Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
ILLUSTRATED HANDBOOKS OF ART HISTORY
OF ALL AGES
ARCHITECTURE
CLASSIC AND EARLY CHRISTIAN
BY PROFESSOR T. ROGER SMITH, F.R.I.B.A.
AND
JOHN SLATER, B.A., F.R.I.B.A.
THE PARTHENON AT ATHENS, AS IT WAS IN THE TIME OF PERICLES, circa B.C. 438.
ILLUSTRATED HANDBOOKS OF ART HISTORY
ARCHITECTURE
CLASSIC AND EARLY CHRISTIAN
BY T. ROGER SMITH, F.R.I.B.A.
Professor of Architecture, University Coll. London
AND
JOHN SLATER, B.A., F.R.I.B.A.
ATRIUM OF A ROMAN MANSION.
LONDON
SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON, SEARLE, & RIVINGTON
CROWN BUILDINGS, 188, FLEET STREET
1882.
[All rights reserved.]
LONDON. PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.
PREFACE.
This handbook is intended to give such an outline of the
Architecture of the Ancient World, and of that of Christendom
down to the period of the Crusades, as, without
attempting to supply the minute information required
by the professional student, may give a general idea of
the works of the great building nations of Antiquity
and the Early Christian times. Its chief object has been
to place information on the subject within the reach of
those persons of literary or artistic education who desire
to become in some degree acquainted with Architecture.
All technicalities which could be dispensed with have
been accordingly excluded; and when it has been unavoidable
that a technical word or phrase should occur,
an explanation has been added either in the text or in
the glossary; but as this volume and the companion one
on Gothic and Renaissance Architecture are, in effect,
two divisions of the same work, it has not been thought
necessary to repeat in the glossary given with this part
the words explained in that prefixed to the other.
In treating so very wide a field, it has been felt that
the chief prominence should be given to that great
sequence of architectural styles which form the links
of a chain connecting the architecture of modern Europe
with the earliest specimens of the art. Egypt, Assyria,
and Persia combined to furnish the foundation upon
which the splendid architecture of the Greeks was based.
Roman architecture was founded on Greek models with the
addition of Etruscan construction, and was for a time
universally prevalent. The break-up of the Roman
Empire was followed by the appearance of the Basilican,
the Byzantine, and the Romanesque phases of Christian
art; and, later on, by the Saracenic. These are the styles
on which all mediæval and modern European architecture
has been based, and these accordingly have furnished the
subjects to which the reader’s attention is chiefly directed.
Such styles as those of India, China and Japan, which lie
quite outside this series, are noticed much more briefly; and
some matters—such, for example, as prehistoric architecture—which
in a larger treatise it would have been desirable
to include, have been entirely left out for want of room.
In treating each style the object has not been to mention
every phase of its development, still less every building,
but rather to describe the more prominent buildings
with some approach to completeness. It is true that
much is left unnoticed, for which the student who wishes
to pursue the subject further will have to refer to the
writings specially devoted to the period or country. But
it has been possible to describe a considerable number of
typical examples, and to do so in such a manner as, it is
hoped, may make some impression on the reader’s mind.
Had notices of a much greater number of buildings been
compressed into the same space, each must have been so
condensed that the volume, though useful as a catalogue
for reference, would have, in all probability, become
uninteresting, and consequently unserviceable to the class
of readers for whom it is intended.
As far as possible mere matters of opinion have been
excluded from this handbook. A few of the topics which
it has been necessary to approach are subjects on which
high authorities still more or less disagree, and it has
been impossible to avoid these in every instance; but,
as far as practicable, controverted points have been left
untouched. Controversy is unsuited to the province of
such a manual as this, in which it is quite sufficient for
the authors to deal with the ascertained facts of the
history which they have to unfold.
It is not proposed here to refer to the authorities for
the various statements made in these pages, but to this
rule it is impossible to avoid making one exception.
The writers feel bound to acknowledge how much
they, in common with all students of the art, are indebted
to the patient research, the profound learning,
and the admirable skill in marshalling facts displayed
by Mr. Fergusson in his various writings. Had it been
possible to devote a larger space to Eastern architecture,
Pagan and Mohammedan, the indebtedness to him, in a
field where he stands all but alone, must of necessity
have been still greater.
The earlier chapters of this volume were chiefly written
by Mr. Slater, who very kindly consented to assist in the
preparation of it; but I am of course, as editor, jointly
responsible with him for the contents. The ,
Chapters to , and from Chapter to the end, have
been written by myself: and if our work shall in any
degree assist the reader to understand, and stimulate him
to admire, the architecture of the far-off past; above all,
if it enables him to appreciate our vast indebtedness to
Greek art, and in a lesser degree to the art of other nations
who have occupied the stage of the world, the aim which
the writers have kept in view will not have been missed.
T. Roger Smith.
University College, London.
May, 1882.
Frieze from Church at Denkendorf.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER II.
EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE.
Pyramids. Tombs. Temples. Analysis of Buildings.
CHAPTER III.
WEST ASIATIC ARCHITECTURE.
Babylonian. Assyrian. Persian. Analysis of Buildings.
CHAPTER IV.
ORIENTAL ARCHITECTURE.
Hindu. Chinese and Japanese.
CHAPTER V.
GREEK ARCHITECTURE.
Buildings of the Doric Order.
CHAPTER VI.
Buildings of the Ionic and Corinthian Orders.
CHAPTER VII.
Analysis of Greek Architecture. The Plan. The Walls. The Roof. The Openings. The Columns. The Ornaments. Architectural Character.
CHAPTER VIII.
ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN ARCHITECTURE.
Historical and General Sketch.
CHAPTER IX.
The Buildings of the Romans. Basilicas. Theatres and Amphitheatres. Baths (Thermæ). Bridges and Aqueducts. Commemorative Monuments. Domestic Architecture.
CHAPTER X.
Analysis of Roman Architecture. The Plan. The Walls. The Roofs. The Openings. The Columns. The Ornaments. Architectural Character.
CHAPTER XI.
EARLY CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE.
Basilicas in Rome and Italy.
CHAPTER XII.
BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.
CHAPTER XIII.
ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE.
CHAPTER XIV.
CHRISTIAN ROUND-ARCHED ARCHITECTURE.
Analysis of Basilican, Byzantine, and Romanesque.
CHAPTER XV.
MOHAMMEDAN ARCHITECTURE.
Egypt, Syria and Palestine, Sicily and Spain, Persia and India.
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE
The Parthenon at Athens, as it was in the time of Pericles, circa B.C. 438.
Atrium of a Roman Mansion.
Frieze from Church at Denkendorf.
Rock-cut Tomb at Myra, in Lycia. Imitation of Timber Construction in Stone.
The Temple of Vesta at Tivoli.
1.
Opening spanned by a Lintel. Arch of the Goldsmiths, Rome.
2.
Opening spanned by a Semicircular Arch. Roman Triumphal Arch at Pola.
3.
Openings spanned by Pointed Arches. Interior of St. Front, Périgueux, France.
4.
Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Restored according to Adler.
5.
Part of the Exterior of the Colosseum, Rome.
6.
Timber Architecture. Church at Borgund.
7.
An Egyptian Cornice.
8.
Section across the Great Pyramid (of Cheops or Suphis).
9.
Ascending Gallery in the Great Pyramid.
10.
The Sepulchral Chamber in the Pyramid of Cephren at Gizeh.
11.
The Construction of the King’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid.
12.
Imitation of Timber Construction in Stone, from a Tomb at Memphis.
13.
Imitation of Timber Construction in Stone, from a Tomb at Memphis.
14.
Plan and Section of the Tomb at Beni-Hassan.
15.
Rock-cut Façade of the Tomb at Beni-Hassan.
16.
Ground-plan of the Temple at Karnak.
17.
The Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, showing the Clerestory.
18.
Entrance to an Egyptian Temple, showing the Pylons.
19.
Plan of the Temple at Edfou.
20.
Example of one of the Mammisi at Edfou.
21.
Ground-plan of the Rock-cut Temple at Ipsamboul.
22.
Section of the Rock-cut Temple at Ipsamboul.
23.
Egyptian Column with Lotus Bud Capital.
24.
Egyptian Column with Lotus Flower Capital.
25.
Palm Capital.
26.
Sculptured Capital.
27.
Isis Capital from Denderah.
28.
Fanciful Column from painted Decoration at Thebes.
29.
Crowning Cornice and Bead.
30.
Painted Decoration from Thebes.
31.
Sculptured Ornament at Nineveh.
32.
Palace at Khorsabad. Built by King Sargon about 710 B.C.
33.
Pavement from Khoyunjik.
34.
Proto-Ionic Column from Assyrian Sculpture.
34a.
Proto-Ionic Capital from Assyrian Sculpture.
34b.
Proto-Corinthian Capital from Assyrian Sculpture.
35.
Tomb of Cyrus.
35a.
General Plan of the Buildings at Persepolis.
35b.
Column from Persepolis—East and West Porticoes.
36.
Column from Persepolis—North Portico.
37.
The Rock-cut Tomb of Darius.
38.
Sculptured Ornament at Allahabad.
39.
Dagoba from Ceylon.
40.
Chaitya near Poona.
41.
The Kylas at Ellora. A Rock-cut Monument.
42.
Plan of the Kylas at Ellora.
43.
Vimana from Manasara.
44.
Bracket Capital.
45.
Column from Ajunta.
46.
Column from Ellora.
47.
Column from Ajunta.
48.
A small Pagoda.
49.
Greek Honeysuckle Ornament.
50.
Plan of a small Greek Temple in Antis.
50a.
Plan of a small Greek Temple.
51.
Ancient Greek Wall of Unwrought Stone from Samothrace.
52.
Plan of the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenæ.
52a.
Section of the Treasury of Atreus at Mycenæ.
53.
Greek Doric Capital from Selinus.
53a.
Greek Doric Capital from the Theseum.
53b.
Greek Doric Capital from Samothrace.
54.
The Ruins of the Parthenon at Athens.
55.
Plan of the Parthenon.
56.
The Roof of a Greek Doric Temple, showing the Marble Tiles.
56a.
Section of the Greek Doric Temple at Pæstum. As restored by Bötticher.
57.
The Greek Doric Order from the Theseum.
58.
Plan of a Greek Doric Column.
59.
The Fillets under a Greek Doric Capital.
60.
Capital of a Greek Doric Column from Ægina, with Coloured Decoration.
61.
Section of the Entablature of the Greek Doric Order.
62.
Plan, looking up, of part of a Greek Doric Peristyle.
63.
Details of the Triglyph.
64.
Details of the Mutules.
65.
Elevation and Section of the Capital of a Greek Anta, with Coloured Decoration.
66.
Palmette and Honeysuckle.
67.
Shaft of an Ionic Column, showing the Flutes.
68.
Ionic Capital. Front Elevation.
69.
Ionic Capital. Side Elevation.
70.
The Ionic Order. From Priene, Asia Minor.
71.
The Ionic Order. From the Erechtheium, Athens.
72.
North-west View of the Erechtheium, in the time of Pericles.
73.
Plan of the Erechtheium.
74.
Ionic Base from the Temple of the Wingless Victory (Nikè Apteros).
75.
Ionic Base Mouldings from Priene.
76.
The Corinthian Order. From the Monument of Lysicrates at Athens.
77.
Corinthian Capital from the Monument of Lysicrates.
78.
Monument of Lysicrates, as in the time of Pericles.
79.
Capital of an Anta from Miletus. Side View.
80.
Restoration of the Greek Theatre of Segesta.
81.
Capital of an Anta from Miletus.
82.
Greek Doorway, showing Cornice.
83.
Greek Doorway. Front View. (From the Erechtheium.)
84.
The Acanthus Leaf and Stalk.
85.
The Acanthus Leaf.
86.
Metope from the Parthenon. Conflict between a Centaur and one of the Lapithæ.
87.
Mosaic from the Temple of Zeus, Olympia.
88.
Section of the Portico of the Erechtheium.
89.
Plan of the Portico of the Erechtheium, looking up.
90.
Capital of Antæ from the Erechtheium.
91‑96.
Greek Ornaments in Relief.
97‑104.
Greek Ornaments in Relief.
105‑110.
Greek Ornaments in Colour.
111‑113.
Examples of Honeysuckle Ornament.
114.
Combination of the Fret, the Egg and Dart, the Bead and Fillet, and the Honeysuckle.
116‑120.
Examples of the Fret.
121.
Elevation of an Etruscan Temple (restored from Descriptions only).
122.
Sepulchre at Corneto.
123.
The Cloaca Maxima.
124.
“Incantada” in Salonica.
125.
The Ionic Order from the Temple of Fortuna Virilis, Rome.
126.
Roman-Corinthian Temple at Nîmes (Maison Carrée). Probably of the time of Hadrian.
127.
Ground-plan of the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli.
128.
The Corinthian Order from the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli.
129.
The Temple of Vesta at Tivoli. Plan, looking up, and Section of Part of the Peristyle.
130.
Ground-plan of the Basilica Ulpia, Rome.
131.
Plan of the Colosseum, Rome.
132.
The Colosseum. Section and Elevation.
133.
Plan of the principal Building, Baths of Caracalla, Rome.
134.
Interior of Santa Maria degli Angeli, Rome.
135.
The Pantheon, Rome. Ground-plan.
136.
The Pantheon. Exterior.
137.
The Pantheon. Interior.
138.
The Corinthian Order from the Pantheon.
139.
The Arch of Constantine, Rome.
140.
Ground-plan of the House of Pansa, Pompeii.
141.
Ground-plan of the House of the Tragic Poet, Pompeii.
142.
The Atrium of a Pompeian House.
143.
Wall Decoration from Pompeii.
144.
Carving from the Forum of Nerva, Rome.
145.
Roman-Corinthian Capital and Base. From the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli.
145a.
A Roman Composite Capital.
146.
Part of the Theatre of Marcellus, Rome. Showing the Combination of Columns and Arched Openings.
147.
From the Ruins of the Forum of Nerva, Rome. Showing the Use of an Attic Story.
148.
From the Baths of Diocletian, Rome. Showing a fragmentary Entablature at the starting of part of a Vault.
149.
From the Palace of Diocletian, Spalatro. Showing an Arch springing from a Column.
150.
Mouldings and Ornaments from various Roman Buildings.
151.
Roman Carving. An Acanthus Leaf.
152.
The Egg and Dart Enrichment—Roman.
153.
Wall-Decoration of (so-called) Arabesque Character from Pompeii.
154.
Decoration in Relief and Colour of the Vault of a Tomb in the Via Latina, near Rome.
155.
Basilica Church of San Miniato, Florence.
156.
Interior of a Basilica at Pompeii. Restored, from Descriptions by various Authors.
156a.
Basilica, or Early Christian Church, of Sant’ Agnese at Rome.
157.
Sant’ Apollinare, Ravenna. Part of the Arcade and Apse.
158.
Apse of the Basilica of San Paolo Fuori le Mura, Rome.
158a.
Frieze from the Monastery at Fulda.
159.
Church of Santa Sophia at Constantinople. Longitudinal Section.
160.
Plan of San Vitale at Ravenna.
161.
San Vitale at Ravenna. Longitudinal Section.
162.
Plan of St. Mark’s at Venice.
163.
Sculptured Ornament from the Golden Door of Jerusalem.
164.
Church at Turmanin in Syria.
165.
Tower of a Russian Church.
166.
Tower of Earl’s Barton Church.
167.
Cathedral at Piacenza.
168.
Vaults of the excavated Roman Baths in the Musée de Cluny, Paris.
169.
Church of St. Sernin, Toulouse.
170.
Nave Arcade at St. Sernin, Toulouse.
171.
Arches in receding Planes at St. Sernin, Toulouse.
172.
Norman Arches in St. Peter’s Church, Northampton.
173.
Nave Arcade, Peterborough Cathedral.
174.
Decorative Arcade from Canterbury Cathedral.
175.
Hedingham Castle.
176.
Interior of Hedingham Castle.
177.
Rounded Arch of Church at Gelnhausen.
178.
Plan of the Church of the Apostles at Cologne.
179.
Spire of Spires Cathedral.
180.
Church at Rosheim. Upper Portion of Façade.
181.
Cubic Capital.
182.
Doorway at Tind, Norway.
183.
Mouldings of Portal of St. James’s Church at Koesfeld.
184.
Byzantine Basket work Capital from San Michele in Affricisco at Ravenna.
185.
Arabian Capital. From the Alhambra.
186.
Horse-shoe Arch.
187.
Exterior of Santa Sophia, Constantinople. Showing the Minarets added after its Conversion into a Mosque.
188.
Alhambra. Hall of the Abencerrages.
189.
Mosque “El Moyed” at Cairo.
190.
Arabian Wall Decoration.
191.
Plan of the Sakhra Mosque at Jerusalem.
192.
Section of the Sakhra Mosque at Jerusalem.
193.
Doorway in the Alhambra.
194.
Grand Mosque at Delhi, built by Shah Jehan.
195.
Entrance to a Moorish Bazaar.
Rock-cut Tomb at Myra, in Lycia.
Imitation of Timber Construction in Stone.
GLOSSARY.
Abacus, a square tablet which crowns the capital of the column.
Acanthus, a plant, the foliage of which was imitated in the ornament
of the Corinthian capital.
Agora, the place of general assembly in a Greek city.
Alæ (Lat. wings), recesses opening out of the atrium of a Roman
house.
Alhambra, the palatial fortress of Granada (from al hamra—the red).
Ambo, a fitting of early Christian churches, very similar to a pulpit.
Amphitheatre, a Roman place of public entertainment in which
combats of gladiators, &c., were exhibited.
Antæ, narrow piers used in connection with columns in Greek architecture,
for the same purpose as pilasters in Roman.
Arabesque, a style of very light ornamental decoration.
Archaic, primitive, so ancient as to be rude, or at least extremely
simple.
Archivolt, the series of mouldings which is carried round an arch.
Arena, the space in the centre of an amphitheatre where the combats,
&c., took place.
Arris, a sharp edge.
Astragal, a small round moulding.
Atrium, the main quadrangle in a Roman dwelling-house; also the
enclosed court in front of an early Christian basilican church.
Baptistery, a building, or addition to a building, erected for the
purposes of celebrating the rite of Christian baptism.
Basement, the lowest story of a building, applied also to the lowest
part of an architectural design.
Bas-relief, a piece of sculpture in low relief.
Bird’s-beak, a moulding in Greek architecture, used in the capitals of
Antæ.
Byzantine,
the style of Christian architecture which had its origin
at Byzantium (Constantinople).
Carceres, in the ancient racecourses, goals and starting-points.
Cartouche, in Egyptian buildings, a hieroglyphic signifying the name
of a king or other important person.
Caryatidæ, human figures made to carry an entablature, in lieu of
columns in some Classic buildings.
Cavædiam, another name for the atrium of a Roman house.
Cavea, the part of an ancient theatre occupied by the audience.
Cavetto, in Classic architecture, a hollow moulding.
Cella, the principal, often the only, apartment of a Greek or Roman
temple.
Chaitya, an Indian temple, or hall of assembly.
Circus, a Roman racecourse.
Cloaca, a sewer or drain.
Columbarium, literally a pigeon-house—a Roman sepulchre built in
many compartments.
Columnar, made with columns.
Compluvium, the open space or the middle of the roof of a Roman
atrium.
Corona, in the cornices of Greek and Roman architecture, the plain
unmoulded feature which is supported by the lower part of the
cornice, and on which the crowning mouldings rest.
Cornice, the horizontal series of mouldings crowning the top of a
building or the walls of a room.
Cuneiform, of letters in Assyrian inscriptions, wedge-shaped.
Cyclopean, applied to masonry constructed of vast stones, usually not
hewn or squared.
Cyma (recta, or reversa), a moulding, in Classic architecture, of an outline
partly convex and partly concave.
Dagoba, an Indian tomb of conical shape.
Dentil band, in Classic architecture, a series of small blocks resembling
square-shaped teeth.
Domus (Lat.), a house, applied usually to a detached residence.
Dwarf-wall, a very low wall.
Echinus, in Greek Doric architecture, the principal moulding of the
capital placed immediately under the abacus.
Entablature, the superstructure—comprising architrave, frieze and
cornice—above the columns in Classic architecture.
Entasis,
in the shaft of a column, a curved outline.
Ephebeum, the large hall in Roman baths in which youths practised
gymnastic exercises.
Facia, in Classic architecture, a narrow flat band or face.
Fauces, the passage from the atrium to the peristyle in a Roman
house.
Flutes, the small channels which run from top to bottom of the shaft
of most columns in Classic architecture.
Forum, the place of general assembly in a Roman city, as the Agora
was in a Greek.
Fresco, painting executed upon a plastered wall while the plaster is
still wet.
Fret, an ornament made up of squares and L-shaped lines, in use in
Greek architecture.
Garth, the central space round which a cloister is carried.
Girder, a beam.
Grouted, said of masonry or brickwork, treated with liquid mortar to
fill up all crevices and interstices.
Guttæ, small pendent features in Greek and Roman Doric cornices,
resembling rows of wooden pegs.
Hexastyle, of six columns.
Honeysuckle Ornament, a decoration constantly introduced into
Assyrian and Greek architecture, founded upon the flower of the
honeysuckle.
Horse-shoe Arch, an arch more than a semicircle, and so wider above
than at its springing.
Hypostyle, literally “under columns,” but used to mean filled by
columns.
Impluvium, the space into which the rain fell in the centre of the
atrium of a Roman house.
Insula, a block of building surrounded on all sides by streets, literally
an island.
Intercolumniation, the space between two columns.
Keyed, secured closely by interlocking.
Kibla, the most sacred part of a Mohammedan mosque.
Lâts, in Indian architecture, Buddhist inscribed pillars.
Mammisi,
small Egyptian temples.
Mastaba, the most usual form of Egyptian tomb.
Mausoleum, a magnificent sepulchral monument or tomb. From the
tomb erected to Mausolus, by his wife Artemisia, at Halicarnassus,
379 B.C.
Metopes, literally faces, the square spaces between triglyphs in Doric
architecture; occasionally applied to the sculptures fitted into
these spaces.
Minaret, a slender lofty tower, a usual appendage of a Mohammedan
mosque.
Monolith, of one stone.
Mortise, a hollow in a stone or timber to receive a corresponding
projection.
Mosque, a Mohammedan place of worship.
Mutule, a feature in a Classic Doric cornice, somewhat resembling
the end of a timber beam.
Narthex, in an early Christian church, the space next the entrance.
Obelisk, a tapering stone pillar, a feature of Egyptian architecture.
Opus Alexandrinum, the mosaic work used for floors in Byzantine
and Romanesque churches.
Ovolo, a moulding, the profile of which resembles the outline of an
egg, used in Classic architecture.
Pendentive, a feature in Byzantine and other domed buildings,
employed to enable a circular dome to stand over a square space.
Peristylar, or Peripteral, with columns all round.
Peristylium, or Peristyle, in a Roman house, the inner courtyard;
also any space or enclosure with columns all round it.
Piscina, a small basin usually executed in stone and placed within a
sculptured niche, fixed at the side of an altar in a church, with a
channel to convey away the water poured into it.
Polychromy, the use of decorative colours.
Precincts, the space round a church or religious house, usually
enclosed with a wall.
Presbytery, the eastern part of a church, the chancel.
Profile (of a moulding), the outline which it would present if cut
across at right angles to its length.
Pronaos, the front portion or vestibule to a temple.
Propylæa, in Greek architecture, a grand portal or state entrance.
Prothyrum,
in a Roman house, the porch or entrance.
Pseudo-peripteral, resembling, but not really being peristylar.
Pylon, or Pro-Pylon, the portal or front of an Egyptian temple.
Quadriga, a four-horse chariot.
Romanesque, the style of Christian architecture which was founded on
Roman work.
Rotunda, a building circular in plan.
Sacristy, the part of a church where the treasures belonging to the
church are preserved.
Shinto Temples, temples (in Japan) devoted to the Shinto religion.
Span, the space over which an arch or a roof extends.
Spina, the central wall of a Roman racecourse.
Stilted, raised, usually applied to an arch when its centre is above
the top of the jambs from which it springs.
Struts, props.
Stupa, in Indian architecture, a mound or tope.
Stylobate, a series of steps, usually those leading up to a Classic
temple.
Taas, a pagoda.
Tablinum, in a Roman house, the room between the atrium and the
peristyle.
Talar, in Assyrian architecture, an open upper story.
Tenoned, fastened with a projection or tenon.
Tesselated, made of small squares of material, applied to coarse mosaic
work.
Tetrastyle, with four columns.
Thermæ, the great bathing establishments of the Romans.
Topes, in Indian architecture, artificial mounds.
Trabeated, constructed with a beam or beams, a term usually employed
in contrast to arches.
Triclinium, in a Roman house, the dining-room.
Triglyph, the channelled feature in the frieze of the Doric order.
Tumuli, mounds, usually sepulchral.
Typhonia, small Egyptian temples.
Velarium, a great awning.
Vestibule, the outer hall or ante-room.
Volutes,
in Classic architecture, the curled ornaments of the Ionic
capital.
Voussoirs, the wedge-shaped stones of which arches are made.
N.B. For the explanation of other technical words found in this
volume, consult the Glossary given with the companion volume on
Gothic and Renaissance Architecture.
The Temple of Vesta at Tivoli.
ANCIENT ARCHITECTURE.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.
ARCHITECTURE may be described as building at its
best, and when we talk of the architecture of any
city or country we mean its best, noblest, or most beautiful
buildings; and we imply by the use of the word that these
buildings possess merits which entitle them to rank as
works of art.
The architecture of the civilised world can be best
understood by considering the great buildings of each important
nation separately. The features, ornaments, and
even forms of ancient buildings differed just as the speech,
or at any rate the literature, differed. Each nation wrote
in a different language, though the books may have been
devoted to the same aims; and precisely in the same way
each nation built in a style of its own, even if the buildings
may have been similar in the purposes they had to
serve. The division of the subject into the architecture of
Egypt, Greece, Rome, &c., is therefore the most natural
one to follow.
But certain broad groups, rising out of peculiarities of
a physical nature, either in the buildings themselves or
in the conditions under which they were erected, can
hardly fail to be suggested by a general view of the
subject. Such, for example, is the fourfold division to
which the reader’s attention will now be directed.
All buildings, it will be found, can be classed under one
or other of four great divisions, each distinguished by a
distinct mode of building, and each also occupying a
distinct place in history. The first series embraces
the buildings of the Egyptians, the Persians, and the
Greeks, and was brought to a pitch of the highest perfection
in Greece during the age of Pericles. All the
buildings erected in these countries during the many
centuries which elapsed from the earliest Egyptian to the
latest Greek works, however they may have differed in
other respects, agree in this—that the openings, be they
doors, or be they spaces between columns, were spanned
by beams of wood or lintels of stone (Fig. ). Hence
this architecture is called architecture of the beam, or, in
more formal language, trabeated architecture. This mode
of covering spaces required that in buildings of solid
masonry, where stone or marble lintels were employed,
the supports should not be very far apart, and this
circumstance led to the frequent use of rows of columns.
The architecture of this period is accordingly sometimes
called columnar, but it has no exclusive claim to the
epithet; the column survived long after the exclusive
use of the beam had been superseded, and the term
columnar must accordingly be shared with buildings
forming part of the succeeding series.
Fig. 1.—Opening spanned by a Lintel. Arch of the Goldsmiths, Rome.
The second great group of buildings is that in which
the semicircular arch is introduced into construction, and
used either together with the beam, or, as mostly happened,
instead of the beam, to span the openings (Fig. ). This
use of the arch began with the Assyrians, and it reappeared
in the works of the early Etruscans. The round-arched
series of styles embraces the buildings of the
Romans from their earliest beginnings to their decay; it
also includes the two great schools of Christian architecture
which were founded by the Western and the Eastern
Church respectively,—namely, the Romanesque, which,
originating in Rome, extended itself through Western
Europe, and lasted till the time of the Crusades, and the
Byzantine, which spread from Constantinople over all
the countries in which the Eastern (or Greek) Church
flourished, and which continues to our own day.
Fig. 2.—Opening Spanned by a Semicircular Arch. Roman Triumphal Arch
at Pola.
Fig. 3.—Openings Spanned by Pointed Arches. Interior of St. Front,
Périgueux, France.
The third group of buildings is that in which the
pointed arch is employed instead of the semicircular arch
to span the openings (Fig. ). It began with the rise of
Mohammedan architecture in the East, and embraces all
the buildings of Western Europe, from the time of the
First Crusade to the revival of art in the fifteenth century.
This great series of buildings constitutes what is known
as Pointed, or, more commonly, as Gothic architecture.
The fourth group consists of the buildings erected
during or since the Renaissance (i.e. revival) period, and
is marked by a return to the styles of past ages or distant
countries for the architectural features and ornaments of
buildings; and by that luxury, complexity, and ostentation
which, with other qualities, are well comprehended
under the epithet Modern. This group of buildings
forms what is known as Renaissance architecture, and
extends from the epoch of the revival of letters in the
fifteenth century, to the present day.
The first two of these styles—namely, the architecture
of the beam, and that of the round arch—are treated of in
this little volume. They occupy those remote times of
pagan civilisation which may be conveniently included
under the broad term Ancient; and the better known
work of the Greeks and Romans—the classic nations—and
they extend over the time of the establishment of
Christianity down to the close of that dreary period
not incorrectly termed the Dark ages. Ancient, Classic,
and early Christian architecture is accordingly an appropriate
title for the main subjects of this volume, though,
for the sake of convenience, some notices of Oriental
architecture have been added. Gothic and Renaissance
architecture form the subjects of the companion volume.
It may excite surprise that what appears to be so small
a difference as that which exists between a beam, a round
arch, or a pointed arch, should be employed in order to
distinguish three of the four great divisions. But in reality
this is no pedantic or arbitrary grouping. The mode in
which spaces or openings are covered lies at the root of
most of the essential differences between styles of
architecture, and the distinction thus drawn is one of a real,
not of a fanciful nature.
Every building when reduced to its elements, as will
be done in both these volumes, may be considered as made
up of its (1) floor or plan, (2) walls, (3) roof, (4) openings,
(5) columns, and (6) ornaments, and as marked by
its distinctive (7) character, and the student must be
prepared to find that the openings are by no means the
least important of these elements. In fact, the moment
the method of covering openings was changed, it would
be easy to show, did space permit, that all the other
elements, except the ornaments, were directly affected by
the change, and the ornaments indirectly; and we thus
find such a correspondence between this index feature and
the entire structure as renders this primary division a
scientific though a very broad one. The contrast between
the trabeated style and the arched style may be well
understood by comparing the illustration of the Parthenon
which forms our frontispiece, or that of the great
temple of Zeus at Olympia (Fig. ), with the exterior of
the Colosseum at Rome (Fig. ), introduced here for the
purposes of this comparison.
Fig. 4.—Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Restored according to Adler.
A division of buildings into such great series as these
cannot, however, supersede the more obvious historical
and geographical divisions. The architecture of every
ancient country was partly the growth of the soil,
i.e. adapted to the climate of the country, and the
materials found there, and partly the outcome of the
national character of its inhabitants, and of such influences
as race, colonisation, commerce, or conquest brought
to bear upon them. These influences produced strong
distinctions between the work of different peoples, especially
before the era of the Roman Empire. Since that
period of universal dominion all buildings and styles have
been influenced more or less by Roman art. We accordingly
find the buildings of the most ancient nations
separated from each other by strongly marked lines of
demarcation, but those since the era of the Empire showing
a considerable resemblance to one another. The circumstance
that the remains of those buildings only which
received the greatest possible attention from their builders
have come down to us from any remote antiquity, has
perhaps served to accentuate the differences between
different styles, for these foremost buildings were not
intended to serve the same purpose in all countries.
Nothing but tombs and temples have survived in Egypt.
Palaces only have been rescued from the decay of Assyrian
and Persian cities; and temples, theatres, and places of
public assembly are the chief, almost the only remains of
architecture in Greece.
A strong contrast between the buildings of different
ancient nations rises also from the differing point of view
for which they were designed. Thus, in the tombs and,
to a large extent, the temples of the Egyptians, we find
structures chiefly planned for internal effect; that is to
say, intended to be seen by those admitted to the sacred
precincts, but only to a limited extent appealing to the
admiration of those outside. The buildings of the Greeks,
on the other hand, were chiefly designed to please those
who examined them from without, and though no doubt
some of them, the theatres especially, were from their
very nature planned for interior effect, by far the greatest
works which Greek art produced were the exteriors of
the temples.
Fig. 5.—Part of the Exterior of the Colosseum, Rome. (Now in Ruins.)
The works of the Romans, and, following them, those
of almost all Western Christian nations, were designed
to unite external and internal effect; but in many cases
external was evidently most sought after, and, in the
North of Europe, many expedients—such, for example,
as towers, high-pitched roofs, and steeples—were introduced
into architecture with the express intention of
increasing external effect. On the other hand, the Eastern
styles, both Mohammedan and Christian, especially when
practised in sunny climates, show in many cases a comparative
disregard of external effect, and that their architects
lavished most of their resources on the interiors of
their buildings.
Passing allusions have been made to the influence of
climate on architecture; and the student whose attention
has been once called to this subject will find many
interesting traces of this influence in the designs of
buildings erected in various countries. Where the power
of the sun is great, flat terraced roofs, which help to keep
buildings cool, and thick walls are desirable. Sufficient
light is admitted by small windows far apart. Overhanging
eaves, or horizontal cornices, are in such a climate
the most effective mode of obtaining architectural effect,
and accordingly in the styles of all Southern peoples
these peculiarities appear. The architecture of Egypt,
for example, exhibited them markedly. Where the sun
is still powerful, but not so extreme, the terraced roof
is generally replaced by a sloping roof, steep enough to
throw off water, and larger openings are made for light
and air; but the horizontal cornice still remains the most
appropriate means of gaining effects of light and shade.
This description will apply to the architecture of Italy
and Greece. When, however, we pass to Northern countries,
where snow has to be encountered, where light is
precious, and where the sun is low in the heavens for the
greater part of the day, a complete change takes place.
Roofs become much steeper, so as to throw off snow.
The horizontal cornice is to a large extent disused, but
the buttress, the turret, and other vertical features, from
which a level sun will cast shadows, begin to appear;
and windows are made numerous and spacious. This
description applies to Gothic architecture generally—in
other words, to the styles which rose in Northern Europe.
Fig. 6.—Timber Architecture. Church at Borgund.
The influence of materials on architecture is also worth
notice. Where granite, which is worked with difficulty,
is the material obtainable, architecture has invariably
been severe and simple; where soft stone is obtainable,
exuberance of ornament makes its appearance, in consequence
of the material lending itself readily to the carver’s
chisel. Where, on the other hand, marble is abundant
and good, refinement is to be met with, for no other
building material exists in which very delicate mouldings
or very slight or slender projections may be employed
with the certainty that they will be effective. Where
stone is scarce, brick buildings, with many arches, roughly
constructed cornices and pilasters, and other peculiarities
both of structure and ornamentation, make their appearance,
as, for example, in Lombardy and North Germany.
