RELIGIOUS ARCHITECTURE.
Sec. 1.--_Attempts to restore the Principal Types._
In spite of all our researches we have not succeeded in finding in the
whole of Mesopotamia a real sepulchre, a tomb on which the talent of the
architect has been lavished as well as the structural skill of the builder.
The Chaldaeans and Assyrians made greater efforts when they had to honour a
god than when they were called upon to provide a lodging for their dead. Of
all the structures they raised, their temples seem to have been the most
ambitious in height and in grandeur of proportion though not in extent of
ground covered. This the classic writers tell us, and their assertions are
confirmed in more than one particular by documents written in the Assyrian
language. We can also check their statements to some extent by the study of
the monuments themselves or rather of their somewhat scanty remains.
We shall seek in vain for ruins that may be compared to those of the
Egyptian sanctuaries. The nature of the materials employed in the valley of
the Euphrates made the degradation of a building and the obliteration of
its lines far more rapid than elsewhere. And yet in many cases the almost
formless aspect of structures once so greatly admired, does not prevent
those who know how to crossexamine them from restoring many of their former
arrangements; and both in the bas-reliefs and in some very small monuments
we find certain sculptured sketches that have been recognized as
representing temples.
These sketches are very imperfect and very much abridged: the ruins
themselves are confused; of the Greek and Assyrian texts some are short and
vague, others excite our scepticism. Without wishing to deny the value of
the methods employed or the importance of the results obtained, we can
hardly believe that the certainty with which technical terms are translated
is well founded. There are some of these terms which if they occurred in a
Greek inscription would cause no little embarrassment by their purely
special character, and that even to one who might unite in his single
person the qualifications of a Greek scholar with those of an architect or
sculptor. We hope, though we hardly expect to see our hope realized, that
some day a Mesopotamian temple may be found in good preservation. Until
then we cannot give to our restorations of such buildings anything
approaching the accuracy or completeness so easily attained when the great
religious edifices of Greece or Egypt are in question. We find none of
those well defined elements, those clear and precise pieces of information
which elsewhere allow us to obliterate the injuries worked by time and
human enemies. The foot of every wall is heaped about with such formless
masses of brick and brick dust, that it is almost impossible to make full
explorations or to take exact measurements. One must be content with an
approximation to the truth.
With the one exception of the staged tower at Khorsabad, we shall not
attempt to give a single restoration in the proper sense of the word. Not
that we mean to say that the different temple models given in our Plates
II., III., and IV., and in our Fig. 173, are creations of our fancy. No one
of the four pretends to reconstruct one famous building more than another.
They are abstract types, each representing, in its general features, one of
the varieties into which Assyro-Chaldaean temples may be divided. The
arrangements in which the originality of each type consists were only fixed
by M. Chipiez after long researches. In each case he has taken for his
point of departure either a Greek or Assyrian text, a sculptured relief, or
facts gleaned by the examination of original sites; in most cases he has
been able to supplement and correct the information gained from one of
these sources by that from another. He has thus entered into the spirit of
Mesopotamian architecture, and restored the chief forms it put on in its
religious buildings according to time and district. He cannot say that all
the details figured were found united, as they may be here, on a single
building; but they are not inventions, no one of them is without authority,
and the use to which they are put has been decided by the examination of
actual remains. We may say the same of proportions. These are the result of
study and of the collation of one ruin and one piece of evidence with
another; they have not been taken from any single building. Finally there
were certain details, such as the trace and elevation of the ramps, that
were full of difficulty. M. Chipiez arrived at the solution finally adopted
by an inductive process, by carefully weighing the obvious conditions of
the problem and choosing those arrangements by which its requirements
seemed most simply and conveniently met. In virtue of their general
character M. Chipiez's restorations reach a high degree of probability.
They may be compared, if we may use the expression, to those triumphs of
historical synthesis in which no attempt is made to narrate events as they
occurred and in all their details, but in which a whole people lives, and
the character of a whole century is summed up, in a picture whose every
line and colour is borrowed from reality.[451]
In spite of their apparent variety, all the buildings we shall describe in
the present chapter may be referred to a single fundamental type. They are
each formed of several cubic masses superimposed one upon another and
diminishing in volume in proportion to their height in the monument. We
have already explained how such a system came to be adopted.[452] It was
determined by the limitations of the only material at the architect's
disposal, and it had at least this advantage, that it enabled him to
relieve the monotony of the Chaldaean plains with artificial mountains whose
vast size and boldness of line were calculated to impress the minds of the
people, and to give them a great idea of their master's power and of the
majesty of the deities in whose honour they were raised.
[Illustration: FIG. 168.--View of the Birs Nimroud; after Felix Thomas.]
Mesopotamia was covered, then, by buildings resembling a stepped pyramid in
their general outlines. We find them in the reliefs (Fig. 10), and in the
oldest cities we can frequently recognize the confused ruins of their two
or three lower stories. Our only doubt is connected with the possible use
of these buildings, the _zigguratts_ of the Assyrian texts. We shall not
here stop to recapitulate the evidence in favour of their religious
character; it will suffice to quote the description given by Herodotus of
the temple of Bel or Belus at Babylon. As to whether the ruins of that
building are to be identified with _Babil_ (Fig. 37) or the _Birs-Nimroud_
(Fig. 168) we shall inquire presently. This is the description of
Herodotus:--
"In the other (fortress) was the sacred precinct of Jupiter Belus, a square
inclosure two furlongs each way with gates of solid brass; which was also
remaining in my time. In the middle of the precinct there was a tower of
solid masonry, a furlong in length and breadth, upon which was raised a
second tower, and on that a third, and so on up to eight. The ascent to the
top is on the outside, by a path which winds round all the towers. When one
is about half way up one finds a resting-place and seats, where persons are
wont to sit some time on their way to the summit. On the topmost tower
there is a spacious temple, and inside the temple stands a couch of unusual
size, richly adorned with a golden table by its side. There is no statue of
any kind set up in the place nor is the chamber occupied of nights by any
one but a single native woman.... Below in the same precinct there is a
second temple, in which is a sitting figure of Jupiter all of gold ...
outside the temple are two altars."[453]
This description is, of course, very short; it omits many details that we
should have wished to find in it; but like nearly all the descriptions of
Herodotus it is very clear. The old historian saw well, and his mind
retained what he saw. From his recital it is plain that this was the finest
of the Babylonian temples, and that even when partly ruinous, under the
successors of Alexander, its colossal dimensions were yet able to astonish
foreign visitors. We may, then, take it as the type of the Chaldaean temple,
as the finest religious building in the first city of Mesopotamia.
