Page:A History of Art in Chaldæa & Assyria Vol 1.djvu/425

 THE CHALD.EAN AND EGYPTIAN TEMPLES. 397 4. Comparison between the CJialdcean Temple and that of Egypt. ALTHOUGH the ancients called them both by the same name, there are more points of difference than of resemblance between the Egyptian pyramids and the staged towers of Chaldaea. On the borders of the Nile we have the true pyramid, the solid which bears that name in geometry. In Mesopotamia w r e have a series of rectangular prisms placed one upon the other. At a distance the gradual diminution of their size may give a pyramidal appearance to the mass of which they form a part, but their walls are vertical. Finally the contrast between the purposes of the two buildings is still greater. The Egyptian pyramid is a tomb ; its enormous mass is no more than a monstrous development of the stone envelope to which the sarcophagus was committed. No means were provided for reaching the summit, and its height had, so to speak, no raison d'etre or practical utility. In spite of all the art lavished upon it a pyramid was hardly a building in the proper sense of the word it was a mere heap of building materials. It was quite otherwise with the zigguratt, whose terminal platform supported a richly-decorated sanctuary. Astronomers could make use of it for observing the heavens under better conditions than were possible below r ; chapels were also cut in the flanks of its lower stages, so that a convenient means of approach to every story from top to bottom was absolutely required. This necessity brought in its train the varied arrangements of ramp and terrace of which we have endeavoured to give an idea in our restorations. If we give rein to our imagination and allow it for a moment to restore their crenellated parapets to the ramps and terraces ; if we set up the resting-places, rebuild the chapels and pavilions and replace the statues ; if we cover the sanctuary with its vesture of bronze and gold, and the whole edifice with the surface decoration to which the sun of Mesopotamia gave its fullest value, we shall then understand how far superior, as an architectonic conception, the Chaldsean zigguratt was to the Egyptian pyramid. With its smooth and naked face the latter was in some degree an inorganic mass, as lifeless as the corpse it crushed with its preposterous weight. The division of the former into stages had a latent rhythm that was strongly attractive ; the eye followed with no