Where materials of many colours abound, as is the case, for
example, in the volcanic districts of France, polychromy
is sought as a means of ornamentation. Lastly, where
timber is available, and stone and brick are both scarce,
the result is an architecture of which both the forms and
the ornamentation are entirely dissimilar to those proper
to buildings of stone, marble, or brick, as may be seen by
a glance at our illustration of an early Scandinavian
church built of timber (Fig. ), which presents forms
appropriate to a timber building as being easily constructed
of wood, but which would hardly be suitable to
any other material whatever.
Fig. 7.—Egyptian Cornice.
CHAPTER II.
EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE.
THE origin of Egyptian architecture, like that of
Egyptian history, is lost in the mists of antiquity.
The remains of all, or almost all, other styles of architecture
enable us to trace their rude beginnings, their development,
their gradual progress up to a culminating point, and
thence their slow but certain decline; but the earliest
remains of the constructions of the Egyptians show their
skill as builders at the height of its perfection, their architecture
highly developed, and their sculpture at its very
best, if not indeed at the commencement of its decadence;
for some of the statuary of the age of the Pyramids was
never surpassed in artistic effect by the work of a later
era. It is impossible for us to conceive of such scientific
skill as is evidenced in the construction of the great pyramids,
or such artistic power as is displayed on the walls of
tombs of the same date, or in the statues found in them,
as other than the outcome of a vast accumulation of experience,
the attainment of which must imply the lapse of
very long periods of time since the nation which produced
such works emerged from barbarism. It is natural, where
so remote an antiquity is in question, that we should
feel a great difficulty, if not an impossibility, in fixing
exact dates, but the whole tendency of modern exploration
and research is rather to push back than to advance
the dates of Egyptian chronology, and it is by no means
impossible that the dynasties of Manetho, after being
derided as apocryphal for centuries, may in the end be
accepted as substantially correct. Manetho was an
Egyptian priest living in the third century B.C., who
wrote a history of his country, which he compiled
from the archives of the temples. His work itself is
lost, but Josephus quotes extracts from it, and Eusebius
and Julius Africanus reproduced his lists, in which the
monarchs of Egypt are grouped into thirty-four dynasties.
These, however, do not agree with one another, and in
many cases it is difficult to reconcile them with the records
displayed in the monuments themselves.
The remains with which we are acquainted indicate
four distinct periods of great architectural activity in
Egyptian history, viz.: (1) the period of the fourth
dynasty, when the Great Pyramids were erected (probably
3500 to 3000 B.C.); (2) the period of the twelfth
dynasty, to which belong the remains at Beni-Hassan;
(3) the period of the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties,
when Thebes was in its glory, which is attested by
the ruins of Luxor and Karnak; and (4) the Ptolemaic
period, of which there are the remains at Denderah,
Edfou, and Philæ. The monuments that remain are
almost exclusively tombs and temples. The tombs are,
generally speaking, all met with on the east or right
bank of the Nile: among them must be classed those
grandest and oldest monuments of Egyptian skill, the
Pyramids, which appear to have been all designed as
royal burying-places. A large number of pyramids have
been discovered, but those of Gizeh, near Cairo, are the
largest and the best known, and also probably the oldest
which can be authenticated. The three largest pyramids
are those of Cheops, Cephren, and Mycerinus at Gizeh
(or, as the names are more correctly written, Suphis, Sensuphis,
and Moscheris or Mencheris). These monarchs
all belonged to the fourth dynasty, and the most probable
date to be assigned to them is about 3000 B.C. The pyramid
of Suphis is the largest, and is the one familiarly
known as the Great Pyramid; it has a square base, the
side of which is 760 feet long, a height of 484 feet, and
an area of 577,600 square feet. In this pyramid the angle
of inclination of the sloping sides to the base is 51° 51′,
but in no two pyramids is this angle the same. There
can be no doubt that these huge monuments were erected
each as the tomb of an individual king, whose efforts were
directed towards making it everlasting, and the greatest
pains were taken to render the access to the burial chamber
extremely hard to discover. This accounts for the vast
disproportion between the lavish amount of material used
for the pyramid and the smallness of the cavity enclosed
in it (Fig. ).
The material employed was limestone cased with syenite
(granite from Syene), and the internal passages were lined
with granite. The granite of the casing has entirely
disappeared, but that employed as linings is still in its
place, and so skilfully worked that it would not be possible
to introduce even a sheet of paper between the joints.
Fig. 8.—Section across the Great Pyramid (of Cheops or Suphis).
The entrance D to this pyramid of Suphis was at a height
of 47 ft. 6 in. above the base, and, as was almost invariably
the case, on the north face; from the entrance a passage
slopes downward at an angle of 26° 27′ to a chamber cut
in the rock at a depth of about 90 feet below the base
of the pyramid. This chamber seems to have been intended
as a blind, as it was not the place for the deposition
of the corpse. From the point in the above described
passage—marked A on our illustration of this pyramid—another
gallery starts upwards, till it reaches the
point C, from which a horizontal passage leads to another
small chamber. This is called the Queen’s Chamber, but
no reason has been discovered for the name. From this
point C the gallery continues upwards till, in the heart of
the pyramid, the Royal Chamber, B, is reached. The walls
of these chambers and passages are lined with masonry
executed in the hardest stone (granite), and with an
accuracy of fitting and a truth of surface that can
hardly be surpassed. Extreme care seems to have been
taken to prevent the great weight overhead from crushing
in the galleries and the chamber. The gallery from C
upwards is of the form shown in Fig. , where each layer
of stones projects slightly beyond the one underneath it.
Fig. is a section of the chamber itself, and the succession
of small chambers shown one above the other was evidently
formed for the purpose of distributing the weight
of the superincumbent mass. From the point C a narrow
well leads almost perpendicularly downwards to a point
nearly at the bottom of the first-mentioned gallery; and
the purpose to be served by this well was long a subject
of debate. The probability is that, after the corpse had
been placed in its chamber, the workmen completely
blocked up the passage from A to C by allowing large
blocks of granite to slide down it, these blocks having
been previously prepared and deposited in the larger
gallery; the men then let themselves down the well, and
by means of the lower gallery made their exit from the
pyramid. The entrances to the chamber and to the pyramid
itself were formed by huge blocks of stone which
exactly fitted into grooves prepared for them with the
most beautiful mathematical accuracy. The chief interest
attaching to the pyramids lies in their extreme antiquity,
and the scientific method of their construction; for their
effect upon the spectator is by no means proportionate to
their immense mass and the labour bestowed upon them.
Fig. 9.—Ascending
Gallery in the
Great Pyramid.
Fig. 10.—The Sepulchral
Chamber in the Pyramid
of Cephren at Gizeh.
Fig. 11.—The Construction of the King’s Chamber in the
Great Pyramid.
In the neighbourhood of the pyramids are found a large
number of tombs which are supposed to be those of private
persons. Their form is generally that of a mastaba or
truncated pyramid with sloping walls, and their construction
is evidently copied from a fashion of wooden architecture
previously existing. The same idea of making an
everlasting habitation for the body prevailed as in the
case of the pyramids, and stone was therefore the material
employed; but the builders seem to have desired to indulge
in a decorative style, and as they were totally unable to
originate a legitimate stone architecture, we find carved in
stone, rounded beams as lintels, grooved posts, and—most
curious of all—roofs that are an almost exact copy of
the early timber huts when unsquared baulks of timber
were laid across side by side to form a covering. Figs.
and show this kind of stone-work, which is peculiar to
the old dynasties, and seems to have had little influence
upon succeeding styles.
A remarkable feature of these early private tombs consists
in the paintings with which the walls are decorated,
and which vividly portray the ordinary every-day occupations
carried on during his lifetime by the person who
was destined to be the inmate of the tomb. These
paintings are of immense value in enabling us to form
an accurate idea of the life of the people at this early
age.
Fig. 12.—Imitation of Timber Construction in
Stone, from a Tomb at Memphis.
Fig. 13.—Imitation of Timber Construction in
Stone, from a Tomb at Memphis.
It may possibly be open to doubt whether the dignified
appellation of architecture should be applied to buildings
of the kind we have just been describing; but when we
come to the series of remains of the twelfth dynasty at
Beni-Hassan, in middle Egypt, we meet with the earliest
known examples of that most interesting feature of all
subsequent styles—the column. Whether the idea of
columnar architecture originated with the necessities of
quarrying—square piers being left at intervals to support
the superincumbent mass of rock as the quarry was gradually
driven in—or whether the earliest stone piers were
imitations of brickwork or of timber posts, we shall probably
never be able to determine accurately, though the
former supposition seems the more likely. We have here
monuments of a date 1400 years anterior to the earliest
known Greek examples, with splendid columns, both
exterior and interior, which no reasonable person can
doubt are the prototypes of the Greek Doric order.
Fig. is a plan with a section, and Fig. an exterior
view, of one of these tombs, which, it will be seen, consisted
of a portico, a chamber with its roof supported by
columns, and a small space at the farther end in which
is formed the opening of a sloping passage or well, at the
bottom of which the vault for the reception of the body
was constructed. The walls of the large chamber are
lavishly decorated with scenes of every-day life, and it
has even been suggested that these places were not erected
originally as tombs, but as dwelling-places, which after
death were appropriated as sepulchres.
Section.
Fig. 14.—Plan and Section of the Tomb
at Beni-Hassan.
The columns are surmounted by a small square slab,
technically called an abacus, and heavy square beams or
architraves span the spaces between the columns, while
the roof between the architraves has a slightly segmental
form. The tombs of the later period, viz. of the eighteenth
and nineteenth dynasties, are very different from those of
the twelfth dynasty, and present few features of architectural
interest, though they are remarkable for their
vast extent and the
variety of form of their
various chambers and
galleries. They consist
of a series of
chambers excavated in
the rock, and it appears
certain that the
tomb was commenced
on the accession of each
monarch, and was
driven farther and
farther into the rock
during the continuance
of his reign till his
death, when all work
abruptly ceased. All
the chambers are profusely
decorated with
paintings, but of a kind
very different from
those of the earlier
dynasties. Instead of
depicting scenes of ordinary
life, all the paintings
refer to the supposed
life after death,
and are thus of very
great value as a means
of determining the religious
opinions of the
Egyptians at this time. One of the most remarkable
of these tombs is that of Manephthah or Sethi I., at
Bab-el-Molouk, and known as Belzoni’s tomb, as it was
discovered by him; from it was taken the alabaster sarcophagus
now in the Soane Museum in Lincoln’s Inn Fields.
To this relic a new interest is given by the announcement,
while these pages are passing through the press, of the
discovery of the mummy of this very Manephthah, with
thirty-eight other royal mummies, in the neighbourhood
of Thebes.
Fig. 15.—Rock-cut Façade of Tomb at Beni-Hassan.
Of the Ptolemaic period no tombs, except perhaps a few
at Alexandria, are known to exist.
TEMPLES.
It is very doubtful whether any remains of temples of
the time of the fourth dynasty—i.e. contemporaneous with
the pyramids—exist. One, constructed on a most extraordinary
plan, was supposed to have been discovered about
a quarter of a century ago, and it was described by
Professor Donaldson at the Royal Institute of British Architects
in 1861, but later Egyptologists rather incline to
the belief that this was a tomb and not a temple, as in one
of the chambers of the interior a number of compartments
were discovered one above the other which were apparently
intended for the reception of bodies. This singular building
is close to the Great Sphinx; its plan is cruciform,
and there are in the interior a number of rectangular
piers of granite supporting very simple architraves, but
there are no means of determining what kind of roof
covered it in. The walls seem to have been faced on the
interior with polished slabs of granite or alabaster, but no
sculpture or hieroglyphic inscriptions were found on them
to explain the purpose of the building. Leaving this
building—which is of a type quite unique—out of the
question, Egyptian temples can be generally classed
under two heads: (1) the large principal temples, and (2)
the small subsidiary ones called Typhonia or Mammisi.
Both kinds of temple vary little, if at all, in plan from
the time of the twelfth dynasty down to the Roman
dominion.
Fig. 16.—Ground-plan of the
Palace at Karnak.
The large temples consist almost invariably of an entrance
gate flanked on either side by a large mass of masonry,
called a pylon, in the shape of a truncated pyramid
(Fig. ). The axis of the ground-plan of these pylons is
frequently obliquely inclined to the axis of the plan of the
temple itself; and indeed one of the most striking features
of Egyptian temples is the lack of regularity and symmetry
in their construction. The entrance gives access
to a large courtyard, generally ornamented with columns:
beyond this, and occasionally approached by steps, is
another court, smaller than the first, but much more
splendidly adorned with columns and colossi; beyond this
again, in the finest examples, occurs what is called the
Hypostyle Hall, i.e. a hall with two rows of lofty columns
down the centre, and at the sides other rows, more or less
in number, of lower columns; the object of this arrangement
being that the central portion might be lighted by a
kind of clerestory above the roof of the side portions.
Fig. shows this arrangement. This hypostyle hall
stood with its greatest length transverse to the general
axis of the temple, so that it was entered from the side.
Beyond it were other chambers, all of small size, the
innermost being generally the sanctuary,
while the others were probably
used as residences by the
priests. Homer’s hundred-gated
Thebes, which was for so long the
capital of Egypt, offers at Karnak
and Luxor the finest remains of
temples; what is left of the former
evidently showing that it must
have been one of the most magnificent
buildings ever erected in
any country. Fig. is a plan of
the temple of Karnak, which was
about 1200 feet long and 348 feet
wide. A is the entrance between
the two enormous pylons giving
access to a large courtyard, in
which is a small detached temple,
and another larger one breaking
into the courtyard obliquely. A
gateway between a second pair of pylons admits to B, the
grand Hypostyle Hall, 334 feet by 167 feet. Beyond this
are additional gateways with pylons, separated by a sort
of gallery, C, in which were two gigantic obelisks; D, another
grand hall, is called the Hall of the Caryatides, and
beyond is the Hall of the eighteen columns, through which
access is gained to a number of smaller halls grouped round
the central chamber E. Beyond this is a large courtyard,
in the centre of which stood the original sanctuary, which
has disappeared down to its foundations, nothing but some
broken shafts of columns remaining. At the extreme east
is another hall supported partly by columns and partly
by square piers, and a second series of pillared courts and
chambers. The pylons and buildings generally decrease
in height as we proceed from the entrance eastwards.
This is due to the fact that, the building grew by successive
additions, each one more magnificent than the last,
all being added on the side from which the temple was
entered, leaving the original sanctuary unchanged and
undisturbed.
Fig. 17.—The Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, showing the Clerestory.
Fig. 18.—Entrance to an Egyptian Temple, showing the Pylons.
Besides the buildings shown on the plan there were
many other temples to the north, south, and east, entered
by pylons and some of them connected together by avenues
of sphinxes, obelisks, and colossi, which altogether made
up the most wonderful agglomeration of buildings that
can be conceived. It must not be imagined that this
temple of Karnak, together with the series of connected
temples is the result, of one clearly conceived plan; on
the contrary, just as has been frequently the case with
our own cathedrals and baronial halls, alterations were
made here and additions there by successive kings one
after the other without much regard to connection or
congruity, the only feeling that probably influenced them
being that of emulation to excel in size and grandeur
the erections of their predecessors, as the largest buildings
are almost always of latest date. The original sanctuary,
or nucleus of the temple, was built by Usertesen I., the
second or third king of the twelfth dynasty. Omenophis,
the first king of the Shepherd dynasties, built a temple
round the sanctuary, which has disappeared. Thothmes
I. built the Hall of the Caryatides and commenced the
next Hall of the eighteen columns, which was finished
by Thothmes II. Thothmes III. built that portion surrounding
the sanctuary, and he also built the courts on
the extreme east. The pylon at C was built by Omenophis
III., and formed the façade of the temple before the
*** of the grand hall. Sethi I. built the Hypostyle
Hall, which had probably been originated by Rhamses I.,
who commenced the pylon west of it. Sethi II. built the
small detached temple, and Rhamses III. the intersecting
temple. The Bubastites constructed the large front court
by building walls round it, and the Ptolemies commenced
the huge western pylon. The colonnade in the centre of
the court was erected by Tahraka.
Extensive remains of temples exist at Luxor, Edfou
(Fig. ), and Philæ, but it will not be necessary to give
a detailed description of them, as, if smaller in size, they
are very similar in arrangement to those already described.
It should be noticed that all these large temples have the
mastaba form, i.e. the outer walls are not perpendicular
on the outside, but slope inwards as they rise, thus giving
the buildings an air of great solidity.
Fig. 19.—Plan of the Temple at Edfou.
Fig. 20.—Plan of one of the
Mammisi at Edfou.
The Mammisi exhibit quite a different form of temple
from those previously described, and are generally found
in close proximity to the large temples. They are
generally erected on a raised terrace, rectangular on plan
and nearly twice as long as it was wide, approached by
a flight of steps opposite the entrance; they consist of
oblong buildings, usually divided by a wall into two
chambers, and surrounded on all sides by a colonnade
composed of circular columns or square piers placed at
intervals, and the whole is roofed in. A dwarf wall is frequently
found between the piers and columns, about half
the height of the shaft. These temples differ from the larger
ones in having their outer walls perpendicular. Fig.
is a plan of one of these small temples, and no one can
fail to remark the striking likeness to some of the Greek
temples; there can indeed
be little doubt that this
nation borrowed the peristylar
form of its temples
from the Ancient Egyptians.
Fig. 21.—Ground-plan of the Rock-cut
Temple at Ipsamboul.
Fig. 22.—Section of the Rock-cut Temple at Ipsamboul.
Although no rock-cut
temples have been discovered
in Egypt proper,
Nubia is very rich in such
remains. The arrangement
of these temples hewn out
of the rock is closely analogous
to that of the detached
ones. Figs. and show
a plan and section of the
largest of the rock-cut temples at Ipsamboul, which
consists of two extensive courts, with smaller chambers
beyond, all connected by galleries. The roof of the large
court is supported by eight huge piers, the faces of which
are sculptured into the form of standing colossi, and the
entrance is adorned by four splendid seated colossi,
68 ft. 6 in. high. As was the case with the detached
temples, it will be noticed that the height of the
various chambers decreases towards the extremity of the
excavation.
Plan.
Fig. 23.—Egyptian Column
with Lotus Bud Capital.
Fig. 24.—Egyptian Column
with Lotus Flower Capital.
The constructional system pursued by the Egyptians,
which consisted in roofing over spaces with large horizontal
blocks of stone, led of necessity to a columnar arrangement
in the interiors, as it was impossible to cover large areas
without frequent upright supports. Hence the column
became the chief means of obtaining effect, and the varieties
of form which it exhibits are very numerous. The earliest
form is that at Beni-Hassan, which has already been noticed
as the prototype of the Doric order. Figs. and are
views of two columns of a type more commonly employed.
In these the sculptors appear to have imitated as closely
as possible the forms of the plant-world around them, as
is shown in Fig. , which represents a bundle of reeds
or lotus stalks, and is the earliest type known of the lotus
column, which was afterwards developed into a number of
forms, one of which will be observed on turning to our
section of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak (Fig. ), as
employed for the lateral columns. The stalks are bound
round with several belts, and the capital is formed by
the slightly bulging unopened bud of the flower, above
which is a small abacus with the architrave resting upon
it: the base is nothing but a low circular plinth. The
square piers also have frequently a lotus bud carved on
them. At the bottom of the shaft is frequently found
a decoration imitated from the sheath of leaves from
which the plant springs. As a further development of
this capital we have the opened lotus flower of a very
graceful bell-like shape, ornamented with a similar sheath-like
decoration to that at the base of the shaft (Fig. ).
This decoration was originally painted only, not sculptured,
but at a later period we find these sheaths and buds worked
in stone. Even more graceful is the palm capital, which
also had its leading lines of decoration painted on it at first
(Fig. ), and afterwards sculptured (Fig. ). At a later
period of the style we find the plant forms abandoned, and
capitals were formed of a fantastic combination of the head
of Isis with a pylon resting upon it (Fig. ). Considerable
ingenuity was exercised in adapting the capitals of the
columns to the positions in which they were placed: thus
in the hypostyle halls, the lofty central row of columns
generally had capitals of the form shown in Fig. , as
the light here was sufficient to illuminate thoroughly the
underside of the overhanging bell; but those columns
which were farther removed from the light had their
capitals of the unopened bud form, which was narrower
at the top than at bottom. In one part of the temple at
Karnak is found a very curious capital resembling the
open lotus flower inverted. The proportion which the
height of Egyptian columns bears to their diameter differs
so much in various cases that there was evidently no
regular standard adhered to, but as a general rule they
have a heavy and massive character. The wall-paintings
of the Egyptian buildings show many curious forms of
columns (Fig. ), but we have no reason for thinking
that these fantastic shapes were really executed in stone.
Fig. 25.—Palm Capital.
Fig. 26.—Sculptured Capital.
Fig. 27.—Isis Capital from
Denderah.
Fig. 28.—Fanciful Column from
Painted Decoration at Thebes.
Almost the only sculptured ornaments worked on the
exteriors of buildings were the curious astragal or bead at
all the angles, and the cornice, which consisted of a very
large cavetto, or hollow moulding, surmounted by a fillet.
These features are almost invariable from the earliest to
the latest period of the style. This cavetto was generally
enriched, over the doorways, with an ornament representing
a circular boss with a wing at each side of it
(Fig. ).
One other feature of Egyptian architecture which was
peculiar to it must be mentioned; namely, the obelisk.
Obelisks were nearly always erected in pairs in front
of the pylons of the temples, and added to the dignity of
the entrance. They were invariably monoliths, slightly
tapering in outline, carved with the most perfect accuracy;
they must have existed originally in very large numbers.
Not a few of these have been transported to Europe, and
at least twelve are standing in Rome, one is in Paris, and
one in London.
Fig. 29.—Crowning Cornice and Bead.
The most striking features, and the most artistic, in the
decoration of Egyptian buildings, are the mural paintings
and sculptured pictures, which are found in the most lavish
profusion, and which exhibit the highest skill in conventionalising
the human figure and other objects. Tombs
and temples, columns and obelisks are completely covered
with graphic representations of peaceful home pursuits,
warlike expeditions and battle scenes, and—though not
till a late period—descriptions of ritual and mythological
delineations of the supposed spirit-world which the soul
has entered after death. These pictures, together with the
hieroglyphic inscriptions—which are in themselves a series
of pictures—not only relieve the bare wall surface, but,
what is far more important, enable us to realise the kind
of existence which was led by this ancient people; and
as in nearly every case the cartouche (or symbol representing
the name) of the monarch under whose reign the
building was erected was added, we should be able to fix
the dates of the buildings with exactness, were the chronology
of the kings made out beyond doubt.
The following description of the manner in which the
Egyptian paintings and sculptures were executed—from
the pen of Owen Jones—will be read with interest:—“The
wall was first chiselled as smooth as possible, the
imperfections of the stone were filled up with cement or
plaster, and the whole was rubbed smooth and covered
with a coloured wash; lines were then ruled perpendicularly
and horizontally with red colour, forming squares
all over the wall corresponding with the proportions of
the figure to be drawn upon it. The subjects of the
painting and of the hieroglyphics were then drawn on
the wall with a red line, most probably by the priest or
chief scribe, or by some inferior artist, from a document
divided into similar squares; then came the chief artist,
who went over every figure and hieroglyphic with a black
line, and a firm and steady hand, giving expression to each
curve, deviating here and confirming there the red line.
The line thus traced was then followed by the sculptor.
The next process was to paint the figure in the prescribed
colours.”
Although Egyptian architecture was essentially a trabeated
style,—that is to say, a style in which beams or
lintels were usually employed to cover openings,—there is
strong ground for the belief that the builders of that time
were acquainted with the nature of the arch. Dr. Birch
mentions a rudimentary arch of the time of the fifth
dynasty: at Abydos there are also remains of vaulted
tombs of the sixth dynasty; and in a tomb in the neighbourhood
of the Pyramids there is an elementary arch of
three stones surmounted by a true arch constructed in four
courses. The probability is that true brick arches were
built at a very early period, but in the construction of
their tombs, where heavy masses of superincumbent
masonry or rock had to be supported, the Egyptians
seem to have been afraid to risk even the remote possibility
of their arches decaying; and hence, even when
they preserved the form of the arch in masonry, they
constructed it with horizontal courses of stones projecting
one over the other, and then cut away the lower angles.
One dominating idea seems to have influenced them in
the whole of their work—esto perpetua was their motto;
and though they have been excelled by later peoples in
grace and beauty, it is a question whether they have ever
been surpassed in the skill with which they adapted their
means to the end which they always kept in view.
ANALYSIS OF BUILDINGS.
Plan.
Floor (technically Plan).—The early rock-cut tombs
were, of course, only capable of producing internal effects;
their floor presents a series of halls and galleries, varying
in size and shape, leading one out of the other, and
intended by their contrast or combination to produce
architectural effect. To this was added in the later rock-cut
tombs a façade to be seen directly in front. Much
the same account can be given of the disposition of the
built temples. They possess one front, which the spectator
approaches, and they are disposed so as to produce varied
and impressive interiors, but not to give rise to external
display. The supports, such as walls, columns, piers, are
all very massive and very close together, so that the only
wide open spaces are courtyards.
The circle, or octagon, or other polygonal forms do not
appear in the plans of Egyptian buildings; but though all
the lines are straight, there is a good deal of irregularity
in spacing, walls which face one another are not always
parallel, and angles which appear to be right angles very
often are not so.
The later buildings extend over much space. The
adjuncts to these buildings, especially the avenues of
sphinxes, are planned so as to produce an air of stately
grandeur, and in them some degree of external effect is
aimed at.
Walls.
The walls are uniformly thick, and often of granite or
of stone, though brick is also met with; e.g. some of the
smaller pyramids are built entirely of brick. In all probability
the walls of domestic buildings were to a great
extent of brick, and less thick than those of the temples;
hence they have all disappeared.
The surface of walls, even when of granite, was usually
plastered with a thin fine plaster, which was covered by
the profuse decoration in colour already alluded to.
The walls of the propylons tapered from the base towards
the top, and the same thing sometimes occurred in other
walls. In almost all cases the stone walls are built of
very large blocks, and they show an unrivalled skill in
masonry.
Roofs.
The roofing which remains is executed entirely in stone,
but not arched or vaulted. The rock-cut tombs, however,
as has been stated, contain ceilings of an arched shape,
and in some cases forms which seem to be an imitation of
timber roofing. The roofing of the Hypostyle Hall at
Karnak provides an arrangement for admitting light very
similar to the clerestory of Gothic cathedrals.
Openings.
The openings were all covered by a stone lintel, and
consequently were uniformly square-headed. The interspaces
between columns were similarly covered, and hence
Egyptian architecture has been, and correctly, classed
as the first among the styles of trabeated architecture.
Window-openings seldom occur.
Columns.
The columns have been already described to some extent.
They are almost always circular in plan, but the shaft is
sometimes channelled. They are for the most part of
sturdy proportions, but great grace and elegance are
shown in the profile given to shafts and capitals. The
design of the capitals especially is full of variety, and
admirably adapts forms obtained from the vegetable kingdom.
The general effect of the Egyptian column, wherever
it is used, is that it appears to have, as it really has,
a great deal more strength than is required. The fact
that the abacus (the square block of stone introduced
between the moulded part of the capital and what it
carries) is often smaller in width than the diameter of
the column aids very much to produce this effect.
Ornaments.
Mouldings are very rarely employed; in fact, the large
bead running up the angles of the pylons, &c., and a heavy
hollow moulding doing duty as a cornice, are all that are
usually met with. Sculpture and carving occur occasionally,
and are freely introduced in later works, where
we sometimes find statues incorporated into the design of
the fronts of temples. Decoration in colour, in the shape
of hieroglyphic inscriptions and paintings of all sorts,
was profusely employed (Figs. ), and is executed
with a truth of drawing and a beauty of colouring that
have never been surpassed. As has been pointed out,
almost every object drawn is partly conventionalised, in
the most skilful manner, so as to make it fit its place
as a piece of a decorative system.
Architectural Character.
This is gloomy, and to a certain extent forbidding,
owing to the heavy walls and piers and columns, and the
great masses supported by them; but when in its freshness
and quite uninjured by decay or violence, the exquisite
colouring of the walls and ceilings and columns must have
added a great deal of beauty: this must have very much
diminished the oppressive effect inseparable from such
massive construction and from the gloomy darkness of
many portions of the buildings. It is also noteworthy
that the expenditure of materials and labour is greater in
proportion to the effect attained than in any other style.
The pyramids are the most conspicuous example of this
prodigality. Before condemning this as a defect in the
style, it must be remembered that a stability which should
defy enemies, earthquakes, and the tooth of time, was far
more aimed at than architectural character; and that,
had any mode of construction less lavish of material, and
less perfect in workmanship, been adopted, the buildings
of Egypt might have all disappeared ere this.
Fig. 30.—Painted Decoration from Thebes.
FOOTNOTES:
Some Egyptologists incline to the opinion that the pyramid of Saqqára
is the most ancient, while others think it much more recent than
those of Gizeh.
Strictly speaking, the base is not an exact square, the four sides
measuring, according to the Royal Engineers, north, 760 ft. 7·5 in.; south,
761 ft. 8·5 in.; east, 760 ft. 9·5 in.; and west, 764 ft. 1 in.
Conventionalising may be described as representing a part only of the
visible qualities or features of an object, omitting the remainder or very
slightly indicating them. A black silhouette portrait is an extreme
instance of convention, as it displays absolutely nothing but the outline
of a profile. For decorative purposes it is almost always necessary to conventionalise
to a greater or less extent whatever is represented.
Fig. 31.—Sculptured Ornament at Nineveh.
CHAPTER III.
WEST ASIATIC ARCHITECTURE.
THE architectural styles of the ancient nations which
ruled over the countries of Western Asia watered
by the Tigris and the Euphrates, from a period about
2200 B.C. down to 330 B.C., are so intimately connected one
with another, and so dependent one upon the other, that it
is almost impossible to attempt an accurate discrimination
between the Babylonian, or ancient Chaldæan, the Assyrian
and the Persian. A more intelligible idea of the architecture
of this long period will be gained by regarding
the three styles as modifications and developments of one
original style, than by endeavouring to separate them.
Their sequence can, however, be accurately determined.
First comes the old Chaldæan period, next the Assyrian,
during which the great city of Nineveh was built, and
finally the Persian, after Cyrus had subdued the older
monarchies; and remains exist of all these periods. As
to the origin of the Chaldæan Kingdom, however, all is
obscure; and the earliest date which can be fixed with
the slightest approach to probability is 2234 B.C., when
*** is supposed to have founded the old Chaldæan
dynasty. This seems to have lasted about 700 years, and
was then overthrown by a conquering nation of which
no record or even tradition remains, the next two and a
half centuries being a complete blank till the rise of the
great Assyrian Monarchy about 1290 B.C., which lasted
till its destruction by Cyrus about 538 B.C. The Persian
Monarchy then endured till the death of Alexander the
Great, in 333 B.C., after which great confusion arose, the
empire being broken up among his generals and rapidly
falling to pieces.
It is only within a comparatively recent period that we
have had any knowledge of the architecture of these
countries; but the explorations of M. Botta, commenced
in 1843 and continued by M. Place, and those of Mr. (now
Sir A. H.) Layard in 1845, combined with the successful
attempts of Prof. Grotefend, Prof. Lassen, and Col. Rawlinson
at deciphering the cuneiform inscriptions, have disclosed
a new world to the architectural student, without
which some of the developments of Greek architecture
must have remained obscure. The authentic remains of
buildings of the early Chaldæan period are too few and in
too ruinous a condition to allow of a reproduction of their
architectural features with any certainty. The buildings,
whether palaces or temples, appear to have been constructed
on terraces, and to have been several storeys in
height; and in one instance, at Mugheyr, the walls sloped
inwards in a similar manner to those of Egyptian buildings,
a peculiarity which is not met with in other examples
of West Asiatic architecture. The materials employed
were bricks, both sun-dried and kiln-burnt, which seem
to have been coated with a vitreous enamel for purposes
of interior decoration. Fragments of carved limestone
were discovered by Sir A. H. Layard, but the fact that
the fragments found have been so few ought not to
lead us too hastily to the conclusion that stone was not
used as facing for architectural purposes, as after the
buildings became ruined the stone would eagerly be sought
for and carried away before the brickwork was touched.
Bitumen seems to have been employed as a cement. Although
original buildings of this era cannot be found,
it has been shown that in all probability we have, in a
building of a later date—the Birs-i-Nimrud—a type of the
old Babylonian temple. This in its general disposition
must have resembled that of the Tomb of Cyrus, described
and figured later on, though on a vastly larger scale. The
lowest storey appears to have been an exact square of
272 ft.; each of the higher storeys was 42 ft. less horizontally
than the one below it, and was placed 30 ft. back
from the front of the storey below it, but equidistant
from the two sides, where the platforms were 21 ft. wide.
The three upper storeys were 45 ft. in height altogether,
the two below these were 26 ft. each, and the height of
the lowest is uncertain. The topmost storey probably had
a tower on it which enclosed the shrine of the temple.
This edifice was for a long time a bone of contention
among savants, but Colonel Rawlinson’s investigations
have brought to light the fact that it was a temple dedicated
to the seven heavenly spheres, viz. Saturn, Jupiter,
Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon, in the
order given, starting from the bottom. Access to the
various platforms was obtained by stairs, and the whole
building was surrounded by a walled enclosure. From
remains found at Wurkha we may gather that the walls
of the buildings of this period were covered with elaborate
plaster ornaments, and that a lavish use was made of
colour in their decoration.
Of the later Assyrian period several ruins of buildings
believed to be palaces have been excavated, of which the
large palace at Khorsabad, the old name of which was
Hisir-Sargon, now a small village between 10 and 11 miles
north-east of Nineveh, has been the most completely
explored, and this consequently is the best adapted to explain
the general plan of an Assyrian edifice. M. Botta,
when French Consul at Mosul, and M. Victor Place conducted
these explorations, and the following details are
taken from their works. Like all other Assyrian palaces,
this was reared on a huge artificial mound, the labour
of forming which must have been enormous. The reason
for the construction of these mounds is not far to seek.
Just as the chiefs of a mountainous country choose the
loftiest peaks for their castles, so in Assyria, which
was a very flat country, the extra defensive strength
of elevated buildings was clearly appreciated; and as
these absolute monarchs ruled over a teeming population
and had a very large number of slaves, and only had
to direct their taskmasters to impress labour whenever
they wanted it, no difficulty existed in forming elevated
platforms for their palaces. These were frequently close
to a river, and it is by no means improbable that this was
turned into the excavation from which the earth for the
mound was taken, and thus formed a lake or moat as an
additional defence. A further reason for these terraces
may be found in the fact that in a hot climate buildings
erected some 20 or 30 ft. above the level of the plain
catch the breezes much more quickly than lower edifices.