Nebuchadnezzar reconstructed it and made it higher and richer in its
ornamentation than before, but he kept to the ancient foundations and made
no change in the general character of the plan. In this single edifice were
gathered up all the threads of a long tradition; it was, as it were, the
supreme effort, the last word of the national art: and Herodotus declares
plainly that it was a staged tower.
Such an assertion puts the matter beyond a doubt, and enables us to point
to the staged tower as the form chosen by these people and made use of
throughout their civilization for the buildings raised in honour of their
gods. And having dismissed this fundamental question we have now to give a
rapid description of the principal varieties of the type as they have been
established by M. Chipiez. And as we go on we shall point out the
authorities for each restoration; whether the ruins themselves, the
inscribed texts, or the sculptured reliefs.
[Illustration: FIGS. 169-171.--Longitudinal section, plan and horizontal
section of the rectangular type of Chaldaean temple.]
In the first line we must place the RECTANGULAR CHALDAEAN TEMPLE (Plate II.
and Figs. 169, 170, and 171). We have put it first because the remains from
which it has been reconstructed have all been found in Lower Chaldaea, that
is, amongst the oldest of the Chaldaean cities. As we learn from the texts,
these temples were repaired under the last kings of Babylon, and it was
their antiquity that made them dear both to the people and their kings. We
may believe, therefore, that in restoring them care was taken to preserve
their ancient features. It would be the upper part of their retaining walls
that required renewal, and these would be rebuilt on their ancient
foundations. Here and there the latter exist even at the present day,
and the names of the earliest Chaldaean princes may be read upon their
bricks.[454]
[Illustration: PLATE II. RECTANGULAR CHALDAEAN TEMPLE
Restored by Ch. Chipiez.]
The remains studied by Messrs. Taylor and Loftus at Warka (Fig. 172),
Abou-Sharein, and Mugheir have furnished the chief elements for our
restoration, which bears a strong resemblance to the ruin at Warka called
Bouvariia (A on the map), and one still stronger to that temple at Mugheir
whose present state is shown in our Figs. 48 and 143. This first type is
characterized by the form of its lower, and the situation of its upper,
stages. The latter are not placed in the centre of the platform on which
they stand; they are thrown back much nearer to one of the two shorter
sides than to the other, so that the building has a front and a back. The
front is almost entirely taken up with wide staircases.[455] The staircase
leading from the first story to the second must alone have been concealed
in the interior of the building, an arrangement which avoided the necessity
for breaking up the ample solidity of that imposing stage (see Plate II.).
[Illustration: FIG. 172.--Map of Warka with its ruins; from Loftus.
A, Bouvariia; B, Wuswas; C, ruin from the Parthian epoch; D, building
decorated with coloured cones (see page 279).]
The surroundings of the temple in our plate--the background of slightly
undulating plain, the houses similar to those found by Taylor and Loftus,
in which they discovered vaulted passages traversing the thickness of the
walls[456]--are, of course, purely imaginary.
The temple itself, like the palace at Khorsabad, was raised on a vast
platform upon which the city walls abutted. This platform was reached by
wide flights of steps.[457] Lateral ramps led to a second platform,
inclosed on every side, with which the sacred part of the building, the
Haram, began. We have already spoken of the panelled ornament with which
the great, flat surfaces of its walls were relieved.[458] The lowest stage
of the temple was provided with buttresses like those that still exist in
the temple of Mugheir (Fig. 43). A high, rectangular plinth--decorated in
our restoration with glazed faience[459]--was interposed between the first
and second stage.[460] A rectangular chapel decorated, in all probability,
with metal plaques and glazed polychromatic bricks, crowned the whole.
Traces of this chapel have been found at Mugheir, and the wealth of its
decoration is attested by many pieces of evidence.[461] At Abou-Sharein
also there are vestiges of a small and richly ornamented sanctuary crowning
the second stage of a ruin whose aspect now bears a distinct resemblance to
that of the temple at Mugheir. The triple row of crenellations we have
given to this sanctuary or chapel was suggested by the altars and obelisks
(Fig. 107 and 111). Here, as at Nineveh, these battlements must have been
the one universal finish to the walls. The use to which we have put them is
quite in harmony with the spirit of Mesopotamian architecture, but there is
no direct evidence of their presence in these buildings. In this particular
our restoration is conjectural.
A glance at our longitudinal section (Fig. 169) will show that we have left
the main body of this great mass of sun-dried brick absolutely solid. It
was in vain that, at Mugheir, trenches and shafts were cut through the
flanks of the ruin, not a sign of any apartment or void of the most
elementary kind was found.[462]
This Mugheir temple rises hardly more than fifty feet above the level of
the plain. The restoration by M. Chipiez, for which it furnished the
elements, shows a height of 135 feet; judging from the proportions of its
remains the building can hardly have been higher than that. But it is
certain that many temples reached a far greater height, otherwise their
size could not have made any great impression upon travellers who had seen
the Egyptian pyramids. Even now the Birs-Nimroud, which has been undergoing
for so many centuries a continual process of diminution, rises no less than
235 feet above the surrounding country,[463] and Strabo, the only Greek
author who says anything precise as to the height of the greatest of the
Babylonian monuments, writes thus: "This monument, which was, they say,
overthrown by Xerxes, was a square pyramid of burnt brick, one stade
(606-3/4 feet) high, and one stade in diameter."[464]
The arrangement by which such a height could be most easily reached would
be the superposition of square masses one upon another, each mass being
centrally placed on the upper surface of the one below it. The weight would
be more equally divided and the risks of settlement more slight than in any
other system. Of this type M. Chipiez has restored two varieties. We shall
first describe the simpler of the two, which we may call the SQUARE
SINGLE-RAMPED CHALDAEAN TEMPLE (Figs. 173, 174, 175, 176).
The principal elements for this restoration have been taken from the staged
tower at Khorsabad known as the _Observatory_, but M. Chipiez has expanded
its dimensions until they almost reach those ascribed to the temple of Bel
by Strabo. Moreover, he had to decide a delicate question which the
discovery of the Khorsabad _Observatory_, where only the four lower stages
remained, had done nothing to solve, namely the plan and inclination of the
ramp. In M. Thomas's restoration of the Khorsabad tower, the last section
of the ramp at the top, is parallel to that at the bottom, and the crowning
platform is not exactly upon the central axis of the building.[465] In M.
