CHAPTER VI.
A REVIEW OF THE REFLECTIONS OF MR. STEPHENS UPON THE RUINS OF MEXICAN AMERICA--HIS CONCLUSIONS FOUNDED UPON FALSE PREMISES--HIS ERRORS DETECTED BY HIS OWN CONTRADICTIONS--RESTORATION OF THE TEMPLE OF UXMAL--HIS CHIEF MOTIVE APPARENT--HIS ARGUMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS REFUTED--AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE RUINS IDENTIFIED AND ESTABLISHED--REMARKS UPON ROBERTSON'S HISTORY OF AMERICA.
The interesting Traveller in his last chapter but one of his Second Volume on "Central America," says--
"I have finished the explorations of ruins,--and here I would be willing to part, and to leave the reader to wander alone, and at will through the labyrinth of mystery which hangs over these ruined cities; but it would be craven to do so without turning for a moment to the important question. _Who were the people that built these cities?_ I shall narrow down this question to a ground even yet sufficiently broad,--viz., a _comparison of these remains with those of the Architecture and Sculpture of other ages and people_."
It is upon this "ground" of his own choosing that we propose to attack his manœuvring,--it is the only field of argument where the necessary truth can be elicited; and he cannot object if his apparently fortified positions should be attacked, and if not sufficiently defended, he will not wonder that they should be demolished or overthrown; and if we cannot succeed in so doing, we are willing to admit, that his "Conclusions" will be to this work what the heir-apparent of the Scottish throne was to Macbeth; and the same words (except one) will speak our frank confession--viz.
"The Prince of Travellers! That is a step On which I must fall down, _or else o'er-leap_, For in my way it lies."
He writes:
"I set out with the proposition that they are not Cyclopean, and do not resemble the works of Greek or Roman."
We admit the negative to the first and last proposition, but not to the second,--for the sculpture at Uxmal is not only as fine, but distinctly of a Grecian character: the meander, or square running border, is essentially Grecian; and even his own description,--viz., "Composition of leaves and flowers, and the ornaments known everywhere as _grecques_." Here is the distinct phrase of his own selection, brought as evidence against his conclusion on the second proposition.
The engravings in Waldeck's folio work of the same Ruins, substantiate every description by Stephens, as being correct: the whole façades have, to the eye, an appearance in regard to the character of the ornaments, which compels the looker-on to exclaim, "_Grecian knowledge has been there!_"
"There is nothing in Europe like them. [the Ruins] We must then look to Asia or Africa. It has been supposed that at different periods of time, _vessels from Japan and China have been thrown_ UPON THE WESTERN _coast of America_. [_i. e._ on the Pacific Ocean] The civilization, cultivation, and science of those countries are known to date back from a very early antiquity."
The latter sentence does not admit of question; but that the Chinese or Japanese possessed navigation, with "its means and appliances," at a period to meet these Ruins, or to cover "a very early antiquity," cannot for a moment be sustained by history or even tradition.
Mr. Stephens does not claim China and Japan as the nations building these Cities, but rejects them upon the ground of Architectural comparison. We instantly join in this decision, and to it add the impossibility from the want of navigable means; but, says the Traveller, the supposition is, that they (the vessels) were "_thrown upon the Western_ coast of America," and thereby expressing that the arrival of those vessels was _accidental_. We will prove the impossibility of this,--for any vessel in the North _Pacific_ Ocean, having left China or Japan, and becoming unmanageable from loss of rudder, the prevailing _East-wind_ would not only _prevent_ the vessel from reaching the _Western_ coast of America, _but actually would drive the ship_ BACK _to China or Japan_! This last sentence is not given to refute Mr. Stephens, but those writers who may have (as he states) even "supposed" the possibility of vessels being accidentally "thrown upon the _Western_ coast of America." Nature would prevent it. This celebrated "East-wind" we shall have occasion to analyze and explain, in the investigation of the first voyage around the Continent of Africa by the Tyrians. In the _Pacific_ Ocean the East wind would prevent _accidental_ arrival on the shores of the Western Continent; but in the _Atlantic_ Ocean the same wind would aid and expedite such an arrival, which, however, would be upon the _Eastern_, and not the _Western_ coast of America!
"The monuments of India have been made familiar to us. The remains of Hindu architecture exhibit immense excavations in the rock, either entirely artificial, or made by enlarging natural caverns, supported in front by large columns cut out of the rock, with a dark gloomy interior. Among all these American Ruins there is not a single excavation. The surface of the country abounding in mountain sides, seems to invite it; but, instead of being under ground, the striking feature of these Ruins is, that the buildings _stand on lofty artificial elevations_; and it can hardly be supposed that a people emigrating to a new country, with that strong natural impulse to perpetuate, and retain under their eyes _memorials of home_, would have gone so directly counter to _National and Religious associations_."
The reasoning in the latter part of the foregone extract, is founded upon Nature, and therefore just,--it cannot be shaken,--it cannot be even assaulted;--we claim this admission, however, for our own position also, when in the next chapter we bring forward the "memorials of home," and the "national and religious associations,"--for upon the Analogies, the corner-stone of this Epoch is founded.
