By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: A Text-Book of the History of Architecture - Seventh Edition, revised
Author: Hamlin, A. D. F. (Alfred Dwight Foster), 1855-1926
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Text-Book of the History of Architecture - Seventh Edition, revised" ***

file includes images generously made available by The
Internet Archive: Canadian Libraries.)

[This text uses utf-8 (unicode) file encoding. If the apostrophes and
quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, make sure your
text reader’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode
(UTF-8). You may also need to change the default font. As a last
resort, 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 the

       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *


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

                   *   *   *

                A. D. F. Hamlin

       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *


                   Edited By

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

        Professor of the History of Art
               in Rutgers College

                   *   *   *


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


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


Ph.D., Professors of Archæology and the History of Art in Princeton
University. With Frontispiece and 112 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, $1.50.

       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *

  (From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York.)]

                  A TEXT-BOOK

                     of the



             A. D. F. HAMLIN, A.M.

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

                SEVENTH EDITION

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

  Copyright, 1895, by

  _All rights reserved._

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

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


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

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

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

  A. D. F. HAMLIN.

  January 20, 1896.

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

  A. D. F. H.

  October 28, 1907.


  Preface                                                      v

  List of Illustrations                                       xi

  General Bibliography                                       xix

  Introduction                                               xxi

  Primitive and Prehistoric Architecture                       1

  Egyptian Architecture                                        6

  Egyptian Architecture, _Continued_                          16

  Chaldæan and Assyrian Architecture                          28

  Persian, Lycian, and Jewish Architecture                    35

  Greek Architecture                                          43

  Greek Architecture, _Continued_                             60

  Roman Architecture                                          74

  Roman Architecture, _Continued_                             88

  Early Christian Architecture                               110

  Byzantine Architecture                                     120

  Sassanian and Mohammedan Architecture--Arabian,
      Moresque, Persian, indian, and Turkish                 135

  Early Mediæval Architecture in Italy and France            155

  Early Mediæval Architecture in Germany,
      Great Britain, and Spain                               172

  Gothic Architecture                                        182

  Gothic Architecture in France                              196

  Gothic Architecture in Great Britain                       218

  Gothic Architecture in Germany, the Netherlands,
      and Spain                                              237

  Gothic Architecture in Italy                               254

  Early Renaissance Architecture in Italy                    270

  Renaissance Architecture in Italy--The Advanced
      Renaissance and Decline                                288

  Renaissance Architecture in France                         308

  Renaissance Architecture in Great Britain
      and the Netherlands                                    326

  Renaissance Architecture in Germany, Spain,
      and Portugal                                           338

  The Classic Revivals in Europe                             354

  Recent Architecture in Europe                              368

  Architecture in the United States                          383

  Oriental Architecture--India, China, and Japan             401

  Appendix                                                   417

  Glossary                                                   429

  Index of Architects                                        431

  Index                                                      435


The authorship of the original drawings is indicated by the initials
affixed: A. = drawings by the author; B. = H. W. Buemming; Bn. = H. D.
Bultman; Ch. = Château, _L’Architecture en France_; G. = drawings
adapted from Gwilt’s _Encyclopædia of Architecture_; L. = Lübke’s
_Geschichte der Architektur_; W. = A. E. Weidinger. All other
illustrations are from photographs.


  FRONTISPIECE. The Parthenon Restored
      (from model in Metropolitan Museum, New York)
    1 Section of Great Pyramid (A.)                            8
    2 Section of King’s Chamber (A.)                           9
    3 Plan of Sphinx Temple (A.)                               9
    4 Ruins of Sphinx Temple (A.)                             10
    5 Tomb at Abydos (A.)                                     11
    6 Tomb at Beni-Hassan (A.)                                11
    7 Section and Half-plan of same (A.)                      12
    8 Plan of the Ramesseum (A.)                              14
    9 Temple of Edfou. Plan (B.)                              17
   10 Temple of Edfou. Section (B.)                           17
   11 Temple of Karnak. Plan (L.)                             18
   12 Central Portion of Hypostyle Hall at Karnak
          (from model in Metropolitan Museum, New York)       20
   13 Great Temple of Ipsamboul                               21
   14 Edfou. Front of Hypostyle Hall                          23
   15 Osirid Pier (Medinet Abou) (A.)                         24
   16 Types of Column (A.)                                    25
   17 Egyptian Floral Ornament-Forms (A.)                     26
   18 Palace of Sargon at Khorsabad. Plan (L.)                30
   19 Gate, Khorsabad (A.)                                    32
   20 Assyrian Ornament (A.)                                  34
   21 Column from Persepolis (B.)                             37
   22 Lion Gate at 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


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


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 an
encyclopedic compendium of architectural knowledge in many volumes; the
series not yet complete. It is referred to as the _Hdbuch. d. Arch._)

Gwilt, _Encyclopedia of Architecture_; London.

Longfellow and Frothingham, _Cyclopedia of Architecture in Italy and the
Levant_; New York.

Planat, _Encyclopédie d’architecture_; Paris.

Sturgis, _Dictionary of Architecture and Building_; New York.


Bühlmann, _Die Architektur des klassischen Alterthums und der
Renaissance_; Stuttgart. (Also in English, published in New York.)

Choisy, _Histoire de l’architecture_; Paris.

Durand, _Recueil et 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. and
rev. 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.


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.



A history of architecture is a record of man’s efforts to build
beautifully. The erection of structures devoid of beauty is mere
building, a trade and not an art. Edifices in which strength and
stability alone are sought, and in designing which only utilitarian
considerations have been followed, are properly works of engineering.
Only when the idea of beauty is added to that of use does a structure
take its place among works of architecture. We may, then, define
architecture as the art which seeks to harmonize in a building the
requirements of utility and of beauty. It is the most useful of the fine
arts and the noblest of the useful arts. It touches the life of man at
every point. It is concerned not only in sheltering his person and
ministering to his comfort, but also in providing him with places for
worship, amusement, and business; with tombs, memorials, embellishments
for his cities, and other structures for the varied needs of a complex
civilization. It engages the services of a larger portion of the
community and involves greater outlays of money than any other
occupation except agriculture. Everyone at some point comes in contact
with the work of the architect, and from this universal contact
architecture derives its significance as an index of the civilization of
an age, 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 in
different lands and ages, and to show how they have reflected the great
movements of civilization. The migrations, the conquests, the
commercial, social, and religious changes among different peoples have
all manifested themselves in the changes of their architecture, and it
is the historian’s function to show this. It is also his function to
explain the principles of the styles, their characteristic forms and
decoration, and to describe the great masterpieces of each style and

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

Technically, architectural styles are identified by the means they
employ to cover enclosed spaces, by the characteristic forms of the
supports and other members (piers, columns, arches, mouldings,
traceries, etc.), and by their decoration. The +plan+ should receive
special attention, since it shows the arrangement of the points of
support, and hence the nature of the structural design. 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 radical
difference in constructive principle between the two edifices, and hence
a difference of style.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



  BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Desor, _Les constructions lacustres du lac de
  Neufchatel_. Fergusson, _Rude Stone Monuments_. R. C. Hoare,
  _Ancients Wiltshire_. Lyell, _The Antiquity of Man_. Lubbock,
  _Prehistoric Times_. Nadaillac, _Prehistoric America_. Rougemont,
  _L’age du Bronze_. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



  BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Champollion, _Monuments de l’Egypte et de la
  Nubie_. Choisy, _L’art de 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

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

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

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

comprising the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth dynasties reigning at

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

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

IV. THE DECADENCE or SAITIC PERIOD (1000-324 B.C.), comprising the
dynasties twenty-one to thirty (Saitic, Bubastid, Ethiopic, etc.),
reigning at Sais, Tanis, and Bubastis, and the Persian conquest;
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 Ptolemaic
or Macedonian and Roman dominations.

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

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

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 2.--SECTION OF KING’S CHAMBER.]

Among the other pyramids there is considerable variety both of type and
material. At Sakkarah is one 190 feet high, constructed in six unequal
steps on a slightly oblong base measuring nearly 400 × 357 feet. It was
attributed by Mariette to Ouenephes, of the first dynasty, though now
more generally ascribed to Senefrou of the third. At Abu-Seir and
Meidoum are other stepped pyramids; at Dashour is one having a broken
slope, the lower part steeper than the upper. Several at Meroë with
unusually steep slopes belong to the Ethiopian dynasties of the
Decadence. 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 of
the type known as _Mastabas_. These are oblong rectangular structures of
stone or brick with slightly inclined sides and flat ceilings. They
uniformly face the east, and are internally divided into three parts;
the chamber or chapel, the _serdab_, and the well. In the first of
these, next the entrance, were placed the offerings made to the _Ka_ or
“double,” for whom also scenes of festivity or worship were carved and
painted on its walls to minister to his happiness in his incorporeal
life. The serdabs, or secret inner chambers, of which there were several
in each mastaba, contained statues of the defunct, by which the
existence and identity of the Ka were preserved. Finally came the well,
leading to the mummy chamber, deep underground, which contained the
sarcophagus. The sarcophagi, both of this and later ages, are good
examples of the minor architecture of Egypt; many of them are panelled
in imitation of wooden construction and richly decorated with color,
symbols, and hieroglyphs.

  [Illustration: FIG. 4.--RUINS OF SPHINX TEMPLE.]

+OTHER MONUMENTS.+ Two other monuments of the Ancient Empire also claim
attention: the +Sphinx+ and the adjacent so-called “+Sphinx temple+” at
Ghizeh. The first of these, a huge sculpture carved from the rock,
represents Harmachis in the form of a human-headed lion. It is
ordinarily partly buried in the sand; is 70 feet long by 66 feet high,
and forms one of the most striking monuments of Egyptian art. Close to
it lie the nearly buried ruins of the temple once supposed to be that of
the Sphinx, but now proved by Petrie to have been erected in connection
with the second pyramid. The plan and present aspect of this venerable
edifice are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The hall was roofed with stone
lintels carried on sixteen square monolithic piers of alabaster. The
whole was buried in a rectangular mass of masonry and revetted
internally with alabaster, but was wholly destitute internally as well
as externally of decoration or even of mouldings. With the exception of
scanty remains of a few of the pyramid-temples or chapels, and the
temple discovered by Petrie in Meidoum, it is the only survival from the
temple architecture of that early age.

  [Illustration: FIG. 5.--TOMB AT ABYDOS.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 6.--TOMB AT BENI-HASSAN.]

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


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

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

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

    [Footnote 2: See Van Dyke’s _History of Painting_, Figure 1.]

While the tomb of the private citizen was complete in itself, containing
the Ka-statues and often the chapel, as well as the mummy, the royal
tomb demanded something more elaborate in scale and arrangement. In some
cases external structures of temple-form took the place of the
underground chapel and serdab. The royal effigy, many times repeated in
painting and sculpture throughout this temple-like edifice, and flanking
its gateways with colossal seated figures, made buried Ka-statues
unnecessary. Of these sepulchral temples three are of the first
magnitude. They are that of +Queen Hatasu+ (XVIIIth dynasty) at
Deir-el-Bahari; that of +Rameses II.+ (XIXth dynasty), the +Ramesseum+,
near by to the southwest; and that of +Rameses III.+ (XXth dynasty) at
Medinet Abou still further to the southwest. Like the tombs, these were
all on the west side of the Nile; so also was the sepulchral temple of
Amenophis III. (XVIIIth dynasty), the +Amenopheum+, of which hardly a
trace remains except the two seated colossi which, rising from the
Theban plain, have astonished travellers from the times of Pausanias and
Strabo down to our own. These mutilated figures, one of which has been
known ever since classic times as the “vocal Memnon,” are 56 feet high,
and once flanked the entrance to the forecourt of the temple of
Amenophis. The plan of the Ramesseum, with its sanctuary, hypostyle
hall, and forecourts, its pylons and obelisks, is shown in Figure 8, and
may be compared with those of other temples given on pp. 17 and 18. That
of Medinet Abou resembles it closely. The Ramesseum occupies a rectangle
of 590 × 182 feet; the temple of Medinet Abou measures 500 × 160 feet,
not counting the extreme width of the entrance pylons. The temple of
Hatasu at Deir-el-Bahari is partly excavated and partly structural,
a model which is also followed on a smaller scale in several lesser
tombs. Such an edifice is called a _hemispeos_.



  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 the
kings devoted, and successive monarchs found no more splendid outlet for
their piety and ambition than the founding of new temples or the
extension and adornment of those already existing. By the forced labor
of thousands of fellaheen (the system is in force to this day and is
known as the _corvée_) architectural piles of vast extent could be
erected within the lifetime of a monarch. As in the tombs the internal
walls bore pictures for the contemplation of the Ka, so in the temples
the external walls, for the glory of the king and the delectation of the
people, were covered with colored reliefs reciting the monarch’s
glorious deeds. Internally the worship and attributes of the gods were
represented in a similar manner, in endless iteration.

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

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

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

  (From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York.)]

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 13.--GREAT TEMPLE OF IPSAMBOUL.]

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

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 14.--EDFOU. FRONT OF HYPOSTYLE HALL.]

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 15.--OSIRID PIER (MEDINET ABOU).]

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

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

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


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

    [Footnote 3: See Goodyear’s _Grammar of the Lotus_ for an
    elaborate and ingenious presentation of the theory of a common
    lotus-origin for all the conventional forms occurring in Egyptian

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

  +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.



  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 seat
of a civilization nearly or quite as old as that of the Nile, though
inferior in its monumental art. The kingdoms of Chaldæa and Assyria
which ruled in this valley, sometimes as rivals and sometimes as
subjects one of the other, differed considerably in character and
culture. But the scarcity of timber and the lack of good building-stone
except in the limestone table-lands and more distant mountains of upper
Mesopotamia, the abundance of clay, and the flatness of the country,
imposed upon the builders of both nations similar restrictions of
conception, form, and material. Both peoples, moreover, were probably,
in part at least, of Semitic race.[4] The Chaldæans attained
civilization as early as 4000 B.C., and had for centuries maintained
fixed institutions and practised the arts and sciences when the
Assyrians began their career as a nation of conquerors by reducing
Chaldæa 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 main
periods, 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 the
Pyramids. Though of slight importance architecturally, they reveal the
early knowledge of the arch and the possession of an advanced culture.
The poverty of the building materials of this region afforded only the
most limited resources for architectural effect. Owing to the flatness
of the country and the impracticability of building lofty structures
with sun-dried bricks, elevation above the plain could be secured only
by erecting buildings of moderate height upon enormous mounds or
terraces, built of crude brick and faced with hard brick or stone. This
led to the development of the stepped pyramid as the typical form of
Chaldæo-Assyrian architecture. Thick walls were necessary both for
stability and for protection from the burning heat of that climate. The
lack of stone for columns and the difficulty of procuring heavy beams
for long spans made broad halls and chambers impossible. The plans of
Assyrian palaces look like assemblages of long corridors and small cells
(Fig. 18). Neither the wooden post nor the column played any part in
this architecture except for window-mullions and subordinate members.[5]
It is probable that the vault was used for roofing many of the halls;
the arch was certainly employed for doors and the barrel-vault for the
drainage-tunnels under the terraces, made necessary by the heavy
rainfall. What these structures lacked in durability and height was made
up in decorative magnificence. The interior walls were wainscoted to a
height of eight or nine feet with alabaster slabs covered with those
low-relief pictures of hunting scenes, battles, and gods, which now
enrich the museums of London, Paris, and other modern cities. Elsewhere
painted plaster or more durable enamelled tile in brilliant colors
embellished the walls, and, doubtless, rugs and tapestries added their
richness to this architectural splendor.

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

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

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 19.--GATE, KHORSABAD.]

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

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 20.--ASSYRIAN ORNAMENT.]

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

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

  +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.



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

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

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

  [Illustration: FIG. 21.--COLUMN FROM PERSEPOLIS.]

These features of the architrave, as well as the fine flutings and
moulded bases of the columns, are found in Ionic architecture, and in
part, at least, in Lycian tombs. As all these examples date from nearly
the same period, the origin of these forms and their mutual relations
have not been fully determined. The Persian capitals, however, are
unique, 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 member
of the compound type (Fig. 21).

The doors and windows had banded architraves or trims and cavetto
cornices very Egyptian in character. The portals were flanked, as in
Assyria, by winged monsters; but these were built up in several courses
of stone, not carved from single blocks like their prototypes. Plaster
or, as at Susa, enamelled bricks, replaced as a wall-finish the Assyrian
alabaster wainscot. These bricks, splendid in color, and moulded into
relief pictures covering large surfaces, are the oldest examples of the
skill of the Persians in a branch of ceramic art in which they have
always excelled down to our own day.

+LYCIAN ARCHITECTURE.+ The architecture of those Asiatic peoples which
served as intermediaries between the ancient civilizations of Egypt and
Assyria on the one hand and of the Greeks on the other, need occupy us
only a moment in passing. None of them developed a complete and
independent style or produced monuments of the first rank. Those chiefly
concerned in the transmission of ideas were the Cypriotes, Phœnicians,
and Lycians. The part played by other Asiatic nations is too slight to
be considered here. From Cyprus the Greeks could have learned little
beyond a few elementary notions regarding sculpture and pottery,
although it is possible that the volute-form in Ionic architecture was
originally derived from patterns on Cypriote pottery and from certain
Cypriote steles, where it appears as a modified lotus motive. The
Phœnicians were the world’s traders from a very early age down to the
Persian conquest. They not only distributed through the Mediterranean
lands the manufactures of Egypt and Assyria, but also counterfeited them
and adopted their forms in decorating their own wares. But they have
bequeathed us not a single architectural ruin of importance, either of
temples or palaces, nor are the few tombs still extant of sufficient
artistic interest to deserve even brief mention in a work of this scope.

In Lycia, however, there arose a system of tomb-design which came near
creating a new architectural style, and which doubtless influenced both
Persia and the Ionian colonies. The tombs were mostly cut in the rock,
though a few are free-standing monolithic monuments, resembling
sarcophagi or small shrines mounted on a high base or pedestal.

In all of these tombs we recognize a manifest copying in stone of framed
wooden structures. The walls are panelled, or imitate open structures
framed of squared timbers. The roofs are often gabled, sometimes in the
form of a pointed arch; they generally show a banded architrave,
dentils, and a raking cornice, or else an imitation of broadly
projecting eaves with small round rafters. There are several with
porches of Ionic columns; of these, some are of late date and evidently
copied from Asiatic Greek models. Others, and notably one at Telmissus,
seem to be examples of a primitive Ionic, and may indeed have been early
steps 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 people
with whom they had relations, so that we encounter in the few extant
remains of their architecture Egyptian, Assyrian, Phœnician, Greek,
Roman, and Syro-Byzantine features, but nothing like an independent
national style. Among the most interesting of these remains are tombs of
various 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 and
Ionic engaged orders, were once supposed to be primitive types of these
orders and of great antiquity. They are now recognized to be debased
imitations of late Greek work of the third or second century B.C. They
have Egyptian cavetto cornices and pyramidal roofs, like many Asiatic
tombs. The openings of the rock-cut tombs have frames or pediments
carved with rich surface ornament showing a similar mixture of
types--Roman triglyphs and garlands, Syrian-Greek acanthus leaves,
conventional foliage of Byzantine character, and naturalistic carvings
of grapes and local plant-life. The carved arches of two of the ancient
city gates (one the so-called Golden Gate) in Jerusalem display rich
acanthus foliage somewhat like that of the tombs, but more vigorous and
artistic. If of the time of Herod or even of Constantine, as claimed by
some, they would indicate that Greek artists in Syria created the
prototypes 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 Mount
Moriah, the site of the present so-called “Mosque of Omar.” The first,
built by Solomon (1012 B.C.) appears from the Biblical description[6] to
have combined Egyptian conceptions (successive courts, lofty
entrance-pylons, the Sanctuary and the sekos or “Holy of Holies”) with
Phœnician and Assyrian details and workmanship (cedar woodwork,
empaistic decoration or overlaying with _repoussé_ metal work, the
isolated brazen columns Jachin and Boaz). The whole stood on a mighty
platform built up with stupendous masonry and vaulted chambers from the
valley surrounding the rock on three sides. This precinct was nearly
doubled in size by Herod (18 B.C.) who extended it southward by a
terrace-wall of still more colossal masonry. Some of the stones are
twenty-two feet long; one reaches the prodigious length of forty feet.
The “Wall of Lamentations” is a part of this terrace, upon which stood
the Temple on a raised platform. As rebuilt by Herod, the Temple
reproduced in part the antique design, and retained the porch of Solomon
along the east side; but the whole was superbly reconstructed in white
marble with abundance of gilding. Defended by the Castle of Antonia on
the northwest, and embellished with a new and imposing triple colonnade
on the south, the whole edifice, a conglomerate of Egyptian, Assyrian,
and Roman conceptions and forms, was one of the most singular and yet
magnificent creations of ancient art.

    [Footnote 6: 1 Kings vi.-vii.; 2 Chronicles iii.-iv.]

The temple of Zerubbabel (515 B.C.), intermediate between those above
described, was probably less a re-edification of the first, than a new
design. While based on the scheme of the first temple, it appears to
have followed more closely the pattern described in the vision of
Ezekiel (chapters xl.-xlii.). It was far inferior to its predecessor in
splendor 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).



  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 European
civilization. The Hellenic race gathered up influences and suggestions
from both Asia and Africa and fused them with others, whose sources are
unknown, into an art intensely national and original, which was to
influence the arts of many races and nations long centuries after the
decay of the Hellenic states. The Greek mind, compared with the Egyptian
or Assyrian, was more highly intellectual, more logical, more
symmetrical, and above all more inquiring and analytic. Living nowhere
remote from the sea, the Greeks became sailors, merchants, and
colonizers. The Ionian kinsmen of the European Greeks, speaking a
dialect of the same language, populated the coasts of Asia Minor and
many of the islands, so that through them the Greeks were open to the
influences of the Assyrian, Phœnician, Persian, and Lycian
civilizations. In Cyprus they encountered Egyptian influences, and
finally, under Psammetichus, they established in Egypt itself the Greek
city of Naukratis. They were thus by geographical situation, by
character, 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 the
first Olympiad, 776 B.C. The earliest monuments of that historic
architecture which developed into the masterpieces of the Periclean and
Alexandrian ages, date from the middle of the following century. But
there are a number of older buildings, belonging presumably to the
so-called Heroic Age, which, though seemingly unconnected with the later
historic 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, and
consist mainly of fortifications, walls, gates, and tombs, the most
important of which are at +Mycenæ+ and +Tiryns+. At the latter place is
a well-defined acropolis, with massive walls in which are passages
covered by stones successively overhanging or corbelled until they meet.
The masonry is of huge stones piled without cement. At Mycenæ the city
wall is pierced by the remarkable +Lion Gate+ (Fig. 22), consisting of
two jambs and a huge lintel, over which the weight is relieved by a
triangular opening. This is filled with a sculptured group, now much
defaced, representing two rampant lions flanking a singular column which
tapers downward. This symbolic group has relations with Hittite and
Phrygian sculptures, and with the symbolism of the worship of Rhea
Cybele. The masonry of the wall is carefully dressed but not regularly
coursed. Other primitive walls and gates showing openings and embryonic
arches of various forms, are found widely scattered, at Samos and Delos,
at Phigaleia, Thoricus, Argos and many other points. The very earliest
are hardly more than random piles of rough stone. Those which may fairly
claim notice for their artistic masonry are of a later date and of two
kinds: the coursed, and the polygonal or Cyclopean, so called from the
tradition that they were built by the Cyclopes. These Cyclopean walls
were composed of large, irregular polygonal blocks carefully fitted
together and dressed to a fairly smooth face (Fig. 23). Both kinds were
used contemporaneously, though in the course of time the regular coursed
masonry 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 the
rudiments of architectural art. The so-called +Tholos+ (or Treasury) of
+Atreus+, at Mycenæ, on the other hand, shows the germs of truly
artistic design (Fig. 24). It is in reality a tomb, and is one of a
large class of prehistoric tombs found in almost every part of the
globe, consisting of a circular stone-walled and stone-roofed chamber
buried under a tumulus of earth. This one is a beehive-shaped
construction of horizontal courses of masonry, with a stone-walled
passage, the _dromos_, leading to the entrance door. Though internally
of domical form, its construction with horizontal beds in the masonry
proves that the idea of the true dome with the beds of each course
pitched at an angle always normal to the curve of the vault, was not yet
grasped. A small sepulchral chamber opens from the great one, by a door
with the customary relieving triangle over it.


  [Illustration: FIG. 25.--THOLOS OF ATREUS. DOORWAY.]

Traces of a metal lining have been found on the inner surface of the
dome and on the jambs of the entrance door. This entrance is the most
artistic and elaborate part of the edifice (Fig. 25). The main opening
is enclosed in a three-banded frame, and was once flanked by columns
which, as shown by fragments still existing and by marks on either side
the door, tapered downward as in the sculptured column over the Lion
Gate. Shafts, bases, and capitals were covered with zig-zag bands or
chevrons of fine spirals. This well-studied decoration, the banded
jambs, and the curiously inverted columns (of which several other
examples exist in or near Mycenæ), all point to a fairly developed art,
derived partly from Egyptian and partly from Asiatic sources. That
Egyptian influences had affected this early art is further proved by a
fragment of carved and painted ornament on a ceiling in Orchomenos,
imitating with remarkable closeness certain ceiling decorations in
Egyptian tombs.

+HISTORIC MONUMENTS; THE ORDERS.+ It was the Dorians and Ionians who
developed the architecture of classic Greece. This fact is perpetuated
in the traditional names, Doric and Ionic, given to the two systems of
columnar design which formed the most striking feature of that
architecture. While in Egypt the column was used almost exclusively as
an internal support and decoration, in Greece it was chiefly employed to
produce an imposing exterior effect. It was the most important element
in the temple architecture of the Greeks, and an almost indispensable
adornment of their gateways, public squares, and temple enclosures. To
the column the two races named above gave each a special and radically
distinct development, and it was not until the Periclean age that the
two forms came to be used in conjunction, even by the mixed Doric-Ionic
people of Attica. Each of the two types had its own special shaft,
capital, entablature, mouldings, and ornaments, although considerable
variation was allowed in the proportions and minor details. The general
type, however, remained substantially unchanged from first to last. The
earliest examples known to us of either order show it complete in all
its parts, its later development being restricted to the refining and
perfecting of its proportions and details. The probable origin of these
orders will be separately considered later on.

+THE DORIC.+ The column of the Doric order (Figs. 26, 27) consists of a
tapering shaft rising directly from the stylobate or platform and
surmounted by a capital of great simplicity and beauty. The shaft is
fluted with sixteen to twenty shallow channellings of segmental or
elliptical section, meeting in sharp edges or _arrises_. The capital is
made up of a circular cushion or _echinus_ adorned with fine grooves
called _annulæ_, and a plain square _abacus_ or cap Upon this rests a
plain architrave or _epistyle_, with a narrow fillet, the _tænia_,
running along its upper edge. The frieze above it is divided into square
panels, called the _metopes_, separated by vertical _triglyphs_ having
each two vertical grooves and chamfered edges. There is a triglyph over
each column and one over each intercolumniation, or two in rare
instances where the columns are widely spaced. The cornice consists of a
broadly projecting _corona_ resting on a _bed-mould_ of one or two
simple mouldings. Its under surface, called the _soffit_, is adorned
with _mutules_, square, flat projections having each eighteen _guttæ_
depending from its under side. Two or three small mouldings run along
the upper edge of the corona, which has in addition, over each slope of
the gable, a gutter-moulding or _cymatium_. The cornices along the
horizontal edges of the roof have instead of the cymatium a row of
_antefixæ_, ornaments of terra-cotta or marble placed opposite the foot
of each tile-ridge of the roofing. The enclosed triangular field of the
gable, called the _tympanum_, was in the larger monuments adorned with
sculptured groups resting on the shelf formed by the horizontal cornice
below. Carved ornaments called _acroteria_ commonly embellished the
three 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, that
all this elaborate system of parts, severe and dignified in their
simplicity of form, received a rich decoration of color. While the
precise shades and tones employed cannot be predicated with certainty,
it is well established that the triglyphs were painted blue and the
metopes red, and that all the mouldings were decorated with
leaf-ornaments, “eggs-and-darts,” and frets, in red, green, blue, and
gold. The walls and columns were also colored, probably with pale tints
of yellow or buff, to reduce the glare of the fresh marble or the
whiteness of the fine stucco with which the surfaces of masonry of
coarser stone were primed. In the clear Greek atmosphere and outlined
against the brilliant sky, the Greek temple must have presented an
aspect of rich, sparkling gayety.

  [Illustration: FIG. 27.--DORIC ORDER OF THE PARTHENON.]

+ORIGIN OF THE ORDER.+ It is generally believed that the details of the
Doric frieze and cornice were reminiscences of a primitive wood
construction. The triglyph suggests the chamfered ends of cross-beams
made up of three planks each; the mutules, the sheathing of the eaves;
and the guttæ, the heads of the spikes or trenails by which the
sheathing was secured. It is known that in early astylar temples the
metopes were left open like the spaces between the ends of
ceiling-rafters. In the earlier peripteral temples, as at Selinus, the
triglyph-frieze is retained around the cella-wall under the ceiling of
the colonnade, where it has no functional significance, as a survival
from times antedating the adoption of the colonnade, when the tradition
of a wooden roof-construction showing externally had not yet been

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 at
Olympia the original wooden columns had with one exception been replaced
by 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 it
from the Egyptian columns of Beni Hassan (p. 12), which it certainly
resembles. But they do not explain how the Greeks could have been
familiar with the Beni Hassan column long before the opening of Egypt to
them under Psammetichus; nor why, granting them some knowledge of
Egyptian architecture, they should have passed over the splendors of
Karnak and Luxor to copy these inconspicuous tombs perched high up on
the cliffs of the Nile. It would seem that the Greeks invented this form
independently, developing it in buildings which have perished; unless,
indeed, they brought the idea with them from their primitive Aryan home
in Asia.

+THE IONIC ORDER+ was characterized by greater slenderness of proportion
and elegance of detail than the Doric, and depended more on carving than
on color for the decoration of its members (Fig. 28). It was adopted in
the fifth century B.C. by the people of Attica, and used both for civic
and religious buildings, sometimes alone and sometimes in conjunction
with 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 base
which was usually composed of two tori (see p. 25 for definition)
separated by a _scotia_ (a concave moulding of semicircular or
semi-elliptical profile), and was sometimes provided also with a square
flat base-block, the _plinth_. There was much variety in the proportions
and details of these mouldings, which were often enriched by flutings or
carved guilloches. The tall shaft bore twenty-four deep narrow flutings
separated by narrow fillets. The capital was the most peculiar feature
of the order. It consisted of a bead or _astragal_ and echinus, over
which 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 moulded
abacus 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 its
richness could not conceal. One was the protrusion of the echinus beyond
the face of the band above it, the other was the disparity between the
side and front views of the capital, especially noticeable at the
corners of a colonnade. To obviate this, various contrivances were
tried, none wholly successful. Ordinarily the two adjacent exterior
sides of the corner capital were treated alike, the scrolls at their
meeting being bent out at an angle of 45°, while the two inner faces
simply intersected, cutting each other in halves.

The entablature comprised an architrave of two or three flat bands
crowned by fine mouldings; an uninterrupted frieze, frequently
sculptured in relief; and a simple cornice of great beauty. In addition
to the ordinary bed-mouldings there was in most examples a row of narrow
blocks or _dentils_ under the corona, which was itself crowned by a high
cymatium of extremely graceful profile, carved with the rich
“honeysuckle” (_anthemion_) ornament. All the mouldings were carved with
the “egg-and-dart,” heart-leaf and anthemion ornaments, so designed as
to recall by their outline the profile of the moulding itself. The
details of this order were treated with much more freedom and variety
than those of the Doric. The pediments of Ionic buildings were rarely or
never adorned with groups of sculpture. The volutes and echinus of the
capital, the fluting of the shaft, the use of a moulded circular base,
and in the cornice the high corona and cymatium, these were constant
elements in every Ionic order, but all other details varied widely in
the different examples.

  [Illustration: FIG. 29.--SIDE VIEW OF IONIC CAPITAL.]

+ORIGIN OF THE IONIC ORDER.+ The origin of the Ionic order has given
rise to almost as much controversy as that of the Doric. Its different
elements were apparently derived from various sources. The Lycian tombs
may have contributed the denticular cornice and perhaps also the general
form of the column and capital. In the Persian architecture of the sixth
century B.C., the high moulded base, the narrow flutings of the shaft,
the carved bead-moulding and the use of scrolls in the capital are
characteristic features, which may have been borrowed by the Ionians
during the same century, unless, indeed, they were themselves the work
of Ionic or Lycian workmen in Persian employ. The banded architrave and
the 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 other
Asiatic architecture of early date. The volute or scroll itself as an
independent decorative motive may have originated in successive
variations of Egyptian lotus-patterns.[8] But the combination of these
diverse elements and their development into the final form of the order
was the work of the Ionian Greeks, and it was in the Ionian provinces of
Asia Minor that the most splendid examples of its use are to be found
(Halicarnassus, Miletus, Priene, Ephesus), while the most graceful and
perfect 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 rather
than a new order, and up to the time of the Roman conquest was only used
for monuments of small size (see Fig. 38). Its entablature in pure Greek
examples was identical with the Ionic; the shaft and base were only
slightly changed in proportion and detail. The capital, however, was a
new departure, based probably on metallic embellishments of altars,
pedestals, etc., of Ionic style. It consisted in the best examples of a
high bell-shaped core surrounded by one or two rows of acanthus leaves,
above which were pairs of branching scrolls meeting at the corners in
spiral volutes. These served to support the angles of a moulded abacus
with concave sides (Fig. 30). One example, from the Tower of the Winds
(the clepsydra of Andronicus Cyrrhestes) at Athens, has only smooth
pointed palm-leaves and no scrolls above a single row of acanthus
leaves. Indeed, the variety and disparity among the different examples
prove that we have here only the first steps toward the evolution of an
independent order, which it was reserved for the Romans to fully

+GREEK TEMPLES; THE TYPE.+ With the orders as their chief decorative
element the Greeks built up a splendid architecture of religious and
secular monuments. Their noblest works were temples, which they designed
with the utmost simplicity of general scheme, but carried out with a
mastery of proportion and detail which has never been surpassed. Of
moderate size in most cases, they were intended primarily to enshrine
the simulacrum of the deity, and not, like Christian churches, to
accommodate great throngs of worshippers. Nor were they, on the other
hand, sanctuaries designed, like those of Egypt, to exclude all but a
privileged few from secret rites performed only by the priests and king.
The statue of the deity was enshrined in a chamber, the _naos_ (see
plan, Fig. 31), often of considerable size, and accessible to the public
through 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. Together
these formed a windowless structure called the _cella_, beyond which was
the rear porch, the _posticum_ or _epinaos_. This whole structure was in
the larger temples surrounded by a colonnade, the _peristyle_, which
formed the most splendid feature of Greek architecture. The external
aisle on either side of the cella was called the _pteroma_. A single
gabled 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 solid
cella-wall instead of being enclosed by it as in Egypt. The temple was a
public, not a royal monument; and its builders aimed, not as in Egypt at
size and overwhelming sombre majesty, but rather at sunny beauty and the
highest 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 with
explanations and is illustrated in Fig. 31.

_In antis_; with a porch having two or more columns enclosed between the
projecting side-walls of the cella.

_Prostylar_ (or prostyle); with a columnar porch in front and no

_Amphiprostylar_ (or -style); with columnar porches at both ends but no

_Peripteral_; surrounded by columns.

_Pseudoperipteral_; with false or engaged columns built into the walls
of 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, whose
distance 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 is
evident from allusions in the ancient writers that wood was sometimes
used in early times. (See p. 62.) The finest temples, especially those
of Attica, Olympia, and Asia Minor, were of marble. In Magna Græcia, at
Assos, 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 ends
pediments decorated in most cases with sculpture. The disappearance of
these inflammable and perishable roofs has given rise to endless
speculations as to the lighting of the cellas, which in all known ruins,
except one at Agrigentum, are destitute of windows. It has been
conjectured that light was admitted through openings in the roof, and
even that the central part of the cella was wholly open to the sky. Such
an arrangement is termed _hypæthral_, from an expression used in a
description by Vitruvius;[9] but this description corresponds to no
known structure, and the weight of opinion now inclines against the use
of the hypæthral opening, except possibly in one or two of the largest
temples, in which a part of the cella in front of the statue may have
been thus left open. But even this partial _hypæthros_ is not
substantiated by direct evidence. It hardly seems probable that the
magnificent chryselephantine statues of such temples were ever thus left
exposed to the extremes of the climate, which are often severe even in
Greece. In the model of the Parthenon designed by Ch. Chipiez for the
Metropolitan Museum in New York, a small clerestory opening through the
roof admits a moderate amount of light to the cella; but this ingenious
device rests on no positive evidence (see Frontispiece). It seems on the
whole most probable that the cella was lighted entirely by artificial
illumination; but the controversy in its present state is and must be
wholly speculative.

    [Footnote 9: Lib. III., Cap. I.]

The wooden roof was covered with tiles of terra-cotta or marble. It was
probably ceiled and panelled on the under side, and richly decorated
with color and gold. The pteroma had under the exterior roof a ceiling
of stone or marble, deeply panelled between transverse architraves.

The naos and opisthodomus being in the larger temples too wide to be
spanned by single beams, were furnished with interior columns to afford
intermediate support. To avoid the extremes of too great massiveness and
excessive slenderness in these columns, they were built in two stages,
and advantage was taken of this arrangement, in some cases, at least, to
introduce lateral galleries into the naos.


+SCULPTURE AND CARVING.+ All the architectural membering was treated
with the greatest refinement of design and execution, and the aid of
sculpture, both in relief and in the round, was invoked to give splendor
and significance to the monument. The statue of the deity was the focus
of internal interest, while externally, groups of statues representing
the Olympian deities or the mythical exploits of gods, demigods, and
heroes, adorned the gables. Relief carvings in the friezes and metopes
commemorated the favorite national myths. In these sculptures we have
the finest known adaptations of pure sculpture--_i.e._, sculpture
treated as such and complete in itself--to an architectural framework.
The noblest examples of this decorative sculpture are those of the
Parthenon, consisting of figures in the full round from the pediments,
groups in high relief from the metopes, and the beautiful frieze of the
Panathenaic 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 transferred
to the museums of Europe. In the Doric style there was little carving
other than the sculpture, the ornament being mainly polychromatic. Greek
Ionic and Corinthian monuments, however, as well as minor works such as
steles, altars, etc., were richly adorned with carved mouldings and
friezes, festoons, acroteria, and other embellishments executed with the
chisel. The anthemion ornament, a form related to the Egyptian lotus and
Assyrian palmette, most frequently figures in these. It was made into
designs of wonderful vigor and beauty (Fig. 32).

+DETAIL AND EXECUTION.+ In the handling and cutting of stone the Greeks
displayed a surpassing skill and delicacy. While ordinarily they were
content to use stones of moderate size, they never hesitated at any
dimension necessary for proper effect or solid construction. The lower
drums of the Parthenon peristyle are 6 feet 6½ inches in diameter, and
2 feet 10 inches high, cut from single blocks of Pentelic marble. The
architraves of the Propylæa at Athens are each made up of two lintels
placed side by side, the longest 17 feet 7 inches long, 3 feet 10 inches
high, and 2 feet 4 inches thick. In the colossal temples of Asia Minor,
where the taste for the vast and grandiose was more pronounced, blocks
of much greater size were used. These enormous stones were cut and
fitted with the most scrupulous exactness. The walls of all important
structures were built in regular courses throughout, every stone
carefully bedded with extremely close joints. The masonry was usually
laid up without cement and clamped with metal; there is no filling in
with rubble and concrete between mere facings of cut stone, as in most
modern work. When the only available stone was of coarse texture it was
finished with a coating of fine stucco, in which sharp edges and minute
detail could be worked.

The details were, in the best period, executed with the most
extraordinary refinement and care. The profiles of capitals and
mouldings, the carved ornament, the arrises of the flutings, were cut
with marvellous precision and delicacy. It has been rightly said that
the Greeks “built like Titans and finished like jewellers.” But this
perfect finish was never petty nor wasted on unworthy or vulgar design.
The just relation of scale between the building and all its parts was
admirably 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 than
those of mere mechanical perfection. In the Parthenon especially, but
also in lesser degree in other temples, the seemingly straight lines of
the building were all slightly curved, and the vertical faces inclined.
This was done to correct the monotony and stiffness of absolutely
straight lines and right angles, and certain optical illusions which
their acute observation had detected. The long horizontal lines of the
stylobate and cornice were made convex upward; a similar convexity in
the horizontal corona of the pediment counteracted the seeming concavity
otherwise resulting from its meeting with the multiplied inclined lines
of the raking cornice. The columns were almost imperceptibly inclined
toward the cella, and the corner intercolumniations made a trifle
narrower than the rest; while the vertical lines of the arrises of the
flutings were made convex outward with a curve of the utmost beauty and
delicacy. By these and other like refinements there was imparted to the
monument an elasticity and vigor of aspect, an elusive and surprising
beauty impossible to describe and not to be explained by the mere
composition and general proportions, yet manifest to every cultivated

    [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.]



  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 to
the 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 prosperity
after 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 set
exact bounds to style-periods, which must inevitably overlap at certain
points, but the dates, as given above, will assist in distinguishing the
successive phases of the history.

+ARCHAIC PERIOD.+ The archaic period is characterized by the exclusive
use of the Doric order, which appears in the earliest monuments complete
in all its parts, but heavy in its proportions and coarse in its
execution. The oldest known temples of this period are the +Apollo
Temple+ at Corinth (650 B.C.?), and the +Northern Temple+ on the
acropolis at +Selinus+ in Sicily (cir. 610-590 B.C.). They are both of a
coarse limestone covered with stucco. The columns are low and massive
(4⅓ to 4⅔ diameters in height), widely spaced, and carry a very high
entablature. The triglyphs still appear around the cella wall under the
pteroma ceiling, an illogical detail destined to disappear in later
buildings. Other temples at Selinus date from the middle or latter part
of the sixth century; they have higher columns and finer profiles than
those just mentioned. The great +Temple of Zeus+ at +Selinus+ was the
earliest of five colossal Greek temples of very nearly identical
dimensions; it measured 360 feet by 167 feet in plan, but was never
completed. During the second half of the sixth century important Doric
temples were built at Pæstum in South Italy, and Agrigentum in Sicily;
the somewhat primitive temple at Assos in Asia Minor, with uncouth
carvings of centaurs and monsters on its architrave, belongs to this
same period. The +Temple of Zeus+ at +Agrigentum+ (Fig. 33) is another
singular and exceptional design, and was the second of the five colossal
temples mentioned above. The pteroma was entirely enclosed by walls with
engaged columns showing externally, and was of extraordinary width. The
walls of the narrow cella were interrupted by heavy piers supporting
atlantes, or applied statues under the ceiling. There seem to have been
windows between these figures, but it is not clear whence they borrowed
their light, unless it was admitted by the omission of the metopes
between the external triglyphs.

  [Illustration: FIG. 33.--TEMPLE OF ZEUS. AGRIGENTUM.]

+THE TRANSITION.+ During the transitional period there was a marked
improvement in the proportions, detail, and workmanship of the temples.
The cella was made broader, the columns more slender, the entablature
lighter. The triglyphs disappeared from the cella wall, and sculpture of
a higher order enhanced the architectural effect. The profiles of the
mouldings and especially of the capitals became more subtle and refined
in their curves, while the development of the Ionic order in important
monuments in Asia Minor was preparing the way for the splendors of the
Periclean age. Three temples especially deserve notice: the +Athena
Temple+ on the island of +Ægina+, the +Temple of Zeus+ at +Olympia+, and
the so-called +Theseum+--perhaps a temple of Heracles--in Athens. They
belong to the period 470-450 B.C.; they are all hexastyle and
peripteral, and without triglyphs on the cella wall. Of the three the
second in the list is interesting as the scene of those rites which
preceded and accompanied the Panhellenic Olympian games, and as the
central feature of the Altis, the most complete temple-group and
enclosure among all Greek remains. It was built of a coarse
conglomerate, finished with fine stucco, and embellished with sculpture
by the greatest masters of the time. The adjacent +Heraion+ (temple of
Hera) was a highly venerated and ancient shrine, originally built with
wooden columns which, according to Pausanias, were replaced one by one,
as they decayed, by stone columns. The truth of this statement is
attested by the discovery of a singular variety of capitals among its
ruins, corresponding to the various periods at which they were added.
The Theseum is the most perfectly preserved of all Greek temples, and in
the refinement of its forms is only surpassed by those of the Periclean

  [Illustration: FIG. 34.--RUINS OF THE PARTHENON.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 35.--PLAN OF ERECHTHEUM.]


+THE PERICLEAN AGE.+ The Persian wars may be taken as the dividing line
between the Transition period and the Periclean age. The _élan_ of
national enthusiasm that followed the expulsion of the invader, and the
glory and wealth which accrued to Athens as the champion of all Hellas,
resulted in a splendid reconstruction of the Attic monuments as well as
a revival of building activity in Asia Minor. By the wise administration
of Pericles and by the genius of Ictinus, Phidias, and other artists of
surpassing skill, the Acropolis at Athens was crowned with a group of
buildings and statues absolutely unrivalled. Chief among them was the
+Parthenon+, the shrine of Athena Parthenos, which the critics of all
schools have agreed in considering the most faultless in design and
execution of all buildings erected by man (Figs. 31, 34, and
Frontispiece). It was an octastyle peripteral temple, with seventeen
columns on the side, and measured 220 by 100 feet on the top of the
stylobate. It was the work of Ictinus and Callicrates, built to enshrine
the noble statue of the goddess by Phidias, a standing chryselephantine
figure forty feet high. It was the masterpiece of Greek architecture not
only by reason of its refinements of detail, but also on account of the
beauty of its sculptural adornments. The frieze about the cella wall
under the pteroma ceiling, representing in low relief with masterly
skill the Panathenaic procession; the sculptured groups in the metopes,
and the superb assemblages of Olympic and symbolic figures of colossal
size in the pediments, added their majesty to the perfection of the
architecture. Here also the horizontal curvatures and other refinements
are found in their highest development. Northward from it, upon the
Acropolis, stood the +Erechtheum+, an excellent example of the
Attic-Ionic style (Figs. 35, 36). Its singular irregularities of plan
and level, and the variety of its detail, exhibit in a striking way the
Greek indifference to mere formal symmetry when confronted by practical
considerations. The motive in this case was the desire to include in one
design several existing and venerated shrines to Attic deities and
heroes--Athena Polias, Poseidon, Pandrosus, Erechtheus, Boutes, etc.
Begun by unknown architects in 479 B.C., and not completed until 408
B.C., it remains in its ruin still one of the most interesting and
attractive of ancient buildings. Its two colonnades of differing design,
its beautiful north doorway, and the unique and noble caryatid porch or
balcony on the south side are unsurpassed in delicate beauty combined
with vigor of design.[11] A smaller monument of the Ionic order, the
amphiprostyle temple to +Nike Apteros+--the Wingless Victory--stands on
a projecting spur of the Acropolis to the southwest. It measures only 27
feet by 18 feet in plan; the cella is nearly square; the columns are
sturdier than those of the Erechtheum, and the execution of the monument
is admirable. It was the first completed of the extant buildings of the
group 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 first
time (437 to 432 B.C.). It was the master work of Mnesicles. The front
and rear façades were Doric hexastyles; adjoining the front porch were
two projecting lateral wings employing a smaller Doric order. The
central passageway led between two rows of Ionic columns to the rear
porch, entered by five doorways and crowned, like the front, with a
pediment. The whole was executed with the same splendor and perfection
as the other buildings of the Acropolis, and was a worthy gateway to the
group of noble monuments which crowned that citadel of the Attic
capital. The two orders were also combined in the temple of +Apollo
Epicurius+ at +Phigalæa+ (Bassæ). This temple was erected in 430 B.C. by
Ictinus, who used the Ionic order internally to decorate a row of
projecting piers instead of free-standing columns in the naos, in which
there 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 splendid
architectural activity of the Periclean age. A succession of disastrous
wars--the Sicilian, Peloponnesian, and Corinthian--drained the energies
and destroyed the peace of European Greece for seventy-five years,
robbing Athens of her supremacy and inflicting wounds from which she
never recovered. In the latter part of the fourth century, however, the
triumph of the Macedonian empire over all the Mediterranean lands
inaugurated a new era of architectural magnificence, especially in Asia
Minor. The keynote of the art of this time was splendor, as that of the
preceding age was artistic perfection. The Corinthian order came into
use, as though the Ionic were not rich enough for the sumptuous taste of
the time, and capitals and bases of novel and elaborate design
embellished the Ionic temples of Asia Minor. In the temple of +Apollo
Didymæus+ at Miletus, the plinths of the bases were made octagonal and
panelled with rich scroll-carvings; and the piers which buttressed the
interior faces of the cella-walls were given capitals of singular but
elegant form, midway between the Ionic and Corinthian types. This temple
belongs to the list of colossal edifices already referred to; its
dimensions were 366 by 163 feet, making it the largest of them all. The
famous +Artemisium+ (temple of Artemis or Diana) measured 342 by 163
feet. Several of the columns of the latter were enriched with sculptured
figures encircling the lower drums of the colossal shafts. The most
lavish expenditure was bestowed upon small structures, shrines, and
sarcophagi. The graceful monument still visible in Athens, erected by
the choragus Lysicrates in token of his victory in the choral
competitions, belongs to this period (330 B.C.). It is circular, with a
slightly domical imbricated roof, and is decorated with elegant engaged
Corinthian columns (Fig. 38). In the Imperial Museum at Constantinople
are several sarcophagi of this period found at Sidon, but executed by
Greek artists, and of exceptional beauty. They are in the form of
temples or shrines; the finest of them, supposed by some to have been
made for Alexander’s favorite general Perdiccas, and by others for the
Persian satrap who figures prominently on its sculptured reliefs, is the
most sumptuous work of the kind in existence. The exquisite polychromy
of its beautiful reliefs and the perfection of its rich details of
cornice, pediment, tiling, and crestings, make it an exceedingly
interesting and instructive example of the minor architecture of the

  (Restored model, N.Y.)]

+THE DECADENCE.+ After the decline of Alexandrian magnificence Greek art
never recovered its ancient glory, but the flame was not suddenly
extinguished. While in Greece proper the works of the second and third
centuries B.C., are for the most part weak and lifeless, like the +Stoa
of Attalus+ (175 B.C.) and the +Tower of the Winds+ (the Clepsydra of
Andronicus Cyrrhestes, 100 B.C.) at Athens or the Portico of Philip in
Delos, there were still a few worthy works built in Asia Minor. The
splendid +Altar+ erected at +Pergamon+ by Eumenes II. (circ. 180 B.C.)
in the Ionic order, combined sculpture of extraordinary vigor with
imposing architecture in masterly fashion. At +Aizanoi+ an Ionic +Temple
to Zeus+, by some attributed to the Roman period, but showing rather the
character of good late Greek work, deserves mention for its elegant
details, and especially for its frieze-decoration of acanthus leaves and
scrolls resembling those of a Corinthian capital.

  [Illustration: FIG. 39.--TEMPLE OF OLYMPIAN ZEUS. ATHENS.]

+ROMAN PERIOD.+ During this period, _i.e._, throughout the second and
first centuries B.C., the Roman dominion was spreading over Greek
territory, and the structures erected subsequent to the conquest partake
of the Roman character and mingle Roman conceptions with Greek details
and _vice versâ_. The temple of the +Olympian Zeus+ at Athens (Fig. 39),
a mighty dipteral Corinthian edifice measuring 354 by 171 feet, standing
on a vast terrace or temenos surrounded by a buttressed wall, was begun
by Antiochus Epiphanes (170 B.C.) on the site of an earlier unfinished
Doric temple of the time of Pisistratus, and carried out under the
direction of the Roman architect, Cossutius. It was not, however,
finally completed until the time of Hadrian, 130 A.D. Meanwhile Sulla
had despoiled it of several columns[12] which he carried to Rome (86
B.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 Roman
Corinthian order. The columns were 57 feet high, with capitals of the
most perfect Corinthian type; fifteen are now standing, and one lies
prostrate near by. To the Roman period also belong the +Agora Gate+
(circ. 35 B.C.), the +Arch of Hadrian+ (117 A.D.), the +Odeon of
Regilla+ or of Herodes Atticus (143 A.D.), at Athens, and many temples
and 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 the
Acropolis was entered has already been described. It was the noblest and
most perfect of a class of buildings whose prototype is found in the
monumental columnar porches of the palace-group at Persepolis. The
Greeks never used the arch in these structures, nor did they attach to
them the same importance as did most of the other nations of antiquity.
The Altis of Olympia, the national shrine of Hellenism, appears to have
had no central gateway of imposing size, but a number of insignificant
entrances disposed at random. The +Propylæa+ of +Sunium+, +Priene+ and
+Eleusis+ are the most conspicuous, after those of the Athenian
Acropolis. Of these the Ionic gateway at Priene is the finest, although
the later of the two at Eleusis is interesting for its anta-capitals.
(_Anta_ = a flat pilaster decorating the end of a wing-wall and treated
with a base and capital usually differing from those of the adjacent
columns.) 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 the
Dionysiac theatre and Odeon at Athens); or along the sides of great
public squares, as at Assos and Olympia (the so-called +Echo Hall+); or
as independent open public halls, as the +Stoa Diple+ at Thoricus. They
afforded shelter from sun and rain, places for promenading, meetings
with friends, public gatherings, and similar purposes. They were rarely
of great size, and most of them are of rather late date, though the
archaic structure at Pæstum, known as the +Basilica+, was probably in
reality 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 rocky
hillsides, though in a few cases (Mantinæa, Myra, Antiphellus) a part of
the seats were sustained by a built-up substructure and walls to eke out
the deficiency of the hill-slope under them. The front of the excavation
was enclosed by a stage and a set scene or background, built up so as to
leave somewhat over a semicircle for the _orchestra_ or space enclosed
by the lower tier of seats (Fig. 40). An altar to Dionysus (Bacchus) was
the essential feature in the foreground of the orchestra, where the
Dionysiac choral dance was performed. The seats formed successive steps
of stone or marble sweeping around the sloping excavation, with carved
marble thrones for the priests, archons, and other dignitaries. The only
architectural 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 with
doors, cornices, pilasters, etc. This has perished in nearly every case;
but at Aspendus, in Asia Minor, there is one still fairly well
preserved, with a rich architectural decoration on its inner face. The
extreme diameter of the theatres varied greatly; thus at Aizanoi it is
187 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 and
entirely covered in by a wooden roof. The +Odeon of Regilla+, built by
Herodes Atticus in Athens (143 A.D.), is a well-preserved specimen of
this class, but all traces of its cedar ceiling and of its intermediate
supports have disappeared.