Chipiez's restoration the top platform is in the centre, like those below
it, and the upper end of his ramp is vertically over the spot where it
leaves the ground. This result has been obtained by a peculiar arrangement
of the inclined plane which must have been known to the Mesopotamian
architects, seeing how great was their practice and how desirable, in their
eyes, was the symmetrical aspect which it alone could give. We have
suggested the varied colours of the different stages by changes of tone in
our engraving. In spite of the words of Herodotus M. Chipiez has only given
his tower seven stages, because that number seems to have been sacred and
traditional, and Herodotus may very well have counted the plinth or the
terminal chapel in the eight mentioned in his description. Bearing in mind
a passage in Diodorus--"At the summit Semiramis placed three statues of
beaten gold, Zeus, Hera, and Rhea"[466]--we have crowned its apex with such
a group. The phrase of Herodotus, "Below ... there is a second temple," has
led us to introduce chapels contrived in the interior of the mass and
opening on the ramp at the fifth and sixth stories. There is nothing to
forbid the idea that such chambers were much more numerous than this, and
opened, sometimes on one, sometimes on another, of the four faces.
[Illustration: FIG. 173.--Type of square, single-ramped Chaldaean temple.
Compiled by Ch. Chipiez.]
The buildings at the lower part of our engraving are imaginary, but they
are by no means improbable. Among them may be distinguished the wide
flights of steps and inclined planes by which the platform on which the
temple stood was reached.[467] At the foot of the temple on the right of
the engraving there is a palace, on the left two obelisk-shaped steles and
a small temple of a type to be presently described. Behind the tower
stretch away the waters of a lake. Nebuchadnezzar, in one of his
inscriptions, speaks of surrounding the temple he had built with a lake.
[Illustration: FIGS. 174-176.--Transverse section, plan, and horizontal
section of a square, single-ramped, Chaldaean Temple.]
[Illustration: FIGS. 177-179.--Transverse section, plan, and horizontal
section of a square, double-ramped Chaldaean Temple.]
In seeking to vary the effect produced by these external ramps, the idea of
a more complicated arrangement than the one last noticed may have occurred
to the Chaldees. This M. Chipiez has embodied in his restoration of a
SQUARE DOUBLE-RAMPED CHALDAEAN TEMPLE (Plate III. and Figs. 177, 178, and
179). As in the last model, there are seven stages, each stage being square
on plan, but the difference consists in the use of two ramps leading from
base to summit. Each of these keeps to its own side of the building, only
approaching the other on the front and back facades at the fourth, fifth,
and sixth stages (see Plate III). In order that the building as a whole
should have a symmetrical and monumental appearance, it was necessary that
all its seven stages--with the exception of the first, to which a rather
different _role_ was assigned--should be of equal height. But their length
and width differed in proportion to their height in the building. The
continual shortening of the distance within which the incline had to be
packed, would, if we suppose each ramp confined to one side of the tower,
have required the slope to become steeper with each story. Such a want of
parallelism would have been very ugly, and there was but one means of
avoiding it, and that was to continue the ramps nearly to the centre of the
front at the fourth and sixth stages, and to the centre of the posterior
facade at the fifth. The advantages of such an arrangement are obvious.
Banished mostly to the flanks the double ramp left four stages clear
both at front and back, providing an ample promenade. On the other three it
showed itself just sufficiently to "furnish" the building and diversify its
aspect without in any way encumbering it. The whole structure terminated in
a chapel placed on the central axis of the tower, and surmounted by a
cupola. The inscriptions mention the dome covered with leaves of chiselled
gold which crowned at Babylon that temple "to the foundations of the earth"
which was restored by Nebuchadnezzar.[468]
[Illustration: PLATE III. CHALDAEAN TEMPLE SQUARE ON PLAN AND WITH DOUBLE
RAMP
Restored by Ch. Chipiez.]
In these texts another sanctuary included in the same building and placed
half way between the base and summit is mentioned. This was the sepulchral
chamber of Bel-Merodach in which his oracle was consulted; in M. Chipiez's
restoration the entrance to this sanctuary is placed in the middle of the
fifth story.
The vast esplanade about the base of the temple was suggested by the
description of Herodotus. It is borne by two colossal plinths flanked and
retained by buttresses. In our plate the lower of these two plinths is only
hinted at in the two bottom corners. In the distance behind the temple
itself may be seen one of those embattled walls which divided Babylon into
so many fortresses, and, still farther away, another group of large
buildings surrounded by a wall and the ordinary houses of the city.
This double-ramped type is at once the most beautiful and the most
workmanlike of those offered by these staged towers. With a single ramp we
get a tower whose four faces are repetitions of each other, but here we
have a true facade, on which a happy contrast is established between the
unbroken stages and those upon which the ramps appear--between oblique
lines and lines parallel with the soil. The building gains in repose and
solidity, and its true scale becomes more evident than when the eye is led
insensibly from base to summit by a monotonous spiral.
[Illustration: FIGS. 180-182.--Square Assyrian temple. Longitudinal
section, horizontal section and plan.]
We cannot positively affirm that the architects of Mesopotamia understood
and made use of the system just described; there is no positive evidence
on the point.[469] It contains, however, nothing but a logical development
from the premises, nothing but what is in perfect keeping with Mesopotamian
habits, nothing that involves difficulties of execution or construction
beyond those over which we know them to have triumphed. Besides, we have
proofs that they were not content to go on servilely reproducing one and
the same type for twenty centuries; their temples were not all shaped in
the same mould. The type of the Mugheir temple differed sensibly from that
of the Khorsabad _Observatory_. One of the Kouyundjik sculptures reveals a
curious variant of the traditional theme, so far as Assyria was concerned,
in an arrangement of the staged tower that we should never have suspected
but for the survival of this relief (Fig. 34). The picture in question is
no doubt very much abridged and far from true to the proportions of the
original, but yet it has furnished M. Chipiez with the elements of a
restoration in which conjecture has had very little to say. This we have
called the SQUARE ASSYRIAN TEMPLE (see Plate IV. and Figs. 180-182).
[Illustration: PLATE IV. SQUARE ASSYRIAN TEMPLE
Restored by Ch. Chipiez.]
According to the relief the tower itself rises upon a dome-shaped mound in
front of which there are a large doorway and two curved ramps. From all
that we know of Assyrian buildings of this kind we may be sure that the
original of the picture was so placed. The form of the mound may be
described as reproducing the extrados of a depressed arch. This is the only
form on which flights of steps with a curve similar to that here shown
could be constructed. The design of the steps in our plate corresponds
exactly to that indicated more roughly by the sculptor; no other means of
affording convenient access to the base of the tower--at least outside the
mound--could have been contrived. Two doors were pierced at the head of the
steps through the large panels with which the lower stage of the tower
itself was decorated, and from that point, so far as we can tell from the
relief, the ascent was continued by means of internal staircases. The
sculptor has only shown three stages, but--unless the absence of anything
above has been caused by the mutilation of the slab--we may suppose that he
has voluntarily suppressed a fourth.[470] In any case the third story is
too large to have formed the apex of the tower. The general proportions
suggest at least one more stage for the support of the usual chapel. The
latter we have restored as a timber structure covered with metal plates,
skins, or coloured planks. The three stages immediately below the chapel we
have decorated with painted imitations of panels, carried out either in
fresco or glazed brick. As for the internal arrangements we know very
little. The great doorway with which the mound itself is prefaced in the
relief must have led to some apartment worthy of its size and importance;
we have therefore pierced the mass in our section with a suite of several
chambers. At the second story another doorway occurs; it is much smaller
and more simple, and the chamber to which it led must have been
comparatively unimportant. In our Fig. 180 it is restored as the approach
to the internal staircase.