"In Sculpture, too, the Hindus differ entirely. Their subjects are far more hideous, being, in general, representations of human beings, distorted, deformed, and unnatural,--very often many-headed, or with three or four arms and legs thrown out from the same body."
The Hindu is rejected, and justly, from the want of similitude; the field is now narrowed for the combat,--the argument is brought, in his estimation, to _one nation_ only.
"_Lastly_, we come to the Egyptian. The point of resemblance upon which the great stress has been laid, is the Pyramid. The pyramidal form is one which suggests itself to human intelligence _in every country_, as the simplest and surest mode of _erecting a high structure_ upon a solid foundation."
We grant that the first suggestion of an habitation would be of a pyramidal character, as instanced in the tents of wandering tribes, formed by poles rising from a base, more or less broad, and meeting in a common centre; but we deny that the "pyramidal form" is one followed "in every country," as a principle for rearing "a high structure." If it was so generally practised, why is Egypt the _only country_ where it is found? Why did not China, Japan, Hindustan, Greece, and Rome practise it? Egypt alone claims it as an Architectural practice,--the principle of the Pyramid identifies her amid the wreck of Empires,--it stands out on her _tableau_ of History as the prominent characteristic,--it was, and is, nowhere found but in the Nation of the Nile, and now in the Ruins of Ancient America! In the latter country the Aborigines modified and improved upon the original; but sufficient is shewn there, even in the base of the pyramid, to proclaim the association of the builders with Egyptian _knowledge_; nor does it follow that the Architects of Palenque should have been, of necessity, Egyptians.
"The pyramidal form cannot be regarded as a ground for assigning _a common origin to all people_, among whom structures of that _character_ are found, unless the similarity is preserved in its most striking features."
The Traveller says, "to all people." [_i. e._ nations] Why, his own rejections prove that _no other people_ practised the pyramid but the Egyptian,--upon that fact is he now arguing; for having failed to find the pyramidal form in all the nations of the earth, he says, "_Lastly_, we come to the Egyptian."
If in America _an entire_ pyramid, from base to apex, had been found, he would not have rejected the useless mass, but instantly have claimed it for Egyptian; _or of that nation only_, having intimate knowledge of, and association with, that country. Why then reject,--or rather why does he not bring forward the same reasoning when _the essential part_ of the pyramid is found there? It will be shewn why he did not advance it.
"The Pyramids [of Egypt] are peculiar and uniform, and were invariably erected for the same uses and purposes, so far as those uses and purposes are known. They are all square at the base, _with steps rising_ and diminishing until they come to a point."
The general truth of the previous quotation is apparent; but that the Pyramids of Egypt had "_steps_" in their _original_ construction, cannot be supported by any History, or by the absolute facts visible even at the present day. _All their sides were smooth_; and commencing at the apex in placing the facial stones, the "_steps_" were used as successive scaffolds from the base to the top. On the following page to the above extract, Mr. Stephens contradicts his own reasoning, and when that can be proved in the work of any Author, no other refutation of a false conclusion is required. We have shewn that he says the Egyptian Pyramids had "_steps rising_" and in the very next page he writes--
"Herodotus says, that in his time [484 B. C.] the great Pyramid was coated with stone, _so as to present a smooth surface_--[consequently _no_ "steps rising"]--on all its sides from the base to the top. The second Pyramid of Ghizeh, called the Pyramid of Cephrenes, _in its present condition_ (1842), presents on the _lower_ part ranges of steps, with an accumulation of _angular_ [triangular] stones at the base, which _originally_ filled up the interstices between the steps, but have fallen down. _In the upper part_ the intermediate layers are still in their places, and _the sides present a smooth surface to the top_. [Thus is Herodotus confirmed.] There is no doubt that _originally_, every Pyramid of Egypt _was built with its sides perfectly smooth_. _The_ STEPS _formed no part of the plan_! [This is true, but a direct denial of himself.] It is in this state only that they ought to be considered, and in this state _any possible resemblance_ between them and what are called the Pyramids of America, _ceases_!"
Now not only does the Traveller contradict himself in writing of the original character of the Egyptian Pyramids, but worse,--a direct denial of himself upon the ground that the American cannot be Egyptian, because all "resemblance ceases" upon contemplating the _sides_ of the structures of both countries in their original character,--or in other words, if the American Pyramid (or any part of it) had been derived from Egypt, the sides would have been faced with stone, so as to present a smooth surface. Granted. Here follows, then, his own description, where the fact of identity is established at Palenque!
"The Palace [Temple] stands on an artificial elevation of an oblong form, forty feet high, three hundred and ten feet in front and rear, and two hundred and sixty feet on each side. _This elevation_ [pyramidal] _was formerly faced with stone, which has been thrown down_ by the growth of trees."
