[This text uses utf-8 (unicode) file encoding. If the apostrophes andquotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure yourtext reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode(UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a lastresort, use the latin-1 version of the file instead. Errors and inconsistencies, including details about some place names, are listed at the end of the e-text. Spelling variations are as in theoriginal. ] * * * * * * * * * COLLEGE HISTORIES OF ART Edited By JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L. H. D. * * * HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE A. D. F. Hamlin * * * * * * * * * COLLEGE HISTORIES OF ART Edited By JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L. H. D. Professor of the History of Art in Rutgers College * * * HISTORY OF PAINTING By JOHN C. VAN DYKE, the Editor of the Series. With Frontispieceand 110 Illustrations, Bibliographies, and Index. Crown 8vo, $1. 50. HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE By ALFRED D. F. HAMLIN, A. M. Adjunct Professor of Architecture, Columbia College, New York. With Frontispiece and 229 Illustrationsand Diagrams, Bibliographies, Glossary, Index of Architects, anda General Index. Crown 8vo, $2. 00. HISTORY OF SCULPTURE By ALLAN MARQUAND, Ph. D. , L. H. D. And ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr. , Ph. D. , Professors of Archæology and the History of Art in PrincetonUniversity. With Frontispiece and 112 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, $1. 50. * * * * * * * * * [Illustration: THE PARTHENON, ATHENS, AS RESTORED BY CH. CHIPIEZ. (From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York. )] A TEXT-BOOK of the HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE by A. D. F. HAMLIN, A. M. Professor of the History of Architecture in the School of Architecture, Columbia University SEVENTH EDITION Revised 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 PREFACE. The aim of this work has been to sketch the various periods and stylesof 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 condensationin presenting the leading facts of architectural history has beennecessary, and much that would rightly claim place in a larger work hasbeen omitted here. The danger was felt to be rather in the direction oftoo much detail than of too little. While the book is intended primarilyto meet the special requirements of the college student, those of thegeneral reader have not been lost sight of. The majority of thetechnical terms used are defined or explained in the context, and thesmall remainder in a glossary at the end of the work. Extended criticismand minute description were out of the question, and discussion ofcontroverted points has been in consequence as far as possible avoided. The illustrations have been carefully prepared with a view toelucidating the text, rather than for pictorial effect. With theexception of some fifteen cuts reproduced from Lübke’s _Geschichte derArchitektur_ (by kind permission of Messrs. Seemann, of Leipzig), theillustrations are almost all entirely new. A large number are fromoriginal drawings made by myself, or under my direction, and theremainder are, with a few exceptions, half-tone reproductions preparedspecially for this work from photographs in my possession. Acknowledgments are due to Messrs. H.  W. Buemming, H.  D. Bultman, andA.  E. Weidinger for valued assistance in preparing original drawings;and to Professor W.  R. Ware, to Professor W.  H. Thomson, M. D. , and tothe Editor of the Series for much helpful criticism and suggestion. It is hoped that the lists of monuments appended to the history of eachperiod down to the present century may prove useful for reference, bothto the student and the general reader, as a supplement to the body ofthe text. A. D. F. HAMLIN. COLUMBIA COLLEGE, NEW YORK, January 20, 1896. The author desires to express his further acknowledgments to the friendswho have at various times since the first appearance of this book calledhis attention to errors in the text or illustrations, and to recentadvances in the art or in its archæology deserving of mention insubsequent editions. As far as possible these suggestions have beenincorporated in the various revisions and reprints which have appearedsince the first publication. A. D. F. H. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, October 28, 1907. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 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. Chaldæan 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 Mediæval Architecture in Italy and France 155 CHAPTER XIV. Early Mediæval 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 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. The authorship of the original drawings is indicated by the initialsaffixed: A. = drawings by the author; B. = H.  W. Buemming; Bn. = H.  D. Bultman; Ch. = Château, _L’Architecture en France_; G. = drawingsadapted from Gwilt’s _Encyclopædia of Architecture_; L. = Lübke’s_Geschichte der Architektur_; W. = A.  E. Weidinger. All otherillustrations are from photographs. PAGE 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 Mycenæ (A. ) 44 23 Polygonal Masonry, Mycenæ (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 Propylæa 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, Thermæ 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 Kaîd 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 Mahmûd, 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 Lübke) 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 Cœur, 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 Façade 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 Façade 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 Façade of Strozzi Palace, Florence 280 164 Tomb of Pietro di Noceto, Lucca 282 165 Vendramini Palace, Venice 285 166 Façade 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 Façade, East Wing of Blois 311 176 Staircase Tower, Blois 313 177 Plan of Château of Chambord (A. ) 314 178 Upper Part of Château 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 Façade 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, Hämelschenburg 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 Façade of British Museum, London 357 199 St. George’s Hall, Liverpool 358 200 The Old Museum, Berlin 359 201 The Propylæa, Munich 360 202 Plan of the Panthéon, Paris (G. ) 361 203 Exterior of the Panthéon 362 204 Arch of Triumph of l’Étoile, Paris 363 205 The Madeleine, Paris 364 206 Door of École 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 Galliéra 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 Hullabîd: Detail 410 229 Shrine of Soubramanya, Tanjore 412 GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY. (This includes the leading architectural works treating of more than oneperiod or style. The reader should consult also the special referencesat the head of each chapter. Valuable material is also contained in theleading architectural periodicals and in monographs too numerous tomention. ) DICTIONARIES AND ENCYCLOPEDIAS. Agincourt, _History of Art by its Monuments_; London. Architectural Publication Society, _Dictionary of Architecture_; London. Bosc, _Dictionnaire raisonné d’architecture_; Paris. Durm and others, _Handbuch der Architektur_; Stuttgart. (This is anencyclopedic compendium of architectural knowledge in many volumes; theseries 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 theLevant_; New York. Planat, _Encyclopédie d’architecture_; Paris. Sturgis, _Dictionary of Architecture and Building_; New York. GENERAL HANDBOOKS AND HISTORIES. Bühlmann, _Die Architektur des klassischen Alterthums und derRenaissance_; Stuttgart. (Also in English, published in New York. ) Choisy, _Histoire de l’architecture_; Paris. Durand, _Recueil et parallèle d’édifices 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. Siècle_;Paris. --_Monuments anciens et modernes_; Paris. Kugler, _Geschichte der Baukunst_; Stuttgart. Longfellow, _The Column and the Arch_; New York. Lübke, _Geschichte der Architektur_; Leipzig. --_History of Art_, tr. Andrev. By R. Sturgis; New York. Perry, _Chronology of Mediæval and Renaissance Architecture_; London. Reynaud, _Traité 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. THEORY, THE ORDERS, ETC. Chambers, _A Treatise on Civil Architecture_; London. Daviler, _Cours d’architecture de Vignole_; Paris. Esquié, _Traité élémentaire d’architecture_; Paris. Guadet, _Théorie 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. HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE. INTRODUCTION. A history of architecture is a record of man’s efforts to buildbeautifully. The erection of structures devoid of beauty is merebuilding, a trade and not an art. Edifices in which strength andstability alone are sought, and in designing which only utilitarianconsiderations have been followed, are properly works of engineering. Only when the idea of beauty is added to that of use does a structuretake its place among works of architecture. We may, then, definearchitecture as the art which seeks to harmonize in a building therequirements of utility and of beauty. It is the most useful of the finearts and the noblest of the useful arts. It touches the life of man atevery point. It is concerned not only in sheltering his person andministering to his comfort, but also in providing him with places forworship, amusement, and business; with tombs, memorials, embellishmentsfor his cities, and other structures for the varied needs of a complexcivilization. It engages the services of a larger portion of thecommunity and involves greater outlays of money than any otheroccupation except agriculture. Everyone at some point comes in contactwith the work of the architect, and from this universal contactarchitecture derives its significance as an index of the civilization ofan age, a race, 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 indifferent lands and ages, and to show how they have reflected the greatmovements of civilization. The migrations, the conquests, thecommercial, social, and religious changes among different peoples haveall manifested themselves in the changes of their architecture, and itis the historian’s function to show this. It is also his function toexplain the principles of the styles, their characteristic forms anddecoration, and to describe the great masterpieces of each style andperiod. +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, thecharacteristic manner of design, which prevails at a given time andplace. It is not the result of mere accident or caprice, but ofintellectual, moral, social, religious, and even political conditions. Gothic architecture could never have been invented by the Greeks, norcould the Egyptian styles have grown up in Italy. Each style is basedupon some fundamental principle springing from its surroundingcivilization, which undergoes successive developments until it eitherreaches perfection or its possibilities are exhausted, after which aperiod of decline usually sets in. This is followed either by a reactionand the introduction of some radically new principle leading to theevolution of a new style, or by the final decay and extinction of thecivilization and its replacement by some younger and more virileelement. Thus the history of architecture appears as a connected chainof causes and effects succeeding each other without break, each stylegrowing out of that which preceded it, or springing out of thefecundating contact of a higher with a lower civilization. To studyarchitectural styles is therefore to study a branch of the history ofcivilization. Technically, architectural styles are identified by the means theyemploy to cover enclosed spaces, by the characteristic forms of thesupports and other members (piers, columns, arches, mouldings, traceries, etc. ), and by their decoration. The +plan+ should receivespecial attention, since it shows the arrangement of the points ofsupport, and hence the nature of the structural design. A comparison, 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 radicaldifference in constructive principle between the two edifices, and hencea difference of style. +STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES. + All architecture is based on one or more ofthree fundamental structural principles; that of the _lintel_, of the_arch_ or _vault_, and of the _truss_. The principle of the +lintel+ isthat of resistance to transverse strains, and appears in allconstruction in which a cross-piece or beam rests on two or morevertical supports. The +arch+ or +vault+ makes use of several pieces tospan an opening between two supports. These pieces are in compressionand exert lateral pressures or _thrusts_ which are transmitted to thesupports or abutments. The thrust must be resisted either by themassiveness of the abutments or by the opposition to it ofcounter-thrusts from other arches or vaults. Roman builders used thefirst, Gothic builders the second of these means of resistance. The+truss+ is a framework so composed of several pieces of wood or metalthat each shall best resist the particular strain, whether of tension orcompression, to which it is subjected, the whole forming a compound beamor arch. It is especially applicable to very wide spans, and is the mostcharacteristic feature of modern construction. How the adoption of oneor another of these principles affected the forms and even thedecoration of the various styles, will be shown in the succeedingchapters. +HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT. + Geographically and chronologically, architectureappears to have originated in the Nile valley. A second centre ofdevelopment is found in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, notuninfluenced by the older Egyptian art. Through various channels theGreeks inherited from both Egyptian and Assyrian art, the two influencesbeing discernible even through the strongly original aspect of Greekarchitecture. The Romans in turn, adopting the external details of Greekarchitecture, transformed its substance by substituting the Etruscanarch for the Greek construction of columns and lintels. They developed acomplete and original system of construction and decoration and spreadit over the civilized world, which has never wholly outgrown orabandoned it. With the fall of Rome and the rise of Constantinople these formsunderwent in the East another transformation, called the Byzantine, inthe development of Christian domical church architecture. In the Northand West, meanwhile, under the growing institutions of the papacy and ofthe monastic orders and the emergence of a feudal civilization out ofthe chaos of the Dark Ages, the constant preoccupation of architecturewas to evolve from the basilica type of church a vaulted structure, andto adorn it throughout with an appropriate dress of constructive andsymbolic ornament. Gothic architecture was the outcome of thispreoccupation, and it prevailed throughout northern and western Europeuntil 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 amarvellous series of civic monuments, palaces, and churches, adornedwith forms borrowed or imitated from classic Roman art. This influencespread through Europe in the sixteenth century, and ran a course of twocenturies, after which a period of servile classicism was followed by arapid decline in taste. To this succeeded the eclecticism and confusionof the nineteenth century, to which the rapid growth of new requirementsand development of new resources have largely contributed. In Eastern lands three great schools of architecture have grown upcontemporaneously with the above phases of Western art; one under theinfluence of Mohammedan civilization, another in the Brahman andBuddhist architecture of India, and the third in China and Japan. Thefirst of these is the richest and most important. Primarily inspiredfrom Byzantine art, always stronger on the decorative than on theconstructive side, it has given to the world the mosques and palaces ofNorthern Africa, Moorish Spain, Persia, Turkey, and India. The other twoschools seem to be wholly unrelated to the first, and have no affinitywith the architecture of Western lands. Of Mexican, Central American, and South American architecture so littleis known, and that little is so remote in history and spirit from thestyles above enumerated, that it belongs rather to archæology than toarchitectural 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 andof the architectural progress of the last few years which could notreadily be introduced into the text of this edition. The GeneralBibliography and the lists of books recommended have been revised andbrought up to date. CHAPTER I. PRIMITIVE AND PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURE. 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 theprocess by which true architecture grew out of the first rude attemptsof man at building. The oldest existing monuments of architecture--thoseof Chaldæa and Egypt--belong to an advanced civilization. The rude andelementary structures built by savage and barbarous peoples, like theHottentots or the tribes of Central Africa, are not in themselves worksof architecture, nor is any instance known of the evolution of acivilized art from such beginnings. So far as the monuments testify, nosavage people ever raised itself to civilization, and no primitivemethod of building was ever developed into genuine architecture, exceptby contact with some existing civilization of which it appropriated thespirit, the processes, and the forms. How the earliest architecture cameinto existence is as yet an unsolved problem. +PRIMITIVE ARCHITECTURE+ is therefore a subject for the archæologistrather than the historian of art, and needs here only the briefestmention. If we may judge of the condition of the primitive races ofantiquity by that of the savage and barbarous peoples of our own time, they required only the simplest kinds of buildings, though the purposeswhich they served were the same as those of later times in civilizedcommunities. A hut or house for shelter, a shrine of some sort forworship, a stockade for defence, a cairn or mound over the grave of thechief or hero, were provided out of the simplest materials, and theseoften of a perishable nature. Poles supplied the framework; wattles, skins, or mud the walls; thatching or stamped earth the roof. Only thesimplest tools were needed for such elementary construction. There wasingenuity and patient labor in work of this kind; but there was noplanning, no fitting together into a complex organism of variedmaterials shaped with art and handled with science. Above all, there wasno progression toward higher ideals of fitness and beauty. Rudimentaryart displayed itself mainly in objects of worship, or in carvings oncanoes and weapons, executed as talismans to ward off misfortune or tocharm the unseen powers; but even this art was sterile and never grew ofitself into civilized and progressive art. Yet there must have been at some point in the remote past an exceptionto this rule. Somewhere and somehow the people of Egypt must havedeveloped from crude beginnings the architectural knowledge and resourcewhich meet us in the oldest monuments, though every vestige of thatearly age has apparently perished. But although nothing has come down tous of the actual work of the builders who wrought in the primitive agesof mankind, there exist throughout Europe and Asia almost countlessmonuments of a primitive character belonging to relatively recent times, but executed before the advent of historic civilization to the regionswhere they are found. A general resemblance among them suggests a commonheritage of traditions from the hoariest antiquity, and throws light onthe probable character of the transition from barbaric to civilizedarchitecture. +PREHISTORIC MONUMENTS. + These monuments vary widely as well as inexcellence; some of them belong to Roman or even Christian times; othersto a much remoter period. They are divided into two principal classes, the megalithic structures and lake dwellings. The latter class may bedismissed with the briefest mention. It comprises a considerable numberof very primitive houses or huts built on wooden piles in the lakes ofSwitzerland and several other countries in both hemispheres, and formingin some cases villages of no mean size. Such villages, built over thewater for protection from attack, are mentioned by the writers ofantiquity and portrayed on Assyrian reliefs. The objects found in themreveal an incipient but almost stationary civilization, extending backfrom three thousand to five thousand years or more, and lasting throughthe ages of stone and bronze down into historic times. The +megalithic+ remains of Europe and Asia are far more important. Theyare very widely distributed, and consist in most cases of great blocksof stone arranged in rows, circles, or avenues, sometimes with hugelintels 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 giganticsize, some roughly hewn into shape; others left as when quarried. Theirage and purpose have been much discussed without reaching positiveresults. It is probable that, like the lake dwellings, they cover a longrange of time, reaching from the dawn of recorded history some thousandsof years back into the unknown past, and that they were erected by raceswhich have disappeared before the migrations to which Europe owes herpresent populations. That most of them were in some way connected withthe worship of these prehistoric peoples is generally admitted; butwhether as temples, tombs, or memorials of historical or mythical eventscannot, in all cases, be positively asserted. They were not dwellings orpalaces, and very few were even enclosed buildings. They are imposing bythe size and number of their immense stones, but show no sign ofadvanced art, or of conscious striving after beauty of design. The smallnumber of “carved stones, ” bearing singular ornamental patterns, symbolic or mystical rather than decorative in intention, really tendsto prove this statement rather than to controvert it. It is notimpossible that the dolmens were generally intended to be covered bymounds of earth. This would group them with the tumuli referred tobelow, and point to a sepulchral purpose in their erection. Someantiquaries, Fergusson among them, contend that many of the Europeancircles 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 andItaly will be referred to in later chapters. They belong to a moreadvanced art, some of them even deserving to be classed among works ofarchaic architecture. The +tumuli+, or burial mounds, which form so large a part of theprehistoric remains of both continents, are interesting to the architectonly as revealing the prototypes of the pyramids of Egypt and thesubterranean tombs of Mycenæ and other early Greek centres. The pilingof huge cairns or commemorative heaps of stone is known from theScriptures and other ancient writings to have been a custom of thegreatest antiquity. The pyramids and the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus arethe most imposing and elaborate outgrowths of this practice, of whichthe prehistoric tumuli are the simpler manifestations. These crude and elementary products of undeveloped civilizations have noplace, however, in any list of genuine architectural works. They belongrather to the domain of archæology and ethnology, and have received thisbrief mention only as revealing the beginnings of the builder’s art, andthe wide gap that separates them from that genuine architecture whichforms 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. CHAPTER II. EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Champollion, _Monuments de l’Egypte et de la Nubie_. Choisy, _L’art de bâtir chez les Egyptiens_. Flinders-Petrie, _History of Egypt; Ten Years Digging in Egypt, 1881-91_. Jomard, _Description de l’Egypte, Antiquités_. Lepsius, _Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien_. Mariette, _Monuments of Upper Egypt_. Maspero, _Egyptian Archæology_. Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Ancient Egypt_. Prisse d’Avennes, _Histoire de l’art égyptien_. 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 peoplealready highly civilized, and skilled in the arts of peace and war. Thenarrow valley of the Nile, fertilized by the periodic overflow of theriver, was flanked by rocky heights, nearly vertical in many places, which afforded abundance of excellent building stone, while they bothisolated the Egyptians and protected them from foreign aggression. Atthe Delta, however, the valley widened out, with the falling away ofthese heights, into broad lowlands, from which there was access to theouter 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 tendynasties, 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 atThebes. The Hyksos invasion, or incursion of the Shepherd Kings, interrupted thecurrent of Egyptian art history for a period of unknown length, probablynot less than four or five centuries. III. THE SECOND THEBAN MONARCHY (1700?-1000 B. C. ), comprising theeighteenth to twentieth dynasties inclusive, was the great period ofEgyptian history; the age of conquests and of vast edifices. IV. THE DECADENCE or SAITIC PERIOD (1000-324 B. C. ), comprising thedynasties twenty-one to thirty (Saitic, Bubastid, Ethiopic, etc. ), reigning at Sais, Tanis, and Bubastis, and the Persian conquest;a period 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 Ptolemaicor Macedonian and Roman dominations. +THE ANCIENT EMPIRE: THE PYRAMIDS. + The great works of this period arealmost exclusively sepulchral, and include the most ancient buildings ofwhich we have any remains. While there is little of strictlyarchitectural art, the overwhelming size and majesty of the Pyramids, and the audacity and skill shown in their construction, entitle them tothe first place in any sketch of this period. They number over ahundred, scattered in six groups, from Abu-Roash in the north to Meidoumin the south, and are of various shapes and sizes. They are all royaltombs and belong to the first twelve dynasties; each contains asepulchral chamber, and each at one time possessed a small chapeladjacent to it, but this has, in almost every case, perished. Three pyramids surpass all the rest by their prodigious size; these areat Ghizeh and belong to the fourth dynasty. They are known by the namesof their builders; the oldest and greatest being that of +Cheops+, orKhufu;[1] the second, that of +Chephren+, or Khafra; and the third, thatof +Mycerinus+, or Menkhara. Other smaller ones stand at the feet ofthese 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. ] [Illustration: FIG. 1. --SECTION OF GREAT PYRAMID. A, _King’s Chamber_; b, _Queen’s Chamber_; c, _Chamber cut in Rock_. ] The base of the “Great Pyramid” measures 764 feet on a side; its heightis 482 feet, and its volume must have originally been nearly three andone-half million cubic yards (Fig.  1). It is constructed of limestoneupon a plateau of rock levelled to receive it, and was finishedexternally, like its two neighbors, with a coating of polished stone, supposed by some to have been disposed in bands of different coloredgranites, but of which it was long ago despoiled. It contained threeprincipal chambers and an elaborate system of inclined passages, allexecuted in finely cut granite and limestone. The sarcophagus was in theuppermost chamber, above which the superincumbent weight was relieved byopen spaces and a species of rudimentary arch of Λ-shape (Fig.  2). Theother two pyramids differ from that of Cheops in the details of theirarrangement and in size, not in the principle of their construction. Chephren is 454 feet high, with a base 717 feet square. Mycerinus, whichstill retains its casing of pink granite, is but 218 feet in height, with a base 253 feet on a side. [Illustration: FIG. 2. --SECTION OF KING’S CHAMBER. ] Among the other pyramids there is considerable variety both of type andmaterial. At Sakkarah is one 190 feet high, constructed in six unequalsteps on a slightly oblong base measuring nearly 400 × 357 feet. It wasattributed by Mariette to Ouenephes, of the first dynasty, though nowmore generally ascribed to Senefrou of the third. At Abu-Seir andMeidoum are other stepped pyramids; at Dashour is one having a brokenslope, the lower part steeper than the upper. Several at Meroë withunusually steep slopes belong to the Ethiopian dynasties of theDecadence. A number of pyramids are built of brick. [Illustration: FIG. 3. --PLAN OF SPHINX TEMPLE. ] +TOMBS. + The Ancient Empire has also left us a great number of tombs ofthe type known as _Mastabas_. These are oblong rectangular structures ofstone or brick with slightly inclined sides and flat ceilings. Theyuniformly face the east, and are internally divided into three parts;the chamber or chapel, the _serdab_, and the well. In the first ofthese, next the entrance, were placed the offerings made to the _Ka_ or“double, ” for whom also scenes of festivity or worship were carved andpainted on its walls to minister to his happiness in his incorporeallife. The serdabs, or secret inner chambers, of which there were severalin each mastaba, contained statues of the defunct, by which theexistence and identity of the Ka were preserved. Finally came the well, leading to the mummy chamber, deep underground, which contained thesarcophagus. The sarcophagi, both of this and later ages, are goodexamples of the minor architecture of Egypt; many of them are panelledin imitation of wooden construction and richly decorated with color, symbols, and hieroglyphs. [Illustration: FIG. 4. --RUINS OF SPHINX TEMPLE. ] +OTHER MONUMENTS. + Two other monuments of the Ancient Empire also claimattention: the +Sphinx+ and the adjacent so-called “+Sphinx temple+” atGhizeh. The first of these, a huge sculpture carved from the rock, represents Harmachis in the form of a human-headed lion. It isordinarily 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 toit lie the nearly buried ruins of the temple once supposed to be that ofthe Sphinx, but now proved by Petrie to have been erected in connectionwith the second pyramid. The plan and present aspect of this venerableedifice are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The hall was roofed with stonelintels carried on sixteen square monolithic piers of alabaster. Thewhole was buried in a rectangular mass of masonry and revettedinternally with alabaster, but was wholly destitute internally as wellas externally of decoration or even of mouldings. With the exception ofscanty remains of a few of the pyramid-temples or chapels, and thetemple discovered by Petrie in Meidoum, it is the only survival from thetemple architecture of that early age. [Illustration: FIG. 5. --TOMB AT ABYDOS. ] [Illustration: FIG. 6. --TOMB AT BENI-HASSAN. ] +THE MIDDLE EMPIRE: TOMBS. + The monuments of this period, as of thepreceding, are almost wholly sepulchral. We now encounter two types oftombs. One, structural and pyramidal, is represented by many examples atAbydos, 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 littleartistic interest. The second type is that of tombs cut in the verticalcliffs of the west bank of the Nile Valley. The entrance to these faceseastward as required by tradition; the remoter end of the excavationpointing toward the land of the Sun of Night. But such tunnels onlybecome works of architecture when, in addition to the customary muralpaintings, they receive a decorative treatment in the design of theirstructural forms. Such a treatment appears in several tombs atBeni-Hassan, in which columns are reserved in cutting away the rock, both in the chapel-chambers and in the vestibules or porches whichprecede them. These columns are polygonal in some cases, clustered inothers. The former type, with eight, sixteen, or thirty-two sides (inthese last the _arrises_ or edges are emphasized by a slight concavityin each face, like embryonic fluting), have a square abacus, suggestingthe Greek Doric order, and giving rise to the name _proto-Doric_(Fig.  6). Columns of this type are also found at Karnak, Kalabshé, Amada, and Abydos. A reminiscence of primitive wood construction is seenin the dentils over the plain architrave of the entrance, which in otherrespects recalls the triple entrances to certain mastabas of the OldEmpire. These dentils are imitations of the ends of rafters, and to somearchæologists suggest a wooden origin for the whole system of columnardesign. But these rock-cut shafts and heavy architraves in no respectresemble wooden prototypes, but point rather to an imitation cut in therock of a well-developed, pre-existing system of stone construction, some of whose details, however, were undoubtedly derived from earlymethods of building in wood. The vault was below the chapel and reachedby a separate entrance. The serdab was replaced by a niche in which wasthe figure of the defunct carved from the native rock. Some of the tombsemployed in the chapel-chamber columns of quatrefoil section withcapitals like clustered buds (Fig.  7), and this type became in the nextperiod one of the most characteristic forms of Egyptian architecture. [Illustration: FIG. 7. --SECTION AND HALF-PLAN OF A TOMB AT BENI-HASSAN. ] +TEMPLES. + Of the temples of this period only two have left any remainsof importance. Both belong to the twelfth dynasty (cir. 2200 B. C. ). Ofone of these many badly shattered fragments have been found in the ruinsof Bubastis; these show the clustered type of lotus-bud column mentionedabove. The other, of which a few columns have been identified among theruins of the Great Temple at Karnak, constituted the oldest part of thatvast agglomeration of religious edifices, and employed columns of theso-called proto-Doric type. From these remains it appears thatstructural stone columns as well as those cut in the rock were used atthis early period (2200 B. C. ). Indeed, it is probable that the wholearchitectural system of the New Empire was based on models developed inthe age we are considering; that the use of multiplied columns ofvarious types and the building of temples of complex plan adorned withcolossal statues, obelisks, and painted reliefs, were perfectlyunderstood and practised in this period. But the works it produced haveperished, having been most probably demolished to make way for the moresumptuous edifices of later times. +THE NEW EMPIRE. + This was the grand age of Egyptian architecture andhistory. An extraordinary series of mighty men ruled the empire during along period following the expulsion of the Hyksos usurpers. The names ofThothmes, Amenophis, Hatasu, Seti, and Rameses made glorious theeighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. Foreign conquests in Ethiopia, Syria, and Assyria enlarged the territory and increased the splendor ofthe empire. The majority of the most impressive ruins of Egypt belong tothis period, and it was in these buildings that the characteristicelements of Egyptian architecture were brought to perfection and carriedout on the grandest scale. [Illustration: FIG. 8. --PLAN OF THE RAMESSEUM. A, _Sanctuary_; b, _Hypostyle Hall_; c, _Second court_; d, _Entrance court_; e, _Pylons_. ] +TOMBS OF THE NEW EMPIRE. + Some of these are structural, othersexcavated; both types displaying considerable variety in arrangement anddetail. The rock-cut tombs of Bab-el-Molouk, among which are twenty-fiveroyal sepulchres, are striking both by the simplicity of their openingsand the depth and complexity of their shafts, tunnels, and chambers. From the pipe-like length of their tunnels they have since the time ofHerodotus been known by the name _syrinx_. Every precaution was taken tolead astray and baffle the intending violator of their sanctity. Theypenetrated hundreds of feet into the rock; their chambers, often formedwith columns and vault-like roofs, were resplendent with colored reliefsand ornament destined to solace and sustain the shadowy Ka until thesoul itself, the Ba, should arrive before the tribunal of Osiris, theSun of Night. Most impressively do these brilliant pictures, [2] intendedto be forever shut away from human eyes, attest the sincerity of theEgyptian 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, containingthe Ka-statues and often the chapel, as well as the mummy, the royaltomb demanded something more elaborate in scale and arrangement. In somecases external structures of temple-form took the place of theunderground chapel and serdab. The royal effigy, many times repeated inpainting and sculpture throughout this temple-like edifice, and flankingits gateways with colossal seated figures, made buried Ka-statuesunnecessary. Of these sepulchral temples three are of the firstmagnitude. They are that of +Queen Hatasu+ (XVIIIth dynasty) atDeir-el-Bahari; that of +Rameses II. + (XIXth dynasty), the +Ramesseum+, near by to the southwest; and that of +Rameses III. + (XXth dynasty) atMedinet Abou still further to the southwest. Like the tombs, these wereall on the west side of the Nile; so also was the sepulchral temple ofAmenophis III. (XVIIIth dynasty), the +Amenopheum+, of which hardly atrace remains except the two seated colossi which, rising from theTheban plain, have astonished travellers from the times of Pausanias andStrabo down to our own. These mutilated figures, one of which has beenknown ever since classic times as the “vocal Memnon, ” are 56 feet high, and once flanked the entrance to the forecourt of the temple ofAmenophis. The plan of the Ramesseum, with its sanctuary, hypostylehall, and forecourts, its pylons and obelisks, is shown in Figure 8, andmay be compared with those of other temples given on pp. 17 and 18. Thatof Medinet Abou resembles it closely. The Ramesseum occupies a rectangleof 590 × 182 feet; the temple of Medinet Abou measures 500 × 160 feet, not counting the extreme width of the entrance pylons. The temple ofHatasu at Deir-el-Bahari is partly excavated and partly structural, a model which is also followed on a smaller scale in several lessertombs. Such an edifice is called a _hemispeos_. CHAPTER III. EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE--_Continued_. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Same as for Chapter II. +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 thekings devoted, and successive monarchs found no more splendid outlet fortheir piety and ambition than the founding of new temples or theextension and adornment of those already existing. By the forced laborof thousands of fellaheen (the system is in force to this day and isknown as the _corvée_) architectural piles of vast extent could beerected within the lifetime of a monarch. As in the tombs the internalwalls bore pictures for the contemplation of the Ka, so in the templesthe external walls, for the glory of the king and the delectation of thepeople, were covered with colored reliefs reciting the monarch’sglorious deeds. Internally the worship and attributes of the gods wererepresented in a similar manner, in endless iteration. [Illustration: FIG. 9. --TEMPLE OF EDFOU. PLAN. ] [Illustration: FIG. 10. --TEMPLE OF EDFOU. SECTION. ] +THE TEMPLE SCHEME. + This is admirably shown in the temple of Khonsu, atKarnak, built by Rameses III. (XXth dynasty), and in the temple of Edfou(Figs. 9 and 10), though this belongs to the Roman period. It compriseda sanctuary or _sekos_, a hypostyle (columnar) hall, known as the “hallof assembly, ” and a forecourt preceded by a double pylon or gateway. Each of these parts might be made more or less complex in differenttemples, but the essential features are encountered everywhere under allchanges of form. The building of a temple began with the sanctuary, which contained the sacred chamber and the shrine of the god, withsubordinate rooms for the priests and for various rites and functions. These chambers were low, dark, mysterious, accessible only to thepriests and king. They were given a certain dignity by being raised upona sort of platform above the general level, and reached by a few steps. They were sumptuously decorated internally with ritual pictures inrelief. The hall was sometimes loftier, but set on a slightly lowerlevel; its massive columns supported a roof of stone lintels, and lightwas admitted either through clearstory windows under the roof of acentral portion higher than the sides, as at Karnak, or over a lowscreen-wall built between the columns of the front row, as at Edfou andDenderah. 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 thehall, or again was wholly wanting. The _pylons_ were twin buttress-likemasses flanking the entrance gate of the court. They were shaped likeoblong truncated pyramids, crowned by flaring cornices, and weredecorated on the outer face with masts carrying banners, with obelisks, or with seated colossal figures of the royal builder. An avenue ofsphinxes formed the approach to the entrance, and the whole templeprecinct was surrounded by a wall, usually of crude brick, pierced byone or more gates with or without pylons. The piety of successivemonarchs was displayed in the addition of new hypostyle halls, courts, pylons, or obelisks, by which the temple was successively extended inlength, and sometimes also in width, by the increased dimensions of thenew courts. The great Temple of Karnak most strikingly illustrates thisgrowth. Begun by Osourtesen (XIIth dynasty) more than 2000 years B. C. , it was not completed in its present form until the time of thePtolemies, when the last of the pylons and external gates were erected. [Illustration: FIG. 11. --TEMPLE OF KARNAK. PLAN. ] 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 noforecourt. At Deir-el-Medineh the hall of the Ptolemaic Hathor-temple isa mere porch in two parts, while the enclosure within the circuit walltakes the place of the forecourt. At Karnak all the parts were repeatedseveral times, and under Amenophis III. (XVIIIth dynasty) a wing wasbuilt at a nearly right angle to the main structure. At Luxor, to acomplete typical temple were added three aisles of an unfinishedhypostyle hall, and an elaborate forecourt, whose axis is inclined tothat of the other buildings, owing to a bend of the river at that point. At Abydos a complex sanctuary of many chambers extends southeast atright angles to the general mass, and the first court is withoutcolumns. But in all these structures a certain unity of effect isproduced by the lofty pylons, the flat roofs diminishing in height oversuccessive portions from the front to the sanctuary, the slopingwindowless walls covered with carved and painted pictures, and the dimand massive interiors of the columnar halls. +TEMPLES OF KARNAK. + Of these various temples that of +Amen-Ra+ isincomparably the largest and most imposing. Its construction extendedthrough the whole duration of the New Empire, of whose architecture itis a splendid _résumé_ (Fig. 11). Its extreme length is 1, 215 feet, andits greatest width 376 feet. The sanctuary and its accessories, mainlybuilt by Thothmes I. And Thothmes III. , cover an area nearly 456 × 290feet in extent, and comprise two hypostyle halls and countless smallerhalls and chambers. It is preceded by a narrow columnar vestibule andtwo pylons enclosing a columnar atrium and two obelisks. This is enteredfrom the +Great Hypostyle Hall+ (h in Fig. 11; Fig. 12), the noblestsingle work of Egyptian architecture, measuring 340 × 170 feet, andcontaining 134 columns in sixteen rows, supporting a massive stone roof. The central columns with bell-capitals are 70 feet high and nearly 12feet in diameter; the others are smaller and lower, with lotus-budcapitals, supporting a roof lower than that over the three centralaisles. A clearstory of stone-grated windows makes up the difference inheight between these two roofs. The interior, thus lighted, was splendidwith painted reliefs, which helped not only to adorn the hall but togive scale to its massive parts. The whole stupendous creation was thework of three kings--Rameses I. , Seti I. , and Rameses II. (XIXthdynasty). [Illustration: FIG. 12. --CENTRAL PORTION OF HYPOSTYLE HALL AT KARNAK. (From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York. )] In front of it was the great court, flanked by columns, and stillshowing the ruins of a central avenue of colossal pillars begun, butnever completed, by the Bubastid kings of the XXIId dynasty. One or twosmaller structures and the curious lateral wing built by Amenophis III. , interrupt the otherwise orderly and symmetrical advance of this planfrom 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 beenalluded to as a typical example of templar design. Next to Karnak inimportance comes the +Temple of Luxor+ in its immediate neighborhood. Ithas two forecourts adorned with double-aisled colonnades and connectedby what seems to be an unfinished hypostyle hall. The +Ramesseum+ andthe temples of +Medinet Abou+ and +Deir-El-Bahari+ have already beenmentioned (p.  15). At Gournah and Abydos are the next most celebratedtemples of this period; the first famous for its rich clusteredlotus-columns, the latter for its beautiful sanctuary chambers, dedicated each to a different deity, and covered with delicate paintedreliefs of the time of Seti I. [Illustration: FIG. 13. --GREAT TEMPLE OF IPSAMBOUL. ] +GROTTO TEMPLES. + Two other styles of temple remain to be noticed. Thefirst is the subterranean or grotto temple, of which the two mostfamous, at Ipsamboul (Abou-simbel), were excavated by Rameses II. Theyare truly colossal conceptions, reproducing in the native rock the mainfeatures of structural temples, the court being represented by thelarger of two chambers in the Greater Temple (Fig. 13) Their façades areadorned with colossal seated figures of the builder; the smaller hasalso two effigies of Nefert-Ari, his consort. Nothing more striking andboldly impressive is to be met with in Egypt than these singularrock-cut façades. Other rock-cut temples of more modest dimensions areat Addeh, Feraig, Beni-Hassan (the “Speos Artemidos”), Beit-el-Wali, andSilsileh. At Gherf-Hossein, Asseboua, and Derri are temples partlyexcavated and partly structural. +PERIPTERAL TEMPLES. + The last type of temple to be noticed isrepresented by only three or four structures of moderate size; it is the_peripteral_, in which a small chamber is surrounded by columns, usuallymounted on a terrace with vertical walls. They were mere chapels, butare among the most graceful of existing ruins. At Philæ are twostructures, one by Nectanebo, the other Ptolemaic, resembling peripteraltemples, but without cella-chambers or roofs. They may have beenwaiting-courts for the adjoining temples. That at Elephantine (AmenophisIII. ) has square piers at the sides, and columns only at the ends. Another by Thothmes II. , at Medinet Abou, formed only a part (thesekos?) of a larger plan. At Edfou is another, belonging to thePtolemaic period. +LATER TEMPLES. + After the architectural inaction of the Decadence camea marvellous recrudescence of splendor under the Ptolemies, whoseHellenic origin and sympathies did not lead them into the mistakeneffort to impose Greek models upon Egyptian art. The temples erectedunder their dominion, and later under Roman rule, vied with the grandestworks of the Ramessidæ, and surpassed them in the rich elaboration andvariety of their architectural details. The temple at Edfou (Figs. 9, 10, 14) is the most perfectly preserved, and conforms most closely tothe typical plan; that of Isis, at Philæ, is the most elaborate andornate. Denderah also possesses a group of admirably preserved templesof the same period. At Esneh, and at Kalabshé and Kardassy or Ghertashiin Nubia are others. In all these one notes innovations of detail and astriving for effect quite different from the simpler majesty of thepreceding age (Fig. 14). One peculiar feature is the use of screen wallsbuilt into the front rows of columns of the hypostyle hall. Light wasadmitted above these walls, which measured about half the height of thecolumns and were interrupted at the centre by a curious doorway cutthrough their whole height and without any lintel. Long disused types ofcapital were revived and others greatly elaborated; and the wall-reliefswere arranged in bands and panels with a regularity and symmetry ratherGreek than Egyptian. [Illustration: FIG. 14. --EDFOU. FRONT OF HYPOSTYLE HALL. ] +ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. + With the exception of a few purely utilitarianvaulted structures, all Egyptian architecture was based on the principleof the lintel. Artistic splendor depended upon the use of painted andcarved pictures, and the decorative treatment of the very simplesupports employed. Piers and columns sustained the roofs of suchchambers as were too wide for single lintels, and produced, in hallslike those of Karnak, of the Ramesseum, or of Denderah, a stupendouseffect by their height, massiveness, number, and colored decoration. Thesimplest piers were plain square shafts; others, more elaborate, hadlotus stalks and flowers or heads of Hathor carved upon them. The moststriking were those against whose front faces were carved colossalfigures of Osiris, as at Luxor, Medmet Abou, and Karnak (Fig. 15). Thecolumns, which were seldom over six diameters in height, were treatedwith greater variety; the shafts, slightly tapering upward, were eitherround or clustered in section, and usually contracted at the base. Thecapitals with which they were crowned were usually of one of the fivechief types described below. Besides round and clustered shafts, theMiddle Empire and a few of the earlier monuments of the New Empireemployed polygonal or slightly fluted shafts (see p.  11), as at BeniHassan and Karnak; these had a plain square abacus, with sometimes acushion-like echinus beneath it. A round plinth served as a base formost of the columns. [Illustration: FIG. 15. --OSIRID PIER (MEDINET ABOU). ] +CAPITALS. + The five chief types of capital were: a, the plain lotusbud, 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 headsof Hathor adorn the four faces of a cubical mass surmounted by a modelof a shrine (Sedinga, Edfou, Denderah, Esneh). These types were richlyembellished and varied by the Ptolemaic architects, who gave a clusteredor quatrefoil plan to the bell-capital, or adorned its surface with palmleaves. A few other forms are met with as exceptions. The first four areshown in Fig.  16. Every part of the column was richly decorated in color. Lotus-leaves orpetals swathed the swelling lower part of the shaft, which was elsewherecovered 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 andpapyrus. [Illustration: FIG. 16. --TYPES OF COLUMN. A, _Campaniform_; b, _Clustered Lotus-Column_; c, _Simple Lotus-Column_; d, _Palm-Column_. ] The lintels were plain and square in section, and often of prodigioussize. Where they appeared externally they were crowned with a simplecavetto cornice, its curved surface covered with colored flutingsalternating with _cartouches_ of hieroglyphics. Sometimes, especially onthe screen walls of the Ptolemaic age, this was surmounted by a crestingof adders or uræi in closely serried rank. No other form of cornice orcresting is met with. Mouldings as a means of architectural effect weresingularly lacking in Egyptian architecture. The only moulding known isthe clustered torus (_torus_ = a convex moulding of semicircularprofile), which resembles a bundle of reeds tied together with cords orribbons. It forms an astragal under the cavetto cornice and runs downthe angles of the pylons and walls. [Illustration: FIG. 17. --EGYPTIAN FLORAL ORNAMENT-FORMS. ] +POLYCHROMY AND ORNAMENT. + Color was absolutely essential to thedecorative scheme. In the vast and dim interiors, as well as in theblinding glare of the sun, mere sculpture or relief would have beenwasted. The application of brilliant color to pictorial forms cut in lowrelief, or outlined by deep incision with the edges of the figuresdelicately rounded (_intaglio rilievo_) was the most appropriatetreatment possible. The walls and columns were covered with picturestreated in this way, and the ceilings and lintels were embellished withsymbolic forms in the same manner. All the ornaments, as distinguishedfrom the paintings, were symbolical, at least in their origin. Over thegateway was the solar disk or globe with wide-spread wings, the symbolof the sun winging its way to the conquest of night; upon the ceilingwere sacred vultures, zodiacs, or stars spangled on a blue ground. Externally the temples presented only masses of unbroken wall; butthese, as well as the pylons, were covered with huge pictures of ahistorical character. Only in the tombs do we find painted ornament of apurely conventional sort (Fig. 17). Rosettes, diaper patterns, spirals, and checkers are to be met with in them; but many of these can be tracedto 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 ofRameses III. At Medinet Abou, and another at Semneh. The Royal Labyrinthhas so completely perished that even its site is uncertain. TheEgyptians lived so much out of doors that the house was a less importantedifice than in colder climates. Egyptian dwellings were probably inmost cases built of wood or crude brick, and their disappearance is thuseasily explained. Relief pictures on the monuments indicate the use ofwooden framing for the walls, which were probably filled in with crudebrick or panels of wood. The architecture was extremely simple. Gatewayslike those of the temples on a smaller scale, the cavetto cornice on thewalls, and here and there a porch with carved columns of wood or stone, were the only details pretending to elegance. The ground-plans of manyhouses in ruined cities, as at Tel-el-Amarna and a nameless city ofAmenophis IV. , are discernible in the ruins; but the superstructures arewholly wanting. It was in religious and sepulchral architecture that theconstructive and artistic genius of the Egyptians was most fullymanifested. +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 Meroë are pyramids of the Ethiopic kings of the Decadence. Temples of the Ptolemaic period: Philæ, Denderah. Temples of the Roman period: Koum Ombos, Edfou; Kalabshé, Kardassy and Dandour in Nubia; Esneh. CHAPTER IV. CHALDÆAN AND ASSYRIAN ARCHITECTURE. 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 Chaldæa and Susiana_. Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Chaldæa and Assyria_. Peters, _Nippur_. Place, _Ninive et l’Assyrie_. +SITUATION; HISTORIC PERIODS. + The Tigro-Euphrates valley was the seatof a civilization nearly or quite as old as that of the Nile, thoughinferior in its monumental art. The kingdoms of Chaldæa and Assyriawhich ruled in this valley, sometimes as rivals and sometimes assubjects one of the other, differed considerably in character andculture. But the scarcity of timber and the lack of good building-stoneexcept in the limestone table-lands and more distant mountains of upperMesopotamia, the abundance of clay, and the flatness of the country, imposed upon the builders of both nations similar restrictions ofconception, form, and material. Both peoples, moreover, were probably, in part at least, of Semitic race. [4] The Chaldæans attainedcivilization as early as 4000 B. C. , and had for centuries maintainedfixed institutions and practised the arts and sciences when theAssyrians began their career as a nation of conquerors by reducingChaldæa to subjection. [Footnote 4: This is denied by some recent writers, so far as the Chaldæans are concerned, and is not intended here to apply to the Accadians and Summerians of primitive Chaldæa. ] The history of Chaldæo-Assyrian art may be divided into three mainperiods, as follows: 1. The EARLY CHALDÆAN, 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 Chaldæa, have uncovered ruins older than thePyramids. Though of slight importance architecturally, they reveal theearly knowledge of the arch and the possession of an advanced culture. The poverty of the building materials of this region afforded only themost limited resources for architectural effect. Owing to the flatnessof the country and the impracticability of building lofty structureswith sun-dried bricks, elevation above the plain could be secured onlyby erecting buildings of moderate height upon enormous mounds orterraces, built of crude brick and faced with hard brick or stone. Thisled to the development of the stepped pyramid as the typical form ofChaldæo-Assyrian architecture. Thick walls were necessary both forstability and for protection from the burning heat of that climate. Thelack of stone for columns and the difficulty of procuring heavy beamsfor long spans made broad halls and chambers impossible. The plans ofAssyrian palaces look like assemblages of long corridors and small cells(Fig. 18). Neither the wooden post nor the column played any part inthis 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 thedrainage-tunnels under the terraces, made necessary by the heavyrainfall. What these structures lacked in durability and height was madeup in decorative magnificence. The interior walls were wainscoted to aheight of eight or nine feet with alabaster slabs covered with thoselow-relief pictures of hunting scenes, battles, and gods, which nowenrich the museums of London, Paris, and other modern cities. Elsewherepainted plaster or more durable enamelled tile in brilliant colorsembellished the walls, and, doubtless, rugs and tapestries added theirrichness 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. ] [Illustration: FIG. 18. --PALACE OF SARGON AT KHORSABAD. ] +CHALDÆAN ARCHITECTURE. + The ruins at Mugheir (the Biblical Ur), dating, perhaps, from 2200 B. C. , belong to the two-storied terrace or platformof a temple to Sin or Hurki. The wall of sun-dried brick is faced withenamelled tile. The shrine, which was probably small, has whollydisappeared from the summit of the mound. At Warka (the ancient Erech)are two terrace-walls of palaces, one of which is ornamented with convexflutings and with a species of mosaic in checker patterns and zigzags, formed by terra-cotta cones or spikes driven into the clay, theirexposed bases being enamelled in the desired colors. The other shows asystem of long, narrow panels, in a style suggesting the influence ofEgyptian models through some as yet unknown channel. This panellingbecame a common feature of the later Assyrian art (see Fig. 19). AtBirs-Nimroud are the ruins of a stepped pyramid surmounted by a smallshrine. Its seven stages are said to have been originally faced withglazed 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 Chaldæa, to which the shapeless mounds ofMujehbeh and Kasr seem to have belonged, has left no other recognizablevestige of its ancient magnificence. +ASSYRIAN ARCHITECTURE. + Abundant ruins exist of Nineveh, the Assyriancapital, 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 palacesof Shalmaneser II. (850 B. C. ) at Nimroud; the great palace of Sargon atKhorsabad (721 B. C. ); that of Sennacherib at Koyunjik (704 B. C. ); ofEsarhaddon at Nimroud (650 B. C. ); and of Assur-bani-pal at Koyunjik (660B. 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 acomplex series of long, narrow halls and small, square chambers. Onecourt probably belonged to the harem, another to the king’s apartments, others to dependents and to the service of the palace. The crude brickwalls are immensely thick and without windows, the only openings beingfor doors. The absence of columns made wide halls impossible, and greatsize could only be attained in the direction of length. A terracedpyramid supported an altar or shrine to the southwest of the palace; atthe west corner was a temple, the substructure of which was crowned by acavetto cornice showing plainly the influence of Egyptian models. Thewhole palace stood upon a stupendous platform faced with cut stone, anunaccustomed extravagance in Assyria. [Illustration: FIG. 19. --GATE, KHORSABAD. ] +ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. + There is no evidence that the Assyrians everused columnar supports except in minor or accessory details. There arefew halls in any of the ruins too wide to be spanned by good Syriancedar beams or palm timbers, and these few cases seem to have hadvaulted ceilings. So clumsy a feature as the central wall in the greathall of Esarhaddon’s palace at Nimroud would never have been resorted tofor the support of the ceiling, had the Assyrians been familiar with theuse of columns. That they understood the arch and vault is proved bytheir admirable terrace-drains and the fine arched gate in the walls ofKhorsabad (Fig. 19), as well as by bas-reliefs representing dwellingswith domes of various forms. Moreover, a few vaulted chambers ofmoderate size, and fallen fragments of crude brick vaulting of largerspan, have been found in several of the Assyrian ruins. The construction was extremely simple. The heavy clay walls were facedwith alabaster, burned brick, or enamelled tiles. The roofs wereprobably covered with stamped earth, and sometimes paved on top withtiles or slabs of alabaster to form terraces. Light was introduced mostprobably through windows immediately under the roof and divided by smallcolumns forming mullions, as suggested by certain relief pictures. Noother system seems consistent with the windowless walls of the ruins. Itis possible that many rooms depended wholly on artificial light or onthe scant rays coming through open doors. To this day, in the hot seasonthe population of Mosul takes refuge from the torrid heats of summer inwindowless basements lighted only by lamps. +ORNAMENT. + The only structural decorations seem to have been thepanelling of exterior walls in a manner resembling the Chaldæanterrace-walls, and a form of parapet like a stepped cresting. There wereno characteristic mouldings, architraves, capitals, or cornices. Nearlyall the ornament was of the sort called _applied_, _i. E. _, added afterthe completion of the structure itself. Pictures in low relief coveredthe alabaster revetment. They depicted hunting-scenes, battles, deities, and other mythological subjects, and are interesting to the architectmainly for their occasional representations of buildings and details ofconstruction. Above this wainscot were friezes of enamelled brickornamented 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 windingabout regularly spaced buttons or eyes). These ornaments were also usedon the archivolts around the great arches of palace gates. The mostsingular adornments of these gates were the carved “portal guardians”set into the deep jambs--colossal monsters with the bodies of bulls, thewings of eagles, and human heads of terrible countenance. Of mightybulk, they were yet minutely wrought in every detail of head-dress, beard, feathers, curly hair, and anatomy. [Illustration: FIG. 20. --ASSYRIAN ORNAMENT. ] The purely conventional ornaments mentioned above--the rosette, guilloche, and lotus-flower, and probably also the palmette, werederived from Egyptian originals. They were treated, however, in a quitenew spirit and adapted to the special materials and uses of theirenvironment. Thus the form of the palmette, even if derived, as is notunlikely, from the Egyptian lotus-motive, was assimilated to the morefamiliar palm-forms of Assyria (Fig. 20). Assyrian architecture never rivalled the Egyptian in grandeur orconstructive power, in seriousness, or the higher artistic qualities. Itdid, however, produce imposing results with the poorest resources, andin its use of the arch and its development of ornamental forms itfurnished prototypes for some of the most characteristic features oflater Asiatic art, which profoundly influenced both Greek and Byzantinearchitecture. +MONUMENTS+: The most important Chaldæan 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. CHAPTER V. PERSIAN, LYCIAN AND JEWISH ARCHITECTURE. 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 Judæa_. Texier, _L’Arménie et la Perse_; _L’Asie Mineure_. De Vogüé, _Le Temple de Jérusalem_. +PERSIAN ARCHITECTURE. + With the Persians, who under Cyrus (536 B. C. )and Cambyses (525 B. C. ) became the masters of the Orient, the Aryan racesuperseded the Semitic, and assimilated in new combinations the forms itborrowed from the Assyrian civilization. Under the Achæmenidæ (536 to330 B. C. ) palaces were built in Persepolis and Susa of a splendor andmajesty impossible in Mesopotamia, and rivalling the marvels in the NileValley. The conquering nation of warriors who had overthrown theEgyptians and Assyrians was in turn conquered by the arts of itsvanquished foes, and speedily became the most luxurious of all nations. The Persians were not great innovators in art; but inhabiting a land ofexcellent building resources, they were able to combine the Egyptiansystem of interior columns with details borrowed from Assyrian art, andsuggestions, derived most probably from the general use in Persia andCentral Asia, of wooden posts or columns as intermediate supports. Outof these elements they evolved an architecture which has only becomefully known to us since the excavations of M. And Mme. Dieulafoy at Susain 1882. +ELEMENTS OF PERSIAN ARCHITECTURE. + The Persians used both crude andbaked bricks, the latter far more freely than was practicable inAssyria, owing to the greater abundance of fuel. Walls when built of theweaker material were faced with baked brick enamelled in brilliantcolors, or both moulded and enamelled, to form colored pictures inrelief. Stone was employed for walls and columns, and, in conjunctionwith brick, for the jambs and lintels of doors and windows. Architravesand 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 ofdetached buildings, propylæa or gates of honor, vast audience-halls openon one or two sides, and chambers or dwellings partly enclosing orflanking these halls, or grouped in separate buildings. Temples appearto have been of small importance, perhaps owing to habits of out-of-doorworship of fire and sun. There are few structural tombs, but there are anumber of imposing royal sepulchres cut in the rock at Naksh-i-Roustam. +ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. + The Persians, like the Egyptians, used thecolumn as an internal feature in hypostyle halls of great size, andexternally to form porches, and perhaps, also, open kiosks withoutwalls. The great +Hall of Xerxes+ at Persepolis covers 100, 000 squarefeet--more than double the area of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. But thePersian column was derived from wooden prototypes and used with woodenarchitraves, permitting a wider spacing than is possible with stone. Inthe present instance thirty-six columns sufficed for an area which inthe Karnak hall contained one hundred and thirty-four. The shafts beingslender and finely fluted instead of painted or carved, the effectproduced was totally different from that sought by the Egyptians. Themost striking peculiarity of the column was the capital, which wasforked (Fig. 21). In one of the two principal types the fork, formed bythe coupled fore-parts of bulls or symbolic monsters, rested directly onthe top of the shaft. In the other, two singular members were interposedbetween the fork and the shaft; the lower, a sort of double bell orbell-and-palm capital, and above it, just beneath the fork, a curiouscombination of vertical scrolls or volutes, resembling certain ornamentsseen in Assyrian furniture. The transverse architrave rested in thefork; the longitudinal architrave was supported on the heads of themonsters. A rich moulded base, rather high and in some cases adornedwith carved leaves or flutings, supported the columns, which in the Hallof Xerxes were over 66 feet high and 6 feet in diameter. The architraveshave perished, but the rock-cut tomb of Darius at Naksh-i-Roustamreproduces in its façade a palace-front, showing a banded architravewith dentils--an obvious imitation of the ends of wooden rafters on alintel built up of several beams. [Illustration: FIG. 21. --COLUMN FROM PERSEPOLIS. ] These features of the architrave, as well as the fine flutings andmoulded bases of the columns, are found in Ionic architecture, and inpart, at least, in Lycian tombs. As all these examples date from nearlythe same period, the origin of these forms and their mutual relationshave not been fully determined. The Persian capitals, however, areunique, and so far as known, without direct prototypes or derivatives. Their constituent elements may have been borrowed from various sources. One can hardly help seeing the Egyptian palm-capital in the lower memberof the compound type (Fig. 21). The doors and windows had banded architraves or trims and cavettocornices very Egyptian in character. The portals were flanked, as inAssyria, by winged monsters; but these were built up in several coursesof stone, not carved from single blocks like their prototypes. Plasteror, as at Susa, enamelled bricks, replaced as a wall-finish the Assyrianalabaster wainscot. These bricks, splendid in color, and moulded intorelief pictures covering large surfaces, are the oldest examples of theskill of the Persians in a branch of ceramic art in which they havealways excelled down to our own day. +LYCIAN ARCHITECTURE. + The architecture of those Asiatic peoples whichserved as intermediaries between the ancient civilizations of Egypt andAssyria on the one hand and of the Greeks on the other, need occupy usonly a moment in passing. None of them developed a complete andindependent style or produced monuments of the first rank. Those chieflyconcerned in the transmission of ideas were the Cypriotes, Phœnicians, and Lycians. The part played by other Asiatic nations is too slight tobe considered here. From Cyprus the Greeks could have learned littlebeyond a few elementary notions regarding sculpture and pottery, although it is possible that the volute-form in Ionic architecture wasoriginally derived from patterns on Cypriote pottery and from certainCypriote steles, where it appears as a modified lotus motive. ThePhœnicians were the world’s traders from a very early age down to thePersian conquest. They not only distributed through the Mediterraneanlands the manufactures of Egypt and Assyria, but also counterfeited themand adopted their forms in decorating their own wares. But they havebequeathed us not a single architectural ruin of importance, either oftemples or palaces, nor are the few tombs still extant of sufficientartistic interest to deserve even brief mention in a work of this scope. In Lycia, however, there arose a system of tomb-design which came nearcreating a new architectural style, and which doubtless influenced bothPersia and the Ionian colonies. The tombs were mostly cut in the rock, though a few are free-standing monolithic monuments, resemblingsarcophagi or small shrines mounted on a high base or pedestal. In all of these tombs we recognize a manifest copying in stone of framedwooden structures. The walls are panelled, or imitate open structuresframed of squared timbers. The roofs are often gabled, sometimes in theform of a pointed arch; they generally show a banded architrave, dentils, and a raking cornice, or else an imitation of broadlyprojecting eaves with small round rafters. There are several withporches of Ionic columns; of these, some are of late date and evidentlycopied from Asiatic Greek models. Others, and notably one at Telmissus, seem to be examples of a primitive Ionic, and may indeed have been earlysteps in the development of that splendid style which the Ionic Greeks, both in Asia Minor and in Attica, carried to such perfection. +JEWISH ARCHITECTURE. + The Hebrews borrowed from the art of every peoplewith whom they had relations, so that we encounter in the few extantremains of their architecture Egyptian, Assyrian, Phœnician, Greek, Roman, and Syro-Byzantine features, but nothing like an independentnational style. Among the most interesting of these remains are tombs ofvarious periods, principally occurring in the valleys near Jerusalem, and erroneously ascribed by popular tradition to the judges, prophets, and kings of Israel. Some of them are structural, some cut in the rock;the former (tomb of Absalom, of Zechariah) decorated with Doric andIonic engaged orders, were once supposed to be primitive types of theseorders and of great antiquity. They are now recognized to be debasedimitations of late Greek work of the third or second century B. C. Theyhave Egyptian cavetto cornices and pyramidal roofs, like many Asiatictombs. The openings of the rock-cut tombs have frames or pedimentscarved with rich surface ornament showing a similar mixture oftypes--Roman triglyphs and garlands, Syrian-Greek acanthus leaves, conventional foliage of Byzantine character, and naturalistic carvingsof grapes and local plant-life. The carved arches of two of the ancientcity gates (one the so-called Golden Gate) in Jerusalem display richacanthus foliage somewhat like that of the tombs, but more vigorous andartistic. If of the time of Herod or even of Constantine, as claimed bysome, they would indicate that Greek artists in Syria created theprototypes of Byzantine ornament. They are more probably, however, Byzantine restorations of the 6th century A. D. The one great achievement of Jewish architecture was the national+Temple of Jehovah+, represented by three successive edifices on MountMoriah, the site of the present so-called “Mosque of Omar. ” The first, built by Solomon (1012 B. C. ) appears from the Biblical description[6] tohave combined Egyptian conceptions (successive courts, loftyentrance-pylons, the Sanctuary and the sekos or “Holy of Holies”) withPhœnician and Assyrian details and workmanship (cedar woodwork, empaistic decoration or overlaying with _repoussé_ metal work, theisolated brazen columns Jachin and Boaz). The whole stood on a mightyplatform built up with stupendous masonry and vaulted chambers from thevalley surrounding the rock on three sides. This precinct was nearlydoubled in size by Herod (18 B. C. ) who extended it southward by aterrace-wall of still more colossal masonry. Some of the stones aretwenty-two feet long; one reaches the prodigious length of forty feet. The “Wall of Lamentations” is a part of this terrace, upon which stoodthe Temple on a raised platform. As rebuilt by Herod, the Templereproduced in part the antique design, and retained the porch of Solomonalong the east side; but the whole was superbly reconstructed in whitemarble with abundance of gilding. Defended by the Castle of Antonia onthe northwest, and embellished with a new and imposing triple colonnadeon the south, the whole edifice, a conglomerate of Egyptian, Assyrian, and Roman conceptions and forms, was one of the most singular and yetmagnificent creations of ancient art. [Footnote 6: 1 Kings vi. -vii. ; 2 Chronicles iii. -iv. ] The temple of Zerubbabel (515 B. C. ), intermediate between those abovedescribed, was probably less a re-edification of the first, than a newdesign. While based on the scheme of the first temple, it appears tohave followed more closely the pattern described in the vision ofEzekiel (chapters xl. -xlii. ). It was far inferior to its predecessor insplendor and costliness. No vestiges of it remain. +MONUMENTS. + PERSIAN: at Murghab, the tomb of Cyrus, known as Gabré-Madré-Soleiman--a gabled structure on a seven-stepped pyramidal basement (525 B. C. ). At Persepolis the palace of Darius (521 B. C. ); the Propylæa of Xerxes, his palace and his harem (?) or throne-hall (480 B. C. ). These splendid structures, several of them of vast size, resplendent with color and majestic with their singular and colossal columns, must have formed one of the most imposing architectural groups in the world. At various points, tower-like tombs, supposed erroneously by Fergusson to have been fire altars. At Naksh-i-Roustam, the tomb of Darius, cut in the rock. Other tombs near by at Persepolis proper and at Pasargadæ. At the latter place remains of the palace of Cyrus. At Susa the palace of Xerxes and Artaxerxes (480-405 B. C. ). There are no remains of private houses or temples. LYCIAN: the principal Lycian monuments are found in Myra, Antiphellus, and Telmissus. Some of the monolithic tombs have been removed to the British and other European museums. JEWISH: the temples have been mentioned above. The palace of Solomon. The rock-cut monolithic tomb of Siloam. So-called tombs of Absalom and Zechariah, structural; probably of Herod’s time or later. Rock-cut Tombs of the Kings; of the Prophets, etc. City gates (Herodian or early Christian period). CHAPTER VI. GREEK ARCHITECTURE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Reber. Also, Anderson and Spiers, _Architecture of Greece and Rome_. Baumeister, _Denkmäler der Klassischen Alterthums_. Bötticher, _Tektonik der Hellenen_. Chipiez, _Histoire critique des ordres grecs_. Curtius, Adler and Treu, _Die Ausgrabungen zu Olympia_. Durm, _Antike Baukunst_ (in _Handbuch d. Arch. _). Frazer, _Pausanias’ Description of Greece_. Hitorff, _L’architecture polychrome chez les Grecs_. Michaelis, _Der Parthenon_. Penrose, _An Investigation, etc. , of Athenian Architecture_. Perrot and Chipiez, _History of Art in Primitive Greece_; _La Grèce de l’Epopée_; _La Grèce archaïque_. Stuart and Revett, _Antiquities of Athens_. Tarbell, _History of Greek Art_. Texier, _L’Asie Mineure_. Wilkins, _Antiquities of Magna Græcia_. +GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. + Greek art marks the beginning of Europeancivilization. The Hellenic race gathered up influences and suggestionsfrom both Asia and Africa and fused them with others, whose sources areunknown, into an art intensely national and original, which was toinfluence the arts of many races and nations long centuries after thedecay of the Hellenic states. The Greek mind, compared with the Egyptianor Assyrian, was more highly intellectual, more logical, moresymmetrical, and above all more inquiring and analytic. Living nowhereremote from the sea, the Greeks became sailors, merchants, andcolonizers. The Ionian kinsmen of the European Greeks, speaking adialect of the same language, populated the coasts of Asia Minor andmany of the islands, so that through them the Greeks were open to theinfluences of the Assyrian, Phœnician, Persian, and Lyciancivilizations. In Cyprus they encountered Egyptian influences, andfinally, under Psammetichus, they established in Egypt itself the Greekcity of Naukratis. They were thus by geographical situation, bycharacter, and by circumstances, peculiarly fitted to receive, develop, and transmit the mingled influences of the East and the South. [Illustration: FIG. 22. --LION GATE AT MYCENÆ. ] +PREHISTORIC MONUMENTS. +[7] Authentic Greek history begins with thefirst Olympiad, 776 B. C. The earliest monuments of that historicarchitecture which developed into the masterpieces of the Periclean andAlexandrian ages, date from the middle of the following century. Butthere are a number of older buildings, belonging presumably to theso-called Heroic Age, which, though seemingly unconnected with the laterhistoric development of Greek architecture, are still worthy of note. They are the work of a people somewhat advanced in civilization, probably the Pelasgi, who preceded the Dorians on Greek soil, andconsist mainly of fortifications, walls, gates, and tombs, the mostimportant of which are at +Mycenæ+ and +Tiryns+. At the latter place isa well-defined acropolis, with massive walls in which are passagescovered by stones successively overhanging or corbelled until they meet. The masonry is of huge stones piled without cement. At Mycenæ the citywall is pierced by the remarkable +Lion Gate+ (Fig. 22), consisting oftwo jambs and a huge lintel, over which the weight is relieved by atriangular opening. This is filled with a sculptured group, now muchdefaced, representing two rampant lions flanking a singular column whichtapers downward. This symbolic group has relations with Hittite andPhrygian sculptures, and with the symbolism of the worship of RheaCybele. The masonry of the wall is carefully dressed but not regularlycoursed. Other primitive walls and gates showing openings and embryonicarches of various forms, are found widely scattered, at Samos and Delos, at Phigaleia, Thoricus, Argos and many other points. The very earliestare hardly more than random piles of rough stone. Those which may fairlyclaim notice for their artistic masonry are of a later date and of twokinds: the coursed, and the polygonal or Cyclopean, so called from thetradition that they were built by the Cyclopes. These Cyclopean wallswere composed of large, irregular polygonal blocks carefully fittedtogether and dressed to a fairly smooth face (Fig. 23). Both kinds wereused contemporaneously, though in the course of time the regular coursedmasonry finally superseded the polygonal. [Footnote 7: For enlargement on this topic see Appendix A. ] [Illustration: FIG. 23. --POLYGONAL MASONRY. ] +THOLOS OF ATREUS. + All these structures present, however, only therudiments of architectural art. The so-called +Tholos+ (or Treasury) of+Atreus+, at Mycenæ, on the other hand, shows the germs of trulyartistic design (Fig. 24). It is in reality a tomb, and is one of alarge class of prehistoric tombs found in almost every part of theglobe, consisting of a circular stone-walled and stone-roofed chamberburied under a tumulus of earth. This one is a beehive-shapedconstruction of horizontal courses of masonry, with a stone-walledpassage, the _dromos_, leading to the entrance door. Though internallyof domical form, its construction with horizontal beds in the masonryproves that the idea of the true dome with the beds of each coursepitched at an angle always normal to the curve of the vault, was not yetgrasped. A small sepulchral chamber opens from the great one, by a doorwith the customary relieving triangle over it. [Illustration: FIG. 24. --THOLOS OF ATREUS. PLAN AND SECTION. ] [Illustration: FIG. 25. --THOLOS OF ATREUS. DOORWAY. ] Traces of a metal lining have been found on the inner surface of thedome and on the jambs of the entrance door. This entrance is the mostartistic and elaborate part of the edifice (Fig. 25). The main openingis enclosed in a three-banded frame, and was once flanked by columnswhich, as shown by fragments still existing and by marks on either sidethe door, tapered downward as in the sculptured column over the LionGate. Shafts, bases, and capitals were covered with zig-zag bands orchevrons of fine spirals. This well-studied decoration, the bandedjambs, and the curiously inverted columns (of which several otherexamples exist in or near Mycenæ), all point to a fairly developed art, derived partly from Egyptian and partly from Asiatic sources. ThatEgyptian influences had affected this early art is further proved by afragment of carved and painted ornament on a ceiling in Orchomenos, imitating with remarkable closeness certain ceiling decorations inEgyptian tombs. +HISTORIC MONUMENTS; THE ORDERS. + It was the Dorians and Ionians whodeveloped the architecture of classic Greece. This fact is perpetuatedin the traditional names, Doric and Ionic, given to the two systems ofcolumnar design which formed the most striking feature of thatarchitecture. While in Egypt the column was used almost exclusively asan internal support and decoration, in Greece it was chiefly employed toproduce an imposing exterior effect. It was the most important elementin the temple architecture of the Greeks, and an almost indispensableadornment of their gateways, public squares, and temple enclosures. Tothe column the two races named above gave each a special and radicallydistinct development, and it was not until the Periclean age that thetwo forms came to be used in conjunction, even by the mixed Doric-Ionicpeople of Attica. Each of the two types had its own special shaft, capital, entablature, mouldings, and ornaments, although considerablevariation was allowed in the proportions and minor details. The generaltype, however, remained substantially unchanged from first to last. Theearliest examples known to us of either order show it complete in allits parts, its later development being restricted to the refining andperfecting of its proportions and details. The probable origin of theseorders will be separately considered later on. +THE DORIC. + The column of the Doric order (Figs. 26, 27) consists of atapering shaft rising directly from the stylobate or platform andsurmounted by a capital of great simplicity and beauty. The shaft isfluted with sixteen to twenty shallow channellings of segmental orelliptical section, meeting in sharp edges or _arrises_. The capital ismade up of a circular cushion or _echinus_ adorned with fine groovescalled _annulæ_, and a plain square _abacus_ or cap Upon this rests aplain architrave or _epistyle_, with a narrow fillet, the _tænia_, running along its upper edge. The frieze above it is divided into squarepanels, called the _metopes_, separated by vertical _triglyphs_ havingeach two vertical grooves and chamfered edges. There is a triglyph overeach column and one over each intercolumniation, or two in rareinstances where the columns are widely spaced. The cornice consists of abroadly projecting _corona_ resting on a _bed-mould_ of one or twosimple mouldings. Its under surface, called the _soffit_, is adornedwith _mutules_, square, flat projections having each eighteen _guttæ_depending from its under side. Two or three small mouldings run alongthe upper edge of the corona, which has in addition, over each slope ofthe gable, a gutter-moulding or _cymatium_. The cornices along thehorizontal edges of the roof have instead of the cymatium a row of_antefixæ_, ornaments of terra-cotta or marble placed opposite the footof each tile-ridge of the roofing. The enclosed triangular field of thegable, called the _tympanum_, was in the larger monuments adorned withsculptured groups resting on the shelf formed by the horizontal cornicebelow. Carved ornaments called _acroteria_ commonly embellished thethree angles of the gable or pediment. [Illustration: FIG. 26. --GREEK DORIC ORDER. A, _Crepidoma, or stylobate_; b, _Column_; c, _Architrave_; d, _Tænia_; e, _Frieze_; f, _Horizontal cornice_; g, _Raking cornice_; h, _Tympanum of pediment_; k, _Metope_. ] +POLYCHROMY. + It has been fully proved, after a century of debate, thatall this elaborate system of parts, severe and dignified in theirsimplicity of form, received a rich decoration of color. While theprecise shades and tones employed cannot be predicated with certainty, it is well established that the triglyphs were painted blue and themetopes red, and that all the mouldings were decorated withleaf-ornaments, “eggs-and-darts, ” and frets, in red, green, blue, andgold. The walls and columns were also colored, probably with pale tintsof yellow or buff, to reduce the glare of the fresh marble or thewhiteness of the fine stucco with which the surfaces of masonry ofcoarser stone were primed. In the clear Greek atmosphere and outlinedagainst the brilliant sky, the Greek temple must have presented anaspect of rich, sparkling gayety. [Illustration: FIG. 27. --DORIC ORDER OF THE PARTHENON. ] +ORIGIN OF THE ORDER. + It is generally believed that the details of theDoric frieze and cornice were reminiscences of a primitive woodconstruction. The triglyph suggests the chamfered ends of cross-beamsmade up of three planks each; the mutules, the sheathing of the eaves;and the guttæ, the heads of the spikes or trenails by which thesheathing was secured. It is known that in early astylar temples themetopes were left open like the spaces between the ends ofceiling-rafters. In the earlier peripteral temples, as at Selinus, thetriglyph-frieze is retained around the cella-wall under the ceiling ofthe colonnade, where it has no functional significance, as a survivalfrom times antedating the adoption of the colonnade, when the traditionof a wooden roof-construction showing externally had not yet beenforgotten. A similar wooden origin for the Doric column has been advocated by some, who point to the assertion of Pausanias that in the Doric Heraion atOlympia the original wooden columns had with one exception been replacedby stone columns as fast as they decayed. (See p.  62. ) This, however, only proves that wooden columns were sometimes used in early buildings, not that the Doric column was derived from them. Others would derive itfrom the Egyptian columns of Beni Hassan (p.  12), which it certainlyresembles. But they do not explain how the Greeks could have beenfamiliar with the Beni Hassan column long before the opening of Egypt tothem under Psammetichus; nor why, granting them some knowledge ofEgyptian architecture, they should have passed over the splendors ofKarnak and Luxor to copy these inconspicuous tombs perched high up onthe cliffs of the Nile. It would seem that the Greeks invented this formindependently, developing it in buildings which have perished; unless, indeed, they brought the idea with them from their primitive Aryan homein Asia. +THE IONIC ORDER+ was characterized by greater slenderness of proportionand elegance of detail than the Doric, and depended more on carving thanon color for the decoration of its members (Fig. 28). It was adopted inthe fifth century B. C. By the people of Attica, and used both for civicand religious buildings, sometimes alone and sometimes in conjunctionwith the Doric. The column was from eight to ten diameters in height, against four and one-third to seven for the Doric. It stood on a basewhich was usually composed of two tori (see p.  25 for definition)separated by a _scotia_ (a concave moulding of semicircular orsemi-elliptical profile), and was sometimes provided also with a squareflat base-block, the _plinth_. There was much variety in the proportionsand details of these mouldings, which were often enriched by flutings orcarved guilloches. The tall shaft bore twenty-four deep narrow flutingsseparated by narrow fillets. The capital was the most peculiar featureof the order. It consisted of a bead or _astragal_ and echinus, overwhich was a horizontal band ending on either side in a scroll or volute, the sides of which presented the aspect shown in Fig. 29. A thin mouldedabacus was interposed between this member and the architrave. [Illustration: FIG. 28. --GREEK IONIC ORDER. (MILETUS. )] The Ionic capital was marked by two awkward features which all itsrichness could not conceal. One was the protrusion of the echinus beyondthe face of the band above it, the other was the disparity between theside and front views of the capital, especially noticeable at thecorners of a colonnade. To obviate this, various contrivances weretried, none wholly successful. Ordinarily the two adjacent exteriorsides of the corner capital were treated alike, the scrolls at theirmeeting being bent out at an angle of 45°, while the two inner facessimply intersected, cutting each other in halves. The entablature comprised an architrave of two or three flat bandscrowned by fine mouldings; an uninterrupted frieze, frequentlysculptured in relief; and a simple cornice of great beauty. In additionto the ordinary bed-mouldings there was in most examples a row of narrowblocks or _dentils_ under the corona, which was itself crowned by a highcymatium of extremely graceful profile, carved with the rich“honeysuckle” (_anthemion_) ornament. All the mouldings were carved withthe “egg-and-dart, ” heart-leaf and anthemion ornaments, so designed asto recall by their outline the profile of the moulding itself. Thedetails of this order were treated with much more freedom and varietythan those of the Doric. The pediments of Ionic buildings were rarely ornever adorned with groups of sculpture. The volutes and echinus of thecapital, the fluting of the shaft, the use of a moulded circular base, and in the cornice the high corona and cymatium, these were constantelements in every Ionic order, but all other details varied widely inthe different examples. [Illustration: FIG. 29. --SIDE VIEW OF IONIC CAPITAL. ] +ORIGIN OF THE IONIC ORDER. + The origin of the Ionic order has givenrise to almost as much controversy as that of the Doric. Its differentelements were apparently derived from various sources. The Lycian tombsmay have contributed the denticular cornice and perhaps also the generalform of the column and capital. In the Persian architecture of the sixthcentury B. C. , the high moulded base, the narrow flutings of the shaft, the carved bead-moulding and the use of scrolls in the capital arecharacteristic features, which may have been borrowed by the Ioniansduring the same century, unless, indeed, they were themselves the workof Ionic or Lycian workmen in Persian employ. The banded architrave andthe use of the volute in the decoration of stele-caps (from στηλη =a memorial stone or column standing isolated and upright), furniture, and minor structures are common features in Assyrian, Lycian, and otherAsiatic architecture of early date. The volute or scroll itself as anindependent decorative motive may have originated in successivevariations of Egyptian lotus-patterns. [8] But the combination of thesediverse elements and their development into the final form of the orderwas the work of the Ionian Greeks, and it was in the Ionian provinces ofAsia Minor that the most splendid examples of its use are to be found(Halicarnassus, Miletus, Priene, Ephesus), while the most graceful andperfect are those of Doric-Ionic Attica. [Footnote 8: As contended by W. H. Goodyear in his _Grammar of the Lotus_. ] [Illustration: FIG. 30. --GREEK CORINTHIAN ORDER. (From the monument of Lysicrates. )] +THE CORINTHIAN ORDER. + This was a late outgrowth of the Ionic ratherthan a new order, and up to the time of the Roman conquest was only usedfor monuments of small size (see Fig. 38). Its entablature in pure Greekexamples was identical with the Ionic; the shaft and base were onlyslightly changed in proportion and detail. The capital, however, was anew departure, based probably on metallic embellishments of altars, pedestals, etc. , of Ionic style. It consisted in the best examples of ahigh bell-shaped core surrounded by one or two rows of acanthus leaves, above which were pairs of branching scrolls meeting at the corners inspiral volutes. These served to support the angles of a moulded abacuswith concave sides (Fig. 30). One example, from the Tower of the Winds(the clepsydra of Andronicus Cyrrhestes) at Athens, has only smoothpointed palm-leaves and no scrolls above a single row of acanthusleaves. Indeed, the variety and disparity among the different examplesprove that we have here only the first steps toward the evolution of anindependent order, which it was reserved for the Romans to fullydevelop. +GREEK TEMPLES; THE TYPE. + With the orders as their chief decorativeelement the Greeks built up a splendid architecture of religious andsecular monuments. Their noblest works were temples, which they designedwith the utmost simplicity of general scheme, but carried out with amastery of proportion and detail which has never been surpassed. Ofmoderate size in most cases, they were intended primarily to enshrinethe simulacrum of the deity, and not, like Christian churches, toaccommodate great throngs of worshippers. Nor were they, on the otherhand, sanctuaries designed, like those of Egypt, to exclude all but aprivileged few from secret rites performed only by the priests and king. The statue of the deity was enshrined in a chamber, the _naos_ (seeplan, Fig. 31), often of considerable size, and accessible to the publicthrough a columnar porch the _pronaos_. A smaller chamber, the_opisthodomus_, was sometimes added in the rear of the main sanctuary, to serve as a treasury or depository for votive offerings. Togetherthese formed a windowless structure called the _cella_, beyond which wasthe rear porch, the _posticum_ or _epinaos_. This whole structure was inthe larger temples surrounded by a colonnade, the _peristyle_, whichformed the most splendid feature of Greek architecture. The externalaisle on either side of the cella was called the _pteroma_. A singlegabled roof covered the entire building. [Illustration: FIG. 31. --TYPES OF GREEK TEMPLE PLANS. A, _In Antis_; b, _Prostyle_; c, _Amphiprostyle_; d, _Peripteral_ (_The Parthenon_); N, _Naos_; O, _Opisthodomus_; S, _Statue_. ] The Greek colonnade was thus an exterior feature, surrounding the solidcella-wall instead of being enclosed by it as in Egypt. The temple was apublic, not a royal monument; and its builders aimed, not as in Egypt atsize and overwhelming sombre majesty, but rather at sunny beauty and thehighest perfection of proportion, execution, and detail (Fig. 34). There were of course many variations of the general type just described. Each of these has received a special name, which is given below withexplanations and is illustrated in Fig.  31. _In antis_; with a porch having two or more columns enclosed between theprojecting side-walls of the cella. _Prostylar_ (or prostyle); with a columnar porch in front and noperistyle. _Amphiprostylar_ (or -style); with columnar porches at both ends but noperistyle. _Peripteral_; surrounded by columns. _Pseudoperipteral_; with false or engaged columns built into the wallsof the cella, leaving no pteroma. _Dipteral_; with double lateral ranges of columns (see Fig. 39). _Pseudodipteral_; with a single row of columns on each side, whosedistance from the wall is equal to two intercolumniations of the front. _Tetrastyle_, _hexastyle_, _octastyle_, _decastyle_, etc. ; with four, six, eight, or ten columns in the end rows. +CONSTRUCTION. + All the temples known to us are of stone, though it isevident from allusions in the ancient writers that wood was sometimesused in early times. (See p.  62. ) The finest temples, especially thoseof Attica, Olympia, and Asia Minor, were of marble. In Magna Græcia, atAssos, and in other places where marble was wanting, limestone, sandstone, or lava was employed and finished with a thin, fine stucco. The roof was almost invariably of wood and gabled, forming at the endspediments decorated in most cases with sculpture. The disappearance ofthese inflammable and perishable roofs has given rise to endlessspeculations as to the lighting of the cellas, which in all known ruins, except one at Agrigentum, are destitute of windows. It has beenconjectured that light was admitted through openings in the roof, andeven that the central part of the cella was wholly open to the sky. Suchan arrangement is termed _hypæthral_, from an expression used in adescription by Vitruvius;[9] but this description corresponds to noknown structure, and the weight of opinion now inclines against the useof the hypæthral opening, except possibly in one or two of the largesttemples, in which a part of the cella in front of the statue may havebeen thus left open. But even this partial _hypæthros_ is notsubstantiated by direct evidence. It hardly seems probable that themagnificent chryselephantine statues of such temples were ever thus leftexposed to the extremes of the climate, which are often severe even inGreece. In the model of the Parthenon designed by Ch. Chipiez for theMetropolitan Museum in New York, a small clerestory opening through theroof admits a moderate amount of light to the cella; but this ingeniousdevice rests on no positive evidence (see Frontispiece). It seems on thewhole most probable that the cella was lighted entirely by artificialillumination; but the controversy in its present state is and must bewholly speculative. [Footnote 9: Lib. III. , Cap. I. ] The wooden roof was covered with tiles of terra-cotta or marble. It wasprobably ceiled and panelled on the under side, and richly decoratedwith color and gold. The pteroma had under the exterior roof a ceilingof stone or marble, deeply panelled between transverse architraves. The naos and opisthodomus being in the larger temples too wide to bespanned by single beams, were furnished with interior columns to affordintermediate support. To avoid the extremes of too great massiveness andexcessive slenderness in these columns, they were built in two stages, and advantage was taken of this arrangement, in some cases, at least, tointroduce lateral galleries into the naos. [Illustration: FIG. 32. --CARVED ANTHEMION ORNAMENT. ATHENS. ] +SCULPTURE AND CARVING. + All the architectural membering was treatedwith the greatest refinement of design and execution, and the aid ofsculpture, both in relief and in the round, was invoked to give splendorand significance to the monument. The statue of the deity was the focusof internal interest, while externally, groups of statues representingthe Olympian deities or the mythical exploits of gods, demigods, andheroes, adorned the gables. Relief carvings in the friezes and metopescommemorated the favorite national myths. In these sculptures we havethe finest known adaptations of pure sculpture--_i. E. _, sculpturetreated as such and complete in itself--to an architectural framework. The noblest examples of this decorative sculpture are those of theParthenon, consisting of figures in the full round from the pediments, groups in high relief from the metopes, and the beautiful frieze of thePanathenaic procession from the cella-wall under the pteroma ceiling. The greater part of these splendid works are now in the British Museum, whither they were removed by Lord Elgin in 1801. From Olympia, Ægina, and Phigaleia, other master-works of the same kind have been transferredto the museums of Europe. In the Doric style there was little carvingother than the sculpture, the ornament being mainly polychromatic. GreekIonic and Corinthian monuments, however, as well as minor works such assteles, altars, etc. , were richly adorned with carved mouldings andfriezes, festoons, acroteria, and other embellishments executed with thechisel. The anthemion ornament, a form related to the Egyptian lotus andAssyrian palmette, most frequently figures in these. It was made intodesigns of wonderful vigor and beauty (Fig. 32). +DETAIL AND EXECUTION. + In the handling and cutting of stone the Greeksdisplayed a surpassing skill and delicacy. While ordinarily they werecontent to use stones of moderate size, they never hesitated at anydimension necessary for proper effect or solid construction. The lowerdrums of the Parthenon peristyle are 6 feet 6½ inches in diameter, and2 feet 10 inches high, cut from single blocks of Pentelic marble. Thearchitraves of the Propylæa at Athens are each made up of two lintelsplaced side by side, the longest 17 feet 7 inches long, 3 feet 10 incheshigh, and 2 feet 4 inches thick. In the colossal temples of Asia Minor, where the taste for the vast and grandiose was more pronounced, blocksof much greater size were used. These enormous stones were cut andfitted with the most scrupulous exactness. The walls of all importantstructures were built in regular courses throughout, every stonecarefully bedded with extremely close joints. The masonry was usuallylaid up without cement and clamped with metal; there is no filling inwith rubble and concrete between mere facings of cut stone, as in mostmodern work. When the only available stone was of coarse texture it wasfinished with a coating of fine stucco, in which sharp edges and minutedetail could be worked. The details were, in the best period, executed with the mostextraordinary refinement and care. The profiles of capitals andmouldings, the carved ornament, the arrises of the flutings, were cutwith marvellous precision and delicacy. It has been rightly said thatthe Greeks “built like Titans and finished like jewellers. ” But thisperfect finish was never petty nor wasted on unworthy or vulgar design. The just relation of scale between the building and all its parts wasadmirably maintained; the ornament was distributed with rare judgment, and the vigor of its design saved it from all appearance of triviality. The sensitive taste of the Greeks led them into other refinements thanthose of mere mechanical perfection. In the Parthenon especially, butalso in lesser degree in other temples, the seemingly straight lines ofthe building were all slightly curved, and the vertical faces inclined. This was done to correct the monotony and stiffness of absolutelystraight lines and right angles, and certain optical illusions whichtheir acute observation had detected. The long horizontal lines of thestylobate and cornice were made convex upward; a similar convexity inthe horizontal corona of the pediment counteracted the seeming concavityotherwise resulting from its meeting with the multiplied inclined linesof the raking cornice. The columns were almost imperceptibly inclinedtoward the cella, and the corner intercolumniations made a triflenarrower than the rest; while the vertical lines of the arrises of theflutings were made convex outward with a curve of the utmost beauty anddelicacy. By these and other like refinements there was imparted to themonument an elasticity and vigor of aspect, an elusive and surprisingbeauty impossible to describe and not to be explained by the merecomposition and general proportions, yet manifest to every cultivatedeye. [10] [Footnote 10: These refinements, first noticed by Allason in 1814, and later confirmed by Cockerell and Haller as to the columns, were published to the world in 1838 by Hoffer, verified by Penrose in 1846, and further developed by the investigations of Ziller and later observers. ] CHAPTER VII. GREEK ARCHITECTURE--_Continued_. