Encyclopaedia Britannica > Volume 3, Anatomy-Astronomy

ARCHITECTURE. 435
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 unparal¬
leled in the extent and splendour of their edifices, whose
sites, even, are not now determinable. I he pyramids,
however, mausoleums of a nation—and the temples, mo¬
numents 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 hun¬
dred 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.”1 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 per¬
secuted Israel, “ built that great city which the Egyp¬
tians call Heliopolis and the Greeks Thebes, and adorned
it with stately public buildings and magnificent temples,
with rich revenuesand that “ he built all the private
houses, some four, and others five stories high.”2 Shortly
after, speaking of Memphis, to account for the splendour
with which the Egyptians built their tombs, and the com¬
parative 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 re¬
ferred to ; for none of the ancient writers describe the do¬
mestic structures of the Egyptians, from personal know¬
ledge of them, as being worthy of any notice; and that
assertion of Strabo is too loose and unsupported by con¬
temporary 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 in¬
deed of aptitude to construct one, except the rude land¬
ings in some of the propylaea. 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 ex-
isted 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 pre¬
sent 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 un¬
satisfactory, if not fallacious, guides; and in the present
case, that of Egypt, the style of architecture is so uni¬
form, or so imperfectly understood, that no argument can
with safety be drawn from it, as there may in other cases.
In Hamilton’s JEgyptiaca, 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, re¬
duces 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 disposi¬
tions 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 Philse. They are built of
the same species of stone; very little difference is dis¬
cernible 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.”4 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 de¬
termined 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.
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 ap¬
pear, not until columnar architecture had come into use;
for their entrances are generally sculptured into the re¬
semblance 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 Pha¬
raohs, who was contemporaneous with Abraham, or his
son Isaac, or about eighteen centuries before Christ; _ the
latest is of the time of llhameses 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 struc¬
tures which are found within the same range of country
do not appear to bear a higher date than that of the
* Voyage dans la Basse et la Haute Egypte, p. 176. Par V. Denon. 3 JEgyptiaca, by Wm. Hamilton, Esq. F. S. A. Part I. p -60.
* Diod. Sic. lib. i. cap. iv. 4 Ibid. p. 18.