In the case of Khorsabad the terrace was made of sun-dried
bricks, about 15·7 in. square and 2 in. thick. These
bricks were made of the most carefully prepared clay.
The terrace was faced by a retaining wall of coursed
masonry, nearly 10 ft. in thickness. On this terrace
the palace was built, and it consisted of a series of open
courts arranged unsymmetrically, surrounded by state or
private apartments, storehouses, stables, &c. Great care
seems to have been exercised in the accurate orientation of
the building, but in rather a peculiar manner. Instead
of any one façade of the building facing due north,
the corners face exactly towards the four points of the
compass. The courts were all entered by magnificent
portals flanked by gigantic figures, and were approached
by flights of steps. Fig. is a plan of the palace of
Khorsabad, which was placed close to the boundary of the
city; in fact it was partly outside the city wall proper,
though surrounded by a wall of its own. The grand
south-east portals or propylæa were adorned with huge
human-headed bulls and gigantic figures, and gave access
to a large court, 315 ft. by 280 ft., on the east side of which
are the stables and out-houses, and on the west side the
metal stores. On the north of this court, though not
approached directly from it, was the Seraglio (not to be
confounded with the Harem), the grand entrance to which
was from a second large court, access to which was obtained
from a roadway sloping up from the city. The portals
to this portion of the palace were also adorned with
human-headed bulls. From the second court a vaulted
passage gave access to the state apartments, which appear
to have had a direct view across the open country, and
were quite outside the city walls. The Harem has been
excavated; it stood just outside the palace proper, behind
the metal stores. The remains of an observatory exist,
and the outlines of what is supposed to have been a
temple have also been unearthed, so that we have here a
complete plan of the palace. Altogether 31 courts and
198 chambers have been discovered.
Fig. 32.—Palace of Khorsabad. Built by King Sargon about 710 B.C.
A, Steps. B, Chief portal. C, Chief entrance-court. D-H, Women’s apartments (Harem). J, Centre
court of building. K, Chief court of royal residence. L, Portal with carved bulls as guards.
M, Centre court of royal residence. N, Temple (?). O, Pyramid of steps. S, Entrance to chief court.
T, Plan of terraces with wall and towers.
It will be noticed that great disproportion exists between
the length of the various apartments and their breadth, none
being more than 40 ft. wide; and it is probable that this
was owing to structural necessities, the Assyrian builders
finding it impossible, with the materials at their disposal,
to cover wider spaces than this. The walls of this palace
vary from 5 to 15 ft. in thickness, and are composed of
sun-dried bricks, faced in the principal courts and state
apartments with slabs of alabaster or Mosul gypsum to a
height of from 9 to 12 ft., above which kiln-burnt bricks
were used. The alabaster slabs were held together by
iron, copper, or wooden cramps or plugs, and were covered
with sculptured pictures representing scenes of peace and
war, from which, as was the case with the Egyptian
remains, we are able to reconstruct for ourselves the daily
life of the monarchs of those early times. Above the
alabaster slabs plastered decorations were used; in some
cases painted frescoes have been found, or mosaics formed
with enamelled bricks of various colours. In the out-buildings
and the more retired rooms of the palace, the
alabaster slabs were omitted, and plaster decorations used,
from the ground upwards. The researches of MM. Botta
and Place have shown that colour was used with a lavishness
quite foreign to our notions, as the alabaster statues
as well as the plaster enrichments were coloured. M. Place
says that in no case were the plain bricks allowed to face
the walls of an apartment, the joint being always concealed
either by colour or plaster: in fact, he remarks that
after a time, if he found walls standing showing the brickwork
joints, he invariably searched with success among
the débris of the chamber for remains of the sculptured
decorations which had been used to face the walls.
Not the least interesting of these discoveries was that
of the drains under the palace, portions of which were
in very good preservation; and all were vaulted, so that
there can be no doubt whatever that the Assyrians were
acquainted with the use of the arch. This was further
proved by the discovery by M. Place of the great arched
gates of the city itself, with an archivolt of coloured
enamelled bricks forming various patterns, with a semicircular
arch springing from plain jambs. Extreme care
was taken by the Assyrian builders in laying the pavements
to ensure their being perfectly level: first a layer
of kiln-burnt bricks was laid on the ordinary sun-dried
bricks forming the terrace; then came a layer of fine sand,
upon which the bricks or slabs of the pavement proper
were laid, forming in many cases an elegant pattern (see
Fig. ).
Fig. 33.—Pavement from Khoyunjik.
Great difference of opinion exists as to the manner in
which the various apartments of the palace were lighted.
M. Place suggests that the rooms were all vaulted on the
inside, and the spandrels filled in with earth afterwards to
form perfectly flat roofs, and he gives a restoration of the
building on such an arrangement; but if he is correct,
it is impossible to see how any light at all can have penetrated
into the interior of many of the apartments, and
as these apartments are decorated with a profusion of
paintings it is very difficult to believe that artificial light
alone was used in them. M. Place thinks, however, that
in some cylindrical terra-cotta vessels which he found he
has hit upon a species of skylight which passed completely
through the vault over the rooms, and thus admitted the
light from above. This, however, can hardly be considered
as settled yet. Mr. Fergusson, on the other hand, suggests
that the thick main walls were carried to a height of about
18 or 19 ft., and that above this were two rows of dwarf
columns, one on the inner and the other on the outer edge
of the wall, these columns supporting a flat terrace roof, and
the walls thus forming galleries all round the apartments.
Then to cover the space occupied by the apartments themselves
it is necessary to assume the existence of rows of
columns, the capitals of which were at the same level as
those of the dwarf columns on the walls. Where one
apartment is surrounded on all sides by others, the roof
over it may have been carried up to a higher level, forming
a sort of clerestory. This theory no doubt accounts for
many things which are very hard to explain otherwise,
and derives very strong support from the analogy of Persepolis,
where slender stone columns exist. Such columns
of cedar wood would add enormously to the magnificence
and grandeur of the building; and if, as seems likely, most
of these Assyrian palaces were destroyed by fire, the
absence of the remains of columns offers no difficulty.
On the other hand, in many parts of the palace of Khorsabad
no trace of fire remains, and yet here no suggestion
of detached columns can be found, and, moreover, it is
extremely difficult to arrange columns symmetrically in the
various apartments so that doorways are not interfered
with. There is also another difficulty, viz. that if the
building called the Harem at Khorsabad was built in this
way, the apartments would have been open to the view of
any one ascending the lofty building called the observatory.
It is quite possible that further explorations may tend to
elucidate this difficult question of roofing, but at present
all that can be said is that none of the theories that have
been put forward is wholly satisfactory.
As no columns at all exist, we cannot say what capitals
were employed, but it is probable that those of Persepolis,
which will be shortly described, were copied from an
earlier wooden form, which may have been that used by the
Assyrian builders. There is, however, capping the terrace
on which the temple was erected at Khorsabad, a good
example of an Assyrian cornice, which is very similar
indeed to the forms found in Egypt, and some of the
sculptured bas-reliefs which have been discovered depict
rude copies of Assyrian buildings drawn by the people
themselves; and it is most interesting to notice that just
as we found in the Egyptian style the proto-Doric column,
so in the Assyrian we find the proto-Ionic (Figs. , ),
and possibly also the proto-Corinthian (Fig. ).
Fig. 34.—Proto-Ionic
Column.
Fig. 34a.—Proto-Ionic
Capital from Assyrian
Sculpture.
Fig. 34b.—Proto-Corinthian
Capital
from Assyrian
Sculpture.
The third branch of West Asiatic architecture is the
Persian, which was developed after Cyrus had conquered
the older monarchies, and which attained its greatest magnificence
under Darius and Xerxes. The Persians were
originally a brave and hardy race inhabiting the mountainous
region south of Media, which slopes down to the
Persian Gulf. Until the time of Cyrus, who was the founder
of the great kingdom of Persia, they inhabited small towns,
had no architecture, and were simple barbarians. But after
Cyrus had vanquished the wealthy and luxurious Assyrian
monarchs, and his warriors had seen and wondered at the
opulence and splendour of the Assyrian palaces, it was
natural that his successors should strive to emulate for
themselves the display of their vassals. Therefore, having
no indigenous style to fall back upon, the artisans who
were summoned to build the tomb of the founder of the
monarchy and the palaces of his successors, simply copied
the forms with which they were acquainted. Fortunately,
the sites for the new palaces were in a locality where building
stone was good and abundant, and the presence of this
material had a modifying effect upon the architecture.
Fig. 35.—Tomb of Cyrus.
The best known of the remains which date as far back
as the earlier Persian dynasties is the so-called tomb of
Cyrus at Pasargadæ, near Murghab (Fig. ). This may
be looked upon as a model in white marble of an old
Chaldæan temple, such as the Birs-i-Nimrud. There
are the same platforms diminishing in area as the top is
approached, and on the topmost platform is a small cella
or temple with a gabled stone roof, which probably
originally contained the sarcophagus. It is, however, at
Persepolis, the real capital of the later Persian kings,
whose grandeur and wealth were such that Alexander is
said to have found there treasure to the amount of thirty
millions of pounds sterling, that we find the most magnificent
series of ruins. These were carefully measured and
drawn by Baron Texier in 1835, and his work and that of
MM. Flandrin and Coste are those from which the best
information on this subject can be obtained.
Fig. 35a.—General Plan of the Buildings at Persepolis.
Persepolis is about 35 miles north-east of Shiraz, close to
the main highway to Ispahan, at the foot of the mountain
range which bounds the extensive plain of Nurdusht. The
modern inhabitants of the district call the ruins Takht-i-Jamshid
(or the building of Jamshid), but the inscriptions
that have been deciphered prove that Darius and Xerxes
were the chief builders. Just as was the case with the
Assyrian ruins, these stand on an immense platform
which rises perpendicularly from the plain and abuts in
the rear against the mountain range. Instead, however,
of this platform being raised artificially, it was cut out of
the rock, and levelled into a series of terraces, on which
the buildings were erected. The platform, whose length
from north to south is about 1582 ft., and breadth from
east to west about 938 ft., is approached from the plain
by a magnificent double staircase of black marble, of very
easy rise, not more than 4 in. each step. Its general
height above the level of the plain was originally
34 ft. 9 in. The retaining wall of the platform is not
straight, but has in it 40 breaks or set-offs of unequal
dimensions. At the top of the staircase are the remains of
a building with four columns in the centre and with large
portals both back and front, each of which is adorned with
gigantic bulls, strikingly resembling those found at Khorsabad.
Those in the front have no wings, but those in the
rear have wings and human heads. It has been suggested
that these are the ruins of one of those large covered gates
frequently mentioned in the Bible, under the shelter of
which business was transacted, and which probably formed
the entrance to the whole range of courts and buildings.
After passing through this gateway and turning southwards,
at a distance of 177 feet from it, another terrace
is reached, 9 ft. 2 in. higher than the first one. This terrace
also is approached by four flights of steps profusely
decorated with sculptured bas-reliefs, and on it are the
remains of the Chehil Minar, the grand hexastyle Hall of
Xerxes, which must have been one of the most magnificent
buildings of ancient times. This building is marked A on
the general plan. It consisted of a central court, containing
thirty-six columns, the distance from centre to centre
of the outside columns being 142 ft. 8 in. This court was
surrounded by walls, of which nothing now remains but
the jambs of three of the doorways. On three sides of
this court, to the north, east and west, were porticoes of
twelve columns each, precisely in a line with those of the
central court, the distance from centre to centre of the
columns being 28 ft. 6 in. These columns, both in their
proportions and shape, suggest an imitation of timber construction.
On the south the court was probably terminated
by a wall, and Mr. Fergusson suggests that the
corners between the porticoes were filled up with small
chambers. The most striking feature of this hall or palace
must have been its loftiness, the height of the columns
varying from 63 ft. 8 in. to 64 feet from bottom of base to
top of capital. The shafts were slightly tapering and had
48 flutings, and were 4 ft. 6 in. in diameter in the upper
part. The bases of the columns show hardly any variations,
and consist of a series of mouldings such as is shown in
Fig. ; the lowest part of this moulded base is enriched
with leaves, and rests on a low circular plinth at the
bottom: the total height of the base averages 5 feet.
The capitals show considerable variations. Those of the
east and west porticoes represent the heads and fore part
of the bodies of two bulls placed directly on the shaft
back to back, with their forelegs doubled under them,
the feet resting on the shaft and the knees projecting;
the total height of these capitals is 7 ft. 4 in. Between
the necks of the bulls rested the wooden girder which
supported the cross-bearers of the roof. In the north
portico and, so far as can be ascertained, in the central
court, the shaft of the column was much shorter, and
supported a fantastic elongated capital, consisting of a
sort of inverted cup, supporting an elegant shape much
resembling the Egyptian palm-leaf capital, above which,
on all the four sides, are double spirals resembling the
ornaments of the Greek Ionic capital known as volutes, but
placed perpendicularly, and not, as in the Ionic capital,
horizontally. These volutes again may have supported
double bulls, which would make the total height of the
columns the same as those of the east and west porticoes.
The doorways have cornices enriched with leaves, similar
to those found at Khorsabad, which have already been
noticed as bearing a decided resemblance to the Egyptian
doorways.
Fig. 35b.—Column from Persepolis,
East and West Porticoes.
Fig. 36.—Column from
Persepolis, North Portico.
On other terraces, slightly raised above the main platform,
exist the remains, in a more or less ruined condition,
of numerous other courts and halls, one of which has no
less than one hundred columns to support its roof, but the
height of this building was much inferior to that of the
Chehil Minar. The existence of these columns leaves no
doubt that these buildings were covered with flat roofs;
and that over part of them was a raised talar or prayer-platform
is rendered probable from the introduction of such
a feature into the sculptured representation of a palace
façade which forms the entrance to the rock-tomb of
Darius, which was cut out of the mountain at the back
of the terrace of Persepolis. The position of this tomb
on the general plan is marked B, and Fig. is a view
of the entrance, which was probably intended as a copy
of one of the halls. All the walls of the palaces were
profusely decorated with sculptured pictures, and various
indications occur which induce the belief that painting
was used to decorate those portions of the walls that were
not faced with sculptured slabs.
Fig. 37.—The Rock-cut Tomb of Darius.
The superior lightness and elegance of the Persepolitan
ruins to those of an earlier epoch will not fail to be noticed,
but there is still a certain amount of barbaric clumsiness
discernible, and it is not till we come to Greek architecture
that we see how an innate genius for art and
beauty, such as was possessed by that people, could cull
from previous styles everything capable of being used
with effect, and discard or prune off all the unnecessary
exuberances of those styles which offend a critically artistic
taste.
ANALYSIS OF BUILDINGS.
Plan.
The floor-space of a great Assyrian or Medo-Persian
building was laid out on a plan quite distinct from that of
an Egyptian temple; for the rooms are almost always
grouped round quadrangles. The buildings are also placed
on terraces, and no doubt would secure external as well
as internal effects, to which the imposing flights of stairs
provided would largely contribute. We find in Assyrian
palaces, halls comparatively narrow in proportion to their
great length, but still so wide that the roofing of them
must have been a serious business, and we find them
arranged side by side, often three deep. In the Persian
buildings, halls nearly square on plan, and filled by a
multitude of columns, occur frequently. In the plan of
detached buildings like the Birs-i-Nimrud, we are reminded
of the pyramids of Egypt, which no doubt suggested the
idea of pyramidal monuments to all subsequent building
peoples.
Walls.
The magnificently worked granite and stones of Egypt
give place to brick for the material of the walls, with the
result that a far larger space could be covered with buildings
by a given number of men in a given time, but of
course the structures were far more liable to decay.
Accordingly, sturdy as their walls are, we find them at
the present day reduced to mere shapeless mounds, but of
prodigious extent.
Roofs.
We can only judge of the roofs by inference, and it has
already been stated that a difference of opinion exists
respecting them. It appears most probable that a large
proportion of the buildings must have been roofed by
throwing timber beams from wall to wall and forming
a thick platform of earth on them, and must have been
lighted by some sort of clerestory. At any rate the
stone roofs of the Egyptians seem to have been discarded,
and with them the necessity for enormous columns and
piers placed very close together. In some bas-reliefs,
buildings with roofs of a domical shape are represented.
Openings.
Doorways are the openings chiefly met with, and it is
not often that the superstructure, whether arch or lintel,
remains, but it is clear that in some instances, at least,
openings were arched. Great attention was paid to important
doorways, and a large amount of magnificent
sculpture was employed to enrich them.
Columns.
The columns most probably were of wood in Assyrian
palaces. In some of the Persian ones they were of marble,
but of a proportion and treatment which point to an imitation
of forms suitable for wood. The bases and capitals
of these slender shafts are beautiful in themselves, and
very interesting as suggesting the source from which
some of the forms in Greek architecture were derived,
and on the bas-reliefs other architectural forms are represented
which were afterwards used by the Greeks.
Ornaments.
Sculptured slabs, painted wall decorations, and terra-cotta
ornamentation were used as enrichments of the walls.
These slabs, which have become familiarly known through
the attention roused by the discoveries of Sir A. H. Layard
and the specimens sent by him to the British Museum,
are objects of the deepest interest; so are the carved bulls
from gateways. In the smaller and more purely ornamental
decorations the honeysuckle, and other forms
familiar to us from their subsequent adoption by Greek
artists, are met with constantly, executed with great
taste.
Architectural Character.
A character of lavish and ornate magnificence is the
quality most strongly displayed by the architectural
remains of Western Asia, and could we have beheld any
one of the monuments before it was reduced to ruin, we
should probably have seen this predominant to an extent
of which it is almost impossible now to form an adequate
idea.
FOOTNOTES:
In any such endeavour we should be met by the further difficulty,
that the writers of antiquity differ widely in the precise limits which they
give to the Assyrian Kingdom. Some make it include Babylon, other
writers say that it was bounded on the south by Babylon, and altogether
the greatest confusion exists in the accounts that have come down to us.
As a matter of fact there is a marked distinction between the heads
of the animals of the east and west porticoes: those of the west are undoubtedly
bulls, but those of the east are grotesque mythological creatures
somewhat resembling the fabled unicorn.
Fig. 38.—Sculptured Ornament at Allahabad.
CHAPTER IV.
ORIENTAL ARCHITECTURE.
Hindu Architecture.
HINDU architecture is not only unfamiliar but uncongenial
to Western tastes; and as it has exercised no
direct influence upon the later styles of Europe, it will be
noticed in far less detail than the magnitude and importance
of many Indian buildings which have been examined
and measured during the last few years would otherwise
claim, although the exuberant wealth of ornament exhibited
in these buildings denotes an artistic genius of very high
order, if somewhat uncultured and barbaric. As by far the
largest number of Hindu buildings are of a date much later
than the commencement of our era, a strict adherence to
chronological sequence would scarcely allow the introduction
of this style so early in the present volume; but
we know that several centuries before Christ powerful
kingdoms and wealthy cities existed in India; and as it
seems clear also that in architecture and art, as well as in
manners and customs, hardly any change has occurred
from remote antiquity, it appeared allowable, as well as
convenient, that the short description we have to offer
should precede rather than follow that of the classical
styles properly so called. Here, as always when we
attempt to penetrate farther back than a certain date,
all is obscure and mythical. We find lists of kings
and dynasties going back thousands of years before our
era, but nothing at all to enable us to judge how much of
this may be taken as solid fact. Mr. Fergusson believes
he has discovered in one date, viz. 3101 B.C., the first ***
settlement; but be this as it may, it is useless to look for
any architectural remains until after the death of Gotama
Buddha in 543 B.C.; in fact, it is very doubtful whether
remains can be authenticated until the reign of King
Asoka (B.C. 272 to B.C. 236), when Buddhism had spread
over almost the whole of the country, where it remained
the predominant cult until Brahmanism again asserted its
supremacy in the 14th century A.D.
The earliest, or among the earliest, architectural remains
are the inscribed pillars called Lâts, which are
found in numerous localities, but have been almost always
overthrown. Many of these were erected by the above-named
Asoka: they were ornamented with bands and
mouldings separating the inscriptions, and crowned by a
sort of capital, which was generally in the form of an
animal. One very curious feature in these pillars is the
constant occurrence of a precise imitation of the well-known
honeysuckle ornament of the Greeks; this was probably
derived from the same source whence the Greeks obtained
it, namely Assyria. It is most probable that these pillars
served to ornament the approaches to some kind of sacred
enclosure or temple, of which, however, no remains have
been found.
Fig. 39.—Dagoba from Ceylon.
Extremely early in date are some of the tumuli or topes
which exist in large numbers in various parts of India.
These are of two kinds,—the topes or stupas proper, which
were erected to commemorate some striking event or to
mark a sacred spot; and the dagobas, which were built
to cover the relics of Buddha himself or some Buddhist
saint. These topes consist of a slightly stilted hemispherical
dome surmounting a substructure, circular in
plan, which forms a sort of terrace, access to which is
obtained by steps. The domical shape was, however,
external only, as on the inside the masonry was almost solid,
a few small cavities only being left for the protection of
various jewels, &c. The dome was probably surmounted
by a pinnacle, as shown in Fig. . In the neighbourhood
of Bhilsa, in Central India, there are a large number of
these topes, of which the largest, that of Sanchi, measures
121 ft. in diameter and 55 ft. in height; it was erected
by King Asoka.
Two kinds of edifices which are not tombs remain,
the chaityas (temples or halls of assembly) and viharas
or monasteries, which were generally attached to the
chaityas. These erections were either detached or cut
in the rock, and it is only the rock-cut ones of which
remains exist of an earlier date than the commencement of
the Christian era. The earliest specimen of a rock-cut
chaitya is in the Nigope cave, near Behar, constructed
about 200 B.C. This consists of two compartments, an
outer rectangular one 32 ft. 9 in. by 19 ft. 1 in., and
an inner circular one 19 ft. in diameter. The Lomas
Rishi cave is of a slightly later date: both of these
rock-cut temples exhibit in every detail a reproduction
of wooden forms. In the doorway the stone piers slope
inwards, just like raking wooden struts, and the upper
part represents the ends of longitudinal rafters supporting
a roof. Later on the builders emancipated themselves
to a certain extent from this servile adhesion to
older forms, and Fig. gives a plan and section of a
later chaitya at Karli, near Poona. This bears a striking
resemblance to a Christian basilica: there is first the forecourt;
then a rectangular space divided by columns into
nave and aisles, and terminated by a semicircular apse.
The nave is 25 ft. 7 in. wide, and the aisles 10 ft. each,
the total length is 126 ft. Fifteen columns separate the
nave from the aisles, and these have bases, octagonal shafts,
and rich capitals. Round the apse the columns are replaced
by piers. The side aisles have flat roofs, and the central
nave a stilted semicircular one, practically a vault, which
at the apse becomes a semicircular dome, under which
is the dagoba, the symbol of Buddhism. The screen
separating the forecourt from the temple itself is richly
ornamented with sculpture.
Fig. 40.—Chaitya near Poona.
The older viharas or monasteries were also cut in the rock
(Figs. , ), and were divided into cells or chambers;
they were several storeys in height, and it is probable that
the cells were used by devout Buddhists as habitations for
the purposes of meditation.
Fig. 41.—The Kylas at Ellora. A Rock-cut Monument.
Fig. 42.—Plan of the Kylas at Ellora. A Rock-cut Monument.
Among the most remarkable, and in fact almost unique
features of Hindu Architecture are the so-called rails
which form enclosures sometimes round the topes and
sometimes round sacred trees. Occasionally they are
found standing alone, though when this is the case it is
probably on account of the object which was the cause of
their *** having perished. They are built of stone,
carved so as to represent a succession of perpendicular and
horizontal bands or rails, separated by a sort of pierced
panels. The carving is of the most elaborate description,
both human and animal forms being depicted with great
fidelity, and representations occur of various forms of tree
worship which have been of the greatest use in elucidating
the history of this phase of religious belief. Occasionally
the junctions of the rails are carved into a series of discs,
separated by elaborate scroll-work. These rails are
frequently of very large dimensions, that at Bharhut—which
is one of the most recently discovered—measuring 275 ft.
in circumference, with a height of 22 ft. 6 in. The date
of these erections is frequently very difficult to determine,
but the chief authorities generally concur in the opinion
that none are found dating earlier than about 250 B.C., nor
later than 500 A.D., so that it is pretty certain they must
have been appropriated to some form of Buddhist worship.
Fig. 43.—Vimana from Manasara.
All the buildings that we have mentioned were devoted
to the worship of Buddha, but the Jain schism, Brahmanism,
and other cults had their representative temples and buildings,
a full description of which would require a volume
many times larger than the present one. Many of the
late detached buildings display rich ornamentation and
elaborate workmanship. They are generally of a pyramidal
shape, several storeys in height, covered with intricately
cut mouldings and other fantastic embellishments.
Columns are of all shapes and sizes, brackets frequently
take the place of capitals, and where capitals exist almost
every variety of fantastic form is found. It has been
stated that no fixed laws govern the plan or details of
Indian buildings, but there exists an essay on Indian
Architecture by Ram Raz—himself a Hindoo—which tends
to show that such a statement is erroneous, as he quotes
original works of considerable antiquity which lay down
stringent rules as to the planning of buildings, their height,
and the details of the columns. It is probable that a more
extended acquaintance with Hindu literature will throw
further light on these rules.
Of the various invasions which have occurred some have
left traces in the architecture of India. None of these are
more interesting than certain semi-Greek forms which are
met with in the Northern Provinces, and which without
doubt are referable to the influence of the invasion under
Alexander the Great. A far more conspicuous and widespread
series of changes followed in the wake of the
Mohammedan invasions. We shall have an opportunity
later on of recurring to this subject, but it is one to which
attention should be called at this early stage, lest it should
be thought that a large and splendid part of Indian architecture
had been overlooked.
Fig. 44.—Bracket Capital.
Fig. 45.—Column from Ajunta.
Fig. 46.—Column from Ellora.
Fig. 47.—Column from Ajunta.
Chinese and Japanese Architecture.
Although the Chinese have existed as a nation, continuously
for between two and three thousand years, if
not longer, and at a very early period had arrived at a
high state of artistic and scientific cultivation, yet none
of their buildings with which we are acquainted has any
claim on our attention because of its antiquity. Several
reasons may be assigned for this, the principal being that
the Chinese seem to be as a race singularly unsusceptible
to all emotions. Although they reverence their dead
ancestors, yet this reverence never led them, as did that
of the Egyptians, Etruscans, and other nations, to a
lavish expenditure of labour or materials, to render
their tombs almost as enduring as the everlasting hills.
Though waves of religious zeal must have flowed over
the country when Confucius inculcated his simple and
practical morality and gained an influential following,
and again when Buddhism was introduced and speedily
became the religion of the greater portion of the people,
their religious emotion never led them, as it did the Greeks
and the Mediæval builders, to erect grand and lasting
monuments of sacred art. When most of the Western
nations were still barbarians, the Chinese had attained a
settled system of government, and were acquainted with
numerous scientific truths which we have prided ourselves
on rediscovering within the last two centuries; but no
thought ever seems to have occurred to them, as it did to
the Romans, of commemorating any event connected with
their life as a nation, or of handing down to posterity a
record of their great achievements. Peaceful and prosperous,
they have pursued the even tenor of their way at
a high level of civilisation certainly, but at a most monotonous
one.
The Buddhist temples of China have a strong affinity
to those of India. The largest is that at Honan, the
southern suburb of Canton. This is 306 ft. long by 174 ft.
wide, and consists of a series of courts surrounded by colonnades
and cells for the bonzes or priests. In the centre
of the courtyard is a series of pavilions or temples connected
by passages, and devoted to the worship of the idols
contained in them. On each side of the main court, against
the outer wall, is another court, with buildings round it,
consisting of kitchen and refectories on the one side, and
hospital wards on the other. It is almost certain that this is
a reproduction of the earlier forms of chaityas and viharas
which existed in India, and have been already referred to.
The temple of Honan is two storeys in height, the building
itself being of stone, but the colonnade surrounding it is of
wood on marble bases. On the second storey the columns
are placed on two sides only, and not all round. The
columns have no capitals, but have projecting brackets.
The roof of each storey projects over the columns, and
has a curved section, which is, in fact, peculiar to Chinese
roofs, and it is enriched at the corners with carved beasts
and foliage. This is a very common form of temple
throughout China.
The Taas or Pagodas are the buildings of China best
known to Europeans. These are nearly always octagonal
in plan, and consist generally of nine storeys, diminishing
both in height and breadth as they approach the top.
Each storey has a cornice composed of a fillet and large
hollow moulding, supporting a roof which is turned up
at every corner and ornamented with leaves and bells.
On the top of all is a long pole, forming a sort of spire,
surrounded by iron hoops, and supported by eight chains
attached to the summit and to each angle of the roof of
the topmost storey. The best known pagoda is that of
Nankin, which is 40 ft. in diameter at its base, and is faced
inside and outside with white glazed porcelain slabs keyed
into the brick core. The roof tiles are also of porcelain,
in bands of green and yellow, and at each angle is a moulding
of larger tiles, red and green alternately. The effect
of the whole is wonderfully brilliant and dazzling. Apart
from the coloured porcelain, nearly every portion of a
Chinese temple or pagoda is painted, colour forming the
chief means of producing effect; but as nearly everything
is constructed of wood, there was and is no durability in
these edifices.
Fig. 48.—A Small Pagoda.
In public works of utility, such as roads, canals—one
of which is nearly 700 miles in length—and boldly
designed bridges, the Chinese seem to have shown a
more enlightened mind; and the Great Wall, which was
built to protect the northern boundary of the kingdom,
about 200 B.C., is a wonderful example of engineering skill.
This wall, which varies from 15 to 30 ft. in height, is
about 25 ft. thick at the base, and slopes off to 20 ft. at
the top. It is defended by bastions placed at stated
intervals, which are 40 ft. square at the base, and about the
same in height; the wall is carried altogether through a
course of about 1400 miles, following all the sinuosities of
the ground over which it passes. It is a most remarkable
fact that a nation should have existed 2000 years ago
capable of originating and completing so great a work; but
it is still more remarkable that such a nation, possessing
moreover, as it does, a great faculty in decorative art
applied to small articles of use and fancy, should be still
leading a populous and prosperous existence, and yet should
have so little to show in the way of architecture, properly
so termed, at the present time.
Japan, like China, possesses an architecture, but one
exclusively of wood; for although the use of stone for
bridges, walls, &c., had been general, all houses and temples
were invariably built of wood until the recent employment
of foreigners led to the *** of brick and stone buildings.
The consequence has been that nearly all the old temples
have been burnt down and rebuilt several times; and though
it is probable that the older forms were adhered to when
the buildings were re-erected, it is only by inference that
we can form an idea of the ancient architecture of the
country. The heavy curved roofs which are so characteristic
of Chinese buildings are found also in Japan, but only
in the Buddhist temples, and this makes it probable that
this form of roof is not of native origin, but was introduced
with the Buddhist cult. The earlier Shinto temples have
a different form of roof, which is without the upward
curve, but which has nearly as much projection at the
eaves as the curved roofs. Where the buildings are more
than one storey in height the upper one is always set somewhat
back, as we saw was the case in the Chinese pagodas,
and considerable and pleasing variety is obtained by treating
the two storeys differently. Very great skill in carving
is shown, all the posts, brackets, beams, and projecting
rafters being formed into elaborate representations of animals
and plants, or quaintly conceived grotesques; and the
flat surfaces have frequently a shallow incised arabesque
pattern intertwined with foliage. The roofs are always
covered with tiles, and a curious effect is produced by
enriching the hips and ridges with several courses of tiles
in cement, thus making them rise considerably above
the other portions of the roof. A peculiar feature of
Japanese houses is that the walls, whether external or
internal, are not filled in with plaster, but are constructed
of movable screens which slide in grooves formed in the
framing of the partitions. Thus all the rooms can easily
be thrown together or laid open to the outer air in hot
weather. All travellers in Japan remark upon the impossibility
of obtaining privacy in the hotels in consequence
of this.
The Shinto temples are approached through what might
be termed an archway, only that the arch does not enter
into its composition. This *** is called a Torii, and
is thus described by Professor Conder:—“It is composed
of two upright posts of great thickness, each consisting
of the whole trunk of a tree rounded, about 15 ft. high,
and placed 12 ft. apart. Across the top of these is placed
a wooden lintel, projecting considerably and curving
upwards at the ends. Some few feet below this another
horizontal piece is tenoned into the uprights, having a
little post in the centre helping to support the upper
lintel.” These erections occasionally occur in front of a
Buddhist temple, when they are built of stone, exactly
imitating, however, the wooden originals. This is interesting,
as offering another proof, were one needed, that the
curious forms of masonry exhibited in much of the work of
the early nations, some of which has been described, is the
result of an imitation of earlier wooden forms.
The chief effect in the buildings of the Japanese is
intended to be produced by colour, which is profusely
used; and they have attained to a height of perfection
in the preparation of varnishes and lacquers that has
never been equalled. Their lacquer is used all over their
buildings, besides forming their chief means of decorating
small objects. It is, however, beginning to be questioned
whether the old art of lacquering is not becoming lost by
the Japanese themselves, as the modern work appears by
no means equal to the old. One curious form of decoration,
of which the Japanese are much enamoured, consists
in forming miniature representations of country scenes and
landscapes; waterfalls, bridges, &c., being reproduced on
the most diminutive scale. It is much to be feared that
our small stock of knowledge of ancient Japanese art will
never be greatly increased, as the whole country and the
people are becoming modernised and Europeanised to such
an extent that it appears probable there will soon be little
indigenous art left in the country.
It has not been thought necessary to append to this chapter
analyses of the Eastern styles similar to those which are given in the
case of the great divisions of Western Architecture. The notice of
these styles must unavoidably be condensed into very small space.
FOOTNOTES:
It is not intended to imply that Hindustan has been without change
in her ruling dynasties. These have been continually changing; but the
remarkable fact is that, numerous as have been the nations that have
poured across the Indus attracted by “the wealth of Ind,” there has been
no reflux, as it were: the various peoples, with their arts, religions, and
manners, have been swallowed up and assimilated, leaving but here and
there slight traces of their origin.
See Chap. for an illustration of a Christian Basilica.
See on Saracenic Architecture.
Paper communicated to the Royal Institute of Architects.
Fig. 49.—Greek Honeysuckle Ornament.
CHAPTER V.
GREEK ARCHITECTURE.
Buildings of the Doric Order.
THE architecture of Greece has a value far higher than
that attaching to any of the styles which preceded
it, on account of the beauty of the buildings and the
astonishing refinement which the best of them display.
