II. SYRIA AND EGYPT
CONTENTS.
Mosques at Jerusalem—El-Aksah—Mosque at Damascus—Egypt—Mosques at Cairo— Other African buildings—Mecca.
CHRONOLOGY.
DATES.
The Hejira A.D. 622
Caliph Omar builds Mosque at Jerusalem 637
Amru—Mosque at Old Cairo 642
Abd el-Malek builds El-Aksah at Jerusalem and the “Dome of the Rock” 691
Caliph Walid builds Mosque at Damascus 705
Ibn Tooloon at Cairo 879
Kaloun 1284
Sultan Hassan 1356
Sultan Berkook 1386
Kait-bey 1490
AS before mentioned, the earliest mosque of which we have any record was that built by Mahomet himself at Medina. As, however, it contained apartments for his wives, and other rooms for domestic purposes, it might perhaps be more properly denominated a dwelling house than a mosque. Indeed sacred buildings, as we understand them, seem to have formed no part of the scheme of the Mahomedan dispensation. The one temple of this religion was the Kaabah at Mecca, towards which all believers were instructed to turn when they prayed. As with the ancient Jews—one Temple and one God were the watchwords of the faith.
When, however, the Mahomedans came among the temple-building nations, they seem early to have felt the necessity of some material object—some visible monument of their religion; and we find that Omar, when he obtained possession of Jerusalem, in the 15th year of the Hejira, felt the necessity of building a place of prayer towards which the faithful might turn, or rather which should point out to them the direction of Mecca.
According to the treaty of capitulation, in virtue of which the city was ceded to the Moslems, it was agreed that the Christians should retain possession of all their churches and holy places; and no complaint is made of even the slightest attempt to infringe this article during the following three centuries. On the other hand, it was stipulated that a spot of ground should be ceded to Omar, in which he might establish a place of prayer. For this purpose the site of the old Temple of the Jews was assigned to him by the patriarch; that spot being considered sacred by the Moslems, on account of the nocturnal visit of the Prophet, and because they then wished to conciliate the Jews, while at the same time the spot was held accursed by the Christians on account of the Lord’s denunciation and Julian’s impious attempt to rebuild it. Here Omar built a mosque, which is described by an early pilgrim who saw it, as a simple square building of timber capable of holding three thousand people, and constructed on the ruins of some more ancient edifice.[143]
The troubles which, during the next half-century, succeeded the murder of Ali and his sons, seem to have been unfavourable to building or any of the arts of peace, and no record has yet been brought to light of any important structure erected during that period. In the 69th year of the Hejira, Abd el-Melik, the Caliph of Damascus, determined to erect a mosque at Jerusalem. His objects were to set up that city as a place of pilgrimage in opposition to Mecca, which was then in the possession of a rival, and to carry into effect what was at one time understood to have been the intention of Mahomet, namely, to convert the temple of Jerusalem into the holy place of his new religion, instead of that of Mecca. These ulterior purposes were never realised, in consequence of the violent opposition which the project met with from the Jews.
The mosque which Abd el-Melik erected was, according to Professor Lewis,[144] partially destroyed by earthquakes in the years 748, 755 and 770 A.D., and was rebuilt by El Mahdi in 771-781 A.D., with increased lateral dimensions but diminished in length. From the description given by Mukaddasi,[145] the building, thus restored, covered a very much larger area than the existing mosque, there being as many as seven aisles on each side of the central aisle. Professor Lewis, in the work above quoted, gives a suggested restoration of the plan, which in the first place resembles very closely the prayer chambers of the typical Mahomedan mosques at Amru in Old Cairo, Kerouan in Barbary, and Cordoba in Spain; and in the general plan coincides so nearly in the position of its piers and columns with the existing building, so far as it extends, as to give a reasonable probability to his suggestion. When Jerusalem was taken by the Crusaders, the Aksah was converted by them into a palace, and some of their work is still to be seen in the arcades at the north end. After the conquest of Saladin he carried out extensive restorations; he covered the Mihrab, which had been walled off by the Crusaders, and decorated it with marble: he erected the magnificent pulpit which had been sent from Aleppo, and rebuilt the transept with its dome as we now see it.
As the Aksah exists at present it has the appearance of an ordinary basilica with nave and aisles, to which double aisles have been added on each side. This would suggest that the three central aisles of the mosque were raised above the rest of the building in order to obtain increased light through clerestory windows both in central and side aisles. This, however, may have been done by El Mahdi, who also built the transept and dome, because they are mentioned by Mukaddasi (985 A.D.), who says “the centre part of the main building is covered by a mighty roof, high pitched and gable-wise, behind which rises a magnificent dome.” The mosque (Woodcut No. 971) is 187 ft. wide and 272 ft. in length over all, thus covering about 50,000 sq. ft., or as much as many of our cathedrals. It has a porch, which is a later addition, but has not the usual square court in front, possibly because it was already within the enclosure of the sacred area. “The interior is supported,” says an Arab historian,[146] “by 45 columns, 33 of which are of marble, and 12 of common stone, besides which there are 40 piers of common stone.” Later investigation has shown that the main piers of the church are built with materials taken from some earlier edifice: the circular piers of the nave, for instance, are of a reddish marble from quarries near Jerusalem, patched up and bound together with iron rings, the whole being plastered over, painted and polished in imitation of marble, and Professor Lewis suggests that they may have been taken from Justinian’s Church of St. Mary (described by Procopius), which was burnt and thrown down by Chosroes in 614 A.D.
Although extremely picturesque, as an architectural object the Aksah is of no great importance, the only portions which can lay any claim to beauty being the arches carried on basket-capitals, which were erected by the Crusaders, and the later decorations of Saladin and other Sultans who enriched the south portion of the mosque near the Mihret: it must also be added that it suffers very considerably from its juxtaposition with the Dome of the Rock, which, though constructed by the same Abd el-Melik who founded the Aksah, has been added to and decorated in so sumptuous a manner by succeeding khalifs as to render it one of the most beautiful buildings in the world.
The first drawings which were made of the Dome of the Rock (Cubbet-es-Sakra, more generally known as the Mosque of Omar) by Messrs. Arundale and Catherwood (probably under great difficulties, for the sacred enclosure was not then thrown open to the gaze of unbelievers), represented the work as one of uniform design. The more careful examination which has been made in later years has revealed that the columns, capitals and bases of the main structure were taken from some earlier buildings and adapted in the best way; a high base making amends for a small capital, and new ones only being made when it became necessary. On this point Major Condor says,[147] “only three of the capitals under the drum are alike; the rest differ in size, in outline, and in details. One of the capitals is evidently placed on a shaft which did not originally belong to it, but which required a large capital. The sixteen capitals in the screen are more uniform:” “two of those capitals are, however, of entirely different design, and their shafts longer than the others.” “The original bases are now covered with marble flagging;” “but this was removed in 1874, and it was then found that they differed in outline and height, viz. from 4 to as much as 17 inches.”
The plan (Woodcut No. 972), consists of a central hall over the Sakhra, or sacred rock, with double aisles round. The hall is divided from the first aisle by 4 piers, with 3 columns between each; these 16 supports carry 3-centred arches (virtually pointed arches, whose centres are distant from one another by about one-fourth of the span, with the point of the arch rounded off) with wooden tie-beams. Above these arches rises a lofty cylindrical drum, the upper portion of which is pierced with 16 clerestory windows; the whole covered by a wooden dome, richly carved, painted and gilded. The screen which divides the first aisle from the surrounding one is octagonal, with piers at each angle, and two columns between each; these columns are surmounted by capitals, dosserets, and carry wood beams encased in rich architrave framing, and circular arches above with a frieze decorated with an inscription above, now partially hidden by later restorations. The outer wall is also octagonal, with four doorways facing the cardinal points, and a parapet, the pent roof over both aisles being continuous.
The history of the structure has been carefully worked out by Professor Lewis, taken from various ancient authors, compiled in part by Messrs. Besant and Palmer, from which it would seem that Abd-el-Melik, having first built a small dome known as the Cubbet-es-Silsileh (Dome of the Chain) (A, Woodcut No. 972), for a treasury, was so pleased with the work that he ordered the great dome over the Sakhra to be built on the same model. The structure thus erected (shown in black on the plan, Woodcut No. 972), was executed by skilled workmen from Persia, Byzantium, and India. It was hung round with curtains of brocade, probably protected by eaves as in the Cubbet-es-Silsileh. Owing possibly to the inclemency of the weather, the Khalif el-Mamun (813-33) enclosed the whole with the octagonal wall, and made various alterations, including the erasure of Abd-el-Melik’s name in the frieze before alluded to, and the insertion of his own, the date being untouched. To this period (9th century) may also be attributed the mosaic decorations of the drum, though a later date is by some ascribed to them. The dome was rebuilt by Saladin, 1189, and although restored, is substantially the same as erected by him. In the 16th century the whole building was restored by Solyman the Magnificent, who encased the piers of the interior and the arches covered by them with marble, filled the clerestory windows with stained glass, and encased with marble and Persian tiles the external walls.
Notwithstanding the various additions and restorations which have thus therefore been made from time to time, the whole structure retains at first sight one uniform character in its design, and it is only on a careful analysis of its several parts that it is possible to distinguish the dates of the various changes. The effect which is produced by the whole is quite unrivalled by any other known building of its class. It has not, of course, the splendour and magnificence arising from the vastness and constructive beauty of such a church as Sta. Sophia at Constantinople, but for its dimension, there is probably no building in the world the design of which is at the same time so beautiful and so appropriate for the purposes for which it was erected.
MOSQUE AT DAMASCUS.
As an architectural object the great mosque at Damascus is even more important than the Aksah, and its history is as interesting. The spot on which it stands was originally occupied by one of those small Syrian temples, surrounded by a square temenos, of which those at Palmyra and Jerusalem are well-known examples.[148] The one in question was, however, smaller, having been apparently only 450 ft. square; and we do not know the form of the temple which occupied its centre.[149] This temple was converted into a Christian church by Theodosius (395-408), and dedicated to St. John the Baptist, whose chapel still exists within the precincts of the mosque.
According to Jelal ed-Deen,[150] the church remained the joint property of the Christians and Moslems, both praying together in it—or, at least, on the east and west sides of a partition run through it—from the fall of the city in the year of the Hejira 14 (A.D. 636) to the time of the Caliph Walid in the year 86. He offered the Christians either four desecrated churches in exchange for it, or threatened to deprive them of one which they held on sufferance. As soon as the matter was settled, it is said, he pulled down the Christian church, or at least part of it, and in ten years completed the present splendid mosque on its site, having first procured from the emperor at Constantinople fit and proper persons to act as architects and masons in its construction.
If the building were carefully examined by some competent person, it might even now be possible to ascertain what parts belonged to the Heathen, what to the Christians, and what to the Moslems. At first sight it might appear that the covered part of the mosque is only the Christian church, used laterally like that at Ramleh; but its dimensions—126 ft. by 446—are so much in excess of any three-aisled church of that age, that the idea is hardly tenable. On the whole, it seems probable that we must consider that the materials which had first been collected for the Temple, and were afterwards used in the church, were entirely rearranged by the Mahomedans in the form in which we now find them.
Like all buildings in the first century of the Hejira, it was so badly done that nearly all the pillars of the court have since that time been encased in piers of masonry. The walls have been covered up with plaster, and whitewash has obliterated the decoration which once existed, and which is still visible where the plaster has peeled off. It is still, however, interesting from its history, venerable from its age, and important from its dimensions. These are, externally, 508 ft. by 320, and the enclosed court 400 ft. by 106. So that, in so far as size is concerned, it may rank among the first of its class; and it has always been considered so sacred, that repairs and additions have constantly been made to it since its erection, more than eleven centuries ago; but, as in the case of its contemporary the Aksah at Jerusalem, the result is far from satisfactory. In this respect, these two buildings form, as just mentioned, a most singular contrast with the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem (Woodcuts Nos. 973 to 975). That is perfect—solemn and solid, and one of the most impressive buildings in the world, both externally and internally; while the other erections of the Moslems are rickety, in spite of all repairs, and produce no impression of greatness notwithstanding their dimensions and antiquity.
The additions made by the Moslems to the mosque at Hebron (Woodcut No. 542) are mean and insignificant to the last degree; and beyond these, it is difficult to say what there is in Syria built by them that is worthy of attention.
There are some handsome fountains at Jerusalem, some details at Hasbeiya, a few large khans at Beisan and elsewhere, and some very fine city gates and remnants of military architecture; but the tombs are insignificant, and except the two mosques described, there seems to be no example of monumental architecture of any importance. The one building epoch of the country occurred when the Roman influence was at its height, during the first five centuries of the Christian era. Since that time very little has been done, except by the Crusaders, worthy of record; and before it nothing, that, from an architectural point of view, would deserve a place in history.
EGYPT.
In Egypt our history begins with the mosque which Amru, in the 21st year of the Hejira (A.D. 642) erected at Old Cairo; its original dimensions were only 50 cubits, or 75 ft. long, by 30 cubits, or 45 ft. wide. Edrisi[151] says that it was originally a Christian church which the Moslems converted into a mosque; and its dimensions and form would certainly lead us to suppose that, if not so, it was at least built after the pattern of the Christian churches of that age. As early, however, as the 53rd year of the Hejira it was enlarged, and again in the 79th; and it apparently was almost wholly rebuilt by the two great builders of that age, Abd-el-Melik and Walid, the builders of the mosques of Jerusalem and Damascus.
It probably now remains in all essential parts as left by these two Caliphs, though frequently repaired, and in some parts probably altered by subsequent sovereigns of Egypt. In its present state it may be considered as a fair specimen of the form which mosques took when they had quite emancipated themselves from the Christian models, or rather when the court before the narthex of the Christian church had absorbed the basilica, so as to become itself the principal part of the building, the church part being spread out into a prayer chamber (Mihrab) and its three apses modified into niches pointing towards the sacred Mecca.
As will be seen from the plan (Woodcut No. 977), it is nearly square (390 ft. by 357), and consists of a court-yard, 255 ft. square, surrounded on all sides by arcades supported by 245 columns taken from older edifices of the Romans and Byzantines.[152] These columns carried brick arches,[153] tied at their springing by wooden beams, as in the Aksah. All this part of the mosque, however, has been so often repaired and renovated, that but little of the original details can now remain.
