WERE it possible to write the History of Architecture in Mexico with the same certainty that we can now write that of almost every other country in the world, it would be instructive from the unity and completeness of the subject. It would be a history of an art wholly indigenous and original, uninfluenced by any foreign style, and consequently illustrating, in a close and compact space, the whole of those processes by which mankind are enabled to elaborate an art out of the simplest elements.

This is hardly the case with any of the styles of the old world, at least after we leave the Egyptian, whose origin is lost in the mists of antiquity. All other styles were influenced, more or less directly, by its forms, so that we can easily trace the influence of the Hall at Karnac in all subsequent buildings. The Indian styles, it is true, form a group apart, but not so completely distinct as the Mexican; and the variety of their forms, and the want of unison in the parts, prevent their affording complete illustration of an art invented and completed wholly without the introduction of any foreign element.

Our whole knowledge of the early history of the inhabitants of Central America is derived from the annals of two tribes which, by their own account, in which there is nothing improbable, occupied Mexico about the 12th century of our era. These tribes, the Chichemecas and Astecs, came from the north, and were probably of the same race with the red Indians. The country which they took possession of was previously inhabited by the Toltecs, belonging to a race who had in all probability occupied the provinces of Central America from time immemorial, and who had certainly attained at the time we are speaking

of to a considerable degree of civilization, and made no mean progress in many of the useful arts.

It is recorded that the Toltecs abandoned the valley about the 10th century, in consequence of their numbers being greatly reduced by a severe famine and by disease. Nothing further is related of this tribe, but there can be little doubt that some remnant of it afterwards mixed with the invaders, and imparted to them many arts then unknown to them, and of which their more northern brethren still remain ignorant. Under these favourable circumstances of climate and aggregation, the conquerors of Mexico reached a degree of civilization which the red men never attained in their native plains.

The valley of Mexico, of which alone we have any record, is a province about twice the size of Lancashire, and one-third of it is covered with water. In process of time it became subject to three petty kings who carried on perpetual wars one with another. It was not until immediately before the conquest of the country by the Spaniards that these three kings, tired of their ruinous wars, joined their forces together, and, thus combined, proved more than a match for any of the surrounding states. They spread their arms and influence to the Mexican Gulf, penetrated to the shores of the Pacific, and on one occasion are even said to have crossed the Isthmus of Tethuantepec. and reached the confines of Guatemala. These last expeditions seem to have been undertaken merely to obtain prisoners for their horrid rites of human sacrifice, of which they were becoming passionately fond; and they made no settlement in these countries sufficient to influence either their arts or institutions in any way. Shortly after this the conquest of the Spaniards under Cortes put an end to the kingdom and power of the Astecs for ever.

All this, however, refers wholly to the Astecs in the valley of Mexico; and all the affinities that have been traced between them and their northern neighbours apply to them, and them only. The principal remains of architecture in Central America are not found in Mexico Proper, but in districts in which the Astecs never obtained a permanent footing, in Yucatan, Chiapas, and Guatemala. They are evidently works of an earlier and far more highly civilised race than that of the invaders--in short, of precisely such a race as the Toltecs are recorded to have been. Thus we have a striking concurrence of evidence that of the Mexican annals, and of the ruins themselvesproving that, previous to the arrival of the Red Indians, these countries were inhabited by a people possessing a considerable degree of civilisation.

Were it not from what we learn from the description of the Spaniards and earlier travellers, we should now be utterly ignorant of the arts of the Mexicans themselves, all that they built having perished from the lapse of time, or having been destroyed by the savage bigotry of the invaders. Though these descriptions are often inflated and seldom intelligible, they suffice to prove that the Mexicans had learnt from their predecessors the art of building, and erected monuments capable of exciting the amazement of those who were familiar

L

with the cathedrals of Toledo and Seville, and knew well the palaces and monasteries of ancient Spain.

We must not ascribe even the great pyramid of Cholula or the temple of Tlascala to the Mexicans. These cities, though so near to the Mexican capital, were inhabited by a people of a different race, and who practised their own arts. Beyond the Mexican boundaries there exists a country full of ruins of the most interesting character, and in a state of singularly perfect preservation, which, when properly explored, will do more to elucidate the history and to illustrate the arts of this mysterious people than anything that has yet come to light; but much remains to be done before any satisfactory result can be obtained from the materials so unexpectedly afforded us. The country has been visited by very few travellers at all capable of judging of what they saw. The explorations undertaken by Mr. Stephens,' and the publication of the beautiful drawings of his companion, Mr. Catherwood, first conveyed a just idea of the extent and character of these monuments; neither, however, of these gentlemen were familiar with the rules of architectural criticism, nor capable, consequently, of properly arranging the materials they were collecting with such zeal and talent; and it still remains for some one who has the knowledge and the energy requisite for such a task to complete the work they have so nobly begun, and to read for us the history of Central America, and the long-forgotten Toltecs, as written by them in their monuments.

