The Project Gutenberg eBook of A short history of architecture
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: A short history of architecture
Author: Arthur Lyman Tuckerman
Release date: July 12, 2025 [eBook #76489]
Language: English
Original publication: New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887
Credits: Charlene Taylor, A Marshall and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A SHORT HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of the paragraph. Some minor changes to the text are
noted at the end of the book.
[Illustration: ST. TROPHYME AT ARLES.]
A SHORT HISTORY
OF
ARCHITECTURE
BY
ARTHUR LYMAN TUCKERMAN
_WITH ILLUSTRATIONS BY THE AUTHOR_
[Illustration]
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
1897
COPYRIGHT, 1887, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
TROW’S
PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY,
NEW YORK.
“To build, to build!
That is the noblest art of all the arts.
Painting and Sculpture are but images,
Are merely shadows cast by outward things
On stone or canvas, having in themselves
No separate existence. Architecture,
Existing in itself, and not in seeming
A something it is not, surpasses them
As substance shadow.”
—LONGFELLOW, in _Michael Angelo_.
PREFACE.
I have written this short history of architecture to meet the
requirements of those who wish to become acquainted with the main facts
without having to read voluminous works, many of which are addressed, not
to the student, but to the connoisseur, who is presumed at the start to
have a knowledge of the subject sufficient to enable him to comprehend
critical and theoretical essays.
The plan I have adopted has been to trace the origin of each style, its
characteristic points and its connection with those which preceded and
succeeded it, without introducing technical terms or any but the most
important dates.
There is a temptation to enter into the social and political histories
of each building race, but brevity forbids this, as well as any of the
gushing descriptions usually found in modern handbooks on art.
I imagine that very few people have the time to read lengthy treatises on
architecture, but that there are many who would be glad to know the chief
historical facts, were these to be presented within a small
compass. I hope, therefore, that this volume may be of interest to the
general reader and may find its way to schools other than those which
make art matters their specialty, for it seems to me that if the average
schoolboy were taught as much about the history of the most useful and
beautiful of the creations of the people of each age, as about the manner
and quantity of warfare and slaughter in which they indulged, he would
obtain as valuable a quality of information.
ART SCHOOLS OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM.
March, 1887
LIST OF PLATES.
ST. TROPHYME AT ARLES, _Frontispiece_.
FACING PAGE
THE GREEK ORDERS, 56
PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF THESEUS AT ATHENS, 62
THE ROMAN ORDERS, 70
PALACE OF DIOCLETIAN AT SPALATRO, 73
PLAN OF THE PANTHEON AT ROME, 74
PLAN OF THE BATHS OF AGRIPPA, 75
PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF THE SUN AT BAALBEK, 76
PLAN OF THE OLD BASILICA OF ST. PAUL’S BEYOND THE WALLS, 89
ST. VITALE, OF RAVENNA, 92
THE TEMPLE OF MINERVA MEDICA, 93
THE TEMPLE OF VESTA, SOMETIMES CALLED THE TEMPLE OF HERCULES, 94
THE BAPTISTERY OF CONSTANTINE, 94
THE PENDENTIVE SYSTEM IN BYZANTINE DOMES, 97
CHURCH OF SERGIUS AND BACCHUS AT CONSTANTINOPLE, 98
PLAN OF ST. SOPHIA, CONSTANTINOPLE, 99
ROMANESQUE CONSTRUCTION, 121
COMPARATIVE SERIES, SHOWING GREEK, ROMAN, ROMANESQUE, AND GOTHIC
METHODS OF SUPPORT, 124
PLAN OF STRASBOURG CATHEDRAL, 128
CHEVET OF NOTRE DAME DU PORT AT CLERMONT, 130
PLAN OF RHEIMS CATHEDRAL, 134
PLAN OF AN ENGLISH CATHEDRAL, 136
PLAN OF ST. PETER’S AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED BY MICHAEL
ANGELO, 155
PLAN OF CHURCH OF THE HOTEL DES INVALIDES AT PARIS, 160
CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION, 1
I.—CELTIC OR DRUIDICAL REMAINS, 5
II.—THE MONUMENTS OF EGYPT, 10
III.—ASIATIC ARCHITECTURE, 30
IV.—GREECE, 52
V.—ETRURIA AND ROME, 68
VI.—THE EARLY CHRISTIAN STYLE, 88
VII.—THE BYZANTINE STYLE, 95
VIII.—MAHOMETAN ARCHITECTURE, 105
IX.—THE ROMANESQUE STYLE, 115
X.—GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE, 132
XI.—THE RENAISSANCE, 151
XII.—CONCLUSION, 162
A SHORT
HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE.
INTRODUCTION.
Architecture is an art combining the qualities of utility and beauty. Its
object is, and has been from its origin, to satisfy both the necessities
and tastes of the various building races.
For this purpose the two distinct, and yet closely related, sciences of
construction and decoration have been employed, and the history of the
progress which has been made in each, goes hand in hand with the history
of each age and each race.
The requirements of the inhabitants of every country have always been
defined by its character and climate, and, in order to satisfy these
requirements, the art has adapted itself to them and grown up and
expanded in the different fields in which it has been directed.
It is customary to explain the origin of the art of building somewhat as
follows: The first impulse of the barbarian, in whatever
part of the globe he may be born, is to seek a shelter from the varying
temperature of night and day. If he lives in the mountains, he chooses
the caves and clefts in the rocks for his habitation; if on the plain,
he follows the example of the animals and hollows out a retreat in the
ground where he may seek warmth and protection. Where the soil is rocky,
he gathers branches and moss, and piles them in such a manner as to form
a rude dwelling. Soon after, he perceives the inconvenience of these
untrimmed boughs, and remedies the discomfort by driving four straight
posts into the ground, and roofing them over with cross-pieces, inclined
so as to shed the rain.
This is the first semblance of a thoughtful construction, and the
improvements upon it gradually develop into the more studied forms of
architecture.
When the first requisite of shelter has been obtained, the early builder
cuts off the rough edges and carves upon the posts rude emblems of the
natural objects he sees about him, and in doing this takes the first step
in design and decoration.
When wood is not abundant, he seeks a similar result in stone, and
the treatment of each material gives rise to distinct principles of
construction.
The Greeks, who had marble-quarries of easy access, bridged over their
posts or columns with straight lintels, capable of supporting the weight
of the roof without danger of fracture. The Romans, who found their
travertine difficult to handle, built their baths and palaces of brick,
and, in seeking to connect their pillars and piers, adopted the round
arch as a means of effecting this end, and this round arch was the main
principle of Roman architecture. When, in due time, the pointed arch was
found to combine great strength and beauty, this new method of building
became the leading principle of Gothic art. So, according to each
necessity, the different styles of architecture arose.
When civilization increases the requirements of man, it is no longer
possible to begin a rude construction, and alter it afterward to suit
these needs; therefore it becomes necessary to consider beforehand all
the elements required, and, in order to facilitate this consideration,
drawing comes in as a simple means of placing before one all that enters
into the proposed building.
Therefore, in the study of architecture four divisions of the art must
be considered, namely: The construction of buildings with various
materials, the appropriate proportions of the same, their representation
by draughtsmanship and their history in various times and among various
peoples.
It will be readily understood that each of these divisions embraces a
wide scope individually, and yet no one can be separated from the others
without affecting the result as a whole.
It is proposed, therefore, to review briefly the history of this art, and
the causes which have affected it, in order that, knowing the reasons
which led to the formation of each style, the student may
follow its study with the practical understanding and logical inference
which lead to the best results.
* * * * *
The question of which country furnished the first or earliest period of
approach to civilization in the building of monuments or habitations has
been, and is likely to be, an open one for some time to come.
Speculative discussion on this point can serve no end of importance to
architects; it interests more especially the historian and antiquarian.
Consequently we will, for the sake of convenience, glance over the
periods of architecture in the following order:
1. Celtic or Druidical remains.
2. The Monuments of Egypt.
3. Asiatic architecture.
4. Greece.
5. Etruria and Rome.
6. The Early Christian style.
7. The Byzantine style.
8. Mahometan architecture.
9. The Romanesque style.
10. Gothic architecture.
11. The Renaissance.
I.
CELTIC OR DRUIDICAL REMAINS.
The Celtic race has left enduring marks of its power in the numerous
monuments which are found in various parts of Great Britain, France,
Germany, and Spain, and scattered through adjacent countries.
These consist of collections of huge uncarved boulders, arranged in
geometrical lines, and often found in the centre of vast plains, far
removed from quarry or mountain-side.
The more common forms are called “menhirs or peulvans,” signifying in
Celtic “long stones.” These are either found separately or ranged in long
parallel lines.
The most remarkable examples are at Carnac, in Brittany, where there are
twelve hundred of these huge stones, varying from three to eighteen feet
in height, ranged in eleven rows, leading to a semicircular enclosure.
What purpose they served, and whether of a religious or civil character,
has not been conclusively determined. Some consider that they
served to mark the burial-spot of the Druids; others that
they were landmarks or emblems of victory.
To another class belong the so-called Rocking Stones, which consist
of two immense blocks of rock, placed one upon the other, and either
balanced so exactly that the slightest touch will suffice to shake them,
or pivoted so as to revolve. There are examples at Tenanville, near
Cherbourg, in the north of France, and in Sussex, England. One of these,
called the “Great upon Little,” is estimated to weigh a million pounds.
Batissier considers them to have been erected by the priests, either to
strike terror and wonder into the hearts of the people, whom they sought
to hold in subjection, or as emblems of the world suspended in the air.
We know that they have existed from remote ages, as mention is made of
their antiquity by Pliny and Ptolemy.
Trilitha, or lichavens, are formed with three stones, two vertical
and one horizontal resting upon the others, in the shape of a rude
gateway. This is what they were probably intended for, though it has
been suggested that they were used for altars. Similar to these are the
dolmens, or table-stones, consisting of one large flat boulder supported
by several smaller ones. Their upper surfaces, as a rule, have channels
cut in them, which are generally believed to have been receptacles for
the blood of victims sacrificed upon them, and some are even hollowed
out in the shape of the human body.
The Merchants’ Tables, at Lochmariaker, are the most noted among the many
that still exist.
From fragments of skeletons usually found in the vicinity of dolmens, it
has been imagined that either the priests or their human offerings were
buried there as upon consecrated ground.
There are several instances where these dolmens form covered ways
or avenues, being placed one beside another in continuous line, and
generally surrounded by a plantation of trees. They are frequently
divided by blocks of stone into several compartments, and, like the
tumuli or barrows, were probably used as places of interment for the dead.
The most interesting, perhaps, of any of these groups of stones are the
“cromlechs”: enclosures formed of numerous boulders, arranged either in
elliptic rows or in concentric circles, with a large monolith in the
central point. Each circle is composed of a definite number of “menhirs,”
and the whole is usually surrounded by a ditch.
It is supposed that each stone represented a minor deity, and the central
one the chief of the gods. Their purpose apparently was to mark the place
of large assemblies, called together for the administration of civil,
military, and religious rites.
The cromlech of Stonehenge in Wiltshire is the most celebrated and one of
the largest known. The country folk call it the Cor-Gaur,
or dance of giants, and attribute its formation to the magic of the
famous enchanter, Merlin. It is composed of two circular and two elliptic
enclosures, the one within the other, and is several hundred feet in
circumference.
In none of these Celtic monuments is there anything which may be called
strictly architectural, but some of them illustrate a principle of
building which is of importance to note. To place a row of stones in
upright positions denotes no special phase of intelligent thought,
beyond a desire to permanently mark some interesting locality, but when
the ancient race which raised these massive rocks conceived the idea
of supporting one block upon a number of smaller ones, it had reached
a first principle of construction, destined to be employed for many
centuries afterward in some of the finest buildings. After the trilithon
came the table-stones, and from these it was but a step to the covered
alleys, which were in themselves a first conception of a rude habitation,
walled in and roofed over. There can be nothing more elementary than
this, and no simpler constructional expedient, in whatever country it
may first have been evolved. We do not know the precise date of Celtic
monuments, nor is it probable that they are as ancient as the Egyptian
pyramids, but as in any case they illustrate the transition from brutal
ignorance to an era of thought, we may place them at the commencement of
our chronological list. In the various themes and discussions advanced
by archæologists, and the strange legends and tales of the peasantry
with regard to them, we have no concern. It is sufficient for us to know
that they exist and afford us an insight into the dawning efforts of a
barbaric people to progress in the art which we propose to study.
II.
THE MONUMENTS OF EGYPT.
The history of Egypt is divided into five periods, from the earliest ages
down to its conquest by the Romans at the beginning of the Christian era.
The first period comprises the first fourteen dynasties of ancient kings,
among whom the most important are: Menes, founder of Memphis, Shoofoo
or Cheops, Shafra or Chephren, and Mycerinus, builders of the pyramids
of Gizeh, and the two Theban monarchs, Osirtasen I. and Amenemha III.,
by whom the tombs at Beni Hassan, the Labyrinth and Lake Moeris were
constructed. According to Bunsen these fourteen dynasties date from 3623
to 2547 B.C.
The second period is marked by the invasion of the Hyksos, or Shepherd
Kings, of whom there were three dynasties. They remained in power until
1625 B.C. and were a warlike and destructive race, leaving no permanent
traces of their occupation.
The third period is the most brilliant in Egyptian history, extending
from 1625 to 525 B.C., and comprising nine dynasties of great conquerors
and builders. The best known of these are: Amosis, Thothmes III., Sethi
I., Rameses II. (the Great), called also Sesostris, and Rameses III.
Under these kings the great temples of Luxor, Abydus, and Karnak were
erected and the arts were assiduously cultivated.
The Persians under Cambyses occupied the country in the year 525 B.C.
They were expelled a century later, but were again victorious in 340
B.C., and remained in possession until the conquest of Alexander the
Great in 332. This fourth period was as unproductive in works of art as
had been that of the Hyksos dominion.
After Alexander, the Ptolemys ruled until the close of the first century
before Christ. Their government promoted the cultivation of the arts and
industries and formed the fifth and last period in the history of ancient
Egypt as an independent state.
Of these five epochs there are, therefore, only three—namely, the first,
third, and fifth—during which architecture flourished, and these three in
reality form but one long period in the history of an art which remained
almost unaltered, scarcely either improving or receding, from the
remotest times to its last day.
Our knowledge of ancient Egypt has been chiefly derived from
bass-reliefs, mural paintings and hieroglyphics. The latter were
unintelligible until the discovery of the Rosetta stone by the French
consul Champollion, in 1798. This was part of a stone tablet bearing
three inscriptions, one in hieroglyphics, one in the Cursive letters used
by the lower classes, and the third in Greek. By means of this the old
alphabet was reconstructed and all the ancient inscriptions deciphered.
_TOMBS_.
The most important monuments of the first period are the pyramids, the
oldest of which were built between three and four thousand years before
Christ.
There remain about a hundred of these in the vicinity of the ancient
city of Memphis, extending over a considerable extent of country, and
others are found in Thebes and at Meroë in Ethiopia. There have been
many theories advanced upon the subject of their origin and purpose, and
many arguments set forth seeking to prove that they were observatories,
temples, granaries, meteorological monuments, or tombs. Nearly all modern
authorities agree upon the last as the most probable solution of the
problem, not only from the sarcophagi and mummies found within many of
them, and from inscriptions relating events in the lives of important
personages which adorn the walls of some of their inner chambers, but
from the fact that these buildings are never found beyond the confines of
cemeteries.
In erecting these monuments, the Egyptians usually selected a site upon
a rocky plateau, on which a space equal to the superficial area required
for the base was made level, a mound being left in the centre which was
bonded in with the masonry. Below this platform a sepulchral chamber and
connecting passage were hollowed in the rock. The pyramid was built over
this chamber and contained one or more additional apartments, reached
from the outside by narrow and inclined corridors. It was generally
constructed with blocks of limestone, in successive steps receding at
an angle varying from forty-five to seventy degrees. The outside was
afterward cased with slabs of polished syenite, upon which inscriptions
were engraved or painted. The interior chambers and corridors were
likewise lined with polished granite, sometimes so mathematically jointed
that a needle could not be pushed between the stones. Ceilings were
formed by inclined slabs resting against each other or the walls were
corbelled inward until they met.
The entrances to the passages were invariably closed and concealed, and
portcullises of heavy granite blocks, sliding in grooves, were placed
at intervals along the corridors, the more effectually to preserve the
sepulchre from violation. Nearly all have, nevertheless, been entered
and rifled, so that but little is left to aid the archæologist in his
researches. Fragmentary inscriptions and local observations compared
with the accounts given by Greek and Latin authors have, however,
resulted in the piecing together of what may be presumed to be an
accurate history of the pyramid-builders. The three largest pyramids
are situated at Gizeh, a small village near Cairo, and are respectively
those of Cheops, known also as Suphis or Shoofoo, Chephren or Shafra,
and Mycerinus.
The following table shows the dimensions given by two of the best
authorities:
SIDE OF BASE. PERPENDICULAR HEIGHT.
Sir G. Col. H. Sir G. Col. H.
Wilkinson. Vyse. Wilkinson. Vyse.
Cheops 756′ 764′ 480′ 9″ 480′ 9″
Chephren 707′ 9″ 453′ 454′ 3″
Mycerinus 364′ 6″ 208′
All of these are oriented and the entrances are all on the North sides.
This is a rule applicable to all the pyramids except that of Sakkarah,
which is placed without reference to the points of the compass and was
probably erected at a much later date.
The first or Great Pyramid contains one subterranean chamber, reached by
a passage some three hundred feet long, and two other apartments above
the level of the ground, the one above the other, called the King’s and
Queen’s sepulchres. The entrance to the connecting corridors is placed 45
feet above the ground and 23 feet away from the true centre in order to
deceive explorers. The Queen’s Chamber is about 18 feet square by 20 feet
in height, and is placed directly under the apex of the pyramid. It is 67
feet above the ground, and 71 feet below the King’s Chamber. The passage
leading to the latter is 28 feet high, formed by corbelled walls. This
chamber is roofed by a flat ceiling and measures 34 feet in length by
17 in breadth, and is 19 feet high. The walls and ceiling are built of
finely polished granite, and the apartment contains a sarcophagus of
the same material. The weight of the superincumbent masonry is relieved
by five other compartments placed over the chamber, four of which are
covered by flat slabs, and the fifth by inclined stones resting against
each other. It was in this highest compartment that some hieroglyphics
scrawled in red ochre on the walls were discovered, by means of which the
name Shoofoo became known. Herodotus says that one hundred thousand men
were employed during twenty years in building the Great Pyramid, after
they had devoted ten years, previous to its erection, to the construction
of a causeway to the Nile, over which the stone was carried, which had
been brought down the river from the Arabian hills.
Diodorus asserts that the number of workmen employed was upward of three
hundred and sixty thousand.
The second pyramid contains two chambers, the most important of which is
on the ground level, partly sunk in the rock. Its dimensions are 46 feet
long by 16 in width, and 22 feet high. Within it a granite sarcophagus
was found, containing the bones of an ox. This discovery gave rise to
much speculation, as to whether the pyramids were not originally intended
for the sepulchres of the animal deities worshipped by the
Egyptians, the bull Apis in particular. The third pyramid was covered by
a casing of polished red granite, formed of blocks with bevelled edges.
There are several chambers inside, one of which contained a mummy and
case, now transferred to the British Museum.
Near the pyramid of Cheops, on the same plateau, is the Sphinx. This
great statue, with a human head and the body of a lion, is carved in the
natural rock, deficiencies being made up by added masonry. Its dimensions
are colossal, the body being 140 feet long, and the face 30 feet high
by 14 feet in breadth. This mysterious creation was intended as the
representation of a god, and as such had sacrifices offered before it,
as the altars and temples erected beneath it attest. From inscriptions
upon a stone found near by, it is known that the Sphinx was called
Hor-em-khoo, “The Sun in his Resting-place.” The head was originally
surmounted by a royal helmet, the face had a beard, fragments of which
have been unearthed, and it is otherwise badly mutilated. This fanciful
creature has doubtless much affinity with the winged bulls and lions of
the Assyrian epoch.
The Egyptians also buried their dead in smaller tombs, in subterranean
vaults, and in catacombs excavated in the rock of mountainous regions.
A great number of these smaller tombs were built in the vicinity of
ancient Memphis and are now commonly called “mastabahs.” In arrangement
they were nearly all similar, the sepulchre consisting of three parts: a
temple overground, a pit or well, and a subterranean chamber. The temple
was in the shape of a frustum of a pyramid, the walls inclining inward
at an angle of seventy degrees. It contained one or several apartments,
used as places of assembly for the relatives and friends of the deceased,
who came at stated intervals to hold services and to bring offerings
of a suitable character. A list of these occasions was placed over the
entrance, and on a second tablet or stella, inside, the name, titles, and
virtues of the dead were recorded. The walls were brilliantly painted,
domestic and religious scenes being the usual subjects depicted. The
well-opening was usually concealed and filled with masonry. Its sides
were formed of slabs of granite down to rock level and then excavated in
the rock, sometimes thirty or forty yards below the surface. From the
bottom of the pit a doorway, usually walled up, opened into a chamber
containing a stone sarcophagus, in which the mummy was placed.
The finest excavated grottos are found at Beni Hassan and in the
neighborhood of Thebes. Those at Beni Hassan follow the type of the
“mastabah,” having the assembly hall, the well, and the chamber beneath,
all being hollowed out of the rock. The sides are decorated with columns,
architraves, and cornices, in imitation of constructive architecture, and
the ceilings are cut out to represent vaults, the uncarved
surfaces being adorned with paintings and hieroglyphics. The columns are
especially interesting, as having evidently furnished the Greeks with
the model for their Doric temples, and the order has in consequence been
called the proto-doric. They have a diameter of five feet and are sixteen
feet high; the shaft has sixteen sides with flutings and is surmounted by
a tile or abacus. Besides these, there are other columns with capitals
in the form of a lotus or papyrus bud, which are more commonly found in
Egyptian temples.
The tombs of the kings at Thebes are arranged on a different principle;
they consist of long sloping corridors opening into chambers and halls,
and penetrating in a continuous line into the mountain rock. There are
several groups, the most important of which is situated in the valley of
Biban-el-Molook, or the “Gates of the Kings.” The tomb of Sethi I., the
father of Rameses II., discovered by the explorer Belzoni in the earlier
part of the century, is the finest example, the sculpture and paintings
which it contains being very remarkable for their execution and of great
historical interest, as they illustrate very completely the manners and
customs of the ancient Egyptians. Every effort had evidently been made to
conceal the tomb, for not only was the entrance closed and covered with
loose rock, but the first chamber, reached by a succession of passages
and steep staircases, had been walled up and the four sides painted, so
as to have the appearance of being the limit of the extent
of the tomb. The hollow sound, caused by hammering on the walls at one
point, led the explorer to continue his efforts, which were rewarded by
the discovery of several more halls and chambers, terminating in a great
vaulted chamber, thirty feet long, containing an alabaster sarcophagus.
It has been conjectured that many of these excavated grottos were
occupied as residences by the kings and great personages of the empire
during their lifetime, and converted into sepulchres after death. The
custom of relatives meeting at intervals in an assembly hall connected
with the tomb does not seem to have prevailed here as at Memphis, but it
is not improbable that the great Theban temples were used, if indeed they
were not erected for this purpose.
