Quarterly goes somewhat further. He believes that the Celts were Buddhists before they became Christians, and that the worship itself thus existed in Britain. We are afraid that, after all this ingenuity, the question remains as undecided

other"--and we do not confine this feeling, | Europe to England. The writer in the as Mr. Linton does, to the antiquary-"it is when he finds himself amidst the walled cities and tombs of nations whose history has passed away." "We look with a feeling of awe," says Dr. Wordsworth, "on a city which was in ruins in the time of Thucydides."

The first article in the volume is devoted to Stonehenge, upon the origin of which Mr. Linton offers no opinion of his own, but contents himself with laying before us the different guesses that attribute it, with almost equal plausibility, to the Phonicians, Druids, Britons, Celts, Romans, and Danes. The most recent suggestion he seems to have forgotten. Its Druidical origin is rather a popular belief than a well-supported theory, and in an able article in the Quarterly Review* we are taught to look for its founders amongst the Buddhists. We were certainly startled by this announcement, but the supposition is so ingeniously argued, and supported by so much information, that no one will refuse it his attentive consideration. By whomever Stonehenge may have been constructed, the writer of the article we have mentioned gives sufficient reason for believing that it did not exist till about the middle of the fifth century, and he dwells upon the fact that the Buddhist architecture in India (from 300 B.c. to 700 A.D.) is the only architecture similar to it in arrangement and form, the principal difference being that it is highly ornamented, while the Celtic is every where rude and plain. But at Sanchee, in India, there is a circle of roughly-squared upright stone posts joined by an architrave at the top, as at Stonehenge. If we admit, however, that there is weight in the argument founded upon this similarity of structure, we have still to learn how the believers in Buddhism came to be located in England in the fifth century. Here the connecting-link becomes very slender. It is argued that there was so much resemblance between the forms and ceremonies and monastic life of the Buddhists, and those which prevailed in the early centuries of Christianity, that the one seems to have been borrowed from the other, and that even though the imitation were confined to mere rites and discipline, it might have influenced their first rude architecture, and have extended through the continent of Western

*For July, MDCCCLX.

as ever.

Of the more celebrated monoliths, the uprights at Stonehenge are the smallest. Yet it is in speaking of the mechanic power employed in their removal we are told "that modern philosophers, with all their boasted improvements in science and art, must behold it with wonder."* We might do so if nothing more wonderful existed. But the most ancient people of whose history we have any record-and some of whom no record remains-have evidently possessed the same knowledge of mechanic power, and it is a knowledge which seems to be only compatible with an advanced stage of civilization.

"Evidence of great mechanical power," Mr. Linton well observes, "argues something like a fixed government over the masses, in order to command the means of exercising that power; it also indicates a degree of skill and intelligence incompatible with a barbarous state. . . Besides, great occasions for energetic and unanimous exertion never arise among a people who are bound by no common interest but self-preservation against some new enemy. It is on this account that we are induced to claim a civilized character for those nations who have exhibited extraordinary power in the building of large edifices, or the moving of large weights." At whatever period of recorded time such power was necessary, it appears to have been exercised. "The lever, the lewis, the trochlea, and every engine employed by modern masons are recognized in all the oldest buildings of the east." In addition to these, Mr. Layard's operations at Nineveh have shown how much may be done by the mere union of individual strength. By physical or mechanical power, and generally by both combined, the work in hand has always been accomplished: from the removal of the monolith of five thousand tons to form the Temple of Latona in the Delta, down to the launching of the Great Eastern at Black wall. After passing through an interval of three

*Smith's Gaelic Antiquities, as quoted by Mr. Linton.

Professor Cockerell-idem.

was carried on a kind of hurdle, consisting of blocks of timber supported upon wooden runners; and the way in which it was raised perpendicularly shows in how many forms the requisite power may be applied.* In one country it is an inclined plane of earth; in another, hydraulic machinery or steam.

or four thousand years to the Christian | taken two miles from the quarry, which era, we find that about the year 500 the was done by the Hindus themselves, six monolithic cupola (estimated at four hun-hundred being employed at a time. It dred and eighty tons) was placed upon the cathedral at Ravenna. As recently as some five hundred years later-but the authority is doubtful-were built the Cyclopean walls that form part of the fortifications at Cusco, in Peru. The Lateran Obelisk, the largest that exists, and computed to weigh four hundred and fortyfive tons, was removed to its present site in 1588. The monolithic pedestal at St. Petersburgh (thirteen hundred and thirtysix tons) in 1776. The obelisk near Seringapatam (one hundred and ten tons) was erected in 1805. And in our own time the amount to be expended seems to be the only limit of engineering power. We have dwelt the more willingly on these particulars because we have a great objection to the exclamation of "Well, I never!" whatever may be the form in which it comes before us.

