We have hitherto been considering the first rise and pro gress of architecture in the earliest ages of the world ; we must bear in mind, however, that some people in later ages have, by some means or other, lost all traces of the civiliza tion of their ancestors. This fact may appear strange, but it is not our part to account for it in this place ; the fact is before us, startling perhaps, but undeniable notwithstanding. We intend here briefly to consider, how those people, after having lost all their previous knowledge of architectural science, set about to regain it. And here we might intro duce the theory of Vitruvius, but not, as he does, in the shape of a general fixed rule; for although it may be true, even in the majority of cases, that the first rude attempts in the erection of dwellings have been, as he states, of a conical form, yet this was by no means universally the ease. The fact is, the method of building so much depended upon the character of the people, the nature of the locality inhabited by them, as well as that of its productions, upon the materials and resources for building, and lastly, upon the examples which nature more prominently set before them ; that it is utterly impossible to lay down any rule as that by which mankind have been universally governed in the erection of their first structures.
Although Architecture had its rise doubtless in the con struction of buildings for the purposes of shelter and defence, yet it is no less certain that it is indebted for its rapid advancement, and its ultimate perfection, to the religious feelings of mankind. It is in the temples we look for beauty of design, for appropriateness of embellishment, for grandeur, ideality, and magnificence. Had it not been for religion, architecture would never have risen to that eminence which it so early attained in the sacred edifices of the ancients ; and which have attracted such universal admiration. It is to temples, then, we must look for the progress of a people in this great art ; by them must we compare nations as to their advancement in skill, taste, and science, as well as in the general progress of civilization.
Having thus far considered the origin of Architecture as a science, we shall now give a very concise sketch of its pro gress in different countries.
Our very first steps in entering upon the history of Architecture are greatly impeded for want of trustworthy information on the subject. We are left in the dark as to what style may justly claim precedence in point of time. Followinethe account of the creation and civilization of mankind, as given by Moses, we should naturally enough look towards the East for the first origin of this, as of all other arts, and this supposition is confirmed as well by the concurrent testimony of history, as by the investigation of the remains of Eastern edifices. But although we may,
without hesitation, yield the priority to the ancient Eastern edifices as a whole, we still meet with difficulties in assign ing its proper position to each separate style. We should prefer to place the Bahylonish or Persian architecture first on the list, as well for the reason previously assigned, as that, as far as we are enabled to judge from the specimens that remain to us in the ruins of Babylon, the buildings of this style appear to be of ruder construction than those either of India or Egypt. For this latter cause, we should give to Egypt the next place, as we find the sculptures of India of more rounded form, and more elaborate workmanship than the Egyptian.
In endeavouring to give to each style its relative chrono logical position, we do not mean to deny that they were equally indebted to each other for various improvements at different periods. We would especially instance the case of Persepolis, the principal specimen of Persian architecture remaining to us: here we find truly a great advance upon the architecture of Babylon, and we can have no doubt respecting the introduction of some peculiarities of the Egyptian style. Whatever doubts, however, there may remain concerning the relations of the above styles, sepa rately, in respect of age, there can be none as to their general resemblance and affinity, or as to their position, taken as a whole, in the chronology of Architecture.
Next in the order of age comes Grecian Architecture. Here again Vitruvius has given us some very fanciful sug gestions respecting the prototype of the entire edifice, as well as the origin of its varied details ; nothing, however, can be more absurd than his notions respecting the latter ; and as to the former, he gives the Greeks credit for inventive genius, which certainly cannot lawfully be claimed for them. We may, with equally the same justice, yield to them their boasted title of avrox0eves-, as their claims to originality in their style of building. Obscure as are the traditions respect the colonization of Greece, we have ample evidence to show that it was indebted to Egypt, Phoenicia, and other parts of the East, for the majority of its inhabitants ; add to this the similarity existing between the earlier styles of Grecian architecture, and those of Egypt and Persepolis, and there can, we think, remain no hesitation in assigning to the latter the origin of Grecian art. While, however, we refuse the claims of Greece- to originality, we cannot forget how much we are indebted to her for the introduction of so many and valuable improvements. In her hands this department of art arrived at its greatest excellence, insomuch as to form a new era which for purity and chaste gran deur has never been surpassed.