A Text-Book of the History of Architecture - Seventh Edition, revised
by Alfred D. F. Hamlin
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9     Next Part
Home - Random Browse

[This text is intended for users whose text readers cannot use the "real" (unicode/utf-8) version. A few letters such as "oe" have been unpacked, and curly quotes and apostrophes have been replaced with the simpler "typewriter" form. One Greek word has been transliterated and shown between marks.

Errors and inconsistencies, including details about some place names, are listed at the end of the e-text. Spelling variations are as in the original.]

* * * * * * * * *


Edited By JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L.H.D.

* * *


* * * * * * * * *


Edited By


Professor of the History of Art in Rutgers College

* * *


By JOHN C. VAN DYKE, the Editor of the Series. With Frontispiece and 110 Illustrations, Bibliographies, and Index. Crown 8vo, $1.50.


By ALFRED D. F. HAMLIN, A.M. Adjunct Professor of Architecture, Columbia College, New York. With Frontispiece and 229 Illustrations and Diagrams, Bibliographies, Glossary, Index of Architects, and a General Index. Crown 8vo, $2.00.


By ALLAN MARQUAND, Ph.D., L.H.D. and ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., Ph.D., Professors of Archology and the History of Art in Princeton University. With Frontispiece and 112 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, $1.50.

* * * * * * * * *


of the




Professor of the History of Architecture in the School of Architecture, Columbia University


LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 91 and 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK London, Bombay, and Calcutta 1909

Copyright, 1895, by LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.

All rights reserved.

First Edition, March, 1896 Printed and Revised, December, 1896. December, 1898 (Revised) October, 1900 (Revised) October, 1902 (Revised) September, 1904, June, 1906 (Revised). November, 1907 (Revised) January, 1909

Press of J. J. Little & Ives Co. 425-435 East 24th Street, New York


The aim of this work has been to sketch the various periods and styles of architecture with the broadest possible strokes, and to mention, with such brief characterization as seemed permissible or necessary, the most important works of each period or style. Extreme condensation in presenting the leading facts of architectural history has been necessary, and much that would rightly claim place in a larger work has been omitted here. The danger was felt to be rather in the direction of too much detail than of too little. While the book is intended primarily to meet the special requirements of the college student, those of the general reader have not been lost sight of. The majority of the technical terms used are defined or explained in the context, and the small remainder in a glossary at the end of the work. Extended criticism and minute description were out of the question, and discussion of controverted points has been in consequence as far as possible avoided.

The illustrations have been carefully prepared with a view to elucidating the text, rather than for pictorial effect. With the exception of some fifteen cuts reproduced from Lbke's Geschichte der Architektur (by kind permission of Messrs. Seemann, of Leipzig), the illustrations are almost all entirely new. Alarge number are from original drawings made by myself, or under my direction, and the remainder are, with a few exceptions, half-tone reproductions prepared specially for this work from photographs in my possession. Acknowledgments are due to Messrs. H.W. Buemming, H.D. Bultman, and A.E. Weidinger for valued assistance in preparing original drawings; and to Professor W.R. Ware, to Professor W.H. Thomson, M.D., and to the Editor of the Series for much helpful criticism and suggestion.

It is hoped that the lists of monuments appended to the history of each period down to the present century may prove useful for reference, both to the student and the general reader, as a supplement to the body of the text.



The author desires to express his further acknowledgments to the friends who have at various times since the first appearance of this book called his attention to errors in the text or illustrations, and to recent advances in the art or in its archology deserving of mention in subsequent editions. As far as possible these suggestions have been incorporated in the various revisions and reprints which have appeared since the first publication.

A. D. F. H.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, October 28, 1907.


PAGE Preface v

List of Illustrations xi

General Bibliography xix

Introduction xxi

CHAPTER I. Primitive and Prehistoric Architecture 1

CHAPTER II. Egyptian Architecture 6

CHAPTER III. Egyptian Architecture, Continued 16

CHAPTER IV. Chaldan and Assyrian Architecture 28

CHAPTER V. Persian, Lycian, and Jewish Architecture 35

CHAPTER VI. Greek Architecture 43

CHAPTER VII. Greek Architecture, Continued 60

CHAPTER VIII. Roman Architecture 74

CHAPTER IX. Roman Architecture, Continued 88

CHAPTER X. Early Christian Architecture 110

CHAPTER XI. Byzantine Architecture 120

CHAPTER XII. Sassanian and Mohammedan Architecture—Arabian, Moresque, Persian, indian, and Turkish 135

CHAPTER XIII. Early Medival Architecture in Italy and France 155

CHAPTER XIV. Early Medival Architecture in Germany, Great Britain, and Spain 172

CHAPTER XV. Gothic Architecture 182

CHAPTER XVI. Gothic Architecture in France 196

CHAPTER XVII. Gothic Architecture in Great Britain 218

CHAPTER XVIII. Gothic Architecture in Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain 237

CHAPTER XIX. Gothic Architecture in Italy 254

CHAPTER XX. Early Renaissance Architecture in Italy 270

CHAPTER XXI. Renaissance Architecture in Italy—The Advanced Renaissance and Decline 288

CHAPTER XXII. Renaissance Architecture in France 308

CHAPTER XXIII. Renaissance Architecture in Great Britain and the Netherlands 326

CHAPTER XXIV. Renaissance Architecture in Germany, Spain, and Portugal 338

CHAPTER XXV. The Classic Revivals in Europe 354

CHAPTER XXVI. Recent Architecture in Europe 368

CHAPTER XXVII. Architecture in the United States 383

CHAPTER XXVIII. Oriental Architecture—India, China, and Japan 401

Appendix 417

Glossary 429

Index of Architects 431

Index 435


The authorship of the original drawings is indicated by the initials affixed: A. = drawings by the author; B. = H.W. Buemming; Bn. = H.D. Bultman; Ch. = Chteau, L'Architecture en France; G. = drawings adapted from Gwilt's Encyclopdia of Architecture; L. = Lbke's Geschichte der Architektur; W. = A.E. Weidinger. All other illustrations are from photographs.


