Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

“ the same form and proportion as the preceding ones, “ only a little larger. This hall is 42 feet by 41.

« This fame hall leads to four chambers. The first is “ 63 feet by 18; the others 43 feet by 17. The walls « of these chambers are painted and covered with inscrip“ tions and hieroglyphics.

“ From the last chamber, we enter into a vestibule

of 12 feet long, and 3 wide, which leads us to wind. “ ing stairs, by which we ascend the terrass. We there “ find a very dark chamber, 18 feet square, and 9 high, “ built on the ceiling of the grand hall : it is equally en“ riched with many figures cut in bas relief.

We see on “ the ceiling of that chamber, the figure of a giant in re« lievo, whose arms and legs are extended."

I might add to these relations that of Pococke: according to his opinion, the monument of Olymandes sublists at present almon entire. He says, he has seen and measured itb : but his recital is so diffuse, so obscure, and so conjectural, that we can obtain no satisfaction from it. Father Sicard believed likewise, that he had found the mausoleum of O. symandes «; but we have now no complete relation of that illustrious traveller. There now only remains anaccount too abridged and superficial to instruct and satisfy the curiosity d.

Let us now relate all that concerns the other antiquities which they find still in the neighbourhood of Thebes.' I am going to begin by tranfcribing what has been said by two missionaries who visited those superb ruins towards the end of the last age. They speak of the monuments which subsisted in the neighbourhood of Luxor e, a village which they presume to have been built on the ruins of Thebes f.

“I have counted,” says one of these travellers, “about 120 “ columns in one single hall whose walls were covered with “ bas reliefs and hieroglyphics from the top to the bottom. I

3 Granger, voyage d'Egypte, p. 43. &c.

Description of the east, Lond. fol. vol. 1. p. 139. • Mem. les missions du Levant, t. 7. p 161. d See ibid.

e Relat. au voyage du Sayd, par les PP. Protais, & Charle-Francois d'Orleans, mission. dans la collection des voyages, publiés par Thevenot, t. 2.

Granger, p. 54.

« have

[ocr errors][merged small]

" have there found many figures of marble as high as three “persons, and two particularly of 56 feet high, although “they were sitting on chairs. Two other statues of women " coifed fingularly with globes on their heads, measured " twelve feet from one shoulder to the other.” The same traveller afterwards speaks of another edifice, which the tradition of the country would have had formerly to have been the residence of a king.” “ We cannot,” says be, « doubt much of this even before we enter into it: this palace “ fhews itself by many avenues formed by rows of sphynxes, " the head turned to the inside of the alley. These figures, “ which are each twenty-one feet high, are distant from “ each other about the space of iwo paces. I have walked," continues our traveller, “ in four of these avenues, which “ended at so many gates of the palace. I know not whether “there were any more, because I only made half the circuit “ of that edifice, which appeared extremely spacious. I “ counted 60 sphynxes, in the length of an alley, ranged op

posite to an equal number, and 51 in another. These a. venues are about the length of a mall. The gates of this

palace are of a prodigious height covered ivith admirable « ftones. That alone which forms the entablature, is 26 “ feet long, and broad in proportion. The statues and the

figures in bas relief which this palace contains, are in very "great numbers *. "

The same traveller adds, that the frontispieces of the temples which he has had occasion to see in that place were not rich in architecture, Yet he saw temples fo fpacious, that he believes, three thousand persons might be ranged with ease on their roofs. He observes, lastly, that all the figures in bas relief which decorated that monument, were only in profile. But for the rest, these palaces were so ruined and in such disorder, that one could know nothing of their distribution nor of their arrangment.

. I think that this edifice muft have been a temple, and not a palace. I remark a very great resemblance with the description that Strabo gives us of the Egyptian temples. 1. 17. . 1158.& 1959.

Paul Lucas, who boasts also of having visited these ruins, speaks in the same manner in his first voyage : or, to speak more properly, he seems only to have copied the relation I have just now quoted 8. I therefore think I ought not to dwell upon it. I go to what he has said of another place situated in the neighbourhood of Thebes.

Near the village of Hermant, we see the ruins of a most

grand and most spacious edifice : we perceive on all sides “ an immense number of stones and columns of the richest « and most beautiful marble. The columns which remain “ still standing, are of a size that nothing can equal : they

are all covered with figures and hieroglyphics : their cha

piters adorned with foliages, are of an order of archi“tecture different from all those which Greece and Italy “ have transmitted to us. There remains standing one part " of the building, whose covering is formed by five stones "twenty feet long by five, and two feet eight inches thick. “ This roof is built in a plat-form. We see near it two co“lossal figures of granite marble which are each more than “ fixty feet high h."

