Nor is it only the character of those sculptures, but the existence of any sculptures upon those relics, as well crosses as towers, that proves them to have been Tuath-de-danaan; for the reason why Jehovah forbade the Israelites from using any tools upon the stones used in their religious edifices was, that other nations had loaded theirs with sculptured images of different gods, which made Him say, “If thou wilt make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone, for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.”
In their masonic construction there is nothing in the Irish Towers appertaining to any of the four orders of architecture prescribed by the moderns. It is so also with those in the East. They approach nearest, however, to the Tuscan, and the reason of that similarity may be imagined from what I have already stated as to the Etrurians.
Prepared stone is the material of which they are generally composed, and evidently, in some instances, brought from afar. Sometimes also they appear constructed of an artificial substance resembling a reddish brick, squared, and corresponding to the composition of the Round Towers of Mazunderan. Now if the monks possessed this secret, why were not the monasteries, the more important edifices, according to our would-be antiquarians, composed of the same elements? And is it not strange that all elegance and extravagance should have been lavished upon the appendages, while uncouthness, inelegance, want of durability, or other architectural recommendation are the characteristics of what they tell us were the principals? Yet neither in the monasteries, nor in any other Christian building, do we meet with those materials above described, either generally or partially, except where the ruins of a neighbouring Round Tower have made them available, which, in itself, is sufficient to overthrow for ever the anachronisms of those who would deny the existence of those temples anterior to the present era.
But Christian edifices, they say, are generally found in their vicinity. Yes, and as I have already explained the reason why,[606] I forbear now rehearsing the fact. But even this stronghold of the moderns I cut away from them, by stating that at the “Giant’s Ring,” in the county Down, the indisputable scene of primordial veneration, we have an instance of a Round Tower, without any church hard by! And while recalled by this circumstance, I must observe that the vitrification manifest within the walls of that structure arose from the burning of the dead bodies therein, and not from the indications of the sacred fire.
With three exceptions, all have a row of apertures towards the top, just under the projecting roof, made completely after the fashion of those which Solomon had built, being windows of narrow lights.[607] In general the number is four, and then they correspond to the cardinal points. In three instances there is one aperture towards the summit, in one instance there occur five, in one six, in one seven, in one eight.
Inside they are perfectly empty from the door upwards, but most of them divided, either by rests or projecting stones, into lofts or storeys, varying in number from three to eight. In the temple of Solomon we find the same, for “within, in the wall of the house, he made narrowed rests round about, that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house.”[608] And the images which I have shown to have been cupboarded upon these rests, were nothing more than what Solomon himself did, when “he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims, and palm-trees, and open flowers, within and without.”[609]
In a future publication I intend to show a more startling correspondence between our Round Towers and some other parts of Solomon’s temple. Meanwhile I wish it to be borne in mind,—as in some degree accounting for the correspondence,—that Solomon’s architect was a Sidonian.
A striking perfection observable in their construction is the inimitable perpendicular invariably maintained. No architect of the present day, I venture to affirm, could observe such regularity. Nelson’s pillar itself has been proved to vary somewhat from the perpendicular line; but the keenest eye cannot trace a deviation, in a single instance, from amongst the whole of those Sabian monuments. Even the tower of Kilmacdugh, one of the largest in the kingdom, having from some accident, earthquake, or other cause, been forced to lean terrifically to one side; yet, miraculous to mention, retains its stability as firm as before; such was the accuracy of its original elevation.[610]
If asked how it was I conceive them to have been constructed, I should answer, by a scaffolding raised gradually from within. The expense in this case would be infinitely less, and the labour also. It would be very easy to let fall a plumb-line at various intervals of height, by which at all times the perpendicular may be ascertained, and the masonry carried on by what may be called overhanding, while the cement employed in giving solidity to the whole, and which is the direct counterpart of the Indian chunan, bids defiance to the efforts of man to dissever, except by the exertion of extraordinary power.
That this was the mode in which their erection was effected, is evident in the instance of Devenish Tower, which, from the elegance of its cut-stone exterior, would seem to negative the idea of their being built from within. But a judicious eye cannot but at once discern that near the top, where it is probable that one or two of the artists may have come out, by the help of some contrivance devised for the purpose, the execution and finish which the workmanship displays is incomparably superior to that of any of the lower parts. In other instances, where the ancient top having been removed, a modern one has been substituted, the case is very different indeed.