The decaying of the lintels at Ocosingo and Palenque, and their existence andpreservationat Uxmal enables a data to be formed in reference to the order of their erection; for thenon-appearanceof any wooden lintels at Copan authorizes the placing of that city first in chronological order, followed by the cities of Ocosingo and Palenque, and from the argument, and the preservation of the wood, Uxmal was builtafterthe foregone.
"The building has two parallel corridors running lengthwiseon all four of its sides. In front these corridors are about nine feet wide, and extend the whole length of the building, upwards of two hundred feet. In the long wall that divides them there is but one door, which is opposite the principal door of entrance, and has a corresponding one on the other side, leading to a courtyard in the rear.
"The floors are of cement, as hard as the best seen in the remains of Roman baths and cisterns. The walls are about ten feet high,—plastered,—and on each side of the principal entrance ornamented withmedallions, of which the borders only remain,—theseperhaps contained the busts of the Royal family. The separating-wall had apertures of about a foot, probably intended for purposes of ventilation.The builders were evidently ignorant of the principle of theARCH, and the support (ceiling) was made by stones (blocks) lapping over as they rose, as at Ocosingo, and as among the Cyclopean remains in Greece and Italy." * * * * "From the centre door of this corridor a range of stone steps, thirty feet long, leads to a rectangular courtyard, eighty feet long by seventy broad. On each side of the steps are grim and gigantic figurescarved on stoneinbasso relievo, nine or ten feet high, and in a position slightly inclined backward, from the end of the steps to the floor of the corridor. They are adorned with head-dresses and necklaces,but their attitude is that of pain and trouble. The design and anatomical proportion of the figures are faulty, but there is a force of expression about them which shewsthe skill and conceptive power of the artist. On each side of the courtyard of the Palace (Temple) are divided apartments, probably for sleeping. (?) On the right, the piers have all fallen down. On the left they are still standing and ornamented withstucco figures. In the centre apartment, in one of the holes, are the remains of awooden pole, about a foot long, which once stretched across, but the rest had decayed. It was the only piece of wood (worked) we found at Palenque, and we did not discover this until some time after we had made up our minds in regard to the wooden lintels over thedoors. It was much worm-eaten, and probably in a few years not a vestige will be left. At the farther side of the courtyard was another flight of stone steps, corresponding with those in front, on each side of which are carved figures, and on the flat surface between are singlecartouches of hieroglyphics." * * * * * * "In the further corridor the wall was in some places broken, andhadSEVERALseparate coats of plaister and paint. [Proofs of different periods] Inone place we counted six layers, each of which had the remains of colours. This corridor opened to a second courtyard, eighty feet long, and but thirty across. The floor of the corridor was ten feet above that of the courtyard, and on the wall underneath weresquare stoneswithhieroglyphics sculpturedupon them. On the piers werestuccoed figures, but in a ruined condition. On the other side of the courtyard were two ranges of corridors, which terminated the building in this direction. The first of them is divided into three apartments, with doors opening from the extremities upon the western corridor. All the piers are standing excepting that on the north-west corner. All are covered withstucco ornaments, and one withhieroglyphics. The rest containfiguresinbas relief." * * * "There are several distinct and independent buildings. [Within the confines of the Temple] The principal of these is theTower, on the south side of the second court. This Tower is conspicuous by its height and proportions: the base is thirty feet square, and it hasthree stories. Entering over a heap of rubbish at the base, wefound within another Tower, distinct from theouter one, and a stone staircase, so narrow that a large man could not ascend it. The staircase terminates against a dead stone ceiling, closing all further passage.The whole Tower was a substantial stone structure, and in its arrangements and purposes about as incomprehensible as the sculptured tablets. East of the Tower is another building, with two corridors, one richly decorated withpictures in stucco, and having in the centre an elliptical tablet. It is four feet long and three wide,of hard stone, set in the wall, and theSCULPTUREis inbas relief. Around it are the remains of a richstucco border. The principal figure sits cross-legged (i. e.orientally) on a couch, ornamented with two leopards' heads: the attitude is easy, the physiognomy the same as that of the other personages, and theexpression calm and benevolent. The figure wears around its neck a necklace of pearls [beads of gold?] to which is suspended a small medallion containing a face, perhaps for an image of the Sun."
From the positive radii around the medallion (as presented by the artist) there can be no hesitation in distinctly stating that it was intended for an "image of the Sun." This is essential in identifying the analogy of Religious worship: it also gives further authority for the belief that this edifice was a Temple, and not a Palace. TheTowerof Palenque also aids this belief, for from its locality it would seem to have been used as a modern oriental minaret, from which the priests summoned the people to prayer.
"Like every subject of sculpture we had seen in this country, the personage had earrings, bracelets on the wrists, and a girdle round the loins. The head-dress differs from most of the others at Palenque in that it wants the plume of feathers. Near the head arethree hieroglyphics. The other figure, which seems that of a woman is sitting cross-legged [kneeling?] on the ground, richly dressed, and apparently in the act ofmaking an offering. In this supposed offering is seen a plume of feathers, in which the head-dress of the principal personage is deficient. Over the head of the sitting personage arefour hieroglyphics.This is the only piece of Sculptured Stone about the the Palace(Temple) except those in the courtyard. Under it formerly stood a table [altar?] of which the impression against the wall is still visible."
It will be observed that the aboveSculpture is the only one in Stonein the interior of the Temple; and from the image of the Sun suspended from the neck of the principal figure, whose countenance is "calm and benevolent," and the richly-attired kneeling figure making an offering, the Sculpture seems to represent the Apollo of the Aborigines receiving a tributary gift. The "Table" underneath and in front, is in the very position of an Altar-table, upon which may have been placed the votive offerings of the living, in imitation of the Sculpture above the Altar. In a similar manner the more modern altar of the Christians is placed, for it is stationed beneath the artistical object of worship or the tables of the Decalogue. A paintingover a Christian altar, of the Magii adoring the InfantSaviour, and thereby calling for similar worship from the living, will completely illustrate the sculptured altar-piece of Palenque. We think that this will be admitted, and being so it establishes that this great edifice was one of the chief Temples of the Aborigines, erected by them for the worship of their God of light and heat—viz., the Sun.
This may then have been the Mecca-shrine of the Kingdom, to which all the nation made their annual pilgrimage; and especially do we believe this to have been the case, from the fact of thestuccobeing placed upon thestone, and the former illustrating a later Religion than that proved by the stone-sculpture; and the Religion being partially changed (as will be shewn hereafter), still it was the chief Temple for the assemblage of the people, and from which, perhaps, from the Tower of the Temple, was promulgated not only any change in the form of Religious worship, but also in the Laws of the country. Every thing indicates that this edifice was the Aboriginal Temple of the Sun: if it was the Palace, again would we ask, where is the Temple? for in all ancient nations, the edifice in which was performed the Religion of the country, was of more importance than any earthly residence. Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome, possessed the Temple, the Parthenon, the Capitol, and the Pantheon; Tyrus, Carthage, and Palmyra, their gorgeous Temple to Apollo (i. e.the Sun); Italy, England, and France, justly boast of their Churches sacred to St. Peter,St. Paul, and the Mother of the Saviour!—and the great Mahommedan family point with religious joy to the Shrine at Mecca; and why then should the Aborigines of the Western Hemisphere be an exception?