This architecture has a further claim on our attention, as
being virtually the parent of that of all the nations of
Western Europe. We cannot put a finger upon any features
of Egyptian, Assyrian, or Persian architecture, the influence
of which has survived to the present day, except such as
were adopted by the Greeks. On the other hand, there is
no feature, no ornament, nor even any principle of design
which the Greek architects employed, that can be said to
have now become obsolete. Not only do we find direct
reproductions of Greek architecture forming part of the
practice of every European country, but we are able to
trace to Greek art the parentage of many of the forms and
features of Roman, Byzantine, and Gothic architecture,
especially those connected with the column and which grew
out of its artistic use. Greek architecture did not include
the arch and all the forms allied to it, such as the vault
and the dome; and, so far as we know, the Greeks abstained
from the use of the tower. Examples of both
these features were, it is almost certain, as fully within
the knowledge of the Greeks as were those features of
Egyptian, Assyrian, and Persian buildings which they
employed; consequently it is to deliberate selection that
we must attribute this exclusion. Within the limits by
which they confined themselves, the Greeks worked with
such power, learning, taste, and skill that we may fairly
claim for their highest achievement—the Parthenon—that
it advanced as near to absolute perfection as any
work of art ever has been or ever can be carried.
Greek architecture seems to have begun to emerge from
the stage of archaic simplicity about the beginning of the
sixth century before the Christian era (600 B.C. is the
reputed date of the old Doric Temple at Corinth). All
the finest examples were erected between that date and
the death of Alexander the Great (333 B.C.), after which
period it declined and ultimately gave place to Roman.
The domestic and palatial buildings of the Greeks have
decayed or been destroyed, leaving but few vestiges. We
know their architecture exclusively from ruins of public
buildings, and to a limited extent of sepulchral monuments
remaining in Greece and in Greek colonies. By far the
most numerous and excellent among these buildings are
temples. The Greek idea of a temple was different from
that entertained by the Egyptians. The building was to
a much greater extent designed for external effect than
internal. A comparatively small sacred cell was provided
for the reception of the image of the divinity, usually with
one other cell behind it, which seems to have served as
treasury or sacristy; but there were no surrounding
chambers, gloomy halls, or enclosed courtyards, like those
of the Egyptian temples, visible only to persons admitted
within a jealously guarded outer wall. The temple, it is
true, often stood within some sort of precinct, but it was
accessible to all. It stood open to the sun and air; it
invited the admiration of the passer-by; its most telling
features and best sculpture were on the exterior. Whether
this may have been, to some extent, the case with Persian
buildings, we have few means of knowing, but certainly
the attention paid by the Greeks to the outside of their
temples offers a striking contrast to the practice of the
Egyptians, and to what we know of that of the Assyrians.
Fig. 50.—Plan of a small Greek Temple in Antis.
The temple, however grand, was always of simple form,
with a gable at each end, and in this respect differed
entirely from the series of halls, courts, and chambers of
which a great Egyptian temple consisted. In the very
smallest temple at least one of the gables was made into a
portico by the help of columns and two pilasters (Fig. ).
More important temples had a larger number of columns,
and often a portico at each end (Figs. and ). The
most important had columns on the flanks as well as at the
front and rear, the sacred cell being, in fact, surrounded
by them. It will be apparent from this that the column,
together with the superstructure which rested upon it,
must have played a very important part in Greek temple-architecture,
and an inspection of any representations of
Greek buildings will at once confirm the impression.
Fig. 50a.—Plan of a small Greek Temple.
We find in Greece three distinct manners, distinguished
largely by the mode in which the column is dealt with.
These it would be quite consistent to call “styles,” were
it not that another name has been so thoroughly appropriated
to them, that they would hardly now be recognised
were they to be spoken of as anything else than
“orders.” The Greek orders are named the Doric, Ionic,
and Corinthian. Each of them presents a different series
of proportions, mouldings, features, and ornaments, though
the main forms of the buildings are the same in all. The
column and its entablature (the technical name for the
frieze, architrave, and cornice, forming the usual superstructure)
being the most prominent features in every
such building, have come to be regarded as the index or
characteristic from an inspection of which the order and
the degree of its development can be recognised, just as
a botanist recognises plants by their flowers. By reproducing
the column and entablature, almost all the characteristics
of either of the orders can be copied; and hence
a technical and somewhat unfortunate use of the word
“order” to signify these features only has crept in, and has
overshadowed and to a large extent displaced its wider
meaning. It is difficult in a book on architecture to
avoid employing the word “order” when we have to speak
of a column and its entablature, because it has so often
been made use of in this sense. The student must, however,
always bear in mind that this is a restricted and
artificial sense of the word, and that the column belonging
to any order is always accompanied by the use throughout
the building of the appropriate proportions, ornaments,
and mouldings belonging to that order.
The origin of Greek architecture is a very interesting
subject for inquiry, but, owing to the disappearance of
almost all very early examples of the styles, it is necessarily
obscure. Such information, however, as we possess,
taken together with the internal evidence afforded by the
features of the matured style, points to the influence of
Egypt, to that of Assyria and Persia, and to an early
manner of timber construction—the forms proper to
which were retained in spite of the abandonment of
timber for marble—as all contributing to the formation
of Greek architecture.
In Asia Minor a series of monuments, many of them
rock-cut, has been discovered, which throw a curious
light upon the early growth of architecture. We refer
to tombs found in Lycia, and attributed to about the
seventh century B.C. In these we obviously have the
first work in stone of a nation of ship builders. A Lycian
tomb—such as the one now to be seen, accurately restored,
in the British Museum—represents a structure of beams
of wood framed together, surmounted by a roof which
closely resembles a boat turned upside down. The planks,
the beams to which they were secured, and even a ridge
similar to the keel of a vessel, all reappear here, showing
that the material in use for building was so universally
timber, that when the tomb was to be “graven in the rock
for ever” the forms of a timber structure were those that
presented themselves to the imagination of the sculptor.
In other instances the resemblance to shipwrights’ work
disappears, and that of a carpenter is followed by that of
the mason. Thus we find imitations of timber beams
framed together and of overhanging low-pitched roofs,
in some cases carried on unsquared rafters lying side by
side, in several of these tombs.
What happened on the Asiatic shore of the Egean must
have occurred on the Greek shores, and though none of
the very earliest specimens of reproduction in stone of
timber structures has come down to us, there are abundant
traces, as we shall presently see, of timber originals in
buildings of the Doric order. Timber originals were not,
however, the only sources from which the early inhabitants
of Greece drew their inspiration.
Constructions of extreme antiquity, and free from any
appearance of imitating structures of timber, mark the sites
of the oldest cities of Greece, Mycenæ and Orchomenos for
example, the most ancient being Pelasgic city walls of unwrought
stone (Fig. ). The so-called Treasury of Atreus
at Mycenæ, a circular underground chamber 48 ft. 6 in.
in diameter, and with a pointed vault, is a well-known
specimen of more regular yet archaic building. Its vault
is constructed of stones corbelling over one another, and
is not a true arch (Figs. , ). The treatment of an
ornamental column found here, and of the remains of
sculptured ornaments over a neighbouring gateway called
the Gate of the Lions, is of very Asiatic character, and
seems to show that whatever influences had been brought
to bear on their design were Oriental.
Fig. 51.—Ancient Greek Wall of Unwrought Stone from Samothrace.
Fig. 52.—Plan of the Treasury
of Atreus at Mycenæ.
Fig. 52a.—Section of the Treasury
of Atreus at Mycenæ.
Fig. 53.—Greek Doric Capital
from Selinus.
Fig. 53a.—Greek Doric
Capital from the Theseum.
Fig. 53b.—Greek Doric Capital from Samothrace.
A wide interval of time and a great contrast in taste
separate the early works of Pelasgic masonry and even
the chamber at Mycenæ from even the rudest and most
archaic of the remaining Hellenic works of Greece. The
Doric temple at Corinth is attributed, as has been stated,
to the seventh century B.C. This was a massive masonry
structure with extremely short, stumpy columns, and
strong mouldings, but presenting the main features of the
Doric style, as we know it, in its earliest and rudest form.
Successive examples (Figs. to ) show increasing
slenderness of proportions and refinement of treatment,
and are accompanied by sculpture which approaches nearer
and nearer to perfection; but in the later and best buildings,
as in the earliest and rudest, certain forms are
retained for which it seems impossible to account, except
on the supposition that they are reproductions in stone or
marble of a timber construction. These occur in the entablature,
while the column is of a type which it is hard to
believe is not copied from originals in use in Egypt many
centuries earlier, and already described (chap. ).
We will now proceed to examine a fully-developed
Greek Doric temple of the best period, and in doing so
we shall be able to recognise the forms referred to in the
preceding paragraph as we come to them. The most complete
Greek Doric temple was the Parthenon, the work of
the architect Ictinus, the temple of the *** Goddess
Athene (Minerva) at Athens, and on many accounts this
building will be the best to select for our purpose.
Fig. 54.—Ruins of the Parthenon at Athens.
The Parthenon at Athens stood on the summit of a lofty
rock, and within an irregularly shaped enclosure, something
like a cathedral close; entered through a noble gateway.
The temple itself was of perfectly regular plan, and stood
quite free from dependencies of any sort. It consisted of
a cella, or sacred cell, in which stood the statue of the
goddess, with one chamber (the treasury) behind. In the
cella, and also in the chamber behind, there were columns.
A series of columns surrounded this building, and at
either end was a portico, eight columns wide, and two
deep. There were two pediments, or gables, of flat
pitch, one at each end. The whole stood on a basement
of steps; the building, exclusive of the steps, being
228 ft. long by 101 ft. wide, and 64 ft. high. The columns
were each 34 ft. 3 in. high, and more than 6 ft. in diameter
at the base; a portion of the shaft and of the capital of
one is in the British Museum, and a magnificent reproduction,
full size, of the column and its entablature may
be seen at the École des Beaux Arts, Paris. The ornaments
consisted almost exclusively of sculpture of the
very finest quality, executed by or under the superintendence
of Pheidias. Of this sculpture many specimens
are now in the British Museum.
Fig. 55.—Plan of the Parthenon at Athens.
Fig. 56.—The Roof of a Greek Doric Temple, showing the Marble Tiles.
The construction of this temple was of the most solid
and durable kind, marble being the material used; and
the workmanship was most careful in every part of which
remains have come down to us. The roof was, no doubt,
made of timber and covered with marble tiles (Fig. ),
carried on a timber framework, all traces of which have entirely
perished; and the mode in which it was constructed
is a subject upon which authorities differ, especially as
to what provision was made for the admission of light.
The internal columns, found in other temples as well
as in the Parthenon, were no doubt employed to support
this roof, as is shown in Bötticher’s restoration of the
Temple at Pæstum which we reproduce (Fig. ), though
without pledging ourselves to its accuracy; for, indeed, it
seems probable that something more or less like the clerestory
of a Gothic church must have been employed to
admit light to these buildings, as we know was the case
in the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. But this structure, if
it existed, has entirely disappeared.
Fig. 56a.—Section of the Greek Doric Temple at Pæstum. As restored by
Bötticher.
Fig. 57.—The Greek Doric Order from the Theseum.
The order of the Parthenon was Doric, and the leading
proportions were as follows:—The column was 5·56
diameters high; the whole height, including the stylobate
or steps, might be divided into nine parts, of which two
go to the stylobate, six to the column, and one to the
entablature.
Fig. 58.—Plan of a Greek
Doric Column.
Fig. 59.—The Fillets
under a Greek Doric
Capital.
The Greek Doric order is without a base; the shaft of
the column springs from the top step and tapers towards
the top, the outline being not, however, straight, but of a
subtle curve, known technically as the entasis of the
column. This shaft is channelled with twenty shallow
channels, the ridges separating one from another being
very fine lines. A little below the moulding of the
capital, fine sinkings, forming lines round the shaft, exist,
and above these the channels of the flutes are stopped
by or near the commencement of the projecting moulding
of the capital. This moulding, which is of a section
calculated to convey the idea of powerful support, is
called the echinus, and its lower portion is encircled by a
series of fillets (Fig. ), which are cut into it. Above
the echinus, which is circular, like the shaft, comes the
highest member—the abacus, a square stout slab of
marble, which completes the capital of the column. The
whole is most skilfully designed to convey the idea of
sturdy support, and yet to clothe the support with grace.
The strong proportions of the shaft, the slight curve
of its outline, the lines traced upon its surface by the
channels, and even the vigorous uncompromising planting
of it on the square step from which it springs, all contribute
to make the column look strong. The check given
to the vigorous upward lines of the channels on the shaft
by the first sinkings, and their arrest at the point where
the capital spreads out, intensified as it is by the series of
horizontal lines drawn round the echinus by the fillets
cut into it, all seem to convey the idea of spreading the
supporting energy of the column outwards; and the abacus
appears naturally fitted, itself inert, to receive a burden
placed upon it and to transmit its pressure to the capital
and shaft below.
Fig. 60.—Capital of a Greek Doric Column from Ægina,
with coloured decoration.
Fig. 61.—Section of the Entablature of the Greek Doric Order.
Fig. 62.—Plan looking up of part of a Greek Doric Peristyle.
The entablature which formed the superstructure consisted
first of a square marble beam—the architrave,
which, it may be assumed, represents a square timber
beam that occupied the same position in the primitive
structures. On this rests a second member called the
frieze, the prominent feature of which is a series of
slightly projecting features, known as triglyphs (three
channels) (Fig. ), from the channels running down
their face. These closely resemble, and no doubt actually
represent, the ends of massive timber beams, which must
have connected the colonnade to the wall of the cell in
earlier buildings. At the bottom of each is a row of
small pendants, known as guttæ, which closely resemble
wooden pins, such as would be used to keep a timber
beam in place. The panels between the triglyphs are
usually as wide as they are high. They are termed
metopes and sculpture commonly occupies them. The
third division of the entablature, the cornice represents
the overhanging eaves of the roof.
Fig. 63.—Details of the Triglyph.
Fig. 64.—Details of the
Mutules.
The cornices employed in classic architecture may be
almost invariably subdivided into three parts: the supporting
part, which is the lowest,—the projecting part, which is
the middle,—and the crowning part, which is the highest
division of the cornice. The supporting part in a Greek
Doric cornice is extremely small. There are no mouldings,
such as we shall find in almost every other cornice,
calculated to convey the idea of contributing to sustain
the projection of the cornice, but there are slabs of marble,
called mutules (Fig. ), dropping towards the outer end,
of which one is placed over each triglyph and one between
every two. These seem to recall, by their shape, their
position, and their slope alike, the ends of the rafters of
a timber roof; and their surface is covered with small projections
which resemble the heads of wooden pins, similar
to those already alluded to. The projecting part, in this
as in almost all cornices, is a plain upright face of some
height, called “the corona,” and recalling probably a
“facia” or flat narrow board such as a carpenter of the
present day would use in a similar position, secured in the
original structure to the ends of the rafters and supporting
the eaves. Lastly, the crowning part is, in the Greek
Doric, a single convex moulding, not very dissimilar in
profile to the ovolo of the capital, and forming what we
commonly call an eaves-gutter.
At the ends of the building the two upper divisions of
the cornice—namely, the projecting corona and the crowning
ovolo—are made to follow the sloping line of the gable,
a second corona being also carried across horizontally in a
manner which can be best understood by inspecting a
diagram of the corner of a Greek Doric building (Fig. );
and the triangular space thus formed was termed a pediment,
and was the position in which the finest of the sculpture
with which the building was enriched was placed.
In the Parthenon a continuous band of sculpture ran
round the exterior of the cell, near the top of the wall.
One other feature was employed in Greek temple-architecture.
The anta was a square pillar or pier of masonry
attached to the wall, and corresponded very closely to our
pilaster; but its capital always differed from that of the
columns in the neighbourhood of which it was employed.
The antæ of the Greek Doric order, as employed in the
Parthenon, have a moulded base, which it will be remembered
is not the case with the column, and their
capital has for its principal feature an under-cut moulding,
known as the bird’s beak, quite dissimilar from the
ovolo of the capital of the column (Fig. ). Sometimes
the portico of a temple consisted of the side walls prolonged,
and ending in two antæ, with two or more columns
standing between them. Such a portico is said to be in
antis.
Fig. 65.—Elevation and Section of the Capital of a Greek Anta,
with coloured decoration.
The Parthenon presents examples of the most extraordinary
refinements in order to correct optical illusions.
The delicacy and subtlety of these are extreme, but there
can be no manner of doubt that they existed. The best
known correction is the diminution in diameter or taper,
and the entasis or convex curve of the tapered outline of the
shaft of the column. Without the taper, which is perceptible
enough in the order of this building, and much
more marked in the order of earlier buildings, the columns
would look top-heavy; but the entasis is an additional
optical correction to prevent their outline from appearing
hollowed, which it would have done had there been no curve.
The columns of the Parthenon have shafts that are over
34 ft. high, and diminish from a diameter of 6·15 ft. at
the bottom to 4·81 ft. at the top. The outline between
these points is convex, but so slightly so that the curve
departs at the point of greatest curvature not more than
¾ in. from the straight line joining the top and bottom.
This is, however, just sufficient to correct the tendency to
look hollow in the middle.
A second correction is intended to overcome the apparent
tendency of a building to spread outwards towards
the top. This is met by inclining the columns slightly
inwards. So slight, however, is the inclination, that were
the axes of two columns on opposite sides of the Parthenon
continued upwards till they met, the meeting-point
would be 1952 yards, or, in other words, more than
one mile from the ground.
Another optical correction is applied to the horizontal
lines. In order to overcome a tendency which exists in all
long lines to seem as though they droop in the middle,
the lines of the architrave, of the top step, and of other
horizontal features of the building, are all slightly curved.
The difference between the outline of the top step of the
Parthenon and a straight line joining its two ends is at
the greatest only just over 2 inches.
The last correction which it is necessary to name here
was applied to the vertical proportions of the building.
The principles upon which this correction rests have been
demonstrated by Mr. John Pennethorne; and it would
hardly come within the scope of this volume to attempt
to state them here: suffice it to say, that small additions,
amounting in the entire height of the order to less
than 5 inches, were made to the heights of the various
members of the order, with a view to secure that from
one definite point of view the effect of foreshortening
should be exactly compensated, and so the building should
appear to the spectator to be perfectly proportioned.
The Parthenon, like many, if not all Greek buildings,
was profusely decorated with coloured ornaments, of which
nearly every trace has now disappeared, but which must
have contributed largely to the splendid beauty of the
building as a whole, and must have emphasised and set
off its parts. The ornaments known as Doric frets were
largely employed. They consist of patterns made entirely
of straight lines interlacing, and, while preserving the
severity which is characteristic of the style, they permit
of the introduction of considerable richness.
The principal remaining examples or fragments of Greek
Doric may be enumerated as follows:—
In Greece.
Temple of (?) Athena, at Corinth, ab. 650 B.C.
Temple of (?) Zeus, in the island of Ægina, ab. 550 B.C.
Temple of Theseus (Theseum), at Athens, 465 B.C.
Temple of Athena (Parthenon), on the Acropolis at Athens, fin. 438 B.C.
The Propylæa, on the Acropolis at Athens, 436-431 B.C.
Temple of Zeus at Olympia.
Temple of Apollo Epicurius, at Bassæ, in Arcadia (designed by Ictinus).
Temple of Apollo Epicurius, at Phigaleia, in Arcadia (built by Ictinus).
Temple of Athena, on the rock of Sunium, in Attica.
Temple of Nemesis, at Rhamnus, in Attica.
Temple of Demeter (Ceres), at Eleusis, in Attica.
In Sicily and South Italy.
Temple of (?) Zeus, at Agrigentum, in Sicily (begun B.C. 480).
Temple at Ægesta (or Segesta), in Sicily.
Temple of (?) Zeus, at Selinus, in Sicily (? ab. 410 B.C.).
Temple of (?) Athena, at Syracuse, in Sicily.
Temple of Poseidon, at Pæstum, in South of Italy (? ab. 550 B.C.).
FOOTNOTES:
See and Figs. and .
The Propylæa.
Mr. Fergusson’s investigations, soon, it is understood, to be published
in a complete form, clearly show that the clerestory and roof can be
restored with the greatest probability.
In a few instances a smaller number is found.
‘Geometry and Optics of Ancient Architecture.’
? Exterior Doric—Interior Ionic.
Fig. 66.—Palmette and Honeysuckle.
CHAPTER VI.
GREEK ARCHITECTURE.
Buildings of the Ionic and Corinthian Orders.
THE Doric was the order in which the full strength and
the complete refinement of the artistic character of
the Greeks were most completely shown. There was a great
deal of the spirit of severe dignity proper to Egyptian
art in its aspect; but other nationalities contributed to
the formation of the many-sided Greek nature, and we
must look to some other country than Egypt for the spirit
which inspired the Ionic order. This seems to have been
brought into Greece by a distinct race, and shows marks
of an Asiatic origin. The feature which is most distinctive
is the one most distinctly Eastern—the capital of
the column, ornamented always by volutes, i.e. scrolls,
which bear a close resemblance to features similarly
employed in the columns found at Persepolis. The same
resemblance can be also detected in the moulded bases,
and even the shafts of the columns, and in many of the
ornaments employed throughout the buildings.
Fig. 67.—Shaft of Ionic
Column showing the Flutes.
Fig. 68.—Ionic Capital. Front Elevation.
Fig. 69.—Ionic Capital. Side
Elevation.
In form and disposition an ordinary Ionic temple was
similar to one of the Doric order, but the general proportions
are more slender, and the mouldings of the order
are more numerous and more profusely enriched. The
column in the Ionic order had a base, often elaborately
and sometimes singularly moulded (Figs. , ). The
shaft (Figs. , ) is of more slender proportions than
the Doric shaft. It was fluted, but its channels are more
numerous, and are separated from one another by broader
fillets than in the Doric. The distinctive feature, as in
all the orders, is the capital (Figs. , ), which is
recognised at a glance by the two remarkable ornaments
already alluded to as like scrolls, and known as volutes.
These generally formed the faces of a pair of cushion-shaped
features, which could be seen in a side view of
the capital; but sometimes volutes stand in a diagonal
position, and in almost every building they differ slightly.
The abacus is less deep than in the Greek Doric, and
it is always moulded at the edge, which was never the
case with the Doric abacus. The entablature (Fig. )
is, generally speaking, richer than that of the Doric order.
The architrave, for example, has three facias instead of
being plain. On the other hand, the frieze has no triglyphs,
and but rarely sculpture. There are more members in
the cornice, several mouldings being combined to fortify
the supporting portion. These have sometimes been
termed “the bed mouldings,” and among them occurs one
which is almost typical of the order, and is termed a
dentil band. This moulding presents the appearance of
a plain square band of stone, in which a series of cuts had
been made dividing it into blocks somewhat resembling
teeth, whence the name. Such an ornament is more
naturally constructed in wood than in stone or marble, but
if the real derivation of the Ionic order, as of the Doric,
be in fact from timber structures, the dentil band is
apparently the only feature in which that origin can now
be traced. The crowning member of the cornice is a
partly hollow moulding, technically called a “cyma recta,”
less vigorous than the convex ovolo, of the Doric: this
moulding, and some of the bed mouldings, were commonly
enriched with carving. Altogether more slenderness
and less vigour, more carved enrichment and less
painted decoration, more reliance on architectural ornament
and less on the work of the sculptor, appear to
distinguish those examples of Greek Ionic which have
come down to us, as compared with Doric buildings.
Fig. 70.—The Ionic Order. From Priene, Asia Minor.
Fig. 71.—Ionic Order. From the Erechtheium, Athens.
Fig. 72.—North-west View of the Erechtheium, in the Time of Pericles.
The most numerous examples of the Ionic order of
which remains exist are found in Asia Minor, but the
most refined and complete is the Erechtheium at Athens
(Figs. , ), a composite structure containing three
temples built in juxtaposition, but differing from one
another in scale, levels, dimensions, and treatment. The
principal order from the Erechtheium (Fig. ) shows a
large amount of enrichment introduced with the most
refined and severe taste. Specially remarkable are the
ornaments (borrowed from the Assyrian honeysuckle)
which encircle the upper part of the shaft at the point
where it passes into the capital, and the splendid spirals
of the volutes (Figs. , ). The bases of the columns
in the Erechtheium example are models of elegance and
beauty. Those of some of the examples from Asia Minor
are overloaded with a vast number of mouldings, by no
means always producing a pleasing effect (Figs. , ).
Some of them bear a close resemblance to the bases of the
columns at Persepolis.
Fig. 73.—Plan of the Erechtheium.
Fig. 74.—Ionic Base from the
Temple of the Wingless Victory
(Nikè Apteros).
Fig. 75.—Ionic Base Mouldings
from Priene.
The most famous Greek building which was erected in
the Ionic style was the Temple of Diana at Ephesus.
This temple has been all but totally destroyed, and the
very site of it had been for centuries lost and unknown
till the energy and sagacity of an English architect (Mr.
Wood) enabled him to discover and dig out the vestiges
of the building. Fortunately sufficient traces of the
foundation have remained to render it possible to recover
the plan of the temple completely; and the discovery of
fragments of the order, together with representations on
ancient coins and a description by Pliny, have rendered
it possible to make a restoration on paper, of the general
appearance of this famous temple, which must be very
nearly, if not absolutely, correct.
The walls of this temple enclosed, as usual, a cella (in
which was the statue of the goddess), with apparently
a treasury behind it: they were entirely surrounded by a
double series of columns, with a pediment at each end.
The exterior of the building, including these columns, was
about twice the width of the cella. The whole structure,
which was of marble, was planted on a spacious platform
with steps. The account of Pliny refers to thirty-six
columns, which he describes as “columnæ celatæ” (sculptured
columns), adding that one was by Scopas, a very
celebrated artist. The fortunate discovery by Mr. Wood
of a few fragments of these columns shows that the lower
part of the shaft immediately above the base was enriched
by a group of figures—about life-size—carved in the
boldest relief and encircling the column. One of these
groups has been brought to the British Museum, and its
beauty and vigour enable the imagination partly to restore
this splendid feature, which certainly was one of the most
sumptuous modes of decorating a building by the aid of
sculpture which has ever been attempted; and the effect
must have been rich beyond description.
It is worth remark that the Erechtheium, which has
been already referred to, contains an example of a different,
and perhaps a not less remarkable, mode of combining
sculpture with architecture. In one of its three porticoes
(Fig. ) the columns are replaced by standing female
figures, known as caryatidæ, and the entablature rests on
their heads. This device has frequently been repeated in
ancient and in modern architecture, but, except in some
comparatively obscure examples, the sculptured columns
of Ephesus do not appear to have been imitated.
Another famous Greek work of art, the remains of
which have been, like the Temple of Diana, disinterred by
the energy and skill of a learned Englishman, belonged
to the Ionic order. To Mr. Newton we owe the recovery
of the site, and considerable fragments of the architectural
features, of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, one of the
ancient wonders of the world. The general outline of
this monument must have resembled other Greek tombs
which have been preserved, such, for example, as the Lion
Tomb at Cnidus; that is to say, the plan was square:
there was a basement, above this an order, and above that
a steep pyramidal roof rising in steps, not carried to a
point, but stopping short to form a platform, on which
was placed a quadriga (or four-horsed chariot). This
building is known to have been richly sculptured, and
many fragments of great beauty have been recovered.
Indeed it was probably its elaboration, as well as its
very unusual height (for the Greek buildings were seldom
lofty), which led to its being so celebrated.
Fig. 76.—The Corinthian Order. From the Monument of Lysicrates at Athens.
Fig. 77.—Corinthian Capital from the Monument of Lysicrates at Athens.
The Corinthian order, the last to make its appearance,
was almost as much Roman as Greek, and is hardly found
in any of the great temples of the best period of which
remains exist in Greece, though we hear of its use. For
example, Pausanias states that the Corinthian order was
employed in the interior of the Temple of Athena Alea at
Tegea, built by Scopas, to which a date shortly after the
year 394 B.C. is assigned. The examples which we possess
are comparatively small works, and in them the order
resembles the Ionic, but with the important exceptions
that the capital of the column is quite different, that the
proportions are altogether a little slenderer, and that the
enrichments are somewhat more florid.
Fig. 78.—Monument of Lysicrates at Athens, as in the Time of Pericles.
The capital of the Greek Corinthian order, as seen in
the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates at Athens (Fig. )—a
comparatively miniature example, but the most perfect
we have—is a work of art of marvellous beauty (Fig. ).
It retains a feature resembling the Ionic volute, but
reduced to a very small size, set obliquely and appearing
to spring from the sides of a kind of long bell-shaped
termination to the column. This bell is clothed with
foliage, symmetrically arranged and much of it studied,
but in a conventional manner, from the graceful foliage
of the acanthus; between the two small volutes appears
an Assyrian honeysuckle, and tendrils of honeysuckle,
conventionally treated, occupy part of the upper portion
of the capital. The abacus is moulded, and is curved on
plan, and the base of the capital is marked by a very
unusual turning-down of the flutes of the columns. The
entire structure to which this belonged is a model of
elegance, and the large sculptured mass of leaves and
tendrils with which it is crowned is especially noteworthy.
Fig. 79.—Capital of Antæ from Miletus. Side View.
A somewhat simpler Corinthian capital, and another of
very rich design, are found in the Temple of Apollo Didymæus
at Miletus, where also a very elegant capital for the
antæ—or pilasters—is employed (Figs. , ). A more
ornamental design for a capital could hardly be adopted
than that of the Lysicrates example, but there was room for
more elaboration in the entablature, and accordingly large
richly-sculptured brackets seem to have been introduced,
and a profusion of ornament was employed. The examples
of this treatment which remain are, however, of Roman
origin rather than Greek.
Fig. 80.—Restoration of the Greek Theatre of Segesta.
The Greek cities must have included structures of
great beauty and adapted to many purposes, of which in
most cases few traces, if any, have been preserved. We
have no remains of a Greek palace, or of Greek dwelling-houses,
although those at Pompeii were probably erected
and decorated by Greek artificers, for Roman occupation.
The agora of a Greek city, which was a place of public
assembly something like the Roman Forum, is known to
us only by descriptions in ancient writers, but we possess
some remains of Greek theatres; and from these, aided by
Roman examples and written descriptions, can understand
what these buildings were. The auditory was curved
in plan, occupying rather more than a semicircle; the
seats rose in tiers one behind another; a circular space
was reserved for the chorus in the centre of the seats,
and behind it was a raised stage, bounded by a wall
forming its back and sides: a rough notion of the arrangement
can be obtained from the lecture theatre of many
modern colleges, and our illustration (Fig. ) gives a
general idea of what must have been the appearance of
one of these structures. Much of the detail of these
buildings is, however, a matter of pure speculation, and
consequently does not enter into the scheme of this
manual.
Fig. 81.—Capital of Antæ from Miletus.
CHAPTER VII.
GREEK ARCHITECTURE.
Analysis.
THE Plan or floor-disposition of a Greek building
was always simple however great its extent, was
well judged for effect, and capable of being understood
at once. The grandest results were obtained by simple
means, and all confusion, uncertainty, or complication
were scrupulously avoided. Refined precision, order, symmetry,
and exactness mark the plan as well as every part
of the work.
The plan of a Greek temple may be said to present
many of the same elements as that of an Egyptian temple,
but, so to speak, turned inside out. Columns are relied on
by the Greek artist, as they were by the Egyptian artist,
as a means of giving effect; but they are placed by him
outside the building instead of within its courts and halls.
The Greek, starting with a comparatively small nucleus
formed by the cell and the treasury, encircles them by
a magnificent girdle of pillars, and so makes a grand
structure, the first hint or suggestion being in all probability
to be found in certain small Egyptian buildings to
which reference has already been made. The disposition
of these columns and of the great range of steps, or
stylobate, is the most marked feature in Greek temple
plans. Columns also existed, it is true, in the interior of
the building, but these were of smaller size, and seem to
have been introduced to aid in carrying the roof and the
clerestory, if there was one. They have in several instances
disappeared, and there is certainly no ground for
supposing that in any Greek interior the grand but
oppressive effect of a hypostyle hall was attempted to be
reproduced. That was abandoned, together with the
complication, seclusion, and gloom of the long series of
chambers, cells, &c., placed one behind another, just as
the contrasts and surprises of the series of courts and
halls following in succession were abandoned for the one
simple but grand mass built to be seen from without
rather than from within. In the greater number of Greek
buildings a degree of precision is exhibited, to which the
Egyptians did not attain. All right angles are absolutely
true; the setting-out (or spacing) of the different columns,
piers, openings, &c., is perfectly exact; and, in the Parthenon,
the patient investigations of Mr. Penrose and other
skilled observers have disclosed a degree of accuracy as
well as refinement which resembles the precision with
which astronomical instruments are adjusted in Europe
at the present day, rather than the rough-and-ready
measurements of a modern mason or bricklayer.
What the plans of Greek palaces might have exhibited,
did any remains exist, is merely matter for inference
and conjecture, and it is not proposed in this volume to
pass far beyond ascertained and observed facts. There
can be, however, little doubt that the palaces of the West
Asiatic style must have at least contributed suggestions
as to internal disposition of the later and more magnificent
Greek mansions. The ordinary dwelling-houses of
citizens, as described by ancient writers, resembled those
now visible in the disinterred cities of Pompeii and
Herculaneum, which will be referred to under Roman
Architecture. The chief characteristic of the plan of
these is that they retain the disposition which in the
temples was discarded; that is to say, all the doors and
windows looked into an inner court, and the house was
as far as possible secluded within an encircling wall.
The contrast between the openness of the public life
led by the men in Greek cities, and the seclusion of the
women and the families when at home, is remarkably
illustrated by this difference between the public and
private buildings.
The plan of the triple building called the Erechtheium
(Fig. ) deserves special mention, as an example of an
exceptional arrangement which appears to set the ordinary
laws of symmetry at defiance, and which is calculated to
produce a result into which the picturesque enters at least
as much as the beautiful. Though the central temple is
symmetrical, the two attached porticoes are not so, and
do not, in position, dimensions, or treatment, balance one
another. The result is a charming group, and we cannot
doubt that other examples of freedom of planning would
have been found, had more remains of the architecture of
the great cities of Greece come down to our own day.
In public buildings other than temples—such as the
theatre, the agora, and the basilica—the Greek architects
seem to have had great scope for their genius; the planning
of the theatres shows skilful and thoroughly complete
provisions to meet the requirements of the case. A
circular disposition was here introduced—not, it is true,
for the first time, since it is rendered probable by the representations
on sculptured slabs that some circular buildings
existed in Assyria, and circular buildings remain in
the archaic works at Mycenæ; but it was now elaborated
with remarkable completeness, beauty, and mastery over
all the difficulties involved. Could we see the great
theatre of Athens as it was when perfect, we should
probably find that as an interior it was almost unrivalled,
alike for convenience and for beauty; and for these excellences
it was mainly indebted to the elegance of its
planning. The actual floor of many of the Greek temples
appears to have been of marble of different colours.
The Walls.
The construction of the walls of the Greek temples
rivalled that of the Egyptians in accuracy and beauty
of workmanship, and resembled them in the use of solid
materials. The Greeks had within reach quarries of
marble, the most beautiful material which nature has
provided for the use of the builder; and great fineness of
surface and high finish were attained. Some interesting
examples of hollow walling occur in the construction of
the Parthenon. The wall was not an element of the
building on which the Greek architect seemed to dwell
with pleasure; much of it is almost invariably overshadowed
by the lines of columns which form the main
features of the building.