FRONTISPIECE. The Parthenon Restored (from model in Metropolitan Museum, New York) 1 Section of Great Pyramid (A.) 8 2 Section of King's Chamber (A.) 9 3 Plan of Sphinx Temple (A.) 9 4 Ruins of Sphinx Temple (A.) 10 5 Tomb at Abydos (A.) 11 6 Tomb at Beni-Hassan (A.) 11 7 Section and Half-plan of same (A.) 12 8 Plan of the Ramesseum (A.) 14 9 Temple of Edfou. Plan (B.) 17 10 Temple of Edfou. Section (B.) 17 11 Temple of Karnak. Plan (L.) 18 12 Central Portion of Hypostyle Hall at Karnak (from model in Metropolitan Museum, New York) 20 13 Great Temple of Ipsamboul 21 14 Edfou. Front of Hypostyle Hall 23 15 Osirid Pier (Medinet Abou) (A.) 24 16 Types of Column (A.) 25 17 Egyptian Floral Ornament-Forms (A.) 26 18 Palace of Sargon at Khorsabad. Plan (L.) 30 19 Gate, Khorsabad (A.) 32 20 Assyrian Ornament (A.) 34 21 Column from Persepolis (B.) 37 22 Lion Gate at Mycen (A.) 44 23 Polygonal Masonry, Mycen (A.) 45 24 Tholos of Atreus; Plan and Section (A.) 46 25 Tholos of Atreus, Doorway (after Clarke) (A.) 46 26 Greek Doric Order (A.) 48 27 Doric Order of the Parthenon. (From cast in Metropolitan Museum, New York) 49 28 Greek Ionic Order, Miletus (A.) 51 29 Side View of Ionic Capital (B.) 52 30 Greek Corinthian Order (A.) 53 31 Types of Greek Temple Plans (A.) 54 32 Carved Anthemion Ornament, Athens 57 33 Temple of Zeus, Agrigentum; Plan (A.) 61 34 Ruins of the Parthenon 63 35 Plan of the Erechtheum (A.) 64 36 West End of the Erechtheum (A.) 64 37 Propyla at Athens. Plan (G.) 65 38 Choragic Monument of Lysicrates. (From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York) 67 39 Temple of Olympian Zeus, Athens. Plan (A.) 68 40 Plan of Greek Theatre (A.) 70 41 Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (A.) 72 42 Roman Doric Order from Theatre of Marcellus. (Model in Metropolitan Museum, New York) 77 43 Roman Ionic Order (A.) 78 44 Roman Corinthian Order. (From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York) 79 45 Roman Arcade with Engaged Columns (A.) 80 46 Barrel Vault (A.) 81 47 Groined Vault (A.) 81 48 Roman Wall Masonry (B.) 83 49 Roman Carved Ornament. (Lateran Museum) 85 50 Roman Ceiling Panels (A.) 86 51 Temple of Fortuna Virilis. Plan 89 52 Circular Temple, Tivoli (A.) 90 53 Temple of Venus and Rome. Plan (A.) 93 54 Plan of the Pantheon (B.) 94 55 Interior of the Pantheon 95 56 Exterior of the Pantheon. (Model in Metropolitan Museum, New York) 96 57 Forum and Basilica of Trajan (A.) 97 58 Basilica of Constantine. Plan (G.) 98 59 Ruins of Basilica of Constantine 99 60 Central Block, Therm of Caracalla. Plan (G.) 100 61 Roman Theatre, Herculanum 101 62 Colosseum at Rome. Half Plan (A.) 102 63 Arch of Constantine. (Model in Metropolitan Museum, New York) 104 64 Palace of Diocletian, Spalato. Plan (G.) 106 65 Plan of House of Pansa, Pompeii (A.) 107 66 Plan of Santa Costanza, Rome (A.) 111 67 Plan of the Basilica of St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls, Rome (A.) 113 68 St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls. Interior 114 69 Church at Kalb Louzeh (A.) 116 70 Cathedral at Bozrah. Plan (A.) 117 71 Diagram of Pendentives (A.) 123 72 Spandril, Hagia Sophia 125 73 Capital with Impost Block, S. Vitale 126 74 Plan of St. Sergius, Constantinople (A.) 127 75 Plan of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople (A.) 128 76 Section of Hagia Sophia (A.) 128 77 Interior of Hagia Sophia (full page) 129 78 Plan of St. Mark's, Venice (A.) 132 79 Interior of St. Mark's 133 80 Mosque of Sultan Hassan, Cairo. Sanctuary 137 81 Mosque of Kad Bey, Cairo 139 82 Moorish Detail, Alhambra 141 83 Interior of Great Mosque, Cordova 142 84 Plan of the Alhambra (A.) 144 85 Tomb of Mahmd, Bijapur. Section (A.) 147 86 The Taj Mahal, Agra 149 87 Mosque of Mehmet II., Constantinople. Plan (L.) 151 88 Exterior of Ahmediyeh Mosque, Constantinople 152 89 Interior of Suleimaniyeh Mosque, Constantinople 153 90 Interior of San Ambrogio, Milan 157 91 West Front and Campanile, Cathedral of Piacenza 158 92 Baptistery, Cathedral, and Leaning Tower, Pisa 160 93 Interior of Pisa Cathedral 161 94 Plan of St. Front, Perigueux (G.) 164 95 Interior of St. Front (L.) 165 96 Plan of Notre Dame du Port, Clermont (Ch.) 166 97 Section of same (Ch.) 166 98 A Six-part Ribbed Vault (A.) 167 99 Plan of Minster at Worms (G.) 173 100 One Bay, Cathedral of Spires (L.) 174 101 East End, Church of the Apostles, Cologne 175 102 Plan of Durham Cathedral (Bn.) 177 103 One Bay, Transept of Winchester Cathedral (G.) 178 104 Front of Iffley Church (A.) 179 105 Constructive System of Gothic Church (A.) 183 106 Plan of Sainte Chapelle, Paris (Bn.) 184 107 Early Gothic Flying Buttress (Bn.) 185 108 Ribbed Vault, English Type (Bn. after Babcock) 186 109 Penetrations and Intersections of Vaults (Bn.) 187 110 Plate Tracery, Charlton-on-Oxmore 188 111 Bar Tracery, St. Michael's, Warfield (W.) 189 112 Rose Window from St. Ouen, Rouen (G.) 190 113 Flamboyant Detail, Strasburg 191 114 Early Gothic Carving (A.) 192 115 Carving, Decorated Period, from Southwell Minster 193 116 Plan of Notre Dame, Paris (L.) 198 117 Interior of Notre Dame 199 118 Interior of Le Mans Cathedral 200 119 Vaulting with Zigzag Ridge Joints (A.) 201 120 One Bay, Abbey of St. Denis (G.) 203 121 The Sainte Chapelle, Paris. Exterior 204 122 Amiens Cathedral; Plan (G.) 205 123 Alby Cathedral. Plan (A. after Lbke) 206 124 West Front of Notre Dame, Paris 207 125 West Front of St. Maclou, Rouen 208 126 French Gothic Capitals (A.) 210 127 House of Jacques Coeur, Bourges (L.) 215 128 Plan of Salisbury Cathedral (Bn.) 219 129 Ribbed Vaulting, Choir of Exeter Cathedral 221 130 Lierne Vaulting, Tewkesbury Abbey 222 131 Vault of Chapter House, Wells 223 132 Cloisters of Salisbury Cathedral 225 133 Perpendicular Tracery, St. George's, Windsor 226 134 West Front, Lichfield Cathedral 228 135 One Bay of Choir, Lichfield Cathedral (A.) 229 136 Fan Vaulting, Henry VII.'s Chapel 231 137 Eastern Part, Westminster Abbey. Plan (L.) 232 138 Roof of Nave, St. Mary's, Westonzoyland (W.) 233 139 One Bay, Cathedral of St. George, Limburg (L.) 239 140 Section of St. Elizabeth, Marburg (Bn.) 240 141 Cologne Cathedral, Plan (G.) 242 142 Church of Our Lady, Treves (L.) 243 143 Plan of Ulm Cathedral (L.) 244 144 Town Hall, Louvain 247 145 Faade of Burgos Cathedral 249 146 Detail from S. Gregorio, Valladolid 251 147 Duomo at Florence, Plan (G.) 256 148 Duomo at Florence, Nave 257 149 One Bay, Cathedral of S. Martino, Lucca (L.) 258 150 Interior of Sienna Cathedral 259 151 Faade of Sienna Cathedral 261 152 Exterior of the Certosa, Pavia 262 153 Plan of the Certosa, Pavia 263 154 Upper Part of Campanile, Florence 265 155 Upper Part of Palazzo Vecchio, Florence 266 156 Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence 267 157 West Front of Doge's Palace, Venice 268 158 Capital, Palazzo Zorzi, Venice 275 159 Section of Dome, Duomo of Florence (Bn.) 276 160 Exterior of Dome, Duomo of Florence 277 161 Interior of S. Spirito, Florence 278 162 Court of Riccardi Palace, Florence 279 163 Faade of Strozzi Palace, Florence 280 164 Tomb of Pietro di Noceto, Lucca 282 165 Vendramini Palace, Venice 285 166 Faade of Giraud Palace, Rome (L.) 290 167 Plan of Farnese Palace, Rome (L.) 292 168 Court of Farnese Palace, Rome 293 169 Bramante's Plan for St. Peter's, Rome (L.) 294 170 Plan of St. Peter's, Rome, as now standing (Bn. after G.) 295 171 Interior of St. Peter's (full page) 297 172 Library of St. Mark, Venice 301 173 Interior of San Severo, Naples 302 174 Church of Santa Maria della Salute, Naples 303 175 Court Faade, East Wing of Blois 311 176 Staircase Tower, Blois 313 177 Plan of Chteau of Chambord (A.) 314 178 Upper Part of Chteau of Chambord 314 179 Detail of Court of Louvre, southwest portion 315 180 The Luxemburg Palace, Paris 318 181 Colonnade of the Louvre 321 182 Dome of the Invalides, Paris 322 183 Faade of St. Sulpice, Paris 323 184 Burghley House 327 185 Whitehall Palace. The Banqueting Hall 329 186 Plan of St. Paul's Cathedral, London (G.) 330 187 Exterior of St. Paul's Cathedral 331 188 Plan of Blenheim (G.) 332 189 St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, London 333 190 Renaissance Houses, Brussels 335 191 The Castle, Hmelschenburg 341 192 The Friedrichsbau, Heidelberg Castle 344 193 Pavilion of Zwinger Palace, Dresden 345 194 Marienkirche, Dresden 346 195 Portal of University, Salamanca 349 196 Court (Patio) of Casa de Zaporta 350 197 Palace of Charles V., Granada 351 198 Faade of British Museum, London 357 199 St. George's Hall, Liverpool 358 200 The Old Museum, Berlin 359 201 The Propyla, Munich 360 202 Plan of the Panthon, Paris (G.) 361 203 Exterior of the Panthon 362 204 Arch of Triumph of l'toile, Paris 363 205 The Madeleine, Paris 364 206 Door of cole des Beaux-Arts, Paris 365 207 St. Isaac's Cathedral, St. Petersburg 366 208 Plan of Louvre and Tuileries (A.) 371 209 Pavilion Richelieu, Louvre 372 210 Grand Staircase, Paris Opera House 373 211 Fountain of Longchamps, Marseilles 374 212 Gallira Museum, Paris 375 213 Royal Theatre, Dresden 376 214 Maria-Theresienhof, Vienna 377 215 Houses of Parliament, London 379 216 Assize Courts, Manchester 380 217 Natural History Museum, South Kensington 381 218 Christ Church, Philadelphia 386 219 Craigie House, Cambridge (Mass.) 387 220 National Capitol, Washington 389 221 Custom House, New York 390 222 Trinity Church, Boston 394 223 Public Library, Woburn (Mass.) 395 224 Times Building, New York 396 225 Country House (Mass.) 398 226 Porch of Temple of Vimalah Sah, Mount Abu. 406 227 Tower of Victory, Chittore 407 228 Double Temple at Hullabd: Detail 410 229 Shrine of Soubramanya, Tanjore 412


(This includes the leading architectural works treating of more than one period or style. The reader should consult also the special references at the head of each chapter. Valuable material is also contained in the leading architectural periodicals and in monographs too numerous to mention.)


Agincourt, History of Art by its Monuments; London.