The jewelled Temples of the Sun (i. e.of Apollo), that in Mexico and Peru tempted the blood-stained feet of Cortez and Pizarro, were but the types of the original at Palenque; for the latter was in ruins when the Spanish pirates landed, and none of their historians even allude to the desolation of past ages, so engrossed were they with that of their own!
Another description of a piece of Sculpture (in stucco) upon a building near the Temple of Palenque, will be reserved for illustrating a powerful similitude to a Tyrian branch of worship. This will receive a full investigation in the chapter devoted to the national Analogies.
On the map of the Ruins of Palenque, and in the descriptions (as furnished in Mr. Stephens's work), the Temple, andfive otheredifices, all rise from a pyramidal base, havingfour sides; this fact will again be brought forward in refutation of one of his architectural conclusions.
These monuments of antiquity are situated in Yucatan, the great Peninsula of Mexican America.
"Emerging suddenly from the woods, to my astonishment, we came at once upon a large open field strewed with mounds of ruins, and vast buildings on terraces, andpyramidal structures, grand, and in good preservation, richly ornamented, without a bush to obstruct the view; and in picturesque effect, almost equal to the Ruins of Thebes. [Egypt] Such was my report I made to Mr. Catherwood on my return, who, lying in his hammock unwell, and out of spirits, told me I was romancing; but early the next morning we were on the ground, and his comment was, that thereality exceeded the description!"
It should be remembered that the above distinguished artist (Catherwood) had visited and copied the Ruins of Thebes and Egypt generally, and consequently his testimony is of more than common authority.
"The place of which I am now speaking (Uxmal) was, beyond all doubt, once a large, populous, and highlycivilized city, and the reader can nowhere find one word of it on any page of history. Who built it?—why it was located on that spot, away from water, or any of those natural advantages which have determined the sites of cities whose histories are known, what led to its abandonment, no man can tell. The only name by which it is known, is that of the Hacienda [i. e.farm-plantation] on which it stands. In the oldest deed, belonging to the Peon family [i. e.the owners], which goes back a hundred and forty years, the buildings are referred to in the boundaries of theestate asLas Casas de Piedra[i. e.the stone-houses]. This is the only ancient document or record in existence, in which the place is mentioned at all. The Ruins were all exhumed: within the last year the trees had been cut down and burned, and the whole field of Ruins was in view." * * * * "In attempting a description of the Ruins, so vast a work rises up before me, that I am at a loss where to begin." * * * * "Drawn off by mounds of ruins and piles of gigantic buildings, the eye returns, and again fastens upon a lofty structure. It was the first building I entered.From its front doorway I counted sixteen elevations[buildings],with broken walls and mounds of stones, and vast magnificent edifices, which at that distance seemed untouched by time and defying ruin. I stood in the doorway when the Sun went down, throwing from the buildings a prodigious breadth of shadow, darkening the terraces on which they stood, and presenting a scene strange enough for a work of enchantment. This building [i. e.in which he viewed the scene] is sixty-eight feet long. The elevation on which it stands, is built up solid from the plain, entirely artificial.Its form is not pyramidal, butoblong, and rounding, being two hundred and forty feet longat the base, and one hundred and twenty feet broad, and it is protected all around,to the very top, by a wall of square stones."
The terms of the last sentence are in direct opposition to the description,—for the elevation is distinctlypyramidal. It does not require a square base onlyrising from their corners to a central apex, to be essentially pyramidal,—for aconeis pyramidal, or an "oblong" rising and diminishing from a broad base; all walls onan inclined plane—no matter at what degree of elevation or declivity, possess the chief essential of a pyramid.
The cone, oblong, and square,—even a triple-sided or octagonal pyramid, would be, one and all, correct phrases in the language of Architecture, to express the character of the pyramid; and are so used in contradistinction to walls (one or more) of a perpendicular description,—and the instant such walls lose the facial of the plumb-line, they becomepyramidal, from the principle of the wall rising from its base, and falling to a centre, which, we repeat, is the chief essential of the pyramid. The number of sides, or none at all (i. e.a cone), has no part in the pyramidalprinciple; as the key-stone is to the Arch, so the apex is to the Pyramid; but if the latteris only half reared, yet approaching by the inclined wallstowards an apex, it is as much a pyramidal structure as if the sides had reached the apex itself. It is to be regretted that Mr. Stephens should have been ignorant of the Fine Arts and their rules—(we make this remark on his own honest confession[2])—because by the confusion of terms he not only often contradicts himself, but misleads the general reader in forming conclusions from his graphic descriptions.
It will, however, be our duty not to pass any such contradiction, but by the rules of art endeavour to translate the language of the Ruins. Mr. Stephens has, however, amotivein destroying all resemblance between these edifices and those of Egypt,or their neighbours. In the next chapter that motive will be unfolded in his own words.
"On the East side of the structure is abroad range of stone steps, between eight and nine inches high, and so steep, that the greatest care is required in ascending and descending: of these we countedone hundred and one in their places.Nine were wanting at the top, and perhapstwentywere covered with rubbish at the bottom. At thesummitof the steps is astone platformfour feet and a half wide, running along the rear of the building. There is no door in the centre, but at each end a door opens into an apartment eighteen feet long and nine wide, and between the two is a third apartment of the same width, and thirty-four feet long.The whole building is of stone; inside the walls are of polished smoothness; outside, up to the height of the door, the stones are plain and square; above this line thereis a rich cornice or moulding, and from this to the top of the building,all the sides are covered with rich and elaborate sculptured ornaments, forming a sort of arabesque. The style and character of these ornaments were entirely different from those of any we had seen before, either in that country or any other; they bore no resemblance whatever to those of Copan or Palenque, and were quite as unique and peculiar. The designswere strange and incomprehensible, very elaborate, sometimes grotesque, but often simple, tasteful, and beautiful. Among the intelligible subjects, are squares and diamonds (i. e.forms), with busts of human beings, heads of leopards, and compositions of leaves and flowers, and the ornaments known every where asgrecques. The ornaments which succeed each other are all different; the whole form an extraordinary mass of richness and complexity, and the effect is both grand and curious; and the construction of these ornaments is not less peculiar and striking than the general effect. There were no tablets or single stones, each representing separately, or by itself, an entire subject; but every ornament or combination is made up of separate stones, on each of whichpartof the subject was carved [sculptured],and was then set in its place in the wall. (?) Each stone by itself was an unmeaning fractional part; but placed by the side of others helped to make a whole, which, without it would be incomplete. Perhaps it may, with propriety, be called a species of sculpturedmosaic."