Of the original mosque, the only part that can with certainty be said to exist is a portion of the outer wall, represented in Woodcut No. 960, which possesses the peculiarity of being built with pointed arches, similar in form to those of the Aksah at Jerusalem. They are now built up, and must have been so at the time of one of the earlier alterations; still they are, from their undoubted antiquity, a curious contribution to the much-contested history of the pointed arch. Notwithstanding the beautiful climate of Egypt, the whole mosque is now in a sad state of degradation and decay, arising principally from its original faulty construction. Owing to the paucity of details, many of M. Coste’s restorations must be taken as extremely doubtful.
From the time of the great rebuilding of the mosque of Amru under Walid, there is a gap in the architectural history of Egypt of nearly a century and a half, during which time it is probable that no really great work was undertaken there, as Egypt was then a dependent province of the great Caliphat of the East. With the recovery, however, of something like independence, we find one of its most powerful rulers, Ibn Tooloon, commencing a mosque at Cairo (A.D. 876), which, owing to its superior style of construction, still remained in tolerable perfection till about 1860.[154]
Tradition, as usual, ascribes the design to a Christian architect, who, when the Emir declined to use the columns of desecrated churches for the proposed mosque, offered to build it entirely of original materials. He was at first thrown into prison through the machinations of his rivals; but at last, when they found they could not dispense with his services, was again sent for, and his design carried out.[155]
Be this as it may, the whole style of the mosque shows an immense advance on that of its predecessor, all trace of Roman or Byzantine art having disappeared in the interval, and the Saracenic architecture appearing complete in all its details, the parts originally borrowed from previous styles having been worked up and fused into a consentaneous whole.
The architect is said to have been a Copt, and if so this would explain the development of style, Mr. Butler’s work on the Coptic churches of Egypt,[156] proving clearly that, long previous to the buildings of Tooloon, a style had been developed by the Copts with ornaments of a geometrical character similar to that which is found in Tooloon.[157] From this time we find no backsliding; the style in Egypt at last takes its rank as a separate and complete architectural form. It is true, that in so rich a storehouse of materials as Egypt, the architects could not always resist appropriating the remains of earlier buildings; but when they did this, they used them so completely in their own fashion, and so worked them into their own style, that we do not at once recognise the sources from which they are derived.
To return, however, to the mosque of Tooloon. Its general arrangement is almost identical with that of the mosque of Amru, only with somewhat increased dimensions, the court being very nearly 300 ft. square, and the whole building 390 ft. by 455. No pillars whatever are used in its construction, except as engaged corner shafts; all the arches, which are invariably pointed, being supported by massive piers. The court on three sides has two ranges of arcades, but on the side towards Mecca there are five; and with this peculiarity, that instead of the arcades running at right angles to the Mecca wall (as in the mosques of Amru and Kerouan) they run parallel to it. This may be accounted for by the great solidity of the walls carried by these arches, and the fact that the thrust of the latter could not have been counteracted by the wooden ties which suffice in the two examples above mentioned. By running the arcade the other way, the arches served as abutments one to the other, carrying the thrust to the outer walls, which are of great thickness. The same principle is observed on the other three sides, which in each case lie parallel to the external wall.
The whole building is of brick, covered with stucco; and fortunately almost every opening is surrounded by an inscription in the old form of Cufic characters, which were then used, and only used, about the period to which the mosque is ascribed, so that there can be no doubt as to its date. Indeed, the age both of the building itself and of all its details, is well ascertained.
The Woodcut No. 979 will explain the form of its arcades, and of the ornaments that cover them. Their general character is that of bold and massive simplicity, the counterpart of our own Norman style. A certain element of sublimity and power, in spite of occasional clumsiness, is common to both these styles. Indeed, excepting the Mosque of Sultan Hassan, there is perhaps no mosque in Cairo so imposing and so perfect as this, though it possesses little or nothing of that grace and elegance which we are accustomed to expect in this style.
Among the more remarkable peculiarities of this building is the mode in which all the external openings are filled with that peculiar sort of tracery which became as characteristic of this style as that of the windows of our churches five centuries afterwards is of the Gothic style. With the Saracens the whole window is filled, and the interstices are small and varied; both which characteristics are appropriate when the window is not to be looked out of, or when it is filled with painted glass; but of course are utterly unsuitable to our purposes. Yet it is doubtful, even now, whether the Saracenic did not excel the Gothic architects, even in their best days, in the elegance of design and variety of invention displayed in the tracery of their windows. In the mosque of Ibn Tooloon it is used as an old and perfected invention, and with the germs of all those angular and flowing lines which afterwards were combined into such myriad forms of beauty.
It is possible that future researches may bring to light a building, 50 or even 100 years earlier than this, which may show nearly as complete an emancipation from Christian art; but for the present, it is from the mosque of Tooloon (A.D. 885) that we must date the complete foundation of the new style. Although there is considerable difficulty in tracing the history of the style from the erection of the mosques of Damascus and Jerusalem to that of Tooloon, there is none from that time onwards. Cairo alone furnishes nearly sufficient materials for the purpose.
The next great mosque erected in this city was El-Azhar, or “the splendid” built in the year A.D. 981 by the Arabs of Kerouan on the type of their own mosque. This has been rebuilt in later times, but according to Mr. Carpenter[158] it preserves the proportions of its original plan. It is said to have been converted into a university in 1199, but was overthrown by an earthquake in 1303, and subsequently entirely rebuilt and restored by various sultans.
The Mosque of Al Hákim was built in the beginning of the 11th century. Portions of the arcades still remain, which show it to have been of the same type as Tooloon, with pointed and slightly horseshoe arches, and engaged angle shafts, which in Tooloon are probably the earliest examples of that feature extant. In the place of the minarets are two Mabkárehs or square tombs with small minarets on the top.
The buildings during the next two centuries are neither numerous nor remarkable in size, though progress is very evident in such examples as exist, and towards the commencement of the 13th century we find the style almost entirely changed. The Mosque of El-Dhahir (1268), now used as a fort, is remarkable for the ornament around the arches of two of its porches, which would prove it to be of Norman origin. It consists of a chevron or zigzag in one case, and of moulded mullions in the other, similar to those found in the porch of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, attributed to the Crusaders, and in the tower of the Martorana at Palermo.
The mosque of Kalaoon and the hospital attached to it (A.D. 1287) are both noble buildings, full of the most elegant details, and not without considerable grandeur in parts. In all except detail, however, they must yield the palm to the next great example, the mosque with which the Sultan Hassan adorned Cairo in the year 1356. In some respects it is one of the most remarkable mosques ever erected in any country, and differing considerably from any other with which we are at present acquainted.
As will be seen from the plan (Woodcut No. 981), its external form is very irregular, following on all sides the lines of the streets within which it is situated. This irregularity, however, is not such as to detract from its appearance, which is singularly bold and massive on every side; the walls being nearly 100 ft. in height, and surmounted by a cornice, which adds another 13 ft., and projects about 6 ft. This great height is divided into no less than nine storeys of small apartments; but the openings are so deeply recessed, and the projections between them so bold, that, instead of cutting it up and making it look like a factory, which would have been the case in England, the building has all the apparent solidity of a fortress, and seems more worthy of the descendants of the ancient Pharaohs than any work of modern times in Egypt.
Internally there is a court open to the sky, measuring 117 ft. by 105, enclosed by a wall 112 ft. in height. Instead of the usual colonnades or arcades, only one gigantic niche opens in each face of the court. On three sides these niches measure 46 ft. square; but on that which faces Mecca, the great niche is 69 ft. wide by 90 in depth, and 90 ft. high internally. All four are covered with simple tunnel-vaults of a pointed form, without either ribs or intersections, and for simple grandeur are unrivalled by any similar arches known to exist anywhere.
Behind the niche pointing towards Mecca is the tomb of the founder, square in plan, as these buildings almost always are, measuring 69 ft. each way, and covered by a lofty and elegant dome resting on pendentives of great beauty and richness. It is flanked on each side by two noble minarets, one of which is the highest and largest in Cairo and probably in any part of the world, being 280 ft. in height and of proportionate breadth. Its design and outline, however, are scarcely so elegant as some others, though even in these respects it must be considered a very beautiful example of its class.
One of the principal defects of this building is the position of its doorway, which, instead of facing the kibleh or niche pointing towards Mecca, is placed diagonally, in the street alongside of the building. It is a very beautiful specimen of architecture in itself; still its situation and the narrow passages that led from it to the main building detract most materially from the effect of the whole edifice, which in other respects is so perfect. It may have been that ground could not be obtained for the purpose of placing the entrance in the right position; but more probably it was so arranged for the sake of defence, the whole structure having very much the appearance of a fortalice, and being without doubt erected to serve that purpose, as well as being adapted for a house of prayer.
One of the finest buildings of the 14th century is that built by Sultan Berkook outside the walls of Cairo (A.D. 1384), which, besides a mosque, contains an additional feature in the great sepulchral chambers which are in fact the principal part of the edifice, and betray the existence of a strong affinity to the tomb-building races in the rulers of Egypt at that time.
The plan and section (Woodcuts Nos. 983, 984), though small, will show the state to which the art had at that period arrived in Egypt. The pointed arch, as will be observed, is used with as much lightness and elegance as ever it reached in the West.
The dome has become a truly graceful and elaborate appendage, forming not only a very perfect ceiling inside, but a most imposing ornament to the exterior. Above all, the minaret has here arrived at as high a degree of perfection as it ever reached in any after age.
The oldest known example of this species of tower is that of the mosque of Ibn Tooloon, but it is particularly ungraceful and clumsy. The minaret in that of Amru was probably a later addition. But it is only here in Berkook that they seem to have acquired that elegance and completeness which render them perhaps the most beautiful form of tower architecture in the world. Our prejudices are of course with the spires of our Gothic churches, and the Indians erected some noble towers; but taken altogether, it is doubtful if anything of its class ever surpassed the beauty and elegance of the minarets attached to the mosques during this and subsequent centuries.
The mosque El Muayyad, erected in 1415 A.D., is a singularly elegant specimen of a mosque with columns. Externally it measures about 300 ft. by 250, and possesses an internal court, surrounded by double colonnades on three sides, and a triple range of arches on the side looking towards Mecca, where also are situated—as in that of Berkook—the tombs of the founder and his family. A considerable number of ancient columns have been used in the erection of the building, but the superstructure is so light and elegant, that the effect is agreeable; and of the “mixed mosques”—i.e., those where ancient materials are incorporated—this is one of the most pleasing specimens.
Perhaps the most perfect gem in or about Cairo is the mosque and tomb of Kaitbey (Woodcut No. 985), outside the walls, erected A.D. 1472. Looked at externally or internally, nothing can exceed the grace of every part of this building. Its small dimensions exclude it from any claim to grandeur, nor does it pretend to the purity of the Greek and some other styles; but as a perfect model of the elegance we generally associate with the architecture of this people, it is perhaps unrivalled by anything in Egypt, and far surpasses the Alhambra or the other Western buildings of its age.
After this period there were not many important buildings erected in Cairo, or indeed in Egypt; and when a new age of splendour appears, the old art is found to have died out, and a renaissance far more injurious than that of the West, has grown up in the interval. In modern Europe the native architects wrought out the so-called restoration of art in their own pedantic fashion; but in the Levant the corresponding process took place under the auspices of a set of refugee Italian artists, who engrafted their would-be classical notions on the Moorish style, with a vulgarity of form and colour of which we have no conception. In the later buildings of Mehemet Ali and his contemporaries we find the richest and most beautiful materials used, so as to make us wonder how men could so pervert every notion of beauty and propriety to the production of such discordant ugliness.
From its size and the beauty of the materials, the mosque erected by the late Pasha in the citadel of Cairo ought to rival any of the more ancient buildings in the city; but it is already falling to pieces, and except for the fact that its main design is based on the principle of the great mosques erected in imitation of Sta. Sophia at Constantinople, which gives a certain grandeur to its interior, it would be utterly uninteresting.[159]
MECCA.
In a history of the Mahomedan religion a description of the mosque at Mecca would naturally take the first place; but in a work devoted to architecture it is sufficient to mention it in connection with Egypt, to whose sultans it owes whatever architectural adornment it possesses. The Kaabah, or holy shrine itself, has no architecture, and is famous only for its sanctity.
In the earlier centuries of the Hejira the area seems to have been surrounded by a cloister of no great magnificence, but after a great fire which occurred in 1399, the north and west sides were built in a more splendid manner by Barkook, Sultan of Egypt, whose mosque and tomb are illustrated, Woodcuts Nos. 983, 984. In 1500 El Ghoury, likewise an Egyptian sultan of Memlook race, rebuilt the Bab Ibrahim. The next repairs were due to the sultans of Constantinople. Selim I., in 1572, rebuilt one side, and in 1576 Murad effected a general repair of the whole, and left it pretty much as we now find it.
It need hardly be pointed out that in arrangement it necessarily differs from all other mosques. The precept of the Koran was, that all true believers when they prayed should turn to the Kaabah, and a mosque consequently became a mere indicator of the direction in which Mecca stood; but in this instance, with the Kaabah in the centre, no mihrab or indication was possible. All that was required was a temenos to enclose the sacred object and exclude the outside world with its business from the hallowed precincts.
The principal object in the enclosure is of course the Kaabah, a small, low tower, nearly but not quite square in plan, the longer sides 39 and 40 ft. respectively; the shorter 31 and 33 ft.; its height is 36 ft. The entrance is near one corner, at a height of 6 ft. from the ground. It is wholly without architectural ornament, and the upper part is covered by a black cloth, which is annually renewed. Next in importance to this is the Zemzem, or holy spring, which is said to have gushed out on this spot to the succour of Ishmael and his mother when perishing of thirst. These two objects are joined by a railing surrounding the Kaabah, except at one point, where it joins the Zemzem. The railing probably marks the enclosure of the old Pagan temple before Mahomet’s time.
These, with some other subordinate buildings, now stand in a courtyard, forming a perfect rectangle of about 380 ft. by 570 internally, surrounded by arcades on all sides. These vary considerably in depth, so as to accommodate themselves to the external outline of the building, which, as shown in the Woodcut (No. 968), is very irregular. It is entered on all sides by nineteen gateways, some of which are said to be of considerable magnificence, and it is adorned by seven minarets. These are placed very irregularly, and none of them are of particular beauty or size.
On the longer sides of the court there are thirty-six arches, on the shorter twenty-four, all slightly pointed. They are supported by columns of greyish marble, every fourth being a square pier, the others circular pillars.
