compensate for the absence of this true test of genuine excellence ;
and we cannot venture to commend the strange mixture of received
orders, and the wayward fancy employed in the invention of new
ones, which are conspicuous in several parts of Ptolemeta.
I t has been observed by Signor Della Celia, that the remains of this
city are purely Egyptian ; but we must confess that we were unable
to discover the slightest resemblance of style in Ptolemeta to that
which characterizes the architecture of Egypt. There is nothing at
Ptolemeta (that we could perceive) which is not either Greek or
Roman; and the profusion of unnecessary ornament, which generally
distinguished the later productions of both these nations, is very
different from that which is observable in Egyptian remains.' The
style of Egypt, though highly ornamental, is founded on established
principles; and there is nothing incongruous or unmeaning in the
most laboured decorations which are peculiar to i t : proportion and
simplicity are very rarely violated in the buildings either of Egypt of
Nubia; and the great variety of ornament which appears in them
never disturbs the general effect, or detracts from the imposing grandeur
of the masses. Whenever the general form and larger parts of
a building are simple and well proportioned, a great deal of ornament
may be adopted in the detail, without injury to the effect of the
whole ; and as this is particularly the case in Egyptian architecture,
the mind is strongly impressed with the pleasing character of the
general mass, before it has time to notice any other peculiarities.
The same may be observed with respect to Gothic architecture ;
in which the almost infinite detail which it presents is not found to
diminish either the simplicity, the grandeur, or the elegance of the
whole. When the attention is turned from the general mass to the
subdivisions, every portion, however small, is observed to have a
meaning, in both styles of architecture here alluded to ; and there is
seldom any part of the ornament, either in Egyptian or in Gothic
examples, which we wish to have removed from its place. In the
capitals and shafts of Egyptian columns, (which are usually composed
of different parts of the lotus, the leaves, the stalks, the
open flower, or the bud, so combined and arranged as not to
interfere with the simple and, generally, graceful outline of the
whole,) the detail gives a lightness to the general mass which
tends to improve its effect; and the simplicity of the general
form exhibits the decoration to advantage: but in the later productions
of Greece and Rome, a profusion of unmeaning ornament
is employed, which rather gives an air of heaviness to the
detail, than any appearance of lightness to the mass. The general
forms are not, in fact, sufficiently important of themselves to create a
favourable impression; and it will usually be found difficult, if not
impossible, to make amends for this fault by decoration. We do not
mean to assert that there are no examples of good taste at Ptolemeta
; but it appears to us that by far the greater part of the buildings
now remaining have been constructed since the place became a
Roman colony; and that there are none to which a higher antiquity
may be safely assigned (with the exception of some of the tombs)
than the period at which the country was occupied by the Ptolemies.