This last sentence cannot be entertained,—formosaicis an arrangement ofCOLOUREDstones, to represent apainted floor, wall, or ceiling,—their shape is not material, but they must be possessed of different colours. Now this does not appear upon the walls of Uxmal [i. e.of the edifice now in review], and the absence ofcolouredstones gives the negative to their being even "a species of mosaic." Nor were the stonesfirstsculptured, "and then set in their places in thewall;" that is entirely a modern custom; but by applying the history of ancient sculpture to the preceding description, the means whereby the accuracy of facial sculpture of the wall was obtained, is at once defined and established. The Greeks placed the stones of their friezes and pediments upon their Temples in theirrough state,—they were sculptured afterwards, and consequently the greatest accuracy in the connecting lines from one stone to another was obtained, and could be by that manner only. The fluting of a column (of one or more blocks of marble) was always sculpturedafterit had been erected in its rough state. This was the only practice in that branch of art, and without doubt it was (it must have been) so practised upon the beautiful and unique walls of Uxmal.
In perusing the foregone descriptions, the reader may almost ask himself if his perceptive powers are not betraying him?—whether he is reading of an Athenian display of Sculpture, or really of an ancient edifice on the Western Continent! Well might it have appeared to the bewildered traveller as "a work of enchantment." He then proceeds to describe another building of the same character and sculpture: an edifice supposed to have "some reference to the Vestals, who in Mexico were employed to keep burning the sacred fire." It is thus sketched:
"It is situated on an artificial elevation about fifteen feet high. Its form is quadrangular, and one side, according to my measurement, is ninety-fivepacesin length. It was not possible to pace allaround it, from the masses of fallen stones which encumbered it in some places, but it may be safely stated attwo hundred-and-fifty feet square[i. e. one thousand feetin the entire measurement!]. It is built entirely ofcut stone[like the other buildings] and the whole exterior is filled with the same rich, elaborate, and incomprehensible sculptured ornaments. The principal entrance is by a large doorway into a beautifulpatioor courtyard, grass-grown but clear of trees, and the whole of theinner façade is ornamented more richly and elaborately than the outside, and in a more perfect state of preservation."
This may be accounted for from the apparent fact, that the interior sculpture was executedafterthat on the outward walls; for it appears to be far more beautiful and elaborate, and thence more time would be required for its completion, and as a consequence, it could only be finished at a later date; added to this a greater protection from the weather is given to theinsideof quadrangular walls than on the outside, and that without any reference to roofs or coverings: for a strong wind striking, for instance, an easterly wall on the outside, the force of the wind is destroyed, and consequently reaches the opposite wallin the areawith a greatly diminished power. The same argument would apply to the wind from any quarter, blowing upon unroofed quadrangular structures, and this these builders seem to have completely understood by making the Sculpture more refined and delicate upon the inside.
"On one side the combination [of the Sculpture] was in the form of diamonds, simple, chaste, and tasteful: and at the head of the courtyardtwo gigantic serpents(with their heads broken and fallen) were winding from opposite directions along the whole façade"—[i. e.one thousand feet].
It will be remembered that the Chief Altar at Copan has sculptured on ittwo serpents: in the Analogies we shall endeavour to read these wily hieroglyphics.
"In front and on a line with the door of the preceding edifice, is another building on a lower foundation of the same general character, calledCasa de Tortugas, from the sculpturedturtlesover the doorway."
That the reader may not be misled, these "turtles" are not as defined in Scripture (i. e.young doves), but thetortoise, the well-known shellfish; and in the splendid illustrations of these Ruins in Waldeck's work (folio, 1838) thetortoiseis distinctly given, and without doubt is so meant by Mr. Stephens. There arefour of themin a group, their heads approaching to a centre,each tortoiseis in a square, and in the two external angles of each square is anEgg. Thetortoiseandthe egg, are both National emblems, and the Nation claiming them will be proved in the Analogies.
"In the front was a broad avenue with a line of ruins on each side, leading beyond the wall to a great mound of ruins: and beyond this a lofty building in the rear. Between the two was a largepatio, or courtyard, with corridors on each side, and the groundof the courtyard sounded hollow. In one place, the surface was broken, and I descended intoa large excavation, cemented, which probably had been intended as a granary. [Rather as awaterreservoir] At the back of the courtyard, on a high, broken terrace, which it was difficult to climb, was another edifice more ruined than the others, but which from the style of its remains, and its commanding position, overlooking every other building [except the first described] and apparently having been connected with the distant mass of ruins in front, must have been one of the most important in the City, perhaps the principal Temple. The whole presented a scene of barbaric (?) magnificence, utterly confounding all previous notions in regard to the Aboriginal inhabitants of this Country; and calling up emotions which had not been wakened to the same extent by any thing we had yet seen."
"There was one strange circumstance connected with these ruins—viz., no water had ever been discovered, and there was not a single stream, fountain, or well, nearer than the Hacienda, a mile and a half distant. It is supposed that the face of the Country had not changed; and that somewhere under ground must exist great wells, cisterns or reservoirs [perhaps acquaducts] which supplied the former inhabitants of the City with water." * * * * * "While I was making the circuit of these ruins, Mr. Catherwood proceeded to theCasa del Gobernador; it indicates the principal building of the old City, orroyalhouse. (?) Itis the grandest in position, themost stately in Architectureand proportions, and the most perfect in preservationof all the structures remaining at Uxmal."
The same argument brought forward in the last Section, to prove that the chief edifice of Palenque was theTemple, and not the Palace, will apply to this supposed "royal house." As to the phrase "Casa del Gobernador"—or Governor's house,—it is the name by which it is called in the neighbourhood, and can have no bearing upon the true character of the edifice,—but the very superior preservation of the building would point it to be one held Sacred from any rude assault by the people; while its Architecture, importance of its position, and magnitude, at once justify the name of Temple being given to this edifice, and as such we shall view it. Mr. Stephens appears to be so strict a Spartan Republican, that every large, or magnificent building in the Ruined Cities, he considers to be aPalace,—he seems to have thought less of mind, than of matter.
"This edifice [Temple] stands on three ranges of terraces. The first terrace issix hundred and forty feet long, and five feethigh. It is walled withcut stone, and on the top is aplatform twenty feet broad, from which rises another terracefifteen feethigh. At the corners this terrace is supported by cut stones, having the faces rounded so as to give a better finish than with sharp angles. The great platform is flat. At the south-east corner of this platform is a row ofROUNDpillars eighteen inches in diameter, and three or four feet high, [i. e.broken pillars] extending about one hundred feet along the platform; and these were thenearest approach to pillarsorcolumns(circular) that we saw in all our exploration of ruins of that country."
What "nearer approach" was necessary to prove the existence of circular columns, than his own description? Of this hereafter,—again he writes:
"In the middle of the terrace, along an avenue leading to a range of steps, was abroken round pillar, inclined and falling, and with trees growing around it. In the centre of the platform, at a distance of two hundred and five feet from the border in front, is a range of stone steps, more than a hundred feet broad, and thirty-five in number, ascending to a third terrace, fifteen feet above the last, and thirty-five feet from the ground; which being on a naked plain, formed a most commanding position. The erection of these terraces alone was an immense work.On the third terrace, with its principal doorway facing the range of steps, stands the noble structure. [Temple] The façade measuresthree hundred and twenty feet. Away from the regions of dreadful rains, and the rank growth which smothers the Ruins of Palenque,—it stands with all its walls erect, and almost as perfect as when deserted by the inhabitants. Thewhole building is of stone, plain up to the moulding that runs along the tops of the doorway, and above filled with the same rich, strange, and elaborate Sculpture; among which is particularly conspicuous, the ornament before referred to, asla grecque."