In order to vary the framework of our restorations and to show Assyrian
architecture in as many aspects as possible, we have placed this temple
within a fortified wall, like that of Khorsabad. Within a kind of bastion
towards the left of the plate we have introduced one of those small
temples of which remains have been found at Khorsabad and Nimroud. The
walls of the town form a continuation of those about the temple. In front
of the principal entrance to the sacred inclosure we have set up a
commemorative stele.
* * * * *
Aided by these restorations we hope to have given a clearer and more vivid
idea of Chaldaean art than if we had confined ourselves to describing the
scanty remains of their religious buildings. We have now to give a rapid
review of those existing ruins whose former purposes and arrangements may
still to a certain extent be traced.
NOTES:
[451] These restorations of the principal types of Chaldaean temples were
exhibited by M. CHIPIEZ in the Salon of 1879, under the title _Tours a
Etages de la Chaldee et de l'Assyrie_.
[452] Chapter II. Sec. 2.
[453] HERODOTUS, i, 181-3, Rawlinson's version. By Jupiter, or rather Zeus,
we must understand Bel-Merodach. Diodorus calls the god of the temple Zeus
Belus.
[454] LOFTUS, _Travels_, &c., p. 131. See also TAYLOR's papers in vol. xv.
of the _Royal Asiatic Society's Journal_.
[455] LOFTUS, (p. 129). "It rather struck me, however, from the gradual
inclination from top to base, that a grand staircase of the same width as
the upper story, occupied this side of the structure."
[456] LOFTUS, _Travels_, &c., p. 133.
[457] At Warka, around the ruin called _Wuswas_ by the Arabs, LOFTUS traced
the plan of these great courtyards and platforms (_Travels_, p. 171).
[458] See above, p. 246, figs. 100 and 102.
[459] Numerous pieces of glazed tile were found in these ruins.
[460] The idea of this plinth was suggested to M. Chipiez by a remark made
on page 129 of LOFTUS's _Travels_: "Between the stories is a gradual
stepped incline about seven feet in perpendicular height, which may
however, be accidental, and arise from the destruction of the upper part of
the lower story."
[461] See TAYLOR, _Journal_, &c., pp. 264-5.
[462] LOFTUS, _Travels_, p. 130. It was the same with the _Observatory_ at
Khorsabad.
[463] LAYARD, _Discoveries_, p. 495.
[464] The authorities made use of by Strabo for his description of Babylon,
all lived in the time of Alexander and his successors; no one of them could
have seen the temple intact and measured its height. Founded upon tradition
or upon the inspection of the remains, the figure given by the geographer
can only be approximate. I should think it is probably an exaggeration.
[465] See PLACE, _Ninive_, vol. iii, plate 37.
[466] DIODORUS, ii, 9, 5.
[467] These courts must have been at certain times of the day the meeting
place of large numbers of the population, like the courtyards of a modern
mosque. Shops in which religious emblems and other _objets-de-piete_ were
sold would stand about them, just as in the present day the traveller finds
a regular fair in the courtyard of the mosque _Meshed-Ali_. Among the
commodities that change hands in such places, white doves are very common
(LOFTUS, _Travels_, p. 53). In this perhaps, we may recognize the survival
of a pagan rite, the sacrifice of a dove to the Babylonian Istar, the
Phoenician Astarte, and the Grecian Aphrodite. It was in the courtyards of
one of these temples that those sacred prostitutions of which HERODOTUS
speaks, took place (i. 199). The great extent of the inclosures is readily
explained by the crowds they were then required to accommodate.
[468] "I undertook in Bit-Saggatu," says the king, "the restoration of the
chamber of Merodach; I gave to its cupola the form of a lily, and I covered
it with chiselled gold, so that it shone like the day," London inscription,
translated by M. Fr. LENORMANT, in his _Histoire ancienne_, vol. ii. pp.
228-229. See also a text of Philostratus in his life of _Apollonius of
Tyana_, (i. 25). The sophist who seems to have founded his description of
Babylon on good information, speaks of a "great brick edifice plated with
bronze, which had a dome representing the firmament and shining with gold
and sapphires."
[469] The idea has also occurred to M. OPPERT of restricting the ramp to
two sides of the tower, to the exclusion of the others (_Expedition
scientifique_, vol. i. p. 209); but so far as we understand his
system--which he has not illustrated with any figure--he does not double
his incline, he merely alternates its side at each stage, so that part of
it would be on the north-west, part on the south-west face of his tower.
[470] The original of this relief has not been brought to Europe. We are
therefore unable to decide whether Layard's draughtsman has accurately
represented its condition or not.
Sec. 2.--_Ruins of Staged Towers._
In describing the first of our four types we had occasion to point to the
buildings at Warka and Mugheir, which enabled us to restore what may be
called the Lower Chaldaean form of temple. The mounds formed by the remains
of those buildings had not been touched for thousands of years, they had
entirely escaped such disturbance as the ruins of Babylon have undergone
for so many centuries at the hand of the builders of Bagdad and Hillah; and
it is probable that explorations carried on methodically and with
intelligent patience would give most interesting results. If, for instance,
the foundations of all walls were systematically cleared, we should be
enabled to restore with absolute certainty the plans of the buildings to
which they belonged. To the monuments discovered by the English explorers
we must now add a find made by M. de Sarzec at Tello, of which, however,
full details have yet to be furnished.[471] We take the following from the
too short letter that was read to the Academy of Inscriptions on the 2nd of
December 1881. "Finally, it was in that part of the building marked H that
opens upon the court B that I found the curious structure of which I spoke
to you. This solid mass of burnt brick and bitumen, with diminishing
terraces rising one above the other, reminds us of those
Chaldaeo-Babylonian structures whose probable object was to afford a refuge
to the inhabitants from the swarms of insects and burning winds that
devastate these regions for nine months of the year." Here, we believe, M.
de Sarzec is in error; the only refuges against the inflamed breath of the
desert were the _serdabs_, the subterranean chambers with their scanty
light and moistened walls, and the dark apartments of Assyrian palaces with
their walls of prodigious thickness. The great terraces erected at such a
vast expenditure of labour were not undertaken merely to escape the
mosquitoes; we may take M. de Sarzec's words, however, as a proof that at
Sirtella as in all the towns of Lower Chaldaea, the remains of a building
with several stories or stages are to be recognized.