The pediment (or gable) of a temple is a grand development
of the walls, and perhaps the most striking of the
additions which the Greeks made to the resources of the
architect. It offers a fine field for sculpture, and adds real
and apparent height beyond anything that the Egyptians
ever attempted since the days of the Pyramid-builders;
and it has remained in constant use to the present hour.
We do not hear of towers being attached to buildings,
and, although such monumental structures as the Mausoleum
of Halicarnassus approached the proportions of a
tower, height does not seem to have commended itself to
the mind of the Greek architect as necessary to the buildings
which he designed. It was reserved for Roman and
Christian art to introduce this element of architectural
effect in all its power. On the other hand, the Greek,
like the Persian architect, emphasised the base of his
building in a remarkable manner, not only by base mouldings,
but by planting the whole structure on a great
range of steps which formed an essential part of the
composition.
The Roof.
The construction of the roofs of Greek temples has
been the subject of much debate. It is almost certain
that they were in some way so made as to admit light.
They were framed of timber and covered by tiles, often,
if not always, of marble. Although all traces of the
timber framing have disappeared, we can at least know
that the pitch was not steep, by the slope of the outline
of the pediments, which formed, as has already been said,
perhaps the chief glory of a Greek temple. The flat stone
roofs sometimes used by the Egyptians, and necessitating
the placing of columns or other supports close together,
seem to have become disused, with the exception that
where a temple was surrounded by a range of columns
the space between the main wall and the columns was so
covered.
The vaulted stone roofs of the archaic buildings, of
which the treasury of Atreus (Figs. , ) was the
type, do not seem to have prevailed in a later period, or,
so far as we know, to have been succeeded by any similar
covering or vault of a more scientific construction.
It is hardly necessary to add that the Greek theatres
were not roofed. The Romans shaded the spectators in
their theatres and amphitheatres by means of a velarium
or awning, but it is extremely doubtful whether even
this expedient was in use in Greek theatres.
The Openings.
The most important characteristic of the openings in
Greek buildings is that they were flat-topped,—covered
by a lintel of stone or marble,—and never arched. We
have already shown that this circumstance is really of
the first importance as determining the architectural
character of buildings. Doors and window openings were
often a little narrower at the top than the bottom, and
were marked by a band of mouldings, known as the architrave,
on the face of the wall, and, so to speak, framing
in the opening. There was often also a small cornice over
each (Figs. , ). Openings were seldom advanced
into prominence or employed as features in the exterior
of a building; in fact, the same effects which windows
produce in other styles were in Greek buildings created
by the interspaces between the columns.
The Columns.
These features, together with the superstructure or
entablature, which they customarily carried, were the
prominent parts of Greek architecture, occupying as they
did the entire height of the building. The development
of the orders (which we have explained to be really decorative
systems, each of which involved the use of one sort
of column, though the term is constantly understood as
meaning merely the column and entablature) is a very
interesting subject, and illustrates the acuteness with
which the Greeks selected from those models which were
accessible to them, exactly what was suited to their
purpose, and the skill with which they altered and
refined, and almost redesigned, everything which they
so selected.
Fig. 82.—Greek
Doorway Showing
Cornice.
Fig. 83.—Greek Doorway. Front View.
(From the Erechtheium.)
During the whole period when Greek art was being
developed, the ancient and polished civilisation of Egypt
constituted a most powerful and most stable influence,
always present,—always, comparatively speaking, within
reach,—and always the same. Of all the forms of column
and capital existing in Egypt, the Greeks, however, only
selected that straight-sided fluted type of which the
Beni-Hassan example is the best known, but by no
means the only instance. We first meet with these fluted
columns at Corinth, of very sturdy proportions, and
having a wide, swelling, clumsy moulding under the
abacus by way of a capital. By degrees the proportions
of the shaft grew more slender, and the profile of the
capital more elegant and less bold, till the perfected perfections
of the Greek Doric column were attained. This
column is the original to which all columns with moulded
capitals that have been used in architecture, from the
age of Pericles to our own, may be directly or indirectly
referred; while the Egyptian types which the Greeks did
not select—such, for example, as the lotus-columns at
Karnak—have never been perpetuated.
A different temper or taste, and partly a different
history, led to the selection of the West Asiatic types
of column by a section of the Greek people; but great
alterations in proportion, in the treatment of the capital,
and in the management of the moulded base from which
the columns sprang, were made, even in the orders which
occur in the Ionic buildings of Asia Minor. This was
carried further when the Ionic order was made use of in
Athens herself, and as a result the Attic base and the
perfected Ionic capital are to be found at their best in the
Erechtheium example. The Ionic order and the Corinthian,
which soon followed it, are the parents,—not, it is
true, of all, but of the greater part of the columns with
foliated capitals that have been used in all styles and
periods of architecture since. It will not be forgotten
that rude types of both orders are found represented on
Assyrian bas-reliefs, but still the Corinthian capital and
order must be considered as the natural and, so to speak,
inevitable development of the Ionic. From the Corinthian
capital an unbroken series of foliated capitals can be traced
down to our own day; almost the only new ornamented
type ever devised since being that which takes its origin
in the Romanesque block capital, known to us in England
as the early Norman cushion capital: this was certainly
the parent of a distinct series, though even these owe not
a little to Greek originals.
We have alluded to the Ionic base. It was derived
from a very tall one in use at Persepolis, and we meet
with it first in the rich but clumsy forms of the bases in
the Asia Minor examples. In them we find the height of
the feature as used in Persia compressed, while great, and
to our eyes eccentric, elaboration marked the mouldings:
these the refinement of Attic taste afterwards simplified,
till the profile of the well-known Attic base was produced—a
base which has had as wide and lasting an influence
as either of the original forms of capital.
The Corinthian order, as has been above remarked, is
the natural sequel of the Ionic. Had Greek architecture
continued till it fell into decadence, this order would
have been the badge of it. As it was, the decadence of
Greek art was Roman art, and the Corinthian order was the
favourite order of the Romans; in fact all the important
examples of it which remain are Roman work.
If we remember how invariably use was made of one
or other of the two great types of the Greek order in all
the buildings of the best Greek time, with the addition
towards its close of the Corinthian order, and that these
orders, a little more subdivided and a good deal modified,
have formed the substratum of Roman architecture and of
that in use during the last three centuries; and if we also
bear in mind that nearly all the columnar architecture of
Early Christian, Byzantine, Saracenic, and Gothic times,
owes its forms to the same great source, we may well
admit that the invention and perfecting of the orders of
Greek architecture has been—with one exception—the
most important event in the architectural history of the
world. That exception is, of course, the introduction of
the Arch.
The Ornaments.
Greek Ornaments have exerted the same wide influence
over the whole course of Western art as Greek columns;
and in their origin they are equally interesting as specimens
of Greek skill in adapting existing types, and of
Greek invention where no existing types would serve.
Few of the mouldings of Greek architecture are to be
traced to anterior styles. There is nothing like them
in Egyptian work, and little or nothing in Assyrian; and
though a suggestion of some of them may no doubt be
found in Persian examples, we must take them as having
been substantially originated by Greek genius, which felt
that they were wanted, designed them, and brought them
far towards absolute perfection. They were of the most
refined form, and when enriched were carved with consummate
skill. They were executed, it must be remembered,
in white marble,—a material having the finest
surface, and capable of responding to the most delicate
variations in contour by corresponding changes in shade
or light in a manner and to a degree which no other
material can equal. In the Doric, mouldings were few,
and almost always convex; they became much more numerous
in the later styles, and then included many of
concave profile. The chief are the OVOLO, which formed
the curved part of the Doric capital, and the crowning
moulding of the Doric cornice; the CYMA; the BIRD’S BEAK,
employed in the capitals of the antæ; the FILLETS under
the Doric capital; the hollows and TORUS mouldings of
the Ionic and Corinthian bases.
The profiles of these mouldings were very rarely segments
of circles, but lines of varying curvature, capable of
producing the most delicate changes of light and shade,
and contours of the most subtle grace. Many of them
correspond to conic sections, but it seems probable that
the outlines were drawn by hand, and not obtained by
any mechanical or mathematical method.
The mouldings were some of them enriched, to use the
technical word, by having such ornaments cut into them
or carved on them as, though simple in form, lent themselves
well to repetition. Where more room for ornament
existed, and especially in the capitals of the Ionic and
Corinthian orders, ornaments were freely and most gracefully
carved, and very symmetrically arranged. Though
these were very various, yet most of them can be classed
under three heads. (1.) Frets (Figs. to ). These
were patterns made up of squares or -shaped lines interlaced
and made to seem intricate, though originally simple.
Frequently these patterns are called Doric frets, from
their having been most used in buildings of the Doric
order. (2.) Honeysuckle (Figs. and to ). This
ornament, admirably conventionalised, had been used
freely by the Assyrians, and the Greeks only adopted
what they found ready to their hand when they began
to use it; but they refined it, at the same time losing no
whit of its vigour or effectiveness, and the honeysuckle
has come to be known as a typical Greek decorative
motif. (3.) Acanthus (Figs. and ). This is a broad-leaved
plant, the foliage and stems of which, treated in a
conventional manner, though with but little departure
from nature, were found admirably adapted for floral
decorative work, and accordingly were made use of in the
foliage of the Corinthian capital, and in such ornaments
as, for example, the great finial which forms the summit
of the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates.
Fig. 84.—The Acanthus Leaf and Stalk.
The beauty of the carving was, however, eclipsed by
that highest of all ornaments—sculpture. In the Doric
temples, as, for example, in the Parthenon, the architect
contented himself with providing suitable spaces for the
sculptor to occupy; and thus the great pediments, the
metopes (Fig. ) or square panels, and the frieze of the
Parthenon were occupied by sculpture, in which there
was no necessity for more conventionalism than the
amount of artificial arrangement needed in order fitly
to occupy spaces that were respectively triangular, square,
or continuous. In the later and more voluptuous style
of the Ionic temples we find sculpture made into an
architectural feature, as in the famous statues, known as
the Caryatides, which support the smallest portico of
the Erechtheium, and in the enriched columns of the
Temple of Diana at Ephesus. Sculpture had already
been so employed in Egypt, and was often so used in later
times; but the best opportunity for the display of the
finest qualities of the
sculptor’s art is such an
one as the pediments, &c.,
of the great Doric temples
afforded.
Fig. 85.—The Acanthus Leaf.
There is little room for
doubting that all the
Greek temples were richly
decorated in colours, but
traces and indications are
all that remain: these,
however, are sufficient to
prove that a very large
amount of colour was employed,
and that probably
ornaments (Figs. to ) were painted upon many of
those surfaces which were left plain by the mason,
especially on the cornices, and that mosaics (Fig. ) and
coloured marbles, and even gilding, were freely used.
There is also ground for believing that as the use of
carved enrichments increased with the increasing adoption
of the Ionic and Corinthian styles, less use was made
of painted decorations.
Architectural Character.
Observations which have been made during the course of
this and the previous chapters will have gone far to point
out the characteristics of Greek art. An archaic and
almost forbidding severity, with heavy proportions and
more strength than grace, marks the earliest Greek buildings
of which we have any fragments remaining. Dignity,
sobriety, refinement, and beauty are the qualities of the
works of the best period. The latest buildings were
more rich, more ornate, and more slender in their proportions
and to a certain extent less severe.
Fig. 86.—Metope from the Parthenon. Conflict between
a Centaur and one of the Lapithæ.
Fig. 87.—Mosaic from the Temple of Zeus, Olympia.
Most carefully studied proportions prevailed, and were
wrought out to a pitch of completeness and refinement
which is truly astounding. Symmetry was the all but
invariable law of composition. Yet in certain respects—as,
for example, the spacing and position of the columns—a
degree of freedom was enjoyed which Roman
architecture did not possess. Repetition ruled to the almost
entire suppression of variety. Disclosure of the arrangement
and construction of the building was almost complete,
and hardly a trace of concealment can be detected.
Simplicity reigns in the earliest examples; the elaboration
of even the most ornamental is very chaste and
graceful; and the whole effect of Greek architecture is
one of harmony, unity, and refined power.
Fig. 88.—Section of the Portico of the Erechtheium.
Fig. 89.—Plan of the Portico—Looking up.
EXAMPLES OF GREEK ORNAMENT
In the Northern Portico of the Erechtheium—showing the Ornamentation
of the Ceiling.
A general principle seldom pointed out which governs
the application of enrichments to mouldings in Greek
architecture may be cited as a good instance of the subtle
yet admirable concord which existed between the different
features: it is as follows. The outline of each enrichment in
relief was ordinarily described by the same line as the profile
of the moulding to which it was applied. The egg enrichment
(Fig. ) on the ovolo, the water-leaf on the cyma
reversa (Figs. and ), the honeysuckle on the cyma
recta (Fig. ), and the guilloche (Fig. ) on the torus,
are examples of the application of this rule,—one which
obviously tends to produce harmony.
Fig. 90.—Capital of Antæ from the Erechtheium.
EXAMPLES OF GREEK ORNAMENT IN RELIEF.
Fig. 91.—Egg and Dart.
Fig. 92.—Leaf and Dart.
Fig. 93.—Honeysuckle.
Fig. 94.—Honeysuckle.
Fig. 95.—Acanthus.
Fig. 96.—Acanthus.
Fig. 97.—Leaf and Tongue.
Fig. 98.—Leaf and Tongue.
Fig. 99.—Garland.
Fig. 100.—Guilloche.
Fig. 101.—Bead and Fillet.
Fig. 102.—Bead and Fillet.
Fig. 103.—Torus Moulding.
Fig. 104.—Torus Moulding.
EXAMPLES OF GREEK ORNAMENT IN COLOUR.
Fig. 105.—Honeysuckle.
Figs. 106, 108.—Facias with Bands of Foliage.
Fig. 106.
Fig. 108.
Fig. 107.—Honeysuckle.
Fig. 109.—Leaf and Dart.
Fig. 110.—Egg and Dart.
Figs. 111 to 113.—Examples of the Honeysuckle.
Fig. 111.
Fig. 112.
Fig. 113.
Fig. 114.—Combination of the Fret, the Egg and Dart, the Bead
and Fillet, and the Honeysuckle.
Fig. 114.
Fig. 115.—Guilloche.
Figs. 116 to 120.—Examples of the Fret.
Fig. 116.
Fig. 117.
Fig. 118.
Fig. 119.
Fig. 120.
FOOTNOTES:
See Chap.
Chap.
For a statement of the general rule governing such enrichments,
see page .
Fig. 121.—Elevation of an Etruscan Temple (restored from descriptions only).
CHAPTER VIII.
ETRUSCAN AND ROMAN ARCHITECTURE.
Historical and General Sketch.
THE few grains of truth that we are able to sift from
the mass of legend which has accumulated round
the early history of Rome seem to indicate that at a very
early period—which the generally received date of 753 B.C.
may be taken to fix as nearly as is now possible—a small
band of outcasts and marauders settled themselves on
the Palatine Hill and commenced to carry on depredations
against the various cities of the tribes whose territories
were in the immediate neighbourhood, such as
the Umbrians, Sabines, Samnites, Latins, and Etruscans.
A walled city was built, which from its admirable situation
succeeded in attracting inhabitants in considerable
numbers, and speedily began to exercise supremacy over
its neighbours. The most important of the neighbouring
nations were the Etruscans, who called themselves
Rasena, and who must have settled on the west coast of
Italy, between the rivers Arno and Tiber, at a very early
period. Their origin is, however, very obscure, some
authorities believing, upon apparently good grounds, that
they came from Asia Minor, while others assert that they
descended from the north over the Rhætian Alps. But
whatever that origin may have been, they had at the time
of the founding of Rome as a city attained a high degree
of civilisation, and showed a considerable amount of
architectural skill; and their arts exercised a very great
influence upon Roman art.
Considerable remains of the city walls of several Etruscan
towns still exist. These show that the masonry was
of what has been termed a Cyclopean character,—that is
to say, the separate stones were of an enormous size; in
the majority of examples these stones were of a polygonal
shape, though in a few instances they were rectangular,
while in all cases they were fitted together with the most
consummate accuracy of workmanship, which, together
with their great massiveness, has enabled much of this
masonry to endure to the present day. Cortona, Volterra,
Fiesole, and other towns exhibit instances of this walling.
The temples, palaces, or dwelling-houses which went to
make up the cities so fortified have all disappeared, and
the only existing structural remains of Etruscan buildings
are tombs. These are found in large numbers, and
consist—as in the earlier instances which have already
been described—both of rock-cut and detached erections.
Of the former, the best known group is at Castel d’Asso,
where we find not only chambers cut into the rock, each
resembling an ordinary room with an entrance in the
face of the rock, but also monuments cut completely
out and standing clear all round; and we cannot fail to
detect in the forms into which the rock has been cut,
especially those of the roof, imitations of wooden buildings,
heavy square piers being left at intervals supporting
longitudinal beams which hold up the roof.
Fig. is an illustration of the interior of a chamber
in the rock. Occasionally there were a cornice and pediment
over the entrance.
Fig. 122.—Sepulchre at Corneto.
The other class of tombs are circular tumuli, similar
to the Pelasgic tombs of Asia Minor; of these large
numbers exist, but not sufficiently uninjured to enable
us to restore them completely. They generally consisted
of a substructure of stone, upon which was raised a
conical elevation. In the case of the Regulini Galeassi
tomb there were an inner and an outer tumulus, the
latter of which covered several small tombs, while the
inner enclosed one only, which had fortunately never
been opened till it was lately discovered. This tomb
was vaulted on the horizontal system—that is to say,
its vault was not a true arch, but was formed of courses
of masonry, each overhanging the one below, as in the
Treasury of Atreus, and it had a curious recess in the
roof, in which were found numerous interesting examples
of Etruscan pottery. It is, however, clear from the city
gates, sewers, aqueducts, &c., that the Etruscans were
acquainted with and extensively used the true radiating
arch composed of wedge-shaped stones (voussoirs), and
that they constructed it with great care and scientific
skill. The gate at Perugia, and the Cloacæ or Sewers
at Rome, constructed during the reign of the Tarquins,
at the beginning of the sixth century B.C., are examples of
the true arch, and this makes it certain that it was from
the Etruscans that the Romans learned the arched construction
which, when combined with the trabeated or
lintel mode of construction which they copied from the
Greeks, formed the chief characteristic of Roman architecture.
The Cloaca Maxima (Fig. ), which is roofed
over with three concentric semicircular rings of large
stones, still exists in many places with not a stone displaced,
as a proof of the skill of these early builders.
There are remains of an aqueduct at Tusculum which
are interesting from the fact of the horizontal being
combined with the true arch in its construction.
Fig. 123.—Cloaca Maxima.
No Etruscan temples remain now, but we know from
Vitruvius that they consisted of three cells with one
or more rows of columns in front, the intercolumniation
or interval between the columns being excessive. The
largest Etruscan temple of which any record remains
was that of Jupiter Capitolinus at Rome, which, under
the Empire, became one of the most splendid temples of
antiquity. It was commenced by Tarquinius Superbus,
and is said to have derived its name from the fact of the
builders, when excavating the foundations, coming upon a
freshly bleeding head (caput), indicating that the place
would eventually become the chief city of the world.
Another form of Etruscan temple is described by Vitruvius,
consisting of one circular cell only, with a porch.
This form was probably the origin of the series of circular
Roman buildings which includes such forms of temples as
that at Tivoli, and many of the famous mausolea, e.g.
that of Hadrian, and the culmination of which style is
seen in the Pantheon. It is interesting to notice that
the Romans never entirely gave up the circular form, one
instance of its use in Britain at a late period of the Roman
occupation having been discovered in the ruins of Silchester
near Basingstoke; and we shall find that it was
perpetuated in Christian baptisteries, tombs, and occasionally
churches.
We know from the traces of such buildings which exist,
that the Etruscans must have constructed theatres and
amphitheatres, and it is recorded that the first Tarquin
laid out the Circus Maximus and instituted the great
games held there. At Sutri there are ruins of an amphitheatre
which is nearly a perfect circle, measuring 265 ft.
in its greatest breadth and 295 ft. in length.
There are no remains of other buildings which would
enable us to form an opinion as to the civic architecture
of the Etruscans: they must, however, have attained to a
considerable skill in sculpture, as in some of the tombs
figures are represented in high relief which show no
small power of expression. They, too, like the Egyptians,
embellished their tombs with mural paintings.
These are generally in outline, and represent human
figures and animals in scenes of every-day life, with conventionalised
foliage, or mythological scenes such as the
passage of the soul after death to the judgment-seat where
its actions in life are to be adjudicated upon. In the
plastic arts the Etruscans made great progress, many
of their vases showing a delicacy and grace which have
never been surpassed, and exhibiting in their decorations
traces of both Greek and Egyptian influence.
We now reach the last of the classical styles of antiquity,
the Roman,—a style which, however, is rather an
adaptation or amalgamation of other styles than an original
and independent creation or development. The contrast
is very great between the “lively Grecian,” imaginative
and idealistic in the highest degree—who seemed to have
an innate genius for art and beauty, and who was always
eager to perpetuate in marble his ideal conception of the
“hero from whose loins he sprung,” or to immortalise
with some splendid work of art the name of his mother-city—and
the stern, practical Roman, realistic in his every
pore, eager for conquest, and whose one dominant idea was
to bring under his sway all the nations who were brought
into contact with him, and to make his city—as had been
foretold—the capital of the whole world. With this idea
always before him, it is no wonder that such a typical
Roman as M. Porcius Cato should look with disdain upon
the fine arts in all their forms, and should regard a love
for the beautiful, whether in literature or art, as synonymous
with effeminacy. Mummius, also, who destroyed
Corinth, is said to have been so little aware of the value
of the artistic treasures which he carried away, as to
stipulate with the carriers who undertook to transport
them to Rome, that if any of the works of art were lost
they should be replaced by others of equal value.
When the most prominent statesmen displayed such
indifference, it is not surprising that for nearly 500 years
no single trace of any architectural building of any merit
at all in Rome can now be discovered, and that history is
silent as to the existence of any monuments worthy of
being mentioned. Works of public utility of a very extensive
nature were indeed carried out during this period;
such, for example, as the Appian Way from Rome to
Capua, which was the first paved road in Rome, and was
constructed by the Censor Appius Claudius in B.C. 309.
This was 14 ft. wide and 3 ft. thick, in three layers:
1st, of rough stones grouted together; 2nd, of gravel; and
3rd, of squared stones of various dimensions. The same
Censor also brought water from Præneste to Rome by a
subterranean channel 11 miles long. Several bridges were
also erected, and Cato the Censor is said to have built a
basilica.
Until about 150 B.C. all the buildings of Rome were
constructed either of brick or the local stone; and though
we hear nothing of architecture as a fine art, we
cannot hesitate to admit that during this period the
Romans carried the art of construction, and especially
that of employing materials of small dimensions and
readily obtainable, in buildings of great size, to a remarkable
pitch of perfection. It was not till after the fall of
Carthage and the destruction of Corinth, when Greece
became a Roman province under the name of Achaia—both
which events occurred in the year 146 B.C.—that
Rome became desirous of emulating, to a certain extent,
the older civilisation which she had destroyed; and about
this time she became so enormously wealthy that vast
sums of money were expended, both publicly and privately,
in the *** of monuments, many of which remain to
the present day, more or less altered. The first marble
temple in Rome was built by the Consul Q. Metellus
Macedonicus, who died B.C. 115. Roman architecture from
this period began to show a wonderful diversity in the
objects to which it was directed,—a circumstance perhaps
as interesting as its great scientific and structural advance
upon all preceding styles. In the earlier styles temples,
tombs, and palaces were the only buildings deemed worthy
of architectural treatment; but under the Romans baths,
theatres, amphitheatres, basilicas, aqueducts, triumphal
arches, &c., were carried out just as elaborately as the
temples of the gods.
It was under the Emperors that the full magnificence
of Roman architectural display was reached. The famous
boast of Augustus, that he found Rome of brick and left
her of marble, gives expression in a few words to what
was the great feature of his reign. Succeeding emperors
lavished vast sums on buildings and public works of all
kinds; and thus it comes to pass that though the most
destructive of all agencies, hostile invasions, conflagrations,
and long periods of neglect, have each in turn done their
utmost to destroy the vestiges of Imperial Rome, there
still remain fragments, and in one or two instances whole
monuments, enough to make Rome, after Athens, the richest
store of classic architectural antiquities in the world.
But it was not in Rome only that great buildings were
erected. The whole known civilised world was under
Roman dominion, and wherever a centre of government
or even a flourishing town existed there sprang up the
residences of the dominant race, and their places of
business, public worship, and public amusement. Consequently,
we find in our own country, and in France,
Spain, Germany, Italy, North Africa, and Egypt—in
short, in all the countries where Roman rule was
established—examples of temples, amphitheatres, theatres,
triumphal arches, and dwelling-houses, some of them of
great interest and occasionally in admirable preservation.
FOOTNOTE:
The story of the Tarquins probably points to a period when the
chief supremacy at Rome was in the hands of an Etruscan family, and is
interesting for this reason.
Fig. 124.—“Incantada” in Salonica.
CHAPTER IX.
THE BUILDINGS OF THE ROMANS.
THE temples in Rome were not, as in Greece and
Egypt, the structures upon which the architect
lavished all the resources of his art and his science. The
general form of them was copied from that made use
of by the Greeks, but the spirit in which the original
idea was carried out was entirely different. In a word,
the temples of Rome were by no means worthy of her
size and position as the metropolis of the world, and
very few remains of them exist.
Fig. 125.—Ionic Order from the Temple of Fortuna Virilis, Rome.
Ten columns are still standing of the Temple of Antoninus
and Faustina (now the church of San Lorenzo in
Miranda): it occupied the site of a previous temple
and was dedicated by Antoninus Pius to his wife Faustina.
The Temple (supposed) of Fortuna Virilis, in the
Ionic style (Fig. ), still exists as the church of Santa
Maria Egiziaca: this was tetrastyle, with half-columns
all round it, and this was of the kind called by Vitruvius
“pseudo-peripteral.” A few fragmentary remains of
other temples exist in Rome, but in some of the Roman
provinces far finer specimens of temples remain, of
which perhaps the best is the Maison Carrée at Nîmes
(Fig. ). Here we find the Roman plan of a single
cell and a deep portico in front, while the sides and
rear have the columns attached. The intercolumniations
and the details of the capitals and entablature are,
however, almost pure Greek. The date of this temple is
uncertain, but it is most probable that it was erected
during the reign of Hadrian. The same emperor is
said to have completed the magnificent Temple of Jupiter
Olympius at Athens, which was 354 ft. long by 171 ft. wide.
It consisted of a cell flanked on each side by a double row
of detached columns; in front was one row of columns in
antis, and three other rows in front of these, while there
were also three rows in the rear: as the columns were of
the Corinthian order, and nearly 60 ft. in height, it may
be imagined that it was a splendid edifice.
Fig. 126.—Roman-Corinthian Temple at Nîmes (Maison-Carrée). Probably of the Time of Hadrian.
The ruins of another magnificent provincial Roman
temple exist at Baalbek—the ancient Heliopolis—in Syria,
not far from Damascus. This building was erected during
the time of the Antonines, probably by Antoninus Pius
himself, and originally it must have been of very extensive
dimensions, the portico alone being 180 ft. long
and about 37 ft. deep. This gives access to a small
hexagonal court, on the western side of which a triple
gateway opens into the Great Court, which is a vast
quadrangle about 450 ft. long by 400 ft. broad, with
ranges of small chambers or niches on three sides, some
of which evidently had at one time beautifully groined
roofs. At the western end of this court, on an artificial
elevation, stand the remains of what is called the Great
Temple. This was originally 290 ft. long by 160 ft.
wide, and had 54 columns supporting its roof, six only
of which now remain erect. The height of these columns,
including base and capital, is 75 ft., and their diameter
is 7 ft. at base and about 6 ft. 6 in. at top; they are
of the Corinthian order, and above them rises an elaborately
moulded entablature, 14 ft. in height. Each of
the columns is composed of three stones only, secured by
strong iron cramps; and indeed one of the most striking
features of this group of buildings is the colossal size
of the stones used in their construction. The quarries
from which these stones were hewn are close at hand,
and in them is one stone surpassing all the others in
magnitude, its dimensions being 68 ft. by 14 ft. 2 in. by
13 ft. 11 in. It is difficult to imagine what means can
have existed for transporting so huge a mass, the weight
of which has been calculated at 1100 tons.
Fig. 127.—Ground-plan of the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli.
Fig. 128.—Corinthian Order from the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli.
Other smaller temples exist in the vicinity, all of
which are lavishly decorated, but on the whole the
ornamentation shows an exuberance of detail which
somewhat offends a critical artistic taste.
Fig. 129.—The Temple of Vesta at Tivoli. Plan (looking up) and Section
of part of the Peristyle.
Circular temples were an elegant variety, which seems
to have been originated by the Romans, and of which
two well-known examples remain—the Temples of Vesta
at Rome and at Tivoli. The columns of the temple
at Tivoli (Fig. ) form a well-known and pleasing
variety of the Corinthian order, and the circular form
of the building as shown on the plan (Fig. ) gives
excellent opportunities for good decorative treatment,
as may be judged of by the enlarged diagram of part
of the peristyle (Fig. ).
Basilicas.
Among the most remarkable of the public buildings of
Roman times, both in the mother-city and in the provinces,
were the Basilicas or Halls of Justice, which were also
used as commercial exchanges. It is also believed that
Basilicas existed in some Greek cities, but no clue to their
structural arrangements exists, and whence originated the
idea of the plan of these buildings we are unable to state;
their striking similarity to some of the rock-cut halls or
temples of India has been already pointed out. They
were generally (though not always) covered halls, oblong
in shape, divided into three or five aisles by two or more
rows of columns, the centre aisle being much wider than
those at the sides: over the latter, galleries were frequently
erected. At one end was a semicircular recess or apse, the
floor of which was raised considerably above the level of
the rest of the building, and here the presiding magistrate
sat to hear causes tried. Four of these buildings are
mentioned by ancient writers as having existed in republican
times, viz. the Basilica Portia, erected in B.C. 184, by
Cato the Censor; the Basilica Emilia et Fulvia, erected in
B.C. 179 by the censors M. Fulvius Nobilior and M. Æmilius
Lepidus, and afterwards enlarged and called the Basilica
Paulli; the Basilica Sempronia, erected in B.C. 169 by
Tib. Sempronius Gracchus; and the Basilica Julia, erected
by Julius Cæsar, B.C. 46. All these buildings had wooden
roofs, and were of no great architectural merit, and they
perished at a remote date. Under the Empire, basilicas
of much greater size and magnificence were erected; and
remains of that of Trajan, otherwise called the Basilica
Ulpia, have been excavated in the Forum of Trajan.
This was about 360 ft. long by 180 ft. wide, had four rows
of columns inside, and it supposed to have been covered
by a semicircular wooden roof. Apollodorus of Damascus
was the architect of this building. Another basilica of
which remains exist is that of Maxentius, which after his
overthrow by Constantine in A.D. 312, was known as the
Basilica Constantiniana. This structure was of stone, and
had a vaulted roof; it was 195 ft. between the walls, and
was divided into three aisles by piers with enormous
columns standing in front of them.
Fig. 130.—Ground-plan of the Basilica Ulpia, Rome.
One provincial basilica, that at Trèves, still stands;
and although it must have been considerably altered, it
is by far the best existing example of this kind of
building. The internal columns do not exist here, and it
is simply a rectangular hall about 175 ft. by 85 ft., with
the usual semicircular apse.
The chief interest attaching to these basilicas lies in
the fact that they formed the first places of Christian
assembly, and that they served as the model upon which
the first Christian churches were built.
Theatres and Amphitheatres.
Although dramas and other plays were performed in
Rome as early as 240 B.C., there seems to have been a
strong prejudice against permanent buildings for their
representation, as it is recorded that a decree was passed
in B.C. 154 forbidding the construction of such buildings.
Mummius, the conqueror of Corinth, obtained permission
to erect a wooden theatre for the performance
of dramas as one of the shows of his triumph, and
after this many buildings of the kind were erected, but
all of a temporary nature; and it was not till B.C. 61
that the first permanent theatre was built by Pompey.
This, and the theatres of Balbus and Marcellus, appear
to have been the only permanent theatres that were
erected in Imperial Rome; and there are no remains of
any but the last of these, and this is much altered. So
that, were it not for the remains of theatres found at
Pompeii, it would be almost impossible to tell how they
were arranged; but from these we can see that the stage
was raised and separated from the part appropriated to
the spectators by a semicircular area, much like that
which in Greek theatres was allotted to the chorus: in
the Roman ones this was assigned for the use of the senators.
The portion devoted to the spectators—called the
Cavea—was also semicircular on plan, and consisted of
tiers of steps rising one above the other, and divided at
intervals by wide passages and converging staircases communicating
with the porticoes, which ran round the whole
theatre at every story.
Fig. 131.—Plan of the Colosseum, Rome.
At Orange, in the South of France, are the remains of
a very fine theatre, similar in plan to that described. The
great wall which formed the back of the scene in this
building is still standing, and is one of the most magnificent
pieces of masonry existing.
Fig. 132.—The Colosseum. Section and Elevation.
Although the Romans were not particularly addicted
to dramatic representations, yet they were passionately
fond of shows and games of all kinds: hence, not only in
Rome itself, but in almost every Roman settlement, from
Silchester to Verona, are found traces of their amphitheatres,
and the mother-city can claim the possession of
the most stupendous fabric of the kind that was ever
erected—the Colosseum or Flavian Amphitheatre, which
was commenced by Vespasian and finished by his son
Titus. An amphitheatre is really a double theatre without
a stage, and with the space in the centre unoccupied
by seats. This space, which was sunk several feet below
the first row of seats, was called the arena, and was
appropriated to the various exhibitions which took place
in the building. The plan was elliptical or oval, and
this shape seems to have been universal.