The great mass of the people were not honoured by such magnificent tombs,
but were buried in subterranean vaults in the necropolis (Greek, “city of
the dead”) attached to each great town. The largest are those of Saïs,
Sakkarah near Memphis, Thebes, and Abydus. These underground galleries
were reached by deep wells, and often contained several stories of small
chambers in which the embalmed bodies were placed, together with vases,
statuettes, and other votive offerings. There were also cemeteries in
which the animals worshipped by the Egyptians were buried, containing
thousands of embalmed birds and reptiles, particularly the ibis and
crocodile. The Apis mausoleum at Sakkarah, where the sacred
bulls were interred, is one of the most important, the chambers and
galleries being excavated in the rock and covering an immense area. The
mausoleum was connected with the Serapeum, a temple above ground, where
the living bull was worshipped as a deity.
_TEMPLES._
There are two classes of Egyptian temples—those hollowed out of the
mountain rock, commonly called speos, and those built upon the open
plain and distinguished by the term “hypæthral” (Greek, “under air”).
The most important of the latter are the temples of Sethi I., at
Abydus; Amun re, at Kooneh; the great and small temples of Medeenet
Haboo, erected by Rameses III. and Thothmes II.; the Rameseum or
Memnonium, of Rameses II.; Luxor and Karnak, at Thebes; and the temples
of Denderah, Edfou, and Philæ, built by the Ptolemys. All of these
are similar in general plan, consisting of a greater or less number
of courts, halls, and sanctuaries, which in each case are placed “en
suite,” that is, one opening into the other in a continuous line, the
larger apartments being in about the centre of this line and gradually
diminishing in size, the last chamber being the smallest. As the main
characteristics of the largest temples apply in a modified form to
the smallest, a description of a complete temple would seem to be
the best way of explaining the usual arrangements. A wall of crude
brick usually enclosed the whole structure, which was surrounded by a
sacred grove, or temenos. This wall was entered by an outer gate, or
pylon, built in the shape of a frustum of a pyramid, and surmounted by
a coved cornice, the doorway having perpendicular or slanting jambs.
From this an avenue, or dromos, bordered with sphinxes with human or
rams’ heads, led up to the propylæa, or towers. The latter resembled
the outer pylons, but were on a larger scale, containing staircases
leading to upper terraces. They were spaced a short distance apart to
admit of a passage between them, which was entered through a second
gateway similar to the first. The sides of these buildings were usually
elaborately painted, and rings were inserted in the masonry to hold
the poles upon which the royal banners were hoisted. This second
entrance was often flanked by two obelisks—long tapering monoliths with
pyramidal summits, covered with hieroglyphic inscriptions recounting
the dedication of the temple by the king to his favorite divinity.
These obelisks were sometimes ninety feet high, and mounted upon
square blocks. They were not always of equal size, probably owing to
the difficulty of obtaining single stones of such enormous length. It
is of interest to note that their sides were made slightly convex in
order to prevent their appearing concave, which would be the effect
had they been left quite flat. A second set of towers, or propylæa,
with staircases, came next, with a court or area intervening. On each
side of this court a colonnade was generally placed; and sometimes
before the entrance to the towers two colossal statues of the king,
represented seated, with his hands resting upon his knees in the
conventional attitude of repose. The most famous are those known
as the Colossi of Memnon, which stand on the plain of Thebes. They
were probably in the court of the temple of Amunoph III., of which
scarcely any vestige now remains. They are fifty feet high, mounted
upon pedestals. One of them is called the Vocal Memnon, as, in ancient
times, it gave forth sounds at the break of day—a phenomenon more
easily explained as a trick of the priests, than by natural causes.
Beyond this court there was usually an inner vestibule, with columns
forming porticos on the four sides; those opposite the entrance being
connected by stone screens, reaching half-way up, forming a shaded
anteroom, or pronaos, to the great hall of assembly, which was the next
apartment.
The shafts and capitals of the columns varied in different buildings.
The plain cylinder, carrying an inverted bell decorated with palm or
other smaller leaves, or a capital in the shape of the lotus flower were
the commonest forms. A column, representing the stems of water-plants
bound together with rings, and swelling out at the top in the place of
the capital, was also often employed. Besides these, statues of kings,
or shafts surmounted by the heads of Isis or Osiris, were
used as supports. The architrave, or beam, did not rest directly upon the
capital, but upon an intermediate block. This block, when on the heads of
deities, was in the shape of a miniature pylon. The cornices were formed
of a deep cove and fillet decorated with winged asps.
Some idea of the size of these inner vestibules, or peristyles, may be
formed from the dimensions of that in the great temple of Medeenet Haboo,
which measures 123 by 133 feet, and has a height of 39 feet 4 inches.
Each of the porticos of the East and West sides is supported by five
columns; those on the North and South by eight Osiride pillars, having a
circumference of 23 feet and a height of 24 feet.
The great hall of assembly, which adjoined the vestibule, was generally
the finest portion of the temple. The architraves supporting the roof
rested upon a great number of lofty columns, which in the centre rose
to a greater height, in order to obtain a clerestory, by which the
hall was lighted. The largest of these is in the temple of Karnak,
measuring 170 by 329 feet. The central avenue consists of twelve
columns, 62 feet high by 11 feet 6 inches in diameter. Besides these
there are one hundred and twenty-two others, 42 feet 6 inches in height
and 28 feet in circumference. The lintel over the doorway by which it
is entered measured 40 feet in length. The sanctuary was contiguous
to the great hall, and terminated the suite. This consisted of a
chamber, either occupying the whole of the rear space, or
isolated by corridors on each side, with smaller sanctuaries opposite.
In many of these, altars and statues have been found, some of the former
formed of a single block, hollowed at the top and pierced through from
top to bottom, so that sacrifices placed upon them could be consumed
apparently without ignition, by means of fires kindled in subterranean
vaults.
In connection with the halls in the temple of Abydus and elsewhere
there were a number of vaulted chambers; the vault not being formed of
a series of true arches, that is, with joints radiating to a common
centre, but consisting of stone beams placed one beside the other, and
hollowed out on the under side. The arch, however, was not unknown to
the Egyptians—there are stone vaulted tombs at Sakkarah of the time of
Psammetichus (650 B.C.), and crude brick arches have been found at Thebes
dating as far back as the period of the eighth dynasty (2925 B.C.?). The
antiquity of the arch has been the subject of much debate, owing chiefly
to the fact that the Greeks made no use of it; recent explorations have,
however, shown that this constructive expedient was known both in Egypt
and Assyria many years before it was adopted by the Etruscans, to whom
its invention was long attributed.
The exterior walls of all temples were built on a batter, sloping inward
at an angle of about seventy degrees and with scarcely any openings.
The inside walls were perpendicular, and decorated with bass-reliefs and
paintings. These were often of a most elaborate character, and it is from
them that so much has been learned concerning the ancient history of the
country.
The rock-cut temples of Nubia are laid out on much the same plan. They
usually consist of a pronaos, naos, and sanctuary, forming a suite, with
an entrance marked by colossal statuary hewn out of the side of the
cliff. Some have a dromos of sphinxes, propylæa, and a peristyle court of
masonry preceding the excavated portions. The temple of Wady Sabooah is
the best example of the latter. Of the former none can compare with the
Great and Small temples of Aboo Simbel, or Ipsambool, which are of the
time of Rameses the Great.
The smaller of the two is dedicated to the goddess Athor, the Venus of
the Egyptians. The exterior is ornamented with six statues of deities
recessed in the rock, each measuring thirty-five feet in height. In the
interior there is a first hall, supported by square pillars, opening into
a corridor, flanked by smaller halls, leading to the sanctuary.
The front of the Great temple is adorned with four statues of the king
seated upon his throne, each sixty feet high. In the great hall there
are eight Osiride pillars, upward of thirty feet in height. The sides
of the speos are carved with bass-reliefs, representing the conquests
of Rameses the Great. There are some sixteen smaller chambers, the
suite terminating in the sanctuary, which contains an altar and four
statues—the three deities, Amun re, Phre, and Phtah, with the king
seated in their company.
Under the headings tombs and temples are comprised the chief
architectural works of the Egyptians. Besides these there were one or two
gigantic constructions, famous in antiquity, but which have now almost
disappeared. Of these, the Labyrinth and the Lake Moeris were the most
important. The former appears to have been an immense structure, half
palace, half tomb, built by Amenemha III., of the twelfth dynasty. It was
built on three sides of an open square, measuring about five hundred feet
on the side, consisting of numerous chambers and courts, in two stories,
one above and the other below the level of the ground. At the open end
was placed a large pyramid, of which the ruins still remain. Herodotus
admired the Labyrinth more than any other of the Egyptian buildings,
declaring it to surpass the pyramids in labour and expense. Near by was
the artificial Lake Moeris, formed to retain the Nile waters during
the inundation, for the purpose of irrigating the country surrounding
Memphis, during the dry season. It covered an immense area; tradition
says 450 miles in circumference. The banks were fortified with massive
masonry, and the waters distributed by means of locks and sluices.
The Egyptians appear as a civilized nation, having a scientific,
artistic, and political knowledge of no mean order, at a
time when the greater part of the world’s inhabitants were but a step
removed from the level of ignorant savages, and when, according to a
generally accepted chronology, the world itself had existed but a few
hundred years. The construction of the Pyramids reveals a building
capacity which has rarely been rivalled, requiring not only immense
mechanical power, but an accuracy of judgment and calculation in the
adjustment of blocks of granite weighing many tons, not simply piled one
above the other, but perfectly jointed and polished, and so disposed that
passages and chambers were roofed over and their ceilings relieved from
superincumbent weight by ingeniously contrived compartments, one above
the other, and closed by sliding doors of monolithic stones, the handling
of which could only have been successful by people well versed in the
theories of equilibrium and support; and yet all this was done at a date
which the best authorities agree in saying could not have been later
than three thousand years before Christ. Their temples show an equally
advanced erudition, and the paintings and hieroglyphics with which the
walls of these buildings are adorned give a faithful representation of
the customs of a people acquainted with the minor arts and sciences and
the appliances requisite for agriculture.
The admiration with which we may regard the excellence of so ancient an
art is tempered when we find that it contained no element of progress.
The monuments of the eighteenth dynasty, though numerous
and imposing, scarcely differ from those of the preceding period, and
even in the days of the Ptolemys, who encouraged the native art, there
was nothing attempted but a repetition of the old methods. From beginning
to end the arts were so fettered by conventionality and dogmatic laws,
opposed to originality or change, that the only improvements made were in
mere mechanical execution.
A great prevailing thought seems to have actuated this people,—that of
death and eternity. Their aim in erecting their buildings was to render
them quasi-eternal, and by embalming the bodies of the dead they even
sought to perpetuate the semblance of life. Their kings at the beginning
of their reigns commenced the construction of their own sepulchres,
employing hundreds of workmen and immense expenditure of the national
funds for the purpose, and countless thousands passed their lives in
hollowing temples in the mountain rock and in carrying huge blocks
from great distances for the building of the pylons and hypostylic
halls of the Nile, in which durability and massiveness were considered
all-important.
Egyptian architecture, simply from the enormous scale of everything
it produced, was always dignified and it had also the merit of severe
simplicity; but mere size can scarcely be rated as an artistic quality
of a high order, and on that account it cannot compare favourably with
the art of the Greeks, who were probably inspired by what
they saw in Egypt, but who, in their own work, succeeded in combining
the qualities of majesty and beauty without resorting to the use of
extraordinary materials.
III.
ASIATIC ARCHITECTURE.
It would, perhaps, be reasonable to suppose that in India, where the
Aryan race had its origin, the earliest traces of dawning art would be
found. It has, however, been fairly well established that all remnants
of very ancient art, which may have existed there in former times, have
now virtually disappeared, and that at present there are no remains in
Hindostan of a remoter antiquity than the second or third century before
the Christian era.
The architecture of India loses much of its interest for us from the fact
of its having had no influence upon the origin or development of the
European styles of building, which, starting in Egypt and Assyria, formed
a continuous chain, each linked with its predecessor and successor down
to modern times.
The Indians were, in fact, never a migratory or colonizing race of
people, and their architecture was a distinctly native production,
executed in accordance with the rules laid down by the priests in their
sacred books, having no affinity with the constructive principles of the
Western world and showing no trace of the arts practised by
Western nations, except in the slight resemblance of a few mouldings and
fragments of sculpture.
The chief structures of the country are temples, pagodas, and dagobas,
which are found in many different parts of the peninsular and adjacent
islands, resembling each other in general style, but with some local
peculiarities which have caused them to be usually classified in certain
comprehensive divisions, of which the following are the most important:
The Buddhist style, including the stambhas or lats, a species of
commemorative pillar, the stupas or topes, of which the best examples are
found at Sarnath and Manikyala, and the viharas of Bengal.
The Dravidian style, exemplified in the temples of Chidambaram, Tanjore,
Combaconum, and Madura, and the rock-cut temples of Mahavellipore, and
those known as the Kylas at Ellora.
The Indo-Aryan, or Northern, comprising the temples of Kanaruc,
Bhuwaneswur, Jajepur, and Cuttack, in the province of Orissa.
The stupas, or dagobas, were a form of structure specially erected for
the purposes of Buddhist worship. They were sometimes built in the
shape of a square tower upon rising ground, of which that at Sarnath,
north of Benares, is the best known. The more important, however, are
cylindrical and surmounted by a semicircular dome. These are usually
erected on artificial mounds or tumuli, and are constructed either with
jointed stones or with rough blocks bedded in cement. The interiors are
of solid masonry, with the exception of a small square chamber, used as
a repository for sacred emblems, the walls of which are continued up to
the top of the dome. The stupa at Manikyala, is of great size, being
upward of eighty feet in height, and measuring some three hundred feet in
circumference. The base of the building is in the form of a cylinder, six
or seven feet high, supporting an attic decorated with pilasters; above
this the walls recede, and are capped by a hemispherical dome. There are
a great number of dagobas in Ceylon, in the mountainous districts. They
are usually placed in a walled enclosure, and surrounded by commemorative
pillars. Smaller constructions of the same description are found in the
interior of some of the temples, being placed where the baldachins, or
altars, would be placed in Christian edifices.
The rock temples of India are of two classes, the one consisting of
grottos hollowed in the mountain side, and the other of a series of
monolithic buildings cut bodily out of the solid rock, and detached from
the surrounding hill plateaus by wide excavated areas.
The former, resembling the speos of Egypt, consists of long galleries,
divided into aisles by piers of the natural rock left at regular
intervals to sustain the superincumbent mass. A recess or sanctuary is
placed at one extremity, containing the statue of the divinity to whom
the temple is dedicated. In some cases the interior is terminated by a
semicircular apse with a hemispherical vault, and the entrance preceded
by a vestibule containing votive figures, the whole forming a plan very
similar to that of the Latin basilicas, which will be described in a
subsequent chapter. The grottos are frequently excavated in several
stories and connected by corridors and ramps.
The walls or sides are ornamented with rude sculptures, representing
various forms of animal life and monstrous creations of native fancy. The
piers or pillars are generally either square or octagonal, decorated with
mouldings and flutings, and having well defined capitals and bases. The
capitals usually support a stone beam or bracket, evidently in imitation
of those used in wooden construction, in which a similar expedient would
be employed to distribute the sustaining power over a wider surface
than that directly above the column or post. This imitation of wooden
forms, which we have already noticed in Egypt, is found universally in
all ancient constructions showing that in nearly every country wooden
architecture was employed before stone.
The group known as the Kylas of Ellora, is the finest example of the
temples fashioned both inside and outside from the solid rock.
The whole edifice is monolithic and situated in an oblong court formed by
a trench excavated “vivo saxo” on the four sides. The exterior surfaces
are richly carved, and the piers shaped to represent elephants, lions,
and fantastic creatures supporting the superstructure on their backs.
The court is entered from a monumental porch, the upper story of which
is connected with a small chapel by a bridge. This chapel is flanked by
two colossal elephants, and by two columns or towers standing isolated
on either side. A second bridge leads from this to the hall of Shiva,
the chief room in the suite, which is divided by sixteen columns, with
corresponding pilasters on the walls. At the farther extremity is the
sanctuary containing the statue of the presiding divinity. Beyond this
are open terraces, surrounded by chapels. The great hall is connected
laterally with subterranean chambers in the surrounding cliffs, reached
also from excavated corridors which follow the perimeter of the court,
the mass above being sustained by square piers spaced at short distances
apart.
The inside walls are decorated with bass-reliefs and the ceilings
ornamented with stucco relievos, which were originally brilliantly
painted. The height of the hall of Shiva is about fifty feet, the
hillside opposite to it being about ninety feet high.
These temples may be said to be the most remarkable and unique
architectural productions to be found anywhere. They are examples of
long-continued perseverance and patience, and can only be the result
of a preconceived design which must have been thoroughly studied in
all its elaborate detail before the first stroke was given toward
its realization. The unity of conception and execution exhibited in
such works is truly wonderful, and it is not astonishing that the
superstitious natives should attribute their creation to Visvakarma,
the heavenly architect. On the other hand, there are but few practical
lessons to be learned from their examination. Such methods are not
possible in our day, nor if so, would they be desirable. Architecture
of this kind is scarcely more than wholesale sculpture, and as such can
in no sense compare favourably with the grace of form and scientific
construction which we see in the works of Greek and Gothic artists.
The Pagodas are the most important of the buildings constructed with
jointed materials. They consist of vast enclosures containing numerous
religious and domestic edifices. There are often double or triple
series of enclosing walls of great height and thickness. The sides are
usually placed so as to face the points of the compass and each contains
a monumental entrance, richly sculptured, and adorned with bands of
embossed copper.
The chief buildings within are the temple proper, or vimana, and a
number of hypostylic halls with small sanctuaries dedicated to different
divinities.
The form of the vimana differs in the North and South of India. In both
cases it is pyramidal, but while in the Southern temples the plan is
rectangular and the elevations marked by a series of horizontal stories
and mouldings, in the North the exterior surfaces are convex and the
outlines curved, showing vertical instead of horizontal divisions. The
lower story, containing the idol, is usually a hollow cube of granite,
and serves as a base to the pyramid above, which is most frequently built
of brick with stucco facing.
The halls are composed of a great number of columns of varied design,
placed in parallel rows. The ceilings are formed by stone beams or slabs
resting upon the columns. The central aisle is frequently wider than the
others and is roofed over by a corbelled vault.
A tank of sacred water surrounded by an open colonnade is not uncommonly
placed within the enclosure, the waters being used by the infirm for the
healing properties which they are supposed to contain.
The pagodas of Tanjore, Combaconum, and Madura are among the finest and
most celebrated. They were built between the fifth and eleventh centuries
of the Christian era, and should hardly, therefore, be described among
the ancient buildings of the world, were it not that they are linked in
with the chain of the older Indian art too closely to be separated from
it.
In the period corresponding to the Middle Ages of Europe, Mahometan
architecture was introduced in India and many beautiful buildings were
erected in a new style blending the foreign art with the native ideas
and taste, but offering a marked contrast to that which preceded it.
Although China was one of the oldest of civilized countries it contains
but few monuments of great antiquity. The temples and palaces, being
built of wood, were exposed to fire and decay, and were often pulled down
and rebuilt. With the exception of the great wall and of the numerous
bridges crossing rivers or arms of the sea, there are no important stone
constructions to be found there.
The latter are formed of huge granite piers, spanned by massive stone
lintels, requiring the united labour of thousands of men to convey them
from the quarries to their destination and to set them in place. In the
mountains the ravines are bridged by iron chains suspended from cliff to
cliff.
The great wall was built as a frontier protection, and extended the
entire length of the boundaries of the country. It has always been kept
in repair, although obviously absurd as a fortification in modern times.
It is of great thickness, and upward of twenty feet in height. The
foundations are of stone, and the upper part of brick with stone facing,
the joints of which are extremely accurate. At short intervals there are
towers, placed so that the middle distance between any two is within
arrow-shot.
Chinese wooden buildings are all much alike, whether temples or palaces.
As a rule, they have but one or two stories; they are surrounded by
porticos, consisting of wooden columns mounted on stone bases, without
capitals, which are replaced by a species of bracket. The roofs
project considerably, and their angles are turned up, this form being
undoubtedly borrowed from the old tent habitations, which were composed
of hides stretched tightly on bamboos. The tiles with which they are
covered are semicylindrical in shape and are enamelled with bright colour.
The celebrated taas, or Buddhist towers, are of similar construction.
They are generally octagonal, and from six to ten stories high. Each
story is set back from the one below, and has a balcony and projecting
roof, with bells hung in the angles. The walls are covered with tiles or
paintings. A high staff is placed on the top and connected with angles of
the roof by chains.
The tower of Nankin, known as the Porcelain Tower, was the most famous.
It was erected in 1431, and but recently destroyed.
The Chinese have always excelled in artificial or landscape gardening. In
this work they build airy bridges, with open-work balustrades, pavilions
highly ornamented and enriched with painting and gilding, and boundary
walls with circular openings, disclosing vistas of great beauty.
Their commemorative gateways are of interest, as they have a central
opening and a smaller one on each side, like the Roman triumphal arches;
the heads are square, however, with brackets in the corners. The upper
parts are ornamented with figures in relief and inscriptions recording
the virtues of persons to whose memory they are dedicated.
Although communication existed between China and the countries bordering
upon the Mediterranean from remote ages, Chinese architecture, like
the Indian, was without influence upon that of Europe. It is only in
Western Asia that the first forms of building are discernible, which
were subsequently imitated or followed in European constructions. The
most important of these are situated in Mesopotamia, the fertile region
comprised between the Tigris and the Euphrates.
The political histories of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia are generally
treated separately, but the architecture of each belongs to one style,
which may be called the Assyrian, for its distinguishing characteristics
remain the same in all the great cities which were in turn the capitals
of reconstructed kingdoms and empires.
It may be considered in four chronological divisions: In ancient Babylon,
from 2234 B.C. to 1520 B.C., at Wurka and Mugheyr; in Nineveh, from
the fourteenth to the seventh century B.C., at Nimrod, Khorsabad, and
Koyoundjik; in the second Babylon, during the seventh century and after
the capture of the latter by Cyrus in the year 538 B.C., in Persia, at
Persepolis, Passargadæ, and Susa. A renaissance of the art may be traced
in Sassanian buildings erected eight centuries later.
The citadels, palaces, and other important structures of these cities
were usually built upon artificial mounds or terraces, strengthened by
massive walls. The materials used were bituminous bricks,
cemented with bitumen, slabs of gypsum anchored with copper nails and
bands, and timber for roofs and columns. Stone and gypsum or alabaster
were employed in Nineveh and in the cities of Persia. In Babylon the
only available material was bituminous clay, and consequently all the
buildings there were built of brick. At the present day nothing remains
of these but irregular mounds, from which but little can be gathered
toward an understanding of what their appearance was when entire.
Wood was probably used to a great extent, and was naturally most easily
destroyed by the fire of invading armies. The roofs, formed of thick
layers of earth carried on beams, in falling in, buried the lower
portions of buildings, and it is probably due to this fact that the
bass-reliefs have been preserved.
The surfaces of the bricks were frequently enamelled in colours, and the
wood-work was probably brilliantly painted, as traces of pigments have
been found upon the more durable materials.
