Page:History of Architecture in All Countries Vol 1.djvu/162

130 EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE. Paut L A height. Those of Lixxor, erected by Rhamses the Great, one of which is now in Paris, are above 77 ft. in height; and there are two others in Rome, each about 80 ft. Rome, indeed, has 12 of these monuments within her walls — a greater number than exist, erect at least, in the country whence they came ; though judging from the number that are found adorning single temples, it is difficult to calculate how many must once have existed in Egypt. Their use seems to have been -wholly that of monumental jaillars, recording the style and title of the king who erected them, his piety, and the proof he gave of it in dedicating these monoliths to the deity whom he especially wished to honor. It has been already remarked that, with scarcely an exception, all the pyramids are on the west side of the Nile, all the obelisks on the east ; with regard to the former class of monuments, this probably arose from a law of their existence, the western side of the Nile being in all ages preferred for sei)ulture, but with reo;ard to the latter it seems to be accidental. ^ Memphis doubtless possessed many monuments of 31. Lateraii Obelisk. Scale , . , ^ , . , ,. .u i 4-1 50 ft. to 1 111., for com- this class, and there is reason to believe that the parison with scale of ^^yggtei-^ templcs of Thcbcs wcrc also similarlv other buildings. ^ adorned. They are, however, monuments easily broken ; and, from their form, so singularly useful for many building purposes, that it is not to be wondered at if many of them have dis- appeared during the centuries that have elapsed since the greater number of them were erected. Domestic Architecture. Except one small royal pavilion at Medinet Habou, no structure now remains in Egypt that can fairly be classed as a specimen of the domestic architecture of the ancient Egyptians ; but, at the same time we possess, in paintings and sculptures, so many illustrations of their domestic habits, so many plans, elevations, and views, and even models of their dwellings of every class, that we have no difficulty in forming a correct judgment not only of the style, but of the details of their domestic architecture. Although their houses exhibited nothing of the solidity and monu- mental character which distinguished their temples and palaces, they seem in their own way to have been scarcely less beautiful. They were of course on a smaller scale, and built of more perishable materials, but they appear to have been as carefully finished, and decorated with