MOO

209

MOO

and enf^ 6 cons '^ era ^ e additions to the mosque of Medina,to tv! • anc ^ adorned that built by Omar at Jerusalem

great r, 'T e ' lave referred above ; in short, he expended a3ft ex * rt ’ on of liis revenues in the promotion of architecture,Tho ^ e was followed by his subjects generally.

The*" 1 " 6 wllIC *' was followed by his subjects general!}',fine Zeal t * 1 ' 8 race, however, in the promotion of theSecond t i^ aS sur P asse ^ hy the house of El Abbas. Theftojn j, a ‘'ph of the Abassides removed the seat of empireAn, ^g atnascus to Bagdad, which was founded by Aim ansur,Spa Ce 0 ? fi and cont ' nue< ^ > n affluence and splendour for theyears. “ In the structure and deco-and t], e ,t * . C ' t ^’ ne >lher labour nor expense were spared,Palac e w ef f'^ s the gorgeous magnificence of the kaliph’sthey not° U ^ d a * most exceed the ordinary limits of belief, werethon-y» authenticated by contemporary and ocular testi-

Enr"

the Arah atld ■^ r * ca were at an early period in possession of"'as f Q ®> and the seat of empire was placed at Cairo , whichc hiefl y u , ^y the victorious general, Akbah, and flourishedCe htury f 6r tbe Eatimite line of kaliphs, who in the tenththe kalirfl Unde ^ tbe new c '*y Cairo , and affected to rivaltheir bu'lrf - ^’a in the splendour and magnificence ofr crn a j n 1 dings. Numerous vestiges of their edifices stillSfeat rn o an< * am ongst the most stately must be enumerated thetVba;; )Squ «>. which is accounted the most magnificent in°f granj’/ 10 ^ ’ s sa 'd to be supported by five hundred columnsBut P° r phyry, and Numidian marble.

"°tie i n ., a the Moors, those of Spain were surpassed byJjhich r j ?, ma guiflcence and grandeur of their buildings,^ a gdad Va * e< ^> tf they did not excel, those of Damascus ,^ccdinJr, Cairo > even in their most palmy days. The? a ' ac es of . S t P‘ en d° ur of the mosque at Cordova, and of theIn gs on a 16 -^-hiamra and El Genaraliffe, places those build-. n e ff l, al footing with the most celebrated cities of

^hhal v,„,’ an , as the remains here are more numerous, andAs,;. ue tter kno„.„ __

s ' a or hu°wn and more readily accessible, than those of. v ° r k of ' lca > l hcy are usually made to form the ground-j* a, Spj e8 0 j. examination of the general style, and to affordn *he n,,„„ lts application ;—a practice which we shall adopt.It . P^sent article.

aa^y 0 :^ kabk l hat while the Arabs were diffused soP^d by!, t le ea >'th’s surface, the style of architectureM * S h'Ue th 'far reta ined in every place a striking identity,t^es, as w^i <b ®" erence8 °f detail may be found in differente *, r bniiflj|f * 88 v ? riet y °f application, yet in every countryop^arity i 8 ? S F ® ta ' n a very close general resemblance. Thisf a relio- -0 be accoun ted for probably by the peculiarityE* 68 a clo s g ' OUS Cleec b which, wherever it is professed, dif-

manners, and opinions.b a i^y suflj.,- ln °’ however, this general resemblance, which isa 0,1 gitig t to identify all buildings of this race as8 ^tyle, tl le ]\j Same st y’ e = '*■ must not be understood that, asc 0)j e ’ a dig 1 °° r ' s i 1 w as at any given period exactly thetr y at rpfr nt countl '' es under their dominion, or in onet e&T-' Vaa not e r nt P er i°ds, or even at the same period, for- ^ai^ of s * 16 case> Indeed, if we may judge from thes am e edifices in Asia and Egypt , of apparently

lf» ^ Wo oK«11_• __.v..!.. _ ..

th,

*q t]