The Colosseum, whose ruins still remain to attest its
pristine magnificence—
“Arches on arches, as it were that Rome,
Collecting the chief trophies of her line,
Would build up all her triumphs in one dome”—
was 620 ft. long and 513 wide, and the height was about
162 ft. It was situated in the hollow between the
Esquiline and Cælian hills. The ranges of seats were
admirably planned so as to enable all the audience to
have a view of what was going on in the arena, and
great skill was shown both in the arrangement of the
approaches to the different tiers and in the structural
means for supporting the seats, and double corridors ran
completely round the building on each floor, affording
ready means of exit. Various estimates have been made
of the number of spectators that could be accommodated,
and these range from 50,000 to 100,000, but probably
80,000 was the maximum. Recent excavations have
brought to light the communications which existed between
the arena and the dens where the wild animals
and human slaves and prisoners were confined, and some
of the water channels used when mimic sea-fights were
exhibited. The external façade is composed of four stories,
separated by entablatures that run completely round the
building without a break. The three lower stories consist
of a series of semicircular arched openings, eighty
in number, separated by piers with attached columns
in front of them, the Doric order being used in the
lowest story, the Ionic in the second, and the Corinthian
in the third; the piers and columns are elevated on
stylobates; the entablatures have a comparatively slight
projection, and there are no projecting keystones in the
arches. In the lowest range these openings are 13 ft. 4 in.
wide, except the four which are at the ends of the two
axes of the ellipse, and these are 14 ft. 6 in. wide. The
diameter of the columns is 2 ft. 8¾ in. The topmost
story, which is considerably more lofty than either of the
lower ones, was a nearly solid wall enriched by Corinthian
pilasters. In this story occur two tiers of small
square openings in the alternate spaces between the
pilasters. These openings are placed accurately over the
centres of the arches of the lower stories. Immediately
above the higher range of square openings are a series
of corbels—three between each pair of pilasters—which
probably received the ends of the poles carrying the huge
awning which protected the spectators from the sun’s
rays. The whole is surmounted by a heavy cornice, in
which, at intervals immediately over each corbel, are
worked square mortise holes, forming sockets through
which the poles of the awning passed. The stone of
which the façade of the Colosseum is built is a local stone,
called travertine, the blocks of which are secured by iron
cramps without cement. Nearly all the internal portion
of the building is of brick, and the floors of the corridors,
&c., are paved with flat bricks covered with hard stucco.
These amphitheatres were occasionally the scene of imitations
of marine conflicts, when the arena was flooded
with water and mimic vessels of war engaged each other.
Very complete arrangements were made, by means of
small aqueducts, for leading the water into the arena and
for carrying it off.
Apart from theatrical representations and gladiatorial
combats, the Romans had an inordinate passion for chariot
races. For those the circi were constructed, of which
class of buildings the Circus Maximus was the largest.
This, originally laid out by Tarquinius Priscus, was reconstructed
on a larger scale by Julius Cæsar. It was circular
at one end and rectangular at the other, at which
was the entrance. On both sides of the entrance were
a number of small arched chambers, called carceres, from
which the chariots started. The course was divided down
the centre by a low wall, called the spina, which was
adorned with various sculptures. The seats rose in a
series of covered porticoes all round the course, except at
the entrance. As the length of the Circus Maximus was
nearly 700 yards, and the breadth about 135 yards, it is
possible that Dionysius may not have formed an exaggerated
notion of its capacity when he says it would accommodate
150,000 spectators.
In the Roman provinces amphitheatres were often
erected; and at Pola in Istria, Verona in Italy, and
Nîmes and Arles in France, fine examples remain. A
rude Roman amphitheatre, with seats cut in the turf of a
hill-side, exists to this day at the old town of Dorchester
in Dorset, which was anciently a Roman settlement.
Baths (Thermæ).
Nothing can give us a more impressive idea of the
grandeur and lavish display of Imperial Rome than the
remains of the huge Thermæ, or bathing establishments,
which still exist. Between the years 10 A.D., when
Agrippa built the first public baths, and 324 A.D., when
those of Constantine were erected, no less than twelve
of these vast establishments were erected by various
emperors, and bequeathed to the people. Of the whole
number, the baths of Caracalla and of Diocletian are the
only ones which remain in any state of preservation, and
these were probably the most extensive and magnificent of
all. All these splendid buildings were really nothing more
than bribes to secure the favour of the populace; for it seems
quite clear that the public had practically free entrance
to them, the only charge mentioned by writers of the time
being a quadrans, about a farthing of our money. Gibbon
says, “The meanest Roman could purchase with a small
copper coin the daily enjoyment of a scene of pomp and
luxury which might excite the envy of the kings of Asia.”
And this language is not exaggerated. Not only were
there private bath-rooms, swimming-baths, hot baths,
vapour-baths, and, in fact, all the appurtenances of the
most approved Turkish baths of modern times, but there
were also gymnasia, halls for various games, lecture-halls,
libraries, and theatres in connection with the baths, all
lavishly ornamented with the finest paintings and sculpture
that could be obtained. Stone seems to have been
but sparingly used in the construction of these buildings,
which were almost entirely of brick faced with stucco:
this served as the ground for an elaborate series of fresco
paintings.
Fig. 133.—Plan of the Principal Building, Baths of Caracalla, Rome.]
The baths of Caracalla, at the foot of the Aventine hill,
erected A.D. 217, comprised a quadrangular block of buildings
of about 1150 ft. (about the fifth of a mile) each way.
The side facing the street consisted of a portico the whole
length of the façade, behind which were numerous ranges
of private bath-rooms. The side and rear blocks contained
numerous halls and porticoes, the precise object of which
it is now very difficult to ascertain. As Byron says:
“Temples, baths, or halls?
Pronounce who can.”
This belt of buildings surrounded an open courtyard or
garden, in which was placed the principal bathing establishment
(Fig. ), a building 730 ft. by 380 ft., which
contained the large piscina, or swimming-bath, various hot
baths, dressing-rooms, gymnasia, and other halls for athletic
exercises. In the centre of one of the longer sides was
a large semicircular projection, roofed with a dome, which
was lined with brass: this rotunda was called the solar
cell. From the ruins of these baths were taken some of
the most splendid specimens of antique sculpture, such as
the Farnese Hercules and the Flora in the Museum of
Naples.
The baths of Diocletian, erected just at the commencement
of the fourth century A.D., were hardly inferior to
those of Caracalla, but modern and ancient buildings are
now intermingled to such an extent that the general plan
of the buildings cannot now be traced with accuracy.
There are said to have been over 3000 marble seats in
these baths; the walls were covered with mosaics, and the
columns were of Egyptian granite and green Numidian
marble. The Ephebeum, or grand hall, still exists as
the church of Santa Maria degli Angeli, having been
restored by Michelangelo. It is nearly 300 ft. long by
90 ft. wide, and is roofed by three magnificent cross
vaults, supported on eight granite columns 45 ft. in height.
(Fig. .)
There is one ancient building in Rome more impressive
than any other, not only because it is in a better state of
preservation, but because of the dignity with which it
has been designed, the perfection with which it has been
constructed, and the effectiveness of the mode in which
its interior is lighted. We allude to the Pantheon.
Opinions differ as to whether this was a Hall attached
to the thermæ of Agrippa, or whether it was a temple.
Without attempting to determine this point, we may at
any rate claim that the interior of this building admirably
illustrates the boldness and telling power with which
the large halls forming part of the thermæ were designed;
and, whether it belonged to such a building or not, it is
wonderfully well fitted to illustrate this subject.
Fig. 134.—Interior of Santa Maria degli Angeli, Rome.
Fig. 135.—The Pantheon, Rome. Ground-plan.
Fig. 136.—The Pantheon, Rome. Exterior.
The Pantheon is the finest example of a domed hall
which we have left. The building, which forms the
church of Santa Maria ad Martyres, has been considerably
altered at various times since its ***, and now consists
of a rotunda with a rectangular portico in front of it. The
rotunda was most probably erected by Agrippa, the son-in-law
of Augustus, in B.C. 27, and is a most remarkable
instance of clever construction at so early a date. The
diameter of the interior is 145 ft. 6 in., and the height
to the top of the dome is 147 ft. In addition to the entrance,
the walls are broken up by seven large niches, three
of which are semicircular on plan, and the others, alternating
with them, rectangular. The walls are divided
into two stories by an entablature supported by columns
and pilasters; but although this is now cut through
by the arches of the niches, it is at least probable that
originally this was not the case, and that the entablature
ran continuously round the walls, as shown in Fig. ,
which is a restoration of the Pantheon by Adler. Above
the attic story rises the huge hemispherical dome, which
is pierced at its summit by a circular opening 27 ft. in
diameter, through which a flood of light pours down and
illuminates the whole of the interior. The dome is enriched
by boldly recessed panels, and these were formerly
covered with bronze ornaments, which have been removed
for the sake of the metal. The marble enrichments of
the attic have also disappeared, and their place has been
taken by common and *** decorations more adapted
to the stage of a theatre. But notwithstanding everything
that has been done to detract from the imposing
effect of the building by the alteration of its details, there
is still, taking it as a whole, a simple grandeur in the
design, a magnificence in the material employed, and a
quiet harmony in the illumination, that impart to the
interior a character of sublimity which nothing can impair.
The rectangular portico was added at some subsequent
period, and consists of sixteen splendid Corinthian columns
(Fig. ), eight in front supporting the pediment, and
the other eight dividing the portico into three bays, in
precisely the same way as if it formed the pronaos to the
three cells of an Etruscan temple.
Fig. 137.—The Pantheon, Rome. Interior.
Fig. 138.—The Corinthian Order from the Pantheon, Rome.
Bridges and Aqueducts.
The earliest Roman bridges were of wood, and the
Pons Sublicius, though often rebuilt, continued to be of
this material until the time of Pliny, but it was impossible
for a people who made such use of the arch to avoid
seeing the great advantage this form gave them in the
construction of bridges, and several of these formed of
stone spanned the Tiber even before the time of the
Empire. The finest Roman bridges, however, were built
in the provinces. Trajan constructed one over the Danube
which was 150 ft. high and 60 ft. wide, and the arches
of which were of no less than 170 ft. span. This splendid
structure was destroyed by his successor, Hadrian, who
was probably jealous of it. The bridge over the Tagus at
Alcantara, which was constructed by Hadrian, is another
very fine example. There were six arches here, of which
the two centre ones had a span of 100 ft.
The Roman aqueducts afford striking evidence of the
building enterprise and architectural skill of the people.
Pliny says of these works: “If any one will carefully consider
the quantity of water used in the open air, in private
baths, swimming-baths, houses, gardens, &c., and thinks
of the arches that have been built, the hills that have been
tunnelled, and the valleys that have been levelled for the
purpose of conducting the water to its destination, he must
confess that nothing has existed in the world more calculated
to excite admiration.” The same sentiment strikes
an observer of to-day when looking at the ruins of these
aqueducts. At the end of the first century A.D. we read of
nine aqueducts in Rome, and in the time of Procopius
(A.D. 550) there were fourteen in use. Of these, the Aqua
Claudia and the Anio Novus were the grandest and most
costly. Those were constructed about the year 48 A.D.,
and entered the city upon the same arches, though at
different levels, the Aqua Claudia being the lower. The
arches carrying the streams were over nine miles long,
and in some cases 109 ft. high. They were purely works
of utility, and had no architectural decorations; but they
were most admirably adapted for their purpose, and were
so solidly constructed, that portions of them are still in
use. Some of the provincial aqueducts, such as those of
Tarragona and Segovia in Spain, were more ornamental,
and had a double tier of arches. The Pont du Gard, not
far from Nîmes, in France, is a well-known and very
picturesque structure of this character.
Commemorative Monuments.
These comprise triumphal arches, columns, and tombs.
The former consisted of a rectangular mass of masonry
having sculptured representations of the historical event
to be commemorated, enriched with attached columns on
pedestals, supporting an entablature crowned with a high
attic, on which there was generally an inscription. In
the centre was the wide and lofty arched opening. The
Arch of Titus, recording the capture of Jerusalem, is one
of the finest examples. Later on triumphal arches were
on a more extended scale, and comprised a small arch on
each side of the large one; examples of which may be
seen in the arches of Septimius Severus and of Constantine
(Fig. ). The large arched gateways which are met
with in various parts of Europe—such as the Porte
d’Arroux at Autun, and the Porta Nigra at Trèves—are
monuments very similar to triumphal arches. There remain
also smaller monuments of the same character, such as the
so-called Arch of the Goldsmiths in Rome (Fig. ).
Fig. 139.—The Arch of Constantine, Rome.
Columns were erected in great numbers during the time
of the Emperors as memorials of victory. Of these the
Column of Trajan and that of Marcus Aurelius are the
finest. The former was erected in the centre of Trajan’s
Forum, in commemoration of the Emperor’s victory over
the Dacians. It is of the Doric order, 132 ft. 10 in. high,
including the statue. The shaft is constructed of thirty-four
pieces of marble joined with bronze cramps. The
figures on the pedestal are very finely carved, and the
entire shaft is encircled by a series of elaborate bas-reliefs
winding round it in a spiral from its base to its capital.
The beauty of the work on this shaft may be best appreciated
by a visit to the cast of it set up—in two
heights, unfortunately—at the South Kensington Museum.
The Column of Marcus Aurelius, generally known as the
Antonine Column, is similarly enriched, but is not equal
to the Trajan Column.
The survival of Etruscan habits is clearly seen in the
construction of Roman tombs, which existed in enormous
numbers outside the gates of the city. Merivale says:
“The sepulchres of twenty generations lined the sides
of the high-roads for several miles beyond the gates,
and many had considerable architectural pretensions.”
That of Cecilia Metella is a typical example. Here we
find a square basement surmounted by a circular tower-like
structure, with a frieze and cornice. This was erected
about B.C. 60, by Crassus. The mausoleum of Augustus
was on a much more extensive scale, and consisted of four
cylindrical stories, one above the other, decreasing in
diameter as they ascended, and the topmost of all was
crowned with a colossal statue of the Emperor. The
tomb of Hadrian, on the banks of the Tiber—now known
as the Castle of Sant’ Angelo—was even more magnificent.
This comprised a square base, 75 ft. high, the side of
which measured about 340 ft.; above this was a cylindrical
building surmounted by a circular peristyle of thirty-four
Corinthian columns. On the top was a quadriga
with a statue of the Emperor. These mausolea were occasionally
octagonal or polygonal in plan, surmounted by
a dome, and cannot fail to remind us of the Etruscan
tumuli.
Another kind of tomb, of less magnificence, was the
columbarium, which was nothing more than a subterranean
chamber, the walls of which had a number of
small apertures in them for receiving the cinerary urns
containing the ashes of the bodies which had been
cremated. In the eastern portion of the Empire, in rocky
districts, the tombs were cut in the rock, and the façade
was elaborately decorated with columns and other architectural
features.
Domestic Architecture.
Of all the palaces which the Roman emperors built for
themselves, and which we know from historical records to
have been of the most magnificent description, nothing
now remains in Rome itself that is not too completely
ruined to enable any one to restore its plan with accuracy,
though considerable remains exist of the Palace of the
Cæsars on the Palatine Hill. In fact, the palace of
Diocletian at Spalatro, in Dalmatia, is the only remaining
example in the whole of the Roman empire of the
dwelling-house of an emperor, and even this was not
built till after Diocletian had resigned the imperial
dignity, so that its date is the early part of the fourth century
A.D. This palace is a rectangle, measuring about 700 ft.
one way and 590 ft. the other, and covers an area of nearly
10 acres. It is surrounded by high walls, broken at intervals
by square and octagonal towers, and contains
temples, baths, and extensive galleries, besides the private
apartments of the Emperor and dwellings for the principal
officers of the household. The architect of this building
broke away from classical traditions to a great extent; for
example, the columns stand on corbels instead of pedestals,
the entablatures being much broken, and the arches spring
directly from the capitals of the columns (Fig. ).
The private houses in Borne were of two kinds: the
insula and the domus. The insula was a block of buildings
several stories high, frequently let out to different families
in flats. The ground-floor was generally given up to
shops, which had no connection with the upper parts of
the building; and one roof covered the whole. This kind
of house was generally tenanted by the poorer class of
tradesmen and artificers. The other kind of house, the
domus, was a detached mansion. The excavations at
Pompeii have done much to elucidate a number of points
in connection with Roman dwellings which had been the
subject of much discussion by scholars, but we must not
too hastily assume that the Pompeian houses are the exact
counterpart of those of ancient Rome, as Pompeii was what
may be called a Romano-Greek city.
Fig. 140.—Ground-plan of the House of Pansa, Pompeii.
Fig. 141.—Ground-plan of the House of the Tragic Poet, Pompeii.
The general arrangements of a Roman house were as
follows: next the street an open space was frequently
left, with porticoes on each side of it provided with
seats: this constituted the vestibule, and was entirely
outside the house; the entrance-door opened into a
narrow passage, called the prothyrum, which led to
the atrium, which in the houses of Republican Rome
was the principal apartment, though afterwards it served
as a sort of waiting-room for the clients and retainers
of the house; it was an open court, roofed in on all the
four sides, but open to the sky in the centre. The simplest
form was called the Tuscan atrium, where the roof was
simply a lean-to sloping towards the centre, the rafters being
supported on beams, two of which rested on the walls of the
atrium, and had two other cross-beams trimmed into them.
The centre opening was called the impluvium, and immediately
under it a tank, called the compluvium, was formed
in the pavement to collect the rain-water (Fig. ).
When the atrium became larger, and the roof had to be
supported by columns, it was called a cavædium. At the
end of this apartment were three others, open in front, the
largest, in the centre, called tablinum, and the two side ones
alæ; these were muniment-rooms, where all the family
archives were kept, and their position is midway between the
semi-public part of the house, which lay towards the front,
and the strictly domestic and private part, which lay in the
rear. At the sides of the atrium in the larger houses were
placed small rooms, which served as sleeping chambers.
Fig. 142.—The Atrium of a Pompeian House.
From the end of the atrium a passage, or sometimes
two passages, called the fauces, running by the side of
the tablinum, led to the peristylium, which was the
grand private reception-room; this also was a court
open to the sky in the centre, and among the wealthy
Romans its roof was supported by columns of the rarest
marbles. Round the peristyle were grouped the various
private rooms, which varied according to the size of the
house and the taste of the owner. There was always
one dining-room (triclinium), and frequently two or
more, which were arranged with different aspects, for
use in different seasons of the year. If several dining-rooms
existed, they were of various sizes and decorated
with various degrees of magnificence; and a story is told
of one of the most luxurious Romans of Cicero’s time,
that he had simply to tell his slaves which room he would
dine in for them to know what kind of banquet he wished to
be prepared. In the largest houses there were saloons (æci),
parlours (exedræ), picture galleries (pinacothecæ), chapels
(lararia), and various other apartments. The kitchen, with
scullery and bakehouse attached, was generally placed in
one angle of the peristyle, round which various sleeping-chambers,
according to the size of the house, were arranged.
Most of the rooms appear to have been on the ground-floor,
and probably depended for their light upon the
doorway only; though in some instances at Pompeii small
windows exist high up in the walls.
Fig. 143.—Wall Decoration from Pompeii.
In the extreme rear of the larger houses there was
generally a garden; and in those which were without this,
the dead walls in the rear were frequently painted so as to
imitate a garden. The houses of the wealthy Romans
were decorated with the utmost magnificence: marble
columns, mosaic pavements, and charming pieces of sculpture
adorned their apartments, and the walls were in
all cases richly painted (Fig. ), being divided into
panels, in the centre of which were represented sometimes
human figures, sometimes landscapes, and sometimes pictures
of historical events. All the decoration of Roman
houses was internal only: the largest and most sumptuous
mansion had little to distinguish it, next the street,
from a comparatively humble abode; and, with the exception
of the space required for the vestibule and
entrance doorway, nearly the whole of the side of the
house next the street was most frequently appropriated
to shops. All that we are able to learn of the architecture
of Roman private houses, whether from contemporary
descriptions or from the uncovered remains of
Pompeii and Herculaneum, points to the fact that it,
even in a greater measure than the public architecture,
was in no sense of indigenous growth, but was simply
a copy of Greek arrangement and Greek decoration.
FOOTNOTES:
The passage in Varro, which is the sole authority for the Basilica
Opimia, is generally considered to be corrupt.
Byron.
This does not occur in the Pompeian houses.
Marked a, a, on the plans.
Vitruvius, however, seems to use the terms atrium and cavædium
as quite synonymous.
Marked respectively c, and f, f, on the plan of the House of Pansa.
Marked b, b, on the plans.
At the Crystal Palace can be seen an interesting reproduction of a
Pompeian house, which was designed by the late Sir Digby Wyatt.
It gives a very faithful reproduction of the arrangement and the size of
an average Pompeian house; and though every part is rather more
fully covered with decoration than was usual in the originals, the
decorations of each room faithfully reproduce the treatment of some
original in Pompeii or Herculaneum.
Fig. 144.—Carving from the Forum of Nerva, Rome.
CHAPTER X.
ROMAN ARCHITECTURE.
Analysis.
THE Plan (or floor-disposition).—The plans of Roman
buildings are striking from their variety and the
vast extent which in some cases they display, as well
as from a certain freedom, mastery, and facility of handling
which are not seen in earlier work. Their variety is
partly due to the very various purposes which the buildings
of the Romans were designed to serve: these comprised
all to which Greek buildings had been appropriated,
and many others, the product of the complex and luxurious
civilisation of the Empire. But independent of this circumstance,
the employment of such various forms in
the plans of buildings as the ellipse, the circle, and the
octagon, and their facile use, seem to denote a people
who could build rapidly, and who looked carefully to
the general masses and outlines of what they built,
however carelessly they handled the minute details.
The freedom with which these new forms were employed
arises partly also from the fact that the Romans were in
possession of a system of construction which rendered
them practically independent of most of the restrictions
which had fettered the genius of the Egyptians, Assyrians,
and Greeks. Their vaulted roofs could be supported by a
comparatively small number of piers of great solidity,
placed far apart; and accordingly in the great halls of
the Thermæ and elsewhere we find planning in which, a
few stable points of support being secured, the outline of
the spaces between them is varied at the pleasure of the
architect in the most picturesque and pleasing manner.
The actual floor received a good deal of attention from
the Romans. It was generally covered with tesselated
pavement, often with mosaic, and its treatment entered
into the scheme of the design for most interiors.
The Walls.
The construction of these was essentially different from
that adopted by most earlier nations. The Romans rather
avoided than cultivated the use of large blocks of stone;
they invented methods by which very small materials could
be aggregated together into massive and solid walls. They
used mortar of great cementing power, so much so that
many specimens of Roman walling exist in this country
as well as in Italy or France, where the mortar is as hard
as the stones which it unites. They also employed a system
of binding together the small materials so employed by
introducing, at short distances apart, courses of flat stones
or bricks, called “bond courses,” and they further fortified
such walls by bands of flat materials placed edgeways
after the manner popularly known as herring-bone
work. The result of these methods of construction was
that the Roman architect could build anywhere, no matter
how unpromising the materials which the locality afforded;
that he could put the walls of his building together without
its being requisite to employ exclusively the skilled
labour of the mason, and that both time and expense were
thus saved. This economy and speed were not pushed so
far as to render the work anything but durable; they
had, however, a bad effect in another direction, for these
rough rubble walls were habitually encased in some more
sightly material, in order to make them look as though
they were something finer than they really were; and
accordingly, the exterior was often faced with a thin
skin of masonry, and not infrequently plastered. The
interior was also almost invariably plastered, but to this
little exception can be taken. This casing of the exteriors
was, however, the beginning of a system of what may be
called false architecture, and one which led to much that
was degrading to the art.
The walls were in many cases, it has been already observed,
gathered into strong masses, such as it is customary
to term piers, in order to support the vaulted roofs at the
proper points. They were often carried to a much greater
height than in Greek buildings, and they played altogether
a far more important part in the design of Roman buildings
than they had done in that of the Greeks.
The Roofs.
As has been already stated, the Romans, in their possession
of a new system of construction, enjoyed a degree
of freedom which was unknown before. This system
was based upon the use of the arch, and arched roofs and
domes, and it enabled the Romans to produce interiors
unapproached before for size and splendour, and such as
have hardly been surpassed since, except by the vaulted
churches of the Middle Ages,—buildings which are themselves
descended from Roman originals. The art of
vaulting was, in short, the key to the whole system of
Roman architecture, just as the Orders were to that of
the Greeks.
The well-known arch over the Cloaca Maxima at Rome
(Fig. , p. ) may be taken as an illustration of the
most ancient and most simple kind of vault, the one which
goes by the significant name of “barrel or waggon-head
vault.” This is simply a continuous arched vault springing
from the top of two parallel walls; in fact, like the
arch of a railway tunnel. Such a vault may be constructed
of very great span, and affords a means of
putting a permanent roof over a floor the outline of which
is a parallelogram; but it is heavy and uninteresting in
appearance. It was soon found to be possible to introduce
a cross vault running at right angles to the original one;
and where such an intersecting vault occurs the side walls
of the original vault may be dispensed with, for so much
of their length as the newly-added vault spans.
The next step was to introduce a succession of such cross
vaults close to one another, so that large portions of the
original main wall might be dispensed with. What remained
of the side walls was now only a series of oblong
masses or piers, suitably fortified so as to carry the great
weight resting upon them, but leaving the architect free to
occupy the space between them as his fancy might dictate,
or to leave it quite open. In this way were constructed the
great halls of the Thermæ; and the finest halls of modern
classic architecture—such, for example, as the Madeleine
at Paris, or St. George’s Hall at Liverpool—are only a
reproduction of the splendid structures which such a
system of vaulting rendered possible.
When the floor of the space to be vaulted was circular,
the result of covering it with an arched roof was the dome—a
familiar feature of Roman architecture, and the
noblest of all forms of roof. We possess in the dome of
the Pantheon a specimen, in fairly good preservation, of
this kind of roof on the grandest scale.
We shall find that in later ages the dome and the vault
were adopted by the Eastern and the Western schools of
Christian architecture respectively. In Rome we have the
origin of both.
The Openings.
These were both square-headed and arched; but the
arched ones occur far more frequently than the others, and,
when occasion required, could be far bolder. The openings
became of much greater importance than in earlier
styles, and soon disputed with the columns the dignity of
being the feature of the building: this eventually led, as
will be related under the next head, to various devices for
the fusion of the two.
The adoption of the arch by the Romans led to a
great modification in classic architecture; for its influence
was to be traced in every part of the structure
where an opening of any sort had to be spanned. Formerly
the width of such openings was very limited,
owing to the difficulty of obtaining lintels of great length.
Now their width and height were pure matters of choice,
and doorways, windows, and arcades naturally became
very prominent, and were often very spacious.
The Columns.
These necessarily took an altered place as soon as buildings
were carried to such a height that one order could
not, as in Greek temples, occupy the whole space from
pavement to roof. The Greek orders were modified by the
Romans in order to fit these altered circumstances, but
columnar construction was by no means disused when the
arch came to play so important a part in building. The
Roman Doric order, and a very simple variety of it
called Tuscan, were but rarely used. The chief alteration
from the Greek Doric, in addition to a general
degradation of all the mouldings and proportions, was
the addition of a base, which sometimes consists of a
square plinth and large torus, sometimes is a slightly
modified Attic base; the capital has a small moulding
round the top of the abacus, and under the ovolo are two
or three small fillets with a necking below; the shaft
was from 6 to 7 diameters in height, and was not fluted;
the frieze was ornamented with triglyphs, and the metopes
between these were frequently enriched with sculptured
heads of bulls: the metopes were exact squares, and the
triglyphs at the angles of buildings were placed precisely
over the centre of the column.
The Ionic order was but slightly modified by the Romans,
the chief alteration being made in the capital. Instead
of forming the angular volutes so that they exhibited a
flat surface on the two opposite sides of the capital, the
Romans appear to have desired to make the latter uniform
on all the four sides; they therefore made the sides of the
abacus concave on plan, and arranged the volutes so that
they seemed to spring out of the mouldings under the
abacus and faced anglewise. The capital altogether seems
compressed and crowded up, and by no means elegant;
in fact, both this and the Doric order were decidedly deteriorations
from the fine forms of Greek architecture.
Fig. 145.—Roman Corinthian Capital
and Base from the Temple of Vesta
at Tivoli.
Fig. 145a.—The Roman Composite Capital.
The Corinthian order was much more in accordance
with the later Roman taste for magnificence and display,
and hence we find its use very general both in Rome and
in other cities of the Empire. Its proportions did not
greatly differ from those of the Greek Corinthian, but
the mouldings in general were more elaborate. Numerous
variations of the capital exist (Figs. , ), but the
principal one was an amalgamation of the large Ionic
volutes in the upper with the acanthus leaves of the lower
portion of the capital: this is known as the Composite
order, and the capital thus treated has a strength and vigour
which was wanting to the Greek order (see Fig. ).
The shafts of the columns were more often fluted than
not, though sometimes the lower portion was left plain
and the upper only fluted. The Attic base was generally
used, but an example has been found of an adaptation of
the graceful Persepolitan base to the Corinthian column.
This was the happiest innovation that the Romans made;
it seems, however, to have been but an individual attempt,
and, as it was introduced very shortly before the fall of
the Empire, the idea was not worked out.
The orders thus changed were employed for the most
part as mere decorative additions to the walls. In many
cases they did not even carry the eaves of the roof, as
they always did in a Greek temple; and it was not
uncommon for two, three, or more orders to be used one
above another, marking the different stories of a lofty
building.
The columns, or pilasters which took their place, being
reduced to the humble function of ornaments added to the
wall of a building, it became very usual to combine them
with arched openings, and to put an arch in the interspace
between two columns, or, in other words, to add a column
to the pier between two arches (Fig. ). These arched
openings being often wide, a good deal of disproportion
between the height of the columns and their distance
apart was liable to occur; and, partly to correct this, the
column was often mounted upon a pedestal, to which the
name of “stylobate” has been given.
It was also sometimes customary to place above the
order, or the highest order where more than one was
employed, what was termed an attic—a low story ornamented
with piers or pilasters. The exterior of the
Colosseum (Fig. ), the triumphal arches of Constantine
(Fig. ) and Titus, and the fragments of the upper part
of the Forum of Nerva (Fig. ) may be consulted as
illustrations of the combination of an order and an
arched opening, and of the use of pedestals and attics.
Fig. 146.—Part of the Theatre of Marcellus, Rome. Showing the combination of
Columns and Arched Openings.
Fig. 147.—From the Ruins of the Forum of Nerva, Rome. Showing the use
of an Attic Story. With Plan.
Another peculiarity, of which we give an illustration from
the baths of Diocletian (Fig. ), was the surmounting a
column or pilaster with a square pillar of stone, moulded
in the same way as an entablature, i.e. with the regular
division into architrave, frieze, and cornice. This was a
decided perversion of the
use of the order; it occurs
in examples of late date.
So also do various other
arrangements for making
an arch spring from the
capital of a column; one
of these, from the palace
of Diocletian at Spalatro,
we are able to illustrate
(Fig. ).
Fig. 148.—From the Baths of Diocletian,
Rome. Showing a fragmentary Entablature
at the starting of part of a
Vault.
Fig. 149.—From the Palace of Diocletian, Spalatro. Showing an Arch springing
from a Column.
In conclusion, it may be
worth while to say that
the Roman writers and
architects recognised five
orders: the Tuscan, Doric,
Ionic, Corinthian, and
Composite, the first and
last in this list being,
however, really only
variations; and that when they placed the orders above one
another, they invariably used those of them which they
selected in the succession in which they have been named;
that is to say, the Tuscan or Doric lowest, and so on in
succession.
Fig. 150.—Mouldings and Ornaments from various Roman Buildings.
The Ornaments.
Fig. 151.—Roman Carving. An Acanthus Leaf.
Fig. 152.—The Egg and Dart Enrichment. Roman.
The mouldings with which Roman buildings are ornamented
are all derived from Greek originals, but are often
extremely rough and coarse. It is true that in some old
Roman work, especially in those of the tombs which are
executed in marble, mouldings of considerable delicacy
and refinement of outline occur, but these are exceptional.
The profiles of the mouldings are, as a rule, segments of
circles, instead of being more subtle curves, and the result
is that violent contrasts of light and shade are obtained,
telling enough at a distance, but devoid of interest if the
spectator come near.
Fig. 153.—Wall Decoration of (so-called) Arabesque character from
Pompeii.
Carving is executed exactly on the same principles as
those which govern the mouldings—that is to say, with
much more coarseness than in Greek work; not lacking
in vigour, or in a sort of ostentatious opulence of ornament,
but often sadly deficient in refinement and grace.
Statues, many of them copies of Greek originals,
generally executed with a heavy hand, but sometimes
clearly of Greek work, were employed, as well as bronzes,
inlaid marbles, mosaics, and various devices to ornament
the interiors of Greco-Roman buildings; and free use
was made of ornamental plaster-work, both on walls
and vaults.
Coloured decoration was much in vogue, and, to judge
from what has come down to us, must have been executed
with great taste and much spirit. The walls of a Roman
dwelling-house of importance seem to have been all
painted, partly with that light kind of decoration to
which the somewhat inappropriate name of arabesque
has been given, and partly with groups or single figures,
relieved by dark or black backgrounds. The remains of
the Palace of the Cæsars in Rome, much of it not now
accessible, and the decorations visible at Pompeii, give a
high idea of the skill with which this mural ornamentation
was executed; our illustration (Fig. ) may be
taken as affording a good example of the combined decorations
in relief and colour often applied to vaulted ceilings.
It is, however, characteristic of the lower level at
which Roman art stood as compared with Greek that,
though statues abounded, we find no traces of groups
of sculpture designed to occupy the pediments of
temples, or of bas-reliefs fitted to special localities in
the buildings, such as were all but universal in the best
Greek works.
Architectural Character.
The nature of this will have been to a large extent
gathered from the observations already made. Daring,
energy, readiness, structural skill, and a not too fastidious
taste were characteristic of the Roman architect and his
works. We find traces of vast spaces covered, bold construction
successfully and solidly carried out, convenience
studied, and a great deal of magnificence attained in those
buildings the remains of which have come down to us;
but we do not discover refinement or elegance, a fine
feeling for proportion, or a close attention to details, to
a degree at all approaching the extent to which these
qualities are to be met with in Greek buildings. We
are thus sometimes tempted to regret that it was not
possible to combine a higher degree of refinement with
the great excellence in construction and contrivance exhibited
by Roman architecture.
Fig. 154.—Decoration in Relief and Colour of the Vault of a Tomb
in the Via Latina, near Rome.
Fig. 155.—Basilica-Church of San Miniato, Florence.
CHAPTER XI.
EARLY CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE.
Basilicas in Rome and Italy.
DURING the first three centuries the Christian
religion was discredited and persecuted; and
though many interesting memorials of this time (some
of them having an indirect bearing upon architectural
questions) remain in the Catacombs, it is chiefly for their
paintings that the touching records of the past which
have been preserved to us in these secluded excavations
should be studied. Early in the fourth century Constantine
the Great became Emperor, and in the course of his
reign (from A.D. 312 to 337) he recognised Christianity,
and made it the religion of the State. It then, of course,
became requisite to provide places of public worship.
Probably the Christians would have been, in many cases,
reluctant to make use of heathen temples, and few
temples, if any, were adapted to the assembling of a large
congregation. But the large halls of the baths and
the basilicas were free from associations of an objectionable
character, and well fitted for large assemblages
of worshippers. These and other such places were accordingly,
in the first instance, employed as Christian
churches. The basilica, however, became the model
which, at least in Italy, was followed, to the exclusion
of all others, when new buildings were erected for
the purpose of Christian worship; and during the fourth
century, and several succeeding ones, the churches of
the West were all of the basilica type. What occurred
at Constantinople, the seat of the Eastern Empire and
the centre of the Eastern Church, will be considered
presently.
