraves extend from pier to pier and from column to column, and are generally surmounted externally by a deep coved coping, or cornice, with a large corded and torus-formed moulding intervening. This masks the ends of the stones which are placed transversely on the architraves to form the ceiling internally, the whole being flushed square on the top, and forming a flat terrace or floor. The pyramidal form of the moles or propylæa, peculiar to Egyptian temples, may have been suggested by the pyramids, as neither that form nor those adjuncts to a temple appear to have been used before the period at which it is supposed the former were constructed. The grandeur and dignity inherent to that form would indeed hardly be suspected till its appearance in the pyramids themselves; and certainly the impression of its effect must have been strong, to induce men to seek it in a truncated pyramid under a very acute angle, as in the propylæa, relying on the tendency of its outline alone. It was gradually, too, that this tendency was generally applied, for in the earliest Pharaonic structures the vertical outline is most common, except in the propylæa, where they exist; and in the structures of the Ptolemies the inclined outline pervades every thing. The monolithic obelisk is of Egyptian origin also. Its tapering form may be the consequence of the impression the pyramidal tendency had occasioned, though perhaps the object itself is the representative of the single stone by which religious feeling appears first to have expressed itself. Obelisks were set up by the Egyptians, sometimes in the courts or atria of their temples, and sometimes before the entrances to them. Of all the Pharaohs, Sesostris, the first of the nineteenth dynasty, was the most distinguished for the great and extensive works he executed in architecture. Most of the existing ruins in Egypt, anterior to the Persian invasion, are attributed to that monarch by M. Champollion. The immense ruins at Thebes, which have been called the Memnonium and the tomb of Osymandyas, and are popularly called Medinet Abou, are considered by the same inquirer to be those of the Palatial Temple of Rhameses the Great, or Sesostris, and which he therefore calls the Rhamesseion, it themselves when seen in front. Bold, massive, rectanthe ruins at Luxor being those of the Memnonium; that edifice or series of edifices having been constructed by Amenophis Memnon, of the eighteenth dynasty, one of the good and beneficent princes by whom the children of Israel were protected during their sojourn in Egypt. The magnificent structure at the village of Carnack, within the same city, appears however to excel all the rest in extent and grandeur, and is at least their equal in antiquity. It is generally known as the temple of Carnack, but it has been distinguished as that of Jupiter Ammon. It bears inscribed the name of Thothmosis II., the predecessor of Amenophis Memnon. From the existing remains of Thebes, and the relations of historians combined, that city may be assumed to have attained its highest degree of splendour in the time of Sesostris; few of the ruins it presents being of later date than the time of that monarch. This being admitted, and we believe it can hardly be denied, it must be admitted also that the practice of architecture, and of the allied mechanical arts, were already well understood; for the composition of the monuments displays an exquisite combination of simplicitly and harmony, which produce the finest effects of beauty and grandeur; while their construction is the apparent result of perfection in the use of mechanical powers. All the Pharaonic monuments, indeed, throughout Egypt and Nubia, are wonders of science and art. The structures of Ombos, Apollinopolis Magna, and Latopolis, between Thebes and the cataract, M. Champollion determines to be generally of the age of the Ptolemies, and some even of the Roman dominion; those, however, which are of comparatively modern date are evidently restorations; others, probably of the earliest ages, having occupied the same sites. Indeed M. Champollion asserts generally that the Ptolemies, and the Ethiopian Ergamenes himself, only rebuilt temples where they had already stood in the times of the Pharaohs, and to the same divinities that had always been worshipped there; and he remarks, that the religious system of this people was such a complete whole, so connected in all its parts, and fixed from time immemorial in so absolute and precise a manner, that the dominion of the Greeks and of the Romans did not produce any innovation; Of all the architectural works of the Egyptians, however, none have excited so much the wonder and curiosity of men as the pyramids themselves; not in consequence of any particular beauty in their composition, or ingenuity in their construction, but simply because of their immense magnitude, and unknown use, and antiquity. Denon makes the following observation on his first visit to the great pyramid of Gizeh, at Memphis. "If we reflect upon these pyramids, we shall be inclined to think the pride that constructed