»i 8 j. 1 ® mi a , Jt . ’ we shall perceive many distinctions not only° r Harnem °* tbe ornamental and apparently cliaracte-a ^d that S ’ but a i so ' n their distribution. It is to beVea^fricaj, We have but little knowledge of the Asiatic* ns titut‘ Ila ' nS tb ' 8 s ‘y le > f° r we are thereby pre-Sp a j P'le 0 p ,. ' n S a satisfactory comparison between theWhi c i, erent ^oeahties and dates. The edifices of^obia,* 3 a ^have no inconsiderable information, must

ql , ft ♦ *iv iiujuiibiucrauic iinuiniaiiuiij ujusi

v V served 6 ^ be st y^ e > f° r which purpose they will. n_ etter than those of any other country.

Various opinions as to the merits of this style have beenentertained by various writers, some speaking of it in avery disparaging manner, as fanciful and capricious, whilstothers extol it as elegant and poetical. It is in truth emi-nently fanciful, but this we judge to be rather to its praisethan otherwise, as evidencing a lively and fertile imaginationon the part of their architects : their buildings are indeedthe embodiment of a luxuriant fancy, tempered, however, inmost cases, with taste and judgment. It is true that thisstyle may not rank amongst the higher examples of the art,for it is notably deficient in constructive science ; and in thisfeature it falls immeasurably below its rival in variety andluxuriance—the Gothic or Pointed style. In the latter theconstruction is paramount; in the former it is made entirelysubservient to ornamentation.

Nevertheless, although Arabian architecture does not pre-sent that appearance of strength and security which is to belooked for in the perfection of the art, it never fails togratify the eye as well as the imagination, by the richness of ;its picturesque and fantastic decoration ; for all its parts are jperfectly symmetrical, and never degenerate into heaviness jor incoherence. Neither do we mean to assert that theArabians erected their buildings without any reference to the |principles of construction, for we know that they had attainedgreat proficiency in the mathematics, and we can scarcelysuppose that they neglected to apply them to such a purpose;indeed, we have very satisfactory proof to the contrary in thedurability of their buildings. We are equally unacquaintedwith the rules by which they were guided, or the proportionswhich they observed in the art, and yet we know that theyworked by well-defined rules, and that numerous treatiseswere written upon the subject, as we learn from the ArabianMSS. in the Escurial . Their ideas of design in this art musthave been borrowed from a great variety of sources, amongstwhich may be enumerated the edifices of Egypt, Syria, India ,Greece , Rome, and Byzantium, and out of all these theyeliminated a style which is perfectly distinct from every oneof them. All these styles, diverse as they are, were blendedtogether with such taste and skill, and the borrowed forms somoulded and adapted, as to form one harmonious and perfectwhole. The style, which is eminently peculiar, would seemto have been a development of their religious creed ; itbreathes the very spirit of Islamism ; it is sensual andvoluptuous, and appeals to the gratification of the sensesrather than to the higher and nobler faculties of the mind :the Egyptian awes by its grandeur ; the Grecian elevates byits purity ; the Gothic humbles by its solemnity ; but theMoorish gratifies only by its luxury. Of all the Moham-medans, the Turks seem to have deviated most widely fromthe general character of this style, by giving a preponderanceto the Byzantine peculiarities by which they were sur-rounded in their chief city, Constantinople .

Amongst the characteristics of Moorish architecture the/torse-shoe arch stands conspicuous, This is sometimes called thecrescent arch, a name which may probably give us some clueto the reasons for the adoption of this form, which is indeedthat of a crescent, the peculiar symbol of the Mohammedanfaith ; in imitation of which, it is reasonable to suppose it wasintroduced in a prominent position in their buildings. Weshall the more readily concur in this suggestion, when weconsider that such a form could not have been dictated byany principles of construction ; against which it offends nota little. We must therefore look for some other reason, andthat not a weak one, which could induce the Arabians to dis-regard the ordinary and simple axioms of construction ; andwe think we find a sufficient one in the idea just broached,that it was to symbolize their religious faith. The fact that