Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

ABOUT

LETTER XXV.

Chinese and Indian Architecture.

BOUT the middle of the eighteenth century, the Chinese architecture made some progress in public favor in this country. That extraordinary nation separated from us, eastward, by the length of Europe and Asia, hardly less than, westward, by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans with intervening America, and from all the world by its institutions, is, in every point of view, an object of curiosity. With a population said to exceed that of all Europe, its government remaining the patriarchal, modelled after that of a single family, so also its letters, its sciences, and all its arts, seem to be of patriarchal character; and, among the rest its Architecture. Deviating indeed very widely, as in the course of so many ages could hardly fail, from patriarchal simplicity, in the abundance and extravagance of its ornamental appendages, the Chinese style has still, in its principles and essence, much of that simplicity. Its character is decided, in large proportion, as, early in our correspondence, we observed must be, by the material principally used. Though not only the country abounds with rock, but the art of brickmaking is old there, beyond traditions said to be

the oldest in the world, yet the buildings are almost all still of the primitive material, timber. Hence, if the style of architecture had more merit, it could hardly offer models for countries, where stone or brick are in common use. Not that the style, whether of building or of painting, is always bad. Among the paintings, though we do not admire either the grace or the expression of the human figure, male or female, or the composition, or light and shadow, or perspective, of the landscape, yet we see branches and flowers often touched with freedom and spirit, and disposed with elegance. So also in the architecture, however without matter deserving imitation, yet some things, for their resemblance to what is found in Egypt and in Greece, may amuse the fancy, by exciting speculation on the migration of the arts, or on the analogies in the human mind.

Of later years only the prodigious (perhaps I might add alarming) extension of our conquests in India has brought us acquainted with antiquities in that country, before unknown in Europe: and the talents and diligence of a painter, employed there, have given them to the world in a way to excite admiration; with a favor, as is the way with favor to new things, perhaps not, in all instances, free from extravagance.

Nevertheless the buildings of India, very unlike

the Chinese, of the most lasting materials, and most solid construction, are objects of curiosity for the antiquarian, objects also for the historian, and, in my opinion, not wholly undeserving attention from the architect.

There are found among them two principal distinctions of style, that of the ancient inhabitants, who hold, with their ancient religion their ancient name, Hindoos; and that of the Arabians, which seems to have been adopted, with the Mahometan religion, by the Tartar conquerors. Whether the Tartars themselves have added anything I know not. But even the two styles, the elder Indian and the Arabian, in some instances clearly distinct, have, in numerous others, been so mixed that discrimination is, even for the most expert, it seems, in many cases uncertain; and the modern architecture of India is a third style, compounded of the elder two. Stone has been the common material of both people, and solidity is eminent among the qualities of the buildings of both.

For the antiquarian, whether inquiring into carly history, or early building, the old Indian architecture is the higher object of curiosity. The Arabian style, comparatively new in India, may be investigated in other countries, whence, with conquering armies, it migrated. But the Arabian buildings in India are not only of a

magnificence to attract notice, but also in design, I think, are generally superior to what either the Saracens carried westward, or the Turks northward. Whether however their style has any advantage over what prevailed earlier among the Arabians, the representations I have seen of some of their buildings, nearer home, lead me to doubt.

We cannot wonder if, in Arabian architecture, we find much analogy with that of earliest Egypt. But the resemblance of Indian buildings to the very oldest Egyptian, a inuch nearer resemblance than is found in any Arabian buildings of which any representation has been published, offers a wide field for speculation. Especially those extraordinary edifices, bearing very remarkable analogy to the Egyptian pyramids, and yet very remarkably differing, are objects of wonder. Like the pyramids, they are works of vast labor; like them, unless monumental, of no imaginable human use; in form, like them, at the base square, at the summit pointed; but differing in the proportion of base to height, being far smaller below; and not regularly diminishing in rising, nor by steps, like the pyramid, but in one line, curving like a beehive. Thus they offer perhaps the oldest existing examples of building, if not to be called a dome, yet, in manner, nearly approaching the dome. Whether those ancient monuments at

Tortosa, on the Syrian coast, represented in an engraving among those of the Ionian Antiquities, ǎre, in any degree, of the same family, I must leave to more diligent investigators to inquire.

The older Indian buildings, however, are far exceeded, in number and magnificence, by those erected after the Arabian conquest. Among these the POINTED ARCH is often a prominent feature. But, in the published representations of them, we discover nothing approaching that perfection in applying the Pointed Arch to the purposes of Interior Architecture, which is seen in some of our own cathedrals.

Nevertheless, the Arabian designers have succeeded, beyond the cultivators of our old ecclesiastical architecture, in applying that form in the exterior. Evidently indeed they have been more called upon to give splendor to the exterior, and altogether their manner will deserve notice.

The Arabian architects, I think, have clearly been aware of the unreadiness of the pointed arch to coalesce with rectilinear forms. Constantly, therefore, it appears to have been their practice to soften the dissention, and prepare for connection, by inscribing the arch in a parallelògram, as a picture in a frame. Thus the arch, with its curves and peak, having its own rectangular associate, specially accommodated for the purpose, not the discordant form of the arch

1

« PoprzedniaDalej »