Neither its ordonnance, nor, so far as we can understand, its details, render the temple an object of much architectural magnificence. Even in size it is surpassed by many, and is less than its great rival, the temple of Jerusalem, which was 600 ft. square. Still it is interesting, as it is in reality the one temple of the Moslem world; for though many mosques are now reputed sacred, and as such studiously guarded against profanation, this pretended sanctity is evidently a prejudice borrowed or inherited from other religions, and is no part of the doctrine of the Moslem faith, which, like the Jewish, points to one only temple as the place where the people should worship, and towards which they should turn in prayer.
BARBARY.
There may be—no doubt are—many buildings erected by the Moslems in the countries between Egypt and Spain; but, strange to say, with their love of art, and opportunities for investigating them, the French have not yet made us acquainted with their peculiarities. Even if not magnificent in themselves, they must form a curious link between the styles of the East and the West. The recent annexation of Tunis by France, however, has enabled us at last to obtain plans and drawings of the great mosque at Kerouan, so that we can trace, according to Mr. Carpenter (see R.I.B.A. Transactions, 1882-83, from whence the particulars here given are borrowed) the parentage of the Mosque of Cordoba and other work in Spain which seemed, when this work was first written, to be cut off from all connection with the East and to stand utterly alone.
The mosque of Kerouan was founded by the Emir Akhbah in 675 A.D., and was rebuilt and extended in the succeeding three centuries. The plan of the mosque (Woodcut 987) is somewhat irregular, being wider at the south-eastern end by about thirty feet. It covers an area of a little over 100,000 square ft. of which about one-third is covered over and forms the prayer chamber. The great court measures 220 × 176 ft. with double-aisled corridors on the east and west side; other buildings partially enclosed on the north side, with a lofty tower, thirty feet square, in the centre and surmounted by a small dome. In this tower is a marble staircase, with Roman fragments of the time of Trajan and Aurelius Antoninus.
The prayer-chamber is entered from the court by thirteen archways, all circular and horseshoe. The central entrance (Woodcut 988) to the principal aisle consists of a lofty horseshoe arch of two orders, with a square low tower and surmounted by a fluted dome. The prayer-chamber consists of a central aisle with eight aisles on each side, all running in the direction of the Mecca wall, with cross-arcading at various intervals. The aisles are separated one from the other by columns all taken from earlier buildings, carrying horseshoe arches, the columns in the central aisle being twenty-two feet high, and occasionally coupled together or in triplets; those of the aisles being fifteen feet high. The capitals are mainly taken from Roman buildings; some, however, are Byzantine, and are carved with birds and flowers. The arches are all tied together by wooden beams and iron rods. The mihrab is surmounted by a fluted dome on hexagonal base, containing richly coloured glass windows, and the mihrab niche is lined with marble and Byzantine mosaic and flanked by porphyry columns. The chief entrance is through a porch on the west side and is carried up as a tower, and there are four other minor entrances.
Tunis possesses some noble edifices, not so old as this, but still of a good age; but except the minaret represented in the annexed woodcut (No. 989), none of them have yet been drawn in such a manner as to enable us to judge either what they are or what rank they are entitled to as works of art. This minaret is one of the finest specimens of a particular class. It possesses none of the grace or elaborate beauty of detail of those at Cairo; but the beautiful proportion of the shaft, and the appropriate half-military style of its ornaments, render it singularly pleasing. The upper part also is well proportioned, though altered to some extent in modern times. Unfortunately neither its age nor height is correctly known. It is probably three or four centuries old, and with its contemporary the Hassanee mosque at Cairo, proves that the Saracenic architects were capable of expressing simple grandeur as well as elaborate beauty when it suited them to do so.
Algeria possesses no buildings of any importance belonging to any good age of Moorish art. Those of Constantine are the only ones which have yet been illustrated in an intelligible manner, and they scarcely deserve mention after the great buildings in Egypt and the farther East. I cannot help suspecting that some remains of a better age may still be brought to light; but the French archæologists seem to be wholly taken up with the vestiges of the Romans, and not to have turned their attention seriously to the more modern style, which it is to be hoped they soon will do. In an artistic point of view, at least, it is far more important than the few fragments of Roman buildings still left in that remote province.
III. SPAIN
CONTENTS.
Introductory remarks—Mosque at Cordoba—Palace at Zahra—Churches of Sta. Maria and Cristo de la Luz at Toledo—Giralda at Seville—Palace of the Alcazar—The Alhambra—Sicily.
CHRONOLOGY.
DATES.
Moors invade Spain A.D. 711
Abd-el-Rahman commences Mosque at Cordoba 786
El-Hakeem II. extends the Mosque southwards and rebuilds sanctuary 961
El Mansour enlarges mosque eastwards 980
Alcazar and Giralda at Seville (about) 1200
Mohammed ben Alhammar commences Alhambra 1248
Abou abd-Allah, builder of Court of Lions, begins to reign 1325
Christian conquest of Granada 1492
OWING probably to its position, the forms which the Saracenic style assumed in Spain are somewhat different from those which we find elsewhere. As a style it is inferior to many other forms of Saracenic art. It has not the purity of form and elegance of detail attained in Egypt, nor the perfection in colouring which characterises the style of Persia, while it is certainly inferior both in elegance and richness to that of India. Still it is to us perhaps the most interesting of the whole, not only because of its proximity to our own shores, and our consequent greater familiarity with it, but because history, poetry, and painting have all combined to heighten its merits and fix its forms on our minds. Few are unacquainted with the brilliant daring of the handful of adventurers who in the 8th century subjugated Spain and nearly conquered Europe, and fewer still have listened without emotion to the sad tale of their expulsion eight centuries afterwards. Much of the poetry and romance of the Middle Ages owes its existence to the struggles between the Christian and the Paynim knights; and in modern times poets, painters, and architects have all lingered and expatiated on the beauties of the Alhambra, or dwelt in delight on the mysterious magnificence of the mosque at Cordoba. Indeed no greater compliment could be paid to this style than that conveyed by the fact that, till within the last few years, not one work of any importance has been devoted to the Christian antiquities of Spain, while even England has produced two such splendid illustrations of the Alhambra as those of Murphy and Owen Jones—works far more magnificent than any devoted to our own national art. In France, too, Girault de Prangey, Le Normand, Chapuy, and others, have devoted themselves to the task; and even in Spain the ‘Antigüedades Arabes en España’ is the best production of the class. We are thus really familiar with what these strangers did; while the cathedrals of Seville, Toledo, Burgos, and Leon, are only partially measured or illustrated; and travellers hurrying to the Alhambra scarce condescend to alight from the diligence to cast a passing glance at their beauties.[161]
This is indeed hardly fair; still it must be confessed it is impossible to come into contact with the brilliant productions of the fervid imagination of a Southern people without being captivated with their beauty; and there is a fascination in their exuberance of ornament and brilliancy of colour which it is impossible to resist when these are used with the daring which characterises their employment here. It is also true that these Moorish architects avoid the vulgarity which would inevitably accompany such exuberance in the hands of Northern artists—a defect which the more delicately organised Asiatic invariably escaped.
CORDOBA.
As far as the history of architecture is concerned, by far the most interesting building in Spain is the mosque of Cordoba; it was the first important building commenced by the Moors, and was enlarged and ornamented by successive rulers, so that it contains specimens of all the styles current in Spain from the earliest times till the building of the Alhambra, which was in the latest age of Moorish art.
This celebrated mosque was commenced by Caliph Abd-el-Rahman in the year 786, and completed by his son El-Hakeem, who died 796. The part built by them was the eleven western aisles and twenty-one bays deep, which then formed an edifice completed in itself, not unlike the Aksah at Jerusalem (except in the number of aisles), which the Caliph is said to have been anxious to surpass. In 961 A.D. El Hakeem II. enlarged the mosque by forming arches through the south wall and adding twelve more bays further south. He rebuilt the mihrab and added priest’s chambers the whole width of his building. The court on the north side was rebuilt about 937 A.D.
The eight eastern aisles were added by El Mansour (976-1001), who increased the size of the court to the full width, thus completing the mosque to a parallelogram of 573 ft. by 422; it covers, therefore, 242,000 square feet, or, not counting the open court, 232,000 square feet, being a larger superficies than that of any Christian church, including St. Peter’s at Rome. It is, however, sadly deficient in height, being only about 30 ft. high to the roofs, and also wants subordination of parts, all the aisles being nearly of the same width, about 22 ft., except the central one of the original eleven, which is 5 ft. wider; the 33 transverse aisles are all similar in breadth; so that altogether it is as deficient in design as the “hall of a thousand columns” of a Hindu temple, and produces pretty nearly the same effect.
The mosque of Abd el-Rahman I. was built with columns of many-coloured marbles, taken from ancient edifices, with beautiful capitals of Roman and Byzantine work. These columns being small and low, they were obliged to employ the expedient of placing arch over arch to eke out their height—to insert, in short, for the nonce that strange style which gives so peculiar a character to the building. In the additions by El Hakeem II. the same style was adhered to, but the columns were quarried at Merida for the purpose, and are all uniform in colour and size. The capitals are blocked out only, and not carved, except some in the mihrab. A manksoura or sanctuary was enclosed at the north end, including two bays in depth, and extending across the eleven bays of El Hakeem II.’s addition. Great richness was given to this portion of the work, and the lower arches are formed of interlaced cusped work of great elaboration and richness, which seems to have suggested the plaster decoration of the screen work above the arches in the courts of the Alhambra. The decorations of the sanctuary and the mihrab in marble and mosaic are of Byzantine workmanship, being executed by artists sent by the Emperor Leo from Constantinople at the request of the Caliph, El Hakeem II. The roof of the whole mosque was originally in wood, carved, painted, and gilded. This is now hidden by the brick and plaster vault built underneath partly in 1713-23 and in this century; this vault also hides the frieze which decorated the upper part of the walls.
In the eastern extension of Al Mansour there is a great falling off in the execution of the work, which is irregularly set out, and in which some of the arches are pointed.
The alterations effected by the Christians are found in the church erected on the southern side of the first south wall, taking three bays of El Hakeem II.’s mosque, and in the great coro built in 1547, in the centre of the whole building. According to Mr. Carpenter, the work is a combination of late Gothic and Plateresque work, and great ingenuity has been shown in the treatment of the arches of the transept where the Moorish aisles run into them. “The effect of the whole is undoubtedly very grand, and we cannot but respect the skill of the architect, even though its erection involved the sweeping away of a large portion of Moorish work.” Mr. Carpenter refers also to “the very clever and artistic treatment of the great internal piers of the flying buttresses, which, with the walls of the Capilla Mayor facing the aisles are panelled and filled with sculptures of late-painted work executed with great delicacy and beauty.”
Before leaving this mosque it may be as well to remark that nowhere in any of these styles does the pointed arch appear, or only so timidly as to be quite the exception, not the rule. At an age when its employment was universal in the East, it is singular to observe how completely the Saracenic architects followed the traditions of the country in which they found themselves. At Cordoba they never threw off the influence of the Roman arches, though farther north the pointed is by no means uncommon in their buildings.
Contemporary with the rebuilding of the sanctuary of the mosque was the erection of the great palace in the city of Zahra near Cordoba, which, if we may trust the accounts that have been handed down to us, was by far the most wonderful work of the Moors in Spain. This indeed might be expected, for, as has been before remarked, the palaces were the principal buildings of this people, and this being of the very best age, might naturally be expected to excel any other edifice erected by them.
Hardly a stone now remains to mark even the spot where it stood. Its destruction commenced shortly after its completion, in the troubles of the 11th century, even before the city fell into the hands of the Christians, and we therefore depend wholly on the Arabian historians from whom Conde and Murphy compiled their accounts; but as they, with Maccary, describe the mosque in the same page with the palace, and do not exaggerate, nor say one word too much in praise of the former, we cannot refuse credence to their description of the latter.
According to these authors the enclosing wall of the palace was 4000 ft. in length E. and W., and 2200 ft. N. and S. The greater part of this space was occupied by gardens, but these, with their marble fountains, kiosks, and ornaments of various kinds, must have surpassed in beauty, and perhaps even in cost, the more strictly architectural parts of the building. 4300 columns of the most precious marbles supported the roofs of the halls; 1013 of these were brought from Africa, 19 from Rome, and 140 were presented by the Emperor of Constantinople to Abd-el-Rahman, the princely founder of this sumptuous edifice. All the halls were paved with marbles in a thousand varied patterns. The walls too were of the same precious material, and ornamented with friezes of the most brilliant colours. The roofs, constructed of cedar, were ornamented with gilding on an azure ground, with damasked work and interlacing designs. All in short, that the unbounded wealth of the caliphs of that period could command was lavished on this favourite retreat, and all that the art of Constantinople and Bagdad could contribute to aid the taste and executive skill of the Spanish Arabs was enlisted to make it the most perfect work of its age. Did this palace of Zahra now remain to us, we could afford to despise the Alhambra and all the works of that declining age of Moorish art.
Among other buildings contained within the great enclosure of the palace was a mosque. This had five aisles, the central one wider than the others. The total length from the Kibleh, or niche pointing to Mecca, to the opposite wall was 97 cubits (146 ft.), the breadth from E. to W. 49 cubits (74 ft.). It was finished in the year 941, and seems to have been one of the last works of the palace, having been commenced in 936. From this description it is clear that it was virtually a five-aisled church, and, as no mention is made of the court, we may fancy that, like the seven-aisled Aksah at Jerusalem, it never had that accompaniment, but was in reality only a basilica extended laterally, but on a small scale.
The church of Sta. Maria la Bianca (Woodcuts Nos. 957, 958), described in a previous chapter, though built for another people, and for a different purpose, is still so essentially in the Saracenic style, that it may fairly be taken as illustrating the progress which has been made in perfecting it up to its date in the 12th century.
Another very interesting specimen of a Moorish mosque in Spain is that at Toledo, now known as the church of Cristo de la Luz (Woodcut No. 994). It is a small square building with four stout short pillars on the floors, dividing it into nine equal compartments, the central one of which is carried up higher than the others, and terminated by a sort of dome, if dome it can be called; for the Spanish architects, working almost wholly from Roman models, never adopted the Byzantine dome to any extent, except perhaps as the roofs of baths. In their mosques and palaces it is only used as an ornamental detail, and never constructed either of stone or brickwork, but merely a carpentry framing covered with stucco or mastic. The Spanish style shows in this a most essential difference from the Eastern, where the domes are so splendid and durably constructed, and where they constitute the actual roofs of the buildings.
Indeed vaulting does not seem under any circumstance to have been an art to which the Spanish Arabs ever paid any attention. Almost all their roofs are of wood carved and painted, or of stucco, not used to imitate stone, but as a legitimate mode of ceiling, which it certainly is, and for fanciful and gorgeous decorations perhaps preferable to more durable but less manageable materials.