[Illustration: FIG. 183.--Map of the ruins of Babylon; from Oppert.]
The ruins on the site of Babylon may be divided into four principal groups,
each forming small hills that are visible for many miles round; they are
designated on the annexed map by the names under which they are commonly
known. These are, in their order from north to south, _Babil_, _El-Kasr_
(or _Mudjelibeh_) and _Tell-Amran_, on the left bank; on the right bank the
most conspicuous of them all, the _Birs-Nimroud_.[472] Most of those who
have studied the topography of Babylon are disposed to see in the Kasr and
in Tell-Amran the remains of a vast palace, or rather of several palaces,
built by different kings, and those of the famous hanging gardens; while in
Babil (Plate I. and Fig. 37) and the Birs Nimroud (Fig. 168) they agree to
recognize all that is left of the two chief religious buildings of Babylon.
Babil would be the oldest of them all--the _Bit-Saggatu_ or "temple of the
foundations of the earth" which stood in the very centre of the royal city
and was admired and described by Herodotus. The Birs-Nimroud would
correspond to the no less celebrated temple of Borsippa, the _Bit-Zida_,
the "temple of the planets and of the seven spheres."
At Babil no explorations have thrown the least light upon the disposition
of the building. In the whole of its huge mass, which rises to a height of
some 130 feet above the plain, no trace of the separate cubes or of their
dimensions is to be found. All the restorations that have been made are
purely imaginary. At Birs-Nimroud the excavations of Sir Henry Rawlinson in
1854 were by no means fruitless but, unhappily, we are without any detailed
account of their results. So far as we have been told, it would appear that
the existence of at least six of the seven stages had been ascertained and
the monument, which, according to Sir Henry Rawlinson's measurements, is
now 153 feet high; can have lost but little of its original height. We can
hardly believe however, that the violence of man and the storms of so many
centuries have done so little damage.[473] It seems to be more clearly
proved that, in shape, the temple belonged to the class we have described
under the head of THE RECTANGULAR CHALDAEAN TEMPLE.[474] The axis of the
temple, the vertical line upon which the centre of the terminal chapel must
have been placed, was not at an equal distance from the north-western and
south-eastern sides, so that the building had its gentlest slope--taking it
as a whole--towards the south-east.[475] On that side the cubical blocks of
which it was composed were so placed as to leave much wider steps than on
the north-west. The temple therefore had a true facade, in front of which
propylaea, like the one introduced in our restoration from the ruins at
Mugheir, were placed. The difference consists in the fact that here the
stages are square on plan. The lowest stage was 273 feet each way; it
rested upon a platform of sun-dried brick which rose but a few feet above
the level of the plain.
Supposing these measurements to be exact they suggest a building which was
nothing extraordinary either in height or mass. The dimensions furnished by
Rich and Ker-Porter are much greater. Both of these speak of a base a
stade, or about 606 feet, square, which would give a circumference of no
less than 2,424 feet--not much less than half a mile. In any case the
temple now represented by Babil must have been the larger of the two. M.
Oppert mentions 180 metres, or about 600 feet, as one diameter of the
present rather irregular mass. That would still be inferior to the Pyramid
of Cheops, which is 764 feet square at the base, and yet the diameter of
600 feet for Babil is, no doubt, in excess of its original dimensions. The
accumulation of rubbish must have enlarged its base in every direction.
It seems clear, therefore, that the great structures of Chaldaea were
inferior to the largest of the royal tombs of Egypt, both in height and
lateral extent. We do not know how far the subsidiary buildings by which
the staged towers are surrounded and supplemented in our plates may have
extended, but it is difficult to believe that their number or importance
could have made the ensemble to which they belonged a rival to Karnak, or
even to Luxor.
If we may judge from the texts and the existing ruins, the religious
buildings of Assyria were smaller than those of Chaldaea. When the Ten
Thousand traversed the valley of the Tigris in their famous retreat, they
passed close to a large abandoned city, which Xenophon calls Larissa. As to
whether his Larissa was Calah (Nimroud), or Nineveh (Kouyundjik), we need
not now inquire, but his short description of a staged tower is of great
interest: "Near this town," he says, "there was a stone pyramid two plethra
(about 203 feet) high; each side of its base was one plethron in
length."[476]
The tower cleared by Layard at Nimroud is perhaps the very one seen by
Xenophon.[477] The Greek soldier speaks of a stone pyramid while the
Nimroud tower is of brick, but the whole of its substructure is cased with
the finer material to a height of nearly twenty-four feet, which is quite
enough to account for Xenophon's statement. As for his dimensions, they
should not be taken too literally. In their rapid and anxious march the
Greek commanders had no time to wield the plumb-line or the
measuring-chain; they must have trusted mainly to their eyes in arriving at
a notion of the true size of the buildings by which their attention was
attracted. The tower at Nimroud must have been about 150 feet square,
measured along its plinth; the present height of the mound is 141 feet, and
nothing above the first stage now exists. As Layard remarks, one or two
stories more must be taken into the account, and they would easily make up
an original elevation of from 200 to 240 feet, or about that of the Larissa
tower. Xenophon made use of the word pyramid because his language furnished
him with no term more accurate. Like the true pyramid, the staged tower
diminished gradually from base to summit, and there can be no doubt as to
the real character of the building seen by the Greeks, as may be gathered
from their leader's statement, that the "barbarians from the neighbouring
villages took refuge upon it in great numbers." Such buildings as the
pyramids of Egypt and Ethiopia could have afforded no refuge of the kind. A
few could stand upon their summits, supposing them to have lost their
capstones, but it would require the wide ramps and terraces of the staged
tower to afford a foothold for the population of several villages.[478]
Nothing but the first two stages, or rather the plinth and the first stage,
now remain at Nimroud of what must have been the chief temple of Calah.
There is no trace either of the ramp or of the colours with which the
different stories were ornamented. The Khorsabad tower discovered by Place
is more interesting and much more instructive as to the arrangement and
constitution of these buildings.[479]
[Illustration: FIG. 184.--Actual condition of the so-called _Observatory_,
at Khorsabad; from Place.]
This tower was previously hidden under a mass of _debris_, which gave it a
conical form like that at Nimroud. Botta had already noticed its existence,
but he failed to guess its real character, which, indeed, was only divined
by Place when his explorations were far advanced. As soon as all doubt was
removed as to the real character of the monument, M. Place took every care
to preserve all that might yet exist of it, and our Fig. 184 shows the
state of the building after the excavations were complete. Three whole
stages and part of a fourth (to say nothing of the plinth) were still in
existence. The face of each stage was ornamented with vertical grooves,
repeating horizontally the elevation of the Assyrian stepped battlements
(Fig. 102); the coloured stucco, varying in hue from one stage to another,
was still in place, and confirmed the assertions of Herodotus as to the
traditional sequence of tints.[480] The external ramp, with its pavement of
burnt brick and its crenellated parapet, was also found.[481] At its base
the first stage described upon the soil a square of about 143 feet each
way. Each of the three complete stages was twenty feet three inches high.