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Same as for Chapter VI. Also, Bacon and Clarke, _Investigations at Assos_. Espouy, _Fragments d’architecture antique_. Harrison and Verrall, _Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens_. Hitorff et Zanth, _Recueil des Monuments de Ségeste et Sélinonte_. Magne, _Le Parthénon_. Koldewey and Puchstein, _Die griechischen Tempel in Unteritalien und Sicilien_. Waldstein, _The Argive Heræum_. +HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT. + The history of Greek architecture, subsequent tothe Heroic or Primitive Age, may be divided into periods as follows: The ARCHAIC; from 650 to 500 B. C. The TRANSITIONAL; from 500 to 460 B. C. , or to the revival of prosperityafter the Persian wars. The PERICLEAN; from 460 to 400 B. C. The FLORID or ALEXANDRIAN; from 400 to 300 B. C. The DECADENT; 300 to 100 B. C. The ROMAN; 100 B. C. To 200 A. D. These dates are, of course, somewhat arbitrary; it is impossible to setexact bounds to style-periods, which must inevitably overlap at certainpoints, but the dates, as given above, will assist in distinguishing thesuccessive phases of the history. +ARCHAIC PERIOD. + The archaic period is characterized by the exclusiveuse of the Doric order, which appears in the earliest monuments completein all its parts, but heavy in its proportions and coarse in itsexecution. The oldest known temples of this period are the +ApolloTemple+ at Corinth (650 B. C. ?), and the +Northern Temple+ on theacropolis at +Selinus+ in Sicily (cir. 610-590 B. C. ). They are both of acoarse limestone covered with stucco. The columns are low and massive(4⅓ to 4⅔ diameters in height), widely spaced, and carry a very highentablature. The triglyphs still appear around the cella wall under thepteroma ceiling, an illogical detail destined to disappear in laterbuildings. Other temples at Selinus date from the middle or latter partof the sixth century; they have higher columns and finer profiles thanthose just mentioned. The great +Temple of Zeus+ at +Selinus+ was theearliest of five colossal Greek temples of very nearly identicaldimensions; it measured 360 feet by 167 feet in plan, but was nevercompleted. During the second half of the sixth century important Dorictemples were built at Pæstum in South Italy, and Agrigentum in Sicily;the somewhat primitive temple at Assos in Asia Minor, with uncouthcarvings of centaurs and monsters on its architrave, belongs to thissame period. The +Temple of Zeus+ at +Agrigentum+ (Fig. 33) is anothersingular and exceptional design, and was the second of the five colossaltemples mentioned above. The pteroma was entirely enclosed by walls withengaged columns showing externally, and was of extraordinary width. Thewalls of the narrow cella were interrupted by heavy piers supportingatlantes, or applied statues under the ceiling. There seem to have beenwindows between these figures, but it is not clear whence they borrowedtheir light, unless it was admitted by the omission of the metopesbetween the external triglyphs. [Illustration: FIG. 33. --TEMPLE OF ZEUS. AGRIGENTUM. ] +THE TRANSITION. + During the transitional period there was a markedimprovement in the proportions, detail, and workmanship of the temples. The cella was made broader, the columns more slender, the entablaturelighter. The triglyphs disappeared from the cella wall, and sculpture ofa higher order enhanced the architectural effect. The profiles of themouldings and especially of the capitals became more subtle and refinedin their curves, while the development of the Ionic order in importantmonuments in Asia Minor was preparing the way for the splendors of thePericlean age. Three temples especially deserve notice: the +AthenaTemple+ on the island of +Ægina+, the +Temple of Zeus+ at +Olympia+, andthe so-called +Theseum+--perhaps a temple of Heracles--in Athens. Theybelong to the period 470-450 B. C. ; they are all hexastyle andperipteral, and without triglyphs on the cella wall. Of the three thesecond in the list is interesting as the scene of those rites whichpreceded and accompanied the Panhellenic Olympian games, and as thecentral feature of the Altis, the most complete temple-group andenclosure among all Greek remains. It was built of a coarseconglomerate, finished with fine stucco, and embellished with sculptureby the greatest masters of the time. The adjacent +Heraion+ (temple ofHera) was a highly venerated and ancient shrine, originally built withwooden columns which, according to Pausanias, were replaced one by one, as they decayed, by stone columns. The truth of this statement isattested by the discovery of a singular variety of capitals among itsruins, corresponding to the various periods at which they were added. The Theseum is the most perfectly preserved of all Greek temples, and inthe refinement of its forms is only surpassed by those of the Pericleanage. [Illustration: FIG. 34. --RUINS OF THE PARTHENON. ] [Illustration: FIG. 35. --PLAN OF ERECHTHEUM. ] [Illustration: FIG. 36. --WEST END OF ERECHTHEUM, RESTORED. ] +THE PERICLEAN AGE. + The Persian wars may be taken as the dividing linebetween the Transition period and the Periclean age. The _élan_ ofnational enthusiasm that followed the expulsion of the invader, and theglory and wealth which accrued to Athens as the champion of all Hellas, resulted in a splendid reconstruction of the Attic monuments as well asa revival of building activity in Asia Minor. By the wise administrationof Pericles and by the genius of Ictinus, Phidias, and other artists ofsurpassing skill, the Acropolis at Athens was crowned with a group ofbuildings and statues absolutely unrivalled. Chief among them was the+Parthenon+, the shrine of Athena Parthenos, which the critics of allschools have agreed in considering the most faultless in design andexecution of all buildings erected by man (Figs. 31, 34, andFrontispiece). It was an octastyle peripteral temple, with seventeencolumns on the side, and measured 220 by 100 feet on the top of thestylobate. It was the work of Ictinus and Callicrates, built to enshrinethe noble statue of the goddess by Phidias, a standing chryselephantinefigure forty feet high. It was the masterpiece of Greek architecture notonly by reason of its refinements of detail, but also on account of thebeauty of its sculptural adornments. The frieze about the cella wallunder the pteroma ceiling, representing in low relief with masterlyskill the Panathenaic procession; the sculptured groups in the metopes, and the superb assemblages of Olympic and symbolic figures of colossalsize in the pediments, added their majesty to the perfection of thearchitecture. Here also the horizontal curvatures and other refinementsare found in their highest development. Northward from it, upon theAcropolis, stood the +Erechtheum+, an excellent example of theAttic-Ionic style (Figs. 35, 36). Its singular irregularities of planand level, and the variety of its detail, exhibit in a striking way theGreek indifference to mere formal symmetry when confronted by practicalconsiderations. The motive in this case was the desire to include in onedesign several existing and venerated shrines to Attic deities andheroes--Athena Polias, Poseidon, Pandrosus, Erechtheus, Boutes, etc. Begun by unknown architects in 479 B. C. , and not completed until 408B. C. , it remains in its ruin still one of the most interesting andattractive of ancient buildings. Its two colonnades of differing design, its beautiful north doorway, and the unique and noble caryatid porch orbalcony on the south side are unsurpassed in delicate beauty combinedwith vigor of design. [11] A smaller monument of the Ionic order, theamphiprostyle temple to +Nike Apteros+--the Wingless Victory--stands ona projecting spur of the Acropolis to the southwest. It measures only 27feet by 18 feet in plan; the cella is nearly square; the columns aresturdier than those of the Erechtheum, and the execution of the monumentis admirable. It was the first completed of the extant buildings of thegroup of the Acropolis and dates from 466 B. C. [Footnote 11: See Appendix, p. 427. ] [Illustration: FIG. 37. --PROPYLÆA AT ATHENS. PLAN. ] In the +Propylæa+ (Fig. 37), the monumental gateway to the Acropolis, the Doric and Ionic orders appear to have been combined for the firsttime (437 to 432 B. C. ). It was the master work of Mnesicles. The frontand rear façades were Doric hexastyles; adjoining the front porch weretwo projecting lateral wings employing a smaller Doric order. Thecentral passageway led between two rows of Ionic columns to the rearporch, entered by five doorways and crowned, like the front, with apediment. The whole was executed with the same splendor and perfectionas the other buildings of the Acropolis, and was a worthy gateway to thegroup of noble monuments which crowned that citadel of the Atticcapital. The two orders were also combined in the temple of +ApolloEpicurius+ at +Phigalæa+ (Bassæ). This temple was erected in 430 B. C. ByIctinus, who used the Ionic order internally to decorate a row ofprojecting piers instead of free-standing columns in the naos, in whichthere was also a single Corinthian column of rather archaic design, which may have been used as a support for a statue or votive offering. +ALEXANDRIAN AGE. + A period of reaction followed the splendidarchitectural activity of the Periclean age. A succession of disastrouswars--the Sicilian, Peloponnesian, and Corinthian--drained the energiesand destroyed the peace of European Greece for seventy-five years, robbing Athens of her supremacy and inflicting wounds from which shenever recovered. In the latter part of the fourth century, however, thetriumph of the Macedonian empire over all the Mediterranean landsinaugurated a new era of architectural magnificence, especially in AsiaMinor. The keynote of the art of this time was splendor, as that of thepreceding age was artistic perfection. The Corinthian order came intouse, as though the Ionic were not rich enough for the sumptuous taste ofthe time, and capitals and bases of novel and elaborate designembellished the Ionic temples of Asia Minor. In the temple of +ApolloDidymæus+ at Miletus, the plinths of the bases were made octagonal andpanelled with rich scroll-carvings; and the piers which buttressed theinterior faces of the cella-walls were given capitals of singular butelegant form, midway between the Ionic and Corinthian types. This templebelongs to the list of colossal edifices already referred to; itsdimensions were 366 by 163 feet, making it the largest of them all. Thefamous +Artemisium+ (temple of Artemis or Diana) measured 342 by 163feet. Several of the columns of the latter were enriched with sculpturedfigures encircling the lower drums of the colossal shafts. The mostlavish expenditure was bestowed upon small structures, shrines, andsarcophagi. The graceful monument still visible in Athens, erected bythe choragus Lysicrates in token of his victory in the choralcompetitions, belongs to this period (330 B. C. ). It is circular, with aslightly domical imbricated roof, and is decorated with elegant engagedCorinthian columns (Fig. 38). In the Imperial Museum at Constantinopleare several sarcophagi of this period found at Sidon, but executed byGreek artists, and of exceptional beauty. They are in the form oftemples or shrines; the finest of them, supposed by some to have beenmade for Alexander’s favorite general Perdiccas, and by others for thePersian satrap who figures prominently on its sculptured reliefs, is themost sumptuous work of the kind in existence. The exquisite polychromyof its beautiful reliefs and the perfection of its rich details ofcornice, pediment, tiling, and crestings, make it an exceedinglyinteresting and instructive example of the minor architecture of theperiod. [Illustration: FIG. 38. --CHORAGIC MONUMENT OF LYSICRATES. (Restored model, N. Y. )] +THE DECADENCE. + After the decline of Alexandrian magnificence Greek artnever recovered its ancient glory, but the flame was not suddenlyextinguished. While in Greece proper the works of the second and thirdcenturies B. C. , are for the most part weak and lifeless, like the +Stoaof Attalus+ (175 B. C. ) and the +Tower of the Winds+ (the Clepsydra ofAndronicus Cyrrhestes, 100 B. C. ) at Athens or the Portico of Philip inDelos, there were still a few worthy works built in Asia Minor. Thesplendid +Altar+ erected at +Pergamon+ by Eumenes II. (circ. 180 B. C. )in the Ionic order, combined sculpture of extraordinary vigor withimposing architecture in masterly fashion. At +Aizanoi+ an Ionic +Templeto Zeus+, by some attributed to the Roman period, but showing rather thecharacter of good late Greek work, deserves mention for its elegantdetails, and especially for its frieze-decoration of acanthus leaves andscrolls resembling those of a Corinthian capital. [Illustration: FIG. 39. --TEMPLE OF OLYMPIAN ZEUS. ATHENS. ] +ROMAN PERIOD. + During this period, _i. E. _, throughout the second andfirst centuries B. C. , the Roman dominion was spreading over Greekterritory, and the structures erected subsequent to the conquest partakeof the Roman character and mingle Roman conceptions with Greek detailsand _vice versâ_. The temple of the +Olympian Zeus+ at Athens (Fig. 39), a mighty dipteral Corinthian edifice measuring 354 by 171 feet, standingon a vast terrace or temenos surrounded by a buttressed wall, was begunby Antiochus Epiphanes (170 B. C. ) on the site of an earlier unfinishedDoric temple of the time of Pisistratus, and carried out under thedirection of the Roman architect, Cossutius. It was not, however, finally completed until the time of Hadrian, 130 A. D. Meanwhile Sullahad despoiled it of several columns[12] which he carried to Rome (86B. C. ), to use in the rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, where they undoubtedly served as models in the development of the RomanCorinthian order. The columns were 57 feet high, with capitals of themost perfect Corinthian type; fifteen are now standing, and one liesprostrate near by. To the Roman period also belong the +Agora Gate+(circ. 35 B. C. ), the +Arch of Hadrian+ (117 A. D. ), the +Odeon ofRegilla+ or of Herodes Atticus (143 A. D. ), at Athens, and many templesand tombs, theatres, arches, etc. , in the Greek provinces. [Footnote 12: L. Bevier, in _Papers of the American Classical School at Athens_ (vol. I. , pp. 195, 196), contends that these were columns left from the old Doric temple. This is untenable, for Sulla would certainly not have taken the trouble to carry away archaic Doric columns, with such splendid Corinthian columns before him. ] +SECULAR MONUMENTS; PROPYLÆA. + The stately gateway by which theAcropolis was entered has already been described. It was the noblest andmost perfect of a class of buildings whose prototype is found in themonumental columnar porches of the palace-group at Persepolis. TheGreeks never used the arch in these structures, nor did they attach tothem the same importance as did most of the other nations of antiquity. The Altis of Olympia, the national shrine of Hellenism, appears to havehad no central gateway of imposing size, but a number of insignificantentrances disposed at random. The +Propylæa+ of +Sunium+, +Priene+ and+Eleusis+ are the most conspicuous, after those of the AthenianAcropolis. Of these the Ionic gateway at Priene is the finest, althoughthe later of the two at Eleusis is interesting for its anta-capitals. (_Anta_ = a flat pilaster decorating the end of a wing-wall and treatedwith a base and capital usually differing from those of the adjacentcolumns. ) These are of Corinthian type, adorned with winged horses, scrolls, and anthemions of an exuberant richness of design, characteristic of this late period. +COLONNADES, STOÆ. + These were built to connect public monuments (as theDionysiac theatre and Odeon at Athens); or along the sides of greatpublic squares, as at Assos and Olympia (the so-called +Echo Hall+); oras independent open public halls, as the +Stoa Diple+ at Thoricus. Theyafforded shelter from sun and rain, places for promenading, meetingswith friends, public gatherings, and similar purposes. They were rarelyof great size, and most of them are of rather late date, though thearchaic structure at Pæstum, known as the +Basilica+, was probably inreality an open hall of this kind. [Illustration: FIG. 40. --PLAN OF GREEK THEATRE. O, _Orchestra_; l, _Logeion_; p, _Paraskenai_; _s, s_, _Stoa_. ] +THEATRES, ODEONS. + These were invariably cut out of the rockyhillsides, though in a few cases (Mantinæa, Myra, Antiphellus) a part ofthe seats were sustained by a built-up substructure and walls to eke outthe deficiency of the hill-slope under them. The front of the excavationwas enclosed by a stage and a set scene or background, built up so as toleave somewhat over a semicircle for the _orchestra_ or space enclosedby the lower tier of seats (Fig. 40). An altar to Dionysus (Bacchus) wasthe essential feature in the foreground of the orchestra, where theDionysiac choral dance was performed. The seats formed successive stepsof stone or marble sweeping around the sloping excavation, with carvedmarble thrones for the priests, archons, and other dignitaries. The onlyarchitectural decoration of the theatre was that of the set scene or_skene_, which with its wing-walls (_paraskenai_) enclosing the stage(_logeion_) was a permanent structure of stone or marble adorned withdoors, cornices, pilasters, etc. This has perished in nearly every case;but at Aspendus, in Asia Minor, there is one still fairly wellpreserved, with a rich architectural decoration on its inner face. Theextreme diameter of the theatres varied greatly; thus at Aizanoi it is187 feet, and at Syracuse 495 feet. The theatre of Dionysus at Athens(finished 325 B. C. ) could accommodate thirty thousand spectators. The odeon differed from the theatre principally in being smaller andentirely covered in by a wooden roof. The +Odeon of Regilla+, built byHerodes Atticus in Athens (143 A. D. ), is a well-preserved specimen ofthis class, but all traces of its cedar ceiling and of its intermediatesupports have disappeared. +BUILDINGS FOR ATHLETIC CONTESTS. + These comprised stadia andhippodromes for races, and gymnasia and palæstræ for individualexercise, bathing, and amusement. The _stadia_ and _hippodromes_ wereoblong enclosures surrounded by tiers of seats and without conspicuousarchitectural features. The _palæstra_ or _gymnasium_--for the terms arenot clearly distinguished--was a combination of courts, chambers, tanks(_piscinæ_) for bathers and _exedræ_ or semicircular recesses providedwith tiers of seats for spectators and auditors, destined not merely forthe exercises of athletes preparing for the stadium, but also for theinstruction and diversion of the public by recitations, lectures, anddiscussions. It was the prototype of the Roman thermæ, but lessimposing, more simple in plan and adornment. Every Greek city had one ormore of them, but they have almost wholly disappeared, and the briefdescription by Vitruvius and scanty remains at Alexandria Troas andEphesus furnish almost the only information we possess regarding theirform and arrangement. +TOMBS. + These are not numerous, and the most important are found inAsia Minor. The greatest of these is the famed +Mausoleum+ atHalicarnassus in Caria, the monument erected to the king Mausolus by hiswidow Artemisia (354 B. C. ; Fig. 41). It was designed by Satyrus andPythius in the Ionic style, and comprised a podium or base 50 feet highand measuring 80 feet by 100 feet, in which was the sepulchre. Upon thisbase stood a cella surrounded by thirty-six Ionic columns; and crownedby a pyramidal roof, on the peak of which was a colossal marble quadrigaat a height of 130 feet. It was superbly decorated by Scopas and othergreat sculptors with statues, marble lions, and a magnificent frieze. The British Museum possesses fragments of this most imposing monument. At Xanthus the +Nereid Monument+, so called from its sculptured figuresof Nereides, was a somewhat similar design on a smaller scale, withsixteen Ionic columns. At Mylassa was another tomb with an openCorinthian colonnade supporting a roof formed in a stepped pyramid. Someof the later rock-cut tombs of Lycia at Myra and Antiphellus may also becounted as Hellenic works. [Illustration: FIG. 41. --MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS. (As restored by the author. )] +DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. + This never attained great importance in Greece, and our knowledge of the typical Greek house is principally derived fromliterary sources. Very few remains of Greek houses have been foundsufficiently well preserved to permit of restoring even the plan. It isprobable that they resembled in general arrangement the houses ofPompeii (see p.  107); but that they were generally insignificant in sizeand decoration. The exterior walls were pierced only by the entrancedoors, all light being derived from one or more interior courts. In theMacedonian epoch there must have been greater display and luxury indomestic architecture, but no remains have come down to us of sufficientimportance or completeness to warrant further discussion. +MONUMENTS. + In addition to those already mentioned in the text the following should be enumerated: PREHISTORIC PERIOD. In the Islands about Santorin, remains of houses antedating 1500 B. C. ; at Tiryns the Acropolis, walls, and miscellaneous ruins; the like also at Mycenæ, besides various tombs; walls and gates at Samos, Thoricus, Menidi, Athens, etc. ARCHAIC PERIOD. Doric Temples at Metapontium (by Durm assigned to 610 B. C. ), Selinus, Agrigentum, Pæstum; at Athens the first Parthenon; in Asia Minor the primitive Ionic Artemisium at Ephesus and the Heraion at Samos, the latter the oldest of colossal Greek temples. TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. At Agrigentum, temples of Concord, Castor and Pollux, Demeter, Æsculapius, all circ. 480 B. C. ; temples at Selinus and Segesta. PERICLEAN PERIOD. In Athens the Ionic temple on the Illissus, destroyed during the present century; on Cape Sunium the temple of Athena, 430 B. C. , partly standing; at Nemea, the temple of Zeus; at Tegea, the temple of Athena Elea (400? B. C. ); at Rhamnus, the temples of Themis and of Nemesis; at Argos, two temples, stoa, and other buildings; all these were Doric. ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD. The temple of Dionysus at Teos; temple of Artemis Leucophryne at Magnesia, both about 330 B. C. And of the Ionic order. DECADENCE AND ROMAN PERIOD. At Athens the Stoa of Eumenes, circ. 170 B. C. ; the monument of Philopappus on the Museum hill, 110 A. D. ; the Gymnasium of Hadrian, 114 to 137 A. D. ; the last two of the Corinthian order. THEATRES. Besides those already mentioned there are important remains of theatres at Epidaurus, Argos, Segesta, Iassus (400? B. C. ), Delos, Sicyon, and Thoricus; at Aizanoi, Myra, Telmissus, and Patara, besides many others of less importance scattered through the Hellenic world. At Taormina are extensive ruins of a large Greek theatre rebuilt in the Roman period. CHAPTER VIII. ROMAN ARCHITECTURE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Anderson and Spiers, Baumeister, Reber. Choisy, _L’Art de bâtir chez les Romains_. Desgodetz, _Rome in her Ancient Grandeur_. Durm, _Die Baukunst der Etrusker_; _Die Baukunst der Romer_. Lanciani, _Ancient Rome in the Light of Modern Discovery_; _New Tales of Old Rome_; _Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome_. De Martha, _Archéologie étrusque et romaine_. Middleton, _Ancient Rome in 1888_. +LAND AND PEOPLE. + The geographical position of Italy conferred upon herspecial and obvious advantages for taking up and carrying northward andwestward the arts of civilization. A scarcity of good harbors was theonly drawback amid the blessings of a glorious climate, fertile soil, varied scenery, and rich material resources. From a remote antiquityDorian colonists had occupied the southern portion and the island ofSicily, enriching them with splendid monuments of Doric art; andPhœnician commerce had brought thither the products of Oriental art andindustry. The foundation of Rome in 753 B. C. Established the nucleusabout which the sundry populations of Italy were to crystallize into theRoman nation, under the dominating influence of the Latin element. Lateron, the absorption of the conquered Etruscans added to this compositepeople a race of builders and engineers, as yet rude and uncouth intheir art, but destined to become a powerful factor in developing thenew architecture that was to spring from the contact of the practicalRomans with the noble art of the Greek centres. +GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. + While the Greeks bequeathed to posterity themost perfect models of form in literary and plastic art, it was reservedfor the Romans to work out the applications of these to every-daymaterial life. The Romans were above all things a practical people. Their consummate skill as organizers is manifest in the marvellousadministrative institutions of their government, under which they unitedthe most distant and diverse nationalities. Seemingly deficient inculture, they were yet able to recast the forms of Greek architecture innew moulds, and to evolve therefrom a mighty architecture adapted towholly novel conditions. They brought engineering into the service ofarchitecture, which they fitted to the varied requirements ofgovernment, public amusement, private luxury, and the common comfort. They covered the antique world with arches and amphitheatres, withvillas, baths, basilicas, and temples, all bearing the unmistakableimpress of Rome, though wrought by artists and artisans of divers races. Only an extraordinary genius for organization could have accomplishedsuch results. The architects of Rome marvellously extended the range of their art, andgave it a flexibility by which it accommodated itself to the widestvariety of materials and conditions. They made the arch and vault thebasis of their system of design, employing them on a scale previouslyundreamed of, and in combinations of surpassing richness and majesty. They systematized their methods of construction so that soldiers andbarbarians could execute the rough mass of their buildings, andformulated the designing of the decorative details so that artisans ofmoderate skill could execute them with good effect. They carried theprinciple of repetition of motives to its utmost limit, and sought tocounteract any resulting monotony by the scale and splendor of thedesign. Above all they developed planning into a fine art, displayingtheir genius in a wonderful variety of combinations and in an unfailingsense of the demands of constructive propriety, practical convenience, and artistic effect. Where Egyptian or Greek architecture shows one typeof plan, the Roman shows a score. +GREEK INFLUENCE. + Previous to the closing years of the Republic theRomans had no art but the Etruscan. The few buildings of importance theypossessed were of Etruscan design and workmanship, excepting a smallnumber built by Greek hands. It was not until the Empire that Romanarchitecture took on a truly national form. True Roman architecture isessentially imperial. The change from the primitive Etruscan style tothe splendors of the imperial age was due to the conquest of the Greekstates. Not only did the Greek campaigns enrich Rome with anunprecedented wealth of artistic spoils; they also brought into Italyhosts of Greek artists, and filled the minds of the campaigners with theambition to realize in their own dominions the marble colonnades, thetemples, theatres, and propylæa of the Greek cities they had pillaged. The Greek orders were adopted, altered, and applied to arcaded designsas well as to peristyles and other open colonnades. The marriage of thecolumn and arch gave birth to a system of forms as characteristic ofRoman architecture as the Doric or Ionic colonnade is of the Greek. +THE ROMAN ORDERS. + To meet the demands of Roman taste the Etruscancolumn was retained with its simple entablature; the Doric and Ionicwere adopted in a modified form; the Corinthian was developed into acomplete and independent order, and the Composite was added to the list. A regular system of proportions for all these five orders was graduallyevolved, and the mouldings were profiled with arcs of circles instead ofthe subtler Greek curves. In the building of many-storied structures theorders were superposed, the more slender over the sturdier, in anorderly and graded succession. The immense extent and number of theRoman buildings, the coarse materials often used, the relative scarcityof highly trained artisans, and above all, the necessity of making agiven amount of artistic design serve for the largest possible amount ofarchitecture, combined to direct the designing of detail into uniformchannels. Thus in time was established a sort of canon of proportions, which was reduced to rules by Vitruvius, and revived in much moredetailed and precise form by Vignola in the sixteenth century. [Illustration: FIG. 42. --ROMAN DORIC ORDER. (THEATRE OF MARCELLUS). ] In each of the orders, including the Doric, the column was given a baseone half of a diameter in height (the unit of measurement being thediameter of the lower part of the shaft, the _crassitudo_ of Vitruvius). The shaft was made to contract about one-sixth in diameter toward thecapital, under which it was terminated by an _astragal_ or collar ofsmall mouldings; at the base it ended in a slight flare and filletcalled the _cincture_. The entablature was in all cases given not farfrom one quarter the height of the whole column. The +Tuscan+ order wasa rudimentary or Etruscan Doric with a column seven diameters high and asimple entablature without triglyphs, mutules, or dentils. But fewexamples of its use are known. The +Doric+ (Fig. 42) retained thetriglyphs and metopes, the mutules and guttæ of the Greek; but thecolumn was made eight diameters high, the shaft was smooth or had deepflutings separated by narrow fillets, and was usually provided with asimple moulded base on a square plinth. Mutules were used only over thetriglyphs, and were even replaced in some cases by dentils; the coronawas made lighter than the Greek, and a cymatium replaced the antefixæ onthe lateral cornices. The Ionic underwent fewer changes, and theseprincipally in the smaller mouldings and details of the capital. Thecolumn was nine diameters high (Fig. 43). The +Corinthian+ was made intoan independent order by the designing of a special base of small _tori_and _scotiæ_, and by sumptuously carved _modillions_ or bracketsenriching the cornice and supporting the corona above a denticulatedbed-mould (Fig. 44). Though the first designers of the modillion wereprobably Greeks, it must, nevertheless, be taken as really a Romandevice, worthily completing the essentially Roman Corinthian order. The+Composite+ was formed by combining into one capital portions of theIonic and Corinthian, and giving to it a simplified form of theCorinthian cornice. The Corinthian order remained, however, the favoriteorder of Roman architecture. [Illustration: FIG. 43. --ROMAN IONIC ORDER. ] +USE OF THE ORDERS. + The Romans introduced many innovations in thegeneral use and treatment of the orders. Monolithic shafts werepreferred to those built up of superposed drums. The fluting was omittedon these, and when hard and semi-precious stone like porphyry orverd-antique was the material, it was highly polished to bring out itscolor. These polished monoliths were often of great size, and they wereused in almost incredible numbers. [Illustration: FIG. 44. --CORINTHIAN ORDER (TEMPLE OF CASTOR AND POLLUX). ] Another radical departure from Greek usage was the mounting of columnson pedestals to secure greater height without increasing the size of thecolumn and its entablature. The Greek _anta_ was developed into theRoman pilaster or flattened wall-column, and every free column, or rangeof columns perpendicular to the façade, had its corresponding pilasterto support the wall-end of the architrave. But the most radicalinnovation was the general use of engaged columns as wall-decorations orbuttresses. The engaged column projected from the wall by more than halfits diameter, and was built up with the wall as a part of its substance(Fig. 45). The entablature was in many cases advanced only over thecolumns, between which it was set back almost to the plane of the wall. This practice is open to the obvious criticism that it makes the columnappear superfluous by depriving it of its function of supporting thecontinuous entablature. The objection has less weight when theprojecting entablature over the column serves as a pedestal for a statueor similar object, which restores to the column its function as asupport (see the Arch of Constantine, Fig. 63). [Illustration: FIG. 45. --ROMAN ARCADE WITH ENGAGED COLUMNS (From the Colosseum. )] +ARCADES. + The orders, though probably at first used only as freesupports in porticos and colonnades, were early applied as decorationsto arcaded structures. This practice became general with themultiplication of many-storied arcades like those of the amphitheatres, the engaged columns being set between the arches as buttresses, supporting entablatures which marked the divisions into stories (Fig. 45). This combination has been assailed as a false and illogical device, but the criticism proceeds from a too narrow conception of architecturalpropriety. It is defensible upon both artistic and logical grounds; forit not only furnishes a most desirable play of light and shade and apleasing contrast of rectangular and curved lines, but by emphasizingthe constructive divisions and elements of the building and the verticalsupport of the piers, it also contributes to the expressiveness andvigor of the design. +VAULTING. + The Romans substituted vaulting in brick, concrete, ormasonry for wooden ceilings wherever possible, both in public andprivate edifices. The Etruscans were the first vault-builders, and theCloaca Maxima, the great sewer of Republican Rome (about 500 B. C. ) stillremains as a monument of their engineering skill. Probably not onlyEtruscan engineers (whose traditions were perhaps derived from Asiaticsources in the remote past), but Asiatic builders also from conqueredeastern provinces, were engaged together in the development of thewonderful system of vaulted construction to which Roman architecture solargely owed its grandeur. Three types of vault were commonly used: thebarrel-vault, the groined or four-part vault, and the dome. [Illustration: FIG. 46. --BARREL VAULT. ] The barrel vault (Fig. 46) was generally semi-cylindrical in section, and was used to cover corridors and oblong halls, like thetemple-cellas, or was bent around a curve, as in amphitheatre passages. [Illustration: FIG. 47. --GROINED VAULT. _g, g_, _Groins. _] The groined vault is formed by the intersection of two barrel-vaults(Fig. 47). When several compartments of groined vaulting are placedtogether over an oblong plan, a double advantage is secured. Lateralwindows can be carried up to the full height of the vaulting instead ofbeing stopped below its springing; and the weight and thrust of thevaulting are concentrated upon a number of isolated points instead ofbeing exerted along the whole extent of the side walls, as with thebarrel-vault. The Romans saw that it was sufficient to dispose themasonry at these points in masses at right angles to the length of thehall, to best resist the lateral thrust of the vault. This appearsclearly in the plan of the Basilica of Constantine (Fig. 58). The dome was in almost all Roman examples supported on a circular wallbuilt up from the ground, as in the Pantheon (Fig. 54). The pendentivedome, sustained by four or eight arches over a square or octagonal plan, is not found in true Roman buildings. The Romans made of the vault something more than a mere constructivedevice. It became in their hands an element of interior effect at leastequally important with the arch and column. No style of architecture hasever evolved nobler forms of ceiling than the groined vault and thedome. Moreover, the use of vaulting made possible effects ofunencumbered spaciousness and amplitude which could never be compassedby any combination of piers and columns. It also assured to the Romanmonuments a duration and a freedom from danger of destruction by fireimpossible with any wooden-roofed architecture, however noble its formor careful its execution. +CONSTRUCTION. + The constructive methods of the Romans varied with theconditions and resources of different provinces, but were everywheredominated by the same practical spirit. Their vaulted architecturedemanded for the support of its enormous weights and for resistance toits disruptive thrusts, piers and buttresses of great mass. To constructthese wholly of cut stone appeared preposterous and wasteful to theRoman. Italy abounds in clay, lime, and a volcanic product, _pozzolana_(from Puteoli or Pozzuoli, where it has always been obtained in largequantities), which makes an admirable hydraulic cement. With thesematerials it was possible to employ unskilled labor for the great bulkof this massive masonry, and to erect with the greatest rapidity and inthe most economical manner those stupendous piles which, even in theirruin, excite the admiration of every beholder. [Illustration: FIG. 48. --ROMAN WALL MASONRY. A, _Brickwork_; b, _Tufa ashlar_; r, _Opus reticulatum_; i, _Opus incertum_. ] +STONE, CONCRETE, AND BRICK MASONRY. + For buildings of an externallydecorative character such as temples, arches of triumph, andamphitheatres, as well as in all places where brick and concrete werenot easily obtained, stone was employed. The walls were built by layingup the inner and outer faces in _ashlar_ or cut stone, and filling inthe intermediate space with rubble (random masonry of uncut stone) laidup in cement, or with concrete of broken stone and cement dumped intothe space in successive layers. The cement converted the whole into aconglomerate closely united with the face-masonry. In Syria and Egyptthe local preference for stones of enormous size was gratified, and evensurpassed, as in Herod’s terrace-walls for the temple at Jerusalem(p.  41), and in the splendid structures of Palmyra and Baalbec. InItaly, however, stones of moderate size were preferred, and when blocksof unusual dimensions occur, they are in many cases marked with falsejoints, dividing them into apparently smaller blocks, lest they shoulddwarf the building by their large scale. The general use in the Augustanperiod of marble for a decorative lining or wainscot in interiors led intime to the objectionable practice of coating buildings of concrete withan apparel of sham marble masonry, by carving false joints upon anexternal veneer of thin slabs of that material. Ordinary concrete wallswere frequently faced with small blocks of tufa, called, according tothe manner of its application, _opus reticulatum_, _opus incertum_, _opus spicatum_, etc. (Fig. 48). In most cases, however, the facing wasof carefully executed brickwork, covered sometimes by a coating ofstucco. The bricks were large, measuring from one to two feet squarewhere used for quoins or arches, but triangular where they served onlyas facings. Bricks were also used in the construction of skeleton ribsfor concrete vaults of large span. +VAULTING. + Here, as in the wall-masonry, economy and common sensedevised methods extremely simple for accomplishing vast designs. Whilethe smaller vaults were, so to speak, cast in concrete upon moulds madeof rough boards, the enormous weight of the larger vaults precludedtheir being supported, while drying or “setting, ” upon timber centringsbuilt up from the ground. Accordingly, a skeleton of light ribs wasfirst built on wooden centrings, and these ribs, when firmly “set, ”became themselves supports for intermediate centrings on which to castthe concrete fillings between the ribs. The whole vault, once hardened, formed really a monolithic curved lintel, exerting no thrust whatever, so that the extraordinary precautions against lateral disruptionpractised by the Romans were, in fact, in many cases quite superfluous. +DECORATION. + The temple of Castor and Pollux in the Forum (longmiscalled the temple of Jupiter Stator), is a typical example of Romanarchitectural decoration, in which richness was preferred to the subtlerrefinements of design (see Fig. 44). The splendid figure-sculpture whichadorned the Greek monuments would have been inappropriate on thetheatres and thermæ of Rome or the provinces, even had there been thetaste or the skill to produce it. Conventional carved ornament wassubstituted in its place, and developed into a splendid system of highlydecorative forms. Two principal elements appear in this decoration--theacanthus-leaf, as the basis of a whole series of wonderfully variedmotives; and symbolism, represented principally by what are technicallytermed _grotesques_--incongruous combinations of natural forms, as whenan infant’s body terminates in a bunch of foliage (Fig. 49). Only to alimited extent do we find true sculpture employed as decoration, andthat mainly for triumphal arches or memorial columns. [Illustration: FIG. 49--ROMAN CARVED ORNAMENT. (Lateran Museum. )] The architectural mouldings were nearly always carved, the Greekwater-leaf and egg-and-dart forming the basis of most of theenrichments; but these were greatly elaborated and treated with moreminute detail than the Greek prototypes. Friezes and bands were commonlyornamented with the foliated scroll or _rinceau_ (a convenient Frenchterm for which we have no equivalent). This motive was as characteristicof Roman art as the anthemion was of the Greek. It consists of acontinuous stem throwing out alternately on either side branches whichcurl into spirals and are richly adorned with rosettes, acanthus-leaves, scrolls, tendrils, and blossoms. In the best examples the detail wasmodelled with great care and minuteness, and the motive itself wastreated with extraordinary variety and fertility of invention. A derivedand enriched form of the anthemion was sometimes used for bands andfriezes; and grotesques, dolphins, griffins, infant genii, wreaths, festoons, ribbons, eagles, and masks are also common features in Romanrelief carving. [Illustration: FIG. 50. --ROMAN CEILING PANELS. (a, From Palmyra; b, Basilica of Constantine. )] The Romans made great use of panelling and of moulded plaster in theirinterior decoration, especially for ceilings. The panelling of domes andvaults was usually roughly shaped in their first construction andfinished afterward in stucco with rich moulding and rosettes. The panelswere not always square or rectangular, as in Greek ceilings, but ofvarious geometric forms in pleasing combinations (Fig. 50). In works ofa small scale the panels and decorations were wrought in relief in aheavy coating of plaster applied to the finished structure, and thesestucco reliefs are among the most refined and charming products of Romanart. (Baths of Titus; Baths at Pompeii; Palace of the Cæsars and tombsat Rome. ) +COLOR DECORATION. + Plaster was also used as a ground for painting, executed in distemper or by the encaustic process, wax liquefied by ahot iron being the medium for applying the color in the latter case. Pompeii and Herculaneum furnish countless examples of brilliantwall-painting in which strong primary colors form the ground, and asemi-naturalistic, semi-fantastic representation of figures, architecture and landscape is mingled with festoons, vines, and purelyconventional ornament. Mosaic was also employed to decorate floors andwall-spaces, and sometimes for ceilings. [13] The later imperial bathsand palaces were especially rich in mosaic of the kind called opusGrecanicum, executed with numberless minute cubes of stone or glass, asin the Baths of Caracalla and the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli. [Footnote 13: See Van Dyke’s _History of Paintings_, p.  33. ] To the walls of monumental interiors, such as temples, basilicas, andthermæ, splendor of color was given by veneering them with thin slabs ofrare and richly colored marble. No limit seems to have been placed uponthe costliness or amount of these precious materials. Byzantinearchitecture borrowed from this practice its system of interior colordecoration. CHAPTER IX. ROMAN ARCHITECTURE--_Continued_. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Same as for Chapter VIII. Also, Guhl and Kohner, _Life of the Ancient Greeks and Romans_. Adams, _Ruins of the Palace of Spalato_. Burn, _Rome and the Campagna_. Cameron, _Roman Baths_. Mau, tr. By Kelcey, _Pompeii, its Life and Art_. Mazois, _Ruines de Pompeii_. Von Presuhn, _Die neueste Ausgrabungen zu Pompeii_. Wood, _Ruins of Palmyra and Baalbec_. +THE ETRUSCAN STYLE. + Although the first Greek architects were employedin Rome as early as 493 B. C. , the architecture of the Republic waspractically Etruscan until nearly 100 B. C. Its monuments, consistingmainly of city walls, tombs, and temples, are all marked by a generaluncouthness of detail, denoting a lack of artistic refinement, but theydisplay considerable constructive skill. In the Etruscan walls we meetwith both polygonal and regularly coursed masonry; in both kinds thetrue arch appears as the almost universal form for gates and openings. A famous example is the Augustan Gate at Perugia, a late work rebuiltabout 40 B. C. , but thoroughly Etruscan in style. At Volaterræ (Volterra)is another arched gate, and in Perugia fragments of still another appearbuilt into the modern walls. The Etruscans built both structural and excavated tombs; they consistedin general of a single chamber with a slightly arched or gabled roof, supported in the larger tombs on heavy square piers. The interiors werecovered with pictures; externally there was little ornament except aboutthe gable and doorway. The latter had a stepped or moulded frame withcurious _crossettes_ or ears projecting laterally at the top. The gablerecalled the wooden roofs of Etruscan temples, but was coarse in detail, especially in its mouldings. Sepulchral monuments of other types arealso met with, such as _cippi_ or memorial pillars, sometimes in groupsof five on a single pedestal (tomb at Albano). Among the temples of Etruscan style that of +Jupiter Capitolinus+ on theCapitol at Rome, destroyed by fire in 80 B. C. , was the chief. Threenarrow chambers side by side formed a cella nearly square in plan, preceded by a hexastyle porch of huge Doric, or rather Tuscan, columnsarranged in three aisles, widely spaced and carrying ponderous woodenarchitraves. The roof was of wood; the cymatium and ornaments, as wellas the statues in the pediment, were of terra-cotta, painted and gilded. The details in general showed acquaintance with Greek models, whichappeared in debased and awkward imitations of triglyphs, cornices, antefixæ, etc. [Illustration: FIG. 51. --TEMPLE FORTUNA VIRILIS. PLAN. ] +GREEK STYLE. + The victories of Marcellus at Syracuse, 212 B. C. , FabiusMaximus at Tarentum (209 B. C. ), Flaminius (196 B. C. ), Mummius (146B. C. ), Sulla (86 B. C. ), and others in the various Greek provinces, steadily increased the vogue of Greek architecture and the number ofGreek artists in Rome. The temples of the last two centuries B. C. , andsome of earlier date, though still Etruscan in plan, were in many casesstrongly Greek in the character of their details. A few have remained toour time in tolerable preservation. The temple of +Fortuna Virilis+(really of Fors Fortuna), of the second century (?) B. C. , is atetrastyle prostyle pseudoperipteral temple with a high _podium_ orbase, a typical Etruscan cella, and a deep porch, now walled up, butthoroughly Greek in the elegant details of its Ionic order (Fig. 51). Two circular temples, both called erroneously +Temples of Vesta+, one atRome near the Cloaca Maxima, the other at Tivoli, belong among themonuments of Greek style. The first was probably dedicated to Hercules, the second probably to the Sibyls; the latter being much the betterpreserved of the two. Both were surrounded by peristyles of eighteenCorinthian columns, and probably covered by domical roofs with gildedbronze tiles. The Corinthian order appears here complete with itsmodillion cornice, but the crispness of the detail and the fineness ofthe execution are Greek and not Roman. These temples date from about 72B. C. , though the one at Rome was probably rebuilt in the first centuryA. D. (Fig. 52). [Illustration: FIG. 52. --CIRCULAR TEMPLE. TIVOLI. ] +IMPERIAL ARCHITECTURE; AUGUSTAN AGE. + Even in the temples of Greekstyle Roman conceptions of plan and composition are dominant. The Greekarchitect was not free to reproduce textually Greek designs or details, however strongly he might impress with the Greek character whatever hetouched. The demands of imperial splendor and the building of greatedifices of varied form and complex structure, like the thermæ andamphitheatres, called for new adaptations and combinations of planningand engineering. The reign of Augustus (27 B. C. -14 A. D. ) inaugurated theimperial epoch, but many works erected before and after his reignproperly belong to the Augustan age by right of style. In general, wefind in the works of this period the happiest combination of Greekrefinement with Roman splendor. It was in this period that Rome firstassumed the aspect of an opulent and splendid metropolis, though the wayhad been prepared for this by the regularization and adornment of theRoman Forum and the erection of many temples, basilicas, fora, arches, and theatres during the generation preceding the accession of Augustus. His reign saw the inception or completion of the portico of Octavia, theAugustan forum, the Septa Julia, the first Pantheon, the adjoiningThermæ of Agrippa, the theatre of Marcellus, the first of the imperialpalaces on the Palatine, and a long list of temples, including those ofthe Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux), of Mars Ultor, of Jupiter Tonans onthe Capitol, and others in the provinces; besides colonnades, statues, arches, and other embellishments almost without number. +LATER IMPERIAL WORKS. + With the successors of Augustus splendorincreased to almost fabulous limits, as, for instance, in the vastextent and the prodigality of ivory and gold in the famous Golden Houseof Nero. After the great fire in Rome, presumably kindled by the agentsof this emperor, a more regular and monumental system of street-planningand building was introduced, and the first municipal building-law wasdecreed by him. To the reign of Vespasian (68-79 A. D. ) we owe therebuilding in Roman style and with the Corinthian order of the temple ofJupiter Capitolinus, the Baths of Titus, and the beginning of theFlavian amphitheatre or Colosseum. The two last-named edifices bothstood on the site of Nero’s Golden House, of which the greater part wasdemolished to make way for them. During the last years of the firstcentury the arch of Titus was erected, the Colosseum finished, amphitheatres built at Verona, Pola, Reggio, Tusculum, Nîmes (France), Constantine (Algiers), Pompeii and Herculanum (these last two cities andStabiæ rebuilt after the earthquake of 63 A. D. ), and arches, bridges, and temples erected all over the Roman world. The first part of the second century was distinguished by the splendidarchitectural achievements of the reign of Hadrian (117-138 A. D. ) inRome and the provinces, especially Athens. Nearly all his works weremarked by great dignity of conception as well as beauty of detail. During the latter part of the century a very interesting series ofbuildings were erected in the Hauran (Syria), in which Greek and Arabworkmen under Roman direction produced examples of vigorous stonearchitecture of a mingled Roman and Syrian character. The most-remarkable thermæ of Rome belong to the third century--those ofCaracalla (211-217 A. D. ) and of Diocletian (284-305 A. D. )--their ruinsto-day ranking among the most imposing remains of antiquity. In Syriathe temples of the Sun at Baalbec and Palmyra (273 A. D. , underAurelian), and the great palace of Diocletian at Spalato, in Dalmatia(300 A. D. ), are still the wonder of the few travellers who reach thosedistant spots. While during the third and fourth centuries there was a marked declinein purity and refinement of detail, many of the later works of theperiod display a remarkable freedom and originality in conception. Butthese works are really not Roman, they are foreign, that is, provincialproducts; and the transfer of the capital to Byzantium revealed theincreasing degree in which Rome was coming to look to the East for herstrength and her art. [Illustration: FIG. 53. --TEMPLE OF VENUS AND ROME. PLAN. ] +TEMPLES. + The Romans built both rectangular and circular temples, andthere was much variety in their treatment. In the rectangular temples ahigh _podium_, or basement, was substituted for the Greek steppedstylobate, and the prostyle plan was more common than the peripteral. The cella was relatively short and wide, the front porch inordinatelydeep, and frequently divided by longitudinal rows of columns into threeaisles. In most cases the exterior of the cella in prostyle temples wasdecorated by engaged columns. A barrel vault gave the interior an aspectof spaciousness impossible with the Greek system of a wooden ceilingsupported on double ranges of columns. In the place of these, free orengaged columns along the side-walls received the ribs of the vaulting. Between these ribs the ceiling was richly panelled, or coffered andsumptuously gilded. The temples of +Fortuna Virilis+ and of +Faustina+at Rome (the latter built 141 A. D. , and its ruins incorporated into themodern church of S.  Lorenzo in Miranda), and the beautiful and admirablypreserved +Maison Carrée+, at Nîmes (France) (4 A. D. ) are examples ofthis type. The temple of +Concord+, of which only the podium remains, and the small temple of Julius (both of these in the Forum) illustrateanother form of prostyle temple in which the porch was on a long side ofthe cella. Some of the larger temples were peripteral. The temple of the+Dioscuri+ (Castor and Pollux) in the Forum, was one of the mostmagnificent of these, certainly the richest in detail (Fig. 44). Veryremarkable was the double temple of +Venus and Rome+, east of the Forum, designed by the Emperor Hadrian about 130 A. D. (Fig. 53). It was a vastpseudodipteral edifice containing two cellas in one structure, theirstatue-niches or apses meeting back to back in the centre. The templestood in the midst of an imposing columnar peribolus entered bymagnificent gateways. Other important temples have already beenmentioned on p.  91. Besides the two circular temples already described, the temple of Vesta, adjoining the House of the Vestals, at the east end of the Forum shouldbe mentioned. At Baalbec is a circular temple whose entablature curvesinward between the widely-spaced columns until it touches the cella inthe middle of each intercolumniation. It illustrates the caprices ofdesign which sometimes resulted from the disregard of tradition and thestriving after originality (273 A. D. ). [Illustration: FIG. 54. --PLAN OF THE PANTHEON. ] +THE PANTHEON. + The noblest of all circular temples of Rome and of theworld was the +Pantheon+. It was built by Hadrian, 117-138 A. D. , on thesite of the earlier rectangular temple of the same name erected byAgrippa. It measures 142 feet in diameter internally; the wall is 20feet thick and supports a hemispherical dome rising to a height of 140feet (Figs. 54, 55). Light is admitted solely through a round opening 28feet in diameter at the top of the dome, the simplest and mostimpressive method of illumination conceivable. The rain and snow thatenter produce no appreciable effect upon the temperature of the vasthall. There is a single entrance, with noble bronze doors, admittingdirectly to the interior, around which seven niches, alternatelyrectangular and semicircular in plan and fronted by Corinthian columns, lighten, without weakening, the mass of the encircling wall. This wallwas originally incrusted with rich marbles, and the great dome, adornedwith deep coffering in rectangular panels, was decorated with rosettesand mouldings in gilt stucco. The dome appears to have been composed ofnumerous arches and ribs, filled in and finally coated with concrete. A recent examination of a denuded portion of its inner surface hasconvinced the writer that the interior panelling was executed after, andnot during, its construction, by hewing the panels out of the mass ofbrick and concrete, without regard to the form and position of theorigin skeleton of ribs. [Illustration: FIG. 55. --INTERIOR OF THE PANTHEON. ] [Illustration: FIG. 56. --EXTERIOR OF THE PANTHEON. (From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York. )] The exterior (Fig. 56) was less successful than the interior. The gabledporch of twelve superb granite columns 50 feet high, three-aisled inplan after the Etruscan mode, and covered originally by a ceiling ofbronze, was a rebuilding with the materials and on the plan of theoriginal pronaos of the Pantheon of Agrippa. The circular wall behind itis faced with fine brickwork, and displays, like the dome, many curiousarrangements of discharging arches, reminiscences of traditionalconstructive precautions here wholly useless and fictitious because onlyskin-deep. A revetment of marble below and plaster above once concealedthis brick facing. The portico, in spite of its too steep gable (oncefilled with a “gigantomachia” in gilt bronze) and its somewhat awkwardassociation with a round building, is nevertheless a noble work, itscapitals in Pentelic marble ranking among the finest known examples ofthe Roman Corinthian. Taken as a whole, the Pantheon is one of the greatmasterpieces of the world’s architecture. [Illustration: FIG. 57. --FORUM AND BASILICA OF TRAJAN. ] +FORA AND BASILICAS. + The fora were the places for general publicassemblage. The chief of those in Rome, the +Forum Magnum+, or +ForumRomanum+, was at first merely an irregular vacant space, about and inwhich, as the focus of the civic life, temples, halls, colonnades, andstatues gradually accumulated. These chance aggregations the systematicRoman mind reduced in time to orderly and monumental form; successiveemperors extended them and added new fora at enormous cost and withgreat splendor of architecture. Those of Julius, Augustus, Vespasian, and Nerva (or Domitian), adjoining the Roman Forum, were magnificentenclosures surrounded by high walls and single or double colonnades. Each contained a temple or basilica, besides gateways, memorial columnsor arches, and countless statues. The +Forum of Trajan+ surpassed allthe rest; it covered an area of thirty-five thousand square yards, andincluded, besides the main area, entered through a triumphal arch, theBasilica Ulpia, the temple of Trajan, and his colossal Doric column ofVictory. Both in size and beauty it ranked as the chief architecturalglory of the city (Fig. 57). The six fora together contained thirteentemples, three basilicas, eight triumphal arches, a mile of porticos, and a number of other public edifices. [14] Besides these, a net-work ofcolonnades covered large tracts of the city, affording shelteredcommunication in every direction, and here and there expanding intosquares or gardens surrounded by peristyles. [Footnote 14: Lanciani: _Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries_, p.  89. ] [Illustration: FIG. 58. --BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. PLAN. ] The public business of Rome, both judicial and commercial, was largelytransacted in the _basilicas_, large buildings consisting usually of awide and lofty central nave flanked by lower side-aisles, andterminating at one or both ends in an apse or semicircular recess calledthe _tribune_, in which were the seats for the magistrates. Theside-aisles were separated from the nave by columns supporting aclearstory wall, pierced by windows above the roofs of the side-aisles. In some cases the latter were two stories high, with galleries; inothers the central space was open to the sky, as at Pompeii, suggestingthe derivation of the basilica from the open square surrounded bycolonnades, or from the forum itself, with which we find it usuallyassociated. The most important basilicas in Rome were the +Sempronian+, the +Æmilian+ (about 54 B. C. ), the +Julian+ in the Forum Magnum (51B. C. ), and the +Ulpian+ in the Forum of Trajan (113 A. D. ). The last twowere probably open basilicas, only the side-aisles being roofed. TheUlpian (Fig. 57) was the most magnificent of all, and in conjunctionwith the Forum of Trajan formed one of the most imposing of thosemonumental aggregations of columnar architecture which contributed solargely to the splendor of the Roman capital. These monuments frequently suffered from the burning of their woodenroofs. It was Constantine who completed the first vaulted and fireproofbasilica, begun by his predecessor and rival, Maxentius, on the site ofthe former Temple of Peace (Figs. 58, 59). Its design reproduced on agrand scale the plan of the tepidarium-halls of the thermæ, theside-recesses of which were converted into a continuous side-aisle bypiercing arches through the buttress-walls that separated them. Abovethe imposing vaults of these recesses and under the cross-vaults of thenave were windows admitting abundant light. A _narthex_, or porch, preceded the hall at one end; there were also a side entrance from theVia Sacra, and an apse or tribune for the magistrates opposite each ofthese entrances. The dimensions of the main hall (325 × 85 feet), theheight of its vault (117 feet), and the splendor of its columns andincrustations excited universal admiration, and exercised a powerfulinfluence on later architecture. [Illustration: FIG. 59. --BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. RUINS. ] [Illustration: FIG. 60. --THERMÆ OF CARACALLA. PLAN OF CENTRAL BLOCK. A, _Caldarium, or Hot Bath_; B, _Intermediate Chamber_; C, _Tepidarium, or Warm Bath_; D, _Frigidarium, or Cold Bath_; E, _Peristyles_; a, _Gymnastic Rooms_; b, _Dressing Rooms_; c, _Cooling Rooms_; d, _Small Courts_; e, _Entrances_; v, _Vestibules_. ] +THERMÆ. + The leisure of the Roman people was largely spent in the greatbaths, or _thermæ_, which took the place substantially of the modernclub. The establishments erected by the emperors for this purpose werevast and complex congeries of large and small halls, courts, andchambers, combined with a masterly comprehension of artistic proprietyand effect in the sequence of oblong, square, oval, and circularapartments, and in the relation of the greater to the lesser masses. They were a combination of the Greek _palæstra_ with the Roman _balnea_, and united in one harmonious design great public swimming-baths, privatebaths for individuals and families, places for gymnastic exercises andgames, courts, peristyles, gardens, halls for literary entertainments, lounging-rooms, and all the complex accommodation required for theservice of the whole establishment. They were built with apparentdisregard of cost, and adorned with splendid extravagance. The earliestwere the +Baths of Agrippa+ (27 B. C. ) behind the Pantheon; next may bementioned those of +Titus+, built on the substructions of Nero’s GoldenHouse. The remains of the +Thermæ of Caracalla+ (211 A. D. ) form the mostextensive mass of ruins in Rome, and clearly display the admirableplanning of this and similar establishments. A gigantic block ofbuildings containing the three great halls for cold, warm, and hotbaths, stood in the centre of a vast enclosure surrounded by privatebaths, _exedræ_, and halls for lecture-audiences and other gatherings. The enclosure was adorned with statues, flower-gardens, and places forout-door games. The +Baths of Diocletian+ (302 A. D. ) embodied thisarrangement on a still more extensive scale; they could accommodate3, 500 bathers at once, and their ruins cover a broad territory near therailway terminus of the modern city. The church of S.  Maria degli Angeliwas formed by Michael Angelo out of the _tepidarium_ of thesebaths--a colossal hall 340 × 87 feet, and 90 feet high. The originalvaulting and columns are still intact, and the whole interior mostimposing, in spite of later stucco disfigurements. The circular_laconicum_ (sweat-room) serves as the porch to the present church. Itwas in the building of these great halls that Roman architecture reachedits most original and characteristic expression. Wholly unrelated to anyforeign model, they represent distinctively Roman ideals, both as toplan and construction. [Illustration: FIG. 61. --ROMAN THEATRE. (HERCULANUM. ) (From model. )] [Illustration: FIG. 62. --COLOSSEUM. HALF PLAN. ] +PLACES OF AMUSEMENT. + The earliest Roman theatres differed from theGreek in having a nearly semicircular plan, and in being built up fromthe level ground, not excavated in a hillside (Fig. 61). The firsttheatre was of wood, built by Mummius 145 B. C. , and it was not untilninety years later that stone was first substituted for the moreperishable material, in the theatre of Pompey. The +Theatre ofMarcellus+ (23-13 B. C. ) is in part still extant, and later theatres inPompeii, Orange (France), and in the Asiatic provinces are in excellentpreservation. The orchestra was not, as in the Greek theatre, reservedfor the choral dance, but was given up to spectators of rank; the stagewas adorned with a permanent architectural background of columns andarches, and sometimes roofed with wood, and an arcade or colonnadesurrounded the upper tier of seats. The amphitheatre was a still moredistinctively Roman edifice. It was elliptical in plan, surrounding anelliptical arena, and built up with continuous encircling tiers ofseats. The earliest stone amphitheatre was erected by Statilius Taurusin the time of Augustus. It was practically identical in design with thelater and much larger Flavian amphitheatre, commonly known as the+Colosseum+, begun by Vespasian and completed 82 A. D. (Fig. 62). Thisimmense structure measured 607 × 506 feet in plan and was 180 feet high;it could accommodate eighty-seven thousand spectators. Engaged columnsof the Tuscan, Ionic, and Corinthian orders decorated three stories ofthe exterior; the fourth was a nearly unbroken wall with slenderCorinthian pilasters. Solidly constructed of travertine, concrete, andtufa, the Colosseum, with its imposing but monotonous exterior, almostsublime by its scale and seemingly endless repetition, but lacking inrefinement or originality of detail and dedicated to bloody and cruelsports, was a characteristic product of the Roman character andcivilization. At Verona, Pola, Capua, and many cities in the foreignprovinces there are well-preserved remains of similar structures. Closely related to the amphitheatre were the circus and the stadium. The+Circus Maximus+ between the Palatine and Aventine hills was the oldestof those in Rome. That erected by Caligula and Nero on the siteafterward partly occupied by St. Peter’s, was more splendid, and is saidto have been capable of accommodating over three hundred thousandspectators after its enlargement in the fourth century. The long, narrowrace-course was divided into two nearly equal parts by a low parapet, the _spina_, on which were the goals (_metæ_) and many small decorativestructures and columns. One end of the circus, as of the stadium also, was semicircular; the other was segmental in the circus, square in thestadium; a colonnade or arcade ran along the top of the building, andthe entrances and exits were adorned with monumental arches. +TRIUMPHAL ARCHES AND COLUMNS. + Rome and the provincial cities aboundedin monuments commemorative of victory, usually single or triple archeswith engaged columns and rich sculptural adornments, or single colossalcolumns supporting statues. The arches were characteristic products ofRoman design, and some of them deserve high praise for the excellence oftheir proportions and the elegance of their details. There were in Romein the second century A. D. , thirty-eight of these monuments. The +Archof Titus+ (71-82 A. D. ) is the simplest and most perfect of those stillextant in Rome; the arch of +Septimius Severus+ in the Forum (203 A. D. )and that of +Constantine+ (330 A. D. ) near the Colosseum, are moresumptuous but less pure in detail. The last-named was in part enrichedwith sculptures taken from the earlier arch of Trajan. The statues ofDacian captives on the attic (_attic_ = a species of subordinate storyadded above the main cornice) of this arch were a fortunate addition, furnishing a _raison-d’être_ for the columns and broken entablatures onwhich they rest. Memorial columns of colossal size were erected byseveral emperors, both in Rome and abroad. Those of +Trajan+ and of+Marcus Aurelius+ are still standing in Rome in perfect preservation. The first was 140 feet high including the pedestal and the statue whichsurmounted it; its capital marked the height of the ridge levelled bythe emperor for the forum on which the column stands. Its most strikingpeculiarity is the spiral band of reliefs winding around the shaft frombottom to top and representing the Dacian campaigns of Trajan. The othercolumn is of similar design and dimensions, but greatly inferior to thefirst in execution. Both are really towers, with interior stair-casesleading to the top. [Illustration: FIG. 63. --ARCH OF CONSTANTINE. (From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York. )] +TOMBS. + The Romans developed no special and national type of tomb, andfew of their sepulchral monuments were of large dimensions. The mostimportant in Rome were the pyramid of +Caius Cestius+ (late firstcentury B. C. ), and the circular tombs of +Cecilia Metella+ (60 B. C. ), +Augustus+ (14 A. D. ) and +Hadrian+, now the Castle of S.  Angelo (138A. D. ). The latter was composed of a huge cone of marble supported on acylindrical structure 230 feet in diameter standing on a square podium300 feet long and wide. The cone probably once terminated in the giltbronze pine-cone now in the Giardino della Pigna of the Vatican. In theMausoleum of Augustus a mound of earth planted with trees crowned asimilar circular base of marble on a podium 220 feet square, now buried. The smaller tombs varied greatly in size and form. Some were vaultedchambers, with graceful internal painted decorations of figures and vinepatterns combined with low-relief enrichments in stucco. Others weredesigned in the form of altars or sarcophagi, as at Pompeii; whileothers again resembled ædiculæ, little temples, shrines, or small towersin several stories of arches and columns, as at St. Rémy (France). +PALACES AND DWELLINGS. + Into their dwellings the Romans carried alltheir love of ostentation and personal luxury. They anticipated in manydetails the comforts of modern civilization in their furniture, theirplumbing and heating, and their utensils. Their houses may be dividedinto four classes: the palace, the villa, the _domus_ or ordinary house, and the _insula_ or many-storied tenement built in compact blocks. Thefirst three alone concern us, and will be taken up in the above order. The imperial +palaces+ on the Palatine Hill comprised a wide range instyle and variety of buildings, beginning with the first simple house ofAugustus (26 B. C. ), burnt and rebuilt 3 A. D. Tiberius, Caligula, andNero added to the Augustan group; Domitian rebuilt a second time andenlarged the palace of Augustus, and Septimius Severus remodelled thewhole group, adding to it his own extraordinary seven-storied palace, the Septizonium. The ruins of these successive buildings have beencarefully excavated, and reveal a remarkable combination ofdwelling-rooms, courts, temples, libraries, basilicas, baths, gardens, peristyles, fountains, terraces, and covered passages. These wereadorned with a profusion of precious marbles, mosaics, columns, andstatues. Parts of the demolished palace of Nero were incorporated in thesubstructions of the Baths of Titus. The beautiful arabesques andplaster reliefs which adorned them were the inspiration of much of thefresco and stucco decoration of the Italian Renaissance. At Spalato, inDalmatia, are the extensive ruins of the great +Palace of Diocletian+, which was laid out on the plan of a Roman camp, with two intersectingavenues (Fig. 64). It comprised a temple, mausoleum, basilica, and otherstructures besides those portions devoted to the purposes of a royalresidence. [Illustration: FIG. 64. --PALACE OF DIOCLETIAN. SPALATO. ] The +villa+ was in reality a country palace, arranged with specialreference to the prevailing winds, exposure to the sun and shade, andthe enjoyment of a wide prospect. Baths, temples, _exedræ_, theatres, tennis-courts, sun-rooms, and shaded porticoes were connected with thehouse proper, which was built around two or three interior courts orperistyles. Statues, fountains, and colossal vases of marble adorned thegrounds, which were laid out in terraces and treated with all thefantastic arts of the Roman landscape-gardener. The most elaborate andextensive villa was that of +Hadrian+, at Tibur (Tivoli); its ruins, covering hundreds of acres, form one of the most interesting spots tovisit in the neighborhood of Rome. [Illustration: FIG. 65. --HOUSE OF PANSA, POMPEII. S, _Shops_; v, _Vestibule_; f, _Family Rooms_; k, _Kitchen_; l, _Lavarium_; _P, P, P_, _Peristyles_. ] There are few remains in Rome of the +domus+ or private house. Two, however, have left remarkably interesting ruins--the +Atrium Vestæ+, orHouse of the Vestal Virgins, east of the Forum, a well-planned andextensive house surrounding a cloister or court; and the +House ofLivia+, so-called, on the Palatine Hill, the walls and decorations ofwhich are excellently preserved. The typical Roman house in a provincialtown is best illustrated by the ruins of Pompeii and Herculanum, which, buried by an eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A. D. , have been partiallyexcavated since 1721. The Pompeiian house (Fig. 65) consisted of severalcourts or _atria_, some of which were surrounded by colonnades andcalled _peristyles_. The front portion was reserved for shops, orpresented to the street a wall unbroken save by the entrance; all therooms and chambers opened upon the interior courts, from which alonethey borrowed their light. In the brilliant climate of southern Italywindows were little needed, as sufficient light was admitted by thedoor, closed only by portières for the most part; especially as thefamily life was passed mainly in the shaded courts, to which fountains, parterres of shrubbery, statues, and other adornments lent theirinviting charm. The general plan of these houses seems to have been ofGreek origin, as well as the system of decoration used on the walls. These, when not wainscoted with marble, were covered with fantastic, butoften artistic, painted decorations, in which an imaginary architectureas of metal, a fantastic and arbitrary perspective, illusory pictures, and highly finished figures were the chief elements. These were executedin brilliant colors with excellent effect. The houses were lightlybuilt, with wooden ceilings and roofs instead of vaulting, and usuallywith but one story on account of the danger from earthquakes. That theworkmanship and decoration were in the capital often superior to whatwas to be found in a provincial town like Pompeii, is evidenced bybeautiful wall-paintings and reliefs discovered in Rome in 1879 and nowpreserved in the Museo delle Terme. More or less fragmentary remains ofRoman houses have been found in almost every corner of the Roman empire, but nowhere exhibiting as completely as in Pompeii the typical Romanarrangement. +WORKS OF UTILITY. + A word should be said about Roman engineering works, which in many cases were designed with an artistic sense of proportionand form which raises them into the domain of genuine art. Such wereespecially the bridges, in which a remarkable effect of monumentalgrandeur was often produced by the form and proportions of the archesand piers, and an appropriate use of rough and dressed masonry, as inthe Pons Ælius (Ponte S.  Angelo), the great bridge at Alcantara (Spain), and the Pont du Gard, in southern France. The aqueducts are impressiverather by their length, scale, and simplicity, than by any specialrefinements of design, except where their arches are treated with somearchitectural decoration to form gates, as in the Porta Maggiore, atRome. +MONUMENTS:+ (Those which have no important extant remains are given in italics. ) TEMPLES: _Jupiter Capitolinus_, 600 B. C. ; _Ceres, Liber, and Libera_, 494 B. C. (ruins of later rebuilding in S.  Maria in Cosmedin); _first T. Of Concord_ (rebuilt in Augustan age), 254 B. C. ; _first marble temple_ in _portico of Metellus_, by a Greek, Hermodorus, 143 B. C. ; temples of Fortune at Præneste and at Rome, and of “Vesta” at Rome, 83-78 B. C. ; of “Vesta” at Tivoli, and of Hercules at Cori, 72 B. C. ; _first Pantheon_, 27 B. C. In Augustan Age temples of _Apollo_, Concord rebuilt, Dioscuri, _Julius_, _Jupiter Stator_, _Jupiter Tonans_, Mars Ultor, Minerva (_at Rome_ and Assisi), Maison Carrée at Nîmes, Saturn; at Puteoli, Pola, etc. _T. Of Peace_; _T. Jupiter Capitolinus_, rebuilt 70 A. D. ; temple at Brescia. Temple of Vespasian, 96 A. D. ; also _of Minerva_ in Forum of Nerva; _of Trajan_, 117 A. D. ; second Pantheon; T. Of Venus and Rome at Rome, and of Jupiter Olympius at Athens, 135-138 A. D. ; Faustina, 141 A. D. ; many in Syria; temples of Sun at _Rome_, Baalbec, and Palmyra, cir. 273 A. D. ; of Romulus, 305 A. D. (porch S.  Cosmo and Damiano). PLACES OF ASSEMBLY: FORA--Roman, Julian, 46 B. C. ; Augustan, 40-42 B. C. ; _of Peace_, 75 A. D. ; Nerva, 97 A. D. ; Trajan (by Apollodorus of Damascus, 117 A. D. ) BASILICAS: _Sempronian_, _Æmilian_, 1st century B. C. ; Julian, 51 B. C. ; _Septa Julia_, 26 B. C. ; the Curia, later rebuilt by Diocletian, 300 A. D. (now Church of S.  Adriano); _at Fano_, 20 A. D. (?); Forum and Basilica at Pompeii, 60 A. D. ; of Trajan; of Constantine, 310-324 A. D. THEATRES (th. ) and AMPHITHEATRES (amp. ): th. _Pompey_, 55 B. C. ; of _Balbus_ and of Marcellus, 13 B. C. ; th. And amp. At Pompeii and Herculanum; Colosseum at Rome, 78-82 A. D. ; th. At Orange and in Asia Minor; amp. At Albano, Constantine, Nîmes, Petra, Pola, Reggio, Trevi, Tusculum, Verona, etc. ; amp. Castrense at Rome, 96 A. D. Circuses and stadia at Rome. THERMÆ: of Agrippa, 27 B. C. ; _of Nero_; of Titus, 78 A. D. _Domitian_, 90 A. D. ; Caracalla, 211 A. D. ; Diocletian, 305 A. D. ; _Constantine_, 320 A. D. ; “Minerva Medica, ” 3d or 4th century A. D. ARCHES: _of Stertinius_, 196 B. C. ; _Scipio_, 190 B. C. ; _Augustus_, 30 B. C. ; Titus, 71-82 A. D. ; _Trajan_, 117 A. D. ; Severus, 203 A. D. ; Constantine, 320 A. D. ; of Drusus, Dolabella, Silversmiths, 204 A. D. ; Janus Quadrifrons, 320 A. D. (?); all at Rome. Others at Benevento, Ancona, Rimini in Italy; also at Athens, and at Reims and St. Chamas in France. Columns of Trajan, _Antoninus_, Marcus Aurelius at Rome, others at Constantinople, Alexandria, etc. TOMBS: along Via Appia and Via Latina, at Rome; Via Sacra at Pompeii; tower-tombs at St. Rémy in France; rock-cut at Petra; at Rome, of Caius Cestius and Cecilia Metella, 1st century B. C. ; of Augustus, 14 A. D. ; Hadrian, 138 A. D. PALACES and PRIVATE HOUSES: On Palatine, of Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Domitian, Septimius Severus, _Elagabalus_; Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli; palaces of Diocletian at Spalato and _of Constantine_ at Constantinople. House of Livia on Palatine (Augustan period); of Vestals, rebuilt by Hadrian, cir. 120 A. D. Houses at Pompeii and Herculanum, cir. 60-79 A. D. ; Villas of Gordianus (“Tor’ de’ Schiavi, ” 240 A. D. ), and _of Sallust_ at Rome and _of Pliny_ at Laurentium. CHAPTER X. EARLY CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Bunsen, _Die Basiliken christlichen Roms_. Butler, _Architecture and other Arts in Northern Central Syria_. Corroyer, _L’architecture romane_. Cummings, _A History of Architecture in Italy_. Essenwein (Handbuch d. Architektur), _Ausgänge der klassischen Baukunst_. Gutensohn u. Knapp, _Denkmäler der christlichen Religion_. Hübsch, _Monuments de l’architecture chrétienne_. Lanciani, _Pagan and Christian Rome_. Mothes, _Die Basilikenform bei den Christen_, etc. Okely, _Development of Christian Architecture in Italy_. Von Quast, _Die altchristlichen Bauwerke zu Ravenna_. De Rossi, _Roma Sotterranea_. De Vogüé, _Syrie Centrale_; _Églises de la Terre Sainte_. +INTRODUCTORY. + The official recognition of Christianity in the year 328by Constantine simply legalized an institution which had been for threecenturies gathering momentum for its final conquest of the antiqueworld. The new religion rapidly enlisted in its service for a commonpurpose and under a common impulse races as wide apart in blood andculture as those which had built up the art of imperial Rome. It wasChristianity which reduced to civilization in the West the Germanichordes that had overthrown Rome, bringing their fresh and hithertountamed vigor to the task of recreating architecture out of the decayingfragments of classic art. So in the East its life-giving influence awokethe slumbering Greek art-instinct to new triumphs in the arts ofbuilding, less refined and perfect indeed, but not less sublime thanthose of the Periclean age. Long before the Constantinian edict, theChristians in the Eastern provinces had enjoyed substantial freedom ofworship. Meeting often in the private basilicas of wealthy converts, andfinding these, and still more the great public basilicas, suited to therequirements of their worship, they early began to build in imitation ofthese edifices. There are many remains of these early churches innorthern Africa and central Syria. +EARLY CHRISTIAN ART IN ROME. + This was at first wholly sepulchral, developing in the catacombs the symbols of the new faith. Onceliberated, however, Christianity appropriated bodily for its publicrites the basilica-type and the general substance of Roman architecture. Shafts and capitals, architraves and rich linings of veined marble, eventhe pagan Bacchic symbolism of the vine, it adapted to new uses in itsown service. Constantine led the way in architecture, endowing Bethlehemand Jerusalem with splendid churches, and his new capital on theBosphorus with the first of the three historic basilicas dedicated tothe Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia). One of the greatest of innovators, heseems to have had a special predilection for circular buildings, and thetombs and baptisteries which he erected in this form, especially thatfor his sister Constantia in Rome (known as Santa Costanza, Fig. 66), furnished the prototype for numberless Italian baptisteries in laterages. [Illustration: FIG. 66. --STA. COSTANZA, ROME. ] The Christian basilica (see Figs. 67, 68) generally comprised a broadand lofty nave, separated by rows of columns from the single or doubleside-aisles. The aisles had usually about half the width and height ofthe nave, and like it were covered with wooden roofs and ceilings. Abovethe columns which flanked the nave rose the lofty clearstory wall, pierced with windows above the side-aisle roofs and supporting theimmense trusses of the roof of the nave. The timbering of the latter wassometimes bare, sometimes concealed by a richly panelled ceiling, carved, gilded, and painted. At the further end of the nave was thesanctuary or apse, with the seats for the clergy on a raised platform, the _bema_, in front of which was the altar. Transepts sometimesexpanded to right and left before the altar, under which was the_confessio_ or shrine of the titular saint or martyr. An _atrium_ or forecourt surrounded by a covered arcade preceded thebasilica proper, the arcade at the front of the church forming a porchor _narthex_, which, however, in some cases existed without the atrium. The exterior was extremely plain; the interior, on the contrary, wasresplendent with incrustations of veined marble and with sumptuousdecorations in glass mosaic (called _opus Grecanicum_) on a blue orgolden ground. Especially rich were the half-dome of the apse and thewall-space surrounding its arch and called the _triumphal arch_; next indecorative importance came the broad band of wall beneath the clearstorywindows. Upon these surfaces the mosaic-workers wrought with minutecubes of colored glass pictures and symbols almost imperishable, inwhich the glow of color and a certain decorative grandeur of effect inthe composition went far to atone for the uncouth drawing. With growingwealth and an increasingly elaborate ritual, the furniture andequipments of the church assumed greater architectural importance. A large rectangular space was retained for the choir in front of thebema, and enclosed by a breast-high parapet of marble, richly inlaid. Oneither side were the pulpits or _ambones_ for the Gospel and Epistle. A lofty canopy was built over the altar, the _baldaquin_, supported onfour marble columns. A few basilicas were built with side-aisles, in twostories, as in S.  