The only ancient structure that we can regard as marvelous is the Temple, already referred to, at Buto, in the Delta. Its walls are described by Herodotus as formed of a single stone, (a hollow cube of granite,) and over the walls was laid another stone, projecting six feet beyond them. The body of the, building, exclusive of the roof, is estimated at five thousand tons; and sailors and war-prisoners were the locomotive powers employed for its removal from a computed distance of six hundred and fifty miles. From what we learn of the mode in which some of these immense masses of stone were moved, we may see that in all ages it was much the same. The obelisk of Semiramis was floated down the Euphrates on a raft supported by inflated skins; and as it was supposed to have weighed four thousand tons, the number of these skins "is almost inconceivable." It was in a similar manner that Mr. Layard conveyed his colossal bulls down the Tigris. In the erection of the Vatican Obelisk at Rome there were employed eight hundred men, one hundred and forty horses, and forty-six cranes. The pedestal of Peter the Great was removed from the marsh, where it was found, to the barge that was to carry it to St. Petersburg, by means of levers, triangles, windlasses, and over movable rails, a distance of about forty miles, at the rate of about a quarter of a mile a day. The obelisk at Seringapatam had only to be

We have an account, from Sir John Herschel, of the simple and ingenious mode of cutting these large blocks of granite from the native rock. "The workman," he informs us, "having found a portion of the rock sufficiently extensive, and situated near the edge of the part already quarried, lays bare the upper surface, and marks on it a line in the direction of the intended separation, along which a groove is cut with a chisel about a couple of inches in depth. Above this groove a narrow line of fire is then kindled, and maintained till the rock below is thoroughly heated, immediately on which a line of men and women, each provided with a pot full of cold water, suddenly sweep off the ashes, and pour the water into the heated groove, when the rock at once splits with a clear fracture. Square blocks of six feet in the side, and upward of eighty feet in length, are sometimes detached by this method." Belzoni supposes that the ancient Egyptians adopted similar means, but probably applied mechanical power to the grove instead of fire.

"The skill and dexterity," says Mr. Linton, "evinced by the ancient Egyptians and modern Indians in cutting stones from the quarry, may be instructively contrasted with the barbarous practice which at present obtains at Carrara, where the beautiful material is blown and shattered from its bed by gunpowder; three fourths of that which is detached by each explosion being the computed average loss sustained by this destructive process of eluding the exercise of labor and skill. In the

time of the Romans this marble was quarried in the manner of the ancient Egyptians at Syene. No evidence of progress here!" On the contrary, such stupidity seems scarcely credible.

*

at as a monument, and its cost will diminish the funds that were intended for a distinct and separate object. The nearest approach to the abandoned obeliskthough liable to some objections- would have been a tower of Gothic architecture as a shrine for the statue of the Prince, surmounted by a light and lofty spire.

Amongst his incidental notices, Mr. Linton refers to the now exploded error, in which we were all educated, as to the claims of the Romans to the invention of the arch. He gives sufficient authorities* to show that the Greeks were well acquaint

If we did not know from the author of the Vestiges himself that his work was planned, if not commenced, some twenty years since, we might suppose it to have been written with special reference to the proposed monument to the Prince Consort. He contrasts the obelisk as a work of art with the single columns erected for similar purposes by the Romans-the barbarizers of Greek architecture. "As parts of a build-ed with its principle, though they did not ing," he observes, "columns may be very beautiful; but as parts only. When set up alone, a column is out of place. . . It is only a curiosity." And it is absurd to place a statue on its summit, where neither form nor features are distinguishable without the aid of a glass. "The obelisk" (on the contrary) "may be called a work of fine art, for it has proportion, propriety, and fitness to recommend it; and, though hitherto confined to Egyptian memories, from want of more general adoption as an artistic form, it can not but eventually become a world-wide trophy, as art advances, and a love of the beautiful, the Tò Kaλov, prevails. . . . A finelyproportioned obelisk is a most agreeable object to look at, tapering gracefully as it ascends, like the one on the Monte Citorio at Rome, and terminated at the exact point of just taste by a pyramidal apex-a model of symmetry and elegance."f

Even in face both of the cost and risk, we must confess that we are amongst those who regret its abandonment as the form of our national memorial. It was the Queen's first wish; and (expressed at such a moment) it must have been based upon some deep motive, connected possibly with the tastes and feelings of the Prince him

self.

For monumental purposes we can not conceive any thing worse than the proposed building. This seems to be felt

the projectors themselves, from their considering it necessary to "supplement" the Hall by a group of statuary on the opposite side of the road. We have great respect for those who compose the Commission, and whose sincere desire to do what is best it is impossible to doubt, but their suggestions are unsatisfactory in every way. The Hall can never be looked

obtrude it on the eye, "especially as their
masonry was large and solid, and did not
require its aid." It is also seen in some of
the oldest buildings in Egypt. In addition
to the testimony of Belzoni, Caillard, and
Waddington, the arch," says Sir Gard-
ner Wilkinson, was in common use in
the time of Amunoph, 3370 years ago-
see the vaulted tomb at Thebes." The
discovery by Mr. Richmond of arched or
vaulted passages near one of the pools of
Solomon at Jerusalem shows that its con-
struction must have been known in Judæa
a thousand years before the Christian era.
That it was known to the ancient Assy-
rians we have the authority of Bonomi
and of Layard. But in reviewing these
authorities, and in answering the question,
"Why, if the Egyptians knew the con-
struction of the arch, did they not use it
in their temples ?" we are reminded that
'they could effect their object by more
simple means. One bold block .
from column to column effected as much
as half a score of little stones could have
done in the shape of an arch. Beside,
the simple and massive styles of architec-
ture in their temples, as well as in those
of Greece, necessarily precluded that va-
riety of forms which the introduction of
the arch must have created. Straight
lines and broad surfaces are elements of a
severe and grand style of architectural art,
which contrasting curves and semi-circles,
as leading forms, would inevitably vitiate.”

66

The antiquities of Central America are dwelt upon with the consideration they deserve. If we knew something more than their mere existence-and this is about all that we know of them at present

what a difficulty in ethnology would be solved! The ruins in Peru have their his† Ib., p. 60.

* Ib., p. 56 et seq.