Upon such data M. Thomas had no difficulty in restoring the whole building.
Evidently the fourth story could not have been the original apex, as it
would have been strange indeed, if, when all the rest of the Khorsabad
palace had lost its upper works, the sun-dried bricks of the _Observatory_
alone had resisted the agents of destruction. Moreover the materials of the
higher stories still exist in the 40,000 cubic yards of rubbish which cover
the surrounding platform to an average depth of about ten feet.
[Illustration: FIG. 185.--The _Observatory_ restored. Elevation.]
How many stages were there? Struck by the importance of the number seven in
Assyrian architecture, M. Thomas fixed upon that number. Even at Khorsabad
itself the figure continually crops up. The city walls had seven gates. One
of the commonest of the ornamental motives found upon the external and
internal walls of the Harem is the band of seven half columns illustrated
on page 247. Herodotus tells us of the seven different colours used on the
concentric walls of Ecbatana. Finally, in assigning seven stories to the
building we get a total elevation of 140 feet, which corresponds so closely
to the 143 feet of the base that we may take the two as identical, and
account for the slight difference between them, amounting only to about
three inches for each story, by the difficulty in taking correct
measurements on a ruined structure of sun-dried brick. And we should
remember that Strabo tells us in a passage already quoted that the height
of the great temple at Babylon was equal to its shorter diameter, an
arrangement that may to some extent have been prescribed by custom.
[Illustration: FIG. 186.--The _Observatory_ restored. Plan.]
So far then as its main features are concerned, we may look upon the
restoration we borrow from M. Place's work as perfectly authentic (Figs.
185 and 186). Our section (Fig. 187) is meant to show that no trace of any
internal chamber or void of the smallest kind was discovered by the French
explorers. It is, however, quite possible that such chambers were contrived
in the upper stories, but we have no evidence of their existence. We may
say the same of the resting-places mentioned by Herodotus in his
description of the temple of Belus. But supposing that edifice to have had
seven stages, its ramp must have been about a thousand yards long, and it
is likely enough that halting places were provided on such a long ascent.
[Illustration: FIG. 187.--The _Observatory_. Transverse section through
AB.]
It is not until we come to discuss the object of such a building that we
feel compelled to part company with MM. Place and Thomas. They are
inclined to believe that it was an observatory rather than a temple, and
under that title they have described it. Although we have made use of the
name thus given we do not think it has been justified. There is nothing,
says M. Place, among the ruins at Khorsabad to show that the tower ever
bore any chapel or tabernacle upon its apex. But according to their own
hypothesis it has lost its three highest stories, so why should they expect
to find any vestige of such a chapel, seeing that it must have been the
first thing to disappear? There is absolutely nothing to negative the idea
that it may have been of wood, in which case its total disappearance would
not be surprising, even after the platform had been thoroughly explored;
and that is far from being the case at present. Moreover there is some
little evidence that the purpose of the pyramid was religious. Two stone
altars were found in its neighbourhood. Whether they came from its summit
or from the esplanade, they justify us in believing the _Observatory_ to
have been a temple. We are confirmed in this belief by the
similarity--which M. Place himself points out--between it and the chief
monuments of Babylon, as described by Herodotus. It seems to be
incontestable that Chaldaea adopted this form for the largest and most
sumptuous of her temples, and why should we suppose the Assyrians to have
broken with that tradition and to have devoted to a different use buildings
planned and constructed on the same principle?
It is true that tablets have been found in the royal archives at Kouyundjik
upon which reports as to the condition of the heavens are recorded for the
guidance of the king,[482] but there is nothing in these so far as they
have been deciphered to show that the observations were taken from the
summit of a _zigguratt_. It is, however, very probable that the astronomers
availed themselves of such a height above the plain in order to escape from
floating vapours and to gain a wider horizon. The platform of the Khorsabad
tower must have had a superficial extent of about 180 square yards. There
may have been a chapel or tabernacle in the centre, and yet plenty of space
for the astrologers to do their work at their ease. We do not wish to deny,
therefore, that this tower and other monuments of the same kind may have
been used as observatories, but we believe that in Assyria, as in Chaldaea,
their primary object was a religious one--that they were raised so far
above the dwellings of man, even of the king himself, in order to do honour
to the gods whose sanctuaries were to crown their summits.[483]
NOTES:
[471] See _Les Fouilles de Chaldee_ in the _Revue archeologique_ for
November, 1881. M. de Sarzec refers us in his paper to a plan which has not
yet been laid before the Academy. We regret very much that its publication
should have been so long delayed, as we have been prevented from making as
much use as we should have wished of M. de Sarzec's architectural
discoveries.
[472] The clearest and most precise information upon the topography of
Babylon is to be found in Professor RAWLINSON's essay on that subject in
the second volume of his translation of HERODOTUS (p. 570, in the third
edition).
[473] In making his calculations, Professor RAWLINSON has certainly
forgotten to take into account the pier or section of wall that still
stands upright upon the surface of the mound (OPPERT, _Expedition
scientifique_, vol. i. pp. 260, _et seq._). It is clearly shown in our
figure--Sir Henry LAYARD leaves us in no doubt on this score: "The
Birs-Nimroud rises to a height of 198 feet, and has on its summit a compact
mass of brickwork thirty-seven feet high by twenty-eight broad, the whole
being thus 235 feet in perpendicular height," _Discoveries_, p. 495. LAYARD
says, however, that the dimensions here given were taken from RICH, as he
had no time to take measurements during his hurried visit. ED.
[474] _Discoveries_, p. 495.
[475] We take these details from Professor RAWLINSON's essay on the
topography of Babylon.
[476] XENOPHON, _Anabasis_, iii, 4, 9.
[477] LAYARD, _Discoveries_, pp. 126-128, and map 2.
[478] At Kaleh Shergat, where the site of an important, but as yet
unidentified Assyrian city has been recognized, there is a conical mound,
recalling in its general aspect the Nimroud tower, which must contain all
that is left of a _zigguratt_; but no deep excavations have yet been made
in it (LAYARD, _Nineveh_, vol. ii. p. 61).
[479] PLACE, _Ninive_, vol. i. pp. 147-148, and plates 36-37.
[480] See above, pp. 272-274.