them greater even than these masses them History. selves, and shall scarcely know whether to reprobate most the insolent tyranny which commanded, or the stupid servility of the people which executed, the undertaking. None but sacerdotal despots would ever have undertaken them, and none but a stupid fanatical people would ever have built them....The most honourable reason that can be assigned for their erection is the emulation of man to excel the works of nature in immensity and duration, and in this project he has not been altogether unsuccessful. The mountains near the pyramids are not so high, and have suffered more from time than the pyramids themselves." But Memphis itself was of late foundation in comparison with other cities on the Nile. According to Professor Heeren, civilization descended by the Nile from Ethiopia with the caste of priests who brought with them the worship of Ammon, Osiris, and Phtha (the Jupiter, Bacchus, and Vulcan of the Greeks), and "the spread of this worship, which was always connected with temples, affords the most evident vestiges of the spread of the caste itself; and those vestiges, combined with the records of the Egyptians, lead us to the conclusion that this caste was a tribe which migrated from the south, above Meroe, in Ethiopia, and, by the establishment of inland colonies around the temples founded by them, gradually extended and made the worship of their gods the dominant religion in Egypt. Proofs of the accuracy of this theory," he asserts, may be deduced from monuments and express testimonies concerning the origin of Thebes and Ammon from Meroe; that it might indeed have been inferred from the preservation of the worship of Ammon in this last place." The same author goes on to say, that " Thebes was, if not the most, one of the most, ancient cities of Egypt;" and that "Memphis and other cities of the vale of the Nile are known to have been founded from Thebes." Now Thebes exists to the present time in the ruins of her magnificent temples, the works of the Pharaohs, but without the vestige of a pyramid, so that it may be concluded that none was ever built there; and Memphis may be said to exist in the everlasting pyramids of Gizeh and Saccharah, which occupy two of its extremities; but no indication remains of the existence of a temple of any kind: indeed the exact site of the city cannot be determined except by the pyramids. Herodotus, however, speaks of temples at Memphis, particularly of that of Vulcan or Phtha; but certainly no vestige of such has existed for a long period of time within that vicinity. Memphis was a great and ancient capital, and why should it not retain some evidence of the existence of temples in it? But Thebes was a greater and more ancient capital, and indeed the metropolis of all Egypt; and why has it no pyramids? These things are equally unaccountable and inexplicable, affording groundwork for almost any theory, but giving perfect support to none. Mr Hamilton, in his Egyptiaca, before quoted, places Memphis considerably further south, where some ruins have been discovered which may be thought to give a colour to his supposition. But the ruins are of very inconsiderable extent, and are all prostrate, so that nothing can be positively determined by them; and the statement of Pliny as to the relative distances of the Nile and the city from the pyramids of Gizeh being proved to be correct in the one, may be admitted in the other. If Herodotus's account of the building of the pyramids be received, they are of comparatively modern date, the oldest having been constructed several generations after the time of Sesostris, under whom Thebes attained its highest degree of splendour; but this would leave unaccounted for the tendency to pyramidal forms in Egyptian archi 1 Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte, p. 77. Par V. Denon. tecture before referred to, unless every example exhi. History. biting that tendency were itself referred to a date posterior to that assigned to Cheops and Cephron, which cannot be done in accordance with the assertions of M. Champollion as to the structures of Thebes, Elephantina, and Nubia generally. From its immense size, the dimensions of the great pyramid of Gizeh, at Memphis, are variously given by the various persons who have measured it. M. Nouet, who was of the French commission in Egypt, and had perhaps the best means of ascertaining the truth, states its base to be a square whose side is 716 French or 768 English feet in length, which is about the extent of the great square of Lincoln's-Inn-Fields in London; and its height 421 French or 452 English feet, or about one-third as high again as St Paul's Cathedral. It is built in regular courses or layers of stone, which vary in thickness from two to three feet, each receding from the one below it to the number of 202; though even this is variously stated from that number to 260, as indeed the height is given by various modern travellers at from 444 to 625 feet. And the ancient writers differ as widely, both among themselves and from the moderns. On