By a reference to the illustrated folio of Waldeck, itis found that this ornament is chiefly the meander, or the Grecian square border, used in the embroidery of the mantles and robes of Attica.
"There is no rudeness or barbarity in the design or proportions; on the contrary, the whole wears an air of Architectural symmetry and grandeur; and as the stranger ascends the steps, and casts a bewildered eye along its open and desolate doors, it is hard to believe, that he sees before him the work of a race in whose epitaph, as written by historians,[3]they are called ignorant of Art, and said to have perished in the rudeness of savage life."
In justice to those historians, it should be stated, that they did not know of these architectural wonders; for if they did, no excuse can be rendered in extenuation of such an "epitaph"—thence has arisen the necessity of a New History of Ancient America; to, at least, the landing of Columbus; and even that will now wear another aspect. Mr. Stephens, in the last sentence quoted, justly reasons upon, and correctly censures the false conclusions of those historians;—yet a few pages before, he, himself, calls thetout ensembleof the Uxmal Ruins, with all the beautiful Sculpture, and Classical ornaments, "a scene ofbarbaricmagnificence!" He seems afraid to combat with even the assertions of those Historians, whose "epitaph" upon an entire people, was written in ignorance of their works of Art. He says, "it is hard to believe" thatthey "perished in the rudeness of savage life,"—why, with such a gorgeous "scene" as that of Uxmal before him,it was an impossibilitythat they could so have perished, either in the mind, or in history. The Ruins and Temple of Uxmal, he says, present "a scene ofbarbaricmagnificence!"if they do,—either to himself or his readers, then were Athens and the Acropolis barbaric, and Pericles and Phidias barbarians!
"But there was one thing which seemed in strange want of conformity with all the rest. I have mentioned that at Ocosingo [Ruins] we saw awooden beam, and at Pelanque, the remains of a wooden pole; at this place [Uxmal]all the lintels had been of wood, and throughout the ruins, most of them were still in their places over the doors. The lintels were heavy beams, eight or nine feet long, eighteen or twenty inches wide, and twelve or fourteen thick; the wood like that of Ocosingo, was very hard, and rang under the blow of the machete."
From a further description, it appears that this peculiar wood was brought from a distance of three hundred miles. Waldeck says, that it is more durable thanlignum vitæ, and is called by the nativesjovillo. The strength of this wood is thus shewn by Mr. Stephens:
"The position of these lintels was most trying, as they were obliged to support a solid mass of stone wall,fourteen or sixteen feet high, and three or four feet in thickness."
From a calculation of the measurements around thebase of the principal terrace, or pyramidal elevation, the entire distance istwo thousand five hundred and sixty feet. The Temple, which stands upon a third terrace, is fronting to the East,—i. e.to the rising Sun,—the chief object of Worship.
"In the centre [of the Temple], and opposite the range of steps leading to the terrace, are three principal doorways. The middle one is eight feet six inches wide, and eight feet ten inches high; the others are of the same height, but two feet less in width. The centre door opens into an apartment sixty feet long, and twenty-seven feet deep [wide], which is divided into two corridors by a wall three and a half feet thick, with a door of communication between, of the same size with the door of entrance. Theplan is the sameas that of the Corridor in front of the Palace (?) of Palenque, except that here the Corridor does not run the whole length of the building, and the back Corridor has no door of egress. The ceiling forms atriangular Arch, without the Key-stone, as at Palenque."
The term "triangularArch" cannot be admitted by the language of Architecture; he might as well have writtentriangular semicircle, terms distinctly opposed to each other. It is essential to notice this inaccuracy here, otherwise the reader may be under the erroneous impression, that theArchdoes exist in the ancient Ruins in America,—this is not the fact; butthe entire absence of the Arch, or its principle, enables us to form an Architectural conclusion in reference to their identity;and the fact,that the Arch does not existin any of the Ruins of Ancient America, cannot be too forcibly impressed upon the reader's mind; for it demonstrates that these buildings were erectedbefore the Arch was known, and as a consequence, is a direct proof of their great antiquity. Mr. Stephens has already written in reference to Palenque, and previously quoted, "The builders were evidently ignorant of the principles of the Arch."
"The ceiling, &c.: but, instead of the rough stones overlapping or being covered with stucco, (as at Palenque) the layers of stones are bevilled as they rise,and present an even and a polishedsurface. Throughout, the laying and the polishing of the stones are as perfect as under the rules of the best modern masonry. In this apartment we determined to take up our abode, andunder a roof, tightas when sheltering the heads of its former occupants." * * * * * "We were not buried in the forest as at Palenque. From every part of the terrace we looked over a field of ruins." * * * * "From the centre apartment, the divisions on each wing corresponded exactly in size and finish; and the same uniformity was preserved in the ornaments. Throughout, the roof was tight, and the apartments were dry. In one apartment, the walls werecoated with a very fine plaister of Paris, (?) equal to the best seen on walls in this country. (United States) The rest were all ofsmooth polished stone. There were no paintings, stucco ornaments, Sculptured tablets, or other decoration whatever."
Mr. Stephens then relates the finding in a ruined Chamber, of "A beam of wood, (i. e.the jovillo) about ten feet long, and very heavy, which had fallen from its place over the doorway. On the face was a line of characterscarvedor stamped (?) almost obliterated, but which we made out to behieroglyphics; and so far as we could understand themsimilar to those at Copan and Palenque. I cannot help deploring the misfortune of not being assured of the safety of this beam.By what feeble light the pages of American History are written! There are at Uxmal no Idols as at Copan,—not a single stuccoed figure, or carved tablet, as at Palenque. Except this beam ofhieroglyphics, though searching earnestly, we did not discover any one absolute point of resemblance."
Thehieroglyphicsof all the ruins bind them together as one People; the difference in the finish of the edifices, and their varied states of preservation, at once point to different ages in which they were erected. A principal ornament at equi-distances in the outward cornice is important, and is thus described by Stephens, and strictly agrees with the folio work by Waldeck.
"It is the face of a death's-head,with wings expanded, and rows of teeth projecting, in effect somewhat like the figure ofa death's-head on tombstones with us. It is two feet across the wings, and has a stone staple about two feet long, by which it was fastened to the wall."
