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]
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-relievo."
Why does he select "bas-relievo 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 alto-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.
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.