E GY
353
E G Y
*ect^ lnt ‘ n g added a further charm to sculpture and archi-\ an d produced at the same time an agreeable richness,
a *d not ininre either the. ofenernl simnlicitv or the
,,t not injure either the general simplicity or theth t ^ le w h°l e - To all appearance, painting in Egypt *rt. (, en only an auxiliary ornament, and not a particular^hitegj scu *P tu re was emblematical, and, if I may so call it,
itas ^ c kitecture was therefore the great art, or that whichalon e • Ct f ate< ^ by utility, and we may from this circumstancehie n . the priority, or at least the superior excellence, ofHi D 8yp / ian over tbe Indian art, since the former, borrowingthe Sll ?. ‘ r °m the latter, has become the basis of all that is^sid ^ 6Ct a< lmiration in modern art, and what we haveer ed as exclusively belonging to architecture, the three~ We should
r «ek,
0 Ptev 6 ! caut ' ous of entertaining the false idea which ishis a « f , nt > that the Egyptian architecture is the infancy of
r, *** 1* Siring 1 1 * • _ f*- _ a it. _ _ . . 1 _ i _ a
®lch a,nce 1* is, in fact, the complete type
d e ,, n 13 the universal and oft-repeated admirationipnt * rav ellers : had such expressions been used bj
i C| ent 1 "
K b aut ^ or > and the buildings now demolished, we should‘hey ar een a pt to treat the matter as purely fabulous, but nowhut h of hh'loubted realities, and stand as evidence of theer 0cted , tor y- Such structures could doubtless have been% , I10st SOle, y under a despotic government, and probably, fortvg r P, art > by captives or slaves, and not by free Egyptians,1,1 thi s ^ ie Israelites in the time of Moses being taskedl|lr e 3 a uner : the manual labour employed on such struc-^ r oat e3 t USt have been enormous. It is a matter of thetratls Porf W ? n ^ er * low suc ’' immense masses of material werefes Pecti v e ^ ^ rom ti ,e quarries, and fixed so accurately in their^ v a nta 6 P la °es; even in the present day, with all the'6 ereop S ° y raa °binery and steam-power which we possess,® 0, isi(] e 10n of such structures, as those of Egypt would bef 1 “'‘hud n ° ^Sbt undertaking. Notwithstanding the vast° f hiei r ’bese erections, they were remarkable not only
ofby an
T Va r j Q Sl2e > but no less for their enrichment; ornamentationUs T kinds • was lavishly distributed over the whole' v he ’ s true ’ t ' le buildings appear to greatest advan-e ^f, jj a 11 ex hibited as a whole, yet each minute portion willf . ev ^al a re quire, minute examination ; a close inspectiont aibitg most elaborate enrichment, while a distant viewMitral _ e n °ble outline and the grander features of archi-No tWo oni Position.
b ° te ant St y lea W011 ' < 1 at first sight appear more dissimilar,fl 0r ^ et 'on a ®° nistic > t b an the Egyptian and Gothic, the oneof j an fi massive, the other light and elegant ; the onei a ar °ken n P ro P or tions, and presenting a great extent ofjj Wj, or ' z °ntal lines, the other slender, lofty, and aspir-in? ’hat tv Cont rarieties do they present! and yet we shallPri Sf l in ^ ave many characteristics in common, not’Ik^iples J”eir architectural features, but in the aesthetictil 6 ’etnnl ° °' ve d out in their construction and decoration.
felji- es the Egyptians were but the embodiment ofV>ntinu; their massive proportions typified the greatness,of ^rn it muit y the outline and repetition of parts illustrated. ant ^. immutability, of their deity. Their objects^sin^ir t Ins P' re d feelings of profound awe, so likewiset of etri ples. Nor were their decorations merely the"Price 'to
v * e ht t “P r ' ce > but of studied design; every detail was sub-
th,
■<e K 1 th S ° me S reat en fi> ai) fi suggested by some urgent„i>in e e y a \l have a symbolical meaning, illustrative oftl^Hs j at tributes, and consist, in short, of a series ofif tv erg Smas and precepts, embodied as it were in forms.hhi c ’ as is said of the pictorial and carved enrichmenthhg 'bees, the books of the unlearned, each objectre intelligibly and more impressively to the eye4 x
and mind of the beholder, than would whole volumes ofwritten precepts.
“ The materialism of Egyptian worship,” says a writer onthis subject, “ rendered all these details essential; it fixed theimagination on physical nature, and obliged the ecclesiastics toseek those forms best calculated to express the dogmas oftheir religion. And in contemplating their architecture, it isimpossible not to be struck with the manifest influencereligion has had in its creation.” In allusion to anothersimilarity as regards the circumstances connected with theerection of Egyptian and Gothic edifices, he says, “ Thepriests, who were the great depositories of all knowledge, werethe exclusive designers of their religious edifices ; they alonedirected the taste of the architect and the sculptor ; and theyemployed architectural grandeur, with all its accessories, toinfluence the minds of those people whose actions theywished to govern ; nor can I imagine anything better suitedto inspire religious awe, and a profound reverence for thedivinity, as well as his earthly agents amongst an idolatrouspeople, than this style of architecture.” In passing, we mayremark upon another affinity between the two styles, whichapproaches more nearly to an architectural characteristic, andthat is, the practice of copying nature, all the decorativedetails of Egyptian, as of Gothic architecture, being the mostbeautiful imitations of the natural productions of theircountry—the lotus, palm, reed, papyrus, &e.
Having thus given a description of the general characterof this style of architecture, it will be as well to proceed atonce to the consideration of the buildings more in detail, asregards plan, distribution, and arrangement of parts, methodof construction, and such like ; in doing which we shall takeas an illustration the temple at Edfou, or Apollinopolis Magna ,one of the largest in Egypt .
The size of this temple is much more comprehensive, and itsarrangementmuchmorecomplicated thanthatof Grecian struc-tures, for whereas the latter consisted of a single cell surroundedby a wall with external columns, the former was composed ofseveral courts, one within and beyond the other, and havingcolumns for the most part within the walls. The entrance tothe whole building was through a door placed between, andsomewhat in advance of, two enormous pyramidal towers, termedpropyltea, which rose considerably above the general mass ofthe building, and were covered on the sides with sculpturedfigures of colossal size. The plan of each pyramid in this casemeasures 104 feet in length and 37 feet in width at the base,the dimensions diminishing gradually to the summit, wherethey are 84 feet by 20 feet, the height being about 150 feet.Each mole is finished by a projecting cornice,and is surroundedon all sides by a bold torus moulding. They may be con-sidered as solid structures, for although they contain chamberswith their approaches, still these bear so small a proportionto the entire mass, that they amount to no more than smallvoids or cavities. The colossal entrance between thepyramids is crowned with a cornice, and finished at the angleswith a torus-moulding similar to the propylma, and wasprobably furnished with folding doors, as the notches forhinges are still visible. This door-way gave admission intoa peristyle court having twelve columns on either side, andfour on either side of the entrance at a little distance fromthe propylsea. The pillars at the sides are placed at somedistance from a wall, which commences at the moles and sur-rounds the entire temple, and the space between this wall andthe columns is roofed over, so as to form a covered-way orpiazza, which leads on either side to the doors of the stair-cases in the propylsea, and is continued in a similar manner infront of them, on the entrance-side of the area. The colon-nade throughout is picnostyle, which seems to have been the
i
I
i