Architectural Publication Society, Dictionary of Architecture; London.

Bosc, Dictionnaire raisonn d'architecture; Paris.

Durm and others, Handbuch der Architektur; Stuttgart. (This is an encyclopedic compendium of architectural knowledge in many volumes; the series not yet complete. It is referred to as the Hdbuch. d. Arch.)

Gwilt, Encyclopedia of Architecture; London.

Longfellow and Frothingham, Cyclopedia of Architecture in Italy and the Levant; New York.

Planat, Encyclopdie d'architecture; Paris.

Sturgis, Dictionary of Architecture and Building; New York.


Bhlmann, Die Architektur des klassischen Alterthums und der Renaissance; Stuttgart. (Also in English, published in New York.)

Choisy, Histoire de l'architecture; Paris.

Durand, Recueil et parallle d'difices de tous genres; Paris.

Fergusson, History of Architecture in All Countries; London.

Fletcher and Fletcher, A History of Architecture; London.

Gailhabaud, L'Architecture du Vme. au XVIIIme. sicle; Paris.—Monuments anciens et modernes; Paris.

Kugler, Geschichte der Baukunst; Stuttgart.

Longfellow, The Column and the Arch; New York.

Lbke, Geschichte der Architektur; Leipzig.—History of Art, tr. and rev. by R. Sturgis; New York.

Perry, Chronology of Medival and Renaissance Architecture; London.

Reynaud, Trait d'architecture; Paris.

Rosengarten, Handbook of Architectural Styles; London and New York.

Simpson, A History of Architectural Development; London.

Spiers, Architecture East and West; London.

Stratham, Architecture for General Readers; London.

Sturgis, European Architecture; New York.

Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects; London.

Viollet-le-Duc, Discourses on Architecture; Boston.


Chambers, A Treatise on Civil Architecture; London.

Daviler, Cours d'architecture de Vignole; Paris.

Esqui, Trait lmentaire d'architecture; Paris.

Guadet, Thorie de l'architecture; Paris.

Robinson, Principles of Architectural Composition; New York.

Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture; London.

Sturgis, How to Judge Architecture; New York.

Tuckerman, Vignola, the Five Orders of Architecture; New York.

Van Brunt, Greek Lines and Other Essays; Boston.

Van Pelt, A Discussion of Composition.

Ware, The American Vignola; Scranton.



A history of architecture is a record of man's efforts to build beautifully. The erection of structures devoid of beauty is mere building, atrade and not an art. Edifices in which strength and stability alone are sought, and in designing which only utilitarian considerations have been followed, are properly works of engineering. Only when the idea of beauty is added to that of use does a structure take its place among works of architecture. We may, then, define architecture as the art which seeks to harmonize in a building the requirements of utility and of beauty. It is the most useful of the fine arts and the noblest of the useful arts. It touches the life of man at every point. It is concerned not only in sheltering his person and ministering to his comfort, but also in providing him with places for worship, amusement, and business; with tombs, memorials, embellishments for his cities, and other structures for the varied needs of a complex civilization. It engages the services of a larger portion of the community and involves greater outlays of money than any other occupation except agriculture. Everyone at some point comes in contact with the work of the architect, and from this universal contact architecture derives its significance as an index of the civilization of an age, arace, or a people.

It is the function of the historian of architecture to trace the origin, growth, and decline of the architectural styles which have prevailed in different lands and ages, and to show how they have reflected the great movements of civilization. The migrations, the conquests, the commercial, social, and religious changes among different peoples have all manifested themselves in the changes of their architecture, and it is the historian's function to show this. It is also his function to explain the principles of the styles, their characteristic forms and decoration, and to describe the great masterpieces of each style and period.

STYLE is a quality; the "historic styles" are phases of development. Style is character expressive of definite conceptions, as of grandeur, gaiety, or solemnity. An historic style is the particular phase, the characteristic manner of design, which prevails at a given time and place. It is not the result of mere accident or caprice, but of intellectual, moral, social, religious, and even political conditions. Gothic architecture could never have been invented by the Greeks, nor could the Egyptian styles have grown up in Italy. Each style is based upon some fundamental principle springing from its surrounding civilization, which undergoes successive developments until it either reaches perfection or its possibilities are exhausted, after which a period of decline usually sets in. This is followed either by a reaction and the introduction of some radically new principle leading to the evolution of a new style, or by the final decay and extinction of the civilization and its replacement by some younger and more virile element. Thus the history of architecture appears as a connected chain of causes and effects succeeding each other without break, each style growing out of that which preceded it, or springing out of the fecundating contact of a higher with a lower civilization. To study architectural styles is therefore to study a branch of the history of civilization.

Technically, architectural styles are identified by the means they employ to cover enclosed spaces, by the characteristic forms of the supports and other members (piers, columns, arches, mouldings, traceries, etc.), and by their decoration. The plan should receive special attention, since it shows the arrangement of the points of support, and hence the nature of the structural design. Acomparison, for example, of the plans of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak (Fig. 11,h) and of the Basilica of Constantine (Fig. 58) shows at once a radical difference in constructive principle between the two edifices, and hence a difference of style.

STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES. All architecture is based on one or more of three fundamental structural principles; that of the lintel, of the arch or vault, and of the truss. The principle of the lintel is that of resistance to transverse strains, and appears in all construction in which a cross-piece or beam rests on two or more vertical supports. The arch or vault makes use of several pieces to span an opening between two supports. These pieces are in compression and exert lateral pressures or thrusts which are transmitted to the supports or abutments. The thrust must be resisted either by the massiveness of the abutments or by the opposition to it of counter-thrusts from other arches or vaults. Roman builders used the first, Gothic builders the second of these means of resistance. The truss is a framework so composed of several pieces of wood or metal that each shall best resist the particular strain, whether of tension or compression, to which it is subjected, the whole forming a compound beam or arch. It is especially applicable to very wide spans, and is the most characteristic feature of modern construction. How the adoption of one or another of these principles affected the forms and even the decoration of the various styles, will be shown in the succeeding chapters.

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT. Geographically and chronologically, architecture appears to have originated in the Nile valley. Asecond centre of development is found in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, not uninfluenced by the older Egyptian art. Through various channels the Greeks inherited from both Egyptian and Assyrian art, the two influences being discernible even through the strongly original aspect of Greek architecture. The Romans in turn, adopting the external details of Greek architecture, transformed its substance by substituting the Etruscan arch for the Greek construction of columns and lintels. They developed a complete and original system of construction and decoration and spread it over the civilized world, which has never wholly outgrown or abandonedit.

With the fall of Rome and the rise of Constantinople these forms underwent in the East another transformation, called the Byzantine, in the development of Christian domical church architecture. In the North and West, meanwhile, under the growing institutions of the papacy and of the monastic orders and the emergence of a feudal civilization out of the chaos of the Dark Ages, the constant preoccupation of architecture was to evolve from the basilica type of church a vaulted structure, and to adorn it throughout with an appropriate dress of constructive and symbolic ornament. Gothic architecture was the outcome of this preoccupation, and it prevailed throughout northern and western Europe until nearly or quite the close of the fifteenth century.

During this fifteenth century the Renaissance style matured in Italy, where it speedily triumphed over Gothic fashions and produced a marvellous series of civic monuments, palaces, and churches, adorned with forms borrowed or imitated from classic Roman art. This influence spread through Europe in the sixteenth century, and ran a course of two centuries, after which a period of servile classicism was followed by a rapid decline in taste. To this succeeded the eclecticism and confusion of the nineteenth century, to which the rapid growth of new requirements and development of new resources have largely contributed.

In Eastern lands three great schools of architecture have grown up contemporaneously with the above phases of Western art; one under the influence of Mohammedan civilization, another in the Brahman and Buddhist architecture of India, and the third in China and Japan. The first of these is the richest and most important. Primarily inspired from Byzantine art, always stronger on the decorative than on the constructive side, it has given to the world the mosques and palaces of Northern Africa, Moorish Spain, Persia, Turkey, and India. The other two schools seem to be wholly unrelated to the first, and have no affinity with the architecture of Western lands.

Of Mexican, Central American, and South American architecture so little is known, and that little is so remote in history and spirit from the styles above enumerated, that it belongs rather to archology than to architectural history, and will not be considered in this work.

NOTE.—The reader's attention is called to the Appendix to this volume, in which are gathered some of the results of recent investigations and of the architectural progress of the last few years which could not readily be introduced into the text of this edition. The General Bibliography and the lists of books recommended have been revised and brought up to date.



BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Desor, Les constructions lacustres du lac de Neufchatel. Fergusson, Rude Stone Monuments. R. C. Hoare, Ancients Wiltshire. Lyell, The Antiquity of Man. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times. Nadaillac, Prehistoric America. Rougemont, L'age du Bronze. Tylor, Primitive Culture.

EARLY BEGINNINGS. It is impossible to trace the early stages of the process by which true architecture grew out of the first rude attempts of man at building. The oldest existing monuments of architecture—those of Chalda and Egypt—belong to an advanced civilization. The rude and elementary structures built by savage and barbarous peoples, like the Hottentots or the tribes of Central Africa, are not in themselves works of architecture, nor is any instance known of the evolution of a civilized art from such beginnings. So far as the monuments testify, no savage people ever raised itself to civilization, and no primitive method of building was ever developed into genuine architecture, except by contact with some existing civilization of which it appropriated the spirit, the processes, and the forms. How the earliest architecture came into existence is as yet an unsolved problem.