The art resulting from such materials is, it is true, more ephemeral and must take a lower grade than that built up of materials that should last for ever; but such was not the aim of the gay and brilliant Moors, and we must judge them by their own standard, and by their success in attaining the object they aimed at.
In San Cristo the walls are sufficiently solid and plain, and on the whole the forms and decorations are judiciously and skilfully applied to attain the requisite height without raising the columns or giving any appearance of forced contrivances for that purpose. In this respect it shows a considerable advance on the design of the older part of the mosque at Cordoba, than which it is probably at least a century more modern; but it does not show that completeness which the art attained in the 10th century, when the sanctuary at Cordoba was erected.
These four buildings mark four very distinct stages in the history of the art—the early mosque at Cordoba being the first, the San Cristo de la Luz the second; the third and most perfect is well represented by all the building at the southern end of the mosque at Cordoba; and the fourth by Sta. Maria la Bianca, where all trace of Roman and Byzantine art has wholly disappeared. A fifth stage is represented by another synagogue at Toledo called El Transitu; but this is so essentially merely a gorgeously ornamented room that it hardly serves to be classed among monumental buildings; besides which this stage is so well illustrated in the palaces of Seville and Granada that it is not necessary to dwell on minor examples. Had the great mosques of Seville, Toledo, or Granada been spared to us, it would perhaps have been easier and better to restrict our illustrations to sacred edifices alone; but they—at least certainly the two first named—have wholly disappeared to make way for the splendid cathedrals which stand where they once stood, and which have obliterated nearly every trace of their previous existence. In the northern cities the national pride and stern bigotry of the Spaniards have long ago effaced all traces of this religion.
THE GIRALDA AT SEVILLE.
None of the mosques we have been describing possess minarets, nor is there anything in Spain to replace the aspiring forms of the East except the Giralda at Seville. This is a more massive tower than is, I believe, to be found anywhere else as the work of a Moslem architect. At the base it is a square of about 45 ft., and rises without diminution to the height of 185 ft. from the ground; to this a belfry was added in 1568 by Ferdinand Riaz, making it 90 ft. higher; and unfortunately we have nothing to enable us to restore with certainty the Saracenic termination which must have been displaced to make room for this addition. In the annexed woodcut (No. 995) it is represented as restored by Girault de Prangey, and from a comparison with the towers of Fez and Morocco, erected by the same king, it is more than probable it was thus terminated originally. It is difficult nevertheless to reconcile oneself to the idea that the upper part was not something more beautiful and more in accordance with the base. In the East the Mahomedan architects would certainly have done something better; but here, from the want of familiarity with tower-architecture, and from the want of any circular or domical forms for the termination of towers or sky-lines, this inartistic form may have been adopted. The lower part is certainly much more beautiful; the walls are relieved with panels to just such an extent as is required for ornament without interfering with the construction or apparent solidity of the tower, while the windows are graceful and appropriate, and in such number as seems required. In this respect it contrasts pleasingly with the contemporary campanile at Venice, which, though very nearly of the same dimensions, is lean and bald compared with this tower at Seville. So indeed are most of the Italian towers of the same age. All these towers seem to have been erected for very analogous purposes, for the Giralda can never have been meant as the minaret of a mosque, to be used for the call to prayer; nor can we admit the destination sometimes ascribed to it by those who surmise that it may have been merely meant for an observatory.
Most probably it was a pillar of victory, or a tower symbolical of dominion and power, like many others we have had occasion to allude to in the previous pages of this work. Indeed the tradition is that it was built by King Yousouf to celebrate his famous victory of Alarcos, gained in the year 1159, in which year its construction was commenced. As such it is superior to most of those erected in Europe in the Middle Ages, but far inferior, except in size, to the Kootub Minar, and many others still found in various parts of Asia.
THE ALCAZAR AT SEVILLE.
The Alcazar[162] at Seville was an older palace, and perhaps also at one time a more magnificent one than the Alhambra itself. Hence it would be a most interesting example of the Mahomedan style, were it not that it has been much dilapidated in subsequent ages, and its character destroyed by alterations and so-called improvements after it fell into the hands of the Christians. It is more than probable that the best parts of it belong to the same age as the Giralda—the end of the 12th and beginning of the 13th century—and that it continued to receive additions till the city was taken by the Christians in 1248. A careful examination of the building by some one intimate with all the peculiarities of the style might distinguish the ancient parts from the later Christian additions, especially those perpetrated by Don Pedro the Cruel (1353-1364), who, in an inscription on the walls, claims the merit of having rebuilt it. The history of this palace is not consequently of much importance, since it is not so much older than the Alhambra as to mark another style, nor so complete as to enable us to judge of the effect of the art as perfectly as we can in that celebrated palace.
THE ALHAMBRA.
It was after his expulsion from Seville (1248) that Mohammed ben Alhamar commenced the present citadel of the Alhambra, at which both he and his successors worked continually till the end of the 13th century. It does not, however, appear that any of the more important buildings now found there were erected by these monarchs. From the accession of Abou-el-Walid (1309) to the death of Yousouf (1354) the works of the present palace seem to have been carried on uninterruptedly, and it is to this half-century that we must refer all the essential parts of the palace now found in the citadel.
As will be seen from the annexed plan, it consists principally of two oblong courts; the richest and most beautiful, that of the Lions (A A), running east and west, was built by Abou Abdallah (1325-1333). The other, the Court of the Alberca (B B), at right angles to the former, is plainer and probably earlier. Restorers generally add a third court, corresponding with that of the Lions, which they say was removed to allow of the erection of the palace of Charles V. (X X), which now protrudes its formal mass most unpleasingly among the light and airy constructions of the Moors. My own impression is that if anything did stand here, it was the Mosque, which we miss, although we know that it existed, and tradition points to this side as its locality, though it certainly was not the apartment at that angle which now goes by that name. It must, like all Spanish mosques, have faced the south, and was most probably destroyed by the first Christian conquerors of Granada. Indeed it is not unlikely that the Christian palace above mentioned, which stands strangely unsymmetrically with the other buildings, follows the lines of the old mosque. This could be in great measure determined if we could rely upon the bearings of the different courts and buildings as given in the plans hitherto published.
The principal entrance to the Alhambra seems always to have been at the southern end of the Court of the Alberca. This part does seem to have been altered or pulled down to make way for the palace of Charles V. The court was originally called, apparently from the pool of water which always occupied its centre, El Birkeh. It is 138 ft. long by 74 wide, the longer sides being singularly, and in such a place ungracefully, plain. The end to the south terminates with a double arcade of very beautiful design; and that to the north with a similar one, but only one storey in height, crowned by the tower enclosing the great Hall of the Ambassadors (C), to which the Court is practically an anteroom. This is an apartment 35 ft. square, and about 60 in height, roofed by a polygonal dome of great beauty of design, and covered, like the walls, with arabesque patterns of the greatest beauty. One of its most charming peculiarities, however, is the deeply-recessed windows, looking down on the city, and beyond that commanding a view of the delicious Vega, and the mountains that bound it. It is one of the most beautiful scenes in the world, of which the architect availed himself with the eye of a true artist, who knew how to combine nature and art into a perfect whole.
The other court, called that of the Lions (A A), from the beautiful fountain supported by twelve conventional-looking animals so called, is smaller (115 ft. by 66 from wall to wall), but far more beautiful and elaborate than the other; indeed, with the apartments that surround it, this is the gem of Arabian art in Spain—its most beautiful and most perfect example.[163] It has, however, two defects which take it entirely out of the range of monumental art: the first is its size, which is barely that of a modern parish church and smaller than many ball-rooms; the second its materials, which are only wood covered with stucco. In this respect the Alhambra forms a perfect contrast to such a building as the Hall at Karnac, or any of the greater monumental edifices of the ancient world, and, judged by the same standard, would be found lamentably deficient. But, in fact, no comparison is applicable between objects so totally different. Each is a true representative of the feeling and character of the people by whom it was raised. The Saracenic plaster hall would be totally out of place and contemptible beside the great temple-palace of Thebes; while the granite works of Egypt would be considered monuments of ill-directed labour if placed in the palaces of the gay and luxurious Arab fatalist, to whom the present was everything, and the enjoyment of the passing hour all in all.
The shafts of the pillars that surround the Court of Lions are far from being graceful in themselves, being more like the cast-iron props used by modern engineers than anything else. Their capitals, however, are very gracefully moulded, and of a form admirably adapted for the support of the superstructure they were destined to bear, and the pillars themselves are so gracefully grouped, alternately single and coupled, and their alignment is so completely broken by the projecting portico at each end, that they cease to be prominent objects in themselves, and become mere accessory details. The arcades which they support are moulded in stucco with a richness and beauty of ornament that is unrivalled. There is in this no offence to good taste; indeed work executed in plaster ought to be richly decorated, otherwise it is an unsuccessful attempt to imitate the simplicity and power that belongs to more durable and more solid materials. It should therefore always be covered with ornament, and was never elaborated with more taste and consistence than here.
At the upper end of this court is an oblong hall, called that of Judgment (D), and on either side two smaller rooms, that “of the Abencerrages” (E) on the south, and that called “of the Two Sisters” (F) opposite, the latter being the most varied and elegant apartment of the whole palace. The walls of all these are ornamented with geometric and flowing patterns of very great beauty and richness, and applied with unexceptionable taste for such a decoration; but it is in the roofs and larger arcades that the fatal facility of plaster becomes most apparent. Instead of the simple curves of the dome, the roofs are made up of honeycombed or stalactite patterns, which look more like natural rockwork than the forms of an art, which should be always more or less formal and comprehensible at a glance, at least in its greater lines and divisions. There is perhaps no instance where a Saracenic architect has so nearly approached the limits of good taste as in these parts, and it requires all the countervailing elements of situation, and comparison with other objects, to redeem them from the charge of having exceeded those limits.
Behind the Hall of the Two Sisters, and on a lower level, are situated the baths (G)—beautiful in some respects, and appropriately adorned, but scarcely worthy of such a palace.
Besides the edifices mentioned above, there is scarcely a town in Spain, once occupied by the Moors, that does not retain some traces of their art. These traces, however, are generally found in the remains of baths, which from their nature were more solidly built than other edifices, and were generally vaulted with bricks—frequently with octagonal domes supported on twelve pillars, as those in the East. These in consequence have survived, while the frailer palaces of the same builders have yielded to the influence of time, and their mosques have disappeared before the ruthless bigotry of their successors. None of the baths, however, seem to be of sufficient importance to require notice.
In Spain we entirely miss the tombs which form so remarkable a feature of Saracenic architecture wherever any Turanian blood flows in the veins of the people. The Moors of Spain seem to have been of purely Semitic race, either importations from Arabia or the descendants of the old Phœnician settlers on the southern coast; and among them, of course, it would be absurd to look for any indications of sepulchral magnificence.
If the Moors of Spain had practised tomb-building to as great an extent as some of their brethren further east, this circumstance would, in all probability, have given a more monumental character to their style of architecture. True domes would certainly have been introduced and applied, not only to their mosques but to their palaces, and with them all those beautiful arrangements which we find as the invariable accompaniments of domes in the East.
Be this as it may, it is on the whole perhaps fortunate that we possess in Spain a form of Saracenic art from which all feeling of solemnity, and all aspirations for the future, are wholly banished. No style of architecture is so essentially impressed with the feeling that the enjoyment of the hour is all that should be cared for. It is consequently the gayest, but it is also the most ephemeral, of all the styles of architecture with which we are acquainted.[164]
IV. TURKEY
CONTENTS.
Mosques of Mahomet II.—Suleimanie and Ahmedjie Mosques—Mosques of Sultanas Validé, and of Osman III.—Civil and Domestic Architecture, Fountains, &c.
CHRONOLOGY.
DATES. Conquest of Constantinople by Mahomet II. A.D. 1443 Bajazet II. 1481 Selim I. 1512 Suleiman II., the Magnificent 1520 Selim II. 1566 Amurath III. 1574 Mahomet III. 1595 Ahmed I. 1603 Amurath IV. 1623 Mahomet IV. 1649 Suleiman III. 1687 Ahmed III. 1703 Mahmood I. 1739
THE latter half of the 15th century witnessed some strange vicissitudes in the fate of the Mahomedan faith in Europe. In 1492 Granada was conquered, and the Moors expelled from the country which they had so long adorned by their arts, and rendered illustrious by their cultivation of the sciences. Of all the races who, at various times, have adopted the faith of Islam, the Spanish Moors seem to have been among the most enlightened and industrious, and the most capable of retaining permanently the civilisation they had acquired. They have made way for a people less progressive and more bigoted than any other population in Europe.
Before, however, this misfortune happened in the West, the fairest city of the Christian world, and its most fertile provinces, had fallen a prey to the most barbarous horde of all those who had adopted the Mahomedan religion. For two centuries the Turks had gradually been progressing westward from their original seats in Central Asia, and at last, in 1453, Constantinople itself fell into their power, and for more than a century after this, the fate of Europe trembled in the balance. The failure of the siege of Vienna (1683) turned the tide. Since that time the Christians have slowly and surely been recovering their lost ground; but the Crescent still surmounts the dome of Sta. Sophia.
Had the Turks obtained possession of Constantinople at an earlier date, it is possible that their architecture might have taken a different form from that in which we now find it. But before that event the foundation of St. Peter’s at Rome had already been laid. The old principles of art were already losing their hold on the architects of Europe, a revolution was taking place, and though this would hardly be much felt so far east as the Bosphorus, or materially influence strangers like the Turks, still it must have had some influence, and modified their style to some extent. Be this as it may, we are struck at Constantinople with the same phenomenon which meets us everywhere in the Mahomedan world. Wherever the various nationalities settled who had embraced that faith, they at once adopted the architectural forms of their new country, and set to work to mould and modify them, so as to bring them more into conformity with their special requirements. Nowhere do they seem to have brought their style with them, or thought of forcing that on their new subjects. In this they were wise; and it is what probably all nations would do who had any true knowledge of art, or any true feeling for its purposes. In nine cases out of ten the original people of a country find out the arrangements most suited to their climate, and the forms of construction best adapted to the materials which are available; and to attempt to substitute for these, forms suited to other climates and another class of materials, is what only an Aryan would think of doing. The Turks, though barbarous, belonged to one of the great building races of the world; and so soon as they entered Constantinople, set to work vigorously to vindicate the characteristics of the family.
