18J3.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



413 



among the savage Indian tribes, fell to decay, and no vestige of those 

 buildings now remain, to mark tlieir former existence. The progress 

 of building must have been rapid, 'and the art of carpentry well un- 

 derstood, to have enabled Noah to construct the Ark, which, with its 

 heavy freight, was for many days exposed (o the tossing of the bil- 

 lows, and the rage of the.elements. The subsequent design of the 

 Tower of Babel, and the extent to which the proposed work was car- 

 ried into execution, must convince us, that even at that early period, 

 architectural knowledge had greatly advanced. 



Satisfactorv, however, as may appear those records which mark the 

 progress of intellectual refinement in the early ages of the world, still 

 historical evidence alone can be of little practical utility to the mo- 

 dem architect ; to the examples of the most ancient existing ruins, 

 must he recur, to trace the features of the science in by-gone days : 

 and in this investigation, three countries present their claims for the 

 palm of originality, Egypt, Hindostan, and Persia, where architectural 

 remains of great magnificence are now to be seen, gracing their al- 

 most tenantless plains, the admiration and astonishment of the most 

 enlightened travellers and antiquarians. 



As to which of these three countries w'e are indebted for the first 

 degree of perfection in the architectural science, there are very nu- 

 merous and conflicting opinions, and seemingly strong evidence has 

 been produced on each side. A strong argument in favour of the 

 Egyptian style is the very great simplicity of design observable in all 

 their edifices. Although the leading features of the ruins in the three 

 countries are similar, yet it is easy to perceive, from the drawings 

 which we have of some of them, that the simplicity of the Egyptian 

 has in some measure been departed from in the Hindostan edifices, 

 and that the introduction of circular outlines bespeaks a certain de- 

 gree of perfection in the art of designing, unknown to the architects 

 of Egypt; and the delicate pillars and refined ornaments of the Per- 

 sian architecture prove a still further progress in that science, which 

 must have originated in simplicity. The simplicity of style, in the 

 absence both of tradition and historical records is evidence, the vali- 

 dity of which cannot be contended in favour of Egypt having been 

 the nursery of scientific architecture, and to her the kingdoms of the 

 East are indebted for those edifices " of other days." 



In examining the progress of architecture in this country, we are 

 altogether left to draw our conclusions from conjecture: for in vain is 

 the page of ancient history scrutinized ; in vain are the present occu- 

 piers of this mysterious land consulted about those remains of the 

 by-gone glory and forgotten wisdom of their forefathers. No clue to 

 solve the hidden mysteries of those sacred temples ; no recording 

 monument to satisfy inquiring posterity; ages have gone by, time has 

 rolled on, many generations have been called to their final account; 

 still those massive ruins mock the power of time, pointing out a 

 locality, where, in centuries long since passed away, science and art 

 had their votaries, and the torch of wisdom burned brightly in those 

 very regions, where in latter times, ignorance and gross darkness have 

 sprung up. 



Little reflection is required to convince us that those stupendous 

 works of Egypt are not the production of men, to whom the first prin- 

 ciples of science alone were known, or that those almost super-human 

 structures could be the results of merely infancy iu the arts. The 

 progress of architecture must have made rapid strides, and some cen- 

 turies of practice must have passed away, before such perfection 

 could have been attained. It cannot possibly be supposed that men, 

 whose greatest knowledge of building consisted in the erection of 

 huts, could at once design edifices of such enormous dimensions and 

 great solidity, calculated to withstand the ravages of time, and the 

 erection of which must have occupied many years; or that an igno- 

 rant people could have devised the means of quarryiug and dressing 

 those large masses of stone, or placed them in their present positions, 

 which even now, with our advanced knowledge of mechanics, and 

 great improvements in machinery, we should consider almost imprac- 

 ticable. To a very mature age of architectural knowledge must those 

 ruins be attributed. 



The discovery, which it is stated Mons. Denon made at Thebes, of 

 a stone covered over with hieroglyphics, and which, from its appear- 

 ance, was evidently the ruined part of some more ancient temple, 

 forming a foundation stone to one of those now standing, has been 

 fairly adduced, as a proof of Thebes having been, at some much 

 earlier period, adorned with temples and other public buildings, which 

 must have either fallen to decay, previous to the erection of the pre- 

 sent ruins, or been taken down to build those more ornamental 

 edifices. 



In that mysterious region, where now, surrounded by the scattered 

 ruins of pyramids, temples and cities, the savage shepherd tends his 

 roving flocks, once studied the author of the Pentateuch, and freely 

 imbibed the wisdom of ancient Egypt. In that same district, where 



those remains of antiquity attest the departed refinement of the. 

