Oriental Despotism 183- The aesthetic aspect
a. Uneven conspicuousness
The majority of persons who have commented on the great builders of Asia and
ancient America are far more articulate on the nonhydraulic than on the hydraulic
achievements. Within the hydraulic sphere more attention is again given to the
aqueducts for drinking water and the navigation canals than to the productive and
protective installations of hydraulic agriculture. In fact, these last are frequently
overlooked altogether. Among the nonhydraulic works, the ‘big houses’ of power
and worship and the tombs of the great are much more carefully investigated than
are the large installations of communication and defence.
This uneven treatment of the monster constructions of hydraulic society is no
accident. For functional, aesthetic and social reasons the hydraulic works are usu-
ally less impressive than the nonhydraulic constructions. And similar reasons
encourage uneven treatment also within each of the two main categories.
Functionally speaking, irrigation canals and protective embankments are
widely and monotonously spread over the landscape, whereas the palaces, tombs
and temples are spatially concentrated. Aesthetically speaking, most of the hydrau-
lic works are undertaken primarily for utilitarian purposes, whereas the residences
of the rulers and priests, the houses of worship and the tombs of the great are
meant to be beautiful. Socially speaking, those who organize the distribution of
manpower and material are the same persons who particularly and directly enjoy
the benefits of many nonhydraulic structures. In consequence they are eager to
invest a maximum of aesthetic effort in these structures (palaces, temples and cap-
ital cities) and a minimum of such effort in all other works.
Of course, the contrast is not absolute. Some irrigation works, dikes, aque-
ducts, navigation canals, highways and defence walls do achieve considerable func-
tional beauty. And closeness to the centres of power may lead the officials in charge
to construct embankments, aqueducts, highways, bridges, walls, gates and towers
with as much care for aesthetic detail as material and labour permit.
But these secondary tendencies do not alter the two basic facts that the major-
ity of all hydraulic and nonhydraulic public works are aesthetically less conspicu-
ous than the royal and official palaces, temples and tombs, and that the most
important of all hydraulic works – the canals and dykes – from the standpoint of
art and artistry are the least spectacular of all.
b. The monumental style
Such discrepancies notwithstanding, the palaces, government buildings, temples
and tombs share one feature with the ‘public’ works proper: they, too, tend to be
large. The architectural style of hydraulic society is monumental.
This style is apparent in the fortress-like settlements of the Pueblo Indians. It
is conspicuous in the palaces, temple cities and fortresses of ancient Middle and
South America. It characterizes the tombs, palace-cities, temples and royal monu-
ments of Pharaonic Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia. No one who has ever