We have here a distinct and an admitted analogy between the original characteristic of the Egyptian and the American Pyramids,--proved upon the very point [the sides] brought forward by him to negate the proposition, and from his own words. Again; at the base of the Pyramid of Cephrenes (Egypt), the triangular stones that formed the smooth sides are still perceptible; so, also, are they to be seen at the base of the Pyramid of Palenque,--each stone an oracular witness against his "conclusive consideration." He objects to similitude upon another ground, and again refutes himself,--viz.:
"The Pyramids of Egypt are all square at the base,--the nearest approach to this _is at Copan_; but even at that place there is no entire Pyramid standing alone and disconnected,--_nor one with four sides complete_, but only _two_, or at most _three sides_, and intended to form part of other structures."
At Copan (as we have shewn) the very measurement of the base is within a few feet and (from errors in sum total by different authors) may justly be regarded as identical in size with the great Pyramid of Egypt. It has, it is true, but three sides (pyramidal); the fourth being on the river, consists of a perpendicular wall, identical in height to the sea-wall of Tyrus. In Egypt they had no river-walls that were perpendicular. But why does he select Copan only, to prove whether _four sides_ existed? Why not again review Palenque? His _motive_ is not concealed with the proverbial ingenuity of his country; for at Palenque the _four_-sided pyramidal structure is found, both in his description and in his map of locality, where no less than _five_ "Casas" (houses) are presented on pyramidal bases, having distinctly _four sides_, and three of them square; nor is this all, _the Temple of Palenque itself_ stands on a pyramidal elevation, having distinctly _four sides_!
As he read a "Congressional" document in the Ruins of Palenque, by the light of "fire beetles," it would almost appear that he formed his "_conclusions_" by the same uncertain midnight lamps;--for from such treacherous and deceptive flames has he illumined the historical portion of his volumes; but yet the glimmering of the "feeble light" is sufficient to discover his hidden motive.
We now bring forward a contradiction more astonishing than all the preceding: and but that his volumes are before us, it would scarcely be credited from the pen of any critic. Vol. ii., p. 439, he writes--
"Besides, the Pyramids of Egypt are known to have _interior chambers_, and whatever their other uses, to have been intended and _used as sepulchres_. These (American), on the contrary, are of solid earth and stone. No INTERIOR CHAMBERS _have ever been discovered, and probably none exist_!"
In the _first_ volume (p. 143), in writing of the pyramidal structure rising from the centre of the Temple of Copan, is the following description, and which was reserved from the details of that City, to prove this contradiction.
"On each side of the centre of the steps is a mound of ruins, apparently of a circular tower. _About halfway up the steps_ [of the pyramidal base] on this side, is a pit [_i. e._ descent] five feet square and seventeen feet deep, cased with stone. At the bottom is an opening two feet four inches high, with a wall one foot nine inches thick, _which leads to a_ CHAMBER (!) _ten feet long, five feet eight inches wide, and four feet high_. _At each end is a niche_ one foot nine inches high, one foot eight inches deep, and two feet five inches long. Colonel Galindo first broke into this SEPULCHRAL VAULT ["chamber"] and found the niches and the ground full of red earthenware, dishes, and pottery, [Egyptian again] _more than fifty_ of which, he says, _were full of human bones_, packed in lime. Also several sharp-edged and pointed knives of chaya; _a small_ DEATH'S-HEAD _carved in fine green stone_, its eyes nearly closed, the lower features distorted, the back symmetrically perforated with holes, _the whole of exquisite workmanship_!"
This last sentence brings us to a specimen of _Gem engraving_, the most ancient of all the antique works of Art. Not only is the death "Chamber" identical with that of Egypt, _but also the very way of reaching it_--viz., first, by _ascending_ the pyramidal base, and then _descending_, and so entering the Sepulchre! This could not be accidental,--the builders of that pyramidal Sepulchre must have had a _knowledge_ of Egypt.
The foregone "self-denials" (so valued in man under other aspects), lose all their virtue when exerted to sustain fallacious premises. It might be thought that enough has been brought forward to refute his conclusions; but we desire to operate upon this subject, as Tobin says, "Like the skilful surgeon, who cuts _beyond_ the wound to make the cure complete."
"Again," he writes, "columns [circular] are a distinguishing feature of Egyptian architecture. There is not a Temple on the Nile without them; and the reader will bear in mind, _that among the whole of these ruins_, NOT ONE COLUMN _has been found_! If this Architecture had been _derived from_ the Egyptians, so striking and important a feature would never have been thrown aside."
We admit the force of the preceding extract, so far as relates to the circular column being a feature in the Architecture of the Nile; and that they would also be found in America, if the edifices in that country were of, or "_derived from_," Egypt; while we admit this reasoning, we at once deny the truth of the assertion, that the round column _has not_ been found in the Ruins of Ancient America. This denial is given upon the unimpeachable authority of Humboldt, who, in his illustrations of the Ruins of Mitla, gives by writing, as well as by pictorial description, the _circular_ columns distinct! The denial is also founded upon the grave authority of Mr. Stephens himself,--for he (as Baron Humboldt) testifies to the fact both by pen and pencil. First, will be quoted from his pen. In vol. ii., p. 428, in writing of the Ruins of Uxmal, he says--
"At the South-east corner of this platform [of the Temple] is _a row of_ ROUND PILLARS, _eighteen inches in diameter_, and three or four feet high [broken], extending about one hundred feet along the platform; and these were the _nearest approach_ (!) _to pillars or columns_ that we saw in all our exploration of the ruins of that country."
