"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."