PRIMITIVE ARCHITECTURE is therefore a subject for the archologist rather than the historian of art, and needs here only the briefest mention. If we may judge of the condition of the primitive races of antiquity by that of the savage and barbarous peoples of our own time, they required only the simplest kinds of buildings, though the purposes which they served were the same as those of later times in civilized communities. Ahut or house for shelter, ashrine of some sort for worship, astockade for defence, acairn or mound over the grave of the chief or hero, were provided out of the simplest materials, and these often of a perishable nature. Poles supplied the framework; wattles, skins, or mud the walls; thatching or stamped earth the roof. Only the simplest tools were needed for such elementary construction. There was ingenuity and patient labor in work of this kind; but there was no planning, no fitting together into a complex organism of varied materials shaped with art and handled with science. Above all, there was no progression toward higher ideals of fitness and beauty. Rudimentary art displayed itself mainly in objects of worship, or in carvings on canoes and weapons, executed as talismans to ward off misfortune or to charm the unseen powers; but even this art was sterile and never grew of itself into civilized and progressive art.

Yet there must have been at some point in the remote past an exception to this rule. Somewhere and somehow the people of Egypt must have developed from crude beginnings the architectural knowledge and resource which meet us in the oldest monuments, though every vestige of that early age has apparently perished. But although nothing has come down to us of the actual work of the builders who wrought in the primitive ages of mankind, there exist throughout Europe and Asia almost countless monuments of a primitive character belonging to relatively recent times, but executed before the advent of historic civilization to the regions where they are found. Ageneral resemblance among them suggests a common heritage of traditions from the hoariest antiquity, and throws light on the probable character of the transition from barbaric to civilized architecture.

PREHISTORIC MONUMENTS. These monuments vary widely as well as in excellence; some of them belong to Roman or even Christian times; others to a much remoter period. They are divided into two principal classes, the megalithic structures and lake dwellings. The latter class may be dismissed with the briefest mention. It comprises a considerable number of very primitive houses or huts built on wooden piles in the lakes of Switzerland and several other countries in both hemispheres, and forming in some cases villages of no mean size. Such villages, built over the water for protection from attack, are mentioned by the writers of antiquity and portrayed on Assyrian reliefs. The objects found in them reveal an incipient but almost stationary civilization, extending back from three thousand to five thousand years or more, and lasting through the ages of stone and bronze down into historic times.

The megalithic remains of Europe and Asia are far more important. They are very widely distributed, and consist in most cases of great blocks of stone arranged in rows, circles, or avenues, sometimes with huge lintels resting upon them. Upright stones without lintels are called menhirs; standing in pairs with lintels they are known as dolmens; the circles are called cromlechs. Some of the stones are of gigantic size, some roughly hewn into shape; others left as when quarried. Their age and purpose have been much discussed without reaching positive results. It is probable that, like the lake dwellings, they cover a long range of time, reaching from the dawn of recorded history some thousands of years back into the unknown past, and that they were erected by races which have disappeared before the migrations to which Europe owes her present populations. That most of them were in some way connected with the worship of these prehistoric peoples is generally admitted; but whether as temples, tombs, or memorials of historical or mythical events cannot, in all cases, be positively asserted. They were not dwellings or palaces, and very few were even enclosed buildings. They are imposing by the size and number of their immense stones, but show no sign of advanced art, or of conscious striving after beauty of design. The small number of "carved stones," bearing singular ornamental patterns, symbolic or mystical rather than decorative in intention, really tends to prove this statement rather than to controvert it. It is not impossible that the dolmens were generally intended to be covered by mounds of earth. This would group them with the tumuli referred to below, and point to a sepulchral purpose in their erection. Some antiquaries, Fergusson among them, contend that many of the European circles and avenues were intended as battle-monuments or trophies.

There are also walls of great antiquity in various parts of Europe, intended for fortification; the most important of these in Greece and Italy will be referred to in later chapters. They belong to a more advanced art, some of them even deserving to be classed among works of archaic architecture.

The tumuli, or burial mounds, which form so large a part of the prehistoric remains of both continents, are interesting to the architect only as revealing the prototypes of the pyramids of Egypt and the subterranean tombs of Mycen and other early Greek centres. The piling of huge cairns or commemorative heaps of stone is known from the Scriptures and other ancient writings to have been a custom of the greatest antiquity. The pyramids and the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus are the most imposing and elaborate outgrowths of this practice, of which the prehistoric tumuli are the simpler manifestations.

These crude and elementary products of undeveloped civilizations have no place, however, in any list of genuine architectural works. They belong rather to the domain of archology and ethnology, and have received this brief mention only as revealing the beginnings of the builder's art, and the wide gap that separates them from that genuine architecture which forms the subject of the following chapters.

MONUMENTS: The most celebrated in England are at Avebury, an avenue, large and small circles, barrows, and the great tumuli of Bartlow and Silbury "Hills;" at Stonehenge, on Salisbury Plain, great megalithic circles and many barrows; "Sarsen stones" at Ashdown; tumuli, dolmens, chambers, and circles in Derbyshire. In Ireland, many cairns and circles. In Scotland, circles and barrows in the Orkney Islands. In France, Carnac and Lokmariaker in Brittany are especially rich in dolmens, circles, and avenues. In Scandinavia, Germany, and Italy, in India and in Africa, are many similar remains.



BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Champollion, Monuments de l'Egypte et de la Nubie. Choisy, L'art de btir chez les Egyptiens. Flinders-Petrie, History of Egypt; Ten Years Digging in Egypt, 1881-91. Jomard, Description de l'Egypte, Antiquits. Lepsius, Denkmler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. Mariette, Monuments of Upper Egypt. Maspero, Egyptian Archology. Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Ancient Egypt. Prisse d'Avennes, Histoire de l'art gyptien. Reber, History of Ancient Art. Rossellini, Monumenti del Egitto. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of Ancient Egyptians.

LAND AND PEOPLE. As long ago as 5000 B.C., the Egyptians were a people already highly civilized, and skilled in the arts of peace and war. The narrow valley of the Nile, fertilized by the periodic overflow of the river, was flanked by rocky heights, nearly vertical in many places, which afforded abundance of excellent building stone, while they both isolated the Egyptians and protected them from foreign aggression. At the Delta, however, the valley widened out, with the falling away of these heights, into broad lowlands, from which there was access to the outer world.

The art history of Egypt may be divided into five periods as follows:

I. THE ANCIENT EMPIRE (cir. 4500?-3000 B.C.), comprising the first ten dynasties, with Memphis as the capital.

II. THE FIRST THEBAN MONARCHY or MIDDLE EMPIRE (3000-2100 B.C.) comprising the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth dynasties reigning at Thebes.

The Hyksos invasion, or incursion of the Shepherd Kings, interrupted the current of Egyptian art history for a period of unknown length, probably not less than four or five centuries.

III. THE SECOND THEBAN MONARCHY (1700?-1000 B.C.), comprising the eighteenth to twentieth dynasties inclusive, was the great period of Egyptian history; the age of conquests and of vast edifices.

IV. THE DECADENCE or SAITIC PERIOD (1000-324 B.C.), comprising the dynasties twenty-one to thirty (Saitic, Bubastid, Ethiopic, etc.), reigning at Sais, Tanis, and Bubastis, and the Persian conquest; aperiod almost barren of important monuments.

(Periods III. and IV. constitute together the period of the NEW EMPIRE, if we omit the Persian dominion.)

V. THE REVIVAL (from 324 B.C. to cir. 330 A.D.) comprises the Ptolemaic or Macedonian and Roman dominations.

THE ANCIENT EMPIRE: THE PYRAMIDS. The great works of this period are almost exclusively sepulchral, and include the most ancient buildings of which we have any remains. While there is little of strictly architectural art, the overwhelming size and majesty of the Pyramids, and the audacity and skill shown in their construction, entitle them to the first place in any sketch of this period. They number over a hundred, scattered in six groups, from Abu-Roash in the north to Meidoum in the south, and are of various shapes and sizes. They are all royal tombs and belong to the first twelve dynasties; each contains a sepulchral chamber, and each at one time possessed a small chapel adjacent to it, but this has, in almost every case, perished.

Three pyramids surpass all the rest by their prodigious size; these are at Ghizeh and belong to the fourth dynasty. They are known by the names of their builders; the oldest and greatest being that of Cheops, or Khufu;[1] the second, that of Chephren, or Khafra; and the third, that of Mycerinus, or Menkhara. Other smaller ones stand at the feet of these giants.

[Footnote 1: The Egyptian names known to antiquity are given here first in the more familiar classic form, and then in the Egyptian form.]

