Pillar from the arcade of the Court.
THE ASSYRIAN COURT,[11]
which faces him. This Court is larger than any other appropriated to the illustration of one phase of art. It is 120 feet long, 50 feet wide, and has an elevation of 40 feet from the floor line. Its chief interest, however, consists in the fact of its illustrating a style of art of which no specimen has hitherto been presented in Europe, and which, indeed, until the last few years, lay unknown even in the country where its remains have been unexpectedly brought to light. It is little more than ten years ago that M. Botta, the French Consul at Mossul, first discovered the existence of sculptural remains of the old Assyrian empire at Khorsabad: and since that time the palace, now known to have been erected about the year 720 B.C. by Sargon, the successor of Shalmaneser, has been mainly explored, as well as the palace of his son Sennacherib at Koyunjik, and that of Esarhaddon and Sardanapalus, at Nimroud, besides other older palaces in the last-named locality. In addition to the explorations that have been made on these sites, extensive excavations and examinations also within the last few years have been made into the ruins of the palaces of Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon, and of Darius and Xerxes at Susa.
[11] See “Handbook to the Nineveh Court,” by Austen Henry Layard.
It is from the immense mass of new materials, so suddenly revealed, that Mr. James Fergusson, assisted by Mr. Layard, has erected the court before which the visitor now stands—an architectural illustration which, without pretending to be a literal copy of any one building, most certainly represents generally the architecture of the extinct but once mighty kingdoms of Mesopotamia, during the two centuries that elapsed between the reign of Sennacherib and that of Xerxes, viz., from about B.C. 700 to B.C. 500.
The oldest form of architecture in these Eastern parts was probably that which existed in Babylon: but the absence of stone in that country reduced the inhabitants to the necessity of using bricks only, and for the most part bricks burnt by the sun, though sometimes fire-burnt brickwork is also found. The face of the walls so constructed was ornamented with paintings, either on plaster or enamelled on the bricks, whilst the constructive portions and roofs were of wood. All this perishable material has of course disappeared, and nothing now remains even of the Babylon built by Nebuchadnezzar but formless mounds of brickwork. In the more northern kingdom of Assyria, the existence of stone and marble secured a wainscoting of sculptured slabs for the palace walls, whilst great winged bulls and giant figures, also in stone, adorned the portals and façades. The pillars, however, which supported the roofs, and the roofs themselves, were all of wood, generally of cedar, and these having been destroyed by fire or by the lapse of ages, nothing remains to tell of their actual size and form. Yet we are not left entirely to conjecture in respect of them. Susa and Persepolis in Persia—the followers and imitators of Nineveh—arose in districts where stone was abundant, and we find that the structures in these cities had not only stone pillars to support the roof, but also stone jambs in the doorways, thus affording an unmistakeable clue to the nature of such portions of building as are wanting to complete our knowledge of the architecture of the Assyrian people.
As now laid bare to us, the Assyrian style of architecture differs essentially from any other with which we have hitherto been made acquainted. Its main characteristics are enormously thick mud-brick walls, covered with painted bas-reliefs, and roofs supported internally by slight but elegant wooden columns, ornamented with volutes (spiral mouldings), and the elegant honeysuckle ornament which was afterwards introduced through Ionia into Greece—this Assyrian style being, according to some, the parent of the Ionic order, as the Egyptian was of the Doric order, of Greece. The very greatest interest attaches to these architectural remains, and to the records cut in enduring stone, which they have handed down to us, inasmuch as they corroborate, in a most remarkable manner, certain statements in the Bible connected with Jewish History. There can be little doubt that the Assyrians and Jews sprang from the same stock; and no one can fail to remark that the physiognomy of the Assyrians, as pourtrayed in these sculptures, bears a strong resemblance to the Israelitish visage. As far as we can judge from descriptions, the architecture of ancient Jerusalem was almost identical with that of Assyria.
Entrance to the Nineveh Court.