Besides appropriating seven or eight of the principal churches of the city—with Sta. Sophia at the head of the list—to the new worship, Mahomet II. founded six or seven new mosques, some of them of great magnificence. The chief of these is that which still bears his name, and crowns the highest of the seven hills on which the city stands. To make way for it, he pulled down the Church of the Apostles, which had been the burying-place of the Christian emperors apparently since the time of Constantine, and was consequently an edifice of considerable magnificence. It had, however, been plundered by the Latin barbarians who sacked the city some time before the Moslems, and it was also so crippled by earthquakes as to be in a dangerous state. In order to effect his purpose, Mahomet employed Christodulos, a Christian resident in Constantinople, to erect on the spot a mosque, which he intended should surpass all others in his empire. How far he was successful we have now little means of judging. An earthquake in 1763 so completely ruined this mosque that the repairs amounted almost to a rebuilding; and as these were carried out with the quasi-Italian details of the latter half of the 18th century, its present appearance probably conveys very little idea either of the form or of the magnificence of the original building. Enough of its form, however, still remains to tell us that, like all Turkish mosques, it was a copy of Sta. Sophia. There is, indeed, nothing in the style we are now speaking of so remarkable as the admiration which that great creation of the Christians excited in the minds of its Moslem possessors. There are in or about Constantinople at least 100 mosques erected in the four centuries during which the Turks have possessed that city. Not one of these is a pillared court, like those of Egypt or Syria, nor an arcaded square, like those of Persia or India—none are even extended basilicas, like those of Barbary or Spain. All are copies, more or less modified, of Sta. Sophia; and many of the modifications are no doubt improvements; but none are erected with the same dimensions, none possess the same wonderful richness of decoration, or approach the poetry of design, of their prototype. In all that constitutes greatness in architectural art, the Christian Church still stands unrivalled. No one who has stood beneath the dome of Sta. Sophia will hesitate to admit that the Turks were perfectly justified in their admiration of Justinian’s great creation; but the curious thing is, that no Christian ever appreciated its beauties. When, after the troubles of the 7th and 8th centuries, the Greeks again took to building churches, it was such as Sta. Irene, or the Theotokos, churches like those at Pitzounda or Ani, or those of Greece or Mount Athos. Not one single direct copy of Sta. Sophia by Christian hands exists, so far as is known, in the whole world. But the Turk saw and seized its beauties at a glance; and, by constancy to his first affection, saved his architecture from the utter feebleness which has characterized that of Western Europe during the four centuries in which he has been encamped on this side of the Bosphorus.
Among the other mosques built by Mahomet II., the most sacred is that of Eyub, the standard-bearer of the Prophet, whose body is said to have been found on the site of the mosque. Plans and drawings of this mosque might easily have been obtained while our armies occupied Constantinople during the Crimean war; but the opportunity was neglected, and all we have to depend upon is an eye-sketch by Ali Bey.[165] As the mosque in which each Sultan on his accession is girt with the sacred sword, and as the most holy in the empire, it would be interesting to know more about it, but we must wait.
The mosque of Bayazid, 1497-1505, is of the usual type, but not characterized by any extraordinary magnificence. In the mosque of Selim, 1520-26, the dome and its pendentives are carried by eight octagonal piers, reverting therefore to the principle of St. Sergius as regards supports; these piers, however, stand free within the walls, so that there is apparently greater space provided; the dome has a diameter of 108 ft., being the largest built by the Turks, that of Suleimanie mosque being 93 ft. in diameter, and of Sultan Ahmed 63 ft.
SULEIMANIE.
All these were, however, surpassed by that which was erected by Suleiman the Magnificent, between the years 1550-1555. It is still quite perfect in all its constructive parts, and little altered in detail; and as there is every reason to suppose that it equalled, or even surpassed, all others of its class, if it be illustrated the rest will be easily understood.
As will be seen from the plan,[166] the mosque itself is nearly square, 225 ft. by 205 over all externally, and covering between 45,000 and 46,000 sq. ft. In front is a forecourt, 150 ft. by 190 internally, surrounded by an arcade on all sides, and containing the fountains, which are the indispensable accompaniment of all mosques. Behind is the “garden” containing the tomb of the founder and those of his favourite wife and other members of the family. All this, properly speaking, is one design and one building; and all these parts are requisite to complete the establishment of a great imperial mosque.
Internally the construction rests on four great piers of pleasing and appropriate design; and the screen of windows on each side, under the great lateral arches of the dome, is borne by four monolithic shafts of porphyry of great beauty. These formerly supported statues in the hippodrome, and most probably were brought originally from Egypt. Each is 28 ft. in height, or, with the base and capital, 35 ft. The dome itself is 86 ft. in diameter internally, and 156 ft. in height. This seems even a better proportion of height to diameter than that of Sta. Sophia, though the dimensions are so much less that it has not, of course, the same grandeur of effect. At Sta. Sophia the dome is 108 ft. in diameter, and 175 ft. in height, or 21 and 19 ft. more respectively. These smaller dimensions, as well as the absence in the mosque of all the mosaic magnificence of the church, and the presence of a good deal of modern vulgarity, render it extremely difficult to institute any fair comparison between the two buildings. On the whole, it may, perhaps, be said with truth, that the mosque is more perfect mechanically than the church; that the constructive parts are better disposed and better proportioned; but that, for artistic effect and poetry of design, the church still far surpasses its rival, in so far at least as the interior is concerned.
Externally the mosque suffers, like all the buildings of the capital, from the badness of the materials with which it is constructed. Its walls are covered with stucco, its dome with lead, and all the sloping abutments of the dome, though built with masonry, have also to be protected by a metal covering. This, no doubt, detracts from the effect; but still the whole is so massive—every window, every dome, every projection, is so truthful, and tells so exactly the purpose for which it was placed where we find it—that the general result is most satisfactory, and as impressive an external effect has been produced with one-half the expense of adornment requisite for a Gothic building of the same pretensions.
The tomb of the founder, which stands in the garden behind, avoids these defects. It is built in marble of various colours, and every detail is most carefully elaborated. It is too small—only 46 ft. in diameter externally—to produce any grandeur of effect; but it suffices to show that the architects of those days were quite competent to produce satisfactory designs for the exteriors of their buildings, if they had found appropriate materials in which to execute them.
Next in importance to the Suleimanie, among the Imperial mosques of Constantinople, is that which the Sultan Ahmed commenced A.D. 1608. The mosque itself is in plan somewhat larger than the preceding, measuring 235 ft. by 210, and covering nearly 50,000 sq. ft.; but it is inferior both in design and in the richness or taste of its decorations. As will be seen from the plan (Woodcut No. 1000), it deviates still further than the Suleimanie from the design of Sta. Sophia; and in the exact ratio in which it diverges from that type, does it fail in producing an artistic effect. Its great defect is, that it is too mechanically regular. In the nave of Sta. Sophia the proportion of length to breadth is practically as two-and-a-half to one. In the Suleimanie it is nearly two to one, but the Ahmedjie is absolutely square. Without asking for the extreme difference between length and breadth which prevails in Gothic cathedrals, a design must have sides—there must be some point towards which the effect tends. In this mosque, as in the Pantheon at Rome, if the plan were divided into quarters, each of the four quadrants would be found to be identical, and the effect is consequently painfully mechanical and prosaic. The design of each wall is also nearly the same; they have the same number of windows spaced in the same manner, and the side of the Kibleh is scarcely more richly decorated than the others. Add to this, that all the windows are glazed with white glass, and that, above the marble wainscotting, whitewash has been unsparingly employed, and it will be easy to understand how the mosque fails in producing the effect which might fairly be expected from its dimensions and the general features of its design. Still, a hall nearly 200 ft. square, with a stone roof supported by only four great fluted piers, is a grand and imposing object, and has very narrowly missed producing the effect its builders were aiming at.
The external effect is more pleasing than the internal; the mode in which the smaller domes and semi-domes lead up to the centre produces a pyramidal effect that gives a very pleasing air of stability to the outline, and the six tall minarets go far to relieve what otherwise might be monotonous. It is said that this is the only mosque in the Moslem world which has so many of these graceful adjuncts, except the mosque at Mecca, which has seven. The Suleimanie and Sta. Sophia have four; most of the others two, and some only one; but, whatever their number, the form of all is nearly identical with those of the Suleimanie (Woodcut No. 999). They are graceful, no doubt, but infinitely inferior to those of Cairo, or, indeed, of any country where this form of tower was long employed. We do not know whence the Turks first got this form, and it is very difficult to understand why they persevered so long in adhering to it, after so many other more beautiful forms had been introduced among their co-religionists in other countries. But so it is; and everywhere its tall extinguisher roof is one of the first objects that warns the traveller that he has passed within the boundaries of the Turkish Empire.
Though very much smaller than those just described, that known as the Prince’s Mosque is one of the most pleasing in Constantinople. It was erected in 1548, by order of Sultan Suleiman, by the same architect— Sinan—who designed the great mosque, and who seems to have been the great architect of the reign of that magnificent monarch. The smaller mosque was erected in memory of his son Mahomet, and as a place of burial for him; and another of his sons—Mustafa—was also laid by his side. In accordance with this destination, this mosque bore a more solemn and gloomier aspect than the great mosques of the city. Their principal defect is the glare introduced through their numerous scattered windows, a defect which in this mosque is remedied with the most satisfactory results.
There are three imperial mosques in the city erected by Sultanas, and all bearing the name of Valide, which has given rise to some confusion in describing them. The most important of them is that at the end of the bridge of boats near the harbour, known as the “Mosque at the Garden Gates.” It is somewhat late in date (1665), and has been a good deal whitewashed and otherwise disfigured; but on the whole it is of more artistic design than that of Ahmed, and, when fresh, must have been, for its size, as pleasing as any of the mosques in the city.
The Turks adhered so long to this form, and repeated it over and over again with so little variation, that it is extremely difficult to draw a line between what may be said to belong to the Middle Ages, and what to modern times. As late, for instance, as 1755 the Sultan Osman III. erected a mosque in the Bazaar, which externally is as pleasing as any of those in the city, and it requires a very keen eye to detect anything which would indicate that it is more modern than those of the age of Suleiman. It has the peculiarity, however, that there are no semi-domes, and the light is introduced through screens under all the four great arches of the central dome. In another locality the effect might be pleasing, but in the latitude of Constantinople the result is a glare of light which aggravates the usual defect of these designs. Even the Turks seem to feel this, as the mosque is generally known by the name of Nur Osmanlie, or Lantern of Osman, a designation which too correctly describes its leading characteristics.
CIVIL AND DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE.
As about one-tenth part of Constantinople is burnt down every year, and the flames visit each quarter in tolerably regular succession, it would be in vain to look for anything worthy of the name of architecture among the temporary wooden structures dignified by the name of the “palaces” of the nobles. Partly from the jealousy of the Government, or partly, it may be, because the Turks have never felt quite secure in their European possessions, they never seem to have affected anything of a permanent character in their dwellings. It might, however, be expected that in the palace of the Sultan something better would be found; but there are few things more disappointing than a visit to the Seraglio. In situation it is unrivalled, and it has been the habitation of powerful and luxurious sovereigns for more than fifteen centuries, yet it contains nothing that is worthy of admiration, and hardly anything that is even interesting from its associations. There is nothing within the enclosure which will stand comparison even with the plaster glories of the Alhambra; and the contemporary palaces of Persia, or of Delhi and Agra, surpass it to such an extent as to render comparison impossible.
There is one pavilion, the walls of which are covered with Persian tiles, which is pleasing, both from its form and the mode of decoration. Besides this, the various halls being separate buildings and grouped without formality together, the effect of the whole is picturesque, though neither as parts nor as a whole have they any architectural merit.
Among the minor objects of architectural art none are more pleasing than the fountains which frequently adorn the public places in the provincial cities as well as in the capital; though their outline is by no means remarkable for beauty. They are generally a square block with a niche on each face, from a spout in which the water flows. The whole is crowned by a very deep cornice constructed in wood, but without any brackets or apparent means of support, which true architectural taste so inevitably demands. Their beauty, in consequence, depends almost wholly on their ornamentation. That, however, is of the most elaborate character, and not only pleasing in form, but rich in colour; of the same character, in fact, as that of the Alhambra, and pleasing from the same cause, in spite of defects in form.
It is probable that if the country towns, especially on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, were examined with care, examples might be found of domestic architecture exhibiting more care, and of a more permanent character than any in the capital. The true Turk evidently loves art, and has an instinctive appreciation of the harmonies of colour—probably, also, of form; and, if allowed an opportunity, would have produced much that is beautiful in architecture. The blood of the various races who inhabit the capital must, however, be very much mixed, and various other circumstances militate against any great development in that quarter. The subject seems worthy of more investigation than has hitherto been bestowed upon it, but the first appearance of the Turks among civilized nations was only as warriors pushing forward and fighting. When at last they settled on the shores of the Bosphorus it was at an age too late for much true architectural development in Europe. On the whole, we ought therefore rather to be surprised that they did so much, than seek to know why they did not accomplish more. Sinan and Michel Angelo were employed simultaneously in erecting the two great religious edifices of their age in the two old capitals of the Christian world. The mosque at Constantinople is less than one-fourth the size of St. Peter’s at Rome, but notwithstanding its comparatively small dimensions, it is far better in design, and a much more impressive building than its gigantic Christian rival. If the mosque had been constructed with better materials, and with somewhat increased dimensions, it would have stood a comparison with any building of its class; and, even as it is, must be considered as one of the most successful designs of modern times.
V. PERSIA
CONTENTS.
Historical notice—Tombs at Bagdad—Imaret at Erzeroum—Mosque at Tabreez— Tomb at Sultanieh—Bazaar at Ispahan—College of Husein Shah—Palaces and other buildings—Turkestan.
CHRONOLOGY.
DATES.
Arab conquest of Persia A.D. 641
Haroun al-Rashid began to reign 786
Dynasty of Tartar Saamanides 874
Seljukian dynasty 1037
Ghengis Khan 1205
Ghazan Khan builds a mosque at Tabreez 1294
Mahomed Khodabendah, builder of tomb at Sultanieh, began to reign 1303
Sufi dynasty 1499
Abbas the Great, builder of Bazaar at Ispahan 1585
Husein Shah, last of the Sufis 1694
Tamerlane 1361-1405
OWING to a curious concatenation of circumstances, partly local, partly ethnological, the architectural history of Persia is nearly a blank for the first six centuries of the Hejira. Nothing remains of the ancient glories of Bagdad except a few fragments of the walls of the Madrissa, and perhaps one or two tombs. Bussorah and Kufa are equally destitute of any architectural remains of the great age of the Caliphs. Indeed, there seems scarcely to be one single mosque or important building now remaining between the Euphrates and the Indus which belongs authentically to the earlier centuries of the Mahomedan era, and in such a state as would enable us to say what the style of those days was, or how far it resembled or differed from the contemporary styles in the neighbouring countries.