+BUILDINGS FOR ATHLETIC CONTESTS.+ These comprised stadia and
hippodromes for races, and gymnasia and palæstræ for individual
exercise, bathing, and amusement. The _stadia_ and _hippodromes_ were
oblong enclosures surrounded by tiers of seats and without conspicuous
architectural features. The _palæstra_ or _gymnasium_--for the terms are
not clearly distinguished--was a combination of courts, chambers, tanks
(_piscinæ_) for bathers and _exedræ_ or semicircular recesses provided
with tiers of seats for spectators and auditors, destined not merely for
the exercises of athletes preparing for the stadium, but also for the
instruction and diversion of the public by recitations, lectures, and
discussions. It was the prototype of the Roman thermæ, but less
imposing, more simple in plan and adornment. Every Greek city had one or
more of them, but they have almost wholly disappeared, and the brief
description by Vitruvius and scanty remains at Alexandria Troas and
Ephesus furnish almost the only information we possess regarding their
form and arrangement.

+TOMBS.+ These are not numerous, and the most important are found in
Asia Minor. The greatest of these is the famed +Mausoleum+ at
Halicarnassus in Caria, the monument erected to the king Mausolus by his
widow Artemisia (354 B.C.; Fig. 41). It was designed by Satyrus and
Pythius in the Ionic style, and comprised a podium or base 50 feet high
and measuring 80 feet by 100 feet, in which was the sepulchre. Upon this
base stood a cella surrounded by thirty-six Ionic columns; and crowned
by a pyramidal roof, on the peak of which was a colossal marble quadriga
at a height of 130 feet. It was superbly decorated by Scopas and other
great 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 figures
of Nereides, was a somewhat similar design on a smaller scale, with
sixteen Ionic columns. At Mylassa was another tomb with an open
Corinthian colonnade supporting a roof formed in a stepped pyramid. Some
of the later rock-cut tombs of Lycia at Myra and Antiphellus may also be
counted as Hellenic works.

  (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 from
literary sources. Very few remains of Greek houses have been found
sufficiently well preserved to permit of restoring even the plan. It is
probable that they resembled in general arrangement the houses of
Pompeii (see p. 107); but that they were generally insignificant in size
and decoration. The exterior walls were pierced only by the entrance
doors, all light being derived from one or more interior courts. In the
Macedonian epoch there must have been greater display and luxury in
domestic architecture, but no remains have come down to us of sufficient
importance 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

  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.



  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 her
special and obvious advantages for taking up and carrying northward and
westward the arts of civilization. A scarcity of good harbors was the
only drawback amid the blessings of a glorious climate, fertile soil,
varied scenery, and rich material resources. From a remote antiquity
Dorian colonists had occupied the southern portion and the island of
Sicily, enriching them with splendid monuments of Doric art; and
Phœnician commerce had brought thither the products of Oriental art and
industry. The foundation of Rome in 753 B.C. established the nucleus
about which the sundry populations of Italy were to crystallize into the
Roman nation, under the dominating influence of the Latin element. Later
on, the absorption of the conquered Etruscans added to this composite
people a race of builders and engineers, as yet rude and uncouth in
their art, but destined to become a powerful factor in developing the
new architecture that was to spring from the contact of the practical
Romans with the noble art of the Greek centres.

+GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.+ While the Greeks bequeathed to posterity the
most perfect models of form in literary and plastic art, it was reserved
for the Romans to work out the applications of these to every-day
material life. The Romans were above all things a practical people.
Their consummate skill as organizers is manifest in the marvellous
administrative institutions of their government, under which they united
the most distant and diverse nationalities. Seemingly deficient in
culture, they were yet able to recast the forms of Greek architecture in
new moulds, and to evolve therefrom a mighty architecture adapted to
wholly novel conditions. They brought engineering into the service of
architecture, which they fitted to the varied requirements of
government, public amusement, private luxury, and the common comfort.
They covered the antique world with arches and amphitheatres, with
villas, baths, basilicas, and temples, all bearing the unmistakable
impress of Rome, though wrought by artists and artisans of divers races.
Only an extraordinary genius for organization could have accomplished
such results.

The architects of Rome marvellously extended the range of their art, and
gave it a flexibility by which it accommodated itself to the widest
variety of materials and conditions. They made the arch and vault the
basis of their system of design, employing them on a scale previously
undreamed of, and in combinations of surpassing richness and majesty.
They systematized their methods of construction so that soldiers and
barbarians could execute the rough mass of their buildings, and
formulated the designing of the decorative details so that artisans of
moderate skill could execute them with good effect. They carried the
principle of repetition of motives to its utmost limit, and sought to
counteract any resulting monotony by the scale and splendor of the
design. Above all they developed planning into a fine art, displaying
their genius in a wonderful variety of combinations and in an unfailing
sense of the demands of constructive propriety, practical convenience,
and artistic effect. Where Egyptian or Greek architecture shows one type
of plan, the Roman shows a score.

+GREEK INFLUENCE.+ Previous to the closing years of the Republic the
Romans had no art but the Etruscan. The few buildings of importance they
possessed were of Etruscan design and workmanship, excepting a small
number built by Greek hands. It was not until the Empire that Roman
architecture took on a truly national form. True Roman architecture is
essentially imperial. The change from the primitive Etruscan style to
the splendors of the imperial age was due to the conquest of the Greek
states. Not only did the Greek campaigns enrich Rome with an
unprecedented wealth of artistic spoils; they also brought into Italy
hosts of Greek artists, and filled the minds of the campaigners with the
ambition to realize in their own dominions the marble colonnades, the
temples, theatres, and propylæa of the Greek cities they had pillaged.
The Greek orders were adopted, altered, and applied to arcaded designs
as well as to peristyles and other open colonnades. The marriage of the
column and arch gave birth to a system of forms as characteristic of
Roman architecture as the Doric or Ionic colonnade is of the Greek.

+THE ROMAN ORDERS.+ To meet the demands of Roman taste the Etruscan
column was retained with its simple entablature; the Doric and Ionic
were adopted in a modified form; the Corinthian was developed into a
complete and independent order, and the Composite was added to the list.
A regular system of proportions for all these five orders was gradually
evolved, and the mouldings were profiled with arcs of circles instead of
the subtler Greek curves. In the building of many-storied structures the
orders were superposed, the more slender over the sturdier, in an
orderly and graded succession. The immense extent and number of the
Roman buildings, the coarse materials often used, the relative scarcity
of highly trained artisans, and above all, the necessity of making a
given amount of artistic design serve for the largest possible amount of
architecture, combined to direct the designing of detail into uniform
channels. Thus in time was established a sort of canon of proportions,
which was reduced to rules by Vitruvius, and revived in much more
detailed and precise form by Vignola in the sixteenth century.

  [Illustration: FIG. 42.--ROMAN DORIC ORDER.

In each of the orders, including the Doric, the column was given a base
one half of a diameter in height (the unit of measurement being the
diameter of the lower part of the shaft, the _crassitudo_ of Vitruvius).
The shaft was made to contract about one-sixth in diameter toward the
capital, under which it was terminated by an _astragal_ or collar of
small mouldings; at the base it ended in a slight flare and fillet
called the _cincture_. The entablature was in all cases given not far
from one quarter the height of the whole column. The +Tuscan+ order was
a rudimentary or Etruscan Doric with a column seven diameters high and a
simple entablature without triglyphs, mutules, or dentils. But few
examples of its use are known. The +Doric+ (Fig. 42) retained the
triglyphs and metopes, the mutules and guttæ of the Greek; but the
column was made eight diameters high, the shaft was smooth or had deep
flutings separated by narrow fillets, and was usually provided with a
simple moulded base on a square plinth. Mutules were used only over the
triglyphs, and were even replaced in some cases by dentils; the corona
was made lighter than the Greek, and a cymatium replaced the antefixæ on
the lateral cornices. The Ionic underwent fewer changes, and these
principally in the smaller mouldings and details of the capital. The
column was nine diameters high (Fig. 43). The +Corinthian+ was made into
an independent order by the designing of a special base of small _tori_
and _scotiæ_, and by sumptuously carved _modillions_ or brackets
enriching the cornice and supporting the corona above a denticulated
bed-mould (Fig. 44). Though the first designers of the modillion were
probably Greeks, it must, nevertheless, be taken as really a Roman
device, worthily completing the essentially Roman Corinthian order. The
+Composite+ was formed by combining into one capital portions of the
Ionic and Corinthian, and giving to it a simplified form of the
Corinthian cornice. The Corinthian order remained, however, the favorite
order of Roman architecture.

  [Illustration: FIG. 43.--ROMAN IONIC ORDER.]

+USE OF THE ORDERS.+ The Romans introduced many innovations in the
general use and treatment of the orders. Monolithic shafts were
preferred to those built up of superposed drums. The fluting was omitted
on these, and when hard and semi-precious stone like porphyry or
verd-antique was the material, it was highly polished to bring out its
color. These polished monoliths were often of great size, and they were
used in almost incredible numbers.

  [Illustration: FIG. 44.--CORINTHIAN ORDER

Another radical departure from Greek usage was the mounting of columns
on pedestals to secure greater height without increasing the size of the
column and its entablature. The Greek _anta_ was developed into the
Roman pilaster or flattened wall-column, and every free column, or range
of columns perpendicular to the façade, had its corresponding pilaster
to support the wall-end of the architrave. But the most radical
innovation was the general use of engaged columns as wall-decorations or
buttresses. The engaged column projected from the wall by more than half
its 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 the
columns, 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 column
appear superfluous by depriving it of its function of supporting the
continuous entablature. The objection has less weight when the
projecting entablature over the column serves as a pedestal for a statue
or similar object, which restores to the column its function as a
support (see the Arch of Constantine, Fig. 63).

  (From the Colosseum.)]

+ARCADES.+ The orders, though probably at first used only as free
supports in porticos and colonnades, were early applied as decorations
to arcaded structures. This practice became general with the
multiplication 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 architectural
propriety. It is defensible upon both artistic and logical grounds; for
it not only furnishes a most desirable play of light and shade and a
pleasing contrast of rectangular and curved lines, but by emphasizing
the constructive divisions and elements of the building and the vertical
support of the piers, it also contributes to the expressiveness and
vigor of the design.

+VAULTING.+ The Romans substituted vaulting in brick, concrete, or
masonry for wooden ceilings wherever possible, both in public and
private edifices. The Etruscans were the first vault-builders, and the
Cloaca Maxima, the great sewer of Republican Rome (about 500 B.C.) still
remains as a monument of their engineering skill. Probably not only
Etruscan engineers (whose traditions were perhaps derived from Asiatic
sources in the remote past), but Asiatic builders also from conquered
eastern provinces, were engaged together in the development of the
wonderful system of vaulted construction to which Roman architecture so
largely owed its grandeur. Three types of vault were commonly used: the
barrel-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 the
temple-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 placed
together over an oblong plan, a double advantage is secured. Lateral
windows can be carried up to the full height of the vaulting instead of
being stopped below its springing; and the weight and thrust of the
vaulting are concentrated upon a number of isolated points instead of
being exerted along the whole extent of the side walls, as with the
barrel-vault. The Romans saw that it was sufficient to dispose the
masonry at these points in masses at right angles to the length of the
hall, to best resist the lateral thrust of the vault. This appears
clearly in the plan of the Basilica of Constantine (Fig. 58).

The dome was in almost all Roman examples supported on a circular wall
built up from the ground, as in the Pantheon (Fig. 54). The pendentive
dome, 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 constructive
device. It became in their hands an element of interior effect at least
equally important with the arch and column. No style of architecture has
ever evolved nobler forms of ceiling than the groined vault and the
dome. Moreover, the use of vaulting made possible effects of
unencumbered spaciousness and amplitude which could never be compassed
by any combination of piers and columns. It also assured to the Roman
monuments a duration and a freedom from danger of destruction by fire
impossible with any wooden-roofed architecture, however noble its form
or careful its execution.

+CONSTRUCTION.+ The constructive methods of the Romans varied with the
conditions and resources of different provinces, but were everywhere
dominated by the same practical spirit. Their vaulted architecture
demanded for the support of its enormous weights and for resistance to
its disruptive thrusts, piers and buttresses of great mass. To construct
these wholly of cut stone appeared preposterous and wasteful to the
Roman. Italy abounds in clay, lime, and a volcanic product, _pozzolana_
(from Puteoli or Pozzuoli, where it has always been obtained in large
quantities), which makes an admirable hydraulic cement. With these
materials it was possible to employ unskilled labor for the great bulk
of this massive masonry, and to erect with the greatest rapidity and in
the most economical manner those stupendous piles which, even in their
ruin, 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 externally
decorative character such as temples, arches of triumph, and
amphitheatres, as well as in all places where brick and concrete were
not easily obtained, stone was employed. The walls were built by laying
up the inner and outer faces in _ashlar_ or cut stone, and filling in
the intermediate space with rubble (random masonry of uncut stone) laid
up in cement, or with concrete of broken stone and cement dumped into
the space in successive layers. The cement converted the whole into a
conglomerate closely united with the face-masonry. In Syria and Egypt
the local preference for stones of enormous size was gratified, and even
surpassed, as in Herod’s terrace-walls for the temple at Jerusalem
(p. 41), and in the splendid structures of Palmyra and Baalbec. In
Italy, however, stones of moderate size were preferred, and when blocks
of unusual dimensions occur, they are in many cases marked with false
joints, dividing them into apparently smaller blocks, lest they should
dwarf the building by their large scale. The general use in the Augustan
period of marble for a decorative lining or wainscot in interiors led in
time to the objectionable practice of coating buildings of concrete with
an apparel of sham marble masonry, by carving false joints upon an
external veneer of thin slabs of that material. Ordinary concrete walls
were frequently faced with small blocks of tufa, called, according to
the manner of its application, _opus reticulatum_, _opus incertum_,
_opus spicatum_, etc. (Fig. 48). In most cases, however, the facing was
of carefully executed brickwork, covered sometimes by a coating of
stucco. The bricks were large, measuring from one to two feet square
where used for quoins or arches, but triangular where they served only
as facings. Bricks were also used in the construction of skeleton ribs
for concrete vaults of large span.

+VAULTING.+ Here, as in the wall-masonry, economy and common sense
devised methods extremely simple for accomplishing vast designs. While
the smaller vaults were, so to speak, cast in concrete upon moulds made
of rough boards, the enormous weight of the larger vaults precluded
their being supported, while drying or “setting,” upon timber centrings
built up from the ground. Accordingly, a skeleton of light ribs was
first built on wooden centrings, and these ribs, when firmly “set,”
became themselves supports for intermediate centrings on which to cast
the 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 disruption
practised by the Romans were, in fact, in many cases quite superfluous.

+DECORATION.+ The temple of Castor and Pollux in the Forum (long
miscalled the temple of Jupiter Stator), is a typical example of Roman
architectural decoration, in which richness was preferred to the subtler
refinements of design (see Fig. 44). The splendid figure-sculpture which
adorned the Greek monuments would have been inappropriate on the
theatres and thermæ of Rome or the provinces, even had there been the
taste or the skill to produce it. Conventional carved ornament was
substituted in its place, and developed into a splendid system of highly
decorative forms. Two principal elements appear in this decoration--the
acanthus-leaf, as the basis of a whole series of wonderfully varied
motives; and symbolism, represented principally by what are technically
termed _grotesques_--incongruous combinations of natural forms, as when
an infant’s body terminates in a bunch of foliage (Fig. 49). Only to a
limited extent do we find true sculpture employed as decoration, and
that mainly for triumphal arches or memorial columns.

  [Illustration: FIG. 49--ROMAN CARVED ORNAMENT.
  (Lateran Museum.)]

The architectural mouldings were nearly always carved, the Greek
water-leaf and egg-and-dart forming the basis of most of the
enrichments; but these were greatly elaborated and treated with more
minute detail than the Greek prototypes. Friezes and bands were commonly
ornamented with the foliated scroll or _rinceau_ (a convenient French
term for which we have no equivalent). This motive was as characteristic
of Roman art as the anthemion was of the Greek. It consists of a
continuous stem throwing out alternately on either side branches which
curl into spirals and are richly adorned with rosettes, acanthus-leaves,
scrolls, tendrils, and blossoms. In the best examples the detail was
modelled with great care and minuteness, and the motive itself was
treated with extraordinary variety and fertility of invention. A derived
and enriched form of the anthemion was sometimes used for bands and
friezes; and grotesques, dolphins, griffins, infant genii, wreaths,
festoons, ribbons, eagles, and masks are also common features in Roman
relief 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 their
interior decoration, especially for ceilings. The panelling of domes and
vaults was usually roughly shaped in their first construction and
finished afterward in stucco with rich moulding and rosettes. The panels
were not always square or rectangular, as in Greek ceilings, but of
various geometric forms in pleasing combinations (Fig. 50). In works of
a small scale the panels and decorations were wrought in relief in a
heavy coating of plaster applied to the finished structure, and these
stucco reliefs are among the most refined and charming products of Roman
art. (Baths of Titus; Baths at Pompeii; Palace of the Cæsars and tombs
at Rome.)

+COLOR DECORATION.+ Plaster was also used as a ground for painting,
executed in distemper or by the encaustic process, wax liquefied by a
hot iron being the medium for applying the color in the latter case.
Pompeii and Herculaneum furnish countless examples of brilliant
wall-painting in which strong primary colors form the ground, and a
semi-naturalistic, semi-fantastic representation of figures,
architecture and landscape is mingled with festoons, vines, and purely
conventional ornament. Mosaic was also employed to decorate floors and
wall-spaces, and sometimes for ceilings.[13] The later imperial baths
and palaces were especially rich in mosaic of the kind called opus
Grecanicum, executed with numberless minute cubes of stone or glass, as
in 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, and
thermæ, splendor of color was given by veneering them with thin slabs of
rare and richly colored marble. No limit seems to have been placed upon
the costliness or amount of these precious materials. Byzantine
architecture borrowed from this practice its system of interior color



  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 employed
in Rome as early as 493 B.C., the architecture of the Republic was
practically Etruscan until nearly 100 B.C. Its monuments, consisting
mainly of city walls, tombs, and temples, are all marked by a general
uncouthness of detail, denoting a lack of artistic refinement, but they
display considerable constructive skill. In the Etruscan walls we meet
with both polygonal and regularly coursed masonry; in both kinds the
true arch appears as the almost universal form for gates and openings.
A famous example is the Augustan Gate at Perugia, a late work rebuilt
about 40 B.C., but thoroughly Etruscan in style. At Volaterræ (Volterra)
is another arched gate, and in Perugia fragments of still another appear
built into the modern walls.

The Etruscans built both structural and excavated tombs; they consisted
in general of a single chamber with a slightly arched or gabled roof,
supported in the larger tombs on heavy square piers. The interiors were
covered with pictures; externally there was little ornament except about
the gable and doorway. The latter had a stepped or moulded frame with
curious _crossettes_ or ears projecting laterally at the top. The gable
recalled the wooden roofs of Etruscan temples, but was coarse in detail,
especially in its mouldings. Sepulchral monuments of other types are
also met with, such as _cippi_ or memorial pillars, sometimes in groups
of five on a single pedestal (tomb at Albano).

Among the temples of Etruscan style that of +Jupiter Capitolinus+ on the
Capitol at Rome, destroyed by fire in 80 B.C., was the chief. Three
narrow chambers side by side formed a cella nearly square in plan,
preceded by a hexastyle porch of huge Doric, or rather Tuscan, columns
arranged in three aisles, widely spaced and carrying ponderous wooden
architraves. The roof was of wood; the cymatium and ornaments, as well
as the statues in the pediment, were of terra-cotta, painted and gilded.
The details in general showed acquaintance with Greek models, which
appeared 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., Fabius
Maximus at Tarentum (209 B.C.), Flaminius (196 B.C.), Mummius (146
B.C.), Sulla (86 B.C.), and others in the various Greek provinces,
steadily increased the vogue of Greek architecture and the number of
Greek artists in Rome. The temples of the last two centuries B.C., and
some of earlier date, though still Etruscan in plan, were in many cases
strongly Greek in the character of their details. A few have remained to
our time in tolerable preservation. The temple of +Fortuna Virilis+
(really of Fors Fortuna), of the second century (?) B.C., is a
tetrastyle prostyle pseudoperipteral temple with a high _podium_ or
base, a typical Etruscan cella, and a deep porch, now walled up, but
thoroughly Greek in the elegant details of its Ionic order (Fig. 51).
Two circular temples, both called erroneously +Temples of Vesta+, one at
Rome near the Cloaca Maxima, the other at Tivoli, belong among the
monuments of Greek style. The first was probably dedicated to Hercules,
the second probably to the Sibyls; the latter being much the better
preserved of the two. Both were surrounded by peristyles of eighteen
Corinthian columns, and probably covered by domical roofs with gilded
bronze tiles. The Corinthian order appears here complete with its
modillion cornice, but the crispness of the detail and the fineness of
the execution are Greek and not Roman. These temples date from about 72
B.C., though the one at Rome was probably rebuilt in the first century
A.D. (Fig. 52).

  [Illustration: FIG. 52.--CIRCULAR TEMPLE. TIVOLI.]

+IMPERIAL ARCHITECTURE; AUGUSTAN AGE.+ Even in the temples of Greek
style Roman conceptions of plan and composition are dominant. The Greek
architect was not free to reproduce textually Greek designs or details,
however strongly he might impress with the Greek character whatever he
touched. The demands of imperial splendor and the building of great
edifices of varied form and complex structure, like the thermæ and
amphitheatres, called for new adaptations and combinations of planning
and engineering. The reign of Augustus (27 B.C.-14 A.D.) inaugurated the
imperial epoch, but many works erected before and after his reign
properly belong to the Augustan age by right of style. In general, we
find in the works of this period the happiest combination of Greek
refinement with Roman splendor. It was in this period that Rome first
assumed the aspect of an opulent and splendid metropolis, though the way
had been prepared for this by the regularization and adornment of the
Roman 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, the
Augustan forum, the Septa Julia, the first Pantheon, the adjoining
Thermæ of Agrippa, the theatre of Marcellus, the first of the imperial
palaces on the Palatine, and a long list of temples, including those of
the Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux), of Mars Ultor, of Jupiter Tonans on
the Capitol, and others in the provinces; besides colonnades, statues,
arches, and other embellishments almost without number.

+LATER IMPERIAL WORKS.+ With the successors of Augustus splendor
increased to almost fabulous limits, as, for instance, in the vast
extent and the prodigality of ivory and gold in the famous Golden House
of Nero. After the great fire in Rome, presumably kindled by the agents
of this emperor, a more regular and monumental system of street-planning
and building was introduced, and the first municipal building-law was
decreed by him. To the reign of Vespasian (68-79 A.D.) we owe the
rebuilding in Roman style and with the Corinthian order of the temple of
Jupiter Capitolinus, the Baths of Titus, and the beginning of the
Flavian amphitheatre or Colosseum. The two last-named edifices both
stood on the site of Nero’s Golden House, of which the greater part was
demolished to make way for them. During the last years of the first
century 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 and
Stabiæ 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 splendid
architectural achievements of the reign of Hadrian (117-138 A.D.) in
Rome and the provinces, especially Athens. Nearly all his works were
marked by great dignity of conception as well as beauty of detail.
During the latter part of the century a very interesting series of
buildings were erected in the Hauran (Syria), in which Greek and Arab
workmen under Roman direction produced examples of vigorous stone
architecture of a mingled Roman and Syrian character.

The most-remarkable thermæ of Rome belong to the third century--those of
Caracalla (211-217 A.D.) and of Diocletian (284-305 A.D.)--their ruins
to-day ranking among the most imposing remains of antiquity. In Syria
the temples of the Sun at Baalbec and Palmyra (273 A.D., under
Aurelian), and the great palace of Diocletian at Spalato, in Dalmatia
(300 A.D.), are still the wonder of the few travellers who reach those
distant spots.

While during the third and fourth centuries there was a marked decline
in purity and refinement of detail, many of the later works of the
period display a remarkable freedom and originality in conception. But
these works are really not Roman, they are foreign, that is, provincial
products; and the transfer of the capital to Byzantium revealed the
increasing degree in which Rome was coming to look to the East for her
strength and her art.

  [Illustration: FIG. 53.--TEMPLE OF VENUS AND ROME. PLAN.]

+TEMPLES.+ The Romans built both rectangular and circular temples, and
there was much variety in their treatment. In the rectangular temples a
high _podium_, or basement, was substituted for the Greek stepped
stylobate, and the prostyle plan was more common than the peripteral.
The cella was relatively short and wide, the front porch inordinately
deep, and frequently divided by longitudinal rows of columns into three
aisles. In most cases the exterior of the cella in prostyle temples was
decorated by engaged columns. A barrel vault gave the interior an aspect
of spaciousness impossible with the Greek system of a wooden ceiling
supported on double ranges of columns. In the place of these, free or
engaged columns along the side-walls received the ribs of the vaulting.
Between these ribs the ceiling was richly panelled, or coffered and
sumptuously gilded. The temples of +Fortuna Virilis+ and of +Faustina+
at Rome (the latter built 141 A.D., and its ruins incorporated into the
modern church of S. Lorenzo in Miranda), and the beautiful and admirably
preserved +Maison Carrée+, at Nîmes (France) (4 A.D.) are examples of
this type. The temple of +Concord+, of which only the podium remains,
and the small temple of Julius (both of these in the Forum) illustrate
another form of prostyle temple in which the porch was on a long side of
the cella. Some of the larger temples were peripteral. The temple of the
+Dioscuri+ (Castor and Pollux) in the Forum, was one of the most
magnificent of these, certainly the richest in detail (Fig. 44). Very
remarkable 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 vast
pseudodipteral edifice containing two cellas in one structure, their
statue-niches or apses meeting back to back in the centre. The temple
stood in the midst of an imposing columnar peribolus entered by
magnificent gateways. Other important temples have already been
mentioned 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 should
be mentioned. At Baalbec is a circular temple whose entablature curves
inward between the widely-spaced columns until it touches the cella in
the middle of each intercolumniation. It illustrates the caprices of
design which sometimes resulted from the disregard of tradition and the
striving after originality (273 A.D.).

  [Illustration: FIG. 54.--PLAN OF THE PANTHEON.]

+THE PANTHEON.+ The noblest of all circular temples of Rome and of the
world was the +Pantheon+. It was built by Hadrian, 117-138 A.D., on the
site of the earlier rectangular temple of the same name erected by
Agrippa. It measures 142 feet in diameter internally; the wall is 20
feet thick and supports a hemispherical dome rising to a height of 140
feet (Figs. 54, 55). Light is admitted solely through a round opening 28
feet in diameter at the top of the dome, the simplest and most
impressive method of illumination conceivable. The rain and snow that
enter produce no appreciable effect upon the temperature of the vast
hall. There is a single entrance, with noble bronze doors, admitting
directly to the interior, around which seven niches, alternately
rectangular and semicircular in plan and fronted by Corinthian columns,
lighten, without weakening, the mass of the encircling wall. This wall
was originally incrusted with rich marbles, and the great dome, adorned
with deep coffering in rectangular panels, was decorated with rosettes
and mouldings in gilt stucco. The dome appears to have been composed of
numerous arches and ribs, filled in and finally coated with concrete.
A recent examination of a denuded portion of its inner surface has
convinced the writer that the interior panelling was executed after, and
not during, its construction, by hewing the panels out of the mass of
brick and concrete, without regard to the form and position of the
origin 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 gabled
porch of twelve superb granite columns 50 feet high, three-aisled in
plan after the Etruscan mode, and covered originally by a ceiling of
bronze, was a rebuilding with the materials and on the plan of the
original pronaos of the Pantheon of Agrippa. The circular wall behind it
is faced with fine brickwork, and displays, like the dome, many curious
arrangements of discharging arches, reminiscences of traditional
constructive precautions here wholly useless and fictitious because only
skin-deep. A revetment of marble below and plaster above once concealed
this brick facing. The portico, in spite of its too steep gable (once
filled with a “gigantomachia” in gilt bronze) and its somewhat awkward
association with a round building, is nevertheless a noble work, its
capitals in Pentelic marble ranking among the finest known examples of
the Roman Corinthian. Taken as a whole, the Pantheon is one of the great
masterpieces of the world’s architecture.

  [Illustration: FIG. 57.--FORUM AND BASILICA OF TRAJAN.]

+FORA AND BASILICAS.+ The fora were the places for general public
assemblage. The chief of those in Rome, the +Forum Magnum+, or +Forum
Romanum+, was at first merely an irregular vacant space, about and in
which, as the focus of the civic life, temples, halls, colonnades, and
statues gradually accumulated. These chance aggregations the systematic
Roman mind reduced in time to orderly and monumental form; successive
emperors extended them and added new fora at enormous cost and with
great splendor of architecture. Those of Julius, Augustus, Vespasian,
and Nerva (or Domitian), adjoining the Roman Forum, were magnificent
enclosures surrounded by high walls and single or double colonnades.
Each contained a temple or basilica, besides gateways, memorial columns
or arches, and countless statues. The +Forum of Trajan+ surpassed all
the rest; it covered an area of thirty-five thousand square yards, and
included, besides the main area, entered through a triumphal arch, the
Basilica Ulpia, the temple of Trajan, and his colossal Doric column of
Victory. Both in size and beauty it ranked as the chief architectural
glory of the city (Fig. 57). The six fora together contained thirteen
temples, three basilicas, eight triumphal arches, a mile of porticos,
and a number of other public edifices.[14] Besides these, a net-work of
colonnades covered large tracts of the city, affording sheltered
communication in every direction, and here and there expanding into
squares 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 largely
transacted in the _basilicas_, large buildings consisting usually of a
wide and lofty central nave flanked by lower side-aisles, and
terminating at one or both ends in an apse or semicircular recess called
the _tribune_, in which were the seats for the magistrates. The
side-aisles were separated from the nave by columns supporting a
clearstory wall, pierced by windows above the roofs of the side-aisles.
In some cases the latter were two stories high, with galleries; in
others the central space was open to the sky, as at Pompeii, suggesting
the derivation of the basilica from the open square surrounded by
colonnades, or from the forum itself, with which we find it usually
associated. The most important basilicas in Rome were the +Sempronian+,
the +Æmilian+ (about 54 B.C.), the +Julian+ in the Forum Magnum (51
B.C.), and the +Ulpian+ in the Forum of Trajan (113 A.D.). The last two
were probably open basilicas, only the side-aisles being roofed. The
Ulpian (Fig. 57) was the most magnificent of all, and in conjunction
with the Forum of Trajan formed one of the most imposing of those
monumental aggregations of columnar architecture which contributed so
largely to the splendor of the Roman capital.

These monuments frequently suffered from the burning of their wooden
roofs. It was Constantine who completed the first vaulted and fireproof
basilica, begun by his predecessor and rival, Maxentius, on the site of
the former Temple of Peace (Figs. 58, 59). Its design reproduced on a
grand scale the plan of the tepidarium-halls of the thermæ, the
side-recesses of which were converted into a continuous side-aisle by
piercing arches through the buttress-walls that separated them. Above
the imposing vaults of these recesses and under the cross-vaults of the
nave were windows admitting abundant light. A _narthex_, or porch,
preceded the hall at one end; there were also a side entrance from the
Via Sacra, and an apse or tribune for the magistrates opposite each of
these entrances. The dimensions of the main hall (325 × 85 feet), the
height of its vault (117 feet), and the splendor of its columns and
incrustations excited universal admiration, and exercised a powerful
influence on later architecture.


  [Illustration: FIG. 60.--THERMÆ OF CARACALLA.
  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 great
baths, or _thermæ_, which took the place substantially of the modern
club. The establishments erected by the emperors for this purpose were
vast and complex congeries of large and small halls, courts, and
chambers, combined with a masterly comprehension of artistic propriety
and effect in the sequence of oblong, square, oval, and circular
apartments, 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, private
baths for individuals and families, places for gymnastic exercises and
games, courts, peristyles, gardens, halls for literary entertainments,
lounging-rooms, and all the complex accommodation required for the
service of the whole establishment. They were built with apparent
disregard of cost, and adorned with splendid extravagance. The earliest
were the +Baths of Agrippa+ (27 B.C.) behind the Pantheon; next may be
mentioned those of +Titus+, built on the substructions of Nero’s Golden
House. The remains of the +Thermæ of Caracalla+ (211 A.D.) form the most
extensive mass of ruins in Rome, and clearly display the admirable
planning of this and similar establishments. A gigantic block of
buildings containing the three great halls for cold, warm, and hot
baths, stood in the centre of a vast enclosure surrounded by private
baths, _exedræ_, and halls for lecture-audiences and other gatherings.
The enclosure was adorned with statues, flower-gardens, and places for
out-door games. The +Baths of Diocletian+ (302 A.D.) embodied this
arrangement on a still more extensive scale; they could accommodate
3,500 bathers at once, and their ruins cover a broad territory near the
railway terminus of the modern city. The church of S. Maria degli Angeli
was formed by Michael Angelo out of the _tepidarium_ of these
baths--a colossal hall 340 × 87 feet, and 90 feet high. The original
vaulting and columns are still intact, and the whole interior most
imposing, in spite of later stucco disfigurements. The circular
_laconicum_ (sweat-room) serves as the porch to the present church. It
was in the building of these great halls that Roman architecture reached
its most original and characteristic expression. Wholly unrelated to any
foreign model, they represent distinctively Roman ideals, both as to
plan 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 the
Greek in having a nearly semicircular plan, and in being built up from
the level ground, not excavated in a hillside (Fig. 61). The first
theatre was of wood, built by Mummius 145 B.C., and it was not until
ninety years later that stone was first substituted for the more
perishable material, in the theatre of Pompey. The +Theatre of
Marcellus+ (23-13 B.C.) is in part still extant, and later theatres in
Pompeii, Orange (France), and in the Asiatic provinces are in excellent
preservation. The orchestra was not, as in the Greek theatre, reserved
for the choral dance, but was given up to spectators of rank; the stage
was adorned with a permanent architectural background of columns and
arches, and sometimes roofed with wood, and an arcade or colonnade
surrounded the upper tier of seats. The amphitheatre was a still more
distinctively Roman edifice. It was elliptical in plan, surrounding an
elliptical arena, and built up with continuous encircling tiers of
seats. The earliest stone amphitheatre was erected by Statilius Taurus
in the time of Augustus. It was practically identical in design with the
later and much larger Flavian amphitheatre, commonly known as the
+Colosseum+, begun by Vespasian and completed 82 A.D. (Fig. 62). This
immense structure measured 607 × 506 feet in plan and was 180 feet high;
it could accommodate eighty-seven thousand spectators. Engaged columns
of the Tuscan, Ionic, and Corinthian orders decorated three stories of
the exterior; the fourth was a nearly unbroken wall with slender
Corinthian pilasters. Solidly constructed of travertine, concrete, and
tufa, the Colosseum, with its imposing but monotonous exterior, almost
sublime by its scale and seemingly endless repetition, but lacking in
refinement or originality of detail and dedicated to bloody and cruel
sports, was a characteristic product of the Roman character and
civilization. At Verona, Pola, Capua, and many cities in the foreign
provinces 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 oldest
of those in Rome. That erected by Caligula and Nero on the site
afterward partly occupied by St. Peter’s, was more splendid, and is said
to have been capable of accommodating over three hundred thousand
spectators after its enlargement in the fourth century. The long, narrow
race-course was divided into two nearly equal parts by a low parapet,
the _spina_, on which were the goals (_metæ_) and many small decorative
structures and columns. One end of the circus, as of the stadium also,
was semicircular; the other was segmental in the circus, square in the
stadium; a colonnade or arcade ran along the top of the building, and
the entrances and exits were adorned with monumental arches.

+TRIUMPHAL ARCHES AND COLUMNS.+ Rome and the provincial cities abounded
in monuments commemorative of victory, usually single or triple arches
with engaged columns and rich sculptural adornments, or single colossal
columns supporting statues. The arches were characteristic products of
Roman design, and some of them deserve high praise for the excellence of
their proportions and the elegance of their details. There were in Rome
in the second century A.D., thirty-eight of these monuments. The +Arch
of Titus+ (71-82 A.D.) is the simplest and most perfect of those still
extant in Rome; the arch of +Septimius Severus+ in the Forum (203 A.D.)
and that of +Constantine+ (330 A.D.) near the Colosseum, are more
sumptuous but less pure in detail. The last-named was in part enriched
with sculptures taken from the earlier arch of Trajan. The statues of
Dacian captives on the attic (_attic_ = a species of subordinate story
added above the main cornice) of this arch were a fortunate addition,
furnishing a _raison-d’être_ for the columns and broken entablatures on
which they rest. Memorial columns of colossal size were erected by
several 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 which
surmounted it; its capital marked the height of the ridge levelled by
the emperor for the forum on which the column stands. Its most striking
peculiarity is the spiral band of reliefs winding around the shaft from
bottom to top and representing the Dacian campaigns of Trajan. The other
column is of similar design and dimensions, but greatly inferior to the
first in execution. Both are really towers, with interior stair-cases
leading 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, and
few of their sepulchral monuments were of large dimensions. The most
important in Rome were the pyramid of +Caius Cestius+ (late first
century B.C.), and the circular tombs of +Cecilia Metella+ (60 B.C.),
+Augustus+ (14 A.D.) and +Hadrian+, now the Castle of S. Angelo (138
A.D.). The latter was composed of a huge cone of marble supported on a
cylindrical structure 230 feet in diameter standing on a square podium
300 feet long and wide. The cone probably once terminated in the gilt
bronze pine-cone now in the Giardino della Pigna of the Vatican. In the
Mausoleum of Augustus a mound of earth planted with trees crowned a
similar circular base of marble on a podium 220 feet square, now buried.

The smaller tombs varied greatly in size and form. Some were vaulted
chambers, with graceful internal painted decorations of figures and vine
patterns combined with low-relief enrichments in stucco. Others were
designed in the form of altars or sarcophagi, as at Pompeii; while
others again resembled ædiculæ, little temples, shrines, or small towers
in several stories of arches and columns, as at St. Rémy (France).

+PALACES AND DWELLINGS.+ Into their dwellings the Romans carried all
their love of ostentation and personal luxury. They anticipated in many
details the comforts of modern civilization in their furniture, their
plumbing and heating, and their utensils. Their houses may be divided
into four classes: the palace, the villa, the _domus_ or ordinary house,
and the _insula_ or many-storied tenement built in compact blocks. The
first three alone concern us, and will be taken up in the above order.

The imperial +palaces+ on the Palatine Hill comprised a wide range in
style and variety of buildings, beginning with the first simple house of
Augustus (26 B.C.), burnt and rebuilt 3 A.D. Tiberius, Caligula, and
Nero added to the Augustan group; Domitian rebuilt a second time and
enlarged the palace of Augustus, and Septimius Severus remodelled the
whole group, adding to it his own extraordinary seven-storied palace,
the Septizonium. The ruins of these successive buildings have been
carefully excavated, and reveal a remarkable combination of
dwelling-rooms, courts, temples, libraries, basilicas, baths, gardens,
peristyles, fountains, terraces, and covered passages. These were
adorned with a profusion of precious marbles, mosaics, columns, and
statues. Parts of the demolished palace of Nero were incorporated in the
substructions of the Baths of Titus. The beautiful arabesques and
plaster reliefs which adorned them were the inspiration of much of the
fresco and stucco decoration of the Italian Renaissance. At Spalato, in
Dalmatia, are the extensive ruins of the great +Palace of Diocletian+,
which was laid out on the plan of a Roman camp, with two intersecting
avenues (Fig. 64). It comprised a temple, mausoleum, basilica, and other
structures besides those portions devoted to the purposes of a royal

  [Illustration: FIG. 64.--PALACE OF DIOCLETIAN. SPALATO.]

The +villa+ was in reality a country palace, arranged with special
reference to the prevailing winds, exposure to the sun and shade, and
the enjoyment of a wide prospect. Baths, temples, _exedræ_, theatres,
tennis-courts, sun-rooms, and shaded porticoes were connected with the
house proper, which was built around two or three interior courts or
peristyles. Statues, fountains, and colossal vases of marble adorned the
grounds, which were laid out in terraces and treated with all the
fantastic arts of the Roman landscape-gardener. The most elaborate and
extensive villa was that of +Hadrian+, at Tibur (Tivoli); its ruins,
covering hundreds of acres, form one of the most interesting spots to
visit 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+, or
House of the Vestal Virgins, east of the Forum, a well-planned and
extensive house surrounding a cloister or court; and the +House of
Livia+, so-called, on the Palatine Hill, the walls and decorations of
which are excellently preserved. The typical Roman house in a provincial
town is best illustrated by the ruins of Pompeii and Herculanum, which,
buried by an eruption of Vesuvius in 79 A.D., have been partially
excavated since 1721. The Pompeiian house (Fig. 65) consisted of several
courts or _atria_, some of which were surrounded by colonnades and
called _peristyles_. The front portion was reserved for shops, or
presented to the street a wall unbroken save by the entrance; all the
rooms and chambers opened upon the interior courts, from which alone
they borrowed their light. In the brilliant climate of southern Italy
windows were little needed, as sufficient light was admitted by the
door, closed only by portières for the most part; especially as the
family life was passed mainly in the shaded courts, to which fountains,
parterres of shrubbery, statues, and other adornments lent their
inviting charm. The general plan of these houses seems to have been of
Greek origin, as well as the system of decoration used on the walls.
These, when not wainscoted with marble, were covered with fantastic, but
often artistic, painted decorations, in which an imaginary architecture
as of metal, a fantastic and arbitrary perspective, illusory pictures,
and highly finished figures were the chief elements. These were executed
in brilliant colors with excellent effect. The houses were lightly
built, with wooden ceilings and roofs instead of vaulting, and usually
with but one story on account of the danger from earthquakes. That the
workmanship and decoration were in the capital often superior to what
was to be found in a provincial town like Pompeii, is evidenced by
beautiful wall-paintings and reliefs discovered in Rome in 1879 and now
preserved in the Museo delle Terme. More or less fragmentary remains of
Roman houses have been found in almost every corner of the Roman empire,
but nowhere exhibiting as completely as in Pompeii the typical Roman

+WORKS OF UTILITY.+ A word should be said about Roman engineering works,
which in many cases were designed with an artistic sense of proportion
and form which raises them into the domain of genuine art. Such were
especially the bridges, in which a remarkable effect of monumental
grandeur was often produced by the form and proportions of the arches
and piers, and an appropriate use of rough and dressed masonry, as in
the Pons Ælius (Ponte S. Angelo), the great bridge at Alcantara (Spain),
and the Pont du Gard, in southern France. The aqueducts are impressive
rather by their length, scale, and simplicity, than by any special
refinements of design, except where their arches are treated with some
architectural decoration to form gates, as in the Porta Maggiore, at

  +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.



  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

+INTRODUCTORY.+ The official recognition of Christianity in the year 328
by Constantine simply legalized an institution which had been for three
centuries gathering momentum for its final conquest of the antique
world. The new religion rapidly enlisted in its service for a common
purpose and under a common impulse races as wide apart in blood and
culture as those which had built up the art of imperial Rome. It was
Christianity which reduced to civilization in the West the Germanic
hordes that had overthrown Rome, bringing their fresh and hitherto
untamed vigor to the task of recreating architecture out of the decaying
fragments of classic art. So in the East its life-giving influence awoke
the slumbering Greek art-instinct to new triumphs in the arts of
building, less refined and perfect indeed, but not less sublime than
those of the Periclean age. Long before the Constantinian edict, the
Christians in the Eastern provinces had enjoyed substantial freedom of
worship. Meeting often in the private basilicas of wealthy converts, and
finding these, and still more the great public basilicas, suited to the
requirements of their worship, they early began to build in imitation of
these edifices. There are many remains of these early churches in
northern 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. Once
liberated, however, Christianity appropriated bodily for its public
rites the basilica-type and the general substance of Roman architecture.
Shafts and capitals, architraves and rich linings of veined marble, even
the pagan Bacchic symbolism of the vine, it adapted to new uses in its
own service. Constantine led the way in architecture, endowing Bethlehem
and Jerusalem with splendid churches, and his new capital on the
Bosphorus with the first of the three historic basilicas dedicated to
the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia). One of the greatest of innovators, he
seems to have had a special predilection for circular buildings, and the
tombs and baptisteries which he erected in this form, especially that
for his sister Constantia in Rome (known as Santa Costanza, Fig. 66),
furnished the prototype for numberless Italian baptisteries in later

  [Illustration: FIG. 66.--STA. COSTANZA, ROME.]

The Christian basilica (see Figs. 67, 68) generally comprised a broad
and lofty nave, separated by rows of columns from the single or double
side-aisles. The aisles had usually about half the width and height of
the nave, and like it were covered with wooden roofs and ceilings. Above
the columns which flanked the nave rose the lofty clearstory wall,
pierced with windows above the side-aisle roofs and supporting the
immense trusses of the roof of the nave. The timbering of the latter was
sometimes bare, sometimes concealed by a richly panelled ceiling,
carved, gilded, and painted. At the further end of the nave was the
sanctuary or apse, with the seats for the clergy on a raised platform,
the _bema_, in front of which was the altar. Transepts sometimes
expanded 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 the
basilica proper, the arcade at the front of the church forming a porch
or _narthex_, which, however, in some cases existed without the atrium.
The exterior was extremely plain; the interior, on the contrary, was
resplendent with incrustations of veined marble and with sumptuous
decorations in glass mosaic (called _opus Grecanicum_) on a blue or
golden ground. Especially rich were the half-dome of the apse and the
wall-space surrounding its arch and called the _triumphal arch_; next in
decorative importance came the broad band of wall beneath the clearstory
windows. Upon these surfaces the mosaic-workers wrought with minute
cubes of colored glass pictures and symbols almost imperishable, in
which the glow of color and a certain decorative grandeur of effect in
the composition went far to atone for the uncouth drawing. With growing
wealth and an increasingly elaborate ritual, the furniture and
equipments of the church assumed greater architectural importance.
A large rectangular space was retained for the choir in front of the
bema, and enclosed by a breast-high parapet of marble, richly inlaid. On
either side were the pulpits or _ambones_ for the Gospel and Epistle.
A lofty canopy was built over the altar, the _baldaquin_, supported on
four marble columns. A few basilicas were built with side-aisles, in two
stories, as in S. Lorenzo and Sta. Agnese. Adjoining the basilica in the
earlier examples were the baptistery and the tomb of the saint, circular
or polygonal buildings usually; but in later times these were replaced
by the font or baptismal chapel in the church and the _confessio_ under
the 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. John
Lateran+ has been so disfigured by modern alterations as to be
unrecognizable. The former of the two adjoined the site of the martyrdom
of St. Peter in the circus of Caligula and Nero; it was five-aisled, 380
feet in length by 212 feet in width. The nave was 80 feet wide and 100
feet high, and the disproportionately high clearstory wall rested on
horizontal architraves carried by columns. The impressive dimensions and
simple plan of this structure gave it a majesty worthy of its rank as
the first church of Christendom. +St. Paul beyond the Walls+ (S. Paolo
fuori le mura), built in 386 by Theodosius, resembled St. Peter’s
closely in plan (Figs. 67, 68). Destroyed by fire in 1821, it has been
rebuilt with almost its pristine splendor, and is, next to the modern
St. Peter’s and the Pantheon, the most impressive place of worship in
Rome. +Santa Maria Maggiore+,[15] though smaller in size, is more
interesting because it so largely retains its original aspect, its
Renaissance 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 from
column to column perform this function. The first known case of such use
of classic columns as arch-bearers was in the palace of Diocletian at
Spalato; it also appears in Syrian buildings of the third and fourth
centuries 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 of
the Renaissance. All the earlier examples employed columns and capitals
taken from ancient ruins, often incongruous and ill-matched in size and
order. +San Clemente+ (1084) has retained almost intact its early
aspect, its choir-enclosure, baldaquin, and ambones having been well
preserved or carefully restored. Other important basilicas are mentioned
in the list of monuments on pages 118, 119.

+RAVENNA.+ The fifth and sixth centuries endowed Ravenna with a number
of notable buildings which, with the exception of the cathedral,
demolished in the last century, have been preserved to our day. Subdued
by the Byzantine emperor Justinian in 537, Ravenna became the
meeting-ground for Early Christian and Byzantine traditions and the
basilican and circular plans are both represented. The two churches
dedicated 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 fine
mosaics, and for the impost-blocks interposed above the capitals of
their columns to receive the springing of the pier-arches. These blocks
appear to be somewhat crude modifications of the fragmentary architraves
or entablatures employed in classic Roman architecture to receive the
springing of vaults sustained by columns, and became common in Byzantine
structures (Fig. 73). The use of external arcading to give some slight
adornment to the walls of the second of the above-named churches, and
the round bell-towers of brick which adjoined both of them, were first
steps toward the development of the “wall-veil” or arcaded decoration,
and of the campaniles, which in later centuries became so characteristic
of north Italian churches (see Chapter XIII.). In Rome the campaniles
which accompany many of the mediæval basilicas are square and pierced
with many windows.

The basilican form of church became general in Italy, a large proportion
of whose churches continued to be built with wooden roofs and with but
slight deviations from the original type, long after the appearance of
the Gothic style. The chief departures from early precedent were in the
exterior, which was embellished with marble incrustations as in
S. Miniato (Florence); or with successive stories of wall-arcades, as in
many churches in Pisa and Lucca (see Fig. 90); until finally the
introduction of clustered piers, pointed arches, and vaulting, gradually
transformed the basilican into the Italian Romanesque and Gothic styles.

+SYRIA AND THE EAST.+ In Syria, particularly the central portion, the
Christian architecture of the 3d to 8th centuries produced a number of
very interesting monuments. The churches built by Constantine in
Syria--the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (nominally built by his
mother), of the Ascension at Jerusalem, the magnificent octagonal church
on the site of the Temple, and finally the somewhat similar church at
Antioch--were the most notable Christian monuments in Syria. The first
three on the list, still extant in part at least, have been so altered
by later additions and restorations that their original forms are only
approximately known from early descriptions. They were all of large
size, and the octagonal church on the Temple platform was of exceptional
magnificence.[16] The columns and a part of the marble incrustations of
the early design are still visible in the “Mosque of Omar,” but most of
the old work is concealed by the decoration of tiles applied by the
Moslems, and the whole interior aspect altered by the wood-and-plaster
dome 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 Roman
traditions. The abundance of hard stone, the total lack of clay or
brick, the remoteness from Rome, led to a peculiar independence and
originality in the forms and details of the ecclesiastical as well as of
the domestic architecture of central Syria. These innovations upon Roman
models resulted in the development of distinct types which, but for the
arrest of progress by the Mohammedan conquest in the seventh century,
would doubtless have inaugurated a new and independent style of
architecture. Piers of masonry came to replace the classic column, as at
Tafkha (third or fourth century), Rouheiha and Kalb Louzeh (fifth
century? Fig. 69); the ceilings in the smaller churches were often
formed with stone slabs; the apse was at first confined within the main
rectangle of the plan, and was sometimes square. The exterior assumed a
striking and picturesque variety of forms by means of turrets, porches,
and gables. Singularly enough, vaulting hardly appears at all, though
the arch is used with fine effect. Conventional and monastic groups of
buildings appear early in Syria, and that of +St. Simeon Stylites+ at
Kelat Seman is an impressive and interesting monument. Four three-aisled
wings form the arms of a cross, meeting in a central octagonal open
court, in the midst of which stood the column of the saint. The eastern
arm of the cross forms a complete basilica of itself, and the whole
cross measures 330 × 300 feet. Chapels, cloisters, and cells adjoin the
main edifice.

  [Illustration: FIG. 70.--CATHEDRAL AT BOZRAH.]

Circular and polygonal plans appear in a number of Syrian examples of
the early sixth century. Their most striking feature is the inscribing
of 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 Kelat
Seman 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 church
of +St. George+ at +Ezra+. These were probably the prototypes of many
Byzantine churches like St. Sergius at Constantinople, and San Vitale at
Ravenna (Fig. 74), though the exact dates of the Syrian churches are not
known. 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 in
whole towns and villages in the Hauran, which, deserted at the Arab
conquest, have never been reoccupied and remain almost intact but for
the decay of their wooden roofs. They are marked by dignity and
simplicity of design, and by the same picturesque massing of gables and
roofs and porches which has already been remarked of the churches. The
arches are broad, the columns rather heavy, the mouldings few and
simple, and the scanty carving vigorous and effective, often strongly
Byzantine in type.