In Waldeck's beautiful illustrations of these ruins,some feet below this winged death's-head, are the cross-bones distinct, and below these, is a human figure (male) in full maturity, and naked, except the shoulders and head, standing with his armscrossed"in sorrow's knot." These Sculptures appear upon, what Waldeck calls the Pyramid of Kingsborough,—so named, as before stated, in compliment to Lord Kingsborough, for his costly work upon the Paintings of Mexico. [7 vols. folio.] Well may Stephens say, there are no "Idols" here as at Copan.Heathenlanguage is not seen in the Sculpture of Uxmal; theChristianlanguage alone can translate the above emblems of the Resurrection! The translation of the above Sculpture seems as easy, as if aDanielhad already read the handwriting on the wall! as thus—The human figure, in full life and maturity, together with the sex, presents mortality; over the figure thecross-bonesare placed, portraying the figure's earthly death; while the skull supported by expanding wings, (and this Sculpture being placed above those of life and death,) presents the immortal Soul ascending on the wings of Time, above all earthly life, or the corruption of the grave! "On tombstones with us" a better design could not have been formed by Art to enforce the belief in the Resurrection. The beauty of this subject has led us into digression, for it belongs to the third volume. Campbell will apologize for us—
"Coming events cast their shadow before."
Mr. Stephens continues:—
"The reader will be able to form some idea of the time, skill, and labour, required for making them [the edifices]; and more than this, to conceive the immense time, skill, and labour required for carving [sculpturing] such a surface of stone; and the wealth, power, and cultivation of the people who could command such skill and labour for the mere decoration of the edifices. Probably all these ornaments have a symbolical meaning; [they certainly have] each stone is part of anallegoryorfable(?) hidden from us, inscrutable under the light of the feeble torch we may burn before it, but which,if ever revealed, will shew that the History of the World yet remains to be written."
With all humility we have attempted to "reveal" one portion of the Sculpture, (others will follow)—but the emblems of Christianity and the Resurrection, can form no part "of an allegory or fable;" and truly has the History of the World yet to be written, when historians in ignorance of the Ruins, have traced the Aborigines, who built the gorgeous edifices of Palenque and Uxmal, to have lived and perished in a savage life! From the character of the Sculpture, and its devices, Uxmal is placed by us as the last built of all the Ancient Cities as yet discovered on the Western Continent.
Having made sufficient extracts from Mr. Stephens's work on "Central America," in illustration of Copan, Palenque, and Uxmal, the principal Cities of Ruins; the Traveller's reflections upon his explorations will now be given, and his conclusions met and refuted. We desire, before we commence the following Chapter ofrefutation, to impress the reader's mind with the importance of a complete removal of the conclusions, arrived at by Mr. Stephens in regard to these Ruins;—for if he is right, we are stopped at the very threshold of our History. We confess this with all honesty, and desire thereby to arouse the minute attention of the reader to the several points of refutation,—to analyze them critically, and to yield nothing,—but from conviction of foregone errors and false conclusions.
In conformity with the rule of argument with which this volume was commenced, we presume that the preceding Chapter completely establishes in the mind of the reader, that Ancient Cities and Ruins have been discovered in Mexican America; in this belief, the History will be continued, and the Builders and Architecture identified.
A REVIEW OF THE REFLECTIONS OF MR. STEPHENS UPON THE RUINS OF MEXICAN AMERICA—HIS CONCLUSIONS FOUNDED UPON FALSE PREMISES—HIS ERRORS DETECTED BY HIS OWN CONTRADICTIONS—RESTORATION OF THE TEMPLE OF UXMAL—HIS CHIEF MOTIVE APPARENT—HIS ARGUMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS REFUTED—AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE RUINS IDENTIFIED AND ESTABLISHED—REMARKS UPON ROBERTSON'S HISTORY OF AMERICA.
A REVIEW OF THE REFLECTIONS OF MR. STEPHENS UPON THE RUINS OF MEXICAN AMERICA—HIS CONCLUSIONS FOUNDED UPON FALSE PREMISES—HIS ERRORS DETECTED BY HIS OWN CONTRADICTIONS—RESTORATION OF THE TEMPLE OF UXMAL—HIS CHIEF MOTIVE APPARENT—HIS ARGUMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS REFUTED—AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE RUINS IDENTIFIED AND ESTABLISHED—REMARKS UPON ROBERTSON'S HISTORY OF AMERICA.
The interesting Traveller in his last chapter but one of his Second Volume on "Central America," says—
"I have finished the explorations of ruins,—and here I would be willing to part, and to leave the reader to wander alone, and at will through the labyrinth of mystery which hangs over these ruined cities; but it would be craven to do so without turning for a moment to the important question.Who were the people that built these cities?I shall narrow down this question to a ground even yet sufficiently broad,—viz., acomparison of these remains with those of the Architecture and Sculpture of other ages and people."
It is upon this "ground" of his own choosing that we propose to attack his manœuvring,—it is the only field of argument where the necessary truth can be elicited; and he cannot object if his apparently fortified positions should be attacked, and if not sufficiently defended, he will not wonder that they should be demolished or overthrown; and if we cannot succeed in so doing, we are willing to admit, that his "Conclusions" will be to this work what the heir-apparent of the Scottish throne was to Macbeth; and the same words (except one) will speak our frank confession—viz.
"The Prince of Travellers! That is a stepOn which I must fall down,or else o'er-leap,For in my way it lies."
"The Prince of Travellers! That is a stepOn which I must fall down,or else o'er-leap,For in my way it lies."
"The Prince of Travellers! That is a step
On which I must fall down,or else o'er-leap,
For in my way it lies."
He writes:
"I set out with the proposition that they are not Cyclopean, and do not resemble the works of Greek or Roman."
We admit the negative to the first and last proposition, but not to the second,—for the sculpture at Uxmal is not only as fine, but distinctly of a Grecian character: the meander, or square running border, is essentially Grecian; and even his own description,—viz., "Composition of leaves and flowers, and the ornaments known everywhere asgrecques." Here is the distinct phrase of his own selection, brought as evidence against his conclusion on the second proposition.
The engravings in Waldeck's folio work of the sameRuins, substantiate every description by Stephens, as being correct: the whole façades have, to the eye, an appearance in regard to the character of the ornaments, which compels the looker-on to exclaim, "Grecian knowledge has been there!"
"There is nothing in Europe like them. [the Ruins] We must then look to Asia or Africa. It has been supposed that at different periods of time,vessels from Japan and China have been thrownUpon the Westerncoast of America. [i. e.on the Pacific Ocean] The civilization, cultivation, and science of those countries are known to date back from a very early antiquity."
The latter sentence does not admit of question; but that the Chinese or Japanese possessed navigation, with "its means and appliances," at a period to meet these Ruins, or to cover "a very early antiquity," cannot for a moment be sustained by history or even tradition.
Mr. Stephens does not claim China and Japan as the nations building these Cities, but rejects them upon the ground of Architectural comparison. We instantly join in this decision, and to it add the impossibility from the want of navigable means; but, says the Traveller, the supposition is, that they (the vessels) were "thrown upon the Westerncoast of America," and thereby expressing that the arrival of those vessels wasaccidental. We will prove the impossibility of this,—for any vessel in the NorthPacificOcean, having left China or Japan, and becoming unmanageable from loss of rudder, the prevailingEast-windwould not onlypreventthe vessel from reaching theWesterncoast of America,but actually would drive the shipBACKto China or Japan! This last sentence is not given to refute Mr. Stephens, but those writers who may have (as he states) even "supposed" the possibility of vessels being accidentally "thrown upon theWesterncoast of America." Nature would prevent it. This celebrated "East-wind" we shall have occasion to analyze and explain, in the investigation of the first voyage around the Continent of Africa by the Tyrians. In thePacificOcean the East wind would preventaccidentalarrival on the shores of the Western Continent; but in theAtlanticOcean the same wind would aid and expedite such an arrival, which, however, would be upon theEastern, and not theWesterncoast of America!