But little was known of Assyrian art prior to 1843, when the excavations
of Botta, the French consul at Mosul, followed soon after by those
conducted by Layard, brought to light many ruined buildings, in which
bass-reliefs, inscribed stones and metals, and other important relics
were found, enabling historians to form a consecutive account of the
government, warfare, and arts practised by a people whose
cities have lain buried and whose very name has almost been forgotten for
over two thousand years.
The explorations were made in Nimrod, Koyoundjik, and Khorsabad. The
palace of Asshur-bani-pal, erected at Nimrod, in the ninth century B.C.,
is situated upon a terrace, or platform, approached by a wide staircase,
and preceded by two gates decorated with winged bulls.
These winged bulls, or lions, were placed as the guardian deities, at
the portals of all the great Assyrian palaces, after the manner of
the Egyptian sphinxes, not standing isolated like these, however, but
built into the masonry, one side or the front and one side only, being
carved. The head was human, with long beard and hair, and surmounted by a
helmet, the wings large and proportioned to the body. As Sir Henry Layard
remarks, it would have been difficult to find more fitting symbols to
express at once the wisdom, power, and ubiquity of a supreme being.
The chief apartments of the palace are a large assembly hall, 152
feet in length by 30 feet in width, and a number of smaller chambers
and banqueting-halls, ranged around an open court. The walls of the
great hall were decorated with bass-reliefs, representing triumphal
processions, carved upon slabs of gypsum eight feet in height.
The palace of Esarhaddon, erected in the seventh century, on the same
terrace, contains a large hall, 165 by 62 feet, divided in
its length by a wall, surmounted by a gallery of columns. One of the only
well-preserved ramps which has been discovered was that leading to this
palace.
At Koyoundjik, opposite Mosul, the palace of Sennacherib was found at
the Southwest corner of a mound a mile and a half in circumference. It
contained a vast number of courts and halls, decorated with bass-reliefs
and winged bulls, and two colossal statues.
The palace of Sargon at Khorsabad, erected in the year 704 B.C., is among
the best preserved. Like the others it is placed upon an artificial
terrace, enclosed by a wall a mile long on each side. It was defended by
a citadel of eight towers with doors flanked by winged bulls. The palace
was reached by a long, narrow passage leading to a court and entered
through three great gates. The bulls of the central portal were 19 feet
high. On each side were two bulls, 13 feet high, with the figure of a
giant strangling a lion between them.
The halls and chambers were grouped around two great courts measuring
about 350 by 200 feet. The hareem formed a separate set of buildings, as
did also the stables and outhouses. The walls were of great thickness,
evidently for coolness. They were decorated with slabs of alabaster,
enamelled tiles, and designs painted on stucco.
There has been much speculation on the method of roofing these rooms,
some believing that circular vaults were employed and others that wooden
beams, supported on wooden columns, similar to the stone ones found in
Persian palaces, were used for this purpose. The latter theory seems the
more probable, as the local manner of building is the same as this at
the present day. No traces of columns remain, however, and the spans are
in many cases too great to be roofed by single pieces of timber. One of
the most interesting discoveries made at Khorsabad was the gate of the
city, the jambs supporting a semicircular arch over a span of eighteen
feet. The gate was a double one having two separate passages, one for
vehicles and the other for pedestrians: the marks of chariot-wheels still
remaining in the pavement of the former. The sides were ornamented with
winged bulls, and the archivolts of the arches were decorated with blue
and yellow designs in enamelled tiles.
It had been long supposed that the Etruscans were the first to make use
of the true semicircular arch (_i.e._, formed of wedge-shaped stones or
bricks, with joints radiating to a common centre), but this discovery,
and the finding of pointed arches in the sewers of Babylon, by Layard,
places the date when both these expedients were known, at a much remoter
period, though even these are probably much later than the examples found
in Egypt.
No complete example of a Chaldean temple has been found, but there are
several the lower stories of which are sufficiently well preserved to
give an accurate idea of their size and details, and in the
tomb of Cyrus at Passagardæ, in Persia, we have probably a model on a
small scale of one of these buildings when entire. This tomb consists of
a platform of six steps, eighteen feet high, surmounted by a rectangular
chamber. The latter has a doorway and a ridged roof abutting against
pediments.
It has been surmised that all the temples were like this, consisting of a
chamber or cella built on the summit of a several-storied structure, each
story being either concentric and reached by a ramp winding around the
four sides or placed farther to one side than that immediately below it
and approached by straight flights of stairs.
The oldest is probably that at Wurka, dating as far back as 2000 B.C.,
known as the Bowariyeh. There are the remains of two stories, the lower
occupying about 200 square feet. It is probable that a third story or a
cella was placed above these, but nothing positive can be said on the
subject, owing to the extremely ruinous condition of the building. The
temple of Birs Nimroud, probably identical with the tower of Babel, is in
a more satisfactory condition, the upper story having been preserved by
a process of vitrification. The lowest story occupies a square measuring
272 feet on the side, each of the upper ones, of which it is supposed
there were originally six, being 42 feet less.
For the materials used in its construction we have the scriptural
authority: “Go to, let us make brick and burn them thoroughly. And they
had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar” (Gen. xi.); slime
being probably bitumen.
M. Place discovered the remains of a tower at Khorsabad, with a winding
ramp, which he thinks was originally seven stories in height. The walls
were strengthened with buttresses and decorated with sunken panels,
and from traces of colour found upon them it has been supposed that
each floor was painted in a different hue. The area covered by the base
is about one hundred and fifty square feet, and the total height was
probably one hundred and thirty-five feet.
The ruins of Persepolis are the best preserved of the ancient Persian
buildings, those at Susa and Passagardæ being in too bad a condition to
offer much that is interesting.
They are situated in the plain of Mardacht, upon a terrace partly formed
of masonry, and partly cut in the rock of the adjoining range of hills.
The wall is composed of huge blocks of stone fitted together without
mortar, but with the finest of joints. The terrace is reached by a
splendid double flight of steps, upward of twenty feet in width, and on
a grade easy enough to permit of the passage of long processions without
interruption. At the head of the stairs is a propylæum, or outer gate,
flanked by colossal human-headed bulls. Beyond this, a second staircase,
ornamented with a triple row of bass-reliefs, gives access
to the Chehil Minar, or great hall of Xerxes.
This building occupies a rectangle about three hundred and fifty feet
long by three hundred in width. It consists chiefly of a central hall and
three lateral porticos, the roofs of which were sustained by 72 columns,
36 in the hall and 12 in each of the porches.
Thirteen of these are still standing, and the position of all the others
is well defined by broken bases or shafts. They are of two different
kinds, the one having a capital composed of double-headed bulls, and the
other a capital with volutes, not placed horizontally as we see them in
classical columns, but vertically and resting on a complicated series of
mouldings. These last may have been also surmounted by the double-headed
bulls, as without such an addition the columns are shorter than the
others, which measure 67 feet 4 inches. The beams which they sustained,
rested upon the body of the bull between the two heads.
The shafts of the columns at Persepolis are fluted and taper upward from
the bases, which are elaborately ornamented with mouldings.
It is probable that the Greek Ionic capital was derived directly from the
Persian voluted model, as the order originated in the Greek colony in
Asia Minor.
The Chehil Minar is the finest building on the platform, the other halls
of Darius and Xerxes being smaller, and though a hall containing 100
columns has been found, it is inferior in height, the total altitude not
exceeding twenty-five feet.
The hall of Darius contained sixteen columns, forming a square, preceded
by a portico with eight more. The walls have long since disappeared, but
the façade of the building is reproduced upon the face of the rock-cut
tomb of Darius in the neighbouring hill called Naksh-i-Rustam, so that a
restoration of the structure as it originally appeared is easily made.
This tomb shows the four front columns of the porch with double-headed
capitals, sustaining an entablature, above this is placed an attic
decorated with bass-reliefs and a figure is represented standing on the
top in the act of sacrificing on an altar.
The stone buildings of Persia are generally supposed to be reproductions
of the wooden constructions of Assyria, as the character of the art is
similar in both, the bass-reliefs and winged bulls of Persepolis being
practically identical with those of Nineveh.
We find no traces of Assyrian art for several centuries after the
erection of the buildings just described, though it is probable that it
had influence in all Eastern edifices erected during the interval, not
only in Asia, but in Greece and later in Byzance. There was evidently
a revival of Assyrian taste during the dynasty of Sassanian kings who
reigned between the third and seventh centuries of our era. The remnants
of their palaces are found at Firouzabad, Al Hadhr, Serbistan, Ctesiphon,
and Mashita, where we find large halls vaulted and domed and ornamented
in a manner directly traceable to the ancient buildings in Assyria. The
chief peculiarity of these structures lies in the use of the horseshoe or
elliptical arch, which is found nowhere else. The porch of the Tak-Kesra
at Ctesiphon consists of a great elliptical tunnel-vault, 115 feet deep,
85 feet high, over a span of 72 feet.
There is more or less Roman influence in the details of the Sassanian
palaces, but it is not altogether certain whether the knowledge of
domical construction which they exhibit was derived from, or was not
itself parent to, Byzantine art.
Comparatively little is known concerning this Assyrian style, but it
contains interesting elements, and it may be that its constructive forms
are susceptible of a greater development in our own time.
Asia Minor, Palestine, and Cyprus are fields covered with the evidences
of the glory of past ages, but the ruin and desolation everywhere is
complete. The case of the temple of Jerusalem, where not one stone
remains upon another, applies in most instances in places which have
formerly been great cities, filled with magnificent buildings which were
their pride in the day of their prosperity.
The temple of Solomon was situated upon Mount Moriah, and was built to
accommodate the Levites, to offer a place of assembly for
the people, and as a temple for the worship of the priests. The two
sanctuaries were richly decorated with polished cedar and gold, with
columns and cornices of bronze, and divided by linen curtains embroidered
with purple and scarlet.
The peculiar formation of the hill upon which it was built, required
immense walls of the most substantial character to be raised from the
valley below to enlarge its summit, so as to afford sufficient space for
the erection of the various courts. “It was built of stone, made ready
before it was brought thither; so that there was neither hammer, nor axe,
nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building” (2
Kings vi., 7).
The temple itself is supposed to have been 60 cubits long, the porch
20 cubits, the Holy place 20 cubits; the width was 20 cubits and the
height 30 cubits. The porch, however, was 120 cubits high. (The cubit is
estimated to equal from 10 to 20 inches.)
The temple underwent several profanations, and at last was utterly
destroyed in the reign of Jedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar, 580 B.C. After
laying in ruins 42 years, the foundation of the second temple was laid
by Zerubbabel and in breadth and height was double that of Solomon’s.
This second temple was plundered and profaned by Antiochus Epiphanes,
and afterward rebuilt by Herod. It was considerably larger than its
predecessor and was made of marble and of the most costly
workmanship. It became the admiration and envy of the world, but, as our
Lord predicted (Mark xiii., 2), it was completely demolished by Titus,
A.D. 70.
Many restorations of the temples of the Greek colonists in Ionia
have been attempted, but they are based on historical descriptions,
inscriptions on coins, and other uncertain records, and are too
conjectural to be accepted as accurate. There are, in fact, but few
architectural remains sufficiently well preserved to be of interest to
the architect, excepting the temples at Baalbek and Palmyra which are of
the Roman period.
There are several groups of tombs, the most important being in Lycia.
These are of interest, as they illustrate more completely the transition
between wooden and stone building than any other examples. There are
two kinds, the one consisting of sarcophagi standing isolated, and the
other of excavations in the mountain-sides. The former are composed of
a stylobate or pedestal, serving as a base to a coffer ornamented with
uprights and cross-pieces and panelled doors imitating exactly a wooden
original. The roofs are curved, having in section the form of a pointed
arch, being probably the earliest instances of its employment as a
decorative feature.
The tombs cut in the face of the rock are of a similar description,
having the same carpentry framework. The upper parts are terminated by a
low pediment or by a row of stone logs supporting a horizontal moulding.
Later on during the Greek occupation, these wooden forms were abandoned
and replaced by porticos of the Ionic order.
In various parts of Asia Minor, there are remains of tombs similar to
these erected by the Pelasgi and Etruscans, which will be described in
another chapter.
IV.
GREECE.
The oldest architectural works in Greece are those erected by the
Cyclopes or Pelasgi, a race who came originally from Lycia, and moved
gradually Westward, peopling successively the islands of the Grecian
Archipelago, the Peloponnesus, Sicily, and Italy. At Tiryns and Mycenæ,
in the province of Argolis, are to be seen the most remarkable remains
of the buildings of this people, which were always grouped together in
walled cities, serving as strongholds to protect the inhabitants of the
province from the wild tribes with whom they came in contact. These
cities were generally placed upon a rocky eminence, difficult of access
and commanding a view of the surrounding country.
There are remains of high walls at Tiryns built of huge stones
extracted from a neighbouring quarry and put together without cement
or mortar, the interstices being filled with smaller stones. From the
fallen blocks lying scattered at their base it is estimated that they
originally measured sixty feet in height. At intervals these walls are
pierced by triangular doors and windows, the sides of which are curved,
forming arches obtained by corbelled or overlapping instead of wedged
stones. These Cyclopean constructions date from the seventeenth century
before Christ.
The Acropolis of Mycenæ is entered by a doorway formed of two vertical
monoliths of great size supporting a lintel, and called the Gate of the
Lions, from the carving above, representing two rampant lions separated
by an engaged column.
This city was surrounded by high fortified walls, and contained a place
of assembly for the people and rude habitations, the remains of which are
still visible. There is also still to be seen a conical or bee-hive-like
structure, commonly called the Treasury of Atreus. This cone is formed
by overlapping stones, curving gradually until they meet at the top of
the vault, which is capped by a large block. The doorway by which it is
entered is composed of slanting jambs of stone, sustaining a massive
lintel. This lintel is relieved from direct weight above by a triangular
opening, obtained by a similar process of corbelling. The Cyclopean
remains are of interest to architects chiefly on account of this system
of corbelled vaulting employed in their construction, which would never
have been adopted had their builders been acquainted with the voussoir
principle.
Dr. Schliemann has recently excavated the Acropolis of Mycenæ, and found
there many interesting objects of gold and pottery. Bronze nails with
flat heads have also been found within the Treasury of Atreus, which
were evidently used to attach copper plates with which the interior was
lined. Pausanias speaks of a similar treasury belonging to King Minyas,
at Orchomenos, and other remains of the same description have been
discovered in different parts of the Morea, bearing a resemblance to the
ruined cities of Etruria.
In fact, the various tumuli found in Western Europe, Sardinia, Sicily,
Greece, and Asia are all of the same type, and were a form commonly
adopted by the ancient nations.
When we come to the epoch preceding Roman architecture, we will examine
the character of Etruscan buildings, which were similar in many respects
to the works of the Pelasgi; at present the subject of most interest is
that of the great century of Greek art, for it marks the transition from
Crude Art, to which belongs all that has preceded, to Fine Art, in which
the Greeks excelled.
Greek buildings were erected according to the rules of three systems
or orders, of the origin and character of which Vitruvius gives the
following account, which, if not strictly accurate, is at least as
reasonable as some of the versions which have been advanced. “Dorus, King
of the Peloponnesus, having had a temple erected to Juno, in Argos, it
was built by chance in the manner which we call Doric; afterward, in
several other towns, other temples were built in this same order, having
no established rule for the proportions of their architecture. About the
same period the Athenians established several colonies in Asia Minor
under the guidance of Ion, and they called the country which he occupied
Ionia. These colonists built Doric temples there at first, of which the
chief was that of Apollo, but as they did not know what proportion to
give to the columns, they sought the means of making them at once strong
enough to sustain the building, and of rendering them at the same time
agreeable to the eye. For this they took the measure of a man’s foot as
the sixth part of his height, and on this measure formed their column,
giving it six diameters.[1]
[1] We have already seen that there are columns at Beni Hassan, in Egypt,
resembling so closely the Greek Doric, that it is reasonable to suppose
that the Greeks borrowed their conception of the order from the Egyptians
and refined it.
“Some time afterward, wishing to build a temple to Diana, they
endeavoured to find a new method, equally beautiful and more appropriate
to their purpose. They imitated the delicacy of a woman’s form; they
heightened the columns, gave them a base like the twisted cords which
bind a sandal; they carved volutes in the capital to represent that
portion of the hair which falls to the right and left of the head;
they put circles and rings on the columns to imitate the rest of the
hair which is braided and caught up on the back of women’s heads; and
by flutings they imitated the folds of the dress. And this
order, invented by the Ionians, took the name of Ionic.
“The Corinthian column represents the delicacy of a young girl, at
the age when the figure is slender and best suited to the display of
ornaments which may add to her natural beauty. The invention of its
capital is due to the following incident: A young girl of Corinth, who
was about to marry, having died, her nurse placed some little vases which
she had been fond of during her life, in a basket on her tomb, and,
in order that the weather should not spoil them, she placed a tile on
the basket. This, having been laid accidentally over an acanthus-root,
it came to pass, when the leaves began to grow, that the stems of the
plant crept up the sides of the basket and, meeting the corners of the
tile, were forced to curve downward, and to take the form of volutes.
Callimachus, a sculptor and architect, struck by the harmonious result,
imitated it in the capitals of columns which he subsequently made in
Corinth, establishing on this model the proportions of the Corinthian
order.”
[Illustration:
DORIC. IONIC. CORINTHIAN.
THE GREEK ORDERS.]
At this stage it is necessary to explain briefly that an order consists
of a column, the pedestal upon which it stands, and the entablature, or
top member, which it supports. The column is subdivided into the capital,
or head; the shaft, or body; and the base, or foot. The entablature
has likewise three divisions: the architrave, or beam sustained by the
columns; the frieze, or space occupied by the cross-beams; and the
cornice, or line of stone marking the extremity of the rafters. These
were originally made of wood and subsequently imitated in stone.[2]
[2] Viollet le Duc maintained that the Greek buildings were in no sense
an imitation of wooden constructions, but gave no very satisfactory
explanation of the origin of their component parts. It is perhaps best
to conclude that they were adaptations of pre-existing edifices to new
materials.
The Greek Doric column had no base and rested upon a series of steps in
place of the pedestal. The ends of the cross-beams were marked upon the
frieze by a projection, upon which were cut three grooves into which
the rain-water ran and fell in drops to the ground. These drops were
represented in stone underneath, completing an ornament which was called
a triglyph (meaning in Greek, three grooves). The spaces intervening
between the triglyphs were called metopes. The inclination of the sides
of the roof formed the lines of the triangular termination which we call
the pediment.
The Greeks employed three methods in their Doric, namely, the hexametric,
heptametric, and octometric, that is, a proportion of six, seven, and
eight diameters to the height.
We have seen what were the component parts of the Ionic and Corinthian
orders in the quotation from Vitruvius.
In Greek temples the shafts of the columns not only tapered considerably,
but the vertical lines of an entire building inclined to imaginary
points determined by the intersection of lines following
the inclination of the end columns. The mass was thus in the form of
the frustum of a pyramid, being intentionally so designed to bind the
parts of the building together in a manner to withstand effectually the
oscillation caused by earthquakes, which occur frequently in this region.
The city of Athens contained numerous examples of each of these orders,
and a brief account of the buildings of that city will be the best means
of showing their principal characteristics.
The city proper, in which were the chief temples, was built upon a
rocky hill rising from the valley of the Illysus, lying between the
mountain-chains of Pentelicus and Hymettus, and situated about five miles
from the port of Phalerum, on the Gulf of Ægina. This Acropolis (rock
city) is approached by a broad flight of stairs leading to the Propylæum,
or outer gate, with high pedestals on each side which were formerly
surmounted by equestrian statues.
The Propylæum is composed of a porch of six Doric columns, giving
access to a large vestibule flanked by two outer halls. This vestibule
is divided by a flight of steps, placed between six Ionic columns on
pedestals, supporting nine marble beams or architraves which carry the
weight of the roof.
Beyond is a second porch, opening on the plateau of the Acropolis by
means of five doors of different proportions. The lintel of the central
or largest door measures 23 feet, while the architraves are
17 feet in length and of single stones.
The Athenians prided themselves greatly upon the vestibule of the
Propylæum, and believed Pericles, by whose direction the building was
erected, to have been divinely inspired. The details and proportions
of the two orders here combined are of great beauty, and show the most
refined study. From the farther porch, the Parthenon (meaning in Greek,
virgin), or temple of Minerva, is seen to the right, exhibiting a fine
perspective view of its North and West elevations.
The temple is raised upon a platform surrounded by steps, and is
rectangular in form, composed of a cella, or oblong room, surrounded by
an open portico. It measures 228 by 101 feet, having eight Doric columns
on the front and seventeen on the flank, inclusive of the corner ones.
Ictinus and Callicrates were the architects, under the general
supervision of Phidias, who designed the gold and ivory figure of Minerva
within.
The Doric is of the hexametric order, having an approximate proportion of
six diameters of the column to its height.
The pediments of the Parthenon were decorated with rich carvings in
high relief, representing, in the one, the presentation of Minerva to
the assembled gods by her father Jupiter, and in the other, the contest
of Minerva and Neptune for the naming of the city. In the metopes were
depicted the battles of the Athenians with the Centaurs, and scenes in
the lives of Perseus, Theseus, and Hercules, in the admirable sculpture
of Phidias.
The building stood almost intact from the fifth century before Christ
to the seventeenth century of our era, when it suffered greatly from
Venetian artillery, and in modern times its richest sculpture was torn
from it under the Turkish régime, by order of Lord Elgin, who obtained
permission from the authorities to remove it to the British Museum. One
of the ships containing the marbles was sunk off Cape Matapan. Even in
its ruined condition the Parthenon stands to-day a great example of the
finest architecture the world has known.
On the plateau of the Acropolis are the three contiguous temples of
Pandrosus, Erictheus, and Minerva Polias, and the temple of the Wingless
Victory (Niké Apteros), of the Ionic order.
The temple of Pandrosus is virtually a porch attached to the larger
temple of Erictheus. It is composed of six female figures or caryatides
upon a high base, supporting an entablature without frieze. These figures
are of exceeding grace and beauty, and are models of the sculptor’s art.
The single cella was probably divided into three, to which access was had
separately by the several porches. The ceilings of these temples are flat
and decorated with sunken panels, ornamented with egg and dart moulds.
According to Diodorus Sicculus, the temple of Erictheus was
erected in his honour by the Athenians, in gratitude for his having
instructed them in the worship of Ceres, Goddess of Agriculture. While
Pausanias states that it contained the miraculous spring created by
Neptune, who shared in its dedication.
There are three windows in the wall of the cella—unusual features in
Greek architecture—and the levels of the temples are different, evidently
so arranged, with a view to distinguish them the more completely.
The temple of the Wingless Victory is supposed to have been erected
where Ægeus fell from the wall upon seeing the black sails of his son’s
ship returning after his victory over the Minotaur. Others again assert
that it was built without reference to site and so-called because the
Athenians considered victory would never leave them, and consequently
needed no wings. The temple is composed of a cella and two porches of
four columns each, supporting a beautifully decorated entablature.
