28 COMPARATIVE ARCHITECTURE. 4. COMPARATIVE. A. Plans. — The temples have already been slightly compared with Cireek examples (pages 15 and 22), and as already noticed they were especially planned for internal effect. The hypostyle hall seemingly unlimited in size, crowded with pillars, and mysteriously illuminated from above, realized the grandest con- ceptions of Egyptian planning (No. 5). Externally the massive pylons ornamented with incised decorations formed the chief fa9ade, a contrast being obtained by the slender obelisks which usually stood in front of them, while the approach was through an impressive avenue of innumerable sphinxes. The erection of these temples was in progress during many centuries by means of continual additions. In this respect they resemble the growth of English cathedrals ; as also in the disregard for symmetry in the planning of one part in relation to another. This may be seen in many of the later temples erected under the Ptolemys, the temple on the island of Philae being a notable instance. The walls, the pylons, and other features are placed on different axes, free from any pretence of regularity. The freedom and picturesqueness of grouping thus obtained is remarkable. 15. Walls. — These were immensely thick, and in important buildings were of granite, while in the less important they were of brick faced with granite. The faces of the temple walls slope inwards or batter towards the top, giving them a massive appearance (No. 7). ^iollet-le- Duc traces this inclination to the employment of mud for the walls of early buildings. Columns which form the leading features of Greek external architecture are not found on the exterior of Egyp- tian buildings, which have normally a massive blank wall crowned with a characteristic cornice, consisting of a large hollow and roll moulding (No. 10 j, m). For the purposes of decoration, the walls, even when of granite, were generally covered with a fine plaster, in which were executed low reliefs, treated with bright color (Nos. 7 and 10 p). Simplicity, solidity, and grandeur, cjualities obtained by broad masses of unbroken walling, are the chief characteristics of the style. c. Openings. — These were all square-headed and covered with massive lintels, for the style being essentially trabeated, the arch appears to have been but little used. Window openings are seldom found in temples, light being admitted by the clerestories in the earlier examples at Thebes, or over the low dwarf walls between the columns of the front row, as at Luxor, Edfou (No. 8), Dendera, or Philae, a method peculiar to the Ptolemaic and Roman jieriods. 1). Roofs. — These were composed of massie blocks of stone supported l)y the enclosing walls and the closely spaced columns