Lorenzo and Sta. Agnese. Adjoining the basilica in theearlier examples were the baptistery and the tomb of the saint, circularor polygonal buildings usually; but in later times these were replacedby the font or baptismal chapel in the church and the _confessio_ underthe altar. [Illustration: FIG. 67. --PLAN OF THE BASILICA OF ST. PAUL. ] Of the two Constantinian basilicas in Rome, the one dedicated to +St. Peter+ was demolished in the fifteenth century; that of +St. JohnLateran+ has been so disfigured by modern alterations as to beunrecognizable. The former of the two adjoined the site of the martyrdomof St. Peter in the circus of Caligula and Nero; it was five-aisled, 380feet in length by 212 feet in width. The nave was 80 feet wide and 100feet high, and the disproportionately high clearstory wall rested onhorizontal architraves carried by columns. The impressive dimensions andsimple plan of this structure gave it a majesty worthy of its rank asthe first church of Christendom. +St. Paul beyond the Walls+ (S.  Paolofuori le mura), built in 386 by Theodosius, resembled St. Peter’sclosely in plan (Figs. 67, 68). Destroyed by fire in 1821, it has beenrebuilt with almost its pristine splendor, and is, next to the modernSt. Peter’s and the Pantheon, the most impressive place of worship inRome. +Santa Maria Maggiore+, [15] though smaller in size, is moreinteresting because it so largely retains its original aspect, itsRenaissance ceiling happily harmonizing with its simple antique lines. Ionic columns support architraves to carry the clearstory, as in St. Peter’s. In most other examples, St. Paul’s included, arches turned fromcolumn to column perform this function. The first known case of such useof classic columns as arch-bearers was in the palace of Diocletian atSpalato; it also appears in Syrian buildings of the third and fourthcenturies A. D. [Footnote 15: Hereafter the abbreviation S.  M. Will be generally used instead of the name Santa Maria. ] [Illustration: FIG. 68. --ST. PAUL BEYOND THE WALLS. INTERIOR. ] The basilica remained the model for ecclesiastical architecture in Rome, without noticeable change either of plan or detail, until the time ofthe Renaissance. All the earlier examples employed columns and capitalstaken from ancient ruins, often incongruous and ill-matched in size andorder. +San Clemente+ (1084) has retained almost intact its earlyaspect, its choir-enclosure, baldaquin, and ambones having been wellpreserved or carefully restored. Other important basilicas are mentionedin the list of monuments on pages 118, 119. +RAVENNA. + The fifth and sixth centuries endowed Ravenna with a numberof notable buildings which, with the exception of the cathedral, demolished in the last century, have been preserved to our day. Subduedby the Byzantine emperor Justinian in 537, Ravenna became themeeting-ground for Early Christian and Byzantine traditions and thebasilican and circular plans are both represented. The two churchesdedicated to St. Apollinaris, +S.  Apollinare Nuovo+ (520) in the city, and +S.  Apollinare in Classe+ (538) three miles distant from the city, in what was formerly the port, are especially interesting for their finemosaics, and for the impost-blocks interposed above the capitals oftheir columns to receive the springing of the pier-arches. These blocksappear to be somewhat crude modifications of the fragmentary architravesor entablatures employed in classic Roman architecture to receive thespringing of vaults sustained by columns, and became common in Byzantinestructures (Fig. 73). The use of external arcading to give some slightadornment to the walls of the second of the above-named churches, andthe round bell-towers of brick which adjoined both of them, were firststeps toward the development of the “wall-veil” or arcaded decoration, and of the campaniles, which in later centuries became so characteristicof north Italian churches (see Chapter XIII. ). In Rome the campanileswhich accompany many of the mediæval basilicas are square and piercedwith many windows. The basilican form of church became general in Italy, a large proportionof whose churches continued to be built with wooden roofs and with butslight deviations from the original type, long after the appearance ofthe Gothic style. The chief departures from early precedent were in theexterior, which was embellished with marble incrustations as inS.  Miniato (Florence); or with successive stories of wall-arcades, as inmany churches in Pisa and Lucca (see Fig. 90); until finally theintroduction of clustered piers, pointed arches, and vaulting, graduallytransformed the basilican into the Italian Romanesque and Gothic styles. +SYRIA AND THE EAST. + In Syria, particularly the central portion, theChristian architecture of the 3d to 8th centuries produced a number ofvery interesting monuments. The churches built by Constantine inSyria--the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (nominally built by hismother), of the Ascension at Jerusalem, the magnificent octagonal churchon the site of the Temple, and finally the somewhat similar church atAntioch--were the most notable Christian monuments in Syria. The firstthree on the list, still extant in part at least, have been so alteredby later additions and restorations that their original forms are onlyapproximately known from early descriptions. They were all of largesize, and the octagonal church on the Temple platform was of exceptionalmagnificence. [16] The columns and a part of the marble incrustations ofthe early design are still visible in the “Mosque of Omar, ” but most ofthe old work is concealed by the decoration of tiles applied by theMoslems, and the whole interior aspect altered by the wood-and-plasterdome with which they replaced the simpler roof of the original. [Footnote 16: Fergusson (_History of Architecture_, vol. Ii. , pp. 408, 432) contends that this was the real Constantinian church of the Holy Sepulchre, and that the one called to-day by that name was erected by the Crusaders in the twelfth century. The more general view is that the latter was originally built by Constantine as the Church of the Sepulchre, though subsequently much altered, and that the octagonal edifice was also his work, but erected under some other name. Whether this church was later incorporated in the “Mosque of Omar, ” or merely furnished some of the materials for its construction, is not quite clear. ] [Illustration: FIG. 69. --CHURCH AT KALB LOUZEH. ] Christian architecture in Syria soon, however, diverged from Romantraditions. The abundance of hard stone, the total lack of clay orbrick, the remoteness from Rome, led to a peculiar independence andoriginality in the forms and details of the ecclesiastical as well as ofthe domestic architecture of central Syria. These innovations upon Romanmodels resulted in the development of distinct types which, but for thearrest of progress by the Mohammedan conquest in the seventh century, would doubtless have inaugurated a new and independent style ofarchitecture. Piers of masonry came to replace the classic column, as atTafkha (third or fourth century), Rouheiha and Kalb Louzeh (fifthcentury? Fig. 69); the ceilings in the smaller churches were oftenformed with stone slabs; the apse was at first confined within the mainrectangle of the plan, and was sometimes square. The exterior assumed astriking and picturesque variety of forms by means of turrets, porches, and gables. Singularly enough, vaulting hardly appears at all, thoughthe arch is used with fine effect. Conventional and monastic groups ofbuildings appear early in Syria, and that of +St. Simeon Stylites+ atKelat Seman is an impressive and interesting monument. Four three-aisledwings form the arms of a cross, meeting in a central octagonal opencourt, in the midst of which stood the column of the saint. The easternarm of the cross forms a complete basilica of itself, and the wholecross measures 330 × 300 feet. Chapels, cloisters, and cells adjoin themain edifice. [Illustration: FIG. 70. --CATHEDRAL AT BOZRAH. ] Circular and polygonal plans appear in a number of Syrian examples ofthe early sixth century. Their most striking feature is the inscribingof the circle or polygon in a square which forms the exterior outline, and the use of four niches to fill out the corners. This occurs at KelatSeman in a small double church, perhaps the tomb and chapel of a martyr;in the cathedral at +Bozrah+ (Fig. 70), and in the small domical churchof +St. George+ at +Ezra+. These were probably the prototypes of manyByzantine churches like St. Sergius at Constantinople, and San Vitale atRavenna (Fig. 74), though the exact dates of the Syrian churches are notknown. The one at Ezra is the only one of the three which has a dome, the others having been roofed with wood. The interesting domestic architecture of this period is preserved inwhole towns and villages in the Hauran, which, deserted at the Arabconquest, have never been reoccupied and remain almost intact but forthe decay of their wooden roofs. They are marked by dignity andsimplicity of design, and by the same picturesque massing of gables androofs and porches which has already been remarked of the churches. Thearches are broad, the columns rather heavy, the mouldings few andsimple, and the scanty carving vigorous and effective, often stronglyByzantine in type. Elsewhere in the Eastern world are many early churches of which even theenumeration would exceed the limits of this work. Salonica counts anumber of basilicas and several domical churches. The church of +St. George+, now a mosque, is of early date and thoroughly Roman in plan andsection, of the same class with the Pantheon and the tomb of Helena, inboth of which a massive circular wall is lightened by eight niches. AtAngora (Ancyra), Hierapolis, Pergamus, and other points in Asia Minor;in Egypt, Nubia, and Algiers, are many examples of both circular andbasilican edifices of the early centuries of Christianity. InConstantinople there remains but a single representative of thebasilican type, the church of +St. John Studius+, now the Emir Akhormosque. +MONUMENTS+: ROME: 4th century: St. Peter’s, Sta. Costanza, 330?; Sta. Pudentiana, 335 (rebuilt 1598); tomb of St. Helena; Baptistery of Constantine; St. Paul’s beyond the Walls, 386; St. John Lateran (wholly remodelled in modern times). 5th century: Baptistery of St. John Lateran; Sta. Sabina, 425; Sta. Maria Maggiore, 432; S.  Pietro in Vincoli, 442 (greatly altered in modern times). 6th century: S.  Lorenzo, 580 (the older portion in two stories); SS. Cosmo e Damiano. 7th century: Sta. Agnese, 625; S.  Giorgio in Velabro, 682. 8th century: Sta. Maria in Cosmedin; S.  Crisogono. 9th century: S.  Nereo ed Achilleo; Sta. Prassede; Sta. Maria in Dominica. 12th and 13th centuries: S.  Clemente, 1118; Sta. Maria in Trastevere; S.  Lorenzo (nave); Sta. Maria in Ara Coeli. RAVENNA: Baptistery of S.  John, 400 (?); S.  Francesco; S.  Giovanni Evangelista, 425; Sta. Agata, 430; S.  Giovanni Battista, 439; tomb of Galla Placidia, 450; S.  Apollinare Nuovo, 500-520; S.  Apollinare in Classe, 538; St. Victor; Sta. Maria in Cosmedin (the Arian Baptistery); tomb of Theodoric (Sta. Maria della Rotonda, a decagonal two-storied mausoleum, with a low dome cut from a single stone 36 feet in diameter), 530-540. ITALY IN GENERAL: basilica at Parenzo, 6th century; cathedral and Sta. Fosca at Torcello, 640-700; at Naples Sta. Restituta, 7th century; others, mostly of 10th-13th centuries, at Murano near Venice, at Florence (S.  Miniato), Spoleto, Toscanella, etc. ; baptisteries at Asti, Florence, Nocera dei Pagani, and other places. IN SYRIA AND THE EAST: basilicas of the Nativity at Bethlehem, of the Sepulchre and of the Ascension at Jerusalem; also polygonal church on Temple platform; these all of 4th century. Basilicas at Bakouzah, Hass, Kelat Seman, Kalb Louzeh, Rouheiha, Tourmanin, etc. ; circular churches, tombs, and baptisteries at Bozrah, Ezra, Hass, Kelat Seman, Rouheiha, etc. ; all these 4th-8th centuries. Churches at Constantinople (Holy Wisdom, St. John Studius, etc. ), Hierapolis, Pergamus, and Thessalonica (St. Demetrius, “Eski Djuma”); in Egypt and Nubia (Djemla, Announa, Ibreem, Siout, etc. ); at Orléansville in Algeria. (For churches, etc. , of 8th-10th centuries in the West, see Chapter XIII. ) CHAPTER XI. BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Essenwein, Hübsch, Von Quast. Also, Bayet, _L’Art Byzantin_. Choisy, _L’Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins_. Lethaby and Swainson, _Sancta Sophia_. Ongania, _La Basilica di San Marco_. Pulgher, _Anciennes Églises Byzantines de Constantinople_. Salzenberg, _Altchristliche Baudenkmäle von Constantinopel_. Texier and Pullan, _Byzantine Architecture_. +ORIGIN AND CHARACTER. + The decline and fall of Rome arrested thedevelopment of the basilican style in the West, as did the Arab conquestlater in Syria. It was otherwise in the new Eastern capital founded byConstantine in the ancient Byzantium, which was rising in power andwealth while Rome lay in ruins. Situated at the strategic point of thenatural highway of commerce between East and West, salubrious andenchantingly beautiful in its surroundings, the new capital grew rapidlyfrom provincial insignificance to metropolitan importance. Its founderhad embellished it with an extraordinary wealth of buildings, in which, owing to the scarcity of trained architects, quantity and cost doubtlessoutran quality. But at least the tameness of blindly followed precedentwas avoided, and this departure from traditional tenets contributedundoubtedly to the originality of Byzantine architecture. A large partof the artisans employed in building were then, as now, from Asia Minorand the Ægean Islands, Greek in race if not in name. An Oriental tastefor brilliant and harmonious color and for minute decoration spread overbroad surfaces must have been stimulated by trade with the Far East andby constant contact with Oriental peoples, costumes, and arts. AnAsiatic origin may also be assigned to the methods of vaulting employed, far more varied than the Roman, not only in form but also in materialsand processes. From Roman architecture, however, the Byzantines borrowedthe fundamental notion of their structural art; that, namely, ofdistributing the weights and strains of their vaulted structures uponisolated and massive points of support, strengthened by deep buttresses, internal or external, as the case might be. Roman, likewise, was the useof polished monolithic columns, and the incrustation of the piers andwalls with panels of variegated marble, as well as the decoration ofplastered surfaces by fresco and mosaic, and the use of _opus sectile_and _opus Alexandrinum_ for the production of sumptuous marblepavements. In the first of these processes the color-figures of thepattern are formed each of a single piece of marble cut to the shaperequired; in the second the pattern is compounded of minute squares, triangles, and curved pieces of uniform size. Under these combinedinfluences the artists of Constantinople wrought out new problems inconstruction and decoration, giving to all that they touched a new andstriking character. There is no absolute line of demarcation, chronological, geographical, or structural, between Early Christian and Byzantine architecture. Butthe former was especially characterized by the basilica with three orfive aisles, and the use of wooden roofs even in its circular edifices;the vault and dome, though not unknown, being exceedingly rare. Byzantine architecture, on the other hand, rarely produced the simplethree-aisled or five-aisled basilica, and nearly all its monuments werevaulted. The dome was especially frequent, and Byzantine architectureachieved its highest triumphs in the use of the _pendentive_, as thetriangular spherical surfaces are called, by the aid of which a dome canbe supported on the summits of four arches spanning the four sides of asquare, as explained later. There is as little uniformity in the plansof Byzantine buildings as in the forms of the vaulting. A few types ofchurch-plan, however, predominated locally in one or another centre; butthe controlling feature of the style was the dome and the constructivesystem with which it was associated. The dome, it is true, had long beenused by the Romans, but always on a circular plan, as in the Pantheon. It is also a fact that pendentives have been found in Syria and AsiaMinor older than the oldest Byzantine examples. But the special featurecharacterizing the Byzantine dome on pendentives was its almostexclusive association with plans having piers and columns or aisles, with the dome as the central and dominant feature of the complex design(see plans, Figs. 74, 75, 78). Another strictly Byzantine practice wasthe piercing of the lower portion of the dome with windows forming acircle or crown, and the final development of this feature into a highdrum. +CONSTRUCTION. + Still another divergence from Roman methods was in thesubstitution of brick and stone masonry for concrete. Brick was used forthe mass as well as the facing of walls and piers, and for the vaultingin many buildings mainly built of stone. Stone was used either alone orin combination with brick, the latter appearing in bands of four or fivecourses at intervals of three or four feet. In later work a regularalternation of the two materials, course for course, was not uncommon. In piers intended to support unusually heavy loads the stone was verycarefully cut and fitted, and sometimes tied and clamped with iron. Vaults were built sometimes of brick, sometimes of cut stone; in a fewcases even of earthenware jars fitting into each other, and laid up in acontinuous contracting spiral from the base to the crown of a dome, asin San Vitale at Ravenna. Ingenious processes for building vaultswithout centrings were made use of--processes inherited from thedrain-builders of ancient Assyria, and still in vogue in Armenia, Persia, and Asia Minor. The groined vault was common, but alwaysapproximated the form of a dome, by a longitudinal convexity upward inthe intersecting vaults. The aisles of Hagia Sophia[17] display aremarkable variety of forms in the vaulting. [Footnote 17: “St. Sophia, ” the common name of this church, is a misnomer. It was not dedicated to a saint at all, but to the Divine Wisdom (Hagia Sophia), which name the Turks have retained in the softened form “Aya Sofia. ”] [Illustration: FIG. 71. --DIAGRAM OF PENDENTIVES. ] +DOMES. + The dome, as we have seen, early became the most characteristicfeature of Byzantine architecture; and especially the dome onpendentives. If a hemisphere be cut by five planes, four perpendicularto its base and bounding a square inscribed therein, and the fifth planeparallel to the base and tangent to the semicircular intersections madeby the first four, there will remain of the original surface only fourtriangular spaces bounded by arcs of circles. These are called_pendentives_ (Fig. 71 a). When these are built up of masonry, eachcourse forms a species of arch, by virtue of its convexity. At the crownof the four arches on which they rest, these courses meet and form acomplete circle, perfectly stable and capable of sustaining anysuperstructure that does not by excessive weight disrupt the wholefabric by overthrowing the four arches which support it. Upon thesependentives, then, a new dome may be started of any desired curvature, or even a cylindrical drum to support a still loftier dome, as in thelater churches (Fig. 71 b). This method of covering a square is simplerthan the groined vault, having no sharp edges or intersections; it is atleast as effective architecturally, by reason of its greater height inthe centre; and is equally applicable to successive bays of an oblong, cruciform, and even columnar building. In the great cisterns atConstantinople vast areas are covered by rows of small domes supportedon ranges of columns. The earlier domes were commonly pierced with windows at the base, thisapparent weakening of the vault being compensated for by stronglybuttressing the piers between the windows, as in Hagia Sophia. Hereforty windows form a crown of light at the spring of the dome, producingan effect almost as striking as that of the simple _oculus_ of thePantheon, and celebrated by ancient writers in the most extravagantterms. In later and smaller churches a high drum was introduced beneaththe dome, in order to secure, by means of longer windows, more lightthan could be obtained by merely piercing the diminutive domes. Buttressing was well understood by the Byzantines, whose plans wereskilfully devised to provide internal abutments, which were oftencontinued above the roofs of the side-aisles to prop the main vaults, precisely as was done by the Romans in their thermæ and similar halls. But the Byzantines, while adhering less strictly than the Romans totraditional forms and processes, and displaying much more readycontrivance and special adaptation of means to ends, never worked outthis pregnant structural principle to its logical conclusion as did theGothic architects of Western Europe a few centuries later. +DECORATION+. The exteriors of Byzantine buildings (except in some ofthe small churches of late date) were generally bare and lacking inbeauty. The interiors, on the contrary, were richly decorated, colorplaying a much larger part than carving in the designs. Painting wasresorted to only in the smaller buildings, the more durable and splendidmedium of mosaic being usually preferred. This was, as a rule, confinedto the vaults and to those portions of the wall-surfaces embraced by thevaults above their springing. The colors were brilliant, the backgroundbeing usually of gold, though sometimes of blue or a delicate green. Biblical scenes, symbolic and allegorical figures and groups of saintsadorned the larger areas, particularly the half-dome of the apse, as inthe basilicas. The smaller vaults, the soffits of arches, borders ofpictures, and other minor surfaces, received a more conventionaldecoration of crosses, monograms, and set patterns. [Illustration: FIG. 72. --SPANDRIL. HAGIA SOPHIA. ] The walls throughout were sheathed with slabs of rare marble in panelsso disposed that the veining should produce symmetrical figures. Thepanels were framed in billet-mouldings, derived perhaps from classicdentils; the billets or projections on one side the moulding comingopposite the spaces on the other. This seems to have been a purelyByzantine feature. +CARVED DETAILS. + Internally the different stories were marked byhorizontal bands and cornices of white or inlaid marble richly carved. The arch-soffits, the archivolts or bands around the arches, and thespandrils between them were covered with minute and intricate incisedcarving. The motives used, though based on the acanthus and anthemion, were given a wholly new aspect. The relief was low and flat, the leavessharp and crowded, and the effect rich and lacelike, rather thanvigorous. It was, however, well adapted to the covering of large areaswhere general effect was more important than detail. Even the capitalswere treated in the same spirit. The impost-block was almost universal, except where its use was rendered unnecessary by giving to the capitalitself the massive pyramidal form required to receive properly thespring of the arch or vault. In such cases (more frequent inConstantinople than elsewhere) the surface of the capital was simplycovered with incised carving of foliage, basketwork, monograms, etc. ;rudimentary volutes in a few cases recalling classic traditions (Figs. 72, 73). The mouldings were weak and poorly executed, and the vigorousprofiles of classic cornices were only remotely suggested by thecharacterless aggregations of mouldings which took their place. [Illustration: FIG. 73. --CAPITAL WITH IMPOST BLOCK, S.  VITALE. ] [Illustration: FIG. 74. --ST. SERGIUS, CONSTANTINOPLE. ] [Illustration: FIG. 75. --PLAN OF HAGIA SOPHIA. ] [Illustration: FIG. 76. --SECTION OF HAGIA SOPHIA. ] +PLANS. + The remains of Byzantine architecture are almost exclusively ofchurches and baptisteries, but the plans of these are exceedinglyvaried. The first radical departure from the basilica-type seems to havebeen the adoption of circular or polygonal plans, such as had usuallyserved only for tombs and baptisteries. The Baptistery of St. John atRavenna (early fifth century) is classed by many authorities as aByzantine monument. In the early years of the sixth century the adoptionof this model had become quite general, and with it the development ofdomical design began to advance. The church of +St. Sergius+ atConstantinople (Fig. 74), originally joined to a short basilicadedicated to St. Bacchus (afterward destroyed by the Turks), as in thedouble church at Kelat Seman, was built about 520; that of +San Vitale+at Ravenna was begun a few years later; both are domical churches on anoctagonal plan, with an exterior aisle. Semicircular niches--four in St. Sergius and eight in San Vitale--projecting into the aisle, enlargesomewhat the area of the central space and give variety to the internaleffect. The origin of this characteristic feature may be traced to theeight niches of the Pantheon, through such intermediate examples as thetemple of Minerva Medica at Rome. The true pendentive does not appear inthese two churches. Timidly employed up to that time in smallstructures, it received a remarkable development in the magnificentchurch of +Hagia Sophia+, built by Anthemius of Tralles and Isodorus ofMiletus, under Justinian, 532-538 A. D. In the plan of this marvellousedifice (Fig. 75) the dome rests upon four mighty arches bounding asquare, into two of which open the half-domes of semicircular apses. These apses are penetrated and extended each by two smaller niches and acentral arch, and the whole vast nave, measuring over 200 × 100 feet, isflanked by enormously wide aisles connecting at the front with amajestic narthex. Huge transverse buttresses, as in the Basilica ofConstantine (with whose structural design this building shows strikingaffinities), divide the aisles each into three sections. The plansuggests that of St. Sergius cut in two, with a lofty dome onpendentives over a square plan inserted between the halves. Thus wassecured a noble and unobstructed hall of unrivalled proportions andgreat beauty, covered by a combination of half-domes increasing in spanand height as they lead up successively to the stupendous central vault, which rises 180 feet into the air and fitly crowns the whole. Theimposing effect of this low-curved but loftily-poised dome, resting asit does upon a crown of windows, and so disposed that its summit isvisible from every point of the nave (as may be easily seen from anexamination of the section, Fig. 76), is not surpassed in any interiorever erected. [Illustration: FIG. 77. --INTERIOR OF HAGIA SOPHIA, CONSTANTINOPLE. ] The two lateral arches under the dome are filled by clearstory wallspierced by twelve windows, and resting on arcades in two stories carriedby magnificent columns taken from ancient ruins. These separate the navefrom the side-aisles, which are in two stories forming galleries, andare vaulted with a remarkable variety of groined vaults. All the massesare disposed with studied reference to the resistance required by themany and complex thrusts exerted by the dome and other vaults. That theearthquakes of one thousand three hundred and fifty years have notdestroyed the church is the best evidence of the sufficiency of theseprecautions. Not less remarkable than the noble planning and construction of thischurch was the treatment of scale and decoration in its interior design. It was as conspicuously the masterpiece of Byzantine architecture as theParthenon was of the classic Greek. With little external beauty, it isinternally one of the most perfectly composed and beautifully decoratedhalls of worship ever erected. Instead of the simplicity of the Pantheonit displays the complexity of an organism of admirably related parts. The division of the interior height into two stories below the spring ofthe four arches, reduces the component parts of the design to moderatedimensions, so that the scale of the whole is more easily grasped andits vast size emphasized by the contrast. The walls are incrusted withprecious marbles up to the spring of the vaulting; the capitals, spandrils, and soffits are richly and minutely carved with incisedornament, and all the vaults covered with splendid mosaics. Dimmed bythe lapse of centuries and disfigured by the vandalism of the Moslems, this noble interior, by the harmony of its coloring and its impressivegrandeur, is one of the masterpieces of all time (Fig. 77). +LATER CHURCHES. + After the sixth century no monuments were built at allrivalling in scale the creations of the former period. The laterchurches were, with few exceptions, relatively small and trivial. Neither the plan nor the general aspect of Hagia Sophia seems to havebeen imitated in these later works. The crown of dome-windows wasreplaced by a cylindrical drum under the dome, which was usually ofinsignificant size. The exterior was treated more decoratively thanbefore, by means of bands and incrustations of colored marble, oralternations of stone and brick; and internally mosaic continued to beexecuted with great skill and of great beauty until the tenth century, when the art rapidly declined. These later churches, of which a numberwere spared by the Turks, are, therefore, generally pleasing and elegantrather than striking or imposing. [Illustration: FIG. 78. --PLAN OF ST. MARK’S, VENICE. ] [Illustration: FIG. 79. --INTERIOR OF ST. MARK’S. ] +FOREIGN MONUMENTS. + The influence of Byzantine art was wide-spread, both in Europe and Asia. The leading city of civilization through theDark Ages, Constantinople influenced Italy through her political andcommercial relations with Ravenna, Genoa, and Venice. The church of +St. Mark+ in the latter city was one result of this influence (Figs. 78, 79). Begun in 1063 to replace an earlier church destroyed by fire, itreceived through several centuries additions not always Byzantine incharacter. Yet it was mainly the work of Byzantine builders, who copiedmost probably the church of the Apostles at Constantinople, built byJustinian. The picturesque but wholly unstructural use of columns in theentrance porches, the upper parts of the façade, the wooden cupolas overthe five domes, and the pointed arches in the narthex, are deviationsfrom Byzantine traditions dating in part from the later Middle AgesNothing could well be conceived more irrational, from a structural pointof view, than the accumulation of columns in the entrance-arches; butthe total effect is so picturesque and so rich in color, that itsarchitectural defects are easily overlooked. The external veneering ofwhite and colored marble occurs rarely in the East, but became afavorite practice in Venice, where it continued in use for five hundredyears. The interior of St. Mark’s, in some respects better preservedthan that of Hagia Sophia, is especially fine in color, though not equalin scale and grandeur to the latter church. With its five domes it hasless unity of effect than Hagia Sophia, but more of the charm ofpicturesqueness, and its less brilliant and simpler lighting enhancesthe impressiveness of its more modest dimensions. In Russia and Greece the Byzantine style has continued to be theofficial style of the Greek Church. The Russian monuments are for themost part of a somewhat fantastic aspect, the Muscovite taste havingintroduced many innovations in the form of bulbous domes and othereccentric details. In Greece there are few large churches, and some ofthe most interesting, like the Cathedral at Athens, are almost toy-likein their diminutiveness. On +Mt. Athos+ (Hagion Oros) is an ancientmonastery which still retains its Byzantine character and traditions. InArmenia (as at Ani, Etchmiadzin, etc. ) are also interesting examples oflate Armeno-Byzantine architecture, showing applications to exteriorcarved detail of elaborate interlaced ornament looking like a re-echo ofCeltic MSS. Illumination, itself, no doubt, originating in Byzantinetraditions. But the greatest and most prolific offspring of Byzantinearchitecture appeared after the fall of Constantinople (1453) in the newmosque-architecture of the victorious Turks. +MONUMENTS. + CONSTANTINOPLE: St. Sergius, 520; Hagia Sophia, 532-538; Holy Apostles by Justinian (demolished); Holy Peace (St. Irene) originally by Constantine, rebuilt by Justinian, and again in 8th century by Leo the Isaurian; Hagia Theotokos, 12th century (?); Monétes Choras (“Kahiré Djami”), 10th century; Pantokrator; “Fetiyeh Djami. ” Cisterns, especially the “Bin Bir Direk” (1, 001 columns) and “Yere Batan Serai;” palaces, few vestiges except the great hall of the Blachernæ palace. SALONICA: Churches--of Divine Wisdom (“Aya Sofia”) St. Bardias, St. Elias. RAVENNA: San Vitale, 527-540. VENICE: St. Mark’s, 977-1071; “Fondaco dei Turchi, ” now Civic Museum, 12th century. Other churches at Athens and Mt. Athos; at Misitra, Myra, Ancyra, Ephesus, etc. ; in Armenia at Ani, Dighour, Etchmiadzin, Kouthais, Pitzounda, Usunlar, etc. ; tombs at Ani, Varzhahan, etc. ; in Russia at Kieff (St. Basil, Cathedral), Kostroma, Moscow (Assumption, St. Basil, Vasili Blaghennoi, etc. ), Novgorod, Tchernigoff; at Kurtea Darghish in Wallachia, and many other places. CHAPTER XII. SASSANIAN AND MOHAMMEDAN ARCHITECTURE. (ARABIAN, MORESQUE, PERSIAN, INDIAN, AND TURKISH. ) BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Bourgoin, _Les Arts Arabes_. Coste, _Monuments du Caire_; _Monuments modernes de la Perse_. Cunningham, _Archæological Survey of India_. Fergusson, _Indian and Eastern Architecture_. De Forest, _Indian Architecture and Ornament_. Flandin et Coste, _Voyage en Perse_. Franz-Pasha, _Die Baukunst des Islam_. Gayet, _L’Art Arabe_; _L’Art Persan_. Girault de Prangey, _Essai sur l’architecture des Arabes en Espagne_, etc. Goury and Jones, _The Alhambra_. Jacob, _Jeypore Portfolio of Architectural Details_. Le Bon, _La civilisation des Arabes_; _Les monuments de l’Inde_. Owen Jones, _Grammar of Ornament_. Parvillée, _L’Architecture Ottomane_. Prisse d’Avennes, _L’Art Arabe_. Texier, _Description de l’Arménie, la Perse_, etc. +GENERAL SURVEY. + While the Byzantine Empire was at its zenith, the newfaith of Islam was conquering Western Asia and the Mediterranean landswith a fiery rapidity, which is one of the marvels of history. The newarchitectural styles which grew up in the wake of these conquests, though differing widely in conception and detail in the severalcountries, were yet marked by common characteristics which set themquite apart from the contemporary Christian styles. The predominance ofdecorative over structural considerations, a predilection for minutesurface-ornament, the absence of pictures and sculpture, are found alikein Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Indian buildings, though in varyingdegree. These new styles, however, were almost entirely the handiwork ofartisans belonging to the conquered races, and many traces of Byzantine, and even after the Crusades, of Norman and Gothic design, arerecognizable in Moslem architecture. But the Orientalism of theconquerors and their common faith, tinged with the poetry andphilosophic mysticism of the Arab, stamped these works of Copts, Syrians, and Greeks with an unmistakable character of their own, neitherByzantine nor Early Christian. +ARABIC ARCHITECTURE. + In the building of mosques and tombs, especiallyat Cairo, this architecture reached a remarkable degree of decorativeelegance, and sometimes of dignity. It developed slowly, the Arabs notbeing at the outset a race of builders. The early monuments of Syria andEgypt were insignificant, and the sacred _Kaabah_ at Mecca and themosque at Medina hardly deserve to be called architectural monuments atall. The most important early works were the mosques of +’Amrou+ atCairo (642, rebuilt and enlarged early in the eighth century), of +ElAksah+ on the Temple platform at Jerusalem (691, by Abd-el-Melek), andof +El Walid+ at Damascus (705-732, recently seriously injured by fire). All these were simple one-storied structures, with flat wooden roofscarried on parallel ranges of columns supporting pointed arches, thearcades either closing one side of a square court, or surrounding itcompletely. The long perspectives of the aisles and the minutedecoration of the archivolts and ceilings alone gave them architecturalcharacter. The beautiful +Dome of the Rock+ (Kubbet-es-Sakhrah, miscalled the Mosque of Omar) on the Temple platform at Jerusalem iseither a remodelled Constantinian edifice, or in large part composed ofthe materials of one (see p.  116). [Illustration: FIG. 80. --MOSQUE OF SULTAN HASSAN, CAIRO: SANCTUARY. A, _Mihrâb_, b, _Mimber_. ] The splendid mosque of +Ibn Touloun+ (876-885) was built on the sameplan as that of Amrou, but with cantoned piers instead of columns and acorresponding increase in variety of perspective and richness of effect. With the incoming of the Fatimite dynasty, however, and the foundationof the present city of Cairo (971), vaulting began to take the place ofwooden ceilings, and then appeared the germs of those extraordinaryapplications of geometry to decorative design which were henceforth tobe the most striking feature of Arabic ornament. Under the Ayûb dynasty, which began with Salâh-ed-din (Saladin) in 1172, these elements, ofwhich the great +Barkouk+ mosque (1149) is the most imposing earlyexample, developed slowly in the domical tombs of the _Karafah_ atCairo, and prepared the way for the increasing richness and splendor ofa long series of mosques, among which those of +Kalaoun+ (1284-1318), +Sultan Hassan+ (1356), +El Mu’ayyad+ (1415), and +Kaîd Bey+ (1463), were the most conspicuous examples (Fig. 80). They mark, indeed, successive advances in complexity of planning, ingenuity ofconstruction, and elegance of decoration. Together they constitute anepoch in Arabic architecture, which coincides closely with thedevelopment of Gothic vaulted architecture in Europe, both in the stagesand the duration of its advances. The mosques of these three centuries are, like the mediæval monasteries, impressive aggregations of buildings of various sorts about a centralcourt of ablutions. The tomb of the founder, residences for the _imams_, or priests, schools (_madrassah_), and hospitals (_mâristân_) rival inimportance the prayer-chamber. This last is, however, the real focus ofinterest and splendor; in some cases, as in Sultan Hassan, it is asimple barrel-vaulted chamber open to the court; in others an oblongarcaded hall with many small domes; or again, a square hall covered witha high pointed dome on pendentives of intricately beautifulstalactite-work (see below). The ceremonial requirements of the mosquewere simple. The-court must have its fountain of ablutions in thecentre. The prayer-hall, or mosque proper, must have its _mihrâb_, orniche, to indicate the _kibleh_, the direction of Mecca; and its_mimber_, or high, slender pulpit for the reading of the Kôran. Thesewere the only absolutely indispensable features of a mosque, but asearly as the ninth century the _minaret_ was added, from which the callto prayer could be sounded over the city by the _mueddin_. Not until theAyubite period, however, did it begin to assume those forms of variedand picturesque grace which lend to Cairo so much of its architecturalcharm. +ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. + While Arabic architecture, in Syria and Egyptalike, possesses more decorative than constructive originality, thebeautiful forms of its domes, pendentives, and minarets, the simplemajesty of the great pointed barrel-vaults of the Hassan mosque andsimilar monuments, and the graceful lines of the universally usedpointed arch, prove the Coptic builders and their later Arabicsuccessors to have been architects of great ability. The Arabic domes, as seen both in the mosques and in the remarkable group of tombscommonly called “tombs of the Khalîfs, ” are peculiar not only in theirpointed outlines and their rich external decoration of interlacedgeometric motives, but still more in the external and internal treatmentof the pendentives, exquisitely decorated with stalactite ornament. Thisornament, derived, no doubt, from a combination of minute corbels withrows of small niches, and presumably of Persian origin, was finallydeveloped into a system of extraordinary intricacy, applicable alike tothe topping of a niche or panel, as in the great doorways of themosques, and to the bracketing out of minaret galleries (Figs. 81, 82). Its applications show a bewildering variety of forms and anextraordinary aptitude for intricate geometrical design. [Illustration: FIG. 81. --MOSQUE OF KAÎD BEY, CAIRO] +DECORATION. + Geometry, indeed, vied with the love of color in its holdon the Arabic taste. Ceiling-beams were carved into highly ornamentalforms before receiving their rich color-decoration of red, green, blue, and gold. The doors and the _mimber_ were framed in geometric patternswith slender intersecting bars forming complicated star-panelling. Thevoussoirs of arches were cut into curious interlocking forms; doorwaysand niches were covered with stalactite corbelling, and pavements andwall-incrustations, whether of marble or tiling, combined brilliancy andharmony of color with the perplexing beauty of interlacedstar-and-polygon patterns of marvellous intricacy. Stained glass addedto the interior color-effect, the patterns being perforated in plaster, with a bit of colored glass set into each perforation--a device not verydurable, perhaps, but singularly decorative. +OTHER WORKS. + Few of the mediæval Arabic palaces have remained to ourtime. That they were adorned with a splendid prodigality appears fromcontemporary accounts. This splendor was internal rather than external;the palace, like all the larger and richer dwellings in the East, surrounded one or more courts, and presented externally an almostunbroken wall. The fountain in the chief court, the _diwân_ (a great, vaulted reception-chamber opening upon the court and raised slightlyabove it), the _dâr_, or men’s court, rigidly separated from the_hareem_ for the women, were and are universal elements in these greatdwellings. The more common city-houses show as their most strikingfeatures successively corbelled-out stories and broad wooden eaves, withlattice-screens covering single windows, or almost a whole façade, composed of turned work (_mashrabiyya_), in designs of great beauty. The fountains, gates, and minor works of the Arabs display the samebeauty in decoration and color, the same general forms and details whichcharacterize the larger works, but it is impossible here toparticularize further with regard to them. +MORESQUE. + Elsewhere in Northern Africa the Arabs produced no suchimportant works as in Egypt, nor is the architecture of the other Moslemstates so well preserved or so well known. Constructive design wouldappear to have been there even more completely subordinated todecoration; tiling and plaster-relief took the place of morearchitectural elements and materials, while horseshoe and cusped archeswere substituted for the simpler and more architectural pointed arch(Fig. 82). The courts of palaces and public buildings were surrounded byranges of horseshoe arches on slender columns; these last being providedwith capitals of a form rarely seen in Cairo. Towers were built of muchmore massive design than the Cairo minarets, usually with a square, almost solid shaft and a more open lantern at the top, sometimes inseveral diminishing stories. [Illustration: FIG. 82. --MOORISH DETAIL, ALHAMBRA. _Showing stalactite and perforated work, Moorish cusped arch, Hispano-Moresque capitals, and decorative inscriptions. _] +HISPANO-MORESQUE. + The most splendid phase of this branch of Arabicarchitecture is found not in Africa but in Spain, which was overrun in710-713 by the Moors, who established there the independent Khalifate ofCordova. This was later split up into petty kingdoms, of which the mostimportant were Granada, Seville, Toledo, and Valencia. Thisdismemberment of the Khalifate led in time to the loss of these cities, which were one by one recovered by the Christians during the fourteenthand fifteenth centuries; the capture of Granada, in 1492, finallydestroying the Moorish rule. The dominion of the Moors in Spain was marked by a high civilization andan extraordinary activity in building. The style they introduced becamethe national style in the regions they occupied, and even after theexpulsion of the Moors was used in buildings erected by Christians andby Jews. The “House of Pilate, ” at Seville, is an example of this, andthe general use of the Moorish style in Jewish synagogues, down to ourown day, both in Spain and abroad, originated in the erection ofsynagogues for the Jews in Spain by Moorish artisans and in Moorishstyle, both during and after the period of Moslem supremacy. Besides innumerable mosques, castles, bridges, aqueducts, gates, andfountains, the Moors erected several monuments of remarkable size andmagnificence. Specially worthy of notice among them are the Great Mosqueat Cordova, the Alcazars of Seville and Malaga, the Giralda at Seville, and the Alhambra at Granada. [Illustration: FIG. 83. --INTERIOR OF THE GREAT MOSQUE AT CORDOVA. ] The +Mosque at Cordova+, begun in 786 by ‘Abd-er-Rahman, enlarged in876, and again by El Mansour in 976, is a vast arcaded hall 375 feet ×420 feet in extent, but only 30 feet high (Fig. 83). The rich woodenceiling rests upon seventeen rows of thirty to thirty-three columnseach, and two intersecting rows of piers, all carrying horseshoe archesin two superposed ranges, a large portion of those about the sanctuarybeing cusped, the others plain, except for the alternation of color inthe voussoirs. The _mihrâb_ niche is particularly rich in its minutelycarved incrustations and mosaics, and a dome ingeniously formed byintersecting ribs covers the sanctuary before it. This form of domeoccurs frequently in Spain. The +Alcazars+ at Seville and Malaga, which have been restored in recentyears, present to-day a fairly correct counterpart of the castle-palacesof the thirteenth century. They display the same general conceptions anddecorative features as the Alhambra, which they antedate. The +Giralda+at Seville is, on the other hand, unique. It is a lofty rectangulartower, its exterior panelled and covered with a species ofquarry-ornament in relief; it terminated originally in two or threediminishing stages or lanterns, which were replaced in the sixteenthcentury by the present Renaissance belfry. The +Alhambra+ is universally considered to be the masterpiece ofHispano-Moresque art, partly no doubt on account of its excellentpreservation. It is most interesting as an example of the splendidcitadel-palaces built by the Moorish conquerors, as well as for itsgorgeous color-decoration of minute quarry-ornament stamped or mouldedin the wet plaster wherever the walls are not wainscoted with tiles. Itwas begun in 1248 by Mohammed-ben-Al-Hamar, enlarged in 1279 by hissuccessor, and again in 1306, when its mosque was built. Its plan (Fig. 84) shows two large courts and a smaller one next the mosque, with threegreat square chambers and many of minor importance. Light arcadessurround the Court of the Lions with its fountain, and adorn the ends ofthe other chief court; and the stalactite pendentive, rare in Moorishwork, appears in the “Hall of Ambassadors” and some other parts of theedifice. But its chief glory is its ornamentation, less durable, lessarchitectural than that of the Cairene buildings, but making up for thisin delicacy and richness. Minute vine-patterns and Arabic inscriptionsare interwoven with waving intersecting lines, forming a net-likeframework, to all of which deep red, blue, black, and gold give anindescribable richness of effect. [Illustration: FIG. 84. --PLAN OF THE ALHAMBRA. A, _Hall of Ambassadors_; a, _Mosque_; b, _Court of Mosque_; c, _Sala della Barca_; _d, d_, _Baths_; e, _Hall of the Two Sisters_; _f, f, f_, _Hall of the Tribunal_; g, _Hall of the Abencerrages_. ] The Moors also overran Sicily in the eighth century, but while theirarchitecture there profoundly influenced that of the Christians whorecovered Sicily in 1090, and copied the style of the conquered Moslems, there is too little of the original Moorish architecture remaining toclaim mention here. +SASSANIAN. + The Sassanian empire, which during the four centuries from226 to 641 A. D. Had withstood Rome and extended its own sway almost toIndia, left on Persian soil a number of interesting monuments whichpowerfully influenced the Mohammedan style of that region. The Sassanianbuildings appear to have been principally palaces, and were all vaulted. With their long barrel-vaulted halls, combined with square domicalchambers, as in Firouz-Abad and Serbistan, they exhibit reminiscences ofantique Assyrian tradition. The ancient Persian use of columns wasalmost entirely abandoned, but doors and windows were still treated withthe banded frames and cavetto-cornices of Persepolis and Susa. TheSassanians employed with these exterior details others derived perhapsfrom Syrian and Byzantine sources. A sort of engaged buttress-column andblind arches repeated somewhat aimlessly over a whole façade werecharacteristic features; still more so the huge arches, elliptical orhorse-shoe shaped, which formed the entrances to these palaces, as inthe Tâk-Kesra at Ctesiphon. Ornamental details of a debased Roman typeappear, mingled with more gracefully flowing leaf-patterns resemblingearly Christian Syrian carving. The last great monument of this stylewas the palace at Mashita in Moab, begun by the last Chosroes (627), butnever finished, an imposing and richly ornamented structure about 500 ×170 feet, occupying the centre of a great court. +PERSIAN-MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE. + These Sassanian palaces must havestrongly influenced Persian architecture after the Arab conquest in 641. For although the architecture of the first six centuries after that datesuffered almost absolute extinction at the hands of the Mongols underGenghis Khan, the traces of Sassanian influence are still perceptible inthe monuments that rose in the following centuries. The dome and vault, the colossal portal-arches, and the use of brick and tile are evidencesof this influence, bearing no resemblance to Byzantine or Arabic types. The Moslem monuments of Persia, so far as their dates can beascertained, are all subsequent to 1200, unless tradition is correct inassigning to the time of Haroun Ar Rashid (786) certain curious tombsnear Bagdad with singular pyramidal roofs. The ruined mosque at Tabriz(1300), and the beautiful domical +Tomb+ at +Sultaniyeh+ (1313) belongto the Mogul period. They show all the essential features of the laterarchitecture of the Sufis (1499-1694), during whose dynastic period werebuilt the still more splendid and more celebrated +Meidan+ or square, the great mosque of Mesjid Shah, the Bazaar and the College or Medressof Hussein Shah, all at Ispahan, and many other important monuments atIspahan, Bagdad, and Teheran. In these structures four elementsespecially claim attention; the pointed bulbous dome, the round minaret, the portal-arch rising above the adjacent portions of the building, andthe use of enamelled terra-cotta tiles as an external decoration. Tothese may be added the ogee arch (_ogee_ = double-reversed curve), as anoccasional feature. The vaulting is most ingenious and beautiful, andits forms, whether executed in brick or in plaster, are sufficientlyvaried without resort to the perplexing complications of stalactitework. In Persian decoration the most striking qualities are the harmonyof blended color, broken up into minute patterns and more subdued intone than in the Hispano-Moresque, and the preference of flowing linesand floral ornament to the geometric puzzles of Arabic design. Persianarchitecture influenced both Turkish and Indo-Moslem art, which owe toit a large part of their decorative charm. +INDO-MOSLEM. + The Mohammedan architecture of India is so distinct fromall the native Indian styles and so related to the art of Persia, if notto that of the Arabs, that it properly belongs here rather than in thelater chapter on Oriental styles. It was in the eleventh century thatthe states of India first began to fall before Mohammedan invaders, butnot until the end of the fifteenth century that the great Mogul dynastywas established in Hindostan as the dominant power. During theintervening period local schools of Moslem architecture were developingin the Pathan country of Northern India (1193-1554), in Jaunpore andGujerat (1396-1572), in Scinde, where Persian influence predominated; inKalburgah and Bidar (1347-1426). These schools differed considerably inspirit and detail; but under the Moguls (1494-1706) there was lessdiversity, and to this dynasty we owe many of the most magnificentmosques and tombs of India, among which those of Bijapur retain a markedand distinct style of their own. [Illustration: FIG. 85. --TOMB OF MAHMUD, BIJAPUR. SECTION. ] The Mohammedan monuments of India are characterized by a grandeur andamplitude of disposition, a symmetry and monumental dignity of designwhich distinguishes them widely from the picturesque but sometimestrivial buildings of the Arabs and Moors. Less dependent on color thanthe Moorish or Persian structures, they are usually built of marble, orof marble and sandstone, giving them an air of permanence and soliditywanting in other Moslem styles except the Turkish. The dome, the roundminaret, the pointed arch, and the colossal portal-arch, are universal, as in Persia, and enamelled tiles are also used, but chiefly forinterior decoration. Externally the more dignified if less resplendentdecoration of surface carving is used, in patterns of minute andgraceful scrolls, leaf forms, and Arabic inscriptions covering largesurfaces. The Arabic stalactite pendentive star-panelling andgeometrical interlace are rarely if ever seen. The dome on the squareplan is almost universal, but neither the Byzantine nor the Arabicpendentive is used, striking and original combinations of vaultingsurfaces, of corner squinches, of corbelling and ribs, being used in itsplace. Many of the Pathan domes and arches at Delhi, Ajmir, Ahmedabad, Shepree, etc. , are built in horizontal or corbelled courses supported onslender columns, and exert no thrust at all, so that they are vaultsonly in form, like the dome of the Tholos of Atreus (Fig. 24). The mostimposing and original of all Indian domes are those of the +JummaMusjid+ and of the +Tomb of Mahmud+, both at Bijapur, the latter 137feet in span (Fig. 85). These two monuments, indeed, with the Mogul TajMahal at Agra, not only deserve the first rank among Indian monuments, but in constructive science combined with noble proportions andexquisite beauty are hardly, if at all, surpassed by the greatesttriumphs of western art. The Indo-Moslem architects, moreover, especially those of the Mogul period, excelled in providing artisticsettings for their monuments. Immense platforms, superb courts, imposingflights of steps, noble gateways, minarets to mark the angles ofenclosures, and landscape gardening of a high order, enhance greatly theeffect of the great mosques, tombs, and palaces of Agra, Delhi, Futtehpore Sikhri, Allahabad, Secundra, etc. The most notable monuments of the Moguls are the +Mosque of Akbar+(1556-1605) at Futtehpore Sikhri, the tomb of that sultan at Secundra, and his palace at Allahabad; the +Pearl Mosque+ at Agra and the +JummaMusjid+ at Delhi, one of the largest and noblest of Indian mosques, bothbuilt by Shah Jehan about 1650; his immense but now ruined palace in thesame city; and finally the unrivalled mausoleum, the +Taj Mahal+ atAgra, built during his lifetime as a festal hall, to serve as his tombafter death (Fig. 86). This last is the pearl of Indian architecture, though it is said to have been designed by a European architect, Frenchor Italian. It is a white marble structure 185 feet square, centred in acourt 313 feet square, forming a platform 18 feet high. The corners ofthis court are marked by elegant minarets, and the whole is dominated bythe exquisite white marble dome, 58 feet in diameter, 80 feet high, internally rising over four domical corner chapels, and coveredexternally by a lofty marble bulb-dome on a high drum. The richmaterials, beautiful execution, and exquisite inlaying of this mausoleumare worthy of its majestic design. On the whole, in the architecture ofthe Moguls in Bijapur, Agra, and Delhi, Mohammedan architecture reachesits highest expression in the totality and balance of its qualities ofconstruction, composition, detail, ornament, and settings. The latermonuments show the decline of the style, and though often rich andimposing, are lacking in refinement and originality. [Illustration: FIG. 86. --TAJ MAHAL, AGRA. ] +TURKISH. + The Ottoman Turks, who began their conquering career underOsman I. In Bithynia in 1299, had for a century been occupying thefairest portions of the Byzantine empire when, in 1453, they becamemasters of Constantinople. Hagia Sophia was at once occupied as theirchief mosque, and such of the other churches as were spared, weredivided between the victors and the vanquished. The conqueror, MehmetII. , at the same time set about the building of a new mosque, entrustingthe design to a Byzantine, Christodoulos, whom he directed to reproduce, with some modifications, the design of the “Great Church”--Hagia Sophia. The type thus officially adopted has ever since remained the controllingmodel of Turkish mosque design, so far, at least, as general plan andconstructive principles are concerned. Thus the conquering Turks, educated by a century of study and imitation of Byzantine models inBrusa, Nicomedia, Smyrna, Adrianople, and other cities earliersubjugated, did what the Byzantines had, during nine centuries, failedto do. The noble idea first expressed by Anthemius and Isidorus in theChurch of Hagia Sophia had remained undeveloped, unimitated by laterarchitects. It was the Turk who first seized upon its possibilities, anddeveloped therefrom a style of architecture less sumptuous in color anddecoration than the sister styles of Persia, Cairo, or India, but ofgreat nobility and dignity, notwithstanding. The low-curved dome withits crown of buttressed windows, the plain spherical pendentives, thegreat apses at each end, covered by half-domes and penetrated by smallerniches, the four massive piers with their projecting buttress-massesextending across the broad lateral aisles, the narthex and the arcadedatrium in front--all these appear in the great Turkish mosques ofConstantinople. In the Conqueror’s mosque, however, two apses withhalf-domes replace the lateral galleries and clearstory of Hagia Sophia, making a perfectly quadripartite plan, destitute of the emphasis andsignificance of a plan drawn on one main axis (Fig. 87). The sametreatment occurs in the mosque of Ahmed I. , the +Ahmediyeh+ (1608; Fig. 88), and the +Yeni Djami+ (“New Mosque”) at the port (1665). In themosque of +Osman III. + (1755) the reverse change was effected; themosque has no great apses, four clearstories filling the four archesunder the dome, as also in several of the later and smaller mosques. Thegreatest and noblest of the Turkish mosques, the +Suleimaniyeh+, builtin 1553 by Soliman the Magnificent, returned to the Byzantinecombination of two half-domes with two clearstories (Fig. 89). [Illustration: FIG. 87. --MOSQUE OF MEHMET II. , CONSTANTINOPLE. PLAN. (The dimensions figured in metres. )] In none of these monuments is there the internal magnificence of marbleand mosaic of the Byzantine churches. These are only in a measurereplaced by Persian tile-wainscoting and stained-glass windows of theArabic type. The division into stories and the treatment of scale areless well managed than in the Hagia Sophia; on the other hand, theproportion of height to width is generally admirable. The exteriortreatment is unique and effective, far superior to the Byzantinepractice. The massing of domes and half-domes and roofs is moreartistically arranged; and while there is little of that minute carveddetail found in Egypt and India, the composition of the lateral arcades, the simple but impressive domical peristyles of the courts, and thegraceful forms of the pointed arches, with alternating voussoirs ofwhite and black marble, are artistic in a high degree. The minarets are, however, inferior to those of Indian, Persian, and Arabic art, thoughgraceful in their proportions. [Illustration: FIG. 88. --EXTERIOR AHMEDIYEH MOSQUE. ] Nearly all the great mosques are accompanied by the domical tombs(_turbeh_) of their imperial founders. Some of these are of noble sizeand great beauty of proportion and decoration. The +Tomb of Roxelana+(Khourrem), the favorite wife of Soliman the Magnificent (1553), is themost beautiful of all, and perhaps the most perfect gem of Turkisharchitecture, with its elegant arcade surrounding the octagonal domicalmausoleum-chamber. The +monumental fountains+ of Constantinople alsodeserve mention. Of these, the one erected by Ahmet III. (1710), nearHagia Sophia, is the most beautiful. They usually consist of arectangular marble reservoir with pagoda-like roof and broad eaves, thefour faces of the fountain adorned each with a niche and basin, andcovered with relief carving and gilded inscriptions. [Illustration: FIG. 89. --INTERIOR OF SULEIMANIYEH, CONSTANTINOPLE. ] +PALACES. + In this department the Turks have done little of importance. The buildings in the Seraglio gardens are low and insignificant. The+Tchinli Kiosque+, now the Imperial Museum, is however, a simple butgraceful two-storied edifice, consisting of four vaulted chambers in theangles of a fine cruciform hall, with domes treated like those ofBijapur on a small scale; the tiling and the veranda in front areparticularly elegant; the design suggests Persian handiwork. The laterpalaces, designed by Armenians, are picturesque white marble and stuccobuildings on the water’s edge; they possess richly decorated halls, butthe details are of a debased European rococo style, quite unworthy of anOriental monarch. +MONUMENTS. + ARABIAN: “Mosque of Omar, ” or Dome of the Rock, 638; El Aksah, by ’Abd-el-Melek, 691, both at Jerusalem; Mosque ’Amrou at Cairo, 642; mosques at Cyrene, 665; great mosque of El Walîd, Damascus, 705-717. Bagdad built, 755. Great mosque at Kairouân, 737. At Cairo, Ibn Touloun, 876; Gama-El-Azhar, 971; Barkouk, 1149; “Tombs of Khalîfs” (Karafah), 1250-1400; Moristan Kalaoun, 1284; Medresseh Sultan Hassan, 1356; El Azhar enlarged; El Mûayed, 1415; Kaïd Bey, 1463; Sinan Pacha, 1468; “Tombs of Mamelukes, ” 16th century. Also palaces, baths, fountains, mosques, and tombs. MORESQUE: Mosque at Saragossa, 713; mosque and arsenal at Tunis, 742; great mosque at Cordova, 786, 876, 975; sanctuary, 14th century. Mosques, baths, etc. , at Cordova, Tarragona, Segovia, Toledo, 960-980; mosque of Sobeiha at Cordova, 981. Palaces and mosques at Fez; great mosque at Seville, 1172. Extensive building in Morocco close of 12th century. Giralda at Seville, 1160; Alcazars in Malaga and Seville, 1225-1300; Alhambra and Generalife at Granada, 1248, 1279, 1306; also mosques, baths, etc. Yussuf builds palace at Malaga, 1348; palaces at Granada. PERSIAN: Tombs near Bagdad, 786 (?); mosque at Tabriz, 1300; tomb of Khodabendeh at Sultaniyeh, 1313; Meidan Shah (square) and Mesjid Shah (mosque) at Ispahan, 17th century; Medresseh (school) of Sultan Hussein, 18th century; palaces of Chehil Soutoun (forty columns) and Aineh Khaneh (Palace of Mirrors). Baths, tombs, bazaars, etc. , at Cashan, Koum, Kasmin, etc. Aminabad Caravanserai between Shiraz and Ispahan; bazaar at Ispahan. INDIAN: Mosque and “Kutub Minar” (tower) _cir. _ 1200; Tomb of Altumsh, 1236; mosque at Ajmir, 1211-1236; tomb at Old Delhi; Adina Mosque, Maldah, 1358. Mosques Jumma Musjid and Lal Durwaza at Jaunpore, first half of 15th century. Mosque and bazaar, Kalburgah, 1435 (?). Mosques at Ahmedabad and Sirkedj, middle 15th century. Mosque Jumma Musjid and Tomb of Mahmûd, Bijapur, _cir. _ 1550. Tomb of Humayûn, Delhi; of Mohammed Ghaus, Gwalior; mosque at Futtehpore Sikhri; palace at Allahabad; tomb of Akbar at Secundra, all by Akbar, 1556-1605. Palace and Jumma Musjid at Delhi; Muti Musjid (Pearl mosque) and Taj Mahal at Agra, by Shah Jehan, 1628-1658. TURKISH: Tomb of Osman, Brusa, 1326; Green Mosque (Yeshil Djami) Brusa, _cir. _ 1350. Mosque at Isnik (Nicæa), 1376. Mehmediyeh (mosque Mehmet II. ) Constantinople, 1453; mosque at Eyoub; Tchinli Kiosque, by Mehmet II. , 1450-60; mosque Bayazid, 1500; Selim I. , 1520; Suleimaniyeh, by Sinan, 1553; Ahmediyeh by Ahmet I. , 1608; Yeni Djami, 1665; Nouri Osman, by Osman III. , 1755; mosque Mohammed Ali in Cairo, 1824. Mosque at Adrianople. KHANS, cloistered courts for public business and commercial lodgers, various dates, 16th and 17th centuries (Validé Khan, Vizir Khan), vaulted bazaars, fountains, Seraskierat Tower, all at Constantinople. CHAPTER XIII. EARLY MEDIÆVAL ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY AND FRANCE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Cattaneo, _L’Architecture en Italie_. Chapuy, _Le moyen age monumental_. Corroyer, _Architecture romane_. Cummings, _A History of Architecture in Italy_. Enlart, _Manuel d’archéologie française_. Hübsch, _Monuments de l’architecture chrétienne_. Knight, _Churches of Northern Italy_. Lenoir, _Architecture monastique_. Osten, _Bauwerke in der Lombardei_. Quicherat, _Mélanges d’histoire et d’archéologie_. Reber, _History of Mediæval Architecture_. Révoil, _Architecture romane du midi de la France_. Rohault de Fleury, _Monuments de Pise_. Sharpe, _Churches of Charente_. De Verneilh, _L’Architecture byzantine en France_. Viollet-le-Duc, _Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française_ (especially in Vol. I. , Architecture religieuse); _Discourses on Architecture_. +EARLY MEDIÆVAL EUROPE. + The fall of the Western Empire in 476 A. D. Marked the beginning of a new era in architecture outside of theByzantine Empire. The so-called Dark Ages which followed this eventconstituted the formative period of the new Western civilization, duringwhich the Celtic and Germanic races were being Christianized andsubjected to the authority and to the educative influences of theChurch. Under these conditions a new architecture was developed, foundedupon the traditions of the early Christian builders, modified indifferent regions by Roman or Byzantine influences. For Rome recoveredearly her antique prestige, and Roman monuments covering the soil ofSouthern Europe, were a constant object lesson to the builders of thattime. To this new architecture of the West, which in the tenth andeleventh centuries first began to achieve worthy and monumental results, the generic name of +Romanesque+ has been commonly given, in spite ofthe great diversity of its manifestations in different countries. +CHARACTER OF THE ARCHITECTURE. + Romanesque architecture waspre-eminently ecclesiastical. Civilization and culture emanated from theChurch, and her requirements and discipline gave form to the builder’sart. But the basilican style, which had so well served her purposes inthe earlier centuries and on classic soil, was ill-suited to the newconditions. Corinthian columns, marble incrustations, and splendidmosaics were not to be had for the asking in the forests of Gaul orGermany, nor could the Lombards and Ostrogoths in Italy or theirdescendants reproduce them. The basilican style was complete in itself, possessing no seeds of further growth. The priests and monks of Italyand Western Europe sought to rear with unskilled labor churches of stonein which the general dispositions of the basilica should reappear insimpler, more massive dress, and, as far as possible, in a fireproofconstruction with vaults of stone. This problem underlies all the variedphases of Romanesque architecture; its final solution was not, however, reached until the Gothic period, to which the Romanesque forms thetransition and stepping-stone. +MEDIÆVAL ITALY. + Italy in the Dark Ages stood midway between thecivilization of the Eastern Empire and the semi-barbarism of the West. Rome, Ravenna, and Venice early became centres of culture and maintainedcontinuous commercial relations with the East. Architecture did not lackeither the inspiration or the means for advancing on new lines. But itsadvance was by no means the same everywhere. The unifying influence ofthe church was counterbalanced by the provincialism and the localdiversities of the various Italian states, resulting in a wide varietyof styles. These, however, may be broadly grouped in four divisions: the+Lombard+, the +Tuscan-Romanesque+, the +Italo-Byzantine+, and theunchanged +Basilican+ or Early Christian, which last, as was shown inChapter X. , continued to be practised in Rome throughout the MiddleAges. [Illustration: FIG. 90. --INTERIOR OF SAN AMBROGIO, MILAN. ] [Illustration: FIG. 91. --WEST FRONT AND CAMPANILE OF CATHEDRAL, PIACENZA. ] +LOMBARD STYLE. + Owing to the general rebuilding of ancient churchesunder the more settled social conditions of the eleventh and twelfthcenturies, little remains to us of the architecture of the threepreceding centuries in Italy, except the Roman basilicas and a fewbaptisteries and circular churches, already mentioned in Chapter X. Theso-called Lombard monuments belong mainly to the eleventh and twelfthcenturies. They are found not only in Lombardy, but also in Venetia andthe Æmilia. Milan, Pavia, Piacenza, Bologna, and Verona were importantcentres of development of this style. The churches were nearly allvaulted, but the plans were basilican, with such variations as resultedfrom efforts to meet the exigencies of vaulted construction. The navewas narrowed, and instead of rows of columns carrying a thin clearstorywall, a few massive piers of masonry, connected by broad pier-arches, supported the heavy ribs of the groined vaulting, as in S.  Ambrogio, Milan (Fig. 90). To resist the thrust of the main vault, the clearstorywas sometimes suppressed, the side aisle carried up in two storiesforming galleries, and rows of chapels added at the sides, theirpartitions forming buttresses. The piers were often of clusteredsection, the better to receive the various arches and ribs theysupported. The vaulting was in square divisions or _vaulting-bays_, eachembracing two pier-arches which met upon an intermediate pier lighterthan the others. Thus the whole aspect of the interior wasrevolutionized. The lightness, spaciousness, and decorative elegance ofthe basilicas were here exchanged for a sombre and massive dignitysevere in its plainness. The Choir was sometimes raised a few feet abovethe nave, to allow of a crypt and _confessio_ beneath, reached by broadflights of steps from the nave. Sta. Maria della Pieve at Arezzo(9th-11th century), +S.  Michele+ at Pavia (late 11th century), the+Cathedral of Piacenza+ (1122), +S.  Ambrogio+ at Milan (12th century), and +S.  Zeno+ at Verona (1139) are notable monuments of this style. +LOMBARD EXTERIORS. + The few architectural embellishments employed onthe simple exteriors of the Lombard churches were usually effective andwell composed. Slender columnettes or long pilasters, blind arcades, andopen arcaded galleries under the eaves gave light and shade to theseexteriors. The façades were mere frontispieces with a single broadgable, the three aisles of the church being merely suggested by flat orround pilasters dividing the front (Fig 91). Gabled porches, withcolumns resting on the backs of lions or monsters, adorned the doorways. The carving was often of a fierce and grotesque character. Detachedbell-towers or _campaniles_ adjoined many of these churches; square andsimple in mass, but with well-distributed openings and well-proportionedbelfries (Piacenza S.  Zeno at Verona, etc. ). [18] [Footnote 18: See Appendix B. ] +THE TUSCAN ROMANESQUE. + The churches of this style (sometimes calledthe +Pisan+) were less vigorous but more elegant and artistic in designthan the Lombard. They were basilicas in plan, with timber ceilings andhigh clearstories on columnar arcades. In their decoration, bothinternal and external, they betray the influence of Byzantinetraditions, especially in the use of white and colored marble inalternating bands or in panelled veneering. Still more striking is theexternal decorative application of wall-arcades, sometimes occupying thewhole height of the wall and carried on flat pilasters, sometimes insuperposed stages of small arches on slender columns standing free ofthe wall. In general the decorative element prevailed over theconstructive in the design of these picturesquely beautiful churches, some of which are of noble size. The +Duomo+ (cathedral) of +Pisa+, built 1063-1118, is the finest monument of the style (Figs. 92, 93). Itis 312 feet long and 118 wide, with long transepts and an ellipticaldome of later date over the _crossing_ (the intersection of nave andtransepts). Its richly arcaded front and banded flanks strikinglyexemplify the illogical and unconstructive but highly decorative methodsof the Tuscan Romanesque builders. The circular +Baptistery+ (1153), with its lofty domical central hall surrounded by an aisle, an imposingdevelopment of the type established by Constantine (p.  111), and thefamous +Leaning Tower+ (1174), both designed with external arcading, combine with the Duomo to form the most remarkable group ofecclesiastical buildings in Italy, if not in Europe (Fig. 92). [Illustration: FIG. 92. --BAPTISTERY, CATHEDRAL, AND LEANING TOWER, PISA. ] The same style appears in more flamboyant shape in some of the churchesof Lucca. The cathedral +S.  Martino+ (1060; façade, 1204; nave alteredin fourteenth century) is the finest and largest of these; +S.  Michele+(façade, 1288) and S.  Frediano (twelfth century) have the mostelaborately decorated façades. The same principles of design appear inthe cathedral and several other churches in Pistoia and Prato; but thesebelong, for the most part, to the Gothic period. [Illustration: FIG. 93. --INTERIOR OF PISA CATHEDRAL. ] +FLORENCE. + The church of +S. Miniato+, in the suburbs of Florence, is abeautiful example of a modification of the Pisan style. It is in plan abasilica with two piers interrupting the colonnade on each side of thenave and supporting powerful transverse arches. The interior isembellished with bands and patterns in black and white, and the woodworkof the open-timber roof is elegantly decorated with fine patterns inred, green, blue, and gold--a treatment common in early mediævalchurches, as at Messina, Orvieto, etc. The exterior is adorned withwall-arches of classic design and with panelled veneering in white anddark marble, instead of the horizontal bands of the Pisan churches. Thissystem of external decoration, a blending of Pisan and Italo-Byzantinemethods, became the established practice in Florence, lasting throughthe whole Gothic period. The +Baptistery+ of Florence, originally thecathedral, an imposing polygonal domical edifice of the tenth century, presents externally one of the most admirable examples of this practice. Its marble veneering in black and white, with pilasters and arches ofexcellent design, is attributed by Vasari to Arnolfo di Cambio, but isby many considered to be much older, although restored by that architectin 1294. Suggestions of the Pisan arcade system are found in widely scatteredexamples in the east and south of Italy, mingled with features ofLombard and Byzantine design. In Apulia, as at Bari, Caserta Vecchia(1100), Molfetta (1192), and in Sicily, the Byzantine influence isconspicuous in the use of domes and in many of the decorative details. Particularly is this the case at Palermo and Monreale, where thechurches erected after the Norman conquest--some of them domical, somebasilican--show a strange but picturesque and beautiful mixture ofRomanesque, Byzantine, and Arabic forms. The +Cathedral+ of +Monreale+and the churches of the +Eremiti+ and +La Martorana+ at Palermo are themost important. The +Italo-Byzantine+ style has already found mention in the latter partof Chapter XI. Venice and Ravenna were its chief centres; while theinfluence, both of the parent style and of its Italian offshoot was, aswe have just shown, very widespread. +WESTERN ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE. + In Western Europe the unrest andlawlessness which attended the unsettled relations of society under thefeudal system long retarded the establishment of that social orderwithout which architectural progress is impossible. With the eleventhcentury there began, however, a great activity in building, principallyamong the monasteries, which represented all that there was of cultureand stability amid the prevailing disorder. Undisturbed by war, the onlyabodes of peaceful labor, learning, and piety, they had become rich andpowerful, both in men and land. Probably the more or less generalapprehension of the supposed impending end of the world in the year 1000contributed to this result by driving unquiet consciences to seek refugein the monasteries, or to endow them richly. The monastic builders, with little technical training, but with plentyof willing hands, sought out new architectural paths to meet theirspecial needs. Remote from classic and Byzantine models, and mainlydependent on their own resources, they often failed to realize theintended results. But skill came with experience, and with advancingcivilization and a surer mastery of construction came a finer taste andgreater elegance of design. Meanwhile military architecture developed anew science of building, and covered Europe with imposing castles, admirably constructed and often artistic in design as far as militaryexigencies would permit. +CHARACTER OF THE STYLE. + The Romanesque architecture of the eleventhand twelfth centuries in Western Europe (sometimes called the+Round-Arched Gothic+) was thus predominantly though not exclusivelymonastic. This gave it a certain unity of character in spite of nationaland local variations. The problem which the wealthy orders setthemselves was, like that of the Lombard church-builders in Italy, toadapt the basilica plan to the exigencies of vaulted construction. Massive walls, round arches stepped or recessed to lighten theirappearance, heavy mouldings richly carved, clustered piers andjamb-shafts, capitals either of the _cushion_ type or imitated from theCorinthian, and strong and effective carving--all these are featuresalike of French, German, English, and Spanish Romanesque architecture. [Illustration: FIG. 94. --PLAN OF ST. FRONT. ] +THE FRENCH ROMANESQUE. + Though monasticism produced remarkable resultsin France, architecture there did not wholly depend upon themonasteries. Southern Gaul (Provence) was full of classic remains andclassic traditions while at the same time it maintained close traderelations with Venice and the East. [19] The church of +St. Front+ atPerigueux, built in 1120, reproduced the plan of St. Mark’s withsingular fidelity, but without its rich decoration, and with pointedinstead of round arches (Figs. 94, 95). The domical cathedral of+Cahors+ (1050-1100), an obvious imitation of S.  Irene atConstantinople, and the later and more Gothic Cathedral of +Angoulême+display a notable advance in architectural skill outside of themonasteries. Among the abbeys, +Fontevrault+ (1101-1119) closelyresembles Angoulême, but surpasses it in the elegance of its choir andchapels. In these and a number of other domical churches of the sameFranco-Byzantine type in Aquitania, the substitution of the Latin crossin the plan for the Greek cross used in St. Front, evinces the Gallictendency to work out to their logical end new ideas or new applicationsof old ones. These striking variations on Byzantine themes might havedeveloped into an independent local style but for the overwhelming tideof Gothic influence which later poured in from the North. [Footnote 19: See Viollet-le-Duc, _Dictionnaire raisonné_, article ARCHITECTURE, vol. I. , pp. 66 _et seq. _; also de Verneilh, _L’Architecture byzantine en France_. ] [Illustration: FIG. 95. --INTERIOR OF ST. FRONT, PERIGUEUX. ] Meanwhile, farther south (at Arles, Avignon, etc. ), classic modelsstrongly influenced the details, if not the plans, of an interestingseries of churches remarkable especially for their porches rich withfigure sculpture and for their elaborately carved details. The classicarchivolt, the Corinthian capital, the Roman forms of enrichedmouldings, are evident at a glance in the porches of Notre Dame des Domsat Avignon, of the church of St. Gilles, and of St. Trophime at Arles. [Illustration: FIG. 96. --PLAN OF NOTRE DAME DU PORT, CLERMONT. ] [Illustration: FIG. 97. --SECTION OF NOTRE DAME DU PORT, CLERMONT. ] +DEVELOPMENT OF VAULTING. + It was in Central France, and mainly alongthe Loire, that the systematic development of vaulted churcharchitecture began. Naves covered with barrel-vaults appear in a numberof large churches built during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, withapsidal and transeptal chapels and aisles carried around the apse, as inSt. Etienne, Nevers, +Notre Dame du Port+ at Clermont-Ferrand (Fig. 96), and +St. Paul+ at Issoire. The thrust of these ponderous vaults wasclumsily resisted by half-barrel vaults over the side-aisles, transmitting the strain to massive side-walls (Fig. 97), or by highside-aisles with transverse barrel or groined vaults over each bay. Ineither case the clearstory was suppressed--a fact which mattered littlein the sunny southern provinces. In the more cloudy North, in Normandy, Picardy, and the Royal Domain, the nave-vault was raised higher to admitof clearstory windows, and its section was in some cases made like apointed arch, to diminish its thrust, as at +Autun+. But theseeleventh-century vaults nearly all fell in, and had to be reconstructedon new principles. In this work the Clunisians seem to have led the way, as at +Cluny+ (1089) and +Vézelay+ (1100). In the latter church, one ofthe finest and most interesting French edifices of the twelfth century, a groined vault replaced the barrel-vault, though the oblong plan of thevaulting-bays, due to the nave being wider than the pier-arches, led tosomewhat awkward twisted surfaces in the vaulting. But even here thevaults had insufficient lateral buttressing, and began to crack andsettle; so that in the great ante-chapel, built thirty years later, theside-aisles were made in two stories, the better to resist the thrust, and the groined vaults themselves were constructed of pointed section. These seem to be the earliest pointed groined vaults in France. It wasnot till the second half of that century, however (1150-1200), that theflying buttress was combined with such vaults, so as to permit of highclearstories for the better lighting of the nave; and the problem ofsatisfactorily vaulting an oblong space with a groined vault was notsolved until the following century. +ONE-AISLED CHURCHES. + In the Franco-Byzantine churches alreadydescribed (p.  164) this difficulty of the oblong vaulting-bay did notoccur, owing to the absence of side-aisles and pier-arches. Followingthis conception of church-planning, a number of interesting parishchurches and a few cathedrals were built in various parts of France inwhich side-recesses or chapels took the place of side-aisles. Thepartitions separating them served as abutments for the groined orbarrel-vaults of the nave. The cathedrals of +Autun+ (1150) and+Langres+ (1160), and in the fourteenth century that of Alby, employedthis arrangement, common in many earlier Provençal churches which havedisappeared. [Illustration: FIG. 98. --A SIX-PART RIBBED VAULT, SHOWING TWO COMPARTMENTS WITH THE FILLINGS COMPLETE. _a, a_, _Transverse ribs_ (_doubleaux_); _b, b_, _Wall-ribs_ (_formerets_); _c, c_, _Groin-ribs_ (_diagonaux_). (All the ribs are semicircles. )] +SIX-PART VAULTING. + In the Royal Domain great architectural activitydoes not appear to have begun until the beginning of the Gothic periodin the middle of the twelfth century. But in Normandy, and especially atCaen and Mont St. Michel, there were produced, between 1046 and 1120, some remarkable churches, in which a high clearstory was secured inconjunction with a vaulted nave, by the use of “six-part” vaulting (Fig. 98). This was an awkward expedient, by which a square vaulting-bay wasdivided into six parts by the groins and by a middle transverse rib, necessitating two narrow skew vaults meeting at the centre. Thisunsatisfactory device was retained for over a century, and was common inearly Gothic churches both in France and Great Britain. It made itpossible to resist the thrust by high side-aisles, and yet to openwindows above these under the cross-vaults. The abbey churches of +St. Etienne+ (the Abbaye aux Hommes) and +Ste. Trinité+ (Abbaye aux Dames), at Caen, built in the time of William the Conqueror, were among the mostmagnificent churches of their time, both in size and in the excellenceand ingenuity of their construction. The great abbey church of +Mont St. Michel+ (much altered in later times) should also be mentioned here. Atthe same time these and other Norman churches showed a great advance intheir internal composition. A well-developed triforium or subordinategallery was introduced between the pier-arches and clearstory, and allthe structural membering of the edifice was better proportioned and morelogically expressed than in most contemporary work. +ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. + The details of French Romanesque architecturevaried considerably in the several provinces, according as classic, Byzantine, or local influences prevailed. Except in a few of theAquitanian churches, the round arch was universal. The walls were heavyand built of rubble between facings of stones of moderate size dressedwith the axe. Windows and doors were widely splayed to diminish theobstruction of the massive walls, and were treated with jamb-shafts andrecessed arches. These were usually formed with large cylindricalmouldings, richly carved with leaf ornaments, zigzags, billets, andgrotesques. Figure-sculpture was more generally used in the South thanin the North. The interior piers were sometimes cylindrical, but moreoften clustered, and where square bays of four-part or six-part vaultingwere employed, the piers were alternately lighter and heavier. Eachshaft had its independent capital either of the block type or of a formresembling somewhat that of the Corinthian order. During the eleventhcentury it became customary to carry up to the main vaulting one or moreshafts of the compound pier to support the vaulting ribs. Thus thedivision of the nave into _bays_ was accentuated, while at the same timethe horizontal three-fold division of the height by a well-definedtriforium between the pier-arches and clearstory began to be likewiseemphasized. +VAULTING. + The vaulting was also divided into bays by transverse ribs, and where it was groined the groins themselves began in the twelfthcentury to be marked by groin-ribs. These were constructed independentlyof the vaulting, and the four or six compartments of each vaulting-baywere then built in, the ribs serving, in part at least, to support thecentrings for this purpose. This far-reaching principle, already appliedby the Romans in their concrete vaults (see p.  84), appears as are-discovery, or rather an independent invention, of the builders ofNormandy at the close of the eleventh century. The flying buttress was alater invention; in the round-arched buildings of the eleventh andtwelfth centuries the buttressing was mainly internal, and wasincomplete and timid in its arrangement. +EXTERIORS. + The exteriors were on this account plain and flat. Thewindows were small, the mouldings simple, and towers were rarelycombined with the body of the church until after the beginning of thetwelfth century. Then they appeared as mere belfries of moderate height, with pyramidal roofs and effectively arranged openings, the germs of thenoble Gothic spires of later times. Externally the western porches andportals were the most important features of the design, producing animposing effect by their massive arches, clustered piers, richly carvedmouldings, and deep shadows. +CLOISTERS, ETC. + Mention should be made of the other monastic buildingswhich were grouped around the abbey churches of this period. Thesecomprised refectories, chapter-halls, cloistered courts surrounded bythe conventual cells, and a large number of accessory structures forkitchens, infirmaries, stores, etc. The whole formed an elaborate andcomplex aggregation of connected buildings, often of great size andbeauty, especially the refectories and cloisters. Most of theseconventual buildings have disappeared, many of them having beendemolished during the Gothic period to make way for more elegantstructures in the new style. There remain, however, a number of finecloistered courts in their original form, especially in Southern France. Among the most remarkable of these are those of +Moissac+, +Elne+, and+Montmajour+. +MONUMENTS. + ITALY. (For basilicas and domical churches of 6th-12th centuries see pp. 118, 119. )--Before 11th century: Sta. Maria at Toscanella, altered 1206; S.  Donato, Zara; chapel at Friuli; baptistery at Boella. 11th century: S.  Giovanni, Viterbo; Sta. Maria della Pieve, Arezzo; S.  Antonio, Piacenza, 1014; Eremiti, 1132, and La Martorana, 1143, both at Palermo; Duomo at Bari, 1027 (much altered); Duomo and baptistery, Novara, 1030; Duomo at Parma, begun 1058; Duomo at Pisa, 1063-1118; S.  Miniato, Florence, 1063-12th century; S.  Michele at Pavia and Duomo at Modena, late 11th century. --12th century: in Calabria and Apulia, cathedrals of Trani, 1100; Caserta, Vecchia, 1100-1153; Molfetta, 1162; Benevento; churches S.  Giovanni at Brindisi, S.  Niccolo at Bari, 1139. In Sicily, Duomo at Monreale, 1174-1189. In Northern Italy, S.  Tomaso in Limine, Bergamo, 1100 (?); Sta. Giulia, Brescia; S.  Lorenzo, Milan, rebuilt 1119; Duomo at Piacenza, 1122; S.  Zeno at Verona, 1139; S.  Ambrogio, Milan, 1140, vaulted in 13th century; baptistery at Pisa, 1153-1278; Leaning Tower, Pisa, 1174. --14th century: S.  Michele, Lucca, 1188; S.  Giovanni and S.  Frediano, Lucca. In Dalmatia, cathedral at Zara, 1192-1204. Many castles and early town-halls, as at Bari, Brescia, Lucca, etc. FRANCE: Previous to 11th century: St. Germiny-des-Prés, 806, Chapel of the Trinity, St. Honorat-des-Lérins; Ste. Croix de Montmajour. --11th century: Cérisy-la-Forêt and abbey church of Mont St. Michel, 1020 (the latter altered in 12th and 16th centuries); Vignory; St. Genou; porch of St. Bénoit-sur-Loire, 1030; St. Sépulchre at Neuvy, 1045; Ste. Trinité (Abbaye aux Dames) at Caen, 1046, vaulted 1140; St. Etienne (Abbaye aux Hommes) at Caen, same date; St. Front at Perigueux, 1120; Ste. Croix at Quimperlé, 1081; cathedral, Cahors, 1050-1110; abbey churches of Cluny (demolished) and Vézelay, 1089-1100; circular church of Rieux-Mérinville, church of St. Savin in Auvergne, the churches of St. Paul at Issoire and Notre-Dame-du-Port at Clermont, St. Hilaire and Notre-Dame-la-Grande at Poitiers; also St. Sernin (Saturnin) at Toulouse, all at close of 11th and beginning of 12th century. --12th century: Domical churches of Aquitania and vicinity; Solignac and Fontévrault, 1120; St. Etienne (Périgueux), St. Avit-Sénieur; Angoulême, Souillac, Broussac, etc. , early 12th century; St. Trophime at Arles, 1110, cloisters later; church of Vaison; abbeys and cloisters at Montmajour, Tarascon, Moissac (with fragments of a 10th-century cloister built into present arcades); St. Paul-du-Mausolée; Puy-en-Vélay, with fine church. Many other abbeys, parish churches, and a few cathedrals in Central and Northern France especially. CHAPTER XIV. EARLY MEDIÆVAL ARCHITECTURE. --_Continued. _ IN GERMANY, GREAT BRITAIN, AND SPAIN. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Hübsch and Reber. Bond, _Gothic Architecture in England_. Also Brandon, _Analysis of Gothic Architecture_. Boisserée, _Nieder Rhein_. Ditchfield, _The Cathedrals of England_. Hasak, _Die romanische und die gotische Baukunst_ (in _Handbuch d. Arch. _). Lübke, _Die Mittelalterliche Kunst in Westfalen_. Möller, _Denkmäler der deutschen Baukunst_. Puttrich, _Baukunst des Mittelalters in Sachsen_. Rickman, _An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of Architecture_. Scott, _English Church Architecture_. Van Rensselaer, _English Cathedrals_. +MEDIÆVAL GERMANY. + Architecture developed less rapidly andsymmetrically in Germany than in France, notwithstanding the strongcentralized government of the empire. The early churches were of wood, and the substitution of stone for wood proceeded slowly. During theCarolingian epoch (800-919), however, a few important buildings wereerected, embodying Byzantine and classic traditions. Among these themost notable was the +Minster+ or palatine chapel of Charlemagne at+Aix-la-Chapelle+, an obvious imitation of San Vitale at Ravenna. Itconsisted of an octagonal domed hall surrounded by a vaulted aisle intwo stories, but without the eight niches of the Ravenna plan. It waspreceded by a porch flanked by turrets. The Byzantine type thusintroduced was repeated in later churches, as in the Nuns’ Choir atEssen (947) and at Ottmarsheim (1050). In the great monastery at Fulda abasilica with transepts and with an apsidal choir at either end wasbuilt in 803. These choirs were raised above the level of the nave, toadmit of crypts beneath them, as in many Lombard churches; a practicewhich, with the reduplication of the choir and apse just mentioned, became very common in German Romanesque architecture. +EARLY CHURCHES. + It was in Saxony that this architecture first enteredupon a truly national development. The early churches of this provinceand of Hildesheim (where architecture flourished under the favor of thebishops, as elsewhere under the royal influence) were of basilican planand destitute of vaulting, except in the crypts. They were built withmassive piers, sometimes rectangular, sometimes clustered, the two kindsoften alternating in the same nave. Short columns were, however, sometimes used instead of piers, either alone, as at Paulinzelle andLimburg-on-the-Hardt (1024-39), or alternating with piers, as atHecklingen, +Gernrode+ (958-1050), and +St. Godehard+ at Hildesheim(1133). A triple eastern apse, with apsidal chapels projecting eastwardfrom the transepts, were common elements in the plans, and a secondapse, choir, and crypt at the west end were not infrequent. Externallythe most striking feature was the association of two, four, or even sixsquare or circular towers with the mass of the church, and the elevationof square or polygonal turrets or cupolas over the crossing. Theseadjuncts gave a very picturesque aspect to edifices otherwise somewhatwanting in artistic interest. [Illustration: FIG. 99. --PLAN OF MINSTER AT WORMS. ] +RHENISH CHURCHES. + It was in the Rhine provinces that vaulting wasfirst applied to the naves of German churches, nearly a half centuryafter its general adoption in France. Cologne possesses an interestingtrio of churches in which the Byzantine dome on squinches or onpendentives, with three apses or niches opening into the central area, was associated with a long three aisled nave (+St. Mary-in-the-Capitol+, begun in 9th century; +Great St. Martin’s+, 1150-70; +Apostles’ Church+, 1160-99: the naves vaulted later). The double chapel at+Schwarz-Rheindorf+, near Bonn (1151), also has the crossing covered bya dome on pendentives. [Illustration: FIG. 100. --ONE BAY OF CATHEDRAL AT SPIRES. ] The vaulting of the nave itself was developed in another series ofedifices of imposing size, the cathedrals of +Mayence+ (1036), +Spires+(Speyer), and +Worms+, and the +Abbey of Laach+, all built in the 11thcentury and vaulted early in the 12th. In the first three the mainvaulting is in square bays, each covering two bays of the nave, thepiers of which are alternately lighter and heavier (Figs. 99, 100). AtLaach the vaulting-bays are oblong, both in nave and aisles. There wasno triforium gallery, and stability was secured only by excessivethickness in the piers and clearstory walls, and by bringing down themain vault as near to the side-aisle roofs as possible. +RHENISH EXTERIORS. + These great churches, together with those of +Bonn+and +Limburg-on-the-Lahn+ and the cathedral of +Treves+ (Trier, 1047), are interesting, not only by their size and dignity of plan and thesomewhat rude massiveness of their construction, but even more so by thepicturesqueness of their external design (Fig. 101). Especiallysuccessful is the massing of the large and small turrets with the loftynave-roof and with the apses at one or both ends. The systematic use ofarcading to decorate the exterior walls, and the introduction of openarcaded dwarf galleries under the cornices of the apses, gables, anddome-turrets, gave to these Rhenish churches an external beauty hardlyequalled in other contemporary edifices. This method of exterior design, and the system of vaulting in square bays over double bays of the nave, were probably derived from the Lombard churches of Northern Italy, withwhich the Hohenstauffen emperors had many political relations. [Illustration: FIG. 101. --EAST END OF CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES, COLOGNE. ] The Italian influence is also encountered in a number of circularchurches of early date, as at Fulda (9th-11th century), Drügelte, Bonn(baptistery, demolished), and in façades like that at Rosheim, which isa copy in little of San Zeno at Verona. Elsewhere in Germany architecture was in a backward state, especially inthe southern provinces. Outside of Saxony, Franconia, and the Rhineprovinces, very few works of importance were erected until thethirteenth century. +SECULAR ARCHITECTURE. + Little remains to us of the secular architectureof this period in Germany, if we except the great feudal castles, especially those of the Rhine, which were, after all, rather works ofmilitary engineering than of architectural art. The palace ofCharlemagne at Aix (the chapel of which was mentioned on p.  172) isknown to have been a vast and splendid group of buildings, partly, atleast of marble; but hardly a vestige of it remains. Of the extensive+Palace of Henry III. + at +Goslar+ there remain well-defined ruins of animposing hall of assembly in two aisles with triple-arched windows. AtBrunswick the east wing of the +Burg Dankwargerode+ displays, in spiteof modern alterations, the arrangement of the chapel, great hall, twofortified towers, and part of the residence of Henry the Lion. The+Wartburg+ palace (Ludwig III. , _cir. _ 1150) is more generallyknown--a rectangular hall in three stories, with windows effectivelygrouped to form arcades; while at Gelnhausen and Münzenberg are ruins ofsomewhat similar buildings. A few of the Romanesque monasteries ofGermany have left partial remains, as at +Maulbronn+, which was almostentirely rebuilt in the Gothic period, and isolated buildings in Cologneand elsewhere. There remain also in Cologne a number of Romanesqueprivate houses with coupled windows and stepped gables. +GREAT BRITAIN. + Previous to the Norman conquest (1066) there was in theBritish Isles little or no architecture worthy of mention. The fewextant remains of Saxon and Celtic buildings reveal a singular povertyof ideas and want of technical skill. These scanty remains are mostly oftowers (those in Ireland nearly all round and tapering, with conicaltops, their use and date being the subjects of much controversy) andcrypts. The tower of Earl’s Barton is the most important and bestpreserved of those in England. With the Norman conquest, however, beganan extraordinary activity in the building of churches and abbeys. William the Conqueror himself founded a number of these, and his Normanecclesiastics endeavored to surpass on British soil the contemporarychurches of Normandy. The new churches differed somewhat from theirFrench prototypes; they were narrower and lower, but much longer, especially as to the choir and transepts. The cathedrals of +Durham+(1096-1133) and +Norwich+ (same date) are important examples (Fig. 102). They also differed from the French churches in two important particularsexternally; a huge tower rose usually over the crossing, and the westernportals were small and insignificant. Lateral entrances near the westend were given greater importance and called _Galilees_. At Durham aGalilee chapel (not shown in the plan), takes the place of a porch atthe west end, like the ante-churches of St. Benoît-sur-Loire andVézelay. [Illustration: FIG. 102. --PLAN OF DURHAM CATHEDRAL. ] +THE NORMAN STYLE. + The Anglo-Norman builders employed the same generalfeatures as the Romanesque builders of Normandy, but with more ofpicturesqueness and less of refinement and technical elegance. Heavywalls, recessed arches, round mouldings, cubic cushion-caps, clusteredpiers, and in doorways a jamb-shaft for each stepping of the arch werecommon to both styles. But in England the Corinthian form of capital israre, its place being taken by simpler forms. +NORMAN INTERIORS. + The interior design of the larger churches of thisperiod shows a close general analogy to contemporaneous French Normanchurches, as appears by comparing the nave of Waltham or Peterboro’ withthat of Cérisy-la-Forêt, in Normandy. Although the massiveness of theAnglo-Norman piers and walls plainly suggests the intention of vaultingthe nave, this intention seems never to have been carried out except insmall churches and crypts. All the existing abbeys and cathedrals ofthis period had wooden ceilings or were, like Durham, Norwich, andGloucester, vaulted at a later date. Completed as they were with woodennave-roofs, the clearstory was, without danger, made quite lofty andfurnished with windows of considerable size. These were placed near theoutside of the thick wall, and a passage was left between them anda triple arch on the inner face of the wall--a device imitatedfrom the abbeys at Caen. The vaulted side-aisles were low, withdisproportionately wide pier-arches, above which was a high triforiumgallery under the side-roofs. Thus a nearly equal height was assignedto each of the three stories of the bay, disregarding that subordinationof minor to major parts which gives interest to an architecturalcomposition. The piers were quite often round, as at Gloucester, Hereford, and Bristol. Sometimes round piers alternated with clusteredpiers, as at Durham and Waltham; and in some cases clustered piers alonewere employed, as at Peterboro’ and in the transepts of Winchester (Fig. 103). [Illustration: FIG. 103. --ONE BAY OF TRANSEPT, WINCHESTER CATHEDRAL. ] +FAÇADES AND DOORWAYS. + All the details were of the simplest character, except in the doorways. These were richly adorned with clusteredjamb-shafts and elaborately carved mouldings, but there was littlevariety in the details of this carving. The zigzag was the most commonfeature, though birds’ heads with the beaks pointing toward the centreof the arch were not uncommon. In the smaller churches (Fig. 104) thedoorways were better proportioned to the whole façade than in the largerones, in which they appear as relatively insignificant features. Veryfew examples remain of important Norman façades in their original form, nearly all of these having been altered after the round arch wasdisplaced by the pointed arch in the latter part of the twelfth century. Iffley church (Fig. 104) is a good example of the style. [Illustration: FIG. 104. --FRONT OF IFFLEY CHURCH. ] +SPAIN. + During the Romanesque period a large part of Spain was underMoorish dominion. The capture of Toledo, in 1062, by the Christians, began the gradual emancipation of the country from Moslem rule, and inthe northern provinces a number of important churches were erected underthe influence of French Romanesque models. The use of domicalpendentives (as in the +Panteon+ of +S.  Isidoro+, at Leon, and in the_cimborio_ or dome over the choir at the intersection of nave andtransepts in old Salamanca cathedral) was probably derived from thedomical churches of Aquitania and Anjou. Elsewhere the northernRomanesque type prevailed under various modifications, with long naveand transepts, a short choir, and a complete _chevet_ with apsidalchapels. The church of +St. Iago+ at Compostella (1078) is the finestexample of this class. These churches nearly all had groined vaultingover the side-aisles and barrel-vaults over the nave, the constructivesystem being substantially that of the churches of Auvergne and theLoire Valley (p.  165). They differed, however, in the treatment of thecrossing of nave and transepts, over which was usually erected a dome orcupola or pendentives or squinches, covered externally by an imposingsquare lantern or tower, as in the +Old Cathedral+ at +Salamanca+, already mentioned (1120-78) and the +Collegiate Church+ at +Toro+. Occasional exceptions to these types are met with, as in the basilicanwooden-roofed church of S.  Millan at Segovia; in +S.  Isidoro+ at Leon, with chapels and a later-added square eastern end, and the circularchurch of the Templars at Segovia. The architectural details of these Spanish churches did not differradically from contemporary French work. As in France and England, thedoorways were the most ornate parts of the design, the mouldings beingcarved with extreme richness and the jambs frequently adorned withstatues, as in +S.  Vincente+ at Avila. There was no such logical andreasoned-out system of external design as in France, and there isconsequently greater variety in the façades. Perhaps the most remarkablething about the architecture of this period is its apparent exemptionfrom the influence of the Moorish monuments which abounded on everyhand. This may be explained by the hatred which was felt by theChristians for the Moslems and all their works. +MONUMENTS. + GERMANY: Previous to 11th century: Circular churches of Holy Cross at Münster, and of Fulda; palace chapel of Charlemagne at Aix-la-Chapelle, 804; St. Stephen, Mayence, 990; primitive nave and crypt of St. Gereon, Cologne, 10th century; Lorsch. --11th century: Churches of Gernrode, Goslar, and Merseburg in Saxony; cathedral of Bremen; first restoration of cathedral of Treves (Trier), 1010, west front, 1047; Limburg-on-Hardt, 1024; St. Willibrod, Echternach, 1031; east end of Mayence Cathedral, 1036; Church of Apostles and nave St. Mary-in-Capitol at Cologne, 1036; cathedral of Spires (Speyer) begun 1040; Cathedral Hildesheim, 1061; St. Joseph, Bamberg, 1073; Abbey of Laach, 1093-1156; round churches of Bonn, Drügelte, Nimeguen; cathedrals of Paderborn and Minden. --12th century: Churches of Klus, Paulinzelle, Hamersleben, 1100-1110; Johannisberg, 1130; St. Godehard. Hildesheim, 1133; Worms, the Minster, 1118-83; Jerichau, 1144-60; Schwarz-Rheindorf, 1151; St. Michael, Hildesheim, 1162; Cathedral Brunswick, 1172-94; Lubeck, 1172; also churches of Gaudersheim, Würzburg, St. Matthew at Treves, Limburg-on-Lahn, Sinzig, St. Castor at Coblentz, Diesdorf, Rosheim; round churches of Ottmarsheim and Rippen (Denmark); cathedral of Basle, cathedral and cloister of Zurich (Switzerland). ENGLAND: Previous to 11th century: Scanty vestiges of Saxon church architecture, as tower of Earl’s Barton, round towers and small chapels in Ireland. --11th century: Crypt of Canterbury Cathedral, 1070; chapel St. John in Tower of London, 1070; Winchester Cathedral, 1076-93 (nave and choir rebuilt later); Gloucester Cathedral nave, 1089-1100 (vaulted later); Rochester Cathedral nave, west front cloisters, and chapter-house, 1090-1130; Carlisle Cathedral nave, transepts, 1093-1130; Durham Cathedral, 1095-1133, vaulted 1233; Galilee and chapter-house, 1133-53; Norwich Cathedral, 1096, largely rebuilt 1118-93; Hereford Cathedral, nave and choir, 1099-1115. --12th century: Ely Cathedral, nave, 1107-33; St. Alban’s Abbey, 1116; Peterboro’ Cathedral, 1117-45; Waltham Abbey, early 12th century; Church of Holy Sepulchre, Cambridge, 1130-35; Worcester Cathedral chapter-house, 1140 (?); Oxford Cathedral (Christ Church), 1150-80; Bristol Cathedral chapter-house (square), 1155; Canterbury Cathedral, choir of present structure by William of Sens, 1175; Chichester Cathedral, 1180-1204; Romsey Abbey, late 12th century; St. Cross Hospital near Winchester, 1190 (?). Many more or less important parish churches in various parts of England. SPAIN. For principal monuments of 9th-12th centuries, see text, latter part of this chapter. CHAPTER XV. GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Adamy, _Architektonik des gotischen Stils_. Corroyer, _L’Architecture gothique_. Enlart, _Manuel d’archéologie française_. Hasak, _Einzelheiten des Kirchenbaues_ (in _Hdbuch d. Arch. _). Moore, _Development and Character of Gothic Architecture_. Parker, _Introduction to Gothic Architecture. _ Scott, _Mediæval Architecture_. Viollet-le-Duc, _Discourses on Architecture_; _Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française_. +INTRODUCTORY. + The architectural styles which were developed in WesternEurope during the period extending from about 1150 to 1450 or 1500, received in an unscientific age the wholly erroneous and inept name ofGothic. This name has, however, become so fixed in common usage that itis hardly possible to substitute for it any more scientific designation. In reality the architecture to which it is applied was nothing more thanthe sequel and outgrowth of the Romanesque, which we have alreadystudied. Its fundamental principles were the same; it was concerned withthe same problems. These it took up where the Romanesque builders leftthem, and worked out their solution under new conditions, until it haddeveloped out of the simple and massive models of the early twelfthcentury the splendid cathedrals of the thirteenth and fourteenthcenturies in England, France, Germany, the Low Countries and Spain. +THE CHURCH AND ARCHITECTURE. + The twelfth century was an era oftransition in society, as in architecture. The ideas of Church and Statewere becoming more clearly defined in the common mind. In the conflictbetween feudalism and royalty the monarchy was steadily gaining ground. The problem of human right was beginning to present itself alongside ofthe problem of human might. The relations between the crown, the feudalbarons, the pope, bishops, and abbots, differed widely in France, Germany, England, and other countries. The struggle among them forsupremacy presented itself, therefore, in varied aspects; but thegeneral outcome was essentially the same. The church began to appear assomething behind and above abbots, bishops, kings, and barons. Thesupremacy of the papal authority gained increasing recognition, and theepiscopacy began to overshadow the monastic institutions; the bishopsappearing generally, but especially in France, as the champions ofpopular rights. The prerogatives of the crown became more firmlyestablished, and thus the Church and the State emerged from the socialconfusion as the two institutions divinely appointed for the governmentof men. [Illustration: FIG. 105. --CONSTRUCTIVE SYSTEM OF GOTHIC CHURCH, ILLUSTRATING PRINCIPLES OF ISOLATED SUPPORTS AND BUTTRESSING. ] Under these influences ecclesiastical architecture advanced with rapidstrides. No longer hampered by monastic restrictions, it called into itsservice the laity, whose guilds of masons and builders carried from onediocese to another their constantly increasing stores of constructiveknowledge. By a wise division of labor, each man wrought only such partsas he was specially trained to undertake. The master-builder--bishop, abbot, or mason--seems to have planned only the general arrangement andscheme of the building, leaving the precise form of each detail to bedetermined as the work advanced, according to the skill and fancy of theartisan to whom it was intrusted. Thus was produced that remarkablevariety in unity of the Gothic cathedrals; thus, also, those singularirregularities and makeshifts, those discrepancies and alterations inthe design, which are found in every great work of mediævalarchitecture. Gothic architecture was constantly changing, attacking newproblems or devising new solutions of old ones. In this character ofconstant flux and development it contrasts strongly with the classicstyles, in which the scheme and the principles were easily fixed andremained substantially unchanged for centuries. [Illustration: FIG. 106. --PLAN OF SAINTE CHAPELLE, PARIS, SHOWING SUPPRESSION OF SIDE-WALLS. ] +STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES. + The pointed arch, so commonly regarded as themost characteristic feature of the Gothic styles, was merely anincidental feature of their development. What really distinguished themmost strikingly was the systematic application of two principles whichthe Roman and Byzantine builders had recognized and applied, but whichseem to have been afterward forgotten until they were revived by thelater Romanesque architects. The first of these was the _concentrationof strains_ upon isolated points of support, made possible by thesubstitution of groined for barrel vaults. This led to a correspondingconcentration of the masses of masonry at these points; the building wasconstructed as if upon legs (Fig. 105). The wall became a merefilling-in between the piers or buttresses, and in time was, indeed, practically suppressed, immense windows filled with stained glass takingits place. This is well illustrated in the +Sainte Chapelle+ at Paris, built 1242-47 (Figs. 106, 122). In this remarkable edifice, a series ofgroined vaults spring from slender shafts built against deep buttresseswhich receive and resist all the thrusts. The wall-spaces between themare wholly occupied by superb windows filled with stone tracery andstained glass. It would be impossible to combine the materials used morescientifically or effectively. The cathedrals of Gerona (Spain) and ofAlby (France; Fig. 123) illustrate the same principle, though in themthe buttresses are internal and serve to separate the flanking chapels. [Illustration: FIG. 107. --EARLY GOTHIC FLYING BUTTRESS. ] The second distinctive principle of Gothic architecture was that of_balanced thrusts_. In Roman buildings the thrust of the vaulting wasresisted wholly by the inertia of mass in the abutments. In Gothicarchitecture thrusts were as far as possible resisted bycounter-thrusts, and the final resultant pressure was transmitted byflying half-arches across the intervening portions of the structure toexternal buttresses placed at convenient points. This combination offlying half-arches and buttresses is called the _flying-buttress_ (Fig. 107). It reached its highest development in the thirteenth andfourteenth centuries in the cathedrals of central and northern France. +RIBBED VAULTING. + These two principles formed the structural basis ofthe Gothic styles. Their application led to the introduction of twoother elements, second only to them in importance, _ribbed vaulting_ andthe _pointed arch_. [Illustration: FIG. 108. --RIBBED VAULT, ENGLISH TYPE, WITH DIVIDED GROIN-RIBS AND RIDGE-RIBS. ] The first of these resulted from the effort to overcome certainpractical difficulties encountered in the building of large groinedvaults. As ordinarily constructed, a groined vault like that in Fig. 47, must be built as one structure, upon wooden centrings supporting itswhole extent. The Romanesque architects conceived the idea ofconstructing an independent skeleton of ribs. Two of these were builtagainst the wall (_wall-ribs_), two across the nave (transverse ribs);and two others were made to coincide with the groins (Figs. 98, 108). The _groin-ribs_, intersecting at the centre of the vault, divided eachbay into four triangular portions, or _compartments_, each of which wasreally an independent vault which could be separately constructed uponlight centrings supported by the groin-ribs themselves. This principle, though identical in essence with the Roman system of brick skeleton-ribsfor concrete vaults, was, in application and detail, superior to it, both from the scientific and artistic point of view. The ribs, richlymoulded, became, in the hands of the Gothic architects, importantdecorative features. In practice the builder gave to each set of ribsindependently the curvature he desired. The vaulting-surfaces were theneasily twisted or warped so as to fit the various ribs, which, beingalready in place, served as guides for their construction. [Illustration: FIG. 109. --PENETRATIONS AND INTERSECTIONS OF VAULTS. _a, a_, _Penetrations by small semi-circular vaults sprung from same level_. B, _Intersection by small semi-circular vault sprung from higher level; groins form wavy lines_. C, _Intersection by narrow pointed vault sprung from same level; groins are plane curves_. ] +THE POINTED ARCH+ was adopted to remedy the difficulties encountered inthe construction of oblong vaults. It is obvious that where a narrowsemi-cylindrical vault intersects a wide one, it produces either whatare called _penetrations_, as at a (Fig. 109), or intersections likethat at b, both of which are awkward in aspect and hard to construct. If, however, one or both vaults be given a pointed section, the narrowvault may be made as high as the wide one. It is then possible, with butlittle warping of the vaulting surfaces, to make them intersect ingroins c, which are vertical plane curves instead of wavy loops like aand b. The Gothic architects availed themselves to the full of these twodevices. They built their groin-ribs of semi-circular or pointed form, but the wall-ribs and the transverse ribs were, without exception, pointed arches of such curvature as would bring the apex of each nearlyor quite to the level of the groin intersection. The pointed arch, thusintroduced as the most convenient form for the vaulting-ribs, was soonapplied to other parts of the structure. This was a necessity with thewindows and pier-arches, which would not otherwise fit well thewall-spaces under the wall-ribs of the nave and aisle vaulting. +TRACERY AND GLASS. + With the growth in the size of the windows and theprogressive suppression of the lateral walls of vaulted structures, stained glass came more and more generally into use. Its introductionnot only resulted in a notable heightening and enriching of the colorsand scheme of the interior decoration, but reacted on the architecture, intensifying the very causes which led to its introduction. Itstimulated the increase in the size of windows, and the suppression ofthe walls, and contributed greatly to the development of _tracery_. Thislatter feature was an absolute necessity for the support of the glass. Its evolution can be traced (Figs, 110, 111, 112) from the simplecoupling of twin windows under a single hood-mould, or discharging arch, to the florid net-work of the fifteenth century. In its earlier forms itconsisted merely of decorative openings, circles, and quatrefoils, pierced through slabs of stone (_plate-tracery_), filling thewindow-heads over coupled windows. Later attention was bestowed upon theform of the stonework, which was made lighter and richly moulded(_bar-tracery_), rather than upon that of the openings (Fig. 111). Thenthe circular and geometric patterns employed were abandoned for moreflowing and capricious designs (_Flamboyant_ tracery, Fig. 112) or (inEngland) for more rigid and rectangular arrangements (_Perpendicular_, Fig. 134). It will be shown later that the periods and styles of Gothicarchitecture are more easily identified by the tracery than by any otherfeature. [Illustration: FIG. 110. --PLATE TRACERY, CHARLTON-ON-OXMORE. ] +CHURCH PLANS. + The original basilica-plan underwent radicalmodifications during the 12th-15th centuries. These resulted in partfrom the changes in construction which have been described, and in partfrom altered ecclesiastical conditions and requirements. Gothic churcharchitecture was based on cathedral design; and the requirements of thecathedral differed in many respects from those of the monastic churchesof the preceding period. [Illustration: FIG. 111--BAR TRACERY, ST. MICHAEL’S, WARFIELD. ] The most important alterations in the plan were in the choir andtransepts. The choir was greatly lengthened, the transepts oftenshortened. The choir was provided with two and often four side-aisles, and one or both of these was commonly carried entirely around theapsidal termination of the choir, forming a single or double_ambulatory_. This combination of choir, apse, and ambulatory wascalled, in French churches, the _chevet_. Another advance upon Romanesque models was the multiplication ofchapels--a natural consequence of the more popular character of thecathedral as compared with the abbey. Frequently lateral chapels werebuilt at each bay of the side-aisles, filling up the space between thedeep buttresses, flanking the nave as well as the choir. They were alsocarried around the _chevet_ in most of the French cathedrals (Paris, Bourges, Reims, Amiens, Beauvais, and many others); in many of those inGermany (Magdeburg, Cologne, Frauenkirche at Treves), Spain (Toledo, Leon, Barcelona, Segovia, etc. ), and Belgium (Tournay, Antwerp). InEngland the choir had more commonly a square eastward termination. Secondary transepts occur frequently, and these peculiarities, togetherwith the narrowness and great length of most of the plans, make of theEnglish cathedrals a class by themselves. [Illustration: FIG. 112. --ROSE WINDOW, CHURCH OF ST. OUEN, ROUEN. ] +PROPORTIONS AND COMPOSITION. + Along with these modifications of thebasilican plan should be noticed a great increase in the height andslenderness of all parts of the structure. The lofty clearstory, thearcaded triforium-passage or gallery beneath it, the high pointedpier-arches, the multiplication of slender clustered shafts, and thereduction in the area of the piers, gave to the Gothic churches aninterior aspect wholly different from that of the simpler, lower, andmore massive Romanesque edifices. The perspective effects of the plansthus modified, especially of the complex choir and _chevet_ with theirlateral and radial chapels, were remarkably enriched and varied. The exterior was even more radically transformed by these changes, andby the addition of towers and spires to the fronts, and sometimes to thetransepts and to their intersection with the nave. The deep buttresses, terminating in pinnacles, the rich traceries of the great lateralwindows, the triple portals profusely sculptured, rose-windows of greatsize under the front and transept gables, combined to produce effects ofmarvellously varied light and shadow, and of complex and elaboratestructural beauty, totally unlike the broad simplicity of the Romanesqueexteriors. [Illustration: FIG. 113. --FLAMBOYANT DETAIL FROM PULPIT IN STRASBURG CATHEDRAL. ] [Illustration: FIG. 114. --EARLY GOTHIC CARVING. ] +DECORATIVE DETAIL. + The mediæval designers aimed to enrich everyconstructive feature with the most effective play of lights and shades, and to embody in the decorative detail the greatest possible amount ofallegory and symbolism, and sometimes of humor besides. The deep jambsand soffits of doors and pier-arches were moulded with a rich successionof hollow and convex members, and adorned with carvings of saints, apostles, martyrs, and angels. Virtues and vices, allegories of rewardand punishment, and an extraordinary world of monstrous and grotesquebeasts, devils, and goblins filled the capitals and door-arches, peepedover tower-parapets, or leered and grinned from gargoyles and corbels. Another source of decorative detail was the application of tracery likethat of the windows to wall-panelling, to balustrades, to open-workgables, to spires, to choir-screens, and other features, especially inthe late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (cathedrals of York, Rouen, Cologne; Henry VII. ’s Chapel, Westminster). And finally in the carvingof capitals and the ornamentation of mouldings the artists of thethirteenth century and their successors abandoned completely the classicmodels and traditions which still survived in the early twelfth century. The later monastic builders began to look directly to nature forsuggestions of decorative form. The lay builders who sculptured thecapitals and crockets and finials of the early Gothic cathedrals adoptedand followed to its finality this principle of recourse to nature, especially to plant life. At first the budding shoots of early springwere freely imitated or skilfully conventionalized, as being by theirthick and vigorous forms the best adapted for translation into stone(Fig. 114). During the thirteenth century the more advanced stages ofplant growth, and leaves more complex and detailed, furnished the modelsfor the carver, who displayed his skill in a closer and more literalimitation of their minute veinings and indentations (Fig. 115). Thisartistic adaptation of natural forms to architectural decorationdegenerated later into a minutely realistic copying of natural foliage, in which cleverness of execution took the place of original invention. The spirit of display is characteristic of all late Gothic work. Slenderness, minuteness of detail, extreme complexity and intricacy ofdesign, an unrestrained profusion of decoration covering every surface, a lack of largeness and vigor in the conceptions, are conspicuous traitsof Gothic design in the fifteenth century, alike in France, England, Germany, Spain, and the Low Countries. Having worked out to theirconclusion the structural principles bequeathed to them by the precedingcenturies, the authors of these later works seemed to have devotedthemselves to the elaboration of mere decorative detail, and intechnical finish surpassed all that had gone before (Fig. 113). [Illustration: FIG. 115. --CARVING, DECORATED PERIOD, FROM SOUTHWELL MINSTER. ] +CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARIZED. + In the light of the preceding explanationsGothic architecture may be defined as that system of structural designand decoration which grew up out of the effort to combine, in oneharmonious and organic conception, the basilican plan with a completeand systematic construction of groined vaulting. Its development wascontrolled throughout by considerations of stability and structuralpropriety, but in the application of these considerations the artisticspirit was allowed full scope for its exercise. Refinement, good taste, and great fertility of imagination characterize the details andornaments of Gothic structures. While the Greeks in harmonizing therequirements of utility and beauty in architecture approached theproblem from the æsthetic side, the Gothic architects did the same fromthe structural side. Their admirably reasoned structures express asperfectly the idea of vastness, mystery, and complexity as do the Greektemples that of simplicity and monumental repose. The excellence of Gothic architecture lay not so much in its individualdetails as in its perfect adaptation to the purposes for which it wasdeveloped--its triumphs were achieved in the building of cathedrals andlarge churches. In the domain of civil and domestic architecture itproduced nothing comparable with its ecclesiastical edifices, because itwas the requirements of the cathedral and not of the palace, town-hall, or dwelling, that gave it its form and character. +PERIODS. + The history of Gothic architecture is commonly divided intothree periods, which are most readily distinguished by the character ofthe window-tracery. These periods were not by any means synchronous inthe different countries; but the order of sequence was everywhere thesame. They are here given, with a summary of the characteristics ofeach. EARLY POINTED PERIOD. [_Early French_; _Early English_ or _Lancet_Period in England; _Early German_, etc. ] Simple groined vaults; generalsimplicity and vigor of design and detail; conventionalized foliage ofsmall plants; plate tracery, and narrow windows coupled under pointedarch with circular foiled openings in the window-head. (In France, 1160to 1275. ) MIDDLE POINTED PERIOD. [_Rayonnant_ in France; _Decorated_ or_Geometric_ in England. ] Vaults more perfect; in England multiple ribsand liernes; greater slenderness and loftiness of proportions;decoration much richer, less vigorous; more naturalistic carving ofmature foliage; walls nearly suppressed, windows of great size, bartracery with slender moulded or columnar mullions and geometriccombinations (circles and cusps) in window-heads, circular (rose)windows. (In France, 1275 to 1375. ) FLORID GOTHIC PERIOD. [_Flamboyant_ in France; _Perpendicular_ inEngland. ] Vaults of varied and richly decorated design; fan-vaulting andpendants in England, vault-ribs curved into fanciful patterns in Germanyand Spain; profuse and minute decoration and cleverness of technicalexecution substituted for dignity of design; highly realistic carvingand sculpture, flowing or flamboyant tracery in France; perpendicularbars with horizontal transoms and four-centred arches in England;“branch-tracery” in Germany. (In France, 1375 to 1525. ) CHAPTER XVI. GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN FRANCE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Adamy, Corroyer, Enlart, Hasak, Moore, Reber, Viollet-le-Duc. [20] Also Chapuy, _Le moyen age monumental_. Chateau, _Histoire et caractères de l’architecture française_. Davies, _Architectural Studies in France_. Ferree, _The Chronology of the Cathedral Churches of France_. Johnson, _Early French Architecture_. King, _The Study book of Mediæval Architecture and Art_. Lassus and Viollet-le-Duc, _Notre Dame de Paris_. Nesfield, _Specimens of Mediæval Architecture_. Pettit, _Architectural Studies in France_. [Footnote 20: Consult especially articles ARCHITECTURE, CATHÉDRALE, CHAPELLE, CONSTRUCTION, ÉGLISE, MAISON, VOÛTE. ] +CATHEDRAL-BUILDING IN FRANCE. + In the development of the principlesoutlined in the foregoing chapter the church-builders of France led theway. They surpassed all their contemporaries in readiness of invention, in quickness and directness of reasoning, and in artistic refinement. These qualities were especially manifested in the extraordinaryarchitectural activity which marked the second half of the twelfthcentury and the first half of the thirteenth. This was the great age ofcathedral-building in France. The adhesion of the bishops to the royalcause, and their position in popular estimation as the champions ofjustice and human rights, led to the rapid advance of the episcopacy inpower and influence. The cathedral, as the throne-church of the bishop, became a truly popular institution. New cathedrals were founded on everyside, especially in the Royal Domain and the adjoining provinces ofNormandy, Burgundy, and Champagne, and their construction was warmlyseconded by the people, the communes, and the municipalities. “Nothingto-day, ” says Viollet-le-Duc, [21] “unless it be the commercial movementwhich has covered Europe with railway lines, can give an idea of thezeal with which the urban populations set about building cathedrals; . .. A necessity at the end of the twelfth century because it was anenergetic protest against feudalism. ” The collapse of the unscientificRomanesque vaulting of some of the earlier cathedrals and thedestruction by fire of others stimulated this movement by the necessityfor their immediate rebuilding. The entire reconstruction of thecathedrals of Bayeux, Bayonne, Cambray, Evreux, Laon, Lisieux, Le Mans, Noyon, Poitiers, Senlis, Soissons, and Troyes was begun between 1130 and1200. [22] The cathedrals of Bourges, Chartres, Paris, and Tours, and theabbey of St. Denis, all of the first importance, were begun during thesame period, and during the next quarter-century those of Amiens, Auxerre, Rouen, Reims, Séez, and many others. After 1250 the movementslackened and finally ceased. Few important cathedrals were erectedduring the latter half of the thirteenth century, the chief among thembeing at Beauvais (actively begun 1247), Clermont, Coutances, Limoges, Narbonne, and Rodez. During this period, and through the fourteenth andfifteenth centuries, French architecture was concerned rather with thecompletion and remodelling of existing cathedrals than the founding ofnew ones. There were, however, many important parish churches and civilor domestic edifices erected within this period. [Footnote 21: _Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française_, vol. Ii. , pp. 280, 281. ] [Footnote 22: See Ferree, _Chronology of Cathedral Churches of France_. ] +STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT: VAULTING. + By the middle of the twelfth centurythe use of barrel-vaulting over the nave had been generally abandonedand groined vaulting with its isolated points of support and resistancehad taken its place. The timid experiments of the Clunisian architectsat Vézelay in the use of the pointed arch and vault-ribs also led, inthe second half of the twelfth century, to far-reaching results. Thebuilders of the great +Abbey Church+ of +St. Denis+, near Paris, begunin 1140 by the Abbot Suger, appear to have been the first to developthese tentative devices into a system. In the original choir of thisnoble church all the arches, alike of the vault-ribs (except thegroin-ribs, which were semi-circles) and of the openings, were pointedand the vaults were throughout constructed with cross-ribs, wall-ribs, and groin-ribs. Of this early work only the chapels remain. In othercontemporary monuments, as for instance in the cathedral of Sens, theadoption of these devices was only partial and hesitating. [Illustration: FIG. 116--PLAN OF NOTRE DAME, PARIS. ] [Illustration: FIG. 117. --INTERIOR OF NOTRE DAME, PARIS. ] +NOTRE DAME AT PARIS. + The next great step in advance was taken in thecathedral of +Notre Dame+[23] at Paris (Figs. 116, 117, 125). This wasbegun, under Maurice de Sully in 1163, on the site of the twincathedrals of Ste. Marie and St. Étienne, and the choir was, as usual, the first portion erected. By 1196 the choir, transepts, and one or twobays of the nave were substantially finished. The completeness, harmony, and vigor of conception of this remarkable church contrast strikinglywith the makeshifts and hesitancy displayed in many contemporarymonuments in other provinces. The difficult vaulting over the radiatingbays of the double ambulatory was here treated with great elegance. Bydoubling the number of supports in the exterior circuit of each aisle(Fig. 116) each trapezoidal bay of the vaulting was divided into threeeasily managed triangular compartments. Circular shafts were usedbetween the central and side aisles. The side aisles were doubled andthose next the centre were built in two stories, providing amplegalleries behind a very open triforium. The nave was unusually lofty andcovered with six-part vaults of admirable execution. The vault-ribs werevigorously moulded and each made to spring from a distinctvaulting-shaft, of which three rested upon the cap of each of themassive piers below (Fig. 117). The +Cathedral+ of +Bourges+, begun1190, closely resembled that of Paris in plan. Both were designed toaccommodate vast throngs in their exceptionally broad central aisles anddouble side aisles, but Bourges has no side-aisle galleries, though theinner aisles are much loftier than the outer ones. Though later in datethe vaulting of Bourges is inferior to that of Notre Dame, especially inthe treatment of the trapezoidal bays of the ambulatory. [Footnote 23: This cathedral will be hereafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, by the name of _Notre Dame_. Other cathedrals having the same name will be distinguished by the addition of the name of the city, as “Notre Dame at Clermont-Ferrand. ”] The masterly examples set by the vault-builders of St. Denis and NotreDame were not at once generally followed. Noyon, Senlis, and Soissons, contemporary with these, are far less completely Gothic in style. At +LeMans+ the groined vaulting which in 1158 was substituted for theoriginal barrel-vault of the cathedral is of very primitive design, singularly heavy and awkward, although nearly contemporary with that ofNotre Dame (Fig. 118). [Illustration: FIG. 118. --LE MANS CATHEDRAL. NAVE. ] +DOMICAL GROINED VAULTING. + The builders of the South and West, influenced by Aquitanian models, adhered to the square plan and domicalform of vaulting-bay, even after they had begun to employ groin-ribs. The latter, as at first used by them in imitation of Northern examples, had no organic function in the vault, which was still built like a dome. About 1145-1160 the cathedral of +St. Maurice+ at +Angers+ was vaultedwith square, groin-ribbed vaults, domical in form but not inconstruction. The joints no longer described horizontal circles as in adome, but oblique lines perpendicular to the groins and meeting inzigzag lines at the ridge (Fig. 119). This method became common in theWest and was afterward generally adopted by the English architects. The+Cathedrals+ of +Poitiers+ (1162) and +Laval+ (La Trinité, 1180-1185)are examples of this system, which at Le Mans met with the Northernsystem and produced in the cathedral the awkward compromise describedabove. [Illustration: FIG. 119. --GROINED VAULT WITH ZIG-ZAG RIDGE-JOINTS. _a_ shows a small section of filling with courses parallel to the ridge, for comparison with the other compartments. ] +THIRTEENTH-CENTURY VAULTING. + Early in the thirteenth century thechurch-builders of Northern France abandoned the use of squarevaulting-bays and six-part vaults. By the adoption of groin-ribs and thepointed arch, the building of vaults in oblong bays was greatlysimplified. Each bay of the nave could now be covered with its ownvaulting-bay, thus doing away with all necessity for alternately lightand heavy piers. It is not quite certain when and where this system wasfirst adopted for the complete vaulting of a church. It is, however, probable that the +Cathedral+ of +Chartres+, begun in 1194 and completedbefore 1240, deserves this distinction, although it is possible that thevaults of Soissons and Noyon may slightly antedate it. +Troyes+(1170-1267), +Rouen+ (1202-1220), +Reims+ (1212-1242), +Auxerre+(1215-1234, nave fourteenth century), +Amiens+ (1220-1288), and nearlyall the great churches and chapels begun after 1200, employ the fullydeveloped oblong vault. +BUTTRESSING. + Meanwhile the increasing height of the clearstories andthe use of double aisles compelled the bestowal of especial attentionupon the buttressing. The nave and choir of Chartres, the choirs ofNotre Dame, Bourges, Rouen, and Reims, the chevet and later the choir ofSt. Denis, afford early examples of the flying-buttress (Fig. 107). These were at first simple and of moderate height. Single half-archesspanned the side aisles; in Notre Dame they crossed the double aisles ina single leap. Later the buttresses were given greater stability by theadded weight of lofty pinnacles. An intermediate range of buttresses andpinnacles was built over the intermediate piers where double aislesflanked the nave and choir, thus dividing the single flying arch intotwo arches. At the same time a careful observation of statical defectsin the earlier examples led to the introduction of subordinate archesand of other devices to stiffen and to beautify the whole system. At+Reims+ and +Amiens+ these features received their highest development, though later examples are frequently much more ornate. +INTERIOR DESIGN. + The progressive change outlined in the last chapter, by which the wall was practically suppressed, the windowscorrespondingly enlarged, and every part of the structure made loftierand more slender, resulted in the evolution of a system of interiordesign well represented by the nave of Amiens. The second story orgallery over the side aisle disappeared, but the aisle itself was veryhigh. The triforium was no longer a gallery, but a richly arcadedpassage in the thickness of the wall, corresponding to the roofing-spaceover the aisle, and generally treated like a lower stage of theclearstory. Nearly the whole space above it was occupied in each bay bythe vast clearstory window filled with simple but effective geometrictracery over slender mullions. The side aisles were lighted by windowswhich, like those in the clearstory, occupied nearly the whole availablewall-space under the vaulting. The piers and shafts were all clusteredand remarkably slender. The whole construction of this vast edifice, which covers nearly eighty thousand square feet, is a marvel oflightness, of scientific combinations, and of fine execution. Its greatvault rises to a height of one hundred and forty feet. The nave of St. Denis, though less lofty, resembles it closely in style (Fig. 120). Earlier cathedrals show less of the harmony of proportion, the perfectworking out of the relation of all parts of the composition of each bay, so conspicuous in the Amiens type, which was followed in most of thelater churches. [Illustration: FIG. 120. --ONE BAY, ABBEY OF ST. DENIS. ] +WINDOWS: TRACERY. + The clearstory windows of Noyon, Soissons, Sens, andthe choir of Vézelay (1200) were simple arched openings arranged singly, in pairs, or in threes. In the cathedral of Chartres (1194-1220) theyconsist of two arched windows with a circle above them, forming a sortof plate tracery under a single arch. In the chapel windows of the choirat Reims (1215) the tracery of mullions and circles was moulded insideand out, and the intermediate triangular spaces all pierced and glazed. Rose windows were early used in front and transept façades. During thethirteenth and fourteenth centuries they were made of vast size andgreat lightness of tracery, as in the transepts of Notre Dame (1257) andthe west front of Amiens (1288). From the design of these windows isderived the name _Rayonnant_, often applied to the French Gothic styleof the period 1275-1375. +THE SAINTE CHAPELLE. + In this beautiful royal chapel at Paris, built1242-47, Gothic design was admirably exemplified in the noble windows 15by 50 feet in size, which perhaps furnished the models for those ofAmiens and St. Denis. Each was divided by slender mullions into fourlancet-like lights gathered under the rich tracery of the window-head. They were filled with stained glass of the most brilliant but harmonioushues. They occupy the whole available wall-space, so that the ribbedvault internally seems almost to rest on walls of glass, so slender arethe visible supports and so effaced by the glow of color in the windows. Certainly lightness of construction and the suppression of thewall-masonry could hardly be carried further than here (Fig. 121). Amongother chapels of the same type are those in the palace of St. Germain-en-Laye (1240), and a later example in the château of Vincennes, begun by Charles VI. , but not finished till 1525. [Illustration: FIG. 121. --THE STE. CHAPELLE, PARIS. ] +PLANS. + The most radical change from the primitive basilican type was, as already explained in the last chapter, the continuation of the sideaisles around the apse to form a _chevet_; and later, the addition ofchapels between the external buttresses. Radiating chapels, usuallysemi-octagons or semi-decagons in plan, early appeared as additions tothe _chevet_ (Fig. 122). These may have originated in the apsidalchapels of Romanesque churches in Auvergne and the South, as at Issoire, Clermont-Ferrand, Le Puy, and Toulouse. They generally superseded thetransept-chapels of earlier churches, and added greatly to the beauty ofthe interior perspective, especially when the encircling aisles of thechevet were doubled. Notre Dame, as at first erected, had a doubleambulatory, but no chapels. Bourges has only five very smallsemicircular chapels. Chartres (choir 1220) and Le Mans, asreconstructed about the same date, have double ambulatories and radialchapels. After 1220 the second ambulatory no longer appears. Noyon, Soissons, Reims, Amiens, Troyes, and Beauvais, Tours, Bayeux, andCoutances, Clermont, Limoges, and Narbonne all have the singleambulatory and radiating chevet-chapels. The Lady-chapel in the axis ofthe church was often made longer and more important than the otherchapels, as at Amiens, Le Mans, Rouen, Bayeux, and Coutances. Chapelsalso flanked the choir in most of the cathedrals named above, and NotreDame and Tours also have side chapels to the nave. The only cathedralswith complete double side aisles alike to nave, choir, and chevet, wereNotre Dame and Bourges. It is somewhat singular that the Germancathedral of Cologne is the only one in which all these variouscharacteristic French features were united in one design (see Fig. 140). [Illustration: FIG. 122. --PLAN OF AMIENS CATHEDRAL. ] Local considerations had full sway in France, in spite of the tendencytoward unity of type. Thus Dol, Laon, and Poitiers have square eastwardterminations; Châlons has no ambulatory; Bourges no transept. In NotreDame the transept was almost suppressed. At Soissons one transept, atNoyon both, had semicircular ends. +Alby+, a late cathedral of brick, founded in 1280, but mostly built during the fourteenth century, hasneither side aisles nor transepts, its wide nave being flanked bychapels separated by internal buttresses (Fig. 123). [Illustration: FIG. 123. --PLAN OF CATHEDRAL OF ALBY. ] +SCALE. + The French cathedrals were nearly all of imposing dimensions. Noyon, one of the smallest, is 333 feet long; Sens measures 354. Laon, Bourges, Troyes, Notre Dame, Le Mans, Rouen, and Chartres vary from 396to 437 feet in extreme length; Reims measures 483, and Amiens, thelongest of all, 521 feet. Notre Dame is 124 feet wide across the fiveaisles of the nave; Bourges, somewhat wider. The central aisles of thesetwo cathedrals, and of Laon, Amiens, and Beauvais, have a span of notfar from 40 feet from centre to centre of the piers; while the ridge ofthe vaulting, which in Notre Dame is 108 feet above the pavement, and inBourges 125, reaches in Amiens a height of 140 feet, and of nearly 160in Beauvais. This emphasis of the height, from 3 to 3½ times the clearwidth of the nave or choir, is one of the most striking features of theFrench cathedrals. It produces an impressive effect, but tends to dwarfthe great width of the central aisle. +EXTERIOR DESIGN. + Here, as in the interior, every feature had itsconstructive _raison d’être_, and the total effect was determined by thefundamental structural scheme. This was especially true of the lateralelevations, in which the pinnacled buttresses, the flying arches, andthe traceried windows of the side aisle and clearstory, repeateduniformly at each bay, were the principal elements of the design. Thetransept façades and main front allowed greater scope for invention andfancy, but even here the interior membering gave the key to thecomposition. Strong buttresses marked the division of the aisles andresisted the thrust of the terminal pier arches, and rose windows filledthe greater part of the wall space under the end of the lofty vaulting. The whole structure was crowned by a steep-pitched roof of wood, coveredwith lead, copper, or tiles, to protect the vault from damage by snowand moisture. This roof occasioned the steep gables which crowned thetransept and main façades. The main front was frequently adorned, abovethe triple portal, with a gallery of niches or tabernacles filled withstatues of kings. Different types of composition are represented byChartres, Notre Dame, Amiens, Reims, and Rouen, of which Notre Dame(Fig. 124) and Reims are perhaps the finest. Notre Dame is especiallyremarkable for its stately simplicity and the even balancing ofhorizontal and vertical elements. [Illustration: FIG. 124. --WEST FRONT OF NOTRE DAME, PARIS. ] [Illustration: FIG. 125. --WEST FRONT OF ST. MACLOU, ROUEN. ] +PORCHES. + In most French church façades the porches were the moststriking features, with their deep shadows and sculptured arches. TheRomanesque porches were usually limited in depth to the thickness of thefront wall. The Gothic builders secured increased depth by projectingthe portals out beyond the wall, and crowned them with elaborate gables. The vast central door was divided in two by a pier adorned with a nicheand statue. Over this the tympanum of the arch was carved withscriptural reliefs; the jambs and arches were profusely adorned withfigures of saints, apostles, martyrs, and angels, under elaboratecanopies. The porches of Laon, Bourges, Amiens, and Reims are especiallydeep and majestic in effect, the last-named (built 1380) being therichest of all. Some of the transept façades also had imposing portals. Those of +Chartres+ (1210-1245) rank among the finest works of Gothicdecorative architecture, the south porch in some respects surpassingthat of the north transept. The portals of the fifteenth and earlysixteenth centuries were remarkable for the extraordinary richness andminuteness of their tracery and sculpture, as at Abbeville, Alençon, thecathedral and St. Maclou at Rouen (Fig. 125), Tours, Troyes, Vendôme, etc. +TOWERS AND SPIRES. + The emphasizing of vertical elements reached itsfullest expression in the towers and spires of the churches. What hadbeen at first merely a lofty belfry roof was rapidly developed into thespire, rising three hundred feet or more into the air. This developmenthad already made progress in the Romanesque period, and the south spireof Chartres is a notable example of late twelfth-century steeple design. The transition from the square tower to the slender octagonal pyramidwas skilfully effected by means of corner pinnacles and dormers. Duringand after the thirteenth century the development was almost wholly inthe direction of richness and complexity of detail, not of radicalconstructive modification. The northern spire of Chartres (1515) and thespires of Bordeaux, Coutances, Senlis, and the Flamboyant church of St. Maclou at Rouen, illustrate this development. In Normandy central spireswere common, rising over the crossing of nave and transepts. In somecases the designers of cathedrals contemplated a group of towers; thisis evident at Chartres, Coutances, and Reims. This intention was, however, never realized; it demanded resources beyond even theenthusiasm of the thirteenth century. Only in rare instances were thespires of any of the towers completed, and the majority of the Frenchtowers have square terminations, with low-pitched wooden roofs, generally invisible from below. In general, French towers are marked bytheir strong buttresses, solid lower stories, twin windows in each sideof the belfry proper--these windows being usually of great size--and askilful management of the transition to an octagonal plan for the belfryor the spire. +CARVING AND SCULPTURE. + The general superiority of French Gothic workwas fully maintained in its decorative details. Especially fine is thefigure sculpture, which in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuriesattained true nobility of expression, combined with great truthfulnessand delicacy of execution. Some of its finest productions are found inthe great doorway jambs of the west portals of the cathedrals, and inthe ranks of throned and adoring angels which adorned their deep arches. These reach their highest beauty in the portals of Reims (1380). The_tabernacles_ or carved niches in which such statues were set wereimportant elements in the decoration of the exteriors of churches. [Illustration: FIG. 126. --FRENCH GOTHIC CAPITALS. _a_, From Sainte Chapelle, Paris, 13th century. _b_, 14th-century capital from transept of Notre Dame, Paris. _c_, 15th-century capital from north spire of Chartres. ] Foliage forms were used for nearly all the minor carved ornaments, though grotesque and human figures sometimes took their place. Thegargoyles through which the roof-water was discharged clear of thebuilding, were almost always composed in the form of hideous monsters;and symbolic beasts, like the oxen in the towers of Laon, or monsterslike those which peer from the tower balustrades of Notre Dame, wereemployed with some mystical significance in various parts of thebuilding. But the capitals corbels, crockets, and finials were mostlycomposed of floral or foliage forms. Those of the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies were for the most part simple in mass, and crisp and vigorousin design, imitating the strong shoots of early spring. The +capitals+were tall and slender, concave in profile, with heavy square oroctagonal abaci. With the close of the thirteenth century this simpleand forcible style of detail disappeared. The carving became morerealistic; the leaves, larger and more mature, were treated as ifapplied to the capital or moulding, not as if they grew out of it. Theexecution and detail were finer and more delicate, in harmony with theincreasing slenderness and lightness of the architecture (Fig. 126 a, b). +Tracery forms+ now began to be profusely applied to all manner ofsurfaces, and open-work gables, wholly unnecessary from the structuralpoint of view, but highly effective as decorations, adorned the portalsand crowned the windows. +LATE GOTHIC MONUMENTS. + So far our attention has been mainly occupiedwith the masterpieces erected previous to 1250. Among the cathedrals, relatively few in number, whose construction is referable to the secondhalf of the century, that of +Beauvais+ stands first in importance. Designed on a colossal scale, its foundations were laid in 1225, but itwas never completed, and the portion built--the choir andchapels--belonged really to the second half of the century, having beencompleted in 1270. But the collapse in 1284 of the central tower andvaulting of this incomplete cathedral, owing to the excessive loftinessand slenderness of its supports, compelled its entire reconstruction, the number of the piers being doubled and the span of the pier archescorrespondingly reduced. As thus rebuilt, the cathedral aisle was 47feet wide from centre to centre of opposite piers, and 163 feet high tothe top of the vault. Transepts were added after 1500. +Limoges+ and+Narbonne+, begun in 1272 on a large scale (though not equal in size toBeauvais), were likewise never completed. Both had choirs of admirableplan, with well-designed chevet-chapels. Many other cathedrals begunduring this period were completed only after long delays, as, forinstance, Meaux, Rodez (1277), Toulouse (1272), and Alby (1282), finished in the sixteenth century, and Clermont (1248), completed underNapoleon III. But between 1260 or 1275 and 1350, work was activelyprosecuted on many still incomplete cathedrals. The choirs of Beauvais(rebuilding), Limoges, and Narbonne were finished after 1330; andtowers, transept-façades, portals, and chapels added to many others ofearlier date. The style of this period is sometimes designated as +Rayonnant+, fromthe characteristic wheel tracery of the rose-windows, and the prevalenceof circular forms in the lateral arched windows, of the late thirteenthand early fourteenth centuries. The great rose windows in the transeptsof Notre Dame, dating from 1257, are typical examples of the style. Those of Rouen cathedral belong to the same category, though of laterdate. The façade of Amiens, completed by 1288, is one of the finestworks of this style, of which an early example is the elaborate parishchurch of +St. Urbain+ at Troyes. +THE FLAMBOYANT STYLE. + The geometric treatment of the tracery and theminute and profuse decoration of this period gradually merged into thefantastic and unrestrained extravagances of the +Flamboyant+ style, which prevailed until the advent of the Renaissance--say 1525. Thecontinuous logical development of forms ceased, and in its place capriceand display controlled the arts of design. The finest monument of thislong period is the fifteenth-century nave and central tower of thechurch of +St. Ouen+ at Rouen, a parish church of the first rank, begunin 1318, but not finished until 1515. The tracery of the lateral windowsis still chiefly geometric, but the western rose window (Fig. 112) andthe magnificent central tower or lantern, exhibit in their tracery theflorid decoration and wavy, flame-like lines of this style. Slendernessof supports and the suppression of horizontal lines are here carried toan extreme; and the church, in spite of its great elegance of detail, lacks the vital interest and charm of the earlier Gothic churches. Thecathedral of Alençon and the church of +St. Maclou+ at Rouen, haveportals with unusually elaborate detail of tracery and carving; whilethe façade of Rouen cathedral (1509) surpasses all other examples in thelace-like minuteness of its open-work and its profusion of ornament. Thechurches of +St. Jacques+ at Dieppe, and of +St. Wulfrand+ at Abbeville, the façades of Tours and Troyes, are among the masterpieces of thestyle. The upper part of the façade of Reims (1380-1428) belongs to thetransition from the Rayonnant to the Flamboyant. While some works ofthis period are conspicuous for the richness of their ornamentation, others are noticeably bare and poor in design, like St. Merri and St. Séverin in Paris. +SECULAR AND MONASTIC ARCHITECTURE. + The building of cathedrals did notabsorb all the architectural activity of the French during the Gothicperiod, nor did it by any means put an end to monastic building. Whilethere are few Gothic cloisters to equal the Romanesque cloisters ofPuy-en-Vélay, Montmajour, Elne, and Moissac, many of the abbeys eitherrebuilt their churches in the Gothic style after 1150, or extended andremodelled their conventual buildings. The cloisters of Fontfroide, Chaise-Dieu, and the Mont St. Michel rival those of Romanesque times, while many new refectories and chapels were built in the same style withthe cathedrals. The most complete of these Gothic monasticestablishments, that of the +Mont St. Michel+ in Normandy, presented aremarkable aggregation of buildings clustering around the steep isolatedrock on which stands the abbey church. This was built in the eleventhcentury, and the choir and chapels remodelled in the sixteenth. Thegreat refectory and dormitory, the cloisters, lodgings, and chapels, built in several vaulted stories against the cliffs, are admirableexamples of the vigorous pointed-arch design of the early thirteenthcentury. +Hospitals+ like that of St. Jean at Angers (late twelfth century), orthose of Chartres, Ourscamps, Tonnerre, and Beaune, illustrate howskilfully the French could modify and adapt the details of theirarchitecture to the special requirements of civil architecture. Greatnumbers of charitable institutions were built in the middleages--asylums, hospitals, refuges, and the like--but very few of thosein France are now extant. Town halls were built in the fifteenth centuryin some places where a certain amount of popular independence had beensecured. The florid fifteenth-century +Palais de Justice+ at +Rouen+(1499-1508) is an example of another branch of secular Gothicarchitecture. In all these monuments the adaptation of means to ends isadmirable. Wooden ceilings and roofs replaced stone, wherever requiredby great width of span or economy of construction. There was littlesculpture; the wall-spaces were not suppressed in favor of stained glassand tracery; while the roofs were usually emphasized and adorned withelaborate crestings and finials in lead or terra-cotta. +DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. + These same principles controlled the designingof houses, farm buildings, barns, granaries, and the like. The commonclosely-built French city house of the twelfth and thirteenth century isillustrated by many extant examples at Cluny, Provins, and other towns. A shop opening on the street by a large arch, a narrow stairway, and twoor three stories of rooms lighted by clustered, pointed-arched windows, constituted the common type. The street front was usually gabled and theroof steep. In the fourteenth or fifteenth century half-timberedconstruction began to supersede stone for town houses, as it permittedof encroaching upon the street by projecting the upper stories. Many ofthe half-timbered houses of the fifteenth century were of elaboratedesign. The heavy oaken uprights were carved with slender colonnettes;the horizontal sills, bracketed out over the street, were richlymoulded; picturesque dormers broke the sky-line, and the masonry fillingbetween the beams was frequently faced with enamelled tiles. [Illustration: FIG. 127. --HOUSE OF JACQUES CŒUR, BOURGES. (After Viollet-le-Duc. )] The more considerable houses or palaces of royalty, nobles, and wealthycitizens rivalled, and in time surpassed, the monastic buildings inrichness and splendor. The earlier examples retain the military aspect, with moat and donjon, as in the Louvre of Charles V. , demolished in thesixteenth century. The finest palaces are of late date, and the type iswell represented by the Ducal Palace at Nancy (1476), the +Hotel deCluny+ (1485) at Paris, the +Hotel Jacques Cœur+ at Bourges (Fig. 127), and the east wing of Blois (1498-1515). These palaces are not onlyexcellently and liberally planned, with large halls, many staircases, and handsome courts; they are also extremely picturesque with theirsquare and circular towers, slender turrets, elaborate dormers, and richcarved detail. +MONUMENTS+: (C. = cathedral; A. = abbey; trans. = transept; each edifice is given under the date of its commencement; subsequent alterations in parentheses. ) Between 1130 and 1200: Vézelay A. , ante-chapel, 1130; St. Germer-de-Fly C. , 1130-1150 (chapel later); St. Denis A. , choir, 1140 (choir rebuilt, nave and trans. , 1240); Sens C. , 1140-68 (W. Front, 13th century; chapels, spire, 14th); Senlis C. , 1145-83 (trans. , spire, 13th century); Noyon C. , 1149-1200 (W. Front, vaults, 13th century); St. Germain-des-Prés A. , Paris, choir, 1150 (Romanesque nave); Angers C. , 1150 (choir, trans. , 1274); Langres, 1150-1200; Laon C. , 1150-1200; Le Mans C. , nave, 1150-58 (choir, 1217-54); Soissons C. , 1160-70 (choir, 1212; nave chapels, 14th century); Poitiers C. , 1162-1204; Notre Dame, Paris, choir, 1163-96 (nave, W. Front finished, 1235; trans. Fronts, and chapels, 1257-75); Chartres C. , W. End, 1170; rest, mainly 1194-98 (trans. Porches, W. Rose, 1210-1260; N. Spire, 1506); Tours C. , 1170 (rebuilt, 1267; trans. , portals, 1375; W. Portals, chapels, 15th century; towers finished, 1507-47); Laval C. , 1180-85 (choir, 16th century); Mantes, church Notre Dame, 1180-1200; Bourges C. , 1190-95 (E. End, 1210; W. End, 1275); St. Nicholas at Caen, 1190 (vaults, 15th century); Reims, church St. Rémy, choir, end of 12th century (Romanesque nave); church St. Leu d’Esserent, choir late 12th century (nave, 13th century); Lyons C. , choir, end of 12th century (nave, 13th and 14th centuries); Etampes, church Notre Dame, 12th and 13th centuries. --13th century: Evreux C. , 1202-75 (trans. , central tower, 1417; W. Front rebuilt, 16th century); Rouen C. , 1202-20 (trans. Portals, 1280; W. Front, 1507); Nevers, 1211, N. Portal, 1280 (chapels, S. Portal, 15th century); Reims C. , 1212-42 (W. Front, 1380; W. Towers, 1420); Bayonne C. , 1213 (nave, vaults, W. Portal, 14th century); Troyes C. , choir, 1214 (central tower, nave, W. Portal, and towers, 15th century); Auxerre C. , 1215-34 (nave, W. End, trans. , 14th century); Amiens C. , 1220-88; St. Etienne at Chalons-sur-Marne, 1230 (spire, 1520); Séez C. , 1230, rebuilt 1260 (remodelled 14th century); Notre Dame de Dijon, 1230; Reims, Lady chapel of Archbishop’s palace, 1230; Chapel Royal at St. Germain-en-Laye, 1240; Ste. Chapelle at Paris, 1242-47 (W. Rose, 15th century); Coutances C. , 1254-74; Beauvais C. , 1247-72 (rebuilt 1337-47; trans. Portals, 1500-48); Notre Dame de Grace at Clermont, 1248 (finished 1350); Dôl C. , 13th century; St. Martin-des-Champs at Paris, nave 13th century (choir Romanesque); Bordeaux C. , 1260; Narbonne C. , 1272-1320; Limoges, 1273 (finished 16th century); St. Urbain, Troyes, 1264; Rodez C. , 1277-1385 (altered, completed 16th century); church St. Quentin, 1280-1300; St. Benigne at Dijon, 1280-91; Alby C. , 1282 (nave, 14th; choir, 15th century; S. Portal, 1473-1500); Meaux C. , mainly rebuilt 1284 (W. End much altered 15th, finished 16th century); Cahors C. , rebuilt 1285-93 (W. Front, 15th century); Orléans, 1287-1328 (burned, rebuilt 1601-1829). --14th century: St. Bertrand de Comminges, 1304-50; St. Nazaire at Carcassonne, choir and trans. On Romanesque nave; Montpellier C. , 1364; St. Ouen at Rouen, choir, 1318-39 (trans. , 1400-39; nave, 1464-91; W. Front, 1515); Royal Chapel at Vincennes, 1385 (?)-1525. --15th and 16th century: St. Nizier at Lyons rebuilt; St. Séverin, St. Merri, St. Germain l’Auxerrois, all at Paris; Notre Dame de l’Epine at Chalons-sur-Marne; choir of St. Etienne at Beauvais; Saintes C. , rebuilt, 1450; St. Maclou at Rouen (finished 16th century); church at Brou; St. Wulfrand at Abbeville; abbey of St. Riquier--these three all early 16th century. --HOUSES, CASTLES, AND PALACES: Bishop’s palace at Paris, 1160 (demolished); castle of Coucy, 1220-30; Louvre at Paris (the original château), 1225-1350; Palais de Justice at Paris, originally the royal residence, 1225-1400; Bishop’s palace at Laon, 1245 (addition to Romanesque hall); castle Montargis, 13th century; castle Pierrefonds, Bishop’s palace at Narbonnne, palace of Popes at Avignon--all 14th century; donjon of palace at Poitiers, 1395; Hôtel des Ambassadeurs at Dijon, 1420; house of Jacques Cœur at Bourges, 1443; Palace, Dijon, 1467; Ducal palace at Nancy, 1476; Hôtel Cluny at Paris, 1490; castle of Creil, late 15th century, finished in 16th; E. Wing palace of Blois, 1498-1515, for Louis XII. ; Palace de Justice at Rouen, 1499-1508. CHAPTER XVII. GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN GREAT BRITAIN. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Corroyer, Parker, Reber. Also, Bell’s Series of _Handbooks of English Cathedrals_. Billings, _The Baronial and Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Scotland_. Bond, _Gothic Architecture in England_. Brandon, _Analysis of Gothic Architecture_. Britton, _Cathedral Antiquities of Great Britain_. Ditchfield, _The Cathedrals of England_. Murray, _Handbooks of the English Cathedrals_. Parker, _Introduction to Gothic Architecture_; _Glossary of Architectural Terms_; _Companion to Glossary_, etc. Rickman, _An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of English Architecture_. Sharpe, _Architectural Parallels_; _The Seven Periods of English Architecture_. Van Rensselaer, _English Cathedrals_. Winkles and Moule, _Cathedral Churches of England and Wales_. Willis, _Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral_; ditto _of Winchester Cathedral_; _Treatise on Vaults_. +GENERAL CHARACTER. + Gothic architecture was developed in England undera strongly established royal power, with an episcopate in no sensehostile to the abbots or in arms against the barons. Many of thecathedrals had monastic chapters, and not infrequently abbots wereinvested with the episcopal rank. English Gothic architecture was thus by no means predominantly anarchitecture of cathedrals. If architectural activity in England was onthis account less intense and widespread in the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies than in France, it was not, on the other hand, so soonexhausted. Fewer new cathedrals were built, but the progressiverebuilding of those already existing seems not to have ceased until themiddle or end of the fifteenth century. Architecture in Englanddeveloped more slowly, but more uniformly than in France. It contenteditself with simpler problems; and if it failed to rival Amiens inboldness of construction and in lofty majesty, it at least neverperpetrated a folly like Beauvais. In richness of internal decoration, especially in the mouldings and ribbed vaulting, and in the picturesquegrouping of simple masses externally, the British builders went fartoward atoning for their structural timidity. [Illustration: FIG. 128. --PLAN OF SALISBURY CATHEDRAL. ] +EARLY GOTHIC BUILDINGS. + The pointed arch and ribbed vault wereimportations from France. Early examples appear in the Cistercian abbeysof Furness and Kirkstall, and in the Temple Church at London (1185). Butit was in the +Choir of Canterbury+, as rebuilt by William of Sens, after the destruction by fire in 1170 of Anselm’s Norman choir, thatthese French Gothic features were first applied in a thoroughgoingmanner. In plan this choir resembled that of the cathedral of Sens; andits coupled round piers, with capitals carved with foliage, its pointedarches, its six-part vaulting, and its _chevet_, were distinctly French. The Gothic details thus introduced slowly supplanted the round arch andother Norman features. For fifty years the styles were more or lessmingled in many buildings, though +Lincoln Cathedral+, as rebuilt in1185-1200, retained nothing of the earlier round-arched style. But thefirst church to be designed and built from the foundations in the newstyle was the cathedral of +Salisbury+ (1220-1258; Fig. 128). Contemporary with Amiens, it is a homogeneous and typical example of theEarly English style. The predilection for great length observable in theAnglo-Norman churches (as at Norwich and Durham) still prevailed, as itcontinued to do throughout the Gothic period; Salisbury is 480 feetlong. The double transepts, the long choir, the square east end, therelatively low vault (84 feet to the ridge), the narrow grouped windows, all are thoroughly English. Only the simple four-part vaulting recallsFrench models. +Westminster Abbey+ (1245-1269), on the other hand, betrays in a marked manner the French influence in its internalloftiness (100 feet), its polygonal _chevet_ and chapels, and itsstrongly accented exterior flying-buttresses (Fig. 137). +MIXTURE OF STYLES. + Very few English cathedrals are as homogeneous asthe two just mentioned, nearly all having undergone repeatedremodellings in successive periods. Durham, Norwich, and Oxford arewholly Norman but for their Gothic vaults. Ely, Rochester, Gloucester, and Hereford have Norman naves and Gothic choirs. Peterborough has anearly Gothic façade and late Gothic retro-choir added to an otherwisecompletely Norman structure. Winchester is a Norman church remodelledwith early Perpendicular details. The purely Gothic churches andcathedrals, except parish churches--in which England is very rich--arenot nearly as numerous in England as in France. +PERIODS. + The development of English Gothic architecture followed thesame general sequence as the French, and like it the successive stageswere most conspicuously characterized by the forms of the tracery. The EARLY ENGLISH or LANCET period extended roundly from 1175 or 1180 to1280, and was marked by simplicity, dignity, and purity of design. The DECORATED or GEOMETRIC period covered another century, 1280 to 1380, and was characterized by its decorative richness and greater lightnessof construction. The PERPENDICULAR period extended from 1380, or thereabout, well intothe sixteenth century. Its salient features were the use offan-vaulting, four-centred arches, and tracery of predominantly verticaland horizontal lines. The tardy introduction of Renaissance formsfinally put an end to the Gothic style in England, after a long periodof mixed and transitional architecture. [Illustration: FIG. 129. --RIBBED VAULTING, CHOIR OF EXETER CATHEDRAL. ] +VAULTING. + The richness and variety of English vaulting contraststrikingly with the persistent uniformity of the French. A few of theearly Gothic vaults, as in the aisles of Peterborough, and later thenaves of Durham, Salisbury, and Gloucester, were simple four-part, ribbed vaults substantially like the French. But the English dislikedand avoided the twisted and dome-like surfaces of the French vaults, preferring horizontal ridges, and, in the filling-masonry, straightcourses meeting at the ridge in zigzag lines, as in southwest France(see p.  200). This may be seen in Westminster Abbey. The idea of ribbedconstruction was then seized upon and given a new application. Byspringing a large number of ribs from each point of support, thevaulting-surfaces were divided into long, narrow, triangles, the fillingof which was comparatively easy (Fig. 129). The ridge was itselffurnished with a straight rib, decorated with carved rosettes or_bosses_ at each intersection with a vaulting-rib. The naves and choirsof Lincoln, Lichfield, Exeter, and the nave of Westminster illustratethis method. The logical corollary of this practice was the introductionof minor ribs called _liernes_, connecting the main ribs and formingcomplex reticulated and star-shaped patterns. Vaults of this descriptionare among the most beautiful in England. One of the richest is in thechoir of Gloucester (1337-1377). Less correct constructively is thatover the choir of Wells, while the choir of Ely, the nave of TewkesburyAbbey (Fig. 130), and all the vaulting of Winchester as rebuilt byWilliam of Wykeham (1390), illustrate the same system. Such vaults arecalled _lierne_ or _star_ vaults. [Illustration: FIG. 130. --NET OR LIERNE VAULTING, TEWKESBURY ABBEY. ] +FAN-VAULTING. + The next step in the process may be observed in thevaults of the choir of Oxford Cathedral (Christ Church), of theretro-choir of Peterborough, of the cloisters of Gloucester, and manyother examples. The diverging ribs being made of uniform curvature, the_severeys_ (the inverted pyramidal vaulting-masses springing from eachsupport) became a species of concave conoids, meeting at the ridge insuch a way as to leave a series of flat lozenge-shaped spaces at thesummit of the vault (Fig. 136). The ribs were multiplied indefinitely, and losing thus in individual and structural importance became a meredecorative pattern of tracery on the severeys. To conceal the awkwardflat lozenges at the ridge, elaborate panelling was resorted to; or, insome cases, long stone pendents were inserted at those points--a devicehighly decorative but wholly unconstructive. At Cambridge, in +King’sCollege Chapel+, at Windsor, in +St. George’s Chapel+, and in the+Chapel of Henry VII. + at Westminster, this sort of vaulting receivedits most elaborate development. The _fan-vault_, as it is called, illustrates the logical evolution of a decorative element from astructural starting--point, leading to results far removed from theoriginal conception. Rich and sumptuous as are these ceilings, they arewith all their ornament less satisfactory than the ribbed vaults of thepreceding period. [Illustration: FIG. 131. --VAULT OF CHAPTER-HOUSE, WELLS. ] +CHAPTER-HOUSES. + One of the most beautiful forms of ribbed vaulting wasdeveloped in the polygonal halls erected for the deliberations of thecathedral chapters of Lincoln (1225), Westminster (1250), Salisbury(1250), and Wells (1292), in which the vault-ribs radiated from acentral column to the sides and angles of the polygon (Fig. 131). Ifthese vaults were less majestic than domes of the same diameter, theywere far more decorative and picturesque, while the chapter-housesthemselves were the most original and striking products of EnglishGothic art. Every feature was designed with strict regard for thestructural system determined by the admirable vaulting, and the SainteChapelle was not more logical in its exemplification of Gothicprinciples. To the four above-mentioned examples should be added that ofYork (1280-1330), which differs from them in having no central column:by some critics it is esteemed the finest of them all. Its ceiling is aGothic dome, 57 feet in diameter, but unfortunately executed in wood. Its geometrical window-tracery and richly canopied stalls are admirable. +OCTAGON AT ELY. + The magnificent +Octagon+ of Ely Cathedral, at theintersection of the nave and transepts, belongs in the same categorywith these polygonal chapter-house vaults. It was built by Alan ofWalsingham in 1337, after the fall of the central tower and thedestruction of the adjacent bays of the choir. It occupies the fullwidth of the three aisles, and covers the ample space thus enclosed witha simple but beautiful groined and ribbed vault of wood reaching to acentral octagonal lantern, which rises much higher and shows externallyas well as internally. Unfortunately, this vault is of wood, and wouldrequire important modifications of detail if carried out in stone. Butit is so noble in general design and total effect, that one wonders thetype was not universally adopted for the crossing in all cathedrals, until one observes that no cathedral of importance was built afterWalsingham’s time, nor did any other central towers opportunely fall tothe ground. +WINDOWS AND TRACERY. + In the Early English Period (1200-1280 or 1300)the windows were tall and narrow (_lancet_ windows), and generallygrouped by twos and threes, though sometimes four and even five are seentogether (as the “Five Sisters” in the N. Transept of York). In the naveof Salisbury and the retro-choir of Ely the side aisles are lighted bycoupled windows and the clearstory by triple windows, the central onehigher than the others--a surviving Norman practice. Plate-tracery was, as in France, an intermediate step leading to the development ofbar-tracery (see Fig. 110). The English followed here the same reasoningas the French. At first the openings constituted the design, theintervening stonework being of secondary importance. Later the forms ofthe openings were subordinated to the pattern of the stone framework ofbars, arches, circles, and cusps. Bar-tracery of this descriptionprevailed in England through the greater part of the Decorated Period(1280-1380), and somewhat resembled the contemporary French geometrictracery, though more varied and less rigidly constructive in design. Anearly example of this tracery occurs in the cloisters of Salisbury (Fig. 132); others in the clearstories of the choirs of Lichfield, Lincoln, and Ely, the nave of York, and the chapter-houses mentioned above, where, indeed, it seems to have received its earliest development. Afterthe middle of the fourteenth century lines of double curvature wereintroduced, producing what is called _flowing_ tracery, somewhatresembling the French flamboyant, though earlier in date (Fig. 111). Examples of this style are found in Wells, in the side aisles andtriforium of the choir of Ely, and in the S. Transept rose-window ofLincoln. [Illustration: FIG. 132. --CLOISTERS, SALISBURY CATHEDRAL (SHOWING UPPER PART OF CHAPTER-HOUSE). ] [Illustration: FIG. 133. --PERPENDICULAR TRACERY, WEST WINDOW OF ST. GEORGE’S, WINDSOR. ] +THE PERPENDICULAR STYLE. + Flowing tracery was, however, a transitionalphase of design, and was soon superseded by _Perpendicular_ tracery, inwhich the mullions were carried through to the top of the arch andintersected by horizontal transoms. This formed a very rigid andmechanically correct system of stone framing, but lacked the grace andcharm of the two preceding periods. The earliest examples are seen inthe work of Edington and of Wykeham in the reconstructed cathedral ofWinchester (1360-1394), where the tracery was thus made to harmonizewith the accentuated and multiplied vertical lines of the interiordesign. It was at this late date that the English seem first to havefully appropriated the Gothic ideas of emphasized vertical elements andwall surfaces reduced to a minimum. The development of fan-vaulting hadled to the adoption of a new form of arch, the four-centred or _Tudorarch_ (Fig. 133), to fit under the depressed apex of the vault. Thewhole design internally and externally was thenceforward controlled bythe form of the vaulting and of the openings. The windows were made ofenormous size, especially at the east end of the choir, which was squarein nearly all English churches, and in the west windows over theentrance. These windows had already reached, in the Decorated Period, anenormous size, as at York; in the Perpendicular Period the two ends ofthe church were as nearly as possible converted into walls of glass. TheEast Window of Gloucester reaches the prodigious dimensions of 38 by 72feet. The most complete examples of the Perpendicular tracery and of thestyle in general are the three chapels already mentioned (p.  223);those, namely, of +King’s College+ at Cambridge, of +St. George+ atWindsor, and of +Henry VII. + in Westminster Abbey. +CONSTRUCTIVE DESIGN. + The most striking peculiarity of English Gothicdesign was its studious avoidance of temerity or venturesomeness inconstruction. Both the height and width of the nave were kept withinvery moderate bounds, and the supports were never reduced to extremeslenderness. While much impressiveness of effect was undoubtedly lostthereby, there was some gain in freedom of design, and there was lessobtrusion of constructive elements in the exterior composition. Theflying-buttress became a feature of minor importance where theclearstory was kept low, as in most English churches. In many cases theflying arches were hidden under the aisle roofs. The English cathedralsand larger churches are long and low, depending for effect mainly uponthe projecting masses of their transepts, the imposing square centraltowers which commonly crown the crossing, and the grouping of the mainstructure with chapter-houses, cloisters, and Lady-chapels. +FRONTS. + The sides and east ends were, in most cases, more successfulthan the west fronts. In these the English displayed a singularindifference or lack of creative power. They produced nothing to rivalthe majestic façades of Notre Dame, Amiens, or Reims, and their portalsare almost ridiculously small. The front of +York+ Cathedral is the mostnotable in the list for its size and elaborate decoration. Those of+Lincoln+ and +Peterborough+ are, however, more interesting in thepicturesqueness and singularity of their composition. The first-namedforms a vast arcaded screen, masking the bases of the two westerntowers, and pierced by three huge Norman arches, retained from theoriginal façade. The west front of Peterborough is likewise a mask orscreen, mainly composed of three colossal recessed arches, whose vastscale completely dwarfs the little porches which give admittance to thechurch. Salisbury has a curiously illogical and ineffective façade. Those of +Lichfield+ and +Wells+ are, on the other hand, imposing andbeautiful designs, the first with its twin spires and rich arcading(Fig. 134), the second with its unusual wealth of figure-sculpture, andmassive square towers. [Illustration: FIG. 134. --WEST FRONT, LICHFIELD CATHEDRAL. ] +CENTRAL TOWERS. + These are the most successful features of Englishexterior design. Most of them form lanterns internally over thecrossing, giving to that point a considerable increase of dignity. Externally they are usually massive and lofty square towers, and havingbeen for the most part completed during the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies they are marked by great richness and elegance of detail. Durham, York, Ely, Canterbury, Lincoln, and Gloucester maybe mentionedas notable examples of such square towers; that of Canterbury is thefinest. Two or three have lofty spires over the lantern. Among these, that of Salisbury is chief, rising 424 feet from the ground, admirablydesigned in every detail. It was not completed till the middle of thefourteenth century, but most fortunately carries out with great felicitythe spirit of the earlier style in which it was begun. Lichfield andChichester have somewhat similar central spires, but less happy inproportion and detail than the beautiful Salisbury example. [Illustration: FIG. 135. --ONE BAY OF CHOIR, LICHFIELD CATHEDRAL. ] +INTERIOR DESIGN. + In the Norman churches the pier-arches, triforium, and clearstory were practically equal. In the Gothic churches thepier-arches generally occupy the lower half of the height, the upperhalf being divided nearly equally between the triforium and clearstory, as in Lincoln, Lichfield (nave), Ely (choir). In some cases, however (asat Salisbury, Westminster, Winchester, choir of Lichfield), theclearstory is magnified at the expense of the triforium (Fig. 135). Three peculiarities of design sharply distinguish the English treatmentof these features from the French. The first is the multiplicity of finemouldings in the pier-arches; the second is the decorative elaborationof design in the triforium; the third, the variety in the treatment ofthe clearstory. In general the English interiors are much more ornatethan the French. Black Purbeck marble is frequently used for the shaftsclustered around the central core of the pier, giving a striking andsomewhat singular effect of contrasted color. The rich vaulting, thehighly decorated triforium, the moulded pier-arches, and at the end ofthe vista the great east window, produce an impression very differentfrom the more simple and lofty stateliness of the French cathedrals. Thegreat length and lowness of the English interiors combine with thisdecorative richness to give the impression of repose and grace, ratherthan of majesty and power. This tendency reached its highest expressionin the Perpendicular churches and chapels, in which every surface wascovered with minute panelling. +CARVING. + In the Early English Period the details were carved with acombined delicacy and vigor deserving of the highest praise. In thecapitals and corbels, crockets and finials, the foliage was crisp andfine, curling into convex masses and seeming to spring from the surfacewhich it decorated. Mouldings were frequently ornamented with foliage ofthis character in the hollows, and another ornament, the _dog-tooth_ or_pyramid_, often served the same purpose, introducing repeated points oflight into the shadows of the mouldings. These were fine and complex, deep hollows alternating with round mouldings (_bowtels_) sometimes madepear-shaped in section by a fillet on one side. _Cusping_--thedecoration of an arch or circle by triangular projections on its inneredge--was introduced during this period, and became an importantdecorative resource, especially in tracery design. In the DecoratedPeriod the foliage was less crisp; sea-weed and oak-leaves, closely andconfusedly bunched, were used in the capitals, while crockets werelarger, double-curved, with leaves swelling into convexities likeoak-galls. Geometrical and flowing tracery were developed, and themouldings of the tracery-bars, as of other features, lost somewhat invigor and sharpness. The _ball-flower_ or button replaced thedog’s-tooth, and the hollows were less frequently adorned with foliage. In the Perpendicular Period nearly all flat surfaces were panelled indesigns resembling the tracery of the windows. The capitals were lessimportant than those of the preceding periods, and the mouldings weakerand less effective. The Tudor rose appears as an ornament in squarepanels and on flat surfaces; and moulded battlements, which firstappeared in Decorated work, now become a frequent crowning motive inplace of a cornice. There is less originality and variety in theornament, but a great increase in its amount (Fig. 136). [Illustration: FIG. 136. --FAN-VAULTING, HENRY VII. ’S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY. ] +PLANS. + English church plans underwent, during the Gothic Period, butlittle change from the general types established previous to thethirteenth century. The Gothic cathedrals and abbeys, like the Norman, were very long and narrow, with choirs often nearly as long as the nave, and almost invariably with square eastward terminations. There is noexample of double side aisles and side chapels, and apsidal chapels arevery rare. Canterbury and Westminster (Fig. 137) are the chiefexceptions to this, and both show clearly the French influence. Anotherstriking peculiarity of the English plans is the frequent occurrence ofsecondary transepts, adding greatly to the external picturesqueness. These occur in rudimentary form in Canterbury, and at Durham the Chapelof the Nine Altars, added 1242-1290 to the eastern end, forms in realitya secondary transept. This feature is most perfectly developed in thecathedral of Salisbury (Fig. 128), and appears also at Lincoln, Worcester, Wells, and a few other examples. The English cathedral plansare also distinguished by the retention or incorporation of manyconventual features, such as cloisters, libraries, and halls, and by thegrouping of chapter-houses and Lady-chapels with the main edifice. Thusthe English cathedral plans and those of the great abbey churchespresent a marked contrast with those of France and the Continentgenerally. While Amiens, the greatest of French cathedrals, is 521 feetlong, and internally 140 feet high, Ely measures 565 feet in length, andless than 75 feet in height. Notre Dame is 148 feet wide; the Englishnaves are usually under 80 feet in total width of the three aisles. [Illustration: FIG. 137. --EASTERN HALF OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY. PLAN. A, _Henry VII. ’s chapel. _] +PARISH CHURCHES. + Many of these were of exceptional beauty ofcomposition and detail. They display the greatest variety of plan, churches with two equal-gabled naves side by side being not uncommon. A considerable proportion of them date from the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies, and are chiefly interesting for their square, single, westtowers and their carved wooden ceilings (see below). The tower wasusually built over the central western porch; broad and square, withcorner buttresses terminating in pinnacles, it was usually finishedwithout spires. Crenelated battlements crowned the upper story. Whenspires were added the transition from the square tower to the octagonalspire was effected by _broaches_ or portions of a square pyramidintersecting the base of the spire, or by corner pinnacles andflying-buttresses. [Illustration: FIG. 138. --ROOF OF NAVE, ST. MARY’S, WESTONZOYLAND. ] +WOODEN CEILINGS. + The English treated woodwork with consummate skill. They invented and developed a variety of forms of roof-truss in whichthe proper distribution of the strains was combined with a highlydecorative treatment of the several parts by carving, moulding, andarcading. The ceiling surfaces between the trusses were handleddecoratively, and the oaken open-timber ceilings of many of the Englishchurches and civic or academic halls (Christ Church Hall, Oxford;Westminster Hall, London) are such noble and beautiful works as quite tojustify the substitution of wooden for vaulted ceilings (Fig. 138). The_hammer-beam_ truss was in its way as highly scientific, andæsthetically as satisfactory, as any feature of French Gothic stoneconstruction. Without the use of tie-rods to keep the rafters fromspreading, it brought the strain of the roof upon internal brackets lowdown on the wall, and produced a beautiful effect by the repetition ofits graceful curves in each truss. +CHAPELS AND HALLS. + Many of these rival the cathedrals in beauty anddignity of design. The royal chapels at Windsor and Westminster havealready been mentioned, as well as King’s College Chapel at Cambridge, and Christ Church Hall at Oxford. To these college halls should be addedthe chapel of Merton College at Oxford, and the beautiful chapel of St. Stephen at Westminster, most unfortunately demolished when the presentParliament House was erected. The Lady-chapels of Gloucester and Ely, though connected with the cathedrals, are really independent designs oflate date, and remarkable for the richness of their decoration, theirgreat windows, and elaborate ribbed vaulting. Some of the halls inmediæval castles and manor-houses are also worthy of note, especiallyfor their timber ceilings. +MINOR MONUMENTS. + The student of Gothic architecture should also giveattention to the choir-screens, tombs, and chantries which embellishmany of the abbeys and cathedrals. The rood-screen at York is a notableexample of the first; the tomb of De Gray in the same cathedral, andtombs and chantries in Canterbury, Winchester, Westminster Abbey, Ely, St. Alban’s Abbey, and other churches are deservedly admired. In thesethe English love for ornament, for minute carving, and for the contrastof white and colored marble, found unrestrained expression. To theseshould be added the market-crosses of Salisbury and Winchester, andQueen Eleanor’s Cross at Waltham. +DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. + The mediæval castles of Great Britain belong tothe domain of military engineering rather than of the history of art, though occasionally presenting to view details of considerablearchitectural beauty. The growth of peace and civic order is marked bythe erection of manor-houses, the residences of wealthy landowners. Someof these houses are of imposing size, and show the application todomestic requirements, of the late Gothic style which prevailed in theperiod to which most of them belong. The windows are square orTudor-arched, with stone mullions and transoms of the Perpendicularstyle, and the walls terminate in merlons or crenelated parapets, recalling the earlier military structures. The palace of the bishop orarchbishop, adjoining the cathedral, and the residences of the dean, canons, and clergy, together with the libraries, schools, and gates ofthe cathedral enclosure, illustrate other phases of secular Gothic work. Few of these structures are of striking architectural merit, but theypossess a picturesque charm which is very attractive. Not many stone houses of the smaller class remain from the Gothic periodin England. But there is hardly an old town that does not retain many ofthe half-timbered dwellings of the fifteenth or even fourteenth century, some of them in excellent preservation. They are for the most part widerand lower than the French houses of the same class, but are built on thesame principle, and, like them, the woodwork is more or less richlycarved. +MONUMENTS+: (A. = abbey church; C. = cathedral; r. = ruined; trans. = transept; each monument is given under the date of the earliest extant Gothic work upon it, with additions of later periods in parentheses. ) EARLY ENGLISH: Kirkstall A. , 1152-82, first pointed arches; Canterbury C. , choir, 1175-84 (nave, 1378-1411; central tower, 1500); Lincoln C. , choir, trans. , 1192-1200 (vault, 1250; nave and E. End, 1260-80); Lichfield C. , 1200-50 (W. Front, 1275; presbytery, 1325); Worcester C. , choir, 1203-18, nave partly Norman (W. End, 1375-95); Chichester C. , 1204-44 (spire rebuilt 17th century); Fountains A. , 1205-46; Salisbury C. , 1220-58 (cloister, chapter-h. , 1263-84; spire, 1331); Elgin C. , 1224-44; Wells C. , 1175-1206 (W. Front 1225, choir later, chapter-h. , 1292); Rochester C. , 1225-39 (nave Norman); York C. , S. Trans. , 1225; N. Trans. , 1260 (nave, chapter-h. , 1291-1345; W. Window, 1338; central tower, 1389-1407; E. Window, 1407); Southwell Minster, 1233-94 (nave Norman); Ripon C. , 1233-94 (central tower, 1459); Ely C. , choir, 1229-54 (nave Norman; octagon and presbytery, 1323-62); Peterborough C. , W. Front, 1237 (nave Norman; retro-choir, late 14th century); Netley A. , 1239 (r. ); Durham C. , “Nine Altars” and E. End choir, 1235-90 (nave, choir, Norman; W. Window, 1341; central tower finished, 1480); Glasgow C. , (with remarkable Early English crypt), 1242-77; Gloucester C. , nave vaulted, 1239-42 (nave mainly Norman; choir, 1337-51; cloisters, 1375-1412; W. End, 1420-37; central tower, 1450-57); Westminster A. , 1245-69; St. Mary’s A. , York, 1272-92 (r. ). DECORATED: Merton College Chapel, Oxford, 1274-1300; Hereford C. , N. Trans. , chapter-h. , cloisters, vaulting, 1275-92 (nave, choir, Norman); Exeter C. , choir, trans. , 1279-91; nave, 1331-50 (E. End remodelled, 1390); Lichfield C. , Lady-chapel, 1310; Ely C. , Lady-chapel, 1321-49; Melrose A. , 1327-99 (nave, 1500; r. ); St. Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster, 1349-64 (demolished); Edington church, 1352-61; Carlisle C. , E. End and upper parts, 1352-95 (nave in part and S. Trans. Norman; tower finished, 1419); Winchester C. , W. End remodelled, 1360-66 (nave and aisles, 1394-1410; trans. , partly Norman); York C. , Lady-chapel, 1362-72; churches of Patrington and Hull, late 14th century. PERPENDICULAR: Holy Cross Church, Canterbury, 1380; St. Mary’s, Warwick, 1381-91; Manchester C. , 1422; St. Mary’s, Bury St. Edmunds, 1424-33; Beauchamp Chapel, Warwick, 1439; King’s College Chapel, Cambridge, 1440; vaults, 1508-15; St. Mary’s Redcliffe, Bristol, 1442; Roslyn Chapel, Edinburgh, 1446-90; Gloucester C. , Lady-chapel, 1457-98; St. Mary’s, Stratford-on-Avon, 1465-91; Norwich C. , upper part and E. End of choir, 1472-99 (the rest mainly Norman); St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, 1481-1508; choir vaulted, 1507-20; Bath A. , 1500-39; Chapel of Henry VII. , Westminster, 1503-20. ACADEMIC AND SECULAR BUILDINGS: Winchester Castle Hall, 1222-35; Merton College Chapel, Oxford, 1274-1300; Library Merton College, 1354-78; Norborough Hall, 1356; Windsor Castle, upper ward, 1359-73; Winchester College, 1387-93; Wardour Castle, 1392; Westminster Hall, rebuilt, 1397-99; St. Mary’s Hall, Coventry, 1401-14; Warkworth Castle, 1440; St. John’s College, All Soul’s College, Oxford, 1437; Eton College, 1441-1522; Divinity Schools, Oxford, 1445-54; Magdalen College, Oxford, 1475-80, tower, 1500; Christ Church Hall, Oxford, 1529. CHAPTER XVIII. GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN GERMANY, THE NETHERLANDS, AND SPAIN. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Corroyer, Reber. Also, Adler, _Mittelalterliche Backstein-Bauwerke des preussischen Staates_. Essenwein (_Hdbuch. D. Arch. _), _Die romanische und die gothische Baukunst; der Wohnbau_. Hasak, _Die romanische und die gothische Baukunst; Kirchenbau_; _Einzelheiten des Kirchenbaues_ (both in _Hdbuch. D. Arch. _). Hase and others, _Die mittelalterlichen Baudenkmäler Niedersachsens_. Kallenbach, _Chronologie der deutschen mittelalterlichen Baukunst_. Lübke, _Ecclesiastical Art in Germany during the Middle Ages_. Redtenbacher, _Leitfaden zum Studium der mittelalterlichen Baukunst_. Street, _Gothic Architecture in Spain_. Uhde, _Baudenkmäler in Spanien_. Ungewitter, _Lehrbuch der gothischen Constructionen_. Villa Amil, _Hispania Artistica y Monumental_. +EARLY GOTHIC WORKS. + The Gothic architecture of Germany is lessinteresting to the general student than that of France and England, notonly because its development was less systematic and more provincial, but also because it produced fewer works of high intrinsic merit. Theintroduction into Germany of the pointed style was tardy, and itsprogress slow. Romanesque architecture had created imposing types ofecclesiastical architecture, which the conservative Teutons were slow toabandon. The result was a half-century of transition and a mingling ofRomanesque and Gothic forms. St. Castor, at Coblentz, built as late as1208, is wholly Romanesque. Even when the pointed arch and vault hadfinally come into general use, the plan and the constructive systemstill remained predominantly Romanesque. The western apse and shortsanctuary of the earlier plans were retained. There was no triforium, the clearstory was insignificant, and the whole aspect low and massive. The Germans avoided, at first, as did the English, the constructiveaudacities and difficulties of the French Gothic, but showed less ofinvention and grace than their English neighbors. When, however, throughthe influence of foreign models, especially of the great Frenchcathedrals, and through the employment of foreign architects, the Gothicstyles were at last thoroughly domesticated, a spirit of ostentationtook the place of the earlier conservatism. Technical cleverness, exaggerated ingenuity of detail, and constructive _tours de force_characterize most of the German Gothic work of the late fourteenth andof the fifteenth century. This is exemplified in the slender mullions ofUlm, the lofty and complicated spire of Strasburg, and the curioustraceries of churches and houses in Nuremberg. +PERIODS. + The periods of German mediæval architecture corresponded insequence, though not in date, with the movement elsewhere. The maturingof the true Gothic styles was preceded by more than a half-century oftransition. Chronologically the periods may be broadly stated asfollows: THE TRANSITIONAL, 1170-1225. THE EARLY POINTED, 1225-1275. THE MIDDLE OR DECORATED, 1275-1350. THE FLORID, 1350-1530. These divisions are, however, far less clearly defined than in Franceand England. The development of forms was less logical andconsequential, and less uniform in the different provinces, than inthose western lands. +CONSTRUCTION. + As already remarked, a tenacious hold of Romanesquemethods is observable in many German Gothic monuments. Broadwall-surfaces with small windows and a general massiveness and lownessof proportions were long preferred to the more slender and loftyforms of true Gothic design. Square vaulting-bays were persistentlyadhered to, covering two aisle-bays. The six-part system was onlyrarely resorted to, as at Schlettstadt, and in St. George atLimburg-on-the-Lahn (Fig. 139). The ribbed vault was an imported idea, and was never systematically developed. Under the final dominance ofFrench models in the second half of the thirteenth century, vaulting inoblong bays became more general, powerfully influenced by buildings likeFreiburg, Cologne, Oppenheim, and Ratisbon cathedrals. In the fourteenthcentury the growing taste for elaboration and rich detail led to theintroduction of multiplied decorative ribs. These, however, did not comeinto use, as in England, through a logical development of constructivemethods, but purely as decorative features. The German multiple-ribbedvaulting is, therefore, less satisfying than the English, though oftenelegant. Conspicuous examples of its application are found in thecathedrals of Freiburg, Ulm, Prague, and Vienna; in St. Barbara atKuttenberg, and many other important churches. But with all the richnessand complexity of these net-like vaults the Germans developed nothinglike the fan-vaulting or chapter-house ceilings of England. [Illustration: FIG. 139. --ONE BAY OF CATHEDRAL OF ST. GEORGE, LIMBURG. ] +SIDE AISLES. + The most notable structural innovation of the Germans wasthe raising of the side aisles to the same height as the central aislein a number of important churches. They thus created a distinctly newtype, to which German writers have given the name of _hall-church_. Theresult of this innovation was to transform completely the internalperspective of the church, as well as its structural membering. Theclearstory disappeared; the central aisle no longer dominated theinterior; the pier-arches and side-walls were greatly increased inheight, and flying buttresses were no longer required. The whole designappeared internally more spacious, but lost greatly in variety and ininterest. The cathedral of +St. Stephen+ at Vienna is the most imposinginstance of this treatment, which first appeared in the church of St. Elizabeth at Marburg (1235-83; Fig. 140). St. Barbara at Kuttenberg, St. Martin’s at Landshut (1404), and the cathedral of Munich are othersamong many examples of this type. [Illustration: FIG. 140. --SECTION OF ST. ELIZABETH, MARBURG. ] +TOWERS AND SPIRES. + The same fondness for spires which had beendisplayed in the Rhenish Romanesque churches produced in the Gothicperiod a number of strikingly beautiful church steeples, in whichopenwork tracery was substituted for the solid stone pyramids of earlierexamples. The most remarkable of these spires are those of Freiburg(1300), Strasburg, and Cologne cathedrals, of the church at Esslingen, St. Martin’s at Landshut, and the cathedral of Vienna. In these thetransition from the simple square tower below to the octagonal belfryand spire is generally managed with skill. In the remarkable tower ofthe cathedral at Vienna (1433) the transition is too gradual, so thatthe spire seems to start from the ground and lacks the vigor and accentof a simpler square lower portion. The over-elaborate spire of+Strasburg+ (1429, by Junckher of Cologne; lower parts and façade, 1277-1365, by _Erwin von Steinbach_ and his sons) reaches a height of468 feet; the spires of Cologne, completed in 1883 from the originalfourteenth-century drawings, long lost but recovered by a happyaccident, are 500 feet high. The spires of +Ratisbon+ and +Ulm+cathedrals have also been recently completed in the original style. +DETAILS. + German window tracery was best where it most closely followedFrench patterns, but it tended always towards the faults of mechanicalstiffness and of technical display in over-slenderness of shafts andmullions. The windows, especially in the “hall-churches, ” were apt to betoo narrow for their height. In the fifteenth century ingenuity ofgeometrical combinations took the place of grace of line, and later thetracery was often tortured into a stone caricature of rustic-work ofinterlaced and twisted boughs and twigs, represented with all their barkand knots (_branch-tracery_). The execution was far superior to thedesign. The carving of foliage in capitals, finials, etc. , calls for nospecial mention for its originality or its departure from French types. +PLANS. + In these there was more variety than in any other part ofEurope except Italy. Some churches, like Naumburg, retained theRomanesque system of a second western apse and short choir. TheCistercian churches generally had square east ends, while the polygonaleastern apse without ambulatory is seen in St. Elizabeth at Marburg, thecathedrals of Ratisbon, Ulm and Vienna, and many other churches. Theintroduction of French ideas in the thirteenth century led to theadoption in a number of cases of the chevet with a single ambulatory anda series of radiating apsidal chapels. +Magdeburg+ cathedral (1208-11)was the first erected on this plan, which was later followed atAltenburg, Cologne, Freiburg, Lübeck, Prague and Zwettl, in St. Francisat Salzburg and some other churches. Side chapels to nave or choirappear in the cathedrals of Lübeck, Munich, Oppenheim, Prague andZwettl. +Cologne+ +Cathedral+, by far the largest and most magnificentof all, is completely French in plan, uniting in one design the leadingcharacteristics of the most notable French churches (Fig. 141). It hascomplete double aisles in both nave and choir, three-aisled transepts, radial chevet-chapels and twin western towers. The ambulatory is, however, single, and there are no lateral chapels. A typical Germantreatment was the eastward termination of the church by polygonalchapels, one in the axis of each aisle, the central one projectingbeyond its neighbors. Where there were five aisles, as at Xanten, theeffect was particularly fine. The plan of the curious polygonal churchof +Our Lady+ (Liebfrauenkirche; 1227-43) built on the site of theancient circular baptistery at Treves, would seem to have been producedby doubling such an arrangement on either side of the transverse axis(Fig. 142). [Illustration: FIG. 141. --COLOGNE CATHEDRAL. PLAN. ] [Illustration: FIG. 142. --CHURCH OF OUR LADY, TREVES. ] +HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT. + The so-called +Golden Portal+ of +Freiburg+ inthe Erzgebirge is perhaps the first distinctively Gothic work inGermany, dating from 1190. From that time on, Gothic details appearedwith increasing frequency, especially in the Rhine provinces, as shownin many transitional structures. +Gelnhausen+ and Aschaffenburg areearly 13th-century examples; pointed arches and vaults appear in theApostles’ and St. Martin’s churches at Cologne; and the great church of+St. Peter and St. Paul+ at Neuweiler in Alsace has an almost purelyGothic nave of the same period. The churches of +Bamberg+, +Fritzlar+, and +Naumburg+, and in Westphalia those of +Münster+ and +Osnabrück+, are important examples of the transition. The French influence, especially the Burgundian, appears as early as 1212 in the cathedral ofMagdeburg, imitating the choir of Soissons, and in the structural designof the Liebfrauenkirche at Treves as already mentioned; it reachedcomplete ascendancy in Alsace at +Strasburg+ (nave 1240-75), in Baden at+Freiburg+ (nave 1270) and in Prussia at +Cologne+ (1248-1320). Strasburg Cathedral is especially remarkable for its façade, the work ofErwin von Steinbach and his sons (1277-1346), designed after Frenchmodels, and its north spire, built in the fifteenth century. CologneCathedral, begun in 1248 by _Gerhard of Riel_ in imitation of the newlycompleted choir of Amiens, was continued by Master _Arnold_ and his son_John_, and the choir was consecrated in 1322. The nave and W. Frontwere built during the first half of the 14th century, though the towerswere not completed till 1883. In spite of its vast size and slowconstruction, it is in style the most uniform of all great Gothiccathedrals, as it is the most lofty (excepting the choir of Beauvais)and the largest excepting Milan and Seville. Unfortunately its details, though pure and correct, are singularly dry and mechanical, while itsvery uniformity deprives it of the picturesque and varied charm whichresults from a mixture of styles recording the labors of successivegenerations. The same criticism may be raised against the late cathedralof +Ulm+ (choir, 1377-1449; nave, 1477; Fig. 143). The Cologne influenceis observable in the widely separated cathedrals of Utrecht in theNetherlands, Metz in the W. , Minden and +Halberstadt+ (begun 1250;mainly built after 1327) in Saxony, and in the S. In the church of +St. Catherine+ at Oppenheim. To the E. And S. , in the cathedrals of +Prague+(Bohemia) by _Matthew of Arras_ (1344-52) and +Ratisbon+ (or Regensburg, 1275) the French influence predominates, at least in the details andconstruction. The last-named is one of the most dignified and beautifulof German Gothic churches--German in plan, French in execution. TheFrench influence also manifests itself in the details of many of thepeculiarly German churches with aisles of equal height (see p.  240). [Illustration: FIG. 143. --PLAN OF ULM CATHEDRAL. ] More peculiarly German are the brick churches of North Germany, wherestone was almost wholly lacking. In these, flat walls, square towers, and decoration by colored tiles and bricks are characteristic, as atBrandenburg (St. Godehard and +St. Catherine+, 1346-1400), at+Prentzlau+, Tängermünde, Königsberg, &c. Lübeck possesses notablemonuments of brick architecture in the churches of +St. Mary+ and St. Catherine, both much alike in plan and in the flat and barren simplicityof their exteriors. +St. Martin’s+ at +Landshut+ in the South is also anotable brick church. +LATE GOTHIC. + As in France and England, the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies were mainly occupied with the completion of existing churches, many of which, up to that time, were still without naves. The works ofthis period show the exaggerated attenuation of detail already alludedto, though their richness and elegance sometimes atone for theirmechanical character. The complicated ribbed vaults of this period areamong its most striking features (see p.  239). Spire-building was asgeneral as was the erection of central square towers in England, duringthe same period. To this time also belong the overloaded traceries andminute detail of the +St. Sebald+ and St. Lorenz churches and of severalsecular buildings at Nuremberg, the façade of Chemnitz Cathedral, andsimilar works. The nave and tower of St. Stephen at Vienna (1359-1433), the church of Sta. Maria in Gestade in the same city, and the cathedralof Kaschau in Hungary, are Austrian masterpieces of late Gothic design. +SECULAR BUILDINGS. + Germany possesses a number of important examples ofsecular Gothic work, chiefly municipal buildings (gates and town halls)and castles. The first completely Gothic castle or palace was not builtuntil 1280, at +Marienburg+ (Prussia), and was completed a centurylater. It consists of two courts, the earlier of the two forming aclosed square and containing the chapel and chapter-house of the Orderof the German knights. The later and larger court is less regular, itschief feature being the +Great Hall+ of the Order, in two aisles. Allthe vaulting is of the richest multiple-ribbed type. Other castles areat Marienwerder, Heilsberg (1350) in E.  Prussia, Karlstein in Bohemia(1347), and the +Albrechtsburg+ at Meissen in Saxony (1471-83). Among town halls, most of which date from the fourteenth and fifteenthcenturies may be mentioned those of Ratisbon (Regensburg), Münster andHildesheim, Halberstadt, +Brunswick+, Lübeck, and Bremen--the last twoof brick. These, and the city gates, such as the +Spahlenthor+ at Basle(Switzerland) and others at Lübeck and Wismar, are generally verypicturesque edifices. Many fine guildhalls were also built during thelast two centuries of the Gothic style; and dwelling-houses of the sameperiod, of quaint and effective design, with stepped or traceriedgables, lofty roofs, openwork balconies and corner turrets, are to befound in many cities. Nuremberg is especially rich in these. +THE NETHERLANDS+, as might be expected from their position, underwentthe influences of both France and Germany. During the thirteenthcentury, largely through the intimate monastic relations between Tournayand Noyon, the French influence became paramount in what is now Belgium, while Holland remained more strongly German in style. Of the twocountries Belgium developed by far the most interesting architecture. Some of its cathedrals, notably those of Tournay, Antwerp, Brussels, Malines (Mechlin), Mons and Louvain, rank high among structures of theirclass, both in scale and in artistic treatment. The Flemish town hallsand guildhalls merit particular attention for their size and richness, exemplifying in a worthy manner the wealth, prosperity, and independenceof the weavers and merchants of Antwerp, Ypres, Ghent (Gand), Louvain, and other cities in the fifteenth century. +CATHEDRALS AND CHURCHES. + The earliest purely Gothic edifice in Belgiumwas the choir of +Ste. Gudule+ (1225) at Brussels, followed in 1242 bythe choir and transepts of +Tournay+, designed with pointed vaults, sidechapels, and a complete _chevet_. The transept-ends are round, as atNoyon. It was surpassed in splendor by the +Cathedral+ of +Antwerp+(1352-1422), remarkable for its seven-aisled nave and narrow transepts. It covers some 70, 000 square feet, but its great size is not aseffective internally as it should be, owing to the poverty of thedetails and the lack of finely felt proportion in the various parts. Thelate west front (1422-1518) displays the florid taste of the wealthyFlemish burgher population of that period, but is so rich and elegant, especially its lofty and slender north spire, that its over-decorationis pardonable. The cathedral of +St. Rombaut+ at Malines (choir, 1366;nave, 1454-64) is a more satisfactory church, though smaller and withits western towers incomplete. The cathedral of +Louvain+ belongs to thesame period (1373-1433). +St. Wandru+ at Mons (1450-1528) and +St. Jacques+ at Liège (1522-58) are interesting parish churches of the firstrank, remarkable especially for the use of color in their internaldecoration, for their late tracery and ribbed vaulting, and for theabsence of Renaissance details at that late period. [Illustration: FIG. 144. --TOWN HALL, LOUVAIN. ] +TOWN HALLS: GUILDHALLS. + These were really the most characteristicFlemish edifices, and are in most cases the most conspicuous monumentsof their respective cities. The +Cloth Hall+ of +Ypres+ (1304) is theearliest and most imposing among them; similar halls were built not muchlater at +Bruges+, +Louvain+, +Malines+ and +Ghent+. The town halls weremostly of later date, the earliest being that of +Bruges+ (1377). Thetown halls of +Brussels+ with its imposing and graceful tower, of+Louvain+ (1448-63; Fig. 144) and of +Oudenärde+ (early 16th century)are conspicuous monuments of this class. In general, the Gothic architecture of Belgium presents the traits of aborrowed style, which did not undergo at the hands of its borrowers anyradically novel or fundamental development. The structural design isusually lacking in vigor and organic significance, but the details areoften graceful and well designed, especially on the exterior. Thetendency was often towards over-elaboration, particularly in the laterworks. The Gothic architecture of +Holland+ and of the +Scandinavian+ countriesoffers so little that is highly artistic or inspiring in character, thatspace cannot well be given in this work, even to an enumeration of itschief monuments. +SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. + The beginnings of Gothic architecture in Spainfollowed close on the series of campaigns from 1217 to 1252, which beganthe overthrow of the Moorish dominion. With the resulting spirit ofexultation and the wealth accruing from booty, came a rapid developmentof architecture, mainly under French influence. Gothic architecture wasat this date, under St. Louis, producing in France some of its noblestworks. The great cathedrals of +Toledo+ and +Burgos+, begun between 1220and 1230, were the earliest purely Gothic churches in Spain. +SanVincente+ at Avila and the +Old Cathedral+ at Salamanca, of somewhatearlier date, present a mixture of round- and pointed-arched forms, withthe Romanesque elements predominant. +Toledo Cathedral+, planned inimitation of Notre Dame and Bourges, but exceeding them in width, covers75, 000 square feet, and thus ranks among the largest of Europeancathedrals. Internally it is well proportioned and well detailed, recalling the early French masterworks, but its exterior is lesscommendable. [Illustration: FIG. 145. --FAÇADE OF BURGOS CATHEDRAL. ] In the contemporary cathedral of Burgos the exterior is at least asinteresting as the interior. The west front, of German design, suggestsCologne by its twin openwork spires (Fig. 145); while the crossing isembellished with a sumptuous dome and lantern or _cimborio_, added aslate as 1567. The chapels at the east end, especially that of theCondestabile (1487), are ornate to the point of overloading, a fault towhich late Spanish Gothic work is peculiarly prone. Otherthirteenth-century cathedrals are those of +Leon+ (1260), +Valencia+(1262), and +Barcelona+ (1298), all exhibiting strongly the Frenchinfluence in the plan, vaulting, and vertical proportions. The models ofBourges and Paris with their wide naves, lateral chapels andsemicircular chevets were followed in the cathedral of Barcelona, in anumber of fourteenth-century churches both there and elsewhere, and inthe sixteenth-century cathedral of Segovia. In Sta. Maria del Pi atBarcelona, in the collegiate church at Manresa, and in the imposing naveof the +Cathedral+ of +Gerona+ (1416, added to choir of 1312, the latterby a Southern French architect, Henri de Narbonne), the influence ofAlby in southern France (see p.  206) is discernible. These areone-aisled churches with internal buttresses separating the lateralchapels. The nave of Gerona is 73 feet wide, or double the average clearwidth of French or English cathedral naves. The resulting effect is notcommensurate with the actual dimensions, and shows the inappropriatenessof Gothic details for compositions so Roman in breadth and simplicity. +SEVILLE. + The largest single edifice in Spain, and the largest churchbuilt during the Middle Ages in Europe, is the +Cathedral of Seville+, begun in 1401 on the site of a Moorish mosque. It covers 124, 000 squarefeet, measuring 415 × 298 feet, and is a simple rectangle comprisingfive aisles with lateral chapels. The central aisle is 56 ft. Wide and145 high; the side aisles and chapels diminish gradually in height, andwith the uniform piers in six rows produce an imposing effect, in spiteof the lack of transepts or chevet. The somewhat similar +New Cathedral+of Salamanca (1510-1560) shows the last struggles of the Gothic styleagainst the incoming tide of the Renaissance. +LATER MONUMENTS. + These all partake of the over-decoration whichcharacterized the fifteenth century throughout Europe. In Spain thisdecoration was even less constructive in character, and more purelyfanciful and arbitrary, than in the northern lands; but this veryrejection of all constructive pretense gives it a peculiar charm andgoes far to excuse its extravagance (Fig. 146). Decorative vaulting-ribswere made to describe geometric patterns of great elegance. Some of thelate Gothic vaults by the very exuberance of imagination shown in theirdesigns, almost disarm criticism. Instead of suppressing the walls asfar as possible, and emphasizing all the vertical lines, as was done inFrance and England, the later Gothic architects of Spain delighted inbroad wall-surfaces and multiplied horizontal lines. Upon these surfacesthey lavished carving without restraint and without any organic relationto the structure of the building. The arcades of cloisters and interiorcourts (_patios_) were formed with arches of fantastic curves resting ontwisted columns; and internal chapels in the cathedrals were coveredwith minute carving of exquisite workmanship, but wholly irrationaldesign. Probably the influence of Moorish decorative art accounts inpart for these extravagances. The eastern chapels in Burgos cathedral, the votive church of +San Juan de los Reyes+ at Toledo and many portalsof churches, convents and hospitals illustrate these tendencies. [Illustration: FIG. 146. --DETAIL, PORTAL S.  GREGORIO, VALLADOLID. ] +PORTUGAL+ is an almost unknown land architecturally. It seems to haveadopted the Gothic styles very late in its history. Two monuments, however, are conspicuous, the convent churches of Batalha (1390-1520)and +Belem+, both marked by an extreme overloading of carved ornament. The +Mausoleum of King Manoel+ in the rear of the church at Batalha is, however, a noble creation, possibly by an English master. It is apolygonal domed edifice, some 67 feet in diameter, and well designed, though covered with a too profuse and somewhat mechanical decoration ofpanels, pinnacles, and carving. +MONUMENTS+: GERMANY (C = cathedral; A = abbey; tr. = transepts). --13th century: Transitional churches: Bamberg C. ; Naumburg C. ; Collegiate Church, Fritzlar; St. George, Limburg-on-Lahn; St. Castor, Coblentz; Heisterbach A. ;--all in early years of 13th century. St. Gereon, Cologne, choir 1212-27; Liebfrauenkirche, Treves, 1227-44; St. Elizabeth, Marburg, 1235-83; Sts. Peter and Paul, Neuweiler, 1250; Cologne C. , choir 1248-1322 (nave 14th century; towers finished 1883); Strasburg C. , 1250-75 (E. End Romanesque; façade 1277-1365; tower 1429-39); Halberstadt C. , nave 1250 (choir 1327; completed 1490); Altenburg C. , choir 1255-65 (finished 1379); Wimpfen-im-Thal church 1259-78; St. Lawrence, Nuremberg, 1260 (choir 1439-77); St. Catherine, Oppenheim, 1262-1317 (choir 1439); Xanten, Collegiate Church, 1263; Freiburg C. , 1270 (W. Tower 1300; choir 1354); Toul C. , 1272; Meissen C. , choir 1274 (nave 1312-42); Ratisbon C. , 1275; St. Mary’s, Lübeck, 1276; Dominican churches at Coblentz, Gebweiler; and in Switzerland at Basle, Berne, and Zurich. --14th century: Wiesenkirche, Söst, 1313; Osnabrück C. , 1318 (choir 1420); St. Mary’s, Prentzlau, 1325; Augsburg C. , 1321-1431; Metz C. , 1330 rebuilt (choir 1486); St. Stephen’s C. , Vienna, 1340 (nave 15th century; tower 1433); Zwette C. , 1343; Prague C. , 1344; church at Thann, 1351 (tower finished 16th century); Liebfrauenkirche, Nuremberg, 1355-61; St. Sebaldus Church, Nuremberg, 1361-77 (nave Romanesque); Minden C. , choir 1361; Ulm C. , 1377 (choir 1449; nave vaulted 1471; finished 16th century); Sta. Barbara, Kuttenberg, 1386 (nave 1483); Erfurt C. ; St. Elizabeth, Kaschau; Schlettstadt C. --15th century: St. Catherine’s, Brandenburg, 1401; Frauenkirche, Esslingen, 1406 (finished 1522); Minster at Berne, 1421; Peter-Paulskirche, Görlitz, 1423-97; St. Mary’s, Stendal, 1447; Frauenkirche, Munich, 1468-88; St. Martin’s, Landshut, 1473. SECULAR MONUMENTS. Schloss Marienburg, 1341; Moldau-bridge and tower, Prague, 1344; Karlsteinburg, 1348-57; Albrechtsburg, Meissen, 1471-83; Nassau House, Nuremberg, 1350; Council houses (Rathhaüser) at Brunswick, 1393; Cologne, 1407-15; Basle; Breslau; Lübeck; Münster; Prague; Ulm; City Gates of Basle, Cologne, Ingolstadt, Lucerne. THE NETHERLANDS. Brussels C. (Ste. Gudule), 1226-80; Tournai C. , choir 1242 (nave finished 1380); Notre Dame, Bruges, 1239-97; Notre Dame, Tongres, 1240; Utrecht C. , 1251; St. Martin, Ypres, 1254; Notre Dame, Dinant, 1255; church at Dordrecht; church at Aerschot, 1337; Antwerp C. , 1352-1411 (W. Front 1422-1518); St. Rombaut, Malines, 1355-66 (nave 1456-64); St. Wandru, Mons, 1450-1528; St. Lawrence, Rotterdam, 1472; other 15th century churches--St. Bavon, Haarlem; St. Catherine, Utrecht; St. Walpurgis, Sutphen; St. Bavon, Ghent (tower 1461); St. Jaques, Antwerp; St. Pierre, Louvain; St. Jacques, Bruges; churches at Arnheim, Breda, Delft; St. Jacques, Liège, 1522. --SECULAR: Cloth-hall, Ypres, 1200-1304; cloth-hall, Bruges, 1284; town hall, Bruges, 1377; town hall, Brussels, 1401-55; town hall, Louvain, 1448-63; town hall, Ghent, 1481; town hall, Oudenarde, 1527; Standehuis, Delft, 1528; cloth-halls at Louvain, Ghent, Malines. SPAIN. --13th century: Burgos C. , 1221 (façade 1442-56; chapels 1487; cimborio 1567); Toledo C. , 1227-90 (chapels 14th and 15th centuries); Tarragona C. , 1235; Leon C. , 1250 (façade 14th century); Valencia C. , 1262 (N. Transept 1350-1404; façade 1381-1418); Avila C. , vault and N. Portal 1292-1353 (finished 14th century); St. Esteban, Burgos; church at Las Huelgas. --14th century: Barcelona C. , choir 1298-1329 (nave and transepts 1448; façade 16th century); Gerona C. , 1312-46 (nave added 1416); S.  M. Del Mar, Barcelona, 1328-83; S.  M. Del Pino, Barcelona, same date; Collegiate Church, Manresa, 1328; Oviedo C. , 1388 (tower very late); Pampluna C. , 1397 (mainly 15th century). --15th century: Seville C. , 1403 (finished 16th century; cimborio 1517-67); La Seo, Saragossa (finished 1505); S.  Pablo, Burgos, 1415-35; El Parral, Segovia, 1459; Astorga C. , 1471; San Juan de los Reyes, Toledo, 1476; Carthusian church, Miraflores, 1488; San Juan, and La Merced, Burgos. --16th century: Huesca C. , 1515; Salamanca New Cathedral, 1510-60; Segovia C. , 1522; S.  Juan de la Puerta, Zamorra. SECULAR. --Porta Serraños, Valencia, 1349; Casa Consistorial, Barcelona, 1369-78; Casa de la Disputacion, same city; Casa de las Lonjas, Valencia, 1482. PORTUGAL. At Batalha, church and mausoleum of King Manoel, finished 1515; at Belem, monastery, late Gothic. CHAPTER XIX. GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY. BOOKS RECOMMENDED; As before, Corroyer, Reber. Also, Cummings, _A History of Architecture in Italy_. De Fleury, _La Toscane au moyen âge_. Gruner, _The Terra Cotta Architecture of Northern Italy_. Mothes, _Die Baukunst des Mittelalters in Italien_. Norton, _Historical Studies of Church Building in the Middle Ages_. Osten, _Bauwerke der Lombardei_. Street, _Brick and Marble Architecture of Italy_. Willis, _Remarks on the Architecture of the Middle Ages, especially of Italy_. +GENERAL CHARACTER. + The various Romanesque styles which had grown up inItaly before 1200 lacked that unity of principle out of which alone anew and homogeneous national style could have been evolved. Eachprovince practised its own style and methods of building, long after theRomanesque had given place to the Gothic in Western Europe. The Italianswere better decorators than builders, and cared little for Gothicstructural principles. Mosaic and carving, sumptuous altars and tombs, veneerings and inlays of colored marble, broad flat surfaces to becovered with painting and ornament--to secure these they were content tobuild crudely, to tie their insufficiently buttressed vaults withunsightly iron tie-rods, and to make their church façades merescreen-walls, in form wholly unrelated to the buildings behind them. When, therefore, under foreign influences pointed arches, tracery, clustered shafts, crockets and finials came into use, it was merely asan imported fashion. Even when foreign architects (usually Germans) wereemployed, the composition, and in large measure the details, were stillItalian and provincial. The church of St. Francis at Assisi (1228-53, by_Jacobus of Meruan_, a German, superseded later by an Italian, Campello), and the cathedral of Milan (begun 1389, perhaps by _Henry ofGmund_), are conspicuous illustrations of this. Rome built basilicas allthrough the Middle Ages. Tuscany continued to prefer flat walls veneeredwith marble to the broken surfaces and deep buttresses of France andGermany. Venice developed a Gothic style of façade-design wholly her own(see p.  267). Nowhere but in Italy could two such utterly diversestructures as the Certosa at Pavia and the cathedral at Milan have beenerected at the same time. +CLIMATE AND TRADITION. + Two further causes militated against thedomestication of Gothic art in Italy. The first was the brilliantatmosphere, which made the vast traceried windows of Gothic design, andits suppression of the wall-surfaces, wholly undesirable. Cool, diminteriors, thick walls, small windows and the exclusion of sunlight, allnecessary to Italian comfort, were incompatible with Gothic ideals andmethods. The second obstacle was the persistence of classic traditionsof form, both in construction and decoration. The spaciousness andbreadth of interior planning which characterized Roman design, and itsamplitude of scale in every feature, seem never to have lost their holdon the Italians. The narrow lofty aisles, multiplied supports and minutedetail of the Gothic style were repugnant to the classic predilectionsof the Italian builders. The Roman acanthus and Corinthian capital wereconstantly imitated in their Gothic buildings, and the round archcontinued all through the Middle Ages to be used in conjunction with thepointed arch (Figs. 149, 150). +EARLY BUILDINGS. + It is hard to determine how and by whom Gothic formswere first introduced into Italy, but it was most probably through theagency of the monastic orders. Cistercian churches like that atChiaravalle near Milan (1208-21), and most of those erected by themendicant orders of the Franciscans (founded 1210) and Dominicans(1216), were built with ribbed vaults and pointed arches. The exampleset by these orders contributed greatly to the general adoption of theforeign style. +S.  Francesco+ at +Assisi+, already mentioned, was thefirst completely Gothic Franciscan church, although +S.  Francesco+ at+Bologna+, begun a few years later, was finished a little earlier. TheDominican church of +SS. Giovanni e Paolo+ and the great Franciscanchurch of +Sta. Maria Gloriosa dei Frari+, both at Venice, were built alittle later. +Sta. Maria Novella+ at Florence (1278), and +Sta. Mariasopra Minerva+ at Rome (1280), both by the brothers _Sisto_ and_Ristoro_, and +S.  Anastasia+ at Verona (1261) are the masterpieces ofthe Dominican builders. +S.  Andrea+ at +Vercelli+ in North Italy, begunin 1219 under a foreign architect, is an isolated early example of layGothic work. Though somewhat English in its plan, and (unlike mostItalian churches) provided with two western spires in the Englishmanner, it is in all other respects thoroughly Italian in aspect. Thechurch at Asti, begun in 1229, suggests German models by its high sidewalls and narrow windows. [Illustration: FIG. 147. --DUOMO AT FLORENCE. PLAN. A, _Campanile_. ] +CATHEDRALS. + The greatest monuments of Italian Gothic design are thecathedrals, in which, even more than was the case in France, the highlydeveloped civic pride of the municipalities expressed itself. Chiefamong these half civic, half religious monuments are the cathedrals of+Sienna+ (begun in 1243), +Arezzo+ (1278), +Orvieto+ (1290), +Florence+(the +Duomo+, Sta. Maria del Fiore, begun 1294 by Arnolfo di Cambio), +Lucca+ (S.  Martino, 1350), +Milan+ (1389-1418), and +S.  Petronio+ atBologna (1390). They are all of imposing size; Milan is the largest ofall Gothic cathedrals except Seville. S.  Petronio was planned to be 600feet long, the present structure with its three broad aisles andflanking chapels being merely the nave of the intended edifice. TheDuomo at Florence (Fig. 147) is 500 feet long and covers 82, 000 squarefeet, while the octagon at the crossing is 143 feet in diameter. Theeffect of these colossal dimensions is, however, as in a number of theselarge Italian interiors, singularly belittled by the bareness of thewalls, by the great size of the constituent parts of the composition, and by the lack of architectural subdivisions and multiplied detail toserve as a scale by which to gauge the scale of the _ensemble_. [Illustration: FIG. 148. --NAVE OF DUOMO AT FLORENCE. ] +INTERIOR TREATMENT. + It was doubtless intended to cover these largeunbroken wall-surfaces and the vast expanse of the vaults over naves ofextraordinary breadth, with paintings and color decoration. This wouldhave remedied their present nakedness and lack of interest, but it wasonly in a very few instances carried out. The double church ofS.  Francesco at Assisi, decorated by Cimabue, Giotto, and other earlyTuscan painters, the Arena Chapel at Padua, painted by Giotto, the+Spanish Chapel+ of S.  M. Novella, Florence, and the east end ofS.  Croce, Florence, are illustrations of the splendor of effect possibleby this method of decoration. The bareness of effect in other, unpaintedinteriors was emphasized by the plainness of the vaults destitute ofminor ribs. The transverse ribs were usually broad arches with flatsoffits, and the vaulting was often sprung from so low a point as toleave no room for a triforium. Mere bull’s-eyes often served forclearstory windows, as in S.  Anastasia at Verona, S.  Petronio atBologna, and the Florentine Duomo. The cathedral of +S.  Martino+ atLucca (Fig. 149) is one of the most complete and elegant of ItalianGothic interiors, having a genuine triforium with traceried arches. Evenhere, however, there are round arches without mouldings, flat pilasters, broad transverse ribs recalling Roman arches, and insignificantbull’s-eyes in the clearstory. [Illustration: FIG. 149. --ONE BAY, NAVE OF CATHEDRAL OF SAN MARTINO, LUCCA. ] [Illustration: FIG. 150. --INTERIOR OF SIENNA CATHEDRAL. ] The failure to produce adequate results of scale in the interiors of thelarger Italian churches, has been already alluded to. It is strikinglyexemplified in the Duomo at Florence, the nave of which is 72 feet wide, with four pier-arches each over 55 feet in span. The immense vault, insquare bays, starts from the level of the tops of these arches. Theinterior (Fig. 148) is singularly naked and cold, giving no conceptionof its vast dimensions. The colossal dome is an early work of theRenaissance (see p.  276). It is not known how _Fr. Talenti_, who in 1357enlarged and vaulted the nave and planned the east end, proposed tocover the great octagon. The east end is the most effective part of thedesign both internally and externally, owing to the relatively moderatescale of the 15 chapels which surround the apsidal arms of the cross. InS.  Petronio at Bologna, begun 1390 by _Master Antonio_, the scale isbetter handled. The nave, 300 feet long, is divided into six bays, eachembracing two side chapels. It is 46 feet wide and 132 feet high, proportions which approximate those of the French cathedrals, andproduce an impression of size somewhat unusual in Italian churches. +Orvieto+ has internally little that suggests Gothic architecture; likemany Franciscan and Dominican churches it is really a timber-roofedbasilica with a few pointed windows. The mixed Gothic and Romanesqueinterior of +Sienna Cathedral+ (Fig. 150), with its round arches andsix-sided dome, unsymmetrically placed over the crossing, is one of themost impressive creations of Italian mediæval art. Alternate courses ofblack and white marble add richness but not repose to the effect of thisinterior: the same is true of Orvieto, and of some other churches. Thebasement baptistery of +S.  Giovanni+, under the east end of SiennaCathedral, is much more purely Gothic in detail. In these, and indeed in most Italian interiors, the main interestcentres less in the excellence of the composition than in theaccessories of pavements, pulpits, choir-stalls, and sepulchralmonuments. In these the decorative fancy and skill of the Italians foundunrestrained exercise, and produced works of surpassing interest andmerit. +EXTERNAL DESIGN. + The greatest possible disparity generally existsbetween the sides and west fronts of the Italian churches. With fewexceptions the flanks present nothing like the variety of sky-line andof light and shade customary in northern and western lands. The sidewalls are high and flat, plain, or striped with black and white masonry(Sienna, Orvieto), or veneered with marble (Duomo at Florence) ordecorated with surface-ornament of thin pilasters and arcades (Lucca). The clearstory is low; the roof low--pitched and hardly visible frombelow. Color, rather than structural richness, is generally sought for:Milan Cathedral is almost the only exception, and goes to the otherextreme, with its seemingly countless buttresses, pinnacles and statues. The façades, on the other hand, were treated as independent decorativecompositions, and were in many cases remarkably beautiful works, thoughhaving little or no organic relation to the main structure. The mostcelebrated are those of +Sienna+ (cathedral begun 1243; façade 1284 by_Giovanni Pisano_; Fig. 151) and +Orvieto+ (begun 1290 by _LorenzoMaitani_; façade 1310). Both of these are sumptuous polychromaticcompositions in marble, designed on somewhat similar lines, with threehigh gables fronting the three aisles, with deeply recessed portals, pinnacled turrets flanking nave and aisles, and a central circularwindow. That of Orvieto is furthermore embellished with mosaic pictures, and is the more brilliant in color of the two. The mediæval façades ofthe Florentine Gothic churches were never completed; but the elegance ofthe panelling and of the tracery with twisted shafts in the flanks ofthe cathedral, and the florid beauty of its side doorways (late 14thcentury) would doubtless if realized with equal success on the façades, have produced strikingly beautiful results. The modern façade of theDuomo, by the late _De Fabris_ (1887) is a correct if not highlyimaginative version of the style so applied. The front of Milancathedral (soon to be replaced by a new façade), shows a mixture ofGothic and Renaissance forms. +Ferrara Cathedral+, although internallytransformed in the last century, retains its fine 13th-centurythree-gabled and arcaded screen front; one of the most Gothic in spiritof all Italian façades. The +Cathedral+ of +Genoa+ presents Gothicwindows and deeply recessed portals in a façade built in black and whitebands, like Sienna cathedral and many churches in Pistoia and Pisa. [Illustration: FIG. 151. --FAÇADE OF SIENNA CATHEDRAL. ] Externally the most important feature was frequently a cupola or domeover the crossing. That of Sienna has already been mentioned; that ofMilan is a sumptuous many-pinnacled structure terminating in a spire 300feet high. The +Certosa+ at Pavia (Fig. 152) and the earlier Carthusianchurch of Chiaravalle have internal cupolas or domes covered externallyby many-storied structures ending in a tower dominating the wholeedifice. These two churches, like many others in Lombardy, the Æmiliaand Venetia, are built of brick, moulded terra-cotta being effectivelyused for the cornices, string-courses, jambs and ornaments of theexterior. The Certosa at Pavia is contemporary with the cathedral ofMilan, to which it offers a surprising contrast, both in style andmaterial. It is wholly built of brick and terra-cotta, and, save for itsribbed vaulting, possesses hardly a single Gothic feature or detail. Itsarches, mouldings, and cloisters suggest both the Romanesque and theRenaissance styles by their semi-classic character. [Illustration: FIG. 152. --EXTERIOR OF THE CERTOSA, PAVIA. ] +PLANS. + The wide diversity of local styles in Italian architectureappears in the plans as strikingly as in the details In general onenotes a love of spaciousness which expresses itself in a sometimesdisproportionate breadth, and in the wide spacing of the piers. Thepolygonal chevet with its radial chapels is but rarely seen;+S.  Lorenzo+ at Naples, Sta. Maria dei Servi and S.  Francesco at Bolognaare among the most important examples. More frequently the chapels forma range along the east side of the transepts, especially in theFranciscan churches, which otherwise retain many basilican features. A comparison of the plans of S.  Andrea at Vercelli, the Duomo atFlorence, the cathedrals of Sienna and Milan, S.  Petronio at Bologna andthe Certosa at Pavia (Fig. 153), sufficiently illustrates the variety ofItalian Gothic plan-types. [Illustration: FIG. 153. --PLAN OF CERTOSA AT PAVIA. ] +ORNAMENT. + Applied decoration plays a large part in all Italian Gothicdesigns. Inlaid and mosaic patterns and panelled veneering in coloredmarble are essential features of the exterior decoration of most Italianchurches. Florence offers a fine example of this treatment in the Duomo, and in its accompanying +Campanile+ or bell-tower, designed by _Giotto_(1335), and completed by _Gaddi_ and _Talenti_. This beautiful tower isan epitome of Italian Gothic art. Its inlays, mosaics, and veneering aretreated with consummate elegance, and combined with incrusted reliefs ofgreat beauty. The tracery of this monument and of the side windows ofthe adjoining cathedral is lighter and more graceful than is common inItaly. Its beauty consists, however, less in movement of line than inrichness and elegance of carved and inlaid ornament. In the +Or SanMichele+--a combined chapel and granary in Florence dating from1330--the tracery is far less light and open. In general, except inchurches like the Cathedral of Milan, built under German influences, thetracery in secular monuments is more successful than in ecclesiasticalstructures. Venice developed the designing of tracery to greaterperfection in her palaces than any other Italian city (see below). +MINOR WORKS. + Italian Gothic art found freer expression insemi-decorative works, like tombs, altars and votive chapels, than inmore monumental structures. The fourteenth century was particularly richin canopy tombs, mostly in churches, though some were erected in theopen air, like the celebrated +Tombs of the Scaligers+ in Verona(1329-1380). Many of those in churches in and near Rome, and others insouth Italy, are especially rich in inlay of _opus Alexandrinum_ upontheir twisted columns and panelled sarcophagi. The family of the_Cosmati_ acquired great fame for work of this kind during thethirteenth century. The little marble chapel of +Sta. Maria della Spina+, on the Arno, atPisa, is an instance of the successful decorative use of Gothic forms inminor buildings. +TOWERS. + The Italians always preferred the square tower to the spire, and in most cases treated it as an independent campanile. FollowingEarly Christian and Romanesque traditions, these square towers wereusually built with plain sides unbroken by buttresses, and terminated ina flat roof or a low and inconspicuous cone or pyramid. The Campanile atFlorence already mentioned is by far the most beautiful of these designs(Fig. 154). The campaniles of Sienna, Lucca, and Pistoia are built inalternate white and black courses, like the adjoining cathedrals. Veronaand Mantua have towers with octagonal lanterns. In general, these Gothictowers differ from the earlier Romanesque models only in the forms oftheir openings. Though dignified in their simplicity and size, andusually well proportioned, they lack the beauty and interest of theFrench, English, and German steeples and towers. [Illustration: FIG. 154. --UPPER PART OF CAMPANILE, FLORENCE. ] +SECULAR MONUMENTS. + In their public halls, open _loggias_, and domesticarchitecture the Italians were able to develop the application of Gothicforms with greater freedom than in their church-building, becauseunfettered by traditional methods of design. The early and vigorousgrowth of municipal and popular institutions led, as in the Netherlands, to the building of two classes of public halls--the town hall proper or_Podestà_, and the council hall, variously called _Palazzo Communale_, _Pubblico_, or _del Consiglio_. The town halls, as the seat ofauthority, usually have a severe and fortress-like character; the+Palazzo Vecchio+ at Florence is the most important example (1298, byArnolfo di Cambio; Fig. 155). It is especially remarkable for its tower, which, rising 308 feet in the air, overhangs the street nearly 6 feet, its front wall resting on the face of the powerfully corbelled corniceof the palace. The court and most of the interior were remodelled in thesixteenth century. At Sienna is a somewhat similar structure in brick, the +Palazzo Pubblico+. At Pistoia the Podestà and the Communal Palacestand opposite each other; in both of these the courtyards still retaintheir original aspect. At Perugia, Bologna, and Viterbo are others ofsome importance; while in Lombardy, Bergamo, Como, Cremona, Piacenza andother towns possess smaller halls with open arcades below, of a moreelegant and pleasing aspect. More successful still are the open loggiasor tribunes erected for the gatherings of public bodies. The +Loggia deiLanzi+ at Florence (1376, by _Benci di Cione_ and _Simone di Talenti_)is the largest and most famous of these open vaulted halls, of whichseveral exist in Florence and Sienna. Gothic only in their minordetails, they are Romanesque or semi-classic in their broad round archesand strong horizontal lines and cornices (Fig. 156). [Illustration: FIG. 155. --UPPER PART OF PALAZZO VECCHIO, FLORENCE. ] +PALACES AND HOUSES: VENICE. + The northern cities, especially Pisa, Florence, Sienna, Bologna, and Venice, are rich in mediæval public andprivate palaces and dwellings in brick or marble, in which pointedwindows and open arcades are used with excellent effect. In Bologna andSienna brick is used, in conjunction with details executed in mouldedterra-cotta, in a highly artistic and effective way. Viterbo, nearerRome, also possesses many interesting houses with street arcades andopen stairways or stoops leading to the main entrance. [Illustration: FIG. 156. --LOGGIA DEI LANZI, FLORENCE. ] The security and prosperity of Venice in the Middle Ages, and the everpresent influence of the sun-loving East, made the massive andfortress-like architecture of the inland cities unnecessary. Abundantopenings, large windows full of tracery of great lightness and elegance, projecting balconies and the freest use of marble veneering andinlay--a survival of Byzantine traditions of the 12th century (seep.  133)--give to the Venetian houses and palaces an air of gayety andelegance found nowhere else. While there are few Gothic churches ofimportance in Venice, the number of mediæval houses and palaces is verylarge. Chief among these is the +Doge’s Palace+ (Fig. 157), adjoiningthe church of St. Mark. The two-storied arcades of the west and southfronts date from 1354, and originally stood out from the main edifice, which was widened in the next century, when the present somewhat heavywalls, laid up in red, white and black marble in a species ofquarry-pattern, were built over the arcades. These arcades are beautifuldesigns, combining massive strength and grace in a manner quite foreignto Western Gothic ideas. Lighter and more ornate is the +Ca d’Oro+, onthe Grand Canal; while the Foscari, Contarini-Fasan, Cavalli, and Pisanipalaces, among many others, are admirable examples of the style. In mostof these a traceried loggia occupies the central part, flanked by wallsincrusted with marble and pierced by Gothic windows with carvedmouldings, borders, and balconies. The Venetian Gothic owes its successlargely to the absence of structural difficulties to interfere with thepurely decorative development of Gothic details. [Illustration: FIG. 157. --WEST FRONT VIEW OF DOGE’S PALACE, VENICE. ] +MONUMENTS. + 13th Century: Cistercian abbeys Fossanova and Casamari, _cir. _ 1208; S.  Andrea, Vercelli, 1209; S.  Francesco, Assisi, 1228-53; Church at Asti, 1229; Sienna C. , 1243-59 (cupola 1259-64; façade 1284); S.  M. Gloriosa dei Frari, Venice, 1250-80 (finished 1388); Sta. Chiara, Assisi, 1250; Sta. Trinità, Florence, 1250; S.  Antonio, Padua, begun 1256; SS. Giovanni e Paolo, Venice, 1260 (?)-1400; Sta. Anastasia, Verona, 1261; Naples C. , 1272-1314 (façade 1299; portal 1407; much altered later); S.  Lorenzo, Naples, 1275; Campo Santo, Pisa, 1278-83; Arezzo C. , 1278; S.  M. Novella, Florence, 1278; S.  Eustorgio, Milan, 1278; S.  M. Sopra Minerva, Rome, 1280; Orvieto C. , 1290 (façade 1310; roof 1330); Sta. Croce, Florence, 1294 (façade 1863); S.  M. Del Fiore, or C. , Florence, 1294-1310 (enlarged 1357; E. End 1366; dome 1420-64; façade 1887); S.  Francesco, Bologna. --14th century: Genoa C. , early 14th century; S.  Francesco, Sienna, 1310; San Domenico, Sienna, about same date; S.  Giovanni in Fonte, Sienna, 1317; S.  M. Della Spina, Pisa, 1323; Campanile, Florence, 1335; Or San Michele, Florence, 1337; Milan C. , 1386 (cupola 16th century; façade 16th-19th century; new façade building 1895); S.  Petronio, Bologna, 1390; Certosa, Pavia, 1396 (choir, transepts, cupola, cloisters, 15th and 16th centuries); Como C. , 1396 (choir and transepts 1513); Lucca C. (S.  Martino), Romanesque building remodelled late in 14th century; Verona C. ; S.  Fermo, Maggiore; S.  Francesco, Pisa; S.  Lorenzo, Vicenza. --15th century: Perugia C. ; S.  M. Delle Grazie, Milan, 1470 (cupola and exterior E. Part later). SECULAR BUILDINGS: Pal. Pubblico, Cremona, 1245; Pal. Podestà (Bargello), Florence, 1255 (enlarged 1333-45); Pal. Pubblico, Sienna, 1289-1305 (many later alterations); Pal. Giureconsulti, Cremona, 1292; Broletto, Monza, 1293; Loggia dei Mercanti, Bologna, 1294; Pal. Vecchio, Florence, 1298; Broletto, Como; Pal. Ducale (Doge’s Palace), Venice, 1310-40 (great windows 1404; extended 1423-38; courtyard 15th and 16th centuries); Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence, 1335; Loggia del Bigallo, 1337; Broletto, Bergamo, 14th century; Loggia dei Nobili, Sienna, 1407; Pal. Pubblico, Udine, 1457; Loggia dei Mercanti, Ancona; Pal. Del Governo, Bologna; Pal. Pepoli, Bologna; Palaces Conte Bardi, Davanzati, Capponi, all at Florence; at Sienna, Pal. Tolomei, 1205; Pal. Saracini, Pal. Buonsignori; at Venice, Pal. Contarini-Fasan, Cavalli, Foscari, Pisani, and many others; others in Padua and Vicenza. CHAPTER XX. EARLY RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Anderson, _Architecture of the Renaissance in Italy_. Burckhardt, _The Civilization of the Renaissance_; _Geschichte der Renaissance in Italien_; _Der Cicerone_. Cellesi, _Sei Fabbriche di Firenze_. Cicognara, _Le Fabbriche più cospicue di Venezia_. Durm, _Die Baukunst der Renaissance in Italien_ (in _Hdbuch. D. Arch. _). Fergusson, _History of Modern Architecture_. Geymüller, _La Renaissance en Toscane_. Montigny et Famin, _Architecture Toscane_. Moore, _Character of Renaissance Architecture_. Müntz, _La Renaissance en Italie et en France à l’époque de Charles VIII. _ Palustre, _L’Architecture de la Renaissance_. Pater, _Studies in the Renaissance_. Symonds, _The Renaissance of the Fine Arts in Italy_. Tosi and Becchio, _Altars, Tabernacles, and Tombs_. +THE CLASSIC REVIVAL. + The abandonment of Gothic architecture in Italyand the substitution in its place of forms derived from classic modelswere occasioned by no sudden or merely local revolution. The Renaissancewas the result of a profound and universal intellectual movement, whoseroots may be traced far back into the Middle Ages, and which manifesteditself first in Italy simply because there the conditions were mostpropitious. It spread through Europe just as rapidly as similarconditions appearing in other countries prepared the way for it. The essence of this far-reaching movement was the protest of theindividual reason against the trammels of external and arbitraryauthority--a protest which found its earliest organized expression inthe Humanists. In its assertion of the intellectual and moral rightsof the individual, the Renaissance laid the foundations of moderncivilization. The same spirit, in rejecting the authority and teachingsof the Church in matters of purely secular knowledge, led to thequestionings of the precursors of modern science and the discoveries ofthe early navigators. But in nothing did the reaction against mediævalscholasticism and asceticism display itself more strikingly than in thejoyful enthusiasm which marked the pursuit of classic studies. Thelong-neglected treasures of classic literature were reopened, almostrediscovered, in the fourteenth century by the immortal trio--Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio. The joy of living, the hitherto forbiddendelight in beauty and pleasure for their own sakes, the exultantawakening to the sense of personal freedom, which came with the burstingof mediæval fetters, found in classic art and literature their mostsympathetic expression. It was in Italy, where feudalism had never fullyestablished itself, and where the municipalities and guilds haddeveloped, as nowhere else, the sense of civic and personal freedom, that these symptoms first manifested themselves. In Italy, and above allin the Tuscan cities, they appeared throughout the fourteenth century inthe growing enthusiasm for all that recalled the antique culture, and inthe rapid advance of luxury and refinement in both public and privatelife. +THE RENAISSANCE OF THE ARTS. + Classic Roman architecture had never lostits influence on the Italian taste. Gothic art, already declining in theWest, had never been in Italy more than a borrowed garb, clothingarchitectural conceptions classic rather than Gothic in spirit. Theantique monuments which abounded on every hand were ever present modelsfor the artist, and to the Florentines of the early fifteenth centurythe civilization which had created them represented the highest ideal ofhuman culture. They longed to revive in their own time the glories ofancient Rome, and appropriated with uncritical and undiscriminatingenthusiasm the good and the bad, the early and the late forms of Romanart, Naïvely unconscious of the disparity between their ownarchitectural conceptions and those they fancied they imitated, theywere, unknown to themselves, creating a new style, in which the detailsof Roman art were fitted in novel combinations to new requirements. Inproportion as the Church lost its hold on the culture of the age, thisnew architecture entered increasingly into the service of private luxuryand public display. It created, it is true, striking types of churchdesign, and made of the dome one of the most imposing of externalfeatures; but its most characteristic products were palaces, villas, council halls, and monuments to the great and the powerful. The personalelement in design asserted itself as never before in the growth ofschools and the development of styles. Thenceforward the history ofItalian architecture becomes the history of the achievements ofindividual artists. +EARLY BEGINNINGS. + Already in the 13th century the pulpits of NiccoloPisano at Sienna and Pisa had revealed that master’s direct recourse toantique monuments for inspiration and suggestion. In the frescoes ofGiotto and his followers, and in the architectural details of manynominally Gothic buildings, classic forms had appeared with increasingfrequency during the fourteenth century. This was especially true inFlorence, which was then the artistic capital of Italy. Never, perhaps, since the days of Pericles, had there been another community sopermeated with the love of beauty in art, and so endowed with thecapacity to realize it. Nowhere else in Europe at that time was theresuch strenuous life, such intense feeling, or such free course forindividual genius as in Florence. Her artists, with unexampledversatility, addressed themselves with equal success to goldsmiths’work, sculpture, architecture and engineering--often to painting andpoetry as well; and they were quick to catch in their art the spirit ofthe classic revival. The new movement achieved its first architecturaltriumph in the dome of the cathedral of Florence (1420-64); and it wasFlorentine--or at least Tuscan--artists who planted in other centres theseeds of the new art that were to spring up in the local and provincialschools of Sienna, Milan, Pavia, Bologna, and Venice, of Brescia, Lucca, Perugia, and Rimini, and many other North Italian cities. The movementasserted itself late in Rome and Naples, as an importation from NorthernItaly, but it bore abundant fruit in these cities in its later stages. +PERIODS. + The classic styles which grew up out of the Renaissance maybe divided for convenience into four periods. THE EARLY RENAISSANCE or FORMATIVE PERIOD, 1420-90; characterized bythe grace and freedom of the decorative detail, suggested by Romanprototypes and applied to compositions of great variety and originality. THE HIGH RENAISSANCE or FORMALLY CLASSIC PERIOD, 1490-1550. During thisperiod classic details were copied with increasing fidelity, the ordersespecially appearing in almost all compositions; decoration meanwhilelosing somewhat in grace and freedom. THE EARLY BAROQUE (or BAROCO), 1550-1600; a period of classic formalitycharacterized by the use of colossal orders, engaged columns and ratherscanty decoration. THE DECLINE or LATER BAROQUE, marked by poverty of invention in thecomposition and a predominance of vulgar sham and display in thedecoration. Broken pediments, huge scrolls, florid stucco-work and ageneral disregard of architectural propriety were universal. During the eighteenth century there was a reaction from theseextravagances, which showed itself in a return to the servile copying ofclassic models, sometimes not without a certain dignity of compositionand restraint in the decoration. By many writers the name Renaissance is confined to the first period. This is correct from the etymological point of view; but it isimpossible to dissociate the first period historically from those whichfollowed it, down to the final exhaustion of the artistic movement towhich it gave birth, in the heavy extravagances of the Rococo. Another division is made by the Italians, who give the name of the_Quattrocento_ to the period which closed with the end of the fifteenthcentury, _Cinquecento_ to the sixteenth century, and _Seicento_ to theseventeenth century or Rococo. It has, however, become common to confinethe use of the term Cinquecento to the first half of the sixteenthcentury. +CONSTRUCTION AND DETAIL. + The architects of the Renaissance occupiedthemselves more with form than with construction, and rarely setthemselves constructive problems of great difficulty. Although the newarchitecture began with the colossal dome of the cathedral of Florence, and culminated in the stupendous church of St. Peter at Rome, it waspre-eminently an architecture of palaces and villas, of façades and ofdecorative display. Constructive difficulties were reduced to theirlowest terms, and the constructive framework was concealed, notemphasized, by the decorative apparel of the design. Among themasterpieces of the early Renaissance are many buildings of smalldimensions, such as gates, chapels, tombs and fountains. In these theindividual fancy had full sway, and produced surprising results by thebeauty of enriched mouldings, of carved friezes with infant genii, wreaths of fruit, griffins, masks and scrolls; by pilasters covered witharabesques as delicate in modelling as if wrought in silver; by inlaysof marble, panels of glazed terra-cotta, marvellously carved doors, finestucco-work in relief, capitals and cornices of wonderful richness andvariety. The Roman orders appeared only in free imitations, withpanelled and carved pilasters for the most part instead of columns, andcapitals of fanciful design, recalling remotely the Corinthian by theirvolutes and leaves (Fig. 158). Instead of the low-pitched classicpediments, there appears frequently an arched cornice enclosing asculptured lunette. Doors and windows were enclosed in richly carvedframes, sometimes arched and sometimes square. Façades were flat andunbroken, depending mainly for effect upon the distribution andadornment of the openings, and the design of doorways, courtyards andcornices. Internally vaults and flat ceilings of wood and plaster wereabout equally common, the barrel vault and dome occurring far morefrequently than the groined vault. Many of the ceilings of this periodare of remarkable richness and beauty. [Illustration: FIG. 158. --EARLY RENAISSANCE CAPITAL, PAL. ZORZI, VENICE. ] +THE EARLY RENAISSANCE IN FLORENCE: THE DUOMO. + In the year 1417 apublic competition was held for completing the cathedral of Florence bya dome over the immense octagon, 143 feet in diameter. _FilippoBrunelleschi_, sculptor and architect (1377-1446), who with Donatellohad journeyed to Rome to study there the masterworks of ancient art, after demonstrating the inadequacy of all the solutions proposed by thecompetitors, was finally permitted to undertake the gigantic taskaccording to his own plans. These provided for an octagonal dome in twoshells, connected by eight major and sixteen minor ribs, and crowned bya lantern at the top (Fig. 159). This wholly original conception, bywhich for the first time (outside of Moslem art) the dome was made anexternal feature fitly terminating in the light forms and upwardmovement of a lantern, was carried out between the years 1420 and 1464. Though in no wise an imitation of Roman forms, it was classic in itsspirit, in its vastness and its simplicity of line, and was madepossible solely by Brunelleschi’s studies of Roman design andconstruction (Fig. 160). [Illustration: FIG. 159. --SECTION OF DOME OF DUOMO, FLORENCE. ] +OTHER CHURCHES. + From Brunelleschi’s designs were also erected the+Pazzi Chapel+ in Sta. Croce, a charming design of a Greek cross coveredwith a dome at the intersection, and preceded by a vestibule with arichly decorated vault; and the two great churches of +S.  Lorenzo+(1425) and +S.  Spirito+ (1433-1476, Fig. 161). Both reproduced in ameasure the plan of the Pisa Cathedral, having a three-aisled nave andtransepts, with a low dome over the crossing. The side aisles werecovered with domical vaults and the central aisles with flat wooden orplaster ceilings. All the details of columns, arches and mouldings wereimitated from Roman models, and yet the result was something entirelynew. Consciously or unconsciously, Brunelleschi was reviving Byzantinerather than Roman conceptions in the planning and structural design ofthese domical churches, but the garb in which he clothed them was Roman, at least in detail. The +Old Sacristy+ of S.  Lorenzo was another domicaldesign of great beauty. From this time on the new style was in general use for church designs. _L. B. Alberti_ (1404-73), who had in Rome mastered classic details morethoroughly than Brunelleschi, remodelled the church of +S.  Francesco+ at+Rimini+ with Roman pilasters and arches, and with engaged orders in thefaçade, which, however, was never completed. His great work was thechurch of +S.  Andrea+ at +Mantua+, a Latin cross in plan, with a dome atthe intersection (the present high dome dating however, only from the18th century) and a façade to which the conception of a Roman triumphalarch was skilfully adapted. His façade of incrusted marbles for thechurch of S.  M. Novella at Florence was a less successful work, thoughits flaring consoles over the side aisles established an unfortunateprecedent frequently imitated in later churches. [Illustration: FIG. 160. --EXTERIOR OF DOME OF DUOMO, FLORENCE. ] [Illustration: FIG. 161. --INTERIOR OF S. SPIRITO, FLORENCE. ] A great activity in church-building marked the period between 1475 and1490. The plans of the churches erected about this time throughout northItaly display an interesting variety of arrangements, in nearly all ofwhich the dome is combined with the three-aisled cruciform plan, eitheras a central feature at the crossing or as a domical vault over eachbay. Bologna and Ferrara possess a number of churches of this kind. Occasionally the basilican arrangement was followed, with columnararcades separating the aisles. More often, however, the pier-arches wereof the Roman type, with engaged columns or pilasters between them. Theinteriors, presumably intended to receive painted decorations, were inmost cases somewhat bare of ornament, pleasing rather by happyproportions and effective vaulting or rich flat ceilings, panelled, painted and gilded, than by elaborate architectural detail. A similarscantiness of ornament is to be remarked in the exteriors, excepting thefaçades, which were sometimes highly ornate; the doorways, with columns, pediments, sculpture and carving, receiving especial attention. Highexternal domes did not come into general use until the next period. InMilan, Pavia, and some other Lombard cities, the internal cupola overthe crossing was, however, covered externally by a lofty structure indiminishing stages, like that of the Certosa at Pavia (Fig. 152), orthat erected by Bramante for the church of S.  M. Delle Grazie at Milan. At Prato, in the church of the +Madonna delle Carceri+ (1495-1516), by_Giuliano da S.  Gallo_, the type of the Pazzi chapel reappears in alarger scale; the plan is cruciform, with equal or nearly equal armscovered by barrel vaults, at whose intersection rises a dome of moderateheight on pendentives. This charming edifice, with its unfinishedexterior of white marble, its simple and dignified lines, and internalembellishments in della-Robbia ware, is one of the masterpieces of theperiod. In the designing of chapels and oratories the architects of the earlyRenaissance attained conspicuous success, these edifices presentingfewer structural limitations and being more purely decorative incharacter than the larger churches. Such façades as that of+S.  Bernardino+ at Perugia and of the +Frati di S.  Spirito+ at Bolognaare among the most delightful products of the decorative fancy of the15th century. [Illustration: FIG. 162. --COURTYARD OF RICCARDI PALACE, FLORENCE. ] [Illustration: FIG. 163. --FAÇADE OF STROZZI PALACE, FLORENCE. ] +FLORENTINE PALACES. + While the architects of this period failed todevelop any new and thoroughly satisfactory ecclesiastical type, theyattained conspicuous success in palace-architecture. The +Riccardi+palace in Florence (1430) marks the first step of the Renaissance inthis direction. It was built for the great Cosimo di Medici by_Michelozzi_ (1397-1473), a contemporary of Brunelleschi and Alberti, and a man of great talent. Its imposing rectangular façade, with widelyspaced mullioned windows in two stories over a massive basement, iscrowned with a classic cornice of unusual and perhaps excessive size. Inspite of the bold and fortress-like character of the rusticated masonryof these façades, and the mediæval look they seem to present to moderneyes, they marked a revolution in style and established a typefrequently imitated in later years. The courtyard, in contrast with thisstern exterior, appears light and cheerful (Fig. 162). Its wall iscarried on round arches borne by columns with Corinthianesque capitals, and the arcade is enriched with sculptured medallions. +The PittiPalace+, by Brunelleschi (1435), embodies the same ideas on a morecolossal scale, but lacks the grace of an adequate cornice. A lighterand more ornate style appeared in 1460 in the +P.  Rucellai+, by Alberti, in which for the first time classical pilasters in superposed stageswere applied to a street façade. To avoid the dilemma of eitherinsufficiently crowning the edifice or making the cornice too heavy forthe upper range of pilasters, Alberti made use of brackets, occupyingthe width of the upper frieze, and converting the whole upperentablature into a cornice. But this compromise was not quitesuccessful, and it remained for later architects in Venice, Verona, andRome to work out more satisfactory methods of applying the orders tomany-storied palace façades. In the great +P.  Strozzi+ (Fig. 163), erected in 1490 by _Benedetto da Majano_ and _Cronaca_, the architectsreverted to the earlier type of the P.  Riccardi, treating it withgreater refinement and producing one of the noblest palaces of Italy. +COURTYARDS; ARCADES. + These palaces were all built around interiorcourts, whose walls rested on columnar arcades, as in the P.  Riccardi(Fig. 162). The origin of these arcades may be found in the arcadedcloisters of mediæval monastic churches, which often suggest classicmodels, as in those of St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls and St. John Lateran atRome. Brunelleschi not only introduced columnar arcades into a number ofcloisters and palace courts, but also used them effectively as exteriorfeatures in the +Loggia S.  Paolo+ and the Foundling Hospital (+Ospedaledegli Innocenti+) at Florence. The chief drawback in these light arcadeswas their inability to withstand the thrust of the vaulting over thespace behind them, and the consequent recourse to iron tie-rods wherevaulting was used. The Italians, however, seemed to care little aboutthis disfigurement. +MINOR WORKS. + The details of the new style were developed quite asrapidly in purely decorative works as in monumental buildings. Altars, mural monuments, tabernacles, pulpits and _ciboria_ afforded scope forthe genius of the most distinguished artists. Among those who werespecially celebrated in works of this kind should be named _Lucca dellaRobbia_ (1400-82) and his successors, _Mino da Fiesole_ (1431-84) and_Benedetto da Majano_ (1442-97). Possessed of a wonderful fertility ofinvention, they and their pupils multiplied their works in extraordinarynumber and variety, not only throughout north Italy, but also in Romeand Naples. Among the most famous examples of this branch of design maybe mentioned a pulpit in Sta. Croce by B. Da Majano; a terra-cottafountain in the sacristy of S.  M. Novella, by the della Robbias; theMarsupini tomb in Sta. Croce, by _Desiderio da Settignano_ (all inFlorence); the della Rovere tomb in S.  M. Del Popolo, Rome, by Mino daFiesole, and in the Cathedral at Lucca the Noceto tomb and theTempietto, by _Matteo Civitali_. It was in works of this character thatthe Renaissance oftenest made its first appearance in a new centre, aswas the case in Sienna, Pisa, Lucca, Naples, etc. [Illustration: FIG. 164. --TOMB OF PIETRO DI NOCETO, LUCCA. ] +NORTH ITALY. + Between 1450 and 1490 the Renaissance presented inSienna, in a number of important palaces, a sharp contrast to theprevalent Gothic style of that city. The +P.  Piccolomini+--a somewhatcrude imitation of the P.  Riccardi in Florence--dates from 1463; the+P.  del Governo+ was built 1469, and the +Spannocchi Palace+ in 1470. In1463 _Ant. Federighi_ built there the +Loggia del Papa+. About the sametime _Bernardo di Lorenzo_ was building for Pope Pius II. (Æneas SylviusPiccolomini) an entirely new city, +Pienza+, with a cathedral, archbishop’s palace, town hall and Papal residence (the+P.  Piccolomini+), which are interesting if not strikingly originalworks. Pisa possesses few early Renaissance structures, owing to theutter prostration of her fortunes in the 15th century, and the dominanceof Pisan Gothic traditions. In Lucca, besides a wealth of minormonuments (largely the work of Matteo Civitali, 1435-1501) in variouschurches, a number of palaces date from this period, the most importantbeing the +P.  Pretorio+ and P.  Bernardini. To Milan the Renaissance wascarried by the Florentine masters _Michelozzi_ and _Filarete_, to whomare respectively due the +Portinari Chapel+ in S.  Eustorgio (1462) andthe earlier part of the great +Ospedale Maggiore+ (1457). In the latter, an edifice of brick with terra-cotta enrichments, the windows wereGothic in outline--an unusual mixture of styles, even in Italy. Themunificence of the Sforzas, the hereditary tyrants of the province, embellished the semi-Gothic +Certosa+ of Pavia with a new marble façade, begun 1476 or 1491, which in its fanciful and exuberant decoration, andthe small scale of its parts, belongs properly to the early Renaissance. Exquisitely beautiful in detail, it resembles rather a magnifiedaltar-piece than a work of architecture, properly speaking. Bologna andFerrara developed somewhat late in the century a strong local school ofarchitecture, remarkable especially for the beauty of its courtyards, its graceful street arcades, and its artistic treatment of brick andterra-cotta (+P.  Bevilacqua+, +P.  Fava+, at Bologna; +P.  Scrofa+, +P.  Roverella+, at Ferrara). About the same time palaces with interiorarcades and details in the new style were erected in Verona, Vicenza, Mantua, and other cities. +VENICE. + In this city of merchant princes and a wealthy _bourgeoisie_, the architecture of the Renaissance took on a new aspect of splendor anddisplay. It was late in appearing, the Gothic style with its tinge ofByzantine decorative traditions having here developed into a style wellsuited to the needs of a rich and relatively tranquil community. Thesetraditions the architects of the new style appropriated in a measure, asin the marble incrustations of the exquisite little church of +S.  M. DeiMiracoli+ (1480-89), and the façade of the +Scuola di S.  Marco+(1485-1533), both by _Pietro Lombardo_. Nowhere else, unless on thecontemporary façade of the Certosa at Pavia, were marble inlays anddelicate carving, combined with a framework of thin pilasters, finelyprofiled entablatures and arched pediments, so lavishly bestowed uponthe street fronts of churches and palaces. The family of the _Lombardi_(Martino, his sons Moro and Pietro, and grandsons Antonio and Tullio), with _Ant. Bregno_ and _Bart. Buon_, were the leaders in thearchitectural Renaissance of this period, and to them Venice owes herchoicest masterpieces in the new style. Its first appearance is noted inthe later portions of the church of +S.  Zaccaria+ (1456-1515), partlyGothic internally, with a façade whose semicircular pediment and smalldecorative arcades show a somewhat timid but interesting application ofclassic details. In this church, and still more so in S.  Giobbe(1451-93) and the Miracoli above mentioned, the decorative elementpredominates throughout. It is hard to imagine details more graceful indesign, more effective in the swing of their movement, or more delicatein execution than the mouldings, reliefs, wreaths, scrolls, and capitalsone encounters in these buildings. Yet in structural interest, in scaleand breadth of planning, these early Renaissance Venetian buildings holda relatively inferior rank. +PALACES. + The great +Court+ of the +Doge’s Palace+, begun 1483 by _Ant. Rizzio_, belongs only in part to the first period. It shows, however, the lack of constructive principle and of largeness of composition justmentioned, but its decorative effect and picturesque variety elicitalmost universal admiration. Like the neighboring façade of St. Mark’s, it violates nearly every principle of correct composition, and yet in ameasure atones for this capital defect by its charm of detail. Far moresatisfactory from the purely architectural point of view is the façadeof the +P.  Vendramini+ (Vendramin-Calergi), by Pietro Lombardo (1481). The simple, stately lines of its composition, the dignity of its broadarched and mullioned windows, separated by engaged columns--the earliestexample in Venice of this feature, and one of the earliest in Italy--itswell-proportioned basement and upper stories, crowned by an adequate butsomewhat heavy entablature, make this one of the finest palaces in Italy(Fig. 165) It established a type of large-windowed, vigorously modelledfaçades which later architects developed, but hardly surpassed. In thesmaller contemporary, P.  Dario, another type appears, better suited forsmall buildings, depending for effect mainly upon well-ordered openingsand incrusted panelling of colored marble. [Illustration: FIG. 165. --VENDRAMINI PALACE, VENICE. ] +ROME. + Internal disorders and the long exile of the popes had by theend of the fourteenth century reduced Rome to utter insignificance. Notuntil the second half of the fifteenth century did returning prosperityand wealth afford the Renaissance its opportunity in the Eternal City. Pope Nicholas V. Had, indeed, begun the rebuilding of St. Peter’s fromdesigns by B. Rossellini, in 1450, but the project lapsed shortly afterwith the death of the pope. The earliest Renaissance building in Romewas the +P.  di Venezia+, begun in 1455, together with the adjoiningporch of S.  Marco. In this palace and the adjoining unfinishedPalazzetto we find the influence of the old Roman monuments clearlymanifested in the court arcades, built like those of the Colosseum, withsuperposed stages of massive piers and engaged columns carryingentablatures. The proportions are awkward, the details coarse; but thespirit of Roman classicism is here seen in the germ. The exterior ofthis palace is, however, still Gothic in spirit. The architects areunknown; _Giuliano da Majano_ (1452-90), _Giacomo di Pietrasanta_, and_Meo del Caprino_ (1430-1501) are known to have worked upon it, but itis not certain in what capacity. The new style, reaching, and in time overcoming, the conservatism of theChurch, overthrew the old basilican traditions. In +S.  Agostino+(1479-83), by _Pietrasanta_, and +S.  M. Del Popolo+, by Pintelli (?), piers with pilasters or half-columns and massive arches separate theaisles, and the crossing is crowned with a dome. To the same periodbelong the Sistine chapel and parts of the Vatican palace, but theinterest of these lies rather in their later decorations than in theirsomewhat scanty architectural merit. The architectural renewal of Rome, thus begun, reached its culminationin the following period. +OTHER MONUMENTS. + The complete enumeration of even the most importantEarly Renaissance monuments of Italy is impossible within our limits. Two or three only can here be singled out as suggesting types. Amongtown halls of this period the first place belongs to the +P.  delConsiglio+ at Verona, by _Fra Giocondo_ (1435-1515). In this beautifuledifice the façade consists of a light and graceful arcade supporting awall pierced with four windows, and covered with elaborate frescoedarabesques (recently restored). Its unfortunate division by pilastersinto four bays, with a pier in the centre, is a blemish avoided in thecontemporary +P.  del Consiglio+ at Padua. The +Ducal Palace+ at Urbino, by _Luciano da Laurano_ (1468), is noteworthy for its fine arcadedcourt, and was highly famed in its day. At Brescia +S.  M. Dei Miracoli+is a remarkable example of a cruciform domical church dating from theclose of this period, and is especially celebrated for the exuberantdecoration of its porch and its elaborate detail. Few campaniles werebuilt in this period; the best of them are at Venice. Naples possessesseveral interesting Early Renaissance monuments, chief among which arethe +Porta Capuana+ (1484), by _Giul. Da Majano_, the triumphal +Arch ofAlphonso+ of Arragon, by _Pietro di Martino_, and the +P.  