Elsewhere in the Eastern world are many early churches of which even the
enumeration would exceed the limits of this work. Salonica counts a
number of basilicas and several domical churches. The church of +St.
George+, now a mosque, is of early date and thoroughly Roman in plan and
section, of the same class with the Pantheon and the tomb of Helena, in
both of which a massive circular wall is lightened by eight niches. At
Angora (Ancyra), Hierapolis, Pergamus, and other points in Asia Minor;
in Egypt, Nubia, and Algiers, are many examples of both circular and
basilican edifices of the early centuries of Christianity. In
Constantinople there remains but a single representative of the
basilican type, the church of +St. John Studius+, now the Emir Akhor

  +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.)



  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 the
development of the basilican style in the West, as did the Arab conquest
later in Syria. It was otherwise in the new Eastern capital founded by
Constantine in the ancient Byzantium, which was rising in power and
wealth while Rome lay in ruins. Situated at the strategic point of the
natural highway of commerce between East and West, salubrious and
enchantingly beautiful in its surroundings, the new capital grew rapidly
from provincial insignificance to metropolitan importance. Its founder
had embellished it with an extraordinary wealth of buildings, in which,
owing to the scarcity of trained architects, quantity and cost doubtless
outran quality. But at least the tameness of blindly followed precedent
was avoided, and this departure from traditional tenets contributed
undoubtedly to the originality of Byzantine architecture. A large part
of the artisans employed in building were then, as now, from Asia Minor
and the Ægean Islands, Greek in race if not in name. An Oriental taste
for brilliant and harmonious color and for minute decoration spread over
broad surfaces must have been stimulated by trade with the Far East and
by constant contact with Oriental peoples, costumes, and arts. An
Asiatic origin may also be assigned to the methods of vaulting employed,
far more varied than the Roman, not only in form but also in materials
and processes. From Roman architecture, however, the Byzantines borrowed
the fundamental notion of their structural art; that, namely, of
distributing the weights and strains of their vaulted structures upon
isolated and massive points of support, strengthened by deep buttresses,
internal or external, as the case might be. Roman, likewise, was the use
of polished monolithic columns, and the incrustation of the piers and
walls with panels of variegated marble, as well as the decoration of
plastered surfaces by fresco and mosaic, and the use of _opus sectile_
and _opus Alexandrinum_ for the production of sumptuous marble
pavements. In the first of these processes the color-figures of the
pattern are formed each of a single piece of marble cut to the shape
required; in the second the pattern is compounded of minute squares,
triangles, and curved pieces of uniform size. Under these combined
influences the artists of Constantinople wrought out new problems in
construction and decoration, giving to all that they touched a new and
striking character.

There is no absolute line of demarcation, chronological, geographical,
or structural, between Early Christian and Byzantine architecture. But
the former was especially characterized by the basilica with three or
five 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 simple
three-aisled or five-aisled basilica, and nearly all its monuments were
vaulted. The dome was especially frequent, and Byzantine architecture
achieved its highest triumphs in the use of the _pendentive_, as the
triangular spherical surfaces are called, by the aid of which a dome can
be supported on the summits of four arches spanning the four sides of a
square, as explained later. There is as little uniformity in the plans
of Byzantine buildings as in the forms of the vaulting. A few types of
church-plan, however, predominated locally in one or another centre; but
the controlling feature of the style was the dome and the constructive
system with which it was associated. The dome, it is true, had long been
used 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 Asia
Minor older than the oldest Byzantine examples. But the special feature
characterizing the Byzantine dome on pendentives was its almost
exclusive 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 was
the piercing of the lower portion of the dome with windows forming a
circle or crown, and the final development of this feature into a high

+CONSTRUCTION.+ Still another divergence from Roman methods was in the
substitution of brick and stone masonry for concrete. Brick was used for
the mass as well as the facing of walls and piers, and for the vaulting
in many buildings mainly built of stone. Stone was used either alone or
in combination with brick, the latter appearing in bands of four or five
courses at intervals of three or four feet. In later work a regular
alternation of the two materials, course for course, was not uncommon.
In piers intended to support unusually heavy loads the stone was very
carefully cut and fitted, and sometimes tied and clamped with iron.

Vaults were built sometimes of brick, sometimes of cut stone; in a few
cases even of earthenware jars fitting into each other, and laid up in a
continuous contracting spiral from the base to the crown of a dome, as
in San Vitale at Ravenna. Ingenious processes for building vaults
without centrings were made use of--processes inherited from the
drain-builders of ancient Assyria, and still in vogue in Armenia,
Persia, and Asia Minor. The groined vault was common, but always
approximated the form of a dome, by a longitudinal convexity upward in
the intersecting vaults. The aisles of Hagia Sophia[17] display a
remarkable 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 characteristic
feature of Byzantine architecture; and especially the dome on
pendentives. If a hemisphere be cut by five planes, four perpendicular
to its base and bounding a square inscribed therein, and the fifth plane
parallel to the base and tangent to the semicircular intersections made
by the first four, there will remain of the original surface only four
triangular spaces bounded by arcs of circles. These are called
_pendentives_ (Fig. 71 a). When these are built up of masonry, each
course forms a species of arch, by virtue of its convexity. At the crown
of the four arches on which they rest, these courses meet and form a
complete circle, perfectly stable and capable of sustaining any
superstructure that does not by excessive weight disrupt the whole
fabric by overthrowing the four arches which support it. Upon these
pendentives, then, a new dome may be started of any desired curvature,
or even a cylindrical drum to support a still loftier dome, as in the
later churches (Fig. 71 b). This method of covering a square is simpler
than the groined vault, having no sharp edges or intersections; it is at
least as effective architecturally, by reason of its greater height in
the centre; and is equally applicable to successive bays of an oblong,
cruciform, and even columnar building. In the great cisterns at
Constantinople vast areas are covered by rows of small domes supported
on ranges of columns.

The earlier domes were commonly pierced with windows at the base, this
apparent weakening of the vault being compensated for by strongly
buttressing the piers between the windows, as in Hagia Sophia. Here
forty windows form a crown of light at the spring of the dome, producing
an effect almost as striking as that of the simple _oculus_ of the
Pantheon, and celebrated by ancient writers in the most extravagant
terms. In later and smaller churches a high drum was introduced beneath
the dome, in order to secure, by means of longer windows, more light
than could be obtained by merely piercing the diminutive domes.

Buttressing was well understood by the Byzantines, whose plans were
skilfully devised to provide internal abutments, which were often
continued 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 to
traditional forms and processes, and displaying much more ready
contrivance and special adaptation of means to ends, never worked out
this pregnant structural principle to its logical conclusion as did the
Gothic architects of Western Europe a few centuries later.

+DECORATION+. The exteriors of Byzantine buildings (except in some of
the small churches of late date) were generally bare and lacking in
beauty. The interiors, on the contrary, were richly decorated, color
playing a much larger part than carving in the designs. Painting was
resorted to only in the smaller buildings, the more durable and splendid
medium of mosaic being usually preferred. This was, as a rule, confined
to the vaults and to those portions of the wall-surfaces embraced by the
vaults above their springing. The colors were brilliant, the background
being usually of gold, though sometimes of blue or a delicate green.
Biblical scenes, symbolic and allegorical figures and groups of saints
adorned the larger areas, particularly the half-dome of the apse, as in
the basilicas. The smaller vaults, the soffits of arches, borders of
pictures, and other minor surfaces, received a more conventional
decoration of crosses, monograms, and set patterns.

  [Illustration: FIG. 72.--SPANDRIL. HAGIA SOPHIA.]

The walls throughout were sheathed with slabs of rare marble in panels
so disposed that the veining should produce symmetrical figures. The
panels were framed in billet-mouldings, derived perhaps from classic
dentils; the billets or projections on one side the moulding coming
opposite the spaces on the other. This seems to have been a purely
Byzantine feature.

+CARVED DETAILS.+ Internally the different stories were marked by
horizontal bands and cornices of white or inlaid marble richly carved.
The arch-soffits, the archivolts or bands around the arches, and the
spandrils between them were covered with minute and intricate incised
carving. The motives used, though based on the acanthus and anthemion,
were given a wholly new aspect. The relief was low and flat, the leaves
sharp and crowded, and the effect rich and lacelike, rather than
vigorous. It was, however, well adapted to the covering of large areas
where general effect was more important than detail. Even the capitals
were treated in the same spirit. The impost-block was almost universal,
except where its use was rendered unnecessary by giving to the capital
itself the massive pyramidal form required to receive properly the
spring of the arch or vault. In such cases (more frequent in
Constantinople than elsewhere) the surface of the capital was simply
covered 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 vigorous
profiles of classic cornices were only remotely suggested by the
characterless aggregations of mouldings which took their place.


  [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 of
churches and baptisteries, but the plans of these are exceedingly
varied. The first radical departure from the basilica-type seems to have
been the adoption of circular or polygonal plans, such as had usually
served only for tombs and baptisteries. The Baptistery of St. John at
Ravenna (early fifth century) is classed by many authorities as a
Byzantine monument. In the early years of the sixth century the adoption
of this model had become quite general, and with it the development of
domical design began to advance. The church of +St. Sergius+ at
Constantinople (Fig. 74), originally joined to a short basilica
dedicated to St. Bacchus (afterward destroyed by the Turks), as in the
double 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 an
octagonal plan, with an exterior aisle. Semicircular niches--four in St.
Sergius and eight in San Vitale--projecting into the aisle, enlarge
somewhat the area of the central space and give variety to the internal
effect. The origin of this characteristic feature may be traced to the
eight niches of the Pantheon, through such intermediate examples as the
temple of Minerva Medica at Rome. The true pendentive does not appear in
these two churches. Timidly employed up to that time in small
structures, it received a remarkable development in the magnificent
church of +Hagia Sophia+, built by Anthemius of Tralles and Isodorus of
Miletus, under Justinian, 532-538 A.D. In the plan of this marvellous
edifice (Fig. 75) the dome rests upon four mighty arches bounding a
square, into two of which open the half-domes of semicircular apses.
These apses are penetrated and extended each by two smaller niches and a
central arch, and the whole vast nave, measuring over 200 × 100 feet, is
flanked by enormously wide aisles connecting at the front with a
majestic narthex. Huge transverse buttresses, as in the Basilica of
Constantine (with whose structural design this building shows striking
affinities), divide the aisles each into three sections. The plan
suggests that of St. Sergius cut in two, with a lofty dome on
pendentives over a square plan inserted between the halves. Thus was
secured a noble and unobstructed hall of unrivalled proportions and
great beauty, covered by a combination of half-domes increasing in span
and height as they lead up successively to the stupendous central vault,
which rises 180 feet into the air and fitly crowns the whole. The
imposing effect of this low-curved but loftily-poised dome, resting as
it does upon a crown of windows, and so disposed that its summit is
visible from every point of the nave (as may be easily seen from an
examination of the section, Fig. 76), is not surpassed in any interior
ever erected.

  [Illustration: FIG. 77.--INTERIOR OF HAGIA SOPHIA,

The two lateral arches under the dome are filled by clearstory walls
pierced by twelve windows, and resting on arcades in two stories carried
by magnificent columns taken from ancient ruins. These separate the nave
from the side-aisles, which are in two stories forming galleries, and
are vaulted with a remarkable variety of groined vaults. All the masses
are disposed with studied reference to the resistance required by the
many and complex thrusts exerted by the dome and other vaults. That the
earthquakes of one thousand three hundred and fifty years have not
destroyed the church is the best evidence of the sufficiency of these

Not less remarkable than the noble planning and construction of this
church was the treatment of scale and decoration in its interior design.
It was as conspicuously the masterpiece of Byzantine architecture as the
Parthenon was of the classic Greek. With little external beauty, it is
internally one of the most perfectly composed and beautifully decorated
halls of worship ever erected. Instead of the simplicity of the Pantheon
it displays the complexity of an organism of admirably related parts.
The division of the interior height into two stories below the spring of
the four arches, reduces the component parts of the design to moderate
dimensions, so that the scale of the whole is more easily grasped and
its vast size emphasized by the contrast. The walls are incrusted with
precious marbles up to the spring of the vaulting; the capitals,
spandrils, and soffits are richly and minutely carved with incised
ornament, and all the vaults covered with splendid mosaics. Dimmed by
the lapse of centuries and disfigured by the vandalism of the Moslems,
this noble interior, by the harmony of its coloring and its impressive
grandeur, is one of the masterpieces of all time (Fig. 77).

+LATER CHURCHES.+ After the sixth century no monuments were built at all
rivalling in scale the creations of the former period. The later
churches were, with few exceptions, relatively small and trivial.
Neither the plan nor the general aspect of Hagia Sophia seems to have
been imitated in these later works. The crown of dome-windows was
replaced by a cylindrical drum under the dome, which was usually of
insignificant size. The exterior was treated more decoratively than
before, by means of bands and incrustations of colored marble, or
alternations of stone and brick; and internally mosaic continued to be
executed with great skill and of great beauty until the tenth century,
when the art rapidly declined. These later churches, of which a number
were spared by the Turks, are, therefore, generally pleasing and elegant
rather 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 the
Dark Ages, Constantinople influenced Italy through her political and
commercial 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, it
received through several centuries additions not always Byzantine in
character. Yet it was mainly the work of Byzantine builders, who copied
most probably the church of the Apostles at Constantinople, built by
Justinian. The picturesque but wholly unstructural use of columns in the
entrance porches, the upper parts of the façade, the wooden cupolas over
the five domes, and the pointed arches in the narthex, are deviations
from Byzantine traditions dating in part from the later Middle Ages
Nothing could well be conceived more irrational, from a structural point
of view, than the accumulation of columns in the entrance-arches; but
the total effect is so picturesque and so rich in color, that its
architectural defects are easily overlooked. The external veneering of
white and colored marble occurs rarely in the East, but became a
favorite practice in Venice, where it continued in use for five hundred
years. The interior of St. Mark’s, in some respects better preserved
than that of Hagia Sophia, is especially fine in color, though not equal
in scale and grandeur to the latter church. With its five domes it has
less unity of effect than Hagia Sophia, but more of the charm of
picturesqueness, and its less brilliant and simpler lighting enhances
the impressiveness of its more modest dimensions.

In Russia and Greece the Byzantine style has continued to be the
official style of the Greek Church. The Russian monuments are for the
most part of a somewhat fantastic aspect, the Muscovite taste having
introduced many innovations in the form of bulbous domes and other
eccentric details. In Greece there are few large churches, and some of
the most interesting, like the Cathedral at Athens, are almost toy-like
in their diminutiveness. On +Mt. Athos+ (Hagion Oros) is an ancient
monastery which still retains its Byzantine character and traditions. In
Armenia (as at Ani, Etchmiadzin, etc.) are also interesting examples of
late Armeno-Byzantine architecture, showing applications to exterior
carved detail of elaborate interlaced ornament looking like a re-echo of
Celtic MSS. illumination, itself, no doubt, originating in Byzantine
traditions. But the greatest and most prolific offspring of Byzantine
architecture appeared after the fall of Constantinople (1453) in the new
mosque-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.




  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 new
faith of Islam was conquering Western Asia and the Mediterranean lands
with a fiery rapidity, which is one of the marvels of history. The new
architectural styles which grew up in the wake of these conquests,
though differing widely in conception and detail in the several
countries, were yet marked by common characteristics which set them
quite apart from the contemporary Christian styles. The predominance of
decorative over structural considerations, a predilection for minute
surface-ornament, the absence of pictures and sculpture, are found alike
in Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Indian buildings, though in varying
degree. These new styles, however, were almost entirely the handiwork of
artisans belonging to the conquered races, and many traces of Byzantine,
and even after the Crusades, of Norman and Gothic design, are
recognizable in Moslem architecture. But the Orientalism of the
conquerors and their common faith, tinged with the poetry and
philosophic mysticism of the Arab, stamped these works of Copts,
Syrians, and Greeks with an unmistakable character of their own, neither
Byzantine nor Early Christian.

+ARABIC ARCHITECTURE.+ In the building of mosques and tombs, especially
at Cairo, this architecture reached a remarkable degree of decorative
elegance, and sometimes of dignity. It developed slowly, the Arabs not
being at the outset a race of builders. The early monuments of Syria and
Egypt were insignificant, and the sacred _Kaabah_ at Mecca and the
mosque at Medina hardly deserve to be called architectural monuments at
all. The most important early works were the mosques of +’Amrou+ at
Cairo (642, rebuilt and enlarged early in the eighth century), of +El
Aksah+ on the Temple platform at Jerusalem (691, by Abd-el-Melek), and
of +El Walid+ at Damascus (705-732, recently seriously injured by fire).
All these were simple one-storied structures, with flat wooden roofs
carried on parallel ranges of columns supporting pointed arches, the
arcades either closing one side of a square court, or surrounding it
completely. The long perspectives of the aisles and the minute
decoration of the archivolts and ceilings alone gave them architectural
character. The beautiful +Dome of the Rock+ (Kubbet-es-Sakhrah,
miscalled the Mosque of Omar) on the Temple platform at Jerusalem is
either a remodelled Constantinian edifice, or in large part composed of
the materials of one (see p. 116).

  a, _Mihrâb_, b, _Mimber_.]

The splendid mosque of +Ibn Touloun+ (876-885) was built on the same
plan as that of Amrou, but with cantoned piers instead of columns and a
corresponding increase in variety of perspective and richness of effect.
With the incoming of the Fatimite dynasty, however, and the foundation
of the present city of Cairo (971), vaulting began to take the place of
wooden ceilings, and then appeared the germs of those extraordinary
applications of geometry to decorative design which were henceforth to
be the most striking feature of Arabic ornament. Under the Ayûb dynasty,
which began with Salâh-ed-din (Saladin) in 1172, these elements, of
which the great +Barkouk+ mosque (1149) is the most imposing early
example, developed slowly in the domical tombs of the _Karafah_ at
Cairo, and prepared the way for the increasing richness and splendor of
a 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 of
construction, and elegance of decoration. Together they constitute an
epoch in Arabic architecture, which coincides closely with the
development of Gothic vaulted architecture in Europe, both in the stages
and 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 central
court of ablutions. The tomb of the founder, residences for the _imams_,
or priests, schools (_madrassah_), and hospitals (_mâristân_) rival in
importance the prayer-chamber. This last is, however, the real focus of
interest and splendor; in some cases, as in Sultan Hassan, it is a
simple barrel-vaulted chamber open to the court; in others an oblong
arcaded hall with many small domes; or again, a square hall covered with
a high pointed dome on pendentives of intricately beautiful
stalactite-work (see below). The ceremonial requirements of the mosque
were simple. The-court must have its fountain of ablutions in the
centre. The prayer-hall, or mosque proper, must have its _mihrâb_, or
niche, to indicate the _kibleh_, the direction of Mecca; and its
_mimber_, or high, slender pulpit for the reading of the Kôran. These
were the only absolutely indispensable features of a mosque, but as
early as the ninth century the _minaret_ was added, from which the call
to prayer could be sounded over the city by the _mueddin_. Not until the
Ayubite period, however, did it begin to assume those forms of varied
and picturesque grace which lend to Cairo so much of its architectural

+ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS.+ While Arabic architecture, in Syria and Egypt
alike, possesses more decorative than constructive originality, the
beautiful forms of its domes, pendentives, and minarets, the simple
majesty of the great pointed barrel-vaults of the Hassan mosque and
similar monuments, and the graceful lines of the universally used
pointed arch, prove the Coptic builders and their later Arabic
successors to have been architects of great ability. The Arabic domes,
as seen both in the mosques and in the remarkable group of tombs
commonly called “tombs of the Khalîfs,” are peculiar not only in their
pointed outlines and their rich external decoration of interlaced
geometric motives, but still more in the external and internal treatment
of the pendentives, exquisitely decorated with stalactite ornament. This
ornament, derived, no doubt, from a combination of minute corbels with
rows of small niches, and presumably of Persian origin, was finally
developed into a system of extraordinary intricacy, applicable alike to
the topping of a niche or panel, as in the great doorways of the
mosques, and to the bracketing out of minaret galleries (Figs. 81, 82).
Its applications show a bewildering variety of forms and an
extraordinary aptitude for intricate geometrical design.

  [Illustration: FIG. 81.--MOSQUE OF KAÎD BEY, CAIRO]

+DECORATION.+ Geometry, indeed, vied with the love of color in its hold
on the Arabic taste. Ceiling-beams were carved into highly ornamental
forms before receiving their rich color-decoration of red, green, blue,
and gold. The doors and the _mimber_ were framed in geometric patterns
with slender intersecting bars forming complicated star-panelling. The
voussoirs of arches were cut into curious interlocking forms; doorways
and niches were covered with stalactite corbelling, and pavements and
wall-incrustations, whether of marble or tiling, combined brilliancy and
harmony of color with the perplexing beauty of interlaced
star-and-polygon patterns of marvellous intricacy. Stained glass added
to the interior color-effect, the patterns being perforated in plaster,
with a bit of colored glass set into each perforation--a device not very
durable, perhaps, but singularly decorative.

+OTHER WORKS.+ Few of the mediæval Arabic palaces have remained to our
time. That they were adorned with a splendid prodigality appears from
contemporary 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 almost
unbroken wall. The fountain in the chief court, the _diwân_ (a great,
vaulted reception-chamber opening upon the court and raised slightly
above it), the _dâr_, or men’s court, rigidly separated from the
_hareem_ for the women, were and are universal elements in these great
dwellings. The more common city-houses show as their most striking
features successively corbelled-out stories and broad wooden eaves, with
lattice-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 same
beauty in decoration and color, the same general forms and details which
characterize the larger works, but it is impossible here to
particularize further with regard to them.

+MORESQUE.+ Elsewhere in Northern Africa the Arabs produced no such
important works as in Egypt, nor is the architecture of the other Moslem
states so well preserved or so well known. Constructive design would
appear to have been there even more completely subordinated to
decoration; tiling and plaster-relief took the place of more
architectural elements and materials, while horseshoe and cusped arches
were substituted for the simpler and more architectural pointed arch
(Fig. 82). The courts of palaces and public buildings were surrounded by
ranges of horseshoe arches on slender columns; these last being provided
with capitals of a form rarely seen in Cairo. Towers were built of much
more massive design than the Cairo minarets, usually with a square,
almost solid shaft and a more open lantern at the top, sometimes in
several 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 Arabic
architecture is found not in Africa but in Spain, which was overrun in
710-713 by the Moors, who established there the independent Khalifate of
Cordova. This was later split up into petty kingdoms, of which the most
important were Granada, Seville, Toledo, and Valencia. This
dismemberment of the Khalifate led in time to the loss of these cities,
which were one by one recovered by the Christians during the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries; the capture of Granada, in 1492, finally
destroying the Moorish rule.

The dominion of the Moors in Spain was marked by a high civilization and
an extraordinary activity in building. The style they introduced became
the national style in the regions they occupied, and even after the
expulsion of the Moors was used in buildings erected by Christians and
by Jews. The “House of Pilate,” at Seville, is an example of this, and
the general use of the Moorish style in Jewish synagogues, down to our
own day, both in Spain and abroad, originated in the erection of
synagogues for the Jews in Spain by Moorish artisans and in Moorish
style, both during and after the period of Moslem supremacy.

Besides innumerable mosques, castles, bridges, aqueducts, gates, and
fountains, the Moors erected several monuments of remarkable size and
magnificence. Specially worthy of notice among them are the Great Mosque
at Cordova, the Alcazars of Seville and Malaga, the Giralda at Seville,
and the Alhambra at Granada.


The +Mosque at Cordova+, begun in 786 by ‘Abd-er-Rahman, enlarged in
876, 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 wooden
ceiling rests upon seventeen rows of thirty to thirty-three columns
each, and two intersecting rows of piers, all carrying horseshoe arches
in two superposed ranges, a large portion of those about the sanctuary
being cusped, the others plain, except for the alternation of color in
the voussoirs. The _mihrâb_ niche is particularly rich in its minutely
carved incrustations and mosaics, and a dome ingeniously formed by
intersecting ribs covers the sanctuary before it. This form of dome
occurs frequently in Spain.

The +Alcazars+ at Seville and Malaga, which have been restored in recent
years, present to-day a fairly correct counterpart of the castle-palaces
of the thirteenth century. They display the same general conceptions and
decorative features as the Alhambra, which they antedate. The +Giralda+
at Seville is, on the other hand, unique. It is a lofty rectangular
tower, its exterior panelled and covered with a species of
quarry-ornament in relief; it terminated originally in two or three
diminishing stages or lanterns, which were replaced in the sixteenth
century by the present Renaissance belfry.

The +Alhambra+ is universally considered to be the masterpiece of
Hispano-Moresque art, partly no doubt on account of its excellent
preservation. It is most interesting as an example of the splendid
citadel-palaces built by the Moorish conquerors, as well as for its
gorgeous color-decoration of minute quarry-ornament stamped or moulded
in the wet plaster wherever the walls are not wainscoted with tiles. It
was begun in 1248 by Mohammed-ben-Al-Hamar, enlarged in 1279 by his
successor, 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 three
great square chambers and many of minor importance. Light arcades
surround the Court of the Lions with its fountain, and adorn the ends of
the other chief court; and the stalactite pendentive, rare in Moorish
work, appears in the “Hall of Ambassadors” and some other parts of the
edifice. But its chief glory is its ornamentation, less durable, less
architectural than that of the Cairene buildings, but making up for this
in delicacy and richness. Minute vine-patterns and Arabic inscriptions
are interwoven with waving intersecting lines, forming a net-like
framework, to all of which deep red, blue, black, and gold give an
indescribable 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 their
architecture there profoundly influenced that of the Christians who
recovered Sicily in 1090, and copied the style of the conquered Moslems,
there is too little of the original Moorish architecture remaining to
claim mention here.

+SASSANIAN.+ The Sassanian empire, which during the four centuries from
226 to 641 A.D. had withstood Rome and extended its own sway almost to
India, left on Persian soil a number of interesting monuments which
powerfully influenced the Mohammedan style of that region. The Sassanian
buildings appear to have been principally palaces, and were all vaulted.
With their long barrel-vaulted halls, combined with square domical
chambers, as in Firouz-Abad and Serbistan, they exhibit reminiscences of
antique Assyrian tradition. The ancient Persian use of columns was
almost entirely abandoned, but doors and windows were still treated with
the banded frames and cavetto-cornices of Persepolis and Susa. The
Sassanians employed with these exterior details others derived perhaps
from Syrian and Byzantine sources. A sort of engaged buttress-column and
blind arches repeated somewhat aimlessly over a whole façade were
characteristic features; still more so the huge arches, elliptical or
horse-shoe shaped, which formed the entrances to these palaces, as in
the Tâk-Kesra at Ctesiphon. Ornamental details of a debased Roman type
appear, mingled with more gracefully flowing leaf-patterns resembling
early Christian Syrian carving. The last great monument of this style
was the palace at Mashita in Moab, begun by the last Chosroes (627), but
never 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 have
strongly influenced Persian architecture after the Arab conquest in 641.
For although the architecture of the first six centuries after that date
suffered almost absolute extinction at the hands of the Mongols under
Genghis Khan, the traces of Sassanian influence are still perceptible in
the monuments that rose in the following centuries. The dome and vault,
the colossal portal-arches, and the use of brick and tile are evidences
of this influence, bearing no resemblance to Byzantine or Arabic types.
The Moslem monuments of Persia, so far as their dates can be
ascertained, are all subsequent to 1200, unless tradition is correct in
assigning to the time of Haroun Ar Rashid (786) certain curious tombs
near Bagdad with singular pyramidal roofs. The ruined mosque at Tabriz
(1300), and the beautiful domical +Tomb+ at +Sultaniyeh+ (1313) belong
to the Mogul period. They show all the essential features of the later
architecture of the Sufis (1499-1694), during whose dynastic period were
built the still more splendid and more celebrated +Meidan+ or square,
the great mosque of Mesjid Shah, the Bazaar and the College or Medress
of Hussein Shah, all at Ispahan, and many other important monuments at
Ispahan, Bagdad, and Teheran. In these structures four elements
especially claim attention; the pointed bulbous dome, the round minaret,
the portal-arch rising above the adjacent portions of the building, and
the use of enamelled terra-cotta tiles as an external decoration. To
these may be added the ogee arch (_ogee_ = double-reversed curve), as an
occasional feature. The vaulting is most ingenious and beautiful, and
its forms, whether executed in brick or in plaster, are sufficiently
varied without resort to the perplexing complications of stalactite
work. In Persian decoration the most striking qualities are the harmony
of blended color, broken up into minute patterns and more subdued in
tone than in the Hispano-Moresque, and the preference of flowing lines
and floral ornament to the geometric puzzles of Arabic design. Persian
architecture influenced both Turkish and Indo-Moslem art, which owe to
it a large part of their decorative charm.

+INDO-MOSLEM.+ The Mohammedan architecture of India is so distinct from
all the native Indian styles and so related to the art of Persia, if not
to that of the Arabs, that it properly belongs here rather than in the
later chapter on Oriental styles. It was in the eleventh century that
the states of India first began to fall before Mohammedan invaders, but
not until the end of the fifteenth century that the great Mogul dynasty
was established in Hindostan as the dominant power. During the
intervening period local schools of Moslem architecture were developing
in the Pathan country of Northern India (1193-1554), in Jaunpore and
Gujerat (1396-1572), in Scinde, where Persian influence predominated; in
Kalburgah and Bidar (1347-1426). These schools differed considerably in
spirit and detail; but under the Moguls (1494-1706) there was less
diversity, and to this dynasty we owe many of the most magnificent
mosques and tombs of India, among which those of Bijapur retain a marked
and distinct style of their own.

  [Illustration: FIG. 85.--TOMB OF MAHMUD, BIJAPUR. SECTION.]

The Mohammedan monuments of India are characterized by a grandeur and
amplitude of disposition, a symmetry and monumental dignity of design
which distinguishes them widely from the picturesque but sometimes
trivial buildings of the Arabs and Moors. Less dependent on color than
the Moorish or Persian structures, they are usually built of marble, or
of marble and sandstone, giving them an air of permanence and solidity
wanting in other Moslem styles except the Turkish. The dome, the round
minaret, the pointed arch, and the colossal portal-arch, are universal,
as in Persia, and enamelled tiles are also used, but chiefly for
interior decoration. Externally the more dignified if less resplendent
decoration of surface carving is used, in patterns of minute and
graceful scrolls, leaf forms, and Arabic inscriptions covering large
surfaces. The Arabic stalactite pendentive star-panelling and
geometrical interlace are rarely if ever seen. The dome on the square
plan is almost universal, but neither the Byzantine nor the Arabic
pendentive is used, striking and original combinations of vaulting
surfaces, of corner squinches, of corbelling and ribs, being used in its
place. Many of the Pathan domes and arches at Delhi, Ajmir, Ahmedabad,
Shepree, etc., are built in horizontal or corbelled courses supported on
slender columns, and exert no thrust at all, so that they are vaults
only in form, like the dome of the Tholos of Atreus (Fig. 24). The most
imposing and original of all Indian domes are those of the +Jumma
Musjid+ and of the +Tomb of Mahmud+, both at Bijapur, the latter 137
feet in span (Fig. 85). These two monuments, indeed, with the Mogul Taj
Mahal at Agra, not only deserve the first rank among Indian monuments,
but in constructive science combined with noble proportions and
exquisite beauty are hardly, if at all, surpassed by the greatest
triumphs of western art. The Indo-Moslem architects, moreover,
especially those of the Mogul period, excelled in providing artistic
settings for their monuments. Immense platforms, superb courts, imposing
flights of steps, noble gateways, minarets to mark the angles of
enclosures, and landscape gardening of a high order, enhance greatly the
effect 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 +Jumma
Musjid+ at Delhi, one of the largest and noblest of Indian mosques, both
built by Shah Jehan about 1650; his immense but now ruined palace in the
same city; and finally the unrivalled mausoleum, the +Taj Mahal+ at
Agra, built during his lifetime as a festal hall, to serve as his tomb
after death (Fig. 86). This last is the pearl of Indian architecture,
though it is said to have been designed by a European architect, French
or Italian. It is a white marble structure 185 feet square, centred in a
court 313 feet square, forming a platform 18 feet high. The corners of
this court are marked by elegant minarets, and the whole is dominated by
the exquisite white marble dome, 58 feet in diameter, 80 feet high,
internally rising over four domical corner chapels, and covered
externally by a lofty marble bulb-dome on a high drum. The rich
materials, beautiful execution, and exquisite inlaying of this mausoleum
are worthy of its majestic design. On the whole, in the architecture of
the Moguls in Bijapur, Agra, and Delhi, Mohammedan architecture reaches
its highest expression in the totality and balance of its qualities of
construction, composition, detail, ornament, and settings. The later
monuments show the decline of the style, and though often rich and
imposing, are lacking in refinement and originality.

  [Illustration: FIG. 86.--TAJ MAHAL, AGRA.]

+TURKISH.+ The Ottoman Turks, who began their conquering career under
Osman I. in Bithynia in 1299, had for a century been occupying the
fairest portions of the Byzantine empire when, in 1453, they became
masters of Constantinople. Hagia Sophia was at once occupied as their
chief mosque, and such of the other churches as were spared, were
divided between the victors and the vanquished. The conqueror, Mehmet
II., at the same time set about the building of a new mosque, entrusting
the 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 controlling
model of Turkish mosque design, so far, at least, as general plan and
constructive principles are concerned. Thus the conquering Turks,
educated by a century of study and imitation of Byzantine models in
Brusa, Nicomedia, Smyrna, Adrianople, and other cities earlier
subjugated, did what the Byzantines had, during nine centuries, failed
to do. The noble idea first expressed by Anthemius and Isidorus in the
Church of Hagia Sophia had remained undeveloped, unimitated by later
architects. It was the Turk who first seized upon its possibilities, and
developed therefrom a style of architecture less sumptuous in color and
decoration than the sister styles of Persia, Cairo, or India, but of
great nobility and dignity, notwithstanding. The low-curved dome with
its crown of buttressed windows, the plain spherical pendentives, the
great apses at each end, covered by half-domes and penetrated by smaller
niches, the four massive piers with their projecting buttress-masses
extending across the broad lateral aisles, the narthex and the arcaded
atrium in front--all these appear in the great Turkish mosques of
Constantinople. In the Conqueror’s mosque, however, two apses with
half-domes replace the lateral galleries and clearstory of Hagia Sophia,
making a perfectly quadripartite plan, destitute of the emphasis and
significance of a plan drawn on one main axis (Fig. 87). The same
treatment occurs in the mosque of Ahmed I., the +Ahmediyeh+ (1608; Fig.
88), and the +Yeni Djami+ (“New Mosque”) at the port (1665). In the
mosque of +Osman III.+ (1755) the reverse change was effected; the
mosque has no great apses, four clearstories filling the four arches
under the dome, as also in several of the later and smaller mosques. The
greatest and noblest of the Turkish mosques, the +Suleimaniyeh+, built
in 1553 by Soliman the Magnificent, returned to the Byzantine
combination of two half-domes with two clearstories (Fig. 89).

  (The dimensions figured in metres.)]

In none of these monuments is there the internal magnificence of marble
and mosaic of the Byzantine churches. These are only in a measure
replaced by Persian tile-wainscoting and stained-glass windows of the
Arabic type. The division into stories and the treatment of scale are
less well managed than in the Hagia Sophia; on the other hand, the
proportion of height to width is generally admirable. The exterior
treatment is unique and effective, far superior to the Byzantine
practice. The massing of domes and half-domes and roofs is more
artistically arranged; and while there is little of that minute carved
detail found in Egypt and India, the composition of the lateral arcades,
the simple but impressive domical peristyles of the courts, and the
graceful forms of the pointed arches, with alternating voussoirs of
white and black marble, are artistic in a high degree. The minarets are,
however, inferior to those of Indian, Persian, and Arabic art, though
graceful 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 size
and great beauty of proportion and decoration. The +Tomb of Roxelana+
(Khourrem), the favorite wife of Soliman the Magnificent (1553), is the
most beautiful of all, and perhaps the most perfect gem of Turkish
architecture, with its elegant arcade surrounding the octagonal domical
mausoleum-chamber. The +monumental fountains+ of Constantinople also
deserve mention. Of these, the one erected by Ahmet III. (1710), near
Hagia Sophia, is the most beautiful. They usually consist of a
rectangular marble reservoir with pagoda-like roof and broad eaves, the
four faces of the fountain adorned each with a niche and basin, and
covered with relief carving and gilded inscriptions.

  [Illustration: FIG. 89.--INTERIOR OF SULEIMANIYEH,

+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 but
graceful two-storied edifice, consisting of four vaulted chambers in the
angles of a fine cruciform hall, with domes treated like those of
Bijapur on a small scale; the tiling and the veranda in front are
particularly elegant; the design suggests Persian handiwork. The later
palaces, designed by Armenians, are picturesque white marble and stucco
buildings on the water’s edge; they possess richly decorated halls, but
the details are of a debased European rococo style, quite unworthy of an
Oriental 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




  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 the
Byzantine Empire. The so-called Dark Ages which followed this event
constituted the formative period of the new Western civilization, during
which the Celtic and Germanic races were being Christianized and
subjected to the authority and to the educative influences of the
Church. Under these conditions a new architecture was developed, founded
upon the traditions of the early Christian builders, modified in
different regions by Roman or Byzantine influences. For Rome recovered
early her antique prestige, and Roman monuments covering the soil of
Southern Europe, were a constant object lesson to the builders of that
time. To this new architecture of the West, which in the tenth and
eleventh centuries first began to achieve worthy and monumental results,
the generic name of +Romanesque+ has been commonly given, in spite of
the great diversity of its manifestations in different countries.

+CHARACTER OF THE ARCHITECTURE.+ Romanesque architecture was
pre-eminently ecclesiastical. Civilization and culture emanated from the
Church, and her requirements and discipline gave form to the builder’s
art. But the basilican style, which had so well served her purposes in
the earlier centuries and on classic soil, was ill-suited to the new
conditions. Corinthian columns, marble incrustations, and splendid
mosaics were not to be had for the asking in the forests of Gaul or
Germany, nor could the Lombards and Ostrogoths in Italy or their
descendants reproduce them. The basilican style was complete in itself,
possessing no seeds of further growth. The priests and monks of Italy
and Western Europe sought to rear with unskilled labor churches of stone
in which the general dispositions of the basilica should reappear in
simpler, more massive dress, and, as far as possible, in a fireproof
construction with vaults of stone. This problem underlies all the varied
phases of Romanesque architecture; its final solution was not, however,
reached until the Gothic period, to which the Romanesque forms the
transition and stepping-stone.

+MEDIÆVAL ITALY.+ Italy in the Dark Ages stood midway between the
civilization of the Eastern Empire and the semi-barbarism of the West.
Rome, Ravenna, and Venice early became centres of culture and maintained
continuous commercial relations with the East. Architecture did not lack
either the inspiration or the means for advancing on new lines. But its
advance was by no means the same everywhere. The unifying influence of
the church was counterbalanced by the provincialism and the local
diversities of the various Italian states, resulting in a wide variety
of styles. These, however, may be broadly grouped in four divisions: the
+Lombard+, the +Tuscan-Romanesque+, the +Italo-Byzantine+, and the
unchanged +Basilican+ or Early Christian, which last, as was shown in
Chapter X., continued to be practised in Rome throughout the Middle

  [Illustration: FIG. 90.--INTERIOR OF SAN AMBROGIO, MILAN.]


+LOMBARD STYLE.+ Owing to the general rebuilding of ancient churches
under the more settled social conditions of the eleventh and twelfth
centuries, little remains to us of the architecture of the three
preceding centuries in Italy, except the Roman basilicas and a few
baptisteries and circular churches, already mentioned in Chapter X. The
so-called Lombard monuments belong mainly to the eleventh and twelfth
centuries. They are found not only in Lombardy, but also in Venetia and
the Æmilia. Milan, Pavia, Piacenza, Bologna, and Verona were important
centres of development of this style. The churches were nearly all
vaulted, but the plans were basilican, with such variations as resulted
from efforts to meet the exigencies of vaulted construction. The nave
was narrowed, and instead of rows of columns carrying a thin clearstory
wall, 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 clearstory
was sometimes suppressed, the side aisle carried up in two stories
forming galleries, and rows of chapels added at the sides, their
partitions forming buttresses. The piers were often of clustered
section, the better to receive the various arches and ribs they
supported. The vaulting was in square divisions or _vaulting-bays_, each
embracing two pier-arches which met upon an intermediate pier lighter
than the others. Thus the whole aspect of the interior was
revolutionized. The lightness, spaciousness, and decorative elegance of
the basilicas were here exchanged for a sombre and massive dignity
severe in its plainness. The Choir was sometimes raised a few feet above
the nave, to allow of a crypt and _confessio_ beneath, reached by broad
flights 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 on
the simple exteriors of the Lombard churches were usually effective and
well composed. Slender columnettes or long pilasters, blind arcades, and
open arcaded galleries under the eaves gave light and shade to these
exteriors. The façades were mere frontispieces with a single broad
gable, the three aisles of the church being merely suggested by flat or
round pilasters dividing the front (Fig 91). Gabled porches, with
columns resting on the backs of lions or monsters, adorned the doorways.
The carving was often of a fierce and grotesque character. Detached
bell-towers or _campaniles_ adjoined many of these churches; square and
simple in mass, but with well-distributed openings and well-proportioned
belfries (Piacenza S. Zeno at Verona, etc.).[18]

    [Footnote 18: See Appendix B.]

+THE TUSCAN ROMANESQUE.+ The churches of this style (sometimes called
the +Pisan+) were less vigorous but more elegant and artistic in design
than the Lombard. They were basilicas in plan, with timber ceilings and
high clearstories on columnar arcades. In their decoration, both
internal and external, they betray the influence of Byzantine
traditions, especially in the use of white and colored marble in
alternating bands or in panelled veneering. Still more striking is the
external decorative application of wall-arcades, sometimes occupying the
whole height of the wall and carried on flat pilasters, sometimes in
superposed stages of small arches on slender columns standing free of
the wall. In general the decorative element prevailed over the
constructive 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). It
is 312 feet long and 118 wide, with long transepts and an elliptical
dome of later date over the _crossing_ (the intersection of nave and
transepts). Its richly arcaded front and banded flanks strikingly
exemplify the illogical and unconstructive but highly decorative methods
of the Tuscan Romanesque builders. The circular +Baptistery+ (1153),
with its lofty domical central hall surrounded by an aisle, an imposing
development of the type established by Constantine (p. 111), and the
famous +Leaning Tower+ (1174), both designed with external arcading,
combine with the Duomo to form the most remarkable group of
ecclesiastical buildings in Italy, if not in Europe (Fig. 92).

  [Illustration: FIG. 92.--BAPTISTERY, CATHEDRAL,

The same style appears in more flamboyant shape in some of the churches
of Lucca. The cathedral +S. Martino+ (1060; façade, 1204; nave altered
in fourteenth century) is the finest and largest of these; +S. Michele+
(façade, 1288) and S. Frediano (twelfth century) have the most
elaborately decorated façades. The same principles of design appear in
the cathedral and several other churches in Pistoia and Prato; but these
belong, 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 a
beautiful example of a modification of the Pisan style. It is in plan a
basilica with two piers interrupting the colonnade on each side of the
nave and supporting powerful transverse arches. The interior is
embellished with bands and patterns in black and white, and the woodwork
of the open-timber roof is elegantly decorated with fine patterns in
red, green, blue, and gold--a treatment common in early mediæval
churches, as at Messina, Orvieto, etc. The exterior is adorned with
wall-arches of classic design and with panelled veneering in white and
dark marble, instead of the horizontal bands of the Pisan churches. This
system of external decoration, a blending of Pisan and Italo-Byzantine
methods, became the established practice in Florence, lasting through
the whole Gothic period. The +Baptistery+ of Florence, originally the
cathedral, 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 of
excellent design, is attributed by Vasari to Arnolfo di Cambio, but is
by many considered to be much older, although restored by that architect
in 1294.

Suggestions of the Pisan arcade system are found in widely scattered
examples in the east and south of Italy, mingled with features of
Lombard and Byzantine design. In Apulia, as at Bari, Caserta Vecchia
(1100), Molfetta (1192), and in Sicily, the Byzantine influence is
conspicuous in the use of domes and in many of the decorative details.
Particularly is this the case at Palermo and Monreale, where the
churches erected after the Norman conquest--some of them domical, some
basilican--show a strange but picturesque and beautiful mixture of
Romanesque, Byzantine, and Arabic forms. The +Cathedral+ of +Monreale+
and the churches of the +Eremiti+ and +La Martorana+ at Palermo are the
most important.

The +Italo-Byzantine+ style has already found mention in the latter part
of Chapter XI. Venice and Ravenna were its chief centres; while the
influence, both of the parent style and of its Italian offshoot was, as
we have just shown, very widespread.

+WESTERN ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE.+ In Western Europe the unrest and
lawlessness which attended the unsettled relations of society under the
feudal system long retarded the establishment of that social order
without which architectural progress is impossible. With the eleventh
century there began, however, a great activity in building, principally
among the monasteries, which represented all that there was of culture
and stability amid the prevailing disorder. Undisturbed by war, the only
abodes of peaceful labor, learning, and piety, they had become rich and
powerful, both in men and land. Probably the more or less general
apprehension of the supposed impending end of the world in the year 1000
contributed to this result by driving unquiet consciences to seek refuge
in the monasteries, or to endow them richly.

The monastic builders, with little technical training, but with plenty
of willing hands, sought out new architectural paths to meet their
special needs. Remote from classic and Byzantine models, and mainly
dependent on their own resources, they often failed to realize the
intended results. But skill came with experience, and with advancing
civilization and a surer mastery of construction came a finer taste and
greater elegance of design. Meanwhile military architecture developed a
new science of building, and covered Europe with imposing castles,
admirably constructed and often artistic in design as far as military
exigencies would permit.

+CHARACTER OF THE STYLE.+ The Romanesque architecture of the eleventh
and twelfth centuries in Western Europe (sometimes called the
+Round-Arched Gothic+) was thus predominantly though not exclusively
monastic. This gave it a certain unity of character in spite of national
and local variations. The problem which the wealthy orders set
themselves was, like that of the Lombard church-builders in Italy, to
adapt the basilica plan to the exigencies of vaulted construction.
Massive walls, round arches stepped or recessed to lighten their
appearance, heavy mouldings richly carved, clustered piers and
jamb-shafts, capitals either of the _cushion_ type or imitated from the
Corinthian, and strong and effective carving--all these are features
alike of French, German, English, and Spanish Romanesque architecture.

  [Illustration: FIG. 94.--PLAN OF ST. FRONT.]

+THE FRENCH ROMANESQUE.+ Though monasticism produced remarkable results
in France, architecture there did not wholly depend upon the
monasteries. Southern Gaul (Provence) was full of classic remains and
classic traditions while at the same time it maintained close trade
relations with Venice and the East.[19] The church of +St. Front+ at
Perigueux, built in 1120, reproduced the plan of St. Mark’s with
singular fidelity, but without its rich decoration, and with pointed
instead of round arches (Figs. 94, 95). The domical cathedral of
+Cahors+ (1050-1100), an obvious imitation of S. Irene at
Constantinople, and the later and more Gothic Cathedral of +Angoulême+
display a notable advance in architectural skill outside of the
monasteries. Among the abbeys, +Fontevrault+ (1101-1119) closely
resembles Angoulême, but surpasses it in the elegance of its choir and
chapels. In these and a number of other domical churches of the same
Franco-Byzantine type in Aquitania, the substitution of the Latin cross
in the plan for the Greek cross used in St. Front, evinces the Gallic
tendency to work out to their logical end new ideas or new applications
of old ones. These striking variations on Byzantine themes might have
developed into an independent local style but for the overwhelming tide
of 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 models
strongly influenced the details, if not the plans, of an interesting
series of churches remarkable especially for their porches rich with
figure sculpture and for their elaborately carved details. The classic
archivolt, the Corinthian capital, the Roman forms of enriched
mouldings, are evident at a glance in the porches of Notre Dame des Doms
at Avignon, of the church of St. Gilles, and of St. Trophime at Arles.



+DEVELOPMENT OF VAULTING.+ It was in Central France, and mainly along
the Loire, that the systematic development of vaulted church
architecture began. Naves covered with barrel-vaults appear in a number
of large churches built during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, with
apsidal and transeptal chapels and aisles carried around the apse, as in
St. Etienne, Nevers, +Notre Dame du Port+ at Clermont-Ferrand (Fig. 96),
and +St. Paul+ at Issoire. The thrust of these ponderous vaults was
clumsily resisted by half-barrel vaults over the side-aisles,
transmitting the strain to massive side-walls (Fig. 97), or by high
side-aisles with transverse barrel or groined vaults over each bay. In
either case the clearstory was suppressed--a fact which mattered little
in the sunny southern provinces. In the more cloudy North, in Normandy,
Picardy, and the Royal Domain, the nave-vault was raised higher to admit
of clearstory windows, and its section was in some cases made like a
pointed arch, to diminish its thrust, as at +Autun+. But these
eleventh-century vaults nearly all fell in, and had to be reconstructed
on 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 of
the finest and most interesting French edifices of the twelfth century,
a groined vault replaced the barrel-vault, though the oblong plan of the
vaulting-bays, due to the nave being wider than the pier-arches, led to
somewhat awkward twisted surfaces in the vaulting. But even here the
vaults had insufficient lateral buttressing, and began to crack and
settle; so that in the great ante-chapel, built thirty years later, the
side-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 was
not till the second half of that century, however (1150-1200), that the
flying buttress was combined with such vaults, so as to permit of high
clearstories for the better lighting of the nave; and the problem of
satisfactorily vaulting an oblong space with a groined vault was not
solved until the following century.

+ONE-AISLED CHURCHES.+ In the Franco-Byzantine churches already
described (p. 164) this difficulty of the oblong vaulting-bay did not
occur, owing to the absence of side-aisles and pier-arches. Following
this conception of church-planning, a number of interesting parish
churches and a few cathedrals were built in various parts of France in
which side-recesses or chapels took the place of side-aisles. The
partitions separating them served as abutments for the groined or
barrel-vaults of the nave. The cathedrals of +Autun+ (1150) and
+Langres+ (1160), and in the fourteenth century that of Alby, employed
this arrangement, common in many earlier Provençal churches which have

  _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 activity
does not appear to have begun until the beginning of the Gothic period
in the middle of the twelfth century. But in Normandy, and especially at
Caen and Mont St. Michel, there were produced, between 1046 and 1120,
some remarkable churches, in which a high clearstory was secured in
conjunction with a vaulted nave, by the use of “six-part” vaulting (Fig.
98). This was an awkward expedient, by which a square vaulting-bay was
divided into six parts by the groins and by a middle transverse rib,
necessitating two narrow skew vaults meeting at the centre. This
unsatisfactory device was retained for over a century, and was common in
early Gothic churches both in France and Great Britain. It made it
possible to resist the thrust by high side-aisles, and yet to open
windows 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 most
magnificent churches of their time, both in size and in the excellence
and ingenuity of their construction. The great abbey church of +Mont St.
Michel+ (much altered in later times) should also be mentioned here. At
the same time these and other Norman churches showed a great advance in
their internal composition. A well-developed triforium or subordinate
gallery was introduced between the pier-arches and clearstory, and all
the structural membering of the edifice was better proportioned and more
logically expressed than in most contemporary work.

+ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS.+ The details of French Romanesque architecture
varied considerably in the several provinces, according as classic,
Byzantine, or local influences prevailed. Except in a few of the
Aquitanian churches, the round arch was universal. The walls were heavy
and built of rubble between facings of stones of moderate size dressed
with the axe. Windows and doors were widely splayed to diminish the
obstruction of the massive walls, and were treated with jamb-shafts and
recessed arches. These were usually formed with large cylindrical
mouldings, richly carved with leaf ornaments, zigzags, billets, and
grotesques. Figure-sculpture was more generally used in the South than
in the North. The interior piers were sometimes cylindrical, but more
often clustered, and where square bays of four-part or six-part vaulting
were employed, the piers were alternately lighter and heavier. Each
shaft had its independent capital either of the block type or of a form
resembling somewhat that of the Corinthian order. During the eleventh
century it became customary to carry up to the main vaulting one or more
shafts of the compound pier to support the vaulting ribs. Thus the
division of the nave into _bays_ was accentuated, while at the same time
the horizontal three-fold division of the height by a well-defined
triforium between the pier-arches and clearstory began to be likewise

+VAULTING.+ The vaulting was also divided into bays by transverse ribs,
and where it was groined the groins themselves began in the twelfth
century to be marked by groin-ribs. These were constructed independently
of the vaulting, and the four or six compartments of each vaulting-bay
were then built in, the ribs serving, in part at least, to support the
centrings for this purpose. This far-reaching principle, already applied
by the Romans in their concrete vaults (see p. 84), appears as a
re-discovery, or rather an independent invention, of the builders of
Normandy at the close of the eleventh century. The flying buttress was a
later invention; in the round-arched buildings of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries the buttressing was mainly internal, and was
incomplete and timid in its arrangement.

+EXTERIORS.+ The exteriors were on this account plain and flat. The
windows were small, the mouldings simple, and towers were rarely
combined with the body of the church until after the beginning of the
twelfth century. Then they appeared as mere belfries of moderate height,
with pyramidal roofs and effectively arranged openings, the germs of the
noble Gothic spires of later times. Externally the western porches and
portals were the most important features of the design, producing an
imposing effect by their massive arches, clustered piers, richly carved
mouldings, and deep shadows.