At the base of the Acropolis stood the resident portion of the city,
containing also other temples and public buildings, which are still
standing. The most important are the temple of Theseus, the Tower of the
Winds, the theatre of Bacchus, and the monument of Lysicrates. Besides
these there are many Roman buildings, but they belong to a subsequent
period. Plutarch says that the Athenians under Cimon erected the temple
of Theseus on his return from Crete, and that it is of older construction
than the temple of Minerva. It has six columns in the front and thirteen
in flank, supporting marble beams the extremities of which rest on the
inner wall and correspond on the other with the triglyphs on the outer
face. The metopes had carvings representing the exploits of Theseus. The
temple stands at the base of the Acropolis to the North; it is similar
to the Parthenon in many respects, being of the same Doric order, though
less rich in sculpture. It is the best preserved of all the monuments,
having suffered but little during the twenty-two centuries it has existed.
The Tower of the Winds, erected by Adronichus Cyrrhastes, is an octagonal
structure surmounted by a frieze, upon which the eight winds of heaven
are carved in allegorical figures. The roof is a pyramid of marble slabs
and was at one time surmounted by a bronze triton holding a switch, which
answered the purpose of a vane, but has since disappeared. The building
was used as a water-clock.
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF THESEUS AT ATHENS.]
The choragic monument of Lysicrates, commonly called the Lantern of
Demosthenes, is a circular structure of the Corinthian order. The spaces
intervening between its six columns are closed by panels of a single
stone upon which trivets are carved. The stone roof is decorated with
scales and surmounted by a finial of delicate workmanship. On this was
placed the tripod of the choir which had been successful in the Olympian
contest of the year 375 B.C., according to inscription.
There are other Corinthian buildings scattered throughout Greece, but
this is generally taken to be the best example and its proportions
followed. The carvings of the frieze depict the exploits of Hercules, who
is represented clothed in the traditional lion’s skin.
On the opposite slope of the hill are the ruined chairs and benches of
the theatre of Bacchus, fronting an open stage. In building a theatre,
the Northern slope of a hillside was generally selected for the site,
in order to avoid the direct solar rays. Seats were provided for the
audience by cutting circular tiers in the rock and a marble stage,
profusely ornamented, was erected facing them. The stage was raised in
order that the orchestra might not interfere with the view of the actors,
and a portico adjoining it, served as a promenade during the intervals in
the performance.
The stadium, or circus, of Athens was formed in this way, taking in plan
the shape of a horseshoe. It was here that the public games and races
took place, the upper or circular end being occupied by the seats of the
judges. It belongs, however, to a later period, having been constructed
in the time of the Roman Emperor Hadrian. A few years ago the King of
Greece caused the stadium to be excavated, and several marble chairs and
seats were discovered.
Each city of importance possessed a Palæstra, or gymnasium, in which
were rooms for bathing in hot or cold water, for the wrestlers to anoint
themselves with oil and fine dust, and a school for young lads. The
building was enclosed by a portico and surrounded by pleasure-grounds in
which the public exercises took place.
The private dwellings were of one story in height, surmounted by
terraces and divided by courts. The women’s apartments were separated
from the men’s, and the larger houses contained banqueting-halls with
accommodation for musicians and singers. The furniture consisted of
tables in wood and choice stone, vases, candelabra, tripods in bronze,
and rich Oriental carpets.
Externally the houses were painted brilliantly and decorated with
wreaths, garlands, and arms. Outside the entrance door stood the statue
of the god of the household—Jupiter, Minerva, or Mercury.
The richer citizens preferred country villas to city residences, which
they surrounded with ornamental gardens and woods. The groves of the
Academy where Plato held his school in the shade of the olives, outside
the city gates, are probably the most celebrated of the latter.
The dead were buried in necropoli without the city, and their place
of interment marked by tombs in the form of pyramids or
funeral pyres, or more simply by a stella, or upright tablet, inscribed
with the name and virtues of the deceased, and upon which were carved
scenes in his life. In the colonies in Asia Minor the system of
excavating chambers in the rock was adopted, the entrance to them being
marked by Ionic columns supporting entablatures and pediments.
The public buildings of Athens were built of white marble from the island
of Paros and the mountain quarries of Pentelicus, resembling in its
fracture the purest loaf-sugar. The sun and rain have stained them to a
tawny red during the many ages which have passed over them, and nearly
all trace of the various dyes, with which they are supposed to have been
coloured, has disappeared to-day.
The Greeks built their walls of bonded masonry, the vertical joints
coming in the centres of the stones above and below, and they were
frequently additionally strengthened by metal anchors. In walls of
unusual thickness it was customary to construct the inside and outside
faces first and fill the intervening spaces with loose stones and mortar,
with an occasional through stone to connect the parts and bind them
together.
The joints were sometimes emphasized by grooves, but this ornament was
used more frequently in Roman work.
Until its introduction by the Romans the arch was rarely, if ever,
employed, and the limit of inter-columniation was restricted by the
necessity of finding stones of sufficient length to form the architraves.
The roofs were generally of wood, covered with terra-cotta tiles or sheet
metal, and left open at intervals for the admission of light. This is,
however, a disputed point, as the wood, being perishable, has left no
positive proofs of the method employed. It appears that an awning or sail
was stretched over these openings when services were being held. It is
probable that in many instances there was no light admitted, except that
from the entrance door. The effect of a religious ceremony performed in
the temples by the artificial light of torches, with the flickering fires
from the tripods and votive stands reflected upon the ivory and gold
of the statues, and the smoke wreathing weirdly above the heads of the
assembled multitude, must have been infinitely more impressive than if
lit by the colder light of day.
The Greek colonists carried the principles of their architecture with
them, leaving monuments of their genius wherever they established
themselves. Of the temple of Diana, at Ephesus, nothing but a few fluted
drums and scattered fragments remain to-day. It was the most magnificent
temple of the Ionic order, erected with lavish expenditure, and decorated
within with panels of cedar wood. It was burned and pillaged by the
Persians.
At Agrigentum, in Sicily, and Pæstum, in Southern Italy, there are
several Doric temples of massive proportions. Of these the temples of
Concord, Jupiter, and Neptune are the most notable. The columns are
shorter and their capitals broader than the Athenian type, and in one
instance there are two orders superposed, within the cella, to support
the roof.
The Greeks erected buildings in many parts of Southern Europe, in Asia
Minor, and in Egypt, and in later times, even under the Roman conquest,
they remained the masters of the arts, teaching their principles and
supervising the erection of the monuments of Rome. The race was, indeed,
peculiarly endowed with a genius for creating the beautiful, for though
we have but scant information on the subject of Greek painting, we have
preserved to us examples of sculpture which have never been surpassed or
even equalled, and in architecture, though many more elaborate buildings
have since been erected, nothing has ever been produced worthy of
comparison with the harmonious proportions and majestic simplicity of the
temples of Attica.
V.
ETRURIA AND ROME.
Etruria was peopled, from remote ages, by the indigenous inhabitants, and
by colonizing races from Asia and Greece.
To the latter may be attributed the chief architectural works of the
country; the ancient Etruscan walled cities resembling, in their general
construction, those of Tiryns and Mycenæ.
Judging from the remains found upon the soil at the present day, the
Etruscans used their knowledge of the laws of building principally in the
erection of tombs. Of temples there now remain no traces; but, according
to Vitruvius, they were composed, as a rule, of the rectangular chamber,
or cella, of the Greeks, which was divided into three parts, and preceded
by a porch of Tuscan columns. The origin of the latter he describes as
follows:
“The Greek colonists, having brought to Etruria, the Tuscany of to-day,
their acquaintance with the proportions of the Doric order, which was the
only one as yet used in Greece, they employed this order there during a
long period, in the same manner as in the country where it originated;
but finally they changed it in several respects; they lengthened the
column, and added a base to it; they altered the capital, simplified the
entablature, and, thus changed, it was adopted by the Romans, under the
name of the Tuscan order.”
Etruscan tombs varied with the nature of the districts in which they were
erected. In the flat portions of the country they consisted usually of an
earthen cone raised upon a circular foundation of masonry, with one or
more chambers within for the reception of the dead. The largest of these
tumuli was that called the Cucumella, at Vulci.
In the mountains, where material was abundant, it was customary to bury
the dead in a square stone chamber, surmounted by a pyramidal roof, and
entered by a doorway ornamented with the Greek architrave. There are
several examples of these at Castel d’Asso.
A third form of sepulchre was the hypogee, or underground tomb, the
entrance to which was marked by a colonnade of the Tuscan order,
carved in the face of the rock; the interior apartment being usually
rectangular, and reached by a staircase. The walls were decorated with
paintings, and the tomb filled with vases, tripods, arms, and other
votive offerings. The body was generally either placed in a stone
sarcophagus or laid upon a bronze bed. The ceilings in the older tombs
were either flat, being cut in the natural rock, with piers left as
supports, and ornamented with sunken panels, or constructed
of inclined slabs, resting against and sustaining each other.
The corbelled vaults, similar to those of Mycenæ, were employed for
a considerable number of these buildings, but were subsequently
relinquished for vaults of voussoirs, or wedge-shaped stones. The
invention of the semicircular vault, the joints of which converge to a
common centre, was long attributed to the Etruscans, but we have seen
that recent discoveries have shown that it was already in use in Egypt
and Assyria many centuries before.
This principle, however, was the chief feature of Etruscan architecture,
and its great legacy to succeeding styles.
Etruria as well as Greece sent artists to Rome, and the conjunction of
the methods used in the two countries produced Roman art.
“The Romans took from the Etruscans the semicircular arch, formed of
jointed stones; from the populations of the Campagna they obtained
the general arrangement of sacred edifices, the Greek orders, the
distribution and decoration of private dwellings. They drew thus from two
different sources, and endeavoured to unite two principles diametrically
opposed to one another—the principle of the Greek lintel and the Etruscan
arch. In doing this they show clearly that their ideas upon the arts were
but little better than those of pirates, whose acts are actuated by pride
rather than by taste, and who adorn themselves in spoils of distinctly
different origin, the mingling of which produces unseemly contrasts.”[3]
[3] Entretiens sur l’Architecture.
[Illustration:
COLUMN. ENTABLATURE.
PEDESTAL. BASE. SHAFT. CAPITAL ARCHITRAVE FRIEZE. CORNICE.
WASH.
OVOLO.
ASTRAGAL.
CORONA.
ASTRAGAL.
CYMA REVERSA.
TENIA.
FACIA.
ABACUS.
OVOLO.
NECK.
ASTRAGAL.
FILLET.
TORUS.
PLINTH.
TUSCAN. DORIC.
THE ROMAN ORDERS.]
Illustration:
IONIC. CORINTHIAN.
THE ROMAN ORDERS.]
[Illustration: COMPOSITE.]
In fact, the Greek orders, modified to suit the taste of the Romans, and
combined with the Etruscan arch and vault, formed the basis of all Roman
architecture. The scale of their buildings, however, was vastly greater
than that of those upon which they were modelled. The colonnades of their
palaces and the arcades of their aqueducts were to be measured by the
mile, the vaults of their baths were of prodigious span, and, in general
size and number, the edifices erected by the Romans exceeded anything
which had come before them.
The Roman orders were five in number, namely, the Tuscan, Doric, Ionic,
Corinthian, and Composite.
The Tuscan we have already examined. The Doric was somewhat more
elaborate, having additional mouldings in the capital and base, and
the triglyph ornament in the frieze. The Ionic and Corinthian were but
modifications of the corresponding Greek orders. The Composite was of the
same proportion as the Corinthian, the capital being a combination of the
Ionic and Corinthian.
The Corinthian order was the most generally used, its rich character
suiting the ostentatious ideas of the Romans. The superposition of
columns was a common method of indicating different stories, and
different orders were often employed where different-sized
columns occurred in the same building.
In plan the Roman buildings were rectangular, polygonal, and circular, or
combinations of these geometrical forms. The materials used were local
stone, imported marbles and alabaster, and bricks, which were flatter and
longer than the form employed at the present day. The Romans excelled in
their mortars and cements, which were of a strength sufficient to make
their walls virtually of one mass.
In bonding their stone they employed various methods, including those of
the Greeks. Of these, a favourite one was the building of exterior faces
only, and filling up the intervening space with broken stone and mortar.
In order to produce the greatest effect at the least cost, in the use
of marble, they resorted to panelling the external surfaces only with
thin slabs. Interiors were lined with stucco and frequently ornamented
with paintings, and the floors inlaid with mosaic. Roman mouldings were
sections of the sphere, differing from the Greek, which were hyperbolas
or parabolas.
The chief constructions of the Romans were houses, temples, palaces,
amphitheatres, theatres, aqueducts, sewers, baths, triumphal arches,
tombs and commemorative structures, camps, bridges, and basilicas.
[Illustration: PALACE OF DIOCLETIAN AT SPALATRO.
(_From Durand._)]
In, and in close proximity to, the Forum Romanum, or Campo Vaccino, are
admirable examples of nearly all these different buildings. The level of
the ancient market-place is several feet below that of the streets
of modern Rome, but in the excavated portions are to be seen the old
pavements of irregular stone slabs, laid upon concrete foundations and
worn with the wheels of chariots.
Many ruined temples, the arches of Septimius Severus, of Titus and
Constantine, the palace of the Cæsars, the Colosseum, and the Baths of
Constantine are collected here within a stone’s throw. By taking up each
class of buildings separately, however, we will get a better idea of the
nature of Roman architecture than by a description of isolated buildings.
Roman houses resembled in a measure the Greek, the different apartments
being grouped around inner courts. The rooms consisted of halls,
vestibules, banqueting-rooms, and sleeping-chambers, the women not being
separated from the men, as was the case in Greece. The courts were
surrounded by colonnades and in the centre a well was usually placed, to
receive the water from the roofs. Many of the houses were several stories
in height, but a limit to their altitude was fixed by decree.
The excavations in Pompeii have uncovered many interesting specimens of
private dwellings, richly decorated with several paintings and having
elaborate mosaic patterns on their floors.
In the city of Rome the palace of the Cæsars was the most notable example
of domestic architecture, but at the present day it is difficult to
discern among the débris and fallen walls what its original
plan may have been. Some paintings in the so-called house of Livia, upon
the plateau of the palace, however, show that the artists of the period
had attained a high degree of merit.
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE PANTHEON AT ROME]
Roman temples consisted generally of a cella or rectangular apartment,
preceded by a porch, the whole being raised on a platform, reached by
stairs and enclosed by a colonnade below. Occasionally there was a double
cella, with separate entrances and porches, as in that of Venus and
Rome; and there are two remaining examples of circular temples—that of
Vesta, on the Tiber, in Rome, and of the Sybil, at Tivoli—while still
another type, that of the Pantheon of Agrippa, had a circular cella and a
rectangular porch.
The Corinthian order was the most frequently employed, that of the temple
of Jupiter Stator being the richest, while those of the Pantheon, the
Maison Carrée, at Nîmes, and of the temple of Antonine and Faustina are
admirable specimens.
This last is one of the best preserved temples, being very nearly entire
at the present time; its frieze is of the most refined workmanship,
representing allegorical animals, plants, etc.
The temple of Fortuna Virilis is a good example of the Ionic order, but
this order was never a favourite with the Romans.
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE BATHS OF AGRIPPA CONNECTING WITH THE PANTHEON,
ACCORDING TO PALLADIO.
(_From Durand_)]
A debased form of Ionic is that of the temple of Concord, or Vespasian,
where the capital is altered to a considerable extent and a rope
moulding added. A remarkable constructional feature of this temple is the
relieving arch of brick, concealed behind the frieze, to diminish the
weight on the lintel below.
The great drum of the Pantheon, enclosed by a circular vault, is one of
the earliest examples of domical architecture. A notable feature in it
is the absence of the keystone, which is replaced here by an open ring,
leaving an aperture for the entrance of light. The walls are pierced with
niches and relieved by immense arches. The pediment of the porch is one
of the most perfect remaining; in height its proportion exceeds that of
Greek temples.
The temple of Diana, at Nîmes, is a remarkable structure, having three
aisles, the central one being decorated with niches and columns, which
support an entablature and a ribbed vault.
The ruined temples of Baalbek and of Jupiter Olympius, at Athens, are
among the most colossal of this class of building. The Corinthian columns
of the latter measure upward of sixty feet, and their capitals are of
singularly fine workmanship.
The Emperor Hadrian embellished Athens with numerous and splendid
buildings, which to-day have assumed the colour and ruined appearance of
the older constructions of the time of Pericles.
Of the temple of Jupiter Olympius there are scarcely more than a dozen
columns standing of the original one hundred and twenty. The Turks
ground up many of them to make lime for their mortar.
The Romans took their conception of the theatre from the Greeks. The
building was composed of two parts, the one devoted to the stage and its
accessories, and the other to the accommodation of the audience. The
stage was usually in the form of a rectangle, the longer side of which
formed the diameter of the semicircle, which was the plan of the second
part. The latter was composed of concentric seats in successive steps,
to which access was had by stairs radiating from the centre and leading
to an upper surrounding gallery. At the foot of these steps a space was
reserved called the orchestra (Greek, “dancing place”), usually occupied
by the senators. The stage, which was decorated with columns and niches,
was raised above the orchestra, and was connected with the actors’ rooms.
The wall at the back of the stage was carried up to the level of the
circular enclosing wall, and treated with superposed orders. The theatre
of Marcellus, in Rome, and those of Herculaneum, Arles, and Orange are
among the best examples.
The most celebrated amphitheatre (amphi theatron, Greek, “double
theatre”) is that commonly known as the Colosseum, or Flavian
Amphitheatre. It is composed of the arena or oval space, occupied by the
combatants, and of the “visorium,” formed by concentric seats placed in
tiers, one above the other.
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF THE SUN AT BAALBEK.]
It was capable of seating eighty thousand spectators, and upon its
arena four thousand gladiators have fought at a time. It was here that
before commencing their combats they came to the foot of the emperor’s
throne, saluting him with the celebrated cry, “Morituri te salutamus.”
The substructure of the building consists of vaulted passages,
communicating with the visorium by numerous staircases, and with the
exterior by the doors called “vomitoria.” The arena was surrounded by a
ditch of running water, and under it were chambers in which prisoners and
animals were confined.
The visorium was divided according to the rank of its occupants. The
upper classes occupied the “podium” or lower gallery, which extended on
either side of the emperor’s throne, at the extremity of the longer axis
of the building. For protection from the elements during performances an
immense sail was stretched over the building from posts inserted in stone
brackets at the top of the exterior wall.
The heights of the three lower stories of the Colosseum are marked
externally by arcades and superposed orders with engaged columns, Doric,
Ionic, and Corinthian, and the fourth and upper one by Corinthian
pilasters. The entablatures of each order are carried around the entire
circumference of the building.
Architects generally criticise this construction adversely, for “if,
on the one hand, the engaged columns might be supposed to serve as
buttresses and thus become a useful decoration, it must
be admitted, on the other, that the projecting entablatures carried
from column to column do more harm than good as regards the solidity of
the building. [The architrave having no longer the force of the Greek
lintel, being composed of several blocks supported by the arch below.]
The Romans, however, did not always falsely apply the true principles of
architecture. In the arena of Nîmes, for instance, the two superposed
orders which serve as buttresses between the arcades of the two stories
on the exterior of that building, are real buttresses. The lower order
is composed of projecting piers, the upper order of engaged columns; the
cornices follow the contour of each pilaster or column and do not form
those projecting belts which are placed so clumsily and uselessly around
such buildings as the theatre of Marcellus and the Colosseum of Rome.”[4]
[4] Viollet le Duc.
This amphitheatre was commenced by Vespasian and continued under Titus,
who dedicated it in the year 80 A.D. In the ninth century it was half
destroyed, and subsequently became a quarry, from which materials were
extracted for the construction of the Farnese palace and other buildings.
A large part, however, is standing to-day, having been rescued from total
destruction by order of Pope Benoit XIV.
There are celebrated remains of amphitheatres at Verona, Pola, Capua,
Arles, and Nîmes. Circuses and Naumachias belong to the same class of
buildings, the one serving for chariot and other races, and the other
for naval combats. The arena in each was oval in plan and from it rose
the successive tiers of broad steps upon which the seats were ranged.
At the top a portico decorated with statues enclosed the whole building.
The Circus Maximus was the most important of these, containing numerous
splendid statues and obelisks, and covering a vast area.
The aqueducts of ancient Rome stretched for miles across the Campagna.
The channel in which the water flowed was supported by one or more
arcades, superposed according to the height required. These arcades
consisted of round brick arches carried on substantial piers, and were
placed where possible upon the highest elevations of the country they
traversed. At intervals wide basins were provided for the collection of
sediment, and reservoirs received the water at their termination. From
the latter pipes supplied the baths and private dwellings.
In France the famous Pont du Gard is a portion of an immense Roman
aqueduct formed of three rows of arcades, which supplied the city of
Nîmes.
Bridges were constructed on the same principle; the arches increasing
their span according to the depth of the piers upon which they rested,
being generally of two stories, the upper one having double the number of
piers.
The Roman bridges and aqueducts in Spain are among the most
justly celebrated, notably those of Segovia, Tarragona, and Alcantara.
Bridging rivers by boats was a common method in use by the Roman armies
under Julius Cæsar. We have also an account of a wooden bridge over the
Danube, constructed by Trajan.
Under every street in Rome there ran vaulted sewers conducting all
impurities into the main artery, called the Cloaca Maxima, which in turn
discharged its contents into the Tiber. This sewer is one of the oldest
examples of the use of voussoirs, dating from the reign of Tarquinius
Priscus. It is covered by a triple vault, sustaining the street above.
Agrippa conducted the waters of several streams into the sewers and
appointed inspectors to keep them in repair and good order.
In the building of the baths of Rome, Agrippa, Nero, Vespasian,
Caracalla, Titus, Diocletian, and Constantine vied with each other in
the production of the most magnificent structures. They are to-day in a
hopelessly ruined condition, but from the numerous fragments of carved
marble and panelled stucco lying on their sites, and from the rich
paintings and mosaics of the baths of Titus and Caracalla, it is not
difficult to form an idea of their original splendour.
It is not a little significant of what their rich decoration must
have been to note that such marvels of statuary as the Laocoon, the
Farnese Bull, and the Gladiators have been discovered within them.
Besides the necessary administrative rooms, these buildings
generally contained a frigidarium or cold bath, a tepidarium or warm
bath, and a sudatorium, circular in form and covered in by a dome. The
walls, built of brick, were pierced with niches and supported high cross
and barrel vaults of immense span. It has been conjectured that the
Pantheon was the entrance hall of the baths of Agrippa, the porch having
been added at a later period when the building was converted into a
temple.
The chief commemorative structures were triumphal arches and votive
columns. The former were of two kinds, having either one main arched
opening, or a large central arch for vehicles and two lower ones on
either side for foot passengers. The arch of Titus in Rome is an
example of the first, its main arch being flanked by composite columns,
supporting a richly carved entablature, which is in turn surmounted by
an attic, inscribed with the dedication to the conqueror by the Senate
and Roman people. The bassi relievi employed in its decoration represent
the sacking of Jerusalem by Titus; a specially notable feature among
the spoils depicted being the golden candelabra with the seven sockets,
mentioned in Scripture history.
The arches of Constantine and Septimius Severus are of the second
category. They are covered with rich sculpture and are of very beautiful
proportion. Famous arches are those of Orange in the south of France,
Beneventum, Ancona, Rimini, Pola, and Athens. Everywhere,
in fact, where a victory was to be commemorated, or the termination of a
great military road to be marked, it was customary to erect an arch.