From what we know from history of the age of Haroun al-Rashid, it is probable that no Moorish court ever reached a higher pitch of enlightenment and magnificence than that of Bagdad during his reign (A.D. 786-809). It was also so far removed from the direct influence of the Byzantine style, that it is probable we should find in his buildings the germ of much which now comes abruptly before us without our being able to trace it back to its origin.
In the whole architectural history of the world there is scarcely so complete a break as this, and scarcely one so much to be lamented, considering how great and how polished the people were whose art is thus lost to us. Let us hope, however, that it is not entirely lost; but that some fragments may yet be recovered by the first who earnestly searches for them.
Meanwhile there is one tomb outside the walls of Bagdad known as the tomb of Zobeidé,[167] the favourite wife of Haroun al-Rashid, which may belong to this epoch; and even if it should prove to be more modern is interesting from its presenting us with a new form of pyramidal roof. It is an octagonal building, 80 ft. in diameter externally and 61 ft. high, with an entrance porch on one side. The walls are of great thickness and contain a staircase leading to the roof. The internal diameter is 42 ft. and is covered over with a roof of pyramidal form 45 ft. in diameter and rising to 90 ft. above the roof of the main building. The Sassanian method of covering over such a space would have been to span it with an egg-shaped dome similar to that which we find in the central hall of Serbistan (Woodcut No. 259), which is of the same diameter. Here, however, a much stronger form of construction would seem to have been adopted; a series of slightly pointed headed niches sixteen in number were built, projecting slightly, on arches thrown across the alternate angles of the interior. Above these were built a second range with a less diameter and therefore overhanging a little the lower range, the sides of the upper range resting on the centres of the niches below. In this way six more stages were constructed all in brick, gradually diminishing the diameter of the central space. Then comes a break which is emphasized in the extreme by a cavetto cornice, above which come three more stages but with eight niches only in each row, the upper one covering completely the whole pyramid. The interiors of these niches (which range in size from 5 ft. diameter and 10 ft. high in the lower range to 1 ft. 6 in. diameter and 5 ft. high in the upper range) are decorated with tiles and mosaic. The exteriors, both of this tomb (Woodcut No. 1002) and of that of Ezekiel (Woodcut No. 1003), which is of similar design, are covered over with stucco. Lamps were probably suspended by chains from the centre of each of these niches to judge by the holes now visible outside. Somewhat the same form occurs also at Susa in the so-called tomb of Daniel, and generally seems to be so usual in the age of the Caliphs, and is so peculiar, that it must have been long in use before it could have become so generally diffused. The chief interest which is attached to it is the possibility of its having been the source from which that essentially Saracenic feature the stalactite vault has been obtained. It is not found in any other style, and although, in later work it is more often found in other materials, such as stone, plaster and wood, in these latter it has not the same constructional reason for its existence, in fact it has become a purely decorative feature.[168] On comparing the tomb of Ezekiel (Woodcut No. 1003) with the pendentive shown in the porch of the ruined Mosque of Tabreez (Woodcut No. 1006 ) the same superimposed niches will be recognised.
From these, which may belong to the age of the Caliphs, we pass at once to the Seljukians, who seem to have been possessed of stronger building instincts.
One of the earliest buildings of this race of which anything like correct illustrations have been published is the Imaret or Hospital of Oulou Diami, at Erzeroum—an arcade of two storeys, surrounding on three sides a courtyard 90 ft. by 45. It is broken in the centre by what in a Christian church would be called a transept. The woodcut here given (No. 1004) shows the general appearance of the arcade, and also the upper part of two minarets which flank the external porch. This porch is ornamented in the richest manner of the style. Opposite to the entrance a long gallery leads to the tomb of the founder, a circular building of very considerable elegance, the roof of which is a hemispherical vault internally, but a straight-sided Armenian conical roof on the outside. These dispositions make the plan of the building so similar to that of a Christian church, that most travellers have considered it as one, mistaking the court for the nave, and the tomb, with the gallery leading to it, for the apse and choir. There can, however, be no doubt but that it was originally built by a Mahomedan, for the purpose of a hospital, or place of rest for pilgrims, during the sway of the Seljukian princes in the 12th and 13th centuries; and that its similarity to a Christian church in plan is accidental, though its details very much resemble those of the churches of Ani and other places in Armenia. This, however, only shows that the inhabitants of the same country did not practise two styles, but arranged the same forms in different manners to suit their various purposes.
There is another mosque of about the same age as this one at Ani, which would show even more clearly this close analogy; but it has never been drawn with sufficient correctness to admit of its being used for the purpose of demonstrating the fact now pointed out. But, indeed, throughout Armenia, mosques and Christian churches constantly alternate, borrowing details from one another, and making up one of the most curious mixed chapters in the history of the art; a chapter still remaining to be written by some one who may visit the spot with sufficient knowledge and enthusiasm to accomplish it.
MOSQUE AT TABREEZ.
The next building that may be chosen for illustration is the ruined mosque at Tabreez, which, when perfect, must have been one of the most beautiful in the country. Its history is not exactly known; but it certainly belongs to the Mogul dynasty, which, on the death of Mangu Khan the son of Ghengis Khan, was founded in Persia by Hulaku, the brother of Mangu. He and his sons generally retained the faith of their forefathers till Ghazan Khan, who succeeded in A.D. 1204. Ghazan zealously embraced the Mahomedan faith, and it was apparently to signalise the conversion that he began this mosque; but whether it was finished by him or his successors is not evident. As will be seen by the plan, it is not large, being only about 150 ft. by 120, exclusive of the tomb in the rear, which, as a Tartar, it was impossible he could dispense with.
In plan it differs also considerably from those previously illustrated, being in reality a copy of a Byzantine church, carried out with the details of the 13th century—a fact which confirms the belief that the Persians before this age were not a mosque-building people. In this mosque the mode of decoration is what principally deserves attention, the whole building, both externally and internally, being covered with a perfect mosaic of glazed bricks of very brilliant colours, and wrought into the most intricate patterns, and with all the elegance for which the Persians were in all ages remarkable.
Europe possesses no specimen of any style of ornamentation comparable with this. The painted plaster of the Alhambra is infinitely inferior, and even the mosaic painted glass of our cathedrals is a very partial and incomplete ornament compared with the brilliancy of a design pervading the whole building, and entirely carried out in the same style. From the time, however, of the oldest Assyrian palaces to the present day, colour has been in that country a more essential element of architectural magnificence than form; and here at least we may judge of what the halls of Nineveh and Persepolis once were, when adorned with colours in the same manner as this now ruined mosque of the Tartars.
Though of course impossible adequately to represent this building in a woodcut, the view[169] (Woodcut No. 1006) of its principal portal will give some idea of the form of the mosque, and introduce the reader to a new mode of giving expression to portals, which after the date of this building is nearly universal in the East. The entrance-door is small, but covered by a semi-dome of considerable magnitude, giving it all the grandeur of a portal as large as the main aisle of the building. The Gothic architects attempted something of this sort, by making the outer openings of their doors considerably larger than the inner; in other words, by “splaying” widely the jambs of their portals. By this means, in some of the French cathedrals, the appearance of a very large portal is obtained with only the requisite and convenient size of opening; but in this they were far surpassed by the architects of the East, whose lofty and deeply-recessed portals, built on the same plan as the example here shown, are unrivalled for grandeur and appropriateness.[170]
The mosque was destroyed by an earthquake in the beginning of the present century, but it seems to have been deserted long before that, owing to its having belonged to the Turkish sect of the Somnites, while the Persians have during the last five centuries been devoted Shi-ites, or followers of the sect of Ali and his martyred sons.
TOMB AT SULTANIEH. (A.D. 1303-1316.)
Mahomed Khodabendah, the successor of Ghazan Khan, the builder of the mosque at Tabreez last described, founded the city of Sultanieh, and, like a true Tartar, his first care was to build himself a tomb[171] which should become the principal ornament of his new city. Ker Porter[172] says that, being seized with as much zeal for his new Shi-ite faith as his predecessor had been for the Somnite, his intention was to lodge in this mausoleum the remains of Ali and his son Hossein. This intention, however, was not carried into effect, and we know that his own bones repose alone in their splendid shrine.
In general plan the building is an octagon, with a small chapel added opposite the entrance, in which the body lies. The front has also been brought out to a square, not only to admit of two staircases in the angles, but also to serve as a backing to the porch which once adorned this side, but which has now entirely disappeared.
Internally the dome is 81 ft. in diameter by 150 ft. in height, the octagon being worked into a circle by as elegant a series of brackets as perhaps ever were employed for this purpose. The form of the dome, too, is singularly graceful and elegant, and much preferable to the bulb-shaped double domes subsequently common in Persian architecture. The whole is covered with glazed tiles, rivalling in richness those of the mosque at Tabreez, and with its general beauty of outline this building affords one of the best specimens of this style to be found either in Persia or any other country.
These works were, however, far surpassed in magnificence, though not in beauty, by those of the dynasty of the Sufis, who succeeded in 1499. The most powerful and brilliant sovereign of this race was Shah Abbas the Great (A.D. 1585-1629), whose great works rendered his capital of Ispahan one of the most splendid cities of the East. Among these works, by far the most magnificent was the great Maidan, or bazaar, with its accompanying mosque and subordinate buildings. The Maidan is an immense rectangular area, 2600 ft. by 700,[173] surrounded on all sides by an arcade two storeys in height, consisting of 86 arches on the longer and 30 on the shorter sides, richly ornamented, and broken in the centre of each face by a handsome edifice. The great mosque is at one end, opposite to which is the bazaar gate, and in the longer side the Luft Ullah mosque; facing this is the Ali Kassi gate, which, in its various storeys and complicated suites of apartments, is in fact a palace rather than a gateway as we understand the term.
The dimensions of the Great Mosque, or Mesjid Shah, may be judged of from the following plan. As will be perceived, the Maidan not facing Mecca, a bend is made in the entrance, which, however, is far from being unfavourable to the general picturesque effect of the group. The mosque itself is a rectangular building, the internal dimensions of which are 223 ft. by 130, the centre compartment being surmounted by a dome 75 ft. in diameter and 110 ft. high internally; but being double, like most domes of this age, its external height is 165 ft., which is also the height of the minarets attached to the mosque. On three sides the mosque is surrounded by courtyards, richly ornamented, and containing fountains and basins of water for the prescribed ablutions of the faithful. The principal court measures 225 ft. by 170, and surrounded as it is on all sides by façades in the richest style of Persian polychromatic decoration, the brilliancy of its architectural effect is almost unrivalled by any other example of its class. Both in architectural forms and in the style of ornament this mosque is inferior to those at Tabreez and at Sultanieh; but for mass and amount of decoration it is among the most magnificent specimens of its class. Taken altogether, the Maidan Shah, and its accompanying mosques and gates—the whole the work of one king and on one design—present a scene of gorgeous, though it may be somewhat barbarous, splendour, almost unequalled in the whole world. Even now, in its premature decay, it strikes almost every traveller with astonishment, though the style is not one that looks well in ruin, owing to the perishable nature of the materials employed, and the tawdry effect of glazed tiles, when attention is drawn to the fact that they are a mere surface ornament to the walls.
The forms and peculiarities of this style will be better judged of—in a woodcut at least—by the representation of the Madrissa, or college, of Husein Shah (Woodcut No. 1001 ), the last of the Sufi kings of Persia; and though erected at the end of the 17th century, while the great mosque was built in the beginning of it, but little change seems to have taken place in the interval: the minarets are of the same form, the double bulb-shaped dome is similar, and the double arcades that surround the court of the mosque are the same in form as those that encircle the Maidan Shah.
From the time of the Afghan invasion, which took place during the reign of the Sultan Husein in the beginning of the last century, Persia does not seem to have recovered herself sufficiently to undertake any great works; some palaces, it is true, have been built, and mosques of inferior dimensions, but nothing really remarkable of late years. The influence of the corrupt styles of Europe has become too apparent to enable us to hope that she will ever again be able to recover her place in the domain of art.
Although it was sometimes brilliant, and always truthful, the Persian Saracenic is hardly entitled to rank among the really great or admirable styles of architecture. Its chief historic interest rests on the fact of its being a modern reproduction of the style of the ancient palaces of Nineveh and Babylon, using the same thick walls of imperfectly burned bricks, and covering them with the same brilliant coloured decorations of glazed and painted tiles and bricks, carrying this species of decoration to an extent never attempted in any other part of the world. This too constitutes its principal claim to interest in an artistic point of view, since it shows how far polychromatic decoration may be used, both internally and externally, not only without any offence to good taste, but with the most complete success in producing that beauty and splendour which is the aim of all architectural utterance.
PALACES.
The Persian princes showed almost as much taste and splendour in their palaces as in their mosques; but these were not from their nature so capable of architectural display as the others. An Eastern palace neither requires that mass of apartments and offices which are indispensable in Europe, nor does the climate admit of their being massed together so as to form a single group, imposing from its size. On the contrary, the Persian palaces generally consist of a number of pavilions and detached halls, and smaller groups of apartments scattered over a large space interspersed with trees and gardens, and only connected by covered arcades or long lines of canals, the centre of which is adorned by fountains of the most elegant forms.
Individually these detached buildings are often of great beauty and most elaborately ornamented, and the whole effect is pleasing and tasteful; but for true architectural effect they are too scattered, and the whole is generally very deficient in grandeur.
The Throne-room at Teheran (Woodcut No. 1012 ) is a fair specimen of these buildings, though, in fact, it is only a porch or deep recess opening on a garden, the front being supported or ornamented by two twisted columns. In front of these a massive curtain is drawn out when the room is used, and both for colour and richness of effect the curtain is virtually the principal feature in the composition.
The next example is taken from the palace of Char Bagh, or the “Four Gardens,” at Ispahan, and shows the general picturesque form these buildings assume. It is by no means so favourable a specimen as the last, though this may arise more from the nature of the building than from any defect on the part of its architect. Many of the pavilions in the same palace are of great lightness and elegance, though, most of them being supported by wooden pillars, and being of very ephemeral construction, they hardly belong to the higher class of architectural art.