+CLOISTERS, ETC.+ Mention should be made of the other monastic buildings
which were grouped around the abbey churches of this period. These
comprised refectories, chapter-halls, cloistered courts surrounded by
the conventual cells, and a large number of accessory structures for
kitchens, infirmaries, stores, etc. The whole formed an elaborate and
complex aggregation of connected buildings, often of great size and
beauty, especially the refectories and cloisters. Most of these
conventual buildings have disappeared, many of them having been
demolished during the Gothic period to make way for more elegant
structures in the new style. There remain, however, a number of fine
cloistered courts in their original form, especially in Southern France.
Among the most remarkable of these are those of +Moissac+, +Elne+, and

  +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,

  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




  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

+MEDIÆVAL GERMANY.+ Architecture developed less rapidly and
symmetrically in Germany than in France, notwithstanding the strong
centralized government of the empire. The early churches were of wood,
and the substitution of stone for wood proceeded slowly. During the
Carolingian epoch (800-919), however, a few important buildings were
erected, embodying Byzantine and classic traditions. Among these the
most notable was the +Minster+ or palatine chapel of Charlemagne at
+Aix-la-Chapelle+, an obvious imitation of San Vitale at Ravenna. It
consisted of an octagonal domed hall surrounded by a vaulted aisle in
two stories, but without the eight niches of the Ravenna plan. It was
preceded by a porch flanked by turrets. The Byzantine type thus
introduced was repeated in later churches, as in the Nuns’ Choir at
Essen (947) and at Ottmarsheim (1050). In the great monastery at Fulda a
basilica with transepts and with an apsidal choir at either end was
built in 803. These choirs were raised above the level of the nave, to
admit of crypts beneath them, as in many Lombard churches; a practice
which, 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 entered
upon a truly national development. The early churches of this province
and of Hildesheim (where architecture flourished under the favor of the
bishops, as elsewhere under the royal influence) were of basilican plan
and destitute of vaulting, except in the crypts. They were built with
massive piers, sometimes rectangular, sometimes clustered, the two kinds
often alternating in the same nave. Short columns were, however,
sometimes used instead of piers, either alone, as at Paulinzelle and
Limburg-on-the-Hardt (1024-39), or alternating with piers, as at
Hecklingen, +Gernrode+ (958-1050), and +St. Godehard+ at Hildesheim
(1133). A triple eastern apse, with apsidal chapels projecting eastward
from the transepts, were common elements in the plans, and a second
apse, choir, and crypt at the west end were not infrequent. Externally
the most striking feature was the association of two, four, or even six
square or circular towers with the mass of the church, and the elevation
of square or polygonal turrets or cupolas over the crossing. These
adjuncts gave a very picturesque aspect to edifices otherwise somewhat
wanting in artistic interest.

  [Illustration: FIG. 99.--PLAN OF MINSTER AT WORMS.]

+RHENISH CHURCHES.+ It was in the Rhine provinces that vaulting was
first applied to the naves of German churches, nearly a half century
after its general adoption in France. Cologne possesses an interesting
trio of churches in which the Byzantine dome on squinches or on
pendentives, 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 by
a dome on pendentives.

  [Illustration: FIG. 100.--ONE BAY OF CATHEDRAL AT SPIRES.]

The vaulting of the nave itself was developed in another series of
edifices of imposing size, the cathedrals of +Mayence+ (1036), +Spires+
(Speyer), and +Worms+, and the +Abbey of Laach+, all built in the 11th
century and vaulted early in the 12th. In the first three the main
vaulting is in square bays, each covering two bays of the nave, the
piers of which are alternately lighter and heavier (Figs. 99, 100). At
Laach the vaulting-bays are oblong, both in nave and aisles. There was
no triforium gallery, and stability was secured only by excessive
thickness in the piers and clearstory walls, and by bringing down the
main 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 the
somewhat rude massiveness of their construction, but even more so by the
picturesqueness of their external design (Fig. 101). Especially
successful is the massing of the large and small turrets with the lofty
nave-roof and with the apses at one or both ends. The systematic use of
arcading to decorate the exterior walls, and the introduction of open
arcaded dwarf galleries under the cornices of the apses, gables, and
dome-turrets, gave to these Rhenish churches an external beauty hardly
equalled 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, with
which the Hohenstauffen emperors had many political relations.


The Italian influence is also encountered in a number of circular
churches of early date, as at Fulda (9th-11th century), Drügelte, Bonn
(baptistery, demolished), and in façades like that at Rosheim, which is
a copy in little of San Zeno at Verona.

Elsewhere in Germany architecture was in a backward state, especially in
the southern provinces. Outside of Saxony, Franconia, and the Rhine
provinces, very few works of importance were erected until the
thirteenth century.

+SECULAR ARCHITECTURE.+ Little remains to us of the secular architecture
of this period in Germany, if we except the great feudal castles,
especially those of the Rhine, which were, after all, rather works of
military engineering than of architectural art. The palace of
Charlemagne at Aix (the chapel of which was mentioned on p. 172) is
known to have been a vast and splendid group of buildings, partly, at
least of marble; but hardly a vestige of it remains. Of the extensive
+Palace of Henry III.+ at +Goslar+ there remain well-defined ruins of an
imposing hall of assembly in two aisles with triple-arched windows. At
Brunswick the east wing of the +Burg Dankwargerode+ displays, in spite
of modern alterations, the arrangement of the chapel, great hall, two
fortified towers, and part of the residence of Henry the Lion. The
+Wartburg+ palace (Ludwig III., _cir._ 1150) is more generally
known--a rectangular hall in three stories, with windows effectively
grouped to form arcades; while at Gelnhausen and Münzenberg are ruins of
somewhat similar buildings. A few of the Romanesque monasteries of
Germany have left partial remains, as at +Maulbronn+, which was almost
entirely rebuilt in the Gothic period, and isolated buildings in Cologne
and elsewhere. There remain also in Cologne a number of Romanesque
private houses with coupled windows and stepped gables.

+GREAT BRITAIN.+ Previous to the Norman conquest (1066) there was in the
British Isles little or no architecture worthy of mention. The few
extant remains of Saxon and Celtic buildings reveal a singular poverty
of ideas and want of technical skill. These scanty remains are mostly of
towers (those in Ireland nearly all round and tapering, with conical
tops, their use and date being the subjects of much controversy) and
crypts. The tower of Earl’s Barton is the most important and best
preserved of those in England. With the Norman conquest, however, began
an extraordinary activity in the building of churches and abbeys.
William the Conqueror himself founded a number of these, and his Norman
ecclesiastics endeavored to surpass on British soil the contemporary
churches of Normandy. The new churches differed somewhat from their
French 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 particulars
externally; a huge tower rose usually over the crossing, and the western
portals were small and insignificant. Lateral entrances near the west
end were given greater importance and called _Galilees_. At Durham a
Galilee chapel (not shown in the plan), takes the place of a porch at
the west end, like the ante-churches of St. Benoît-sur-Loire and

  [Illustration: FIG. 102.--PLAN OF DURHAM CATHEDRAL.]

+THE NORMAN STYLE.+ The Anglo-Norman builders employed the same general
features as the Romanesque builders of Normandy, but with more of
picturesqueness and less of refinement and technical elegance. Heavy
walls, recessed arches, round mouldings, cubic cushion-caps, clustered
piers, and in doorways a jamb-shaft for each stepping of the arch were
common to both styles. But in England the Corinthian form of capital is
rare, its place being taken by simpler forms.

+NORMAN INTERIORS.+ The interior design of the larger churches of this
period shows a close general analogy to contemporaneous French Norman
churches, as appears by comparing the nave of Waltham or Peterboro’ with
that of Cérisy-la-Forêt, in Normandy. Although the massiveness of the
Anglo-Norman piers and walls plainly suggests the intention of vaulting
the nave, this intention seems never to have been carried out except in
small churches and crypts. All the existing abbeys and cathedrals of
this period had wooden ceilings or were, like Durham, Norwich, and
Gloucester, vaulted at a later date. Completed as they were with wooden
nave-roofs, the clearstory was, without danger, made quite lofty and
furnished with windows of considerable size. These were placed near the
outside of the thick wall, and a passage was left between them and
a triple arch on the inner face of the wall--a device imitated
from the abbeys at Caen. The vaulted side-aisles were low, with
disproportionately wide pier-arches, above which was a high triforium
gallery under the side-roofs. Thus a nearly equal height was assigned
to each of the three stories of the bay, disregarding that subordination
of minor to major parts which gives interest to an architectural
composition. The piers were quite often round, as at Gloucester,
Hereford, and Bristol. Sometimes round piers alternated with clustered
piers, as at Durham and Waltham; and in some cases clustered piers alone
were employed, as at Peterboro’ and in the transepts of Winchester (Fig.

  [Illustration: FIG. 103.--ONE BAY OF TRANSEPT,

+FAÇADES AND DOORWAYS.+ All the details were of the simplest character,
except in the doorways. These were richly adorned with clustered
jamb-shafts and elaborately carved mouldings, but there was little
variety in the details of this carving. The zigzag was the most common
feature, though birds’ heads with the beaks pointing toward the centre
of the arch were not uncommon. In the smaller churches (Fig. 104) the
doorways were better proportioned to the whole façade than in the larger
ones, in which they appear as relatively insignificant features. Very
few examples remain of important Norman façades in their original form,
nearly all of these having been altered after the round arch was
displaced 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 under
Moorish dominion. The capture of Toledo, in 1062, by the Christians,
began the gradual emancipation of the country from Moslem rule, and in
the northern provinces a number of important churches were erected under
the influence of French Romanesque models. The use of domical
pendentives (as in the +Panteon+ of +S. Isidoro+, at Leon, and in the
_cimborio_ or dome over the choir at the intersection of nave and
transepts in old Salamanca cathedral) was probably derived from the
domical churches of Aquitania and Anjou. Elsewhere the northern
Romanesque type prevailed under various modifications, with long nave
and transepts, a short choir, and a complete _chevet_ with apsidal
chapels. The church of +St. Iago+ at Compostella (1078) is the finest
example of this class. These churches nearly all had groined vaulting
over the side-aisles and barrel-vaults over the nave, the constructive
system being substantially that of the churches of Auvergne and the
Loire Valley (p. 165). They differed, however, in the treatment of the
crossing of nave and transepts, over which was usually erected a dome or
cupola or pendentives or squinches, covered externally by an imposing
square 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 basilican
wooden-roofed church of S. Millan at Segovia; in +S. Isidoro+ at Leon,
with chapels and a later-added square eastern end, and the circular
church of the Templars at Segovia.

The architectural details of these Spanish churches did not differ
radically from contemporary French work. As in France and England, the
doorways were the most ornate parts of the design, the mouldings being
carved with extreme richness and the jambs frequently adorned with
statues, as in +S. Vincente+ at Avila. There was no such logical and
reasoned-out system of external design as in France, and there is
consequently greater variety in the façades. Perhaps the most remarkable
thing about the architecture of this period is its apparent exemption
from the influence of the Moorish monuments which abounded on every
hand. This may be explained by the hatred which was felt by the
Christians 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.



  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

+INTRODUCTORY.+ The architectural styles which were developed in Western
Europe during the period extending from about 1150 to 1450 or 1500,
received in an unscientific age the wholly erroneous and inept name of
Gothic. This name has, however, become so fixed in common usage that it
is hardly possible to substitute for it any more scientific designation.
In reality the architecture to which it is applied was nothing more than
the sequel and outgrowth of the Romanesque, which we have already
studied. Its fundamental principles were the same; it was concerned with
the same problems. These it took up where the Romanesque builders left
them, and worked out their solution under new conditions, until it had
developed out of the simple and massive models of the early twelfth
century the splendid cathedrals of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries in England, France, Germany, the Low Countries and Spain.

+THE CHURCH AND ARCHITECTURE.+ The twelfth century was an era of
transition in society, as in architecture. The ideas of Church and State
were becoming more clearly defined in the common mind. In the conflict
between feudalism and royalty the monarchy was steadily gaining ground.
The problem of human right was beginning to present itself alongside of
the problem of human might. The relations between the crown, the feudal
barons, the pope, bishops, and abbots, differed widely in France,
Germany, England, and other countries. The struggle among them for
supremacy presented itself, therefore, in varied aspects; but the
general outcome was essentially the same. The church began to appear as
something behind and above abbots, bishops, kings, and barons. The
supremacy of the papal authority gained increasing recognition, and the
episcopacy began to overshadow the monastic institutions; the bishops
appearing generally, but especially in France, as the champions of
popular rights. The prerogatives of the crown became more firmly
established, and thus the Church and the State emerged from the social
confusion as the two institutions divinely appointed for the government
of men.


Under these influences ecclesiastical architecture advanced with rapid
strides. No longer hampered by monastic restrictions, it called into its
service the laity, whose guilds of masons and builders carried from one
diocese to another their constantly increasing stores of constructive
knowledge. By a wise division of labor, each man wrought only such parts
as he was specially trained to undertake. The master-builder--bishop,
abbot, or mason--seems to have planned only the general arrangement and
scheme of the building, leaving the precise form of each detail to be
determined as the work advanced, according to the skill and fancy of the
artisan to whom it was intrusted. Thus was produced that remarkable
variety in unity of the Gothic cathedrals; thus, also, those singular
irregularities and makeshifts, those discrepancies and alterations in
the design, which are found in every great work of mediæval
architecture. Gothic architecture was constantly changing, attacking new
problems or devising new solutions of old ones. In this character of
constant flux and development it contrasts strongly with the classic
styles, in which the scheme and the principles were easily fixed and
remained substantially unchanged for centuries.

  [Illustration: FIG. 106.--PLAN OF SAINTE CHAPELLE, PARIS,

+STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES.+ The pointed arch, so commonly regarded as the
most characteristic feature of the Gothic styles, was merely an
incidental feature of their development. What really distinguished them
most strikingly was the systematic application of two principles which
the Roman and Byzantine builders had recognized and applied, but which
seem to have been afterward forgotten until they were revived by the
later Romanesque architects. The first of these was the _concentration
of strains_ upon isolated points of support, made possible by the
substitution of groined for barrel vaults. This led to a corresponding
concentration of the masses of masonry at these points; the building was
constructed as if upon legs (Fig. 105). The wall became a mere
filling-in between the piers or buttresses, and in time was, indeed,
practically suppressed, immense windows filled with stained glass taking
its place. This is well illustrated in the +Sainte Chapelle+ at Paris,
built 1242-47 (Figs. 106, 122). In this remarkable edifice, a series of
groined vaults spring from slender shafts built against deep buttresses
which receive and resist all the thrusts. The wall-spaces between them
are wholly occupied by superb windows filled with stone tracery and
stained glass. It would be impossible to combine the materials used more
scientifically or effectively. The cathedrals of Gerona (Spain) and of
Alby (France; Fig. 123) illustrate the same principle, though in them
the 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 was
resisted wholly by the inertia of mass in the abutments. In Gothic
architecture thrusts were as far as possible resisted by
counter-thrusts, and the final resultant pressure was transmitted by
flying half-arches across the intervening portions of the structure to
external buttresses placed at convenient points. This combination of
flying half-arches and buttresses is called the _flying-buttress_ (Fig.
107). It reached its highest development in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries in the cathedrals of central and northern France.

+RIBBED VAULTING.+ These two principles formed the structural basis of
the Gothic styles. Their application led to the introduction of two
other elements, second only to them in importance, _ribbed vaulting_ and
the _pointed arch_.

  [Illustration: FIG. 108.--RIBBED VAULT, ENGLISH TYPE,

The first of these resulted from the effort to overcome certain
practical difficulties encountered in the building of large groined
vaults. As ordinarily constructed, a groined vault like that in Fig. 47,
must be built as one structure, upon wooden centrings supporting its
whole extent. The Romanesque architects conceived the idea of
constructing an independent skeleton of ribs. Two of these were built
against 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 each
bay into four triangular portions, or _compartments_, each of which was
really an independent vault which could be separately constructed upon
light centrings supported by the groin-ribs themselves. This principle,
though identical in essence with the Roman system of brick skeleton-ribs
for concrete vaults, was, in application and detail, superior to it,
both from the scientific and artistic point of view. The ribs, richly
moulded, became, in the hands of the Gothic architects, important
decorative features. In practice the builder gave to each set of ribs
independently the curvature he desired. The vaulting-surfaces were then
easily twisted or warped so as to fit the various ribs, which, being
already in place, served as guides for their construction.

  _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

+THE POINTED ARCH+ was adopted to remedy the difficulties encountered in
the construction of oblong vaults. It is obvious that where a narrow
semi-cylindrical vault intersects a wide one, it produces either what
are called _penetrations_, as at a (Fig. 109), or intersections like
that 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 narrow
vault may be made as high as the wide one. It is then possible, with but
little warping of the vaulting surfaces, to make them intersect in
groins c, which are vertical plane curves instead of wavy loops like a
and b.

The Gothic architects availed themselves to the full of these two
devices. 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 nearly
or quite to the level of the groin intersection. The pointed arch, thus
introduced as the most convenient form for the vaulting-ribs, was soon
applied to other parts of the structure. This was a necessity with the
windows and pier-arches, which would not otherwise fit well the
wall-spaces under the wall-ribs of the nave and aisle vaulting.

+TRACERY AND GLASS.+ With the growth in the size of the windows and the
progressive suppression of the lateral walls of vaulted structures,
stained glass came more and more generally into use. Its introduction
not only resulted in a notable heightening and enriching of the colors
and scheme of the interior decoration, but reacted on the architecture,
intensifying the very causes which led to its introduction. It
stimulated the increase in the size of windows, and the suppression of
the walls, and contributed greatly to the development of _tracery_. This
latter feature was an absolute necessity for the support of the glass.
Its evolution can be traced (Figs, 110, 111, 112) from the simple
coupling of twin windows under a single hood-mould, or discharging arch,
to the florid net-work of the fifteenth century. In its earlier forms it
consisted merely of decorative openings, circles, and quatrefoils,
pierced through slabs of stone (_plate-tracery_), filling the
window-heads over coupled windows. Later attention was bestowed upon the
form of the stonework, which was made lighter and richly moulded
(_bar-tracery_), rather than upon that of the openings (Fig. 111). Then
the circular and geometric patterns employed were abandoned for more
flowing and capricious designs (_Flamboyant_ tracery, Fig. 112) or (in
England) for more rigid and rectangular arrangements (_Perpendicular_,
Fig. 134). It will be shown later that the periods and styles of Gothic
architecture are more easily identified by the tracery than by any other


+CHURCH PLANS.+ The original basilica-plan underwent radical
modifications during the 12th-15th centuries. These resulted in part
from the changes in construction which have been described, and in part
from altered ecclesiastical conditions and requirements. Gothic church
architecture was based on cathedral design; and the requirements of the
cathedral differed in many respects from those of the monastic churches
of the preceding period.

  [Illustration: FIG. 111--BAR TRACERY, ST. MICHAEL’S, WARFIELD.]

The most important alterations in the plan were in the choir and
transepts. The choir was greatly lengthened, the transepts often
shortened. The choir was provided with two and often four side-aisles,
and one or both of these was commonly carried entirely around the
apsidal termination of the choir, forming a single or double
_ambulatory_. This combination of choir, apse, and ambulatory was
called, in French churches, the _chevet_.

Another advance upon Romanesque models was the multiplication of
chapels--a natural consequence of the more popular character of the
cathedral as compared with the abbey. Frequently lateral chapels were
built at each bay of the side-aisles, filling up the space between the
deep buttresses, flanking the nave as well as the choir. They were also
carried around the _chevet_ in most of the French cathedrals (Paris,
Bourges, Reims, Amiens, Beauvais, and many others); in many of those in
Germany (Magdeburg, Cologne, Frauenkirche at Treves), Spain (Toledo,
Leon, Barcelona, Segovia, etc.), and Belgium (Tournay, Antwerp). In
England the choir had more commonly a square eastward termination.
Secondary transepts occur frequently, and these peculiarities, together
with the narrowness and great length of most of the plans, make of the
English cathedrals a class by themselves.

  [Illustration: FIG. 112.--ROSE WINDOW, CHURCH OF ST. OUEN, ROUEN.]

+PROPORTIONS AND COMPOSITION.+ Along with these modifications of the
basilican plan should be noticed a great increase in the height and
slenderness of all parts of the structure. The lofty clearstory, the
arcaded triforium-passage or gallery beneath it, the high pointed
pier-arches, the multiplication of slender clustered shafts, and the
reduction in the area of the piers, gave to the Gothic churches an
interior aspect wholly different from that of the simpler, lower, and
more massive Romanesque edifices. The perspective effects of the plans
thus modified, especially of the complex choir and _chevet_ with their
lateral and radial chapels, were remarkably enriched and varied.

The exterior was even more radically transformed by these changes, and
by the addition of towers and spires to the fronts, and sometimes to the
transepts and to their intersection with the nave. The deep buttresses,
terminating in pinnacles, the rich traceries of the great lateral
windows, the triple portals profusely sculptured, rose-windows of great
size under the front and transept gables, combined to produce effects of
marvellously varied light and shadow, and of complex and elaborate
structural beauty, totally unlike the broad simplicity of the Romanesque


  [Illustration: FIG. 114.--EARLY GOTHIC CARVING.]

+DECORATIVE DETAIL.+ The mediæval designers aimed to enrich every
constructive feature with the most effective play of lights and shades,
and to embody in the decorative detail the greatest possible amount of
allegory and symbolism, and sometimes of humor besides. The deep jambs
and soffits of doors and pier-arches were moulded with a rich succession
of hollow and convex members, and adorned with carvings of saints,
apostles, martyrs, and angels. Virtues and vices, allegories of reward
and punishment, and an extraordinary world of monstrous and grotesque
beasts, devils, and goblins filled the capitals and door-arches, peeped
over tower-parapets, or leered and grinned from gargoyles and corbels.
Another source of decorative detail was the application of tracery like
that of the windows to wall-panelling, to balustrades, to open-work
gables, to spires, to choir-screens, and other features, especially in
the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (cathedrals of York, Rouen,
Cologne; Henry VII.’s Chapel, Westminster). And finally in the carving
of capitals and the ornamentation of mouldings the artists of the
thirteenth century and their successors abandoned completely the classic
models and traditions which still survived in the early twelfth century.
The later monastic builders began to look directly to nature for
suggestions of decorative form. The lay builders who sculptured the
capitals and crockets and finials of the early Gothic cathedrals adopted
and followed to its finality this principle of recourse to nature,
especially to plant life. At first the budding shoots of early spring
were freely imitated or skilfully conventionalized, as being by their
thick and vigorous forms the best adapted for translation into stone
(Fig. 114). During the thirteenth century the more advanced stages of
plant growth, and leaves more complex and detailed, furnished the models
for the carver, who displayed his skill in a closer and more literal
imitation of their minute veinings and indentations (Fig. 115). This
artistic adaptation of natural forms to architectural decoration
degenerated 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 of
design, an unrestrained profusion of decoration covering every surface,
a lack of largeness and vigor in the conceptions, are conspicuous traits
of Gothic design in the fifteenth century, alike in France, England,
Germany, Spain, and the Low Countries. Having worked out to their
conclusion the structural principles bequeathed to them by the preceding
centuries, the authors of these later works seemed to have devoted
themselves to the elaboration of mere decorative detail, and in
technical finish surpassed all that had gone before (Fig. 113).

  [Illustration: FIG. 115.--CARVING, DECORATED PERIOD,

+CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARIZED.+ In the light of the preceding explanations
Gothic architecture may be defined as that system of structural design
and decoration which grew up out of the effort to combine, in one
harmonious and organic conception, the basilican plan with a complete
and systematic construction of groined vaulting. Its development was
controlled throughout by considerations of stability and structural
propriety, but in the application of these considerations the artistic
spirit was allowed full scope for its exercise. Refinement, good taste,
and great fertility of imagination characterize the details and
ornaments of Gothic structures. While the Greeks in harmonizing the
requirements of utility and beauty in architecture approached the
problem from the æsthetic side, the Gothic architects did the same from
the structural side. Their admirably reasoned structures express as
perfectly the idea of vastness, mystery, and complexity as do the Greek
temples that of simplicity and monumental repose.

The excellence of Gothic architecture lay not so much in its individual
details as in its perfect adaptation to the purposes for which it was
developed--its triumphs were achieved in the building of cathedrals and
large churches. In the domain of civil and domestic architecture it
produced nothing comparable with its ecclesiastical edifices, because it
was 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 into
three periods, which are most readily distinguished by the character of
the window-tracery. These periods were not by any means synchronous in
the different countries; but the order of sequence was everywhere the
same. They are here given, with a summary of the characteristics of

EARLY POINTED PERIOD. [_Early French_; _Early English_ or _Lancet_
Period in England; _Early German_, etc.] Simple groined vaults; general
simplicity and vigor of design and detail; conventionalized foliage of
small plants; plate tracery, and narrow windows coupled under pointed
arch with circular foiled openings in the window-head. (In France, 1160
to 1275.)

MIDDLE POINTED PERIOD. [_Rayonnant_ in France; _Decorated_ or
_Geometric_ in England.] Vaults more perfect; in England multiple ribs
and liernes; greater slenderness and loftiness of proportions;
decoration much richer, less vigorous; more naturalistic carving of
mature foliage; walls nearly suppressed, windows of great size, bar
tracery with slender moulded or columnar mullions and geometric
combinations (circles and cusps) in window-heads, circular (rose)
windows. (In France, 1275 to 1375.)

FLORID GOTHIC PERIOD. [_Flamboyant_ in France; _Perpendicular_ in
England.] Vaults of varied and richly decorated design; fan-vaulting and
pendants in England, vault-ribs curved into fanciful patterns in Germany
and Spain; profuse and minute decoration and cleverness of technical
execution substituted for dignity of design; highly realistic carving
and sculpture, flowing or flamboyant tracery in France; perpendicular
bars with horizontal transoms and four-centred arches in England;
“branch-tracery” in Germany. (In France, 1375 to 1525.)



  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,

+CATHEDRAL-BUILDING IN FRANCE.+ In the development of the principles
outlined in the foregoing chapter the church-builders of France led the
way. 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 extraordinary
architectural activity which marked the second half of the twelfth
century and the first half of the thirteenth. This was the great age of
cathedral-building in France. The adhesion of the bishops to the royal
cause, and their position in popular estimation as the champions of
justice and human rights, led to the rapid advance of the episcopacy in
power and influence. The cathedral, as the throne-church of the bishop,
became a truly popular institution. New cathedrals were founded on every
side, especially in the Royal Domain and the adjoining provinces of
Normandy, Burgundy, and Champagne, and their construction was warmly
seconded by the people, the communes, and the municipalities. “Nothing
to-day,” says Viollet-le-Duc,[21] “unless it be the commercial movement
which has covered Europe with railway lines, can give an idea of the
zeal with which the urban populations set about building cathedrals; ...
a necessity at the end of the twelfth century because it was an
energetic protest against feudalism.” The collapse of the unscientific
Romanesque vaulting of some of the earlier cathedrals and the
destruction by fire of others stimulated this movement by the necessity
for their immediate rebuilding. The entire reconstruction of the
cathedrals of Bayeux, Bayonne, Cambray, Evreux, Laon, Lisieux, Le Mans,
Noyon, Poitiers, Senlis, Soissons, and Troyes was begun between 1130 and
1200.[22] The cathedrals of Bourges, Chartres, Paris, and Tours, and the
abbey of St. Denis, all of the first importance, were begun during the
same period, and during the next quarter-century those of Amiens,
Auxerre, Rouen, Reims, Séez, and many others. After 1250 the movement
slackened and finally ceased. Few important cathedrals were erected
during the latter half of the thirteenth century, the chief among them
being at Beauvais (actively begun 1247), Clermont, Coutances, Limoges,
Narbonne, and Rodez. During this period, and through the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, French architecture was concerned rather with the
completion and remodelling of existing cathedrals than the founding of
new ones. There were, however, many important parish churches and civil
or 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

+STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT: VAULTING.+ By the middle of the twelfth century
the use of barrel-vaulting over the nave had been generally abandoned
and groined vaulting with its isolated points of support and resistance
had taken its place. The timid experiments of the Clunisian architects
at Vézelay in the use of the pointed arch and vault-ribs also led, in
the second half of the twelfth century, to far-reaching results. The
builders of the great +Abbey Church+ of +St. Denis+, near Paris, begun
in 1140 by the Abbot Suger, appear to have been the first to develop
these tentative devices into a system. In the original choir of this
noble church all the arches, alike of the vault-ribs (except the
groin-ribs, which were semi-circles) and of the openings, were pointed
and the vaults were throughout constructed with cross-ribs, wall-ribs,
and groin-ribs. Of this early work only the chapels remain. In other
contemporary monuments, as for instance in the cathedral of Sens, the
adoption 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 the
cathedral of +Notre Dame+[23] at Paris (Figs. 116, 117, 125). This was
begun, under Maurice de Sully in 1163, on the site of the twin
cathedrals of Ste. Marie and St. Étienne, and the choir was, as usual,
the first portion erected. By 1196 the choir, transepts, and one or two
bays of the nave were substantially finished. The completeness, harmony,
and vigor of conception of this remarkable church contrast strikingly
with the makeshifts and hesitancy displayed in many contemporary
monuments in other provinces. The difficult vaulting over the radiating
bays of the double ambulatory was here treated with great elegance. By
doubling the number of supports in the exterior circuit of each aisle
(Fig. 116) each trapezoidal bay of the vaulting was divided into three
easily managed triangular compartments. Circular shafts were used
between the central and side aisles. The side aisles were doubled and
those next the centre were built in two stories, providing ample
galleries behind a very open triforium. The nave was unusually lofty and
covered with six-part vaults of admirable execution. The vault-ribs were
vigorously moulded and each made to spring from a distinct
vaulting-shaft, of which three rested upon the cap of each of the
massive piers below (Fig. 117). The +Cathedral+ of +Bourges+, begun
1190, closely resembled that of Paris in plan. Both were designed to
accommodate vast throngs in their exceptionally broad central aisles and
double side aisles, but Bourges has no side-aisle galleries, though the
inner aisles are much loftier than the outer ones. Though later in date
the vaulting of Bourges is inferior to that of Notre Dame, especially in
the 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 Notre
Dame were not at once generally followed. Noyon, Senlis, and Soissons,
contemporary with these, are far less completely Gothic in style. At +Le
Mans+ the groined vaulting which in 1158 was substituted for the
original barrel-vault of the cathedral is of very primitive design,
singularly heavy and awkward, although nearly contemporary with that of
Notre 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 domical
form 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 vaulted
with square, groin-ribbed vaults, domical in form but not in
construction. The joints no longer described horizontal circles as in a
dome, but oblique lines perpendicular to the groins and meeting in
zigzag lines at the ridge (Fig. 119). This method became common in the
West 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 Northern
system and produced in the cathedral the awkward compromise described

  _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 the
church-builders of Northern France abandoned the use of square
vaulting-bays and six-part vaults. By the adoption of groin-ribs and the
pointed arch, the building of vaults in oblong bays was greatly
simplified. Each bay of the nave could now be covered with its own
vaulting-bay, thus doing away with all necessity for alternately light
and heavy piers. It is not quite certain when and where this system was
first adopted for the complete vaulting of a church. It is, however,
probable that the +Cathedral+ of +Chartres+, begun in 1194 and completed
before 1240, deserves this distinction, although it is possible that the
vaults 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 nearly
all the great churches and chapels begun after 1200, employ the fully
developed oblong vault.

+BUTTRESSING.+ Meanwhile the increasing height of the clearstories and
the use of double aisles compelled the bestowal of especial attention
upon the buttressing. The nave and choir of Chartres, the choirs of
Notre Dame, Bourges, Rouen, and Reims, the chevet and later the choir of
St. Denis, afford early examples of the flying-buttress (Fig. 107).
These were at first simple and of moderate height. Single half-arches
spanned the side aisles; in Notre Dame they crossed the double aisles in
a single leap. Later the buttresses were given greater stability by the
added weight of lofty pinnacles. An intermediate range of buttresses and
pinnacles was built over the intermediate piers where double aisles
flanked the nave and choir, thus dividing the single flying arch into
two arches. At the same time a careful observation of statical defects
in the earlier examples led to the introduction of subordinate arches
and 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 windows
correspondingly enlarged, and every part of the structure made loftier
and more slender, resulted in the evolution of a system of interior
design well represented by the nave of Amiens. The second story or
gallery over the side aisle disappeared, but the aisle itself was very
high. The triforium was no longer a gallery, but a richly arcaded
passage in the thickness of the wall, corresponding to the roofing-space
over the aisle, and generally treated like a lower stage of the
clearstory. Nearly the whole space above it was occupied in each bay by
the vast clearstory window filled with simple but effective geometric
tracery over slender mullions. The side aisles were lighted by windows
which, like those in the clearstory, occupied nearly the whole available
wall-space under the vaulting. The piers and shafts were all clustered
and remarkably slender. The whole construction of this vast edifice,
which covers nearly eighty thousand square feet, is a marvel of
lightness, of scientific combinations, and of fine execution. Its great
vault 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 perfect
working 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 the
later churches.

  [Illustration: FIG. 120.--ONE BAY, ABBEY OF ST. DENIS.]

+WINDOWS: TRACERY.+ The clearstory windows of Noyon, Soissons, Sens, and
the choir of Vézelay (1200) were simple arched openings arranged singly,
in pairs, or in threes. In the cathedral of Chartres (1194-1220) they
consist of two arched windows with a circle above them, forming a sort
of plate tracery under a single arch. In the chapel windows of the choir
at Reims (1215) the tracery of mullions and circles was moulded inside
and out, and the intermediate triangular spaces all pierced and glazed.
Rose windows were early used in front and transept façades. During the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries they were made of vast size and
great lightness of tracery, as in the transepts of Notre Dame (1257) and
the west front of Amiens (1288). From the design of these windows is
derived the name _Rayonnant_, often applied to the French Gothic style
of the period 1275-1375.

+THE SAINTE CHAPELLE.+ In this beautiful royal chapel at Paris, built
1242-47, Gothic design was admirably exemplified in the noble windows 15
by 50 feet in size, which perhaps furnished the models for those of
Amiens and St. Denis. Each was divided by slender mullions into four
lancet-like lights gathered under the rich tracery of the window-head.
They were filled with stained glass of the most brilliant but harmonious
hues. They occupy the whole available wall-space, so that the ribbed
vault internally seems almost to rest on walls of glass, so slender are
the visible supports and so effaced by the glow of color in the windows.
Certainly lightness of construction and the suppression of the
wall-masonry could hardly be carried further than here (Fig. 121). Among
other 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 side
aisles around the apse to form a _chevet_; and later, the addition of
chapels between the external buttresses. Radiating chapels, usually
semi-octagons or semi-decagons in plan, early appeared as additions to
the _chevet_ (Fig. 122). These may have originated in the apsidal
chapels of Romanesque churches in Auvergne and the South, as at Issoire,
Clermont-Ferrand, Le Puy, and Toulouse. They generally superseded the
transept-chapels of earlier churches, and added greatly to the beauty of
the interior perspective, especially when the encircling aisles of the
chevet were doubled. Notre Dame, as at first erected, had a double
ambulatory, but no chapels. Bourges has only five very small
semicircular chapels. Chartres (choir 1220) and Le Mans, as
reconstructed about the same date, have double ambulatories and radial
chapels. After 1220 the second ambulatory no longer appears. Noyon,
Soissons, Reims, Amiens, Troyes, and Beauvais, Tours, Bayeux, and
Coutances, Clermont, Limoges, and Narbonne all have the single
ambulatory and radiating chevet-chapels. The Lady-chapel in the axis of
the church was often made longer and more important than the other
chapels, as at Amiens, Le Mans, Rouen, Bayeux, and Coutances. Chapels
also flanked the choir in most of the cathedrals named above, and Notre
Dame and Tours also have side chapels to the nave. The only cathedrals
with complete double side aisles alike to nave, choir, and chevet, were
Notre Dame and Bourges. It is somewhat singular that the German
cathedral of Cologne is the only one in which all these various
characteristic 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 tendency
toward unity of type. Thus Dol, Laon, and Poitiers have square eastward
terminations; Châlons has no ambulatory; Bourges no transept. In Notre
Dame the transept was almost suppressed. At Soissons one transept, at
Noyon both, had semicircular ends. +Alby+, a late cathedral of brick,
founded in 1280, but mostly built during the fourteenth century, has
neither side aisles nor transepts, its wide nave being flanked by
chapels 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 396
to 437 feet in extreme length; Reims measures 483, and Amiens, the
longest of all, 521 feet. Notre Dame is 124 feet wide across the five
aisles of the nave; Bourges, somewhat wider. The central aisles of these
two cathedrals, and of Laon, Amiens, and Beauvais, have a span of not
far from 40 feet from centre to centre of the piers; while the ridge of
the vaulting, which in Notre Dame is 108 feet above the pavement, and in
Bourges 125, reaches in Amiens a height of 140 feet, and of nearly 160
in Beauvais. This emphasis of the height, from 3 to 3½ times the clear
width of the nave or choir, is one of the most striking features of the
French cathedrals. It produces an impressive effect, but tends to dwarf
the great width of the central aisle.

+EXTERIOR DESIGN.+ Here, as in the interior, every feature had its
constructive _raison d’être_, and the total effect was determined by the
fundamental structural scheme. This was especially true of the lateral
elevations, in which the pinnacled buttresses, the flying arches, and
the traceried windows of the side aisle and clearstory, repeated
uniformly at each bay, were the principal elements of the design. The
transept façades and main front allowed greater scope for invention and
fancy, but even here the interior membering gave the key to the
composition. Strong buttresses marked the division of the aisles and
resisted the thrust of the terminal pier arches, and rose windows filled
the 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, covered
with lead, copper, or tiles, to protect the vault from damage by snow
and moisture. This roof occasioned the steep gables which crowned the
transept and main façades. The main front was frequently adorned, above
the triple portal, with a gallery of niches or tabernacles filled with
statues of kings. Different types of composition are represented by
Chartres, Notre Dame, Amiens, Reims, and Rouen, of which Notre Dame
(Fig. 124) and Reims are perhaps the finest. Notre Dame is especially
remarkable for its stately simplicity and the even balancing of
horizontal 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 most
striking features, with their deep shadows and sculptured arches. The
Romanesque porches were usually limited in depth to the thickness of the
front wall. The Gothic builders secured increased depth by projecting
the 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 niche
and statue. Over this the tympanum of the arch was carved with
scriptural reliefs; the jambs and arches were profusely adorned with
figures of saints, apostles, martyrs, and angels, under elaborate
canopies. The porches of Laon, Bourges, Amiens, and Reims are especially
deep and majestic in effect, the last-named (built 1380) being the
richest of all. Some of the transept façades also had imposing portals.
Those of +Chartres+ (1210-1245) rank among the finest works of Gothic
decorative architecture, the south porch in some respects surpassing
that of the north transept. The portals of the fifteenth and early
sixteenth centuries were remarkable for the extraordinary richness and
minuteness of their tracery and sculpture, as at Abbeville, Alençon, the
cathedral and St. Maclou at Rouen (Fig. 125), Tours, Troyes, Vendôme,

+TOWERS AND SPIRES.+ The emphasizing of vertical elements reached its
fullest expression in the towers and spires of the churches. What had
been at first merely a lofty belfry roof was rapidly developed into the
spire, rising three hundred feet or more into the air. This development
had already made progress in the Romanesque period, and the south spire
of Chartres is a notable example of late twelfth-century steeple design.
The transition from the square tower to the slender octagonal pyramid
was skilfully effected by means of corner pinnacles and dormers. During
and after the thirteenth century the development was almost wholly in
the direction of richness and complexity of detail, not of radical
constructive modification. The northern spire of Chartres (1515) and the
spires of Bordeaux, Coutances, Senlis, and the Flamboyant church of St.
Maclou at Rouen, illustrate this development. In Normandy central spires
were common, rising over the crossing of nave and transepts. In some
cases the designers of cathedrals contemplated a group of towers; this
is evident at Chartres, Coutances, and Reims. This intention was,
however, never realized; it demanded resources beyond even the
enthusiasm of the thirteenth century. Only in rare instances were the
spires of any of the towers completed, and the majority of the French
towers have square terminations, with low-pitched wooden roofs,
generally invisible from below. In general, French towers are marked by
their strong buttresses, solid lower stories, twin windows in each side
of the belfry proper--these windows being usually of great size--and a
skilful management of the transition to an octagonal plan for the belfry
or the spire.

+CARVING AND SCULPTURE.+ The general superiority of French Gothic work
was fully maintained in its decorative details. Especially fine is the
figure sculpture, which in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries
attained true nobility of expression, combined with great truthfulness
and delicacy of execution. Some of its finest productions are found in
the great doorway jambs of the west portals of the cathedrals, and in
the 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 were
important 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. The
gargoyles through which the roof-water was discharged clear of the
building, were almost always composed in the form of hideous monsters;
and symbolic beasts, like the oxen in the towers of Laon, or monsters
like those which peer from the tower balustrades of Notre Dame, were
employed with some mystical significance in various parts of the
building. But the capitals corbels, crockets, and finials were mostly
composed of floral or foliage forms. Those of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries were for the most part simple in mass, and crisp and vigorous
in design, imitating the strong shoots of early spring. The +capitals+
were tall and slender, concave in profile, with heavy square or
octagonal abaci. With the close of the thirteenth century this simple
and forcible style of detail disappeared. The carving became more
realistic; the leaves, larger and more mature, were treated as if
applied to the capital or moulding, not as if they grew out of it. The
execution and detail were finer and more delicate, in harmony with the
increasing slenderness and lightness of the architecture (Fig. 126 a,
b). +Tracery forms+ now began to be profusely applied to all manner of
surfaces, and open-work gables, wholly unnecessary from the structural
point of view, but highly effective as decorations, adorned the portals
and crowned the windows.

+LATE GOTHIC MONUMENTS.+ So far our attention has been mainly occupied
with the masterpieces erected previous to 1250. Among the cathedrals,
relatively few in number, whose construction is referable to the second
half of the century, that of +Beauvais+ stands first in importance.
Designed on a colossal scale, its foundations were laid in 1225, but it
was never completed, and the portion built--the choir and
chapels--belonged really to the second half of the century, having been
completed in 1270. But the collapse in 1284 of the central tower and
vaulting of this incomplete cathedral, owing to the excessive loftiness
and slenderness of its supports, compelled its entire reconstruction,
the number of the piers being doubled and the span of the pier arches
correspondingly reduced. As thus rebuilt, the cathedral aisle was 47
feet wide from centre to centre of opposite piers, and 163 feet high to
the top of the vault. Transepts were added after 1500. +Limoges+ and
+Narbonne+, begun in 1272 on a large scale (though not equal in size to
Beauvais), were likewise never completed. Both had choirs of admirable
plan, with well-designed chevet-chapels. Many other cathedrals begun
during this period were completed only after long delays, as, for
instance, Meaux, Rodez (1277), Toulouse (1272), and Alby (1282),
finished in the sixteenth century, and Clermont (1248), completed under
Napoleon III. But between 1260 or 1275 and 1350, work was actively
prosecuted on many still incomplete cathedrals. The choirs of Beauvais
(rebuilding), Limoges, and Narbonne were finished after 1330; and
towers, transept-façades, portals, and chapels added to many others of
earlier date.

The style of this period is sometimes designated as +Rayonnant+, from
the characteristic wheel tracery of the rose-windows, and the prevalence
of circular forms in the lateral arched windows, of the late thirteenth
and early fourteenth centuries. The great rose windows in the transepts
of Notre Dame, dating from 1257, are typical examples of the style.
Those of Rouen cathedral belong to the same category, though of later
date. The façade of Amiens, completed by 1288, is one of the finest
works of this style, of which an early example is the elaborate parish
church of +St. Urbain+ at Troyes.

+THE FLAMBOYANT STYLE.+ The geometric treatment of the tracery and the
minute and profuse decoration of this period gradually merged into the
fantastic and unrestrained extravagances of the +Flamboyant+ style,
which prevailed until the advent of the Renaissance--say 1525. The
continuous logical development of forms ceased, and in its place caprice
and display controlled the arts of design. The finest monument of this
long period is the fifteenth-century nave and central tower of the
church of +St. Ouen+ at Rouen, a parish church of the first rank, begun
in 1318, but not finished until 1515. The tracery of the lateral windows
is still chiefly geometric, but the western rose window (Fig. 112) and
the magnificent central tower or lantern, exhibit in their tracery the
florid decoration and wavy, flame-like lines of this style. Slenderness
of supports and the suppression of horizontal lines are here carried to
an extreme; and the church, in spite of its great elegance of detail,
lacks the vital interest and charm of the earlier Gothic churches. The
cathedral of Alençon and the church of +St. Maclou+ at Rouen, have
portals with unusually elaborate detail of tracery and carving; while
the façade of Rouen cathedral (1509) surpasses all other examples in the
lace-like minuteness of its open-work and its profusion of ornament. The
churches of +St. Jacques+ at Dieppe, and of +St. Wulfrand+ at Abbeville,
the façades of Tours and Troyes, are among the masterpieces of the
style. The upper part of the façade of Reims (1380-1428) belongs to the
transition from the Rayonnant to the Flamboyant. While some works of
this 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 not
absorb all the architectural activity of the French during the Gothic
period, nor did it by any means put an end to monastic building. While
there are few Gothic cloisters to equal the Romanesque cloisters of
Puy-en-Vélay, Montmajour, Elne, and Moissac, many of the abbeys either
rebuilt their churches in the Gothic style after 1150, or extended and
remodelled 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 with
the cathedrals. The most complete of these Gothic monastic
establishments, that of the +Mont St. Michel+ in Normandy, presented a
remarkable aggregation of buildings clustering around the steep isolated
rock on which stands the abbey church. This was built in the eleventh
century, and the choir and chapels remodelled in the sixteenth. The
great refectory and dormitory, the cloisters, lodgings, and chapels,
built in several vaulted stories against the cliffs, are admirable
examples of the vigorous pointed-arch design of the early thirteenth

+Hospitals+ like that of St. Jean at Angers (late twelfth century), or
those of Chartres, Ourscamps, Tonnerre, and Beaune, illustrate how
skilfully the French could modify and adapt the details of their
architecture to the special requirements of civil architecture. Great
numbers of charitable institutions were built in the middle
ages--asylums, hospitals, refuges, and the like--but very few of those
in France are now extant. Town halls were built in the fifteenth century
in some places where a certain amount of popular independence had been
secured. The florid fifteenth-century +Palais de Justice+ at +Rouen+
(1499-1508) is an example of another branch of secular Gothic
architecture. In all these monuments the adaptation of means to ends is
admirable. Wooden ceilings and roofs replaced stone, wherever required
by great width of span or economy of construction. There was little
sculpture; the wall-spaces were not suppressed in favor of stained glass
and tracery; while the roofs were usually emphasized and adorned with
elaborate crestings and finials in lead or terra-cotta.

+DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE.+ These same principles controlled the designing
of houses, farm buildings, barns, granaries, and the like. The common
closely-built French city house of the twelfth and thirteenth century is
illustrated by many extant examples at Cluny, Provins, and other towns.
A shop opening on the street by a large arch, a narrow stairway, and two
or three stories of rooms lighted by clustered, pointed-arched windows,
constituted the common type. The street front was usually gabled and the
roof steep. In the fourteenth or fifteenth century half-timbered
construction began to supersede stone for town houses, as it permitted
of encroaching upon the street by projecting the upper stories. Many of
the half-timbered houses of the fifteenth century were of elaborate
design. The heavy oaken uprights were carved with slender colonnettes;
the horizontal sills, bracketed out over the street, were richly
moulded; picturesque dormers broke the sky-line, and the masonry filling
between 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 wealthy
citizens rivalled, and in time surpassed, the monastic buildings in
richness and splendor. The earlier examples retain the military aspect,
with moat and donjon, as in the Louvre of Charles V., demolished in the
sixteenth century. The finest palaces are of late date, and the type is
well represented by the Ducal Palace at Nancy (1476), the +Hotel de
Cluny+ (1485) at Paris, the +Hotel Jacques Cœur+ at Bourges (Fig. 127),
and the east wing of Blois (1498-1515). These palaces are not only
excellently and liberally planned, with large halls, many staircases,
and handsome courts; they are also extremely picturesque with their
square and circular towers, slender turrets, elaborate dormers, and rich
carved 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.



  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 under
a strongly established royal power, with an episcopate in no sense
hostile to the abbots or in arms against the barons. Many of the
cathedrals had monastic chapters, and not infrequently abbots were
invested with the episcopal rank.

English Gothic architecture was thus by no means predominantly an
architecture of cathedrals. If architectural activity in England was on
this account less intense and widespread in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries than in France, it was not, on the other hand, so soon
exhausted. Fewer new cathedrals were built, but the progressive
rebuilding of those already existing seems not to have ceased until the
middle or end of the fifteenth century. Architecture in England
developed more slowly, but more uniformly than in France. It contented
itself with simpler problems; and if it failed to rival Amiens in
boldness of construction and in lofty majesty, it at least never
perpetrated a folly like Beauvais. In richness of internal decoration,
especially in the mouldings and ribbed vaulting, and in the picturesque
grouping of simple masses externally, the British builders went far
toward atoning for their structural timidity.

  [Illustration: FIG. 128.--PLAN OF SALISBURY CATHEDRAL.]

+EARLY GOTHIC BUILDINGS.+ The pointed arch and ribbed vault were
importations from France. Early examples appear in the Cistercian abbeys
of Furness and Kirkstall, and in the Temple Church at London (1185). But
it was in the +Choir of Canterbury+, as rebuilt by William of Sens,
after the destruction by fire in 1170 of Anselm’s Norman choir, that
these French Gothic features were first applied in a thoroughgoing
manner. In plan this choir resembled that of the cathedral of Sens; and
its coupled round piers, with capitals carved with foliage, its pointed
arches, its six-part vaulting, and its _chevet_, were distinctly French.
The Gothic details thus introduced slowly supplanted the round arch and
other Norman features. For fifty years the styles were more or less
mingled in many buildings, though +Lincoln Cathedral+, as rebuilt in
1185-1200, retained nothing of the earlier round-arched style. But the
first church to be designed and built from the foundations in the new
style was the cathedral of +Salisbury+ (1220-1258; Fig. 128).
Contemporary with Amiens, it is a homogeneous and typical example of the
Early English style. The predilection for great length observable in the
Anglo-Norman churches (as at Norwich and Durham) still prevailed, as it
continued to do throughout the Gothic period; Salisbury is 480 feet
long. The double transepts, the long choir, the square east end, the
relatively low vault (84 feet to the ridge), the narrow grouped windows,
all are thoroughly English. Only the simple four-part vaulting recalls
French models. +Westminster Abbey+ (1245-1269), on the other hand,
betrays in a marked manner the French influence in its internal
loftiness (100 feet), its polygonal _chevet_ and chapels, and its
strongly accented exterior flying-buttresses (Fig. 137).

+MIXTURE OF STYLES.+ Very few English cathedrals are as homogeneous as
the two just mentioned, nearly all having undergone repeated
remodellings in successive periods. Durham, Norwich, and Oxford are
wholly Norman but for their Gothic vaults. Ely, Rochester, Gloucester,
and Hereford have Norman naves and Gothic choirs. Peterborough has an
early Gothic façade and late Gothic retro-choir added to an otherwise
completely Norman structure. Winchester is a Norman church remodelled
with early Perpendicular details. The purely Gothic churches and
cathedrals, except parish churches--in which England is very rich--are
not nearly as numerous in England as in France.

+PERIODS.+ The development of English Gothic architecture followed the
same general sequence as the French, and like it the successive stages
were most conspicuously characterized by the forms of the tracery.

The EARLY ENGLISH or LANCET period extended roundly from 1175 or 1180 to
1280, 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 lightness
of construction.

The PERPENDICULAR period extended from 1380, or thereabout, well into
the sixteenth century. Its salient features were the use of
fan-vaulting, four-centred arches, and tracery of predominantly vertical
and horizontal lines. The tardy introduction of Renaissance forms
finally put an end to the Gothic style in England, after a long period
of mixed and transitional architecture.

  [Illustration: FIG. 129.--RIBBED VAULTING,

+VAULTING.+ The richness and variety of English vaulting contrast
strikingly with the persistent uniformity of the French. A few of the
early Gothic vaults, as in the aisles of Peterborough, and later the
naves of Durham, Salisbury, and Gloucester, were simple four-part,
ribbed vaults substantially like the French. But the English disliked
and avoided the twisted and dome-like surfaces of the French vaults,
preferring horizontal ridges, and, in the filling-masonry, straight
courses meeting at the ridge in zigzag lines, as in southwest France
(see p. 200). This may be seen in Westminster Abbey. The idea of ribbed
construction was then seized upon and given a new application. By
springing a large number of ribs from each point of support, the
vaulting-surfaces were divided into long, narrow, triangles, the filling
of which was comparatively easy (Fig. 129). The ridge was itself
furnished with a straight rib, decorated with carved rosettes or
_bosses_ at each intersection with a vaulting-rib. The naves and choirs
of Lincoln, Lichfield, Exeter, and the nave of Westminster illustrate
this method. The logical corollary of this practice was the introduction
of minor ribs called _liernes_, connecting the main ribs and forming
complex reticulated and star-shaped patterns. Vaults of this description
are among the most beautiful in England. One of the richest is in the
choir of Gloucester (1337-1377). Less correct constructively is that
over the choir of Wells, while the choir of Ely, the nave of Tewkesbury
Abbey (Fig. 130), and all the vaulting of Winchester as rebuilt by
William of Wykeham (1390), illustrate the same system. Such vaults are
called _lierne_ or _star_ vaults.