Gravina+, by_Gab. D’Agnolo_. Naples is also very rich in minor works of the earlyRenaissance, in which it ranks with Florence, Venice, and Rome. CHAPTER XXI. RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY--_Continued_. THE ADVANCED RENAISSANCE AND DECLINE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Burckhardt, Cicognara, Fergusson, Palustre. Also, Gauthier, _Les plus beaux edifices de Gênes_. Geymüller, _Les projets primitifs pour la basilique de St. Pierre de Rome_. Gurlitt, _Geschichte des Barockstiles in Italien_. Letarouilly, _Édifices de Rome Moderne_; _Le Vatican_. Palladio, _The Works of A. Palladio_. +CHARACTER OF THE ADVANCED RENAISSANCE. + It was inevitable that thestudy and imitation of Roman architecture should lead to an increasinglyliteral rendering of classic details and a closer copying of antiquecompositions. Toward the close of the fifteenth century the symptomsbegan to multiply of the approaching reign of formal classicism. Correctness in the reproduction of old Roman forms came in time to beesteemed as one of the chief of architectural virtues, and in thefollowing period the orders became the principal resource of thearchitect. During the so-called Cinquecento, that is, from the close ofthe fifteenth century to nearly or quite 1550, architecture stillretained much of the freedom and refinement of the Quattrocento. Therewas meanwhile a notable advance in dignity and amplitude of design, especially in the internal distribution of buildings. Externally theorders were freely used as subordinate features in the decoration ofdoors and windows, and in court arcades of the Roman type. Thelantern-crowned dome upon a high drum was developed into one of thenoblest of architectural forms. Great attention was bestowed upon allsubordinate features; doors and windows were treated with frames andpediments of extreme elegance and refinement; all the cornices andmouldings were proportioned and profiled with the utmost care, and thebalustrade was elaborated into a feature at once useful and highlyornate. Interior decoration was even more splendid than before, ifsomewhat less delicate and subtle; relief enrichments in stucco wereused with admirable effect, and the greatest artists exercised theirtalents in the painting of vaults and ceilings, as in P.  del Té atMantua, by _Giulio Romano_ (1492-1546), and the Sistine Chapel at Rome, by Michael Angelo. This period is distinguished by an exceptional numberof great architects and buildings. It was ushered in by _BramanteLazzari_, of Urbino (1444-1514), and closed during the career of_Michael Angelo Buonarotti_ (1475-1564); two names worthy to rank withthat of Brunelleschi. Inferior only to these in architectural geniuswere _Raphael_ (1483-1520), _Baldassare Peruzzi_ (1481-1536), _Antonioda San Gallo the Younger_ (1485-1546), and _G. Barozzi da Vignola_(1507-1572), in Rome; _Giacopo Tatti Sansovino_ (1479-1570), in Venice, and others almost equally illustrious. This period witnessed theerection of an extraordinary series of palaces, villas, and churches, the beginning and much of the construction of St. Peter’s at Rome, and acomplete transformation in the aspect of that city. +BRAMANTE’S WORKS. + While precise time limits cannot be set toarchitectural styles, it is not irrational to date this period from thematuring of Bramante’s genius. While his earlier works in Milan belongto the Quattrocento (S.  M. Delle Grazie, the sacristy of San Satiro, theextension of the Great Hospital), his later designs show the classictendency very clearly. The charming +Tempietto+ in the court ofS.  Pietro in Montorio at Rome, a circular temple-like chapel (1502), iscomposed of purely classic elements. In the +P.  Giraud+ (Fig. 166) andthe great +Cancelleria+ Palace, pilasters appear in the externalcomposition, and all the details of doors and windows betray the resultsof classic study, as well as the refined taste of their designer. [24]The beautiful courtyard of the Cancelleria combines the Florentinesystem of arches on columns with the Roman system of superposed arcadesindependent of the court wall. In 1506 Bramante began the rebuilding ofSt. Peter’s for Julius II. (see p.  294) and the construction of a newand imposing papal palace adjoining it on the Vatican hill. Of thiscolossal group of edifices, commonly known as the +Vatican+, he executedthe greater Belvedere court (afterward divided in two by the Library andthe Braccio Nuovo), the lesser octagonal court of the Belvedere, and thecourt of San Damaso, with its arcades afterward frescoed by Raphael andhis school. Besides these, the cloister of S.  M. Della Pace, and manyother works in and out of Rome, reveal the impress of Bramante’s genius, alike in their admirable plans and in the harmony and beauty of theirdetails. [Footnote 24: See Appendix C. ] [Illustration: FIG. 166. --FAÇADE OF THE GIRAUD PALACE, ROME. ] +FLORENTINE PALACES. + The P. Riccardi long remained the accepted type ofpalace in Florence. As we have seen, it was imitated in the Strozzipalace, as late as 1489, with greater perfection of detail, but with noradical change of conception. In the +P.  Gondi+, however, begun in thefollowing year by _Giuliano da San Gallo_ (1445-1516), a more pronouncedclassic spirit appears, especially in the court and the interior design. Early in the 16th century classic columns and pediments began to be usedas decorations for doors and windows; the rustication was confined tobasements and corner-quoins, and niches, loggias, and porches gavevariety of light and shade to the façades (+P.  Bartolini+, by _Bacciod’Agnolo_; +P.  Larderel+, 1515, by _Dosio_; +P.  Guadagni+, by _Cronaca_;+P.  Pandolfini+, 1518, attributed to Raphael). In the +P.  Serristori+, by Baccio d’Agnolo (1510), pilasters were applied to the composition ofthe façade, but this example was not often followed in Florence. +ROMAN PALACES. + These followed a different type. They were usually ofgreat size, and built around ample courts with arcades of classic modelin two or three stories. The broad street façade in three stories withan attic or mezzanine was crowned with a rich cornice. The orders weresparingly used externally, and effect was sought principally in thecareful proportioning of the stories, in the form and distribution ofthe square-headed and arched openings, and in the design of mouldings, string-courses, cornices, and other details. The _piano nobile_, orfirst story above the basement, was given up to suites of sumptuousreception-rooms and halls, with magnificent ceilings and frescoes by thegreat painters of the day, while antique statues and reliefs adorned thecourts, vestibules, and niches of these princely dwellings. The+Massimi+ palace, by Peruzzi, is an interesting example of this type. The Vatican, Cancelleria, and Giraud palaces have already beenmentioned; other notable palaces are the Palma (1506) and Sacchetti(1540), by A. Da San Gallo the Younger; the +Farnesina+, by Peruzzi, with celebrated fresco decorations designed by Raphael; and the Lante(1520) and Altemps (1530), by Peruzzi. But the noblest creation of thisperiod was the +FARNESE PALACE+, by many esteemed the finest in Italy. It was begun in1530 for Alex. Farnese (Paul III. ) by A.  da San Gallo the Younger, withVignola’s collaboration. The simple but admirable plan is shown in Fig. 167, and the courtyard, the most imposing in Italy, in Fig. 168. Theexterior is monotonous, but the noble cornice by Michael Angelomeasurably redeems this defect. The fine vaulted columnar entrancevestibule, the court and the _salons_, make up an _ensemble_ worthy ofthe great architects who designed it. The loggia toward the river wasadded by _G. Della Porta_ in 1580. [Illustration: FIG. 167. --PLAN OF FARNESE PALACE. ] +VILLAS. + The Italian villa of this pleasure-loving period afforded fullscope for the most playful fancies of the architect, decorator, andlandscape gardener. It comprised usually a dwelling, a _casino_ oramusement-house, and many minor edifices, summer-houses, arcades, etc. , disposed in extensive grounds laid out with terraces, cascades, andshaded alleys. The style was graceful, sometimes trivial, but almostalways pleasing, making free use of stucco enrichments, both internallyand externally, with abundance of gilding and frescoing. The +VillaMadama+ (1516), by Raphael, with stucco-decorations by Giulio Romano, though incomplete and now dilapidated, is a noted example of the style. More complete, the +Villa of Pope Julius+, by Vignola (1550), belongs byits purity of style to this period; its façade well exemplifies thesimplicity, dignity, and fine proportions of this master’s work. Inaddition to these Roman villas may be mentioned the +V. Medici+ (1540, by _Annibale Lippi_; now the French Academy of Rome); the +Casino delPapa+ in the Vatican Gardens, by _Pirro Ligorio_ (1560); the +V. Lante+, near Viterbo, and the +V. D’Este+, at Tivoli, as displaying among almostcountless others the Italian skill in combining architecture andgardening. [Illustration: FIG. 168. --ANGLE OF COURT OF FARNESE PALACE, ROME. ] +CHURCHES AND CHAPELS. + This period witnessed the building of a fewchurches of the first rank, but it was especially prolific in memorial, votive, and sepulchral chapels added to churches already existing, likethe +Chigi Chapel+ of S.  M. Del Popolo, by Raphael. The earlier churchesof this period generally followed antecedent types, with the dome as thecentral feature dominating a cruciform plan, and simple, unostentatiousand sometimes uninteresting exteriors. Among them may be mentioned: atPistoia, S.  M. Del Letto and +S.  M. Dell’ Umiltà+, the latter a finedomical rotunda by _Ventura Vitoni_ (1509), with an imposing vestibule;at Venice, +S.  Salvatore+, by _Tullio Lombardo_ (1530), an admirableedifice with alternating domical and barrel-vaulted bays; +S.  Georgiodei Grechi+ (1536), by _Sansovino_, and S.  M. Formosa; at Todi, the+Madonna della Consolazione+ (1510), by _Cola da Caprarola_, a charmingdesign with a high dome and four apses; at Montefiascone, the +Madonnadelle Grazie+, by _Sammichele_ (1523), besides several churches atBologna, Ferrara, Prato, Sienna, and Rome of almost or quite equalinterest. In these churches one may trace the development of the dome asan external feature, while in +S.  Biagio+, at Montepulciano, the effortwas made by _Ant. Da San Gallo the Elder_ to combine with it thecontrasting lines of two campaniles, of which, however, but one wascompleted. [Illustration: FIG. 169. --ORIGINAL PLAN OF ST. PETER’S, ROME. ] +ST. PETER’S. + The culmination of Renaissance church architecture wasreached in +St. Peter’s+, at Rome. The original project of Nicholas V. Having lapsed with his death, it was the intention of Julius II. Toerect on the same site a stupendous mausoleum over the monument he hadordered of Michael Angelo. The design of Bramante, who began itserection in 1506, comprised a Greek cross with apsidal arms, the fourangles occupied by domical chapels and loggias within a square outline(Fig. 169). The too hasty execution of this noble design led to thecollapse of two of the arches under the dome, and to long delays afterBramante’s death in 1514. Raphael, Giuliano da San Gallo, Peruzzi, andA. Da San Gallo the Younger successively supervised the works under thepopes from Leo X. To Paul III. , and devised a vast number of plans forits completion. Most of these involved fundamental alterations of theoriginal scheme, and were motived by the abandonment of the proposedmonument of Julius II. ; a church, and not a mausoleum, being inconsequence required. In 1546 Michael Angelo was assigned by Paul III. To the works, and gave final form to the general design in a simplifiedversion of Bramante’s plan with more massive supports, a square eastfront with a portico for the chief entrance, and the unrivalled +Dome+, which is its most striking feature. This dome, slightly altered andimproved in curvature by della Porta after M. Angelo’s death in 1564, was completed by _D. Fontana_ in 1604. It is the most majestic creationof the Renaissance, and one of the greatest architectural conceptions ofall history. It measures 140 feet in internal diameter, and with its twoshells rises from a lofty drum, buttressed by coupled Corinthiancolumns, to a height of 405 feet to the top of the lantern. The church, as left by Michael Angelo, was harmonious in its proportions, though thesingle order used internally and externally dwarfed by its colossalscale the vast dimensions of the edifice. Unfortunately in 1606 _C. Maderna_ was employed by Paul V. To lengthen the nave by two bays, destroying the proportions of the whole, and hiding the dome from viewon a near approach. The present tasteless façade was Maderna’s work. Thesplendid atrium or portico added (1629-67), by _Bernini_, as anapproach, mitigates but does not cure the ugliness and pettiness of thisfront. [Illustration: FIG. 170. --PLAN OF ST. PETER’S, ROME, AS NOW STANDING. The portion below the line A, B, and the side chapels C, D, were added by Maderna. The remainder represents Michael Angelo’s plan. ] St. Peter’s as thus completed (Fig. 170) is the largest church inexistence, and in many respects is architecturally worthy of itspre-eminence. The central aisle, nearly 600 feet long, with itsstupendous panelled and gilded vault, 83 feet in span, the vast centralarea and the majestic dome, belong to a conception unsurpassed inmajestic simplicity and effectiveness. The construction is almostexcessively massive, but admirably disposed. On the other hand the naveis too long, and the details not only lack originality and interest, butare also too large and coarse in scale, dwarfing the whole edifice. Theinterior (Fig. 171) is wanting in the sobriety of color that befits sostately a design; it suggests rather a pagan temple than a Christianbasilica. These faults reveal the decline of taste which had already setin before Michael Angelo took charge of the work, and which appears evenin the works of that master. +THE PERIOD OF FORMAL CLASSICISM. + With the middle of the 16th centurythe classic orders began to dominate all architectural design. WhileVignola, who wrote a treatise upon the orders, employed them withunfailing refinement and judgment, his contemporaries showed lessdiscernment and taste, making of them an end rather than a means. Toooften mere classical correctness was substituted for the fundamentalqualities of original invention ind intrinsic beauty of composition. Theinnovation of colossal orders extending through several stories, whileit gave to exterior designs a certain grandeur of scale, tended tocoarseness and even vulgarity of detail. Sculpture and ornament began tolose their refinement; and while street-architecture gained inmonumental scale, and public squares received a more stately adornmentthan ever before, the street-façades individually were too often bareand uninteresting in their correct formality. In the interiors ofchurches and large halls there appears a struggle between a cold anddignified simplicity and a growing tendency toward pretentious sham. Butthese pernicious tendencies did not fully mature till the latter part ofthe century, and the half-century after 1540 or 1550 was prolific ofnotable works in both ecclesiastical and secular architecture. The namesof Michael Angelo and Vignola, whose careers began in the precedingperiod; of Palladio and della Porta (1541-1604) in Rome; of Sammicheleand Sansovino in Verona and Venice, and of Galeazzo Alessi in Genoa, stand high in the ranks of architectural merit. [Illustration: FIG. 171. --INTERIOR OF ST. PETER’S, ROME. ] +CHURCHES. + The type established by St. Peter’s was widely imitatedthroughout Italy. The churches in which a Greek or Latin cross isdominated by a high dome rising from a drum and terminating in alantern, and is treated both internally and externally with RomanCorinthian pilasters and arches, are almost numberless. Among the bestchurches of this type is the +Gesù+ at Rome, by Vignola (1568), with ahighly ornate interior of excellent proportions and a less interestingexterior, the façade adorned with two stories of orders and greatflanking volutes over the sides (see p.  277). Two churches at Venice, by_Palladio_--+S.  Giorgio Maggiore+ (1560; façade by _Scamozzi_, 1575) andthe +Redentore+--offer a strong contrast to the Gesù, in their cold andalmost bare but pure and correct design. An imitation of Bramante’s planfor St. Peter’s appears in +S.  M. Di Carignano+, at Genoa, by _GaleazzoAlessi_ (1500-72), begun 1552, a fine structure, though inferior inscale and detail to its original. Besides these and other importantchurches there were many large domical chapels of great splendor addedto earlier churches; of these the +Chapel of Sixtus V. + in S.  M. Maggiore, at Rome, by _D. Fontana_ (1543-1607), is an excellent example. +PALACES: ROME. + The palaces on the Capitoline Hill, built at differentdates (1540-1644) from designs by Michael Angelo, illustrate the palacearchitecture of this period, and the imposing effect of a singlecolossal order running through two stories. This treatment, though welladapted to produce monumental effects in large squares, was dangerous inits bareness and heaviness of scale, and was better suited for buildingsof vast dimensions than for ordinary street-façades. In other Romanpalaces of this time the traditions of the preceding period stillprevailed, as in the +Sapienza+ (University), by della Porta (1575), which has a dignified court and a façade of great refinement withoutcolumns or pilasters. The +Papal palaces+ built by Domenico Fontana onthe Lateran, Quirinal, and Vatican hills, between 1574 and 1590, externally copying the style of the Farnese, show a similar return toearlier models, but are less pure and refined in detail than theSapienza. The great pentagonal +Palace of Caprarola+, near Rome, byVignola, is perhaps the most successful and imposing production of theRoman classic school. +VERONA. + Outside of Rome, palace-building took on various local andprovincial phases of style, of which the most important were the closelyrelated styles of Verona, Venice, and Vicenza. _Michele Sammichele_(1484-1549), who built in Verona the +Bevilacqua+, +Canossa+, +Pompei+, and +Verzi+ palaces and the four chief city gates, and in Venice the+P.  Grimani+, his masterpiece (1550), was a designer of greatoriginality and power. He introduced into his military architecture, asin the gates of Verona, the use of rusticated orders, which he treatedwith skill and taste. The idea was copied by later architects andapplied, with doubtful propriety, to palace-façades; though Ammanati’sgarden-façade for the Pitti palace, in Florence (cir. 1560), is animpressive and successful design. +VENICE. + Into the development of the maturing classic style _GiacopoTatti Sansovino_ (1477-1570) introduced in his Venetian buildings newelements of splendor. Coupled columns between arches themselvessupported on columns, and a profusion of figure sculpture, gave to hispalace-façades a hitherto unknown magnificence of effect, as in the+Library of St. Mark+ (now the Royal Palace, Fig. 172), and the+Cornaro+ palace (P.  Corner de Cà Grande), both dating from about1530-40. So strongly did he impress upon Venice these ornate andsumptuous variations on classic themes, that later architects adhered, in a very debased period, to the main features and spirit of his work. [Illustration: FIG. 172. --LIBRARY OF ST. MARK, VENICE. ] +VICENZA. + Of _Palladio’s_ churches in Venice we have already spoken;his palaces are mainly to be found in his native city, Vicenza. In thesestructures he displayed great fertility of invention and a profoundfamiliarity with the classic orders, but the degenerate taste of theBaroque period already begins to show itself in his work. There is farless of architectural propriety and grace in these pretentious palaces, with their colossal orders and their affectation of grandeur, than inthe designs of Vignola or Sammichele. Wood and plaster, used to mimicstone, indicate the approaching reign of sham in all design(+P.  Barbarano+, 1570; +Chieregati+, 1560; +Tiene+, +Valmarano+, 1556;+Villa Capra+). His masterpiece is the two-storied arcade about themediæval +Basilica+, in which the arches are supported on a minor orderbetween engaged columns serving as buttresses. This treatment has inconsequence ever since been known as the _Palladian Motive_. +GENOA. + During the second half of the sixteenth century a remarkableseries of palaces was erected in Genoa, especially notable for theirgreat courts and imposing staircases. These last were given unusualprominence owing to differences of level in the courts, arising from theslope of their sites on the hillside. Many of these palaces were byGaleazzo Alessi (1502-72); others by architects of lesser note; butnearly all characterized by their effective planning, fine stairs andloggias, and strong and dignified, if sometimes uninteresting, detail(+P.  Balbi+, +Brignole+, +Cambiasi+, +Doria-Tursi+ [or Municipio], +Durazzo+ [or Reale], +Pallavicini+, and +University+). [Illustration: FIG. 173. --INTERIOR OF SAN SEVERO, NAPLES. ] +THE BAROQUE STYLE. + A reaction from the cold _classicismo_ of the latesixteenth century showed itself in the following period, in the lawlessand vulgar extravagances of the so-called _Baroque_ style. The wealthyJesuit order was a notorious contributor to the debasement ofarchitectural taste. Most of the Jesuit churches and many others notbelonging to the order, but following its pernicious example, aremonuments of bad taste and pretentious sham. Broken and contortedpediments, huge scrolls, heavy mouldings, ill-applied sculpture inexaggerated attitudes, and a general disregard for architecturalpropriety characterized this period, especially in its churcharchitecture, to whose style the name _Jesuit_ is often applied. Shammarble and heavy and excessive gilding were universal (Fig. 173). _C. Maderna_ (1556-1629), _Lorenzo Bernini_ (1589-1680), and _F.  Borromini_(1599-1667) were the worst offenders of the period, though Bernini wasan artist of undoubted ability, as proved by his colonnades or atrium infront of St. Peter’s. There were, however, architects of purer tastewhose works even in that debased age were worthy of admiration. [Illustration: FIG. 174. --CHURCH OF S. M. DELLA SALUTE, VENICE. ] +BAROQUE CHURCHES. + The Baroque style prevailed in church architecturefor almost two centuries. The majority of the churches present varietiesof the cruciform plan crowned by a high dome which is usually the bestpart of the design. Everywhere else the vices of the period appear inthese churches, especially in their façades and internal decoration. +S.  M. Della Vittoria+, by Maderna, and +Sta. Agnese+, by Borromini, both at Rome, are examples of the style. Naples is particularly full ofBaroque churches (Fig. 173), a few of which, like the +Gesù Nuovo+(1584), are dignified and creditable designs. The domical church of+S.  M. Della Salute+, at Venice (1631), by Longhena, is also a majesticedifice in excellent style (Fig. 174), and here and there other churchesoffer exceptions to the prevalent baseness of architecture. Particularlyobjectionable was the wholesale disfigurement of existing monuments byruthless remodelling, as in S.  John Lateran, at Rome, the cathedrals ofFerrara and Ravenna, and many others. +PALACES. + These were generally superior to the churches, and notinfrequently impressive and dignified structures. The two best examplesin Rome are the +P.  Borghese+, by _Martino Lunghi the Elder_ (1590), with a fine court arcade on coupled Doric and Ionic columns, and the+P.  Barberini+, by Maderna and Borromini, with an elliptical staircaseby Bernini, one of the few palaces in Italy with projecting lateralwings. In Venice, Longhena, in the +Rezzonico+ and +Pesaro+ palaces(1650-80), showed his freedom from the mannerisms of the age byreproducing successfully the ornate but dignified style of Sansovino(see p.  301). At Naples D.  Fontana, whose works overlap the Baroqueperiod, produced in the +Royal Palace+ (1600) and the +Royal Museum+(1586-1615) designs of considerable dignity, in some respects superiorto his papal residences in Rome. In suburban villas, like the +Albani+and +Borghese+ villas near Rome, the ostentatious style of the Declinefound free and congenial expression. +LATER MONUMENTS. + In the few eighteenth-century buildings which areworthy of mention there is noticeable a reaction from the extravagancesof the seventeenth century, shown in the dignified correctness of theexteriors and the somewhat frigid splendor of the interiors. The mostnotable work of this period is the +Royal Palace+ at +Caserta+, by _VanVitelli_ (1752), an architect of considerable taste and inventiveness, considering his time. This great palace, 800 feet square, encloses fourfine courts, and is especially remarkable for the simple if monotonousdignity of the well proportioned exterior and the effective planning ofits three octagonal vestibules, its ornate chapel and noble staircase. Staircases, indeed, were among the most successful features of lateItalian architecture, as in the +Scala Regia+ of the Vatican, and in theCorsini, Braschi, and Barberini palaces at Rome, the Royal Palace atNaples, etc. In church architecture the +east front+ of +S.  John Lateran+ in Rome, by_Galilei_ (1734), and the whole +exterior+ of +S.  M. Maggiore+, by_Ferd. Fuga_ (1743), are noteworthy designs: the former an especiallypowerful conception, combining a colossal order with two smaller ordersin superposed _loggie_, but marred by the excessive scale of the statueswhich crown it. The +Fountain+ of +Trevi+, conceived in much the samespirit (1735, by _Niccola Salvi_), is a striking piece of decorativearchitecture. The Sacristy of St. Peter’s, by _Marchionne_ (1775), alsodeserves mention as a monumental and not uninteresting work. In theearly years of the present century the +Braccio Nuovo+ of the Vatican, by _Stern_, the imposing church of +S.  Francesco di Paola+ at Naples, by_Bianchi_, designed in partial imitation of the Pantheon, and the great+S.  Carlo Theatre+ at Naples, show the same coldly classical spirit, notwholly without merit, but lacking in true originality and freedom ofconception. +CAMPANILES. + The +campaniles+ of the Renaissance and Decline deserve atleast passing reference, though they are neither numerous nor often ofconspicuous interest. That of the +Campidoglio+ (Capitol) at Rome, byMartino Lunghi, is a good example of the classical type. Venetiapossesses a number of graceful and lofty bell-towers, generally of brickwith marble bell-stages, of which the upper part of the +Campanile+ of+St. Mark+ and the tower of S.  Giorgio Maggiore are the finest examples. The Decline attained what the early Renaissance aimed at--the revival ofRoman forms. But it was no longer a Renaissance; it was a decrepit andunimaginative art, held in the fetters of a servile imitation, copyingthe letter rather than the spirit of antique design. It was the mistakenand abject worship of precedent which started architecture upon itsdownward path and led to the atrocious products of the seventeenthcentury. +MONUMENTS+ (mainly in addition to those mentioned in the text). 15TH CENTURY--FLORENCE: Foundling Hospital (Innocenti), 1421; Old Sacristy and Cloister S.  Lorenzo; P.  Quaratesi, 1440; cloisters at Sta. Croce and Certosa, all by Brunelleschi; façade S.  M. Novella, by Alberti, 1456; Badia at Fiesole, from designs of Brunelleschi, 1462; Court of P.  Vecchio, by Michelozzi, 1464 (altered and enriched, 1565); P.  Guadagni, by Cronaca, 1490; Hall of 500 in P.  Vecchio, by same, 1495. --VENICE: S.  Zaccaria, by Martino Lombardo, 1457-1515; S.  Michele, by Moro Lombardo, 1466; S.  M. Del Orto, 1473; S.  Giovanni Crisostomo, by Moro Lombardo, atrium of S.  Giovanni Evangelista, Procurazie Vecchie, all 1481; Scuola di S.  Marco, by Martino Lombardo, 1490; P.  Dario; P.  Corner-Spinelli. --FERRARA: P.  Schifanoja, 1469; P.  Scrofa or Costabili, 1485; S.  M. In Vado, P.  dei Diamanti, P.  Bevilacqua, S.  Francesco, S.  Benedetto, S.  Cristoforo, all 1490-1500. --MILAN: Ospedale Grande (or Maggiore), begun 1457 by Filarete, extended by Bramante, cir. 1480-90 (great court by Richini, 17th century); S.  M. Delle Grazie, E. End, Sacristy of S.  Satiro, S.  M. Presso S.  Celso, all by Bramante, 1477-1499. --ROME: S.  Pietro in Montorio, 1472; S.  M. Del Popolo, 1475?; Sistine Chapel of Vatican, 1475; S.  Agostino, 1483. --SIENNA: Loggia del Papa and P.  Nerucci, 1460; P.  del Governo, 1469-1500; P.  Spannocchi, 1470; Sta. Catarina, 1490, by di Bastiano and Federighi, church later by Peruzzi; Library in cathedral by L. Marina, 1497; Oratory of S.  Bernardino, by Turrapili, 1496. --PIENZA: Cathedral, Bishop’s Palace (Vescovado), P.  Pubblico, all cir. 1460, by B. Di Lorenzo (or Rosselini?). ELSEWHERE (in chronological order): Arch of Alphonso, Naples, 1443, by P.  di Martino; Oratory S.  Bernardino, Perugia, by di Duccio, 1461; Church over Casa-Santa, Loreto, 1465-1526; P.  del Consiglio at Verona, by Fra Giocondo, 1476; Capella Colleoni, Bergamo, 1476; S.  M. In Organo, Verona, 1481; Porta Capuana, Naples, by Giul. Da Majano, 1484; Madonna della Croce, Crema, by B. Battagli, 1490-1556; Madonna di Campagna and S.  Sisto, Piacenza, both 1492-1511; P.  Bevilacqua, Bologna, by Nardi, 1492 (?); P.  Gravina, Naples; P.  Fava, Bologna; P.  Pretorio, Lucca; S.  M. Dei Miracoli Brescia; all at close of 15th century. 16TH CENTURY--ROME: P.  Sora, 1501; S.  M. Della Pace and cloister, 1504, both by Bramante (façade of church by P.  da Cortona, 17th century); S.  M. Di Loreto, 1507, by A. Da San Gallo the Elder; P.  Vidoni, by Raphael; P.  Lante, 1520; Vigna Papa Giulio, 1534, by Peruzzi; P.  dei Conservatori, 1540, and P.  del Senatore, 1563 (both on Capitol), by M. Angelo, Vignola, and della Porta; Sistine Chapel in S.  M. Maggiore, 1590; S.  Andrea della Valle, 1591, by Olivieri (façade, 1670, by Rainaldi). --FLORENCE: Medici Chapel of S.  Lorenzo, new sacristy of same, and Laurentian Library, all by M. Angelo, 1529-40; Mercato Nuovo, 1547, by B. Tasso; P.  degli Uffizi, 1560-70, by Vasari; P.  Giugni, 1560-8. --VENICE: P.  Camerlinghi, 1525, by Bergamasco; S.  Francesco della Vigna, by Sansovino, 1539, façade by Palladio, 1568; Zecca or Mint, 1536, and Loggetta of Campanile, 1540, by Sansovino[25], Procurazie Nuove, 1584, by Scamozzi. --VERONA: Capella Pellegrini in S.  Bernardino, 1514; City Gates, by Sammichele, 1530-40 (Porte Nuova, Stuppa, S.  Zeno, S.  Giorgio). --VICENZA: P.  Porto, 1552; Teatro Olimpico, 1580; both by Palladio. --GENOA: P.  Andrea Doria, by Montorsoli, 1529; P.  Ducale, by Pennone, 1550; P.  Lercari, P.  Spinola, P.  Sauli, P.  Marcello Durazzo, all by Gal. Alessi, cir. 1550; Sta. Annunziata, 1587, by della Porta; Loggia dei Banchi, end of 16th century. --ELSEWHERE (in chronological order). P.  Roverella, Ferrara, 1508; P.  del Magnifico, Sienna, 1508, by Cozzarelli; P.  Communale, Brescia, 1508, by Formentone; P.  Albergati, Bologna, 1510; P.  Ducale, Mantua, 1520-40; P.  Giustiniani, Padua, by Falconetto, 1524; Ospedale del Ceppo, Pistoia, 1525; Madonna delle Grazie, Pistoia, by Vitoni, 1535; P.  Buoncampagni-Ludovisi, Bologna, 1545; Cathedral, Padua, 1550, by Righetti and della Valle, after M. Angelo; P.  Bernardini, 1560, and P.  Ducale, 1578, at Lucca, both by Ammanati. [Footnote 25: See Appendix B. ] 17TH CENTURY: Chapel of the Princes in S.  Lorenzo, Florence, 1604, by Nigetti; S.  Pietro, Bologna, 1605; S.  Andrea delle Fratte, Rome, 1612; Villa Borghese, Rome, 1616, by Vasanzio; P.  Contarini delle Scrigni, Venice, by Scamozzi; Badia at Florence, rebuilt 1625 by Segaloni; S.  Ignazio, Rome, 1626-85; Museum of the Capitol, Rome, 1644-50; Church of Gli Scalzi, Venice, 1649; P.  Pesaro, Venice, by Longhena, 1650; S.  Moisé, Venice, 1668; Brera Palace, Milan; S.  M. Zobenigo, Venice, 1680; Dogana di Mare, Venice, 1686, by Benone; Santi Apostoli, Rome. 18TH AND EARLY 19TH CENTURY: Gesuati, at Venice, 1715-30; S.  Geremia, Venice, 1753, by Corbellini; P.  Braschi, Rome, by Morelli, 1790; Nuova Fabbrica, Venice, 1810. CHAPTER XXII. RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN FRANCE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Fergusson, Müntz, Palustre. Also Berty, _La Renaissance monumentale en France_. Château, _Histoire et caractères de l’architecture en France_. Daly, _Motifs historiques d’architecture et de sculpture_. De Laborde, _La Renaissance des arts à la cour de France_. Du Cerceau, _Les plus excellents bastiments de France_. Lübke, _Geschichte der Renaissance in Frankreich_. Mathews, _The Renaissance under the Valois Kings_. Palustre, _La Renaissance en France_. Pattison, _The Renaissance of the Fine Arts in France_. Rouyer et Darcel, _L’Art architectural en France_. Sauvageot, _Choix de palais, châteaux, hôtels, et maisons de France_. +ORIGIN AND CHARACTER. + The vitality and richness of the Gothic style inFrance, even in its decline in the fifteenth century, long stood in theway of any general introduction of classic forms. When the Renaissanceappeared, it came as a foreign importation, introduced from Italy by theking and the nobility. It underwent a protracted transitional phase, during which the national Gothic forms and traditions were picturesquelymingled with those of the Renaissance. The campaigns of Charles VIII. (1489), Louis XII. (1499), and Francis I. (1515), in vindication oftheir claims to the thrones of Naples and Milan, brought these monarchsand their nobles into contact with the splendid material and artisticcivilization of Italy, then in the full tide of the maturingRenaissance. They returned to France, filled with the ambition to rivalthe splendid palaces and gardens of Italy, taking with them Italianartists to teach their arts to the French. But while these Italianssuccessfully introduced many classic elements and details into Frencharchitecture, they wholly failed to dominate the French master-masonsand _tailleurs de pierre_ in matters of planning and generalcomposition. The early Renaissance architecture of France isconsequently wholly unlike the Italian, from which it derived only minordetails and a certain largeness and breadth of spirit. +PERIODS. + The French Renaissance and its sequent developments may bebroadly divided into three periods, with subdivisions coinciding more orless closely with various reigns, as follows: I. THE VALOIS PERIOD, or Renaissance proper, 1483-1589, subdivided into: _a. _ THE TRANSITION, comprising the reigns of Charles VIII. And LouisXII. (1483-1515), and the early years of that of Francis I. ;characterized by a picturesque mixture of classic details with Gothicconceptions. _b. _ THE STYLE OF FRANCIS I. , or Early Renaissance, from about 1520 tothat king’s death in 1547; distinguished by a remarkable variety andgrace of composition and beauty of detail. _c. _ THE ADVANCED RENAISSANCE, comprising the reigns of Henry II. (1547), Francis II. (1559), Charles IX. (1560), and Henry III. (1574-89); marked by the gradual adoption of the classic orders and adecline in the delicacy and richness of the ornament. II. THE BOURBON OR CLASSIC PERIOD (1589-1715): _a. _ STYLE OF HENRY IV. , covering his reign and partly that of LouisXIII. (1610-45), employing the orders and other classic forms with asomewhat heavy, florid style of ornament. _b. _ STYLE OF LOUIS XIV. , beginning in the preceding reign and extendingthrough that of Louis XIV. (1645-1715); the great age of classicarchitecture in France, corresponding to the Palladian in Italy. III. THE DECLINE OR ROCOCO PERIOD, corresponding with the reign of LouisXV. (1715-74); marked by pompous extravagance and capriciousness. During this period a reaction set in toward a severer classicism, leading to the styles of Louis XVI. And of the Empire, to be treated ofin a later chapter. +THE TRANSITION. + As early as 1475 the new style made its appearance inaltars, tombs, and rood-screens wrought by French carvers with thecollaboration of Italian artificers. The tomb erected by Charles ofAnjou to his father in Le Mans cathedral (1475, by _Francesco Laurana_), the chapel of St. Lazare in the cathedral of Marseilles (1483), and thetomb of the children of Charles VIII. In Tours cathedral (1506), by_Michel Columbe_, the greatest artist of his time in France, areexamples. The schools of Rouen and Tours were especially prominent inworks of this kind, marked by exuberant fancy and great delicacy ofexecution. In church architecture Gothic traditions were long dominant, in spite of the great numbers of Italian prelates in France. It was in_châteaux_, palaces, and dwellings that the new style achieved its mostnotable triumphs. +EARLY CHÂTEAUX. + The castle of Charles VIII. , at Amboise on the Loire, shows little trace of Italian influence. It was under Louis XII. Thatthe transformation of French architecture really began. The +Château deGaillon+ (of which unfortunately only fragments remain in the École desBeaux-Arts at Paris), built for the Cardinal George of Amboise, between1497 and 1509, by _Pierre Fain_, was the masterwork of the Rouen school. It presented a curious mixture of styles, with its irregular plan, itsmoat, drawbridge, and round corner-towers, its high roofs, turrets, anddormers, which gave it, in spite of many Renaissance details, a mediævalpicturesqueness. The +Château de Blois+ (the east and south wings of thepresent group), begun for Louis XII. About 1500, was the first of aremarkable series of royal palaces which are the glory of Frencharchitecture. It shows the new influences in its horizontal lines andflat, unbroken façades of brick and stone, rather than in itsarchitectural details (Fig. 175). The +Ducal Palace+ at Nancy and the+Hôtel de Ville+ at Orléans, by _Viart_, show a similar commingling ofthe classic and mediæval styles. [Illustration: FIG. 175. --BLOIS, COURT FAÇADE OF WING OF LOUIS XII. ] +STYLE OF FRANCIS I. + Early in the reign of this monarch, and partlyunder the lead of Italian artists, like il Rosso, Serlio, andPrimaticcio, classic elements began to dominate the general compositionand Gothic details rapidly disappeared. A simple and effective system ofexterior design was adopted in the castles and palaces of this period. Finely moulded belt-courses at the sills and heads of the windows markedthe different stories, and were crossed by a system of almost equallyimportant vertical lines, formed by superposed pilasters flanking thewindows continuously from basement to roof. The façade was crowned by aslight cornice and open balustrade, above which rose a steep and loftyroof, diversified by elaborate dormer windows which were adorned withgables and pinnacles (Fig. 178). Slender pilasters, treated like longpanels ornamented with arabesques of great beauty, or with a species ofbaluster shaft like a candelabrum, were preferred to columns, and wereprovided with graceful capitals of the Corinthianesque type. Themouldings were minute and richly carved; pediments were replaced bysteep gables, and mullioned windows with stone crossbars were used inpreference to the simpler Italian openings. In the earlier monumentsGothic details were still used occasionally; and round corner-towers, high dormers, and numerous turrets and pinnacles appear even in thechâteaux of later date. +CHURCHES. + Ecclesiastical architecture received but scant attentionunder Francis I. , and, so far as it was practised, still clungtenaciously to Gothic principles. Among the few important churches ofthis period may be mentioned +St. Etienne du Mont+, at Paris (1517-38), in which classic and Gothic features appear in nearly equal proportions;the east end of +St. Pierre+, at Caen, with rich external carving; andthe great parish church of +St. Eustache+, at Paris (1532, by_Lemercier_), in which the plan and construction are purely Gothic, while the details throughout belong to the new style, though with littleappreciation of the spirit and proportions of classic art. New façadeswere also built for a number of already existing churches, among which+St. Michel+, at Dijon, is conspicuous, with its vast portal arch andimposing towers. The Gothic towers of Tours cathedral were completedwith Renaissance lanterns or belfries, the northern in 1507, thesouthern in 1547. +PALACES. + To the palace at Blois begun by his predecessor, Francis I. Added a northern and a western wing, completing the court. The northwing is one of the masterpieces of the style, presenting toward thecourt a simple and effective composition, with a rich but slightlyprojecting cornice and a high roof with elaborate dormers. This façadeis divided into two unequal sections by the open +Staircase Tower+ (Fig. 176), a _chef-d’œuvre_ in boldness of construction as well as indelicacy and richness of carving. The outer façade of this wing is aless ornate but more vigorous design, crowned by a continuous openloggia under the roof. More extensive than Blois was +Fontainebleau+, the favorite residence of the king and of many of his successors. Following in parts the irregular plan of the convent it replaced, itsother portions were more symmetrically disposed, while the whole wastreated externally in a somewhat severe, semi-classic style, singularlylacking in ornament. Internally, however, this palace, begun in 1528 by_Gilles Le Breton_, was at that time the most splendid in France, thegallery of Francis I. Being especially noted. The +Château+ of +St. Germain+, near Paris (1539, by _Pierre Chambiges_), is of a verydifferent character. Built largely of brick, with flat balustraded roofand deep buttresses carrying three ranges of arches, it is neitherGothic nor classic, neither fortress nor palace in aspect, but a whollyunique conception. [Illustration: FIG. 176. --STAIRCASE TOWER, BLOIS. ] [Illustration: FIG. 177. --PLAN OF CHAMBORD. ] [Illustration: FIG. 178. --VIEW OF CHAMBORD. ] The rural châteaux and hunting-lodges erected by Francis I. Display thegreatest diversity of plan and treatment, attesting the inventiveness ofthe French genius, expressing itself in a new-found language, whoseformal canons it disdained. Chief among them is the +Château ofChambord+ (Figs. 177, 178)--“a Fata Morgana in the midst of a wild, woody thicket, ” to use Lübke’s language. This extraordinary edifice, resembling in plan a feudal castle with curtain-walls, bastions, moat, and donjon, is in its architectural treatment a palace with arcades, open-stair towers, a noble double spiral staircase terminating in agraceful lantern, and a roof of the most bewildering complexity oftowers, chimneys, and dormers (1526, by _Pierre le Nepveu_). Thehunting-lodges of La Muette and Chalvau, and the so-called +Château deMadrid+--all three demolished during or since the Revolution--deservemention, especially the last. This consisted of two rectangularpavilions, connected by a lofty banquet-hall, and adorned externallywith arcades in Florentine style, and with medallions and reliefs ofdella Robbia ware (1527, by _Gadyer_). +THE LOUVRE. + By far the most important of all the architecturalenterprises of this reign, in ultimate results, if not in originalextent, was the beginning of a new palace to replace the old Gothicfortified palace of the Louvre. To this task Pierre Lescot was summonedin 1542, and the work of erection actually begun in 1546. The newpalace, in a sumptuous and remarkably dignified classic style, was tohave covered precisely the area of the demolished fortress. Only thesouthwest half, comprising two sides of the court, was, however, undertaken at the outset (Fig. 179). It remained for later monarchs toamplify the original scheme, and ultimately to complete, late in thepresent century, the most extensive and beautiful of all the royalresidences of Europe. (See Figs. 181, 208, 209. ) [Illustration: FIG. 179. --DETAIL OF COURT OF LOUVRE, PARIS. ] Want of space forbids more than a passing reference to the rural castlesof the nobility, rivalling those of the king. Among them Bury, LaRochefoucauld, Bournazel, and especially +Azay-le-Rideau+ (1520) and+Chenonceaux+ (1515-23), may be mentioned, all displaying that love ofrural pleasure, that hatred of the city and its confinement, which sodistinguish the French from the Italian Renaissance. +OTHER BUILDINGS. + The +Hôtel-de-Ville+ (town hall), of Paris, begunduring this reign, from plans by _Domenico di Cortona_ (?), andcompleted under Henry IV. , was the most important edifice of a classwhich in later periods numbered many interesting structures. The townhall of +Beaugency+ (1527) is one of the best of minor public buildingsin France, and in its elegant treatment of a simple two-storied façademay be classed with the +Maison François I. +, at Paris. This stoodformerly at Moret, whence it was transported to Paris and re-erectedabout 1830 in somewhat modified form. The large city houses of thisperiod are legion; we can mention only the Hôtel Carnavalet at Paris;the Hôtel Bourgtheroude at Rouen; the Hôtel d’Écoville at Caen; thearchbishop’s palace at Sens, and a number of houses in Orléans. The+Tomb of Louis XII. +, at St. Denis, deserves especial mention for itsfine proportions and beautiful arabesques. +THE ADVANCED RENAISSANCE. + By the middle of the sixteenth century thenew style had lost much of its earlier charm. The orders, used withincreasing frequency, were more and more conformed to antiqueprecedents. Façades were flatter and simpler, cornices more pronounced, arches more Roman in treatment, and a heavier style of carving took theplace of the delicate arabesques of the preceding age. The reigns ofHenry II. (1547-59) and Charles IX. (1560-74) were especiallydistinguished by the labors of three celebrated architects: _PierreLescot_ (1515-78), who continued the work on the southwest angle of theLouvre; _Jean Bullant_ (1515-78), to whom are due the right wing ofEcouen and the porch of colossal Corinthian columns in the left wing ofthe same, built under Francis I. ; and, finally, _Philibert de l’Orme_(1515-70). _Jean Goujon_ (1510-72) also executed during this period mostof the remarkable architectural sculptures which have made his name oneof the most illustrious in the annals of French art. Chief among theworks of de l’Orme was the palace of the +Tuileries+, built underCharles IX. For Cathérine de Médicis, not far from the Louvre, withwhich it was ultimately connected by a long gallery. Of the vast planconceived for this palace, and comprising a succession of courts andwings, only a part of one side was erected (1564-72). This consisted ofa domical pavilion, flanked by low wings only a story and a half high, to which were added two stories under Henry IV. , to the great advantageof the design. Another masterpiece was the +Château d’Anet+, built in1552 by Henry II. For Diane de Poitiers, of which, unfortunately, onlyfragments survive. This beautiful edifice, while retaining thesemi-military moat and bastions of feudal tradition, was planned withclassic symmetry, adorned with superposed orders, court arcades, andrectangular corner-pavilions, and provided with a domical cruciformchapel, the earliest of its class in France. All the details wereunusually pure and correct, with just enough of freedom and variety tolend a charm wanting in later works of the period. To the reign of HenryII. Belong also the châteaux of Ancy-le-Franc, Verneuil, Chantilly (the“petit château, ” by Bullant), the banquet-hall over the bridge atChenonceaux (1556), several notable residences at Toulouse, and the tombof Francis I. At St. Denis. The châteaux of +Pailly+ and +Sully+, distinguished by the sobriety and monumental quality of theircomposition, in which the orders are important elements, belong to thereign of Charles IX. , together with the Tuileries, already mentioned. [Illustration: FIG. 180. --THE LUXEMBURG, PARIS. ] +THE CLASSIC PERIOD: HENRY IV. + Under this energetic but capriciousmonarch (1589-1610) and his Florentine queen, Marie de Médicis, architecture entered upon a new period of activity and a new stage ofdevelopment. Without the charm of the early Renaissance or thestateliness of the age of Louis XIV. , it has a touch of the Baroque, attributable partly to the influence of Marie de Médicis and her Italianprelates, and partly to the Italian training of many of the Frencharchitects. The great work of this period was the extension of theTuileries by _J. B. Du Cerceau_, and the completion, by _Métézeau_ andothers, of the long gallery next the Seine, begun under Henry II. , withthe view of connecting the Tuileries with the Louvre. In this part ofthe work colossal orders were used with indifferent effect. Next inimportance was the addition to Fontainebleau of a great court to theeastward, whose relatively quiet and dignified style offers lesscontrast than one might expect to the other wings and courts dating fromFrancis I. More successful architecturally than either of the above wasthe +Luxemburg+ palace, built for the queen by _Salomon De Brosse_, in1616 (Fig. 180). Its plan presents the favorite French arrangement of amain building separated from the street by a garden or court, the lattersurrounded on three sides by low wings containing the dependencies. Externally, rusticated orders recall the garden front of the Pitti atFlorence; but the scale is smaller, and the projecting pavilions andhigh roofs give it a grace and picturesqueness wanting in the Florentinemodel. The +Place Royale+, at Paris, and the château of Beaumesnil, illustrate a type of brick-and-stone architecture much in vogue at thistime, stone quoins decorating the windows and corners, and the ordersbeing generally omitted. Under Louis XIII. The Tuileries were extended northward and the Louvreas built by Lescot was doubled in size by the architect _Lemercier_, thePavillon de l’Horloge being added to form the centre of the enlargedcourt façade. +CHURCHES. + To this reign belong also the most important churches of theperiod. The church of +St. Paul-St. Louis+, at Paris (1627, by_Derrand_), displays the worst faults of the time, in the overloaded andmeaningless decoration of its uninteresting front. Its internal dome isthe earliest in Paris. Far superior was the chapel of the +Sorbonne+, a well-designed domical church by _Lemercier_, with a sober andappropriate exterior treated with superposed orders. +PERIOD OF LOUIS XIV. + This was an age of remarkable literary andartistic activity, pompous and pedantic in many of its manifestations, but distinguished also by productions of a very high order. Althoughcontemporary with the Italian Baroque--Bernini having been the guest ofLouis XIV. --the architecture of this period was free from the wildextravagances of that style. In its often cold and correct dignity itresembled rather that of Palladio, making large use of the orders inexterior design, and tending rather to monotony than to overloadeddecoration. In interior design there was more of lightness and caprice. Papier-maché and stucco were freely used in a fanciful style of reliefornamentation by scrolls, wreaths, shells, etc. , and decorativepanelling was much employed. The whole was saved from triviality only bythe controlling lines of the architecture which framed it. But it wasbetter suited to cabinet-work or to the prettinesses of the boudoir thanto monumental interiors. The +Galerie d’Apollon+, built during thisreign over the Petite Galerie in the Louvre, escapes this reproach, however, by the sumptuous dignity of its interior treatment. +VERSAILLES. + This immense edifice, built about an already existingvilla of Louis XIII. , was the work of _Levau_ and _J. H. Mansart_(1647-1708). Its erection, with the laying out of its marvellous park, almost exhausted the resources of the realm, but with results quiteincommensurate with the outlay. In spite of its vastness, its exterioris commonplace; the orders are used with singular monotony, which is notredeemed by the deep breaks and projections of the main front. There isno controlling or dominant feature; there is no adequate entrance orapproach; the grand staircases are badly placed and unworthily treated, and the different elements of the plan are combined with singular lackof the usual French sense of monumental and rational arrangement. Thechapel is by far the best single feature in the design. Far more successful was the completion of the Louvre, in 1688, from thedesigns of _Claude Perrault_, the court physician, whose plans werefortunately adopted in preference to those of Bernini. For the eastfront he designed a magnificent Corinthian colonnade nearly 600 feetlong, with coupled columns upon a plain high basement, and with acentral pediment and terminal pavilions (Fig. 181). The whole forms oneof the most imposing façades in existence; but it is a mere decoration, having no practical relation to the building behind it. Its heightrequired the addition of a third story to match it on the north andsouth sides of the court, which as thus completed quadrupled theoriginal area proposed by Lescot. Fortunately the style of Lescot’s workwas retained throughout in the court façades, while externally thecolonnade was recalled on the south front by a colossal order ofpilasters. The Louvre as completed by Louis XIV. Was a stately and noblepalace, as remarkable for the surpassing excellence of the sculptures ofJean Goujon as for the dignity and beauty of its architecture. Taken inconnection with the Tuileries, it was unrivalled by any palace in Europeexcept the Vatican. [Illustration: FIG. 181. --COLONNADE OF LOUVRE. ] +OTHER BUILDINGS. + To Louis XIV. Is also due the vast but uninteresting+Hôtel des Invalides+ or veteran’s asylum, at Paris, by J. H. Mansart. To the chapel of this institution was added, in 1680-1706, thecelebrated +Dome+ of the Invalides, a masterpiece by the same architect. In plan it somewhat resembles Bramante’s scheme for St. Peter’s--a Greekcross with domical chapels in the four angles and a dome over thecentre. The exterior (Fig. 182), with the lofty gilded dome on a highdrum adorned with engaged columns, is somewhat high for its breadth, butis a harmonious and impressive design; and the interior, if somewhatcold, is elegant and well proportioned. The chief innovation in thedesign was the wide separation of the interior stone dome from the loftyexterior decorative cupola and lantern of wood, this separation beingdesigned to meet the conflicting demands of internal and externaleffect. To the same architect is due the formal monotony of the +PlaceVendôme+, all the houses surrounding it being treated with a uniformarchitecture of colossal pilasters, at once monumental andinappropriate. One of the most pleasing designs of the time is the+Château de Maisons+ (1658), by _F. Mansart_, uncle of J. H. Mansart. Inthis the proportions of the central and terminal pavilions, the mass andlines of the steep roof _à la Mansarde_, the simple and effective use ofthe orders, and the refinement of all the details impart a grace ofaspect rare in contemporary works. The same qualities appear also in the+Val-de-Grâce+, by F. Mansart and Lemercier, a domical church ofexcellent proportions begun under Louis XIII. The want of space forbidsmention of other buildings of this period. [Illustration: FIG. 182. --DOME OF THE INVALIDES. ] +THE DECLINE. + Under Louis XV. The pedantry of the classic period gaveplace to a protracted struggle between license and the severestclassical correctness. The exterior designs of this time were often evenmore uninteresting and bare than under Louis XIV. ; while, on the otherhand, interior decoration tended to the extreme of extravagance anddisregard of constructive propriety. Contorted lines and crowdedscrolls, shells, and palm-leaves adorned the mantelpieces, cornices, andceilings, to the almost complete suppression of straight lines. [Illustration: FIG. 183. --FAÇADE OF ST. SULPICE, PARIS. ] While these tendencies prevailed in many directions, a counter-currentof severe classicism manifested itself in the designs of a number ofimportant public buildings, in which it was sought to copy the grandeurof the old Roman colonnades and arcades. The important church of +St. Sulpice+ at Paris (Fig. 183) is an excellent example of this. Itsinterior, dating from the preceding century, is well designed, but in nowise a remarkable composition, following Italian models. The façade, added in 1755 by _Servandoni_, is, on the other hand, one of the moststriking architectural objects in the city. It is a correct and wellproportioned classic composition in two stories--an Ionic arcade over aDoric colonnade, surmounted by two lateral turrets. Other monuments ofthis classic revival will be noticed in Chapter XXV. +PUBLIC SQUARES. + Much attention was given to the embellishment of openspaces in the cities, for which the classic style was admirably suited. The most important work of this kind was that on the north side of thePlace de la Concorde, Paris. This splendid square, perhaps, on thewhole, the finest in Europe (though many of its best features belong toa later date), was at this time adorned with the two monumentalcolonnades by _Gabriel_. These colonnades, which form the decorativefronts for blocks of houses, deserve praise for the beauty of theirproportions, as well as for the excellent treatment of the arcade onwhich they rest, and of the pavilions at the ends. +IN GENERAL. + French Renaissance architecture is marked by goodproportions and harmonious and appropriate detail. Its most interestingphase was unquestionably that of Francis I. , so far, at least, asconcerns exterior design. It steadily progressed, however, in itsmastery of planning; and in its use of projecting pavilions crowned bydominant masses of roof, it succeeded in preserving, even in severelyclassic designs, a picturesqueness and variety otherwise impossible. Roofs, dormers, chimneys, and staircases it treated with especialsuccess; and in these matters, as well as in monumental dispositions ofplan, the French have largely retained their pre-eminence to our ownday. +MONUMENTS. + (Mainly supplementary to text. Ch. = château; P.  = palace; C. = cathedral; Chu. = church; H. = hôtel; T. H. = town hall. ) TRANSITION: Blois, E. Wing, 1499; Ch. Meillant; Ch. Chaumont; T. H. Amboise, 1502-05. FRANCIS I. : Ch. Nantouillet, 1517-25; Ch. Blois, W. Wing (afterward demolished) and N. Wing, 1520-30; H. Lallemant, Bourges, 1520; Ch. Villers-Cotterets, 1520-59; P.  of Archbishop, Sens, 1521-35; P.  Fontainebleau (Cour Ovale, Cour d’Adieux, Gallery Francis I. , 1527-34; Peristyle, Chapel St. Saturnin, 1540-47, by _Gilles le Breton_; Cour du Cheval Blanc, 1527-31, by _P.  Chambiges_); H. Bernuy, Toulouse, 1528-39; P.  Granvelle, Besançon, 1532-40; T. H. Niort, T. H. Loches, 1532-43: H. De Ligeris (Carnavalet), Paris, 1544, by _P.  Lescot_; churches of Gisors, nave and façade, 1530; La Dalbade, Toulouse, portal, 1530; St. Symphorien Tours, 1531; Chu. Tillières, 1534-46. ADVANCED RENAISSANCE: Fontaine des Innocents, Paris, 1547-50, by _P.  Lescot_ and _J. Goujon_; tomb Francis I. , at St. Denis, 1555, by _Ph. De l’Orme_; H. Catelan, Toulouse, 1555; tomb Henry II. , at St. Denis, 1560; portal S.  Michel, Dijon, 1564; Ch. Sully, 1567; T. H. Arras, 1573; P.  Fontainebleau (Cour du Cheval Blanc remodelled, 1564-66, by _P.  Girard_; Cour de la Fontaine, same date); T. H. Besançon, 1582; Ch. Charleval, 1585, by, _J. B. Du Cerceau_. STYLE OF HENRY IV. : P. Fontainebleau (Galerie des Cerfs, Chapel of the Trinity, Baptistery, etc. ); P.  Tuileries (Pav. De Flore, by _du Cerceau_, 1590-1610; long gallery continued); Hôtel Vogüé, at Dijon, 1607; Place Dauphine, Paris, 1608; P.  de Justice, Paris, Great Hall, by _S. De Brosse_, 1618; H. Sully, Paris, 1624-39; P.  Royal, Paris, by _J. Lemercier_, for Cardinal Richelieu, 1627-39; P.  Louvre doubled in size, by the same; P.  Tuileries (N. Wing, and Pav. Marsan, long gallery completed); H. Lambert, Paris; T. H. Reims, 1627; Ch. Blois, W. Wing for Gaston d’Orléans, by _F. Mansart_, 1635; façade St. Étienne du Mont, Paris, 1610; of St. Gervais, Paris, 1616-21, by _S. De Brosse_. STYLE OF LOUIS XIV. : T. H. Lyons, 1646; P.  Louvre, E. Colonnade and court completed, 1660-70; Tuileries altered by Le Vau, 1664; observatory at Paris, 1667-72; arch of St. Denis, Paris, 1672, by _Blondel_; Arch of St. Martin, 1674, by _Bullet_; Banque de France, H. De Luyne, H. Soubise, all in Paris; Ch. Chantilly; Ch. De Tanlay; P.  St. Cloud; Place des Victoires, 1685; Chu. St. Sulpice, Paris, by _Le Vau_ (façade, 1755); Chu. St. Roch, Paris, 1653, by _Lemercier_ and _de Cotte_; Notre Dame des Victoires, Paris, 1656, by _Le Muet_ and _Bruant_. THE DECLINE: P. Bourbon, 1722; T. H. Rouen; Halle aux Blés (recently demolished), 1748; École Militaire, 1752-58, by _Gabriel_; P.  Louvre, court completed, 1754, by the same; Madeleine begun, 1764; H. Des Monnaies (Mint), by _Antoine_; École de Médecine, 1774, by _Gondouin_; P.  Royal, Great Court, 1784, by _Louis_; Théâtre Français, 1784 (all the above at Paris); Grand Théâtre, Bordeaux, 1785-1800, by _Louis_; Préfecture at Bordeaux, by the same; Ch. De Compiegne, 1770, by _Gabriel_; P.  Versailles, theatre by the same; H. Montmorency, Soubise, de Varennes, and the Petit Luxembourg, all at Paris, by _de Cotte_; public squares at Nancy, Bordeaux, Valenciennes, Rennes, Reims. CHAPTER XXIII. RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE NETHERLANDS. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Fergusson, Palustre. Also, Belcher and Macartney, _Later Renaissance Architecture in England_. Billings, _Baronial and Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Scotland_. Blomfield, _A Short History of Renaissance Architecture in England_. Britton, _Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain_. Ewerbeck, _Die Renaissance in Belgien und Holland_. Galland, _Geschichte der Hollandischen Baukunst im Zeitalter der Renaissance_. Gotch and Brown, _Architecture of the Renaissance in England_. Loftie, _Inigo Jones and Wren_. Nash, _Mansions of England_. Papworth, _Renaissance and Italian Styles of Architecture in Great Britain_. Richardson, _Architectural Remains of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James I. _ Schayes, _Histoire de l’architecture en Belgique_. +THE TRANSITION. + The architectural activity of the sixteenth century inEngland was chiefly devoted to the erection of vast country mansions forthe nobility and wealthy _bourgeoisie_. In these seignorial residences adegenerate form of the Gothic, known as the Tudor style, was employedduring the reigns of Henry VII. And Henry VIII. , and they still retainedmuch of the feudal aspect of the Middle Ages. This style, with itsbroad, square windows and ample halls, was well suited to domesticarchitecture, as well as to collegiate buildings, of which aconsiderable number were erected at this time. Among the more importantpalaces and manor-houses of this period are the earlier parts of HamptonCourt, Haddon and Hengreave Halls, and the now ruined castles of Raglanand Wolterton. [Illustration: FIG. 184. --BURGHLEY HOUSE. ] +ELIZABETHAN STYLE. + Under Elizabeth (1558-1603) the progress of classicculture and the employment of Dutch and Italian artists led to a gradualintroduction of Renaissance forms, which, as in France, were at firstmingled with others of Gothic origin. Among the foreign artists inEngland were the versatile Holbein, Trevigi and Torregiano from Italy, and Theodore Have, Bernard Jansen, and Gerard Chrismas from Holland. Thepointed arch disappeared, and the orders began to be used as subordinatefeatures in the decoration of doors, windows, chimneys, and mantels. Open-work balustrades replaced externally the heavy Tudor battlements, and a peculiar style of carving in flat relief-patterns, resembling_appliqué_ designs cut out with the jigsaw and attached by nails orrivets, was applied with little judgment to all possible features. Ceilings were commonly finished in plaster, with elaborate interlacingpatterns in low relief; and this, with the increasing use of interiorwoodwork, gave to the mansions of this time a more homelike but lessmonumental aspect internally. English architects, like Smithson andThorpe, now began to win the patronage at first monopolized byforeigners. In +Wollaton Hall+ (1580), by Smithson, the orders were usedfor the main composition with mullioned windows, much after the fashionof +Longleat House+, completed a year earlier by his master, John ofPadua. During the following period, however (1590-1610), there was areaction toward the Tudor practice, and the orders were again relegatedto subordinate uses. Of their more monumental employment, the +Gate ofHonor+ of Caius College, Cambridge, is one of the earliest examples. Hardwicke and Charlton Halls, and Burghley, Hatfield, and Holland Houses(Fig. 184), are noteworthy monuments of the style. +JACOBEAN STYLE. + During the reign of James I. (1603-25), details ofclassic origin came into more general use, but caricatured almost beyondrecognition. The orders, though much employed, were treated withoutcorrectness or grace, and the ornament was unmeaning and heavy. It isnot worth while to dwell further upon this style, which produced noimportant public buildings, and soon gave way to a more rigidclassicism. +CLASSIC PERIOD. + If the classic style was late in its appearance inEngland, its final sway was complete and long-lasting. It was _InigoJones_ (1572-1652) who first introduced the correct and monumental styleof the Italian masters of classic design. For Palladio, indeed, he seemsto have entertained a sort of veneration, and the villa which hedesigned at Chiswick was a reduced copy of Palladio’s Villa Capra, nearVicenza. This and other works of his show a failure to appreciate theunsuitability of Italian conceptions to the climate and tastes of GreatBritain; his efforts to popularize Palladian architecture, without theresources which Palladio controlled in the way of decorative sculptureand painting, were consequently not always happy in their results. Hisgreatest work was the design for a new +Palace at Whitehall+, London. Ofthis colossal scheme, which, if completed, would have ranked as thegrandest palace of the time, only the +Banqueting Hall+ (now used as amuseum) was ever built (Fig. 185). It is an effective composition in twostories, rusticated throughout and adorned with columns and pilasters, and contains a fine vaulted hall in three aisles. The plan of thepalace, which was to have measured 1, 152 × 720 feet, was excellent, largely conceived and carefully studied in its details, but it waswholly beyond the resources of the kingdom. The garden-front of+Somerset House+ (1632; demolished) had the same qualities of simplicityand dignity, recalling the works of Sammichele. Wilton House, Coleshill, the Villa at Chiswick, and St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, are the best knownof his works, showing him to have been a designer of ability, but hardlyof the consummate genius which his admirers attribute to him. [Illustration: FIG. 185. --BANQUETING HALL, WHITEHALL. ] [Illustration: FIG. 186. --PLAN OF ST. PAUL’S, LONDON. ] +ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL. + The greatest of Jones’s successors was _SirChristopher Wren_ (1632-1723), principally known as the architect of+St. Paul’s Cathedral+, London, built to replace the earlier Gothiccathedral destroyed in the great fire of 1666. It was begun in 1675, andits designer had the rare good fortune to witness its completion in1710. The plan, as finally adopted, retained the general proportions ofan English Gothic church, measuring 480 feet in length, with transepts250 feet long, and a grand rotunda 108 feet in diameter at the crossing(Fig. 186). The style was strictly Italian, treated with sobriety anddignity, if somewhat lacking in variety and inspiration. Externally twostories of the Corinthian order appear, the upper story being merely ascreen to hide the clearstory and its buttresses. This is anarchitectural deception, not atoned for by any special beauty of detail. The dominant feature of the design is the dome over the central area. Itconsists of an inner shell, reaching a height of 216 feet, above whichrises the exterior dome of wood, surmounted by a stone lantern, thesummit of which is 360 feet from the pavement (Fig. 187). This exteriordome, springing from a high drum surrounded by a magnificent peristyle, gives to the otherwise commonplace exterior of the cathedral a signalmajesty of effect. Next to the dome the most successful part of thedesign is the west front, with its two-storied porch and flankingbell-turrets. Internally the excessive relative length, especially thatof the choir, detracts from the effect of the dome, and the poverty ofdetail gives the whole a somewhat bare aspect. It is intended to relievethis ultimately by a systematic use of mosaic decoration, especially inthe dome. The central area itself, in spite of the awkward treatment ofthe four smaller arches of the eight which support the dome, is a nobledesign, occupying the whole width of the three aisles, like the Octagonat Ely, and producing a striking effect of amplitude and grandeur. Thedome above it is constructively interesting from the employment of acone of brick masonry to support the stone lantern which rises above theexterior wooden shell. The lower part of the cone forms the drum of theinner dome, its contraction upward being intended to produce aperspective illusion of increased height. [Illustration: FIG. 187. --EXTERIOR OF ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL. ] St. Paul’s ranks among the five or six greatest domical buildings ofEurope, and is the most imposing modern edifice in England. +WREN’S OTHER WORKS. + Wren was conspicuously successful in the designingof parish churches in London. +St. Stephen’s+, Walbrook, is the mostadmired of these, with a dome resting on eight columns. Wren may becalled the inventor of the English Renaissance type of steeple, in whicha conical or pyramidal spire is harmoniously added to a belfry on asquare tower with classic details. The steeple of +Bow Church+, Cheapside, is the most successful example of the type. In seculararchitecture Wren’s most important works were the plan for rebuildingLondon after the Great Fire; the new courtyard of Hampton Court, a quietand dignified composition in brick and stone; the pavilions andcolonnade of +Greenwich Hospital+; the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford, andthe Trinity College Library at Cambridge. Without profound originality, these works testify to the sound good taste and intelligence of theirdesigner. [Illustration: FIG. 188. --PLAN OF BLENHEIM. ] +THE 18TH CENTURY. + The Anglo-Italian style as used by Jones and Wrencontinued in use through the eighteenth century, during the first halfof which a number of important country-seats and some churches wereerected. _Van Brugh_ (1666-1726), _Hawksmoor_ (1666-1736), and _Gibbs_(1683-1751) were then the leading architects. Van Brugh was especiallyskilful in his dispositions of plan and mass, and produced in thedesigns of Blenheim and Castle Howard effects of grandeur and variety ofperspective hardly equalled by any of his contemporaries in France orItaly. +Blenheim+, with its monumental plan and the sweeping curves ofits front (Fig. 188), has an unusually palatial aspect, though thestriving for picturesqueness is carried too far. Castle Howard issimpler, depending largely for effect on a somewhat inappropriate dome. To Hawksmoor, his pupil, are due +St. Mary’s, Woolnoth+ (1715), atLondon, in which by a bold rustication of the whole exterior and bywindows set in large recessed arches he was enabled to dispense whollywith the orders; St. George’s, Bloomsbury; the new quadrangle of AllSouls at Oxford, and some minor works. The two most noted designs ofJames Gibbs are +St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields+, at London (1726), and the+Radcliffe Library+, at Oxford (1747). In the former the use of aCorinthian portico--a practically uncalled-for but decorativeappendage--and of a steeple mounted on the roof, with no visible linesof support from the ground, are open to criticism. But the excellence ofthe proportions, and the dignity and appropriateness of the composition, both internally and externally, go far to redeem these defects (Fig. 189). The Radcliffe Library is a circular domical hall surrounded by alower circuit of alcoves and rooms, the whole treated withstraightforward simplicity and excellent proportions. Colin Campbell, Flitcroft, Kent and Wood, contemporaries of Gibbs, may be dismissed withpassing mention. [Illustration: FIG. 189. --ST. MARTIN’S-IN-THE-FIELDS, LONDON. ] _Sir William Chambers_ (1726-96) was the greatest of the later18th-century architects. His fame rests chiefly on his _Treatise onCivil Architecture_, and the extension and remodelling of +SomersetHouse+, in which he retained the general _ordonnance_ of Inigo Jones’sdesign, adapting it to a frontage of some 600 feet. _Robert Adams_, thedesigner of Keddlestone Hall, _Robert Taylor_ (1714-88), the architectof the Bank of England, and _George Dance_, who designed the MansionHouse and Newgate Prison, at London--the latter a vigorous andappropriate composition without the orders--close the list of notedarchitects of the eighteenth century. It was a period singularly wantingin artistic creativeness and spontaneity; its productions were nearlyall dull and respectable, or at best dignified, but without charm. +BELGIUM. + As in all other countries where the late Gothic style hadbeen highly developed, Belgium was slow to accept the principles of theRenaissance in art. Long after the dawn of the sixteenth century theFlemish architects continued to employ their highly florid Gothic alikefor churches and town-halls, with which they chiefly had to do. Theearliest Renaissance buildings date from 1530-40, among them being theHôtel du Saumon, at Malines, at Bruges the Ancien Greffe, by _JeanWallot_, and at Liège the +Archbishop’s Palace+, by _Borset_. The lastnamed, in the singular and capricious form of the arches andbaluster-like columns of its court, reveals the taste of the age forwhat was _outré_ and odd; a taste partly due, no doubt, to Spanishinfluences, as Belgium was in reality from 1506 to 1712 a Spanishprovince, and there was more or less interchange of artists between thetwo countries. The +Hôtel de Ville+, at Antwerp, by _Cornelius deVriendt_ or _Floris_ (1518-75), erected in 1565, is the most importantmonument of the Renaissance in Belgium. Its façade, 305 feet long and102 feet high, in four stories, is an impressive creation in spite ofits somewhat monotonous fenestration and the inartistic repetition inthe third story of the composition and proportions of the second. Thebasement story forms an open arcade, and an open colonnade or loggiaruns along under the roof, thus imparting to the composition aconsiderable play of light and shade, enhanced by the picturesquecentral pavilion which rises to a height of six stories in diminishingstages. The style is almost Palladian in its severity, but in generalthe Flemish architects disdained the restrictions of classic canons, preferring a more florid and fanciful effect than could be obtained bymere combinations of Roman columns, arches, and entablatures. DeVriendt’s other works were mostly designs for altars, tabernacles andthe like; among them the rood screen in Tournay Cathedral. His influencemay be traced in the Hôtel de Ville at Flushing (1594). [Illustration: FIG. 190. --RENAISSANCE HOUSES, BRUSSELS. ] The ecclesiastical architecture of the Flemish Renaissance is almost asdestitute of important monuments as is the secular. +Ste. Anne+, atBruges, fairly illustrates the type, which is characterized in generalby heaviness of detail and a cold and bare aspect internally. TheRenaissance in Belgium is best exemplified, after all, by minor worksand ordinary dwellings, many of which have considerable artistic grace, though they are quaint rather than monumental (Fig. 190). Steppedgables, high dormers, and volutes flanking each diminishing stage of thedesign, give a certain piquancy to the street architecture of theperiod. +HOLLAND. + Except in the domain of realistic painting, the Dutch havenever manifested pre-eminent artistic endowments, and the Renaissanceproduced in Holland few monuments of consequence. It began there, as inmany other places, with minor works in the churches, due largely toFlemish or Italian artists. About the middle of the 16th century twonative architects, _Sebastian van Noye_ and _William van Noort_, firstpopularized the use of carved pilasters and of gables or steep pedimentsadorned with carved scallop-shells, in remote imitation of the style ofFrancis I. The principal monuments of the age were town-halls, and, after the war of independence in which the yoke of Spain was finallybroken (1566-79), local administrative buildings--mints, exchanges andthe like. The +Town Hall+ of +The Hague+ (1565), with its stepped gableor great dormer, its consoles, statues, and octagonal turrets, may besaid to have inaugurated the style generally followed after the war. Owing to the lack of stone, brick was almost universally employed, andstone imported by sea was only used in edifices of exceptional cost andimportance. Of these the +Town Hall+ at Amsterdam holds the first place. Its façade is of about the same dimensions as the one at Antwerp, butcompares unfavorably with it in its monotony and want of interest. The+Leyden Town Hall+, by the Fleming, _Lieven de Key_ (1597), the Bourseor Exchange and the Hanse House at Amsterdam, by _Hendrik de Keyser_, are also worthy of mention, though many lesser buildings, built of brickcombined with enamelled terra-cotta and stone, possess quite as muchartistic merit. +DENMARK. + In Denmark the monuments of the Renaissance may almost besaid to be confined to the reign of Christian IV. (1588-1648), and donot include a single church of any importance. The royal castles of the+Rosenborg+ at Copenhagen (1610) and the +Fredericksborg+ (1580-1624), the latter by a Dutch architect, are interesting and picturesque inmass, with their fanciful gables, mullioned windows and numerousturrets, but can hardly lay claim to beauty of detail or purity ofstyle. The Exchange at Copenhagen, built of brick and stone in the samegeneral style (1619-40), is still less interesting both in mass anddetail. The only other important Scandinavian monument deserving of specialmention in so brief a sketch as this is the +Royal Palace+ at+Stockholm+, Sweden (1698-1753), due to a foreign architect, _Nicodemusde Tessin_. It is of imposing dimensions, and although simple inexternal treatment, it merits praise for the excellent disposition ofits plan, its noble court, imposing entrances, and the general dignityand appropriateness of its architecture. +MONUMENTS+ (in addition to those mentioned in text). ENGLAND, TUDOR STYLE: Several palaces by Henry VIII. , no longer extant; Westwood, later rebuilt; Gosfield Hall; Harlaxton. --ELIZABETHAN: Buckhurst, 1565; Kirby House, 1570, both by Thorpe; Caius College, 1570-75, by Theodore Have; “The Schools, ” Oxford, by Thomas Holt, 1600; Beaupré Castle, 1600. --JACOBEAN: Tombs of Mary of Scotland and of Elizabeth in Westminster Abbey; Audsley Inn; Bolsover Castle, 1613; Heriot’s Hospital, Edinburgh, 1628. --CLASSIC or ANGLO-ITALIAN: St. John’s College, Oxford; Queen’s House, Greenwich; Coleshill; all by Inigo Jones, 1620-51; Amesbury, by Webb; Combe Abbey; Buckingham and Montague Houses; The Monument, London, 1670, by Wren; Temple Bar, by the same; Winchester Palace, 1683; Chelsea College; Towers of Westminster Abbey, 1696; St. Clement Dane’s; St. James’s, Westminster; St. Peter’s, Cornhill, and many others, all by Wren. --18TH CENTURY: Seaton Delaval and Grimsthorpe, by Van Brugh; Wanstead House, by Colin Campbell; Treasury Buildings, by Kent. The most important Renaissance buildings of BELGIUM and HOLLAND have been mentioned in the text. CHAPTER XXIV. RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN GERMANY, SPAIN, AND PORTUGAL. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Fergusson, Palustre Also, von Bezold, _Die Baukunst der Renaissance in Deutschland, Holland, Belgien und Dänemark_ (in _Hdbuch. D. Arch. _). Caveda (tr. Kugler), _Geschichte der Baukunst in Spanien_. Fritsch, _Denkmäler der deutschen Renaissance_ (plates). Junghändel, _Die Baukunst Spaniens_. Lambert und Stahl, _Motive der deutschen Architektur_. Lübke, _Geschichte der Renaissance in Deutschland_. Prentice, _Renaissance Architecture and Ornament in Spain_. Uhde, _Baudenkmäler in Spanien_. Verdier et Cattois, _Architecture civile et domestique_. Villa Amil, _Hispania Artistica y Monumental_. +AUSTRIA+; +BOHEMIA+. The earliest appearance of the Renaissance in thearchitecture of the German states was in the eastern provinces. Beforethe close of the fifteenth century Florentine and Milanese architectswere employed in Austria, Bohemia, and the Tyrol, where there are anumber of palaces and chapels in an unmixed Italian style. The portal ofthe castle of Mahrisch-Trübau dates from 1492; while to the early yearsof the 16th century belong a cruciform chapel at Gran, the remodellingof the castle at Cracow, and the chapel of the Jagellons in the samecity--the earliest domical structure of the German Renaissance, thoughof Italian design. The +Schloss Porzia+ (1510), at Spital in Carinthia, is a fine quadrangular palace, surrounding a court with arcades on threesides, in which the open stairs form a picturesque interruption withtheir rampant arches. But for the massiveness of the details it might bea Florentine palace. In addition to this, the famous +Arsenal+ atWiener-Neustadt (1524), the portal of the Imperial Palace (1552), andthe +Castle Schalaburg+ on the Danube (1530-1601), are attributed toItalian architects, to whom must also be ascribed a number of importantworks at Prague. Chief among these the +Belvedere+ (1536, by _Paolodella Stella_), a rectangular building surrounded by a graceful openarcade, above which it rises with a second story crowned by a curvedroof; the Waldstein Palace (1621-29), by _Giov. Marini_, with itsimposing loggia; +Schloss Stern+, built on the plan of a six-pointedstar (1459-1565) and embellished by Italian artists with stuccoornaments and frescoes; and parts of the palace on the Hradschin, by_Scamozzi_, attest the supremacy of Italian art in Bohemia. The same istrue of Styria, Carinthia, and the Tyrol; _e. G. _ +Schloss Ambras+ atInnsbrück (1570). +GERMANY: PERIODS. + The earliest manifestation of the Renaissance inwhat is now the German Empire, appeared in the works of painters likeDürer and Burkmair, and in occasional buildings previous to 1525. Thereal transformation of German architecture, however, hardly began untilafter the Peace of Augsburg, in 1555. From that time on its progress wasrapid, its achievements being almost wholly in the domain of seculararchitecture--princely and ducal castles, town halls or _Rathhäuser_, and houses of wealthy burghers or corporations. It is somewhat singularthat the German emperors should not have undertaken the construction ofa new imperial residence on a worthy scale, the palaces of Munich andBerlin being aggregations of buildings of various dates about a nucleusof mediæval origin, and with no single portion to compare with thestately châteaux of the French kings. Church architecture was neglected, owing to the Reformation, which turned to its own uses the existingchurches, while the Roman Catholics were too impoverished to replace theedifices they had lost. The periods of the German Renaissance are less well marked than those ofthe French; but its successive developments follow the same generalprogression, divided into three stages: I. THE EARLY RENAISSANCE, 1525-1600, in which the orders wereinfrequently used, mainly for porches and for gable decoration. Theconceptions and spirit of most monuments were still strongly tinged withGothic feeling. II. THE LATE RENAISSANCE, 1600-1675, characterized by a dry, heavytreatment, in which too often neither the fanciful gayety of theprevious period nor the simple and monumental dignity of classic designappears. Broken curves, large scrolls, obelisks, and a style of flatrelief carving resembling the Elizabethan are common. Occasionalmonuments exhibit a more correct and classic treatment after Italianmodels. III. THE DECLINE OR BAROQUE PERIOD, 1675-1800, employing the orders in astyle of composition oscillating between the extremes of bareness and ofRococo over-decoration. The ornament partakes of the character of theLouis XV. And Italian Jesuit styles, being most successful in interiordecoration, but externally running to the extreme of unrestrained fancy. [Illustration: FIG. 191. --SCHLOSS HÄMELSCHENBURG. ] +CHARACTERISTICS. + In none of these periods do we meet with the sober, monumental treatment of the Florentine or Roman schools. A love ofpicturesque variety in masses and sky-lines, inherited from mediævaltimes, appears in the high roofs, stepped gables and lofty dormers whichare universal. The roofs often comprise several stories, and are lightedby lofty gables at either end, and by dormers carried up from the sidewalls through two or three stories. Gables and dormers alike are builtin diminishing stages, each step adorned with a console or scroll, andthe whole treated with pilasters or colonnettes and entablaturesbreaking over each support (Fig. 191). These roofs, dormers, and gablescontribute the most noticeable element to the general effect of mostGerman Renaissance buildings, and are commonly the best-designedfeatures in them. The orders are scantily used and usually treated withutter disregard of classic canons, being generally far too massive andoverloaded with ornament. Oriels, bay-windows, and turrets, startingfrom corbels or colonnettes, or rarely from the ground, diversify thefaçade, and spires of curious bulbous patterns give added piquancy tothe picturesque sky-line. The plans seldom had the monumental symmetryand largeness of Italian and French models; courtyards were oftenirregular in shape and diversified with balconies and spiralstaircase-turrets. The national leaning was always toward the quaint andfantastic, as well in the decoration as in the composition. Grotesques, caryatids, _gaînes_ (half-figures terminating below in sheath-likesupports), fanciful rustication, and many other details give a touch ofthe Baroque even to works of early date. The same principles wereapplied with better success to interior decoration, especially in thelarge halls of the castles and town-halls, and many of their ceilingswere sumptuous and well-considered designs, deeply panelled, painted andgilded in wood or plaster. +CASTLES. + The _Schloss_ or _Burg_ of the German prince or duke retainedthroughout the Renaissance many mediæval characteristics in plan andaspect. A large proportion of these noble residences were built uponfoundations of demolished feudal castles, reproducing in a new dress theancient round towers and vaulted guard-rooms and halls, as in theHartenfels at Torgau, the Heldburg (both in Saxony), and the castle ofTrausnitz, in Bavaria, among many others. The +Castle+ at +Torgau+(1540) is one of the most imposing of its class, with massive round andsquare towers showing externally, and court façades full of picturesqueirregularities. In the great +Castle+ at +Dresden+ the plan is moresymmetrical, and the Renaissance appears more distinctly in the detailsof the Georgenflügel (1530-50), though at that early date the classicorders were almost ignored. The portal of the Heldburg, however, builtin 1562, is a composition quite in the contemporary French vein, withsuperposed orders and a crowning pediment over a massive basement. Another important series of castles or palaces are of more regulardesign, in which the feudal traditions tend to disappear. The majoritybelong to the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. Theyare built around large rectangular courts with arcades in two or threestories on one or more sides, but rarely surrounding it entirely. Inthese the segmental arch is more common than the semicircular, andsprings usually from short and stumpy Ionic or Corinthian columns. Therooms and halls are arranged _en suite_, without corridors, and a largeand lofty banquet hall forms the dominant feature of the series. Theearliest of these regularly planned palaces are of Italian design. Chiefamong them is the +Residenz+ at +Landshut+ (1536-43), with a thoroughlyRoman plan, by pupils of Giulio Romano, and exterior and court façadesof great dignity treated with the orders. More German in its details, but equally interesting, is the +Fürstenhof+ at +Wismar+, in brick andterra-cotta, by _Valentino di Lira_ and _Van Aken_ (1553); while in the+Piastenschloss+ at Brieg (1547-72), by Italian architects, thetreatment in parts suggests the richest works of the style of Francis I. In other castles the segmental arch and stumpy columns or piers show theGerman taste, as in the +Plassenburg+, by _Kaspar Vischer_ (1554-64), the castle at Plagnitz, and the +Old Castle+ at +Stuttgart+, all datingfrom about 1550-55. +Heidelberg Castle+, in spite of its mediæval aspectfrom the river and its irregular plan, ranks as the highest achievementof the German Renaissance in palace design. The most interesting partsamong its various wings built at different dates--the earlier portionsstill Gothic in design--are the +Otto Heinrichsbau+ (1554) and the+Friedrichsbau+ (1601). The first of these appears somewhat simpler inits lines than the second, by reason of having lost its originaldormer-gables. The orders, freely treated, are superposed in threestories, and twin windows, niches, statues, _gaînes_, medallions andprofuse carving produce an effect of great gayety and richness. TheFriedrichsbau (Fig. 192), less quiet in its lines, and with highscroll-gabled and stepped dormers, is on the other hand more soberlydecorated and more characteristically German. The Schloss Hämelschenburg(Fig. 191) is designed in somewhat the same spirit, but with evengreater simplicity of detail. [Illustration: FIG. 192. --THE FRIEDRICHSBAU, HEIDELBERG. ] +TOWN HALLS. + These constitute the most interesting class of Renaissancebuildings in Germany, presenting a considerable variety of types, butnearly all built in solid blocks without courts, and adorned with towersor spires. A high roof crowns the building, broken by one or more highgables or many-storied dormers. The majority of these town halls presentfaçades much diversified by projecting wings, as at Lemgo and Paderborn, or by oriels and turrets, as at +Altenburg+ (1562-64); and the towerswhich dominate the whole terminate usually in bell-shaped cupolas, or inmore capricious forms with successive swellings and contractions, as atDantzic (1587). A few, however, are designed with monumental simplicityof mass; of these that at +Bremen+ (1612) is perhaps the finest, withits beautiful exterior arcade on strong Doric columns. The town hall ofNuremberg is one of the few with a court, and presents a façade ofalmost Roman simplicity (1613-19); that at +Augsburg+ (1615) is equallyclassic and more pleasing; while at Schweinfurt, Rothenburg (1572), Mülhausen, etc. , are others worthy of mention. +CHURCHES. + +St. Michael’s+, at Munich, is almost the only importantchurch of the first period in Germany (1582), but it is worthy to rankwith many of the most notable contemporary Italian churches. A wide navecovered by a majestic barrel vault, is flanked by side chapels, separated from each other by massive piers and forming a series ofgallery bays above. There are short transepts and a choir, all inexcellent proportion and treated with details which, if somewhat heavy, are appropriate and reasonably correct. The +Marienkirche+ atWolfenbüttel (1608) is a fair sample of the parish churches of thesecond period. In the exterior of this church pointed arches andsemi-Gothic tracery are curiously associated with heavy rococo carving. The simple rectangular mass, square tower, and portal with massiveorders and carving are characteristic features. Many of thechurch-towers are well proportioned and graceful structures in spite ofthe fantastic outlines of their spires. One of the best and purest instyle is that of the University Church at Würzburg (1587-1600). [Illustration: FIG. 193. --ZWINGER PALACE, DRESDEN. ] +HOUSES. + Many of the German houses of the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies would merit extended notice in a larger work, as among themost interesting lesser monuments of the Renaissance. Nuremberg andHildesheim are particularly rich in such houses, built either forprivate citizens or for guilds and corporations. Not a few of thehalf-timbered houses of the time are genuine works of art, thoughinterest chiefly centres in the more monumental dwellings of stone. Inthis domestic architecture the picturesque quality of German designappears to better advantage than in more monumental edifices, and theirbroadly stepped gables, corbelled oriels, florid portals and want offormal symmetry imparting a peculiar and undeniable charm. TheKaiserhaus and Wedekindsches Haus at Hildesheim; +Fürstenhaus+ atLeipzig; Peller, Hirschvogel, and Funk houses at Nuremberg; the SaltHouse at Frankfurt, and Ritter House at Heidelberg, are a few of themost noted among these examples of domestic architecture. [Illustration: FIG. 194. --CHURCH OF ST. MARY (MARIENKIRCHE), DRESDEN. ] +LATER MONUMENTS. + The +Zwinger Palace+ at Dresden (Fig. 193), is themost elaborate and wayward example of the German palace architecture ofthe third period. Its details are of the most exaggerated rococo type, like confectioner’s work done in stone; and yet the building has an airof princely splendor which partly atones for its details. Besides thispalace, Dresden possesses in the domical +Marienkirche+ (Fig. 194)a very meritorious example of late design. The proportions are good, andthe detail, if not interesting, is at least inoffensive, while the wholeis a dignified and rational piece of work. At Vienna are a number ofpalaces of the third period, more interesting for their beautifulgrounds and parks than for intrinsic architectural merit. As in Italy, this was the period of stucco, and although in Vienna this cheap andperishable material was cleverly handled, and the ornament produced wasoften quaint and effective, the results lack the permanence and dignityof true building in stone or brick, and may be dismissed without furthermention. In minor works the Germans were far less prolific than the Italians orSpaniards. Few of their tombs were of the first importance, though one, the +Sebald Shrine+, in Nuremberg, by _Peter Vischer_ (1506-19), is asplendid work in bronze, in the transitional style; a richly decoratedcanopy on slender metal colonnettes covering and enclosing thesarcophagus of the saint. There are a large number of fountains in thesquares of German and Swiss cities which display a high order of design, and are among the most characteristic minor products of German art. +SPAIN. + The flamboyant Gothic style sufficed for a while to meet therequirements of the arrogant and luxurious period which in Spainfollowed the overthrow of the Moors and the discovery of America. But itwas inevitable that the Renaissance should in time make its influencefelt in the arts of the Iberian peninsula, largely through theemployment of Flemish artists. In jewelry and silverwork, arts whichreceived a great impulse from the importation of the precious metalsfrom the New World, the forms of the Renaissance found specialacceptance, so that the new style received the name of the _Plateresque_(from _platero_, silversmith). This was a not inept name for theminutely detailed and sumptuous decoration of the early Renaissance, which lasted from 1500 to the accession of Philip II. In 1556. It wascharacterized by surface-decoration spreading over broad areas, especially around doors and windows, florid escutcheons and Gothicdetails mingling with delicately chiselled arabesques. Decorativepilasters with broken entablatures and carved baluster-shafts wereemployed with little reference to constructive lines, but with greatrefinement of detail, in spite of the exuberant profusion of theornament. To this style, after the artistic inaction of Philip II. ’s reign, succeeded the coldly classic style practised by _Berruguete_ and_Herrera_, and called the _Griego-Romano_. In spite of the attempt toproduce works of classical purity, the buildings of this period are forthe most part singularly devoid of originality and interest. This stylelasted until the middle of the seventeenth century, and in the case ofcertain works and artists, until its close. It was followed, at least inecclesiastical architecture, by the so-called _Churrigueresque_, a namederived from an otherwise insignificant architect, _Churriguera_, wholike Maderna and Borromini in Italy, discarded all the proprieties ofarchitecture, and rejoiced in the wildest extravagances of an untrainedfancy and debased taste. +EARLY MONUMENTS. + The earliest ecclesiastical works of the Renaissanceperiod, like the cathedrals of Salamanca, Toledo, and Segovia, werealmost purely Gothic in style. Not until 1525 did the new forms begin todominate in cathedral design. The cathedral at +Jaen+, by _Valdelvira_(1525), an imposing structure with three aisles and side chapels, wastreated internally with the Corinthian order throughout. The Cathedralof +Granada+ (1529, by _Diego de Siloe_) is especially interesting forits great domical sanctuary 70 feet in diameter, and for the largenessand dignity of its conception and details. The cathedral of Malaga, thechurch of San Domingo at Salamanca, and the monastery of San Girolamo inthe same city are either wholly or in part Plateresque, and providedwith portals of especial richness of decoration. Indeed, the portal ofS.  