 Egyptians, in other days Plato instructed his auditory, and Euclid 

 wrote. Amid these ruins, the remains of three different forms of struc- 

 ture are to be observed, the pyramid, the temple, and the tomb or 

 cavern. 



To which of these the date of priority in construction is to be as- 

 signed, is a very difficult question to decide. Arguing from analogy, 

 it would be reasonable to suppose that nature first pointed out to un- 

 civilized man, the cavern, as the best form of habitation ; but the su- 

 perior workmanship observable in the interior of those excavations 

 must at once dissipate this idea, and the refined and well executed 

 sculpture on the natural rocky walls must be attributed to an ad- 

 vanced era in the art. The simple form of the pyramid, as not requi- 

 ring great talent in designing, may be adduced as a proof of the prio- 

 rity of this structure ; but the fact of these buildings being found only 

 near Memphis, the city which historical records assert was built long 

 after Thebes, must cast a gr<at doubt upon the validity of this claim. 

 The complicated form and skill required in both designing and exe- 

 cuting the templps, presents a strong barrier to the supposition of 

 priority of construction in these buildings. The absence of historical 

 evidence on this point, leaves this subject altogether a matter of con- 

 jecture. 



Those stupendous erections, the pyramids, which have withstood 

 the destruction of time, for more than three thousand years, in ex- 

 ternal appearance may be said to be deficient in architectural cha- 

 racter, and no beauty in design can be attributed to them ; still, from 

 their enormous dimensions, their colossal appearance, the massive 

 materials used in their construction, and from the well executed work- 

 manship, they must attract our admiration, and be justly numbered 

 among the wonders of art. The description which Herodotus has 

 given of the mode of construction of the pyramid said to have been 

 built by King Cheops, must naturally lead the reader to view with 

 astonishment, that stupendous erection and the circumstances which 

 he mentions, of the building of this pyramid having occupied 100,000 

 men fur 20 years, may be well adduced, as proof oi the devotedaess 

 of the ancient Egyptians, to works of art. 



The building which possesses most architectural character, and may 

 be said to be the very basis of ancient architecture, considered in a 

 scientific point of view, is the Egyptian temple ; and though on first 

 observing the peculiarity of the style, we may be led to form, per- 

 haps, an unfavourable opinion as to its merits, still when it is kept in 

 recollection that those people had no models to copy, or no design to 

 borrow from other nations, but depended altogether upon their own 

 resources, and followed nature as their guide, we must banish all un- 

 favourable reflections, and award the well merited laurel to the authors 

 of the science. The characteristic features of these temples are 

 the colossal form, the enormous size of the blocks of stone employed 

 in the execution of the works, the tapering walls of a pyramidical 

 form, the pillars of vast dimensions, and the arrangement and dispo- 

 sition of the several parts of the building. 



In the columns, the change of outline seems to have been consider- 

 able. The simplest form appears to be a representation of a bundle 

 of reeds, bound together near the top, with a cord wound round them 

 several times, having a square flat stone laid on their top : they are 

 made to bulge out a little below the binding, in order to imitate the 

 effect which would be naturally produced in a bundle of reeds, sub- 

 jected to a pressure in a vertical direction. 



In the Egyptian pillars, massive and heavy as they may appear, can 

 be traced many of the features of those refined Grecian columns, 

 which by all writers have been justly eulogised, and to which, too 

 frequently, and very unjustly, the claim of originality of design has 

 been yielded. The very striking analogy which exists between the 

 examples of the two countries, must be very apparent, upon exami- 

 nation. 



In the plain and simple pillars of the little temple at Luxor, resem- 

 bling in form the trunk of a tree, we may behold the origin of the 

 heavy and tapering Doric shaft. Other columns, representing a 

 bundle of reeds, placed in a vertical position, and bound round at the 

 top, bear a strong resemblance to, and most probably furnished the 

 first idea of the fluting of tliose shafts so ornamental in the Grecian 

 copies, while in the binding of the reeds we may easily trace the 

 astragal and necking of the column. The square flat stone placed on 

 the top of the pillar, and the Grecian abacus are synonymous, while 

 the flat stone upon which the Egyptian columns rests, fully accords 

 with the plinth of the Athenian column. The absence of the plinth 

 in some of the pillars of the Egyptian temples, probably prompted 

 the architect of the Parthenon to observe the same omission. The 

 swelling shaft in the temple of Karnac, suggested the similar form in 

 the Grecian Doric. The introduction of human figures in the place 

 of columns at the Mcmnonium, certainly dictated to the Greeks the 