The Caravanserais form another class of buildings, not peculiar, it is true, to Persia, but which, from the character of the traffic in merchandise, and the general insecurity of the roads along which it is conducted, has received a great development in that country. Internally, their usual form is that of a square courtyard, surrounded by a range of arcades generally two storeys in height, each arch opening into a small square cell at the back. Externally they present only a high plain wall, surmounted by battlements and flanked by towers at each angle, and sometimes also by additional towers in the longer faces. The principal architectural ornament is lavished on the gateways, which are almost always higher than the contiguous walls, and often display great beauty of design combined with considerable elaboration of detail.
It is not, however, only in these larger monuments that the Persians show an appreciation of the beautiful and a power of expressing it. As in most Eastern nations, the feeling seems innate, and all the minor objects they fabricate exhibit it, as well as the more important ones, and it is to the former that we must probably look in future for examples of Persian art, for her political position is such that she will hardly be able soon to attempt anything great or important in architectural art. There are still, however, resident in that country remnants of those races who built the palaces of Babylon and Nineveh; and if an opportunity were afforded them, they might still do something, if allowed to do it in their own way. It is to be feared, however, that European influence is extending through that country too fast for art; and that if they attempted anything, it will be only in the bastard Italian style, which, with the round hat, seems destined to make the tour of the globe.
TURKESTAN.
The progress of the Russians in Northern Asia has recently opened up whole regions that hitherto have been hidden from the light of European research, and the beautiful paintings of Verestchagin have rendered us familiar with the splendour of the capital of Timur the Lame. Unfortunately, however, no photographs have yet been published of Samarcand, and no plans of the buildings of that far-famed city. We have not seen any such detailed descriptions as would enable us to speak with anything like certainty of their affinities or difference with other buildings of the same age. All that can be said with certainty is that the great Mosque and Tomb of its founder at Samarcand are erected in the same style as the mosque at Tabreez (Woodcut No. 1006 ), and the tomb at Sultanieh (Woodcut No. 1009), and other buildings in Persia and Armenia, with only such slight differences as might be expected from their more northern locality. The whole façade of the mosque, together with minarets and domes, is covered with painted tiles—so far as can be ascertained—of extreme beauty of design, and the tomb is surrounded by screens of marble trellis-work very similar to what we find afterwards in the works of Timour’s descendants at Agra and Delhi. The great interest, in fact, that attaches to these buildings arises not so much from their own intrinsic value as because they form a connecting link between the style of Persia and that of the Great Mogul dynasty in India, and, when properly investigated, they will serve to explain much that is now obscure in the history of the art in that country.
The buildings of these Northern capitals will probably also prove interesting as historical indications in another direction, as they retain traces of a modern style of architecture which, notwithstanding the distance in time, seems to be traceable back to the palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis. Verestchagin’s paintings gave several illustrations of this style, which in a modified form is found in the oldest cave temples in India. Its most marked peculiarity is the elongated bulbous form of the shaft, rising from a broad shoe-like base, and supporting a small bracket capital. The sketch on the previous page of a pavilion at Khiva explains its general features, but its merits as an architectural form arise from the beauty of the carved details with which it is ornamented, which cannot be expressed in so small a scale.
We probably know enough now of Northern Asia to render it probable that we can hardly expect to find there any buildings of great antiquity, or any of greater magnificence than those of Samarcand; but it seems equally, or more clear that, when properly investigated, these buildings will supply many missing links in our history, and explain a great deal that now seems mysterious.
I. INTRODUCTORY
CHRONOLOGY.
DATES. Toltecs arrived in Anahuac A.D. 648 Toltecs abandoned the country 1051 Chichemecas arrived 1170 Acolhuans arrived about 1200 Aztecs reached Tula 1196 City of Mexico founded 1125 Almitzotl conquered Guatemela beginning of 16th century Spaniards arrived 1519
ALTHOUGH considerable progress has been made during the last few years in clearing away the mists that hang over most of the problems connected with American antiquities, much still remains to be done before we can give a distinct or satisfactory answer to many of the questions that arise regarding them. We cannot yet say positively whether the Toltecs, the Aztecs, and other tribes who inhabited the Valley of Mexico, were successive waves of one great immigration from the North, or whether they belonged to different races of mankind. We cannot tell whether there was any connection between the civilisation of Mexico and Peru. The historical difficulties are far from being settled, and, more than all these, it is still a matter of doubt whether American civilisation is wholly original and indigenous, or whether any portion of it was derived from the Old World.
The one consolatory fact in all this perplexity seems to be, that the materials certainly do exist by which it can be removed. So soon as any one conversant with such inquiries will undertake the investigation on the spot, he will be able to arrange all the buildings into chronological series, and fix at least their approximate dates. He will also be able to say how far the buildings in one province are akin to those in another, and to separate those which belong to other races; and he will be able to tell us whether there is any essential similarity between the styles of the Old and the New World, or whether the latter be really original. Whenever a sufficient number of photographs reach Europe the investigation may be undertaken here, but it will be very much easier on the spot. Hitherto the great difficulty has been that the drawings of American monuments—especially those published by Humboldt and Lord Kingsborough—cannot be depended upon. The one bright exception to this censure are those of F. Catherwood,[174] both those which he published separately, and those with which he illustrated the works of Mr. Stephens.[175] Had that artist undertaken to classify his work in a chronological series, he doubtless could have done it; but as the arrangement of the plates is purely topographical, and they are so far reduced to a common denominator by the process of engraving, the classification can hardly now be attempted by one not familiar with the buildings themselves. In the meanwhile there seems no good reason for doubting the conclusion which he and Mr. Stephens arrived at, that the cities which they rediscovered were those which were inhabited and in the full tide of their prosperity at the time of the Spanish Conquest. The buildings which we now see in ruins were probably then all in use, and many may have been in progress and unfinished at the time of that great disaster. On the other hand, it is extremely doubtful if any building in Central America can date from five centuries before that event: in Mexico some may be older, but their title to greater antiquity has not yet been satisfactorily made out.
Whatever uncertainty may exist with regard to Mexican history, there is nothing in it that can strictly be stigmatised as fabulous. The Mexicans do not pretend to any very remote antiquity or divine descent. There are no heroes who live thousands or tens of thousands of years; nor any of the other extravagances that usually mark the dawn of history in the Old World. On the contrary, the Mexican annals modestly commence with the arrival of the Toltecs in Anahuac in the 5th or 6th century, and with the beneficent teaching of a stranger, Quetzalcoatl, who lived among them, taught them architecture and the agricultural arts, instructed them in their religious duties, and then, like Lycurgus fifteen centuries earlier, left them by sea, promising to return.
For 300 or 400 years from this time the Toltecs lived in peace and prosperity, covering the table-land, it is said, with their monuments. But evil times came; famine, internecine wars, and disasters—interpreted as evidences of the wrath of the gods—drove them from their homes, and they migrated, it is said, southwards to Yucatan; where it is usually assumed that they erected the architectural monuments we now find in that country.
Central America is, however, one of the most fertile countries in the world, and capable of supporting—indeed did support—an immense population with very little labour; so it seems probable that it was inhabited long before the time mentioned.[176] This, however, by no means militates against the idea that the Toltecs may have been the first to communicate to their new country many of the arts they had elaborated in Anahuac. Indeed, it is to such a combination of two not very dissimilar races that all the greatest results in art or civilization have been attained in other parts of the world, and it may have been the case here also.
Politically the annals of Anahuac are a blank between the departure of the Toltecs and the arrival of the Aztecs in the middle of the 12th century. These seem to have been a people of different race from the former occupants of the valley, but sufficiently akin to take up the previous civilization; and being reinforced by successive immigrations of tribes of the same race, and speaking apparently similar languages, they had at the time of the arrival of the Spaniards fully repeopled the valley and elaborated a very considerable degree of civilization.
Again everything we read of, and every indication we have, leads us to suppose that the greatest development of civilization in Mexico took place immediately before the Spanish Conquest, and thus that the time of highest prosperity was that which directly preceded its destruction. Four centuries had apparently sufficed to convert a tribe of Red Indians into a tolerably civilized community. Whatever their civilization may have been, it could not have attained a very permanent character, for it vanished like a phantom at the first touch of the European; and the remnants of the Indians who still remain are as incompetent creatures as exist in any part of the world.
Till the investigations of the ethnologist are further advanced, it is impossible to feel any great confidence in the various theories that have been advanced on this subject. Without wishing to put it forward as a thing to be relied upon, it appears to me that the following scheme meets more nearly than any other the requirements of the case, while it amalgamates more perfectly the various facts ascertained by scientific men.
It is generally admitted that two races of men are found, either now living or whose remains are found in Mexican sepulchres. One of these is said to be allied to the Esquimaux, or races of that class, the other to the Red Indians. The former, I cannot help thinking, represent the Toltecs. It does seem that all along the west coast of America, from Behring’s Straits to California, races have always existed more or less closely allied to the Kamtchatdales or Esquimaux; and these may, at some early period, have advanced to the plains of Mexico. If they were of that blood there is no difficulty in understanding how they became builders.
On the other hand there seems little doubt that the Aztecs were Red Indians, allied to those tribes who, so far as we know, always inhabited the Valley of the Mississippi and the countries to the eastward of it. They may have been capable of taking up an earlier civilization, and, if their blood was mixed at all with the earlier inhabitants, of carrying it further; but in themselves they are utterly unprogressive and incapable of developing any attributes of civilized life.
In Yucatan we certainly have another race, but whether they were Caribs, or some other people whose traces have been lost, cannot now be easily ascertained. In Peru, and possibly also further north, there is certainly a strongly developed Polynesian element, and there may be other races still; but these four alone, mixed in varying quantities, are more than sufficient to account for all the varieties we find there in the course of our inquiries.
There still remains one question which is more germane to our present subject than even the others; though perhaps on the whole still more difficult to answer. It is this: Are the civilization and arts of the ancient Americans original and indigenous, or did they receive any impulse from the natives of the Old World? One part of this may easily be disposed of. The absence of all domestic animals, the possession of only one of the cereals, the total ignorance of alphabetic writing and of the use of iron—though the country is full of the ore—and many other minor facts, seem sufficient to prove that no immigration of tribes or families could have taken place in such numbers as to bring their animals, their grain or their materials, with them. This, however, by no means precludes the possibility of many missionaries having reached their shores, who, though bringing nothing but what they carried in their brains, could communicate doctrines, teach arts, and improve processes, and so communicate much of the civilization of the countries from which they came.
Without laying too much stress on the somewhat mythic story of Quetzalcoatl, though there seems no good reason for doubting its main features, we have only to refer to the history of India between 250 B.C. and 700 A.D. to see what missionary zeal prevailed in those days. Asoka set the example, and by his missionaries and their successors the doctrines of Buddha were propagated from the shores of the Mediterranean to the Yellow Sea; or, what is more to our purpose, we have only to read the travels of Fa Hian and Hiouen Thsang to see what dangers by land and sea the Chinese missionaries between the 4th and 7th centuries were prepared to brave in the service of the faith. It probably would have been easier to travel to Mexico from China viâ Behring’s Straits than to reach India through Central Asia, and to return from Ceylon by sea. Whether or not such a journey was ever accomplished, is another question. I do not think that either Neumann[177] or D’Eichthal[178] have at all made out a satisfactory case to prove that the country of Fusang, from which the pilgrim Hoei Shin returned to China in the year 499, was Mexico. On the contrary, the evidence of the domestic animals, &c., he speaks of, and other important details, all seem to tell the other way. It looks more as if Vancouver Island, or the coast thereabout, was the place indicated. But are there any remains of a half-civilized people there? Be this as it may, the story, which is authentic as far as it goes, seems to prove that Northern America was in communication with Northern Asia in the 5th century.
D’Eichthal’s argument, that the Mexican sculptures are Buddhist, seems even more groundless. I have carefully examined the examples he adduces, and, from a tolerably intimate acquaintance with Buddhist art in Asia, may be permitted to say that I can see no trace of it in Mexico. If the argument were based on that Serpent-worship which almost everywhere underlies Buddhism in the Old World, it would not be so easy to refute it. There is a very considerable likeness between the sculptured forms of the Serpent-worship in the Old and in the New World. But it is a serious question, whether this arose from a similar instinct in the two races, or was communicated from the one to the other. My present impression is in favour of some intercommunication in so far as Serpent-worship is concerned.
Our knowledge of the architecture of Eastern Asia and of Western America is not yet sufficiently precise to enable us to base any very pointed argument upon it. It is curious, however, that as we advance eastward from the Valley of the Euphrates at every step we meet with forms of art becoming more and more like those of Central America. When we reach the sea we encounter at Suku in Java a teocalli, which is almost identical with that of Tehuantepec.[179] In Cambodia we have teocallis at Bakong and Bakeng, and no one would be startled if told that representations of some of the temples at Ongcor Thom in Cambodia were really taken from buildings found in Yucatan. In China many of the crinkum-crankums of their art find their close counterparts in America. But for the distance and the geographical difficulties, no one probably would hesitate to admit that the architecture of America may have been borrowed from the Old World. But how did it cross the ocean? At present that barrier seems almost insurmountable. But it may not always remain so: the inquiry is still in its infancy, and the tendency of all recent researches has been to show that there were more means of communication and a more direct connection between the nations of the world in ancient times than we have hitherto been disposed to believe was likely or even possible.
II. CENTRAL AMERICA
CONTENTS.
Historical Notice—Central American style—Temples—Palaces—Buildings at Palenque—Uxmal, &c.
THE Valley of Mexico, in which the first group of buildings we have to describe is situated, is a small tract in the centre of the table-land of Anahuac. Though not larger than Yorkshire, and one-third of it permanently under water, it was, at the time we first became acquainted with it, divided into three or four small States, which, notwithstanding continual wars among themselves, had managed to acquire a considerable degree of material prosperity. After making every allowance for the exaggeration of the Spanish and native historians, the remains of the Aztec capitals attest an amount of population and a degree of organisation which it is impossible to overlook or deny, and it seems that it was at their last moment that this development was greatest; for, immediately before the Spanish Conquest, all the States of the valley, tired of their ruinous wars, had joined their forces together, and, thus combined, proved more than a match for any of the surrounding States. They spread their arms and influence to the Mexican Gulf, penetrated to the shores of the Pacific, and on one occasion are even said to have crossed the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, and reached the confines of Guatemala. These last expeditions seem to have been undertaken merely to obtain prisoners for their horrid rites of human sacrifice, of which they were becoming passionately fond; and they made no settlement in these countries sufficient to influence either their arts or institutions in any way. Shortly after this, the conquest of the Spaniards under Cortes put an end to the kingdom and power of the Aztecs for ever.
