intrinsic evidence of greater antiquity. For the same reason we would place Egypt second in point of time.

Manetho informs us that the irruption of the Hyksos, or shepherdkings, into Egypt, is supposed to have occurred at about the close of the sixteenth dynasty, and that the seventeenth was under these monarchs. It is at this time that the erection of extensive edifices is presumed to have begun. The usurping shepherds were overpowered by the Pharaohs about 2,000 years B. C., and then commenced the rebuilding of those temples, the magnificent remains of which are the wonder and delight of the traveller even to the present day.

The most noted erections are those whose remains are found in the Egyptian cities along the Nile, and of these, especially Thebes and the Island of Pytæ; yet all contain most interesting specimens of temples, monuments, tombs, sphinxes, and pyramids, delicately sculptured in the hardest granite, and ponderous and herculean beyond any subsequent efforts of the chisel.

The next system, in chronological rotation, appears to be the Grecian, the origin of which is almost as obscure as that of the nation itself. Many authors claim for the Greeks great originality of design; yet there is much reason to suppose them indebted for their first inspirations to the sources we have specified. While denying, however, their originality in architecture, we must admit that in their hands it attained its highest degree of purity, chastity, and grandeur; so that even to the present day their architectural details are imitated, as far more refined and beautiful than any which have since been invented. To this wonderful nation are attributed the three principal orders of architecture, the Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian.

The proportions of the first, we are told, were taken from the figure of a man, its height being six times its diameter-the same ratio that a man's foot bears to his height. This order differs from the other two in the absence of a base. Vitruvius fancifully says that the base was introduced into the Ionic order to represent the sandal, or covering of a woman's foot, and that to the Doric, which represents the strong, muscular, barefooted man, this member is inappropriate.

It is not surprising that a people like the versatile and elegant Greeks

should soon weary of a single stereotyped style, repeated with but slight modifications in all their buildings, and long for a change in both order and design. It was to meet this demand that the Ionic order arose. It was invented by the Ionians, as its name implies. The Vitruvian account, sufficiently poetical to be exceedingly improbable, is, "that in erecting the temple of Diana, the proportions and dress of the Goddess were studied. The diameter of the columns was made an eighth part of their height; the base, with folds representing the shoe; the capitals, with volutes, in form of the curled hair worn upon the right and left; and the cymatium, for the locks pending on the forehead from the crown; the flutes in the column are supposed to represent the folds in the drapery." Yet motives for all these features are found in the remains of Persepolis and Egypt.

Although there are extant no examples of the Corinthian order at Corinth, yet its name would seem sufficient to entitle that city to the honor of its birthplace. Vitruvius' account of the origin of its capital is a well-known and pretty fable: "Callimachus, an Athenian sculptor, passing the tomb of a young virgin, observed an acanthus growing around the sides of a basket, covered with a tile, and placed upon the tomb; and seeing that the tops of the leaves were bent downward, in the form of volutes, by the resistance of the tile, he took the hint, and executed some columns with foliated capitals, near Corinth, of a more slender proportion than those of the Ionic, imitative of the figure and delicacy of virgins." Unfortunately, however, Egypt is full of the prototypes of this composition.

These three may well be called the basis of all trabeated and columnar architecture; for, whatever changes have been wrought upon them-however much the originals may seem to be lost from view in the multitudinous fancies of subsequent artists, still, divested of all their superfluities, the later productions invariably reduce themselves to one of these.

In this connection it may not be inappropriate to speak of a most remarkable fact in this art. The earliest monuments of the sister arts have passed away; nothing is left, save tradition, by which to judge of the first stages of their existence. The Grecian and Roman empires, where the arts were most cultivated, have declined and fallen, and with

them a great part of their history. Little remains even of description, and still less of reality, to guide us in the study of their great achievements. But Architecture nevertheless has survived, an indelible, majestic, and authentic record of their intellectual and moral culture, and the progress of their civilization. It is an art which most closely and intimately unites the beautiful with the useful-a deliberate growth out of the necessities of nations. Were its only object an aesthetic one, its earlier monuments would long ago have disappeared; for it is not in the nature of man habitually to render immortal the "unsubstantial pageants" of the mind. They will not build for beauty, but rather beautify in building. Therefore the adaptation of architecture to the wants of mankind is not only the secret of its beauty, but of its durability also. We may confidently expect that hereafter, as hitherto, this great art will keep pace with the growing grandeur and magnificence of nations, and we may anticipate architectural achievements which, in refinement, splendor, and dignity, will surpass all that our researches in the past can give.