Now in the name of Reason, and all its attributes, could there be a "nearer approach" _to circular columns_, than "_round pillars_?" Are they not identical? The proposition can only be answered in the affirmative; and as a consequence, it becomes absolute from the identity. Again--
"In the middle of the terrace, along an avenue leading to a range of steps, was _a broken round pillar_, inclined and falling, with trees growing around it."
We will now refer to his map, or ground-plan of the Temple of Uxmal, drawn by his artist, the accurate Catherwood--(vol. ii., p. 428-9). On that plan there are _two rows of circular columns_ in parallel lines,--one row is perfect, and contains eleven columns, the other is imperfect, and presents six columns; but, as dotted on the plan, and when the parallel lines were not in ruin, contained twenty-two "round pillars:" though from the appearance of the ground-plan, it is almost demonstrated that the two rows of columns were continued around the entire platform-terrace, forming a grand Colonnade, like those of Palmyra, or that facing the church of St. Peter's at Rome, but a square instead of a circular area. The columns at Uxmal are given as "eighteen inches in diameter;" this multiplied by eight (the medium calculation) would give each an altitude of twelve feet. On the plan (by measuring from the scale given) the line of one row of the columns extends one hundred and forty feet, its parallel the same; each column is ten feet from its associate; the same distance exactly is between the parallel rows, thus proving a perfect knowledge of Architectural design! Pursuing the same scale of measurement (as the ground-plan authorizes), the entire Colonnade of Uxmal contained originally, _two hundred and thirty circular columns_! In the centre of the area in front of the Temple (and holding the same locality as the single Obelisk in front of St. Peter's, at Rome), is the ruin of the solitary "broken round Pillar," and compared with the other columns on the Map, is _six feet in diameter_, and this multiplied by _ten_ (for capital and ornament on the summit,--perhaps originally an emblem of the Sun), would give this single column an altitude of _sixty feet_! This is a _circular_, not a square column. The foregone Architectural analysis is not given by Stephens, but we have taken as a basis the rude ground-plan given, and have thus resuscitated the Colonnade of Uxmal, which formed the approach to the great Temple.[4]
[4] Upon the preceding principle, for the convenience of reference, we have produced the following: and we predict, should any other Cities or Ruins he discovered in Yucatan, that they will possess the same general characteristics,--and consequently will not injure this History,--but will rather tend to support it.
RESTORATION OF THE TEMPLE OF UXMAL, YUCATAN: _viz._--
_First Terrace_, 640 feet long on each of the four sides, 5 feet high, steps in centre on the several sides.
_First Platform_, 20 feet broad.
_Second Terrace_, 600 feet on each of the sides, 15 feet high, steps also in centre.
_Second Platform_, 205 feet to base of third terrace.
_Third Terrace_, 400 feet at base; 35 steps, six inches tread; entire depth 110 feet.
_Third Platform_, 30 feet, to the front of the Temple; all the Terraces are cased with cut stone.
_Façade_ of Temple, 320 feet: walls to first Cornice 25 feet high.
_Three doorways_, centre, 8 feet 6 inches wide, 8 feet 10 inches high; the two lateral doorways the same height as the centre, and 6 feet 6 inches wide.
_Colonnade_, or Second Platform, composed of 230 circular columns, each 12 feet high, and 18 inches in diameter; in two rows; the columns 10 feet apart.
_The Single Altar-Column_, 6 feet diameter, and 60 feet high, in centre of area.
_Base of First Terrace_, 2560 feet!
_Sculptured walls of the Temple_, 40,960 superficial feet!
_The Three Artificial Terraces_ contain 72,800 cubic feet! G. J.
On the Map of the ruin now under consideration, and directly beneath the "round pillars," is written the following sentence by Stephens himself, to illustrate the meaning of the circular dots on the plan,--the words are, "_Remains of Columns_!"
How can he then reconcile from his own descriptions, that "not one Column has been found?" "If," says he, "this Architecture had been derived from the Egyptians, so striking and important a feature [_i. e._ circular Columns] would never have been thrown aside." Well then, the "important feature" has _not_ "been thrown aside," and consequently from his own reasoning, the Architecture was (conjoined with the pyramidal bases) "_derived_ from the Egyptian." We believe distinctly, that the Architecture was "derived from"--in other words--_borrowed_ from,--the edifices of the Nile;--but, not built by the Egyptians themselves. In regard to another branch of Art, he commits himself in the same manner as when writing of Architecture.
"Next, as to Sculpture. The idea of resemblance in this particular has been so often and so confidently expressed, that I almost hesitate to declare the total want of similarity."
There should indeed be hesitation upon a subject, so capable of denying a conclusion, directly opposed to occular demonstration.