"The monuments of India have been made familiar to us. The remains of Hindu architecture exhibit immense excavations in the rock, either entirely artificial, or made by enlarging natural caverns, supported in front by large columns cut out of the rock, with a dark gloomy interior. Among all these American Ruins there is not a single excavation. The surface of the country abounding in mountain sides, seems to invite it; but, instead of being under ground, the striking feature of these Ruins is, that the buildingsstand on lofty artificial elevations; and it can hardly be supposed that a people emigrating to a new country, with that strong natural impulse to perpetuate, and retain under their eyesmemorials of home, would have goneso directly counter toNational and Religious associations."
The reasoning in the latter part of the foregone extract, is founded upon Nature, and therefore just,—it cannot be shaken,—it cannot be even assaulted;—we claim this admission, however, for our own position also, when in the next chapter we bring forward the "memorials of home," and the "national and religious associations,"—for upon the Analogies, the corner-stone of this Epoch is founded.
"In Sculpture, too, the Hindus differ entirely. Their subjects are far more hideous, being, in general, representations of human beings, distorted, deformed, and unnatural,—very often many-headed, or with three or four arms and legs thrown out from the same body."
The Hindu is rejected, and justly, from the want of similitude; the field is now narrowed for the combat,—the argument is brought, in his estimation, toone nationonly.
"Lastly, we come to the Egyptian. The point of resemblance upon which the great stress has been laid, is the Pyramid. The pyramidal form is one which suggests itself to human intelligencein every country, as the simplest and surest mode oferecting a high structureupon a solid foundation."
We grant that the first suggestion of an habitation would be of a pyramidal character, as instanced in the tents of wandering tribes, formed by poles rising from a base, more or less broad, and meeting in a commoncentre; but we deny that the "pyramidal form" is one followed "in every country," as a principle for rearing "a high structure." If it was so generally practised, why is Egypt theonly countrywhere it is found? Why did not China, Japan, Hindustan, Greece, and Rome practise it? Egypt alone claims it as an Architectural practice,—the principle of the Pyramid identifies her amid the wreck of Empires,—it stands out on hertableauof History as the prominent characteristic,—it was, and is, nowhere found but in the Nation of the Nile, and now in the Ruins of Ancient America! In the latter country the Aborigines modified and improved upon the original; but sufficient is shewn there, even in the base of the pyramid, to proclaim the association of the builders with Egyptianknowledge; nor does it follow that the Architects of Palenque should have been, of necessity, Egyptians.
"The pyramidal form cannot be regarded as a ground for assigninga common origin to all people, among whom structures of thatcharacterare found, unless the similarity is preserved in its most striking features."
The Traveller says, "to all people." [i. e.nations] Why, his own rejections prove thatno other peoplepractised the pyramid but the Egyptian,—upon that fact is he now arguing; for having failed to find the pyramidal form in all the nations of the earth, he says, "Lastly, we come to the Egyptian."
If in Americaan entirepyramid, from base to apex, had been found, he would not have rejected the uselessmass, but instantly have claimed it for Egyptian;or of that nation only, having intimate knowledge of, and association with, that country. Why then reject,—or rather why does he not bring forward the same reasoning whenthe essential partof the pyramid is found there? It will be shewn why he did not advance it.
"The Pyramids [of Egypt] are peculiar and uniform, and were invariably erected for the same uses and purposes, so far as those uses and purposes are known. They are all square at the base,with steps risingand diminishing until they come to a point."
The general truth of the previous quotation is apparent; but that the Pyramids of Egypt had "steps" in theiroriginalconstruction, cannot be supported by any History, or by the absolute facts visible even at the present day.All their sides were smooth; and commencing at the apex in placing the facial stones, the "steps" were used as successive scaffolds from the base to the top. On the following page to the above extract, Mr. Stephens contradicts his own reasoning, and when that can be proved in the work of any Author, no other refutation of a false conclusion is required. We have shewn that he says the Egyptian Pyramids had "steps rising" and in the very next page he writes—
"Herodotus says, that in his time [484B. C.] the great Pyramid was coated with stone,so as to present a smooth surface—[consequentlyno"steps rising"]—on all its sides from the base to the top. The secondPyramid of Ghizeh, called the Pyramid of Cephrenes,in its present condition(1842), presents on thelowerpart ranges of steps, with an accumulation ofangular[triangular] stones at the base, whichoriginallyfilled up the interstices between the steps, but have fallen down.In the upper partthe intermediate layers are still in their places, andthe sides present a smooth surface to the top. [Thus is Herodotus confirmed.] There is no doubt thatoriginally, every Pyramid of Egyptwas built with its sides perfectly smooth.TheSTEPSformed no part of the plan! [This is true, but a direct denial of himself.] It is in this state only that they ought to be considered, and in this stateany possible resemblancebetween them and what are called the Pyramids of America,ceases!"
Now not only does the Traveller contradict himself in writing of the original character of the Egyptian Pyramids, but worse,—a direct denial of himself upon the ground that the American cannot be Egyptian, because all "resemblance ceases" upon contemplating thesidesof the structures of both countries in their original character,—or in other words, if the American Pyramid (or any part of it) had been derived from Egypt, the sides would have been faced with stone, so as to present a smooth surface. Granted. Here follows, then, his own description, where the fact of identity is established at Palenque!
"The Palace [Temple] stands on an artificial elevation of an oblong form, forty feet high, three hundred and ten feet in front and rear, and two hundred andsixty feet on each side.This elevation[pyramidal]was formerly faced with stone, which has been thrown downby the growth of trees."
We have here a distinct and an admitted analogy between the original characteristic of the Egyptian and the American Pyramids,—proved upon the very point [the sides] brought forward by him to negate the proposition, and from his own words. Again; at the base of the Pyramid of Cephrenes (Egypt), the triangular stones that formed the smooth sides are still perceptible; so, also, are they to be seen at the base of the Pyramid of Palenque,—each stone an oracular witness against his "conclusive consideration." He objects to similitude upon another ground, and again refutes himself,—viz.:
"The Pyramids of Egypt are all square at the base,—the nearest approach to thisis at Copan; but even at that place there is no entire Pyramid standing alone and disconnected,—nor one with four sides complete, but onlytwo, or at mostthree sides, and intended to form part of other structures."
