Proceedings of the expedition to explore the northern coast of Africa, from Tripoly eastward

by Frederick William Beechey; H. W. Beechey

The depth of the proscenium appears to have been, as we have given it, about twenty-five feet, but we could recover no part of the stage with any tolerable accuracy, so that we have omitted it altogether.

The amphitheatre has been chiefly excavated (as we have already observed) in the quarry in which it stands, and a small portion of it only has been built, where the rock could not be made to serve. Here, as in the theatres, there appear to have been no interior communications; and the approach to the seats was probably from above, as well as from below, by means of the staircases between the several cunei only, no passages being anywhere observable. The whole of this is so ruined, that we shall give no further details of it than we have offered to our readers, merely stating, that its form appeared to have been round, in which particular it differs from amphitheatres in general, which are usually of an oblong figure. The diameter of the circle may be reckoned at about two hundred and fifty English feet, including the cunei and arena.

The remains marked (a) are the same which Bruce describes as those of an Ionic temple; there is nothing, however, (that we can perceive) in the disposition of what still exists of their plan, to authorize such a conclusion; and we have considered them as the remains of a palace, or other residence of more than ordinary importance. The three remaining columns appear to have formed part of a colonnade extending itself round the court-yard, which has already been described as situated above an extensive range of cisterns: remains of tessellated pavement are still observable in the court-yard, and the walls which inclose it are very decided; the columns have been raised on a basement of several feet in height, as will be seen in the vignette in which they are represented. Without these, to the northward, are ranges of fallen columns of much larger dimensions than those we have just mentioned; but they are so much encumbered, that we have not ventured to lay them down in the plan: they are of the Corinthian order, and the capitals are well executed. A little beyond these, to the northward and north-eastward, are other remains of columns, which once belonged to a building of some importance, the plan of which cannot be given without excavation; and, indeed, we may observe, with respect to the numerous masses of fallen columns, and other parts of various buildings of more than ordinary consequence at Ptolemeta, that very little satisfactory information can be obtained of their plans, without a good deal of labour in clearing them, from the accumulation of soil, and the fragments of fallen building, with which they are encumbered. There is a structure of very large dimensions at the north-eastern part of the town, the outer walls of which are still standing to a considerable height; but the plan of its interior is not sufficiently apparent to authorize any restoration of it, and we will not even hazard a conjecture of its nature. On its northern face are three large quadrangular tablets of stone, built into the wall, each five feet in length by four in height, on which are cut the Greek inscriptions (marked 1), given in plate (page 385); and to the westward and south-westward of this building are many interesting remains of private dwelling-houses, palaces, baths, &c., which require a great deal of excavation. On a pedestal in one of these, is the inscription (4) in plate (page 385); most of them appear to have been Roman, and the capitals and bases of some of the columns belonging to them are very fanciful and overcharged with ornament. Some of the shafts of small columns in this mass of building are spiral, and formed of coloured marbles; and may probably be attributed to the time of Justinian, when the city revived under his politic munificence. If the taste displayed by the Greeks and Romans of this period had been at all in proportion to the expense which they lavished upon their public and private edifices of almost every description, the result would have been splendid in the extreme; but the costliness of material, and the labour employed in ornament, will not compensate for the absence of this true test of genuine excellence; and we cannot venture to commend the strange mixture of received orders, and the wayward fancy employed in the invention of new ones, which are conspicuous in several parts of Ptolemeta.

It has been observed by Signor Della Cella, that the remains of this city are purely Egyptian; but we must confess that we were unable to discover the slightest resemblance of style in Ptolemeta to that which characterizes the architecture of Egypt. There is nothing at Ptolemeta (that we could perceive) which is not either Greek or Roman; and the profusion of unnecessary ornament, which generally distinguished the later productions of both these nations, is very different from that which is observable in Egyptian remains. The style of Egypt, though highly ornamental, is founded on established principles; and there is nothing incongruous or unmeaning in the most laboured decorations which are peculiar to it: proportion and simplicity are very rarely violated in the buildings either of Egypt or Nubia; and the great variety of ornament which appears in them never disturbs the general effect, or detracts from the imposing grandeur of the masses. Whenever the general form and larger parts of a building are simple and well proportioned, a great deal of ornament may be adopted in the detail, without injury to the effect of the whole; and as this is particularly the case in Egyptian architecture, the mind is strongly impressed with the pleasing character of the general mass, before it has time to notice any other peculiarities.

The same may be observed with respect to Gothic architecture; in which the almost infinite detail which it presents is not found to diminish either the simplicity, the grandeur, or the elegance of the whole. When the attention is turned from the general mass to the subdivisions, every portion, however small, is observed to have a meaning, in both styles of architecture here alluded to; and there is seldom any part of the ornament, either in Egyptian or in Gothic examples, which we wish to have removed from its place. In the capitals and shafts of Egyptian columns, (which are usually composed of different parts of the lotus, the leaves, the stalks, the open flower, or the bud, so combined and arranged as not to interfere with the simple and, generally, graceful outline of the whole,) the detail gives a lightness to the general mass which tends to improve its effect; and the simplicity of the general form exhibits the decoration to advantage: but in the later productions of Greece and Rome, a profusion of unmeaning ornament is employed, which rather gives an air of heaviness to the detail, than any appearance of lightness to the mass. The general forms are not, in fact, sufficiently important of themselves to create a favourable impression; and it will usually be found difficult, if not impossible, to make amends for this fault by decoration. We do not mean to assert that there are no examples of good taste at Ptolemeta; but it appears to us that by far the greater part of the buildings now remaining have been constructed since the place became a Roman colony; and that there are none to which a higher antiquity may be safely assigned (with the exception of some of the tombs) than the period at which the country was occupied by the Ptolemies.

FOOTNOTES:

[1]Many of the stones employed in the restoration of the walls have belonged to more ancient buildings, and parts of handsome cornices, friezes, and capitals are often seen built in with the original structure; among these may be noticed fragments of Ptolemaic inscriptions, which are evidently not in their original places.

[2]We must except a low, narrow door, through one of the turrets at the south-west angle, the mode of constructing which will appear in page 367. It seems to have been intended as a sally-port and one person only can pass through it at a time. From the remains about this angle, there appears to have been an outer wall of very inferior strength, but it seems to have made no part of the original plan.

[3]Nearly opposite to these turrets, without the wall, are the remains of a very strong fort; and this circumstance would perhaps seem to favour the idea of there having been a gate in the place here alluded to, the entrance to which would have been well defended by the fort.

[4]The turrets attached to the walls are also described by the same author as round; and it is difficult to imagine what could have occasioned this mistake, since they are all of them quadrangular, as will appear by the plan.