"If there be any resemblance [to the Egyptian] at all striking, it is only that the figures, are in _profile_, and this is equally true of all good Sculpture in _bas-relief_."
Why does he select "_bas-relievo_" only,--why not bring forth _alto-relievo_,--also,--for they are both found in Egypt and America. The Altar at Copan, and the walls at Palenque present _profile_ figures and in _bas-relievo_,--so does the Vocal Memnon of Thebes, and the walls of Egypt: at Palenque the two figures grouped at the Altar (of Casa, No. 3) are in profile, and face to face, with the Mask of Saturn between them, and holding the same general position as the two figures of the Vocal Memnon,--who are also face to face, and in profile,--but instead of the mask, they have the Egyptian Tau =T= between them, and in the act of binding it with the lotus plant. But he objects to similitude apparently from the want of analogy in the physiognomy, or profile characteristics of the relative figures of Egypt and America. This certainly then must prove that they were a different people; this we distinctly believe;--but, that that people had knowledge of Egyptian Architecture and Sculpture, _from commercial intercourse with the Nile_. _Alto-Relievo_ Sculpture is in America and Egypt:--in the former country, on the Idol-columns of Copan; in the latter nation, upon the Capitals of the Temple Columns;--and in both countries the faces are _not in profile_, but full front. The profile figures being on Temples, were supposed to be _deified_, and consequently the facial outlines were represented different from human outline.
Again:--What are the Obelisks of Egypt? Are they not _square columns_ for the facility of Sculpture? and of what form are the isolated columns at Copan? Are they not _square_, and for the same purpose of facility in Sculpture with which they are covered, and with workmanship "as fine as that of Egypt?" This is a point that Mr. Stephens has passed over without even a comment! The Columns of Copan stand detached and solitary,--the Obelisks of Egypt do the same, and both are square (or four-sided) and covered with the art of the Sculptor. The analogy of being derived from the Nile is perfect,--for in what other Ruins but those of Egypt, and Ancient America, is the _square sculptured Column_ to be found? He affects to despise the Idol-Obelisks of Copan, because they do not tower in a single stone, "ninety-feet" in height like those of Egypt,--that they could not "be derived from" the latter country, because they are only one-sixth of the altitude of their prototypes!
Has Mr. Stephens then travelled amid the giant Ruins of Memphis and Thebes, and gazed upon the Pyramids of Ghizeh, unconscious of _their_ history, as of the Ruins in America? Has he yet to learn, that captives and prisoners of war, numbering their thousands, by tens and hundreds, built the former? _Freemen built the latter, and consequently they are less in grandeur!_ Strange and original as this assertion may appear, it is no less philosophically, than historically true. What points out Egypt from the wreck of Empires, even at this day?--her Colossal Pyramids and Temples! What preserves ancient Rome amid all the Ruins of Italy, and in present grandeur?--her giant Coliseum! Who built these wonders of even the modern world? Cheops and Sesostris, Vespasian and Titus? They indeed commanded that they should be erected as trophies of their power;--but, who were the _workmen_, the actual builders and labourers? There is not a Pyramid, or Temple of Egypt, upon which the hand of a Freeman aided in building! _Millions of Captives_, made by the Egyptian kings, and especially by Sesostris, during his nine years foreign warfare, were sent to Egypt, from Arabia, Africa, and Asia,--his pride and vainglory were, that posterity should know his Conquests _by the magnitude of his Edifices,--for being built by his Captives_, modern art might easily realize the extent, and to him, grandeur of his victories. The useless, and unsupporting Pyramid of the Nile, may well serve for the emblem of Cheops, or the vainglorious Sesostris! Who were the builders and labourers of the Coliseum? _Ninety-seven thousand captives, and believers in The Only God!_ That human slaughterhouse of Rome, is cemented from its base to its cornice, with the sighs and blood of Jerusalem! _When_ LIBERTY _lays the corner-stone_,--Utility is the Architect,--Grace and Beauty the Sculptors,--and Freemen the builders and artizans: these combined, useless Magnificence can never cross the threshold, or Slavery breathe upon the Altar!
The absence of the Arch in all the Ruins of America will, also, identify those ancient cities with a nation having a Knowledge of, and contemporaneous with, Egypt,--for the Arch is not to be found in the cities of the Nile--nor was it at Sidon or Tyrus. The Arch was invented by the Greeks, but seldom practised by them, as they did not think it graceful,--the Romans did, and consequently used it upon nearly every occasion. Not only does the absence of the Arch point out Egypt as a contemporaneous nation with the builders in America, (this is omitted by Mr. Stephens) but the manner of forming their ceilings is distinctly imitated at Ocosingo, Palenque, and Uxmal:--for the ceilings there are formed by stones lapping over each other (like reversed steps) till they reach a centre, or such small distance from each other, that a single stone will bind them. At Uxmal the ceiling is smooth-surfaced, like a pyramidal, or gable-end ceiling. In vol. ii., p. 313, he says, "The ceiling of each corridor was in this form. [Described above.] _The builders were evidently ignorant of the principles of the Arch_; and the support was made by stones lapping over as they rose, as at Ocosingo," &c. It will be remembered that at Palenque, the principal part of the architectural ornaments are of _stucco_ and as "hard as stone." "The whole front [of the Temple] was covered with _stucco_ and _painted_." The reader who may be familiar with descriptions of the wonders of the Nile by Legh, Wilkinson, and Belzoni, will recognise at once that "painted stucco" is also Egyptian:--but, this comparison is avoided by Mr. Stephens; as, also, the following artistical fact and analogy, which is found at Memphis and other cities of Egypt--viz., "On the top of one [_i. e._ stucco figures at Palenque] _are three hieroglyphics_ SUNK IN THE STUCCO!" The following will not serve to support his conclusions.