The base of the "Great Pyramid" measures 764 feet on a side; its height is 482 feet, and its volume must have originally been nearly three and one-half million cubic yards (Fig.1). It is constructed of limestone upon a plateau of rock levelled to receive it, and was finished externally, like its two neighbors, with a coating of polished stone, supposed by some to have been disposed in bands of different colored granites, but of which it was long ago despoiled. It contained three principal chambers and an elaborate system of inclined passages, all executed in finely cut granite and limestone. The sarcophagus was in the uppermost chamber, above which the superincumbent weight was relieved by open spaces and a species of rudimentary arch of [A]-shape (Fig.2). The other two pyramids differ from that of Cheops in the details of their arrangement and in size, not in the principle of their construction. Chephren is 454 feet high, with a base 717 feet square. Mycerinus, which still retains its casing of pink granite, is but 218 feet in height, with a base 253 feet on a side.

Among the other pyramids there is considerable variety both of type and material. At Sakkarah is one 190 feet high, constructed in six unequal steps on a slightly oblong base measuring nearly 400 357 feet. It was attributed by Mariette to Ouenephes, of the first dynasty, though now more generally ascribed to Senefrou of the third. At Abu-Seir and Meidoum are other stepped pyramids; at Dashour is one having a broken slope, the lower part steeper than the upper. Several at Mero with unusually steep slopes belong to the Ethiopian dynasties of the Decadence. Anumber of pyramids are built of brick.

TOMBS. The Ancient Empire has also left us a great number of tombs of the type known as Mastabas. These are oblong rectangular structures of stone or brick with slightly inclined sides and flat ceilings. They uniformly face the east, and are internally divided into three parts; the chamber or chapel, the serdab, and the well. In the first of these, next the entrance, were placed the offerings made to the Ka or "double," for whom also scenes of festivity or worship were carved and painted on its walls to minister to his happiness in his incorporeal life. The serdabs, or secret inner chambers, of which there were several in each mastaba, contained statues of the defunct, by which the existence and identity of the Ka were preserved. Finally came the well, leading to the mummy chamber, deep underground, which contained the sarcophagus. The sarcophagi, both of this and later ages, are good examples of the minor architecture of Egypt; many of them are panelled in imitation of wooden construction and richly decorated with color, symbols, and hieroglyphs.

OTHER MONUMENTS. Two other monuments of the Ancient Empire also claim attention: the Sphinx and the adjacent so-called "Sphinx temple" at Ghizeh. The first of these, ahuge sculpture carved from the rock, represents Harmachis in the form of a human-headed lion. It is ordinarily partly buried in the sand; is 70 feet long by 66 feet high, and forms one of the most striking monuments of Egyptian art. Close to it lie the nearly buried ruins of the temple once supposed to be that of the Sphinx, but now proved by Petrie to have been erected in connection with the second pyramid. The plan and present aspect of this venerable edifice are shown in Figs. 3 and4. The hall was roofed with stone lintels carried on sixteen square monolithic piers of alabaster. The whole was buried in a rectangular mass of masonry and revetted internally with alabaster, but was wholly destitute internally as well as externally of decoration or even of mouldings. With the exception of scanty remains of a few of the pyramid-temples or chapels, and the temple discovered by Petrie in Meidoum, it is the only survival from the temple architecture of that early age.

THE MIDDLE EMPIRE: TOMBS. The monuments of this period, as of the preceding, are almost wholly sepulchral. We now encounter two types of tombs. One, structural and pyramidal, is represented by many examples at Abydos, the most venerated of all the burial grounds of Egypt (Fig.5). All of these are built of brick, and are of moderate size and little artistic interest. The second type is that of tombs cut in the vertical cliffs of the west bank of the Nile Valley. The entrance to these faces eastward as required by tradition; the remoter end of the excavation pointing toward the land of the Sun of Night. But such tunnels only become works of architecture when, in addition to the customary mural paintings, they receive a decorative treatment in the design of their structural forms. Such a treatment appears in several tombs at Beni-Hassan, in which columns are reserved in cutting away the rock, both in the chapel-chambers and in the vestibules or porches which precede them. These columns are polygonal in some cases, clustered in others. The former type, with eight, sixteen, or thirty-two sides (in these last the arrises or edges are emphasized by a slight concavity in each face, like embryonic fluting), have a square abacus, suggesting the Greek Doric order, and giving rise to the name proto-Doric (Fig.6). Columns of this type are also found at Karnak, Kalabsh, Amada, and Abydos. Areminiscence of primitive wood construction is seen in the dentils over the plain architrave of the entrance, which in other respects recalls the triple entrances to certain mastabas of the Old Empire. These dentils are imitations of the ends of rafters, and to some archologists suggest a wooden origin for the whole system of columnar design. But these rock-cut shafts and heavy architraves in no respect resemble wooden prototypes, but point rather to an imitation cut in the rock of a well-developed, pre-existing system of stone construction, some of whose details, however, were undoubtedly derived from early methods of building in wood. The vault was below the chapel and reached by a separate entrance. The serdab was replaced by a niche in which was the figure of the defunct carved from the native rock. Some of the tombs employed in the chapel-chamber columns of quatrefoil section with capitals like clustered buds (Fig.7), and this type became in the next period one of the most characteristic forms of Egyptian architecture.

TEMPLES. Of the temples of this period only two have left any remains of importance. Both belong to the twelfth dynasty (cir. 2200 B.C.). Of one of these many badly shattered fragments have been found in the ruins of Bubastis; these show the clustered type of lotus-bud column mentioned above. The other, of which a few columns have been identified among the ruins of the Great Temple at Karnak, constituted the oldest part of that vast agglomeration of religious edifices, and employed columns of the so-called proto-Doric type. From these remains it appears that structural stone columns as well as those cut in the rock were used at this early period (2200 B.C.). Indeed, it is probable that the whole architectural system of the New Empire was based on models developed in the age we are considering; that the use of multiplied columns of various types and the building of temples of complex plan adorned with colossal statues, obelisks, and painted reliefs, were perfectly understood and practised in this period. But the works it produced have perished, having been most probably demolished to make way for the more sumptuous edifices of later times.

THE NEW EMPIRE. This was the grand age of Egyptian architecture and history. An extraordinary series of mighty men ruled the empire during a long period following the expulsion of the Hyksos usurpers. The names of Thothmes, Amenophis, Hatasu, Seti, and Rameses made glorious the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. Foreign conquests in Ethiopia, Syria, and Assyria enlarged the territory and increased the splendor of the empire. The majority of the most impressive ruins of Egypt belong to this period, and it was in these buildings that the characteristic elements of Egyptian architecture were brought to perfection and carried out on the grandest scale.

TOMBS OF THE NEW EMPIRE. Some of these are structural, others excavated; both types displaying considerable variety in arrangement and detail. The rock-cut tombs of Bab-el-Molouk, among which are twenty-five royal sepulchres, are striking both by the simplicity of their openings and the depth and complexity of their shafts, tunnels, and chambers. From the pipe-like length of their tunnels they have since the time of Herodotus been known by the name syrinx. Every precaution was taken to lead astray and baffle the intending violator of their sanctity. They penetrated hundreds of feet into the rock; their chambers, often formed with columns and vault-like roofs, were resplendent with colored reliefs and ornament destined to solace and sustain the shadowy Ka until the soul itself, the Ba, should arrive before the tribunal of Osiris, the Sun of Night. Most impressively do these brilliant pictures,[2] intended to be forever shut away from human eyes, attest the sincerity of the Egyptian belief and the conscientiousness of the art which it inspired.

[Footnote 2: See Van Dyke's History of Painting, Figure 1.]

While the tomb of the private citizen was complete in itself, containing the Ka-statues and often the chapel, as well as the mummy, the royal tomb demanded something more elaborate in scale and arrangement. In some cases external structures of temple-form took the place of the underground chapel and serdab. The royal effigy, many times repeated in painting and sculpture throughout this temple-like edifice, and flanking its gateways with colossal seated figures, made buried Ka-statues unnecessary. Of these sepulchral temples three are of the first magnitude. They are that of Queen Hatasu (XVIIIth dynasty) at Deir-el-Bahari; that of Rameses II. (XIXth dynasty), the Ramesseum, near by to the southwest; and that of Rameses III. (XXth dynasty) at Medinet Abou still further to the southwest. Like the tombs, these were all on the west side of the Nile; so also was the sepulchral temple of Amenophis III. (XVIIIth dynasty), the Amenopheum, of which hardly a trace remains except the two seated colossi which, rising from the Theban plain, have astonished travellers from the times of Pausanias and Strabo down to our own. These mutilated figures, one of which has been known ever since classic times as the "vocal Memnon," are 56 feet high, and once flanked the entrance to the forecourt of the temple of Amenophis. The plan of the Ramesseum, with its sanctuary, hypostyle hall, and forecourts, its pylons and obelisks, is shown in Figure8, and may be compared with those of other temples given on pp. 17 and 18. That of Medinet Abou resembles it closely. The Ramesseum occupies a rectangle of 590 182 feet; the temple of Medinet Abou measures 500 160 feet, not counting the extreme width of the entrance pylons. The temple of Hatasu at Deir-el-Bahari is partly excavated and partly structural, amodel which is also followed on a smaller scale in several lesser tombs. Such an edifice is called a hemispeos.



BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Same as for ChapterII.