Domingo practically forms the whole façade. [Illustration: FIG. 195. --DOOR OF THE UNIVERSITY, SALAMANCA. ] In secular architecture the +Hospital+ of +Santa Cruz+ at Toledo, by_Enrique de Egaz_ (1504-16), is one of the earliest examples of thestyle. Here, as also in the +University+ at +Salamanca+ (Fig. 195), theportal is the most notable feature, suggesting both Italian and Frenchmodels in its details. The great +College+ at +Alcala de Heñares+ isanother important early monument of the Renaissance (1500-17, by _PedroGumiel_). In most designs the preference was for long façades ofmoderate height, with a basement showing few openings, and a _bel étage_lighted by large windows widely spaced. Ornament was chieflyconcentrated about the doors and windows, except for the roofbalustrades, which were often exceedingly elaborate. Occasionally adecorative motive is spread over the whole façade, as in the +Casa delas Conchas+ at Salamanca, adorned with cockle-shells carved atintervals all over the front--a bold and effective device; or theInfantada palace with its spangling of carved diamonds. The courtyard or_patio_ was an indispensable feature of these buildings, as in all hotcountries, and was surrounded by arcades frequently of the most fancifuldesign overloaded with minute ornament, as in the +Infantado+ atGuadalajara, the +Casa de Zaporta+, formerly at Saragossa (now removedto Paris; Fig. 196), and the Lupiana monastery. The patios in the+Archbishop’s Palace+ at Alcala de Heñares and the +Collegio de losIrlandeses+ at Salamanca are of simpler design; that of the +Casa dePilatos+ at Seville is almost purely Moorish. Salamanca abounds inbuildings of this period. [Illustration: FIG. 196. --CASA DE ZAPORTA: COURTYARD. ] [Illustration: FIG. 197. --PALACE OF CHARLES V. , GRANADA. ] +THE GRIEGO-ROMANO. + The more classic treatment of architectural designsby the use of the orders was introduced by _Alonzo Berruguete_(1480-1560?), who studied in Italy after 1503. The Archbishop’s Palaceand the Doric +Gate+ of +San Martino+, both at Toledo, were his work, aswell as the first palace at Madrid. The Palladio of Spain was, however, by _Juan de Herrera_ (died 1597), the architect of +ValladolidCathedral+, built under Philip V. This vast edifice follows the generallines of the earlier cathedrals of Jaen and Granada, but in a style ofclassical correctness almost severe in aspect, but well suited to thegrand scale of the church. The masterpiece of this period was themonastery of the +Escurial+, begun by _Juan Battista_ of Toledo, in1563, but not completed until nearly one hundred and fifty years later. Its final architectural aspect was largely due to Herrera. It is a vastrectangle of 740 × 580 feet, comprising a complex of courts, halls, andcells, dominated by the huge mass of the chapel. This last is animposing domical church covering 70, 000 square feet, treated throughoutwith the Doric order, and showing externally a lofty dome and campanileswith domical lanterns, which serve to diversify the otherwise monotonousmass of the monastery. What the Escurial lacks in grace or splendor isat least in a measure redeemed by its majestic scale and variedsky-lines. The +Palace of Charles V. + (Fig. 197), adjoining the Alhambraat Granada, though begun as early as 1527 by _Machuca_, was mainly dueto Berruguete, and is an excellent example of the Spanish Palladianstyle. With its circular court, admirable proportions and well-studieddetails, this often maligned edifice deserves to be ranked among themost successful examples of the style. During this period the cathedralof Seville received many alterations, and the upper part of theadjoining Moorish tower of the +Giralda+, burned in 1395, was rebuilt by_Fernando Ruiz_ in the prevalent style, and with considerable eleganceand appropriateness of design. Of the +Palace+ at +Madrid+, rebuilt by Philip V. After the burning ofthe earlier palace in 1734, and mainly the work of an Italian, _Ivara_;the Aranjuez palace (1739, by _Francisco Herrera_), and the Palace at+San Ildefonso+, it need only be said that their chief merit lies intheir size and the absence of those glaring violations of good tastewhich generally characterized the successors of Churriguera. Inecclesiastical design these violations of taste were particularlyabundant and excessive, especially in the façades and in thesanctuary--huge aggregations of misplaced and vulgar detail, with hardlyan unbroken pediment, column, or arch in the whole. Some extremeexamples of this abominable style are to be found in theSpanish-American churches of the 17th and 18th centuries, as atChihuahua (Mexico), Tucson (Arizona), and other places. The leastoffensive features of the churches of this period were the towers, usually in pairs at the west end, some of them showing excellentproportions and good composition in spite of their execrable details. Minor architectural works, such as the rood screens in the churches ofAstorga and Medina de Rio Seco, and many tombs at Granada, Avila, Alcala, etc. , give evidence of superior skill in decorative design, where constructive considerations did not limit the exercise of theimagination. +PORTUGAL. + The Renaissance appears to have produced few notable worksin Portugal. Among the chief of these are the +Tower+, the church, andthe +Cloister+, at Belem. These display a riotous profusion of minutecarved ornament, with a free commingling of late Gothic details, wearisome in the end in spite of the beauty of its execution (1500-40?). The church of +Santa Cruz+ at Coimbra, and that of +Luz+, near Lisbon, are among the most noted of the religious monuments of the Renaissance, while in secular architecture the royal palace at +Mafra+ is worthy ofmention. +MONUMENTS. + (Mainly supplementary to preceding text. ) AUSTRIA, BOHEMIA, etc. : At Prague, Schloss Stern, 1459-1565; Schwarzenburg Palace, 1544; Waldstein Palace, 1629; Salvator Chapel, Vienna, 1515; Schloss Schalaburg, near Mölk, 1530-1601; Standehaus, Gratz, 1625. At Vienna: Imperial palace, various dates; Schwarzenburg and Lichtenstein palaces, 18th century. GERMANY, FIRST PERIOD: Schloss Baden, 1510-29 and part 1569-82; Schloss Merseburg, 1514, with late 16th-century portals; Fuggerhaus at Augsburg, 1516; castles of Neuenstein, 1530-64; Celle, 1532-46 (and enlarged, 1665-70); Dessau, 1533; Leignitz, portal, 1533; Plagnitz, 1550; Schloss Gottesau, 1553-88; castle of Güstrow, 1555-65; of Oels, 1559-1616; of Bernburg, 1565; of Heiligenburg, 1569-87; Münzhof at Munich, 1575; Lusthaus (demolished) at Stuttgart, 1575; Wilhelmsburg Castle at Schmalkald, 1584-90; castle of Hämelschenburg, 1588-1612. --SECOND PERIOD: Zunfthaus at Basle, 1578, in advanced style; so also Juleum at Helmstädt, 1593-1612; gymnasium at Brunswick, 1592-1613; Spiesshof at Basle, 1600; castle at Berlin, 1600-1616, demolished in great part; castle Bevern, 1603; Dantzic, Zeughaus, 1605; Wallfahrtskirche at Dettelbach, 1613; castle Aschaffenburg, 1605-13; Schloss Weikersheim, 1600-83. --THIRD PERIOD: Zeughaus at Berlin, 1695; palace at Berlin by Schlüter, 1699-1706; Catholic church, Dresden. (For Classic Revival, see next chapter. )--TOWN HALLS: At Heilbronn, 1535; Görlitz, 1537; Posen, 1550; Mülhausen, 1552; Cologne, porch with Corinthian columns and Gothic arches, 1569; Lübeck (Rathhaushalle), 1570; Schweinfurt, 1570; Gotha, 1574; Emden, 1574-76; Lemgo, 1589; Neisse, 1604; Nordhausen, 1610; Paderborn, 1612-16; Gernsbach, 1617. SPAIN, 16TH CENTURY: Monastery San Marcos at Leon; palace of the Infanta, Saragossa; Carcel del Corte at Baez; Cath. Of Malaga, W. Front, 1538, by de Siloë; Tavera Hospital, Toledo, 1541, by de Bustamente; Alcazar at Toledo, 1548; Lonja (Town Hall) at Saragossa, 1551; Casa de la Sal, Casa Monterey, and Collegio de los Irlandeses, all at Salamanca; Town Hall, Casa de los Taveras and upper part of Giralda, all at Seville. --17TH CENTURY: Cathedral del Pilar, Saragossa, 1677; Tower del Seo, 1685. --18TH CENTURY: palace at Madrid, 1735; at Aranjuez, 1739; cathedral of Santiago, 1738; Lonja at Barcelona, 1772. CHAPTER XXV. THE CLASSIC REVIVALS IN EUROPE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Fergusson. Also Chateau, _Histoire et caractères de l’architecture en France_; and Lübke, _Geschichte der Architektur_. (For the most part, however, recourse must be had to the general histories of architecture, and to monographs on special cities or buildings. ) +THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. + By the end of the seventeenth century theRenaissance, properly speaking, had run its course in Europe. Theincreasing servility of its imitation of antique models had exhaustedits elasticity and originality. Taste rapidly declined before the growthof the industrial and commercial spirit in the eighteenth century. Theferment of democracy and the disquiet of far-reaching political changeshad begun to preoccupy the minds of men to the detriment of the arts. Bythe middle of the eighteenth century, however, the extravagances of theRococo, Jesuit, and Louis XV. Styles had begun to pall upon the populartaste. The creative spirit was dead, and nothing seemed more promisingas a corrective for these extravagances than a return to classic models. But the demand was for a literal copying of the arcades and porticos ofRome, to serve as frontispieces for buildings in which modernrequirements should be accommodated to these antique exteriors, insteadof controlling the design. The result was a manifest gain in thesplendor of the streets and squares adorned by these highly decorativefrontispieces, but at the expense of convenience and propriety in thebuildings themselves. While this academic spirit too often sacrificedlogic and originality to an arbitrary symmetry and to the supposedcanons of Roman design, it also, on the other hand, led to a statelinessand dignity in the planning, especially in the designing of vestibules, stairs, and halls, which render many of the public buildings it producedwell worthy of study. The architecture of the Roman Revival was pompousand artificial, but seldom trivial, and its somewhat affected grandeurwas a welcome relief from the dull extravagance of the styles itreplaced. +THE GREEK REVIVAL. + The Roman revival was, however, displaced inEngland and Germany by the Greek Revival, which set in near the close ofthe eighteenth century. This was the result of a newly awakened interestin the long-neglected monuments of Attic art which the discoveries ofStuart and Revett--sent out in 1732 by the London Society ofDilettanti--had once more made known to the world. It led to a veritable_furore_ in England for Greek Doric and Ionic columns, which wereapplied indiscriminately to every class of buildings, with utterdisregard of propriety. The British taste was at this time at its lowestebb, and failed to perceive the poverty of Greek architecture whendeprived of its proper adornments of carving and sculpture, which weresingularly lacking in the British examples. Nevertheless the Greek stylein England had a long run of popular favor, yielding only during thereign of the present sovereign to the so-called Victorian Gothic, a revival of mediæval forms. In Germany the Greek Revival wascharacterized by a more cultivated taste and a more rational applicationof its forms, which were often freely modified to suit modern needs. InFrance, where the Roman Revival under Louis XV. Had produced fairlysatisfactory results, and where the influence of the Royal School ofFine Arts (_École des Beaux-Arts_) tended to perpetuate the principlesof Roman design, the Greek Revival found no footing. The Greek formswere seen to be too severe and intractable for present requirements. About 1830, however, a modified style of design, known since as the_Néo-Grec_, was introduced by the exertions of a small coterie oftalented architects; and though its own life was short, it profoundlyinfluenced French art in the direction of freedom and refinement for along time afterward. In Italy there was hardly anything in the nature ofa true revival of either Roman or Greek forms. The few important worksof the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were conceived inthe spirit of the late Renaissance, and took from the prevalent revivalof classicism elsewhere merely a greater correctness of detail, not anyradical change of form or spirit. [Illustration: FIG. 198. --BRITISH MUSEUM, LONDON. ] +ENGLAND. + There was, strictly speaking, no Roman revival in GreatBritain. The modified Palladian style of Wren and Gibbs and theirsuccessors continued until superseded by the Greek revival. The firstfruit of the new movement seems to have been the +Bank of England+ atLondon, by _Sir John Soane_ (1788). In this edifice the Greco-Romanorder of the round temple at Tivoli was closely copied, and applied to along façade, too low for its length and with no sufficient stylobate, but fairly effective with its recessed colonnade and unpierced walls. The +British Museum+, by _Robert Smirke_ (Fig. 198), was a moreambitious essay in a more purely Greek style. Its colossal Ioniccolonnade was, however, a mere frontispiece, applied to a badly plannedand commonplace building, from which it cut off needed light. The moremodest but appropriate columnar façade to the +Fitzwilliam Museum+ atCambridge, by _Bassevi_, was a more successful attempt in the samedirection, better proportioned and avoiding the incongruity of modernwindows in several stories. These have always been the stumbling-blockof the revived Greek style. The difficulties they raise are avoided, however, in buildings presenting but two stories, the order beingapplied to the upper story, upon a high stylobate serving as a basement. The +High School+ and the Royal Institution at Edinburgh, and theUniversity at London, by _Wilkins_, are for this reason, if for noother, superior to the British Museum and other many-storied Anglo-Greekedifices. In spite of all difficulties, however, the English extendedthe applications of the style with doubtful success not only to allmanner of public buildings, but also to country residences. CarltonHouse, Bowden Park, and Grange House are instances of thismisapplication of Greek forms. Neither did it prove more tractable forecclesiastical purposes. +St. Pancras’s+ Church at London, and severalchurches by _Thomson_ (1817-75), in Glasgow, though interesting asexperiments in such adaptation, are not to be commended for imitation. The most successful of all British Greek designs is perhaps +St. George’s Hall+ at Liverpool (Fig. 199), whose imposing peristyle andporches are sufficiently Greek in spirit and detail to class it amongthe works of the Greek Revival. But its great hall and its interiorcomposition are really Roman and not Greek, emphasizing the teaching ofexperience that Greek architecture does not lend itself to theexigencies of modern civilization to nearly the same extent as theRoman. [Illustration: FIG. 199. --ST. GEORGE’S HALL, LIVERPOOL. ] [Illustration: FIG. 200. --THE OLD MUSEUM, BERLIN. ] +GERMANY. + During the eighteenth century the classic revival in Germany, which at first followed Roman precedents (as in the columns carved withspirally ascending reliefs in front of the church of +St. CharlesBorromeo+, at Vienna), was directed into the channel of Greek imitationby the literary works of Winckelmann, Lessing, Goethe, and others, aswell as by the interest aroused by the discoveries of Stuart and Revett. The +Brandenburg Gate+ at Berlin (1784, by Langhans) was an earlyexample of this Hellenism in architecture, and one of its mostsuccessful applications to civic purposes. Without precisely copying anyGreek structure, it was evidently inspired from the Athenian Propylæa, and nothing in its purpose is foreign to the style employed. Thegreatest activity in the style came later, however, and was greatlystimulated by the achievements of _Fr. Schinkel_ (1771-1841), one of thegreatest of modern German architects. While in the domical church of St. Nicholas at Potsdam, he employed Roman forms in a modernized Romanconception, and followed in one or two other buildings the principles ofthe Renaissance, his predilections were for Greek architecture. Hismasterpiece was the +Museum+ at Berlin, with an imposing portico of 18Ionic columns (Fig. 200). This building with its fine rotunda wasexcellently planned, and forms, in conjunction with the +New Museum+ by_Stuhler_ (1843-55), a noble palace of art, to whose monumentalrequirements and artistic purpose the Greek colonnades and pedimentswere not inappropriate. Schinkel’s greatest successor was _Leo vonKlenze_ (1784-1864), whose more textual reproductions of Greek modelswon him great favor and wide employment. The +Walhalla+ near Ratisbon isa modernized Parthenon, internally vaulted with glass; elegantexternally, but too obvious a plagiarism to be greatly admired. The+Ruhmeshalle+ at Munich, a double +L+ partly enclosing a colossalstatue of Bavaria, and devoted to the commemoration of Bavaria’s greatmen, is copied from no Greek building, though purely Greek in design andcorrect to the smallest detail. In the +Glyptothek+ (Sculpture Gallery), in the same city, the one distinctively Greek feature introduced byKlenze, an Ionic portico, is also the one inappropriate note in thedesign. The +Propylæa+ at Munich, by the same (Fig. 201), and the +CourtTheatre+ at Berlin, by Schinkel, are other important examples of thestyle. The latter is externally one of the most beautiful theatres inEurope, though less ornate than many. Schinkel’s genius was hereremarkably successful in adapting Greek details to the exigentdifficulties of theatre design, and there is no suggestion of copyingany known Greek building. [Illustration: FIG. 201. --THE PROPYLÆA, MUNICH. ] In Vienna the one notable monument of the Classic Revival is the+Reichsrathsgebäude+ or Parliament House, by _Th. Hansen_ (1843), animposing two-storied composition with a lofty central colonnade andlower side-wings, harmonious in general proportions and pleasinglyvaried in outline and mass. In general, the Greek Revival in Germany presents the aspect of asincere striving after beauty, on the part of a limited number ofartists of great talent, misled by the idea that the forms of a deadcivilization could be galvanized into new life in the service of modernneeds. The result was disappointing, in spite of the excellent planning, admirable construction and carefully studied detail of these buildings, and the movement here as elsewhere was foredoomed to failure. [Illustration: FIG. 202. --PLAN OF PANTHÉON, PARIS. ] +FRANCE. + In France the Classic Revival, as we have seen, had made itsappearance during the reign of Louis XV. In a number of importantmonuments which expressed the protest of their authors against thecaprice of the Rococo style then in vogue. The colonnades of theGarde-Meuble, the façade of St. Sulpice, and the coldly beautiful+Panthéon+ (Figs. 202, 203) testified to the conviction in the mostcultured minds of the time that Roman grandeur was to be attained onlyby copying the forms of Roman architecture with the closest possibleapproach to correctness. In the Panthéon, the greatest ecclesiasticalmonument of its time in France (otherwise known as the church of Ste. Genéviève), the spirit of correct classicism dominates the interior aswell as the exterior. It is a Greek cross, measuring 362 × 267 feet, with a dome 265 feet high, and internally 69 feet in diameter. The fourarms have domical vaulting and narrow aisles separated by Corinthiancolumns. The whole interior is a cold but extremely elegant composition. The most notable features of the exterior are its imposing portico ofcolossal Corinthian columns and the fine peristyle which surrounds thedrum of the dome, giving it great dignity and richness of effect. [Illustration: FIG. 203. --EXTERIOR OF PANTHÉON, PARIS. ] [Illustration: FIG. 204. --ARC DE L’ÉTOILE, PARIS. ] The dome, which is of stone throughout, has three shells, theintermediate shell serving to support the heavy stone lantern. Thearchitect was _Soufflot_ (1713-81). The +Grand Théâtre+, at Bordeaux(1773, by _Victor Louis_), one of the largest and finest theatres inEurope, was another product of this movement, its stately colonnadeforming one of the chief ornaments of the city. Under Louis XVI. Therewas a temporary reaction from this somewhat pompous affectation ofantique grandeur; but there were few important buildings erected duringthat unhappy reign, and the reaction showed itself mainly in a moredelicate and graceful style of interior decoration. It was reserved forthe Empire to set the seal of official approval on the Roman Revival. The Arch of Triumph of the Carrousel, behind the Tuileries, by _Percierand Fontaine_, the magnificent Arc de l’Étoile, at the summit of theAvenue of the Champs Elysées, by _Chalgrin_; the wing begun by Napoleonto connect the Tuileries with the Louvre on the land side, and thechurch of the Madeleine, by _Vignon_, erected as a temple to the heroesof the Grande Armée, were all designed, in accordance with the expressedwill of the Emperor himself, in a style as Roman as the requirements ofeach case would permit. All these monuments, begun between 1806 and1809, were completed after the Restoration. The +Arch+ of the+Carrousel+ is a close copy of Roman models; that of the +Étoile+ (Fig. 204) was a much more original design, of colossal dimensions. Itsadmirable proportions, simple composition and striking sculptures giveit a place among the noblest creations of its class. The +Madeleine+(Fig. 205), externally a Roman Corinthian temple of the largest size, presents internally an almost Byzantine conception with the threependentive domes that vault its vast nave, but all the details areRoman. However suitable for a pantheon or mausoleum, it seems strangelyinappropriate as a design for a Christian church. To these monumentsshould be added the +Bourse+ or Exchange, by _Brongniart_, heavy inspite of its Corinthian peristyle, and the river front of the +CorpsLégislatif+ or Palais Bourbon, by _Poyet_, the only extant example of adodecastyle portico with a pediment. All of these designs arecharacterized by great elegance of detail and excellence of execution, and however inappropriate in style to modern uses, they add immensely tothe splendor of the French capital. Unquestionably no feature can takethe place of a Greek or Roman colonnade as an embellishment for broadavenues and open squares, or as the termination of an architecturalvista. [Illustration: FIG. 205. --THE MADELEINE, PARIS. ] The Greek revival took little hold of the Parisian imagination. Itsforms were too cold, too precise and fixed, too intractable to modernrequirements to appeal to the French taste. It counts but one notablemonument, the church of +St. Vincent de Paul+, by _Hittorff_, who soughtto apply to this design the principles of Greek external polychromy; butthe frescoes and ornaments failed to withstand the Parisian climate, andwere finally erased. The Néo-Grec movement already referred to, initiated by Duc, Duban, and Labrouste about 1830, aimed only tointroduce into modern design the spirit and refinement, the purity anddelicacy of Greek art, not its forms (Fig. 206). Its chief monumentswere the remodelling, by _Duc_, of the +Palais de Justice+, of which thenew west façade is the most striking single feature; the beautiful+Library of the École des Beaux-Arts+, by _Duban_; the library of +Ste. Genéviève+, by _Labrouste_, in which a long façade is treated without apilaster or column, simple arches over a massive basement forming thedominant motive, while in the interior a system of iron constructionwith glazed domes controls the design; and the commemorative +ColonneJuillet+, by Duc, the most elegant and appropriate of all modernmemorial columns. All these buildings, begun between 1830 and 1850 andcompleted at various dates, are distinguished by a remarkable purity andfreedom of conception and detail, quite unfettered by the artificialtrammels of the official academic style then prevalent. [Illustration: FIG. 206. --DOORWAY, ÉCOLE DES BEAUX-ARTS, PARIS. ] +THE CLASSIC REVIVAL ELSEWHERE. + The other countries of Europe havelittle to show in the way of imitations of classic monuments orreproductions of Roman colonnades. In Italy the church of +S.  Francescodi Paola+, at Naples, in quasi-imitation of the Pantheon at Rome, withwing-colonnades, and the +Superga+, at Turin (1706, by _Ivara_); thefaçade of the San Carlo Theatre, at Naples, and the Braccio Nuovo of theVatican (1817, by _Stern_) are the monuments which come the nearest tothe spirit and style of the Roman Revival. Yet in each of these there isa large element of originality and freedom of treatment which rendersdoubtful their classification as examples of that movement. A reflection of the Munich school is seen in the modern public buildingsof Athens, designed in some cases by German architects, and in others bynative Greeks. The University, the Museum buildings, the Academy of Artand Science, and other edifices exemplify fairly successful efforts toadapt the severe details of classic Greek art to modern windowedstructures. They suffer somewhat from the too liberal use of stucco inplace of marble, and from the conscious affectation of an extinct style. But they are for the most part pleasing and monumental designs, addinggreatly to the beauty of the modern city. [Illustration: FIG. 207. --ST. ISAAC’S CATHEDRAL, ST. PETERSBURG. ] In Russia, during and after the reign of Peter the Great (1689-1725), there appeared a curious mixture of styles. A style analogous to theJesuit in Italy and the Churrigueresque in Spain was generallyprevalent, but it was in many cases modified by Muscovite traditionsinto nondescript forms like those of the +Kremlin+, at Moscow, or theless extravagant Citadel Church and Smolnoy Monastery at St. Petersburg. Along with this heavy and barbarous style, which prevails generally inthe numerous palaces of the capital, finished in stucco with atrociousdetails, a more severe and classical spirit is met with. The church ofthe +Greek Rite+ at St. Petersburg combines a Roman domical interiorwith an exterior of the Greek Doric order. The Church of +Our Lady ofKazan+ has a semicircular colonnade projecting from its transept, copying as nearly as may be the colonnades in front of St. Peter’s. Butthe greatest classic monument in Russia is the +Cathedral of St. Isaac+(Fig. 207), at St. Petersburg, a vast rectangular edifice with fourRoman Corinthian pedimental colonnades projecting from its faces, and adome with a peristyle crowning the whole. Despite many defects ofdetail, and the use of cast iron for the dome, which pretends to be ofmarble, this is one of the most impressive churches of its size inEurope. Internally it displays the costliest materials in extraordinaryprofusion, while externally its noble colonnades go far to redeem itsbare attic and the material of its dome. The +Palace of the Grand DukeMichael+, which reproduces, with improvements, Gabriel’s colonnades ofthe Garde Meuble at Paris on its garden front, is a nobly planned andcommendable design, agreeably contrasting with the debased architectureof many of the public buildings of the city. The Admiralty with itsDoric pilasters, and the +New Museum+, by von Klenze of Munich, in askilfully modified Greek style, with effective loggias, are the onlyother monuments of the classic revival in Russia which can find mentionin a brief sketch like this. Both are notable and in many respectsadmirable buildings, in part redeeming the vulgarity which isunfortunately so prevalent in the architecture of St. Petersburg. The +MONUMENTS+ of the Classic Revival have been referred to in theforegoing text at sufficient length to preclude the necessity of furtherenumeration here. CHAPTER XXVI. RECENT ARCHITECTURE IN EUROPE. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Chateau, Fergusson. Also Barqui, _L’Architecture moderne en France_. --_Berlin und seine Bauten_ (and a series of similar works on the modern buildings of other German cities). Daly, _Architecture privée du XIXe siècle_. Garnier, _Le nouvel Opéra_. Gourlier, _Choix d’édifices publics_. Licht, _Architektur Deutschlands_. Lübke, _Denkmäler der Kunst_. Lützow und Tischler, _Wiener Neubauten_. Narjoux, _Monuments élevés par la ville de Paris, 1850-1880_. Rückwardt, _Façaden und Details modernen Bauten_. --_Sammelmappe hervorragenden Concurrenz-Entwurfen. _ Sédille, _L’Architecture moderne_. Selfridge, _Modern French Architecture_. Statham, _Modern Architecture_. Villars, _England, Scotland, and Ireland_ (tr. Henry Frith). Consult also _Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects_, and the leading architectural journals of recent years. +MODERN CONDITIONS. + The nineteenth century has been pre-eminently anage of industrial progress. Its most striking advances have been alongmechanical, scientific, and commercial lines. As a result of thismaterial progress the general conditions of mankind in civilizedcountries have undoubtedly been greatly bettered. Popular education andthe printing-press have also raised the intellectual level of society, making learning the privilege of even the poorest. Intellectual, scientific, and commercial pursuits have thus largely absorbed thoseenergies which in other ages found exercise in the creation of artisticforms and objects. The critical and sceptical spirit, the spirit ofutilitarianism and realism, has checked the free and general developmentof the creative imagination, at least in the plastic arts. While inpoetry and music there have been great and noble achievements, theplastic arts, including architecture, have only of late years attained aposition at all worthy of the intellectual advancement of the times. Nevertheless the artistic spirit has never been wholly crushed out bythe untoward pressure of realism and commercialism. Unfortunately it hasrepeatedly been directed in wrong channels. Modern archæology and thepublication of the forms of historic art by books and photographs havetoo exclusively fastened attention upon the details of extinct styles asa source of inspiration in design. The whole range of historic art isbrought within our survey, and while this has on the one hand tendedtoward the confusion and multiplication of styles in modern work, it hason the other led to a slavish adherence to historic precedent or aliteral copying of historic forms. Modern architecture has thusoscillated between the extremes of archæological servitude and of anunreasoning eclecticism. In the hands of men of inferior training theresults have been deplorable travesties of all styles, or meaninglessaggregations of ill-assorted forms. An important factor in this demoralization of architectural design hasbeen the development of new constructive methods, especially in the useof iron and steel. It has been impossible for modern designers, in theirtreatment of style, to keep pace with the rapid changes in thestructural use of metal in architecture. The roofs of vast span, largelycomposed of glass, which modern methods of trussing have made possiblefor railway stations, armories, and exhibition buildings; the immenseunencumbered spaces which may be covered by them; the introduction anddevelopment, especially in the United States, of the post-and-girdersystem of construction for high buildings, in which the external wallsare a mere screen or filling-in; these have revolutionized architectureso rapidly and completely that architects are still struggling andgroping to find the solution of many of the problems of style, scale, and composition which they have brought forward. Within the last thirty years, however, architecture has, despite thesenew conditions, made notable advances. The artistic emulation ofrepeated international exhibitions, the multiplication of museums andschools of art, the general advance in intelligence and enlightenment, have all contributed to this artistic progress. There appears to be moreof the artistic and intellectual quality in the average architecture ofthe present time, on both sides of the Atlantic, than at any previousperiod in this century. The futility of the archæological revival ofextinct styles is generally recognized. New conditions are graduallyprocuring the solution of the very problems they raise. Historicprecedent sits more lightly on the architect than formerly, and theessential unity of principle underlying all good design is coming to bebetter understood. [26] [Footnote 26: See Appendix D. ] +FRANCE. + It is in France, Germany (including Austria), and England thatthe architectural progress of this period in Europe has been mostmarked. We have already noticed the results of the classic revivals inthese three countries. Speaking broadly, it may be said that in Francethe influence of the _École des Beaux-Arts_, while it has tended to givegreater unity and consistency to the national architecture, and hasexerted a powerful influence in behalf of refinement of taste andcorrectness of style, has also stood in the way of a free development ofnew ideas. French architecture has throughout adhered to the principlesof the Renaissance, though the style has during this century beenmodified by various influences. The first of these was the Néo-Grecmovement, alluded to in the last chapter, which broke the grip of Romantradition in matters of detail and gave greater elasticity to thenational style. Next should be mentioned the Gothic movement representedby Viollet-le-Duc, Lassus, Ballu, and their followers. Beginning about1845, it produced comparatively few notable buildings, but gave a greatimpulse to the study of mediæval archæology and the restoration ofmediæval monuments. The churches of Ste. Clothilde and of St. Jean deBelleville, at Paris, and the reconstruction of the Château dePierrefonds, were among its direct results. Indirectly it led to a freerand more rational treatment of constructive forms and materials than hadprevailed with the academic designers. The church of +St. Augustin+, by_Baltard_, at Paris, illustrates this in its use of iron and brick forthe dome and vaulting, and the +College Chaptal+, by _E. Train_, in itsdecorative treatment of brick and tile externally. The general adoptionof iron for roof-trusses and for the construction of markets and similarbuildings tended further in the same direction, the +Halles Centrales+at Paris, by _Baltard_, being a notable example. [Illustration: FIG. 208. --PLAN OF LOUVRE AND TUILERIES, PARIS. A, A, _the Old Louvre, so called_; B, B, _the New Louvre. _] [Illustration: FIG. 209. --PAVILION OF RICHELIEU, LOUVRE. ] +THE SECOND EMPIRE. + The reign of Napoleon III. (1852-70) was a periodof exceptional activity, especially in Paris. The greatest monument ofhis reign was the completion of the +Louvre+ and +Tuileries+, under_Visconti_ and _Lefuel_, including the remodelling of the pavilions deFlore and de Marsan. The new portions constitute the most notableexample of modern French architecture, and the manner in which the twopalaces were united deserves high praise. In spite of certain defects, this work is marked by a combination of dignity, richness, andrefinement, such as are rarely found in palace architecture (Figs. 208, 209). The +New Opera+ (1863-75), by _Garnier_ (d.  1898), stands next tothe Louvre in importance as a national monument. It is by far the mostsumptuous building for amusement in existence, but in purity of detailand in the balance and restraint of its design it is inferior to thework of Visconti and Lefuel (Fig. 210). To this reign belong the Palaisde l’Industrie, by _Viel_, built for the exhibition of 1855, and severalgreat railway stations (Gare du Nord, by Hitorff, Gare de l’Est, Gared’Orléans, etc. ), in which the modern French version of the Renaissancewas applied with considerable skill to buildings largely constructed ofiron and glass. Town halls and theatres were erected in great numbers, and in decorative works like fountains and monuments the French wereparticularly successful. The fountains of +St. Michel+, Cuvier, andMolière, at Paris, and of +Longchamps+, at Marseilles (Fig. 211), illustrate the fertility of resource and elegance of detailed treatmentof the French in this department. Mention should also here be made ofthe extensive enterprises carried out by Napoleon III. , in rectifyingand embellishing the street-plan of Paris by new avenues and squares ona vast scale, adding greatly to the monumental splendor of the city. [Illustration: FIG. 210. --GRAND STAIRCASE OF THE OPERA, PARIS. ] [Illustration: FIG. 211. --FOUNTAIN OF LONGCHAMPS, MARSEILLES. ] +THE REPUBLIC. + Since the disasters of 1870 a number of importantstructures have been erected, and French architecture has shown aremarkable vitality and flexibility under new conditions. Itsproductions have in general been marked by a refined taste and aconspicuous absence of eccentricity and excess; but it has for the mostpart trodden in well-worn paths. The most notable recent monuments are, in church architecture, the +Sacré-Cœur+, at Montmartre, by _Abadie_, a votive church inspired from the Franco-Byzantine style of Aquitania;in civil architecture the new +Hôtel de Ville+, at Paris, by _Ballu_ and_Déperthes_, recalling the original structure destroyed by the Commune, but in reality an original creation of great merit; in scholasticarchitecture the new École de Médecine, and the new +Sorbonne+, by_Nénot_, and in other branches of the art the metal-and-glass exhibitionbuildings of 1878, 1889, and 1900. In the last of these the striving fororiginality and the effort to discard traditional forms reached theextreme, although accompanied by much very clever detail and a masterlyuse of color-decoration. To these should be added many noteworthytheatres, town-halls, court-houses, and _préfectures_ in provincialcities, and commemorative columns and monuments almost without number. In street architecture there is now much more variety and originalitythan formerly, especially in private houses, and the reaction againstthe orders and against traditional methods of design has of late beengrowing stronger. The chief excellence of modern French architecturelies in its rational planning, monumental spirit, and refinement ofdetail (Fig. 212). +GERMANY AND AUSTRIA. + German architecture has been more affected duringthe past fifty years by the archæological spirit than has the French. A pronounced mediæval revival partly accompanied, partly followed theGreek revival in Germany, and produced a number of churches and a fewsecular buildings in the basilican, Romanesque, and Gothic styles. Theseare less interesting than those in the Greek style, because mediævalforms are even more foreign to modern needs than the classic, beingcompatible only with systems of design and construction which are nolonger practicable. At Munich the Auekirche, by _Ohlmuller_, in anattenuated Gothic style; the Byzantine Ludwigskirche, and _Ziebland’s_Basilica following Early Christian models; the Basilica by _Hübsch _, atBulach, and the Votive Church at Vienna (1856) by H.  Von Ferstel(1828-1883) are notable neo-mediæval monuments. The last-named churchmay be classed with Ste. Clothilde at Paris (see p.  371), and St. Patrick’s Cathedral at New York, all three being of approximately thesame size and general style, recalling St. Ouen at Rouen. They arecorrect and elaborate, but more or less cold and artificial. [Illustration: FIG. 212. --MUSÉE GALLIÉRA, PARIS. ] More successful are many of the German theatres and concert halls, inwhich Renaissance and classic forms have been freely used. In several ofthese the attempt has been made to express by the external form thecurvilinear plan of the auditorium, as in the +Dresden Theatre+, by_Semper_ (1841; Fig. 213), the theatre at Carlsruhe, by Hübsch, and thedouble winter-summer +Victoria Theatre+, at Berlin, by _Titz_. But thepractical and æsthetic difficulties involved in this treatment havecaused its general abandonment. The +Opera House+ at Vienna, by_Siccardsburg_ and _Van der Null_ (1861-69), is rectangular in itsmasses, and but for a certain triviality of detail would rank among themost successful buildings of its kind. The new +Burgtheater+ in the samecity is a more elaborately ornate structure in Renaissance style, somewhat florid and overdone. [Illustration: FIG. 213. --THEATRE AT DRESDEN. ] Modern German architecture is at its best in academic and residentialbuildings. The +Bauschule+, at Berlin, by Schinkel, in which brick isused in a rational and dignified design without the orders; thePolytechnic School, at Zürich, by Semper; university buildings, andespecially buildings for technical instruction, at Carlsruhe, Stuttgart, Strasburg, Vienna, and other cities, show a monumental treatment of theexterior and of the general distribution, combined with a careful studyof practical requirements. In administrative buildings the Germans havehardly been as successful; and the new +Parliament House+, at Berlin, by_Wallot_, in spite of its splendor and costliness, is heavy andunsatisfactory in detail. The larger cities, especially Berlin, containmany excellent examples of house architecture, mostly in the Renaissancestyle, sufficiently monumental in design, though usually, like mostGerman work, inclined to heaviness of detail. The too free use of stuccoin imitation of stone is also open to criticism. [Illustration: FIG. 214. --BLOCK OF DWELLINGS (MARIE-THERESIENHOF), VIENNA. ] +VIENNA. + During the last thirty years Vienna has undergone atransformation which has made it the rival of Paris as a statelycapital. The remodelling of the central portion, the creation of aseries of magnificent boulevards and squares, and the grouping of thechief state and municipal buildings about these upon a monumental schemeof arrangement, have given the city an unusual aspect of splendor. Amongthe most important monuments in this group are the +Parliament House+, by Hansen (see p.  360), and the +Town Hall+, by _Schmidt_. This latteris a Neo-Gothic edifice of great size and pretentiousness, but strangelythin and meagre in detail, and quite out of harmony with itssurroundings. The university and museums are massive piles inRenaissance style; and it is the Renaissance rather than the classic orGothic revival which prevails throughout the new city. The great blocksof residences and apartments (Fig. 214) which line its streets arehighly ornate in their architecture, but for the most part done instucco, which fails after all to give the aspect of solidity anddurability which it seeks to counterfeit. The city of +Buda-Pesth+ has also in recent years undergone a phenomenaltransformation of a similar nature to that effected in Vienna, but itpossesses fewer monuments of conspicuous architectural interest. The+Synagogue+ is the most noted of these, a rich and pleasing edifice ofbrick in a modified Hispano-Moresque style. +GREAT BRITAIN. + During the closing years of the Anglo-Greekstyle a coterie of enthusiastic students of British mediævalmonuments--archæologists rather than architects--initiated a movementfor the revival of the national Gothic architecture. The first fruitsof this movement, led by Pugin, Brandon, Rickman, and others (about1830-40), were seen in countless pseudo-Gothic structures in whichthe pointed arches, buttresses, and clustered shafts of mediævalarchitecture were imitated or parodied according to the designer’sability, with frequent misapprehension of their proper use orsignificance. This unintelligent misapplication of Gothic forms was, however, confined to the earlier stages of the movement. With increasinglight and experience came a more correct and consistent use of themediæval styles, dominated by the same spirit of archæologicalcorrectness which had produced the _classicismo_ of the Late Renaissancein Italy. This spirit, stimulated by extensive enterprises in therestoration of the great mediæval monuments of the United Kingdom, wasfatal to any free and original development of the style along new lines. But it rescued church architecture from the utter meanness anddebasement into which it had fallen, and established a standard of tastewhich reacted on all other branches of design. [Illustration: FIG. 215. --HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, WESTMINSTER, LONDON. ] [Illustration: FIG. 216. --ASSIZE COURTS, MANCHESTER. DETAIL. ] +THE VICTORIAN GOTHIC. + Between 1850 and 1870 the striving afterarchæological correctness gave place to the more rational effort toadapt Gothic principles to modern requirements, instead of merelycopying extinct styles. This effort, prosecuted by a number ofarchitects of great intelligence, culture, and earnestness (Sir GilbertScott, George Edmund Street, William Burges, and others), resulted in anumber of extremely interesting buildings. Chief among these in size andcost stand the +Parliament Houses+ at Westminster, by _Sir CharlesBarry_ (begun 1839), in the Perpendicular style. This immense structure(Fig. 215), imposing in its simple masses and refined in its carefullystudied detail, is the most successful monument of the Victorian Gothicstyle. It suffers, however, from the want of proper relation of scalebetween its decorative elements and the vast proportions of the edifice, which belittle its component elements. It cannot, on the whole, beclaimed as a successful vindication of the claims of the promoters ofthe style as to the adaptability of Gothic forms to structures plannedand built after the modern fashion. The +Assize Courts+ at Manchester(Fig. 216), the +New Museum+ at Oxford, the gorgeous +Albert Memorial+at London, by _Scott_, and the +New Law Courts+ at London, by _Street_, are all conspicuous illustrations of the same truth. They areconscientious, carefully studied designs in good taste, and yet whollyunsuited in style to their purpose. They are like labored and scholarlyverse in a foreign tongue, correct in form and language, but lacking thenaturalness and charm of true and unfettered inspiration. A later essayof the same sort in a slightly different field is the +Natural HistoryMuseum+ at South Kensington, by _Waterhouse_ (1879), an imposingbuilding in a modified Romanesque style (Fig. 217). [Illustration: FIG. 217. --NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM, LONDON. ] +OTHER WORKS. + The Victorian Gothic style responded to no deep andgeneral movement of the popular taste, and, like the Anglo-Greek style, was doomed to failure from the inherent incongruity between modern needsand mediæval forms. Within the last twenty years there has been a quitegeneral return to Renaissance principles, and the result is seen in alarge number of town-halls, exchanges, museums, and colleges, in whichRenaissance forms, with and without the orders, have been treated withincreasing freedom and skilful adaptation to the materials and specialrequirements of each case. The Albert Memorial Hall (1863, by GeneralScott) may be taken as an early instance of this movement, and the+Imperial Institute+ (Colonial offices), by Collcutt, and Oxford TownHall, by Aston Webb, as among its latest manifestations. In domesticarchitecture the so-called Queen Anne style has been much in vogue, aspractised by Norman Shaw, Ernest George, and others. It is really amodern style, originating in the imitation of the modified Palladianstyle as used in the brick architecture of Queen Anne’s time, but freelyand often artistically altered to meet modern tastes and needs. In its emancipation from the mistaken principles of archæologicalrevivals, and in its evidences of improved taste and awakenedoriginality, contemporary British architecture shows promise of goodthings to come. It is still inferior to the French in the monumentalquality, in technical resource and refinement of decorative detail. +ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE. + In other European countries recent architectureshows in general increasing freedom and improved good taste, but bothits opportunities and its performance have been nowhere else asconspicuous as in France, Germany, and England. The costly Bourse andthe vast but overloaded Palais de Justice at Brussels, by _Polaert_, areneither of them conspicuous for refined and cultivated taste. A fewbuildings of note in Switzerland, Russia, and Greece might find mentionin a more extended review of architecture, but cannot here even beenumerated. In Italy, especially at Rome, Milan, Naples, and Turin, there has been a great activity in building since 1870, but with theexception of the +Monument to Victor Emmanuel+ and the National Museumat Rome, monumental arcades and passages at Milan and Naples, and _CampiSanti_ or monumental cemeteries at Bologna, Genoa, and one or two otherplaces, there has been almost nothing of real importance built in Italyof late years. CHAPTER XXVII. ARCHITECTURE IN THE UNITED STATES. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Fergusson, Statham. Also, Chandler, _The Colonial Architecture of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia_. Cleaveland and Campbell, _American Landmarks_. Corner and Soderholz, _Colonial Architecture in New England_. Crane and Soderholz, _Examples of Colonial Architecture in Charleston and Savannah_. Drake, _Historic Fields and Mansions of Middlesex_. Everett, _Historic Churches of America_. King, _Handbook of Boston_; _Handbook of New York_. Little, _Early New England Interiors_. Schuyler, _American Architecture_. Van Rensselaer, _H. H. Richardson and His Works_. Wallis, _Old Colonial Architecture and Furniture_. +GENERAL REMARKS. + The colonial architecture of modern times presents apeculiar phenomenon. The colonizing nation, carrying into its new_habitat_ the tastes and practices of a long-established civilization, modifies these only with the utmost reluctance, under the absolutecompulsion of new conditions. When the new home is virgin soil, destitute of cultivation, government, or civilized inhabitants, theaccompaniments and activities of civilization introduced by thecolonists manifest themselves at first in curious contrast to theprimitive surroundings. The struggle between organized life and chaos, the laborious subjugation of nature to the requirements of our complexmodern life, for a considerable period absorb the energies of thecolonists. The amenities of culture, the higher intellectual life, therefinements of art can, during this period, receive little attention. Meanwhile a new national character is being formed; the people areundergoing the moral training upon which their subsequent achievementsmust depend. With the conquest of brute nature, however, and the gradualemergence of a more cultivated class, with the growth of commerce andwealth and the consequent increase of leisure, the humanities find moreplace in the colonial life. The fine arts appear in scattered centresdetermined by peculiarly favorable conditions. For a long time theyretain the impress, and seek to reproduce the forms, of the art of themother country. But new conditions impose a new development. Maturingcommerce with other lands brings in foreign influences, to which thestill unformed colonial art is peculiarly susceptible. Only withpolitical and commercial independence, fully developed internalresources, and a high national culture do the arts finally attain, as itwere, their majority, and enter upon a truly national growth. These facts are abundantly illustrated by the architectural history ofthe United States. The only one among the British colonies to attainpolitical independence, it is the only one among them whose architecturehas as yet entered upon an independent course of development, and thisonly within the last twenty-five or thirty years. Nor has even thisdevelopment produced as yet a distinctive local style. It has, however, originated new constructive methods, new types of buildings, and adistinctively American treatment of the composition and the masses; thedecorative details being still, for the most part, derived from historicprecedents. The architecture of the other British colonies has retainedits provincial character, though producing from time to time individualworks of merit. In South America and Mexico the only buildings ofimportance are Spanish, French, or German in style, according to thenationality of the architects employed. The following sketch of Americanarchitecture refers, therefore, exclusively to its development in theUnited States. +FORMATIVE PERIOD. + Buildings in stone were not undertaken by the earlyEnglish colonists. The more important structures in the Southern andDutch colonies were of brick imported from Europe. Wood was, however, the material most commonly employed, especially in New England, and itsuse determined in large measure the form and style of the colonialarchitecture. There was little or no striving for architectural eleganceuntil well into the eighteenth century, when Wren’s influence asserteditself in a modest way in the Middle and Southern colonies. The verysimple and unpretentious town-hall at Williamsburg, Va. , and St. Michael’s, Charleston, are attributed to him; but the most that can besaid for these, as for the brick churches and manors of Virginiaprevious to 1725, is that they are simple in design and pleasing inproportion, without special architectural elegance. The same is true ofthe wooden houses and churches of New England of the period, except thatthey are even simpler in design. From 1725 to 1775 increased population and wealth along the coastbrought about a great advance in architecture, especially in churchesand in the dwellings of the wealthy. During this period was developedthe _Colonial style_, based on that of the reigns of Anne and the firsttwo Georges in England, and in church architecture on the models set byWren and Gibbs. All the details were, however, freely modified by thegeneral employment of wood. The scarcity of architects trained in OldWorld traditions contributed to this departure from classic precision ofform. The style, especially in interior design, reflected the culturedtaste of the colonial aristocracy in its refined treatment of thewoodwork. But there was little or no architecture of a truly monumentalcharacter. Edifices of stone were singularly few, and administrativebuildings were small and modest, owing to insufficient grants from theCrown, as well as to the poverty of the colonies. [Illustration: FIG. 218. --CHRIST CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA. ] The churches of this period include a number of interesting designs, especially pleasing in the forms of their steeples. The “+Old South+” atBoston (now a museum), Trinity at Newport, and +St. Paul’s+ at NewYork--one of the few built of stone (1764)--are good examples of thestyle. +Christ Church+ at Philadelphia (1727-35, by Dr. Kearsley) isanother example, historically as well as architecturally interesting(Fig. 218); and there are scores of other churches almost equallynoteworthy, scattered through New England, Maryland, Virginia, and theMiddle States. +DWELLINGS. + These reflect better than the churches the varying tastesof the different colonies. Maryland and Virginia abound in fine brickmanor-houses, set amid extensive grounds walled in and entered throughiron gates of artistic design. The interior finish of these houses wasoften elaborate in conception and admirably executed. Westover (1737), Carter’s Grove (1737) in Virginia, and the Harwood and Hammond Houses atAnnapolis, Md. (1770), are examples. The majority of the New Englandhouses were of wood, more compact in plan, more varied and picturesquein design than those of the South, but wanting somewhat of theirstateliness. The interior finish of wainscot, cornices, stairs, andmantelpieces shows, however, the same general style, in a skilful andartistic adaptation of classic forms to the slender proportions of woodconstruction. Externally the orders appear in porches and in colossalpilasters, with well designed entablatures, and windows of Italianmodel. The influence of the Adams and Sheraton furniture is doubtless tobe seen in these quaint and often charming versions of classic motives. The Hancock House, Boston (of stone, demolished); the Sherburne House, Portsmouth (1730); Craigie House, Cambridge (1757, Fig. 219); andRumford House, North Woburn (Mass. ), are typical examples. [Illustration: FIG. 219. --CRAIGIE (LONGFELLOW) HOUSE, CAMBRIDGE. ] In the Middle States architectural activity was chiefly centred inPhiladelphia and New York, and one or two other towns, where a number ofmanor-houses, still extant, attest the wealth and taste of the time. Itis noticeable that the veranda or piazza was confined to the SouthernStates, but that the climate seems to have had little influence on theforms of roofs. These were gambrelled, hipped, gabled, or flat, alike inthe North and South, according to individual taste. +PUBLIC BUILDINGS. + Of public and monumental architecture this periodhas little to show. Large cities did not exist; New York, Boston, andPhiladelphia were hardly more than overgrown villages. The publicbuildings--court-houses and town-halls--were modest and inexpensivestructures. The Old State House and Faneuil Hall at Boston, the TownHall at Newport (R. I. ), and Independence Hall at Philadelphia, the bestknown of those now extant, are not striking architecturally. Monumentaldesign was beyond the opportunities and means of the colonies. It was intheir churches, all of moderate size, and in their dwellings that thecolonial builders achieved their greatest successes; and these works arequaint, charming, and refined, rather than impressive or imposing. To the latter part of the colonial period belong a number of interestingbuildings which remain as monuments of Spanish rule in California, Florida, and the Southwest. The old Fort S.  Marco, now Fort Marion(1656-1756), and the Catholic cathedral (1793; after the fire of 1887rebuilt in its original form with the original façade uninjured), bothat St. Augustine, Fla. ; the picturesque buildings of the Californiamissions (mainly 1769-1800), the majority of them now in ruins;scattered Spanish churches in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, and afew unimportant secular buildings, display among their modern andAmerican settings a picturesque and interesting Spanish aspect andcharacter, though from the point of view of architectural detail theyrepresent merely a crude phase of the Churrigueresque style. [Illustration: FIG. 220. --NATIONAL CAPITOL, WASHINGTON. ] +EARLY REPUBLICAN PERIOD. + Between the Revolution and the War of 1812, under the new conditions of independence and self-government, architecture took on a more monumental character. Buildings for theState and National administrations were erected with the rapidlyincreasing resources of the country. Stone was more generally used;colonnades, domes, and cupolas or bell-towers, were adopted asindispensable features of civic architecture. In church-building theWren-Gibbs type continued to prevail, but with greater correctness ofclassic forms. The gambrel roof tended to disappear from the houses ofthis period, and there was some decline in the refinement and delicacyof the details of architecture. The influence of the Louis XVI. Style istraceable in many cases, as in the New York City Hall (1803-12, by_McComb_ and _Mangin_), one of the very best designs of the time, and inthe delicate stucco-work and interior finish of many houses, Theoriginal +Capitol+ at Washington--the central portion of the presentedifice--by _Thornton_, _Hallet_, and _B. H. Latrobe_ (1793-1830; Fig. 220), the +State House+ at Boston (1795, by _Bulfinch_), and theUniversity of Virginia, at Charlotteville, by _Thomas Jefferson_ (1817;recently destroyed in part by fire), are the most interesting examplesof the classic tendencies of this period. Their freedom from the rococovulgarities generally prevalent at the time in Europe is noticeable. [Illustration: FIG. 221. --CUSTOM HOUSE, NEW YORK. ] +THE CLASSIC REVIVAL. + The influence of the classic revivals of Europebegan to appear before the close of this period, and reached itsculmination about 1830-40. It left its impress most strongly on ourFederal architecture, although it invaded domestic architecture, producing countless imitations, in brick and wooden houses, of Greciancolonnades and porticos. One of its first-fruits was the White House, orExecutive Mansion, at Washington, by _Hoban_ (1792), recalling the largeEnglish country houses of the time. The +Treasury+ and +Patent Office+buildings at Washington, the Philadelphia Mint, the +Sub-treasury+ and+Custom House+ at New York (the latter erected originally for a bank;Fig. 221), and the +Boston Custom House+ are among the important Federalbuildings of this period. Several State capitols were also erected underthe same influence; and the Marine Exchange and +Girard College+ atPhiladelphia should also be mentioned as conspicuous examples of thepseudo-Greek style. The last-named building is a Corinthian dormitory, its tiers of small windows contrasting strangely with its white marblecolumns. These classic buildings were solidly and carefully constructed, but lacked the grace, cheerfulness, and appropriateness of earlierbuildings. The Capitol at Washington was during this period greatlyenlarged by terminal wings with fine Corinthian porticos, of Romanrather than Greek design. The +Dome+, by _Walters_, was not added until1858-73; it is a successful and harmonious composition, nobly completingthe building. Unfortunately, it is an afterthought, built of ironpainted to simulate marble, the substructure being inadequate to supporta dome of masonry. The Italian or Roman style which it exemplified, intime superseded the less tractable Greek style. +THE WAR PERIOD. + The period from 1850 to 1876 was one of intensepolitical activity and rapid industrial progress. The former culminatedin the terrible upheaval of the civil war; the latter in the completionof the Pacific Railroad (1869) and a remarkable development of themining resources and manufactures of the country. It was a period offeverish commercial activity, but of artistic stagnation, and witnessedthe erection of but few buildings of architectural importance. A numberof State capitols, city halls and churches, of considerable size andcost but of inferior design, attest the decline of public taste andarchitectural skill during these years. The huge Municipal Building atPhiladelphia and the still unfinished Capitol at Albany are full oferrors of planning and detail which twenty-five years of elaborationhave failed to correct. Next to the dome of the Capitol at Washington, completed during this period, of which it is the most signalarchitectural achievement, its most notable monument was the +St. Patrick’s Cathedral+ at New York, by _Renwick_; a Gothic church which, if somewhat cold and mechanical in detail, is a stately andwell-considered design. Its west front and spires (completed 1886) areparticularly successful. Trinity Church (1843, by _Upjohn_) and GraceChurch (1840, by Renwick), though of earlier date, should be classedwith this cathedral as worthy examples of modern Gothic design. Indeed, the churches designed in this style by a few thoroughly trainedarchitects during this period are the most creditable and worthy amongits lesser productions. In general an undiscriminating eclecticism ofstyle prevailed, unregulated by sober taste or technical training. TheFederal buildings by _Mullett_ were monuments of perverted design in aheavy and inartistic rendering of French Renaissance motives. The NewYork Post Office and the State, Army and Navy Department building atWashington are examples of this style. +THE ARTISTIC AWAKENING. + Between 1870 and 1880 a remarkable series ofevents exercised a powerful influence on the artistic life of the UnitedStates. Two terrible conflagrations in Chicago (1871) and Boston (1872)gave unexampled opportunities for architectural improvement and greatlystimulated the public interest in the art. The feverish and abnormalindustrial activity which followed the war and the rapid growth of theparvenu spirit were checked by the disastrous “panic” of 1873. With thecompletion of the Pacific railways and the settlement of new communitiesin the West, industrial prosperity, when it returned, was established ona firmer basis. An extraordinary expansion of travel to Europe began todisseminate the seeds of artistic culture throughout the country. Thesuccessful establishment of schools of architecture in Boston (1866) andother cities, and the opening or enlargement of art museums in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Milwaukee, and elsewhere, stimulated the artistic awakening which now manifested itself. Inarchitecture the personal influence of two men, trained in the ParisÉcole des Beaux-Arts, was especially felt--of _R. M. Hunt_ (1827-95)through his words and deeds quite as much as through his works; and of_H. H. Richardson_ (1828-86) predominantly through his works. These twomen, with others of less fame but of high ideals and thorough culture, did much to elevate architecture as an art in the public esteem. To allthese influences new force was added by the Centennial Exhibition atPhiladelphia (1876). Here for the first time the American people werebrought into contact, in their own land, with the products of Europeanand Oriental art. It was to them an artistic revelation, whose resultswere prompt and far-reaching. Beginning first in the domain ofindustrial and decorative art, its stimulating influence rapidlyextended to painting and architecture, and with permanent consequences. American students began to throng the centres of Old World art, whilethe setting of higher standards of artistic excellence at home, and thedevelopment of important art-industries, were other fruits of thisartistic awakening. The recent Columbian Exhibition at Chicago (1893), its latest and most important manifestation, has added a new impulse tothe movement, especially in architecture. [Illustration: FIG. 222. --TRINITY CHURCH, BOSTON. ] [Illustration: FIG. 223. --LIBRARY AT WOBURN, MASS. ] +STYLE IN RECENT ARCHITECTURE. + The rapid increase in the number ofAmerican architects trained in Paris or under the indirect influence ofthe École des Beaux-Arts has been an important factor in recentarchitectural progress. Yet it has by no means imposed the Frenchacademic formulæ upon American architecture. The conditions, materials, and constructive processes here prevailing, and above all theeclecticism of the public taste, have prevented this. The Frenchinfluence is perceived rather in a growing appreciation of monumentaldesign in the planning, composition, and setting of buildings, than inany direct imitation of French models. The Gothic revival whichprevailed more or less widely from 1840 to 1875, as already noticed, andof which the +State Capitol+ at Hartford (Conn. ; 1875-78), and the +FineArts Museum+ at Boston, were among the last important products, wasgenerally confined to church architecture, for which Gothic forms arestill largely employed, as in the Protestant +Cathedral+ of +All Saints+now building at Albany (N. Y. ), by an English architect. For the mostpart the works of the last twenty years show a more or less judiciouseclecticism, the choice of style being determined partly by the personand training of the designer, partly by the nature of the building. Thepowerfully conceived works of Richardson, in a free version of theFrench Romanesque, for a time exercised a wide influence, especiallyamong the younger architects. +Trinity Church+, Boston (Fig. 222), hisearliest important work; many public libraries and business buildings, and finally the impressive +County Buildings+ at Pittsburgh (Pa. ), alltreated in this style, are admirable rather for the strong individualityof their designer, displayed in their vigorous composition, than onaccount of the historic style he employed (Fig. 223). Yet it appeared inhis hands so flexible and effective that it was widely imitated. But ifeasy to use, it is most difficult to use well; its forms are too massivefor ordinary purposes, and in the hands of inferior designers it was sooften travestied that it has now lost its wide popularity. While anumber of able architects have continued to use it effectively inecclesiastical, civic, and even commercial architecture, it is beinggenerally superseded by various forms of the Renaissance. Here also awide eclecticism prevails, the works of the same architect often varyingfrom the gayest Francis I. Designs in domestic architecture, or freeadaptations of Quattrocento details for theatres and streetarchitecture, to the most formal classicism in colossalexhibition-buildings, museums, libraries, and the like. Meanwhile thereare many more or less successful ventures in other historic stylesapplied to public and private edifices. Underlying this apparentconfusion, almost anarchy in the use of historic styles, the carefulobserver may detect certain tendencies crystallizing into definite form. New materials and methods of construction, increased attention todetail, a growing sense of monumental requirements, even the developmentof the elevator as a substitute for the grand staircase, are leavingtheir mark on the planning, the proportions, and the artisticcomposition of American buildings, irrespective of the styles used. Theart is with us in a state of transition, and open to criticism in manyrespects; but it appears to be full of life and promise for the future. [Illustration: FIG. 224. --“TIMES” BUILDING, NEW YORK. ] +COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. + This class of edifices has in our great citiesdeveloped wholly new types, which have taken shape under four imperativeinfluences. These are the demand for fire-proof construction, the demandfor well-lighted offices, the introduction of elevators, and theconcentration of business into limited areas, within which land hasbecome inordinately costly. These causes have led to the erection ofbuildings of excessive height (Fig. 224); the more recent among themconstructed with a framework of iron or steel columns and beams, thevisible walls being a mere filling-in. To render a building of twentystories attractive to the eye, especially when built on an irregularsite, is a difficult problem, of which a wholly satisfactory solutionhas yet to be found. There have been, however, some notable achievementsin this line, in most of which the principle has been clearly recognizedthat a lofty building should have a well-marked basement or pedestal anda somewhat ornate crowning portion or capital, the intervening storiesserving as a die or shaft and being treated with comparative simplicity. The difficulties of scale and of handling one hundred and fifty to threehundred windows of uniform style have been surmounted with conspicuousskill (+American Surety Building+ and Broadway Chambers, New York; AmesBuilding, Boston; Carnegie Building, Pittsburgh; Union Trust, St. Louis). In some cases, especially in Chicago and the Middle West, themetallic framework is suggested by slender piers between the windows, rising uninterrupted from the basement to the top story. In others, especially in New York and the East, the walls are treated as inordinary masonry buildings. The Chicago school is marked by a moreutilitarian and unconventional treatment, with results which are oftenextremely bold and effective, but rarely as pleasing to the eye as thoseattained by the more conservative Eastern school. In the details ofAmerican office-buildings every variety of style is to be met with; butthe Romanesque and the Renaissance, freely modified, predominate. Thetendency towards two or three well-marked types in the externalcomposition of these buildings, as above suggested, promises, however, the evolution of a style in which the historic origin of the detailswill be a secondary matter. Certain Chicago architects have developed anoriginal treatment of architectural forms by exaggerating some of thestructural lines, by suppressing the mouldings and more familiarhistoric forms, and by the free use of flat surface ornament. TheSchiller, Auditorium, and Fisher Buildings, all at Chicago, GuarantyBuilding, Buffalo, and Majestic Building, Detroit, are examples of thispersonal style, which illustrates the untrammelled freedom of the art ina land without traditions. [27] [Footnote 27: See Appendix, D and E. ] [Illustration: FIG. 225. --COUNTRY HOUSE, MASSACHUSETTS. ] +DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. + It is in this field that the mostcharacteristic and original phases of American architecture are to bemet with, particularly in rural and suburban residences. In these thepeculiar requirements of our varying climates and of American domesticlife have been studied and in large measure met with great frankness andartistic appreciation. The broad staircase-hall, serving often as a sortof family sitting-room, the piazza, and a picturesque massing of steeproofs, have been the controlling factors in the evolution of two orthree general types which appear in infinite variations. The materialmost used is wood, but this has had less influence in the determinationof form than might have been expected. The artlessness of the planning, which is arranged to afford the maximum of convenience rather than toconform to any traditional type, has been the element of greatestartistic success. It has resulted in exteriors which are the naturaloutgrowth of the interior arrangements, frankly expressed, withoutaffectation of style (Fig. 225). The resulting picturesqueness has, however, in many cases been treated as an end instead of an incidentalresult, and the affectation of picturesqueness has in such designsbecome as detrimental as any affectation of style. In the internaltreatment of American houses there has also been a notable artisticadvance, harmony of color and domestic comfort and luxury being soughtafter rather than monumental effects. A number of large city and countryhouses designed on a palatial scale have, however, given opportunity fora more elaborate architecture; notably the Vanderbilt, Villard, andHuntington residences at New York, the great country-seat of +Biltmore+, near Asheville (N. C. ), in the Francis I. Style (by R.  M. Hunt), and manyothers. +OTHER BUILDINGS. + American architects have generally been lesssuccessful in public, administrative, and ecclesiastical architecturethan in commercial and domestic work. The preference for small parishchurches, treated as audience-rooms rather than as places of worship, has interfered with the development of noble types of church-buildings. Yet there are signs of improvement; and the new +Cathedral+ of +St. Johnthe Divine+ at New York, in a modified Romanesque style, promises to bea worthy and monumental building. In semi-public architecture, such ashotels, theatres, clubs, and libraries, there are many notable examplesof successful design. The +Ponce de Leon Hotel+ at St. Augustine, a sumptuous and imposing pile in a free version of the SpanishPlateresco; the Auditorium Theatre at Chicago, the Madison Square Gardenand the Casino at New York, may be cited as excellent in generalconception and well carried out in detail, externally and internally. The Century and Metropolitan Clubs at New York, the +Boston PublicLibrary+, the Carnegie Library at Pittsburgh, the +CongressionalLibrary+ at Washington, and the recently completed Minnesota +StateCapitol+ at St. Paul, exemplify in varying degrees of excellence theincreasing capacity of American architects for monumental design. Thiswas further shown in the buildings of the +Columbian Exposition+ atChicago in 1893. These, in spite of many faults of detail, constitutedan aggregate of architectural splendor such as had never before beenseen or been possible on this side the Atlantic. They further broughtarchitecture into closer union with the allied arts and formed an objectlesson in the value of appropriate landscape gardening as a setting tomonumental structures. It should be said, in conclusion, that with the advances of recent yearsin artistic design in the United States there has been at least as greatimprovement in scientific construction. The sham and flimsiness of theCivil War period are passing away, and solid and durable building isbecoming more general throughout the country, but especially in theNortheast and in some of the great Western cities, notably in Chicago. In this onward movement the Federal buildings--post-offices, custom-houses, and other governmental edifices--have not, till lately, taken high rank. Although solidly and carefully constructed, those builtduring the period 1875-1895 were generally inferior to the best workproduced by private enterprise, or by State and municipal governments. This was in large part due to enactments devolving upon the supervisingarchitect at Washington the planning of all Federal buildings, as wellas a burden of supervisory and clerical duties incompatible with thehighest artistic results. Since 1898, however, a more enlightened policyhas prevailed, and a number of notable designs for Federal buildingshave been secured by carefully-conducted competitions. CHAPTER XXVIII. ORIENTAL ARCHITECTURE. INDIA, CHINA, AND JAPAN. BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Cole, _Monographs of Ancient Monuments of India_. Conder, _Notes on Japanese Architecture_ (in Transactions of R. I. B. A. , for 1886). Cunningham, _Archæological Survey of India_. Fergusson, _Indian and Eastern Architecture_; _Picturesque Illustrations of Indian Architecture_. Le Bon, _Les Monuments de l’Inde_. Morse, _Japanese Houses_. Stirling, _Asiatic Researches_. Consult also the _Journal_ and the _Transactions_ of the Royal Asiatic Society. +INTRODUCTORY NOTE. + The architecture of the non-Moslem countries andraces of Asia has been reserved for this closing chapter, in order notto interrupt the continuity of the history of European styles, withwhich it has no affinity and scarcely even a point of contact. Amongthem all, India alone has produced monuments of great architecturalimportance. The buildings of China and Japan, although interesting fortheir style, methods, and detail, and so deserving at least of briefmention, are for the most part of moderate size and of perishablematerials. Outside of these three countries there is little to interestthe general student of architecture. +INDIA: PERIODS. + It is difficult to classify the non-Mohammedan stylesof India, owing to their frequently overlapping, both geographically andartistically; while the lack of precise dates in Indian literature makesthe chronology of many of the monuments more or less doubtful. Thedivisions given below are a modification of those first established byFergusson, and are primarily based on the three great religions, withgeographical subdivisions, as follows: THE BUDDHIST STYLE, from the reign of Asoka, _cir. _ 250 B. C. , to the 7thcentury A. D. Its monuments occupy mainly a broad band running northeastand southwest, between the Indian Desert and the Dekkan. Offshoots ofthe style are found as far north as Gandhara, and as far south asCeylon. THE JAINA STYLE, akin to the preceding if not derived from it, coveringthe same territory as well as southern India; from 1000 A. D. To thepresent time. THE BRAHMAN or HINDU STYLES, extending over the whole peninsula. Theyare sub-divided geographically into the NORTHERN BRAHMAN, the CHALUKYANin the Dekkan, and the DRAVIDIAN in the south; this last style beingcoterminous with the populations speaking the Tamil and cognatelanguages. The monuments of these styles are mainly subsequent to the10th century, though a few date as far back as the 7th. The great majority of Indian monuments are religious--temples, shrines, and monasteries. Secular buildings do not appear until after the Moslemconquests, and most of them are quite modern. +GENERAL CHARACTER. + All these styles possess certain traits in common. While stone and brick are both used, sandstone predominating, thedetails are in large measure derived from wooden prototypes. Structurallines are not followed in the exterior treatment, purely decorativeconsiderations prevailing. Ornament is equally lavished on all parts ofthe building, and is bewildering in its amount and complexity. Realisticand grotesque sculpture is freely used, forming multiplied horizontalbands of extraordinary richness and minuteness of execution. Spaciousand lofty interiors are rarely attempted, but wonderful effects areproduced by seemingly endless repetition of columns in halls, andcorridors, and by external emphasis of important parts of the plan bylofty tower-like piles of masonry. The source of the various Indian styles, the origin of the forms used, the history of their development, are all wrapped in obscurity. All themonuments show a fully developed style and great command of technicalresources from the outset. When, where, and how these were attained isas yet an unsolved mystery. In all its phases previous to the Moslemconquest Indian architecture appears like an indigenous art, borrowinglittle from foreign styles, and having no affinities with the arts ofOccidental nations. +BUDDHIST STYLE. + Although Buddhism originated in the sixth centuryB. C. , the earliest architectural remains of the style date from its widepromulgation in India under Asoka (272-236 B. C. ). Buddhist monumentscomprise three chief classes of structures: the _stupas_ or _topes_, which are mounds more or less domical in shape, enclosing relic-shrinesof Buddha, or built to mark some sacred spot; _chaityas_, or templehalls, cut in the rock; and _viharas_, or monasteries. The style of thedetail varies considerably in these three classes, but is in generalsimpler and more massive than in the other styles of India. +TOPES. + These are found in groups, of which the most important are ator near Bhilsa in central India, at Manikyala in the northwest, atAmravati in the south, and in Ceylon at Ruanwalli and Tuparamaya. Thebest known among them is the +Sanchi Tope+, near Bhilsa, 120 feet indiameter and 56 feet high. It is surrounded by a richly carved stonerail or fence, with gateways of elaborate workmanship, having threesculptured lintels crossing the carved uprights. The tope at Manikyalais larger, and dates from the 7th century. It is exceeded in size bymany in Ceylon, that at Abayagiri measuring 360 feet in diameter. Few ofthe topes retain the _tee_, or model of a shrine, which, like a lantern, once crowned each of them. Besides the topes there are a few stupas of tower-like form, square inplan, of which the most famous is that at +Buddh Gaya+, near the sacredBodhi tree, where Buddha attained divine light in 588 B. C. +CHAITYA HALLS. + The Buddhist speos-temples--so far as known the onlyextant halls of worship of that religion, except one at Sanchi--aremostly in the Bombay Presidency, at Ellora, Karli, Ajunta, Nassick, andBhaja. The earliest, that at Karli, dates from 78 B. C. , the latest (atEllora), _cir. _ 600 A. D. They consist uniformly of a broad nave endingin an apse, and covered by a roof like a barrel vault, and two narrowside aisles. In the apse is the _dagoba_ or relic-shrine, shaped like aminiature tope. The front of the cave was originally adorned with anopen-work screen or frame of wood, while the face of the rock about theopening was carved into the semblance of a sumptuous structural façade. Among the finest of these caverns is that at +Karli+, whose massivecolumns and impressive scale recall Egyptian models, though theresemblance is superficial and has no historic significance. Moresuggestive is the affinity of many of the columns which stand beforethese caves to Persian prototypes (see Fig. 21). It is not improbablethat both Persian and classic forms were introduced into India throughthe Bactrian kingdom 250 years B. C. Otherwise we must seek for theorigin of nearly all Buddhist forms in a pre-existing woodenarchitecture, now wholly perished, though its traditions may survive inthe wooden screens in the fronts of the caves. While some of thesecaverns are extremely simple, as at Bhaja, others, especially at+Nassick+ and +Ajunta+, are of great splendor and complexity. +VIHARAS. + Except at Gandhara in the Punjab, the structural monasteriesof the Buddhists were probably all of wood and have long ago perished. The Gandhara monasteries of Jamalgiri and Takht-i-Bahi present in planthree or four courts surrounded by cells. The centre of one court is inboth cases occupied by a platform for an altar or shrine. Among theruins there have been found a number of capitals whose strongresemblance to the Corinthian type is now generally attributed toByzantine rather than Bactrian influences. These viharas may thereforebe assigned to the 6th or 7th century A. D. The rock-cut viharas are found in the neighborhood of the chaityasalready described. Architecturally, they are far more elaborate than thechaityas. Those at Salsette, Ajunta, and Bagh are particularlyinteresting, with pillared halls or courts, cells, corridors, andshrines. The hall of the +Great Vihara+ at +Bagh+ is 96 feet square, with 36 columns. Adjoining it is the school-room, and the whole isfronted by a sumptuous rock-cut colonnade 200 feet long. These caveswere mostly hewn between the 5th and 7th centuries, at which timesculpture was more prevalent in Buddhist works than previously, and someof them are richly adorned with figures. +JAINA STYLE. + The religion and the architecture of the Jainas soclosely resemble those of the Buddhists, that recent authorities aredisposed to treat the Jaina style as a mere variation or continuation ofthe Buddhist. Chronologically they are separated by an interval of somethree centuries, _cir. _ 650-950 A. D. , which have left us almost nomonuments of either style. The Jaina is moreover easily distinguishedfrom the Buddhist architecture by the great number and elaborateness ofits structural monuments. The multiplication of statues of Tirthankharin the cells about the temple courts, the exuberance of sculpture, theuse of domes built in horizontal courses, and the imitation in stone ofwooden braces or struts are among its distinguishing features. [Illustration: FIG. 226. --PORCH OF TEMPLE ON MOUNT ABU. ] +JAINA TEMPLES. + The earliest examples are on +Mount Abu+ in the IndianDesert. Built by Vimalah Sah in 1032, the chief of these consists of acourt measuring 140 × 90 feet, surrounded by cells and a doublecolonnade. In the centre rises the shrine of the god, containing hisstatue, and terminating in a lofty tower or _sikhra_. An imposingcolumnar porch, cruciform in plan, precedes this cell (Fig. 226). Theintersection of the arms is covered by a dome supported on eight columnswith stone brackets or struts. The dome and columns are covered withprofuse carving and sculptured figures, and the total effect is one ofremarkable dignity and splendor. The temple of +Sadri+ is much moreextensive, twenty minor domes and one of larger size forming cruciformporches on all four sides of the central _sikhra_. The cells about thecourt are each covered by a small _sikhra_, and these, with thetwenty-one domes (four of which are built in three stories), all groupedabout the central tower and adorned with an astonishing variety ofdetail, constitute a monument of the first importance. It was built byKhumbo Rana, about 1450. At +Girnar+ are several 12th-century templeswith enclosed instead of open vestibules. One of these, that of+Neminatha+, retains intact its court enclosure and cells, which in mostother cases have perished. The temple at +Somnath+ resembles it, but islarger; the dome of its porch, 33 feet in diameter, is the largest Jainadome in India. Other notable temples are at Gwalior, Khajuraho, andParasnatha. In all the Jaina temples the salient feature is the sikhra or _vimana_. This is a tower of approximately square plan, tapering by a gracefulcurve toward a peculiar terminal ornament shaped like a flattened melon. Its whole surface is variegated by horizontal bands and vertical breaks, covered with sculpture and carving. Next in importance are the domes, built wholly in horizontal courses and resting on stone lintels carriedby bracketed columns. These same traits appear in relatively modernexamples, as at Delhi. [Illustration: FIG. 227. --TOWER OF VICTORY, CHITTORE. ] +TOWERS. + A similar predilection for minutely broken surfaces marks thetowers which sometimes adjoin the temples, as at Chittore (tower of +SriAllat+, 13th century), or were erected as trophies of victory, like thatof +Khumbo Rana+ in the same town (Fig. 227). The combination ofhorizontal and vertical lines, the distribution of the openings, and therich ornamentation of these towers are very interesting, though lackingsomewhat in structural propriety of design. +HINDU STYLES: NORTHERN BRAHMAN. + The origin of this style is as yet anunsolved problem. Its monuments were mainly built between 600 and 1200A. D. , the oldest being in Orissa, at Bhuwanesevar, Kanaruk, and Puri. Innorthern India the temples are about equally divided between the twoforms of Brahmanism--the worship of Vishnu or _Vaishnavism_, and that ofSiva or _Shaivism_--and do not differ materially in style. As in theJaina style, the _vimana_ is their most striking feature, and this is inmost cases adorned with numerous reduced copies of its own form groupedin successive stages against its sides and angles. This curious systemof design appears in nearly all the great temples, both of Vishnu andSiva. The Jaina melon ornament is universal, surmounted generally by anurn-shaped finial. In plan the vimana shrine is preceded by two or three chambers, squareor polygonal, some with and some without columns. The foremost of theseis covered by a roof formed like a stepped pyramid set cornerwise. Thefine porch of the ruined temple at +Bindrabun+ is cruciform in plan andforms the chief part of the building, the shrine at the further endbeing relatively small and its tower unfinished or ruined. In somemodern examples the antechamber is replaced by an open porch with aSaracenic dome, as at Benares; in others the old type is completelyabandoned, as in the temple at +Kantonnuggur+ (1704-22). This