There is probably no basilica actually standing which
was built during the reign of Constantine, or near his
time; but there are several basilica churches in Rome,
such as that of San Clemente, which were founded near
his time, and which, though they have been partially or
wholly rebuilt, exhibit what is believed to be the ancient
disposition without modification.
Fig. 156.—Interior of a Basilica at Pompeii.
Restored, from descriptions by various authors.
Access is obtained to San Clemente through a forecourt
to which the name of the atrium is given. This
is very much like the atrium of a Roman house, being
covered with a shed roof round all four sides and open in
the centre, and so resembling a cloister. The side next
the church was called the narthex or porch; and when an
atrium did not exist, a narthex at least was usually
provided. The basilica has always a central avenue, or nave,
and sides or aisles, and was generally entered from the
narthex by three doors, one to each division. The nave of
San Clemente is lofty, and covered by a simple wooden
roof; it is separated from the side aisles by arcades, the
arches of which spring from the capitals of columns; and
high up in its side walls we find windows. The side
aisles, like the nave, have wooden roofs. The nave terminates
in a semicircular recess called “the apse,” the floor
of which is higher than that of the general structure, and
is approached by steps. A large arch divides this apse
from the nave. A portion of the nave floor is occupied by
an enclosed space for the choir, surrounded by marble
screens, and having a pulpit on either side of it. These
pulpits are termed “ambos.” Below the Church of San
Clemente is a vaulted structure or crypt extending under
the greater part, but not the whole, of the floor of the
main building.
The description given above would apply, with very
slight variations, to any one of the many ancient basilica
churches in Rome, Milan, Ravenna, and the other older
cities of Italy; the principal variations being that in
many instances, including the very ancient basilica of
St. Peter, now destroyed, the avenues all stopped short of
the end wall of the basilica, and a wide and clear transverse
space or transept ran athwart them in front of the
apse. San Clemente indeed shows some faint traces of
such a feature. In one or two very large churches five
avenues occur,—that is to say, a nave and double aisles;
and in Santa Agnese (Fig. ) and at least one other, we
find a gallery over the side aisles opening into the nave,
or, as Mr. Fergusson puts it, “the side aisles in two
stories.” In many instances we should find no atrium,
but in all cases we meet with the nave and aisles, and the
apse at the end of the nave, with its arch and its elevated
floor; and the entrances are always at the end of the
building farthest from the apse, with some sort of porch
or portal.
Fig. 156a.—Basilica, or Early Christian Church of Santa Agnese at Rome.
The interest of these buildings lies not so much in their
venerable antiquity as in the fact that the arrangements
of all Christian churches in Western Europe down to the
Reformation, and of very many since, are directly derived
from these originals. If the reader will refer to the
description of a Gothic cathedral in the companion volume
of this series, it will not be difficult for him to trace the
correspondence between its plan and its general structure
and those of the primitive basilica. The atrium no longer
forms the access to a cathedral, but it still survives in the
cloister, though in a changed position. The narthex or
porch is still more or less traceable in the great western
portals, and in a kind of separation which often, but not
always, exists between the westernmost bay of a cathedral
and the rest of the structure. The division into nave and
aisles remains, and in very large churches and cathedrals
there are double aisles, as there were in the largest
basilicas. The nave roof is still higher than the aisles—the
arcade, in two stories, survives in the usual arcade
and triforium; the windows placed high in the nave are
the present clerestory. The apsidal termination of the
central avenue is still retained in almost all Continental
architecture, though in Great Britain, from an early date,
it was abandoned for a square east end; but square-ended
or apsidal, a recess with a raised floor and a conspicuous
arch, marking it off from the nave, always occupies this
end of the church; and the under church, or crypt, is
commonly, though not always, met with. The enclosure
for the choir has, generally speaking, been moved farther
east than it was in the basilica churches; though in
Westminster Abbey, and in most Spanish cathedrals, we
have examples of its occupying a position closely analogous
to that of the corresponding enclosure at the basilica of San
Clemente. The cross passage to which we have referred
as having existed in the old basilica of St. Peter, and
many others, is the original of the transept which in
later churches has been made more conspicuous than it
was in the basilica by being lengthened so as to project
beyond the side walls of the church, and by being moved
more westward. Lastly, the two ambos, or pulpits,
survive in two senses. They are represented by the
reading desk and the pulpit, and their situation and
purpose are continued in the epistle and gospel sides of
the choir.
The one point in which an essential difference occurs is
the position of the altar, or communion table, and that of
the Bishop’s chair, or throne. In the classic basilica the
apse was the tribunal, and a raised seat with a tesselated
pavement occupied the central position in it, and was the
justice-seat of the presiding judge; and in the sweep of
the apse, seats right and left, at a lower elevation, were
provided for assessors or assistant-judges. In front of the
president was placed a small altar. The whole of these
arrangements were copied in the basilica churches. The
seat of the president became the bishop’s throne, the seats
for assessors were appropriated to the clergy, and the
altar retained substantially its old position in front of the
apse, generally with a canopy erected over it. This disposition
continues in basilica churches to the present day.
At St. Peter’s in Rome, for example, the Pope occupies a
throne in the middle of the apse, and says mass with his
face turned towards the congregation at the high altar,
which stands in front of his throne under a vast baldacchino
or canopy; but in Western Christendom generally
a change has been made,—the altar has been placed in the
apse where the bishop’s throne formerly stood, and the
throne of the bishop and stalls of his clergy have been
displaced, and are to be found at the sides of the choir or
presbytery.
Fig. 157.—Sant’ Apollinare, Ravenna. Part of the Arcade and Apse.
Many basilica churches were erected out of fragments
taken from older buildings, and present a curious mixture
of columns, capitals, &c.; others, especially those at
Ravenna, exhibit more care, and are noble specimens of
ancient and severe architectural work. The illustration
which we give of part of the nave, arcade, and apse of one
of these, Sant’ Apollinare in Classe, shows the dignified
yet ornate aspect of one of the most carefully executed of
these buildings (Fig. ).
In some of these churches the decorations are chiefly
in mosaic, and are extremely striking. Our illustration of
the apse of the great basilica of St. Paul without the walls
(Fig. ) may be taken as a fair specimen of the general
arrangement and treatment of the crowd of sacred figures
and subjects which it is customary to represent in these
situations; but it can of course convey no idea of the
brilliant effect produced by powerful colouring executed
in mosaic, the most luminous of all methods of enrichment.
The floor of most of them was formed in the style
of mosaic known as “opus Alexandrinum,” and the large
sweeping, curved bands of coloured material with which
the main outlines of the patterns are defined, and the
general harmony of colour among the porphyries and
other hard stones with which these pavements were executed,
combine to satisfy the eye. A splendid specimen of
opus Alexandrinum, the finest north of the Alps, exists in
the presbytery of Westminster Abbey.
Fig. 158.—Apse of the Basilica of St. Paul without the Walls, Rome.
Another description of building is customarily met
with in connection with early Christian churches,—the
baptistery. This is commonly a detached building, and
almost always circular or polygonal. In some instances
the baptistery adjoins the atrium or forecourt; but it
soon became customary to erect detached baptisteries of
considerable size. These generally have a high central
portion carried by a ring of columns, and a low aisle running
round, the receptacle for water being in the centre.
The origin of these buildings is not so clear as that of
the basilica churches; they bear some resemblance to the
Roman circular temples; but it is more probable that
the form was suggested by buildings similar in general
arrangement, and forming part of a Roman bath. The
octagonal building known as the baptistery of Constantine,
and the circular building now used as a church and
dedicated to Santa Costanza in Rome, and the celebrated
baptistery of Ravenna, are early examples of this class of
structure. Somewhat more recent, and very well known,
are the great baptisteries of Florence and Pisa.
A few ancient circular or polygonal churches remain
which do not appear to have been built as baptisteries.
One of these is at Rome, the church of San Stefano
Rotondo; but another, more remarkable in every way,
is at Ravenna, the church of San Vitale. This is an
octagonal building, with a large vestibule and a small
apsidal choir. The central portion, carried by eight
arches springing from as many lofty and solid piers, and
surmounted by a hemispherical dome, rises high above
the aisle which surrounds it. Much elegance is produced
by the arrangement of smaller columns so as to form a
kind of apsidal recess in each of the interspaces between
the eight main piers.
Another feature which has become thoroughly identified
with church architecture is the bell-tower, or campanile.
This appendage, there can be no doubt, originated with
the basilicas of Italy. The use of bells as a call to prayer
is said to have been introduced not later, at any rate, than
the sixth century, and to this era is attributed a circular
campanile belonging to Sant’ Apollinare in Classe at
Ravenna, a basilica already alluded to. The circular plan
was, however, exceptional; the ancient campaniles remaining
in Rome are all square; they are usually built of
brick, many stories in height, and with a group of arched
openings in each story, and are generally surmounted by
a low conical roof.
The type of church which we have described influenced
church architecture in Italy down to the eleventh century,
and such buildings as the beautiful church (Fig. ) of
San Miniato, near Florence (A.D. 1013), and the renowned
group of Cathedral, Baptistery, Campanile, and Campo
Santo (a kind of cloistered cemetery) at Pisa, bear a very
strong resemblance in many respects to these originals;
though they belong rather to the Romanesque than to
the Basilican division of early Christian architecture.
FOOTNOTE:
‘Gothic and Renaissance Architecture,’ chap. ii. p. 6.
Fig. 158a.—Frieze from the Monastery at Fulda.
CHAPTER XII.
BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.
CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, who by establishing
the Christian religion had encouraged the ***
of basilicas for Christian worship in Rome and Italy,
effected a great political change, and one destined to exert
a marked influence upon Christian architecture, when he
removed the seat of empire from Rome to Byzantium, and
called the new capital Constantinople, after his own
name. Byzantium had been an ancient place, but was
almost in ruins when Constantine, probably attracted by
the unrivalled advantages of its site, rebuilt it, or at least
re-established it as a city. The solemn inauguration of
Constantinople as the new capital took place A.D. 330; and
when, under Theodosius, the empire was divided, this city
became the capital of the East.
With a new point of departure among a people largely
of Greek race, we might expect that a new development
of the church from some other type than the basilica
might be likely to show itself. This, in fact, is what
occurred; for while the most ancient churches of Rome
all present, as we have seen, an almost slavish copy of
an existing type of building, and do not attempt the use
of vaulted roofs, in Byzantium buildings of most original
design sprang up, founded, it is true, on Roman originals,
but by no means exact copies of them. In the ***
of these churches the most difficult problems of construction
were successfully encountered and solved. What
may have been the course which architecture ran during
the two centuries between the refounding of Byzantium
and the building of Santa Sophia under Justinian, we can,
however, only infer from its outcome. It is doubtful if
any church older than the sixth century now remains in
Constantinople; but it is certain that, to attain the power
of designing and erecting so great a work as Santa Sophia,
the architects of Constantinople must have continued and
largely modified the Roman practice of building vaults and
domes. There is every probability that if some of the
early churches in Byzantium were domed structures others
may have been vaulted basilicas; the more so as the very
ancient churches in Syria, which owed their origin to
Byzantium rather than to Rome, are most of them of the
basilica type.
Fig. 159.—Church of Santa Sophia at Constantinople. Long Section.
Built under Justinian by Anthemios and Isidoros. Completed A.D. 537.
A church which had been erected by Constantine, dedicated
to Santa Sophia (holy wisdom), was burnt early in
the reign of Justinian (A.D. 527 to 565); and in rebuilding
it his architects, Anthemios of Thralles, and Isidoros of
Miletus, succeeded in erecting one of the most famous
buildings of the world, and one which is the typical and
central embodiment of a distinct and very strongly marked
well-defined style. The basis of this style may be said to
be the adoption of the dome, in preference to the vault or
the timber roof, as the covering of the space enclosed within
the walls; with the result that the general disposition of
the plan is circular or square, rather than oblong, and
that the structure recalls the Pantheon more than the
great Hall of the Thermæ of Diocletian, or the Basilica of
St. Paul. In Santa Sophia one vast flattish dome dominates
the central space. This dome is circular in plan,
and the space over which it is placed is a square, the
sides of which are occupied by four massive semicircular
arches of 100 ft. span each, springing from four vast
piers, one at each of the four corners. The four triangular
spaces between the corners of the square so
enclosed and the circle or ring resting upon it are filled
by what are termed “pendentives”—features which may,
perhaps, be best described as portions of a dome, each just
sufficient to fit into one corner of the square, and the
four uniting at their upper margin to form a ring. From
this ring springs the main dome. It rises to a height of
46 ft., and is 107 ft. in clear diameter. East and west of
the main dome are two half-domes, each springing from
a wall apsidal (i.e. semicircular) in plan. Smaller apses
again, domed over at a lower level, are introduced, and
vaulted aisles two stories in height occupy the sides of the
space within the outer walls till the outline of the building
is brought to very nearly an exact square. Externally this
church is uninteresting, but its interior is of surpassing
beauty, and can be better described in the eloquent language
of Gilbert Scott than in any other: “Simple as
is the primary ideal, the actual effect is one of great intricacy,
and of continuous gradation of parts, from the
small arcades up to the stupendous dome, which hangs
with little apparent support like a vast bubble over the
centre, or as Procopius, who witnessed its ***, described
it, ‘as if suspended by a chain from heaven.’
“The dome is lighted by forty small windows, which
pierce it immediately above the cornice which crowns its
pendentives, and which, by subdividing its lower part
into narrow piers, increases the feeling of its being supported
by its own buoyancy.
“The interior thus generated, covered almost wholly
by domes, or portions of them, each rising in succession
higher and higher towards the floating hemisphere in the
centre, and so arranged that one shall open out the view
to others, and that nearly the entire system of vaulting
may be viewed at a single glance, appears to me to be in
some respects the noblest which has ever been designed,
as it was certainly the most daring which, up to that time
at least, if not absolutely, had ever been constructed.”
After pointing out how the smaller arcades and apsidal
projections, and the vistas obtained through the various
arched openings, introduced intricate effects of perspective
and constant changes of aspect, Scott continues: “This
union of the more palpable with the more mysterious, of
the vast unbroken expanse with the intricately broken
perspective, must, as it appears to me, and as I judge
from representations, produce an impression more astounding
than that of almost any other building: but when
we consider the whole as clothed with the richest beauties
of surface,—its piers encrusted with inlaid marbles of every
hue, its arcades of marble gorgeously carved, its domes
and vaultings resplendent with gold mosaic interspersed
with solemn figures, and its wide-spreading floors rich
with marble tesselation, over which the buoyant dome
floats self-supported, and seems to sail over you as you
move,—I cannot conceive of anything more astonishing,
more solemn, and more magnificent.”
The type of church of which this magnificent cathedral
was the great example has continued in Eastern Christendom
to the present day, and has undergone surprisingly
little variation. A certain distinctive character in the
foliage (Fig. ) employed in capitals and other decorative
carving, and mosaics of splendid colour but somewhat gaunt
and archaic design, though often solemn and dignified,
were typical of the work of Justinian’s day, and could long
afterwards be recognised in Eastern Christian churches.
Between Rome and Constantinople, and well situated for
receiving influence from both those cities, stood Ravenna,
and here a series of buildings, all more or less Byzantine,
were erected. The most interesting of these is the church
of San Vitale (Figs. , ). This building is octagonal
in plan, and thus belongs to the series of round and
polygonal churches and baptisteries for which the circular
buildings of the Romans furnished a model; but in its
high central dome, lighted by windows placed high up,
its many subsidiary arcades and apses, the latter roofed
by half-domes, and its vaulted aisles in two stories, it
recalls Santa Sophia; and its sculpture, carving, and
mosaic decorations are hardly less famous and no less
characteristic.
Fig. 160.—Plan of San Vitale at Ravenna.
Fig. 161.—San Vitale at Ravenna. Longitudinal Section.
One magnificent specimen of Byzantine architecture,
more within the reach of ordinary travellers, and consequently
better known than San Vitale or Santa Sophia,
must not be omitted, and can be studied easily by means
of numberless photographic illustrations—St. Mark’s at
Venice. This cathedral was built between the years
977-1071, and, it is said, according to a design obtained
from Constantinople. It has since been altered in external
appearance by the *** of bulbous domical roofs
over its domes, and by additions of florid Gothic character;
but, disregarding these, we have alike in plan, structure,
and ornament, a Byzantine church of the first class.
Fig. 162.—Plan of St. Mark’s at Venice.
The ground-plan of St. Mark’s (Fig. ) presents a
Greek cross, i.e. one in which all the arms are equal, and
it is roofed by five principal domes, one at the crossing
and one over each of the four limbs of the cross. Aisles at
a low level, and covered by a series of small flat domes, in
lieu of vaulting, fill up the angles between the arms of the
cross, so as to make the outline of the plan nearly square.
The rich colouring of St. Mark’s, due to a profuse employment
of mosaics and of the most costly marbles, and the
splendid effects produced by the mode of introducing
light, which is admitted much as at Santa Sophia, are
perhaps its greatest charm; but there is beauty in every
aspect of its interior which has furnished a fit theme for
the pen of the most eloquent writer on art and architecture
of the present or perhaps of any day.
From Venice the influence of Byzantine art spread
to a small extent in North Italy; in that city herself as
well as in neighbouring towns, such as Padua, buildings
and fragments of buildings exhibiting the characteristics
of the style can be found. Remarkable traces of the
influence of Byzantium as a centre, believed to be due
to intercourse with Venice, can also be found in France.
Direct communication with Constantinople by way of the
Mediterranean has also introduced Byzantine taste into
Sicily. One famous French church, St. Front in Périgueux,
is identical (or nearly so) with St. Mark’s in its plan; but
all its constructive arches being pointed (Fig. , page ),
its general appearance differs a good deal from that of
Eastern churches—a difference which is accentuated by
the absence of the mosaics and other coloured ornaments
which enrich the walls of St. Mark’s. Many very old
domed churches and much sculpture of the Byzantine
type are moreover to be found in Central and Southern
France—Anjou, Aquitaine, and Auvergne. These are,
however, isolated examples of the style having taken root
in spite of adverse circumstances; it is in those parts of
Europe where the Greek Church prevails, or did prevail,
that Byzantine architecture chiefly flourishes. In Greece
and Asia Minor many ancient churches of Byzantine
structure remain, while in Russia churches are built to the
present day corresponding to the general type of those
which have just been described.
Fig. 163.—From the Golden Door of Jerusalem. Time of Justinian. A.D. 560.
Fig. 164.—Church at Turmanin in Syria. 4th and 5th Century.
In ancient buildings of Syria the influence of both the
Roman and the Byzantine models can be traced. No
more characteristic specimens of Byzantine foliage can
be desired than some to be found in Palestine, as for
example the Golden Gate at Jerusalem, which we illustrate
(Fig. ); but in the deserted cities of Central Syria a
group of exceptional and most interesting buildings, both
secular and sacred, exists, which, as described by De Vogüé,
seem to display a free and very original treatment based
upon Roman more than Byzantine ideas. We illustrate
the exterior of one of these, the church at Turmanin
(Fig. ). This is a building divided into a nave and
aisles and with a vestibule. Two low towers flank the
central gable, and it will be noticed that openings of
depressed proportion, mostly semicircular headed, and
with the arches usually springing from square piers,
mark the building; while the use made of columns
strongly resembles the manner in which in later times
they were introduced by the Gothic architects.
Fig. 165.—Tower of a Russian Church.
FOOTNOTES:
I.e. the City of Constantine.
“The edge of the world: the knot which links together East and
West; the centre in which all extremes combine,” was the not overcharged
description given of Constantinople by one of her own bishops.
For an illustration see Fig. .
‘Lectures on Mediæval Architecture.’
‘Syrie Centrale.’
CHAPTER XIII.
ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE.
THE term Romanesque is here used to indicate a
style of Christian architecture, founded on Roman
art, which prevailed throughout Western Europe from the
close of the period of basilican architecture to the rise of
Gothic; except in those isolated districts where the influence
of Byzantium is visible. By some writers the significance
of the word is restricted within narrower limits;
but excellent authorities can be adduced for the employment
of it in the wide sense here indicated. Indeed some
difficulty exists in deciding what shall and what shall not
be termed Romanesque, if any more restricted definition
of its meaning is adopted; while under this general term,
if applied broadly, many closely allied local varieties—as,
for example, Lombard, Rhenish, Romance, Saxon, and
Norman—can be conveniently included.
The spectacle which Europe presented after the removal
of the seat of empire to Byzantium and the incursions
of the Northern tribes was melancholy in the
extreme. Nothing but the church retained any semblance
of organised existence; and when at last some kind of
order began to emerge from a chaos of universal ruin,
and churches and monastic buildings began to be built in
Western Europe, all of them looked to Rome, and not
to Constantinople, as their common ecclesiastical centre.
It is not surprising that, as soon as differences between
the ritual of the Eastern and the Western Church sprang
up, a contrast between Eastern and Western architecture
should establish itself, and that the early structures of
the many countries where the Roman Church flourished
never wandered far from the Roman type, with the exception
of localities where circumstances favoured direct
intercourse with the East. The architecture of the
Eastern Church, on the other hand, adhered quite as
closely to the models of Byzantium.
Fig. 166.—Tower of Earl’s
Barton Church.
The style, so far as is known, was for a long time almost,
if not absolutely, the
same over a very large
part of Western Christendom,
and it has received
from Mr. Freeman
the appropriate
designation of Primitive
Romanesque. It
was not till the tenth
century, or later, that
distinctive varieties began
to make their appearance;
and though
that which was built
earlier than that date
has, through rebuildings
and enlargements
as well as natural decay,
been in many
cases swept away, still
enough may be met
with to show us what the buildings of that remote time
were like.
The churches are usually small, and have an apsidal east
end. The openings are rude, with round-headed arches
and small single or two-light windows, and the outer
walls are generally marked by flat pilasters of very
slight projection. Towers are common, and the openings
in them are often divided into two or more lights by
rude columns. The plan of these churches was founded
on the basilica type, but they do not exhibit the same
internal arrangement; and it is very noteworthy that
many of them show marks of having been vaulted, or at
least partly vaulted; and not covered, as the basilicas
usually were, by timber roofs. Even a country so remote
as Great Britain possessed in the 10th century many buildings
of Primitive Romanesque character; and in such Saxon
churches as those of Worth, Brixworth, Dover, or Bradford,
and such towers as those of Earl’s Barton (Fig. ),
Trinity Church Colchester, Barnack, or Sompting, we have
specimens of the style remaining to the present day.
By degrees, as buildings of greater extent and more
ornament were erected, the local varieties to which reference
has been made began to develop themselves.
In Lombardy and North Italy, for example, a Lombard
Romanesque style can be recognised distinctly; here a
series of churches were built, many of them vaulted, but
not many of the largest size. Most of them were on
substantially the same plan as the basilicas, though a considerable
number of circular or polygonal churches were
also built. Sant’ Ambrogio at Milan, and some of the
churches at Brescia, Pavia, and Lucca, may be cited as
well-known examples of early date, and a little later the
cathedrals of Parma, Modena, and Piacenza (Fig. ),
and San Zenone at Verona. These churches are all distinguished
by the free use of small ornamental arches and
narrow pilaster-strips externally, and the employment of
piers with half-shafts attached to them, rather than
columns, in the arcades; they have fine bell-towers;
circular windows often occupy the gables, and very frequently
the walls have been built of, or ornamented with,
coloured materials. The sculpture—grotesque, vigorous,
and full of rich variety—which distinguishes many of these
buildings, and which is to be found specially enriching
the doorways, is of great interest, and began early to
develop a character that is quite distinctive.
Fig. 167.—Cathedral at Piacenza.
Turning to Germany, we find that a very strong resemblance
existed between the Romanesque churches of
that country and those of North Italy. At Aix-la-Chapelle
a polygonal church exists, built by Charlemagne, and
which tradition asserts was designed on the model of
San Vitale at Ravenna. The resemblance is undoubted,
but the German church is by no means an exact copy
of Justinian’s building. Early examples of German
Romanesque exist in the cathedrals of Mayence, Worms,
and Spires, and a steady advance was made till a point
was reached (in the twelfth century) at which the style
may be said to have attained the highest development
which Romanesque architecture received in any country
of Europe.
The arcaded ornament (the arches being very frequently
open so as to form a real arcade) which was noticed as
occurring in Lombard churches, belongs also to German
ones, though the secondary internal arcade (triforium) is
absent from some of the early examples. Piers are used
more frequently than columns in the interiors, and are
often very plain. From an early date the use of a western
as well as an eastern apse seems to have been common
in Germany, and high western façades extending between
two towers were features specially met with in that
country. For a notice and some illustrations of the
latest and best phase of German Romanesque, which may
with propriety be termed “round-arched Gothic,” the
reader is referred to the companion volume of this series.
France exhibits more than one variety of Romanesque;
for not only, as remarked in the on Byzantine Art,
is the influence of Greek or Venetian artists traceable in
the buildings of certain districts, especially Périgueux, but
it is clear that in others the existence of fine examples
of Roman architecture (Fig. ) affected the design of
buildings down to and during the eleventh century. This
influence may, for example, be detected in the use, in the
churches at Autun, Valence, and Avignon, of capitals,
pilasters, and other features closely resembling classic
originals, and in the employment through a great part of
Central and Northern France of vaulted roofs.
Fig. 168.—Vaults of the excavated Roman Baths, in the
Musée de Cluny, Paris.
A specially French feature is the chevet, a group of
apsidal chapels which were built round the apse itself,
and which combined with it to make of the east end of a
great cathedral a singularly rich and ornate composition.
This feature, originating in Romanesque churches, was
retained in France through the whole of the Gothic
period, and a good example of it may be seen in the large
Romanesque church of St. Sernin at Toulouse, which we
illustrate (Fig. ). The transepts were usually well
marked. The nave arcades generally sprang from piers
(Fig. ), more rarely from columns. Arches are constantly
met with recessed,
i.e. in receding planes, the
first stage of progress towards
a Gothic treatment,
and are occasionally slightly
moulded (Fig. ). Western
doorways are often highly
enriched with sculpture; and
the carving and sculpture
generally, though often rude,
are full of vitality. Towers
occur, usually square, more
rarely octagonal. Window-lights
are frequently grouped
two or more under one arch.
Capitals of a basket-shape,
and with a square abacus,
often richly sculptured, are
employed.
Fig. 169.—Church of St.
Sernin, Toulouse.
Fig. 170.—Nave Arcade at St.
Sernin, Toulouse.
Fig. 171.—Arches in receding planes at St. Sernin, Toulouse.
In Normandy, and generally
in the North of France,
round-arched architecture
was excellently carried out,
and churches remarkable
both for their extent and
their great dignity and solidity
were erected. Generally
speaking, however, Norman architecture, especially
as met with in Normandy itself, is less ornate than the
Romanesque of Southern France; in fact some of the best
examples seem to suffer from a deficiency of ornament.
The large and well-known churches at Caen, St. Etienne,
otherwise the Abbaye aux Hommes—interesting to Englishmen
as having been founded by William the Conqueror immediately
after the Conquest—and the Trinité, or Abbaye
aux Dames, are excellent examples of early Norman architecture,
but the student must not forget that additions
have been made to them, which, if they add to their
beauty, at the same time alter their character. For example,
in St. Etienne, the upper part of the western
towers and the fine spires with which they are crowned
were built subsequent to the original structure, as was
also, in all probability, the chevet, or eastern limb. It
seems probable also that the vaulting may not be what
was contemplated in the original plan.
St. Etienne is 364 ft. long, and is lofty in its proportions.
It has a nave and aisles, arcades resting on
piers, and strongly-marked transepts, and has two western
towers with the gable of the nave between them. The
west front is well designed in three stories, having
strongly-marked vertical divisions in the buttresses of
the towers, and equally distinct horizontal divisions in
the three doorways below, and two ranges of windows,
each of five lights, above. There is no circular west
window. The nave and aisles are vaulted.
Besides other cathedral churches, such for example as
those of Bayeux and Evreux, in which considerable parts
of the original structures remain, there exist throughout
Normandy and Brittany many parochial churches and
monastic buildings, exhibiting, at least in some portions
of their structure, the same characteristics as those of
St. Etienne; and it is clear that an immense number of
buildings, the beauty and even refinement of which are
conspicuous, must have been erected in Northern France
during the eleventh and the early years of the twelfth
centuries, the period to which Norman architecture in
France may be said to belong.
In Great Britain, as has been already pointed out,
enough traces of Saxon—that is to say, Primitive Romanesque—architecture
remain to show that many simple,
though comparatively rude, buildings must have been
erected previous to the Norman Conquest. Traces exist
also of an influence which the rapid advance that had been
made by the art of building as practised in Normandy
was exerting in our island. The buildings at Westminster
Abbey raised by Edward the Confessor, though they have
been almost all rebuilt, have left just sufficient traces
behind to enable us to recognise that they were of bold
design. The plan of the Confessor’s church was laid out
upon a scale almost as large as that of the present
structure. The monastic buildings were extensive. The
details of the work were, some of them, refined and delicate,
and resembled closely those employed in Norman
buildings at that time. Thus it appears that, even had the
Conquest not taken place, no small influence would have
been exerted upon buildings in England by the advance
then being made in France; but instead of a gradual
improvement being so produced, a sudden and rapid
revolution was effected by the complete conquest of the
country and its occupation by nobles and ecclesiastics from
Normandy, who, enriched by the plunder of the conquered
country, were eager to establish themselves in permanent
buildings.
Shortly after the Conquest distinctive features began to
show themselves. Norman architecture in England soon
became essentially different from what it was in Normandy,
and we possess in this country a large series of fine works
showing the growth of this imported style, from the early
simplicity of the chapel in the Tower of London to such
elaboration as that of the later parts of Durham Cathedral.
The number of churches founded or rebuilt soon after
the Norman Conquest must have been enormous, for in
examining churches of every date and in every part of
England it is common to find some fragment of Norman
work remaining from a former church: this is very
frequently a doorway left standing or built into walls of
later date: and, in addition to these fragments, no small
number of churches, and more than one cathedral,
together with numerous castles, remain in whole or in
part as they were erected by the original builders.
Norman architecture is considered to have prevailed in
England for more than a century; that is to say, from the
Conquest (1066) to the accession of Richard I. (1189).
For some details of the marks by which Norman work
can be recognised the reader is referred to the companion
volume; we propose here to give an account of the
broader characteristics of the buildings erected during the
prevalence of the style.
The oldest remaining parts of Canterbury Cathedral are
specimens of Norman architecture executed in England
immediately after the Conquest. This great church was
rebuilt by Archbishop Lanfranc (whose episcopate lasted
from 1070 to 1089), and in extent as laid out by him was
very nearly identical with the existing structure; almost
every portion has, however, been rebuilt, so that of his
work only the towers forming transepts to the choir, and
some other fragments, now remain. More complete and
equally ancient is the chapel in the Tower of London,
which consists of a small apsidal church with nave and
aisles, vaulted throughout, and in excellent preservation.
This building, though very charming, is almost destitute
of ornament. A little more ornate, and still a good
example of early Norman, is St. Peter’s Church, Northampton
(Fig. ), the interior of which we illustrate.
To these examples of early Norman we may add a large part
of Rochester Cathedral, and the transepts of Winchester.
The transepts of Exeter present a specimen of rather more
advanced Norman work; and in the cathedrals of Peterborough
and Durham the style can be seen at its best.
Fig. 172.—Norman Arches in St. Peter’s Church, Northampton.
In most Norman buildings we find very excellent
masonry and massive construction. The exteriors of west
fronts, transepts, and towers show great skill and care in
their composition, the openings being always well grouped,
and contrasted with plain wall-spaces; and a keen sense
of proportion is perceptible. The Norman architects had
at command a rich, if perhaps a rather rude, ornamentation,
which they generally confined to individual features,
especially doorways; on these they lavished mouldings
and sculpture, the elaboration of which was set off by the
plainness of the general structure. In the interior of
the churches we usually meet with piers of massive proportion,
sometimes round, sometimes octagonal, sometimes
rectangular, and a shaft is sometimes carried up the face
of the piers; as, for example, in Peterborough Cathedral
(Fig. ). The capitals of the columns and piers have a
square abacus, and, generally speaking, are of the cushion-shaped
sort, commonly known as basket-capitals, and are
profusely carved. The larger churches have the nave
roofed with a timber roof, and at Peterborough there
is a wooden ceiling; in these cases the aisles only are
vaulted, but in some small churches the whole building has
been so covered. Buttresses are seldom required, owing
to the great mass of the walls; when employed they have
a very slight projection, but the same strips or pilasters
which are used in German Romanesque occur here also.
Low towers were common, and have been not unfrequently
preserved in cases where the rest of the building has been
removed. As the style advanced, the proportions of arcades
became more lofty, and shafts became more slender, decorative
arcades (Fig. ) became more common, and in
these and many other changes the approaching transition
to Gothic may be easily detected.
We have already alluded to the many Norman doorways
remaining in parish churches of which all other parts
have been rebuilt. These doorways are generally very
rich; they possess a series of mouldings sometimes
springing from
shafts, sometimes
running
not only round
the arched head,
but also up the
jambs of the
opening; and
each moulding
is richly carved,
very often with
a repetition of
the same ornament
on each
voussoir of the
arch. Occasionally,
but not frequently,
large
portions of wall-surface
are
covered by a
diaper; that is
to say, an ornament
constantly
repeated so as
to produce a
general sense of
enrichment.
Fig. 173.—Nave Arcade, Peterborough Cathedral.
Fig. 174.—Decorative Arcade from Canterbury Cathedral.
Norman castles,
as well as
churches, were
built in great
numbers shortly
after the Conquest, and not a few remain. The stronghold
which a follower of the Conqueror built in order to
establish himself on the lands granted him was always
a very sturdy massive square tower, low in proportion
to its width, built very strongly, and with every provision
for sustaining an attack or even a siege. Such a
tower is called “a keep;” and in many famous castles, as
for example the Tower of London, the keep forms the
nucleus round which buildings and courtyards of later
date have clustered. In some few instances, however, as
for example at Colchester, the keep is the only part now
standing, and it is probable that when originally built
these Norman castles were not much encumbered with out-buildings.
Rochester Castle is a fine example of a Norman
keep, though it has suffered much from decay and injury.
The very large Norman keep of the Tower of London,
known as the White Tower, and containing the chapel
already described, has been much modernised and altered,
but retains the fine mass of its original construction.
Perhaps the best (and best-preserved) example is Hedingham
Castle in Essex, which we illustrate (Figs.
and ). From the remains of this building some idea
of the interior of the hall—the chief room within a
Norman keep—may be obtained, as well as of the general
external appearance of such a structure.
Fig. 175.—Hedingham Castle.
Fig. 176.—Interior of Hedingham Castle.
FOOTNOTES:
‘Gothic and Renaissance Architecture,’ chap. vii.
‘Gothic and Renaissance Architecture,’ chap. v. p. 62.
‘Gothic and Renaissance Architecture,’ chap. ii. p. 23.