  [Illustration: FIG. 130.--NET OR LIERNE VAULTING,

+FAN-VAULTING.+ The next step in the process may be observed in the
vaults of the choir of Oxford Cathedral (Christ Church), of the
retro-choir of Peterborough, of the cloisters of Gloucester, and many
other examples. The diverging ribs being made of uniform curvature, the
_severeys_ (the inverted pyramidal vaulting-masses springing from each
support) became a species of concave conoids, meeting at the ridge in
such a way as to leave a series of flat lozenge-shaped spaces at the
summit of the vault (Fig. 136). The ribs were multiplied indefinitely,
and losing thus in individual and structural importance became a mere
decorative pattern of tracery on the severeys. To conceal the awkward
flat lozenges at the ridge, elaborate panelling was resorted to; or, in
some cases, long stone pendents were inserted at those points--a device
highly decorative but wholly unconstructive. At Cambridge, in +King’s
College Chapel+, at Windsor, in +St. George’s Chapel+, and in the
+Chapel of Henry VII.+ at Westminster, this sort of vaulting received
its most elaborate development. The _fan-vault_, as it is called,
illustrates the logical evolution of a decorative element from a
structural starting--point, leading to results far removed from the
original conception. Rich and sumptuous as are these ceilings, they are
with all their ornament less satisfactory than the ribbed vaults of the
preceding period.

  [Illustration: FIG. 131.--VAULT OF CHAPTER-HOUSE, WELLS.]

+CHAPTER-HOUSES.+ One of the most beautiful forms of ribbed vaulting was
developed in the polygonal halls erected for the deliberations of the
cathedral chapters of Lincoln (1225), Westminster (1250), Salisbury
(1250), and Wells (1292), in which the vault-ribs radiated from a
central column to the sides and angles of the polygon (Fig. 131). If
these vaults were less majestic than domes of the same diameter, they
were far more decorative and picturesque, while the chapter-houses
themselves were the most original and striking products of English
Gothic art. Every feature was designed with strict regard for the
structural system determined by the admirable vaulting, and the Sainte
Chapelle was not more logical in its exemplification of Gothic
principles. To the four above-mentioned examples should be added that of
York (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 a
Gothic 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 the
intersection of the nave and transepts, belongs in the same category
with these polygonal chapter-house vaults. It was built by Alan of
Walsingham in 1337, after the fall of the central tower and the
destruction of the adjacent bays of the choir. It occupies the full
width of the three aisles, and covers the ample space thus enclosed with
a simple but beautiful groined and ribbed vault of wood reaching to a
central octagonal lantern, which rises much higher and shows externally
as well as internally. Unfortunately, this vault is of wood, and would
require important modifications of detail if carried out in stone. But
it is so noble in general design and total effect, that one wonders the
type was not universally adopted for the crossing in all cathedrals,
until one observes that no cathedral of importance was built after
Walsingham’s time, nor did any other central towers opportunely fall to
the ground.

+WINDOWS AND TRACERY.+ In the Early English Period (1200-1280 or 1300)
the windows were tall and narrow (_lancet_ windows), and generally
grouped by twos and threes, though sometimes four and even five are seen
together (as the “Five Sisters” in the N. transept of York). In the nave
of Salisbury and the retro-choir of Ely the side aisles are lighted by
coupled windows and the clearstory by triple windows, the central one
higher than the others--a surviving Norman practice. Plate-tracery was,
as in France, an intermediate step leading to the development of
bar-tracery (see Fig. 110). The English followed here the same reasoning
as the French. At first the openings constituted the design, the
intervening stonework being of secondary importance. Later the forms of
the openings were subordinated to the pattern of the stone framework of
bars, arches, circles, and cusps. Bar-tracery of this description
prevailed in England through the greater part of the Decorated Period
(1280-1380), and somewhat resembled the contemporary French geometric
tracery, though more varied and less rigidly constructive in design. An
early 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. After
the middle of the fourteenth century lines of double curvature were
introduced, producing what is called _flowing_ tracery, somewhat
resembling the French flamboyant, though earlier in date (Fig. 111).
Examples of this style are found in Wells, in the side aisles and
triforium of the choir of Ely, and in the S. transept rose-window of


  [Illustration: FIG. 133.--PERPENDICULAR TRACERY,

+THE PERPENDICULAR STYLE.+ Flowing tracery was, however, a transitional
phase of design, and was soon superseded by _Perpendicular_ tracery, in
which the mullions were carried through to the top of the arch and
intersected by horizontal transoms. This formed a very rigid and
mechanically correct system of stone framing, but lacked the grace and
charm of the two preceding periods. The earliest examples are seen in
the work of Edington and of Wykeham in the reconstructed cathedral of
Winchester (1360-1394), where the tracery was thus made to harmonize
with the accentuated and multiplied vertical lines of the interior
design. It was at this late date that the English seem first to have
fully appropriated the Gothic ideas of emphasized vertical elements and
wall surfaces reduced to a minimum. The development of fan-vaulting had
led to the adoption of a new form of arch, the four-centred or _Tudor
arch_ (Fig. 133), to fit under the depressed apex of the vault. The
whole design internally and externally was thenceforward controlled by
the form of the vaulting and of the openings. The windows were made of
enormous size, especially at the east end of the choir, which was square
in nearly all English churches, and in the west windows over the
entrance. These windows had already reached, in the Decorated Period, an
enormous size, as at York; in the Perpendicular Period the two ends of
the church were as nearly as possible converted into walls of glass. The
East Window of Gloucester reaches the prodigious dimensions of 38 by 72
feet. The most complete examples of the Perpendicular tracery and of the
style in general are the three chapels already mentioned (p. 223);
those, namely, of +King’s College+ at Cambridge, of +St. George+ at
Windsor, and of +Henry VII.+ in Westminster Abbey.

+CONSTRUCTIVE DESIGN.+ The most striking peculiarity of English Gothic
design was its studious avoidance of temerity or venturesomeness in
construction. Both the height and width of the nave were kept within
very moderate bounds, and the supports were never reduced to extreme
slenderness. While much impressiveness of effect was undoubtedly lost
thereby, there was some gain in freedom of design, and there was less
obtrusion of constructive elements in the exterior composition. The
flying-buttress became a feature of minor importance where the
clearstory was kept low, as in most English churches. In many cases the
flying arches were hidden under the aisle roofs. The English cathedrals
and larger churches are long and low, depending for effect mainly upon
the projecting masses of their transepts, the imposing square central
towers which commonly crown the crossing, and the grouping of the main
structure with chapter-houses, cloisters, and Lady-chapels.

+FRONTS.+ The sides and east ends were, in most cases, more successful
than the west fronts. In these the English displayed a singular
indifference or lack of creative power. They produced nothing to rival
the majestic façades of Notre Dame, Amiens, or Reims, and their portals
are almost ridiculously small. The front of +York+ Cathedral is the most
notable in the list for its size and elaborate decoration. Those of
+Lincoln+ and +Peterborough+ are, however, more interesting in the
picturesqueness and singularity of their composition. The first-named
forms a vast arcaded screen, masking the bases of the two western
towers, and pierced by three huge Norman arches, retained from the
original façade. The west front of Peterborough is likewise a mask or
screen, mainly composed of three colossal recessed arches, whose vast
scale completely dwarfs the little porches which give admittance to the
church. Salisbury has a curiously illogical and ineffective façade.
Those of +Lichfield+ and +Wells+ are, on the other hand, imposing and
beautiful designs, the first with its twin spires and rich arcading
(Fig. 134), the second with its unusual wealth of figure-sculpture, and
massive square towers.


+CENTRAL TOWERS.+ These are the most successful features of English
exterior design. Most of them form lanterns internally over the
crossing, giving to that point a considerable increase of dignity.
Externally they are usually massive and lofty square towers, and having
been for the most part completed during the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries they are marked by great richness and elegance of detail.
Durham, York, Ely, Canterbury, Lincoln, and Gloucester maybe mentioned
as notable examples of such square towers; that of Canterbury is the
finest. Two or three have lofty spires over the lantern. Among these,
that of Salisbury is chief, rising 424 feet from the ground, admirably
designed in every detail. It was not completed till the middle of the
fourteenth century, but most fortunately carries out with great felicity
the spirit of the earlier style in which it was begun. Lichfield and
Chichester have somewhat similar central spires, but less happy in
proportion and detail than the beautiful Salisbury example.


+INTERIOR DESIGN.+ In the Norman churches the pier-arches, triforium,
and clearstory were practically equal. In the Gothic churches the
pier-arches generally occupy the lower half of the height, the upper
half being divided nearly equally between the triforium and clearstory,
as in Lincoln, Lichfield (nave), Ely (choir). In some cases, however (as
at Salisbury, Westminster, Winchester, choir of Lichfield), the
clearstory is magnified at the expense of the triforium (Fig. 135).
Three peculiarities of design sharply distinguish the English treatment
of these features from the French. The first is the multiplicity of fine
mouldings in the pier-arches; the second is the decorative elaboration
of design in the triforium; the third, the variety in the treatment of
the clearstory. In general the English interiors are much more ornate
than the French. Black Purbeck marble is frequently used for the shafts
clustered around the central core of the pier, giving a striking and
somewhat singular effect of contrasted color. The rich vaulting, the
highly decorated triforium, the moulded pier-arches, and at the end of
the vista the great east window, produce an impression very different
from the more simple and lofty stateliness of the French cathedrals. The
great length and lowness of the English interiors combine with this
decorative richness to give the impression of repose and grace, rather
than of majesty and power. This tendency reached its highest expression
in the Perpendicular churches and chapels, in which every surface was
covered with minute panelling.

+CARVING.+ In the Early English Period the details were carved with a
combined delicacy and vigor deserving of the highest praise. In the
capitals and corbels, crockets and finials, the foliage was crisp and
fine, curling into convex masses and seeming to spring from the surface
which it decorated. Mouldings were frequently ornamented with foliage of
this character in the hollows, and another ornament, the _dog-tooth_ or
_pyramid_, often served the same purpose, introducing repeated points of
light into the shadows of the mouldings. These were fine and complex,
deep hollows alternating with round mouldings (_bowtels_) sometimes made
pear-shaped in section by a fillet on one side. _Cusping_--the
decoration of an arch or circle by triangular projections on its inner
edge--was introduced during this period, and became an important
decorative resource, especially in tracery design. In the Decorated
Period the foliage was less crisp; sea-weed and oak-leaves, closely and
confusedly bunched, were used in the capitals, while crockets were
larger, double-curved, with leaves swelling into convexities like
oak-galls. Geometrical and flowing tracery were developed, and the
mouldings of the tracery-bars, as of other features, lost somewhat in
vigor and sharpness. The _ball-flower_ or button replaced the
dog’s-tooth, and the hollows were less frequently adorned with foliage.

In the Perpendicular Period nearly all flat surfaces were panelled in
designs resembling the tracery of the windows. The capitals were less
important than those of the preceding periods, and the mouldings weaker
and less effective. The Tudor rose appears as an ornament in square
panels and on flat surfaces; and moulded battlements, which first
appeared in Decorated work, now become a frequent crowning motive in
place of a cornice. There is less originality and variety in the
ornament, but a great increase in its amount (Fig. 136).

  [Illustration: FIG. 136.--FAN-VAULTING, HENRY VII.’S CHAPEL,

+PLANS.+ English church plans underwent, during the Gothic Period, but
little change from the general types established previous to the
thirteenth 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 no
example of double side aisles and side chapels, and apsidal chapels are
very rare. Canterbury and Westminster (Fig. 137) are the chief
exceptions to this, and both show clearly the French influence. Another
striking peculiarity of the English plans is the frequent occurrence of
secondary transepts, adding greatly to the external picturesqueness.
These occur in rudimentary form in Canterbury, and at Durham the Chapel
of the Nine Altars, added 1242-1290 to the eastern end, forms in reality
a secondary transept. This feature is most perfectly developed in the
cathedral of Salisbury (Fig. 128), and appears also at Lincoln,
Worcester, Wells, and a few other examples. The English cathedral plans
are also distinguished by the retention or incorporation of many
conventual features, such as cloisters, libraries, and halls, and by the
grouping of chapter-houses and Lady-chapels with the main edifice. Thus
the English cathedral plans and those of the great abbey churches
present a marked contrast with those of France and the Continent
generally. While Amiens, the greatest of French cathedrals, is 521 feet
long, and internally 140 feet high, Ely measures 565 feet in length, and
less than 75 feet in height. Notre Dame is 148 feet wide; the English
naves are usually under 80 feet in total width of the three aisles.

  a, _Henry VII.’s chapel._]

+PARISH CHURCHES.+ Many of these were of exceptional beauty of
composition 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 fifteenth
centuries, and are chiefly interesting for their square, single, west
towers and their carved wooden ceilings (see below). The tower was
usually built over the central western porch; broad and square, with
corner buttresses terminating in pinnacles, it was usually finished
without spires. Crenelated battlements crowned the upper story. When
spires were added the transition from the square tower to the octagonal
spire was effected by _broaches_ or portions of a square pyramid
intersecting the base of the spire, or by corner pinnacles and

  [Illustration: FIG. 138.--ROOF OF NAVE, ST. MARY’S,

+WOODEN CEILINGS.+ The English treated woodwork with consummate skill.
They invented and developed a variety of forms of roof-truss in which
the proper distribution of the strains was combined with a highly
decorative treatment of the several parts by carving, moulding, and
arcading. The ceiling surfaces between the trusses were handled
decoratively, and the oaken open-timber ceilings of many of the English
churches and civic or academic halls (Christ Church Hall, Oxford;
Westminster Hall, London) are such noble and beautiful works as quite to
justify the substitution of wooden for vaulted ceilings (Fig. 138). The
_hammer-beam_ truss was in its way as highly scientific, and
æsthetically as satisfactory, as any feature of French Gothic stone
construction. Without the use of tie-rods to keep the rafters from
spreading, it brought the strain of the roof upon internal brackets low
down on the wall, and produced a beautiful effect by the repetition of
its graceful curves in each truss.

+CHAPELS AND HALLS.+ Many of these rival the cathedrals in beauty and
dignity of design. The royal chapels at Windsor and Westminster have
already been mentioned, as well as King’s College Chapel at Cambridge,
and Christ Church Hall at Oxford. To these college halls should be added
the chapel of Merton College at Oxford, and the beautiful chapel of St.
Stephen at Westminster, most unfortunately demolished when the present
Parliament House was erected. The Lady-chapels of Gloucester and Ely,
though connected with the cathedrals, are really independent designs of
late date, and remarkable for the richness of their decoration, their
great windows, and elaborate ribbed vaulting. Some of the halls in
mediæval castles and manor-houses are also worthy of note, especially
for their timber ceilings.

+MINOR MONUMENTS.+ The student of Gothic architecture should also give
attention to the choir-screens, tombs, and chantries which embellish
many of the abbeys and cathedrals. The rood-screen at York is a notable
example of the first; the tomb of De Gray in the same cathedral, and
tombs and chantries in Canterbury, Winchester, Westminster Abbey, Ely,
St. Alban’s Abbey, and other churches are deservedly admired. In these
the English love for ornament, for minute carving, and for the contrast
of white and colored marble, found unrestrained expression. To these
should be added the market-crosses of Salisbury and Winchester, and
Queen Eleanor’s Cross at Waltham.

+DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE.+ The mediæval castles of Great Britain belong to
the domain of military engineering rather than of the history of art,
though occasionally presenting to view details of considerable
architectural beauty. The growth of peace and civic order is marked by
the erection of manor-houses, the residences of wealthy landowners. Some
of these houses are of imposing size, and show the application to
domestic requirements, of the late Gothic style which prevailed in the
period to which most of them belong. The windows are square or
Tudor-arched, with stone mullions and transoms of the Perpendicular
style, and the walls terminate in merlons or crenelated parapets,
recalling the earlier military structures. The palace of the bishop or
archbishop, adjoining the cathedral, and the residences of the dean,
canons, and clergy, together with the libraries, schools, and gates of
the cathedral enclosure, illustrate other phases of secular Gothic work.
Few of these structures are of striking architectural merit, but they
possess a picturesque charm which is very attractive.

Not many stone houses of the smaller class remain from the Gothic period
in England. But there is hardly an old town that does not retain many of
the half-timbered dwellings of the fifteenth or even fourteenth century,
some of them in excellent preservation. They are for the most part wider
and lower than the French houses of the same class, but are built on the
same principle, and, like them, the woodwork is more or less richly

  +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

  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.



  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 less
interesting to the general student than that of France and England, not
only because its development was less systematic and more provincial,
but also because it produced fewer works of high intrinsic merit. The
introduction into Germany of the pointed style was tardy, and its
progress slow. Romanesque architecture had created imposing types of
ecclesiastical architecture, which the conservative Teutons were slow to
abandon. The result was a half-century of transition and a mingling of
Romanesque and Gothic forms. St. Castor, at Coblentz, built as late as
1208, is wholly Romanesque. Even when the pointed arch and vault had
finally come into general use, the plan and the constructive system
still remained predominantly Romanesque. The western apse and short
sanctuary 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 constructive
audacities and difficulties of the French Gothic, but showed less of
invention and grace than their English neighbors. When, however, through
the influence of foreign models, especially of the great French
cathedrals, and through the employment of foreign architects, the Gothic
styles were at last thoroughly domesticated, a spirit of ostentation
took 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 and
of the fifteenth century. This is exemplified in the slender mullions of
Ulm, the lofty and complicated spire of Strasburg, and the curious
traceries of churches and houses in Nuremberg.

+PERIODS.+ The periods of German mediæval architecture corresponded in
sequence, though not in date, with the movement elsewhere. The maturing
of the true Gothic styles was preceded by more than a half-century of
transition. Chronologically the periods may be broadly stated as




THE FLORID, 1350-1530.

These divisions are, however, far less clearly defined than in France
and England. The development of forms was less logical and
consequential, and less uniform in the different provinces, than in
those western lands.

+CONSTRUCTION.+ As already remarked, a tenacious hold of Romanesque
methods is observable in many German Gothic monuments. Broad
wall-surfaces with small windows and a general massiveness and lowness
of proportions were long preferred to the more slender and lofty
forms of true Gothic design. Square vaulting-bays were persistently
adhered to, covering two aisle-bays. The six-part system was only
rarely resorted to, as at Schlettstadt, and in St. George at
Limburg-on-the-Lahn (Fig. 139). The ribbed vault was an imported idea,
and was never systematically developed. Under the final dominance of
French models in the second half of the thirteenth century, vaulting in
oblong bays became more general, powerfully influenced by buildings like
Freiburg, Cologne, Oppenheim, and Ratisbon cathedrals. In the fourteenth
century the growing taste for elaboration and rich detail led to the
introduction of multiplied decorative ribs. These, however, did not come
into use, as in England, through a logical development of constructive
methods, but purely as decorative features. The German multiple-ribbed
vaulting is, therefore, less satisfying than the English, though often
elegant. Conspicuous examples of its application are found in the
cathedrals of Freiburg, Ulm, Prague, and Vienna; in St. Barbara at
Kuttenberg, and many other important churches. But with all the richness
and complexity of these net-like vaults the Germans developed nothing
like the fan-vaulting or chapter-house ceilings of England.

  [Illustration: FIG. 139.--ONE BAY OF CATHEDRAL OF ST. GEORGE,

+SIDE AISLES.+ The most notable structural innovation of the Germans was
the raising of the side aisles to the same height as the central aisle
in a number of important churches. They thus created a distinctly new
type, to which German writers have given the name of _hall-church_. The
result of this innovation was to transform completely the internal
perspective of the church, as well as its structural membering. The
clearstory disappeared; the central aisle no longer dominated the
interior; the pier-arches and side-walls were greatly increased in
height, and flying buttresses were no longer required. The whole design
appeared internally more spacious, but lost greatly in variety and in
interest. The cathedral of +St. Stephen+ at Vienna is the most imposing
instance 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 others
among many examples of this type.

  [Illustration: FIG. 140.--SECTION OF ST. ELIZABETH, MARBURG.]

+TOWERS AND SPIRES.+ The same fondness for spires which had been
displayed in the Rhenish Romanesque churches produced in the Gothic
period a number of strikingly beautiful church steeples, in which
openwork tracery was substituted for the solid stone pyramids of earlier
examples. 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 the
transition from the simple square tower below to the octagonal belfry
and spire is generally managed with skill. In the remarkable tower of
the cathedral at Vienna (1433) the transition is too gradual, so that
the spire seems to start from the ground and lacks the vigor and accent
of 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 of
468 feet; the spires of Cologne, completed in 1883 from the original
fourteenth-century drawings, long lost but recovered by a happy
accident, 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 followed
French patterns, but it tended always towards the faults of mechanical
stiffness and of technical display in over-slenderness of shafts and
mullions. The windows, especially in the “hall-churches,” were apt to be
too narrow for their height. In the fifteenth century ingenuity of
geometrical combinations took the place of grace of line, and later the
tracery was often tortured into a stone caricature of rustic-work of
interlaced and twisted boughs and twigs, represented with all their bark
and knots (_branch-tracery_). The execution was far superior to the
design. The carving of foliage in capitals, finials, etc., calls for no
special mention for its originality or its departure from French types.

+PLANS.+ In these there was more variety than in any other part of
Europe except Italy. Some churches, like Naumburg, retained the
Romanesque system of a second western apse and short choir. The
Cistercian churches generally had square east ends, while the polygonal
eastern apse without ambulatory is seen in St. Elizabeth at Marburg, the
cathedrals of Ratisbon, Ulm and Vienna, and many other churches. The
introduction of French ideas in the thirteenth century led to the
adoption in a number of cases of the chevet with a single ambulatory and
a series of radiating apsidal chapels. +Magdeburg+ cathedral (1208-11)
was the first erected on this plan, which was later followed at
Altenburg, Cologne, Freiburg, Lübeck, Prague and Zwettl, in St. Francis
at Salzburg and some other churches. Side chapels to nave or choir
appear in the cathedrals of Lübeck, Munich, Oppenheim, Prague and
Zwettl. +Cologne+ +Cathedral+, by far the largest and most magnificent
of all, is completely French in plan, uniting in one design the leading
characteristics of the most notable French churches (Fig. 141). It has
complete 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 German
treatment was the eastward termination of the church by polygonal
chapels, one in the axis of each aisle, the central one projecting
beyond its neighbors. Where there were five aisles, as at Xanten, the
effect was particularly fine. The plan of the curious polygonal church
of +Our Lady+ (Liebfrauenkirche; 1227-43) built on the site of the
ancient circular baptistery at Treves, would seem to have been produced
by 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+ in
the Erzgebirge is perhaps the first distinctively Gothic work in
Germany, dating from 1190. From that time on, Gothic details appeared
with increasing frequency, especially in the Rhine provinces, as shown
in many transitional structures. +Gelnhausen+ and Aschaffenburg are
early 13th-century examples; pointed arches and vaults appear in the
Apostles’ and St. Martin’s churches at Cologne; and the great church of
+St. Peter and St. Paul+ at Neuweiler in Alsace has an almost purely
Gothic 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 of
Magdeburg, imitating the choir of Soissons, and in the structural design
of the Liebfrauenkirche at Treves as already mentioned; it reached
complete 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 of
Erwin von Steinbach and his sons (1277-1346), designed after French
models, and its north spire, built in the fifteenth century. Cologne
Cathedral, begun in 1248 by _Gerhard of Riel_ in imitation of the newly
completed choir of Amiens, was continued by Master _Arnold_ and his son
_John_, and the choir was consecrated in 1322. The nave and W. front
were built during the first half of the 14th century, though the towers
were not completed till 1883. In spite of its vast size and slow
construction, it is in style the most uniform of all great Gothic
cathedrals, 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 its
very uniformity deprives it of the picturesque and varied charm which
results from a mixture of styles recording the labors of successive
generations. The same criticism may be raised against the late cathedral
of +Ulm+ (choir, 1377-1449; nave, 1477; Fig. 143). The Cologne influence
is observable in the widely separated cathedrals of Utrecht in the
Netherlands, 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 and
construction. The last-named is one of the most dignified and beautiful
of German Gothic churches--German in plan, French in execution. The
French influence also manifests itself in the details of many of the
peculiarly 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, where
stone was almost wholly lacking. In these, flat walls, square towers,
and decoration by colored tiles and bricks are characteristic, as at
Brandenburg (St. Godehard and +St. Catherine+, 1346-1400), at
+Prentzlau+, Tängermünde, Königsberg, &c. Lübeck possesses notable
monuments of brick architecture in the churches of +St. Mary+ and St.
Catherine, both much alike in plan and in the flat and barren simplicity
of their exteriors. +St. Martin’s+ at +Landshut+ in the South is also a
notable brick church.

+LATE GOTHIC.+ As in France and England, the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries were mainly occupied with the completion of existing churches,
many of which, up to that time, were still without naves. The works of
this period show the exaggerated attenuation of detail already alluded
to, though their richness and elegance sometimes atone for their
mechanical character. The complicated ribbed vaults of this period are
among its most striking features (see p. 239). Spire-building was as
general as was the erection of central square towers in England, during
the same period. To this time also belong the overloaded traceries and
minute detail of the +St. Sebald+ and St. Lorenz churches and of several
secular buildings at Nuremberg, the façade of Chemnitz Cathedral, and
similar 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 cathedral
of Kaschau in Hungary, are Austrian masterpieces of late Gothic design.

+SECULAR BUILDINGS.+ Germany possesses a number of important examples of
secular Gothic work, chiefly municipal buildings (gates and town halls)
and castles. The first completely Gothic castle or palace was not built
until 1280, at +Marienburg+ (Prussia), and was completed a century
later. It consists of two courts, the earlier of the two forming a
closed square and containing the chapel and chapter-house of the Order
of the German knights. The later and larger court is less regular, its
chief feature being the +Great Hall+ of the Order, in two aisles. All
the vaulting is of the richest multiple-ribbed type. Other castles are
at 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 fifteenth
centuries may be mentioned those of Ratisbon (Regensburg), Münster and
Hildesheim, Halberstadt, +Brunswick+, Lübeck, and Bremen--the last two
of brick. These, and the city gates, such as the +Spahlenthor+ at Basle
(Switzerland) and others at Lübeck and Wismar, are generally very
picturesque edifices. Many fine guildhalls were also built during the
last two centuries of the Gothic style; and dwelling-houses of the same
period, of quaint and effective design, with stepped or traceried
gables, lofty roofs, openwork balconies and corner turrets, are to be
found in many cities. Nuremberg is especially rich in these.

+THE NETHERLANDS+, as might be expected from their position, underwent
the influences of both France and Germany. During the thirteenth
century, largely through the intimate monastic relations between Tournay
and Noyon, the French influence became paramount in what is now Belgium,
while Holland remained more strongly German in style. Of the two
countries 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 their
class, both in scale and in artistic treatment. The Flemish town halls
and guildhalls merit particular attention for their size and richness,
exemplifying in a worthy manner the wealth, prosperity, and independence
of 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 Belgium
was the choir of +Ste. Gudule+ (1225) at Brussels, followed in 1242 by
the choir and transepts of +Tournay+, designed with pointed vaults, side
chapels, and a complete _chevet_. The transept-ends are round, as at
Noyon. 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 as
effective internally as it should be, owing to the poverty of the
details and the lack of finely felt proportion in the various parts. The
late west front (1422-1518) displays the florid taste of the wealthy
Flemish burgher population of that period, but is so rich and elegant,
especially its lofty and slender north spire, that its over-decoration
is pardonable. The cathedral of +St. Rombaut+ at Malines (choir, 1366;
nave, 1454-64) is a more satisfactory church, though smaller and with
its western towers incomplete. The cathedral of +Louvain+ belongs to the
same period (1373-1433). +St. Wandru+ at Mons (1450-1528) and +St.
Jacques+ at Liège (1522-58) are interesting parish churches of the first
rank, remarkable especially for the use of color in their internal
decoration, for their late tracery and ribbed vaulting, and for the
absence of Renaissance details at that late period.

  [Illustration: FIG. 144.--TOWN HALL, LOUVAIN.]

+TOWN HALLS: GUILDHALLS.+ These were really the most characteristic
Flemish edifices, and are in most cases the most conspicuous monuments
of their respective cities. The +Cloth Hall+ of +Ypres+ (1304) is the
earliest and most imposing among them; similar halls were built not much
later at +Bruges+, +Louvain+, +Malines+ and +Ghent+. The town halls were
mostly of later date, the earliest being that of +Bruges+ (1377). The
town 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 a
borrowed style, which did not undergo at the hands of its borrowers any
radically novel or fundamental development. The structural design is
usually lacking in vigor and organic significance, but the details are
often graceful and well designed, especially on the exterior. The
tendency was often towards over-elaboration, particularly in the later

The Gothic architecture of +Holland+ and of the +Scandinavian+ countries
offers so little that is highly artistic or inspiring in character, that
space cannot well be given in this work, even to an enumeration of its
chief monuments.

+SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.+ The beginnings of Gothic architecture in Spain
followed close on the series of campaigns from 1217 to 1252, which began
the overthrow of the Moorish dominion. With the resulting spirit of
exultation and the wealth accruing from booty, came a rapid development
of architecture, mainly under French influence. Gothic architecture was
at this date, under St. Louis, producing in France some of its noblest
works. The great cathedrals of +Toledo+ and +Burgos+, begun between 1220
and 1230, were the earliest purely Gothic churches in Spain. +San
Vincente+ at Avila and the +Old Cathedral+ at Salamanca, of somewhat
earlier date, present a mixture of round- and pointed-arched forms, with
the Romanesque elements predominant. +Toledo Cathedral+, planned in
imitation of Notre Dame and Bourges, but exceeding them in width, covers
75,000 square feet, and thus ranks among the largest of European
cathedrals. Internally it is well proportioned and well detailed,
recalling the early French masterworks, but its exterior is less

  [Illustration: FIG. 145.--FAÇADE OF BURGOS CATHEDRAL.]

In the contemporary cathedral of Burgos the exterior is at least as
interesting as the interior. The west front, of German design, suggests
Cologne by its twin openwork spires (Fig. 145); while the crossing is
embellished with a sumptuous dome and lantern or _cimborio_, added as
late as 1567. The chapels at the east end, especially that of the
Condestabile (1487), are ornate to the point of overloading, a fault to
which late Spanish Gothic work is peculiarly prone. Other
thirteenth-century cathedrals are those of +Leon+ (1260), +Valencia+
(1262), and +Barcelona+ (1298), all exhibiting strongly the French
influence in the plan, vaulting, and vertical proportions. The models of
Bourges and Paris with their wide naves, lateral chapels and
semicircular chevets were followed in the cathedral of Barcelona, in a
number of fourteenth-century churches both there and elsewhere, and in
the sixteenth-century cathedral of Segovia. In Sta. Maria del Pi at
Barcelona, in the collegiate church at Manresa, and in the imposing nave
of the +Cathedral+ of +Gerona+ (1416, added to choir of 1312, the latter
by a Southern French architect, Henri de Narbonne), the influence of
Alby in southern France (see p. 206) is discernible. These are
one-aisled churches with internal buttresses separating the lateral
chapels. The nave of Gerona is 73 feet wide, or double the average clear
width of French or English cathedral naves. The resulting effect is not
commensurate with the actual dimensions, and shows the inappropriateness
of Gothic details for compositions so Roman in breadth and simplicity.

+SEVILLE.+ The largest single edifice in Spain, and the largest church
built 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 square
feet, measuring 415 × 298 feet, and is a simple rectangle comprising
five aisles with lateral chapels. The central aisle is 56 ft. wide and
145 high; the side aisles and chapels diminish gradually in height, and
with the uniform piers in six rows produce an imposing effect, in spite
of the lack of transepts or chevet. The somewhat similar +New Cathedral+
of Salamanca (1510-1560) shows the last struggles of the Gothic style
against the incoming tide of the Renaissance.

+LATER MONUMENTS.+ These all partake of the over-decoration which
characterized the fifteenth century throughout Europe. In Spain this
decoration was even less constructive in character, and more purely
fanciful and arbitrary, than in the northern lands; but this very
rejection of all constructive pretense gives it a peculiar charm and
goes far to excuse its extravagance (Fig. 146). Decorative vaulting-ribs
were made to describe geometric patterns of great elegance. Some of the
late Gothic vaults by the very exuberance of imagination shown in their
designs, almost disarm criticism. Instead of suppressing the walls as
far as possible, and emphasizing all the vertical lines, as was done in
France and England, the later Gothic architects of Spain delighted in
broad wall-surfaces and multiplied horizontal lines. Upon these surfaces
they lavished carving without restraint and without any organic relation
to the structure of the building. The arcades of cloisters and interior
courts (_patios_) were formed with arches of fantastic curves resting on
twisted columns; and internal chapels in the cathedrals were covered
with minute carving of exquisite workmanship, but wholly irrational
design. Probably the influence of Moorish decorative art accounts in
part for these extravagances. The eastern chapels in Burgos cathedral,
the votive church of +San Juan de los Reyes+ at Toledo and many portals
of churches, convents and hospitals illustrate these tendencies.


+PORTUGAL+ is an almost unknown land architecturally. It seems to have
adopted 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 a
polygonal domed edifice, some 67 feet in diameter, and well designed,
though covered with a too profuse and somewhat mechanical decoration of
panels, 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,

  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.



  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 in
Italy before 1200 lacked that unity of principle out of which alone a
new and homogeneous national style could have been evolved. Each
province practised its own style and methods of building, long after the
Romanesque had given place to the Gothic in Western Europe. The Italians
were better decorators than builders, and cared little for Gothic
structural principles. Mosaic and carving, sumptuous altars and tombs,
veneerings and inlays of colored marble, broad flat surfaces to be
covered with painting and ornament--to secure these they were content to
build crudely, to tie their insufficiently buttressed vaults with
unsightly iron tie-rods, and to make their church façades mere
screen-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 as
an imported fashion. Even when foreign architects (usually Germans) were
employed, the composition, and in large measure the details, were still
Italian 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 of
Gmund_), are conspicuous illustrations of this. Rome built basilicas all
through the Middle Ages. Tuscany continued to prefer flat walls veneered
with marble to the broken surfaces and deep buttresses of France and
Germany. Venice developed a Gothic style of façade-design wholly her own
(see p. 267). Nowhere but in Italy could two such utterly diverse
structures as the Certosa at Pavia and the cathedral at Milan have been
erected at the same time.

+CLIMATE AND TRADITION.+ Two further causes militated against the
domestication of Gothic art in Italy. The first was the brilliant
atmosphere, which made the vast traceried windows of Gothic design, and
its suppression of the wall-surfaces, wholly undesirable. Cool, dim
interiors, thick walls, small windows and the exclusion of sunlight, all
necessary to Italian comfort, were incompatible with Gothic ideals and
methods. The second obstacle was the persistence of classic traditions
of form, both in construction and decoration. The spaciousness and
breadth of interior planning which characterized Roman design, and its
amplitude of scale in every feature, seem never to have lost their hold
on the Italians. The narrow lofty aisles, multiplied supports and minute
detail of the Gothic style were repugnant to the classic predilections
of the Italian builders. The Roman acanthus and Corinthian capital were
constantly imitated in their Gothic buildings, and the round arch
continued all through the Middle Ages to be used in conjunction with the
pointed arch (Figs. 149, 150).

+EARLY BUILDINGS.+ It is hard to determine how and by whom Gothic forms
were first introduced into Italy, but it was most probably through the
agency of the monastic orders. Cistercian churches like that at
Chiaravalle near Milan (1208-21), and most of those erected by the
mendicant orders of the Franciscans (founded 1210) and Dominicans
(1216), were built with ribbed vaults and pointed arches. The example
set by these orders contributed greatly to the general adoption of the
foreign style. +S. Francesco+ at +Assisi+, already mentioned, was the
first completely Gothic Franciscan church, although +S. Francesco+ at
+Bologna+, begun a few years later, was finished a little earlier. The
Dominican church of +SS. Giovanni e Paolo+ and the great Franciscan
church of +Sta. Maria Gloriosa dei Frari+, both at Venice, were built a
little later. +Sta. Maria Novella+ at Florence (1278), and +Sta. Maria
sopra Minerva+ at Rome (1280), both by the brothers _Sisto_ and
_Ristoro_, and +S. Anastasia+ at Verona (1261) are the masterpieces of
the Dominican builders. +S. Andrea+ at +Vercelli+ in North Italy, begun
in 1219 under a foreign architect, is an isolated early example of lay
Gothic work. Though somewhat English in its plan, and (unlike most
Italian churches) provided with two western spires in the English
manner, it is in all other respects thoroughly Italian in aspect. The
church at Asti, begun in 1229, suggests German models by its high side
walls and narrow windows.

  [Illustration: FIG. 147.--DUOMO AT FLORENCE. PLAN.
  a, _Campanile_.]

+CATHEDRALS.+ The greatest monuments of Italian Gothic design are the
cathedrals, in which, even more than was the case in France, the highly
developed civic pride of the municipalities expressed itself. Chief
among 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+ at
Bologna (1390). They are all of imposing size; Milan is the largest of
all Gothic cathedrals except Seville. S. Petronio was planned to be 600
feet long, the present structure with its three broad aisles and
flanking chapels being merely the nave of the intended edifice. The
Duomo at Florence (Fig. 147) is 500 feet long and covers 82,000 square
feet, while the octagon at the crossing is 143 feet in diameter. The
effect of these colossal dimensions is, however, as in a number of these
large Italian interiors, singularly belittled by the bareness of the
walls, by the great size of the constituent parts of the composition,
and by the lack of architectural subdivisions and multiplied detail to
serve 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 large
unbroken wall-surfaces and the vast expanse of the vaults over naves of
extraordinary breadth, with paintings and color decoration. This would
have remedied their present nakedness and lack of interest, but it was
only in a very few instances carried out. The double church of
S. Francesco at Assisi, decorated by Cimabue, Giotto, and other early
Tuscan painters, the Arena Chapel at Padua, painted by Giotto, the
+Spanish Chapel+ of S. M. Novella, Florence, and the east end of
S. Croce, Florence, are illustrations of the splendor of effect possible
by this method of decoration. The bareness of effect in other, unpainted
interiors was emphasized by the plainness of the vaults destitute of
minor ribs. The transverse ribs were usually broad arches with flat
soffits, and the vaulting was often sprung from so low a point as to
leave no room for a triforium. Mere bull’s-eyes often served for
clearstory windows, as in S. Anastasia at Verona, S. Petronio at
Bologna, and the Florentine Duomo. The cathedral of +S. Martino+ at
Lucca (Fig. 149) is one of the most complete and elegant of Italian
Gothic interiors, having a genuine triforium with traceried arches. Even
here, however, there are round arches without mouldings, flat pilasters,
broad transverse ribs recalling Roman arches, and insignificant
bull’s-eyes in the clearstory.

  [Illustration: FIG. 149.--ONE BAY, NAVE OF CATHEDRAL OF

  [Illustration: FIG. 150.--INTERIOR OF SIENNA CATHEDRAL.]

The failure to produce adequate results of scale in the interiors of the
larger Italian churches, has been already alluded to. It is strikingly
exemplified 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, in
square bays, starts from the level of the tops of these arches. The
interior (Fig. 148) is singularly naked and cold, giving no conception
of its vast dimensions. The colossal dome is an early work of the
Renaissance (see p. 276). It is not known how _Fr. Talenti_, who in 1357
enlarged and vaulted the nave and planned the east end, proposed to
cover the great octagon. The east end is the most effective part of the
design both internally and externally, owing to the relatively moderate
scale of the 15 chapels which surround the apsidal arms of the cross. In
S. Petronio at Bologna, begun 1390 by _Master Antonio_, the scale is
better handled. The nave, 300 feet long, is divided into six bays, each
embracing two side chapels. It is 46 feet wide and 132 feet high,
proportions which approximate those of the French cathedrals, and
produce an impression of size somewhat unusual in Italian churches.
+Orvieto+ has internally little that suggests Gothic architecture; like
many Franciscan and Dominican churches it is really a timber-roofed
basilica with a few pointed windows. The mixed Gothic and Romanesque
interior of +Sienna Cathedral+ (Fig. 150), with its round arches and
six-sided dome, unsymmetrically placed over the crossing, is one of the
most impressive creations of Italian mediæval art. Alternate courses of
black and white marble add richness but not repose to the effect of this
interior: the same is true of Orvieto, and of some other churches. The
basement baptistery of +S. Giovanni+, under the east end of Sienna
Cathedral, is much more purely Gothic in detail.

In these, and indeed in most Italian interiors, the main interest
centres less in the excellence of the composition than in the
accessories of pavements, pulpits, choir-stalls, and sepulchral
monuments. In these the decorative fancy and skill of the Italians found
unrestrained exercise, and produced works of surpassing interest and

+EXTERNAL DESIGN.+ The greatest possible disparity generally exists
between the sides and west fronts of the Italian churches. With few
exceptions the flanks present nothing like the variety of sky-line and
of light and shade customary in northern and western lands. The side
walls are high and flat, plain, or striped with black and white masonry
(Sienna, Orvieto), or veneered with marble (Duomo at Florence) or
decorated with surface-ornament of thin pilasters and arcades (Lucca).
The clearstory is low; the roof low--pitched and hardly visible from
below. Color, rather than structural richness, is generally sought for:
Milan Cathedral is almost the only exception, and goes to the other
extreme, with its seemingly countless buttresses, pinnacles and statues.

The façades, on the other hand, were treated as independent decorative
compositions, and were in many cases remarkably beautiful works, though
having little or no organic relation to the main structure. The most
celebrated are those of +Sienna+ (cathedral begun 1243; façade 1284 by
_Giovanni Pisano_; Fig. 151) and +Orvieto+ (begun 1290 by _Lorenzo
Maitani_; façade 1310). Both of these are sumptuous polychromatic
compositions in marble, designed on somewhat similar lines, with three
high gables fronting the three aisles, with deeply recessed portals,
pinnacled turrets flanking nave and aisles, and a central circular
window. That of Orvieto is furthermore embellished with mosaic pictures,
and is the more brilliant in color of the two. The mediæval façades of
the Florentine Gothic churches were never completed; but the elegance of
the panelling and of the tracery with twisted shafts in the flanks of
the cathedral, and the florid beauty of its side doorways (late 14th
century) would doubtless if realized with equal success on the façades,
have produced strikingly beautiful results. The modern façade of the
Duomo, by the late _De Fabris_ (1887) is a correct if not highly
imaginative version of the style so applied. The front of Milan
cathedral (soon to be replaced by a new façade), shows a mixture of
Gothic and Renaissance forms. +Ferrara Cathedral+, although internally
transformed in the last century, retains its fine 13th-century
three-gabled and arcaded screen front; one of the most Gothic in spirit
of all Italian façades. The +Cathedral+ of +Genoa+ presents Gothic
windows and deeply recessed portals in a façade built in black and white
bands, 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 dome
over the crossing. That of Sienna has already been mentioned; that of
Milan is a sumptuous many-pinnacled structure terminating in a spire 300
feet high. The +Certosa+ at Pavia (Fig. 152) and the earlier Carthusian
church of Chiaravalle have internal cupolas or domes covered externally
by many-storied structures ending in a tower dominating the whole
edifice. These two churches, like many others in Lombardy, the Æmilia
and Venetia, are built of brick, moulded terra-cotta being effectively
used for the cornices, string-courses, jambs and ornaments of the
exterior. The Certosa at Pavia is contemporary with the cathedral of
Milan, to which it offers a surprising contrast, both in style and
material. It is wholly built of brick and terra-cotta, and, save for its
ribbed vaulting, possesses hardly a single Gothic feature or detail. Its
arches, mouldings, and cloisters suggest both the Romanesque and the
Renaissance styles by their semi-classic character.

  [Illustration: FIG. 152.--EXTERIOR OF THE CERTOSA, PAVIA.]

+PLANS.+ The wide diversity of local styles in Italian architecture
appears in the plans as strikingly as in the details In general one
notes a love of spaciousness which expresses itself in a sometimes
disproportionate breadth, and in the wide spacing of the piers. The
polygonal chevet with its radial chapels is but rarely seen;
+S. Lorenzo+ at Naples, Sta. Maria dei Servi and S. Francesco at Bologna
are among the most important examples. More frequently the chapels form
a range along the east side of the transepts, especially in the
Franciscan churches, which otherwise retain many basilican features.
A comparison of the plans of S. Andrea at Vercelli, the Duomo at
Florence, the cathedrals of Sienna and Milan, S. Petronio at Bologna and
the Certosa at Pavia (Fig. 153), sufficiently illustrates the variety of
Italian Gothic plan-types.

  [Illustration: FIG. 153.--PLAN OF CERTOSA AT PAVIA.]

+ORNAMENT.+ Applied decoration plays a large part in all Italian Gothic
designs. Inlaid and mosaic patterns and panelled veneering in colored
marble are essential features of the exterior decoration of most Italian
churches. 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 is
an epitome of Italian Gothic art. Its inlays, mosaics, and veneering are
treated with consummate elegance, and combined with incrusted reliefs of
great beauty. The tracery of this monument and of the side windows of
the adjoining cathedral is lighter and more graceful than is common in
Italy. Its beauty consists, however, less in movement of line than in
richness and elegance of carved and inlaid ornament. In the +Or San
Michele+--a combined chapel and granary in Florence dating from
1330--the tracery is far less light and open. In general, except in
churches like the Cathedral of Milan, built under German influences, the
tracery in secular monuments is more successful than in ecclesiastical
structures. Venice developed the designing of tracery to greater
perfection in her palaces than any other Italian city (see below).

+MINOR WORKS.+ Italian Gothic art found freer expression in
semi-decorative works, like tombs, altars and votive chapels, than in
more monumental structures. The fourteenth century was particularly rich
in canopy tombs, mostly in churches, though some were erected in the
open air, like the celebrated +Tombs of the Scaligers+ in Verona
(1329-1380). Many of those in churches in and near Rome, and others in
south Italy, are especially rich in inlay of _opus Alexandrinum_ upon
their twisted columns and panelled sarcophagi. The family of the
_Cosmati_ acquired great fame for work of this kind during the
thirteenth century.

The little marble chapel of +Sta. Maria della Spina+, on the Arno, at
Pisa, is an instance of the successful decorative use of Gothic forms in
minor buildings.

+TOWERS.+ The Italians always preferred the square tower to the spire,
and in most cases treated it as an independent campanile. Following
Early Christian and Romanesque traditions, these square towers were
usually built with plain sides unbroken by buttresses, and terminated in
a flat roof or a low and inconspicuous cone or pyramid. The Campanile at
Florence already mentioned is by far the most beautiful of these designs
(Fig. 154). The campaniles of Sienna, Lucca, and Pistoia are built in
alternate white and black courses, like the adjoining cathedrals. Verona
and Mantua have towers with octagonal lanterns. In general, these Gothic
towers differ from the earlier Romanesque models only in the forms of
their openings. Though dignified in their simplicity and size, and
usually well proportioned, they lack the beauty and interest of the
French, English, and German steeples and towers.


+SECULAR MONUMENTS.+ In their public halls, open _loggias_, and domestic
architecture the Italians were able to develop the application of Gothic
forms with greater freedom than in their church-building, because
unfettered by traditional methods of design. The early and vigorous
growth 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 of
authority, usually have a severe and fortress-like character; the
+Palazzo Vecchio+ at Florence is the most important example (1298, by
Arnolfo 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 cornice
of the palace. The court and most of the interior were remodelled in the
sixteenth century. At Sienna is a somewhat similar structure in brick,
the +Palazzo Pubblico+. At Pistoia the Podestà and the Communal Palace
stand opposite each other; in both of these the courtyards still retain
their original aspect. At Perugia, Bologna, and Viterbo are others of
some importance; while in Lombardy, Bergamo, Como, Cremona, Piacenza and
other towns possess smaller halls with open arcades below, of a more
elegant and pleasing aspect. More successful still are the open loggias
or tribunes erected for the gatherings of public bodies. The +Loggia dei
Lanzi+ at Florence (1376, by _Benci di Cione_ and _Simone di Talenti_)
is the largest and most famous of these open vaulted halls, of which
several exist in Florence and Sienna. Gothic only in their minor
details, they are Romanesque or semi-classic in their broad round arches
and strong horizontal lines and cornices (Fig. 156).

  [Illustration: FIG. 155.--UPPER PART OF PALAZZO VECCHIO,

+PALACES AND HOUSES: VENICE.+ The northern cities, especially Pisa,
Florence, Sienna, Bologna, and Venice, are rich in mediæval public and
private palaces and dwellings in brick or marble, in which pointed
windows and open arcades are used with excellent effect. In Bologna and
Sienna brick is used, in conjunction with details executed in moulded
terra-cotta, in a highly artistic and effective way. Viterbo, nearer
Rome, also possesses many interesting houses with street arcades and
open 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 ever
present influence of the sun-loving East, made the massive and
fortress-like architecture of the inland cities unnecessary. Abundant
openings, large windows full of tracery of great lightness and elegance,
projecting balconies and the freest use of marble veneering and
inlay--a survival of Byzantine traditions of the 12th century (see
p. 133)--give to the Venetian houses and palaces an air of gayety and
elegance found nowhere else. While there are few Gothic churches of
importance in Venice, the number of mediæval houses and palaces is very
large. Chief among these is the +Doge’s Palace+ (Fig. 157), adjoining
the church of St. Mark. The two-storied arcades of the west and south
fronts date from 1354, and originally stood out from the main edifice,
which was widened in the next century, when the present somewhat heavy
walls, laid up in red, white and black marble in a species of
quarry-pattern, were built over the arcades. These arcades are beautiful
designs, combining massive strength and grace in a manner quite foreign
to Western Gothic ideas. Lighter and more ornate is the +Ca d’Oro+, on
the Grand Canal; while the Foscari, Contarini-Fasan, Cavalli, and Pisani
palaces, among many others, are admirable examples of the style. In most
of these a traceried loggia occupies the central part, flanked by walls
incrusted with marble and pierced by Gothic windows with carved
mouldings, borders, and balconies. The Venetian Gothic owes its success
largely to the absence of structural difficulties to interfere with the
purely decorative development of Gothic details.

  [Illustration: FIG. 157.--WEST FRONT VIEW OF DOGE’S PALACE,

  +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.



  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 Italy
and the substitution in its place of forms derived from classic models
were occasioned by no sudden or merely local revolution. The Renaissance
was the result of a profound and universal intellectual movement, whose
roots may be traced far back into the Middle Ages, and which manifested
itself first in Italy simply because there the conditions were most
propitious. It spread through Europe just as rapidly as similar
conditions appearing in other countries prepared the way for it.
The essence of this far-reaching movement was the protest of the
individual reason against the trammels of external and arbitrary
authority--a protest which found its earliest organized expression in
the Humanists. In its assertion of the intellectual and moral rights
of the individual, the Renaissance laid the foundations of modern
civilization. The same spirit, in rejecting the authority and teachings
of the Church in matters of purely secular knowledge, led to the
questionings of the precursors of modern science and the discoveries of
the early navigators. But in nothing did the reaction against mediæval
scholasticism and asceticism display itself more strikingly than in the
joyful enthusiasm which marked the pursuit of classic studies. The
long-neglected treasures of classic literature were reopened, almost
rediscovered, in the fourteenth century by the immortal trio--Dante,
Petrarch, and Boccaccio. The joy of living, the hitherto forbidden
delight in beauty and pleasure for their own sakes, the exultant
awakening to the sense of personal freedom, which came with the bursting
of mediæval fetters, found in classic art and literature their most
sympathetic expression. It was in Italy, where feudalism had never fully
established itself, and where the municipalities and guilds had
developed, as nowhere else, the sense of civic and personal freedom,
that these symptoms first manifested themselves. In Italy, and above all
in the Tuscan cities, they appeared throughout the fourteenth century in
the growing enthusiasm for all that recalled the antique culture, and in
the rapid advance of luxury and refinement in both public and private

+THE RENAISSANCE OF THE ARTS.+ Classic Roman architecture had never lost
its influence on the Italian taste. Gothic art, already declining in the
West, had never been in Italy more than a borrowed garb, clothing
architectural conceptions classic rather than Gothic in spirit. The
antique monuments which abounded on every hand were ever present models
for the artist, and to the Florentines of the early fifteenth century
the civilization which had created them represented the highest ideal of
human culture. They longed to revive in their own time the glories of
ancient Rome, and appropriated with uncritical and undiscriminating
enthusiasm the good and the bad, the early and the late forms of Roman
art, Naïvely unconscious of the disparity between their own
architectural conceptions and those they fancied they imitated, they
were, unknown to themselves, creating a new style, in which the details
of Roman art were fitted in novel combinations to new requirements. In
proportion as the Church lost its hold on the culture of the age, this
new architecture entered increasingly into the service of private luxury
and public display. It created, it is true, striking types of church
design, and made of the dome one of the most imposing of external
features; but its most characteristic products were palaces, villas,
council halls, and monuments to the great and the powerful. The personal
element in design asserted itself as never before in the growth of
schools and the development of styles. Thenceforward the history of
Italian architecture becomes the history of the achievements of
individual artists.