At Copan (as we have shewn) the very measurement of the base is within a few feet and (from errors in sum total by different authors) may justly be regarded as identical in size with the great Pyramid of Egypt. It has, it is true, but three sides (pyramidal); the fourth being on the river, consists of a perpendicular wall, identical in height to the sea-wall of Tyrus. In Egypt they had no river-walls that were perpendicular. But why does he select Copan only, to provewhetherfour sidesexisted? Why not again review Palenque? Hismotiveis not concealed with the proverbial ingenuity of his country; for at Palenque thefour-sided pyramidal structure is found, both in his description and in his map of locality, where no less thanfive"Casas" (houses) are presented on pyramidal bases, having distinctlyfour sides, and three of them square; nor is this all,the Temple of Palenque itselfstands on a pyramidal elevation, having distinctlyfour sides!
As he read a "Congressional" document in the Ruins of Palenque, by the light of "fire beetles," it would almost appear that he formed his "conclusions" by the same uncertain midnight lamps;—for from such treacherous and deceptive flames has he illumined the historical portion of his volumes; but yet the glimmering of the "feeble light" is sufficient to discover his hidden motive.
We now bring forward a contradiction more astonishing than all the preceding: and but that his volumes are before us, it would scarcely be credited from the pen of any critic. Vol. ii., p. 439, he writes—
"Besides, the Pyramids of Egypt are known to haveinterior chambers, and whatever their other uses, to have been intended andused as sepulchres. These (American), on the contrary, are of solid earth and stone. NoINTERIOR CHAMBERShave ever been discovered, and probably none exist!"
In thefirstvolume (p. 143), in writing of the pyramidalstructure rising from the centre of the Temple of Copan, is the following description, and which was reserved from the details of that City, to prove this contradiction.
"On each side of the centre of the steps is a mound of ruins, apparently of a circular tower.About halfway up the steps[of the pyramidal base] on this side, is a pit [i. e.descent] five feet square and seventeen feet deep, cased with stone. At the bottom is an opening two feet four inches high, with a wall one foot nine inches thick,which leads to aCHAMBER(!)ten feet long, five feet eight inches wide, and four feet high.At each end is a nicheone foot nine inches high, one foot eight inches deep, and two feet five inches long. Colonel Galindo first broke into thisSepulchral vault["chamber"] and found the niches and the ground full of red earthenware, dishes, and pottery, [Egyptian again]more than fiftyof which, he says,were full of human bones, packed in lime. Also several sharp-edged and pointed knives of chaya;a smallDEATH'S-HEADcarved in fine green stone, its eyes nearly closed, the lower features distorted, the back symmetrically perforated with holes,the whole of exquisite workmanship!"
This last sentence brings us to a specimen ofGem engraving, the most ancient of all the antique works of Art. Not only is the death "Chamber" identical with that of Egypt,but also the very way of reaching it—viz., first, byascendingthe pyramidal base, andthendescending, and so entering the Sepulchre! This could not be accidental,—the builders of that pyramidal Sepulchre must have had aknowledgeof Egypt.
The foregone "self-denials" (so valued in man under other aspects), lose all their virtue when exerted to sustain fallacious premises. It might be thought that enough has been brought forward to refute his conclusions; but we desire to operate upon this subject, as Tobin says, "Like the skilful surgeon, who cutsbeyondthe wound to make the cure complete."
"Again," he writes, "columns [circular] are a distinguishing feature of Egyptian architecture. There is not a Temple on the Nile without them; and the reader will bear in mind,that among the whole of these ruins,NOT ONE COLUMNhas been found! If this Architecture had beenderived fromthe Egyptians, so striking and important a feature would never have been thrown aside."
We admit the force of the preceding extract, so far as relates to the circular column being a feature in the Architecture of the Nile; and that they would also be found in America, if the edifices in that country were of, or "derived from," Egypt; while we admit this reasoning, we at once deny the truth of the assertion, that the round columnhas notbeen found in the Ruins of Ancient America. This denial is given upon the unimpeachable authority of Humboldt, who, in his illustrations of the Ruins of Mitla, gives by writing, aswell as by pictorial description, thecircularcolumns distinct! The denial is also founded upon the grave authority of Mr. Stephens himself,—for he (as Baron Humboldt) testifies to the fact both by pen and pencil. First, will be quoted from his pen. In vol. ii., p. 428, in writing of the Ruins of Uxmal, he says—
"At the South-east corner of this platform [of the Temple] isa row ofROUND PILLARS,eighteen inches in diameter, and three or four feet high [broken], extending about one hundred feet along the platform; and these were thenearest approach(!)to pillars or columnsthat we saw in all our exploration of the ruins of that country."
Now in the name of Reason, and all its attributes, could there be a "nearer approach"to circular columns, than "round pillars?" Are they not identical? The proposition can only be answered in the affirmative; and as a consequence, it becomes absolute from the identity. Again—
"In the middle of the terrace, along an avenue leading to a range of steps, wasa broken round pillar, inclined and falling, with trees growing around it."
We will now refer to his map, or ground-plan of the Temple of Uxmal, drawn by his artist, the accurate Catherwood—(vol. ii., p. 428-9). On that plan there aretwo rows of circular columnsin parallel lines,—one row is perfect, and contains eleven columns, the other is imperfect, and presents six columns; but, as dotted on the plan, and when the parallel lines were notin ruin, contained twenty-two "round pillars:" though from the appearance of the ground-plan, it is almost demonstrated that the two rows of columns were continued around the entire platform-terrace, forming a grand Colonnade, like those of Palmyra, or that facing the church of St. Peter's at Rome, but a square instead of a circular area. The columns at Uxmal are given as "eighteen inches in diameter;" this multiplied by eight (the medium calculation) would give each an altitude of twelve feet. On the plan (by measuring from the scale given) the line of one row of the columns extends one hundred and forty feet, its parallel the same; each column is ten feet from its associate; the same distance exactly is between the parallel rows, thus proving a perfect knowledge of Architectural design! Pursuing the same scale of measurement (as the ground-plan authorizes), the entire Colonnade of Uxmal contained originally,two hundred and thirty circular columns! In the centre of the area in front of the Temple (and holding the same locality as the single Obelisk in front of St. Peter's, at Rome), is the ruin of the solitary "broken round Pillar," and compared with the other columns on the Map, issix feet in diameter, and this multiplied byten(for capital and ornament on the summit,—perhaps originally an emblem of the Sun), would give this single column an altitude ofsixty feet! This is acircular, not a square column. The foregone Architectural analysis is not given by Stephens, but we have taken as a basis the rude ground-plan given, and have thus resuscitated theColonnade of Uxmal, which formed the approach to the great Temple.[4]
On the Map of the ruin now under consideration, and directly beneath the "round pillars," is written the following sentence by Stephens himself, to illustrate the meaning of the circular dots on the plan,—the words are, "Remains of Columns!"
How can he then reconcile from his own descriptions, that "not one Column has been found?" "If," says he, "this Architecture had been derived from the Egyptians, so striking and important a feature [i. e.circular Columns] would never have been thrown aside." Well then, the "important feature" hasnot"been thrown aside," and consequently from his own reasoning, the Architecture was (conjoined with the pyramidal bases) "derivedfrom the Egyptian." We believe distinctly, that the Architecture was "derived from"—in other words—borrowedfrom,—the edifices of the Nile;—but, not built by the Egyptians themselves. In regard to another branch of Art, he commits himself in the same manner as when writing of Architecture.