Another method of paying homage to great men was to erect columns
surmounted by their statues. The columns of Trajan and Antoninus in
Rome are especially remarkable. The former is the higher and of the
best workmanship. The pedestal upon which it rests is ornamented with
elaborate carvings representing the arms of conquered nations, and is
enriched at the four upper corners of its cornice by imperial eagles with
garlands suspended between them. A wreath replaces the torus or round
mould at the base of the column, and around the shaft is wound a ribbon
of sculpture, representing a triumphal procession, which terminates
at the capital. Isolated columns were also often employed for the
inscription of legal notices, as boundary-marks, or for marking military
limits.
The gates at the entrances of the principal cities were similar to the
triumphal arches. There are two especially fine examples in France, those
of Autun and Treves. In these the attic story is replaced by a gallery
connecting the two flanking wings, which are several stories in height,
and contain chambers which it is commonly supposed were used as courts of
justice.
Roman camps were regulated and arranged with military
precision, and were of two descriptions. The one, erected for temporary
use, was defended by a rude palisade of branches and a ditch, the other,
the “castra hiberna,” or winter quarters, was generally a permanent
structure, built of brick, containing within a square enclosure the
barracks, workshops, hospitals, and other necessary buildings. This
enclosure was divided by cross-roads, passing through gates in the outer
wall. The gate facing the enemy was called the porta prætoria, hence
prætorian camp.
Necrological monuments were built in various forms, from the simple
tablet to the immense mausoleums of the emperors. Just without the walls
of Rome are still to be seen the remains of the sepulchre of Caius
Sestius, a large pyramid containing a chamber several feet above the
ground level. Farther out, on the Appian Way, is the tomb of Cæcilia
Metella, a cylindrical structure upon a square base, of considerable
magnitude. The exterior is simple, the only decoration being a series of
ox-skulls in the frieze. This building was probably originally surmounted
by an earthen cone, after the manner of the Etruscan tombs.
The tomb of Augustus was constructed in a similar manner but on a larger
scale. The entrance was preceded by a porch and the exterior walls
contained niches. The conical mound above was planted with trees and
shrubbery.
The Scipios were buried in stone sarcophagi in a subterranean
chamber, which has been but recently discovered.
A curious monument was that of the Horatii, consisting of a rectangular
block of masonry, containing the sepulchre, surmounted by four stone
cones, grouped around a fifth and higher one. These probably had a
symbolical meaning, as a similar structure, called the tomb of Porsenna,
is said to have existed in Etruria.
By far the most magnificent building of the kind was the Mausoleum, or
Mole of Hadrian, the ruins of which now go by the name of the Castel St.
Angelo. The tomb rose conspicuously on the banks above the Tiber, on
a square foundation; its two upper stories were circular in plan, and
decorated with colonnades and statuary, and the whole was capped by an
immense roof, terminated by a pineapple of bronze.
The tombs of St. Helena and St. Costanza were circular structures similar
to that of Cæcilia Metella, the cone of earth, however, being replaced by
a dome. The interior of the tomb of St. Costanza was divided by columns
which sustained a vault connecting with the outer wall.
The practice of burning bodies and preserving their ashes gave rise also
to the building of columbariums, rectangular structures containing in
their walls receptacles for funereal urns.
In the valley of Jerusalem the hypogee was the form of sepulchre commonly
adopted, its entrance being decorated with a colonnade of
one of the Roman orders.
Basilicas were the law courts of the Roman people and places of assembly
for the transaction of their daily affairs. On the exterior, these
buildings were surrounded by numerous courts and porticos, where the
merchants assembled daily to discuss their affairs or to await the result
of the trials conducted within. In the interior they contained a large
hall or nave flanked by side aisles, preceding a transept or further room
which was terminated by a semicircular apse. This apse was occupied by
the magistrate while presiding in the cases submitted to his decision.
The ruins of the basilicas of Titus and Maxentius remain, at the present
day, in sufficient preservation to show that in the one a flat ceiling
of timber was employed, and in the other a system of intersecting vaults
similar in construction to those of the baths of Caracalla. There are
traces of several ancient buildings of this kind, but it is supposed that
many were pulled down by the Christians, who erected churches on their
sites, using the old basilica as their model.
The plan was, in reality, but an improvement on that of the Roman temple,
the side aisles and transepts being naturally developed additions to the
older cella to which the apse had been added previously in many examples.
The great administrative power governing the erection of
the buildings of Rome was one of the most remarkable features connected
with them. Architecture with the Romans was a means to an end, this
end being the construction of edifices suiting their requirements and
their desire for display. No scope was allowed for individual talent or
ingenuity, unless employed in the carrying out of a distinct programme,
laid down by those in power; each building forming part of a great
scheme, prevailing throughout the conquered world.
In Greece architectural works were produced in the different cities and
states under the guidance of independent artists, with the co-operation
of their fellow-citizens who were eager to attain the true principles
of art; in Rome and the Roman world, art was entirely subservient to a
system of politics which ran through all departments.
The vast wealth which flowed into the capital from tributary provinces
was the great mainstay which permitted the execution of so many vast
and expensive structures, forming a collection never surpassed. Roman
art corresponded with the national character, for it was coarse and
ostentatious, but at the same time vast and strong. The population
of Athens delighted in intellectual pursuits, in philosophy, in art;
it crowded the seats on the slope of the Acropolis to enjoy the wit
and satire of Æschylus and Sophocles, and the palæstra to witness the
development of bodily grace and dexterity, while the Romans flocked to
the Colosseum for the enjoyment of scenes of blood and carnage, to gaze
upon the slaughter of captives and the anguish of animals. The force of
their government, nevertheless, was unquestionable; their patriotism,
unlike that of the Greeks, was unaffected by civic jealousies or party
feeling; they trod rough-shod upon the nations, but they planted
everywhere the imprint of their heroic civilization and made their
capital the centre of the world, and left to it, for all ages, the proud
appellation of the Eternal City.
VI.
THE EARLY CHRISTIAN STYLE.
After the conversion of the Emperor Constantine to Christianity, in
the fourth century, the Christians who, as a persecuted sect had
hitherto held their religious observances in hiding, in the catacombs
of Rome, adopted the basilica as the most convenient form of building
for the purposes of their worship. The bishop occupied a throne in the
apse, surrounded by the presbyters or fathers of the church, and the
congregation of the faithful filled the central nave.
For several centuries this plan was but little changed, the only notable
additions to it being the continuation of the transept beyond the line
of the walls of the nave, thus making it cruciform; the occasional
substitution of double aisles, making five divisions in the body of the
church, instead of the original three, and the addition of a tower or
belfry.
All subsequent churches, whether Romanesque, Gothic, or Renaissance were
constructed on but slight modifications of this original plan, which, in
fact, was itself evolved from that of the Roman temple.
Illustration: PLAN OF THE OLD BASILICA OF ST. PAUL’S BEYOND THE WALLS.
A - Apse
T - Transept
N - Nave
X - Narthex]
The first basilicas erected
for Christian worship had double aisles; this form was, however, soon
discontinued, probably owing to the difficulty of observing the offices
of the clergy from the outer aisle. Of these St. Peter’s, St. Paul’s
beyond the walls, and St. John Lateran were the finest examples. The
first-named was built upon the site of the present cathedral, and was
removed in the sixteenth century to make room for it. Its dimensions
were of notable size, being about 380 feet long by 212 feet in width.
It was preceded by an atrium, or open court, surrounded by a colonnade,
in which the Christians met to transact their affairs. The basilica of
St. Paul’s was destroyed by fire in the early part of this century, and
a new structure resembling the old was erected in its place on a scale
of great magnificence. The columns of its Corinthian colonnade and the
floor are of polished marble and the wooden roof lavishly ornamented with
carving and gilding. The transept is enriched with mosaics, and contains
a baldachin over the altar, in which malachite and other choice stones
have been used unsparingly.
A typical basilica was generally arranged as follows: The atrium or
quadrangular open court, surrounded by porticos, preceded the main
building, or was replaced by a porch composed of columns sustaining a low
roof which was called the narthex. Within, the structure was divided into
a nave, side aisles, transept, and apse. The nave (derived from “navis,”
a vessel, symbolical of that of St. Peter) was loftier than
the adjoining aisles, the upper wall being usually panelled with pictures
and pierced at the top by a range of windows, from which the Gothic
clerestory was derived later on. In one or two instances where the side
aisles had a second story or upper gallery for the women, the panels and
windows were placed in the outer wall.
The interior lines of columns were usually of the Ionic or Corinthian
orders, having been taken from older buildings, but if new they were of
stouter proportions than the Classical models. These columns supported
either a continuous architrave or circular arches.
Wooden doors, often covered by chased bronze, were hung in the main
entrance and the wall above was usually pierced by a round window or
bull’s-eye, afterward developed into the rose window. At the other end of
the nave a wide arched opening, called the triumphal arch, connected it
with the transept.
An enclosure, separated from the body of the church by a balustrade, at
the upper end of the nave, contained the seats of the choristers and the
reading-desks.
The altar was placed in the transept and was frequently surmounted by a
baldachin composed of four or six columns supporting a light dome. Behind
the altar in the centre of the apse was the throne (cathedra) occupied
by the bishop (episcopus), being raised by steps from the semicircular
stone seats (exedra) used by the presbyters, which were
covered with carpets. The walls of the transept and apse were inlaid
with mosaic inscriptions and pictures, in which the head of our Saviour,
the figures of saints and holy emblems were the chief subjects. Deep
blue, purple, and green were the prevailing colours and the letters
were of gold. The floors were decorated with mosaic patterns. The roofs
were either flat with sunken panels framed with mouldings and gilded
ornaments, or else showed the open trussed wood-work, though the latter
was the exception. Externally there was no attempt at enrichment, the
exterior generally offering a great contrast to the lavish internal
decorations.
At the present day nearly all the basilicas have undergone
transformation, the old roofs have been replaced, the walls covered with
a modern adornment of pilasters and gaudy paintings, the colonnades have
been broken through to allow of entrances to side-chapels, or disfigured
by the heterogeneous decoration of the eighteenth century, and the
exteriors treated with renaissance façades.
Nevertheless the general plan and arrangements have remained
substantially the same, and we have very interesting specimens of this
class of building in St. Maria Maggiore, St. Agnese, San Clemente, and
others, in Rome, San Appolinare, in Ravenna, the basilicas at Torcello,
in the Venetian lagoons, and later examples in St. Ambrogio, of Milan,
and St. Maria Sopra Minerva, in Rome. The basilica at Torcello was
built mainly from fragments of an older church upon the mainland at
Altino. The bishop’s throne is one of the most interesting and best
preserved examples we have.
The Greek name for this, cathedra, was the origin of our term cathedral,
applied to churches containing the bishop’s seat, there being no
architectural distinction between the buildings.
From the tombs of the Romans the Christians derived their conception of
the edifices which they used as baptisteries. Their exterior walls were
either polygonal or circular, and of severe simplicity. The interiors
were generally divided by a row of columns sustaining a round vault,
and forming a circular enclosure in which the font was placed. A wall,
carried on these columns, contained windows, and served as a lantern to
light the building. This wall occasionally supported a dome. San Stephano
Rotondo, in Rome; St. Angeli, in Perugia, and St. Vitale, in Ravenna, are
the best examples among the many found in Italy.
San Stephano has a double range of interior columns, taken from Roman
temples, the one supporting an entablature, and the other a series of
arches. The church has been much modified by successive alterations,
and the interior is ornamented with curious paintings, representing the
sufferings of the martyrs.
The baptistery of St. Angeli is smaller, but has preserved its
original form in a greater degree.
[Illustration: ST. VITALE, OF RAVENNA.]
[Illustration: THE TEMPLE OF MINERVA MEDICA.]
St. Vitale is a type of structure much copied in subsequent buildings.
It is itself modelled on the so-called temple of Minerva Medica,
differing only in having an octagon instead of a decagon plan. Of this
Fergusson gives the following account:
“It certainly belongs to the best days of the Roman empire, if, indeed,
it be not a Christian building, which I am very much inclined to believe
it is, for on comparing it with the baptistery of Constantine and the
tomb of St. Contanza, it shows a considerable advance in construction
on both of these buildings, and a greater similarity to San Vitale, at
Ravenna, and other buildings of that time, than to anything else now
found in Rome.
It has a dome eighty feet in diameter, resting on a decagon of singularly
light and elegant construction. Nine of the compartments contain niches,
which give great room on the floor, as well as variety and lightness to
the general design. Above this is a clerestory of ten well-proportioned
windows, which give light to the building; perhaps not in so effective a
manner as the one eye of the Pantheon, though by a far more convenient
arrangement, to protect from the elements a people who did not possess
glass.
“So far as I know, all domed buildings erected by the Romans up to the
time of Constantine, and, indeed, long afterward, were circular in the
interior, though they were sometimes octagonal externally. This, however,
is a polygon both internally and on the outside, and the
mode in which the dome is placed on the polygon shows the first rudiments
of the pendentive system, which was afterward carried to such perfection
by the Byzantine architects, but is nowhere else to be found in Rome. It
probably was for the purpose of somewhat diminishing the difficulties of
this construction that the architect adopted a figure with ten instead of
eight sides.”
The plans of the temple of Vesta and of the baptistery of Constantine
have been placed here next to one another in order to show the
transposition of the columns from the exterior to the interior, which is
the chief distinction between the Roman circular buildings and Christian
baptisteries.
[Illustration: THE TEMPLE OF VESTA, SOMETIMES CALLED THE TEMPLE OF
HERCULES.]
[Illustration: THE BAPTISTERY OF CONSTANTINE.]
VII.
THE BYZANTINE STYLE.
Constantine and his mother St. Helena built churches in Bethlehem,
Jerusalem, and Antioch, and embellished Constantinople with numerous
splendid edifices. The Eastern basilicas preserved the same character
in their construction as those of Italy, but their component parts were
more homogeneous, the materials being specially prepared, instead of
being borrowed from ancient buildings. The first vigour of emancipated
Christianity found vent not only in the erection of edifices devoted to
its religious observances, but in the infliction of irreparable injury
upon the pagan monuments of Greece and Rome. Constantine brought many
fragments of these Classical buildings to the new capital, but they have
been destroyed, together with the palaces, churches, and baths which he
built there, in successive invasions, by fire, or by earthquakes.
In Thessalonica there are two good examples of early basilicas—the old
mosque and the five-aisled church of St. Demetrius; and in Northern Syria
there are many admirable specimens. Of these the churches
at Rouheilia, Kalb-Louzeh, and Tourmanim deserve special mention.
The latter is a particularly successful building, designed in the new
style growing out of the older Roman one, and is a model structure, being
constructed exactly in accordance with the requirements of the early
Church.
In plan, the Syrian conventual buildings depart but slightly from that
of the basilicas of Rome, but in their interior treatment they show
a gradual secession from the rules which govern Classical buildings,
retaining only their useful and discarding their merely ornamental
features.
When the seat of the empire had been transferred to Byzance, the
Christians carried with them the principles of the arch and the vault and
combined them in a new form of structure. This construction, differing
from that employed in Rome, combined with Eastern or late Greek forms of
ornament, produced a new style called the Byzantine.
The distinctive feature of this method of construction was the placing of
the circular dome, not upon a cylindrical drum, as had been done by the
Romans in the Pantheon and other buildings, but upon four walls, square
in plan, surmounted by semicircular arches, with the intervening spaces
occupied by pendentives. To each side of this central square was joined
a nave of the same length, forming thus in plan a Greek cross, that is,
one having each arm equally long. These naves were usually short, more
frequently semicircular than rectangular, and often terminated by an apse.
[Illustration: THE PENDENTIVE SYSTEM IN BYZANTINE DOMES.]
We have seen, in the baptistery of St. Vitale, at Ravenna (in which Greek
artists were undoubtedly employed), a tendency to reduce the number of
sides of polygonal buildings supporting circular domes; the architects of
Byzance were therefore merely taking another step in the same direction
when they placed the dome upon a quadrilateral substructure.
To comprehend the pendentive, let us take a circle and inscribe within
it a square; at the four angles of the square we will place solid
piers of masonry and connect them with semicircular arches. Let us
now suppose that a hemispherical dome had been built upon this circle
as plan, and we will see that the planes of the arches and the plane
passing at the level of the top of the keystones of the arches, in
intersecting this dome, would leave but four triangular portions of
it. These triangular portions are called pendentives, and are the only
portions of the original hemisphere which are actually built. As this
hemisphere would have been necessarily constructed of materials the
joints of which would have radiated from the centre of the sphere, so
also do the joints of the pendentives radiate from this same centre,
which is identical with the centre of the original circle. The plane
passing at the level of the top of the keystones in intersecting the
hemisphere describes another circle, upon which the actual dome is
placed. The question has not been established satisfactorily whether
the Byzantine architects really understood the pendentive, as in many
instances they resorted to less scientific methods of filling in the
vacant spaces between the arches and the upper dome, but the only
logical method of constructing it is that which has just been described.
In building domes, it was not uncommon in the East to replace stonework
by light terra-cotta pipes, fitting into each other, giving great
lightness and comparative strength.
Justinian gave a marked impetus to architectural work and to the building
of religious edifices in particular. He commissioned Anthemius of
Thralles, and Isidor of Miletus, to execute the plans for the new church
of St. Sophia, upon the site of an older building of Constantine, also
dedicated to the “Holy Wisdom,” which had been burnt during an emeute
soon after it had been repaired by Theodosius.
Justinian had already built the church of Sergius and Bacchus in
Constantinople, on a plan nearly identical with that of St. Vitale, at
Ravenna, with the exception that the whole structure was externally in
the form of a square, enclosing the octagon supporting the dome. This
served as a stepping-stone to the conception of the larger church, which
became the type of all subsequent Byzantine constructions.
[Illustration: CHURCH OF SERGIUS AND BACCHUS AT CONSTANTINOPLE.]
[Illustration: PLAN OF ST. SOPHIA, CONSTANTINOPLE.]
By comparing the plans of the Pantheon, the temple of Minerva Medica,
the baptistery of Constantine, St. Vitale, at Ravenna, and the
church of Sergius and Bacchus, in the order in which they are enumerated,
with that of St. Sophia, the sequence and continuous progress of
domical construction is at once apparent, and such comparison explains
the successive steps in a more satisfactory manner than a folio of
description.
“The church of St. Sophia,” says M. Texier, “is built on a square plan,
251 feet long by 186 feet wide. In the centre of this square rises
the dome, the diameter of which, measuring 108 feet, determines the
width of the nave. The dome is supported by four great arches and four
pendentives. Two hemispheric vaults abut against the two arches, which
are perpendicular to the axis of the nave, giving it an oval appearance.
Each of these hemispheres is itself pierced by two smaller hemispheres
carried on columns. This superposition of domes, whose points of abutment
are not visible, gives to the whole structure a lightness difficult to
realize.”
The church is built upon a foundation of béton twenty feet deep. It
is preceded by an atrium surrounded by a portico of the Ionic order.
The nave is entered by a double narthex, or porch, extending along the
whole width of the West front. The interior, both floor and walls, was
formerly adorned with rich marbles, and paintings upon a ground of
gold. The dome was built of light bricks faced with hard cement and
mosaic, and was lighted by forty windows. Originally a painting of the
Holy Father was placed in the centre of the dome, and four cherubim in
the pendentives. The latter are still to be discerned under the coat of
whitewash with which the Turks have hidden the original magnificence of
the interior.
The apse, lighted by three windows, contained the throne and seat of
the Church fathers. The columns supporting the great arches and the
galleries, originally occupied by the women, are of rare marble, eight of
them having, it is said, formed part of the temple of Diana at Ephesus,
being brought, together with the spoils of many Eastern and Western
buildings, to adorn the great edifice. The foliage of their capitals is
fine and sharp and intricately interlaced, having no resemblance to the
Classic models beyond a debased form of the volute which terminates their
upper corners. This style of ornament is a distinguishing feature of the
Byzantine style, and reappears in many examples both in the East and West.
The church, commenced in the year 532, took sixteen years to build,
during which time incredible sums were expended upon it. When completed,
the appearance it presented was most magnificent, resulting not only from
the rich marbles, wood-work, paintings, and mosaics with which it was
decorated, but also from the countless candelabras, curtains, precious
vases, and golden vessels with which it was furnished.
After the capture of Constantinople by Mahomet II., in the year 1453, St.
Sophia was converted into a mosque, and suffered greatly at the hands of
the Turks. It is only within recent years that any attempt at preserving
its original splendour has been made.
The architectural principles upon which St. Sophia was constructed were
reproduced in all Byzantine buildings in Italy and France as well as in
the Orient. In Turkey, indeed, the edifices subsequently erected are
almost counterparts of the original structure, the mosque of Suleiman
and that of Achmet, built as late as 1610, embodying almost identical
features of construction.
In Athens there are two or three small Byzantine churches, which, though
differing greatly in point of size, are founded upon the plan of the
mother church; and in Asia Minor generally and Armenia especially, there
are a great number; notably the churches of Daghour and Pitzounda and the
cathedral of Anim.
The decoration of some of the latter differs from the usual Byzantine
methods in the frequent revival of Classic forms, and in the use of thin
pilasters, carrying blind arches on the exterior.
This feature reappears in the buildings of Italy, influenced by the
style, particularly at Pisa.
In some later buildings a new manner of obtaining light was introduced,
by raising the dome upon a cylindrical drum, supported by the four arches
and pendentives of the older system. St. Nicodemus, of Athens, is one
of the best examples of this.
When the body of St. Mark was brought to Venice, having been stolen from
Constantinople by means of a clever trick about the year 831, the Doge
Partecipazio ordered a church to be built to his memory. The greater
part of this building as it stands to-day dates, however, from the
tenth century. It resembles St. Sophia in a great degree, the frequent
intercourse of the Venetian maritime population with the Orient having
enabled them to study the principles of Byzantine art, and to bring
spoils from the buildings of the East to their native city.
St. Mark’s has also much affinity with the church of Mone-tes-Koras,
in Armenia, the principal façade, with its five large bays decorated
with columns and arches framing the five doors which give access to the
church, being identical in general conception.
The interior of the building has the form of the Greek cross, the
four arms of which and also the central compartment formed by their
intersection, are roofed by domes supported on arches and pendentives.
The style of ornament is very similar to that of its prototype, with its
rich gold mosaics, frescos, and inlaid marble, some of the details being
essentially Oriental in character.
The constructors of the pendentives in St. Mark’s do not seem to have
properly understood that they formed part of a sphere to
the centre of which their joints should have converged, but filled up
the spaces between the supporting arches by a series of small superposed
arches.
The influence of this Byzantine construction extended into Aquitania,
in the South of France. At the close of the tenth century a number of
churches were erected there, with the dome as a prominent feature. St.
Front, of Perigueux, was built upon a plan closely resembling that of St.
Mark’s in Venice, and very nearly upon a similar scale of dimensions. The
architects of the church, however, seem to have distrusted the strength
of the semicircular arch, and resorted to the ogival[5] or pointed form
as a means of securing greater supporting power, although this arch had
not as yet been adopted in France.
[5] From augere, to strengthen.
They, too, failed completely to grasp the principle of the pendentive, as
those of St. Front are formed of corbelled stones with horizontal beds,
instead of voussoirs converging to the centre of the hemisphere of which
they should form part.