[481] We have already mentioned the size of its steps; see page 192. The
gradient for the first stage was about one in twenty. In the upper stages
it must have been far steeper, as the circumference of the stages was much
less, while their height remained the same. It never became very abrupt
however, as supposing that the original number of stories was seven, the
gradient would not be more than about one in fourteen close to the summit.
[482] LENORMANT, _Histoire ancienne_, vol. ii. p. 200 (3rd edition).
[483] The position occupied by this staged tower in the plan of the royal
palace at Khorsabad suggests that perhaps neither of the two explanations
of its purpose here alluded to is the true one. It is placed immediately
outside the Harem wall--and as to the identity of the Harem there can be no
doubt--in such a way that any one ascending it must have had an
uninterrupted view into the numerous courts of the women's apartments. Such
a possibility seems inconsistent with the numerous precautions taken to
secure the privacy of that part of the palace (see Vol. II. Chapter I. Sec.
2). Perhaps the real solution of the difficulty is to be found in a
suggestion made, but only to be cast aside, by Mr. FERGUSSON, that this
Khorsabad _zigguratt_ was, in fact, a private oratory for the exclusive use
of Sargon himself (_History of Architecture_, vol. i. p. 173).--ED.
Sec. 3.--_Subordinate Types of the Temple._
Side by side with these pyramidal temples the Assyrians seem to have placed
others of a less ambitious kind, dedicated, no doubt, to deities of the
second rank. The great staged towers, whose height and mass implied an
effort that could not be often repeated, were devoted to the worship of the
great national gods. Botta believed that he had discovered a temple of this
smaller kind in the building from which we borrowed the example of an
Assyrian moulding reproduced in our Figs. 98 and 99. This edifice is
remarkable, not only for its cornice, but also because it is built of
limestone and decorated with sculptures carved from slabs of basalt, the
only things of the kind that have been discovered in the Khorsabad ruins.
The general arrangements are unlike those of any other part of the palace.
Unfortunately the building is in a very bad condition. Even its plan can
only be restored in part. Thomas is inclined to see in it rather a throne
room, or divan, as it would be called in the modern East, than a temple.
The few bas-reliefs which may be certainly recognized as having belonged to
it are not religious in their character; they represent hunting scenes,
battles and prisoners bringing tribute. Although Thomas's restoration is,
as he himself confesses, entirely conjectural, we have no serious motive
for pronouncing the building to have been a temple.[484]
[Illustration: FIG. 188.--Plan of a small temple at Nimroud; from Layard.]
[Illustration: FIG. 189.--Plan of a small temple at Nimroud; from Layard.]
On the other hand, Layard seems to have had good reasons for recognizing
small temples in the structures he cleared near the great staged tower at
Nimroud.[485] The more important of the two was actually touching that
tower (Fig. 188). The character of the building is at once betrayed by the
nature of its sculptures, which are religious rather than
historical--figures of gods and genii, scenes of adoration and mystic
theology. And it was not without a purpose that it was put into close
juxtaposition with a _zigguratt_, an arrangement that proves it to have
formed a part of a collection of buildings consecrated, by the prince whose
dwelling covered the rest of the platform, to the gods in whose protection
he placed his trust. The second and smaller temple stands about thirty
yards to the east on the very edge of the artificial mound (Fig. 189). An
altar with three feet carved in the shape of lion's paws was found in front
of the entrance.[486] There were no bas-reliefs: the decorations were
carried out in paint. The number of rooms was less, but their general
arrangement was similar to that of the larger building. The chief feature
of both was a large hall (_e_ in the first plan, _c_ in the second) with a
square niche at one of its extremities (_f_ in the first plan, _d_ in the
second). This niche was paved with a single slab of alabaster, of
considerable size and covered upon both faces with a long inscription
describing in detail the reign of the prince by whom the temple was
consecrated. In the larger of the two buildings the slab in question was
twenty-three feet four inches long and seventeen feet eight inches wide;
its thickness was twelve inches. Upon it stood, in all probability, the
statue of the god. The niche must, in fact, have been the _secos_, or
sanctuary properly speaking. The large oblong hall was the _naos_ or
_cella_. In the larger temple its length was forty-six feet seven inches.
It was preceded by a _pronaos_ or vestibule (Fig. 188, _c_). We have no
evidence as to the purpose of the chamber marked _g_ in our plan. It has a
direct entrance of its own from the outside (_h_). The small temple is
rather less complicated. Two doorways (_b_ and _f_) lead immediately into
the principal hall or naos. A small chamber (_e_) behind the sanctuary was,
perhaps, a kind of storeroom or sacristy. It should be noticed that in the
little temple the doors into the naos were so placed that the image in the
sanctuary could not be seen from without.[487] In both buildings the doors
were flanked by winged lions or bulls, like those of the royal palaces. The
walls of the larger temple were decorated with glazed bricks.
[Illustration: FIG. 190.--Temple with triangular pediment; from Botta.]
These temples of the second class lent themselves to a great variety of
forms. Some of them had their facades crowned by a triangular pediment,
like those of the Greek temples (Fig. 190). It is true that the Khorsabad
relief whence we copy this peculiar arrangement deals with the capture of
an Armenian city, Mousasir, called in the narrative of Sargon's conquests
"the dwelling of the god Haldia,"[488] whose temple must be here figured by
the sculptor. Must we believe that the artist has given his temple a form
unfamiliar to himself in deference to the accounts of those who had taken
part in the campaign? Is it not more probable that he copied some model
which would be recognized by every spectator as that of a temple, from its
frequent occurrence in the neighbourhood of the very palace on whose
decoration he was at work? We are inclined to say yes to the latter
question. But even if we look upon this relief as a faithful sketch from an
Armenian temple we shall still believe that it reproduces a type not
unknown to Assyrian art. Everything combines to prove that the inhabitants
of the mountainous countries situated to the east and north of Assyria had
no original and well-marked civilization of their own during any part of
the period with which we are now concerned. Just as Ethiopia borrowed
everything from Egypt, so the Medes and Armenians drew both their arts and
their written character from Chaldaea, by way of Assyria. All the objects
found in the neighbourhood of Lake Van are purely Assyrian in character,
and no question is raised as to the fitness of their place in our museums
side by side with objects from Nimroud and Khorsabad. It is, however, of
little importance whether the temple shown in our woodcut was or was not
copied from nature; if there were such buildings in Armenia it was because
similar ones had previously existed in Assyria, from which the architects
of the semi-barbarous people, who were in turn the enemies, the vassals and
the subjects of the Ninevite monarchs, had borrowed their leading features.
