fancy, and the rest only mutilated representations that havebeen copied from porcelain and various paintings on paper.
“ What is really Chinese , has at least the merit of beingoriginal. Seldom, or never, have this people copied orimitated the inventions of other nations. Our most authenticaccounts agree on this point. Their government, their cus-toms, their dress, and almost everything else, have continuedunchanged for thousands of years. Their architecture has,besides, a remarkable resemblance to that of the ancients;and this is the more surprising, as there is not the least pro-bability that the one has been borrowed from the other.
“In the Chinese architecture, as well as that of theancients, the general form of almost all their compositionstends to that of the pyramid. In both, the columns servefor supports, and in both the columns have diminutions andbases, which in many respects are similar. The entrelas, socommon in ancient edifices, are often seen in those of theChinese. The ting of the Chinese differs but little from theperipteron of the Greeks. The atrium, and the monopterousand prostyle temples, have a considerable resemblance tosome among the Chinese ; and the manner in which theyconstruct their walls is on the same principle with therevinctum and emplecton, described by Vitruvius . Thereis, besides, a great resemblance between the utensils of theancients and the Chinese ; both are composed of similar parts,combined in a similar manner.
“ It is by no means my intention, in publishing a book onChinese architecture, to bring in vogue a taste so inferior tothe ancient, and so little suited to our climate. But thearchitecture of one of the most extraordinary people of theuniverse offers an interesting phenomenon to a lover ofthe fine arts; and an architect ought to be acquainted withso singular a manner of building. The knowledge of it is,at least, curious; it may even be useful on particular occa-sions. An architect is sometimes asked for Chinese compo-sitions ; and, in certain cases, they may be judicious. Forthough, in general, the architecture of China is not suitableto Europe , yet, in parks and gardens, where the extentdemands a great variety, or in large palaces that containnumerous enfilades of apartments, I do not think that itwould be improper to decorate some of the most inconsiderablepieces in the Chinese taste. Variety never fails to please,and novelty, when there is nothing disagreeable or shockingin it, often holds the place of beauty. At the time that theGreek architecture prevailed the most among the Romans,history informs us that Adrian, who was himself an archi-tect, erected, at his country seat at Tivoli, several buildingsin the style of the Egyptians and some other nations.
“ The grandeur or the richness of the materials is not thedistinguishing characteristic of the Chinese edifices. Butthere is a singularity in their manner, a justness in theirproportion, a simplicity, sometimes even a beauty, in theirform, that deserves our attention. I look upon them as gew-gaws in architecture; and if singularity, prettiness, or neat-ness in the work, give a place to trifles in the cabinets of thecurious, we may likewise introduce Chinese buildings amongcompositions of a better kind.”
Sir William has above noticed the pyramidal form ofChinese structures, and indeed the similarity of the architec-ture of this extraordinary people with that of all the earlynations in this respect, is worthy of notice ; yet the resem-blance of their buildings to tents is even more remarkable, sostriking indeed is it, that some travellers have compared theircities to vast encampments. The Chinese, like all the Tartar tribes, were a nomadic race ; and doubtless in their wander-ings were accustomed to employ tents, coverings portable andreadily erected, to defend them from the heat and inclemen-
cies of the weather, and when they settled permanently;served the same form in the construction of their dwell 1The construction of their buildings is indeed remarkable, ^tends to confirm the foregoing statement; for, as Mr- ^ , e dremarks, “ though the carpentry of which they arehas for ages been subjected to the same forms, when w®sider the natural march of human invention, especial J ^cases of necessity, we cannot believe that, in a country 0 fthe primitive construction was of timber, the covering, . fdwellings would have been at once so simple and so light-framing seems as though prepared merely for a canvas cov®Again, we have, if more were wanting, another proof, inposts employed for the support of their roofs. Onfind nothing resting analogous to the architecture for r ® 0l ,ing and supporting the upper timbers of the carpenhy^ g!the contrary, the roof projects over and beyond the P° a ve s,columns, whose upper extremities are hidden by the ethus superseding the use of a capital. A canvas c® vrequires but a slender support, hence lightness is a j e ‘feature in the edifices of China ; whilst other material 3those which formed tents have been substituted forforms of the original type have been preserved, making gylightness the more singular, inasmuch as the slightest a* 1 .j^,between those of the original and the copy is imper ®®? 1This change of material prevents in the copy the app® aof solidity, and seems a defect in the style, unless weto the type.”
Another peculiarity which strikes the European U P^jjng 9 *beholding a Chinese city, is the gaiety of their bm 1 7 t0 o( }arising from the prevalent application of colour. T'* eU f3 ofare composed of coloured and glazed tiles, theirvariegated stone or marble, and their porticos no . e j,coloured with the brightest tints, but also profusely var ”’ff) 11 *all uniting to produce an effect altogether different fr°presented by all other styles.
Sir William then proceeds with the work as follow 9 •
“ The Temples of the Chinese .—A great number ®pies are to be seen at Canton. The Europeans c0 tr efl> e ^commonly pagodas. Many of these temples are eX gt he( }
...- —-ese temples are ext otlie :
small, and consist only of one single apartment. !s ou ,have a court, surrounded with galleries, at the end ois a ting, where the idols are placed; and there are Vrwhich are composed of many courts, surrounded wiries. The bonzes, or priests, have cells there,different halls. ~~
eu i *1,8 ldU f
and Iroe ° (
These are properly convents, and s ^ g( j t®them have a great number of bonzes, who are att®them by particular vows, and who live in them in 1observance of certain rules. i-plo®® 11 ^
“ The most considerable of these pagodas is that ot ■ gr^in the southern suburb, Plate I., Figure 1. It occup 1 ® 9 ^ t e^extent of ground; and accordingly it contains, besides^ j )0 gp^
pies of the idols, appartments for two hundred bon^’^.yWtals for many animals, a large kitchen-garden, ancla . oU<5v’ground. The priests and animals are buried promand equally honoured by monuments and epitaphs- ^ c o»“ The first object that presents itself, is a co® 1 ^ le^ *siderable extent. In it are three rows of trees, wd® s tef’ gan open vestibule, A, to which the ascent is by a ^ er eia ^From this first vestibule, we pass to a second, C, w^four colossal figures in stucco; they are seated, an intheir hands divers emblems. This vestibule op ^ c e
Midi JJclllUo U1VC19 d-UUldiirS A11113
another large court, d, surrounded by colonnades? j
•t 0
for the bonzes, r. Four pavilions, g, are placed r jeS, ^socles. These pavilions are the temples; the two ^ j,o®^which they are composed, are filled with idols, and ^ c0 r®f fperform their religious service in them. At the gU pef’of the court are four other pavilions, h, where t