Besides St. Front, the churches of Fontevrault, Souliac, Angoulême, and
others in Aquitania were built with similar characteristics, though in
plan they adopted the Latin instead of the Greek cross. The abbey church
of Fontevrault is perhaps the most successful of these, the four domes
of its nave producing a very pleasing effect. The greater
number of these buildings were erected during the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, in an imported fashion, rather than in a style destined to be
engrafted upon French national architecture.
All of them show the want of a clear comprehension of the principles
involved, and are evidently foreign to the taste of the people.
The introduction of this style in France, offers a parallel case to the
introduction of Gothic architecture in Italy, a century or two later, for
in neither case were the styles in accordance with native inspiration.
VIII.
MAHOMETAN ARCHITECTURE.
The year 622 of our era is a remarkable one in historical annals, being
the date of the flight of Mahomet, the Hegira from which all events are
computed by followers of his religion. Within a marvellously short period
the new faith spread from the confines of Arabia, throughout Asia Minor
and Persia and all along the North coast of Africa to Spain, propagated
everywhere by the force of the victorious sword, until, scarcely a
century later, we find its promoters bearing the crescent against
Charlemagne, under the shadow of the Pyrenees.
As a political and theological narrative the history of the rise of
the faith of Islam, is a wonderfully interesting one, and to us it is
important as it explains the reason for the geographical position of so
many buildings, erected in accordance with the requirements of the new
religion, and therefore having a great similarity in all countries where
it prevailed.
The Kaabah, or “square house,” built by Mahomet at Mecca upon the
site of a temple which tradition says was founded by Abraham, appears
to have been the earliest Mahometan mosque. Mahomet had already
erected a building at Medina, but this seems to have been
not so much a house of prayer as a dwelling-place for his family. The
Kaabah has less importance as an architectural production than as the
centre of the wheel of Mahometanism, the faithful being directed to turn
their faces toward it when praying, and to regard it as the ultimate goal
of their wanderings.
The original structure was built by foreign workmen, and had no great
pretensions, but subsequently it was surrounded by a colonnaded court,
and by later additions was very considerably enlarged. Although the Koran
decrees that all good Mussulmen should make a pilgrimage to Mecca, it
does not uphold the Kaabah as a model to be followed in the erection of
other mosques nor give any specific directions of the manner in which
they should be built. It was therefore natural when the peace, following
their rapid conquests, permitted the Mahometans to turn their thoughts to
the erection of religious edifices, suitable for the observances of their
worship, that they should borrow inspiration from the surrounding nations.
The style they eventually evolved was drawn from Byzantine, Sassanian,
Greek, and Roman sources, and became native by adaptation.
In Turkey, Asia Minor, and Persia we find Mahometan mosques closely
resembling Christian and Byzantine churches, many domed edifices being
copied from St. Sophia and differing only in point of decoration,
while the atrium or courtyard preceding the entrance to
Christian buildings furnished the type for the wide colonnaded courts,
with porticos roofed with a succession of hemispherical or bulbous domes,
which became so common in Arabian buildings.
The mosques of Omar, at Jerusalem, on the site of the temple of Solomon,
of Wallid, at Damascus, Al-Azhar, Athar-en-Neby, Ibn Touloun, and Hassan,
in Cairo, are notable edifices, in which the columns are either taken
or copied from Greek and Roman temples, and in which the pointed arches
seem to have been suggested by the hyperbolic arches of certain ancient
Sassanian structures, such as the palace of Coroes, the Takt Kesra in the
ruins of Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, and the buildings of Firouzabad and
Sarbistan, which were mentioned in connection with Persian art.
One of the earliest examples of the use of the pointed arch is in the
Nilometer, erected on the Rodah, or Isle of Gardens, at Cairo, by Wallid,
in the eighth century.
This is a matter worthy of note, as showing conclusively that the Gothic
arch was no invention of the thirteenth century, in Europe, but merely
the adoption of a form used five centuries before in Egypt, and probably
universally known, if indeed it had ever been lost sight of, since the
days of the prosperity of Babylon.
Of the early mosques the most important are those of Omar and
Abd-el-Malek at Jerusalem and of Wallid at Damascus. The
mosque of Omar was but a simple vaulted chamber, oriented in order to
enable the faithful to turn in the direction of Mecca while praying.
That of Abd-el-Malek, called the Aksah, adjoins it and is an extensive
structure. It is chiefly remarkable for its general resemblance to the
basilica in its division into aisles. The columns forming these carry
pointed arches, built over connecting beams. It is not improbable that
this design was inspired by the order of the church of the Dome of the
Rock, adjoining it, built by Constantine, where the columns support
circular arches, over a continuous entablature.
Wallid, Caliph of Damascus, erected a mosque on the site of the old
church of St. John the Baptist, and employed labour and material in its
construction furnished by Justinian, Emperor of Byzance.
The mosques of Cairo resemble each other in a great degree. They have
usually a first court, giving access to apartments for the accommodation
of strangers, with baths, and stables for their camels, connected with
a second and larger quadrangular court, having a fountain in the centre
and porticos on three sides. The fourth side, facing the entrance, has a
series of aisles roofed in and forming the sanctuary, with recesses in
the rear wall, where the prayers are offered. Reading-desks, provided
with copies of the Koran, and hanging lamps form the chief furniture.
The minarets, one or more of which are usually erected at
the angles of the building, are special features. These tall, graceful
towers, from whose summits a crier calls the people to prayers five times
daily, serve a purpose similar to that of the belfries and campaniles
of Europe. The diameter of most of them is small in proportion to the
height, giving them a slender and beautiful aspect, very distinct from
another class of towers, of which the Giralda at Seville is the best
known, which were conceived in the same spirit of massiveness in which
the campanile in the square before St. Mark’s in Venice was built. They
are ascended by spiral staircases placed either within or without, and
have projecting balconies at various stages.
The building materials employed by the Arabs were chiefly stone of
different colours, combined in bands and patterns, and brick covered
with stucco. Enamelled tiles and multicoloured marbles were used both
externally and internally, while within, carved wood, gilding, painting,
and plaster were lavishly employed.
Of the forms of decoration, the chief were elaborate gold inscriptions in
Arabic characters, floral and geometric designs in interlaced patterns
of the most intricate combinations, coloured with all the profusion
suggested by the Oriental love of brilliancy and with the exquisite
harmony which we see in Persian and Indian fabrics.
A favourite form of decoration was that formed by a multiplication of
minute pendentives, called the honeycomb ornament, the whole surface,
as well as the dome above, being covered with an agglomeration of
minute niches, the effect of which is frequently compared to that of
stalactites. This form of ornament was much used, particularly in the
mosques and palaces of Spain.
In Cairo domestic architecture has a distinctive character of its own.
The houses have reception-rooms on the ground floor, furnished with the
divans, carpets, and lamps usual in Oriental manner of life, while the
upper floors, occupied by the women, have projecting balconies of lattice
wood-work, which permit them to see without being seen, and form an
agreeable and picturesque feature on the exterior.
The richness and the progress of Arabic art at a period when architecture
had sunk to the lowest ebb throughout Europe, is due in great measure
to the establishment of the learned academies of Damascus, Bagdad, and
other principal cities, and to the revival of Classic learning by the
translation of the works of Greek authors.
In Spain, where the Moorish and Christian populations were thrown in
constant contact with one another, the difference of religious opinion
maintained a wide gulf between them, and while the Christians struggled
with the difficulties of the Romanesque revival, their opponents attained
a brilliant era in art, as a result of their superior industry and
civilization.
One of the oldest Arabian buildings in Spain is the great
mosque at Cordova. Here, as in the East, we find Corinthian and Composite
columns, taken from Roman buildings on the soil, forming integral parts
of the new structure, but the Classical principles of building are in no
sense adhered to. The entablature is replaced by cinque-foiled arches
with voussoirs of alternate stone and brick; a second order of columns is
superposed directly upon the capitals of the first, carrying horseshoe
arches, and between the two arcades an intermediary series of trefoiled
arches is placed, springing from the keystone of the lower arches and
divided at the centre by the upper ones.
The general plan of the building consists of the usual series of aisles,
of which there are nineteen, with divisional walls. The sanctuary has a
vault with intersecting ribs, surmounted by a small dome and enriched
by profuse ornament, and is the object of much just admiration for its
beauty.
The chapel of Villa Viciosa, a later structure, has a series of arcades
similar to those before the sanctuary, differing only in the arrangement
of the intermediary arches, which are carried up to the level of the
upper arches from a horizontal course, and are cinque-foiled instead of
trefoiled, both on the extrados and intrados.
The mosque was begun by Abd-el-Rhaman, in the eighth century, and
successively added to during the four centuries following. It
covers a very large superficial area, upwards of one hundred and
sixty thousand square feet, and surpasses, in this respect,
most European buildings. Its chief defects are the want of height, which
does not exceed thirty feet, and the monotony of the aisles, which are
nearly all precisely alike.
At Toledo there are several Moorish buildings of merit, the principal
one of which is the mosque called, at present, the church of “Cristo de
la Luz.” It is similar to the sanctuary of Cordova in general aspect,
but is a marvel of intricate and minute workmanship. The whole area
which it occupies does not exceed four hundred superficial feet, but the
proportions are so nicely balanced that it appears much larger. There
are four columns carrying horseshoe arches, above which comes a second
arcade, and each division is roofed in by a vault of intersecting ribs.
These vaults are formed of wood, overlaid with plaster, and have no
pretension to scientific construction. Indeed, in none of the Arabian
buildings in Spain do we find anything of the kind attempted, the
decorative features being always the most prominent.
In the tower of Seville a species of vault was formed by thickening
the walls gradually as they rose from the ground until they met; this,
however, was nothing more than extensive corbelling, and, consequently,
very inferior to Roman and Byzantine methods.
The Alcázar, at Seville, and the Palace of the Alhambra, at Granada, are
the richest examples of Moorish architecture, and show in
their design and ornament the most fertile expression of the brilliant
imagination with which this warm-blooded people imbued all its creations.
The Court of the Lions in the latter, a rectangular enclosure, surrounded
by arcades, with projecting domed pavilions at the upper and lower ends,
is generally held to be the finest production of the later period of the
style.
The same materials are used here as in the other buildings—plaster shaped
in the most exquisite forms and coloured brilliantly, tiles ornamented
with patterns and devices of the most elaborate character, and wooden
ceilings carved and richly painted. All these are handled with such
correct taste that their brilliancy never degenerates into gaudiness.
A splendid fountain in the centre of the court, the lower bowl of which
is supported upon the backs of lions, explains the name given to this
celebrated structure.
The mosque of Cordova is superior, in respect to materials, to the other
remaining Moorish buildings in Spain, in which plaster is used to excess.
It is vain, however, to look in any of them for any distinct or novel
constructional departure. The lintel and arch in Greece and Rome, the
dome carried on pendentives in Byzance, were features giving character to
each style, but the art of the Mahometan architects differed only in form
and colour from its predecessors. The horseshoe arch with one and two
centres, that is both round and pointed, was used by them
almost exclusively, but it cannot rank as a constructional invention, for
the real arch starts only at the level of the centres, and the remaining
lower portion is a mere corbelling to obtain a form pleasing to the eye.
Any new method of construction always affected the surrounding parts, and
often altered the whole design of a building. It is obvious, therefore,
that a mere change in the appearance of an arch such as this, which
affects nothing connected with it, cannot be said to have created any new
era in the progress of building.
We hear the question frequently asked why a modern and new style is not
developed in our times, and the answer architects make is illustrated
by just this case, that is, that no new style can be evolved without a
new constructive principle. As yet none such has been forthcoming, the
only novel method of construction lately introduced being the employment
of iron girders and posts, which, from an artistic point of view, can
scarcely be considered an improvement upon the use of what are called the
natural building materials.
IX.
THE ROMANESQUE STYLE.
Some late historians have departed from the previously generally accepted
nomenclature of architectural styles, in designating under the general
term of Christian architecture all buildings erected between the tenth
and sixteenth centuries in Western Europe.
As, however, Christian building in Europe began with the conversion of
Constantine, this chronology is hardly satisfactory, and as the customary
division of Gothic from the styles preceding it, is on many grounds a
convenient one, it is preferable to adopt the conventional names, and to
distinguish under the title of “Romanesque” the outgrowth of the debased
form of Roman architecture which, influenced by Byzantine and Arabic art,
formed a distinct method of building throughout the West for nearly two
centuries after the year 1000 A.D., giving it the alternative name of
“Norman” in Normandy and England.
Previous to this date the long continuance of war and barbaric incursions
seem to have prevented the erection of any stable edifices; fire and the
poverty of the material with which they were constructed
having caused the destruction of the few of which an account has been
preserved.
Many churches subsequently built, however, were erected upon the sites of
these older ones and have fragments of the older buildings incorporated
in them. Of such are the churches of St. Germain des Prés, in Paris, and
Notre Dame du Port, at Clermont.
Under Charlemagne, a revival of art was attempted, the chief building
constructed by him being a reproduction of St. Vitale, of Ravenna,
in which he employed sculpture and ornament torn from the original
structure, and fragments from the edifices of ancient Rome; but this
effort soon died away, and the period intervening between the eighth and
tenth centuries was totally lacking in any architectural production of
merit.
As the Roman principles of architecture had been taken Eastward and
gradually transformed into a new style at Byzance, so also in the
West they had been the forerunners of another method of building, but
proportionately different in accordance with the character, customs, and
race of the Western populations.
The basilica formed, as it had in the East, the model upon which all
church architecture was designed, the nave, transept, aisles, and
apse being all retained in this new class of buildings, but many of
the building methods were new, and the details of their
decoration differed considerably from the precise proportions and Classic
graces of the buildings of Rome. The result exhibits a curious contrast
between the barbaric ornament and the scientific construction, which
advanced throughout the style in the genuine efforts which were made to
progress in the art of building.
Starting thus at the decadence of Classic art, with a Classical building
as the original type for their churches, the Romanesque architects
took up each of the parts combining in its formation, and sought to
improve or elaborate each, in pursuance of certain ends, arising from
local necessities. There is virtually no point where Romanesque ends
and Gothic commences, to give due reason for the conventional divisions
of historians, for the one style melts into the other in the continual
progress in the study of the principles of construction which was
steadily effected throughout both styles.
They differ chiefly in that, during the two centuries prior to the
thirteenth century, the pointed arch was rarely used, and that the
influence of the Classic decadence is more apparent in the buildings
of the earlier period. After this, the pointed arch became universal,
and the whole style becoming entirely distinct from its derivation, the
ornament and detail, quite unlike anything which had come before, it may
be said that a new style had been created.
This new style, which has been called Gothic, continued
to be developed until the fifteenth century, when its principles became
exaggerated, and it died out at the extreme point to which they could be
pushed.
It has been customary to call the buildings of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, built in the transition of Roman to Gothic art, Romanesque;
but the pointed arch was used in both styles, though, as stated above,
less frequently in the earlier one; and it should not, therefore, be
taken as the distinguishing characteristic of Gothic architecture.
The chief points wherein the Romanesque churches, which were the only
buildings of importance constructed at that period, differed from the
basilicas were in the methods of vaulting and their consequent effects
upon the whole structure, the elaboration of the apse, and the system
of connected supports employed. The main characteristics of the style
were the same in all Western countries, and these being known, it is not
difficult to distinguish the slight differences arising from local causes.
In the old basilicas the aisles, whether of one or two stories, were
lighted by windows in the lateral walls, while the nave borrowed light
from them, and also received it directly from a clerestory rising above
the roof of the galleries. As we have seen, these buildings were usually
covered by wooden roofs, tunnel-vaults or a series of intersecting
vaults thrown across the square formed by two of the columns of the
nave, equidistant from each other and from corresponding
pilasters in the side walls, being only occasionally used in the aisles.
The Western architects of the tenth century continued to build their
churches in this manner, and we have a splendid example of a timber
roof of this kind, as late even as the twelfth century, in Peterborough
Cathedral; but at an early period they sought to replace these perishable
roofs by stone vaults. They found the construction of the semi-dome of
the apse and the vaulting of the side aisles, either by a continuous
tunnel-vault, by a series of semicircular vaults perpendicular to
the lateral walls, or by intersecting vaults upon a square plan,
comparatively easy; but the vaulting of the nave was a much more
difficult matter.
The circular tunnel-vault would have been the simplest known method of
accomplishing this, but the pressure of a circular vault placed over the
nave would have tended to push outward the walls upon which it rested,
and this pressure being continuous, it was obviously of no avail to place
buttresses at any separate point, and to place a great number, side by
side, all along the vault, or, in other words, to greatly thicken the
supporting wall, was to take up too much valuable ground space.
In St. Front and kindred structures we have seen the problem solved in
one way by the introduction of Byzantine domes; but these churches were
confined to a province of Southern France, and had but little influence
in other districts. In St. Etienne de Nevers, St. Sernin de Toulouse,
and in Notre Dame du Port at Clermont in Auvergne, and others, this
difficulty is partially overcome by the building of a half vault over
the upper galleries connecting the tunnel-vault of the nave with the
outer main walls, and taking the strain continuously, the thickness
of the outer wall not being considered of consequence. This system
permitted the placing of roofing-tiles directly upon the extrados
of the vaults, and the entire suppression of wooden rafters, which
was advantageous in diminishing the risk of fire, although the pitch
was scarcely sufficient to prevent leakage. The great disadvantage,
however, was that the nave had only borrowed light, and in large
churches it was inconveniently dark.
Another method adopted was that of suppressing the upper gallery, and
bringing the arches of the aisles up to the level of the springing of
the main vault, so that the summits of the side vaults and the walls
erected between them, which were at right angles to the nave, served to
counteract the strain of the upper vault. We have examples of this in
the cathedral of Limoges and at Fontenay, but it is open to the same
objection, that of darkening the nave.
Still another system consisted in binding the vault over the nave by ribs
or arches thrown across to opposite piers, which were strengthened by
buttresses. These buttresses, however, were built upon the top of the
arches, thrown across the aisles, and did more harm than good.
[Illustration: ELEVATION.
ROMANESQUE CONSTRUCTION]
[Illustration: SECTION.]
There is an example of unusual construction at Tournus, in Burgundy,
where the difficulty is effectually surmounted by the building of a
number of arches at right angles to the axis of the nave, between each
set of piers; but the effect is far from satisfactory.
Finally at Vezelay, in France, the tunnel-vault was abandoned and
diagonal intersecting vaults were thrown across the nave, framed in
between semicircular arch ribs carried upon piers spaced at equal
intervals, the weight being thus wholly transferred to the four points at
the angles of each compartment. It was found, however, that these piers
needed strengthening, as the strain upon them was excessive, and it was
thus that external buttresses were resorted to, which were connected with
the piers by arches, called flying buttresses, bridging the side aisles
and conveying the pressure to the outer wall. A weight was placed over
each buttress, generally taking the form of a pinnacle, which stiffened
it and counteracted the pressure of the arch.
An illustration of this mode of construction has been attempted in the
accompanying drawing, which does not represent any special building, but
in which the chief characteristics of the style at this juncture have
been introduced.
The distance across the nave being usually greater than that between
the columns dividing it from the aisles, the rectangular
compartments of the vault were consequently no longer square, but oblong,
so that while the arches crossing the nave at right angles were still
semicircular those between the pillars were pointed.
The transition from this, in the thirteenth century, to the definite
adoption of the pointed vault was consequently but a step.
We see, thus, that a continual progress was made in vaulting throughout
the style, and the principle of concentrating weight upon isolated points
was evolved in order to vault the nave and at the same time give direct
light to it. In effecting this result, however, the original aim had
been lost sight of—namely, that of avoiding the use of wooden roofs;
for when the Romanesque architects abandoned tunnel-vaulting they had
to surmount their more complicated intersecting vaults by wooden roofs,
the perishable nature of which caused the ruin of many of the finest
buildings. Nor was the external appearance of these roofs any improvement
upon those of St. Etienne and St. Sernin, for it is a question whether
any more monumental roof has been conceived than that which is formed by
the natural outside surface of stone vaults.
In the old basilicas, columns taken from or modelled upon those of the
temples and palaces of Rome had sufficed to support the light brick wall,
carried upon an architrave or arches, which enclosed the nave. When the
Western architects resumed the building of churches, after an interval
of war and trouble which had proved fatal to architectural progress,
brick was little used and the formation of light masonry and good mortar
were lost arts. The slender Classic column was consequently insufficient
to carry the load of a heavy stone wall and had, necessarily, to be
replaced by a more solid pier.
These piers assumed various forms in the tentative efforts made to
construct them of the dimensions calculated to occupy the least amount of
floor space; some were square, others circular or formed of a number of
small columns grouped together, but for a long time no very satisfactory
shape was found which avoided a clumsy adjustment of the superstructure.
It came to be gradually recognized that the form of the pier should be
subservient to, and made to correspond with, the arches and the column
receiving the arch rib of the vault above, which it had to sustain. This
was effected at first by a square pier, with rectangular projections on
each side, forming abutments for the reception of the constructional
arrangement above. Subsequently these were replaced by pilasters and
engaged columns on each face, three of which supported the rear and side
arches of the nave, the fourth being continued up to the springing of the
vault, and redeemed from exaggerated effect by bands or string-courses.
There are good examples in France at Vezelay, Beaune and Langres and
Autun. In England the contemporary architects usually employed square or
circular masses of solid masonry, carrying a heavy abacus, these pillars
being sometimes ornamented with a fluting, as in the crypt at Canterbury,
or with zigzag patterns, as at Waltham Abbey, Durham, and Lindisfarne.
The capitals of Romanesque columns are especially interesting, for they
became constructively useful instead of simply ornamental, as were those
used in the Roman orders. The section of the arch rib being square and
the column round, it was necessary to afford support to the overlapping
corners, the whole surface of the projecting tile or abacus being
occupied by the upper masonry, instead of the line of the shaft being
continued up, as had been done in Rome. The capital was therefore made to
spread outward from the shaft in order to corbel the superstructure.
[Illustration: COMPARATIVE SERIES, SHOWING GREEK, ROMAN, ROMANESQUE, AND
GOTHIC METHODS OF SUPPORT.
1. Greek Lintel.
2. Roman Arch, showing False Lintel. 3. Vault Springing from Entablature.
4. Arch Springing 5. Romanesque Column, with Arches Springing from Outer
Edge of the Capital. 6. Romanesque Pier. 7. Gothic Pier.]
A simple form of this is found in many German, Italian, and English
examples, the upper part of the capital being a cube and the lower a
hemisphere. The early examples generally imitate those of the Corinthian
order in a rude fashion corresponding with the poverty of talent of
the period. The capitals of the twelfth century are better carved and
better suited to the services they have to perform. Figures representing
biblical subjects are introduced in some and in others strange animals
and conventional foliage, sometimes arranged as the acanthus leaf had
been in the Roman models. The proportions of the Classic column
were also departed from, the capital often being a quarter or a sixth
of the whole column; its height being regulated by the size of the beds
of stone, which were generally low. In Germany, however, the older
proportions were more closely adhered to. The quality of the stone
determined in a great measure the depth of the carving, the harder kinds
having less depth of incision and the style of ornament applied to them
resembling the Byzantine.
In France the Romanesque column has usually a third of the diameter of
its shaft engaged in a pier or wall, though isolated ones are used in the
triforiums, towers, and porches; in England the latter are common, and
recessed columns, that is to say, placed in an angle of masonry, are also
frequently seen.