"Next, as to Sculpture. The idea of resemblance in this particular has been so often and so confidently expressed, that I almost hesitate to declare the total want of similarity."
There should indeed be hesitation upon a subject, so capable of denying a conclusion, directly opposed to occular demonstration.
"If there be any resemblance [to the Egyptian] at all striking, it is only that the figures, are inprofile, and this is equally true of all good Sculpture inbas-relievo."
Why does he select "bas-relievobring forthalto-relievo,—also,—for they are both found in Egypt and America. The Altar at Copan, and the walls at Palenque presentprofilefigures and inalto-relievo,—so does the Vocal Memnon of Thebes,and the walls of Egypt: at Palenque the two figures grouped at the Altar (of Casa, No. 3) are in profile, and face to face, with the Mask of Saturn between them, and holding the same general position as the two figures of the Vocal Memnon,—who are also face to face, and in profile,—but instead of the mask, they have the Egyptian TauTbetween them, and in the act of binding it with the lotus plant. But he objects to similitude apparently from the want of analogy in the physiognomy, or profile characteristics of the relative figures of Egypt and America. This certainly then must prove that they were a different people; this we distinctly believe;—but, that that people had knowledge of Egyptian Architecture and Sculpture,from commercial intercourse with the Nile.alto-relievoSculpture is in America and Egypt:—in the former country, on the Idol-columns of Copan; in the latter nation, upon the Capitals of the Temple Columns;—and in both countries the faces arenot in profile, but full front. The profile figures being on Temples, were supposed to bedeified, and consequently the facial outlines were represented different from human outline.
Again:—What are the Obelisks of Egypt? Are they notsquare columnsfor the facility of Sculpture? and of what form are the isolated columns at Copan? Are they notsquare, and for the same purpose of facility in Sculpture with which they are covered, and with workmanship "as fine as that of Egypt?" This is a point that Mr. Stephens has passed over withouteven a comment! The Columns of Copan stand detached and solitary,—the Obelisks of Egypt do the same, and both are square (or four-sided) and covered with the art of the Sculptor. The analogy of being derived from the Nile is perfect,—for in what other Ruins but those of Egypt, and Ancient America, is thesquare sculptured Columnto be found? He affects to despise the Idol-Obelisks of Copan, because they do not tower in a single stone, "ninety-feet" in height like those of Egypt,—that they could not "be derived from" the latter country, because they are only one-sixth of the altitude of their prototypes!
Has Mr. Stephens then travelled amid the giant Ruins of Memphis and Thebes, and gazed upon the Pyramids of Ghizeh, unconscious oftheirhistory, as of the Ruins in America? Has he yet to learn, that captives and prisoners of war, numbering their thousands, by tens and hundreds, built the former?Freemen built the latter, and consequently they are less in grandeur!Strange and original as this assertion may appear, it is no less philosophically, than historically true. What points out Egypt from the wreck of Empires, even at this day?—her Colossal Pyramids and Temples! What preserves ancient Rome amid all the Ruins of Italy, and in present grandeur?—her giant Coliseum! Who built these wonders of even the modern world? Cheops and Sesostris, Vespasian and Titus? They indeed commanded that they should be erected as trophies of their power;—but, who were theworkmen, the actual builders andlabourers? There is not a Pyramid, or Temple of Egypt, upon which the hand of a Freeman aided in building!Millions of Captives, made by the Egyptian kings, and especially by Sesostris, during his nine years foreign warfare, were sent to Egypt, from Arabia, Africa, and Asia,—his pride and vainglory were, that posterity should know his Conquestsby the magnitude of his Edifices,—for being built by his Captives, modern art might easily realize the extent, and to him, grandeur of his victories. The useless, and unsupporting Pyramid of the Nile, may well serve for the emblem of Cheops, or the vainglorious Sesostris! Who were the builders and labourers of the Coliseum?Ninety-seven thousand captives, and believers in The Only God!That human slaughterhouse of Rome, is cemented from its base to its cornice, with the sighs and blood of Jerusalem!WhenLibertylays the corner-stone,—Utility is the Architect,—Grace and Beauty the Sculptors,—and Freemen the builders and artizans: these combined, useless Magnificence can never cross the threshold, or Slavery breathe upon the Altar!
The absence of the Arch in all the Ruins of America will, also, identify those ancient cities with a nation having a Knowledge of, and contemporaneous with, Egypt,—for the Arch is not to be found in the cities of the Nile—nor was it at Sidon or Tyrus. The Arch was invented by the Greeks, but seldom practised by them, as they did not think it graceful,—the Romans did, and consequently used it upon nearly every occasion.Not only does the absence of the Arch point out Egypt as a contemporaneous nation with the builders in America, (this is omitted by Mr. Stephens) but the manner of forming their ceilings is distinctly imitated at Ocosingo, Palenque, and Uxmal:—for the ceilings there are formed by stones lapping over each other (like reversed steps) till they reach a centre, or such small distance from each other, that a single stone will bind them. At Uxmal the ceiling is smooth-surfaced, like a pyramidal, or gable-end ceiling. In vol. ii., p. 313, he says, "The ceiling of each corridor was in this form. [Described above.]The builders were evidently ignorant of the principles of the Arch; and the support was made by stones lapping over as they rose, as at Ocosingo," &c. It will be remembered that at Palenque, the principal part of the architectural ornaments are ofstuccoand as "hard as stone." "The whole front [of the Temple] was covered withstuccoandpainted." The reader who may be familiar with descriptions of the wonders of the Nile by Legh, Wilkinson, and Belzoni, will recognise at once that "painted stucco" is also Egyptian:—but, this comparison is avoided by Mr. Stephens; as, also, the following artistical fact and analogy, which is found at Memphis and other cities of Egypt—viz., "On the top of one [i. e.stucco figures at Palenque]are three hieroglyphicsSUNK IN THE STUCCO!" The following will not serve to support his conclusions.
"And the most radical difference of all is, the Pyramids of Egypt are complete in themselves: the structuresin this country [America] were erected to serve asthe foundations of buildings. There is no pyramid in Egyptwitha Palace or Temple upon it, [would he have it on an apex?]—there is no pyramidal structure in this countrywithout."
From the foregone extract can any reader acquainted with the Arts, fail to arrive at the conclusion, that the builders of Palenque and Uxmal derived from the Egyptians all that was good of their great edifices, andimprovedupon the other parts? For what reader will deny, that a Temple erected upon the lower portion of a Pyramid, is an improvement upon the original, by the association of utility? And being an improvement,it must have been by those acquainted with the Original, and as remarked in the following pages, what Nation had the facility of being so acquainted as the Tyrian? And as if in direct copy of the Egyptian, we have shewn that the size of the pyramidal base at Copan is identical with that of the great Pyramid of the Nile,—while that at Cholula, in Mexican America,is exactly twicethe base measurement. It is scarcely possible that these dimensions should have been accidental in construction.