No one could be long among these buildings, provided he was familiar with the styles of other parts of the world, without perceiving a sequence among them, and, when once this is done, the problem is half solved. We may never be able to ascertain at what exact date the earliest building was erected, nor when the last was completed: but we may be able to trace the steps by which the style arose, to judge how far it was capable of further development, and also, perhaps, to learn the origin and history of the people to whom it belonged.

These last are the forms of the problem that have been hitherto most carefully and zealously investigated, though with singularly little success. Because this people built pyramids and engraved hieroglyphics, it is conjectured that they came from Egypt. Their temples are supposed to be copies of the temple of Belus at Babylon. Lord Kingsborough's great work was undertaken to prove that the temple of Palenque was built on the model of Solomon's, and, consequently, that the people were Jews. Certain astronomical similarities have been assumed 'as identifying them with the Moguls, and so on ad infinitum. But there is not one of these supposed links of evidence which can be relied upon when we consider what very natural shapes to be adopted by a rude people are those of the rectangular pyramid of stone or brick and the conical mound of earth. The same may be said of picture-writing as a mode

1 Previous to Mr. Stephens's book the ruins only of Palenque were known through

Lord Kingsborough's work, and some others had been imperfectly sketched.

of expressing the thoughts. There may no doubt be certain affinities with the old world. Influences may have come by Behring's Straits, or across the ocean. The only connection that can be traced with any certainty is with the Polynesian islanders. The very variety of the theories just mentioned almost proves that none can be made out at all satisfactorily. On the whole we may safely exclude all such considerations, and treat of the architecture of Central America as complete in itself, and unconnected with any other known style.

CENTRAL AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE.

Owing to our imperfect knowledge of the subject, it is not easy to define the various classes of buildings into which the examples we possess should be divided. As in almost all countries, however, the principal are the Teocallis or houses of God.

These are always pyramids, square in plan, and generally formed into two, three, or more stories or terraces, with a platform on the top, on which the temple, properly so called, always stands.

Next to these are the palaces, or the houses of kings, which are extremely similar to the temples, except in the number and extent of the chambers they contain, and also that, generally, the pyramids on which they stand are lower, and much longer in one direction than in the other.

A third class are tumuli or mounds of earth, with sepulchral chambers, generally above ground, the openings of which are visible outside; their outline seems to have been merely that of a mound of earth with no buildings on the top.

Besides these there are gateways apparently more intended for display than defence, city walls, wells, and various works of public utility, and great monolithic idols, which belong more to the province of architecture than to anything that can be styled imitative sculpture. As specimens of architecture, however, in reality only the two first deserve notice in a work like the present.

Of the first class, by far the largest and most celebrated is the pyramid of Cholula, near Mexico, said to have been erected long before the arrival of the Astecs. It is now a mere mound of ill-built bricks and rubbish. In plan it measures 1440 ft. each way, and the height of its 4 terraces is 177 ft. Its area, therefore, was nearly four times that of the largest of the Egyptian pyramids, though its height is not much more than one-third. When we come to consider the material and skill required for the erection of the two, no comparison can be made between this rude mound of the Americans and the imperishable structures of the Egyptian kings. On the large platform on its summit now stands a church dedicated to the Virgin, and no remains of ancient architectural ornament exist, either in or about the place, by which its style or affinities can be guessed. The same remarks apply to the temples of Tezcuco and Teotihuacan, and to all the buildings in the Mexican Valley.

In Yucatan the case is widely different. The pyramids there are

not generally in terraces, but rise, at an angle of about 45°, to the level of the platform on which the temple stands; and a magnificent unbroken flight of steps leads from the base of the building to the summit. Almost all these retain more or less of the remains of architectural magnificence that once adorned their summits. The annexed woodcut (No. 94), representing the elevation of a temple supported by

a pyramid at Palenque, with the plan of the temple (woodcut No. 95). will give a good general idea of their form. The pyramid on which it stands is about 280 ft. square, and 60 ft. in height: on the top of this stands the temple, 76 ft. wide in front, and 25 ft. deep, ornamented in stucco with bassi-rilievi of better execution than is usually found in these parts, and with large hieroglyphical tablets, whose decipherment, were it possible, would probably reveal to us much of the history of these buildings.

95.

The roof is formed by approaching courses of stone meeting at the

Plan of Temple. Scale 50 ft. to an inch.

summit, and following the same outline externally, with curious projections on the outside, like dormer windows, but meant apparently either for ornament or to support small idols, or for some similar purpose.

The other temples found in Yucatan differ but little from this one, except in size, and, architecturally speaking, are less interesting than the palaces-the splendour of the temple consisting in the size of its pyramid, to which the superstructure is entirely subordinate: in the palace, on the other hand, the pyramid is entirely subordinate to the building it supports, forming merely an appropriate and convenient pedestal, just sufficient to give it a proper degree of architectural effect.

In speaking of the palaces it would be most important, and add very much to the interest of the description, if some classification could be made as to their relative age. The absence of all traces of history makes this extremely difficult, and the only mode that now