"And the most radical difference of all is, the Pyramids of Egypt are complete in themselves: the structures in this country [America] were erected to serve as _the foundations of buildings_. There is no pyramid in Egypt _with_ a Palace or Temple upon it, [would he have it on an apex?]--there is no pyramidal structure in this country _without_."
From the foregone extract can any reader acquainted with the Arts, fail to arrive at the conclusion, that the builders of Palenque and Uxmal derived from the Egyptians all that was good of their great edifices, and _improved_ upon the other parts? For what reader will deny, that a Temple erected upon the lower portion of a Pyramid, is an improvement upon the original, by the association of utility? And being an improvement, _it must have been by those acquainted with the Original_, and as remarked in the following pages, what Nation had the facility of being so acquainted as the Tyrian? And as if in direct copy of the Egyptian, we have shewn that the size of the pyramidal base at Copan is identical with that of the great Pyramid of the Nile,--while that at Cholula, in Mexican America, _is exactly twice_ the base measurement. It is scarcely possible that these dimensions should have been accidental in construction.
"There is then," he says, "_no resemblance_ in these remains to those of the Egyptians; _and failing here we look elsewhere in vain_."
His conclusions upon false premises, would indeed prove "no resemblance:" but, truth and her all-powerful propositions are against him,--his own descriptions, and those of his attendant artist crush him at every step,--they both prove "_resemblance_" in every Ruin;--at Copan, pyramidal structures, idol-obelisks, and sepulchral chamber: at Palenque, profile figures, and square-based, pyro-foundations: at Uxmal the same, with a Colonnade of circular Columns,--and at the second city (Palenque) a stone _statue_ is even found, and from the engraving, Egypt, or her Tyrian neighbour, would instantly claim it. Of this statue he writes. (Vol. ii., p. 349.)
"We were at once struck with its expression of serene repose, _and its strong resemblance to Egyptian Statues_. (!) In height it is ten feet six inches, of which two feet six inches were under ground. The head-dress is lofty and spreading: there are holes in [near] the place of ears, which perhaps were adorned with ear-rings of gold and pearls. Round the neck is a necklace: and pressed against the breast by the right hand, is an instrument apparently with teeth."
In the wood-cut this "instrument with teeth" is no more or less, than part of a muralled crown, and it may have been, therefore, the Statue of the Guardian of the City. The Tyrian Coins have the muralled crown on the head of the obverse profile, which represents Astartē, the tutelary Goddess of the Tyrians and Sidonians.
"The left hand rests on a _hieroglyphic_, from which descends some symbolical ornament: the figure stands on what we have always considered a _hieroglyphic_ (plinth) _analogous again to the custom in Egypt_ of recording the name and office of the hero, or other person represented."
In the last quotation but one, he distinctly uses the word "resemblance," preceded by that of "strong," to enforce the similitude to the Egyptian; and in the last quotation he says, that the hieroglyphical plinth is "analogous _again_ to the custom of Egypt!" As he has visited, and written of the statues of the Nile, we will not gainsay his judgment even by a suspicion. The statues on the building, surmounting the pyramidal base at Uxmal, (Waldeck's folio) strongly resemble the general character of the Egyptian,--the head-dress and cape especially,--the difference is, that otherwise than the lappet, hood, and cape,--the figure is entirely naked,--whereas the Egyptian statues generally possess the additional costume of the loin-cloth.
"They [the Ruins] are different from the works of any other _known people_, of a _new order_, and entirely and absolutely anomalous: they stand alone."
Every people (he argues) and the nations known at the present day, by history, _or by ruins_, have been searched in order to identify by _fac-simile_ resemblance, but in vain,--though Egypt, we have shewn, claims the bases and many attendant analogies. What Nation then ever existed (possessing _navigable_ means) of whose works by Architecture and Sculpture we have no knowledge?--"That is the question,"--and that answered, it will aid the solving of the mysterious problem around the _Ruins_. Then here is the answer, without any fear of contradiction or denial. _The only nation is the Tyrian!_--that name is used in its triple or Phœnician sense, and comprehends Sidon, Tyrus, and Carthage,--not a remnant remains whereby the slightest form can be traced, save the mere foundations of their former greatness! Egypt was the neighbour of the Tyrian, and consequently imparted her knowledge through commercial communion.