66

During the administration of Pericles, art made rapid strides. His character, as described by Plutarch, coincides most remarkably with the style of the temples erected by him. He is represented as exhibiting an elevation of sentiment, a loftiness and purity of style, a gravity of countenance, jealous of laughter, a firm and even tone of delivery, and a decency of dress which no vehemence of speaking ever put in disorder." Athens was at this time nominally a republic, but Pericles was in fact a king; and when the people complained of his lavish expenditures, he replied, "Be mine, then, alone the cost; but, mark ye, be mine alone the glory. Not an Athenian shall be praised, not an Athenian obtain the homage of worship by posterity, when it contemplates these enduring monuments. Not to Athens shall belong the praise of those temples raised to the honor of her deities. No; my name alone shall be inscribed on them, and the city Athens shall live only in the fame of the citizen Pericles." "No!" exclaimed the united voice of the people; "be yours and ours the glory. Draw on the treasury as you will." This anecdote well serves to illustrate the spirit which animated the Grecian architect.

But it is in ancient Rome we must look for the greatest variety and

magnificence in architecture. In the time of Romulus, the dwellings of the inhabitants were of the rudest description. Ancus Martius was the first king who commenced work on a larger and more substantial scale. All succeeding rulers bestowed more or less attention upon this art. When Greece was overrun by Roman legions, the conquered provinces retaliated with their architecture, and in a short. time overturned all previous systems in Italy, and became in art the masters of the conquerors. Augustus may be called the Pericles of Rome. He it was who conceived the idea of making it the most splendid city in the world; and in his day she attained her highest point of glory in this art. Architects flocked from Greece to tender their services in beautifying the city, and, by their aid, Augustus was able to see the realization of his dreams, and to boast "that he found Rome built in brick, and left it in marble." After Augustus architecture fell into a decline, and did not revive until the reign of Vespasian. The Coliseum, which was begun by him and finished by Titus, still stands as one of the wonders of the world. Of all the buildings of ancient Rome, the Pantheon is perhaps most worthy of note. It was erected by Agrippa, and, as the name indicates, was dedicated to all the gods. This building will serve as an illustration of some principles of Roman architecture, as distinguished from Grecian. Its decorations are of the Corinthian order, and the interior is about 140 feet in height and diameter. The roof is vaulted; and it is in this system of constructionthat of the arch-that Rome can claim its only title to originality. The dome is constructed of brick, rubble, and pumice stone, and has a clear internal diameter of 140 feet, with a circular aperture at the top of 30 feet diameter, which supplies the whole building with light and air, there being no windows. Around the inside walls are several niches, each adorned with two columns composed of antique yellow marble, and the whole interior lining of the walls, as far as the springing of the dome, is of the finest marble.

Writers, in speaking of the Grecian orders, generally add to them two others, said to have originated in Rome, viz., the Tuscan and the Composite. The former, of Etruscan origin, is in reality no more than a clumsy imitation of the Doric, before the Greeks came to teach Rome the true principles of that style; and the latter is a combination of the Ionic

and Corinthian. The chief, if not the only merits of the old Roman architecture, are its variety and magnificent extent. It possesses little of that strong, meaning, and simple elegance, that refined dignity, so characteristic of the Greek school. Constructive expression and architectural truth were evidently not its aims; and the noble columns supporting massive entablatures in Greece, became here merely ornamental appendages. The arch sustaining all the weight, the columns stand idle and useless on either hand. Of the Romans it has been said, "They emblazoned their imperial city with a thousand splendid errors." Roman architecture typifies Roman pride and ostentation. Here are triumphal arches with bas-reliefs, commemorative of the triumphs of kings and conquerors, and designed to perpetuate their fame, but subserving no loftier purpose; columns, to support only the memory of barbarous conquests; theatres, stadia, and basilicas, to make more magnificent the daily life of a presumptuous and tyrannical people.

It has been said, and not without truth, that the arts are a mirror in which we may see reflected the character of a people; and indeed, as regards architecture, it is an indelible reflection. Every great era in the world's history has left its lasting image on the mirror of this art. If we would know the secrets of the past, we have but to look on the monumental records of Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting. But, among all political changes, none has had a more marked influence on every department of art than the introduction of Christianity. On architecture, especially, has it left its indelible impress; and, through its inspiration, mediæval builders in the midst of Dark Ages built temples of worship so full of beautiful persuasion, that the people entered these gates of promise and joyfully received the baptism of the new faith. Religion, indeed, had always been the principal source-except, perhaps, in Rome-of the highest architectural efforts; and in the idolatrous temples of Greece, Egypt, and India, we may behold the most sumptuous expressions of human intellect in art. But it was reserved for Christian architecture to symbolize a higher aspiration, which only a faith revealed from the Deity himself was capable of conceiving.

Thus originated what is called the Gothic, the first stage of which, from its close relationship with Roman precedents, was known as the