the top course the area is about 10 English feet square, though it is believed to have been originally two courses higher, which would bring it to the smallest that in regular gradation it could be. It is a solid mass of stone, with the exception of a narrow corridor leading to a small chamber in its centre; and a larger ascending corridor or gallery, from about half the distance of the first to another larger chamber at a considerable distance, vertically above the former, in which there is a single granite sarcophagus, not more than large enough for one body, putting the intention of the structure clearly beyond doubt. The other pyramids differ from that of Cheops (as the largest is called) in size, and slightly in form and mode of construction, some having the angles of the steps or courses of stone worked away to an inclined plane, and some not diminishing in a right line. One of the middle-sized pyramids is unlike all the rest, in being neither smooth nor in small steps, but in six large benches or stages, apparently of equal height, and diminishing gradually. But the circumstance which most distinguishes it is, that it is constructed of rude unshapen blocks of stone, cemented together with a very large proportion of mortar. Another is of unburnt brick, and has consequently become ruinous and mis-shapen. The famous labyrinth, of which Herodotus speaks as having been built by the twelve kings of Egypt, beyond the Lake Maris, is believed by Denon, after examination of the described site, to be little better than fabulous, and that the historian was imposed on by the priests, from whom he derived most of his information. He says, indeed, that he saw and examined it himself; but his description is so vague, that an architect who should endea vour to make a design from it, would be greatly embarrassed. As we can therefore derive no information from it with regard to architecture, it need not be further discussed here. It has been suggested as probable, and deed the opinion has been maintained, that the pyramids stand over immense substructures; that their areas are occupied by chambers, in which may be found the arcana of Egyptian lore, of which they are the depositories. If it really be so, may not the labyrinths just referred to have been under the pyramid, which the historian says was constructed at the point where the labyrinth terminates, instead of near it? His expression is so ambiguous, that it leaves room for a suggestion of the kind. Of the domestic architecture of the Egyptians we have • Manual of Ancient History, p. 58 B History. nc knowledge whatever. The statements of the ancient writers on the subject have been already mentioned; but supposing them to be more explicit, and more in conformity with probability, than they really are, without existing remains we could form but a very imperfect idea of what it was. Reasoning from analogy, and the slight information of historians, we should conclude that the habitations of the Egyptians were of a very unpretending description. The already quoted statement of Diodorus Siculus, that they are not very curious in the building of their houses," even in his time, after their long intercourse with Greece, and their more recent connection with luxurious Rome; added to the fact, that no indications of domestic structures exist in any part of the country, and that the presumed habitations of the priests, in the ancient temples, are small and inconvenient cells; and all these things, taken in conjunction with the mildness of the climate and the salubrity of the atmosphere, we think it must be admitted, warrant the conclusion. Persian, nician architec No style of architecture of which we have any know ledge is so well qualified to produce impressive effects on the mind as the Egyptian. The mere assumption of its forms, however, is not sufficient to produce its effects; and drawing is more incompetent to convey an idea of it than perhaps of any thing else in art. To this point the authors of the great work of the French Institute on the antiquities of Egypt bear testimony in strong language. Speaking of the incompetence of drawings to convey just ideas of the grandeur, magnificence, and beauty of the Egyptian temples, and other remains of antiquity, they say, Despite the care we have given ourselves to describe the Egyptian monuments, we cannot even hope that we have succeeded in giving to others the ideas which we ourselves received from actual views and present contemplation of them; for there are things which drawings and descriptions cannot convey. Geometrical drawings are without doubt quite competent to show the form and proportions of an edifice, its disposition and distribution; but far indeed are they from giving satisfactory ideas of the elegance and effect of structures. Frequently we had to regret how much of the beauty of the original was lost in its geometrical representation on paper; for what in execution was light and graceful, often in the geometrical drawings appeared heavy and inelegant."1 The materials used in the construction of the Egyptian