is asquare hall built of terra-cotta, with four three-arched porches andnine towers, more Saracenic than Brahman in general aspect. The +Kandarya Mahadeo+, at Khajuraho, is the most noted example of thenorthern Brahman style, and one of the most splendid structures extant. A strong and lofty basement supports an extraordinary mass of roofs, covering the six open porches and the antechamber and hypostyle hall, which precede the shrine, and rising in successive pyramidal massesuntil the vimana is reached which covers the shrine. This is 116 feethigh, but seems much loftier, by reason of the small scale of itsconstituent parts and the marvellously minute decoration which coversthe whole structure. The vigor of its masses and the grand stairwayswhich lead up to it give it a dignity unusual for its size, 60 × 109feet in plan (_cir. _ 1000 A. D. ). At Puri, in Orissa, the +Temple+ of +Jugganat+, with its doubleenclosure and numerous subordinate shrines, the Teli-ka-Mandir atGwalior, and temples at +Udaipur+ near Bhilsa, at +Mukteswara+ inOrissa, at Chittore, Benares, and Barolli, are important examples. Thefew tombs erected subsequent to the Moslem conquest, combining Jainabracket columns with Saracenic domes, and picturesquely situated palacesat Chittore (1450), Oudeypore (1580), and Gwalior, should also bementioned. +CHALUKYAN STYLE. + Throughout a central zone crossing the peninsula fromsea to sea about the Dekkan, and extending south to Mysore on the west, the Brahmans developed a distinct style during the later centuries ofthe Chalukyan dynasty. Its monuments are mainly comprised between 1050and the Mohammedan conquest in 1310. The most notable examples of thestyle are found along the southwest coast, at Hullabid, Baillur, andSomnathpur. +TEMPLES. + Chalukyan architecture is exclusively religious and itstemples are easily recognized. The plans comprise the same elements asthose of the Jainas, but the Chalukyan shrine is always star-shapedexternally in plan, and the vimana takes the form of a stepped pyramidinstead of a curved outline. The Jaina dome is, moreover, whollywanting. All the details are of extraordinary richness and beauty, andthe breaking up of the surfaces by rectangular projections is skilfullymanaged so as to produce an effect of great apparent size with verymoderate dimensions. All the known examples stand on raised platforms, adding materially to their dignity. Some are double temples, as atHullabid (Fig. 228); others are triple in plan. A noticeable feature ofthe style is the deeply cut stratification of the lower part of thetemples, each band or stratum bearing a distinct frieze of animals, figures or ornament, carved with masterly skill. Pierced stone slabsfilling the window openings are also not uncommon. The richest exemplars of the style are the temples at +Baillur+ andSomnathpur, and at Hullabîd the +Kait Iswara+ and the incomplete +DoubleTemple+. The Kurti Stambha, or gate at Worangul, and the Great Temple at+Hamoncondah+ should also be mentioned. [Illustration: FIG. 228. --TEMPLE AT HULLABÎD. DETAIL. ] +DRAVIDIAN STYLE. + The Brahman monuments of southern India exhibit astyle almost as strongly marked as the Chalukyan. This appears less intheir details than in their general plan and conception. The Dravidiantemples are not single structures, but aggregations of buildings ofvaried size and form, covering extensive areas enclosed by walls andentered through gates made imposing by lofty pylons called _gopuras_. Asif to emphasize these superficial resemblances to Egyptian models, thesanctuary is often low and insignificant. It is preceded by much moreimposing porches (_mantapas_) and hypostyle halls or _choultries_, thelatter being sometimes of extraordinary extent, though seldom lofty. Thechoultrie, sometimes called the Hall of 1, 000 Columns, is in some casesreplaced by pillared corridors of great length and splendor, as at+Ramisseram+ and +Madura. + The plans are in most cases wholly irregular, and the architecture, so far from resembling the Egyptian in its scaleand massiveness, is marked by the utmost minuteness of ornament andtenuity of detail, suggesting wood and stucco rather than stone. The+Great Hall+ at Chillambaram is but 10 to 12 feet high, and thecorridors at Ramisseram, 700 feet long, are but 30 feet high. The effectof _ensemble_ of the Dravidian temples is disappointing. They lack theemphasis of dominant masses and the dignity of symmetrical and logicalarrangement. The very loftiness of the gopuras makes the buildings ofthe group within seem low by contrast. In nearly every temple, however, some one feature attracts merited admiration by its splendor, extent, orbeauty. Such are the +Choultrie+, built by Tirumalla Nayak at Madura(1623-45), measuring 333 × 105 feet; the corridors already mentioned atRamisseram and in the +Great Temple+ at Madura; the gopuras at+Tarputry+ and Vellore, and the +Mantapa+ of +Parvati+ at Chillambaram(1595-1685). Very noticeable are the compound columns of this style, consisting of square piers with slender shafts coupled to them andsupporting brackets, as at Chillambaram, Peroor, and Vellore; the richlybanded square piers, the grotesques of rampant horses and monsters, andthe endless labor bestowed upon minute carving and ornament insuperposed bands. +OTHER MONUMENTS. + Other important temples are at Tiruvalur, Seringham, Tinevelly, and Conjeveram, all alike in general scheme of design, withenclosures varying from 300 to 1, 000 feet in length and width. At+Tanjore+ is a magnificent temple with two courts, in the larger ofwhich stands a _pagoda_ or shrine with a pyramidal vimana, unusual inDravidian temples, and beside it the smaller +Shrine+ of +Soubramanya+(Fig. 229), a structure of unusual beauty of detail. In both, thevertical lower story with its pilasters and windows is curiouslysuggestive of Renaissance design. The pagoda dates from the 14th, thesmaller temple from the 15th century. [Illustration: FIG. 229. --SHRINE OF SOUBRAMANYA, TANJORE. ] +ROCK-CUT RATHS. + All the above temples were built subsequently to the12th century. The rock-cut shrines date in some cases as far back as the7th century; they are called _kylas_ and _raths_, and are not caves, butisolated edifices, imitating structural designs, but hewn bodily fromthe rock. Those at Mahavellipore are of diminutive size; but at+Purudkul+ there is an extensive temple with shrine, choultrie, andgopura surrounded by a court enclosure measuring 250 × 150 feet (9thcentury). More famous still is the elaborate +Kylas+ at +Ellora+, ofabout the same size as the above, but more complex and complete in itsdetails. +PALACES. + At Madura, Tanjore, and Vijayanagar are Dravidian palaces, built after the Mohammedan conquest and in a mixed style. The domicaloctagonal throne-room and the +Great Hall+ at Madura (17th century), themost famous edifices of the kind, were evidently inspired from Gothicmodels, but how this came about is not known. The Great Hall with itspointed arched barrel vault of 67 feet span, its cusped arches, roundpiers, vaulting shafts, and triforium, appears strangely foreign to itssurroundings. +CAMBODIA. + The subject of Indian architecture cannot be dismissedwithout at least brief mention of the immense temple of +Nakhon Wat+ inCambodia. This stupendous creation covers an area of a full square mile, with its concentric courts, its encircling moat or lake, its causeways, porches, and shrines, dominated by a central structure 200 feet squarewith nine pagoda-like towers. The corridors around the inner court havesquare piers of almost classic Roman type. The rich carving, the perfectmasonry, and the admirable composition of the whole leading up to thecentral mass, indicate architectural ability of a high order. +CHINESE ARCHITECTURE. + No purely Mongolian nation appears ever to haveerected buildings of first-rate importance. It cannot be denied, however, that the Chinese are possessed of considerable decorative skilland mechanical ingenuity; and these qualities are the most prominentelements in their buildings. Great size and splendor, massiveness andoriginality of construction, they do not possess. Built in large measureof wood, cleverly framed and decorated with a certain richness of colorand ornament, with a large element of the grotesque in the decoration, the Chinese temples, pagodas, and palaces are interesting rather thanimpressive. There is not a single architectural monument of imposingsize or of great antiquity, so far as we know. The celebrated +PorcelainTower+ of Nankin is no longer extant, having been destroyed in theTæping rebellion in 1850. It was a nine-storied polygonal pagoda 236feet high, revetted with porcelain tiles, and was built in 1412. Thelargest of Chinese temples, that of the +Great Dragon+ at Pekin, is acircular structure of moderate size, though its enclosure is nearly amile square. Pagodas with diminishing stories, elaborately carvedentrance gates and successive terraces are mainly relied upon foreffect. They show little structural art, but much clever ornament. Likethe monasteries and the vast _lamaseries_ of Thibet, they belong to theBuddhist religion. Aside from the ingenious framing and bracketing of the carpentry, themost striking peculiarity of Chinese buildings is their broad-spreadingtiled roofs. These invariably slope downward in a curve, and the tiling, with its hip-ridges, crestings, and finials in terra-cotta or metal, adds materially to the picturesqueness of the general effect. Color andgilding are freely used, and in some cases--as in a summer pavilion atPekin--porcelain tiling covers the walls, with brilliant effect. Thechief wonder is that this resource of the architectural decorator hasnot been further developed in China, where porcelain and earthenware areotherwise treated with such remarkable skill. +JAPANESE ARCHITECTURE. + Apparently associated in race with the Chineseand Koreans, the Japanese are far more artistic in temperament thaneither of their neighbors. The refinement and originality of theirdecorative art have given it a wide reputation. Unfortunately theprevalence of earthquakes has combined with the influence of thetraditional habits of the people to prevent the maturing of a trulymonumental architecture. Except for the terraces, gates, and enclosuresof their palaces and temples, wood is the predominant building material. It is used substantially as in China, the framing, dovetailing, bracketing, broad eaves and tiled roofs of Japan closely resemblingthose of China. The chief difference is in the greater refinement anddelicacy of the Japanese details and the more monumental disposition ofthe temple terraces, the beauty of which is greatly enhanced by skillfullandscape gardening. The gateways recall somewhat those of the SanchiTope in India (p.  403), but are commonly of wood. Owing to the dangerfrom earthquakes, lofty towers and pagodas are rarely seen. The domestic architecture of Japan, though interesting for itsarrangements, and for its sensible and artistic use of the most flimsymaterials, is too trivial in scale, detail, and construction to receivemore than passing reference. Even the great palace at Tokio, [28]covering an immense area, is almost entirely composed of one-storiedbuildings of wood, with little of splendor or architectural dignity. [Footnote 28: See Transactions R. I. B. A. , 52d year, 1886, article by R. J. Conder, pp. 185-214. ] +MONUMENTS+ (additional to those in text). BUDDHIST: Topes at Sanchi, Sonari, Satdara, Andher, in Central India; at Sarnath, near Benares; at Jelalabad and Salsette; in Ceylon at Anuradhapura, Tuparamaya, Lankaramaya. --Grotto temples (chaityas), mainly in Bombay and Bengal Presidencies; at Behar, especially the Lomash Rishi, and Cuttack; at Bhaja, Bedsa, Ajunta, and Ellora (Wiswakarma Cave); in Salsette, the Kenheri Cave. --Viharas: Structural at Nalanda and Sarnath, demolished; rock-cut in Bengal, at Cuttack, Udayagiri (the Ganesa); in the west, many at Ajunta, also at Bagh, Bedsa, Bhaja, Nassick (the Nahapana, Vadnya Sri, etc. ), Salsette, Ellora (the Dekrivaria, etc. ). In Nepâl, stupas of Swayanbunath and Bouddhama. JAINA: Temples at Aiwulli, Kanaruc (Black Pagoda), and Purudkul; groups of temples at Palitana, Gimar, Mount Abu, Somnath, Parisnath; the Sas Bahu at Gwalior, 1093; Parswanatha and Ganthai (650) at Khajuraho; temple at Gyraspore, 7th century; modern temples at Ahmedabad (Huttising), Delhi, and Sonaghur; in the south at Moodbidri, Sravana Belgula; towers at Chittore. NORTHERN BRAHMAN: Temples, Parasumareswara (500 A. D. ), Mukteswara, and Great Temple (600-650), all at Bhuwaneswar, among many others; of Papanatha at Purudkul; grotto temples at Dhumnar, Ellora, and Poonah; temples at Chandravati, Udaipur, and Amritsur (the last modern); tombs of Singram Sing and others at Oudeypore; of Rajah Baktawar at Ulwar, and others at Goverdhun; ghâts or landings at Benares and elsewhere. CHALUKYAN: Temples at Buchropully and Hamoncondah, 1163; ruins at Kalyani; grottoes of Hazar Khutri. DRAVIDIAN: Rock-cut temples (raths) at Mahavellipore; Tiger Cave at Saluvan Kuppan; temples at Pittadkul (Purudkul), Tiruvalur, Combaconum, Vellore, Peroor, Vijayanagar; pavilions at Tanjore and Vijayanagar. There are also many temples in the Kashmir Valley difficult of assignment to any of the above styles and religions. APPENDIX. A. +PRIMITIVE GREEK ARCHITECTURE. +--The researches of Schliemanncommented by Schuchardt, of Dörpfeld, Stamakis, Tsoundas, Perrot, andothers, in Troy, Mycenæ, and Tiryns, and the more recent discoveries ofEvans at Gnossus, in Crete, have greatly extended our knowledge of theprehistoric art of Greece and the Mediterranean basin, and establishedmany points of contact on the one hand with ancient Egyptian andPhœnician art, and on the other, with the art of historic Greece. Theyhave proved the existence of an active and flourishing commerce betweenEgypt and the Mediterranean shores and Aegean islands more than 2000B. C. , and of a flourishing material civilization in those islands and onthe mainland of Greece, borrowing much, but not everything, from Egypt. While the origin of the Doric order in the structural methods of thepre-Homeric architecture of Tiryns and Mycenæ, as set forth by Dörpfeldand by Perrot and Chipiez, can hardly be regarded as proved in alldetails, since much of the argument advanced for this derivation restson more or less conjectural restorations of the existing remains, itseems to be fairly well established that the Doric order, and historicGreek architecture in general, trace their genesis in large measure backin direct line to this prehistoric art. The remarkable feature of thisearly architecture is the apparently complete absence of temples. Fortifications, houses, palaces, and tombs make up the ruins thus fardiscovered, and seem to indicate clearly the derivation of thetemple-type of later Greek art from the primitive house, consisting of ahall or _megaron_ with four columns about the central hearth (whence nodoubt, the atrium and peristyle of Roman houses, through their Greekintermediary prototypes) and a porch or _aithousa_, with or withoutcolumns _in antis_, opening directly into the _megaron_, or indirectlythrough an ante-room called the _prodomos_. Here we have the prototypesof the Greek temple _in antis_, with its _naos_ having interior columns, whether roofed over or hypæthral (see pp. 54, 55). It is probable alsothat the evidently liberal use of timber for many of the structuraldetails led in time to many of the forms later developed in stone in theentablature of the Doric order. But it is hard to discover, as Dörpfeldwould have it, in the slender Mycenæan columns with their invertedtaper, the prototype of the massive Doric column with its upward taper. The Mycenæan column was evidently derived from wooden models; the sturdyDoric column--the earliest being the most massive--seems plainly derivedfrom stone or rubble piers (see p.  50), and thus to have come from adifferent source from the Mycenæan forms. The _gynecæum_, or women’s apartments, the men’s apartments, and thebath were in these ancient palaces grouped in varying relations aboutthe _megaron_: their plan, purpose, and arrangement are clearly revealedin the ruins of Tiryns, where they are more complete and perfect thaneither at Troy or Mycenæ. B. +CAMPANILES IN ITALY. +--Reference is made on page 264 to the towersor campaniles of the Italian Gothic style and period, and six of theseare specifically mentioned; and on page 305 mention is also made ofthose of the Renaissance in Italy. The number and importance of theItalian campaniles and the interest attaching to their origin anddesign, warrant a more extended notice than has been assigned them inthe pages cited. The oldest of these bell-towers appear to be those adjoining the twochurches of San Apollinare in and near Ravenna (see p.  114), and datepresumably from the sixth century. They are plain circular towers withfew and small openings, except in the uppermost story, where largerarched openings permit the issue of the sound of the bells. This type, which might have been developed into a very interesting form of tower, does not seem to have been imitated. It was at Rome, and not till theninth or tenth century, that the campanile became a recognized featureof church architecture. It was invariably treated as a structuredistinct from the church, and was built of brick upon a square plan, rising with little or no architectural adornment to a height usually ofa hundred feet or more, and furnished with but a few small openingsbelow the belfry stage, where a pair of coupled arched windows separatedby a simple column opened from each face of the tower. Above thesewindows a pyramidal roof of low pitch terminated the tower. In spite oftheir simplicity of design these Roman bell-towers often possess anoticeable grace of proportions, and furnish the prototype of many ofthe more elaborate campaniles erected during the Middle Ages in othercentral and north Italian cities. The towers of Sta. Maria in Cosmedin, Sta. Maria in Trastevere, and S.  Giorgio in Velabro are examples of thistype. Most of the Roman examples date from the eleventh and twelfthcenturies. In other cities, the campanile was treated with some variety of form anddecoration, as well as of material. In Lombardy and Venetia the squarered-brick shaft of the tower is often adorned with long, narrow pilasterstrips, as at Piacenza (p.  158, Fig. 91) and Venice, and an arcadedcornice not infrequently crowns the structure. The openings at the topmay be three or four in number on each face, and even the plan issometimes octagonal or circular. The brick octagonal campanile of+S.  Gottardo+ at Milan is one of the finest Lombard church towers. AtVerona the brick tower on the Piazza dell’ Erbe and that of S.  Zeno areconspicuous; but every important town of northern Italy possesses one ormore examples of these structures dating from the eleventh, twelfth, orthirteenth century. Undoubtedly the three most noted bell-towers in Italy are those ofVenice, Pisa, and Florence. The great +Campanile+ of +St. Mark+ atVenice, first begun in 874, carried higher in the twelfth and fourteenthcenturies, and finally completed in the sixteenth century with themarble belvedere and wooden spire so familiar in pictures of Venice, wasformerly the highest of all church campaniles in Italy, measuringapproximately 325 feet to the summit. But this superb historic monument, weakened by causes not yet at this writing fully understood, fell insudden ruin on the 14th of July, 1902, to the great loss not only ofVenice, but of the world of art, though fortunately without injuring theneighboring buildings on the Piazza and Piazzetta of St. Mark. Sincethen the campanile of S.  Stefano, in the same city, has been demolishedto forestall another like disaster. The +Leaning Tower+ of Pisa (seep.  160, Fig. 92) dates from 1174, and is unique in its plan and itsexterior treatment with superposed arcades. Begun apparently as aleaning tower, it seems to have increased this lean to a dangerouspoint, by the settling of its foundations during construction, as itsupper stages were made to deviate slightly towards the vertical from theinclination of the lower portion. It has always served rather as awatch-tower and belvedere than as a bell-tower. The +Campanile+adjoining the Duomo at +Florence+ is described on p.  263 and illustratedin Fig. 154, and does not require further notice here. Theblack-and-white banded towers of Sienna, Lucca, and Pistoia, and theoctagonal lanterns crowning those of Verona and Mantua, also referred toin the text on p.  264, need here only be mentioned again as illustratingthe variety of treatment of these Italian towers. The Renaissance architects developed new types of campanile, and in suchvariety that they can only be briefly referred to. Some, like a bricktower at Perugia, are simple square towers with pilasters; more oftenengaged columns and entablatures mark the several stories, and the upperportion is treated either with an octagonal lantern or with diminishingstages, and sometimes with a spire. Of the latter class the best exampleis that of S.  Biagio, at Montepulciano, --one of the two designed toflank the façade of Ant. Da S.  Gallo’s beautiful church of that name. One or two good late examples are to be found at Naples. Of the moremassive square type there are examples in the towers of S.  Michele, Venice; of the cathedral at Ferrara, Sta. Chiara at Naples, and Sta. Maria dell’ Anima--one of the earliest--at Rome. The most complete andperfect of these square belfries of the Renaissance is that of the+Campidoglio+ at Rome, by Martino Lunghi, dating from the end of thesixteenth century, which groups so admirably with the palaces of theCapitol. C. +BRAMANTE’S WORKS. +--A more or less animated controversy has arisenregarding the authenticity of many of the works attributed to Bramante, and the tendency has of late been to deny him any part whatever inseveral of the most important of these works. The first of these to begiven a changed assignment was the church of the Consolazione at Todi(p.  293), now believed to be by Cola di Caprarola; and it is now deniedby many investigators that either the Cancelleria or the Giraud palace(p.  290) is his work, or any one of two or three smaller houses in Romeshowing a somewhat similar architectural treatment. The evidence adducedin support of this denial is rather speculative and critical thandocumentary, but is not without weight. The date 1495 carved on adoorway of the Cancelleria palace is thought to forbid its attributionto Bramante, who is not known to have come to Rome till 1503; and thereis a lack of positive evidence of his authorship of the Giraud palaceand the other houses which seem to be by the same hand as theCancelleria. To the advocates of this view there is not enoughresemblance in style between this group of buildings and hisacknowledged work either in Milan or in the Vatican to warrant theirbeing attributed to him. It must, however, be remarked, that this notable group of works, stampedwith the marks and even the mannerisms of a strong personality, revealin their unknown author gifts amounting to genius, and heretofore deemednot unworthy of Bramante. It is almost inconceivable that they shouldhave been designed by a mere beginner previously utterly unknown andforgotten soon after. It is incumbent upon those who deny theattribution to Bramante to find another name, if possible, on which tofasten the credit of these works. Accordingly, they have been variouslyattributed to Alberti (who died in 1472) or his followers; to Bernardodi Lorenzo, and to other later fifteenth-century artists. The difficultyhere is to discover any name that fits the conditions even as well asBramante’s; for the supposed author must have been in Rome between 1495and 1505, and his other works must be at least as much like these aswere Bramante’s. No name has thus far been found satisfactory to carefulcritics; and the alternative theory, that there existed in Rome, beforeBramante’s coming, a group of architects unknown to later fame, workingin a common style and capable of such a masterpiece as the Cancelleria, does not harmonize with the generally accepted facts of Renaissance arthistory. Moreover, the comparison of these works with Bramante’sMilanese work on the one hand and his great Court of the Belvedere inthe Vatican on the other, yields, to some critics, conclusions quiteopposed to those of the advocates of another authorship than Bramante’s. The controversy must be considered for the present as still open. Thereare manifest difficulties with either of the two opposed views, andthese can hardly be eliminated, except by the discovery of documents notnow known to exist, whose testimony will be recognized as unimpeachable. D. +L’ART NOUVEAU. +--Since 1896, and particularly since the ParisExposition of 1900, a movement has manifested itself in France andBelgium, and spread to Germany and Austria and even measurably toEngland, looking towards a more personal and original style ofdecorative and architectural design, in which the traditions andhistoric styles of the past shall be ignored. This movement has receivedfrom its adherents and the public the name of “L’Art Nouveau, ” or, according to some, “L’Art Moderne”; but this name must not be held toconnote either a really new style or a fundamentally new principle inart. Indeed, it may be questioned whether any clearly-defined body ofprinciples whatever underlies the movement, or would be acknowledgedequally by all its adherents. It appears to be a reaction against a tooslavish adherence to traditional forms and methods of design (see pp. 370, 375), a striving to ignore or forget the past rather than areaching out after any well-understood, positive end; as such, itpossesses the negative strength of protest rather than the affirmativestrength of a vital principle. Its lack of cohesion is seen in thedivision of its adherents into groups, some looking to nature forinspiration, while others decry this as a mistaken quest; some seekingto emphasize structural lines, and others to ignore them altogether. All, however, are united in the avoidance of commonplace forms andhistoric styles, and this preoccupation has developed an amazing amountof originality and individualism of style, frequently reaching theextreme of eccentricity. The results have therefore been, as might beexpected, extremely varied in merit, ranging from the most refined andreserved in style to the most harshly bizarre and extravagant. As arule, they have been most successful in small and semi-decorativeobjects--jewelry, silverware, vases, and small furniture; and one mostdesirable feature of the movement has been the stimulus it has given(especially in France and England), to the organization and activity of“arts-and-crafts” societies which occupy themselves with theencouragement of the decorative and industrial arts and the diffusion ofan improved taste. In the field of the larger objects of design, inwhich the dominance of traditional form and of structural considerationsis proportionally more imperious, the struggle to evade theserestrictions becomes more difficult, and results usually in more obviousand disagreeable eccentricities, which the greater size and permanenceof the object tend further to exaggerate. The least successfulachievements of the movement have accordingly been in architecture. Thebuildings designed by its most fervent disciples (_e. G. _ the PavillonBleu at the Exposition of 1900, the Castel Béranger, Paris, by _H. Guimard_, the houses of the artist colony at Darmstadt, and others) arefor the most part characterized by extreme stiffness, eccentricity, orugliness. The requirements of construction and of human habitationcannot easily be met without sometimes using the forms which pastexperience has developed for the same ends; and the negation ofprecedent is not the surest path to beauty or even reasonableness ofdesign. It is interesting to notice that in the intermediate field offurniture-design some of the best French productions recall the style ofLouis XV. , modified by Japanese ideas and spirit. This singular but notunpleasing combination is less surprising when we reflect that the styleof Louis XV. Was itself a protest against the formalism of the heavyclassic architecture of preceding reigns, and achieved its highestsuccesses in the domain of furniture and interior decoration. It may be fair to credit the new movement with one positivecharacteristic in its prevalent regard for line, especially for theeffect of long and swaying lines, whether in the contours orornamentation of an object. This is especially noticeable in the Belgianwork, and in that of the Viennese “Secessionists, ” who have, however, carried eccentricity to a further point of extravagance than any others. Whether “L’Art Nouveau” will ever produce permanent results time alonecan show. Its present vogue is probably evanescent and it cannot claimto have produced a style; but it seems likely to exert on Europeanarchitecture an influence, direct and indirect, not unlike that of theNéo-Grec movement of 1830 in France (p.  364), but even more lasting andbeneficial. It has already begun to break the hold of rigid classicaltradition in design; and recent buildings, especially in Germany andAustria, like the works of the brilliant _Otto Wagner_ in Vienna, show apleasing freedom of personal touch without undue striving aftereccentric novelty. Doubtless in French and other European architecturethe same result will in time manifest itself. The search for novelty and the desire to dispense wholly with historicforms of design which are the chief marks of the Art Nouveau, wereemphatically displayed in many of the remarkable buildings of the Paris+Exhibition of 1900+, in which a striking fertility and facility ofdesign in the decorative details made more conspicuous the failure toimprove upon the established precedents of architectural style in thematters of proportion, scale, general composition, and contour. As usualthe metallic construction of these buildings was almost withoutexception admirable, and the decorative details, taken by themselves, extremely clever and often beautiful, but the combined result was notsatisfactory. In the United States the movement has not found a firm foothold becausethere has been no dominant, enslaving tradition to protest against. Nota few of the ideas, not a little of the spirit of the movement may berecognized in the work of individual architects and decorative artistsin the United States, executed years before the movement tookrecognizable form in Europe: and American decorative design hasgenerally been, at least since 1880 or 1885, sufficiently free, individual and personal, to render unnecessary and impossible anyconcerted movement of artistic revolt against slavery to precedent. E. +RECENT AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE. +--Architectural activity in the UnitedStates continues to share in the general prosperity which has marked theyears since 1898, and this activity has by no means been confined toindustrial and commercial architecture. Indeed, while the erection of“sky scrapers” or excessively lofty office-buildings has continued to bea feature of this activity in the great commercial centres, the mostnotable architectural enterprises of recent years have been in the fieldof educational buildings, both in the East and West. In 1898 a greatinternational competition resulted in the selection of the design of Mr. _E. Bénard_ of Paris for a magnificent group of buildings for the+University of California+ on a scale of unexampled grandeur, and theerection of this colossal project has been begun. An almost equallyambitious project, by a firm of Philadelphia architects, has beenadopted for the Washington University at St. Louis; and many otheruniversities and colleges have either added extensively to theirexisting buildings or planned an entire rebuilding on new designs. Amongthese the national military and naval academies at +West Point+ and+Annapolis+ take the first rank in the extent and splendor of theprojected improvements. Museums and libraries have also been erected orbegun in various cities, and the +New York Public Library+, nowbuilding, will rank in cost and beauty with those already erected inBoston and Washington. In other departments mention should be made of recent Federal buildings(custom-houses, post-offices, and court-houses) erected under theprovisions of the Tarsney act from designs secured by competition amongthe leading architects of the country; among those the +New York CustomHouse+ is the most important, but other buildings, at Washington, Indianapolis, and elsewhere, are also conspicuous, and many of themworthy of high praise. The tendency to award the designing of importantpublic buildings, such as State capitols, county court houses, cityhalls, libraries, and hospitals, by competition instead of by personaland political favor, has resulted in a marked improvement in the qualityof American public architecture. F. +THE ERECHTHEUM: RECENT INVESTIGATIONS. +--During the past two years, extensive repairs and partial restorations of the Erechtheum at Athens, undertaken by the Greek Archæological Society, have affordedopportunities for a new and thoroughgoing study of the existing portionsof the building and of the surrounding ruins. In these investigations aprominent part has been borne by Mr. Gorham P.  Stevens, representing theArchæological Institute of America, to whom must be credited, amongother things, the demonstration of the existence, in the east wall ofthe original structure, of two windows previously unknown. Otherpeculiarities of design and construction were also discovered, which addgreatly to the interest of the building. These investigations arereported in the _American Journal of Archæology_, Second Series;_Journal of the Archæological Institute of America_, Vol.  X. , No.  1, _etseq. _ The illustrations, Figures 35 and 36, are, by Mr. Stevens’courtesy, based upon, though not reproductions of, his originaldrawings. GLOSSARY OF TERMS NOT DEFINED IN THE TEXT. ALCAZAR (Span. , from Arabic _Al Kasr_), a palace or castle, especiallyof a governing official. ARCHIVOLT, a band or group of mouldings decorating the wall-face of anarch; or a transverse arch projecting slightly from the surface of abarrel or groined vault. ASTYLAR, without columns. BALNEA, a Roman bathing establishment, less extensive than the _thermæ_. BEL ETAGE, the principal story of a building, containing the receptionrooms and saloons; usually the second story (first above the groundstory). BROKEN ENTABLATURE, an entablature which projects forward over eachcolumn or pilaster, returning back to the wall and running along withdiminished projection between the columns, as in the Arch of Constantine(Fig. 63). CANTONED PIERS, piers adorned with columns or pilasters at the cornersor on the outer faces. CARTOUCHE (Fr. ), an ornament shaped like a shield or oval. In Egyptianhieroglyphics, the oval encircling the name of a king. CAVETTO, a concave, quarter-round moulding. CHEVRON, a V-shaped ornament. CHRYSELEPHANTINE, of ivory and gold; used of statues in which the nudeportions are of ivory and the draperies of gold. CONSOLE, a large scroll-shaped bracket or ornament, having its broadestcurve at the bottom. CORINTHIANESQUE, resembling the Corinthian; used of capitals havingcorner-volutes and acanthus leaves, but combined otherwise than in theclassic Corinthian type. EMPAISTIC, made of, or overlaid with, sheet-metal beaten or hammeredinto decorative patterns. EXEDRÆ, curved seats of stone; niches or recesses, sometimes ofconsiderable size, provided with seats for the public. FENESTRATION, the whole system or arrangement of windows and openings inan architectural composition. FOUR-PART. A four-part vault is a groined vault formed by theintersection of two barrel vaults. Its diagonal edges or _groins_ divideit into four sections, triangular in plan, each called a _compartment_. GIGANTOMACHIA, a group or composition representing the mythical combatbetween the gods and the giants. HALF-TIMBERED, constructed with a timber framework showing externally, and filled in with masonry or brickwork. IMAUM, imâm, a Mohammedan priest. KAABAH, the sacred shrine at Meccah, a nearly cubical structure hungwith black cloth. KARAFAH, a region in Cairo containing the so-called tombs of theKhalifs. LACONICUM, the sweat-room in a Roman bath; usually of domical design inthe larger thermæ. MEZZANINE, a low, intermediate story. MUEDDIN, a Mohammedan mosque-official who calls to prayer. NARTHEX, a porch or vestibule running across the front of a basilica orchurch. NEO-GOTHIC, NEO-MEDIÆVAL, in a style which seeks to revive and adapt orapply to modern uses the forms of the Middle Ages. OCULUS, a circular opening, especially in the crown of a dome. OGEE ARCH, one composed of two juxtaposed S-shaped or wavy curves, meeting in a point at the top. PALÆSTRA, an establishment among the ancient Greeks for physicaltraining. PAVILION (Fr. _pavillon_), ordinarily a light open structure of ornatedesign. As applied to architectural composition, a projecting section ofa façade, usually rectangular in plan, and having its own distinct massof roof. QUARRY ORNAMENT, any ornament covering a surface with two series ofreticulated lines enclosing approximately quadrangular spaces or meshes. QUATREFOIL, with four leaves or _foils_; composed of four arcs ofcircles meeting in cusps pointing inward. QUOINS, slightly projecting blocks of stone, alternately long and short, decorating or strengthening a corner or angle of a façade. REVETMENT, a veneering or sheathing. RUSTICATION, treatment of the masonry with blocks having roughly brokenfaces, or with deeply grooved or bevelled joints. SOFFIT, the under-side of an architrave, beam, arch, or corona. SPANDRIL, the triangular wall-space between two contiguous arches. SQUINCH, a bit of conical vaulting filling in the angles of a square soas to provide an octagonal or circular base for a dome or lantern. STOA, an open colonnade for public resort. TEPIDARIUM, the hot-water hall or chamber of a Roman bath. TYMPANUM, the flat space comprised between the horizontal and rakingcornices of a pediment, or between a lintel and the arch over it. VOUSSOIR, any one of the radial stones composing an arch. INDEX OF ARCHITECTS. The _surname_ is in all cases followed by a comma. Abadie, 373 Adams, Robert 234 Agnolo, Baccio d’ 291 Agnolo, Gabriele d’ 287 Alberti, Leo Battista 277, 280 Alessi, Galeazzo 299, 302 Ammanati, Bartolomeo 300 Anselm, Prior 219 Anthemius of Tralles, 127 Antonio, Master 259 Arnold, Master 243 Arnolfo di Cambio, 162, 265 Baccio D’ Agnolo, 291 Ballu, 371, 373 Baltard, Victor 371 Barry, Sir Charles 380 Bassevi, 356 Battista, Juan 351 Benci di Cione, 266 Benedetto da Majano, 280, 281 Bernardo di Lorenzo, 282 Bernini, Lorenzo 295, 303, 319 Berruguete, Alonzo 348, 350 Bianchi, 305 Bondone, Giotto di 258, 263, 272 Boromini, Francesco 303, 304 Borset, 334 Bramante Lazzari, 289, 290, 294, 295, 321 Brandon, Richard 378 Bregno, Antonio 284 Brongniart, 363 Brunelleschi, Filippo 275, 276, 280, 281, 289 Bullant, Jean 316, 317 Bulfinch, Charles 390 Buon, Bartolomeo 284 Buonarotti, Michael Angelo 289, 292, 294, 295, 296, 299 Burges, William 380 Callicrates, 63 Cambio, Arnolfo di 162, 265 Campbell, Colin 333 Campello, 255 Caprarola, Cola da 293 Caprino, Meo del 286 Chalgrin, 362 Chambers, Sir William 333 Chambiges, Pierre 313 Chrismas, Gerard 327 Christodoulos, 150 Churriguera, 348, 352 Cimabue, 258 Civitale, Matteo 281, 283 Columbe, Michel 310 Cortona, Domenico di 316 Cossutius, 68 Cronaca, 280, 291 Dance, George 334 De Brosse, Salomon 318, 319 De Fabris, 261 De Key, Lieven 336 De Keyser, Hendrik 336 Della Porta, Giacomo 292, 299, 300 Della Robbia, Luca 281 De l’Orme, Philibert 316, 317 Déperthes, 373 Derrand, François 319 Desiderio da Settignano, 281 De Tessin, Nicodemus 337 De Vriendt (or Floris), Cornelius 334, 335 Diego de Siloë, 348 Domenico di Cortona, 316 Donatello, 275 Dosio, Giovanni Antonio 291 Duban, Félix 364 Duc, 364, 365 Du Cerceau, Jean Batiste 318 Edington, 226 Emerson, William 382 Enrique de Egaz, 349 Erwin von Steinbach, 241 Fain, Pierre 310 Federighi, Antonio 282 Ferstel, H. Von 375 Fiesole, Mino da 281 Filarete, Antonio 283 Flitcroft, 333 Floris (De Vriendt), Cornelius 334, 335 Fontaine, 362 Fontana, Domenico 295, 299, 300, 304 Fra Giocondo, 286 Fra Ristoro, 256 Fra Sisto, 256 Fuga, Ferdinando 305 Gabriel, Jacques Ange 324, 367 Gabriele d’Agnolo, 287 Gaddi, Taddeo 263 Gadyer, Pierre 315 Galilei, Alessandro 305 Garnier, Charles 372 Gerhardt von Riel, 243 Giacomo di Pietrasanta, 286 Gibbs, James 332, 333, 356, 385 Giocondo, Fra 286 Giotto di Bondone, 258, 263, 272 Giuliano da Majano, 286, 287 Giulio Romano, 289, 292 Goujon, Jean 316, 321 Gumiel, Pedro 349 Hallet, Stephen (Étienne) 389 Hansen, Theophil 360 Have, Theodore 327 Hawksmoor, 332 Hendrik de Keyser, 336 Henri de Narbonne, 249 Henry of Gmünd, 255 Herrera, Francisco 352 Herrera, Juan d’ 348, 350, 351 Hitorff, J. J. 364, 372 Hoban, Thomas 390 Holbein, Hans 327 Hübsch, Heinrich 375, 376 Hunt, Richard M. 393 Ictinus, 62, 63, 65 Isodorus of Miletus, 127 Ivara, Ferdinando 352, 365 Jacobus of Meruan, 255 Jansen, Bernard 327 Jefferson, Thomas 390 John, Master 243 John of Padua, 328 Jones, Inigo 328, 332, 333 Juan Battista, 351 Junckher of Cologne, 241 Kearsley, Dr. 386 Kent, 333 Klenze, Leo von 359, 360, 367 Labrouste, Henri 364 Lassus, J. B. A. 371 Latrobe, Benjamin H. 389 Laurana, Francesco 310 Laurana, Luciano 287 Le Breton, Gilles 313 Lefuel, Hector 372 Lemercier, Jacques 312, 319, 322 Le Nepveu, Pierre 314 Lescot, Pierre 316, 321 Le Vau (or Levau) 320 Lieven de Key, 336 Ligorio, Pirro 293 Lippi, Annibale 293 Lira, Valentino di 343 Lombardi, Antonio 284 Lombardi, Martino 284 Lombardi, Moro 284 Lombardi, Pietro 284 Lombardi, Tullio 284, 293 Longhena, Baldassare 304 Lorenzo, Bernardo di 282 Louis, Victor 362 Luca della Robbia, 281 Lunghi, Martino (the elder) 304, 305 Machuca, 351 Maderna, Carlo 295, 303 Majano, Benedetto da 280, 281 Majano, Giuliano da 286, 287 Mansart, François 322 Mansart, Jules Hardouin 320, 321, 322 Marchionne, 305 Marini, Giovanni 339 Martino, Pietro di 287 Matthew of Arras, 243 Meo del Caprino, 286 Meruan, Jacobus of 255 Métézeau, 318 Michelozzi, Michelozzo 279, 283 Mino da Fiesole, 281 Mnesicles, 65 Mullet, A. B. 392 Narbonne, Henri de 249 Nénot, Henri P. 374 Ohlmüller, 375 Palladio, Andrea 299, 301, 319, 328, 350 Percier, Charles 362 Perrault, Claude 320 Peruzzi, Baldassare 289, 291, 292, 294 Phidias, 62 Philibert de l’Orme, 316, 317 Pietrasanta, Giacomo di 286 Pintelli, Baccio 286 Pisano, Giovanni 260 Pisano, Niccolo 272 Polaert, 382 Poyet, 363 Pugin, A. Welby 378 Pythius, 71 Raphael Sanzio, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293 Renwick, James 391, 392 Revett, Nicholas 355, 358 Richardson, Henry H. 393, 394 Rickman, Thomas 378 Riel, Gerhardt von 243 Ristoro, Fra 256 Rizzio, Antonio 284 Romano, Giulio 289, 292 Rossellini, Bernardo 286 Ruiz, Fernando 352 Salvi, Niccola 305 Sammichele, Michele 293, 299, 300, 329 San Gallo, Antonio da (the Elder) 294 San Gallo, Antonio da (the Younger) 289, 291, 294 San Gallo, Giuliano da 278, 291, 292, 294 Sansovino, Giacopo Tatti 289, 293, 299, 300, 304 Satyrus, 71 Scamozzi, Vincenzo 299, 339 Schinkel, Friedrich 358, 360, 376 Schmidt, F. 378 Scott (General) 382 Scott, Sir Gilbert 380 Semper, Ottfried 376 Sens, William of 219 Servandoni, 323 Settignano, Desiderio da 281 Shaw, Norman 382 Siccardsburg, 376 Smirke, Robert 356 Smithson, Robert 328 Soane, Sir John 356 Soufflot, J. J. 362 Steinbach, Erwin von 241 Stella, Paolo della 339 Stern, Raphael 305, 365 Street, George Edmund 380 Stuart, James 355, 358 Stuhler, 359 Talenti, Francesco Di 259, 263 Talenti, Simone di 266 Taylor, Robert 334 Tessin, Nicodemus de 337 Thomson, Alexander 357 Thornton, 389 Thorpe, John 328 Titz, 376 Torregiano, 327 Trevigi, 327 Upjohn, Richard 392 Val Del Vira, 348 Valentino di Lira, 343 Van Aken, 343 Van Brugh, Sir John 332 Van Noort, William 336 Van Noye, Sebastian 336 Van Vitelli, 304 Vasari, Giorgio 162 Viart, Charles 311 Viel, 372 Vignola, Giacomo Barozzi da 289, 292, 296, 299, 300, 301 Vignon, Pierre 362 Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene Emmanuel 370, 371 Vischer, Kaspar 343 Vischer, Peter 347 Visconti, Louis T. J. 371, 372 Vitoni, Ventura 293 Vitruvius, 56, 71, 77 Von der Null, 376 Wallot, Paul 377 Wallot, Jean 333 Walter, Thomas Ustick 391 Waterhouse, Alfred 381 Webb, Aston 382 Wilkins, 357 William of Sens, 219 William of Wykeham, 222, 226 Wood, 333 Wren, Sir Christopher 329, 331, 332, 356, 385 Ziebland, 375 INDEX. The buildings are arranged according to location. Those which appearonly in the lists of monuments at the ends of chapters are omitted. _Numerals in parentheses refer to illustrations. _ ABAYAGIRI. Tope, 403 ABBEVILLE. St. Wulfrand, 209, 213 ABU-SEIR. Stepped pyramid, 9 ABYDOS. Columns, 12. Temple, 19, 21. Tombs, 11 (+5+) ADDEH. Grotto-temple, 22 ÆMILIA. Churches in, 157, 262 AGRA, 149. Pearl Mosque, 148. Taj Mahal, 148 (+86+) AGRIGENTUM. Temple of Zeus, 56, 61 (+33+) AHMEDABAD, 148 AIX-LA-CHAPELLE. Minster (palatine Chapel), 172. Palace of Charlemagne, 176 AIZANOI. Temple of Zeus, 67. Theatre, 70 AJMIR, 148 AJUNTA. Brahman Chaityas, 404; viharas, 405 ALBANO. Tomb, 89 ALBANY. All Saints’ Cathedral, 394. Capitol, 391 ALBY Cathedral, 185, 205, 206, 212, 249 (+123+) ALCALA DE HEÑARES, 352. Archepiscopal Palace, 350. College, 349 ALCANTARA. Bridge, 108 ALENÇON Cathedral, 209, 213 ALEXANDRIA TROAS. Palæstra, 71. ALLAHABAD. Akbar’s Palace, 148 ALTENBURG Cathedral, 242. Town hall, 344 AMADA. Columns, 12 AMBOISE Castle, 310 AMIENS Cathedral, 189, 197, 201, 203, 205, 206, 219, 232 (+122+); west front of, 207, 208, 212, 227 AMRAVATI. Topes, 403 AMSTERDAM. Bourse (Exchange) Hanse House, Town hall, 336 ANCY LE FRANC. Château, 317 ANET. Château, 317 ANGERS. Cathedral S. Maurice, 200. Hospital, 214 ANGORA (Ancyra), 118 ANGOULÊME Cathedral, 164 ANI, 134 ANNAPOLIS. Harwood and Hammond Houses, 386 ANTIOCH, 115 ANTIPHELLUS. Theatre, 70. Tombs, 72 ANTWERP Cathedral, 190, 246, 247. Town Hall, 334, 336 AQUITANIA. Churches of, 164, 167, 168, 179, 373 ARANJUEZ. Palace, 352 AREZZO Cathedral, 257. Sta. Maria della Pieve, 159 ARGOS. Gates, 45 ARIZONA. Spanish churches in, 388 ARLES. St. Trophime, 165 ASCHAFFENBURG. Church, 243 ASHEVILLE. Biltmore House, 399 ASIA MINOR, 53, 55, 58, 62, 66, 122 ASPENDUS. Theatre, 70 ASSISI. Church of St. Francis (S.  Francesco), 255, 256, 258 ASSOS, 55. Public cquare, 69. Temple, 61 ASTI. Church, 256 ASTORGA. Rood-screen, 352 ATHENS. Academy, 365. Acropolis, 65, 69. Agora Gate, 68. Cathedral, 134. Choragic Monument of Lysicrates, 66 (+30+, +38+). Erechtheum, 64 (+35+, +36+). Museum, 365. Odeion of Regilla (of Herodes Atticus), 68, 69,  70. Parthenon, 56, 58, 63, 64, 131, 359 (Frontispiece, +31+ d, +34+). Propylæa, 58, 65, 69, 358 (+37+). Stoa of Attalus, 67. Temple of Nike Apteros, 64, 65. Temple of Olympian Zeus, 68 (+39+). Theatre of Dionysus, 69, 70. Theseum (Temple of Theseus or Heracles), 62. Tower of Winds (Clepsydra of Cyrrhestes), 53,  67. University, 365 ATTICA, 50, 55 AUGSBURG. Town hall, 344 AUSTRIA, 330 AUTUN Cathedral, 166, 167 AUVERGNE. Churches, 204 AUXERRE Cathedral, 197, 201 AVIGNON. Notre Dame Des Doms, 165 AVILA. S. Vincente, 180, 247; Tombs in, 352 AZAY-LE-RIDEAU. Château, 316 BAALBEC (Heliopolis), 83. Circular Temple, 94. Temple of Sun, 92 BAB-EL-MOLOUK, 14 BAGDAD. Tombs, etc. , 145, 146 BAGH. Viharas, Great Vihara, 405 BAILLUR. Temples, 409, 410 BAMBERG. Church, 243 BARCELONA. Cathedral, 189, 249. Sta. Maria del Pi, 249 BAROLLI. Hindu Temple, 409 BASLE. Spahlenthor, 246 BASSÆ (Phigalæa). Temple of Apollo Epicurius, 65 BATALHA. Church, mausoleum, 251 BAVARIA, 342 BAYEUX Cathedral, 197, 205 BAYONNE Cathedral, 197 BEAUGENCY. Town hall, 316 BEAUMESNIL. Château, 319 BEAUNE. Hospital, 214 BEAUVAIS Cathedral, 189, 197, 211, 219; chapels, 205; size, 206, 211, 212, 243 BEIT-EL-WALI. Rock-cut Temple, 22 BELEM. Church, 251, 352. Cloister, tower, 352 BELGIUM, 334. BENARES. Hindu Temples, 408, 409 BENI HASSAN. Columns, 11, 24, 50. Speos Artemidos, 22. Tombs, 11 (+6+, +7+) BERGAMO. Town Hall, 266 BERLIN. Bauschule, 376. Brandenburg Gate, 358. Old Museum, 359 (+200+). New Museum, 359. Parliament House, 377. Theatres, 360, 376 BETHLEHEM. Church of the Nativity, 115 BHAJA. Chaityas, 404 BHILSA. Topes, 403 BHUWANESWAR. Hindu temples, 408 BIDAR, 146 BIJAPUR. Tomb of Mahmud, 148, 153 (+85+). Jumma Musjid, 148. Mogul architecture, 149 BILTMORE House, 399 BINDRABUN. Ruined temple, 408 BIRS NIMROUD. Stepped pyramid, 31 BLENHEIM House, 332 (+188+) BLOIS. Château of, 216, 310, 313 (+175+, +176+) BOHEMIA, 338 BOLOGNA, 157. Brick houses, 266. Campo Santo, 382. Frati di S. Spirito, 279. Local style, 283. Pal. Bevilacqua, Pal. Fava, 283. Palazzo Communale (town Hall), 266. Renaissance churches in, 277, 293. S. Francesco, 256, 263. S. Petronio, 257, 258, 259, 263. Sta. Maria dei Servi, 263 BONN. Minster, 174. Baptistery, 175 BORDEAUX. Cathedral, spires, 209. Grand Théatre, 362 BOSTON. Ames Building, 397. Custom House, 390. Faneuil Hall, 388. Fine Arts Museum, 394. Hancock House, 387. Old State House, 388. Old South Church, 386. Public Library, 399. State House, 390. Trinity Church, 394 (+222+) BOURGES Cathedral, 189, 197, 199, 202, 249; chapels, 205; size, 206; portals, 208. House of Jacques Cœur, 215 (+127+) BOURNAZEL. Château, 315 BOWDEN PARK, 357 BOZRAH Cathedral, 117 (+70+) BRANDENBURG. St. Catherine, St. Godehard, 244 BREMEN. Town hall, 246, 344 BRESCIA. Sta. Maria dei Miracoli, 287 BRIEG. Piastenschloss, 343 BRISTOL Cathedral, piers, 178 BRUGES. Ancien Greffe, 334. Cloth hall, 247. Ste. Anne, 334. Town hall, 247 BRUNSWICK. Burg Dankwargerode, 176. Town hall, 246 BRUSA, 150 BRUSSELS. Bourse, 382. Cathedral (ste. Gudule), 246. Pal. De Justice, 382. Renaissance Houses, 335 (+190+). Town Hall, 247 BUBASTIS. Temple, 13 BUDA-PESTH. Synagogue, 378 BUDDH GAYA. Tope or stupa, 404 BUFFALO. Guaranty Building, 397 BULACH. Basilica, 375 BURGUNDY. Cathedrals in, 197 BURGHLEY House, 328 (+184+) BURY. Château, 315 BURGOS Cathedral, 248, 249, 251 (+145+) BYZANTIUM, 92; See Constantinople CAEN. Churches, 167, 178; St. Étienne (Abbaye aux Hommes) and Ste. Trinité (Abbaye aux Dames), 168; St. Pierre, 312. Hôtel D’Écoville, 316 CAHORS Cathedral, 164 CAIRO. Karafah (Tombs of Khalîfs), 137, 138, 139. Mohammedan monuments (list), 136, 153. Mosque of Amrou, 136; of Ibn Touloun, 136; of Barkouk, 137; of Kalaoun, 137; of Sultan Hassan, 137, 138 (+80+); of El Muayyad, 137; of Kaîd Bey, 137 (+81+) CALIFORNIA. Spanish missions and churches, 388 CAMBODIA. Temple of Nakhon Wat, 413 CAMBRAY Cathedral, 197 CAMBRIDGE. Caius College, Gate of Honor, 328. Fitzwilliam Museum, 356. King’s College Chapel, 223, 227, 234. Trinity College Library, 332 CAMBRIDGE (Mass. ). Craigie (Longfellow) House, 387 (+219+) CANTERBURY Cathedral, 219; central tower of, 228; chapels, 231; transepts, 232; minor works in, 234 CAPRAROLA. Palace of, 300 CAPUA. Amphitheatre, 103 CARIA, 71; see Halicamassus CARINTHIA, 338, 339 CARLTON House, 357 CARTER’S GROVE, 386 CASERTA. Royal Palace, 304 CASTLE HOWARD, 332 CÉRISY-LA-FORÊT. Church, 178 CEYLON. Topes, 403 CHAISE-DIEU. Cloister, 213 CHÂLONS (Châlons-sur-Marne) Cathedral, 205 CHALVAU. Château, 314 CHAMBORD. Château, 314 (+177+, +178+) CHANTILLY. “Petit Château, ” 317 CHARLESTON. St. Michael’s, 385 CHARLOTTEVILLE. University of Virginia, 390 CHARLTON Hall, 328 CHARLTON-ON-OXMORE. Plate tracery (+110+) CHARTRES Cathedral, 197, 201, 203; chapels of, 205; size of, 206; W. Front, 207; transept porches, 208; spires, 209; capital from (+126+ C). Hospital, 214 CHEMNITZ Cathedral, 245 CHENONCEAUX. Château, 316, 317 CHIARAVALLE. Certosa, 255 CHICAGO. Auditorium Theatre, 399. Columbian Exposition, 393, 399. Masonic Building, 396. Fisher Building, Schiller Building, 397 CHICHESTER Cathedral, spire, 229 CHIHUAHUA. Church, 352 CHILLAMBARAM. Dravidian Temple, Mantapa of Parvati, 411 CHISWICK. Villa, 328, 329 CHITTORE. Hindu temples, 409. Palace, 409. Towers, 407, 408 (+227+) CLERMONT (Clermont-Ferrand) Cathedral, 197; chapels of, 205, 212. Notre-Dame-du-Port, 165, 204 (+96+, +97+) CLUNY. Abbey Church, 166. Houses at, 214. Hôtel de (at Paris), 216 COBLENTZ. Church of St. Castor, 237 COIMBRA. Sta. Cruz, 352 COLESHILL. House, 329 COLOGNE. Apostles’ Church, 174, 243 (+101+). Cathedral, 189, 192, 205, 243, 249; vaulting of, 239; spires, 240, 241; plan, 189, 205, 242 (+141+). Church of St. Mary-in-the-Capitol, 174. Great St. Martin’s, 174, 243. Romanesque Houses, Etc. , 176 COMO. Town hall (broletto), 266 COMPOSTELLA. St. Iago, 180 CONJEVERAM. Dravidian temple, 411 CONSTANTINE. Amphitheatre, 92 CONSTANTINOPLE, 120. Byzantine monuments (list), 134. Church of Hagia Sophia (Santa Sophia, Divine Wisdom), 111, 123, 124, 127-131, 132, 133, 150, 151 (+72+, +75+, +76+, +77+). Church of the Apostles, 132. Early Christian monuments (list), 119. Fountains, Fountain of Ahmet III. , 152, 153. Mosque of Ahmet II. (Ahmediyeh), 151 (+88+); of Mehmet II. , 150, 151 (+87+); of Osman III. (Nouri Osman), 151; of Soliman (Suleimaniyeh), 151 (+89+); of Yeni Djami, 151. Palaces, 153. St. Bacchus, 127. St. John Studius (Emir Akhor mosque), 118. St. Sergius, 117, 127 (+74+). Tchinli Kiosque (Imperial Museum), 153; sarcophagi in, 66. Tombs, 152. Turkish mosques, 150 COPENHAGEN. Exchange, Fredericksborg, 336 CORDOVA, 141; Great Mosque, 142, 143 (+83+) CORINTH. Temple of Zeus, 60 COUTANCES Cathedral, 197; chapels of, 205; spires, 209 CRACOW Castle, 338. Chapel of Jagellons, 338 CREMONA. Town hall, 266 CTESIPHON. Tâk-kesra, 145 DAMASCUS, Mosque of El-walîd, 136 DANTZIC. Town hall, 344 DASHOUR. Pyramid, 9 DEIR-EL-BAHARI. Tomb-temple of Hatasu, 15, 21 DEIR-EL-MEDINEH. Temple of Hathor, 19 DELHI. Jaina Temples, 407. Jumma Musjid, 148. Mogul Architecture of, 149. Palace of Shah Jehan, 148. Pathan arches, Etc. , 148 DELOS. Gates, 45; Portico of Philip, 67 DENDERAH. Temple of Hathor, 17. Group of Temples, 22, 24. Hathoric columns, 24 DETROIT. Majestic Building, 397 DIEPPE. Church of St. Jacques, 213 DIJON. St. Michel, 312 DOL Cathedral, east end, 205 DRESDEN. Castle, Georgenflügel, 342. Church of St. Mary (Marienkirche) 346 (+194+). Theatre, 376 (+213+). Zwinger Palace, 346 (+193+) DRÜGELTE. Circular church, 175 DURHAM Cathedral, 177, 178, 220, 221 (+102+); central tower of, 228; Chapel of Nine Altars, 232 EARL’S BARTON. Tower, 176 ECOUEN. Château, 316 EDFOU. Great Temple, 16, 17, 22 (+9+, +10+, +14+). Peripteral Temple, 22 EDINBURGH. High School, Royal Institution, 357 EGYPT. Early Christian buildings in, 118 ELEPHANTINE. Temple of Amenophis III. , 22 EL KAB. Temple of Amenophis III. ; 18 ELEUSIS. Propylæa, 69 ELLORA. Chaityas, 404. Dravidian Kylas, 413 ELNE. Cloister, 170, 213 ELY Cathedral, 220; choir vault, 222; octagon, 224, 330; clearstory, 225; towers, 228; interior, 229; size, 232; Lady Chapel, 234 EPHESUS. Temple of Artemis (Artemisium),  66; Ionic Order, 53. Palæstra, 71 ERECH, 31 ESCURIAL. Monastery, 351 ESNEH. Hathoric columns, 25. Temple, 23. ESSEN. Nun’s choir, 172 ESSLINGEN. Church spire, 240 ETCHMIADZIN. Byzantine monuments, 134 EVREUX Cathedral, 197 EXETER Cathedral, 221 (+129+) EZRA. Church of St. George, 117 FERAIG. Rock-cut Temple, 22 FERRARA Cathedral, 261, 304. Churches, 277, 293. Palaces Scrofa, Roverella, 283 FIROUZABAD. Sassanian Buildings, 144 FLORENCE. Baptistery, 162. Bartolini, Guadagni, Larderel, Pandolfini, Serristori palaces, 291. Campanile, 263, 264 (+147+ a). Cathedral (Duomo, Santa Maria del Fiore), 257, 258, 263; façade, 261; marble incrustation, 263; dome, 273-275 (+147+, +148+, +159+, +160+). Church of San Miniato, 115, 161, 162; of Or San Michele, 264. Gondi Palace, 291. Loggia dei Lanzi, 266. Loggia di San Paolo, 281. Minor works, 287. Ospedale degli Innocenti, 281. Palazzo Vecchio, 265. Pitti Palace, 280, 300, 319. Riccardi Palace, 279, 280, 281, 290 (+162+). Rucellai Palace, 280, 282. Santa Croce, 258; Pazzi Chapel of, 276; pulpit in, 281; Marsupini tomb, 281. San Lorenzo, 276. San Spirito, 276 (+161+), Santa Maria Novella, 256, 258; façade, 277; fountain in sacristy of, 281. Strozzi Palace, 280, 290 (+163+) FLUSHING. Town hall (Hôtel de Ville), 335 FONTAINEBLEAU. Palace, 313, 318 FONTEVRAULT. Abbey, 164 FONTFROIDE. Cloister, 213 FRANCE. Romanesque monuments (list), 170, 171; Gothic monuments (list), 216, 217; Renaissance monuments (list), 324, 325 FRANKFORT. Salt House, 346 FREIBURG Cathedral, 239, 242, 243; Spire, 240 FREIBERG IM ERZGEBIRGE. Golden portal, 242 FRITZLAR. Church, 243 FULDA. Monastery, 172, 173, 175 FURNESS. Abbey, pointed arches, 219 FUTTEHPORE SIKHRI. Mosque of Akbar, 148 GANDHARA. Monasteries, 404 GAILLON. Château, 310 GELNHAUSEN. Abbey Church, 243. Castle ruins, 176 GENOA. Campo Santo, 382. Cathedral, west front, 261. PALACES:--Balbi, Brignole, Cambiasi, Doria-tursi (municipio), Durazzo (reale), Pallavicini, University, 302. Sta. Maria Di Carignano, 299 GERMANY. Mediæval, 172. Romanesque monuments (list), 180. Gothic monuments (list), 252. Renaissance monuments (list), 353 GERNRODE. Romanesque church, 173 GERONA Cathedral, 185, 249, 250 GHENT (Gand). Cloth hall, 247 GHERF HOSSEIN. Rock-cut temple, 22 GHERTASHI (Kardassy). Temple, 23 GHIZEH. Pyramids, 4; Pyramid of Cheops, 7 (+1+, +2+); of Chephren, 8; of Mycerinus, 8. Sphinx, Sphinx temple, 10 (+3+, +4+) GIRNAR. Jaina temples, 407. Temple of Neminatha, 407 GLASGOW. Churches in Greek style, 357 GLOUCESTER Cathedral, 178, 220, 222; cloisters, 222; east window, 227; central tower, 228; Lady Chapel, 234 GOSLAR. Palace of Henry III. , 176 GOURNAH. Columns, 24. Temple, 21 GRAN. Cruciform Chapel, 338 GRANADA, 141. Alhambra, 142, 143, 144, 351 (+84+). Cathedral, 348, 350; minor works in, 352. Palace of Charles V. , 352 (+197+) GRANGE House, 357 GREAT BRITAIN. Gothic monuments (list), 235, 236. Norman monuments (list), 181. Renaissance monuments (list), 337 GUADALAJARA. Infantado, 350 GUJERAT, 146 GWALIOR. Jaina Temples, 407. Palace, 409. Teli-ka-mandir, 409 HADDON Hall, 326 HAGUE, THE. Town hall, 336 HÄMELSCHENBURG Castle, 343 (+191+) HALBERSTADT Cathedral, 244. Town hall, 245 HALICARNASSUS. Mausoleum, 4, 53, 71, 72 (+41+) HAMONCONDAH. Temple, 410 HAMPTON Court, 326, 332 HARTFORD. State Capitol, 393 HAURAN. Roman works in, 92; domestic buildings, 118 HARDWICKE Hall, 328 HATFIELD House, 328 HECKLINGEN. Romanesque church, 173 HEIDELBERG Castle, 343 (+192+). Ritter House, 346 HEILSBERG Castle, 245 HELDBURG Castle, 342 HENGREAVE Hall, 326 HERCULANUM, 86. Amphitheatre, 92. Houses, 107. Theatre, (+61+) HEREFORD Cathedral, 220 HIERAPOLIS. Early Christian buildings in, 118 HILDESHEIM. Kaiserhaus, 346. Renaissance houses, 345. St. Godehard, 173. Town hall, 245. Wedekindsches Haus, 346 HOLLAND House, 328 HOWARD Castle, 332 HULLABÎD. Temples, 409; double temple, 410 (+228+); Kaît Iswara, 410 IFFLEY. Church, 179 (+104+) INDIA, 146-149. Moslem monuments (list), 154. Non-moslem monuments (list), 415 INNSBRÜCK, Schloss Ambras, 339 IPSAMBOUL. (Abou Simbel). Grotto temples, 21, 22 (+13+) IRELAND. Celtic Towers, 176 ISPAHAN. Meidan (Meidan-Shah), Mesjid-Shah, Bazaar, Medress, 146 ISSOIRE. Church of St. Paul, 165, 204 ITALY. Early Christian monuments (list), 119; Romanesque monuments (list), 170; Gothic monuments (list), 268-269; Renaissance monuments (list), 306-307 JAEN Cathedral, 348, 350 JAMALGIRI. Monastery, 405 JERUSALEM. Church of the Ascension, 115. Early Christian churches, 111. Herod’s temple, 41, 83. Mosque of Omar (Dome of the Rock, Kubbet-es-sakhrah), 116, 136. Octagonal church on temple site, 115, 116. Tombs of the Kings, Etc. , 39. Tomb of Absalom, of Hezekiah, Golden Gate, Solomon’s temple,  40. Wall of Lamentations, 41. Zerubbabel’s temple, 41 JAUNPORE, 146 KALABSHÉ. Columns, 12. Temple, 23 KALB LOUZEH. Church, 117 (+69+) KALBURGAH, 146 KANARUK. Hindu temples, 408 KANTONNUGGUR. Hindu temple, 408 KARDASSY (Ghertashi). Temple, 23 KARLI. Chaityas, 404 KARLSTEIN Castle, 245 KARNAK, 50. Great Temple (of Amen Ra) and Hypostyle Hall, xxiii. , 17, 18, 19, 24, 36 (+11+, +12+). Ancient temple, 13. Temple of Khonsu, 16, 20 KASCHAU Cathedral, 245 KASR. Mound, 31 KEDDLESTONE Hall, 334 KELAT SEMAN. Church of St. Simeon Stylites, 117 KHAJURAHO. Jaina temples, 407. Kandarya Mahadeo, 408 KHORSABAD. Palace of Sargon, 31, 32 (+18+). City Gate, 32, 33, (+19+) KIRKSTALL Abbey, pointed arches, 219 KÖNIGSBERG. Church At, 244 KOYUNJIK. Palaces of Sennacherib and Assur-bani-pal, 31 KUTTENBERG. Church of St. Barbara, 239, 240 LAACH. Abbey of, 174 LABYRINTH (of Moeris or Fayoum in Egypt), 26 LA MUETTE. Château, 314 LANDSHUT. Residenz, 342. St. Martin’s, 240, 244 LANGRES Cathedral, 167 LAON Cathedral, 197, 205, 206, 210; porches, 208 LA ROCHEFOUCAULD. Château, 315 LAVAL Cathedral (La Trinité), 201 LE MANS Cathedral, 197, 200, 205, 206 (+118+); tomb in, 310 LEON. Cathedral, 189, 249. Panteon of S. Isidore, 179, 180 LE PUY (Puy-en-Vélay). Church, 204; cloister of same, 213 LEIPZIG. Fürstenhaus, 346 LEMGO. Town hall, 344 LEYDEN. Town hall, 336 LICHFIELD Cathedral, 225, 229 (+135+); west front, 228 (+134+); spire, 229 LIÈGE. Archbishop’s Palace, 334. Church of St. Jacques, 247 LIMBURG-ON-THE-HARDT. Church, 193 LIMBURG-ON-LAHN. Abbey Church, 174. Cathedral of St. George, 239 (+139+) LIMOGES Cathedral, 197, 205, 212 LINCOLN Cathedral, 219, 225, 229, 232; west front, 227; central tower, 228; chapter-house, 223 LISBON, 352 LISIEUX Cathedral, 197 LIVERPOOL. St. George’s Hall, 358 (+199+) LOIRE VALLEY. Churches of, 165 LOMBARDY. Romanesque Monuments In, 157 LONDON. Albert Memorial, 380. Albert Memorial Hall, 382. Bank of England, 334, 356. British Museum, 356 (+198+); Elgin marbles in, 57; mausoleum fragments in, 71. Cathedral (St. Paul’s), 329-331 (+186+, +187+). Chapel Royal (Banqueting Hall, Whitehall), 329 (+185+). CHURCHES:-- Bow Church, 332; St. George’s, Bloomsbury, 333; St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, 333 (+189+); St. Mary’s, Woolnoth, 332; St. Pancras’s, 357; St. Paul’s Cathedral, 329-331 (+186+, +187+); St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, 329; St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, 331; St. Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster, 234; Temple Church, pointed arches in, 219; Westminster Abbey, 220 (+137+); Henry VII. ’s chapel in same, 192, 223, 227, 229, 234 (+136+). Greenwich Hospital, 332. Mansion House, 334. Natural History Museum, South Kensington, 381 (+216+). New Law Courts, 380. Newgate Prison, 334. Parliament Houses, 234, 380 (+215+). Somerset House, 329, 333. South Kensington Museum, new building, 382. University, 357. Westminster Abbey, see above. Westminster Hall, 233. Whitehall Palace, 329; Banqueting Hall (Chapel Royal) in same, 329 (+185+) LONGLEAT House, 328 LOUVAIN Cathedral, 246, 247. Cloth hall, 247. Town hall, 248 (+144+) LÜBECK. City Gates, 246. St. Mary’s, 242, 244. St. Catharine’s, 244. Town hall, 246 LUCCA. Campanile, 264. Cathedral (S. Martino), 161, 257, 258, 260 (+149+); tempietto in same, 281; tomb of P. Di Noceto in same, 281 (+164+). S.  Frediano, S. Michele, 161. Minor works, 282, 283. Palazzo Pretorio, Pal. Bernardini, 283 LUPIANA Monastery, 350 LUXOR, 50. Temple, 19, 20. Osirid Piers, 24 LUZ. Church at, 352 LYCIA. Tombs, 37, 39, 52 MADRID. First Palace, 350. New Palace, 352 MADRID, Château de (at Boulogne), 314 MADURA. Choultrie of Tirumalla Nayak, 411. Great Temple, corridors, 411. Palace, 413 MAFRA. Palace, 353 MAGDEBURG Cathedral, 189, 242, 243 MAHRISCH TRÜBAU. Castle portal, 338 MAISONS. Château, 322 MALAGA. Alcazar, 142, 143. Cathedral, 348 MALINES (Mechlin). Cathedral of St. Rombaut, 246, 247. Cloth hall, 247. Hôtel du Saumon, 324 MANCHESTER. Assize Courts, 380 (+216+) MANIKYALA. Tope, 403 MANRESA. Collegiate Church, 249 MANTINÆA. Theatre, 69 MANTUA. Campanile, 264. Church of S. Andrea, 279. Early Renaissance palaces, 283. Palazzo del Té, 289 MARBURG. St. Elizabeth, 240, 242 (+140+) MARIENBURG Castle, Great Hall, 245 MARIENWERDER. Castle, 245 MARSEILLES. Chapel of St. Lazare, 310. Fountain of Longchamps, 372 (+211+) MASHITA. Palace of Chosroes, 145 MASSACHUSETTS. Country house in (+225+) MAULBRONN. Monastery, 176 MAYENCE Cathedral, 174 MEAUX Cathedral, 212 MECCA. Kaabah, 136 MEDINA DE RIO SECO. Rood-screen, 352 MEDINET ABOU. Osirid piers, 24 (+15+). Pavilion of Rameses III. , 26. Peripteral temple, 22. Tomb-temple of Rameses III. , 15, 21 MEISSEN. Albrechtsburg, 245 MEROË. Pyramids, 9 METZ Cathedral, 244 MEYDOUM. Stepped Pyramid, 9 MILAN, 157. Arcade, 382. Cathedral, 243, 255, 257, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264. Domical churches, 278. Ospedale Maggiore, 283. S. Ambrogio, 158, 159 (+90+). S. Eustorgio, Portinari Chapel in, 283. S. Satiro, sacristy of, 289. Sta. Maria delle Grazie, 278, 289 MILETUS. Temple of Apollo Didymæus, 53, 66 (+28+, +29+) MINDEN Cathedral, 244 MŒRIS. Labyrinth of, 26 MOISSAC. Cloister, 170, 213 MONREALE. Churches, cathedral, 162 MONS. Cathedral, St. Wandru, 246, 247 MONTEPULCIANO. Church of S. Biagio, 294 MONTMAJOUR. Cloister, 170, 213 MONT ST. MICHEL. Abbey, 167, 168, 213, 214; cloister of same, 213 MORET. House of Francis I. , 316 MOSCOW. The Kremlin, 366 MOSUL, 33 MOUNT ABU. Jaina temples, Temple of Vimalah Sah, 405, 406 (+226+) MOUNT ATHOS. Monastery, 134 MUGHEIR. Temple of Sin Or Hurki, 30 MUJELIBEH. Mound, 31 MUKTESWARA. Hindu temples, 409 MÜLHAUSEN. Town Hall, 344 MUNICH, 366. Auekirche, 375. Basilica, 375. Cathedral, 240, 242. Glyptothek, 359. Ludwigskirche, 375. Propylæa, 360 (+201+). Ruhmeshalle, 359. St. Michael’s, 344. MÜNSTER. Church at, 243. Town hall, 245 MÜNZENBERG. Castle ruins, 176 MYCENÆ. Fortifications, 44 (+23+). Lion Gate, 44 (+22+). Tholos of Atreus, 45, 46, 148 (+24+, +25+). Tombs, 4 MYLASSA. Tomb, 72 MYRA. Theatre, 69. Tombs, 72 NAKHON WAT, Temple of, 413 NAKSH-I-ROUSTAM (persepolis), 36. Tomb of Darius, 37 NANCY. Ducal Palace, 216, 311 NANKIN. Porcelain Tower, 414 NAPLES. Arcade, 382. Arch of Alphonso, 287. Church of Gesù Nuovo, 304; of S. Francesco di Paola, 305, 365; of S. Lorenzo, 263; of S. Severo (+173+). Minor works, 281, 282. Pal. Gravina, Porta Capuana, 287. Royal Museum, 304. Royal Palace, 304, 305. Theatre of S. Carlo, 305, 365 NARBONNE Cathedral, 197, 205, 211 NASSICK. Chaityas, 404 NAUKRATIS, 44 NAUMBURG. Church At, 243 NETHERLANDS, 146. Gothic monuments (list), 252-253 NEUWEILER. Church of St. Peter And St. Paul, 243 NEVERS. St. Étienne, 165 NEW MEXICO. Spanish churches, 388 NEWPORT. Town hall, 388. Trinity Church, 386 NEW YORK. American Surety Building, Broadway Chambers, 397. Casino, 399. Cathedral of St. John the Divine, 399; of St. Patrick, 375, 391. Century Club, 399. City Hall, 389. Custom House, 390 (+221+). Grace Church, 392. Huntington house, 399. Madison Square Garden, Metropolitan Club, 399. St. Paul’s, 386. Sub-Treasury, 390. Times Building, (+224+). Trinity Church, 392. Vanderbilt and Villard houses, 399 NÎMES. Amphitheatre, 92. Maison Carrée, 93, 94 NIMROUD. Palaces of Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser, 31, 32 NINEVEH, 31 NIPPUR (Niffer). Ruins of, 29, 31 NORMANDY. Romanesque churches in, 167, 177; cathedrals in, 197, 213 NORTH GERMANY. Brick churches in, 244 NORTH WOBURN. Rumford House, 387 NORWICH Cathedral, 177, 178, 220 NOYON Cathedral, 197, 200, 203, 205, 246 NUBIA. Early Christian buildings, 118 NUREMBERG, 238. Churches of St. Sebald, St. Lorenz, 245. Funk, Hirschvogel, and Keller houses, 346. Renaissance houses, 345. Town hall, 344. Shrine of St. Sebald, 347 OLYMPIA. Altis, Echo Hall, 69. Heraion, 50, 62. Temples, 55; sculptures from, 57. Temple of Zeus, 62 OPPENHEIM. St. Catharine’s, 239, 242, 244 OUDEYPORE. Hindu temples, palace, 409 ORANGE. Theatre, 101 ORCHOMENOS. Ceiling, 47 ORLÉANS. Houses, 316. Town hall (hôtel de ville), 311 ORVIETO Cathedral, 257, 259, 261; façade of same, 260 OSNABRÜCK. Church at, 243 OTTMARSHEIM. Church at, 172 OUDENÄRDE. Town hall, 247 OURSCAMP. Hospital, 214 OXFORD. All Souls’ College, 333. Cathedral (Christ Church), 220, 222. Christ Church Hall, 233, 234. Merton College Chapel, 234. Radcliffe Library, 333. Sheldonian Theatre, 332 PADERBORN. Town hall, 344 PADUA. Arena chapel, 258. Palazzo del Consiglio, 287 PÆSTUM. Basilica, 69. Temples, 61 PAILLY. Château, 317 PALERMO. Churches of Eremitani, La Martorana, 162 PALMYRA, 83. Temple of the Sun, 92. Ceiling panels (+50+ a) PARASNATHA. Jaina temples, 407 PARIS. Arch of Triumph of the Carrousel, 362, 363; of l’Étoile, 362, 363 (+204+). Bourse (Exchange), 363. Cathedral (Notre Dame), 189, 197-202, 249 (+116+, +117+, +124+); rose windows, 203, 212; chapels, 205; size, 206, 232; west front, 207, 227 (+124+); capital from (+126+ b); early carving (+114+). CHURCHES:-- Chapel and Dome of the Invalides, 321 (+182+); Madeleine, 362, 363 (+205+); Panthéon, 361, 362 (+202+, +203+); Sacré-Cœur at Montmartre, 373; Sainte Chapelle, 185, 203, 224 (+106+, +121+); capital from same (+126+ a); Sorbonne, 319; St. Augustin, 371; Ste. Clothilde, 371, 375; St. Étienne-du-Mont, St. Eustache, 312; St. Jean de Belleville, 371; St. Merri, St. Sévérin, 213; St. Paul-St. Louis, 319; St. Sulpice, 323, 361 (+183+); St. Vincent-de-Paul, 364; Val-de-Grâce, 322. Collège Chaptal, 371. Colonnades of the Garde-Meuble, 361, 367. Column of July (Colonne Juillet), 365. Corps Législatif (Palais Bourbon), 363. École des Beaux-Arts, 355, 370, 392, 393; library of same, 364; door (+206+). École de Médecine, new buildings, 374. Exhibition buildings, 374. FOUNTAINS:--of Cuvier, Molière, St. Michel, 372. Halles Centrales, 371. Hôtel-de-Ville (town hall), 316; new building, 373. HÔTELS:-- Carnavalet (de Ligeris), 316; de Cluny, 216; des Invalides, 321. House of Francis I. (Maison François I. ), 316. Library of the Beaux-Arts, 364; of Ste. Genéviève, 365. Louvre (see palaces). Museum (Musée) Galliéra (+212+). Opera House (Nouvel Opéra), 372 (+210+). PALACES:-- Palais Bourbon (Corps Législatif), 363; Palais de l’Industrie, 364; Pal. De Justice, 364; Louvre and Tuileries, 215, 315-319, 321, 362, 371, 372 (+179+, +208+, +209+); Luxemburg Palace, 318 (+180+). PLACES (Squares):-- de la Concorde, 324; Royale, 319; Vendôme, 322. Railway stations (du Nord, de l’Est, d’Orléans), 372. Sorbonne, new academic buildings, 374. PAULINZELLE. Romanesque church, 173 PAVIA, 157. Certosa, 255, 262, 263, 278, 283, 284 (+152+, +153+). Church of S. Michele, 159. Domical churches, 278 PEKIN. Summer pavilion, Temple of Great Dragon, 414 PERGAMON (Pergamus). Altar of Eumenes II. ,  67. Christian buildings, 118 PERIGUEUX. St. Front, 164 (+94+, +95+) PEROOR. Temple, 411 PERSEPOLIS, 145. Columns, 37, 38 (+21+). Hall of Xerxes, 36, 37. Palaces, 35, 69 PERSIA. Moslem architecture, 145, 146 (list 154). Sassanian buildings, 144, 145 PERUGIA. Oratory of San Bernardino, 279. Town hall (Pal. Communale), 266. Roman Gates, 88 PETERBOROUGH Cathedral, 178, 220; retro-choir, 222; west front, 227 PHIGALÆA (Bassæ). Gate, 45. Sculptures from, 57. Temple of Apollo Epicurius, 65 PHILADELPHIA. Christ Church, 386 (+218+). Girard College, 390, 391. Independence Hall, 388. Marine Exchange, Mint, 390. Municipal Building, 391 PHILÆ. Great Temple, 22. Peripteral temple, 22 PIACENZA, 157. Campanile, 159 (+91+). Cathedral (+91+). Town hall, 266 PIASTENSCHLOSS at Brieg, 343 PIENZA. Palazzo Piccolomini, etc. , 282 PIERREFONDS. Château, 371 PISA. Churches in, 115, 261; minor works in, 282; early Renaissance in, 282-283. Baptistery, 160 (+92+). Cathedral (Duomo), 159, 160, 276 (+92+, +93+). Leaning Tower, 160 (+92+). Sta. Maria della Spina, 264 PISTOIA. Campanile, 264. Churches, 161, 261. Podestà, Palazzo Communale, 266. Sta. Maria dell’ Umiltà, 293 PITTSBURGH. Carnegie Building, 397. Carnegie Library, 399. County Buildings, 394 PLAGNITZ. Castle, 343 PLASSENBURG. Castle, 343 POITIERS Cathedral, 197, 201, 205 POLA. Amphitheatre, 92, 102 POMPEII. Amphitheatre, 92. Baths, 86. Houses, 72, 107, 108; House of Pansa (+65+). Theatre, 101. Tombs, 105 PONT DU GARD. Bridge, 108 PORTSMOUTH. Sherburne House, 387 PORTUGAL, 352. Gothic monuments (list), 253 POTSDAM. St. Nicholas Church, 359 PRAGUE. Belvedere, 339. Cathedral, 239, 242, 244. Palace on Hradschin, Schloss Stern, Waldstein palace, 339 PRATO. Churches in, 161, 293. Madonna delle Carceri, 278 PRENTZLAU. Church, 244 PRIENE. Ionic order, 53; Propylæa, 69 PROVENCE, 164. PROVINS. Houses at, 214 PURI. Temples, 408. Temple of Jugganât, 409 PURUDKUL. Rock-cut raths, 413 RAMESSEUM (Thebes). Tomb-temple of Rameses II. , 15, 21, 24 (+8+) RAMISSERAM. Temple, corridors, 411 RATISBON (Regensburg) Cathedral, 239, 241, 244. Town hall, 245. Walhalla, 359 RAVENNA, 114. Baptistery of St. John, 119. Byzantine monuments (list), 134. Cathedral, 304. Early Christian monuments (list), 119. S.  Apollinare Nuovo, S. Apollinare in Classe, 114. S. Vitale, 117, 122, 127, 172 (+73+) REGGIO. Amphitheatre, 92 REIMS Cathedral, 189, 197, 201, 202, 203, 205; size, 206; west front, 207, 213, 227; towers, 209; portals, 208, 210 RIMINI. S. Francesco, 277 ROCHESTER Cathedral, 220 RODEZ Cathedral, 197, 212 ROME. Ancient monuments, (list) 108, 109. Amphitheatre of Statilius Taurus, 102. ARCHES:-- in general, 77, 103; of Constantine, 80, 103 (+63+); of Septimius Severus, 103; of Titus, 92, 103; of Trajan, 97, 103. BASILICAS:-- in general, 97, 98; Basilica Æmilia, 98; of Constantine, xxiii, 80, 82, 98, 99 (+50+ b, +58+, +59+); Julian Basilica, 98; Sempronian, 98; Ulpian, 97, 98 (+57+). (For Early Christian Basilicas, see Churches. ) BATHS (Thermæ):-- in general, 71, 92,  99; of Agrippa, 91, 100; of Caracalla, 87, 92 (+60+); of Diocletian, 92, 100, 101; of Titus, 86, 91, 100, 105. Campanile of Campidoglio (Capitol), 305. Capitol, 91; palaces on, 299. CHURCHES:-- in general, 293; Church of Gesù, 299; Sistine Chapel of Vatican, 286, 289; Sta. Agnese (basilica), 112 (modern church), 303; S. Agostino, 286; S. Clemente, 114; Sta. Costanza, 111 (+66+); St. John Lateran, 113, 251, 304, 305; cloister of same, 281; S. Lorenzo, 112; S.  Lorenzo in Miranda, 93; Sta. Maria degli Angeli, 101; Sta. Maria Maggiore, 113, 305; Chapel of Sixtus V. In same, 299; Sta. Maria del Popolo, 286, 287; Chigi Chapel in same, 293; Sta. Maria della Vittoria, 303; Sta. Maria sopra Minerva, 256; St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls, 113, 281 (+67+, +68+); St. Peter’s, original basilica, 113; existing church of, 274, 286, 289, 290, 294-296, 299, 321 (+169+, +170+, +171+); colonnade of same, 295, 303, 367; sacristy of same, 305; S. Pietro in Montorio, Tempietto in court of, 209. CIRCUSES:-- Maximus, 103; of Caligula and Nero, 103, 113. Cloaca Maxima, 81, 90. Colosseum (Flavian amphitheatre) 91, 92, 102 (+45+, +62+). COLUMNS:--103; of Marcus Aurelius, 104; of Trajan, 97, 104. Early Christian monuments, 111; (list), 118, 119. FORA:-- in general, 97; of Augustus, 91, 97; of Julius, Nerva, Vespasian, 97; Forum Romanum (Magnum), 97, 98; Forum of Trajan, 97, 98 (+57+). Fountain of Trevi, 305. HOUSES:-- in general, 105, 106, 108; of Vestals (Atrium Vestæ), 94, 106; of Livia, 107. Lateran, carved ornament from Museum of (+49+); palace of, 300. Mausoleum of Augustus, of Hadrian, 104. Minor Works in Rome, 287. Monument to Victor Emmanuel, 382. National Museum, 382. PALACES (Ancient):-- of Cæsars on Palatine Hill, 86, 91, 105; of Nero (Golden House), 91, 92, 100, 105; Septizonium, 105. PALACES (Renaissance):-- Altemps, 292; Barberini, 304, 305; Borghese, 304; Braschi, 305; of Capitol, 299; Cancelleria, 290, 291; Corsini, 305; Farnese, 292 (+167+, +168+); Farnesina, 291; Giraud, 290, 291 (+166+); Lante, 292; Massimi, Palma, 291; Quirinal, 300; Sacchetti, 291; Vatican, Belvedere, greater and lesser court, Court of S.  Damaso, Loggie, 209, 291; Braccio Nuovo, 305, 365; Casino del Papa in gardens, 293; papal residence, 300; Scala Reggia, 305; palazzo di Venezia, 286. Pantheon of Agrippa, 82, 91, 94-96, 100, 118, 122, 127, 365 (+54+, +55+, +56+). Pons Ælius (Ponte S. Angelo), 108. Porta Maggiore, 108. Portico of Octavia, 91. TEMPLES:-- Of Castor and Pollux (Dioscuri), 84, 91, 94 (+44+); of Concord, 94; of Faustina, 93; of Fortuna Virilis, 89, 90, 93; of Hercules or Vesta, 90; of Julius, 94; of Jupiter Capitolinus, 68, 89, 91; of Jupiter Stator, so called (see Temple of Castor and Pollux); of Jupiter Tonans, 91; of Mars Ultor, 91; of Minerva Medica, 127; of Peace, 98; of Trajan, 97; of Venus and Rome, 94 (+53+); of Vesta, in Forum, 94; of Vesta, so called, or Hercules, 90. THEATRES:-- Of Marcellus, 91, 101 (+42+); of Mummius, of Pompey, 101. TOMBS:--86, 104; of Caius Cestius, of Cecilia Metella, 104; of Helena, 118 ROSENBORG Castle, 336 ROSHEIM. Church façade, 175 ROTHENBURG. Town hall, 344 ROUEN, 310. Cathedral, 192, 197, 201, 202, 205; size of, 206; west front, 207; rose windows, 212. Hôtel Bourgtheroude, 316. Palais de Justice, 214. St. Maclou, 209. St. Ouen, 212, 213, 375; rose window from (+112+) ROUHEIHA. Early Christian church, 117 ROYAL DOMAIN, 166, 167, 197 RUANWALLI. Topes, 403 RUSSIA, 367. Byzantine monuments (list), 134 SADRI. Temple, 406 SAKKARAH. Pyramid, 9 SALAMANCA. Casa de las Conchas, 349. Cathedral (old), 180, 248; (new), 250, 348. Monastery of S. Girolamo, 348. S. Domingo, 348. University, 349; portal of (+195+) SALISBURY Cathedral, 219, 223, 225, 229, 232 (+128+); west front, 228; spire, 228, 229. Market cross, 234 SALONICA. Church of St. George, 118. Other monuments (list), 134 SALSETTE. Viharas, 405 SALZBURG. Church of St. Francis, 242 SAMOS. Gate, 45 SANCHI. Brahman temple, 404. Tope, 403 SAN ILDEFONSO. Royal Palace, 352 SABAGOSSA. Casa de Zaporta, 350 (+196+) SAXONY, 173 SCHALABURG. Castle, 339 SCHLETTSTADT Cathedral, 239 SCHLOSS HÄMELSCHENBURG, 343 (+191+) SCHLOSS PORZIA at Spital, 338 SCHLOSS STERN at Prague, 339 SCHWARZ-RHEINDORF. Church, 174 SCHWEINFÜRTH. Town hall, 344 SCINDE, 146 SECUNDRA. Tomb of Akbar, 148 SEDINGA. Hathoric columns, 24 SÉEZ Cathedral, 197 SEGOVIA Cathedral, 190, 249, 348. Church of S. Millan, of Templars, 180 SELINUS. Temples, 49; northern temple, 60; Temple of Zeus, 61 SEMNEH. Pavilion, 26 SENLIS Cathedral, 197, 200, 209 SENS. Archbishop’s palace, 317. Cathedral, 203, 219 SERBISTAN. Sassanian buildings, 144 SEVILLE. Alcazar, 142, 143. Casa de Pilato (House of Pilate), 142, 350. Cathedral, 244, 250, 257, 351. Giralda, 142, 143, 352 SHEEPREE. Pathan arches, 148 SIENNA. Brick houses, 266. Campanile, 264. Cathedral (Duomo), 257, 259, 263 (+150+); west front, 260 (+151+). Loggia del Papa, 282. Minor works, 282. PALACES:-- Del Governo, Piccolomini, Spannocchi, 282; Palazzo Pubblico, 266. Renaissance churches, 293. S. Giovanni in Fonte, 260 SILSILEH. Grotto temple, 22 SOISSONS Cathedral, 197, 200, 203, 205, 243 SOMNATH. Jaina temple, 407 SOMNATHPUR. Chalukyan temples, 409, 410 SOUTHWELL Minster, carving from, (+115+) SPAIN, 347. Gothic monuments (list), 253. Romanesque churches, 179-180 SPALATO. Palace of Diocletian, 92, 106, 113 (+64+) SPITAL. Schloss Porzia, 338 SPIRES (Speyer) Cathedral, 174 (+100+) ST. ALBAN’S Abbey, tombs, etc. , in, 234 ST. AUGUSTINE. Fort Marion (S. Marco), 388. Ponce de Leon Hotel, 399. Roman Catholic cathedral, 388. ST. BENOÎT-SUR-LOIRE. Antechurch, 177 ST. DENIS. Abbey, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203 (+120+); tomb of Louis XII. In, 316; of Francis I. , 317 ST. GERMAIN-EN-LAYE. Château, 313; Royal chapel in, 204 ST. GILLES. Church, 165 ST. LOUIS. Union Trust Bdg. , 397 ST. PAUL. State Capitol, 400 ST. PETERSBURG, 366, 367. Admiralty, 367. Cathedral of St. Isaac, 367 (+207+). CHURCHES:-- of the Citadel, of the Greek Rite, 366; of Our Lady of Kazan, 367. New Museum, Palace of Grand Duke Michael, 367. Smolnoy Monastery, 366. ST. RÉMY. Tombs, 105 STABIÆ, 92 STOCKHOLM. Palace, 337 STRASBURG Cathedral, 243; spire of, 238, 240, 241, 243. University Buildings, 376 STUTTGART. Old Castle, 343. Technical School, 376 STYRIA, 339 SULLY. Château, 317 SULTANIYEH. Tomb, 145 SUNIUM. Propylæa, 69 SUSA, 145. Palaces, 35 SYRACUSE. Theatre, 70 SYRIA, 122; early Christian churches in, 115, 116, 117; (list), 119 TABRIZ. Ruined Mosque, 145 TAFKHAH. Early Christian Church, 117 TAKHT-I-BAHI. Monastery, 405 TÄNGERMÜNDE. Church, 244 TANJORE. Great temple, 412. Palace, 413. Shrine of Soubramanya, 412 (+229+) TARPUTRY. Gopura, 411 TEHERAN, 146 TEL-EL-AMARNA, 27 TEWKESBURY Abbey, 222 (+130+) THEBES. Amenopheum, 15. Ramesseum, 15 (+8+) THORICUS. Gate, 45; Stoa Diple, 69 TINNEVELLY. Dravidian temples, 411 TIRUVALUR. Dravidian temples, 411 TIRYNS, 44 TIVOLI. Circular temple, 90, 356 (+52+). VILLAS:-- D’Este, 293; of Hadrian, 87, 106 TOKIO. Great Palace, 415 TOLEDO. Archbishop’s Palace, 360. Cathedral, 189, 248, 348. Gate of S. Martino, 350. Hospital of Sta. Cruz, 349. S. Juan de los Reyes, 251 TONNERRE. Hospital, 214 TORGAU. Hartenfels Castle, 342 TORO. Collegiate church, 180 TOULOUSE Cathedral, 212. Church of St. Sernin, 204. Houses, 317 TOURNAY Cathedral, 190, 197, 205, 209; rood-screen in, 335 TOURS, 310. Cathedral, 197, 205, 209; towers of, 312; tomb of children of Charles VIII. In, 310, 342 TRAUSNITZ Castle, 342 TREVES (Trier). Cathedral, 174. Frauenkirche (Liebfrauenkirche, Church of Our Lady), 189, 242, 243 (+142+) TROYES Cathedral, 197, 201, 205; size, 206; west portals, 209. St. Urbain, 212 TUCSON. Church, 352 TUPARAMAYA. Topes, 403 TURIN. Church of La Superga, 365 TURKEY, 149. Monuments (list), 154 TUSCULUM. Amphitheatre, 92 TYROL, 338, 339 UDAIPUR (near Bhilsa). Hindu temples, 409 ULM Cathedral, 238, 239, 241, 243; spire, 241 UR, 30 URBINO. Ducal palace, 287 UTRECHT Cathedral, 244 VALENCIA Cathedral, 249 VALLADOLID. Cathedral, 350. S. Gregorio, portal (+146+) VELLORE. Gopura, 411 VENDÔME Cathedral, portal, 209 VENETIA, 157, 262, 305 VENICE, 300. Campaniles of St. Mark, of S. Giorgio Maggiore, 305. CHURCHES:-- Frari (S. M. Gloriosa dei Frari), 256; Redentore, 299; S. Giobbe, 284; S. Giorgio dei Grechi, 293; S. Giorgio Maggiore, 299, 305; SS. Giovanni e Paolo, 256; Sta. Maria Formosa, 293; S. M. Dei Miracoli, 283; S. M. Della Salute, 304, (+174+); St. Mark’s, 132, 164 (+78+, +79+); Library of same (Royal Palace), 301 (+172+); S. Salvatore, 293; S. Zaccaria, 284. Doge’s Palace, 267, 284 (+157+). Minor works, 287. PALACES:--267, 283, 284; Cà d’Oro, Cavalli, Contarini-Fasan, 268; Cornaro (Corner de Cà Grande) 301; Dario, 285; Ducale (Doge’s Palace), 267, 284 (+157+); Foscari, 268; Grimani, 300; Pesaro, 304; Pisani, 268; Rezzonico, 304; Vendramini (Vendramin-Calergi), 284, 285 (+165+); Zorzi, capital, 275 (+158+) VERCELLI. S. Andrea, 256, 263 VERNEUIL. Château, 317 VERONA, 157. Amphitheatre, 92, 102. Campanile, 264. Church of Sta. Anastasia, 256, 258; of S. Zeno, 159, 175. PALACES:--283; Bevilacqua, Canossa, 300; del Consiglio, 286; Pompeii, Verzi, 300. Tombs of Scaligers, 264 VERSAILLES Palace, 320 VÉZÉLAY. Abbey, 166, 198, 203 VICENZA, 300, 301. Basilica, 301. PALACES:--283; Barbarano, Chieregati, Tiene, Valmarano, 301; Villa Capra, 301, 328 VIENNA, 347. Arsenal at Wiener Neustadt, 338. Burgtheater, 376. Cathedral (St. Stephen), 239, 240, 241; spire of, 240, 241. Church of St. Charles Borromeo, 358. Imperial Palace, portal, 339. Museums, 378. Opera House, 376. Parliament House, or Reichsrathsgebäude, 360, 378. Residence-block (Maria-Theresienhof), 378 (+214+). Sta. Maria in Gestade, 245. Town hall, University, 378. Votiv Kirche, 375 VIJAYANAGAR. Palace, 413 VINCENNES. Royal chapel, 204 VITERBO. Houses, 267. Town hall (Palazzo Communale), 266. Villa Lante, 293 VOLTERRA (Volaterræ). Gate, 88 WALTHAM. Abbey, 178. Eleanor’s Cross, 234 WARFIELD. St. Michael’s, window (+111+) WARKAH (Erech). Palace terraces, 31 WARTBURG Castle, 176 WASHINGTON. Capitol, 389, 391 (+220+). Congressional Library, 399. Patent Office, 390. State, Army, and Navy Building, 392. White House, 390 WELLS Cathedral, 222, 225, 232; west front, 228; chapter house of, 223 (+131+) WESTMINSTER. See LONDON WESTONZOYLAND. Ceiling of St. Mary’s (+138+) WESTOVER House, 386 WIENER-NEUSTADT. See VIENNA WILLIAMSBURG. Town hall, 385 WILTON House, 329 WINCHESTER Cathedral, 178, 220, 222, 226, 229 (+103+); tombs, etc. , in, 234 WINDSOR. St. George’s Chapel, 223, 227, 234 WISMAR. Castle (Fürstenhof), 343. City Gates, 246 WOBURN. Public Library (+223+) WOLLATON Hall, 328 WOLFENBÜTTEL. Marienkirche, 345 WOLTERTON Castle, 326 WORANGUL. Kurti Stambha, 410 WORCESTER Cathedral, 232 WORMS. Minster (cathedral), 174 (+99+) WÜRZBURG. University Church, 345 XANTEN. Church, 242 XANTHUS. Nereid monument, 71 YORK Cathedral, 192, 225, 226; west front, 227; tower, 228; minor works in, 234 YPRES. Cloth hall, 247 ZURICH. Polytechnic School, 376 ZWETTL Cathedral, 242 * * * * * * * * * College Histories of Art. A HISTORY OF PAINTING. BY JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L. H. D. Professor of the History of Art in Rutgers College, and Author of“Principles of Art, ” “Art for Art’s Sake, ” etc. With Frontispiece and 110 Illustrations in the text, reproduced inhalf-tone from the most celebrated paintings. Crown 8vo, 307 pages, $1. 50. “. .. The initial volume of a promising series . .. Seems a model of pith, lucidity, and practical convenience; and that it is sound and accuratethe author’s name is a sufficient guarantee. Essential historical andbiographical facts, together with brief critical estimates andcharacterizations of leading schools and painters, are given in a fewwell-chosen words; and for students who wish to pursue the subject indetail, a list of selected authorities at the head of each chapterpoints the way. Serviceable lists are also provided of principal extantworks, together with the places where they are to be found. The text isliberally sprinkled with illustrations in half-tone. ”--DIAL, CHICAGO. “Prof. Van Dyke has performed his task with great thoroughness and goodsuccess. .. . He seems to us singularly happy in his characterization ofvarious artists, and amazingly just in proportion. We have hardly foundan instance in which the relative importance accorded a given artistseemed to us manifestly wrong, and hardly one in which the specialcharacteristics of a style were not adequately presented. ”--NATION, N. Y. “. .. Gives a good general view of the subject, avoiding as a rule allelaborate theories and disputed points, and aiming to distinguish thevarious historical schools from one another by their differences ofsubject and technique . .. We do not know of anybody who has, on thewhole, accomplished the task with as much success as has Mr. Van Dyke. The book is modern in spirit and thoroughly up-to-date in point ofinformation. ”--ART AMATEUR. “Professor Van Dyke has made a radical departure in one respect, inpurposely omitting the biographical details with which text-books on artare usually encumbered, and substituting short critical estimates ofartists and of their rank among the painters of their time. This featureof the work is highly to be commended, as it affords means forcomparative study that cannot fail to be beneficial. .. . AltogetherProfessor Van Dyke’s text-book is worthy of general adoption, and as avolume of ready reference for the family library it will have a distinctusefulness. It is compact, comprehensive, and admirablyarranged. ”--BEACON, BOSTON. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. , 91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK. * * * * * * * * * A History of Sculpture. BY ALLAN MARQUAND, Ph. D. , L. H. D. AND ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr. , Ph. D. Professors of Archæology and the History of Art in Princeton University. +With Frontispiece and 113 Illustrations in half-tone in the text, Bibliographies, Addresses for Photographs and Casts, etc. Crown 8vo, 313pages, $1. 50. + HENRY W. KENT, _Curator of the Seater Museum, Watkins, N. Y. _ “Like the other works in this series of yours, it is simply invaluable, filling a long-felt want. The bibliographies and lists will be keenlyappreciated by all who work with a class of students. ” CHARLES H. MOORE, _Harvard University_. “The illustrations are especially good, avoiding the excessively blackbackground which produce harsh contrasts and injure the outlines of somany half-tone prints. ” J. M. HOPPIN, _Yale University_. “These names are sufficient guarantee for the excellence of the book andits fitness for the object it was designed for. I was especiallyinterested in the chapter on _Renaissance Sculpture in Italy_. ” CRITIC, _New York_. “This history is a model of condensation. .. . Each period is treated infull, with descriptions of its general characteristics and itsindividual developments under various conditions, physical, political, religious and the like. .. . A general history of sculpture has neverbefore been written in English--never in any language in convenienttextbook form. This publication, then, should meet with an enthusiasticreception among students and amateurs of art, not so much, however, because it is the only book of its kind, as for its intrinsic merit andattractive form. ” OUTLOOK, _New York_. “A concise survey of the history of sculpture is something neededeverywhere. .. . A good feature of this book--and one which should beimitated--is the list indicating where casts and photographs may best beobtained. Of course such a volume is amply indexed. ” NOTRE DAME SCHOLASTIC, _Notre Dame, Ind. _ “The work is orderly, the style lucid and easy. The illustrations, numbering over a hundred, are sharply cut and well selected. Besides ageneral bibliography, there is placed at the end of each period of stylea special list to which the student may refer, should he wish to pursuemore fully any particular school. ” LONGMANS, GREEN & CO. , Publishers, 91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK. * * * * * * * * * ERRORS AND INCONSISTENCIES: Missing or invisible punctuation has been silently supplied, as havemissing umlauts and line-end hyphens; errors of this type were assumedto be mechanical, introduced either in printing or scanning. Conversely, “Bauschule” (Berlin) was consistently misprinted as “Bauschüle”. Hyphenization of some words was inconsistent: zigzag and zig-zag, semicircular and semi-circular, staircase and stair-case. The plural of“portico” is regularly “porticos”, rarely “porticoes”. Both occurrencesof “mantelpiece” are at line-break; the hyphen was omitted based onusage in the 8th edition. Alphabetization in the Index is as printed. Names: The architect Robert Adam is consistently called “Adams”; the error was corrected in the 8th edition. The name form “Michael Angelo” is standard for the time. Columbia College changed its name to Columbia University in 1896, presumably after the book’s original preface (dated January 20, 1896) was written. The French palace is variously Luxembourg and Luxemburg. Spelling of place names was unchanged except when there was anunambiguous error. For details, see below. Chapter VII: the choragus Lysicrates [choraegus] Chapter VIII: (long miscalled the temple of Jupiter Stator) [Jupitor] Chapter IX: Adams, _Ruins of the Palace of Spalato_. [Spalatro] --, Monuments: [FORA] Trajan (by Apollodorus of Damascus, 117 A. D. ) [_closing ) missing_] Chapter XII: the time of Haroun Ar Rashid (786) [_spelling unchanged_] Chapter XIII, Monuments: [FRANCE, 11th century] Mont St. Michel, 1020 (the latter altered in 12th and 16th centuries) [_closing ) missing_] Chapter XIV: Northern Italy, with which the Hohenstauffen emperors [_spelling unchanged_] Chapter XVII: Such vaults are called _lierne_ or _star_ vaults. [_Figure caption has “net or lierne”_] [Monuments] All Soul’s College [_apostrophe in original_] Chapter XX: _Cinquecento_ to the sixteenth century [cenury] Chapter XXI: but following its pernicious example [pernicous] --, Monuments: Chapel of S.  Lorenzo, new sacristy of same [sacristry] P.  Giugni, 1560-8. [_text has “P. Giugni, -1560. ” Correction was taken from 8th edition_] Chapter XXIII: St. Paul’s ranks among the five or six greatest [five of six] Chapter XXVI: Sammelmappe hervorragenden Concurrenz-Entwurfen. [Sammel mappe] Appendix B: the brick tower on the Piazza dell’ Erbe [dell ’Erbe] Appendix D: the chief marks of the Art Nouveau [Noveau] Glossary: QUATREFOIL, with four leaves or _foils_ [QUARTREFOIL] Index: BERLIN Old Museum, 359 (+200+). New Museum, 359. [_alphabetized as shown; body text has “Museum” and “New Museum”_] DURHAM Cathedral, 177, 178, 220, 221 (+102+) [+116+] PARIS. . .. Cathedral . .. Early carving (+114+) [+122+] TAFKHAH. Early Christian Church [Christain] WORMS. Minster (cathedral), 174 (+99+) [+112+] A few words in Chapters VI and VII were printed with “ae” instead of theexpected “æ”. They have been regularized for this e-text. From Olympia, Ægina, and Phigaleia [Aegina] Selinus, Agrigentum, Pæstum [Paestum] Castor and Pollux, Demeter, Æsculapius [Aesculapius] PLACE NAMES: The form “Herculanum” (for Herculanum) was used consistently. TheEnglish city is Peterboro’ (with apostrophe) in its first fewappearances, and then changes to Peterborough for the remainder ofthe book. The Italian city was conventionally spelled “Sienna” (withtwo n’s) in English. Many names, especially non-European ones, differ significantly fromtheir modern form. Some of the following are conjectural. Near East: Ipsamboul: Abu Simbel Bozrah: probably modern Bouseira, Jordan (not “Bosrah”, modern Basra) Greater India (including modern Pakistan and Bangladesh) Tope: the form “stupa” is more common Indian desert: Thar desert Baillur: Belur Chillambaram: probably Chidambaram; the author’s sources seem to have had trouble with “l” in South Indian names Conjeveram: Kanchipuram Futtehpore Sikhri: Fatehpur Sikri Hullabid: Halebid Jaunpore: Janpur Jugganat: the name of the deity is Jagannath; the English name-form led to the word “juggernaut” Kantonnuggur: Kantanagar Oudeypore: the author seems not to have realized that this is the same place as Udaipur, cited with that spelling in the same paragraph Scinde: Sind Shepree: could not be identified. The author’s source is probably James Ferguson, who describes it as “near Gualior” (Gwalior) Tanjore: Thanjavur Worangul: Varangal Cambodia: Nakhon Wat: better known as Angkor Wat