+EARLY BEGINNINGS.+ Already in the 13th century the pulpits of Niccolo
Pisano at Sienna and Pisa had revealed that master’s direct recourse to
antique monuments for inspiration and suggestion. In the frescoes of
Giotto and his followers, and in the architectural details of many
nominally Gothic buildings, classic forms had appeared with increasing
frequency during the fourteenth century. This was especially true in
Florence, which was then the artistic capital of Italy. Never, perhaps,
since the days of Pericles, had there been another community so
permeated with the love of beauty in art, and so endowed with the
capacity to realize it. Nowhere else in Europe at that time was there
such strenuous life, such intense feeling, or such free course for
individual genius as in Florence. Her artists, with unexampled
versatility, addressed themselves with equal success to goldsmiths’
work, sculpture, architecture and engineering--often to painting and
poetry as well; and they were quick to catch in their art the spirit of
the classic revival. The new movement achieved its first architectural
triumph in the dome of the cathedral of Florence (1420-64); and it was
Florentine--or at least Tuscan--artists who planted in other centres the
seeds of the new art that were to spring up in the local and provincial
schools of Sienna, Milan, Pavia, Bologna, and Venice, of Brescia, Lucca,
Perugia, and Rimini, and many other North Italian cities. The movement
asserted itself late in Rome and Naples, as an importation from Northern
Italy, but it bore abundant fruit in these cities in its later stages.

+PERIODS.+ The classic styles which grew up out of the Renaissance may
be divided for convenience into four periods.

THE EARLY RENAISSANCE or FORMATIVE PERIOD, 1420-90; characterized by
the grace and freedom of the decorative detail, suggested by Roman
prototypes and applied to compositions of great variety and originality.

period classic details were copied with increasing fidelity, the orders
especially appearing in almost all compositions; decoration meanwhile
losing somewhat in grace and freedom.

THE EARLY BAROQUE (or BAROCO), 1550-1600; a period of classic formality
characterized by the use of colossal orders, engaged columns and rather
scanty decoration.

THE DECLINE or LATER BAROQUE, marked by poverty of invention in the
composition and a predominance of vulgar sham and display in the
decoration. Broken pediments, huge scrolls, florid stucco-work and a
general disregard of architectural propriety were universal.

During the eighteenth century there was a reaction from these
extravagances, which showed itself in a return to the servile copying of
classic models, sometimes not without a certain dignity of composition
and 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 is
impossible to dissociate the first period historically from those which
followed it, down to the final exhaustion of the artistic movement to
which 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 fifteenth
century, _Cinquecento_ to the sixteenth century, and _Seicento_ to the
seventeenth century or Rococo. It has, however, become common to confine
the use of the term Cinquecento to the first half of the sixteenth

+CONSTRUCTION AND DETAIL.+ The architects of the Renaissance occupied
themselves more with form than with construction, and rarely set
themselves constructive problems of great difficulty. Although the new
architecture began with the colossal dome of the cathedral of Florence,
and culminated in the stupendous church of St. Peter at Rome, it was
pre-eminently an architecture of palaces and villas, of façades and of
decorative display. Constructive difficulties were reduced to their
lowest terms, and the constructive framework was concealed, not
emphasized, by the decorative apparel of the design. Among the
masterpieces of the early Renaissance are many buildings of small
dimensions, such as gates, chapels, tombs and fountains. In these the
individual fancy had full sway, and produced surprising results by the
beauty of enriched mouldings, of carved friezes with infant genii,
wreaths of fruit, griffins, masks and scrolls; by pilasters covered with
arabesques as delicate in modelling as if wrought in silver; by inlays
of marble, panels of glazed terra-cotta, marvellously carved doors, fine
stucco-work in relief, capitals and cornices of wonderful richness and
variety. The Roman orders appeared only in free imitations, with
panelled and carved pilasters for the most part instead of columns, and
capitals of fanciful design, recalling remotely the Corinthian by their
volutes and leaves (Fig. 158). Instead of the low-pitched classic
pediments, there appears frequently an arched cornice enclosing a
sculptured lunette. Doors and windows were enclosed in richly carved
frames, sometimes arched and sometimes square. Façades were flat and
unbroken, depending mainly for effect upon the distribution and
adornment of the openings, and the design of doorways, courtyards and
cornices. Internally vaults and flat ceilings of wood and plaster were
about equally common, the barrel vault and dome occurring far more
frequently than the groined vault. Many of the ceilings of this period
are of remarkable richness and beauty.


public competition was held for completing the cathedral of Florence by
a dome over the immense octagon, 143 feet in diameter. _Filippo
Brunelleschi_, sculptor and architect (1377-1446), who with Donatello
had journeyed to Rome to study there the masterworks of ancient art,
after demonstrating the inadequacy of all the solutions proposed by the
competitors, was finally permitted to undertake the gigantic task
according to his own plans. These provided for an octagonal dome in two
shells, connected by eight major and sixteen minor ribs, and crowned by
a lantern at the top (Fig. 159). This wholly original conception, by
which for the first time (outside of Moslem art) the dome was made an
external feature fitly terminating in the light forms and upward
movement 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 its
spirit, in its vastness and its simplicity of line, and was made
possible solely by Brunelleschi’s studies of Roman design and
construction (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 covered
with a dome at the intersection, and preceded by a vestibule with a
richly decorated vault; and the two great churches of +S. Lorenzo+
(1425) and +S. Spirito+ (1433-1476, Fig. 161). Both reproduced in a
measure the plan of the Pisa Cathedral, having a three-aisled nave and
transepts, with a low dome over the crossing. The side aisles were
covered with domical vaults and the central aisles with flat wooden or
plaster ceilings. All the details of columns, arches and mouldings were
imitated from Roman models, and yet the result was something entirely
new. Consciously or unconsciously, Brunelleschi was reviving Byzantine
rather than Roman conceptions in the planning and structural design of
these domical churches, but the garb in which he clothed them was Roman,
at least in detail. The +Old Sacristy+ of S. Lorenzo was another domical
design 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 more
thoroughly than Brunelleschi, remodelled the church of +S. Francesco+ at
+Rimini+ with Roman pilasters and arches, and with engaged orders in the
façade, which, however, was never completed. His great work was the
church of +S. Andrea+ at +Mantua+, a Latin cross in plan, with a dome at
the intersection (the present high dome dating however, only from the
18th century) and a façade to which the conception of a Roman triumphal
arch was skilfully adapted. His façade of incrusted marbles for the
church of S. M. Novella at Florence was a less successful work, though
its flaring consoles over the side aisles established an unfortunate
precedent frequently imitated in later churches.


  [Illustration: FIG. 161.--INTERIOR OF S. SPIRITO, FLORENCE.]

A great activity in church-building marked the period between 1475 and
1490. The plans of the churches erected about this time throughout north
Italy display an interesting variety of arrangements, in nearly all of
which the dome is combined with the three-aisled cruciform plan, either
as a central feature at the crossing or as a domical vault over each
bay. Bologna and Ferrara possess a number of churches of this kind.
Occasionally the basilican arrangement was followed, with columnar
arcades separating the aisles. More often, however, the pier-arches were
of the Roman type, with engaged columns or pilasters between them. The
interiors, presumably intended to receive painted decorations, were in
most cases somewhat bare of ornament, pleasing rather by happy
proportions and effective vaulting or rich flat ceilings, panelled,
painted and gilded, than by elaborate architectural detail. A similar
scantiness of ornament is to be remarked in the exteriors, excepting the
façades, which were sometimes highly ornate; the doorways, with columns,
pediments, sculpture and carving, receiving especial attention. High
external domes did not come into general use until the next period. In
Milan, Pavia, and some other Lombard cities, the internal cupola over
the crossing was, however, covered externally by a lofty structure in
diminishing stages, like that of the Certosa at Pavia (Fig. 152), or
that 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 a
larger scale; the plan is cruciform, with equal or nearly equal arms
covered by barrel vaults, at whose intersection rises a dome of moderate
height on pendentives. This charming edifice, with its unfinished
exterior of white marble, its simple and dignified lines, and internal
embellishments in della-Robbia ware, is one of the masterpieces of the

In the designing of chapels and oratories the architects of the early
Renaissance attained conspicuous success, these edifices presenting
fewer structural limitations and being more purely decorative in
character than the larger churches. Such façades as that of
+S. Bernardino+ at Perugia and of the +Frati di S. Spirito+ at Bologna
are among the most delightful products of the decorative fancy of the
15th century.



+FLORENTINE PALACES.+ While the architects of this period failed to
develop any new and thoroughly satisfactory ecclesiastical type, they
attained conspicuous success in palace-architecture. The +Riccardi+
palace in Florence (1430) marks the first step of the Renaissance in
this 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 widely
spaced mullioned windows in two stories over a massive basement, is
crowned with a classic cornice of unusual and perhaps excessive size. In
spite of the bold and fortress-like character of the rusticated masonry
of these façades, and the mediæval look they seem to present to modern
eyes, they marked a revolution in style and established a type
frequently imitated in later years. The courtyard, in contrast with this
stern exterior, appears light and cheerful (Fig. 162). Its wall is
carried on round arches borne by columns with Corinthianesque capitals,
and the arcade is enriched with sculptured medallions. +The Pitti
Palace+, by Brunelleschi (1435), embodies the same ideas on a more
colossal scale, but lacks the grace of an adequate cornice. A lighter
and more ornate style appeared in 1460 in the +P. Rucellai+, by Alberti,
in which for the first time classical pilasters in superposed stages
were applied to a street façade. To avoid the dilemma of either
insufficiently crowning the edifice or making the cornice too heavy for
the upper range of pilasters, Alberti made use of brackets, occupying
the width of the upper frieze, and converting the whole upper
entablature into a cornice. But this compromise was not quite
successful, and it remained for later architects in Venice, Verona, and
Rome to work out more satisfactory methods of applying the orders to
many-storied palace façades. In the great +P. Strozzi+ (Fig. 163),
erected in 1490 by _Benedetto da Majano_ and _Cronaca_, the architects
reverted to the earlier type of the P. Riccardi, treating it with
greater refinement and producing one of the noblest palaces of Italy.

+COURTYARDS; ARCADES.+ These palaces were all built around interior
courts, whose walls rested on columnar arcades, as in the P. Riccardi
(Fig. 162). The origin of these arcades may be found in the arcaded
cloisters of mediæval monastic churches, which often suggest classic
models, as in those of St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls and St. John Lateran at
Rome. Brunelleschi not only introduced columnar arcades into a number of
cloisters and palace courts, but also used them effectively as exterior
features in the +Loggia S. Paolo+ and the Foundling Hospital (+Ospedale
degli Innocenti+) at Florence. The chief drawback in these light arcades
was their inability to withstand the thrust of the vaulting over the
space behind them, and the consequent recourse to iron tie-rods where
vaulting was used. The Italians, however, seemed to care little about
this disfigurement.

+MINOR WORKS.+ The details of the new style were developed quite as
rapidly in purely decorative works as in monumental buildings. Altars,
mural monuments, tabernacles, pulpits and _ciboria_ afforded scope for
the genius of the most distinguished artists. Among those who were
specially celebrated in works of this kind should be named _Lucca della
Robbia_ (1400-82) and his successors, _Mino da Fiesole_ (1431-84) and
_Benedetto da Majano_ (1442-97). Possessed of a wonderful fertility of
invention, they and their pupils multiplied their works in extraordinary
number and variety, not only throughout north Italy, but also in Rome
and Naples. Among the most famous examples of this branch of design may
be mentioned a pulpit in Sta. Croce by B. da Majano; a terra-cotta
fountain in the sacristy of S. M. Novella, by the della Robbias; the
Marsupini tomb in Sta. Croce, by _Desiderio da Settignano_ (all in
Florence); the della Rovere tomb in S. M. del Popolo, Rome, by Mino da
Fiesole, and in the Cathedral at Lucca the Noceto tomb and the
Tempietto, by _Matteo Civitali_. It was in works of this character that
the Renaissance oftenest made its first appearance in a new centre, as
was 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 in
Sienna, in a number of important palaces, a sharp contrast to the
prevalent Gothic style of that city. The +P. Piccolomini+--a somewhat
crude imitation of the P. Riccardi in Florence--dates from 1463; the
+P. del Governo+ was built 1469, and the +Spannocchi Palace+ in 1470. In
1463 _Ant. Federighi_ built there the +Loggia del Papa+. About the same
time _Bernardo di Lorenzo_ was building for Pope Pius II. (Æneas Sylvius
Piccolomini) 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 original
works. Pisa possesses few early Renaissance structures, owing to the
utter prostration of her fortunes in the 15th century, and the dominance
of Pisan Gothic traditions. In Lucca, besides a wealth of minor
monuments (largely the work of Matteo Civitali, 1435-1501) in various
churches, a number of palaces date from this period, the most important
being the +P. Pretorio+ and P. Bernardini. To Milan the Renaissance was
carried by the Florentine masters _Michelozzi_ and _Filarete_, to whom
are respectively due the +Portinari Chapel+ in S. Eustorgio (1462) and
the earlier part of the great +Ospedale Maggiore+ (1457). In the latter,
an edifice of brick with terra-cotta enrichments, the windows were
Gothic in outline--an unusual mixture of styles, even in Italy. The
munificence 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, and
the small scale of its parts, belongs properly to the early Renaissance.
Exquisitely beautiful in detail, it resembles rather a magnified
altar-piece than a work of architecture, properly speaking. Bologna and
Ferrara developed somewhat late in the century a strong local school of
architecture, remarkable especially for the beauty of its courtyards,
its graceful street arcades, and its artistic treatment of brick and
terra-cotta (+P. Bevilacqua+, +P. Fava+, at Bologna; +P. Scrofa+,
+P. Roverella+, at Ferrara). About the same time palaces with interior
arcades 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 and
display. It was late in appearing, the Gothic style with its tinge of
Byzantine decorative traditions having here developed into a style well
suited to the needs of a rich and relatively tranquil community. These
traditions the architects of the new style appropriated in a measure, as
in the marble incrustations of the exquisite little church of +S. M. dei
Miracoli+ (1480-89), and the façade of the +Scuola di S. Marco+
(1485-1533), both by _Pietro Lombardo_. Nowhere else, unless on the
contemporary façade of the Certosa at Pavia, were marble inlays and
delicate carving, combined with a framework of thin pilasters, finely
profiled entablatures and arched pediments, so lavishly bestowed upon
the 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 the
architectural Renaissance of this period, and to them Venice owes her
choicest masterpieces in the new style. Its first appearance is noted in
the later portions of the church of +S. Zaccaria+ (1456-1515), partly
Gothic internally, with a façade whose semicircular pediment and small
decorative arcades show a somewhat timid but interesting application of
classic details. In this church, and still more so in S. Giobbe
(1451-93) and the Miracoli above mentioned, the decorative element
predominates throughout. It is hard to imagine details more graceful in
design, more effective in the swing of their movement, or more delicate
in execution than the mouldings, reliefs, wreaths, scrolls, and capitals
one encounters in these buildings. Yet in structural interest, in scale
and breadth of planning, these early Renaissance Venetian buildings hold
a 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 just
mentioned, but its decorative effect and picturesque variety elicit
almost universal admiration. Like the neighboring façade of St. Mark’s,
it violates nearly every principle of correct composition, and yet in a
measure atones for this capital defect by its charm of detail. Far more
satisfactory from the purely architectural point of view is the façade
of the +P. Vendramini+ (Vendramin-Calergi), by Pietro Lombardo (1481).
The simple, stately lines of its composition, the dignity of its broad
arched and mullioned windows, separated by engaged columns--the earliest
example in Venice of this feature, and one of the earliest in Italy--its
well-proportioned basement and upper stories, crowned by an adequate but
somewhat heavy entablature, make this one of the finest palaces in Italy
(Fig. 165) It established a type of large-windowed, vigorously modelled
façades which later architects developed, but hardly surpassed. In the
smaller contemporary, P. Dario, another type appears, better suited for
small buildings, depending for effect mainly upon well-ordered openings
and incrusted panelling of colored marble.

  [Illustration: FIG. 165.--VENDRAMINI PALACE, VENICE.]

+ROME.+ Internal disorders and the long exile of the popes had by the
end of the fourteenth century reduced Rome to utter insignificance. Not
until the second half of the fifteenth century did returning prosperity
and wealth afford the Renaissance its opportunity in the Eternal City.
Pope Nicholas V. had, indeed, begun the rebuilding of St. Peter’s from
designs by B. Rossellini, in 1450, but the project lapsed shortly after
with the death of the pope. The earliest Renaissance building in Rome
was the +P. di Venezia+, begun in 1455, together with the adjoining
porch of S. Marco. In this palace and the adjoining unfinished
Palazzetto we find the influence of the old Roman monuments clearly
manifested in the court arcades, built like those of the Colosseum, with
superposed stages of massive piers and engaged columns carrying
entablatures. The proportions are awkward, the details coarse; but the
spirit of Roman classicism is here seen in the germ. The exterior of
this palace is, however, still Gothic in spirit. The architects are
unknown; _Giuliano da Majano_ (1452-90), _Giacomo di Pietrasanta_, and
_Meo del Caprino_ (1430-1501) are known to have worked upon it, but it
is not certain in what capacity.

The new style, reaching, and in time overcoming, the conservatism of the
Church, 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 the
aisles, and the crossing is crowned with a dome. To the same period
belong the Sistine chapel and parts of the Vatican palace, but the
interest of these lies rather in their later decorations than in their
somewhat scanty architectural merit.

The architectural renewal of Rome, thus begun, reached its culmination
in the following period.

+OTHER MONUMENTS.+ The complete enumeration of even the most important
Early Renaissance monuments of Italy is impossible within our limits.
Two or three only can here be singled out as suggesting types. Among
town halls of this period the first place belongs to the +P. del
Consiglio+ at Verona, by _Fra Giocondo_ (1435-1515). In this beautiful
edifice the façade consists of a light and graceful arcade supporting a
wall pierced with four windows, and covered with elaborate frescoed
arabesques (recently restored). Its unfortunate division by pilasters
into four bays, with a pier in the centre, is a blemish avoided in the
contemporary +P. del Consiglio+ at Padua. The +Ducal Palace+ at Urbino,
by _Luciano da Laurano_ (1468), is noteworthy for its fine arcaded
court, and was highly famed in its day. At Brescia +S. M. dei Miracoli+
is a remarkable example of a cruciform domical church dating from the
close of this period, and is especially celebrated for the exuberant
decoration of its porch and its elaborate detail. Few campaniles were
built in this period; the best of them are at Venice. Naples possesses
several interesting Early Renaissance monuments, chief among which are
the +Porta Capuana+ (1484), by _Giul. da Majano_, the triumphal +Arch of
Alphonso+ of Arragon, by _Pietro di Martino_, and the +P. Gravina+, by
_Gab. d’Agnolo_. Naples is also very rich in minor works of the early
Renaissance, in which it ranks with Florence, Venice, and Rome.




  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_.

study and imitation of Roman architecture should lead to an increasingly
literal rendering of classic details and a closer copying of antique
compositions. Toward the close of the fifteenth century the symptoms
began to multiply of the approaching reign of formal classicism.
Correctness in the reproduction of old Roman forms came in time to be
esteemed as one of the chief of architectural virtues, and in the
following period the orders became the principal resource of the
architect. During the so-called Cinquecento, that is, from the close of
the fifteenth century to nearly or quite 1550, architecture still
retained much of the freedom and refinement of the Quattrocento. There
was meanwhile a notable advance in dignity and amplitude of design,
especially in the internal distribution of buildings. Externally the
orders were freely used as subordinate features in the decoration of
doors and windows, and in court arcades of the Roman type. The
lantern-crowned dome upon a high drum was developed into one of the
noblest of architectural forms. Great attention was bestowed upon all
subordinate features; doors and windows were treated with frames and
pediments of extreme elegance and refinement; all the cornices and
mouldings were proportioned and profiled with the utmost care, and the
balustrade was elaborated into a feature at once useful and highly
ornate. Interior decoration was even more splendid than before, if
somewhat less delicate and subtle; relief enrichments in stucco were
used with admirable effect, and the greatest artists exercised their
talents in the painting of vaults and ceilings, as in P. del Té at
Mantua, by _Giulio Romano_ (1492-1546), and the Sistine Chapel at Rome,
by Michael Angelo. This period is distinguished by an exceptional number
of great architects and buildings. It was ushered in by _Bramante
Lazzari_, of Urbino (1444-1514), and closed during the career of
_Michael Angelo Buonarotti_ (1475-1564); two names worthy to rank with
that of Brunelleschi. Inferior only to these in architectural genius
were _Raphael_ (1483-1520), _Baldassare Peruzzi_ (1481-1536), _Antonio
da 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 the
erection of an extraordinary series of palaces, villas, and churches,
the beginning and much of the construction of St. Peter’s at Rome, and a
complete transformation in the aspect of that city.

+BRAMANTE’S WORKS.+ While precise time limits cannot be set to
architectural styles, it is not irrational to date this period from the
maturing of Bramante’s genius. While his earlier works in Milan belong
to the Quattrocento (S. M. delle Grazie, the sacristy of San Satiro, the
extension of the Great Hospital), his later designs show the classic
tendency very clearly. The charming +Tempietto+ in the court of
S. Pietro in Montorio at Rome, a circular temple-like chapel (1502), is
composed of purely classic elements. In the +P. Giraud+ (Fig. 166) and
the great +Cancelleria+ Palace, pilasters appear in the external
composition, and all the details of doors and windows betray the results
of classic study, as well as the refined taste of their designer.[24]
The beautiful courtyard of the Cancelleria combines the Florentine
system of arches on columns with the Roman system of superposed arcades
independent of the court wall. In 1506 Bramante began the rebuilding of
St. Peter’s for Julius II. (see p. 294) and the construction of a new
and imposing papal palace adjoining it on the Vatican hill. Of this
colossal group of edifices, commonly known as the +Vatican+, he executed
the greater Belvedere court (afterward divided in two by the Library and
the Braccio Nuovo), the lesser octagonal court of the Belvedere, and the
court of San Damaso, with its arcades afterward frescoed by Raphael and
his school. Besides these, the cloister of S. M. della Pace, and many
other 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 their

    [Footnote 24: See Appendix C.]

  [Illustration: FIG. 166.--FAÇADE OF THE GIRAUD PALACE, ROME.]

+FLORENTINE PALACES.+ The P. Riccardi long remained the accepted type of
palace in Florence. As we have seen, it was imitated in the Strozzi
palace, as late as 1489, with greater perfection of detail, but with no
radical change of conception. In the +P. Gondi+, however, begun in the
following year by _Giuliano da San Gallo_ (1445-1516), a more pronounced
classic spirit appears, especially in the court and the interior design.
Early in the 16th century classic columns and pediments began to be used
as decorations for doors and windows; the rustication was confined to
basements and corner-quoins, and niches, loggias, and porches gave
variety of light and shade to the façades (+P. Bartolini+, by _Baccio
d’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 of
the façade, but this example was not often followed in Florence.

+ROMAN PALACES.+ These followed a different type. They were usually of
great size, and built around ample courts with arcades of classic model
in two or three stories. The broad street façade in three stories with
an attic or mezzanine was crowned with a rich cornice. The orders were
sparingly used externally, and effect was sought principally in the
careful proportioning of the stories, in the form and distribution of
the square-headed and arched openings, and in the design of mouldings,
string-courses, cornices, and other details. The _piano nobile_, or
first story above the basement, was given up to suites of sumptuous
reception-rooms and halls, with magnificent ceilings and frescoes by the
great painters of the day, while antique statues and reliefs adorned the
courts, 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 been
mentioned; 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 this
period was the

+FARNESE PALACE+, by many esteemed the finest in Italy. It was begun in
1530 for Alex. Farnese (Paul III.) by A. da San Gallo the Younger, with
Vignola’s collaboration. The simple but admirable plan is shown in Fig.
167, and the courtyard, the most imposing in Italy, in Fig. 168. The
exterior is monotonous, but the noble cornice by Michael Angelo
measurably redeems this defect. The fine vaulted columnar entrance
vestibule, the court and the _salons_, make up an _ensemble_ worthy of
the great architects who designed it. The loggia toward the river was
added by _G. della Porta_ in 1580.

  [Illustration: FIG. 167.--PLAN OF FARNESE PALACE.]

+VILLAS.+ The Italian villa of this pleasure-loving period afforded full
scope for the most playful fancies of the architect, decorator, and
landscape gardener. It comprised usually a dwelling, a _casino_ or
amusement-house, and many minor edifices, summer-houses, arcades, etc.,
disposed in extensive grounds laid out with terraces, cascades, and
shaded alleys. The style was graceful, sometimes trivial, but almost
always pleasing, making free use of stucco enrichments, both internally
and externally, with abundance of gilding and frescoing. The +Villa
Madama+ (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 by
its purity of style to this period; its façade well exemplifies the
simplicity, dignity, and fine proportions of this master’s work. In
addition to these Roman villas may be mentioned the +V. Medici+ (1540,
by _Annibale Lippi_; now the French Academy of Rome); the +Casino del
Papa+ in the Vatican Gardens, by _Pirro Ligorio_ (1560); the +V. Lante+,
near Viterbo, and the +V. d’Este+, at Tivoli, as displaying among almost
countless others the Italian skill in combining architecture and


+CHURCHES AND CHAPELS.+ This period witnessed the building of a few
churches of the first rank, but it was especially prolific in memorial,
votive, and sepulchral chapels added to churches already existing, like
the +Chigi Chapel+ of S. M. del Popolo, by Raphael. The earlier churches
of this period generally followed antecedent types, with the dome as the
central feature dominating a cruciform plan, and simple, unostentatious
and sometimes uninteresting exteriors. Among them may be mentioned: at
Pistoia, S. M. del Letto and +S. M. dell’ Umiltà+, the latter a fine
domical rotunda by _Ventura Vitoni_ (1509), with an imposing vestibule;
at Venice, +S. Salvatore+, by _Tullio Lombardo_ (1530), an admirable
edifice with alternating domical and barrel-vaulted bays; +S. Georgio
dei Grechi+ (1536), by _Sansovino_, and S. M. Formosa; at Todi, the
+Madonna della Consolazione+ (1510), by _Cola da Caprarola_, a charming
design with a high dome and four apses; at Montefiascone, the +Madonna
delle Grazie+, by _Sammichele_ (1523), besides several churches at
Bologna, Ferrara, Prato, Sienna, and Rome of almost or quite equal
interest. In these churches one may trace the development of the dome as
an external feature, while in +S. Biagio+, at Montepulciano, the effort
was made by _Ant. da San Gallo the Elder_ to combine with it the
contrasting lines of two campaniles, of which, however, but one was

  [Illustration: FIG. 169.--ORIGINAL PLAN OF ST. PETER’S, ROME.]

+ST. PETER’S.+ The culmination of Renaissance church architecture was
reached in +St. Peter’s+, at Rome. The original project of Nicholas V.
having lapsed with his death, it was the intention of Julius II. to
erect on the same site a stupendous mausoleum over the monument he had
ordered of Michael Angelo. The design of Bramante, who began its
erection in 1506, comprised a Greek cross with apsidal arms, the four
angles occupied by domical chapels and loggias within a square outline
(Fig. 169). The too hasty execution of this noble design led to the
collapse of two of the arches under the dome, and to long delays after
Bramante’s death in 1514. Raphael, Giuliano da San Gallo, Peruzzi, and
A. da San Gallo the Younger successively supervised the works under the
popes from Leo X. to Paul III., and devised a vast number of plans for
its completion. Most of these involved fundamental alterations of the
original scheme, and were motived by the abandonment of the proposed
monument of Julius II.; a church, and not a mausoleum, being in
consequence required. In 1546 Michael Angelo was assigned by Paul III.
to the works, and gave final form to the general design in a simplified
version of Bramante’s plan with more massive supports, a square east
front with a portico for the chief entrance, and the unrivalled +Dome+,
which is its most striking feature. This dome, slightly altered and
improved in curvature by della Porta after M. Angelo’s death in 1564,
was completed by _D. Fontana_ in 1604. It is the most majestic creation
of the Renaissance, and one of the greatest architectural conceptions of
all history. It measures 140 feet in internal diameter, and with its two
shells rises from a lofty drum, buttressed by coupled Corinthian
columns, 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 the
single order used internally and externally dwarfed by its colossal
scale 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 view
on a near approach. The present tasteless façade was Maderna’s work. The
splendid atrium or portico added (1629-67), by _Bernini_, as an
approach, mitigates but does not cure the ugliness and pettiness of this

  [Illustration: FIG. 170.--PLAN OF ST. PETER’S, ROME,
  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 in
existence, and in many respects is architecturally worthy of its
pre-eminence. The central aisle, nearly 600 feet long, with its
stupendous panelled and gilded vault, 83 feet in span, the vast central
area and the majestic dome, belong to a conception unsurpassed in
majestic simplicity and effectiveness. The construction is almost
excessively massive, but admirably disposed. On the other hand the nave
is too long, and the details not only lack originality and interest, but
are also too large and coarse in scale, dwarfing the whole edifice. The
interior (Fig. 171) is wanting in the sobriety of color that befits so
stately a design; it suggests rather a pagan temple than a Christian
basilica. These faults reveal the decline of taste which had already set
in before Michael Angelo took charge of the work, and which appears even
in the works of that master.

+THE PERIOD OF FORMAL CLASSICISM.+ With the middle of the 16th century
the classic orders began to dominate all architectural design. While
Vignola, who wrote a treatise upon the orders, employed them with
unfailing refinement and judgment, his contemporaries showed less
discernment and taste, making of them an end rather than a means. Too
often mere classical correctness was substituted for the fundamental
qualities of original invention ind intrinsic beauty of composition. The
innovation of colossal orders extending through several stories, while
it gave to exterior designs a certain grandeur of scale, tended to
coarseness and even vulgarity of detail. Sculpture and ornament began to
lose their refinement; and while street-architecture gained in
monumental scale, and public squares received a more stately adornment
than ever before, the street-façades individually were too often bare
and uninteresting in their correct formality. In the interiors of
churches and large halls there appears a struggle between a cold and
dignified simplicity and a growing tendency toward pretentious sham. But
these pernicious tendencies did not fully mature till the latter part of
the century, and the half-century after 1540 or 1550 was prolific of
notable works in both ecclesiastical and secular architecture. The names
of Michael Angelo and Vignola, whose careers began in the preceding
period; of Palladio and della Porta (1541-1604) in Rome; of Sammichele
and 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 imitated
throughout Italy. The churches in which a Greek or Latin cross is
dominated by a high dome rising from a drum and terminating in a
lantern, and is treated both internally and externally with Roman
Corinthian pilasters and arches, are almost numberless. Among the best
churches of this type is the +Gesù+ at Rome, by Vignola (1568), with a
highly ornate interior of excellent proportions and a less interesting
exterior, the façade adorned with two stories of orders and great
flanking volutes over the sides (see p. 277). Two churches at Venice, by
_Palladio_--+S. Giorgio Maggiore+ (1560; façade by _Scamozzi_, 1575) and
the +Redentore+--offer a strong contrast to the Gesù, in their cold and
almost bare but pure and correct design. An imitation of Bramante’s plan
for St. Peter’s appears in +S. M. di Carignano+, at Genoa, by _Galeazzo
Alessi_ (1500-72), begun 1552, a fine structure, though inferior in
scale and detail to its original. Besides these and other important
churches there were many large domical chapels of great splendor added
to 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 different
dates (1540-1644) from designs by Michael Angelo, illustrate the palace
architecture of this period, and the imposing effect of a single
colossal order running through two stories. This treatment, though well
adapted to produce monumental effects in large squares, was dangerous in
its bareness and heaviness of scale, and was better suited for buildings
of vast dimensions than for ordinary street-façades. In other Roman
palaces of this time the traditions of the preceding period still
prevailed, as in the +Sapienza+ (University), by della Porta (1575),
which has a dignified court and a façade of great refinement without
columns or pilasters. The +Papal palaces+ built by Domenico Fontana on
the Lateran, Quirinal, and Vatican hills, between 1574 and 1590,
externally copying the style of the Farnese, show a similar return to
earlier models, but are less pure and refined in detail than the
Sapienza. The great pentagonal +Palace of Caprarola+, near Rome, by
Vignola, is perhaps the most successful and imposing production of the
Roman classic school.

+VERONA.+ Outside of Rome, palace-building took on various local and
provincial phases of style, of which the most important were the closely
related 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 great
originality and power. He introduced into his military architecture, as
in the gates of Verona, the use of rusticated orders, which he treated
with skill and taste. The idea was copied by later architects and
applied, with doubtful propriety, to palace-façades; though Ammanati’s
garden-façade for the Pitti palace, in Florence (cir. 1560), is an
impressive and successful design.

+VENICE.+ Into the development of the maturing classic style _Giacopo
Tatti Sansovino_ (1477-1570) introduced in his Venetian buildings new
elements of splendor. Coupled columns between arches themselves
supported on columns, and a profusion of figure sculpture, gave to his
palace-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 about
1530-40. So strongly did he impress upon Venice these ornate and
sumptuous 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 these
structures he displayed great fertility of invention and a profound
familiarity with the classic orders, but the degenerate taste of the
Baroque period already begins to show itself in his work. There is far
less of architectural propriety and grace in these pretentious palaces,
with their colossal orders and their affectation of grandeur, than in
the designs of Vignola or Sammichele. Wood and plaster, used to mimic
stone, 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 the
mediæval +Basilica+, in which the arches are supported on a minor order
between engaged columns serving as buttresses. This treatment has in
consequence ever since been known as the _Palladian Motive_.

+GENOA.+ During the second half of the sixteenth century a remarkable
series of palaces was erected in Genoa, especially notable for their
great courts and imposing staircases. These last were given unusual
prominence owing to differences of level in the courts, arising from the
slope of their sites on the hillside. Many of these palaces were by
Galeazzo Alessi (1502-72); others by architects of lesser note; but
nearly all characterized by their effective planning, fine stairs and
loggias, 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 late
sixteenth century showed itself in the following period, in the lawless
and vulgar extravagances of the so-called _Baroque_ style. The wealthy
Jesuit order was a notorious contributor to the debasement of
architectural taste. Most of the Jesuit churches and many others not
belonging to the order, but following its pernicious example, are
monuments of bad taste and pretentious sham. Broken and contorted
pediments, huge scrolls, heavy mouldings, ill-applied sculpture in
exaggerated attitudes, and a general disregard for architectural
propriety characterized this period, especially in its church
architecture, to whose style the name _Jesuit_ is often applied. Sham
marble 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 was
an artist of undoubted ability, as proved by his colonnades or atrium in
front of St. Peter’s. There were, however, architects of purer taste
whose 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 architecture
for almost two centuries. The majority of the churches present varieties
of the cruciform plan crowned by a high dome which is usually the best
part of the design. Everywhere else the vices of the period appear in
these 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 of
Baroque 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 majestic
edifice in excellent style (Fig. 174), and here and there other churches
offer exceptions to the prevalent baseness of architecture. Particularly
objectionable was the wholesale disfigurement of existing monuments by
ruthless remodelling, as in S. John Lateran, at Rome, the cathedrals of
Ferrara and Ravenna, and many others.

+PALACES.+ These were generally superior to the churches, and not
infrequently impressive and dignified structures. The two best examples
in 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 staircase
by Bernini, one of the few palaces in Italy with projecting lateral
wings. In Venice, Longhena, in the +Rezzonico+ and +Pesaro+ palaces
(1650-80), showed his freedom from the mannerisms of the age by
reproducing successfully the ornate but dignified style of Sansovino
(see p. 301). At Naples D. Fontana, whose works overlap the Baroque
period, produced in the +Royal Palace+ (1600) and the +Royal Museum+
(1586-1615) designs of considerable dignity, in some respects superior
to his papal residences in Rome. In suburban villas, like the +Albani+
and +Borghese+ villas near Rome, the ostentatious style of the Decline
found free and congenial expression.

+LATER MONUMENTS.+ In the few eighteenth-century buildings which are
worthy of mention there is noticeable a reaction from the extravagances
of the seventeenth century, shown in the dignified correctness of the
exteriors and the somewhat frigid splendor of the interiors. The most
notable work of this period is the +Royal Palace+ at +Caserta+, by _Van
Vitelli_ (1752), an architect of considerable taste and inventiveness,
considering his time. This great palace, 800 feet square, encloses four
fine courts, and is especially remarkable for the simple if monotonous
dignity of the well proportioned exterior and the effective planning of
its three octagonal vestibules, its ornate chapel and noble staircase.
Staircases, indeed, were among the most successful features of late
Italian architecture, as in the +Scala Regia+ of the Vatican, and in the
Corsini, Braschi, and Barberini palaces at Rome, the Royal Palace at
Naples, 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 especially
powerful conception, combining a colossal order with two smaller orders
in superposed _loggie_, but marred by the excessive scale of the statues
which crown it. The +Fountain+ of +Trevi+, conceived in much the same
spirit (1735, by _Niccola Salvi_), is a striking piece of decorative
architecture. The Sacristy of St. Peter’s, by _Marchionne_ (1775), also
deserves mention as a monumental and not uninteresting work. In the
early 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, not
wholly without merit, but lacking in true originality and freedom of

+CAMPANILES.+ The +campaniles+ of the Renaissance and Decline deserve at
least passing reference, though they are neither numerous nor often of
conspicuous interest. That of the +Campidoglio+ (Capitol) at Rome, by
Martino Lunghi, is a good example of the classical type. Venetia
possesses a number of graceful and lofty bell-towers, generally of brick
with 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 of
Roman forms. But it was no longer a Renaissance; it was a decrepit and
unimaginative art, held in the fetters of a servile imitation, copying
the letter rather than the spirit of antique design. It was the mistaken
and abject worship of precedent which started architecture upon its
downward path and led to the atrocious products of the seventeenth

  +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.



  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 in
France, even in its decline in the fifteenth century, long stood in the
way of any general introduction of classic forms. When the Renaissance
appeared, it came as a foreign importation, introduced from Italy by the
king and the nobility. It underwent a protracted transitional phase,
during which the national Gothic forms and traditions were picturesquely
mingled with those of the Renaissance. The campaigns of Charles VIII.
(1489), Louis XII. (1499), and Francis I. (1515), in vindication of
their claims to the thrones of Naples and Milan, brought these monarchs
and their nobles into contact with the splendid material and artistic
civilization of Italy, then in the full tide of the maturing
Renaissance. They returned to France, filled with the ambition to rival
the splendid palaces and gardens of Italy, taking with them Italian
artists to teach their arts to the French. But while these Italians
successfully introduced many classic elements and details into French
architecture, they wholly failed to dominate the French master-masons
and _tailleurs de pierre_ in matters of planning and general
composition. The early Renaissance architecture of France is
consequently wholly unlike the Italian, from which it derived only minor
details and a certain largeness and breadth of spirit.

+PERIODS.+ The French Renaissance and its sequent developments may be
broadly divided into three periods, with subdivisions coinciding more or
less 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 Louis
XII. (1483-1515), and the early years of that of Francis I.;
characterized by a picturesque mixture of classic details with Gothic

_b._ THE STYLE OF FRANCIS I., or Early Renaissance, from about 1520 to
that king’s death in 1547; distinguished by a remarkable variety and
grace 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 a
decline in the delicacy and richness of the ornament.


_a._ STYLE OF HENRY IV., covering his reign and partly that of Louis
XIII. (1610-45), employing the orders and other classic forms with a
somewhat heavy, florid style of ornament.

_b._ STYLE OF LOUIS XIV., beginning in the preceding reign and extending
through that of Louis XIV. (1645-1715); the great age of classic
architecture in France, corresponding to the Palladian in Italy.

III. THE DECLINE OR ROCOCO PERIOD, corresponding with the reign of Louis
XV. (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 of
in a later chapter.

+THE TRANSITION.+ As early as 1475 the new style made its appearance in
altars, tombs, and rood-screens wrought by French carvers with the
collaboration of Italian artificers. The tomb erected by Charles of
Anjou to his father in Le Mans cathedral (1475, by _Francesco Laurana_),
the chapel of St. Lazare in the cathedral of Marseilles (1483), and the
tomb of the children of Charles VIII. in Tours cathedral (1506), by
_Michel Columbe_, the greatest artist of his time in France, are
examples. The schools of Rouen and Tours were especially prominent in
works of this kind, marked by exuberant fancy and great delicacy of
execution. 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 most
notable triumphs.

+EARLY CHÂTEAUX.+ The castle of Charles VIII., at Amboise on the Loire,
shows little trace of Italian influence. It was under Louis XII. that
the transformation of French architecture really began. The +Château de
Gaillon+ (of which unfortunately only fragments remain in the École des
Beaux-Arts at Paris), built for the Cardinal George of Amboise, between
1497 and 1509, by _Pierre Fain_, was the masterwork of the Rouen school.
It presented a curious mixture of styles, with its irregular plan, its
moat, drawbridge, and round corner-towers, its high roofs, turrets, and
dormers, which gave it, in spite of many Renaissance details, a mediæval
picturesqueness. The +Château de Blois+ (the east and south wings of the
present group), begun for Louis XII. about 1500, was the first of a
remarkable series of royal palaces which are the glory of French
architecture. It shows the new influences in its horizontal lines and
flat, unbroken façades of brick and stone, rather than in its
architectural details (Fig. 175). The +Ducal Palace+ at Nancy and the
+Hôtel de Ville+ at Orléans, by _Viart_, show a similar commingling of
the classic and mediæval styles.

  [Illustration: FIG. 175.--BLOIS, COURT FAÇADE OF WING

+STYLE OF FRANCIS I.+ Early in the reign of this monarch, and partly
under the lead of Italian artists, like il Rosso, Serlio, and
Primaticcio, classic elements began to dominate the general composition
and Gothic details rapidly disappeared. A simple and effective system of
exterior design was adopted in the castles and palaces of this period.
Finely moulded belt-courses at the sills and heads of the windows marked
the different stories, and were crossed by a system of almost equally
important vertical lines, formed by superposed pilasters flanking the
windows continuously from basement to roof. The façade was crowned by a
slight cornice and open balustrade, above which rose a steep and lofty
roof, diversified by elaborate dormer windows which were adorned with
gables and pinnacles (Fig. 178). Slender pilasters, treated like long
panels ornamented with arabesques of great beauty, or with a species of
baluster shaft like a candelabrum, were preferred to columns, and were
provided with graceful capitals of the Corinthianesque type. The
mouldings were minute and richly carved; pediments were replaced by
steep gables, and mullioned windows with stone crossbars were used in
preference to the simpler Italian openings. In the earlier monuments
Gothic details were still used occasionally; and round corner-towers,
high dormers, and numerous turrets and pinnacles appear even in the
châteaux of later date.

+CHURCHES.+ Ecclesiastical architecture received but scant attention
under Francis I., and, so far as it was practised, still clung
tenaciously to Gothic principles. Among the few important churches of
this 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; and
the 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 little
appreciation of the spirit and proportions of classic art. New façades
were also built for a number of already existing churches, among which
+St. Michel+, at Dijon, is conspicuous, with its vast portal arch and
imposing towers. The Gothic towers of Tours cathedral were completed
with Renaissance lanterns or belfries, the northern in 1507, the
southern 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 north
wing is one of the masterpieces of the style, presenting toward the
court a simple and effective composition, with a rich but slightly
projecting cornice and a high roof with elaborate dormers. This façade
is divided into two unequal sections by the open +Staircase Tower+ (Fig.
176), a _chef-d’œuvre_ in boldness of construction as well as in
delicacy and richness of carving. The outer façade of this wing is a
less ornate but more vigorous design, crowned by a continuous open
loggia 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, its
other portions were more symmetrically disposed, while the whole was
treated externally in a somewhat severe, semi-classic style, singularly
lacking in ornament. Internally, however, this palace, begun in 1528 by
_Gilles Le Breton_, was at that time the most splendid in France, the
gallery of Francis I. being especially noted. The +Château+ of +St.
Germain+, near Paris (1539, by _Pierre Chambiges_), is of a very
different character. Built largely of brick, with flat balustraded roof
and deep buttresses carrying three ranges of arches, it is neither
Gothic nor classic, neither fortress nor palace in aspect, but a wholly
unique 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 the
greatest diversity of plan and treatment, attesting the inventiveness of
the French genius, expressing itself in a new-found language, whose
formal canons it disdained. Chief among them is the +Château of
Chambord+ (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 a
graceful lantern, and a roof of the most bewildering complexity of
towers, chimneys, and dormers (1526, by _Pierre le Nepveu_). The
hunting-lodges of La Muette and Chalvau, and the so-called +Château de
Madrid+--all three demolished during or since the Revolution--deserve
mention, especially the last. This consisted of two rectangular
pavilions, connected by a lofty banquet-hall, and adorned externally
with arcades in Florentine style, and with medallions and reliefs of
della Robbia ware (1527, by _Gadyer_).

+THE LOUVRE.+ By far the most important of all the architectural
enterprises of this reign, in ultimate results, if not in original
extent, was the beginning of a new palace to replace the old Gothic
fortified palace of the Louvre. To this task Pierre Lescot was summoned
in 1542, and the work of erection actually begun in 1546. The new
palace, in a sumptuous and remarkably dignified classic style, was to
have covered precisely the area of the demolished fortress. Only the
southwest half, comprising two sides of the court, was, however,
undertaken at the outset (Fig. 179). It remained for later monarchs to
amplify the original scheme, and ultimately to complete, late in the
present century, the most extensive and beautiful of all the royal
residences 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 castles
of the nobility, rivalling those of the king. Among them Bury, La
Rochefoucauld, Bournazel, and especially +Azay-le-Rideau+ (1520) and
+Chenonceaux+ (1515-23), may be mentioned, all displaying that love of
rural pleasure, that hatred of the city and its confinement, which so
distinguish the French from the Italian Renaissance.

+OTHER BUILDINGS.+ The +Hôtel-de-Ville+ (town hall), of Paris, begun
during this reign, from plans by _Domenico di Cortona_ (?), and
completed under Henry IV., was the most important edifice of a class
which in later periods numbered many interesting structures. The town
hall of +Beaugency+ (1527) is one of the best of minor public buildings
in France, and in its elegant treatment of a simple two-storied façade
may be classed with the +Maison François I.+, at Paris. This stood
formerly at Moret, whence it was transported to Paris and re-erected
about 1830 in somewhat modified form. The large city houses of this
period are legion; we can mention only the Hôtel Carnavalet at Paris;
the Hôtel Bourgtheroude at Rouen; the Hôtel d’Écoville at Caen; the
archbishop’s palace at Sens, and a number of houses in Orléans. The
+Tomb of Louis XII.+, at St. Denis, deserves especial mention for its
fine proportions and beautiful arabesques.

+THE ADVANCED RENAISSANCE.+ By the middle of the sixteenth century the
new style had lost much of its earlier charm. The orders, used with
increasing frequency, were more and more conformed to antique
precedents. Façades were flatter and simpler, cornices more pronounced,
arches more Roman in treatment, and a heavier style of carving took the
place of the delicate arabesques of the preceding age. The reigns of
Henry II. (1547-59) and Charles IX. (1560-74) were especially
distinguished by the labors of three celebrated architects: _Pierre
Lescot_ (1515-78), who continued the work on the southwest angle of the
Louvre; _Jean Bullant_ (1515-78), to whom are due the right wing of
Ecouen and the porch of colossal Corinthian columns in the left wing of
the same, built under Francis I.; and, finally, _Philibert de l’Orme_
(1515-70). _Jean Goujon_ (1510-72) also executed during this period most
of the remarkable architectural sculptures which have made his name one
of the most illustrious in the annals of French art. Chief among the
works of de l’Orme was the palace of the +Tuileries+, built under
Charles IX. for Cathérine de Médicis, not far from the Louvre, with
which it was ultimately connected by a long gallery. Of the vast plan
conceived for this palace, and comprising a succession of courts and
wings, only a part of one side was erected (1564-72). This consisted of
a 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 advantage
of the design. Another masterpiece was the +Château d’Anet+, built in
1552 by Henry II. for Diane de Poitiers, of which, unfortunately, only
fragments survive. This beautiful edifice, while retaining the
semi-military moat and bastions of feudal tradition, was planned with
classic symmetry, adorned with superposed orders, court arcades, and
rectangular corner-pavilions, and provided with a domical cruciform
chapel, the earliest of its class in France. All the details were
unusually pure and correct, with just enough of freedom and variety to
lend a charm wanting in later works of the period. To the reign of Henry
II. belong also the châteaux of Ancy-le-Franc, Verneuil, Chantilly (the
“petit château,” by Bullant), the banquet-hall over the bridge at
Chenonceaux (1556), several notable residences at Toulouse, and the tomb
of Francis I. at St. Denis. The châteaux of +Pailly+ and +Sully+,
distinguished by the sobriety and monumental quality of their
composition, in which the orders are important elements, belong to the
reign of Charles IX., together with the Tuileries, already mentioned.

  [Illustration: FIG. 180.--THE LUXEMBURG, PARIS.]

+THE CLASSIC PERIOD: HENRY IV.+ Under this energetic but capricious
monarch (1589-1610) and his Florentine queen, Marie de Médicis,
architecture entered upon a new period of activity and a new stage of
development. Without the charm of the early Renaissance or the
stateliness of the age of Louis XIV., it has a touch of the Baroque,
attributable partly to the influence of Marie de Médicis and her Italian
prelates, and partly to the Italian training of many of the French
architects. The great work of this period was the extension of the
Tuileries by _J. B. du Cerceau_, and the completion, by _Métézeau_ and
others, of the long gallery next the Seine, begun under Henry II., with
the view of connecting the Tuileries with the Louvre. In this part of
the work colossal orders were used with indifferent effect. Next in
importance was the addition to Fontainebleau of a great court to the
eastward, whose relatively quiet and dignified style offers less
contrast than one might expect to the other wings and courts dating from
Francis I. More successful architecturally than either of the above was
the +Luxemburg+ palace, built for the queen by _Salomon De Brosse_, in
1616 (Fig. 180). Its plan presents the favorite French arrangement of a
main building separated from the street by a garden or court, the latter
surrounded on three sides by low wings containing the dependencies.
Externally, rusticated orders recall the garden front of the Pitti at
Florence; but the scale is smaller, and the projecting pavilions and
high roofs give it a grace and picturesqueness wanting in the Florentine
model. The +Place Royale+, at Paris, and the château of Beaumesnil,
illustrate a type of brick-and-stone architecture much in vogue at this
time, stone quoins decorating the windows and corners, and the orders
being generally omitted.

Under Louis XIII. the Tuileries were extended northward and the Louvre
as built by Lescot was doubled in size by the architect _Lemercier_, the
Pavillon de l’Horloge being added to form the centre of the enlarged
court façade.

+CHURCHES.+ To this reign belong also the most important churches of the
period. The church of +St. Paul-St. Louis+, at Paris (1627, by
_Derrand_), displays the worst faults of the time, in the overloaded and
meaningless decoration of its uninteresting front. Its internal dome is
the earliest in Paris. Far superior was the chapel of the +Sorbonne+,
a well-designed domical church by _Lemercier_, with a sober and
appropriate exterior treated with superposed orders.

+PERIOD OF LOUIS XIV.+ This was an age of remarkable literary and
artistic activity, pompous and pedantic in many of its manifestations,
but distinguished also by productions of a very high order. Although
contemporary with the Italian Baroque--Bernini having been the guest of
Louis XIV.--the architecture of this period was free from the wild
extravagances of that style. In its often cold and correct dignity it
resembled rather that of Palladio, making large use of the orders in
exterior design, and tending rather to monotony than to overloaded
decoration. In interior design there was more of lightness and caprice.
Papier-maché and stucco were freely used in a fanciful style of relief
ornamentation by scrolls, wreaths, shells, etc., and decorative
panelling was much employed. The whole was saved from triviality only by
the controlling lines of the architecture which framed it. But it was
better suited to cabinet-work or to the prettinesses of the boudoir than
to monumental interiors. The +Galerie d’Apollon+, built during this
reign 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 existing
villa 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 quite
incommensurate with the outlay. In spite of its vastness, its exterior
is commonplace; the orders are used with singular monotony, which is not
redeemed by the deep breaks and projections of the main front. There is
no controlling or dominant feature; there is no adequate entrance or
approach; the grand staircases are badly placed and unworthily treated,
and the different elements of the plan are combined with singular lack
of the usual French sense of monumental and rational arrangement. The
chapel is by far the best single feature in the design.

Far more successful was the completion of the Louvre, in 1688, from the
designs of _Claude Perrault_, the court physician, whose plans were
fortunately adopted in preference to those of Bernini. For the east
front he designed a magnificent Corinthian colonnade nearly 600 feet
long, with coupled columns upon a plain high basement, and with a
central pediment and terminal pavilions (Fig. 181). The whole forms one
of the most imposing façades in existence; but it is a mere decoration,
having no practical relation to the building behind it. Its height
required the addition of a third story to match it on the north and
south sides of the court, which as thus completed quadrupled the
original area proposed by Lescot. Fortunately the style of Lescot’s work
was retained throughout in the court façades, while externally the
colonnade was recalled on the south front by a colossal order of
pilasters. The Louvre as completed by Louis XIV. was a stately and noble
palace, as remarkable for the surpassing excellence of the sculptures of
Jean Goujon as for the dignity and beauty of its architecture. Taken in
connection with the Tuileries, it was unrivalled by any palace in Europe
except 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, the
celebrated +Dome+ of the Invalides, a masterpiece by the same architect.
In plan it somewhat resembles Bramante’s scheme for St. Peter’s--a Greek
cross with domical chapels in the four angles and a dome over the
centre. The exterior (Fig. 182), with the lofty gilded dome on a high
drum adorned with engaged columns, is somewhat high for its breadth, but
is a harmonious and impressive design; and the interior, if somewhat
cold, is elegant and well proportioned. The chief innovation in the
design was the wide separation of the interior stone dome from the lofty
exterior decorative cupola and lantern of wood, this separation being
designed to meet the conflicting demands of internal and external
effect. To the same architect is due the formal monotony of the +Place
Vendôme+, all the houses surrounding it being treated with a uniform
architecture of colossal pilasters, at once monumental and
inappropriate. One of the most pleasing designs of the time is the
+Château de Maisons+ (1658), by _F. Mansart_, uncle of J. H. Mansart. In
this the proportions of the central and terminal pavilions, the mass and
lines of the steep roof _à la Mansarde_, the simple and effective use of
the orders, and the refinement of all the details impart a grace of
aspect rare in contemporary works. The same qualities appear also in the
+Val-de-Grâce+, by F. Mansart and Lemercier, a domical church of
excellent proportions begun under Louis XIII. The want of space forbids
mention of other buildings of this period.