TEMPLES. The surpassing glory of the New Empire was its great temples. Some of them were among the most stupendous creations of structural art. To temples rather than palaces were the resources and energies of the kings devoted, and successive monarchs found no more splendid outlet for their piety and ambition than the founding of new temples or the extension and adornment of those already existing. By the forced labor of thousands of fellaheen (the system is in force to this day and is known as the corve) architectural piles of vast extent could be erected within the lifetime of a monarch. As in the tombs the internal walls bore pictures for the contemplation of the Ka, so in the temples the external walls, for the glory of the king and the delectation of the people, were covered with colored reliefs reciting the monarch's glorious deeds. Internally the worship and attributes of the gods were represented in a similar manner, in endless iteration.

THE TEMPLE SCHEME. This is admirably shown in the temple of Khonsu, at Karnak, built by Rameses III. (XXth dynasty), and in the temple of Edfou (Figs. 9 and 10), though this belongs to the Roman period. It comprised a sanctuary or sekos, ahypostyle (columnar) hall, known as the "hall of assembly," and a forecourt preceded by a double pylon or gateway. Each of these parts might be made more or less complex in different temples, but the essential features are encountered everywhere under all changes of form. The building of a temple began with the sanctuary, which contained the sacred chamber and the shrine of the god, with subordinate rooms for the priests and for various rites and functions. These chambers were low, dark, mysterious, accessible only to the priests and king. They were given a certain dignity by being raised upon a sort of platform above the general level, and reached by a few steps. They were sumptuously decorated internally with ritual pictures in relief. The hall was sometimes loftier, but set on a slightly lower level; its massive columns supported a roof of stone lintels, and light was admitted either through clearstory windows under the roof of a central portion higher than the sides, as at Karnak, or over a low screen-wall built between the columns of the front row, as at Edfou and Denderah. This method was peculiar to the Ptolemaic and Roman periods. The court was usually surrounded by a single or double colonnade; sometimes, however, this colonnade only flanked the sides or fronted the hall, or again was wholly wanting. The pylons were twin buttress-like masses flanking the entrance gate of the court. They were shaped like oblong truncated pyramids, crowned by flaring cornices, and were decorated on the outer face with masts carrying banners, with obelisks, or with seated colossal figures of the royal builder. An avenue of sphinxes formed the approach to the entrance, and the whole temple precinct was surrounded by a wall, usually of crude brick, pierced by one or more gates with or without pylons. The piety of successive monarchs was displayed in the addition of new hypostyle halls, courts, pylons, or obelisks, by which the temple was successively extended in length, and sometimes also in width, by the increased dimensions of the new courts. The great Temple of Karnak most strikingly illustrates this growth. Begun by Osourtesen (XIIth dynasty) more than 2000 years B.C., it was not completed in its present form until the time of the Ptolemies, when the last of the pylons and external gates were erected.

The variations in the details of this general type were numerous. Thus, at El Kab, the temple of Amenophis III. has the sekos and hall but no forecourt. At Deir-el-Medineh the hall of the Ptolemaic Hathor-temple is a mere porch in two parts, while the enclosure within the circuit wall takes the place of the forecourt. At Karnak all the parts were repeated several times, and under Amenophis III. (XVIIIth dynasty) awing was built at a nearly right angle to the main structure. At Luxor, to a complete typical temple were added three aisles of an unfinished hypostyle hall, and an elaborate forecourt, whose axis is inclined to that of the other buildings, owing to a bend of the river at that point. At Abydos a complex sanctuary of many chambers extends southeast at right angles to the general mass, and the first court is without columns. But in all these structures a certain unity of effect is produced by the lofty pylons, the flat roofs diminishing in height over successive portions from the front to the sanctuary, the sloping windowless walls covered with carved and painted pictures, and the dim and massive interiors of the columnar halls.

TEMPLES OF KARNAK. Of these various temples that of Amen-Ra is incomparably the largest and most imposing. Its construction extended through the whole duration of the New Empire, of whose architecture it is a splendid rsum (Fig. 11). Its extreme length is 1,215 feet, and its greatest width 376 feet. The sanctuary and its accessories, mainly built by ThothmesI. and Thothmes III., cover an area nearly 456 290 feet in extent, and comprise two hypostyle halls and countless smaller halls and chambers. It is preceded by a narrow columnar vestibule and two pylons enclosing a columnar atrium and two obelisks. This is entered from the Great Hypostyle Hall (h in Fig. 11; Fig. 12), the noblest single work of Egyptian architecture, measuring 340 170 feet, and containing 134 columns in sixteen rows, supporting a massive stone roof. The central columns with bell-capitals are 70 feet high and nearly 12 feet in diameter; the others are smaller and lower, with lotus-bud capitals, supporting aroof lower than that over the three central aisles. Aclearstory of stone-grated windows makes up the difference in height between these two roofs. The interior, thus lighted, was splendid with painted reliefs, which helped not only to adorn the hall but to give scale to its massive parts. The whole stupendous creation was the work of three kings—RamesesI., SetiI., and Rameses II. (XIXth dynasty).

In front of it was the great court, flanked by columns, and still showing the ruins of a central avenue of colossal pillars begun, but never completed, by the Bubastid kings of the XXIId dynasty. One or two smaller structures and the curious lateral wing built by Amenophis III., interrupt the otherwise orderly and symmetrical advance of this plan from the sanctuary to the huge first pylon (last in point of date) erected by the Ptolemies.

The smaller temple of Khonsu, south of that of Amen-Ra, has already been alluded to as a typical example of templar design. Next to Karnak in importance comes the Temple of Luxor in its immediate neighborhood. It has two forecourts adorned with double-aisled colonnades and connected by what seems to be an unfinished hypostyle hall. The Ramesseum and the temples of Medinet Abou and Deir-El-Bahari have already been mentioned (p.15). At Gournah and Abydos are the next most celebrated temples of this period; the first famous for its rich clustered lotus-columns, the latter for its beautiful sanctuary chambers, dedicated each to a different deity, and covered with delicate painted reliefs of the time of SetiI.

GROTTO TEMPLES. Two other styles of temple remain to be noticed. The first is the subterranean or grotto temple, of which the two most famous, at Ipsamboul (Abou-simbel), were excavated by Rameses II. They are truly colossal conceptions, reproducing in the native rock the main features of structural temples, the court being represented by the larger of two chambers in the Greater Temple (Fig. 13) Their faades are adorned with colossal seated figures of the builder; the smaller has also two effigies of Nefert-Ari, his consort. Nothing more striking and boldly impressive is to be met with in Egypt than these singular rock-cut faades. Other rock-cut temples of more modest dimensions are at Addeh, Feraig, Beni-Hassan (the "Speos Artemidos"), Beit-el-Wali, and Silsileh. At Gherf-Hossein, Asseboua, and Derri are temples partly excavated and partly structural.

PERIPTERAL TEMPLES. The last type of temple to be noticed is represented by only three or four structures of moderate size; it is the peripteral, in which a small chamber is surrounded by columns, usually mounted on a terrace with vertical walls. They were mere chapels, but are among the most graceful of existing ruins. At Phil are two structures, one by Nectanebo, the other Ptolemaic, resembling peripteral temples, but without cella-chambers or roofs. They may have been waiting-courts for the adjoining temples. That at Elephantine (Amenophis III.) has square piers at the sides, and columns only at the ends. Another by Thothmes II., at Medinet Abou, formed only a part (the sekos?) of a larger plan. At Edfou is another, belonging to the Ptolemaic period.

LATER TEMPLES. After the architectural inaction of the Decadence came a marvellous recrudescence of splendor under the Ptolemies, whose Hellenic origin and sympathies did not lead them into the mistaken effort to impose Greek models upon Egyptian art. The temples erected under their dominion, and later under Roman rule, vied with the grandest works of the Ramessid, and surpassed them in the rich elaboration and variety of their architectural details. The temple at Edfou (Figs. 9, 10, 14) is the most perfectly preserved, and conforms most closely to the typical plan; that of Isis, at Phil, is the most elaborate and ornate. Denderah also possesses a group of admirably preserved temples of the same period. At Esneh, and at Kalabsh and Kardassy or Ghertashi in Nubia are others. In all these one notes innovations of detail and a striving for effect quite different from the simpler majesty of the preceding age (Fig. 14). One peculiar feature is the use of screen walls built into the front rows of columns of the hypostyle hall. Light was admitted above these walls, which measured about half the height of the columns and were interrupted at the centre by a curious doorway cut through their whole height and without any lintel. Long disused types of capital were revived and others greatly elaborated; and the wall-reliefs were arranged in bands and panels with a regularity and symmetry rather Greek than Egyptian.

ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. With the exception of a few purely utilitarian vaulted structures, all Egyptian architecture was based on the principle of the lintel. Artistic splendor depended upon the use of painted and carved pictures, and the decorative treatment of the very simple supports employed. Piers and columns sustained the roofs of such chambers as were too wide for single lintels, and produced, in halls like those of Karnak, of the Ramesseum, or of Denderah, astupendous effect by their height, massiveness, number, and colored decoration. The simplest piers were plain square shafts; others, more elaborate, had lotus stalks and flowers or heads of Hathor carved upon them. The most striking were those against whose front faces were carved colossal figures of Osiris, as at Luxor, Medmet Abou, and Karnak (Fig. 15). The columns, which were seldom over six diameters in height, were treated with greater variety; the shafts, slightly tapering upward, were either round or clustered in section, and usually contracted at the base. The capitals with which they were crowned were usually of one of the five chief types described below. Besides round and clustered shafts, the Middle Empire and a few of the earlier monuments of the New Empire employed polygonal or slightly fluted shafts (see p.11), as at Beni Hassan and Karnak; these had a plain square abacus, with sometimes a cushion-like echinus beneath it. Around plinth served as a base for most of the columns.