M. Granger also speaks of these different monuments, but in such a manner as to make us think, that he has visited them and seen them with his own eyes. But yet I fall not stop to relate what he says of the ruins of Luxor. His recital in that respect differs very little from the relation of the two millionaries, and that of Paul Lucas i : I shall only take notice of some monuments, which in my opinion no traveller before him ever mentioned.

He speaks of a magnificent palace of which we see the ruins a league and a half from Luxor, “ We enter at first “ into a court which is 162 feet wide and 8: long. “ The front of the palace is 180 feet, and 36 high; having “ on each of its sides a column of granite of the Corinthian “ order. The gate is ten feet thick, eighteen high, and

eight wide: we go from that gate to another court, “ which is 56 feet square, and from that into another filled & Voyage du Levant, t. I. p. 110. &u.

Troisieme voyage, t. 3. p. 17. & 22. See p. 54. &c.
Father Sicard speaks oi it also in the same terms, loco fupra cit. p. 165.

“ like

“ like the preceding ones with the ruins of columns. We “ see on the side of it many chambers which are gone to “ ruin, and whose walls are covered with hieroglyphics, and “ human figures of both sexes: at the bottom of this court, “we see two gates, the one large, and the other small; " this last conducts us to five very dark chambers, in one " of which is a tomb of red granite seven feet long, three “ wide, and three and an half high. The great gate leads

to a court, where we see the front of the body of a house, “ which is 180 feet wide and 170 high : the gate, which is

placed in the middle, is thirty feet thick, twenty high, and

ten wide; this front is built of large square stones. We " then enter into a court which is 112 feet square; we " there see, to the left, four columns of white marble stand“ing, and on the right, three chambers which are gone to « ruin. From this court we enter into a hall which is 112 " feet wide and eighty.one deep: on two sides and the

bottom, runs a gallery. That at the bottom is formed

by a rank of eight large columns eight feet diameter, and " the second rank of fix large square pillars which support " the plat-form. The side-galleries are only formed by a

range of four columns like to the former, on which is “ laid a similar plat-form.

“ It seems by the pedestals, and by the chapiters scattered “ in the middle of this hall, and by the arrangment of ten

columns of the Corinthian order, whose shafts are of one

piece, there have been three different ranks of nine each: “their diameter is three feet and their height thirty.” This traveller describes besides many more monuments; but they are not worthy of particular attention.

One very important observation to be made on the recitals of M. Granger, is, that he says he has seen columns of the Corinthian order, and even the composite order , in most part of the edifices of which he has given a description. We know, thật the architecture of the ancient Egyptians had no resemblance either to that of the Greeks

* P. 38. 39. & $8.

or

or to that of the Romans. This reflection would lead us to think, then, that the monuments I have just mentioned, ought not to be attributed to the ancient sovereigns of Egypt. We know in reality, that the Ptolomeys and the Roman emperors successively adorned Egypt with very numerous and very magnificent monuments: these perhaps are the only ones which subsist at present. With respect to the mixture of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman architecture, that we there remark, it is ealy to give a reason for that irregularity, by admitting, that these works, although con. structed by the Greeks and the Romans, must always have had a tincture of the Egyptian taste and genius. We might further remove this difficulty which I have proposed, by saying, that the Ptolomeys and the Roman emperors had an att tion to repair many of the ancient edifices of Egypt. This is even a fact which appears sufficiently confirmed by the infcriptions reported by the modern travellers". There. fore, this mixture of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman architecture, has nothing surprising in it. Nothing but an exact and judicious examination can enable us to distinguish among the Egyptian antiquities, what might have been the work of ancient times from what appertains to the more modern ages. We must have seen the monuments in question ourselves, or at least have been able to have judged from the report of some intelligent and unprejudiced persons, qualities which appear to have been wanting in all, or a great part of the travellers whom I have cited, except M. Grainger.

I shall say nothing at this time of Memphis. There is great appearance, that in the ages we speak of, this city either did not exist, or at least did not deserve

ve any attention. Homer, who speaks of Thebes with the highest encomiums, does not even name Memphis. This observation has not escaped Aristotle s; and the consequence which he draws from it, is so much the more just, as we cannot go to Thebes

I See Paul Lucas, loco citat. p. 33. 34. 35. & 41.42.; Granger, p.42. 43.53. 84.85. ; Sicard, mem. des missions du Levant, t. 7. p. 43. * Metereol. I. 1. C. 14. t. I. p. 547.

without

« ElőzőTovább »