Fig. 177.—Rounded Arch of Church at Gelnhausen.
CHAPTER XIV.
CHRISTIAN ROUND-ARCHED ARCHITECTURE.
Analysis.
NOTWITHSTANDING very wide differences which
undoubtedly exist, there is a sufficient bond of
union between the Basilican, the Byzantine, and the
Romanesque styles, to render it possible for us to include
the characteristics of the three in an analysis of Christian
round-arched architecture.
The Plan or floor-disposition of the basilican churches, as
has been pointed out, was distinctive. The atrium, or
forecourt, the porch, the division into nave and aisles;
the transept, the great arch, and the apse beyond it with
the episcopal seat at the back behind the altar; the
ambos; and the enclosure for the choir, were typical features.
Detached towers sometimes occurred. The plan
of Romanesque churches was based upon that of the
basilica; the atrium was often omitted, so was the transept
sometimes; but, when retained, the transept was generally
made more prominent than in the basilica. The position
of the altar and of the enclosure for the choir were changed,
but in other respects the basilica plan was continued.
In Germany, however, apsidal transepts (Fig. ) were
built. Towers were common, occasionally detached, but
more frequently joined to the main building.
Fig. 178.—Plan of the Church of the Apostles at Cologne.
Circular and polygonal buildings for use as baptisteries,
and sometimes as churches, existed both in the basilican
and the Romanesque time.
Byzantine church plans are all distinguished by their
great central square space, covered by the central dome,
flanked usually by four arms, comparatively short, and
all of equal length; and the plan of the buildings is
generally square, or nearly so, in outline. Circular and
polygonal buildings sometimes occur.
Fig. 179.—Spire of Spires
Cathedral.
Few traces of the arrangement of military, secular,
or domestic buildings earlier
than the twelfth century remain,
but some examples of a
cloister at the side of the nave
(generally the south side) of a
church, giving or intended to
give access to monastic buildings,
still exist.
The Walls of such buildings
as have come down to us are, it
may be well understood, strong,
since the most recent of this
round-arched series of buildings
must be about seven hundred
years old. Fine masonry was
not much employed till the time
of the Normans, but the Roman
plan of building with bricks or
rubble and casing the face of the
walls with marble or mosaic, or
at least plaster, was generally
followed. The walls are carried
up as gables and towers to a considerable extent (Fig. ),
especially in Western countries.
The Roof.—In a basilica this was of timber, in a Byzantine
church it consisted of a series of domes; in a Romanesque
church it was sometimes of timber as in the basilica,
but not unfrequently vaulted. As a general rule the vault
prevailed in the West and the dome in the East; and
such examples of either sort of roof as occur in those
provinces where the other was usual, like the domed
churches in parts of France, must be looked upon as
exceptional.
The Openings are almost invariably arched, and seldom, if
ever, covered by a lintel. It is hardly necessary to add
that the arches are always round. Almost always they
are semicircular, but instances of the employment of a
segmental arch, or of one the outline of which is a little
more than half a circle, may be occasionally met with.
Door openings are often made important both by size
and decoration. Window openings are usually small; and
the grouping of two or more lights under one head, which
was so conspicuous a feature in Gothic architecture, first
appears in Byzantine buildings, and is met with also in
Romanesque ones. The mode of introducing light is to
a certain extent characteristic. The basilican churches
always possess a clerestory, and usually side windows in
the aisles; and this arrangement is generally followed in
Romanesque buildings, though sometimes, in Germany,
the clerestory is omitted. The gable ends of the nave
and transepts are not usually pierced by many or large
lights (Fig. ); and when there is a central feature, as
a tower, or even a dome, little or no light is introduced
through it. On the other hand, the Byzantine churches
depend largely for light upon the ring of windows which
commonly encircles the base of the central dome, and sometimes
that of the subsidiary domes; and the gables are
pierced so as to supply any additional light required, so
that windows are infrequent in the lower walls. Broadly
speaking, therefore, the Western churches have side-lighting
and the Eastern top-lighting.
Fig. 180.—Church at Rosheim. Upper portion of Façade.
The great arches which carry the main domes form a
notable feature in Eastern churches, and are of very bold
construction. In the basilican churches one great arch,
called “the arch of triumph,” occurs, and only one; this
gives access to the apse: and a similar arch, which we
now denominate “the chancel arch,” usually occupies a
corresponding position in all Romanesque churches. The
arches of the arcade separating the nave from the aisles
in all Western churches are usually of moderate span.
In some ancient basilicas these arches are replaced by
a horizontal beam.
The Columns.—In basilicas these were of antique type;
very often they had actually been obtained by the demolition
of older buildings, and when made purposely they
were as a rule of the same general character. The same
might be said of those introduced into Byzantine buildings,
though a divergence from the classic type soon
manifested itself, and small columns began to appear as
decorative features. In Romanesque buildings the columns
are very varied indeed, and shafts are frequently introduced
into the decoration of other features. They occur
in the jambs of doorways with mouldings or sub-arches
springing from them; long shafts and short ones, frequently
supporting ornamental arcades, are employed
both internally and externally; and altogether that use
of the column as a means of decoration, of which Gothic
architecture presents so many examples, first began in the
Romanesque style.
The capitals employed in Romanesque buildings
generally depart considerably from the classic type, being based
on the primitive cube capital (Fig. ), but, as a rule,
in Eastern as well as in basilican
churches, they bear a
tolerably close resemblance to
classic ones.
Fig. 181.—Cubic Capital.
The Ornaments throughout
the whole of the Christian
round-arched period are a very
interesting subject of study,
and will repay close attention.
In the basilican style mouldings
occur but seldom: where
met with, they are all of the profiles common in Roman
architecture, but often rudely and clumsily worked.
Carving partakes also of classic character, though it is
not difficult to detect the commencement of that metamorphosis
which was effected in Byzantium, and which
can hardly be better described than in the following
paragraph from the pen of Sir Digby Wyatt:—“The
foliage is founded on ancient Greek rather than on
Roman traditions, and is characterised by a peculiarly
sharp outline. All ornamental sculpture is in comparatively
low relief, and the absence of human and other
figures is very marked. Enrichments were almost invariably
so carved, by sinking portions only of the surfaces
and leaving the arrises and principal places untouched, as
to preserve the original constructive forms given by the
mason (Fig. ). The employment of the drill instead
of the chisel, so common in debased Roman work, was
retained as a very general practice by the Greek carvers,
and very often with excellent effect. The foliage of the
acanthus, although imitated from the antique, quite
changed its character, becoming more geometrical and
conventional in its form. That which particularly distinguishes
Lombard from Byzantine art is its sculpture
abounding with grotesque imagery, with illustrations of
every-day life, of a fanciful
mythology not yet
quite extinct, and allusions,
no longer symbolic
but direct, to the Christian
creed; the latter
quality a striking evidence
of the triumph of
the Roman Church over
all iconoclastic adversaries
in Greece.” What
is here asserted of Lombard
carving is true of
that in the Romanesque
buildings in Germany,
Scandinavia (Fig. ),
France, and to a certain
extent in Great Britain,
though in our own country
a large proportion of
the ornamental carving
consists simply of decorative
patterns, such as
the chevron, billet, and
zig-zag; and sculpture containing figures and animals is
less common.
Fig. 182.—Doorway at Tind, Norway.
(End of 12th Century.)
The mouldings of Romanesque buildings are simple, and
at first were few in number, but by degrees they become
more conspicuous, and before the transition to Gothic they
assumed considerable importance (Fig. ) and added not
a little to the architectural character of the buildings.
Fig. 183.—Mouldings of Portal of St. James’s Church at Koesfeld.
Coloured decoration, especially in mosaic, was a conspicuous
feature in basilican churches, and still more so
in those of the Byzantine style; such decoration in
Romanesque churches was not infrequent, but it was
more commonly painted in fresco or tempera. The glass
mosaic-work to be found on the walls of Early Christian
churches, both basilican and Byzantine, but less frequently
Romanesque, is most interesting and beautiful: “it
was,” says the high authority already quoted, “employed
only to represent and reproduce the forms of existing
objects, such as figures, architectural forms and conventional
foliage, which were generally relieved with some
slight indication of shading upon a gold ground—the
whole being bedded in the cement covering the walls and
vaults of the basilicas and churches.”
“The design of both figures and ornaments was,
generally speaking, very rude, though not without an
occasional rising in some of the figures to a certain sublimity,
derivable principally from the great simplicity
of the forms and draperies and the earnest grandiose
expression depicted on their countenances. The pieces
of glass employed in the formation of this work are very
irregular in shapes and sizes, of all colours and tones of
colour, and the ground tint almost invariably prevailing is
gold. The manner of execution is always large and coarse,
and rarely approaches in neatness of joint and regularity
of bedding to the (ancient Roman) ‘opus majus vermiculatus;’
yet, notwithstanding these blemishes, the effect of
gorgeous, luxurious, and at the same time solemn decoration
produced is unattainable by any other means as yet
employed as structural embellishment. How noble and
truly ecclesiastical in character are the gold-clad interiors
of Monreale Cathedral, of the Capella Palatina at Palermo,
of St. Mark at Venice, San Miniato at Florence, or Santi
Apollinare and Vitale at Ravenna, the concurrent testimony
of all travellers attests.”
A finer kind of glass mosaic arranged in geometrical
patterns was made use of to enrich the ambos, screens,
episcopal chairs, sepulchral ornaments, and other similar
fittings of churches, and was often of great beauty. A
third sort of mosaic—the Alexandrine work (opus Alexandrinum)—used
for pavements, has been already alluded
to; this was extremely effective, but its use appears to
have been less general than that of the glass mosaics for
the walls.
The Architectural Character of the basilican churches may
be briefly characterised as venerable and dignified, but
yet cheerful and bright rather than forbidding; they are,
as interiors, impressive but not oppressive, solemn but not
gloomy. Comparatively little attention was paid to external
effect, and there is not often much in them to strike
the passer-by. The character of Byzantine interiors is
far more rich, and even splendid; but it is more gloomy,
and often is solemn and grand to the last degree. In
many cases these churches possess fine exteriors; and for
the level sky-line produced by the long straight roofs of the
basilica, a more or less pyramidal composition, showing
curved outlines rather than straight ones, is substituted.
The architectural character of the Romanesque buildings
varies extremely with the districts in which they are
erected; but, generally speaking, it may be described as
picturesque, and even sometimes romantic; the appearance
of towers, prominent transepts, and many smaller decorative
features serves to render the exteriors telling and
varied, though often somewhat rude and primitive. A solid
and somewhat heavy character distinguishes the interiors
of some varieties of Romanesque buildings—such, for
example, as our own Early Norman; but in our fully-developed
and late Norman, and still more in the latest
German Romanesque churches, this disappears almost
entirely, and much beauty and even lightness of effect
is obtained, without any loss of that richness which is
characteristic of more ancient examples.
Fig. 184.—Byzantine Basket-work Capital from San Michele in Affricisco
at Ravenna.
Fig. 185.—Arabian Capital. From the Alhambra.
CHAPTER XV.
MOHAMMEDAN ARCHITECTURE.
FEW revolutions more sudden, more signal, and more
widespread are recorded in history than that which
covered not only the East but part of the West with the
Mohammedan religion and dominion. Mohammed was born
either in the year 569 or 570 of the Christian era, and
died A.D. 652. The year of the Hegira, the era from
which Mohammedans compute their chronology, is A.D.
622, and within little more than a century from this era
the Prophet was acknowledged, and the suzerainty of the
Caliph recognised eastwards, in Arabia, Syria, Palestine,
Egypt, and Persia, and in India as far as to the Ganges;
and westwards along the north coast of Africa, in Sicily,
and in Spain. It was only to be expected that such a
wonderful tide of conquest and such a widespread change
of religion should before long leave its impress on the
architecture of the continents thus revolutionised; and
accordingly a Mohammedan style soon rose. This style
did not displace or override the indigenous art of the
various countries where it prevailed, as Roman architecture
did in the age of universal dominion under the
Empire; it assimilated the peculiarities of each country,
and so transmuted them, that although wherever the
religion of Mohammed prevails the architecture will at
a glance confess the fact, still the local or national
peculiarities of each country remain prominent.
The Arabs, a nomadic race who lived in tents, do not
seem to have been great builders even in their cities. We
have no authentic accounts or existing remains of very
early buildings even in Mecca or Medina, as the oldest
mosques in those cities have been completely rebuilt. It
is to Egypt and Syria that we must turn for the most
ancient remaining examples of Saracenic architecture.
These consist of mosques and tombs.
Egypt.
A mosque—or Mohammedan place of worship—has
two forms. The earlier mosques are all of them of a
type the arrangement of which is simplicity itself. A
large open courtyard, resembling the garth of a cloister,
with a fountain in it, is surrounded cloister-wise by
arcades supporting timber roofs. On the side nearest
Mecca the arcades are increased to several rows in depth,
so as to cover a considerable space. This is the part in
which the congregation chiefly assembles; here a niche or
recess (termed Kibla), more or less enriched, is formed
in which the Koran is to be kept, and hard by a pulpit
is erected. For many centuries past, though not, it is
believed, from the very earliest times, a minaret or high
tower, from the top of which the call to prayer is given,
has also been an indispensable adjunct to a mosque.
The second sort of mosque is a domed, and sometimes
vaulted building of a form chiefly suggested by the
Byzantine domed churches, with a central space and four
short arms. This sort of mosque became almost universal
in Turkey and Egypt after the capture of Constantinople
by the Turks, and the appropriation to Moslem worship of
Santa Sophia itself. The tombs are ornate and monumental
buildings, or sanctuaries, of the same general character
as the domed mosques, and often attached to them.
Fig. 186.—Horse-shoe Arch.
From very early times
the arches, in the arcades
which have been described
as virtually constituting
the whole structure of the
simpler sort of mosque,
were pointed. Lubke claims
as the earliest known and
dated example of the
pointed arch in a Saracenic
building, the Nilometer, a
small structure on an island
near Cairo, which contains
pointed arches that must
have been built either at
the date of its original construction
in A.D. 719, or at
latest, when it was restored A.D. 821. The Mosque of
Amrou, however, which was founded very soon after the
conquest of Egypt in A.D. 643, and is largely made up of
materials obtained from older buildings, exhibits pointed
arches, not only in the arcades, which probably have been
rebuilt since they were originally formed, but in the outer
walls, which are likely, in part at least, to be original.
Fig. 187.—Exterior of Santa Sophia, Constantinople. Showing the Minarets added after its conversion into a Mosque.
Whatever uncertainty may rest upon these very remote
specimens of pointed architecture, there is little if any
about the Mosque of Ibn Tulun, also at Cairo, and built
A.D. 885, or, according to another authority, A.D. 879.
Here arcades of bold pointed arches spring from piers,
and the effect of the whole structure is noble and full
of character. From that time the pointed arch was
constantly used in Saracenic buildings along with the
semicircular and the horse-shoe arch (Fig. ).
From the ninth century, then, the pointed arch was
in constant use. It prevailed in Palestine as well as in
the adjacent countries for two centuries before it reached
the West, and there can be no doubt that it was there
seen by the Western Crusaders, and a knowledge of its
use and an appreciation of its beauty and convenience
were brought back to Western Europe by the returning
ecclesiastics and others at the end of the First Crusade.
In the eleventh century the splendid Tombs of the
Caliphs at Cairo were erected,—buildings crowned with
domes of a graceful pointed form, and remarkable for the
external decoration which usually covers the whole surface
of those domes. By this time also, if not earlier, the
minaret had become universal. This is a lofty tower
of slender proportions, passing from a square base below
to a circular form above (Fig. ). A minaret is
often divided into several stages. Each stage is then
marked by a balcony, and is, generally speaking, a
polygon of a greater number of sides than the stage
below it.
Fig. 188.—Alhambra. Hall of the Abencerrages.
In the interiors of Saracenic buildings what is generally
known as honeycomb corbelling is constantly employed
to fill up corners and effect a change of plan from a square
below to a circle or octagon above. This ornament is
formed by the use of a series of small brackets, each
course of them overhanging those below, and produces
an effect some idea of which may be gathered from our
illustration (Fig. ) of the Hall of the Abencerrages in
the Alhambra. The interiors when not domed are often
covered by wooden or plaster ceilings, more or less richly
decorated, such as are shown in the view of one of the
arcades of the Mosque “El Moyed,” Cairo (Fig. ),
where the horse-shoe and pointed arches can both be seen.
This illustration also shows timber ties, at the feet of
the arches, such as were commonly used by the earlier
Saracenic builders.
The surfaces of the interiors of most Mohammedan
buildings in all countries are covered with the most
exquisite decorations in colour. Imitations of natural
objects being forbidden by the Koran (a prohibition occasionally,
but very rarely, infringed), the Saracenic artists,
whose instincts as decorators seem to have been unrivalled,
fell back upon geometrical and flowing patterns
and inscriptions, and upon the use of tiles (Fig. ),
mosaics, inlays, patterns impressed on plaster, and every
possible device for harmoniously enriching the surfaces
with which they had to deal. Several of our illustrations
give indications of the presence of these unrivalled decorations
in the buildings which they represent (Fig. ).
Windows are commonly filled by tracery executed in
stone or in plaster, and glazed with stained glass, and
many of the open spaces in buildings are occupied by
grilles, executed in wood, and most effective and rich in
design.
Fig. 189.—Mosque ‘El Moyed’ at Cairo.
Fig. 190.—Arabian Wall Decoration.
Fig. 191.—Plan of the Sakhra Mosque at Jerusalem.
Syria and Palestine.
Syria was one of the countries earliest overrun by the
Arab propaganda, and Jerusalem was taken by the Caliph
Omar as early as A.D. 637. He there built a small mosque,
though not the one which commonly goes by his name. Two
mosques of great antiquity and importance, but the origin
of which is a matter of dispute among authorities, stand
in the Haram enclosure at Jerusalem. One of these is
the octagonal building called the Sakhra (Figs. ),
known in the Moslem world as the Dome of the Rock,
popularly called the Mosque of Omar, and occupying, as
is all but universally admitted, part of the site of the
Temple itself. Whether this is a “nearly unaltered
Christian building of the fourth century,” or a construction
of Abd-el-Malek, the second Caliph, erected in the
year 688, has been debated keenly; but what is beyond
debate is that this structure is very Byzantine, or, to
speak with more exactness, very like some of the buildings
of Justinian in plan and section, and that from
early times it was in the possession of the Saracens, and
was regarded by them as the next most venerable and
sacred spot in the world after Mecca. Much the same
difference of opinion prevails as to the origin of the
neighbouring mosque, El Aksah, which bears an undoubted
general resemblance to an ancient basilica,
though having no fewer than seven parallel avenues.
This building has with equal confidence been attributed to
the fourth and the seventh century. It is fortunately
quite unnecessary here to do more than point out that
these mosques, whatever their origin, were in use at least
as early as the eighth century, and that the beautiful
Dome of the Rock must have exercised a great influence
on Mohammedan art, and, notwithstanding some differences
of plan, may be fairly regarded as the prototype
of many of the domed mosques and tombs to which
allusion has been made. The decorations shown in our
illustration of the Sakhra are, it is right to observe,
most of them of a date centuries later than the time
of the original construction of the building.
Fig. 192.—Section of the Sakhra Mosque at Jerusalem.
Sicily and Spain.
The spread of Mohammedan architecture westward
next claims our notice; but want of space will only
permit us to mention a small though interesting group of
Saracenic buildings which still remains in Sicily; the
numerous specimens of the style which exist on the north
coast of Africa; and the works erected by the Saracens
during their long rule in Spain. The most celebrated
Spanish example is the fortress and palace of the Alhambra,
begun in 1248, and finished in 1314. This building
(Fig. ) has been measured, drawn, and fully illustrated
in an elaborate monograph by our countryman Owen
Jones, and has become popularly known by the beautiful
reproduction of portions of it which he executed at the
Crystal Palace, and of which he wrote an admirable description
in his ‘Guide-book to the Alhambra Court.’ The
Mohammedan architecture of Spain is here to be seen at
its best; most of its features are those of Arab art, but
with a distinguishing character (Fig. ).
Fig. 193.—Doorway in the Alhambra.
Two other well-known examples are, the Giralda at
Seville, and the Mosque at Cordova. The Giralda is
a square tower, in fact a minaret on a magnificent scale,
divided into panels and richly decorated, and shows a
masculine though beautiful treatment wholly different
from that of the minarets in Cairo. The well-known
Mosque at Cordova is of the simplest sort of plan, but
of very great extent, and contains no less than nineteen
parallel avenues separated from one another by arcades
at two heights springing from 850 columns. The Kibla
in this mosque is a picturesque domed structure higher
than the rest of the building. The columns employed
throughout are antique ones from other buildings, but
the whole effect of the structure, which abounds with
curiously cusped arches and coloured decoration, is described
as most picturesque and fantastic.
Persia and India.
Turning eastwards, we find in Turkey, as has been said,
a close adherence to the forms of Byzantine architecture.
In Persia, where the people are now fire-worshippers, the
Mohammedan buildings are mostly ruined, and probably
many have disappeared, but enough remains to show that
mosques and palaces of great grandeur were built. Lofty
doorways are a somewhat distinctive feature of Persian
buildings of this style; and the use of coloured tiles of
singular beauty for linings to the walls, in the heads of
these great portals, and in other situations to which such
decoration is appropriate, is very common: these decorations
afford opportunity for the Persian instinct for colour,
probably the truest in the whole world, to make itself seen.
In India the wealth of material is such that an almost
unlimited series of fine buildings could be brought
forward, were space and illustrations available. A large
part of that vast country became Mohammedan, and in the
buildings erected for mosques and tombs a complete blending
of the decorative forms in use among Hindu and Jaina
sculptors with the main lines of Mohammedan art is
generally to be found. The great open quadrangle, the
pointed arch, the dome, the minaret, all appear, but they
are all made out of Indian materials. Perhaps not the
least noteworthy feature of mosques and tombs in India
is the introduction of perforated slabs of marble in the
place of the bar-tracery which filled the heads of openings
in Cairo or Damascus. These are works of the greatest
and most refined beauty: sometimes panels of thin marble,
each pierced with a different pattern, are fitted into a
framework prepared for their reception; at others we meet
with window-heads where upon a background of twining
stems and leaves there grow up palms or banian-trees,
their lithe branches and leaves wreathed into lines of
admirable grace, and every part standing out, owing to
the fine piercings of the marble, as distinctly as a tree
of Jesse on a painted window in a Gothic cathedral.
The dome at Bijapur, a tomb larger than the Pantheon
at Rome, and the Kutub at Delhi, a tower not unfit to
be compared with Giotto’s campanile at Florence, are conspicuous
among this series of monuments, and at Delhi
one of the grandest mosques in India (Fig. ) is
also to be found. The series of mosques and tombs at
Ahmedabad, however, form the most beautiful group of
buildings in India, and are the only ones of which a
complete series of illustrations has been published.
These mosques are remarkable for the great skill with
which they are roofed and lighted. This is done by
means of a series of domes raised on columns sufficiently
above the general level of the stone ceilings, which cover
the intervening spaces, to admit light under the line
of their springing. The beauty of the marble tracery
and surface decoration is very great. Pointed arches
occur here almost invariably, and in most cases the
outline of the opening is very slightly turned upwards
at the apex so as to give a slight increase of emphasis to
the summit of the arch. The buildings are not as a
rule lofty; and though plain walls and piers occur and
contrast well with the arched features, pains have been
taken to avoid anything like massive or heavy construction.
Great extent, skilful distribution, extreme lightness,
and admirably combined groupings of the features
and masses, are among the fine qualities which lend to
Mohammedan architecture in Ahmedabad a rare charm.
Fig. 194.—Grand Mosque at Delhi, built by Shah Jehan.
The religion and the art of Islam seem destined to live
and die together. Nothing (with the one exception of the
suggestion of the pointed arch to Western Europe at the
very moment when Romanesque art was ripe for a change)
has developed itself or appears likely to grow out of
Mohammedan architecture in any part of the wide field
to which the attention of the reader has been directed;
and in this respect the art of the Mohammedan is as exclusive,
as intolerant, and as infertile as his religion. The
interest which it must possess in the eyes of a Western
student will rise less from its own charms than from
the fact that it first employed the pointed arch—that
feature from which sprang the glorious series of Western
Christian styles to which we give the name of Gothic.
This arch, indeed, appears to have been discovered by
the very beginners of Mohammedan architecture, at a
time when the style was still plastic and in course of
growth, and the beauty of Saracenic art is due to no
small extent to the use of it; but in the employment
of this feature the Western architect advanced much
further than the Saracen even at his best could go.
The pointed architecture of the Middle Ages, with its
daring construction, its comprehensive design, its elaborate
mouldings, and its magnificent sculptures, is far more
highly developed and more beautiful than that of the
countries which we have been describing, though in its
treatment of the walls it cannot surpass, and indeed did
not often equal, the unrivalled decoration of plane surfaces
which forms the chief glory of Mohammedan art.
Fig. 195.—Entrance to a Moorish Bazaar.
FOOTNOTES:
The First Crusade lasted from A.D. 1095 to A.D. 1099.
‘Gothic and Renaissance Architecture,’ p. 141.
INDEX.
Abbaye aux Dames, Caen,” Hommes, Caen,
Abbey, Westminster,
Agora,
Alhambra, ,
Amphitheatre at Arles,” Nîmes,” Pola,” Rome (Coloss.),” Sutri,” Verona,
Anthemios of Thralles, Architect,
Appian Way,
Apollodorus of Damascus, Architect,
Aqueduct at Nîmes (Pont du Gard),” from Præneste to Rome,” at Rome (Aqua Claudia),” ” (Anio Novus),” at Segovia,” at Tarragona,
Arch at Autun (Porte d’Arroux),” Jerusalem (Golden Gate),” Rome (of Constantine),” ” (of the Goldsmiths),” ” (of Sept. Severus),” ” (of Titus),” Trèves (Porta Nigra),
Asoka,
Baalbek, ruins at,
Basilica at Rome (Constantiniana),” ” (Emilia),” ” (Julia),” ” (Portia),” ” (Sempronia),” ” (Ulpia),” Trèves,
Basilica-church at Florence (S. Miniato),” ” Ravenna (S. Apollinare in Classe), ,” ” Rome (S. Agnese),” ” Rome (S. Clemente),” ” Rome (S. Paul without the walls),” ” Rome (S. Pietro),
Baths of Agrippa,” Caracalla,” Diocletian, ,
Bharhut,
Birs-i-Nimrud,
Bridge over the Danube (Trajan’s),” Tagus (Hadrian’s),” Tiber (Pons Sublicius),
Campo Santo, Pisa,
Castle of S. Angelo,
Cathedral at Canterbury,” Durham,
” Exeter,” Monreale,” Peterborough, ,” Piacenza,” Pisa,” Rochester,” Rome (S. Peter’s),” Venice (S. Mark’s),” Winchester,
Chaitya,
Chapel in Tower of London, ,
Chehil Minar,
Choragic Monument of Lysicrates,
Church at Aix-la-Chapelle,” Caen (Abb. aux Hommes),” ” (Abb. aux Dames),” Constantinople (S. Sophia),” Earl’s Barton,” Milan (S. Ambrogio),” Northampton (S. Peter’s),” Paris (Madeleine),” Périgueux (S. Front),” Ravenna (S. Vitale), ,” Rome (S. Maria degli Angeli),” ” (S. Maria ad Martyres),” Rome (S. Stefano Rot.),” Toulouse (S. Sernin),” Turmanin, Syria,” Verona (S. Zenone),
Circus Maximus, Rome, ,
Cloaca Maxima, Rome,
Cnidus, Lion tomb at,
Colosseum,
Column of Marcus Aurelius,” Trajan,
Decoration of Egyptian buildings,
Erechtheium,
Forum of Nerva,
Gate, Golden, at Jerusalem,
Gate at Perugia,
Giralda,
Hall, S. George’s, Liverpool,
Ictinus, Architect,
Isidoros of Miletus, Architect,
Keep at Colchester,” Hedingham Castle,” Rochester Castle,” Tower of London, ,
Kutub,
Lâts,
Lotus Column,
Lysicrates, Choragic Monument of,
Maison Carrée, Nîmes,
Mammisi,
Manephthah,
Manetho,
Mastaba,
Mausoleum of Halicarnassus,
Mosque at Ahmedabad,” Cairo (of Amrou),” ” (“El Moyed”),” ” (of Ibn Tulun),” Cordova,” Delhi,” Jerusalem (El Aksah),” ” (Sakhra),” (the Nilometer),
Mugheyr, buildings at,
Mycenæ, Treasury of Atreus,” Gate of the Lions,
Obelisks,
Pagoda at Nankin,
Palace at Khorsabad,” Rome (of the Cæsars),” Spalatro (of Diocletian), ,
Pantheon,
Parthenon, ,
Persepolis, buildings at,
Persian columns,
Pheidias, Sculptor,
Pont du Gard, Nîmes,
Porta Nigra, Trèves,
Pylon,
Pyramid of Cephren,” Cheops,” Mycerinus,
Ram Raz,
Rome, Cloacæ at,
Scopas, Sculptor and Architect, ,
Silchester, ruins at,
Sutri, ruins of an amphitheatre,
Temple at Athens (Erechtheium),” ” (Parthenon), ,” ” (of Jupiter Olym.),” Baalbek,” Corinth, ,” Ephesus (of Diana),” Honan,” Ipsamboul,” Karli (Chaitya),” Karnak,” Lomas Rishi cave,” Nigope cave (Chaitya),” Nîmes (Maison Carrée),” Orange (ruins),” Pæstum,” Rome (of Jupiter Capitolinus),” ” (of Q. Metellus Macedonicus),” ” (of Antoninus and Faustina),” ” (of Fortuna Vir.),” ” (of Vesta),” ” (Pantheon),” Sanchi (Tope),” Tegea (of Athena Alea),” Tivoli (of Vesta),
Temples, Egyptian, ” Shinto,
Theatre of Balbus,” ” Marcellus,” ” Mummius,” at Orange,” of Pompey,
Thermæ, see
Tomb at Ahmedabad,” ” Bab-el-Molouk (Belzoni’s),” ” Bijapur,” ” Castel d’Asso,” of Cecilia Metella,” ” Cyrus,” ” Darius,” ” Hadrian,” ” Regulini Galeassi,
Tombs, Egyptian,” Lycian,” Cnidus (Lion),
Tope at Sanchi,
Tower at Delhi (Kutub),” Seville (Giralda),
Treasury of Atreus,
Typhonia,
Usertesen I.,
Wall of China, Great,
Way, Appian,
Westminster Abbey,
Wurkha, ruins at,
LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.
ILLUSTRATED HANDBOOKS
OF
ART HISTORY OF ALL AGES
Each Volume contains numerous Illustrations, and is strongly bound
for the use of Students. Price 5s.
NOW READY.
By Professor T. ROGER SMITH and JOHN SLATER, B.A.
ARCHITECTURE: CLASSIC and EARLY CHRISTIAN. Comprising
the Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Early Christian.
Illustrated with upwards of 200 Engravings, including the Parthenon, the Erechtheium,
the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, the Colosseum, the Baths of Diocletian, &c.
By Professor T. ROGER SMITH and EDWARD J. POYNTER, R.A.
ARCHITECTURE: GOTHIC and RENAISSANCE. Showing
the progress of Gothic Architecture in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain,
and of Renaissance Architecture in the same Countries. Illustrated with more than
100 Engravings, including many of the principal Cathedrals, Churches, Palaces, and
Domestic Buildings in England, and on the Continent.
By GEORGE REDFORD, F.R.C.S.
SCULPTURE: EGYPTIAN, ASSYRIAN, GREEK and ROMAN.
With 160 Illustrations, including Examples of the Works of the most celebrated
Greek Sculptors, a Map of Ancient Greece, and a Chronological List of Ancient
Sculptors and their Works.
By EDWARD J. POYNTER, R.A., and PERCY R. HEAD, B.A.
PAINTING: CLASSIC and ITALIAN. Including Painting in Egypt,
Greece, Rome, and Pompeii; the Renaissance in Italy; Schools of Florence, Siena,
Rome, Padua, Venice, Perugia, Ferrara, Parma, Naples and Bologna. Illustrated
with 80 Engravings of many of the finest Pictures of Italy.
By H. J. WILMOT-BUXTON, M.A., and EDWARD J. POYNTER, R.A.
PAINTING: GERMAN, FLEMISH and DUTCH. Including an
Account of the Works of Albrecht Dürer, Cranach, and Holbein; Van Eyck, Van der
Weyden, and Memling; Rubens, Snyders, and Van Dyck; Rembrandt, Hals, and
Jan Steen; Wynants, Ruisdael, and Hobbema; Cuyp, Potter, and Berchem; Bakhuisen,
Van de Velde, Van Huysum, and many other celebrated painters.
By H. J. WILMOT-BUXTON, M.A.
PAINTING: ENGLISH and AMERICAN. Including an account
of the Earliest Paintings known in England; the works of Holbein, Antonio Moro,
Lucas de Heere, Zuccaro, and Marc Garrard; the Hilliards and Olivers; Van Dyck,
Lely, and Kneller; Hogarth, Reynolds, and Gainsborough; West, Romney, and
Lawrence; Constable, Turner, and Wilkie; Maclise, Mulready, and Landseer, and
many other celebrated painters.
Nearly ready.
By GERARD SMITH, Exeter Coll. Oxford.
PAINTING: SPANISH and FRENCH. Including the Works of
Ribera, Zurbaran, Velazquez, and Murillo; Poussin, Claude Lorrain, Le Sueur, Watteau,
Chardin, Greuze, David, and Prud’hon; Ingres, Vernet, Delaroche, and Delacroix;
Corot, Diaz, and Millet; Courbet, Regnault, Troyon, and many other celebrated artists.
In preparation.
Transcriber's Note
Archaic spelling has been preserved as printed, for example, Egean instead of Ægean.
Minor punctuation errors have been repaired.
The following amendments have been made:
Page , footnote—X. amended to XI.—"See Chap. for an illustration of a
Christian Basilica."
Page —Theseium amended to Theseum—"Temple of Theseus (Theseum), at Athens, 465
B.C."
Page —Isodoros amended to Isidoros—"... Anthemius of Thralles, and Isidoros of
Miletus, ..."
Page —114 amended to 116—"Agora, "
Page —148 amended to 143—"Amphitheatre at Sutri, "
Page —205 amended to 206—"Basilica-church
at Rome (S. Paul without the walls), "
Discrepancies between items in the List of Illustrations and actual
captions have been preserved as printed.
Figure —Guilloche is missing from the List
of Illustrations in the original text. This omission has been preserved in this
e-text.
Figures and were out of sequence on page (with Figures ). They have
been moved to their proper place in the sequence of Figures. Other illustrations have
been moved where necessary so that they are not in the middle of a paragraph.
Omitted page numbers relate to full page illustrations or blank pages in the original.
The advertising material has been moved to the end of the book.