Entrance to the Alhambra

All Resolutions

768 px - 864 px - 1200 px - 1600 px - Raw Scan

The principal entrance to the Alhambra
The principal entrance to the Alhamrā [sic].

Artist

Name:
Dates:
-
Country:

Illustration

Subject:
Technique:
Engraver:
Format:
Source:
The Getty Research Institute, the Internet Archive

Book

Title:
Author(s):
Publisher:
: ,
Open Library:
View record.

Description

View of the outer wall and fortifications of the Alhambra showing the main gate. This illustration is commented as follows by the author:

This plate exhibits to considerable advantage the massive architecture of the Alhamrā: the principal approach to it is through the narrow Cale de los Gomeles, or Street of Gomeles, so called from the ancient and powerful Moorish family of that name. From this street, which has retained its original form, after passing through a gate into the outward inclosure of the Alhamrā, the road ascends by a winding path through a wood of lofty elms, intermixed with other handsome trees. Wild neglected walks intersect the ascent in various directions; and streams of water, gushing on every side from the moss-covered rocks, frequently spread over the whole road. Near the summit of the hill, is a large and formerly handsome fountain erected by the Emperor Charles V. It is now in a state of very considerable decay, and, like the rest of this magnificent edifice, exhibits a monument of departed splendour. All is verdant, and most beautifully picturesque on this delicious spot.

The title page of this book mentions 1813 as the date of publication and it is the one we chose to follow, as being officially provided by the publisher. It should be noted, however, that every plate in the book comes with the following inscription: London. Published by Cadell & Davies. June 1st. 1815.
In addition, the page facing the first illustration mentions the “just published” History of the Mahometan Empire in Spain by Thomas Hartwell Horne, a book which was first published in 1816. Therefore, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to believe that the actual date of publication of the edition presented here might have been 1816 and not 1813.

Share this:Share on Twitter Share on Pinterest Share on Facebook