This last illustration is interesting, because it enables us to realise more distinctly than any other example yet known, what must have been the effect of the palaces of Nineveh and Khorsabad in the days of their splendour. Like this palace, they were raised on a solid basement of masonry, and were themselves composed of pavilions of light and ornamental woodwork; the great difference being that they had flat-terraced roofs instead of those covered with tiles, as in snowy Pekin; but the resemblance is curious, and examples even more nearly akin might probably be found if looked for.
The engineering works of the Chinese have been much extolled by some writers, but have less claim to praise as works of science than their buildings have as works of art. Their canals, it is true, are extensive; but with 300 millions of inhabitants this is small praise, and their construction is most unscientific. Their bridges, too, are sometimes of great length, but generally made up of a series of small arches constructed on the horizontal-bracket principle, as nine-tenths of the bridges in China are, and consequently narrow and unstable. When they do use the true arch, it is timidly, and without much knowledge of its principles.
Their most remarkable engineering work is certainly the Great Wall, which defends the whole northern frontier of the country, extending over hill and dale for more than 1200 miles as the crow flies. It is, however, of very varying strength in different places, and seems to be strongest and highest in the neighbourhood of Pekin, where it has generally been seen by Europeans. There it is 20 ft. in height, and its average thickness is 25 ft. at the base, tapering to 15 ft. at the summit. There are also towers at short distances whose dimensions are generally about double those just quoted for the wall.
However absurd such a wall may be as a defensive expedient, it proves that 200 years B.C. the Chinese were capable of conceiving and executing works on as great a scale as any ever undertaken in Egypt. The wonder is, that a people who 2000 years ago were competent to such undertakings should have attempted nothing on the same scale since that time. With their increasing population and accumulating wealth we might have expected their subsequent works to have far surpassed those of the Egyptians. It, however, remains a problem to be solved, why nothing on so grand a scale was ever afterwards attempted.
In the rear of the Great Wall, in the Nankau Pass, there is an archway of some architectural pretension, and which is interesting as having a well-ascertained date, A.D. 1345.[659] Its dimensions are considerable, and it is erected in a bold style of masonry ([Woodcut No. 394]). The upper part is a true arch, though it was thought necessary to disguise this by converting its form into that of a semi-octagon, or three-sided arch. On the keystone is a figure of Garuda, and on either side of him a Naga figure, with a seven-headed snake hood, and beyond that a class of flowing tracery we are very familiar with in India about the period of its erection. Its similarity to the Nepalese gateway at Bhatgaon ([Woodcut No. 174]) has already been remarked upon, and altogether it is interesting, as exemplifying a class of Indian ornamentation that came into China from the North. If we had a few specimens of art penetrating from the south, we might find out the secret of the history of Buddhist art in China.
A few years hence it may be possible to attempt to write a history of architecture in China. At present, all that can be done is to describe the style as practised at the present day, and to point out in what respect it differs from the styles prevailing in neighbouring countries. Beyond this we shall not be able to advance till some qualified person, accompanied by a photographer, is enabled to visit the central and western provinces of the empire. Even then his visit will be of very little use, unless he is sufficiently familiar with the style as now known, to be able to discriminate between what is new and what is old, and by an extended series of inductions to check the absurdities of native tradition, and form his own opinion on the facts presented to him. Assuming all this, it is still doubtful whether the materials exist in China for any extended history of the art. Such facts as have come to light are not encouraging. Wood has been far too extensively used throughout for any very permanent style of architecture ever having been employed. But there are things in Cambodia, and other neighbouring states, which seem to have come neither from India, nor from any other country we are acquainted with, but are nevertheless of foreign origin, and must have been imported from some extraneous land; and it is difficult to say where we are to look for their originals if not in central or western China.
394. Archway in the Nankau Pass. (From a Photograph.)
The same remarks apply to Japan. So far as our knowledge at present extends, there is not a single permanent building in the island of so monumental a character to deserve being dignified by being classed among the true architectural examples of other countries. It may be that the dread of earthquakes has prevented them raising their buildings to more than one or two storeys in height, or constructing them of more solid materials than wood. It may be, however, that the Japanese do not belong to one of the building races of mankind, and have no taste for this mode of magnificence. It is the same story as in China; we shall not know whether it is true that there are no objects worthy to be styled architecture in Japan till the island is more scientifically explored than it has been; nor, if they do not exist, shall we till then be able to say to which of the two above causes their absence is to be ascribed. Such information as we have is very discouraging; and it is to be feared that, though quaint and curious in itself, and so far worthy of attention, it is of little interest beyond the shores of the islands themselves. On the other hand, it is to be feared that the extent of our knowledge is sufficient to make it only too clear that the art, as practised in Japan, has no title to rank with that already described in the preceding pages, and consequently no claim to a place in a general history of architectural art.