Moreover, we find one of the most characteristic features of Assyrian
architecture occurring in this Armenian monument. The entrance is flanked
by lions similar to those which guard the temples at Nimroud.[489] The
other features of the composition are quite new to us. In front of the
temple two large vases are supported on tripods, of bronze no doubt. They
contained the water required for purifications; we shall encounter them
again in Syria. They remind us of the "molten sea" of Solomon's temple. The
temple stands upon a high plinth, to which access must have been given by
steps omitted by the sculptor. At each side of the door stands a
lance-headed pole, indicating, perhaps, that the temple was dedicated to a
god of war. In front of these lances stand two people in attitudes of
adoration; statues, perhaps, or figures in relief. The facade is formed of
pilasters divided horizontally by narrow bands; upon these pilasters, and
on the wall between them, hang shields or targets, that accord well with
the lances flanking the entrance. From two of the pilasters on the left of
the doorway lions' heads and shoulders seem to issue; these, too, may be
taken as symbolical of the bellicose disposition of the god to whom the
building was dedicated. The pediment with which the facade is crowned is
rather low in its proportions. Its tympanum is filled with a kind of
reticulated ornament made up of small lozenges or meshes. There is nothing
to throw light upon the internal arrangements, but by the aid of this
carved sketch the facade may be easily restored, save, of course, in the
matter of size, at which we can only guess.
The type is chiefly interesting on account of its analogy with the Greek
temple. We have already drawn attention to similar points of likeness in
the small buildings in which the column plays such an important part (Figs.
41 and 42). We have seen that some of those little structures resemble the
Egyptian temples, others the Greek temple _in antis_.[490] For the sake of
completeness we may also mention the pavilion we find so often in the
Chaldaean monuments (Fig. 79). It is crowned with the horned mitre we are
accustomed to see upon the heads of the winged bulls. Our interest has been
awakened in these little chapels chiefly on account of the decorative forms
of which they afford such early examples. It is not to them that we must
look for the distinctive features of Mesopotamian temple architecture.
These we must find in the _staged tower_ or _zigguratt_. Why is it that the
whole of those monuments, with the single exception of the so-called
_Observatory_ of Khorsabad, are now mere heaps of formless dust, fulfilling
to the letter the biblical prophecies as to the fate of Nineveh and
Babylon? One traveller tells us how when he approached the Birs-Nimroud he
saw wolves stretched upon its slopes and basking in the sun. Before they
would lazily rise and make up their minds to decamp, the Arabs of his
escort had to ride forward shouting and shaking their lances.
NOTES:
[484] See PLACE, _Ninive_, vol. i. pp. 149-151, and vol. ii. pp. 6-7, and
36-42. This building is at the western angle of the area occupied by the
Khorsabad ruins (vol. iii. plate 3). The restoration will be found in the
plate numbered 37 _bis_.
[485] _Discoveries_, &c., pp. 348-357, 359-362; and _Monuments_, &c.,
second series, plate 5.
[486] This is now in the British Museum.--ED.
[487] The doors are so arranged that in neither temple can the naos be seen
by one standing outside the building.--ED.
[488] This expedition took place in the eighth year of Sargon's reign. The
passage in which the chief events are recounted, will be found in the long
and important inscription translated by M. OPPERT, under the title:
_Annales de Sargon_ (PLACE, _Ninive_, vol. ii. p. 313).
[489] The sculptor has only introduced one; the other he has left for the
imagination of the spectator to fill in.
[490] Page 142.
Sec. 4.--_Comparison between the Chaldaean Temple and that of Egypt._
Although the ancients called them both by the same name, there are more
points of difference than of resemblance between the Egyptian pyramids and
the staged towers of Chaldaea. On the borders of the Nile we have the true
pyramid, the solid which bears that name in geometry. In Mesopotamia we
have a series of rectangular prisms placed one upon the other. At a
distance the gradual diminution of their size may give a pyramidal
appearance to the mass of which they form a part, but their walls are
vertical. Finally the contrast between the purposes of the two buildings is
still greater. The Egyptian pyramid is a tomb; its enormous mass is no more
than a monstrous development of the stone envelope to which the sarcophagus
was committed. No means were provided for reaching the summit, and its
height had, so to speak, no _raison d'etre_ or practical utility. In spite
of all the art lavished upon it a pyramid was hardly a building in the
proper sense of the word--it was a mere heap of building materials.
It was quite otherwise with the _zigguratt_, whose terminal platform
supported a richly-decorated sanctuary. Astronomers could make use of it
for observing the heavens under better conditions than were possible below;
chapels were also cut in the flanks of its lower stages, so that a
convenient means of approach to every story from top to bottom was
absolutely required. This necessity brought in its train the varied
arrangements of ramp and terrace of which we have endeavoured to give an
idea in our restorations. If we give rein to our imagination and allow it
for a moment to restore their crenellated parapets to the ramps and
terraces; if we set up the resting-places, rebuild the chapels and
pavilions and replace the statues; if we cover the sanctuary with its
vesture of bronze and gold, and the whole edifice with the surface
decoration to which the sun of Mesopotamia gave its fullest value, we shall
then understand how far superior, as an architectonic conception, the
Chaldaean _zigguratt_ was to the Egyptian pyramid. With its smooth and naked
face the latter was in some degree an inorganic mass, as lifeless as the
corpse it crushed with its preposterous weight. The division of the former
into stages had a latent rhythm that was strongly attractive; the eye
followed with no little pleasure the winding slope which, by its easy
gradient, seemed to invite the traveller to mount to the lofty summit,
where, in the extent and beauty of the view he would find so rich a reward
for the gentle fatigues of the ascent.
But we must not forget that the _zigguratt_ was a temple, and that it is to
the temples of Thebes that we must compare it. In such a comparison Egypt
regains all its superiority. How cold and poor a show the towers of Chaldaea
and Assyria make beside the colonnades of the Ramesseum, of Luxor, of
Karnak! In the one case the only possible varieties are those caused by
changes in the position and proportions of the stages, in the slope and
arrangement of the ramps. In the other, what infinite combinations of
courts, pylons, and porticoes, what an ever changing play of light, shadow,
and form among the groves of pictured columns! What a contrast between the
Assyrian sanctuaries lighted only from the door and by the yellow glare of
torches, and the mysterious twilight of the Egyptian halls, where the deep
shadows were broken here and there by some wandering ray of sunshine
shooting downwards from holes contrived in the solid roof, and making some
brilliant picture of Ptah or Amen stand out against the surrounding gloom.
But the Chaldaeans might, perhaps would, have equalled the Egyptians had
their country been as rich in stone as the Nile valley; their taste and
instinct for grandeur was no less, and the religious sentiment was as
lively and exalted with the worshippers of Assur and Marduk as with those
of Osiris and Amen-Ra. The inferiority of their religious architecture was
due to the natural formation of their country, which restricted them almost
entirely to the use of a fictile material.
[Illustration]
END OF VOL. I.
LONDON:
R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR,
BREAD STREET HILL, E.C.