  [Illustration: FIG. 182.--DOME OF THE INVALIDES.]

+THE DECLINE.+ Under Louis XV. the pedantry of the classic period gave
place to a protracted struggle between license and the severest
classical correctness. The exterior designs of this time were often even
more uninteresting and bare than under Louis XIV.; while, on the other
hand, interior decoration tended to the extreme of extravagance and
disregard of constructive propriety. Contorted lines and crowded
scrolls, shells, and palm-leaves adorned the mantelpieces, cornices, and
ceilings, 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-current
of severe classicism manifested itself in the designs of a number of
important public buildings, in which it was sought to copy the grandeur
of the old Roman colonnades and arcades. The important church of +St.
Sulpice+ at Paris (Fig. 183) is an excellent example of this. Its
interior, dating from the preceding century, is well designed, but in no
wise a remarkable composition, following Italian models. The façade,
added in 1755 by _Servandoni_, is, on the other hand, one of the most
striking architectural objects in the city. It is a correct and well
proportioned classic composition in two stories--an Ionic arcade over a
Doric colonnade, surmounted by two lateral turrets. Other monuments of
this classic revival will be noticed in Chapter XXV.

+PUBLIC SQUARES.+ Much attention was given to the embellishment of open
spaces 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 the
Place de la Concorde, Paris. This splendid square, perhaps, on the
whole, the finest in Europe (though many of its best features belong to
a later date), was at this time adorned with the two monumental
colonnades by _Gabriel_. These colonnades, which form the decorative
fronts for blocks of houses, deserve praise for the beauty of their
proportions, as well as for the excellent treatment of the arcade on
which they rest, and of the pavilions at the ends.

+IN GENERAL.+ French Renaissance architecture is marked by good
proportions and harmonious and appropriate detail. Its most interesting
phase was unquestionably that of Francis I., so far, at least, as
concerns exterior design. It steadily progressed, however, in its
mastery of planning; and in its use of projecting pavilions crowned by
dominant masses of roof, it succeeded in preserving, even in severely
classic designs, a picturesqueness and variety otherwise impossible.
Roofs, dormers, chimneys, and staircases it treated with especial
success; and in these matters, as well as in monumental dispositions of
plan, the French have largely retained their pre-eminence to our own

  +MONUMENTS.+ (Mainly supplementary to text. Ch. = château; P. =
  palace; C. = cathedral; Chu. = church; H. = hôtel; T.H. = town

  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

  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.



  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 in
England was chiefly devoted to the erection of vast country mansions for
the nobility and wealthy _bourgeoisie_. In these seignorial residences a
degenerate form of the Gothic, known as the Tudor style, was employed
during the reigns of Henry VII. and Henry VIII., and they still retained
much of the feudal aspect of the Middle Ages. This style, with its
broad, square windows and ample halls, was well suited to domestic
architecture, as well as to collegiate buildings, of which a
considerable number were erected at this time. Among the more important
palaces and manor-houses of this period are the earlier parts of Hampton
Court, Haddon and Hengreave Halls, and the now ruined castles of Raglan
and Wolterton.

  [Illustration: FIG. 184.--BURGHLEY HOUSE.]

+ELIZABETHAN STYLE.+ Under Elizabeth (1558-1603) the progress of classic
culture and the employment of Dutch and Italian artists led to a gradual
introduction of Renaissance forms, which, as in France, were at first
mingled with others of Gothic origin. Among the foreign artists in
England were the versatile Holbein, Trevigi and Torregiano from Italy,
and Theodore Have, Bernard Jansen, and Gerard Chrismas from Holland. The
pointed arch disappeared, and the orders began to be used as subordinate
features 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 or
rivets, was applied with little judgment to all possible features.
Ceilings were commonly finished in plaster, with elaborate interlacing
patterns in low relief; and this, with the increasing use of interior
woodwork, gave to the mansions of this time a more homelike but less
monumental aspect internally. English architects, like Smithson and
Thorpe, now began to win the patronage at first monopolized by
foreigners. In +Wollaton Hall+ (1580), by Smithson, the orders were used
for the main composition with mullioned windows, much after the fashion
of +Longleat House+, completed a year earlier by his master, John of
Padua. During the following period, however (1590-1610), there was a
reaction toward the Tudor practice, and the orders were again relegated
to subordinate uses. Of their more monumental employment, the +Gate of
Honor+ 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 of
classic origin came into more general use, but caricatured almost beyond
recognition. The orders, though much employed, were treated without
correctness or grace, and the ornament was unmeaning and heavy. It is
not worth while to dwell further upon this style, which produced no
important public buildings, and soon gave way to a more rigid

+CLASSIC PERIOD.+ If the classic style was late in its appearance in
England, its final sway was complete and long-lasting. It was _Inigo
Jones_ (1572-1652) who first introduced the correct and monumental style
of the Italian masters of classic design. For Palladio, indeed, he seems
to have entertained a sort of veneration, and the villa which he
designed at Chiswick was a reduced copy of Palladio’s Villa Capra, near
Vicenza. This and other works of his show a failure to appreciate the
unsuitability of Italian conceptions to the climate and tastes of Great
Britain; his efforts to popularize Palladian architecture, without the
resources which Palladio controlled in the way of decorative sculpture
and painting, were consequently not always happy in their results. His
greatest work was the design for a new +Palace at Whitehall+, London. Of
this colossal scheme, which, if completed, would have ranked as the
grandest palace of the time, only the +Banqueting Hall+ (now used as a
museum) was ever built (Fig. 185). It is an effective composition in two
stories, rusticated throughout and adorned with columns and pilasters,
and contains a fine vaulted hall in three aisles. The plan of the
palace, which was to have measured 1,152 × 720 feet, was excellent,
largely conceived and carefully studied in its details, but it was
wholly beyond the resources of the kingdom. The garden-front of
+Somerset House+ (1632; demolished) had the same qualities of simplicity
and dignity, recalling the works of Sammichele. Wilton House, Coleshill,
the Villa at Chiswick, and St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, are the best known
of his works, showing him to have been a designer of ability, but hardly
of 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 _Sir
Christopher Wren_ (1632-1723), principally known as the architect of
+St. Paul’s Cathedral+, London, built to replace the earlier Gothic
cathedral destroyed in the great fire of 1666. It was begun in 1675, and
its designer had the rare good fortune to witness its completion in
1710. The plan, as finally adopted, retained the general proportions of
an English Gothic church, measuring 480 feet in length, with transepts
250 feet long, and a grand rotunda 108 feet in diameter at the crossing
(Fig. 186). The style was strictly Italian, treated with sobriety and
dignity, if somewhat lacking in variety and inspiration. Externally two
stories of the Corinthian order appear, the upper story being merely a
screen to hide the clearstory and its buttresses. This is an
architectural deception, not atoned for by any special beauty of detail.
The dominant feature of the design is the dome over the central area. It
consists of an inner shell, reaching a height of 216 feet, above which
rises the exterior dome of wood, surmounted by a stone lantern, the
summit of which is 360 feet from the pavement (Fig. 187). This exterior
dome, springing from a high drum surrounded by a magnificent peristyle,
gives to the otherwise commonplace exterior of the cathedral a signal
majesty of effect. Next to the dome the most successful part of the
design is the west front, with its two-storied porch and flanking
bell-turrets. Internally the excessive relative length, especially that
of the choir, detracts from the effect of the dome, and the poverty of
detail gives the whole a somewhat bare aspect. It is intended to relieve
this ultimately by a systematic use of mosaic decoration, especially in
the dome. The central area itself, in spite of the awkward treatment of
the four smaller arches of the eight which support the dome, is a noble
design, occupying the whole width of the three aisles, like the Octagon
at Ely, and producing a striking effect of amplitude and grandeur. The
dome above it is constructively interesting from the employment of a
cone of brick masonry to support the stone lantern which rises above the
exterior wooden shell. The lower part of the cone forms the drum of the
inner dome, its contraction upward being intended to produce a
perspective 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 of
Europe, and is the most imposing modern edifice in England.

+WREN’S OTHER WORKS.+ Wren was conspicuously successful in the designing
of parish churches in London. +St. Stephen’s+, Walbrook, is the most
admired of these, with a dome resting on eight columns. Wren may be
called the inventor of the English Renaissance type of steeple, in which
a conical or pyramidal spire is harmoniously added to a belfry on a
square tower with classic details. The steeple of +Bow Church+,
Cheapside, is the most successful example of the type. In secular
architecture Wren’s most important works were the plan for rebuilding
London after the Great Fire; the new courtyard of Hampton Court, a quiet
and dignified composition in brick and stone; the pavilions and
colonnade of +Greenwich Hospital+; the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford, and
the Trinity College Library at Cambridge. Without profound originality,
these works testify to the sound good taste and intelligence of their

  [Illustration: FIG. 188.--PLAN OF BLENHEIM.]

+THE 18TH CENTURY.+ The Anglo-Italian style as used by Jones and Wren
continued in use through the eighteenth century, during the first half
of which a number of important country-seats and some churches were
erected. _Van Brugh_ (1666-1726), _Hawksmoor_ (1666-1736), and _Gibbs_
(1683-1751) were then the leading architects. Van Brugh was especially
skilful in his dispositions of plan and mass, and produced in the
designs of Blenheim and Castle Howard effects of grandeur and variety of
perspective hardly equalled by any of his contemporaries in France or
Italy. +Blenheim+, with its monumental plan and the sweeping curves of
its front (Fig. 188), has an unusually palatial aspect, though the
striving for picturesqueness is carried too far. Castle Howard is
simpler, depending largely for effect on a somewhat inappropriate dome.
To Hawksmoor, his pupil, are due +St. Mary’s, Woolnoth+ (1715), at
London, in which by a bold rustication of the whole exterior and by
windows set in large recessed arches he was enabled to dispense wholly
with the orders; St. George’s, Bloomsbury; the new quadrangle of All
Souls at Oxford, and some minor works. The two most noted designs of
James Gibbs are +St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields+, at London (1726), and the
+Radcliffe Library+, at Oxford (1747). In the former the use of a
Corinthian portico--a practically uncalled-for but decorative
appendage--and of a steeple mounted on the roof, with no visible lines
of support from the ground, are open to criticism. But the excellence of
the 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 a
lower circuit of alcoves and rooms, the whole treated with
straightforward simplicity and excellent proportions. Colin Campbell,
Flitcroft, Kent and Wood, contemporaries of Gibbs, may be dismissed with
passing mention.

  [Illustration: FIG. 189.--ST. MARTIN’S-IN-THE-FIELDS, LONDON.]

_Sir William Chambers_ (1726-96) was the greatest of the later
18th-century architects. His fame rests chiefly on his _Treatise on
Civil Architecture_, and the extension and remodelling of +Somerset
House+, in which he retained the general _ordonnance_ of Inigo Jones’s
design, adapting it to a frontage of some 600 feet. _Robert Adams_, the
designer of Keddlestone Hall, _Robert Taylor_ (1714-88), the architect
of the Bank of England, and _George Dance_, who designed the Mansion
House and Newgate Prison, at London--the latter a vigorous and
appropriate composition without the orders--close the list of noted
architects of the eighteenth century. It was a period singularly wanting
in artistic creativeness and spontaneity; its productions were nearly
all dull and respectable, or at best dignified, but without charm.

+BELGIUM.+ As in all other countries where the late Gothic style had
been highly developed, Belgium was slow to accept the principles of the
Renaissance in art. Long after the dawn of the sixteenth century the
Flemish architects continued to employ their highly florid Gothic alike
for churches and town-halls, with which they chiefly had to do. The
earliest Renaissance buildings date from 1530-40, among them being the
Hôtel du Saumon, at Malines, at Bruges the Ancien Greffe, by _Jean
Wallot_, and at Liège the +Archbishop’s Palace+, by _Borset_. The last
named, in the singular and capricious form of the arches and
baluster-like columns of its court, reveals the taste of the age for
what was _outré_ and odd; a taste partly due, no doubt, to Spanish
influences, as Belgium was in reality from 1506 to 1712 a Spanish
province, and there was more or less interchange of artists between the
two countries. The +Hôtel de Ville+, at Antwerp, by _Cornelius de
Vriendt_ or _Floris_ (1518-75), erected in 1565, is the most important
monument of the Renaissance in Belgium. Its façade, 305 feet long and
102 feet high, in four stories, is an impressive creation in spite of
its somewhat monotonous fenestration and the inartistic repetition in
the third story of the composition and proportions of the second. The
basement story forms an open arcade, and an open colonnade or loggia
runs along under the roof, thus imparting to the composition a
considerable play of light and shade, enhanced by the picturesque
central pavilion which rises to a height of six stories in diminishing
stages. The style is almost Palladian in its severity, but in general
the Flemish architects disdained the restrictions of classic canons,
preferring a more florid and fanciful effect than could be obtained by
mere combinations of Roman columns, arches, and entablatures. De
Vriendt’s other works were mostly designs for altars, tabernacles and
the like; among them the rood screen in Tournay Cathedral. His influence
may 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 as
destitute of important monuments as is the secular. +Ste. Anne+, at
Bruges, fairly illustrates the type, which is characterized in general
by heaviness of detail and a cold and bare aspect internally. The
Renaissance in Belgium is best exemplified, after all, by minor works
and ordinary dwellings, many of which have considerable artistic grace,
though they are quaint rather than monumental (Fig. 190). Stepped
gables, high dormers, and volutes flanking each diminishing stage of the
design, give a certain piquancy to the street architecture of the

+HOLLAND.+ Except in the domain of realistic painting, the Dutch have
never manifested pre-eminent artistic endowments, and the Renaissance
produced in Holland few monuments of consequence. It began there, as in
many other places, with minor works in the churches, due largely to
Flemish or Italian artists. About the middle of the 16th century two
native architects, _Sebastian van Noye_ and _William van Noort_, first
popularized the use of carved pilasters and of gables or steep pediments
adorned with carved scallop-shells, in remote imitation of the style of
Francis I. The principal monuments of the age were town-halls, and,
after the war of independence in which the yoke of Spain was finally
broken (1566-79), local administrative buildings--mints, exchanges and
the like. The +Town Hall+ of +The Hague+ (1565), with its stepped gable
or great dormer, its consoles, statues, and octagonal turrets, may be
said to have inaugurated the style generally followed after the war.
Owing to the lack of stone, brick was almost universally employed, and
stone imported by sea was only used in edifices of exceptional cost and
importance. Of these the +Town Hall+ at Amsterdam holds the first place.
Its façade is of about the same dimensions as the one at Antwerp, but
compares unfavorably with it in its monotony and want of interest. The
+Leyden Town Hall+, by the Fleming, _Lieven de Key_ (1597), the Bourse
or Exchange and the Hanse House at Amsterdam, by _Hendrik de Keyser_,
are also worthy of mention, though many lesser buildings, built of brick
combined with enamelled terra-cotta and stone, possess quite as much
artistic merit.

+DENMARK.+ In Denmark the monuments of the Renaissance may almost be
said to be confined to the reign of Christian IV. (1588-1648), and do
not 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 in
mass, with their fanciful gables, mullioned windows and numerous
turrets, but can hardly lay claim to beauty of detail or purity of
style. The Exchange at Copenhagen, built of brick and stone in the same
general style (1619-40), is still less interesting both in mass and

The only other important Scandinavian monument deserving of special
mention in so brief a sketch as this is the +Royal Palace+ at
+Stockholm+, Sweden (1698-1753), due to a foreign architect, _Nicodemus
de Tessin_. It is of imposing dimensions, and although simple in
external treatment, it merits praise for the excellent disposition of
its plan, its noble court, imposing entrances, and the general dignity
and 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.



  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

+AUSTRIA+; +BOHEMIA+. The earliest appearance of the Renaissance in the
architecture of the German states was in the eastern provinces. Before
the close of the fifteenth century Florentine and Milanese architects
were employed in Austria, Bohemia, and the Tyrol, where there are a
number of palaces and chapels in an unmixed Italian style. The portal of
the castle of Mahrisch-Trübau dates from 1492; while to the early years
of the 16th century belong a cruciform chapel at Gran, the remodelling
of the castle at Cracow, and the chapel of the Jagellons in the same
city--the earliest domical structure of the German Renaissance, though
of Italian design. The +Schloss Porzia+ (1510), at Spital in Carinthia,
is a fine quadrangular palace, surrounding a court with arcades on three
sides, in which the open stairs form a picturesque interruption with
their rampant arches. But for the massiveness of the details it might be
a Florentine palace. In addition to this, the famous +Arsenal+ at
Wiener-Neustadt (1524), the portal of the Imperial Palace (1552), and
the +Castle Schalaburg+ on the Danube (1530-1601), are attributed to
Italian architects, to whom must also be ascribed a number of important
works at Prague. Chief among these the +Belvedere+ (1536, by _Paolo
della Stella_), a rectangular building surrounded by a graceful open
arcade, above which it rises with a second story crowned by a curved
roof; the Waldstein Palace (1621-29), by _Giov. Marini_, with its
imposing loggia; +Schloss Stern+, built on the plan of a six-pointed
star (1459-1565) and embellished by Italian artists with stucco
ornaments and frescoes; and parts of the palace on the Hradschin, by
_Scamozzi_, attest the supremacy of Italian art in Bohemia. The same is
true of Styria, Carinthia, and the Tyrol; _e.g._ +Schloss Ambras+ at
Innsbrück (1570).

+GERMANY: PERIODS.+ The earliest manifestation of the Renaissance in
what is now the German Empire, appeared in the works of painters like
Dürer and Burkmair, and in occasional buildings previous to 1525. The
real transformation of German architecture, however, hardly began until
after the Peace of Augsburg, in 1555. From that time on its progress was
rapid, its achievements being almost wholly in the domain of secular
architecture--princely and ducal castles, town halls or _Rathhäuser_,
and houses of wealthy burghers or corporations. It is somewhat singular
that the German emperors should not have undertaken the construction of
a new imperial residence on a worthy scale, the palaces of Munich and
Berlin being aggregations of buildings of various dates about a nucleus
of mediæval origin, and with no single portion to compare with the
stately châteaux of the French kings. Church architecture was neglected,
owing to the Reformation, which turned to its own uses the existing
churches, while the Roman Catholics were too impoverished to replace the
edifices they had lost.

The periods of the German Renaissance are less well marked than those of
the French; but its successive developments follow the same general
progression, divided into three stages:

I. THE EARLY RENAISSANCE, 1525-1600, in which the orders were
infrequently used, mainly for porches and for gable decoration. The
conceptions and spirit of most monuments were still strongly tinged with
Gothic feeling.

II. THE LATE RENAISSANCE, 1600-1675, characterized by a dry, heavy
treatment, in which too often neither the fanciful gayety of the
previous period nor the simple and monumental dignity of classic design
appears. Broken curves, large scrolls, obelisks, and a style of flat
relief carving resembling the Elizabethan are common. Occasional
monuments exhibit a more correct and classic treatment after Italian

III. THE DECLINE OR BAROQUE PERIOD, 1675-1800, employing the orders in a
style of composition oscillating between the extremes of bareness and of
Rococo over-decoration. The ornament partakes of the character of the
Louis XV. and Italian Jesuit styles, being most successful in interior
decoration, 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 of
picturesque variety in masses and sky-lines, inherited from mediæval
times, appears in the high roofs, stepped gables and lofty dormers which
are universal. The roofs often comprise several stories, and are lighted
by lofty gables at either end, and by dormers carried up from the side
walls through two or three stories. Gables and dormers alike are built
in diminishing stages, each step adorned with a console or scroll, and
the whole treated with pilasters or colonnettes and entablatures
breaking over each support (Fig. 191). These roofs, dormers, and gables
contribute the most noticeable element to the general effect of most
German Renaissance buildings, and are commonly the best-designed
features in them. The orders are scantily used and usually treated with
utter disregard of classic canons, being generally far too massive and
overloaded with ornament. Oriels, bay-windows, and turrets, starting
from corbels or colonnettes, or rarely from the ground, diversify the
façade, and spires of curious bulbous patterns give added piquancy to
the picturesque sky-line. The plans seldom had the monumental symmetry
and largeness of Italian and French models; courtyards were often
irregular in shape and diversified with balconies and spiral
staircase-turrets. The national leaning was always toward the quaint and
fantastic, as well in the decoration as in the composition. Grotesques,
caryatids, _gaînes_ (half-figures terminating below in sheath-like
supports), fanciful rustication, and many other details give a touch of
the Baroque even to works of early date. The same principles were
applied with better success to interior decoration, especially in the
large halls of the castles and town-halls, and many of their ceilings
were sumptuous and well-considered designs, deeply panelled, painted and
gilded in wood or plaster.

+CASTLES.+ The _Schloss_ or _Burg_ of the German prince or duke retained
throughout the Renaissance many mediæval characteristics in plan and
aspect. A large proportion of these noble residences were built upon
foundations of demolished feudal castles, reproducing in a new dress the
ancient round towers and vaulted guard-rooms and halls, as in the
Hartenfels at Torgau, the Heldburg (both in Saxony), and the castle of
Trausnitz, in Bavaria, among many others. The +Castle+ at +Torgau+
(1540) is one of the most imposing of its class, with massive round and
square towers showing externally, and court façades full of picturesque
irregularities. In the great +Castle+ at +Dresden+ the plan is more
symmetrical, and the Renaissance appears more distinctly in the details
of the Georgenflügel (1530-50), though at that early date the classic
orders were almost ignored. The portal of the Heldburg, however, built
in 1562, is a composition quite in the contemporary French vein, with
superposed orders and a crowning pediment over a massive basement.

Another important series of castles or palaces are of more regular
design, in which the feudal traditions tend to disappear. The majority
belong to the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries. They
are built around large rectangular courts with arcades in two or three
stories on one or more sides, but rarely surrounding it entirely. In
these the segmental arch is more common than the semicircular, and
springs usually from short and stumpy Ionic or Corinthian columns. The
rooms and halls are arranged _en suite_, without corridors, and a large
and lofty banquet hall forms the dominant feature of the series. The
earliest of these regularly planned palaces are of Italian design. Chief
among them is the +Residenz+ at +Landshut+ (1536-43), with a thoroughly
Roman plan, by pupils of Giulio Romano, and exterior and court façades
of great dignity treated with the orders. More German in its details,
but equally interesting, is the +Fürstenhof+ at +Wismar+, in brick and
terra-cotta, by _Valentino di Lira_ and _Van Aken_ (1553); while in the
+Piastenschloss+ at Brieg (1547-72), by Italian architects, the
treatment in parts suggests the richest works of the style of Francis I.
In other castles the segmental arch and stumpy columns or piers show the
German taste, as in the +Plassenburg+, by _Kaspar Vischer_ (1554-64),
the castle at Plagnitz, and the +Old Castle+ at +Stuttgart+, all dating
from about 1550-55. +Heidelberg Castle+, in spite of its mediæval aspect
from the river and its irregular plan, ranks as the highest achievement
of the German Renaissance in palace design. The most interesting parts
among its various wings built at different dates--the earlier portions
still Gothic in design--are the +Otto Heinrichsbau+ (1554) and the
+Friedrichsbau+ (1601). The first of these appears somewhat simpler in
its lines than the second, by reason of having lost its original
dormer-gables. The orders, freely treated, are superposed in three
stories, and twin windows, niches, statues, _gaînes_, medallions and
profuse carving produce an effect of great gayety and richness. The
Friedrichsbau (Fig. 192), less quiet in its lines, and with high
scroll-gabled and stepped dormers, is on the other hand more soberly
decorated and more characteristically German. The Schloss Hämelschenburg
(Fig. 191) is designed in somewhat the same spirit, but with even
greater simplicity of detail.


+TOWN HALLS.+ These constitute the most interesting class of Renaissance
buildings in Germany, presenting a considerable variety of types, but
nearly all built in solid blocks without courts, and adorned with towers
or spires. A high roof crowns the building, broken by one or more high
gables or many-storied dormers. The majority of these town halls present
façades much diversified by projecting wings, as at Lemgo and Paderborn,
or by oriels and turrets, as at +Altenburg+ (1562-64); and the towers
which dominate the whole terminate usually in bell-shaped cupolas, or in
more capricious forms with successive swellings and contractions, as at
Dantzic (1587). A few, however, are designed with monumental simplicity
of mass; of these that at +Bremen+ (1612) is perhaps the finest, with
its beautiful exterior arcade on strong Doric columns. The town hall of
Nuremberg is one of the few with a court, and presents a façade of
almost Roman simplicity (1613-19); that at +Augsburg+ (1615) is equally
classic 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 important
church of the first period in Germany (1582), but it is worthy to rank
with many of the most notable contemporary Italian churches. A wide nave
covered by a majestic barrel vault, is flanked by side chapels,
separated from each other by massive piers and forming a series of
gallery bays above. There are short transepts and a choir, all in
excellent proportion and treated with details which, if somewhat heavy,
are appropriate and reasonably correct. The +Marienkirche+ at
Wolfenbüttel (1608) is a fair sample of the parish churches of the
second period. In the exterior of this church pointed arches and
semi-Gothic tracery are curiously associated with heavy rococo carving.
The simple rectangular mass, square tower, and portal with massive
orders and carving are characteristic features. Many of the
church-towers are well proportioned and graceful structures in spite of
the fantastic outlines of their spires. One of the best and purest in
style 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 seventeenth
centuries would merit extended notice in a larger work, as among the
most interesting lesser monuments of the Renaissance. Nuremberg and
Hildesheim are particularly rich in such houses, built either for
private citizens or for guilds and corporations. Not a few of the
half-timbered houses of the time are genuine works of art, though
interest chiefly centres in the more monumental dwellings of stone. In
this domestic architecture the picturesque quality of German design
appears to better advantage than in more monumental edifices, and their
broadly stepped gables, corbelled oriels, florid portals and want of
formal symmetry imparting a peculiar and undeniable charm. The
Kaiserhaus and Wedekindsches Haus at Hildesheim; +Fürstenhaus+ at
Leipzig; Peller, Hirschvogel, and Funk houses at Nuremberg; the Salt
House at Frankfurt, and Ritter House at Heidelberg, are a few of the
most noted among these examples of domestic architecture.

  [Illustration: FIG. 194.--CHURCH OF ST. MARY (MARIENKIRCHE),

+LATER MONUMENTS.+ The +Zwinger Palace+ at Dresden (Fig. 193), is the
most elaborate and wayward example of the German palace architecture of
the third period. Its details are of the most exaggerated rococo type,
like confectioner’s work done in stone; and yet the building has an air
of princely splendor which partly atones for its details. Besides this
palace, Dresden possesses in the domical +Marienkirche+ (Fig. 194)
a very meritorious example of late design. The proportions are good, and
the detail, if not interesting, is at least inoffensive, while the whole
is a dignified and rational piece of work. At Vienna are a number of
palaces of the third period, more interesting for their beautiful
grounds and parks than for intrinsic architectural merit. As in Italy,
this was the period of stucco, and although in Vienna this cheap and
perishable material was cleverly handled, and the ornament produced was
often quaint and effective, the results lack the permanence and dignity
of true building in stone or brick, and may be dismissed without further

In minor works the Germans were far less prolific than the Italians or
Spaniards. Few of their tombs were of the first importance, though one,
the +Sebald Shrine+, in Nuremberg, by _Peter Vischer_ (1506-19), is a
splendid work in bronze, in the transitional style; a richly decorated
canopy on slender metal colonnettes covering and enclosing the
sarcophagus of the saint. There are a large number of fountains in the
squares 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 the
requirements of the arrogant and luxurious period which in Spain
followed the overthrow of the Moors and the discovery of America. But it
was inevitable that the Renaissance should in time make its influence
felt in the arts of the Iberian peninsula, largely through the
employment of Flemish artists. In jewelry and silverwork, arts which
received a great impulse from the importation of the precious metals
from the New World, the forms of the Renaissance found special
acceptance, so that the new style received the name of the _Plateresque_
(from _platero_, silversmith). This was a not inept name for the
minutely detailed and sumptuous decoration of the early Renaissance,
which lasted from 1500 to the accession of Philip II. in 1556. It was
characterized by surface-decoration spreading over broad areas,
especially around doors and windows, florid escutcheons and Gothic
details mingling with delicately chiselled arabesques. Decorative
pilasters with broken entablatures and carved baluster-shafts were
employed with little reference to constructive lines, but with great
refinement of detail, in spite of the exuberant profusion of the

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 to
produce works of classical purity, the buildings of this period are for
the most part singularly devoid of originality and interest. This style
lasted until the middle of the seventeenth century, and in the case of
certain works and artists, until its close. It was followed, at least in
ecclesiastical architecture, by the so-called _Churrigueresque_, a name
derived from an otherwise insignificant architect, _Churriguera_, who
like Maderna and Borromini in Italy, discarded all the proprieties of
architecture, and rejoiced in the wildest extravagances of an untrained
fancy and debased taste.

+EARLY MONUMENTS.+ The earliest ecclesiastical works of the Renaissance
period, like the cathedrals of Salamanca, Toledo, and Segovia, were
almost purely Gothic in style. Not until 1525 did the new forms begin to
dominate in cathedral design. The cathedral at +Jaen+, by _Valdelvira_
(1525), an imposing structure with three aisles and side chapels, was
treated internally with the Corinthian order throughout. The Cathedral
of +Granada+ (1529, by _Diego de Siloe_) is especially interesting for
its great domical sanctuary 70 feet in diameter, and for the largeness
and dignity of its conception and details. The cathedral of Malaga, the
church of San Domingo at Salamanca, and the monastery of San Girolamo in
the same city are either wholly or in part Plateresque, and provided
with portals of especial richness of decoration. Indeed, the portal of
S. Domingo practically forms the whole façade.


In secular architecture the +Hospital+ of +Santa Cruz+ at Toledo, by
_Enrique de Egaz_ (1504-16), is one of the earliest examples of the
style. Here, as also in the +University+ at +Salamanca+ (Fig. 195), the
portal is the most notable feature, suggesting both Italian and French
models in its details. The great +College+ at +Alcala de Heñares+ is
another important early monument of the Renaissance (1500-17, by _Pedro
Gumiel_). In most designs the preference was for long façades of
moderate height, with a basement showing few openings, and a _bel étage_
lighted by large windows widely spaced. Ornament was chiefly
concentrated about the doors and windows, except for the roof
balustrades, which were often exceedingly elaborate. Occasionally a
decorative motive is spread over the whole façade, as in the +Casa de
las Conchas+ at Salamanca, adorned with cockle-shells carved at
intervals all over the front--a bold and effective device; or the
Infantada palace with its spangling of carved diamonds. The courtyard or
_patio_ was an indispensable feature of these buildings, as in all hot
countries, and was surrounded by arcades frequently of the most fanciful
design overloaded with minute ornament, as in the +Infantado+ at
Guadalajara, the +Casa de Zaporta+, formerly at Saragossa (now removed
to Paris; Fig. 196), and the Lupiana monastery. The patios in the
+Archbishop’s Palace+ at Alcala de Heñares and the +Collegio de los
Irlandeses+ at Salamanca are of simpler design; that of the +Casa de
Pilatos+ at Seville is almost purely Moorish. Salamanca abounds in
buildings 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 designs
by the use of the orders was introduced by _Alonzo Berruguete_
(1480-1560?), who studied in Italy after 1503. The Archbishop’s Palace
and the Doric +Gate+ of +San Martino+, both at Toledo, were his work, as
well as the first palace at Madrid. The Palladio of Spain was, however,
by _Juan de Herrera_ (died 1597), the architect of +Valladolid
Cathedral+, built under Philip V. This vast edifice follows the general
lines of the earlier cathedrals of Jaen and Granada, but in a style of
classical correctness almost severe in aspect, but well suited to the
grand scale of the church. The masterpiece of this period was the
monastery of the +Escurial+, begun by _Juan Battista_ of Toledo, in
1563, but not completed until nearly one hundred and fifty years later.
Its final architectural aspect was largely due to Herrera. It is a vast
rectangle of 740 × 580 feet, comprising a complex of courts, halls, and
cells, dominated by the huge mass of the chapel. This last is an
imposing domical church covering 70,000 square feet, treated throughout
with the Doric order, and showing externally a lofty dome and campaniles
with domical lanterns, which serve to diversify the otherwise monotonous
mass of the monastery. What the Escurial lacks in grace or splendor is
at least in a measure redeemed by its majestic scale and varied
sky-lines. The +Palace of Charles V.+ (Fig. 197), adjoining the Alhambra
at Granada, though begun as early as 1527 by _Machuca_, was mainly due
to Berruguete, and is an excellent example of the Spanish Palladian
style. With its circular court, admirable proportions and well-studied
details, this often maligned edifice deserves to be ranked among the
most successful examples of the style. During this period the cathedral
of Seville received many alterations, and the upper part of the
adjoining Moorish tower of the +Giralda+, burned in 1395, was rebuilt by
_Fernando Ruiz_ in the prevalent style, and with considerable elegance
and appropriateness of design.

Of the +Palace+ at +Madrid+, rebuilt by Philip V. after the burning of
the 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 in
their size and the absence of those glaring violations of good taste
which generally characterized the successors of Churriguera. In
ecclesiastical design these violations of taste were particularly
abundant and excessive, especially in the façades and in the
sanctuary--huge aggregations of misplaced and vulgar detail, with hardly
an unbroken pediment, column, or arch in the whole. Some extreme
examples of this abominable style are to be found in the
Spanish-American churches of the 17th and 18th centuries, as at
Chihuahua (Mexico), Tucson (Arizona), and other places. The least
offensive features of the churches of this period were the towers,
usually in pairs at the west end, some of them showing excellent
proportions and good composition in spite of their execrable details.

Minor architectural works, such as the rood screens in the churches of
Astorga 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 the

+PORTUGAL.+ The Renaissance appears to have produced few notable works
in Portugal. Among the chief of these are the +Tower+, the church, and
the +Cloister+, at Belem. These display a riotous profusion of minute
carved 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 of

  +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.



  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 the
Renaissance, properly speaking, had run its course in Europe. The
increasing servility of its imitation of antique models had exhausted
its elasticity and originality. Taste rapidly declined before the growth
of the industrial and commercial spirit in the eighteenth century. The
ferment of democracy and the disquiet of far-reaching political changes
had begun to preoccupy the minds of men to the detriment of the arts. By
the middle of the eighteenth century, however, the extravagances of the
Rococo, Jesuit, and Louis XV. styles had begun to pall upon the popular
taste. The creative spirit was dead, and nothing seemed more promising
as a corrective for these extravagances than a return to classic models.
But the demand was for a literal copying of the arcades and porticos of
Rome, to serve as frontispieces for buildings in which modern
requirements should be accommodated to these antique exteriors, instead
of controlling the design. The result was a manifest gain in the
splendor of the streets and squares adorned by these highly decorative
frontispieces, but at the expense of convenience and propriety in the
buildings themselves. While this academic spirit too often sacrificed
logic and originality to an arbitrary symmetry and to the supposed
canons of Roman design, it also, on the other hand, led to a stateliness
and dignity in the planning, especially in the designing of vestibules,
stairs, and halls, which render many of the public buildings it produced
well worthy of study. The architecture of the Roman Revival was pompous
and artificial, but seldom trivial, and its somewhat affected grandeur
was a welcome relief from the dull extravagance of the styles it

+THE GREEK REVIVAL.+ The Roman revival was, however, displaced in
England and Germany by the Greek Revival, which set in near the close of
the eighteenth century. This was the result of a newly awakened interest
in the long-neglected monuments of Attic art which the discoveries of
Stuart and Revett--sent out in 1732 by the London Society of
Dilettanti--had once more made known to the world. It led to a veritable
_furore_ in England for Greek Doric and Ionic columns, which were
applied indiscriminately to every class of buildings, with utter
disregard of propriety. The British taste was at this time at its lowest
ebb, and failed to perceive the poverty of Greek architecture when
deprived of its proper adornments of carving and sculpture, which were
singularly lacking in the British examples. Nevertheless the Greek style
in England had a long run of popular favor, yielding only during the
reign of the present sovereign to the so-called Victorian Gothic,
a revival of mediæval forms. In Germany the Greek Revival was
characterized by a more cultivated taste and a more rational application
of its forms, which were often freely modified to suit modern needs. In
France, where the Roman Revival under Louis XV. had produced fairly
satisfactory results, and where the influence of the Royal School of
Fine Arts (_École des Beaux-Arts_) tended to perpetuate the principles
of Roman design, the Greek Revival found no footing. The Greek forms
were 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 of
talented architects; and though its own life was short, it profoundly
influenced French art in the direction of freedom and refinement for a
long time afterward. In Italy there was hardly anything in the nature of
a true revival of either Roman or Greek forms. The few important works
of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were conceived in
the spirit of the late Renaissance, and took from the prevalent revival
of classicism elsewhere merely a greater correctness of detail, not any
radical change of form or spirit.

  [Illustration: FIG. 198.--BRITISH MUSEUM, LONDON.]

+ENGLAND.+ There was, strictly speaking, no Roman revival in Great
Britain. The modified Palladian style of Wren and Gibbs and their
successors continued until superseded by the Greek revival. The first
fruit of the new movement seems to have been the +Bank of England+ at
London, by _Sir John Soane_ (1788). In this edifice the Greco-Roman
order of the round temple at Tivoli was closely copied, and applied to a
long 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 more
ambitious essay in a more purely Greek style. Its colossal Ionic
colonnade was, however, a mere frontispiece, applied to a badly planned
and commonplace building, from which it cut off needed light. The more
modest but appropriate columnar façade to the +Fitzwilliam Museum+ at
Cambridge, by _Bassevi_, was a more successful attempt in the same
direction, better proportioned and avoiding the incongruity of modern
windows in several stories. These have always been the stumbling-block
of the revived Greek style. The difficulties they raise are avoided,
however, in buildings presenting but two stories, the order being
applied to the upper story, upon a high stylobate serving as a basement.
The +High School+ and the Royal Institution at Edinburgh, and the
University at London, by _Wilkins_, are for this reason, if for no
other, superior to the British Museum and other many-storied Anglo-Greek
edifices. In spite of all difficulties, however, the English extended
the applications of the style with doubtful success not only to all
manner of public buildings, but also to country residences. Carlton
House, Bowden Park, and Grange House are instances of this
misapplication of Greek forms. Neither did it prove more tractable for
ecclesiastical purposes. +St. Pancras’s+ Church at London, and several
churches by _Thomson_ (1817-75), in Glasgow, though interesting as
experiments 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 and
porches are sufficiently Greek in spirit and detail to class it among
the works of the Greek Revival. But its great hall and its interior
composition are really Roman and not Greek, emphasizing the teaching of
experience that Greek architecture does not lend itself to the
exigencies of modern civilization to nearly the same extent as the

  [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 with
spirally ascending reliefs in front of the church of +St. Charles
Borromeo+, at Vienna), was directed into the channel of Greek imitation
by the literary works of Winckelmann, Lessing, Goethe, and others, as
well as by the interest aroused by the discoveries of Stuart and Revett.
The +Brandenburg Gate+ at Berlin (1784, by Langhans) was an early
example of this Hellenism in architecture, and one of its most
successful applications to civic purposes. Without precisely copying any
Greek structure, it was evidently inspired from the Athenian Propylæa,
and nothing in its purpose is foreign to the style employed. The
greatest activity in the style came later, however, and was greatly
stimulated by the achievements of _Fr. Schinkel_ (1771-1841), one of the
greatest of modern German architects. While in the domical church of St.
Nicholas at Potsdam, he employed Roman forms in a modernized Roman
conception, and followed in one or two other buildings the principles of
the Renaissance, his predilections were for Greek architecture. His
masterpiece was the +Museum+ at Berlin, with an imposing portico of 18
Ionic columns (Fig. 200). This building with its fine rotunda was
excellently planned, and forms, in conjunction with the +New Museum+ by
_Stuhler_ (1843-55), a noble palace of art, to whose monumental
requirements and artistic purpose the Greek colonnades and pediments
were not inappropriate. Schinkel’s greatest successor was _Leo von
Klenze_ (1784-1864), whose more textual reproductions of Greek models
won him great favor and wide employment. The +Walhalla+ near Ratisbon is
a modernized Parthenon, internally vaulted with glass; elegant
externally, but too obvious a plagiarism to be greatly admired. The
+Ruhmeshalle+ at Munich, a double +L+ partly enclosing a colossal
statue of Bavaria, and devoted to the commemoration of Bavaria’s great
men, is copied from no Greek building, though purely Greek in design and
correct to the smallest detail. In the +Glyptothek+ (Sculpture Gallery),
in the same city, the one distinctively Greek feature introduced by
Klenze, an Ionic portico, is also the one inappropriate note in the
design. The +Propylæa+ at Munich, by the same (Fig. 201), and the +Court
Theatre+ at Berlin, by Schinkel, are other important examples of the
style. The latter is externally one of the most beautiful theatres in
Europe, though less ornate than many. Schinkel’s genius was here
remarkably successful in adapting Greek details to the exigent
difficulties of theatre design, and there is no suggestion of copying
any 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), an
imposing two-storied composition with a lofty central colonnade and
lower side-wings, harmonious in general proportions and pleasingly
varied in outline and mass.

In general, the Greek Revival in Germany presents the aspect of a
sincere striving after beauty, on the part of a limited number of
artists of great talent, misled by the idea that the forms of a dead
civilization could be galvanized into new life in the service of modern
needs. 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 its
appearance during the reign of Louis XV. in a number of important
monuments which expressed the protest of their authors against the
caprice of the Rococo style then in vogue. The colonnades of the
Garde-Meuble, the façade of St. Sulpice, and the coldly beautiful
+Panthéon+ (Figs. 202, 203) testified to the conviction in the most
cultured minds of the time that Roman grandeur was to be attained only
by copying the forms of Roman architecture with the closest possible
approach to correctness. In the Panthéon, the greatest ecclesiastical
monument of its time in France (otherwise known as the church of Ste.
Genéviève), the spirit of correct classicism dominates the interior as
well 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 four
arms have domical vaulting and narrow aisles separated by Corinthian
columns. The whole interior is a cold but extremely elegant composition.
The most notable features of the exterior are its imposing portico of
colossal Corinthian columns and the fine peristyle which surrounds the
drum 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, the
intermediate shell serving to support the heavy stone lantern. The
architect was _Soufflot_ (1713-81). The +Grand Théâtre+, at Bordeaux
(1773, by _Victor Louis_), one of the largest and finest theatres in
Europe, was another product of this movement, its stately colonnade
forming one of the chief ornaments of the city. Under Louis XVI. there
was a temporary reaction from this somewhat pompous affectation of
antique grandeur; but there were few important buildings erected during
that unhappy reign, and the reaction showed itself mainly in a more
delicate and graceful style of interior decoration. It was reserved for
the Empire to set the seal of official approval on the Roman Revival.
The Arch of Triumph of the Carrousel, behind the Tuileries, by _Percier
and Fontaine_, the magnificent Arc de l’Étoile, at the summit of the
Avenue of the Champs Elysées, by _Chalgrin_; the wing begun by Napoleon
to connect the Tuileries with the Louvre on the land side, and the
church of the Madeleine, by _Vignon_, erected as a temple to the heroes
of the Grande Armée, were all designed, in accordance with the expressed
will of the Emperor himself, in a style as Roman as the requirements of
each case would permit. All these monuments, begun between 1806 and
1809, 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. Its
admirable proportions, simple composition and striking sculptures give
it 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 three
pendentive domes that vault its vast nave, but all the details are
Roman. However suitable for a pantheon or mausoleum, it seems strangely
inappropriate as a design for a Christian church. To these monuments
should be added the +Bourse+ or Exchange, by _Brongniart_, heavy in
spite of its Corinthian peristyle, and the river front of the +Corps
Législatif+ or Palais Bourbon, by _Poyet_, the only extant example of a
dodecastyle portico with a pediment. All of these designs are
characterized by great elegance of detail and excellence of execution,
and however inappropriate in style to modern uses, they add immensely to
the splendor of the French capital. Unquestionably no feature can take
the place of a Greek or Roman colonnade as an embellishment for broad
avenues and open squares, or as the termination of an architectural

  [Illustration: FIG. 205.--THE MADELEINE, PARIS.]

The Greek revival took little hold of the Parisian imagination. Its
forms were too cold, too precise and fixed, too intractable to modern
requirements to appeal to the French taste. It counts but one notable
monument, the church of +St. Vincent de Paul+, by _Hittorff_, who sought
to apply to this design the principles of Greek external polychromy; but
the frescoes and ornaments failed to withstand the Parisian climate, and
were finally erased. The Néo-Grec movement already referred to,
initiated by Duc, Duban, and Labrouste about 1830, aimed only to
introduce into modern design the spirit and refinement, the purity and
delicacy of Greek art, not its forms (Fig. 206). Its chief monuments
were the remodelling, by _Duc_, of the +Palais de Justice+, of which the
new 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 a
pilaster or column, simple arches over a massive basement forming the
dominant motive, while in the interior a system of iron construction
with glazed domes controls the design; and the commemorative +Colonne
Juillet+, by Duc, the most elegant and appropriate of all modern
memorial columns. All these buildings, begun between 1830 and 1850 and
completed at various dates, are distinguished by a remarkable purity and
freedom of conception and detail, quite unfettered by the artificial
trammels 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 have
little to show in the way of imitations of classic monuments or
reproductions of Roman colonnades. In Italy the church of +S. Francesco
di Paola+, at Naples, in quasi-imitation of the Pantheon at Rome, with
wing-colonnades, and the +Superga+, at Turin (1706, by _Ivara_); the
façade of the San Carlo Theatre, at Naples, and the Braccio Nuovo of the
Vatican (1817, by _Stern_) are the monuments which come the nearest to
the spirit and style of the Roman Revival. Yet in each of these there is
a large element of originality and freedom of treatment which renders
doubtful their classification as examples of that movement.

A reflection of the Munich school is seen in the modern public buildings
of Athens, designed in some cases by German architects, and in others by
native Greeks. The University, the Museum buildings, the Academy of Art
and Science, and other edifices exemplify fairly successful efforts to
adapt the severe details of classic Greek art to modern windowed
structures. They suffer somewhat from the too liberal use of stucco in
place of marble, and from the conscious affectation of an extinct style.
But they are for the most part pleasing and monumental designs, adding
greatly 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 the
Jesuit in Italy and the Churrigueresque in Spain was generally
prevalent, but it was in many cases modified by Muscovite traditions
into nondescript forms like those of the +Kremlin+, at Moscow, or the
less extravagant Citadel Church and Smolnoy Monastery at St. Petersburg.
Along with this heavy and barbarous style, which prevails generally in
the numerous palaces of the capital, finished in stucco with atrocious
details, a more severe and classical spirit is met with. The church of
the +Greek Rite+ at St. Petersburg combines a Roman domical interior
with an exterior of the Greek Doric order. The Church of +Our Lady of
Kazan+ has a semicircular colonnade projecting from its transept,
copying as nearly as may be the colonnades in front of St. Peter’s. But
the greatest classic monument in Russia is the +Cathedral of St. Isaac+
(Fig. 207), at St. Petersburg, a vast rectangular edifice with four
Roman Corinthian pedimental colonnades projecting from its faces, and a
dome with a peristyle crowning the whole. Despite many defects of
detail, and the use of cast iron for the dome, which pretends to be of
marble, this is one of the most impressive churches of its size in
Europe. Internally it displays the costliest materials in extraordinary
profusion, while externally its noble colonnades go far to redeem its
bare attic and the material of its dome. The +Palace of the Grand Duke
Michael+, which reproduces, with improvements, Gabriel’s colonnades of
the Garde Meuble at Paris on its garden front, is a nobly planned and
commendable design, agreeably contrasting with the debased architecture
of many of the public buildings of the city. The Admiralty with its
Doric pilasters, and the +New Museum+, by von Klenze of Munich, in a
skilfully modified Greek style, with effective loggias, are the only
other monuments of the classic revival in Russia which can find mention
in a brief sketch like this. Both are notable and in many respects
admirable buildings, in part redeeming the vulgarity which is
unfortunately so prevalent in the architecture of St. Petersburg.

The +MONUMENTS+ of the Classic Revival have been referred to in the
foregoing text at sufficient length to preclude the necessity of further
enumeration here.



  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 an
age of industrial progress. Its most striking advances have been along
mechanical, scientific, and commercial lines. As a result of this
material progress the general conditions of mankind in civilized
countries have undoubtedly been greatly bettered. Popular education and
the 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 those
energies which in other ages found exercise in the creation of artistic
forms and objects. The critical and sceptical spirit, the spirit of
utilitarianism and realism, has checked the free and general development
of the creative imagination, at least in the plastic arts. While in
poetry and music there have been great and noble achievements, the
plastic arts, including architecture, have only of late years attained a
position at all worthy of the intellectual advancement of the times.

Nevertheless the artistic spirit has never been wholly crushed out by
the untoward pressure of realism and commercialism. Unfortunately it has
repeatedly been directed in wrong channels. Modern archæology and the
publication of the forms of historic art by books and photographs have
too exclusively fastened attention upon the details of extinct styles as
a source of inspiration in design. The whole range of historic art is
brought within our survey, and while this has on the one hand tended
toward the confusion and multiplication of styles in modern work, it has
on the other led to a slavish adherence to historic precedent or a
literal copying of historic forms. Modern architecture has thus
oscillated between the extremes of archæological servitude and of an
unreasoning eclecticism. In the hands of men of inferior training the
results have been deplorable travesties of all styles, or meaningless
aggregations of ill-assorted forms.

An important factor in this demoralization of architectural design has
been the development of new constructive methods, especially in the use
of iron and steel. It has been impossible for modern designers, in their
treatment of style, to keep pace with the rapid changes in the
structural use of metal in architecture. The roofs of vast span, largely
composed of glass, which modern methods of trussing have made possible
for railway stations, armories, and exhibition buildings; the immense
unencumbered spaces which may be covered by them; the introduction and
development, especially in the United States, of the post-and-girder
system of construction for high buildings, in which the external walls
are a mere screen or filling-in; these have revolutionized architecture
so rapidly and completely that architects are still struggling and
groping 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 these
new conditions, made notable advances. The artistic emulation of
repeated international exhibitions, the multiplication of museums and
schools of art, the general advance in intelligence and enlightenment,
have all contributed to this artistic progress. There appears to be more
of the artistic and intellectual quality in the average architecture of
the present time, on both sides of the Atlantic, than at any previous
period in this century. The futility of the archæological revival of
extinct styles is generally recognized. New conditions are gradually
procuring the solution of the very problems they raise. Historic
precedent sits more lightly on the architect than formerly, and the
essential unity of principle underlying all good design is coming to be
better understood.[26]

    [Footnote 26: See Appendix D.]

+FRANCE.+ It is in France, Germany (including Austria), and England that
the architectural progress of this period in Europe has been most
marked. We have already noticed the results of the classic revivals in
these three countries. Speaking broadly, it may be said that in France
the influence of the _École des Beaux-Arts_, while it has tended to give
greater unity and consistency to the national architecture, and has
exerted a powerful influence in behalf of refinement of taste and
correctness of style, has also stood in the way of a free development of
new ideas. French architecture has throughout adhered to the principles
of the Renaissance, though the style has during this century been
modified by various influences. The first of these was the Néo-Grec
movement, alluded to in the last chapter, which broke the grip of Roman
tradition in matters of detail and gave greater elasticity to the
national style. Next should be mentioned the Gothic movement represented
by Viollet-le-Duc, Lassus, Ballu, and their followers. Beginning about
1845, it produced comparatively few notable buildings, but gave a great
impulse to the study of mediæval archæology and the restoration of
mediæval monuments. The churches of Ste. Clothilde and of St. Jean de
Belleville, at Paris, and the reconstruction of the Château de
Pierrefonds, were among its direct results. Indirectly it led to a freer
and more rational treatment of constructive forms and materials than had
prevailed with the academic designers. The church of +St. Augustin+, by
_Baltard_, at Paris, illustrates this in its use of iron and brick for
the dome and vaulting, and the +College Chaptal+, by _E. Train_, in its
decorative treatment of brick and tile externally. The general adoption
of iron for roof-trusses and for the construction of markets and similar
buildings tended further in the same direction, the +Halles Centrales+
at Paris, by _Baltard_, being a notable example.