The principal monuments of the valley are the Teocallis—literally Houses of God—the Temples of the people. These are pyramids in terraces with flat tops, and always surmounted by a chamber or cell which is in fact the temple itself. They seem to be of all ages, for if one may trust the tradition, that of Cholulu is as old as the early Toltecs, whereas the great teocalli of the city of Mexico was only finished five years before the discovery of America by Columbus, and the Spaniards met with many persons who had assisted in its erection. It has, however, with all the native buildings of the city, been swept away by the ruthless bigotry of the conquerors. Independent of its own interest, this is the more to be regretted, as the possession of a single monument of authentic date would form a starting-point for our investigations and serve as a check on all our theories.
Of these teocallis, the largest, probably also the oldest, is that of Cholulu. Its dimensions, in so far as they can be ascertained in its present ruinous state, are 1440 ft. square and 177 ft. in height, divided in four storeys, the fifth being formed by the cell or temple, which has now been replaced by a chapel dedicated to the Virgin Mary. The whole is composed of badly-burnt bricks and mud, and is now so overgrown with trees that it is difficult to make out its form, but in Humboldt’s time it apparently was freer from obstruction and more easily traced.
There are two pyramids at Teotihuacan, the largest of which is apparently a square of 645 ft., with a height of 171, and there are others at Tezcuco of about the same dimensions, and, like them, divided into five or seven storeys, but the most interesting of those yet brought to light is that of Xochicalco. It is situated on the top of what appears to be a natural elevation, but which has been fashioned into terraces by art. The pyramid itself is in five storeys, the stone facing of the three upper of which has been removed to repair a sugar-mill in quite recent times, but the two lower still retain their sculptures and architectural ornaments. Mr. Tylor gives the date of 945 to this building,[180] and there does not seem to be any reason for doubting its general correctness. If it is so, the possession of photographs of its bas-reliefs and cornices would go far to clear up half the difficulties which beset the question.[181] One monument in the middle of the series with sculptural and architectural details, and an authentic date, is nearly all that is required for the purpose.
Besides these great many-storeyed pyramids there are numerous examples in various parts of the country, of one storey only; several of these have been described, but unfortunately not drawn. Their general arrangement may, however, be judged of from the annexed example from Oajaca. Like all others in Mexico, it is only a device to raise a temple to such a height as should give it dignity and enable the ceremonies performed on its upper platform to be seen by all the people.
It is indispensably necessary to bear this distinction in mind, in speaking of these monuments, as careless writers, connecting the word Pyramid with Egypt, have been too apt to confound together two classes of monuments entirely distinct and dissimilar. The Egyptian pyramid is always a tomb. The principal object of its erection is in the sepulchral chamber in its centre. It always terminates upwards in a point. In no instance are there external steps leading to a cell or chamber on the apex. In fact, they were always tombs; never temples. The Assyrian pyramids, on the contrary, have much more affinity with the buildings of which we are now speaking. They were always in terraces, the upper platform was always crowned by a chamber or cell, and there were external steps leading to this, which was the principal object of the erection. In investigating the history of Eastern art this form of temple has been traced from Mesopotamia to the shores of the Eastern Ocean. If we still, however, hesitate to pronounce that there was any connection between the builders of the pyramids of Suku and Oajaca, or the temples of Xochicalco and Boro Buddor, we must at least allow that the likeness is startling and difficult to account for on the theory of mere accidental coincidence.
One thing, at all events, seems clear. If we are at any time to trace a connection between the architecture of the New and the Old World it is in the direction above indicated that light is to be looked for. At all events it seems as if it could not now be long before we ascertain whether any connection did exist between the arts of the two continents, or whether we may regard that of America as wholly indigenous.
Almost, however, as if to warn us to beware of jumping too rapidly to conclusions of this class, we meet in Mexico occasionally with such a monument as that at Mitla, which is so entirely original as to defy the stoutest advocate to find an associate for it. As will be seen from the annexed plan, it consists of a portico, measuring 160 ft. across, its roof supported by a row of six pillars down the centre, and having behind it a square building, measuring about 65 ft. each way, in the centre of which is a court with four apartments opening into it, the entrances of which are so arranged as to secure the utmost amount of privacy. Originally there appear to have been four such buildings, arranged round a courtyard, but only one is now perfect. If, however, the plan is original, the style of ornamentation is still more so. The walls slope outwards, which is not the case in any other known building. The panels are filled with frets and forms such as are only found in Mexico, and are entirely unlike anything found elsewhere; and the whole building is such, that if it stood alone, or all Mexican buildings were like it, we should at once be obliged to admit that the style was entirely original, and formed without any connection with the older world.
Its use is said to be sepulchral, and there are underground chambers which would countenance that belief, according to our views. In hot climates, however, subterranean apartments are appropriate rather to the living, and are, when met with, generally the best in the house; so that, without some more evidence, it would appear rather to be a palace, which the arrangement of its internal chambers and its whole appearance would more certainly indicate. Its age is not known, but in the Aztec paintings executed immediately before, and in some instances subsequently to, the conquest, the same forms and the same style of decoration constantly appear. This is not conclusive, for the same architectural forms may in this country have prevailed throughout, for anything we know; but judging by the rules of European criticism, the building does not date from long before the time of the conquest.
Whenever a stable government is established in that unhappy country, and the artist and photographer are enabled to pursue their occupations in security and at leisure, it is to be hoped that materials will become available for completing this chapter of our history. At present, it must remain nearly a blank, because so few representations of Mexican monuments exist on which reliance can be placed.
YUCATAN.
It is extremely difficult to determine whether it is owing to their original paucity, or to their destruction by the Spaniards, that the monuments in the province of Mexico are now so few and far between. If we may judge from the glowing descriptions of the conquerors, and the analogy of the remains in Yucatan, we may almost certainly ascribe their disappearance to the bigotry or the avarice of the Europeans. Be this as it may, it is certain that the moment we pass the southern boundary of Mexico and enter the peninsula generally known as Yucatan, which for our present purpose must be considered as including Costa Rica, we find a province as rich in architectural remains as any of the same extent in the Old World, not even excepting Cambodia, which is the one it most nearly resembles. In this region Messrs. Stephens and Catherwood visited and described between fifty and sixty old cities; and, if we may trust native reports, there are others in the centre of the land even more important than these, but which have not been visited by any European in modern times. Of the cities described by these travellers, Uxmal, Palenque, Kabah, Chichen Itza, and others, are really magnificent. The first-named almost rivals Ongcor in splendour and extent, though it falls far short of it in the elegance or beauty of detail of its buildings.
As before hinted, there seems no reason for dissenting from the conclusion Messrs. Stephens and Catherwood arrived at regarding their age. It is deliberately expressed by the last-named author in his folio work (page 8) in the following terms:—“I do not think we should be safe in ascribing to any of the monuments which retain their forms a greater age than from 800 to 1000 years; and those which are perfect enough to be delineated I think it is likely are not more than from 400 to 600 years old.” In other words, they belong to the great building epoch of the world—the 13th century, or a little before or after that time.[182] It seems more than probable, therefore, that the great buildings at Uxmal are contemporary with the temples of Nakhon Wat and Hullabeed, and the cathedrals of Rheims and Toledo. Whether or not there was any communication direct or indirect between these buildings, which are geographically so remotely distant, is another question, to which no satisfactory answer can be given in the present state of our knowledge, and if any is attempted it must be a negative one.[183]
As in Mexico, the principal monument of Yucatan is the Teocalli. In the latter province, however, they seem to differ somewhat in design from those above described. They are not generally in terraces, but rise, at an angle of about 45°, to the level of the platform on which the temple stands; and a magnificent unbroken flight of steps leads from the base of the building to its summit. Almost all these retain more or less of the remains of architectural magnificence that once adorned their summits. The annexed Woodcut, No. 1018, representing the elevation of a temple at Palenque (the plan of which is shown below), supported by a pyramid, will give a good general idea of their form. The pyramid is about 280 ft. square, and 60 ft. in height: on the top of it stands the temple, 76 ft. wide in front and 25 ft. deep, ornamented in stucco with bassi-relievi of better execution than is usually found in these parts, and with large hieroglyphical tablets, whose decipherment, were it possible, would probably reveal to us much of the history of these buildings.
The roof is formed by approaching courses of stone meeting at the summit, and following the same outline externally, with curious projections on the outside, like dormer windows, but meant apparently either for ornament or as pedestals for small idols, or for some similar purpose.
The other temples found in Yucatan differ but little from this one, except in size, and, architecturally speaking, are less interesting than the palaces—the splendour of the temple consisting in the size of its pyramid, to which the superstructure is only the crowning member; in the palace, on the other hand, the pyramid is entirely subordinate to the building it supports, forming merely an appropriate and convenient pedestal, just sufficient to give it a proper degree of architectural effect.
In speaking of the palaces it would be most important, and add very much to the interest of the description, if some classification could be made as to their relative age. The absence of all traces of history makes this extremely difficult, and the only mode that suggests itself is to assume that those buildings which show the greatest similarity to wooden construction in their details are the oldest, and that those in which this peculiarity cannot be traced are the more modern.
This at least is certainly the case in all other countries of the world where timber fit for building purposes can be procured; there men inevitably use the lighter and more easily worked vegetable material long before they venture on the more durable but far more expensive mineral substance, which ultimately supersedes it to so great an extent. Even in Egypt, in the age of the pyramid builders, the ornamental architecture is copied in all its details from wooden constructions. In Greece, when the art reached its second stage, the base is essentially stone, and the upper part only copied in stone from the earlier wooden forms; and so it was apparently in Mexico; the lower part of the buildings is essentially massive stone-work, the upper part is copied from forms and carvings that must originally have been executed in wood, and are now repeated in stone.
The following Woodcut, No. 1020, of Chunjuju, for instance, represents in its simplest form what is repeated in almost all these buildings—a stone basement with square doorways, but without windows, surmounted by a superstructure evidently a direct copy of woodwork, and forming part of the construction of the roof.
In most cases in Yucatan the superstructure is elaborately carved with masks, scrolls, and carvings similar to those seen on the prows of the war-boats, or in the Moraïs or burying-places of the Polynesian islanders.
Sometimes pillars are used, and the wooden construction is carried even lower down, though mixed in that case with parts of essentially lithic form. Barring the monstrosity of the carvings, there is often, as in the palace at Zayi (Woodcut No. 1021 ), a degree of elegance in the design by no means to be despised, more especially when, as in this instance, the building rises in a pyramidal form in three terraces, the one within and above the other, the lowest, as shown in the plan (Woodcut No. 1022), being 260 ft. in length, by 110 ft. in width. This, though far from being the largest of these palaces, is one of the most remarkable, as its terraces, instead of being mere flights of steps, all present architectural façades, rising one above the other. The upper and central tier may possibly have been a seven-celled temple, and the lower apartments appropriated to the priests, but it is more probable that they were all palaces, the residences of temporal chiefs, inasmuch as at Uxmal a pyramidal temple is attached to the building called the Casa del Gubernador, which is extremely similar to this, though on a still larger and more ornate scale. There are other instances of the palace and temple standing together.
Sometimes, instead of the buildings standing within and above each other, as in the last example, they are arranged around a courtyard, as in that called the Casa de las Monjas at Uxmal (Woodcut No. 1023 ), one of the most remarkable buildings in Central America, for its size, as well as for the elaborateness of its decorations. It is raised on three low terraces, reaching a total height of 20 ft. The block to the south, 260 ft. long, is pierced by a triangular-headed gateway, 10 ft. 8 in. wide, leading to a courtyard, measuring upwards of 200 ft. each way, and surrounded on all sides by buildings, as shown in the plan; which, though only one storey in height, from their size and the elaborateness of their decorations, form one of the most remarkable groups of buildings in the world.
In the same city is the other building, just referred to, called the Casa del Gubernador, somewhat similar to the principal of the three edifices composing the Casa de las Monjas, but larger and even more elaborate in its decorations. It stands alone, however, with only a temple attached unsymmetrically to one angle of it.
With regard to construction, as above remarked, the style may be generally characterized as one remove from the original wooden construction of early times. No wooden buildings, or even wooden roofs, now remain, nor could any have been expected to resist the effects of the climate; but many of the lintels of the doorways were formed by wooden beams, and some of these still remain, though most of them have perished, bringing down with them large portions of the walls which were supported by them. In other instances, and generally speaking in those that seem most modern, the upper parts of the doorways, as well as the roofs of the chambers, are formed by bringing the courses nearer together till they meet in the centre, thus forming a horizontal arch, as it is called, precisely as the Etruscans and all the earlier tribes of Pelasgic race did in Europe at the dawn of civilisation, and as is done in India to this day. This form is well shown in the annexed woodcut, representing a chamber in the Casa de las Monjas at Uxmal, 13 ft. wide. The upper part of the doorway on the right hand has fallen in, from its wooden lintel having decayed.
A still more remarkable instance of this mode of construction is shown in the Woodcut No. 1025, representing a room in a temple at Chichen Itza in Yucatan. The room is 19 ft. 8 in. by 12 ft. 9 in.; in the centre of it stand two pillars of stone, supporting beams of sapote-wood, which also forms the lintels of the door, and over these is the stone vaulting of the usual construction: the whole apparently still perfect and entire, though time-worn, and bearing the marks of as great age as any of the other buildings of the place.
When the roof was constructed entirely of wood, it probably partook very much of the same form, the horizontal beam being supported by two struts meeting at the centre, and framed up at the sides, which would at once account for the appearances shown in the Woodcuts Nos. 1020, 1021. It is also probable that both light and air were introduced above the walls, between the interstices of the wood-work; which is further confirmed by the strange erection on the top of the Casa at Palenque (Woodcut No. 1018 ), where the openings look very like the copy of a ventilator of some sort.
It is, of course, impossible to ascribe any very remote antiquity to buildings containing so much wood in their construction, and erected in a climate so fatal to the durability of any class of buildings whatever. In addition to this, it must be borne in mind that the bas-reliefs are generally in stucco, which, however good, is still a very perishable material, and also that the painting on these and on the walls is still bright and fresh. In such a climate as that of Egypt no argument could be drawn from these circumstances; but in a country subject to tropical rains and the heat and dryness of a tropical summer the marvel is that they should have lasted four or five centuries, and still more that they should have resisted so long the very destructive powers of vegetation. Taking all these circumstances together, the epoch of their erection does not seem a matter of doubt, and all that remains for the elucidation of their history is that they should be arranged in a sequence during the six or eight centuries which may have intervened between the erection of the oldest and the most modern of these mysterious monuments.