The bases of Romanesque columns, at first simple round and hollow moulds,
gradually became more elaborate, until they resembled the attic base.
Occasionally they were decorated with foliage or animals, and there are
instances where both capital and base are similar. The introduction of
an angle ornament, connecting the torus or round mould with the corners
of the plinth beneath, is especially noticeable; this was effective in
preventing the angles from being broken by thickening the stone at the
weakest points, and in later examples added to the beauty of the base.
The arches of the period were usually semicircular and
employed either separately or with a second and broader one, their
contour being frequently marked by a few simple mouldings of degenerate
classic origin.
Two or three arches supported by detached columns, and comprised within
a larger one, were frequently placed in the triforiums; when three
were used the central one was usually higher than the others. Besides
mouldings: billets, zigzags, stars, and similar simple ornaments were
employed in their decoration. Where Arabic taste exercised its influence,
it is not uncommon to find alternate voussoirs of different-coloured
stones, and variegated bands in the piers.
The Italians were especially fond of this treatment and it is seen in
the exteriors and interiors of many of their buildings. To them is also
due the introduction of blind arcades, the columns of which were either
engaged in the wall or separated from it by an intervening gallery. The
façade of the cathedral at Pisa is perhaps the most beautiful example of
this.
In the West, arcades of this kind became a frequent method of decorating
blank walls, and there are instances where a second series of arches
intersect the first, resulting in a number of pointed arches formed by
the crossing of the circular ones; from this an ingenious but unfounded
theory has been deducted purporting to explain the origin of Gothic
architecture.
The doors and porches of the Romanesque period are among
the most beautiful to be found in any style. Starting in the earlier
examples with a simple, round-arched opening, the number of mouldings in
the arch became richer and of greater number, and, as the style advanced,
recessed and supported by columns. These mouldings were decorated with
the zigzag, billet, and kindred ornaments, many of which were probably
copied from the decoration of the old basilica of St. Paul’s without the
walls of Rome.
As the jambs of the doorways were generally built on an angle, the
contiguous shafts and arches sometimes gave the effect of an arched
passage in perspective. Such effects were frequently intentional in the
churches in Southern France, for we find that the walls of the nave and
vault of Notre Dame de Poitiers, and of other buildings, were purposely
made to converge in order to give the appearance of greater length.
It was not uncommon to give the doors square heads, supported by
corbels and occasionally by a central shaft; in these cases the arch
above relieved the lintel from the weight of the superstructure, and
gave the character of the style to the whole. The tympanum, thus
enclosed, offered a ground for rich sculpture, which was availed of
to the fullest extent. The outer door of a porch was usually richer
in design than the inner one; in England there are many examples of
shallow porches with single deeply recessed doors. In Provence there
are many beautiful examples, foremost amongst which must be mentioned
the porch of St. Trophyme, at Arles (see frontispiece). Romanesque
windows were but modifications of the doors; often having recessed
shafts at their sides and being frequently divided by a central column.
The bull’s-eye, or round window, of the early Christian basilicas
continued to be used, but it had not as yet the richness of tracery which
it attained in the Gothic period.
Classical features of design still retained their hold upon many
details, notably in the cornices, where the modillions or brackets of
the Corinthian order were frequently employed, and but slightly altered
in form, although of native composition. The corona of the cornice also
differed but little from the Roman models, and was occasionally supported
directly by engaged columns replacing buttresses, chiefly on the exterior
of apsidal chapels.
In the early Christian churches the apse had consisted of a central
semicircular termination to the building, flanked occasionally by two
smaller semicircular recesses containing altars. In the baptisteries
and Byzantine churches these had been multiplied, and had come to
be customary features in every new building. In England, the Norman
architects generally ended their churches rectangularly, without even
the original single apse, though there are a few examples in which it
is used, as at Newhaven, Sussex. In Germany it was frequently the
custom to affix apses to three sides of the square tower placed at the
intersection of the nave and transept, and the result was generally
satisfactory, as may be seen in St. Martin’s of Cologne, and in the
Apostles’ Church in the same city.
[Illustration: PLAN OF STRASBOURG CATHEDRAL (Compare with Basilica, page
89.)]
In France the plan resolved itself into an open semicircular colonnade
with a passage intervening between it and the outer wall which followed
the outline of a series of small apses. These formed an harmonious
cluster, and became a type which was matured in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries. Those belonging to the Romanesque period, however,
had a distinct and constructively excellent character which has rarely
been subsequently surpassed. Among the best are those of Notre Dame du
Port at Clermont, St. Etienne de Nevers, and St. Sernin at Toulouse.
In France towers were generally placed at the West end of the church,
while in England and Germany the usual way was to build them at the
junction of the nave and transept; in Italy they were often detached
from the main structure. They were characterized by simple solidity; the
openings being few and the detail bold; the angles were strengthened by
stout piers; the roofs were either of timber or stone, according to the
nature of the materials in the localities in which they were erected, and
they were usually lighted by the round-arched double window. This round
arch, ornamented with a few simple mouldings and reposing
upon short sturdy columns, forms a constantly recurring feature in the
composition of the several parts of Romanesque buildings.
The corridors which surrounded the square courtyards adjoining churches,
and connected them with the dormitories, refectories, and other
apartments of the clergy, are called cloisters. They differed but little
from the Roman “impluvium” and the “atrium” of the basilica, the changes
consisting chiefly in the addition of raised sills separating them from
the court, and in their being usually vaulted instead of carrying timber
roofs. The series of arcades forming them were treated in many ways,
and the detail admitted of much elaboration and variety, as may be seen
in the many remarkable examples throughout Europe. The cloisters of St.
Paul’s, at Rome, and the atrium of St. Ambrogio, at Milan, form very
interesting historical links between the Roman and Romanesque styles and
are very beautiful specimens of their kind.
It had been the custom during the struggling period of the early Church
to bury the bodies of saints in subterranean chambers called crypts, a
word derived from the Greek verb “to hide”; subsequently these became
component parts of all churches, serving as places of interment and for
the occasional celebration of masses. Their masonry was necessarily of
the massive character required for the foundation of the piers of the
church above, consisting generally in a grouping of columns sustaining
a heavy vault.
[Illustration: CHEVET OF NOTRE DAME DU PORT AT CLERMONT.
(_From Chapuy._)]
The crypt of St. Eutrope, at Saintes in France, may be mentioned as one
of the best examples, the pillars being richly carved, and the ribs of
the vault of great boldness and strength.
In Germany the crypt is often raised sufficiently above the level of the
ground to obtain light from windows, as at Spires, and this is sometimes
carried to such an extreme that the church becomes double, that is, of
two stories, as at Schwartz Rheindorf.
In England, Canterbury Cathedral possesses perhaps the best example, the
crypt being very large and its details varied. Some of the capitals of
the columns remain half finished, the work upon them having been arrested
by a conflagration in the twelfth century.
X.
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE.
Briefly recapitulating the preceding chapters: We have seen that the
Greek temple, composed of a cella, or oblong room, surrounded by a
colonnade, was copied by the Romans with but few alterations, the
only one of importance being the addition of a semicircular recess to
the rear wall. The columns of the colonnade having been transposed
from the outside to the interior, dividing the room in three parts,
longitudinally; a cross wall having been introduced dividing it
transversely, and the apse retained, the building became a basilica.
By extending the transept and nave the plan became cruciform and
symbolically the most suitable for that of a Christian church.
The Western architects, desiring to replace the wooden roofs by stone
vaults, found it convenient to substitute for columns carrying arches,
piers with engaged shafts connecting directly with the superstructure.
After various attempts to obtain direct light for the central division or
nave, rendered difficult by the necessity of counteracting the continuous
thrust of the barrel vault thrown across it, this vault was
finally abandoned and replaced by intersecting vaults, which conveyed the
thrust diagonally upon equidistant piers. To avoid increasing the size
of the latter to an inconvenient extent, an expedient was resorted to
which consisted in propping them from the exterior by flying buttresses
thrown from them to outside piers across the roof of the aisles. The
result of the width of the nave being usually greater than the distance
between piers was that, while the diagonal ribs of the vault remained
semicircular, their lateral intersection produced pointed arches.
This form of construction was developed during the middle and latter
half of the twelfth century. The pointed arch had been used occasionally
before by the Romanesque architects; it had been used frequently by
the Arabs, as far back as the eighth century, and had been known and
employed long before the Christian era in the sewers of Babylon. It was,
therefore, not a new invention, but a known method adopted in a fresh
departure in constructive architecture; for the circular arches being
abandoned and definitely replaced by the pointed arch the succeeding
architecture became pointed or Gothic.
This is the condensed history of the derivation of the style as generally
accepted at the present day, though the subject has given rise to much
controversy.
The concentration of the weight of the vault upon the piers, instead of
upon a continuous wall, was more or less the key to the
whole scheme of Gothic construction; for the main principle remained
the same throughout its many and varied examples. The idea was improved
upon gradually and finally pushed to exaggeration; the decoration of
the component parts of a building increased as the style advanced and
they were reduced to just the sizes needed for stability, but their
construction remained almost unaltered throughout.
We have followed the steps by which the form given to Christian churches
emanated from the early basilicas; this form of building, that is, its
plan and divisions into nave, aisles, transept, choir, apse, etc., had
become traditional and was generally accepted in all the best examples.
[Illustration: PLAN OF RHEIMS CATHEDRAL.]
The problem of accommodating large assemblies in the manner best suited
to enable them to concentrate their sight and hearing upon a given
point has been solved in various ways, perhaps most successfully in our
modern opera-houses, but this problem was not one with which the Gothic
architects endeavoured to grapple; their attention was devoted to the
improvement and embellishment of the typical plan of structure, which
custom and dogma had prescribed as the most suitable and in accordance
with the needs of the liturgy. The plan was more or less elastic, and
differed without material distinction in the different countries of
Western Europe. These differences are easily noted by comparing the
appended plans; the one, that of Rheims Cathedral, showing perhaps
the most perfect arrangement of any in France, and the other, that of a
typical English cathedral. The latter does not represent any particular
structure, but is a composition including all the usual divisions and
connecting buildings, taken from an old copy of Rickman.
_a_, _a_, Towers at West end.
_b_, _b_, Porches.
_c_, The nave.
_d_, _d_, Side aisles of the nave.
_e_, The cloisters.
_f_, Library.
_g_, North transept.
_h_, South transept.
_i_, _i_, Side aisles of South transept.
_k_, _k_, _k_, Chapels.
_l_, Chapter house with passage from the cloisters.
_m_, Central tower, cross or lantern.
_n_, Screen, over which the organ is usually placed.
_o_, Choir, at the east end of which the altar is
usually placed.
_p_, _p_, Side aisles of the choir.
_q_, Lady chapel.
In the thirteenth century the style was formed in all its purity;
it was characterized by great simplicity and beauty, and in these
respects was never surpassed. The arch had few mouldings, and these
clearly defined and graceful; the shafts of columns were of slender and
charming proportions, and the foliage employed for the decoration of
their capitals, while conventional, departed entirely from the acanthus
leaves of Classic origin, and assumed forms suggested by Western plants.
Piers were reduced to the precise dimensions needful, and
were formed of slender shafts, grouped together, which received the arch
mouldings on either side, and rose in the front and rear to the height
necessary to take the springing of the vault. In practice, the thrust
of the vault was found not to be transmitted directly to a point to be
received by an arch, but to two points above and below this theoretical
one, which necessitated the employment of two flying buttresses, the
one above the other. In Chartres Cathedral these are connected by
radiating columns, and there are many examples where the intervening
space is occupied by an open arcade. The French generally built their
vertical buttresses very massively, but in England the pinnacle was more
frequently used to counteract the thrust of the arch. For this purpose it
was eminently appropriate, and might be considered ornamental, but the
placing of pinnacles upon the corners of the towers and elsewhere where
they served no end, which was often done, was always a mistake; and a
defect which mars the effect of many beautiful English buildings.
In Notre Dame of Paris, we find the single round column still occupying
the first story, with the more complex arrangement of pier and connected
shafts starting above the abacus of its capital, but as a general thing,
a distinct shaft was provided for each set of mouldings. In time this was
replaced by a continuation of the vault mouldings down to the floor,
interrupted only by an occasional string-course, or a band of foliage
replacing the capital.
[Illustration: PLAN OF AN ENGLISH CATHEDRAL.
(_From Rickman._)]
Once the weight of the vault had been transferred to piers, the wall
connecting them ceased to support anything but the extremity of the
cross-vault comprised between the piers, and otherwise served only
as a screen. The Gothic architects soon took advantage of this to
widen the windows, which had been narrow in the early stages, for by
throwing a discharging arch just under the upper vault across the
piers the whole space underneath could be occupied by windows, which,
with the improvement in the making of painted glass, became extremely
desirable. This was accordingly done, the only stonework left being the
network of mullions and tracery necessary to receive the panes. This
tracery, probably suggested by the rich Arabic window fillings, made a
great advance during the latter part of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, the combinations of geometrical figures, chiefly the circle,
being often wonderfully beautiful. The rose window was much favoured by
the French in their West fronts and transepts, but in England the large
pointed window was generally preferred, and admirably suited the square
termination of the apse, which was the most frequently used in that
country.
The space enclosed by the pointed window had an outline to which it
was always difficult to adjust geometric traceries so as to avoid
clumsy joints, or oddly shaped patterns, and these were, therefore,
subsequently replaced by flowing lines, which could be used
with much greater freedom.
As these grew bolder they assumed a flame-like appearance, and the later
period of the style to which they belong was, in consequence, called
“Flamboyant.” This development occurred chiefly in France, some of the
best examples being in the church of St. Ouen, at Rouen.
The simplest form of the Gothic vault was that in which the compartment
comprised between two piers on one side and two on the opposite side
of the nave was marked by two ribs bridging it, and two diagonal ribs
intersecting each other. As the system advanced the vault became more
complex by the addition of other ribs, as strengtheners or as ornaments,
until in some examples the whole vault became a network of intersecting
ribs.
These intersections were frequently emphasized by a keystone or by
an ornament called a boss, which in English work was also placed at
intervals along string-courses, breaking the continuity after the manner
of modillions in Classic cornices.
A keystone placed in the centre of a vault was held there by a
combination of great strength, as it became a point of abutment for all
the main ribs, whose thrust was distributed against four piers and hence
exteriorly by buttresses to the ground. A good stone, therefore, in
this position could have extraordinary dimensions, and was susceptible
of a variety of treatment. In some French examples it was
extended, or rather hung, considerably below the surface of the vault
and ornamentally carved, while in England, in the late so-called
Perpendicular Gothic, it formed the centre of a large pendant, or
circular hanging ornament, which in some cases came down almost to the
level of the springing of the ribs.
This construction was used chiefly in connection with the fan-vaulting,
in which English architects excelled, which may indeed be said to be an
English invention and monopoly, as no examples of it are found elsewhere.
The name explains, in measure, the form taken by the ribs, which,
spreading out from the sheaf of mouldings in the pier, trace a perfect
semicircle on the upper ceiling, their intervening spaces being occupied
by panels. The four semicircles thus traced by the ribs, starting from
four piers of a compartment, are each tangent to a central and whole
circle forming the contour of the pendant.
To be successful this requires that the compartment or space included
between four piers, two on each side of the nave or choir, should
be a square, otherwise the circles do not touch, and the lines are
inharmonious.
The chapels of Henry the Seventh, at Westminster, and of St. George,
at Windsor, contain the best examples of fan-vaulting, and are very
beautiful in general effect, though it is questionable whether such
constructive tricks are worthy of unrestricted praise, while the abuse
of panelling in which English architects indulged in these later Gothic
buildings, by which the whole wall and ceiling surface was cut up in an
unending repetition, was certainly blameworthy, and tended to reduce
their art to a mechanical science.
They excelled, however, in all mechanical workmanship, in which perhaps
that employed in the execution of timber roofs is the most remarkable.
These were in a measure, at least upon so large a scale, a feature wholly
English, for nothing approaching them is found elsewhere. The roof of
Westminster Hall is the most justly celebrated and is unique in general
character.
The natural stonework showing all its joints was generally left untouched
in the interior of Gothic buildings, and afforded the best finish as well
as contrast to the stained glass in the windows.
Polychrome decoration was attempted occasionally, chiefly on the
Continent, and in some instances successfully. The best examples are the
restorations of the Ste. Chapelle and St. Germain des Prés, in Paris,
though the latter belongs more properly to the Romanesque period. Many
churches have been completely spoiled as regards their inside appearance
by coats of whitewash applied to the whole interior surface, giving them
a bleak and barn-like aspect fatal to architectural effect; this is
especially frequent in Belgium.
This whitewash, coupled with horribly incongruous late
Renaissance decoration, has gone far in many cases to ruin what would
otherwise be fine buildings.
Externally all _good_ Gothic buildings showed a direct correspondence
with the interior: buttresses, flying buttresses, pinnacles, etc., were
all constructive and never decorative devices; there was never such a
thing as a façade or false front built independently of the interior,
and though the harmony of the lines of both were often difficult to
reconcile, it was just in the overcoming of such difficulties that the
brilliant qualities of Gothic architects were called forth.
In the arrangement of the West fronts the French were at their best,
for the combination of deeply recessed porches with the rose window and
gable above, flanked by the towers, which in France were usually placed
here, was both judicious and effective. In England such porches as those
of Rheims, or deep openings, such as the entrances to the cathedral of
Paris, were not used, and the West elevations are consequently less
interesting. Peterborough is an exception to this rule, but the design is
so exaggerated, that the three immense arcades dwarf everything connected
with them.
The custom of placing a tower and spire over the intersection of the nave
and transept was always adhered to in England, and was always a happy
arrangement which gave the building dignity and character, even when
the Western towers were omitted. Of this the celebrated
Salisbury Cathedral is a beautiful example.
The spires of Chartres and of St. Ouen, at Rouen, are the finest in
France, where towers were frequently built to receive spires which
were never added. The height to which the nave was carried there often
prevented the towers from having their due effect, as it was impossible
to carry them out on a scale large enough to give them a corresponding
proportion. English architects contented themselves with moderate
interior heights, rendering the proportioning of their buildings a much
easier task than that which their neighbours imposed upon themselves,
by attempting with each new building a more daring altitude, until the
crumbling vaults of Beauvais set a limit to their audacity.
The comparison of contemporary Gothic in England and France covers the
subject more accurately than between that of any other countries, for
these two nations rivalled each other all along in the solution of the
various problems which arose with each step in their progress, while the
architects of other countries profited by the results they attained and
erected their buildings on Anglo-French principles.
The cathedrals of Cologne, in Germany, and Toledo, in Spain, are as
fine as any to be found in France or England, but they are neither
German nor Spanish in conception and principle, and therefore do not
belong to the national architecture of these countries. In Italy,
Gothic architecture was never understood as it was in the North,
and whenever anything was attempted in direct imitation of Northern
principles of design, the result was always hard and mechanical.
The true Italian Gothic was of itself often beautiful, but this was
almost a separate style, in which the influences of pointed forms,
Oriental colour, and the example which the Classical ruins held out so
conspicuously on their own soil, were brought together by the Italians
so as to form an harmonious whole.
In Venice a peculiar development of the style was attained, adapted to
the flat elevations of the canal palaces. This arrangement consisted of a
consecutive series of arcades, in which the mouldings of each arch were
carried up and returned, forming a second and sometimes a third row of
lights, replacing, in the play of light and shadow, the forced absence of
projections.
These arcades were surmounted by horizontal mouldings, and the lines of
the cornices and imposts were also horizontal, the Italians never having
lost sight of the entablature, which had been dropped in France with the
rise of Romanesque architecture and replaced always afterward by the
vertical lines which are the prominent one sin of all Northern Gothic
buildings.
The celebrated Doge’s palace is the foremost of these and ranks amongst
the most picturesque buildings in Europe. It is not free, however, from
grave defects and is criticised by architects for the top-heavy and
injudicious construction, by which a high and rarely pierced wall is
sustained by the slenderest of arcades.
Most of these palaces are of the fifteenth century and should not perhaps
be mentioned first, but as they illustrate the principle of horizontal
lines more readily than by reference to the isolated parts of less
well-known buildings, they are introduced now.
Although Milan Cathedral is one of the largest and most pretentious
ecclesiastical buildings in Italy, it is scarcely a good example of
Italian Gothic, for German architects were employed in its construction
and their influence is apparent. It is rather to the Cathedral of Sienna
that we should turn for a complete typical Italian structure. Here we
find a beautiful building and yet one which can in no way be judged from
a Northern standard. The West front has three porches, but their recessed
arches are round instead of pointed, although the detail is Gothic (the
church having been begun in the middle of the thirteenth century); above
is a rose window, but, unlike the Western models, without dividing
tracery. Both the exterior and interior are striped with alternate bands
of black and white marble. The intersection of the nave and transept
is covered by a dome, a feature unknown in France or England (with
the single exception of the wooden one in the cathedral of Ely), and
the tower or campanile is placed in the angle of the South transept.
These points are all essentially different from Northern
treatment, in which some of them would be considered defects. Here,
however, the parts are sufficiently harmoniously united to produce a
whole which is pleasing and original. The cathedral of Sienna has much in
addition to these to make it interesting: attached to it is a library—a
later building, beautifully decorated in a style similar to the Loggie of
Raphael in the Vatican; the stalls of the choir are of carved wood, of
the richest Renaissance design, and the pulpit, by Nicholas Pisano, is a
gem of sculpture. This pulpit is octagonal; its sides are carved in high
relief in representation of Scriptural scenes, and it is supported by
polished columns carrying trefoiled arches and resting upon marble lions
in lieu of bases. As a work in which both sculpture and architecture
combine, it is, on a small scale, one of the most beautiful productions
of its kind, essentially Italian, and rivalled only by that in the
baptistery of Pisa by the same artist.
The body of a lion as the base of a column was a favourite device of
Italian architects, and is frequently met with. Porches formed of columns
carrying a round arch and gable and resting on lions, are often attached
to the entrance of churches.
Orvieto Cathedral is, on a smaller scale, similar to the neighbouring
cathedral of Sienna. The West front is designed with most elaborate
detail and highly ornamented with painting and sculpture. The Duomo
of Florence partakes also of the general characteristics of Sienna,
although its proportions are vastly larger. Its most striking feature
is the great dome, added by Brunelleschi, when the church, designed by
Arnolfo, was approaching completion; but it is unsatisfactory, as its
immense size dwarfs the rest of the building. The general picturesqueness
of outline, the delicate design of the doors and windows, and the
proximity of the beautiful tower of Giotto, go far to atone for this. The
exterior walls of the church are covered with a veneering of coloured
marbles, which, while judiciously treated and good of its kind, is too
false to be easily reconciled to true artistic principles, and its
skin-deep beauty has been painfully apparent, until very recently, owing
to the unfinished condition of the West front.
It may be said in extenuation of this that plaster, while generally
accepted as an honest material, is no less a shallow covering to disguise
naked walls; it is, however, frequently misused, and is only tolerable
so long as it is not employed in imitation of better materials, while
the thin marble is really intended to deceive the eye, and give the
impression that its depth is equal to that of the wall.
The interior of the Florence Cathedral is disappointing, it is
insufficiently lighted, bare, and much in need of the frescos with which
it was originally intended to be decorated.
