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. FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 1: Many of the stones employed in the restoration of the walls have belonged to more ancient buildings, and parts of handsome cornices, friezes, and capitals are often seen built in with the original structure; among these may be noticed fragments of Ptolemaic inscriptions, which are evidently not in their original places.] [Footnote 2: We must except a low, narrow door, through one of the turrets at the south-west angle, the mode of constructing which will appear in page 367. It seems to have been intended as a sally-port and one person only can pass through it at a time. From the remains about this angle, there appears to have been an outer wall of very inferior strength, but it seems to have made no part of the original plan.] [Footnote 3: Nearly opposite to these turrets, without the wall, are the remains of a very strong fort; and this circumstance would perhaps seem to favour the idea of there having been a gate in the place here alluded to, the entrance to which would have been well defended by the fort.]