The inhabitants of Tyrus from their small locality [_i. e._ the Island] were essentially a practical people,--they had no space to build idle or useless edifices, like those of Egypt,--_they had no captives_! The Tyrians were of all people of the ancient world, best adapted to imitate what was of utility and stability,--thence their selecting pyramidal bases, as _foundations_ for their Temples in America, and which have preserved those edifices, and the judgment of the builders, even to this day, through a period of time beyond two thousand years! It also evinced that acuteness and skill, in applying means to ends, for which, as a Nation, they were so renowned. In Section 3, of the Analogies, we will establish from Scriptural History the early Architecture (as to its style) of the ancient Tyrians.
The Ruins in Ancient America (and by that term we mean _anterior_ to the re-discovery by Columbus) do indeed "stand alone:"--a "new order" to the modern eye they may be--but over _two thousand years ago_, the "order" might have been termed the _Egypto-Tyrian_:--and reason, research, and analogies of Religious and National Customs, will prove that the name now given to this newly-discovered _ancient_ order is correct;--and that the moderns may not only repeat the term, but, even aid the Science of Architecture, by the application of the rules and principles of utility and solidity, now discovered in the Western Hemisphere!
Our review of his "conclusions" has advanced sufficiently far for our purpose; for it must be evident that a complete refutation of his deductions has been given, and founded upon his own descriptions, and illustrations,--apart from Baron Humboldt's and Waldeck's works, or any humble commentaries of our own. It will naturally be asked--"What could have been the _motive_ of such contradiction, and against himself?" A hidden motive has more than once been hinted at in the foregoing pages. O! love of Country! how inherent is thy power in the human mind!--but, never before was it exerted to the same extent as by our favourite Traveller, as evinced in the motive for rejecting all Nations--_except his own_, as claimants for the builders of Copan, and her muralled companions of the Western Continent.
Talk of the Dacii, and the Curtius, impaling themselves upon the spears of the enemy, or plunging into a gulph to close it,--why, our devoted Traveller does more than all this--for he _survives_ the shock and fall!
The devotional lines _unfolding_ the long concealed _motive_ for rejecting all other Nations, must not be withheld, he writes--
"I invite to this subject the special attention of those familiar with the Arts of other countries;--for, unless I am wrong, we have a _conclusion_ far more _interesting and wonderful_ than that of connecting the builders of these cities with the Egyptians, or _any other people_. _It is the Spectacle of_ A PEOPLE _skilled in Architecture, Sculpture, and Drawing, and beyond doubt, other more perishable arts; and possessing the cultivation and refinement attendant upon these_,--NOT DERIVED FROM THE OLD WORLD, _but_ ORIGINATING AND GROWING _up here_, [America] _without models or masters,--having a distinct, separate, independent existence_:--LIKE THE PLANTS AND FRUITS OF THE SOIL--INDIGENOUS!"
Temples and Pyramids defend your rights! Pericles and Phidias protect the Arts!--for in the Western Continent, without "models or masters,"--Edifices, Architects, and Sculptors, as "plants and fruit"--or like--
"Foul deeds _will rise_, Though all the earth o'erwhelm them to men's eyes!"
He brings forward different Nations to _father_ the Architecture in Ancient America,--he calls for "spirits from the vasty deep;" but they will not come,--he calls to the Hindu, Chinese, and Japanese, to claim the Child,--they reject it. Europe does the same.--Greece is not claimed,--although the meander border is on the Sculptured drapery of the offspring. It must then belong to Asia!--No?--well then certainly to the great Nation of Africa--Egypt!--what! the negative again?--the writ to find the Parent is about to be returned endorsed _non est inventus_, and the Architectural Child to be declared fatherless,--for he passes by the only Nation of all others that should have been selected,--from their means of accomplishing the migration,--their knowledge of art,--skill in imitation,--their neighbourhood and communion with Egypt,--every circumstance proclaims--Tyrus:--but,--no, --this would not answer the purpose of the fascinating Traveller,--his "conclusion" had a peculiar end in view,--something National,--and with that love of country so conspicuous (God be praised!) in the Anglo-Saxon race, he discards Europe, Asia, and Africa as the Builders,--to him there is a nobler idea,--that the Temples, Palaces, and Altars,--Priests, Kings, and People,--Architects, Sculptors, and Painters belonged _to America only_,--that they were as the "plants" "indigenous to the Soil,"--or, that they sprung like Minerva, ready armed and equipped, as the law of art directs, from the mental citadel of Jove himself!