CAPITALS. The five chief types of capital were: a, the plain lotus bud, as at Karnak (Great Hall); b, the clustered lotus bud (Beni-Hassan, Karnak, Luxor, Gournah, etc.); c, the campaniform or inverted bell (central aisles at Karnak, Luxor, the Ramesseum); d, the palm-capital, frequent in the later temples; and e, the Hathor-headed, in which heads of Hathor adorn the four faces of a cubical mass surmounted by a model of a shrine (Sedinga, Edfou, Denderah, Esneh). These types were richly embellished and varied by the Ptolemaic architects, who gave a clustered or quatrefoil plan to the bell-capital, or adorned its surface with palm leaves. Afew other forms are met with as exceptions. The first four are shown in Fig.16.

Every part of the column was richly decorated in color. Lotus-leaves or petals swathed the swelling lower part of the shaft, which was elsewhere covered with successive bands of carved pictures and of hieroglyphics. The capital was similarly covered with carved and painted ornament, usually of lotus-flowers or leaves, or alternate stalks of lotus and papyrus.

The lintels were plain and square in section, and often of prodigious size. Where they appeared externally they were crowned with a simple cavetto cornice, its curved surface covered with colored flutings alternating with cartouches of hieroglyphics. Sometimes, especially on the screen walls of the Ptolemaic age, this was surmounted by a cresting of adders or uri in closely serried rank. No other form of cornice or cresting is met with. Mouldings as a means of architectural effect were singularly lacking in Egyptian architecture. The only moulding known is the clustered torus (torus = a convex moulding of semicircular profile), which resembles a bundle of reeds tied together with cords or ribbons. It forms an astragal under the cavetto cornice and runs down the angles of the pylons and walls.

POLYCHROMY AND ORNAMENT. Color was absolutely essential to the decorative scheme. In the vast and dim interiors, as well as in the blinding glare of the sun, mere sculpture or relief would have been wasted. The application of brilliant color to pictorial forms cut in low relief, or outlined by deep incision with the edges of the figures delicately rounded (intaglio rilievo) was the most appropriate treatment possible. The walls and columns were covered with pictures treated in this way, and the ceilings and lintels were embellished with symbolic forms in the same manner. All the ornaments, as distinguished from the paintings, were symbolical, at least in their origin. Over the gateway was the solar disk or globe with wide-spread wings, the symbol of the sun winging its way to the conquest of night; upon the ceiling were sacred vultures, zodiacs, or stars spangled on a blue ground. Externally the temples presented only masses of unbroken wall; but these, as well as the pylons, were covered with huge pictures of a historical character. Only in the tombs do we find painted ornament of a purely conventional sort (Fig. 17). Rosettes, diaper patterns, spirals, and checkers are to be met with in them; but many of these can be traced to symbolic origins.[3]

[Footnote 3: See Goodyear's Grammar of the Lotus for an elaborate and ingenious presentation of the theory of a common lotus-origin for all the conventional forms occurring in Egyptian ornament.]

DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. The only remains of palaces are the pavilion of Rameses III. at Medinet Abou, and another at Semneh. The Royal Labyrinth has so completely perished that even its site is uncertain. The Egyptians lived so much out of doors that the house was a less important edifice than in colder climates. Egyptian dwellings were probably in most cases built of wood or crude brick, and their disappearance is thus easily explained. Relief pictures on the monuments indicate the use of wooden framing for the walls, which were probably filled in with crude brick or panels of wood. The architecture was extremely simple. Gateways like those of the temples on a smaller scale, the cavetto cornice on the walls, and here and there a porch with carved columns of wood or stone, were the only details pretending to elegance. The ground-plans of many houses in ruined cities, as at Tel-el-Amarna and a nameless city of Amenophis IV., are discernible in the ruins; but the superstructures are wholly wanting. It was in religious and sepulchral architecture that the constructive and artistic genius of the Egyptians was most fully manifested.

MONUMENTS: The principal necropolis regions of Egypt are centred about Ghizeh and ancient Memphis for the Old Empire (pyramids and mastabas), Thebes for the Middle Empire (Silsileh, Beni Hassan), and Thebes (Vale of the Kings, Vale of the Queens) and Abydos for the New Empire.

The Old Empire has also left us the Sphinx, Sphinx temple, and the temple at Meidoum.

The most important temples of the New Empire were those of Karnak (the great temple, the southern or temple of Khonsu), of Luxor, Medinet Abou (great temple of Rameses III., lesser temples of Thothmes II. and III. with peripteral sekos; also Pavilion of Rameses III.); of Abydos; of Gournah; of Eilithyia (Amenophis III.); of Soleb and Sesebi in Nubia; of Elephantine (peripteral); the tomb temple of Deir-el-Bahari, the Ramesseum, the Amenopheum; hemispeos at Gherf Hossein; two grotto temples at Ipsamboul.

At Mero are pyramids of the Ethiopic kings of the Decadence.

Temples of the Ptolemaic period: Phil, Denderah.

Temples of the Roman period: Koum Ombos, Edfou; Kalabsh, Kardassy and Dandour in Nubia; Esneh.



BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Reber. Also, Babelon, Manual of Oriental Antiquities. Botta and Flandin, Monuments de Ninive. Layard, Discoveries in Nineveh; Nineveh and its Remains. Loftus, Travels and Researches in Chalda and Susiana. Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Chalda and Assyria. Peters, Nippur. Place, Ninive et l'Assyrie.

SITUATION; HISTORIC PERIODS. The Tigro-Euphrates valley was the seat of a civilization nearly or quite as old as that of the Nile, though inferior in its monumental art. The kingdoms of Chalda and Assyria which ruled in this valley, sometimes as rivals and sometimes as subjects one of the other, differed considerably in character and culture. But the scarcity of timber and the lack of good building-stone except in the limestone table-lands and more distant mountains of upper Mesopotamia, the abundance of clay, and the flatness of the country, imposed upon the builders of both nations similar restrictions of conception, form, and material. Both peoples, moreover, were probably, in part at least, of Semitic race.[4] The Chaldans attained civilization as early as 4000 B.C., and had for centuries maintained fixed institutions and practised the arts and sciences when the Assyrians began their career as a nation of conquerors by reducing Chalda to subjection.

[Footnote 4: This is denied by some recent writers, so far as the Chaldans are concerned, and is not intended here to apply to the Accadians and Summerians of primitive Chalda.]

The history of Chaldo-Assyrian art may be divided into three main periods, as follows:

1. The EARLY CHALDAN, 4000 to 1250 B.C.

2. The ASSYRIAN, 1250 to 606 B.C.

3. The BABYLONIAN, 606 to 538 B.C.

In 538 the empire fell before the Persians.

GENERAL CHARACTER OF MONUMENTS. Recent excavations at Nippur (Niffer), the sacred city of Chalda, have uncovered ruins older than the Pyramids. Though of slight importance architecturally, they reveal the early knowledge of the arch and the possession of an advanced culture. The poverty of the building materials of this region afforded only the most limited resources for architectural effect. Owing to the flatness of the country and the impracticability of building lofty structures with sun-dried bricks, elevation above the plain could be secured only by erecting buildings of moderate height upon enormous mounds or terraces, built of crude brick and faced with hard brick or stone. This led to the development of the stepped pyramid as the typical form of Chaldo-Assyrian architecture. Thick walls were necessary both for stability and for protection from the burning heat of that climate. The lack of stone for columns and the difficulty of procuring heavy beams for long spans made broad halls and chambers impossible. The plans of Assyrian palaces look like assemblages of long corridors and small cells (Fig. 18). Neither the wooden post nor the column played any part in this architecture except for window-mullions and subordinate members.[5] It is probable that the vault was used for roofing many of the halls; the arch was certainly employed for doors and the barrel-vault for the drainage-tunnels under the terraces, made necessary by the heavy rainfall. What these structures lacked in durability and height was made up in decorative magnificence. The interior walls were wainscoted to a height of eight or nine feet with alabaster slabs covered with those low-relief pictures of hunting scenes, battles, and gods, which now enrich the museums of London, Paris, and other modern cities. Elsewhere painted plaster or more durable enamelled tile in brilliant colors embellished the walls, and, doubtless, rugs and tapestries added their richness to this architectural splendor.

[Footnote 5: See Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis, for an ingenious but unsubstantiated argument for the use of columns in Assyrian palaces.]