The cathedral of Pisa belongs in greater part to the preceding style, but
the campo-santo adjoining it has a cloister with traceried
windows, which, notwithstanding its round arches, more nearly resembles
Northern Gothic than anything in Italy, and by its greater height shows
a novel and more effective treatment than is usually seen in France or
England.
The little church of St. Maria della Spina in this town, on the banks of
the Arno, is a charming little edifice of the Sienna type.
In civil architecture Italy has much to boast of. Her palaces and
fortresses are amongst the noblest and most picturesque buildings
of the Middle Ages found anywhere in Europe. Most of these are
rectangular masses of stone, the austerity of which is relieved by heavy
window-openings with pointed heads and moulded frames, and crowned by a
battlemented cornice, occasionally enlivened by shields placed between
alternate corbels. The addition of the campanile, used as a lookout tower
rather than as a belfry, generally completes an imposing structure.
Of those in stone, the Palazzo Vecchio and the Bargello, in Florence,
are among the finest of these half town-hall, half fortress buildings,
while the Municipio of Sienna, with its immensely high campanile, may be
mentioned as typical of those in brick. Nearly every large city possesses
one of these tall towers, notably Verona, Cremona, Mantua, and Florence.
In the last-named the tower of Giotto is the most highly ornamented
and graceful of this class of structure, and for general proportions
unsurpassed. Longfellow, in his well-known poem, regrets
the lack of a spire to complete it, but it is questionable whether such
an addition could have been made in keeping with the style in which it is
designed.
In France the lately restored Chateau de Pierrefonds, near Compiegne,
illustrates, perhaps as well as any, the typical military building of the
Gothic period, with all the usual accompanying structures. The exterior
walls are high and massive, with round towers at the angles crowned with
projecting battlements and conical roofs. An interior court is reached
only by traversing a drawbridge and passing through an outer gate and
passage defended by heavy portcullis. Around this court are grouped the
apartments, banqueting-halls, the chapel, and the necessary quarters for
residents and garrison.
The number of remaining domestic buildings of the period is comparatively
limited. The house of Jacques Coeur at Bourges, the monastic Hotel de
Cluny, in Paris, the Palais de Justice, and the Hotel Bourgtheroulde,
in Rouen, may be mentioned among the few still standing, as the best
examples of contemporary architecture.
Of small half-timbered houses there remain a fair number in France,
though they are daily being demolished, in the principal cities, to make
way for so-called improvements.
England is rich in military and civil buildings: the castles of
Windsor, Warwick, Kenilworth, Rochester, and the Tower of
London, are all well known and have been frequently described. Perhaps
the most interesting of English civil structures of the Middle Ages,
are the colleges at Oxford; as, however, they follow, in the Gothic
treatment, the progress of the styles, as illustrated in the contemporary
ecclesiastical edifices, they do not require special description.
The town-halls of Belgium are important Gothic buildings, and are
found in all the principal cities of that country. Their flat façades
are singularly rich, but as they embody only the forms and ornament
of Gothic art, they are less interesting and poorer examples than any
less pretentious structures showing the constructive element, which
predominated in the Gothic style.
Toward the close of the style, and before the rebirth of Classic art had
completely superseded Gothic architecture, a curious transitional style
had a brief sway, in which both were blended. The wing of the Chateau
de Blois, built by Louis XII., and the Chateau de Gaillon, built by
Cardinal Amboise, in the year 1500, the façade of which is now preserved
in the courtyard of the Ecole des Beaux Arts, may be regarded as the
best specimens of this charming and short-lived art. The churches of St.
Etienne du Mont, and St. Eustache, at Paris, may be added to these as
typical of the contemporary religious edifices.
In them we see the last throes of a dying style which had
become extravagant and distorted in its final efforts to survive, but
retained traces of its former beauty even in its expiring moments.
The Gothic style arose in the latter half of the twelfth century, it
attained its greatest purity and simplicity in the thirteenth; during
the fourteenth a more extensive use of ornament was introduced, in
consequence of which it has been termed Decorated Gothic; finally, in the
fifteenth, its principles and principal features were exaggerated and
pushed to their utmost limits, until its brilliancy, flickering in the
flamboyant traceries of the latest period, expired and gave place to a
Classic revival.
XI.
THE RENAISSANCE.
A not uncommon error is made in applying the name Renaissance only to the
delicately treated style of revived Classic art, such as was prevalent
in France during the reigns of Francis the First, and his immediate
successors.
The word—derived from the verb _renaître_, signifying in French the
rebirth (of the classics understood)—cannot, however, be confined to any
such narrowed limits, for no new style having been substituted since, it
is as correct a term to-day as it was in the sixteenth century. There
is certainly a distinction between the first brilliant productions of
the revival, and the more ponderous buildings which succeeded them, but
Early and Late Renaissance express this satisfactorily. It did not always
follow, however, that all the work which, from its characteristics, would
be classified under the first head, necessarily antedated that belonging
to the later period.
In Italy, where the works of the Romans were too colossal to be utterly
destroyed, and too conspicuous to be easily forgotten, the first movement
naturally took place to reawaken the long dormant art, by
which they had been produced.
In the fifteenth century Orcagua built the Loggia dei Lanzi, in Florence,
and boldly substituted round arches for the pointed ones then in vogue.
This was the turning-point in the tide of Gothic architecture, for it
needed but little more to induce the delighted Italians to throw off the
yoke of an art which they had adopted but unwillingly, and which had
never been sympathetic to their taste. Consistently with their impetuous
nature, the change was effected without hesitation in a marvellously
short period, and with scarcely any of the usual intervening transitional
stages. The ancient forms reappeared and replaced the dying Gothic as
rapidly as in the days of the French monarchy the cry “Le roi est mort.
Vive le roi!” heralded at once the king’s death and his son’s succession
to power.
It is strange that there should have been so little to connect the
succeeding styles, that the revival should have been so completely
independent of and uninfluenced by a style which had been steadily
growing for four centuries, and which men must have become accustomed
to consider the only one suited to their times. Delicate workmanship
was, however, the only Gothic legacy the Renaissance architects
accepted, and this was the chief characteristic of the work of the early
period. The proportions and scale of their buildings were small; a
whole order: pedestal, column, and entablature generally
occupying and marking the height of an ordinary story of fifteen or
twenty feet, and the ornament used, while profuse, was executed in the
lowest relief and with most minute detail.
If the revolution in art was great, it had proportionately great
exponents: Brunelleschi, Bramante, Raphael, Sangallo, Vignola, Michael
Angelo are names as prominent in history as those of much-lauded victors
in the battlefield.
Brunelleschi, architect of the dome of St. Mary’s in Florence, was one
of the earliest innovators. He designed the Strozzi and Pitti Palaces
in that city, with the horizontal lines and round arches of the Classic
school, although still retaining the feudal traditions in their massive
stonework and in the austerity of their exteriors. The great palaces of
Rome which belong to this period partake also of this external severity,
and confine their brilliancy to interior display. The palaces of the
Cancelleria by Bramante, the Palazzo Massini by Balthasar Perruzzi, of
Sienna, the Sacchetti and Corsini Palaces by Sangallo, the Barberini
designed by Bernini, and the Farnese Palace upon which Sangallo, Vignola,
and Michael Angelo devoted their labors in turn, are a few among the most
celebrated.
Most of these buildings, while varying in size and in accordance with
the character of their sites, are rectangular in plan, and enclose
quadrangular courts, the different stories being marked by superposed
orders and arcades. They are planned on a liberal scale,
with broad proportions and with great deference to symmetry. The beauty
of the plan was, in fact, one of the best features of the new style, not
only in domestic, but in ecclesiastical architecture, for the arbitrary
Gothic arrangements being once discarded, it became possible to combine
the circle and straight line in many novel and beautiful ways, for which
the older Roman buildings furnished admirable examples. The study of
these plans forms one of the most important elements in an architect’s
education, and their examination in these days of iron props and
twelve-inch walls is fraught with much pleasure and profit.
The light and brilliant creations of the early period are abundant in
Northern Italy, and were models with which the French were readily
impressed. The façade of the church in the Certosa of Pavia, with its
elaborate detail and delicate ornament, and such buildings as the
Spinelli Rezzonico and Vendramin palaces, the church of St. Zachariah,
the Logetta and Library of St Mark’s of Sansovino, in Venice, and
farther South the Palazzo Fava in Bologna, the Capella Pazzi attached
to the older Sta. Croce in Florence, and the monument to Julius II. in
Sta. Maria del Popolo in Rome are a few beautiful examples of the early
treatment which has so much affinity with the works produced in France
under the Valois.
[Illustration: PLAN OF ST. PETER’S AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED BY MICHAEL
ANGELO.]
The great Italian cathedral upon which nearly all subsequent churches
were modelled was commenced upon the site of the old basilica of St.
Peter’s in Rome in the year 1506, upon plans by Bramante, and occupied
a century and a half in completion. After Bramante, Giocondo, Julian
Sangallo, Raphael, Perruzzi, Antonio di Sangallo, Michael Angelo and
Carlo Maderno each worked upon it in turn.
Michael Angelo, who designed the dome, wished to adopt the plan of the
Greek cross, that is, with equal arms, as shown in the accompanying plan.
The result would have been much more monumental and would have given the
dome its due effect within a moderate distance, while now it can only be
properly judged from afar, and the high façade terminating the nave is
both poor in composition and detrimental to the general conception. The
building is essentially Classic in all its details, but differs from the
general design of any particular Classical building. The nave is formed
by a Corinthian arcade similar to those of ancient Rome, though on a
vastly larger scale, supporting a tunnel-vault, which is decorated with
sunken panels like those of the ancient Baths. The dome is supported
on a circular drum carried on four immense piers and improves on the
Pantheon only in size, while it is surpassed by St. Sophia in scientific
construction.
The cathedral is most richly, even gaudily, decorated within, with
coloured marbles and mosaics and contains numerous tombs of great
magnificence and an altar with twisted columns designed by Bernini.
It is the largest church in the world, and yet its proportions are so
harmoniously, or inharmoniously designed, that it does not produce
a corresponding sense of its vastness upon the beholder. The single
order occupying the height of two stories is a feature, the invention,
or rather arrangement of which, is attributed to Michael Angelo. In
subsequent buildings it was nearly always adopted in preference to the
smaller orders marking each floor.
The life of this great artist forms of itself a chapter in the history
of architecture. Michael Buonarotti, surnamed Angelo, the most brilliant
architect of the sixteenth century, was born of noble parentage in Arezzo
in the year 1575. He developed extraordinary talents at an early age,
and after outstripping his first instructor, took up his residence in
Florence, where he studied anatomy and the human figure until he became
the most expert draughtsman of his time. In Rome, where he was summoned
by Julius II., he produced several fine works in statuary, but owing
to the jealousy of Bramante was forced to quit the city and return to
Florence. There he aided the citizens to sustain a siege during a year,
by his superior knowledge of fortification, and subsequently went to
Venice, where he designed the famous Rialto bridge. At the earnest
solicitation of the pope he returned to Rome and commenced the great
paintings in the Sistine Chapel, to which work he had been assigned by
the counsels of Bramante, who wished to prove his inferiority to his own
nephew Raphael. The result of the work, completed in a marvellously short
period, however, was so successful that all Rome ran to see it.
After the accession of Paul III. to the Papal see, Michael Angelo was
definitely appointed architect of St. Peter’s and worked on the building
during the remainder of his life, although he returned to Florence
several times and there executed the splendid statues which adorn the
chapel of the Medicis. In his later days he was assisted by Vignola
in his work, but died before its completion at the advanced age of
eighty-eight.
Giacomo Barrozio, called Vignola from his birthplace near Bologna, is
known for his great works, the chief of which are the Jesuits’ church
in Rome and the castle of Caprarolla at Viterbo, which he built for the
Cardinal Alexander Farnese, and also, especially to architects, for the
rules and measurements of Classical orders which he composed from the
buildings of Rome with the aid of the manual of Vitruvius.
This work comprises the elements of design used in nearly all the
buildings erected during the two following centuries, many of their
elevations being simple combinations of different pages of Vignola’s
book, which to this day is the best guide for Classical proportions and
the architects’ A B C.
The discriminator between the various architectural styles is fond
of drawing a marked distinction between Italian, French, and German
Renaissance, and illustrating it by views of the typical Italian palace,
with a flat tile roof and low pediments, and the typical French house,
with immensely high slate roofs and pretentious dormers. Although the eye
of the practised architect can distinguish between the representative
work of Sansovino and Philibert Delorme, and between that of Bernini and
Claude Perrault, yet such distinctions do not form separate styles, for
they are but unimportant differences, caused by local influences.
The subject should be looked upon in a broader sense, for all these
subdivisions tend to confuse the student and lead him to forget the
sequence of the great historical style of which they form part.
The Jacobean, Queen Anne, and kindred so-called styles in England were
merely eccentric streams flowing out of the one main channel, which were
scarcely worthy of distinction and certainly not of revival in our times.
In France, under each reign, there was a slight difference of treatment,
chiefly in the decoration of interiors, which permits of a classification
most convenient to the modern upholsterer, but for our purposes it is
sufficient to apply the two divisions—Early and Late Renaissance.
The Chateaux of Blois, Chambord, and Chenonceaux in the Valley of
the Loire, the Palaces of Fontainebleau, St. Germain en Laye, the
Tuileries and the old Louvre in Paris are splendid examples of the
former, and monuments worthy of the great artists, Pierre
Lescot, Philibert Delorme, Jean Goujon, and others, who laboured upon
them. They are illustrative of the employment of the small orders and
ornament in low relief, which characterized the corresponding period in
Italy, though they are generally richer and more spirited in design than
the Italian buildings, and the soft stone which is so abundant in France
permitted more lavish ornament upon the exteriors.
The skeletons of each design, that is to say, the main architectural
lines, stripped of elaborate detail, are much alike and can nearly all
be brought back to the ancient method of superposing orders. This is no
disparagement on the value of the work, for the plans of many buildings
were excellent, and the variety of ornamental design was of a delicacy
and imaginative beauty which has rarely been surpassed.
It is questionable, indeed, whether the change which took place in the
century of Louis XIV., in the introduction of larger proportions and
greater severity of ornament, was so much a gain as it was considered at
the time. To this period belong some of the great churches modelled upon
or rather suggested by St. Peter’s in Rome: St. Paul’s in London, rebuilt
by Christopher Wren; the Val de Grace, the joint work of Lemercier,
Leduc, and Mansart, and the church of the Hotel des Invalides in Paris,
also by Mansart, are among the finest of the period and style. The plan
of the last-named church is appended as a particularly happy example
in general arrangement and symmetrical variety, doing great credit to
Mansart, who also built the larger portion of the celebrated Chateau de
Versailles.
The publication of Stewart and Revetts’ great work upon the antiquities
of Athens called general attention in England to the beauty of Greek art,
toward the close of the last century, and resulted in the erection of a
number of buildings in imitation of Athenian monuments which were utterly
inappropriate and unsuited to the English climate.
In France architecture went through two or three fashionable phases, from
great extravagance of design under Louis XV. to extreme simplicity under
Louis XVI., finally relapsing under Napoleon into the servile copying
of entire Classic buildings: a great falling off from the principle of
the sixteenth century work, which had always been original in conception
although borrowing detail from the antique.
During the early part of this century, architecture sank to the lowest
ebb all over the world, probably owing to the disturbing influences of
the great Napoleonic wars. Within the last thirty years the spirited
writings of a few enthusiasts and the liberal teachings of the French
schools have caused a general revival, and better work is being done now
than at any time during the century.
[Illustration: PLAN OF CHURCH OF THE HOTEL DES INVALIDES AT PARIS.]
Avaricious commerce and the predominance of the desire for display
rather than quiet love of the arts are factors which stand much in the
way of genuine progress, but it is not improbable that the spread of
refined education will eventually succeed in planting the seeds of this
love in the heart of the great masses, and enable architecture to resume
its natural and elevating position in their midst.
XII.
CONCLUSION.
At the present stage of modern art we have the principles, broadly
speaking, of two great styles of architecture to guide us in the design
of the buildings which we may have to erect. These are the Classic and
the Gothic; for we may apply the term Classic not merely to the works
of the Greeks and Romans, but to their offshoots the Byzantine and
Romanesque styles, the one branching Eastward and the other Westward,
altered in many respects, but founded on the older systems; and we have
seen that the Renaissance was but a revival of the same methods and forms.
In each of these styles the best result has always been attained where
the constructional element has been held to be as important as the
decorative, where the essential and useful have not been subservient to
considerations of ornament or display. In Classic work much has been done
that is unworthy, in the senseless repetition of columns and pilasters
which support nothing, in decoration which serves only to conceal
ill-adjusted architectural lines; and the same is equally
true of degenerate Gothic, in which whole walls have been covered with
meaningless panels, and massive buttresses built up to receive no strain.
Nevertheless, by following only what is good in the principles of each,
and by avoiding the errors which experience has enabled us to perceive,
especially those which have engrafted themselves upon us by bigoted
custom, we can not only produce fine work but assist in the advance of
architecture.
Before deciding upon what style to employ in the composition of an
edifice, it is well to first consider thoroughly the programme of what is
wanted in its plan, and then the special character with which we desire
to invest it both exteriorly and interiorly. It is scarcely necessary to
add that both should be intimately connected.
We have seen that the best period of Gothic art was that wherein the
whole structure was raised on a theory of weights and strains thrown
from vault to pier, and pier to buttress; it is, therefore, absurd, when
a building occupies a space between the party-walls of modern street
lots, to attempt an interior construction having the appearance of
corresponding with buttresses and similar contrivances for which there is
no room on the outside.
If, therefore, we choose Gothic for our style, let us follow no false
theory, but work on the principles demonstrated in its innumerable
examples, in which it may be possible to find room for further
development, introducing no feature of construction which has not a full
and consistent meaning.
One can scarcely go the lengths to which many venture, in saying that
Gothic architecture is suited only to ecclesiastical buildings, for
there are many splendid military and civil structures, from the keeps
and castles of England and France, to the town-halls of Belgium. But
there is this much to be said in their favour, that while the laws of
fortification and domestic life have altered entirely since the Middle
Ages, on the one hand, those governing the observances of religion have
remained unchanged and no manner of building is so essentially religious
in its character or better calculated to command the reverence and awe of
the devotee, on the other.
In support of this view many will agree in admitting that there is
nothing of this religious sentiment expressed in the Corinthian
colonnades of St. Peter’s, or, in fact, in any of the great number of
Renaissance churches which are scattered throughout the cities of Europe,
while it never fails to exercise its influence upon anyone entering the
great Gothic cathedrals.
The great prevailing thought of Mediæval times was a religious one, and
we see it reflected in the minutest details of the lives of the people
of that age; it was, consequently, but natural that it should attain its
highest expression when they filled their churches with the best that
could be produced in architecture, sculpture, and painting. While the
Classic orders seem out of place in a temple of Christian worship they
are appropriate in civil buildings, and we have no better examples for
beauty of proportion. They are the result of the thought and taste of
generations of architects and have stood the test of time, for they are
as pleasing to-day as in the days of ancient Greece and Rome.
It is their proportion rather than their component parts which we should
follow, for a column, unless needed as a support, is a questionable
decoration, and pilasters or engaged columns are only desirable where
additional thickness of wall is required, used as the Gothic architect
would have used buttresses, and never as mere ornaments, which are
at once a fraudulent delusion and a retrogression in the progress of
architecture.
A multiplicity of columns and entablatures does not make perfect
architecture, but great leading lines, good proportion, clear detail, and
appropriate ornament.
The guiding rule is to do nothing which has not intrinsic merit. It
is better to have an absolutely plain wall than one covered with poor
decoration; far better to have no cornice at all than a galvanized iron
one, painted to look like stone.
The true definition of architecture is “ornamental construction.” It
is not a utilitarian science, because if so there would be no _raison
d’être_ for beauty of design, for mere shelter and commodious arrangement
could as well be provided by the engineer as by the architect. The art
of the architect lies in the composition of buildings at once suited
to their purpose and beautiful to the eye; and as such his art is one
that can progress, not through a series of changing fashions which grow
wearisome before they have lasted a decade, but step by step, according
to the example of the great periods of the past.
This example teaches us never to copy slavishly, but to imitate old
examples only so far as they may suit modern needs, in principle rather
than in detail, and to eschew the reproduction of defects, however
picturesque, so that architecture may be a living art instead of the
mummified representation of archæological researches.
In pursuing the study of so vast and splendid an art we should do so with
some feeling of reverence for its dignity, not looking upon it as a mere
money-making trade, for the greatest architects the world has known have
been satisfied in being only worshippers at a great shrine. Reverence
is a sentiment slightly regarded in an age when delicacy of feeling in
such matters is often held up as a butt for the jests and derision of the
vulgar, and the dignity of the art has little foothold when it has become
a custom for the vendor of cheap furniture to style his shop an “Art
Repository,” and the founder of cast-iron abortions to call his factory
“The Art Metal Works.”
Nevertheless all of our work must reflect something of our inner
thoughts, and if we do not place them upon a high plane it is not
possible for their reflection to contain what is noble and true. We
cannot become artists in the true sense of the word without loving and
reverencing the beauty and principles which have made the art so great a
one.
It is the custom among certain people to sneer at sentiment, and call for
practical art; but the most practical art is essentially the product of
thoughtful sentiments.
As an illustration, let us compare the Laocoön, of sculpture; the Halls
of Karnak, of architecture; the Dead March, of music; the “Descent from
the Cross,” of painting, with the “Dancing Faun,” the arabesques of the
Renaissance, the waltzes of Chopin, and the gay feasts depicted by Paolo
Veronese, and the contrast shows us that each branch of an universal art
expresses the opposite feelings of gravity or tragedy, of joy or comedy,
each in its separate manner.
In designing, questions arise every moment which can only be decided by
an innate sentiment of what is good and appropriate. There are no fixed
laws governing the height of a spire or the projection of a moulding;
they are matters which depend upon correct feeling, or, in other words,
upon educated taste.
If it were not so, art would become a mechanical science, and could no
longer be called by that name. Emotion has no place in mechanics, but it
has great influence in the arts. We know the Greeks were an emotional
race, and it is said that Michael Angelo wept before a beautiful statue
or painting; and the works of the people and of the individual were
proportionate to the depth of their feelings, and have perhaps never been
excelled.
Let us, therefore, commence this study—for the omega of this book is but
the alpha of architecture—despising none of its delicate subtleties, and
endeavour to grasp its principles, in the hope of doing our share in its
further advance, laying aside the petty gratification of our vanity in a
genuine affection for our art.
THE END
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Illustrations in this eBook have been positioned between paragraphs
and outside quotations. In versions of this eBook that support
hyperlinks, the page references in the List of Illustrations lead to
the corresponding illustrations.
The index was not checked for proper alphabetization or correct page
references.
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected
after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and
consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when a
predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and
inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
Page
21: “tenemos” replaced by “temenos”.
31: “Chilambaram” replaced by “Chidambaram”.
32: “baldaquins” replaced by “baldachins”.
40: “ababaster” replaced by “alabaster”.
111: “Adb-el-Rhaman” replaced by “Abd-el-Rhaman”.
119: “continuons” replaced by “continuous”.
126: “weer” replaced by “were”.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A SHORT HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United
States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person
or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most
other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws
of the country where you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread
public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state
visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