His "conclusion," which gives no distant antiquity to these Ruins (but which is absolutely apparent), is somewhat in analogy with that which may be supposed to have been offered to a travelling Astronomer, by a homestead-loving Cottager,--who declared that the Moon could not be _ancient_ and _inhabited_, because the _freshness_ would prevent both propositions. "Freshness! How so, my good woman?" asked the Newtonian disciple. "How so!" she replied. "How wise you gentlemen with long telescopes are!--how so?--why because there is a NEW _moon every month_, and, consequently, there would not be time enough for people to be born,--or if they were to grow up like 'plants,' they would be cut down every month!--and consequently they could not be _ancient_,--any how!" But to be serious.--Our just pride of native land! England,--as expressed in "The First Oration upon the Life, Character, and Genius of Shakspeare,"[5] and our impartial love (as a Citizen of the United States) for the Nation claiming Washington as its founder, is too well known and recorded in our humble Oration upon her History and Independence,[6]--and in public debate, discourses, and speeches, both in England and America;--together with the feelings of duty;--and gratitude founded upon hospitality and the Medallic presentations received in both Countries, to admit even of a question, as to our resolution to uphold their glory and amity, at home or abroad,--and that without fear or favour, from foe or friend! It was _the very spirit of that love_ for the country, which has graced us by its Citizenship, that led us to detect the erroneous "conclusions" of Mr. Stephens in reference to these Ruins:--for the errors must be evident even to himself, should these fervent but honest pages, ever meet his perusal;--and appreciating as we do, the valuable and interesting volumes he has given to the Library of "Travels,"--good nature,--knowledge of the Arts,--united with a justifiable, and a necessary independence, called forth by the importance of the subject,--have been the only means employed by us in criticising his work.
[5] Pronounced at Stratford-upon-Avon, England, before, and at the invitation of the Royal Shaksperean Institution, April 23, 1836.
[6] Pronounced in the Capital of Virginia, U. S. A., at the invitation of the Franklin Society, and before the Municipal Authorities, July 4, 1840.
In his last chapters, he seems to have forgotten what he had written in his descriptions of the Ruins: and that his "Conclusion" was a sudden thought,--and, as proved, not founded upon that which preceded. It could not be otherwise, for
"A change came o'er the spirit of _his_ dream!"
It is scarcely a question, whether he adds to the fame of America so much, by making the Architects and the Mexican Aborigines to rise up, as "indigenous" to the land, and thence directly _opposing the Bible_,--the first Parents, and the Diluvian Ancestors,--as if he had traced, and proved them to be from scientific and accomplished Tyrus,--or those of the North, from "chosen" and courageous Israel, and following on their track--to trace principles derived from an Apostle of Christianity, together with the fulfilment of the words of a Sacred Prophet!
This question cannot contemplate the fame of the United-States,--either as a Nation or a People,--although it does that of the Western Hemisphere generally;--that of the Republic is consolidated with the essential spirit and glory of the Anglo-Saxon and the Norman race, and consequently has no association with the great Tyrian family, or that of Israel,--although all the Nations of the Western Continent feel the serene influence of the heaven-born power--Christianity. That Faith (if we err not) was introduced into the Western Hemisphere more than _five centuries_ before St. Augustine preached it in England.
In volume ii. (p. 442), Mr. Stephens expresses himself in the following ingenuous manner,--_after_ he had formed his "conclusion," and which at once proves, by his own words, that he did not sufficiently investigate his subject. He writes--
"_I shall not attempt to inquire into the Origin of this people,--from what country they came,--or when, or how!_"
With diligence and perseverance for our guides, we have for years pursued the clue to this historical labyrinth, and when the end is reached, we believe that the _nation_, the _time_, and the _means_ will be firmly established! In regard to the first proposition, we conclude this chapter by recording the new, and apparent fact, founded upon descriptions which we have artistically analyzed, together with the Analogies in the following pages,--and beyond all, by the Bible itself (as shewn in the next chapter), that the _Architecture_ of the Ruins of Ancient America is EGYPTO-TYRIAN,--and that the original builders were from TYRUS, and at a period now distant more than two thousand years!
The subsequent proofs that will enable us firmly to establish this proposition, will also announce the startling fact of another accomplishment,--or fulfilment,--of a sacred and quintuple Prophecy by ISAIAH!--and consequently we shall claim that Prophecy, as unimpeachable evidence of the truth of the historical proposition of this Work.
This novel application of Prophecies by Isaiah concerning Tyrus, will be discussed in the Second Book of this Volume,--and in the concluding Chapters of which, it will be employed as an absolute refutation of Atheistical writings.
ROBERTSON'S HISTORY OF AMERICA.
A few words are required in reference to Dr. Robertson's History of America. It was the present writer's original intention to have formed a chapter upon that Historian's conclusions, in regard to the absence of civilization by the Aborigines of the Western Continent,--or rather that portion contemplated by Spanish history: but upon reflection, it was considered unjust to his memory and well-merited fame, to prove those conclusions were erroneous and false,--for Robertson and the age in which he wrote (1770-80), were in total ignorance of the existence of the now celebrated Temples of Copan, Palenque, and Uxmal, and the many Cities of ancient days newly discovered in the Western Hemisphere. Refutation is unrequired by argument, when the basis of conclusions is founded in ignorance of all the premises necessary to sustain the superstructure:--his conclusions must, therefore, necessarily fall to the ground,--and consequently his Volumes upon America cannot now be received either in the library or academy--(as far as concerns the Aborigines, their works, or their ancestors)--as the standard History of that Continent.