CHALDAN ARCHITECTURE. The ruins at Mugheir (the Biblical Ur), dating, perhaps, from 2200 B.C., belong to the two-storied terrace or platform of a temple to Sin or Hurki. The wall of sun-dried brick is faced with enamelled tile. The shrine, which was probably small, has wholly disappeared from the summit of the mound. At Warka (the ancient Erech) are two terrace-walls of palaces, one of which is ornamented with convex flutings and with a species of mosaic in checker patterns and zigzags, formed by terra-cotta cones or spikes driven into the clay, their exposed bases being enamelled in the desired colors. The other shows a system of long, narrow panels, in a style suggesting the influence of Egyptian models through some as yet unknown channel. This panelling became a common feature of the later Assyrian art (see Fig. 19). At Birs-Nimroud are the ruins of a stepped pyramid surmounted by a small shrine. Its seven stages are said to have been originally faced with glazed tile of the seven planetary colors, gold, silver, yellow, red, blue, white, and black. The ruins at Nippur, which comprise temples, altars, and dwellings dating from 4000 B.C., have been alluded to. Babylon, the later capital of Chalda, to which the shapeless mounds of Mujehbeh and Kasr seem to have belonged, has left no other recognizable vestige of its ancient magnificence.

ASSYRIAN ARCHITECTURE. Abundant ruins exist of Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, and its adjacent palace-sites. Excavations at Koyunjik, Khorsabad, and Nimroud have laid bare a number of these royal dwellings. Among them are the palace of Assur-nazir-pal (885 B.C.) and two palaces of Shalmaneser II. (850 B.C.) at Nimroud; the great palace of Sargon at Khorsabad (721 B.C.); that of Sennacherib at Koyunjik (704 B.C.); of Esarhaddon at Nimroud (650 B.C.); and of Assur-bani-pal at Koyunjik (660 B.C.). All of these palaces are designed on the same general principle, best shown by the plan (Fig. 18) of the palace of Sargon at Khorsabad, excavated by Botta and Place.

In this palace two large and several smaller courts are surrounded by a complex series of long, narrow halls and small, square chambers. One court probably belonged to the harem, another to the king's apartments, others to dependents and to the service of the palace. The crude brick walls are immensely thick and without windows, the only openings being for doors. The absence of columns made wide halls impossible, and great size could only be attained in the direction of length. Aterraced pyramid supported an altar or shrine to the southwest of the palace; at the west corner was a temple, the substructure of which was crowned by a cavetto cornice showing plainly the influence of Egyptian models. The whole palace stood upon a stupendous platform faced with cut stone, an unaccustomed extravagance in Assyria.

ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. There is no evidence that the Assyrians ever used columnar supports except in minor or accessory details. There are few halls in any of the ruins too wide to be spanned by good Syrian cedar beams or palm timbers, and these few cases seem to have had vaulted ceilings. So clumsy a feature as the central wall in the great hall of Esarhaddon's palace at Nimroud would never have been resorted to for the support of the ceiling, had the Assyrians been familiar with the use of columns. That they understood the arch and vault is proved by their admirable terrace-drains and the fine arched gate in the walls of Khorsabad (Fig. 19), as well as by bas-reliefs representing dwellings with domes of various forms. Moreover, afew vaulted chambers of moderate size, and fallen fragments of crude brick vaulting of larger span, have been found in several of the Assyrian ruins.

The construction was extremely simple. The heavy clay walls were faced with alabaster, burned brick, or enamelled tiles. The roofs were probably covered with stamped earth, and sometimes paved on top with tiles or slabs of alabaster to form terraces. Light was introduced most probably through windows immediately under the roof and divided by small columns forming mullions, as suggested by certain relief pictures. No other system seems consistent with the windowless walls of the ruins. It is possible that many rooms depended wholly on artificial light or on the scant rays coming through open doors. To this day, in the hot season the population of Mosul takes refuge from the torrid heats of summer in windowless basements lighted only by lamps.

ORNAMENT. The only structural decorations seem to have been the panelling of exterior walls in a manner resembling the Chaldan terrace-walls, and a form of parapet like a stepped cresting. There were no characteristic mouldings, architraves, capitals, or cornices. Nearly all the ornament was of the sort called applied, i.e., added after the completion of the structure itself. Pictures in low relief covered the alabaster revetment. They depicted hunting-scenes, battles, deities, and other mythological subjects, and are interesting to the architect mainly for their occasional representations of buildings and details of construction. Above this wainscot were friezes of enamelled brick ornamented with symbolic forms used as decorative motives; winged bulls, the "sacred tree" and mythological monsters, with rosettes, palmettes, lotus-flowers, and guilloches (ornaments of interlacing bands winding about regularly spaced buttons or eyes). These ornaments were also used on the archivolts around the great arches of palace gates. The most singular adornments of these gates were the carved "portal guardians" set into the deep jambs—colossal monsters with the bodies of bulls, the wings of eagles, and human heads of terrible countenance. Of mighty bulk, they were yet minutely wrought in every detail of head-dress, beard, feathers, curly hair, and anatomy.

The purely conventional ornaments mentioned above—the rosette, guilloche, and lotus-flower, and probably also the palmette, were derived from Egyptian originals. They were treated, however, in a quite new spirit and adapted to the special materials and uses of their environment. Thus the form of the palmette, even if derived, as is not unlikely, from the Egyptian lotus-motive, was assimilated to the more familiar palm-forms of Assyria (Fig. 20).

Assyrian architecture never rivalled the Egyptian in grandeur or constructive power, in seriousness, or the higher artistic qualities. It did, however, produce imposing results with the poorest resources, and in its use of the arch and its development of ornamental forms it furnished prototypes for some of the most characteristic features of later Asiatic art, which profoundly influenced both Greek and Byzantine architecture.

MONUMENTS: The most important Chaldan and Assyrian monuments of which there are extant remains, have already been enumerated in the text. It is therefore unnecessary to duplicate the list here.



BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Babelon; Bliss, Excavations at Jerusalem. Reber. Also Dieulafoy, L'Art antique de la Perse. Fellows, Account of Discoveries in Lycia. Fergusson, The Temple at Jerusalem. Flandin et Coste, Perse ancienne. Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Persia; History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria, and Lycia; History of Art in Sardinia and Juda. Texier, L'Armnie et la Perse; L'Asie Mineure. De Vog, Le Temple de Jrusalem.

PERSIAN ARCHITECTURE. With the Persians, who under Cyrus (536 B.C.) and Cambyses (525 B.C.) became the masters of the Orient, the Aryan race superseded the Semitic, and assimilated in new combinations the forms it borrowed from the Assyrian civilization. Under the Achmenid (536 to 330 B.C.) palaces were built in Persepolis and Susa of a splendor and majesty impossible in Mesopotamia, and rivalling the marvels in the Nile Valley. The conquering nation of warriors who had overthrown the Egyptians and Assyrians was in turn conquered by the arts of its vanquished foes, and speedily became the most luxurious of all nations. The Persians were not great innovators in art; but inhabiting a land of excellent building resources, they were able to combine the Egyptian system of interior columns with details borrowed from Assyrian art, and suggestions, derived most probably from the general use in Persia and Central Asia, of wooden posts or columns as intermediate supports. Out of these elements they evolved an architecture which has only become fully known to us since the excavations of M. and Mme. Dieulafoy at Susa in 1882.

ELEMENTS OF PERSIAN ARCHITECTURE. The Persians used both crude and baked bricks, the latter far more freely than was practicable in Assyria, owing to the greater abundance of fuel. Walls when built of the weaker material were faced with baked brick enamelled in brilliant colors, or both moulded and enamelled, to form colored pictures in relief. Stone was employed for walls and columns, and, in conjunction with brick, for the jambs and lintels of doors and windows. Architraves and ceiling-beams were of wood. The palaces were erected, as in Assyria, upon broad platforms, partly cut in the rock and partly structural, approached by imposing flights of steps. These palaces were composed of detached buildings, propyla or gates of honor, vast audience-halls open on one or two sides, and chambers or dwellings partly enclosing or flanking these halls, or grouped in separate buildings. Temples appear to have been of small importance, perhaps owing to habits of out-of-door worship of fire and sun. There are few structural tombs, but there are a number of imposing royal sepulchres cut in the rock at Naksh-i-Roustam.

ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. The Persians, like the Egyptians, used the column as an internal feature in hypostyle halls of great size, and externally to form porches, and perhaps, also, open kiosks without walls. The great Hall of Xerxes at Persepolis covers 100,000 square feet—more than double the area of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. But the Persian column was derived from wooden prototypes and used with wooden architraves, permitting a wider spacing than is possible with stone. In the present instance thirty-six columns sufficed for an area which in the Karnak hall contained one hundred and thirty-four. The shafts being slender and finely fluted instead of painted or carved, the effect produced was totally different from that sought by the Egyptians. The most striking peculiarity of the column was the capital, which was forked (Fig. 21). In one of the two principal types the fork, formed by the coupled fore-parts of bulls or symbolic monsters, rested directly on the top of the shaft. In the other, two singular members were interposed between the fork and the shaft; the lower, asort of double bell or bell-and-palm capital, and above it, just beneath the fork, acurious combination of vertical scrolls or volutes, resembling certain ornaments seen in Assyrian furniture. The transverse architrave rested in the fork; the longitudinal architrave was supported on the heads of the monsters. Arich moulded base, rather high and in some cases adorned with carved leaves or flutings, supported the columns, which in the Hall of Xerxes were over 66 feet high and 6 feet in diameter. The architraves have perished, but the rock-cut tomb of Darius at Naksh-i-Roustam reproduces in its faade a palace-front, showing a banded architrave with dentils—an obvious imitation of the ends of wooden rafters on a lintel built up of several beams.

1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9     Next Part
Home - Random Browse