architectural monuments are, for the most part, granite, breccia, sandstone, and unburnt brick. The granite was principally supplied by the quarries at Elephantina and Syene, for which the Nile offered a ready mode of conveyance; some species were brought down the river from Ethiopia, but we do not find that the materials were at any time brought from any other foreign country. It may be remarked, too, that in the earliest structures the common grès or sandstone is principally employed. Excepting the obelisks and some few of the propylæa, all the temples at Thebes are of that material. In Lower Egypt, on the contrary, and in the works of later date generally, almost every thing is constructed of granite. Herodotus informs us that the ancient Persians had Assyrian, neither statues, temples, nor altars; and Diodorus Siculus and Pho- affirms that the palaces of Persepolis and Susa were not built till after the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, and that they were constructed by architects of that nation. In this case, as in that of India, we are at a great loss for evidence. The Persepolitan remains, though frequently visited and slightly sketched, have not been explored and delineated by such men as Stuart and Revett, or the ture. 1 Description de l'Egypte, vol. i. p. 292. authors of the great French work we have so often allud- History. ed to. That the Persian style, though very different in particulars, does bear a relation to the Egyptian family, however, is very evident. Sir Robert Ker Porter, in his travels in the East, says that the first impression he received in his first walk among the ruins of Persepolis was, that " in mass and in detail they bore a strong resemblance to the architectural taste of Egypt." Nevertheless, there is a strong probability that the Persian is itself an original style, and that the resemblance is merely fortuitous, similar results arising from the same causes, as in Egypt and India; for the eastern parts of that country are believed to have been the earliest seat of the human race. Professor Heeren says of Persia, "It cannot be doubted, that long before the rise of the Persian power, mighty kingdoms existed in these regions, and particularly in the eastern part of Bactria; yet of those kingdoms we have by no means a consistent or chronological history-nothing but a few fragments, probably of dynasties which ruled in Media properly so called, immediately previous to the Persians;" from whom the style of architecture may be derived, though indeed we know of no remains of earlier date than those which are properly called Persian. But we may be said to know nothing of Bactria; it may, and probably does, rival Elora, Salsette, and the banks of the Nile, in primitive specimens of architecture. • Travels in Georgia, Persia, &c. by Sir R. K. Porter, vol. i. p. 579. We have neither historical nor archæological information that can be depended on to prove what the state or style of architecture was among the ancient Assyrians. Lucian says, however, that their temples were less ancient than those of Egypt. The ruins believed to be those of the great capital of Babylonia present nothing but shapeless masses of brick, from which no idea whatever can be formed as to the style of architecture, or the progress it had made in that country; but some cylindrical and other seals and fragments, in terra cotta, found by excavation among those ruins, and now in the British Museum, are sufficiently in accordance with the rest of the eastern antiquities to be received as evidence of the general assimilation of its style of design with that which was common to the neighbouring nations. The Phoenicians, we are told by Lucian, built in the Egyptian style; but their country retains no memorials of its ancient architecture by which we might confirm or correct his information. Doubtless Carthage and the other colonies of Phoenicia followed their parent country in this particular. As far as we can judge from the trifling documents we possess of the architecture of the ancient Mexicans and Peruvians, it was of a rude but massive character, and may be thought also to resemble the early architecture of India, Egypt, and Persia more than we can see any reason for, except in the tendency of the mind of man to the same result when he is placed under similar circumstances. An impression to this effect appears to have beer made on Humboldt, who, when speaking of a pyramidal mass of ancient Mexico, says, "It is impossible to read the descriptions which Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus have left us of the temple of Jupiter Belus, without being struck with the resemblance of that Babylonian monument to the teocallis of Anahuac."4 It is an illustration of the fact that the wants and fan. cies of man lead him to nearly the same results as he becomes civilized, without communication and consequent imitation, that the plans given by Sir William Chambers, of Chinese public and private buildings, might be taken Manual of Ancient History, p. 26. • Humboldt's Personal Narrative. vol. i. p. 82. |