"like the preceding ones with the ruins of columns. We "fee on the fide of it many chambers which are gone to "ruin, and whose walls are covered with hieroglyphics, and "human figures of both fexes: at the bottom of this court, "we see two gates, the one large, and the other fmall; "this laft conducts us to five very dark chambers, in one "of which is a tomb of red granite feven 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 fquare ftones. We "then enter into a court which is 112 feet fquare; we "there fee, to the left, four columns of white marble ftanding, 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 fides and the "bottom, runs a gallery. That at the bottom is formed : by a rank of eight large columns eight feet diameter, and "the fecond rank of fix large fquare pillars which support "the plat-form. The fide-galleries are only formed by a range of four columns like to the former, on which is "laid a fimilar 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, whofe fhafts are of one 66 piece, there have been three different ranks of nine each: "their diameter is three feet and their height thirty." This traveller describes befides many more monuments; but they are not worthy of particular attention. One very important obfervation to be made on the recitals of M. Granger, is, that he fays he has feen columns of the Corinthian order, and even the compofite order *, in moft part of the edifices of which he has given a defcription. We know, that the architecture of the ancient Egyptians had no resemblance either to that of the Greeks * P, 38, 39. & 58. 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 fovereigns of Egypt. We know in reality, that the Ptolomeys and the Roman emperors fucceffively adorned Egypt with very numerous and very magnificent monuments: these perhaps are the only ones which fubfift at prefent. With respect to the mixture of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman architec ture, that we there remark, it is easy to give a reason for that irregularity, by admitting, that these works, although conftructed by the Greeks and the Romans, muft always have had a tincture of the Egyptian tafte and genius. We might .further remove this difficulty which I have propofed, by faying, that the Ptolomeys and the Roman emperors had an attention to repair many of the ancient edifices of Egypt. This is even a fact which appears fufficiently confirmed by the infcriptions reported by the modern travellers. Therefore, this mixture of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman architecture, has nothing furprising 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 ourfelves, or at least have been able to have judged from the report of fome intelligent and unprejudiced perfons, qualities which appear to have been wanting in all, or a great part of the travellers whom I have cited, except M. Grainger. I fhall fay 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 any attention. Homer, who speaks of Thebes with the highest encomiums, does not even name Memphis. This obfervation has not escaped Aristotle ; and the confequence which he draws from it, is fo much the more juft, as we cannot go to Thebes See Paul Lucas, loco citat. p. 33. 34. 35. & 41.42.; Granger, p. 42. 43. 53. 84.85.; Sicard, mem. des miffions du Levant, t. 7. p. 43. Metereol. 1. 1. c. 14. t. 1. p. 547. without without paffing by Memphis. Homer having been informed of the grandeur and magnificence of Thebes, necessarily must have known that of Memphis, which was much eafier of access than Thebes. This reafon appears to me decifive, and makes me believe, that they did not begin to speak of Memphis till after the age of Homer. The fame reafon engaged me alfo not to fpeak of the pyramids, those famous monuments which have rendered Egypt for ever celebrated. I think their conftruction posterior to the epoch we are at present running over ". ARTICLE II. Of the fate of architecture in Afia Minor. A Sia, in the prefent times, offers us no object of architec ture which deferves our attention. Yet we cannot doubt, but the art of building was there fufficiently culti vated; but we want lights of the taste and skill which reigned at that time in the edifices of the eastern people. The ancient authors fupply us with few resources in this matter: the facts which they report, are not fufficiently explained, nor fufficiently circumftantiated. They are wanting in those details, which alone could inftru&t us in the taste and manner of building of each age and of each nation. Homer, for example, in fpeaking of the palace of Priam, fays, that it had at the entrance fifty apartments well built, in which the princes his children lodged with their wives. At the bottom of the court, there were twelve other apartments for the fons-in-law of that monarch: we farther fee, that Paris had built for his particular ufe a very magnificent lodging. These facts prove, that, at the time of the war of Troy, architecture must have been cultivated in Afia Minor; but they do not inftruct us of the tafte in which they conftructed those edifices I have juft mentioned. We cannot fee in what their magnificence and beauty confifted. Homer • See part 3. book 2. chap. 2. Iliad. 1.6. v. 242.; ibid. v. 315, PIbid. v. 313. &c. only only remarks of the palace of Priam, that it was furrounded with porticoes, the ftones of which had been worked with care. He fays much the fame of that of Paris. But we fhall fee in the article of the Greeks, that we have now no idea of what Homer intended by the word which we commonly translate by that of portico. We fhall further fee, that that poet probably knew nothing of any of the orders of architecture. He never fpeaks of the embellishments or external ornaments of buildings. I think therefore, that the magnificence of the palaces confifted at that time rather in their vaft extent, than in the regularity and the decoration of their architecture: I further do not fee, that one can draw any light from the description which the fame poet gives of the palace of Alcinous*. It is to be prefumed that Homer has tried to put there all the magnificence known in his time: he might have taken for a model the most beautiful edifices he had ever feen. Yet we remark nothing in the defcription of the palace of Alcinous, which has a direct relation to the beauty and magnificence of architecture. The elegance and the decoration of that edifice consisted solely in the richness of the materials, and that of the interior ornaments. The poet fays that the walls of the palace and the threshold of the doors were of folid brass +. An entablature of sky-blue went quite round the building: the doors were of gold, the Jides chambranles of filver, and the floors of the fame. A cornice of gold went round the apartments. Soor Homer then defcribes the ftatues and other interior ornaments which decorated the palace of Alcinous: but for the rest he says nothing which denotes an edifice eftimable on the fcore of architecture. The beauties of that art, as far as we can judge, were very little known in r Ibid. v. 314. q Iliad. 1. 6. v. 243. * See the differtation, where I explain the reafons for which I think that the ifle of the Phaeacians must belong to Afia, fupra, chap. I. What Homer fays of the thresholds of brafs is not a pure imagination of the poet's; this cuftom is attefted by many authors. Virgil. Æneid. 1. 1. v. 448.; Paus. 1. 9. c. 19. p. 748.; Suid, voce Avrimérpav Bhuaros, t. 1. p. 229. Homer's Homer's time. I fhall further have occafion to return to this fubject in the article of Greece, and to treat it more extensively. IF CHA P. IV. Of Metallurgy. F there could remain fome doubts on the rapidity of the knowledge which many nations have had in metallurgy, the facts which I am going to relate would put an end to them, and diffipate them entirely. We fee the Ifraelites execute, in the defert, all the operations which concerned the working of metals: they knew the fecret of purifying gold, the art of beating it with a hammer, that of throwing it into fufion, and in a word, to work it in all the poffible ways. The fcripture indeed remarks, that God had prefided over most of the grand works relative to his worship". But independent of these marvellous productions, it is certain that they must have had among the Ifraelites, many very skilful and very intelligent artists in metallurgy. The golden calf, which that ungrateful and fickle people erected as an object of their adoration, is an evidence equally ftriking of their perfidy towards God, and of the extent of their knowledge in the working of metals. This operation fuppofes great skill and intelligence. The long ftay of the Hebrews in Egypt had enabled them to inftruct themselves in the neceffary proceffes to fucceed in fuch an enterprife. The Egyptians as, I have infinuated in the first part of this work, had made, even in the earliest times, critical inquiries and experiments in metals. The erection of the golden r Exod. c. 25. v. 31. & 36. The vulgate tranflates all the paffages in this chapter, where gold is mentioned, by very pure gold. But, following the Hebrew text, it means gold purified, for the verb is always in the participle. Exod. c. 25. v. 31. & 36. OL. II. |