  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 period
of exceptional activity, especially in Paris. The greatest monument of
his reign was the completion of the +Louvre+ and +Tuileries+, under
_Visconti_ and _Lefuel_, including the remodelling of the pavilions de
Flore and de Marsan. The new portions constitute the most notable
example of modern French architecture, and the manner in which the two
palaces were united deserves high praise. In spite of certain defects,
this work is marked by a combination of dignity, richness, and
refinement, such as are rarely found in palace architecture (Figs. 208,
209). The +New Opera+ (1863-75), by _Garnier_ (d.  1898), stands next to
the Louvre in importance as a national monument. It is by far the most
sumptuous building for amusement in existence, but in purity of detail
and in the balance and restraint of its design it is inferior to the
work of Visconti and Lefuel (Fig. 210). To this reign belong the Palais
de l’Industrie, by _Viel_, built for the exhibition of 1855, and several
great railway stations (Gare du Nord, by Hitorff, Gare de l’Est, Gare
d’Orléans, etc.), in which the modern French version of the Renaissance
was applied with considerable skill to buildings largely constructed of
iron and glass. Town halls and theatres were erected in great numbers,
and in decorative works like fountains and monuments the French were
particularly successful. The fountains of +St. Michel+, Cuvier, and
Molière, at Paris, and of +Longchamps+, at Marseilles (Fig. 211),
illustrate the fertility of resource and elegance of detailed treatment
of the French in this department. Mention should also here be made of
the extensive enterprises carried out by Napoleon III., in rectifying
and embellishing the street-plan of Paris by new avenues and squares on
a vast scale, adding greatly to the monumental splendor of the city.



+THE REPUBLIC.+ Since the disasters of 1870 a number of important
structures have been erected, and French architecture has shown a
remarkable vitality and flexibility under new conditions. Its
productions have in general been marked by a refined taste and a
conspicuous absence of eccentricity and excess; but it has for the most
part 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 scholastic
architecture the new École de Médecine, and the new +Sorbonne+, by
_Nénot_, and in other branches of the art the metal-and-glass exhibition
buildings of 1878, 1889, and 1900. In the last of these the striving for
originality and the effort to discard traditional forms reached the
extreme, although accompanied by much very clever detail and a masterly
use of color-decoration. To these should be added many noteworthy
theatres, town-halls, court-houses, and _préfectures_ in provincial
cities, and commemorative columns and monuments almost without number.
In street architecture there is now much more variety and originality
than formerly, especially in private houses, and the reaction against
the orders and against traditional methods of design has of late been
growing stronger. The chief excellence of modern French architecture
lies in its rational planning, monumental spirit, and refinement of
detail (Fig. 212).

+GERMANY AND AUSTRIA.+ German architecture has been more affected during
the past fifty years by the archæological spirit than has the French.
A pronounced mediæval revival partly accompanied, partly followed the
Greek revival in Germany, and produced a number of churches and a few
secular buildings in the basilican, Romanesque, and Gothic styles.These
are less interesting than those in the Greek style, because mediæval
forms are even more foreign to modern needs than the classic, being
compatible only with systems of design and construction which are no
longer practicable. At Munich the Auekirche, by _Ohlmuller_, in an
attenuated Gothic style; the Byzantine Ludwigskirche, and _Ziebland’s_
Basilica following Early Christian models; the Basilica by _Hübsch _, at
Bulach, and the Votive Church at Vienna (1856) by H. Von Ferstel
(1828-1883) are notable neo-mediæval monuments. The last-named church
may be classed with Ste. Clothilde at Paris (see p. 371), and St.
Patrick’s Cathedral at New York, all three being of approximately the
same size and general style, recalling St. Ouen at Rouen. They are
correct 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, in
which Renaissance and classic forms have been freely used. In several of
these the attempt has been made to express by the external form the
curvilinear plan of the auditorium, as in the +Dresden Theatre+, by
_Semper_ (1841; Fig. 213), the theatre at Carlsruhe, by Hübsch, and the
double winter-summer +Victoria Theatre+, at Berlin, by _Titz_. But the
practical and æsthetic difficulties involved in this treatment have
caused its general abandonment. The +Opera House+ at Vienna, by
_Siccardsburg_ and _Van der Null_ (1861-69), is rectangular in its
masses, and but for a certain triviality of detail would rank among the
most successful buildings of its kind. The new +Burgtheater+ in the same
city 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 residential
buildings. The +Bauschule+, at Berlin, by Schinkel, in which brick is
used in a rational and dignified design without the orders; the
Polytechnic School, at Zürich, by Semper; university buildings, and
especially buildings for technical instruction, at Carlsruhe, Stuttgart,
Strasburg, Vienna, and other cities, show a monumental treatment of the
exterior and of the general distribution, combined with a careful study
of practical requirements. In administrative buildings the Germans have
hardly been as successful; and the new +Parliament House+, at Berlin, by
_Wallot_, in spite of its splendor and costliness, is heavy and
unsatisfactory in detail. The larger cities, especially Berlin, contain
many excellent examples of house architecture, mostly in the Renaissance
style, sufficiently monumental in design, though usually, like most
German work, inclined to heaviness of detail. The too free use of stucco
in imitation of stone is also open to criticism.


+VIENNA.+ During the last thirty years Vienna has undergone a
transformation which has made it the rival of Paris as a stately
capital. The remodelling of the central portion, the creation of a
series of magnificent boulevards and squares, and the grouping of the
chief state and municipal buildings about these upon a monumental scheme
of arrangement, have given the city an unusual aspect of splendor. Among
the most important monuments in this group are the +Parliament House+,
by Hansen (see p. 360), and the +Town Hall+, by _Schmidt_. This latter
is a Neo-Gothic edifice of great size and pretentiousness, but strangely
thin and meagre in detail, and quite out of harmony with its
surroundings. The university and museums are massive piles in
Renaissance style; and it is the Renaissance rather than the classic or
Gothic revival which prevails throughout the new city. The great blocks
of residences and apartments (Fig. 214) which line its streets are
highly ornate in their architecture, but for the most part done in
stucco, which fails after all to give the aspect of solidity and
durability which it seeks to counterfeit.

The city of +Buda-Pesth+ has also in recent years undergone a phenomenal
transformation of a similar nature to that effected in Vienna, but it
possesses fewer monuments of conspicuous architectural interest. The
+Synagogue+ is the most noted of these, a rich and pleasing edifice of
brick in a modified Hispano-Moresque style.

+GREAT BRITAIN.+ During the closing years of the Anglo-Greek
style a coterie of enthusiastic students of British mediæval
monuments--archæologists rather than architects--initiated a movement
for the revival of the national Gothic architecture. The first fruits
of this movement, led by Pugin, Brandon, Rickman, and others (about
1830-40), were seen in countless pseudo-Gothic structures in which
the pointed arches, buttresses, and clustered shafts of mediæval
architecture were imitated or parodied according to the designer’s
ability, with frequent misapprehension of their proper use or
significance. This unintelligent misapplication of Gothic forms was,
however, confined to the earlier stages of the movement. With increasing
light and experience came a more correct and consistent use of the
mediæval styles, dominated by the same spirit of archæological
correctness which had produced the _classicismo_ of the Late Renaissance
in Italy. This spirit, stimulated by extensive enterprises in the
restoration of the great mediæval monuments of the United Kingdom, was
fatal to any free and original development of the style along new lines.
But it rescued church architecture from the utter meanness and
debasement into which it had fallen, and established a standard of taste
which reacted on all other branches of design.



+THE VICTORIAN GOTHIC.+ Between 1850 and 1870 the striving after
archæological correctness gave place to the more rational effort to
adapt Gothic principles to modern requirements, instead of merely
copying extinct styles. This effort, prosecuted by a number of
architects of great intelligence, culture, and earnestness (Sir Gilbert
Scott, George Edmund Street, William Burges, and others), resulted in a
number of extremely interesting buildings. Chief among these in size and
cost stand the +Parliament Houses+ at Westminster, by _Sir Charles
Barry_ (begun 1839), in the Perpendicular style. This immense structure
(Fig. 215), imposing in its simple masses and refined in its carefully
studied detail, is the most successful monument of the Victorian Gothic
style. It suffers, however, from the want of proper relation of scale
between its decorative elements and the vast proportions of the edifice,
which belittle its component elements. It cannot, on the whole, be
claimed as a successful vindication of the claims of the promoters of
the style as to the adaptability of Gothic forms to structures planned
and 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 are
conscientious, carefully studied designs in good taste, and yet wholly
unsuited in style to their purpose. They are like labored and scholarly
verse in a foreign tongue, correct in form and language, but lacking the
naturalness and charm of true and unfettered inspiration. A later essay
of the same sort in a slightly different field is the +Natural History
Museum+ at South Kensington, by _Waterhouse_ (1879), an imposing
building in a modified Romanesque style (Fig. 217).

  [Illustration: FIG. 217.--NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM, LONDON.]

+OTHER WORKS.+ The Victorian Gothic style responded to no deep and
general movement of the popular taste, and, like the Anglo-Greek style,
was doomed to failure from the inherent incongruity between modern needs
and mediæval forms. Within the last twenty years there has been a quite
general return to Renaissance principles, and the result is seen in a
large number of town-halls, exchanges, museums, and colleges, in which
Renaissance forms, with and without the orders, have been treated with
increasing freedom and skilful adaptation to the materials and special
requirements of each case. The Albert Memorial Hall (1863, by General
Scott) may be taken as an early instance of this movement, and the
+Imperial Institute+ (Colonial offices), by Collcutt, and Oxford Town
Hall, by Aston Webb, as among its latest manifestations. In domestic
architecture the so-called Queen Anne style has been much in vogue, as
practised by Norman Shaw, Ernest George, and others. It is really a
modern style, originating in the imitation of the modified Palladian
style as used in the brick architecture of Queen Anne’s time, but freely
and often artistically altered to meet modern tastes and needs.

In its emancipation from the mistaken principles of archæological
revivals, and in its evidences of improved taste and awakened
originality, contemporary British architecture shows promise of good
things to come. It is still inferior to the French in the monumental
quality, in technical resource and refinement of decorative detail.

+ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE.+ In other European countries recent architecture
shows in general increasing freedom and improved good taste, but both
its opportunities and its performance have been nowhere else as
conspicuous as in France, Germany, and England. The costly Bourse and
the vast but overloaded Palais de Justice at Brussels, by _Polaert_, are
neither of them conspicuous for refined and cultivated taste. A few
buildings of note in Switzerland, Russia, and Greece might find mention
in a more extended review of architecture, but cannot here even be
enumerated. In Italy, especially at Rome, Milan, Naples, and Turin,
there has been a great activity in building since 1870, but with the
exception of the +Monument to Victor Emmanuel+ and the National Museum
at Rome, monumental arcades and passages at Milan and Naples, and _Campi
Santi_ or monumental cemeteries at Bologna, Genoa, and one or two other
places, there has been almost nothing of real importance built in Italy
of late years.



  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 a
peculiar 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 absolute
compulsion of new conditions. When the new home is virgin soil,
destitute of cultivation, government, or civilized inhabitants, the
accompaniments and activities of civilization introduced by the
colonists manifest themselves at first in curious contrast to the
primitive surroundings. The struggle between organized life and chaos,
the laborious subjugation of nature to the requirements of our complex
modern life, for a considerable period absorb the energies of the
colonists. The amenities of culture, the higher intellectual life, the
refinements of art can, during this period, receive little attention.
Meanwhile a new national character is being formed; the people are
undergoing the moral training upon which their subsequent achievements
must depend. With the conquest of brute nature, however, and the gradual
emergence of a more cultivated class, with the growth of commerce and
wealth and the consequent increase of leisure, the humanities find more
place in the colonial life. The fine arts appear in scattered centres
determined by peculiarly favorable conditions. For a long time they
retain the impress, and seek to reproduce the forms, of the art of the
mother country. But new conditions impose a new development. Maturing
commerce with other lands brings in foreign influences, to which the
still unformed colonial art is peculiarly susceptible. Only with
political and commercial independence, fully developed internal
resources, and a high national culture do the arts finally attain, as it
were, their majority, and enter upon a truly national growth.

These facts are abundantly illustrated by the architectural history of
the United States. The only one among the British colonies to attain
political independence, it is the only one among them whose architecture
has as yet entered upon an independent course of development, and this
only within the last twenty-five or thirty years. Nor has even this
development produced as yet a distinctive local style. It has, however,
originated new constructive methods, new types of buildings, and a
distinctively American treatment of the composition and the masses; the
decorative details being still, for the most part, derived from historic
precedents. The architecture of the other British colonies has retained
its provincial character, though producing from time to time individual
works of merit. In South America and Mexico the only buildings of
importance are Spanish, French, or German in style, according to the
nationality of the architects employed. The following sketch of American
architecture refers, therefore, exclusively to its development in the
United States.

+FORMATIVE PERIOD.+ Buildings in stone were not undertaken by the early
English colonists. The more important structures in the Southern and
Dutch colonies were of brick imported from Europe. Wood was, however,
the material most commonly employed, especially in New England, and its
use determined in large measure the form and style of the colonial
architecture. There was little or no striving for architectural elegance
until well into the eighteenth century, when Wren’s influence asserted
itself in a modest way in the Middle and Southern colonies. The very
simple and unpretentious town-hall at Williamsburg, Va., and St.
Michael’s, Charleston, are attributed to him; but the most that can be
said for these, as for the brick churches and manors of Virginia
previous to 1725, is that they are simple in design and pleasing in
proportion, without special architectural elegance. The same is true of
the wooden houses and churches of New England of the period, except that
they are even simpler in design.

From 1725 to 1775 increased population and wealth along the coast
brought about a great advance in architecture, especially in churches
and in the dwellings of the wealthy. During this period was developed
the _Colonial style_, based on that of the reigns of Anne and the first
two Georges in England, and in church architecture on the models set by
Wren and Gibbs. All the details were, however, freely modified by the
general employment of wood. The scarcity of architects trained in Old
World traditions contributed to this departure from classic precision of
form. The style, especially in interior design, reflected the cultured
taste of the colonial aristocracy in its refined treatment of the
woodwork. But there was little or no architecture of a truly monumental
character. Edifices of stone were singularly few, and administrative
buildings were small and modest, owing to insufficient grants from the
Crown, 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+” at
Boston (now a museum), Trinity at Newport, and +St. Paul’s+ at New
York--one of the few built of stone (1764)--are good examples of the
style. +Christ Church+ at Philadelphia (1727-35, by Dr. Kearsley) is
another example, historically as well as architecturally interesting
(Fig. 218); and there are scores of other churches almost equally
noteworthy, scattered through New England, Maryland, Virginia, and the
Middle States.

+DWELLINGS.+ These reflect better than the churches the varying tastes
of the different colonies. Maryland and Virginia abound in fine brick
manor-houses, set amid extensive grounds walled in and entered through
iron gates of artistic design. The interior finish of these houses was
often elaborate in conception and admirably executed. Westover (1737),
Carter’s Grove (1737) in Virginia, and the Harwood and Hammond Houses at
Annapolis, Md. (1770), are examples. The majority of the New England
houses were of wood, more compact in plan, more varied and picturesque
in design than those of the South, but wanting somewhat of their
stateliness. The interior finish of wainscot, cornices, stairs, and
mantelpieces shows, however, the same general style, in a skilful and
artistic adaptation of classic forms to the slender proportions of wood
construction. Externally the orders appear in porches and in colossal
pilasters, with well designed entablatures, and windows of Italian
model. The influence of the Adams and Sheraton furniture is doubtless to
be 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); and
Rumford House, North Woburn (Mass.), are typical examples.


In the Middle States architectural activity was chiefly centred in
Philadelphia and New York, and one or two other towns, where a number of
manor-houses, still extant, attest the wealth and taste of the time. It
is noticeable that the veranda or piazza was confined to the Southern
States, but that the climate seems to have had little influence on the
forms of roofs. These were gambrelled, hipped, gabled, or flat, alike in
the North and South, according to individual taste.

+PUBLIC BUILDINGS.+ Of public and monumental architecture this period
has little to show. Large cities did not exist; New York, Boston, and
Philadelphia were hardly more than overgrown villages. The public
buildings--court-houses and town-halls--were modest and inexpensive
structures. The Old State House and Faneuil Hall at Boston, the Town
Hall at Newport (R.I.), and Independence Hall at Philadelphia, the best
known of those now extant, are not striking architecturally. Monumental
design was beyond the opportunities and means of the colonies. It was in
their churches, all of moderate size, and in their dwellings that the
colonial builders achieved their greatest successes; and these works are
quaint, charming, and refined, rather than impressive or imposing.

To the latter part of the colonial period belong a number of interesting
buildings 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 1887
rebuilt in its original form with the original façade uninjured), both
at St. Augustine, Fla.; the picturesque buildings of the California
missions (mainly 1769-1800), the majority of them now in ruins;
scattered Spanish churches in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, and a
few unimportant secular buildings, display among their modern and
American settings a picturesque and interesting Spanish aspect and
character, though from the point of view of architectural detail they
represent 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 the
State and National administrations were erected with the rapidly
increasing resources of the country. Stone was more generally used;
colonnades, domes, and cupolas or bell-towers, were adopted as
indispensable features of civic architecture. In church-building the
Wren-Gibbs type continued to prevail, but with greater correctness of
classic forms. The gambrel roof tended to disappear from the houses of
this period, and there was some decline in the refinement and delicacy
of the details of architecture. The influence of the Louis XVI. style is
traceable 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 in
the delicate stucco-work and interior finish of many houses, The
original +Capitol+ at Washington--the central portion of the present
edifice--by _Thornton_, _Hallet_, and _B. H. Latrobe_ (1793-1830; Fig.
220), the +State House+ at Boston (1795, by _Bulfinch_), and the
University of Virginia, at Charlotteville, by _Thomas Jefferson_ (1817;
recently destroyed in part by fire), are the most interesting examples
of the classic tendencies of this period. Their freedom from the rococo
vulgarities 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 Europe
began to appear before the close of this period, and reached its
culmination about 1830-40. It left its impress most strongly on our
Federal architecture, although it invaded domestic architecture,
producing countless imitations, in brick and wooden houses, of Grecian
colonnades and porticos. One of its first-fruits was the White House, or
Executive Mansion, at Washington, by _Hoban_ (1792), recalling the large
English 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 Federal
buildings of this period. Several State capitols were also erected under
the same influence; and the Marine Exchange and +Girard College+ at
Philadelphia should also be mentioned as conspicuous examples of the
pseudo-Greek style. The last-named building is a Corinthian dormitory,
its tiers of small windows contrasting strangely with its white marble
columns. These classic buildings were solidly and carefully constructed,
but lacked the grace, cheerfulness, and appropriateness of earlier
buildings. The Capitol at Washington was during this period greatly
enlarged by terminal wings with fine Corinthian porticos, of Roman
rather than Greek design. The +Dome+, by _Walters_, was not added until
1858-73; it is a successful and harmonious composition, nobly completing
the building. Unfortunately, it is an afterthought, built of iron
painted to simulate marble, the substructure being inadequate to support
a dome of masonry. The Italian or Roman style which it exemplified, in
time superseded the less tractable Greek style.

+THE WAR PERIOD.+ The period from 1850 to 1876 was one of intense
political activity and rapid industrial progress. The former culminated
in the terrible upheaval of the civil war; the latter in the completion
of the Pacific Railroad (1869) and a remarkable development of the
mining resources and manufactures of the country. It was a period of
feverish commercial activity, but of artistic stagnation, and witnessed
the erection of but few buildings of architectural importance. A number
of State capitols, city halls and churches, of considerable size and
cost but of inferior design, attest the decline of public taste and
architectural skill during these years. The huge Municipal Building at
Philadelphia and the still unfinished Capitol at Albany are full of
errors of planning and detail which twenty-five years of elaboration
have failed to correct. Next to the dome of the Capitol at Washington,
completed during this period, of which it is the most signal
architectural 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 and
well-considered design. Its west front and spires (completed 1886) are
particularly successful. Trinity Church (1843, by _Upjohn_) and Grace
Church (1840, by Renwick), though of earlier date, should be classed
with this cathedral as worthy examples of modern Gothic design. Indeed,
the churches designed in this style by a few thoroughly trained
architects during this period are the most creditable and worthy among
its lesser productions. In general an undiscriminating eclecticism of
style prevailed, unregulated by sober taste or technical training. The
Federal buildings by _Mullett_ were monuments of perverted design in a
heavy and inartistic rendering of French Renaissance motives. The New
York Post Office and the State, Army and Navy Department building at
Washington are examples of this style.

+THE ARTISTIC AWAKENING.+ Between 1870 and 1880 a remarkable series of
events exercised a powerful influence on the artistic life of the United
States. Two terrible conflagrations in Chicago (1871) and Boston (1872)
gave unexampled opportunities for architectural improvement and greatly
stimulated the public interest in the art. The feverish and abnormal
industrial activity which followed the war and the rapid growth of the
parvenu spirit were checked by the disastrous “panic” of 1873. With the
completion of the Pacific railways and the settlement of new communities
in the West, industrial prosperity, when it returned, was established on
a firmer basis. An extraordinary expansion of travel to Europe began to
disseminate the seeds of artistic culture throughout the country. The
successful establishment of schools of architecture in Boston (1866) and
other 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. In
architecture the personal influence of two men, trained in the Paris
École 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 two
men, 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 all
these influences new force was added by the Centennial Exhibition at
Philadelphia (1876). Here for the first time the American people were
brought into contact, in their own land, with the products of European
and Oriental art. It was to them an artistic revelation, whose results
were prompt and far-reaching. Beginning first in the domain of
industrial and decorative art, its stimulating influence rapidly
extended to painting and architecture, and with permanent consequences.
American students began to throng the centres of Old World art, while
the setting of higher standards of artistic excellence at home, and the
development of important art-industries, were other fruits of this
artistic awakening. The recent Columbian Exhibition at Chicago (1893),
its latest and most important manifestation, has added a new impulse to
the 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 of
American architects trained in Paris or under the indirect influence of
the École des Beaux-Arts has been an important factor in recent
architectural progress. Yet it has by no means imposed the French
academic formulæ upon American architecture. The conditions, materials,
and constructive processes here prevailing, and above all the
eclecticism of the public taste, have prevented this. The French
influence is perceived rather in a growing appreciation of monumental
design in the planning, composition, and setting of buildings, than in
any direct imitation of French models. The Gothic revival which
prevailed more or less widely from 1840 to 1875, as already noticed, and
of which the +State Capitol+ at Hartford (Conn.; 1875-78), and the +Fine
Arts Museum+ at Boston, were among the last important products, was
generally confined to church architecture, for which Gothic forms are
still largely employed, as in the Protestant +Cathedral+ of +All Saints+
now building at Albany (N.Y.), by an English architect. For the most
part the works of the last twenty years show a more or less judicious
eclecticism, the choice of style being determined partly by the person
and training of the designer, partly by the nature of the building. The
powerfully conceived works of Richardson, in a free version of the
French Romanesque, for a time exercised a wide influence, especially
among the younger architects. +Trinity Church+, Boston (Fig. 222), his
earliest important work; many public libraries and business buildings,
and finally the impressive +County Buildings+ at Pittsburgh (Pa.), all
treated in this style, are admirable rather for the strong individuality
of their designer, displayed in their vigorous composition, than on
account of the historic style he employed (Fig. 223). Yet it appeared in
his hands so flexible and effective that it was widely imitated. But if
easy to use, it is most difficult to use well; its forms are too massive
for ordinary purposes, and in the hands of inferior designers it was so
often travestied that it has now lost its wide popularity. While a
number of able architects have continued to use it effectively in
ecclesiastical, civic, and even commercial architecture, it is being
generally superseded by various forms of the Renaissance. Here also a
wide eclecticism prevails, the works of the same architect often varying
from the gayest Francis I. designs in domestic architecture, or free
adaptations of Quattrocento details for theatres and street
architecture, to the most formal classicism in colossal
exhibition-buildings, museums, libraries, and the like. Meanwhile there
are many more or less successful ventures in other historic styles
applied to public and private edifices. Underlying this apparent
confusion, almost anarchy in the use of historic styles, the careful
observer may detect certain tendencies crystallizing into definite form.
New materials and methods of construction, increased attention to
detail, a growing sense of monumental requirements, even the development
of the elevator as a substitute for the grand staircase, are leaving
their mark on the planning, the proportions, and the artistic
composition of American buildings, irrespective of the styles used. The
art is with us in a state of transition, and open to criticism in many
respects; 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 cities
developed wholly new types, which have taken shape under four imperative
influences. These are the demand for fire-proof construction, the demand
for well-lighted offices, the introduction of elevators, and the
concentration of business into limited areas, within which land has
become inordinately costly. These causes have led to the erection of
buildings of excessive height (Fig. 224); the more recent among them
constructed with a framework of iron or steel columns and beams, the
visible walls being a mere filling-in. To render a building of twenty
stories attractive to the eye, especially when built on an irregular
site, is a difficult problem, of which a wholly satisfactory solution
has yet to be found. There have been, however, some notable achievements
in this line, in most of which the principle has been clearly recognized
that a lofty building should have a well-marked basement or pedestal and
a somewhat ornate crowning portion or capital, the intervening stories
serving as a die or shaft and being treated with comparative simplicity.
The difficulties of scale and of handling one hundred and fifty to three
hundred windows of uniform style have been surmounted with conspicuous
skill (+American Surety Building+ and Broadway Chambers, New York; Ames
Building, Boston; Carnegie Building, Pittsburgh; Union Trust, St.
Louis). In some cases, especially in Chicago and the Middle West, the
metallic 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 in
ordinary masonry buildings. The Chicago school is marked by a more
utilitarian and unconventional treatment, with results which are often
extremely bold and effective, but rarely as pleasing to the eye as those
attained by the more conservative Eastern school. In the details of
American office-buildings every variety of style is to be met with; but
the Romanesque and the Renaissance, freely modified, predominate. The
tendency towards two or three well-marked types in the external
composition of these buildings, as above suggested, promises, however,
the evolution of a style in which the historic origin of the details
will be a secondary matter. Certain Chicago architects have developed an
original treatment of architectural forms by exaggerating some of the
structural lines, by suppressing the mouldings and more familiar
historic forms, and by the free use of flat surface ornament. The
Schiller, Auditorium, and Fisher Buildings, all at Chicago, Guaranty
Building, Buffalo, and Majestic Building, Detroit, are examples of this
personal style, which illustrates the untrammelled freedom of the art in
a 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 most
characteristic and original phases of American architecture are to be
met with, particularly in rural and suburban residences. In these the
peculiar requirements of our varying climates and of American domestic
life have been studied and in large measure met with great frankness and
artistic appreciation. The broad staircase-hall, serving often as a sort
of family sitting-room, the piazza, and a picturesque massing of steep
roofs, have been the controlling factors in the evolution of two or
three general types which appear in infinite variations. The material
most used is wood, but this has had less influence in the determination
of form than might have been expected. The artlessness of the planning,
which is arranged to afford the maximum of convenience rather than to
conform to any traditional type, has been the element of greatest
artistic success. It has resulted in exteriors which are the natural
outgrowth of the interior arrangements, frankly expressed, without
affectation of style (Fig. 225). The resulting picturesqueness has,
however, in many cases been treated as an end instead of an incidental
result, and the affectation of picturesqueness has in such designs
become as detrimental as any affectation of style. In the internal
treatment of American houses there has also been a notable artistic
advance, harmony of color and domestic comfort and luxury being sought
after rather than monumental effects. A number of large city and country
houses designed on a palatial scale have, however, given opportunity for
a more elaborate architecture; notably the Vanderbilt, Villard, and
Huntington residences at New York, the great country-seat of +Biltmore+,
near Asheville (N.C.), in the Francis I. style (by R. M. Hunt), and many

+OTHER BUILDINGS.+ American architects have generally been less
successful in public, administrative, and ecclesiastical architecture
than in commercial and domestic work. The preference for small parish
churches, 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. John
the Divine+ at New York, in a modified Romanesque style, promises to be
a worthy and monumental building. In semi-public architecture, such as
hotels, theatres, clubs, and libraries, there are many notable examples
of successful design. The +Ponce de Leon Hotel+ at St. Augustine,
a sumptuous and imposing pile in a free version of the Spanish
Plateresco; the Auditorium Theatre at Chicago, the Madison Square Garden
and the Casino at New York, may be cited as excellent in general
conception and well carried out in detail, externally and internally.
The Century and Metropolitan Clubs at New York, the +Boston Public
Library+, the Carnegie Library at Pittsburgh, the +Congressional
Library+ at Washington, and the recently completed Minnesota +State
Capitol+ at St. Paul, exemplify in varying degrees of excellence the
increasing capacity of American architects for monumental design. This
was further shown in the buildings of the +Columbian Exposition+ at
Chicago in 1893. These, in spite of many faults of detail, constituted
an aggregate of architectural splendor such as had never before been
seen or been possible on this side the Atlantic. They further brought
architecture into closer union with the allied arts and formed an object
lesson in the value of appropriate landscape gardening as a setting to
monumental structures.

It should be said, in conclusion, that with the advances of recent years
in artistic design in the United States there has been at least as great
improvement in scientific construction. The sham and flimsiness of the
Civil War period are passing away, and solid and durable building is
becoming more general throughout the country, but especially in the
Northeast 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 built
during the period 1875-1895 were generally inferior to the best work
produced by private enterprise, or by State and municipal governments.
This was in large part due to enactments devolving upon the supervising
architect at Washington the planning of all Federal buildings, as well
as a burden of supervisory and clerical duties incompatible with the
highest artistic results. Since 1898, however, a more enlightened policy
has prevailed, and a number of notable designs for Federal buildings
have been secured by carefully-conducted competitions.




  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 and
races of Asia has been reserved for this closing chapter, in order not
to interrupt the continuity of the history of European styles, with
which it has no affinity and scarcely even a point of contact. Among
them all, India alone has produced monuments of great architectural
importance. The buildings of China and Japan, although interesting for
their style, methods, and detail, and so deserving at least of brief
mention, are for the most part of moderate size and of perishable
materials. Outside of these three countries there is little to interest
the general student of architecture.

+INDIA: PERIODS.+ It is difficult to classify the non-Mohammedan styles
of India, owing to their frequently overlapping, both geographically and
artistically; while the lack of precise dates in Indian literature makes
the chronology of many of the monuments more or less doubtful. The
divisions given below are a modification of those first established by
Fergusson, and are primarily based on the three great religions, with
geographical subdivisions, as follows:

THE BUDDHIST STYLE, from the reign of Asoka, _cir._ 250 B.C., to the 7th
century A.D. Its monuments occupy mainly a broad band running northeast
and southwest, between the Indian Desert and the Dekkan. Offshoots of
the style are found as far north as Gandhara, and as far south as

THE JAINA STYLE, akin to the preceding if not derived from it, covering
the same territory as well as southern India; from 1000 A.D. to the
present time.

THE BRAHMAN or HINDU STYLES, extending over the whole peninsula. They
are sub-divided geographically into the NORTHERN BRAHMAN, the CHALUKYAN
in the Dekkan, and the DRAVIDIAN in the south; this last style being
coterminous with the populations speaking the Tamil and cognate
languages. The monuments of these styles are mainly subsequent to the
10th 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 Moslem
conquests, 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, the
details are in large measure derived from wooden prototypes. Structural
lines are not followed in the exterior treatment, purely decorative
considerations prevailing. Ornament is equally lavished on all parts of
the building, and is bewildering in its amount and complexity. Realistic
and grotesque sculpture is freely used, forming multiplied horizontal
bands of extraordinary richness and minuteness of execution. Spacious
and lofty interiors are rarely attempted, but wonderful effects are
produced by seemingly endless repetition of columns in halls, and
corridors, and by external emphasis of important parts of the plan by
lofty 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 the
monuments show a fully developed style and great command of technical
resources from the outset. When, where, and how these were attained is
as yet an unsolved mystery. In all its phases previous to the Moslem
conquest Indian architecture appears like an indigenous art, borrowing
little from foreign styles, and having no affinities with the arts of
Occidental nations.

+BUDDHIST STYLE.+ Although Buddhism originated in the sixth century
B.C., the earliest architectural remains of the style date from its wide
promulgation in India under Asoka (272-236 B.C.). Buddhist monuments
comprise three chief classes of structures: the _stupas_ or _topes_,
which are mounds more or less domical in shape, enclosing relic-shrines
of Buddha, or built to mark some sacred spot; _chaityas_, or temple
halls, cut in the rock; and _viharas_, or monasteries. The style of the
detail varies considerably in these three classes, but is in general
simpler and more massive than in the other styles of India.

+TOPES.+ These are found in groups, of which the most important are at
or near Bhilsa in central India, at Manikyala in the northwest, at
Amravati in the south, and in Ceylon at Ruanwalli and Tuparamaya. The
best known among them is the +Sanchi Tope+, near Bhilsa, 120 feet in
diameter and 56 feet high. It is surrounded by a richly carved stone
rail or fence, with gateways of elaborate workmanship, having three
sculptured lintels crossing the carved uprights. The tope at Manikyala
is larger, and dates from the 7th century. It is exceeded in size by
many in Ceylon, that at Abayagiri measuring 360 feet in diameter. Few of
the 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 in
plan, of which the most famous is that at +Buddh Gaya+, near the sacred
Bodhi tree, where Buddha attained divine light in 588 B.C.

+CHAITYA HALLS.+ The Buddhist speos-temples--so far as known the only
extant halls of worship of that religion, except one at Sanchi--are
mostly in the Bombay Presidency, at Ellora, Karli, Ajunta, Nassick, and
Bhaja. The earliest, that at Karli, dates from 78 B.C., the latest (at
Ellora), _cir._ 600 A.D. They consist uniformly of a broad nave ending
in an apse, and covered by a roof like a barrel vault, and two narrow
side aisles. In the apse is the _dagoba_ or relic-shrine, shaped like a
miniature tope. The front of the cave was originally adorned with an
open-work screen or frame of wood, while the face of the rock about the
opening was carved into the semblance of a sumptuous structural façade.
Among the finest of these caverns is that at +Karli+, whose massive
columns and impressive scale recall Egyptian models, though the
resemblance is superficial and has no historic significance. More
suggestive is the affinity of many of the columns which stand before
these caves to Persian prototypes (see Fig. 21). It is not improbable
that both Persian and classic forms were introduced into India through
the Bactrian kingdom 250 years B.C. Otherwise we must seek for the
origin of nearly all Buddhist forms in a pre-existing wooden
architecture, now wholly perished, though its traditions may survive in
the wooden screens in the fronts of the caves. While some of these
caverns 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 monasteries
of the Buddhists were probably all of wood and have long ago perished.
The Gandhara monasteries of Jamalgiri and Takht-i-Bahi present in plan
three or four courts surrounded by cells. The centre of one court is in
both cases occupied by a platform for an altar or shrine. Among the
ruins there have been found a number of capitals whose strong
resemblance to the Corinthian type is now generally attributed to
Byzantine rather than Bactrian influences. These viharas may therefore
be assigned to the 6th or 7th century A.D.

The rock-cut viharas are found in the neighborhood of the chaityas
already described. Architecturally, they are far more elaborate than the
chaityas. Those at Salsette, Ajunta, and Bagh are particularly
interesting, with pillared halls or courts, cells, corridors, and
shrines. The hall of the +Great Vihara+ at +Bagh+ is 96 feet square,
with 36 columns. Adjoining it is the school-room, and the whole is
fronted by a sumptuous rock-cut colonnade 200 feet long. These caves
were mostly hewn between the 5th and 7th centuries, at which time
sculpture was more prevalent in Buddhist works than previously, and some
of them are richly adorned with figures.

+JAINA STYLE.+ The religion and the architecture of the Jainas so
closely resemble those of the Buddhists, that recent authorities are
disposed to treat the Jaina style as a mere variation or continuation of
the Buddhist. Chronologically they are separated by an interval of some
three centuries, _cir._ 650-950 A.D., which have left us almost no
monuments of either style. The Jaina is moreover easily distinguished
from the Buddhist architecture by the great number and elaborateness of
its structural monuments. The multiplication of statues of Tirthankhar
in the cells about the temple courts, the exuberance of sculpture, the
use of domes built in horizontal courses, and the imitation in stone of
wooden 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 Indian
Desert. Built by Vimalah Sah in 1032, the chief of these consists of a
court measuring 140 × 90 feet, surrounded by cells and a double
colonnade. In the centre rises the shrine of the god, containing his
statue, and terminating in a lofty tower or _sikhra_. An imposing
columnar porch, cruciform in plan, precedes this cell (Fig. 226). The
intersection of the arms is covered by a dome supported on eight columns
with stone brackets or struts. The dome and columns are covered with
profuse carving and sculptured figures, and the total effect is one of
remarkable dignity and splendor. The temple of +Sadri+ is much more
extensive, twenty minor domes and one of larger size forming cruciform
porches on all four sides of the central _sikhra_. The cells about the
court are each covered by a small _sikhra_, and these, with the
twenty-one domes (four of which are built in three stories), all grouped
about the central tower and adorned with an astonishing variety of
detail, constitute a monument of the first importance. It was built by
Khumbo Rana, about 1450. At +Girnar+ are several 12th-century temples
with enclosed instead of open vestibules. One of these, that of
+Neminatha+, retains intact its court enclosure and cells, which in most
other cases have perished. The temple at +Somnath+ resembles it, but is
larger; the dome of its porch, 33 feet in diameter, is the largest Jaina
dome in India. Other notable temples are at Gwalior, Khajuraho, and

In all the Jaina temples the salient feature is the sikhra or _vimana_.
This is a tower of approximately square plan, tapering by a graceful
curve 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 carried
by bracketed columns. These same traits appear in relatively modern
examples, as at Delhi.

  [Illustration: FIG. 227.--TOWER OF VICTORY, CHITTORE.]

+TOWERS.+ A similar predilection for minutely broken surfaces marks the
towers which sometimes adjoin the temples, as at Chittore (tower of +Sri
Allat+, 13th century), or were erected as trophies of victory, like that
of +Khumbo Rana+ in the same town (Fig. 227). The combination of
horizontal and vertical lines, the distribution of the openings, and the
rich ornamentation of these towers are very interesting, though lacking
somewhat in structural propriety of design.

+HINDU STYLES: NORTHERN BRAHMAN.+ The origin of this style is as yet an
unsolved problem. Its monuments were mainly built between 600 and 1200
A.D., the oldest being in Orissa, at Bhuwanesevar, Kanaruk, and Puri. In
northern India the temples are about equally divided between the two
forms of Brahmanism--the worship of Vishnu or _Vaishnavism_, and that of
Siva or _Shaivism_--and do not differ materially in style. As in the
Jaina style, the _vimana_ is their most striking feature, and this is in
most cases adorned with numerous reduced copies of its own form grouped
in successive stages against its sides and angles. This curious system
of design appears in nearly all the great temples, both of Vishnu and
Siva. The Jaina melon ornament is universal, surmounted generally by an
urn-shaped finial.

In plan the vimana shrine is preceded by two or three chambers, square
or polygonal, some with and some without columns. The foremost of these
is covered by a roof formed like a stepped pyramid set cornerwise. The
fine porch of the ruined temple at +Bindrabun+ is cruciform in plan and
forms the chief part of the building, the shrine at the further end
being relatively small and its tower unfinished or ruined. In some
modern examples the antechamber is replaced by an open porch with a
Saracenic dome, as at Benares; in others the old type is completely
abandoned, as in the temple at +Kantonnuggur+ (1704-22). This is a
square hall built of terra-cotta, with four three-arched porches and
nine towers, more Saracenic than Brahman in general aspect.

The +Kandarya Mahadeo+, at Khajuraho, is the most noted example of the
northern 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 masses
until the vimana is reached which covers the shrine. This is 116 feet
high, but seems much loftier, by reason of the small scale of its
constituent parts and the marvellously minute decoration which covers
the whole structure. The vigor of its masses and the grand stairways
which lead up to it give it a dignity unusual for its size, 60 × 109
feet in plan (_cir._ 1000 A.D.).

At Puri, in Orissa, the +Temple+ of +Jugganat+, with its double
enclosure and numerous subordinate shrines, the Teli-ka-Mandir at
Gwalior, and temples at +Udaipur+ near Bhilsa, at +Mukteswara+ in
Orissa, at Chittore, Benares, and Barolli, are important examples. The
few tombs erected subsequent to the Moslem conquest, combining Jaina
bracket columns with Saracenic domes, and picturesquely situated palaces
at Chittore (1450), Oudeypore (1580), and Gwalior, should also be

+CHALUKYAN STYLE.+ Throughout a central zone crossing the peninsula from
sea to sea about the Dekkan, and extending south to Mysore on the west,
the Brahmans developed a distinct style during the later centuries of
the Chalukyan dynasty. Its monuments are mainly comprised between 1050
and the Mohammedan conquest in 1310. The most notable examples of the
style are found along the southwest coast, at Hullabid, Baillur, and

+TEMPLES.+ Chalukyan architecture is exclusively religious and its
temples are easily recognized. The plans comprise the same elements as
those of the Jainas, but the Chalukyan shrine is always star-shaped
externally in plan, and the vimana takes the form of a stepped pyramid
instead of a curved outline. The Jaina dome is, moreover, wholly
wanting. All the details are of extraordinary richness and beauty, and
the breaking up of the surfaces by rectangular projections is skilfully
managed so as to produce an effect of great apparent size with very
moderate dimensions. All the known examples stand on raised platforms,
adding materially to their dignity. Some are double temples, as at
Hullabid (Fig. 228); others are triple in plan. A noticeable feature of
the style is the deeply cut stratification of the lower part of the
temples, each band or stratum bearing a distinct frieze of animals,
figures or ornament, carved with masterly skill. Pierced stone slabs
filling the window openings are also not uncommon.

The richest exemplars of the style are the temples at +Baillur+ and
Somnathpur, and at Hullabîd the +Kait Iswara+ and the incomplete +Double
Temple+. 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 a
style almost as strongly marked as the Chalukyan. This appears less in
their details than in their general plan and conception. The Dravidian
temples are not single structures, but aggregations of buildings of
varied size and form, covering extensive areas enclosed by walls and
entered through gates made imposing by lofty pylons called _gopuras_. As
if to emphasize these superficial resemblances to Egyptian models, the
sanctuary is often low and insignificant. It is preceded by much more
imposing porches (_mantapas_) and hypostyle halls or _choultries_, the
latter being sometimes of extraordinary extent, though seldom lofty. The
choultrie, sometimes called the Hall of 1,000 Columns, is in some cases
replaced 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 scale
and massiveness, is marked by the utmost minuteness of ornament and
tenuity of detail, suggesting wood and stucco rather than stone. The
+Great Hall+ at Chillambaram is but 10 to 12 feet high, and the
corridors at Ramisseram, 700 feet long, are but 30 feet high. The effect
of _ensemble_ of the Dravidian temples is disappointing. They lack the
emphasis of dominant masses and the dignity of symmetrical and logical
arrangement. The very loftiness of the gopuras makes the buildings of
the group within seem low by contrast. In nearly every temple, however,
some one feature attracts merited admiration by its splendor, extent, or
beauty. Such are the +Choultrie+, built by Tirumalla Nayak at Madura
(1623-45), measuring 333 × 105 feet; the corridors already mentioned at
Ramisseram 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 and
supporting brackets, as at Chillambaram, Peroor, and Vellore; the richly
banded square piers, the grotesques of rampant horses and monsters, and
the endless labor bestowed upon minute carving and ornament in
superposed bands.

+OTHER MONUMENTS.+ Other important temples are at Tiruvalur, Seringham,
Tinevelly, and Conjeveram, all alike in general scheme of design, with
enclosures varying from 300 to 1,000 feet in length and width. At
+Tanjore+ is a magnificent temple with two courts, in the larger of
which stands a _pagoda_ or shrine with a pyramidal vimana, unusual in
Dravidian temples, and beside it the smaller +Shrine+ of +Soubramanya+
(Fig. 229), a structure of unusual beauty of detail. In both, the
vertical lower story with its pilasters and windows is curiously
suggestive of Renaissance design. The pagoda dates from the 14th, the
smaller temple from the 15th century.

  [Illustration: FIG. 229.--SHRINE OF SOUBRAMANYA, TANJORE.]

+ROCK-CUT RATHS.+ All the above temples were built subsequently to the
12th century. The rock-cut shrines date in some cases as far back as the
7th century; they are called _kylas_ and _raths_, and are not caves, but
isolated edifices, imitating structural designs, but hewn bodily from
the rock. Those at Mahavellipore are of diminutive size; but at
+Purudkul+ there is an extensive temple with shrine, choultrie, and
gopura surrounded by a court enclosure measuring 250 × 150 feet (9th
century). More famous still is the elaborate +Kylas+ at +Ellora+, of
about the same size as the above, but more complex and complete in its

+PALACES.+ At Madura, Tanjore, and Vijayanagar are Dravidian palaces,
built after the Mohammedan conquest and in a mixed style. The domical
octagonal throne-room and the +Great Hall+ at Madura (17th century), the
most famous edifices of the kind, were evidently inspired from Gothic
models, but how this came about is not known. The Great Hall with its
pointed arched barrel vault of 67 feet span, its cusped arches, round
piers, vaulting shafts, and triforium, appears strangely foreign to its

+CAMBODIA.+ The subject of Indian architecture cannot be dismissed
without at least brief mention of the immense temple of +Nakhon Wat+ in
Cambodia. 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 square
with nine pagoda-like towers. The corridors around the inner court have
square piers of almost classic Roman type. The rich carving, the perfect
masonry, and the admirable composition of the whole leading up to the
central mass, indicate architectural ability of a high order.

+CHINESE ARCHITECTURE.+ No purely Mongolian nation appears ever to have
erected buildings of first-rate importance. It cannot be denied,
however, that the Chinese are possessed of considerable decorative skill
and mechanical ingenuity; and these qualities are the most prominent
elements in their buildings. Great size and splendor, massiveness and
originality of construction, they do not possess. Built in large measure
of wood, cleverly framed and decorated with a certain richness of color
and ornament, with a large element of the grotesque in the decoration,
the Chinese temples, pagodas, and palaces are interesting rather than
impressive. There is not a single architectural monument of imposing
size or of great antiquity, so far as we know. The celebrated +Porcelain
Tower+ of Nankin is no longer extant, having been destroyed in the
Tæping rebellion in 1850. It was a nine-storied polygonal pagoda 236
feet high, revetted with porcelain tiles, and was built in 1412. The
largest of Chinese temples, that of the +Great Dragon+ at Pekin, is a
circular structure of moderate size, though its enclosure is nearly a
mile square. Pagodas with diminishing stories, elaborately carved
entrance gates and successive terraces are mainly relied upon for
effect. They show little structural art, but much clever ornament. Like
the monasteries and the vast _lamaseries_ of Thibet, they belong to the
Buddhist religion.

Aside from the ingenious framing and bracketing of the carpentry, the
most striking peculiarity of Chinese buildings is their broad-spreading
tiled 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 and
gilding are freely used, and in some cases--as in a summer pavilion at
Pekin--porcelain tiling covers the walls, with brilliant effect. The
chief wonder is that this resource of the architectural decorator has
not been further developed in China, where porcelain and earthenware are
otherwise treated with such remarkable skill.

+JAPANESE ARCHITECTURE.+ Apparently associated in race with the Chinese
and Koreans, the Japanese are far more artistic in temperament than
either of their neighbors. The refinement and originality of their
decorative art have given it a wide reputation. Unfortunately the
prevalence of earthquakes has combined with the influence of the
traditional habits of the people to prevent the maturing of a truly
monumental architecture. Except for the terraces, gates, and enclosures
of 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 resembling
those of China. The chief difference is in the greater refinement and
delicacy of the Japanese details and the more monumental disposition of
the temple terraces, the beauty of which is greatly enhanced by skillful
landscape gardening. The gateways recall somewhat those of the Sanchi
Tope in India (p. 403), but are commonly of wood. Owing to the danger
from earthquakes, lofty towers and pagodas are rarely seen.

The domestic architecture of Japan, though interesting for its
arrangements, and for its sensible and artistic use of the most flimsy
materials, is too trivial in scale, detail, and construction to receive
more than passing reference. Even the great palace at Tokio,[28]
covering an immense area, is almost entirely composed of one-storied
buildings 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

  There are also many temples in the Kashmir Valley difficult of
  assignment to any of the above styles and religions.


A. +PRIMITIVE GREEK ARCHITECTURE.+--The researches of Schliemann
commented by Schuchardt, of Dörpfeld, Stamakis, Tsoundas, Perrot, and
others, in Troy, Mycenæ, and Tiryns, and the more recent discoveries of
Evans at Gnossus, in Crete, have greatly extended our knowledge of the
prehistoric art of Greece and the Mediterranean basin, and established
many points of contact on the one hand with ancient Egyptian and
Phœnician art, and on the other, with the art of historic Greece. They
have proved the existence of an active and flourishing commerce between
Egypt and the Mediterranean shores and Aegean islands more than 2000
B.C., and of a flourishing material civilization in those islands and on
the mainland of Greece, borrowing much, but not everything, from Egypt.
While the origin of the Doric order in the structural methods of the
pre-Homeric architecture of Tiryns and Mycenæ, as set forth by Dörpfeld
and by Perrot and Chipiez, can hardly be regarded as proved in all
details, since much of the argument advanced for this derivation rests
on more or less conjectural restorations of the existing remains, it
seems to be fairly well established that the Doric order, and historic
Greek architecture in general, trace their genesis in large measure back
in direct line to this prehistoric art. The remarkable feature of this
early architecture is the apparently complete absence of temples.
Fortifications, houses, palaces, and tombs make up the ruins thus far
discovered, and seem to indicate clearly the derivation of the
temple-type of later Greek art from the primitive house, consisting of a
hall or _megaron_ with four columns about the central hearth (whence no
doubt, the atrium and peristyle of Roman houses, through their Greek
intermediary prototypes) and a porch or _aithousa_, with or without
columns _in antis_, opening directly into the _megaron_, or indirectly
through an ante-room called the _prodomos_. Here we have the prototypes
of the Greek temple _in antis_, with its _naos_ having interior columns,
whether roofed over or hypæthral (see pp. 54, 55). It is probable also
that the evidently liberal use of timber for many of the structural
details led in time to many of the forms later developed in stone in the
entablature of the Doric order. But it is hard to discover, as Dörpfeld
would have it, in the slender Mycenæan columns with their inverted
taper, the prototype of the massive Doric column with its upward taper.
The Mycenæan column was evidently derived from wooden models; the sturdy
Doric column--the earliest being the most massive--seems plainly derived
from stone or rubble piers (see p. 50), and thus to have come from a
different source from the Mycenæan forms.

The _gynecæum_, or women’s apartments, the men’s apartments, and the
bath were in these ancient palaces grouped in varying relations about
the _megaron_: their plan, purpose, and arrangement are clearly revealed
in the ruins of Tiryns, where they are more complete and perfect than
either at Troy or Mycenæ.

B. +CAMPANILES IN ITALY.+--Reference is made on page 264 to the towers
or campaniles of the Italian Gothic style and period, and six of these
are specifically mentioned; and on page 305 mention is also made of
those of the Renaissance in Italy. The number and importance of the
Italian campaniles and the interest attaching to their origin and
design, warrant a more extended notice than has been assigned them in
the pages cited.

The oldest of these bell-towers appear to be those adjoining the two
churches of San Apollinare in and near Ravenna (see p. 114), and date
presumably from the sixth century. They are plain circular towers with
few and small openings, except in the uppermost story, where larger
arched 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 the
ninth or tenth century, that the campanile became a recognized feature
of church architecture. It was invariably treated as a structure
distinct from the church, and was built of brick upon a square plan,
rising with little or no architectural adornment to a height usually of
a hundred feet or more, and furnished with but a few small openings
below the belfry stage, where a pair of coupled arched windows separated
by a simple column opened from each face of the tower. Above these
windows a pyramidal roof of low pitch terminated the tower. In spite of
their simplicity of design these Roman bell-towers often possess a
noticeable grace of proportions, and furnish the prototype of many of
the more elaborate campaniles erected during the Middle Ages in other
central and north Italian cities. The towers of Sta. Maria in Cosmedin,
Sta. Maria in Trastevere, and S. Giorgio in Velabro are examples of this
type. Most of the Roman examples date from the eleventh and twelfth

In other cities, the campanile was treated with some variety of form and
decoration, as well as of material. In Lombardy and Venetia the square
red-brick shaft of the tower is often adorned with long, narrow pilaster
strips, as at Piacenza (p. 158, Fig. 91) and Venice, and an arcaded
cornice not infrequently crowns the structure. The openings at the top
may be three or four in number on each face, and even the plan is
sometimes octagonal or circular. The brick octagonal campanile of
+S. Gottardo+ at Milan is one of the finest Lombard church towers. At
Verona the brick tower on the Piazza dell’ Erbe and that of S. Zeno are
conspicuous; but every important town of northern Italy possesses one or
more examples of these structures dating from the eleventh, twelfth, or
thirteenth century.

Undoubtedly the three most noted bell-towers in Italy are those of
Venice, Pisa, and Florence. The great +Campanile+ of +St. Mark+ at
Venice, first begun in 874, carried higher in the twelfth and fourteenth
centuries, and finally completed in the sixteenth century with the
marble belvedere and wooden spire so familiar in pictures of Venice, was
formerly the highest of all church campaniles in Italy, measuring
approximately 325 feet to the summit. But this superb historic monument,
weakened by causes not yet at this writing fully understood, fell in
sudden ruin on the 14th of July, 1902, to the great loss not only of
Venice, but of the world of art, though fortunately without injuring the
neighboring buildings on the Piazza and Piazzetta of St. Mark. Since
then the campanile of S. Stefano, in the same city, has been demolished
to forestall another like disaster. The +Leaning Tower+ of Pisa (see
p. 160, Fig. 92) dates from 1174, and is unique in its plan and its
exterior treatment with superposed arcades. Begun apparently as a
leaning tower, it seems to have increased this lean to a dangerous
point, by the settling of its foundations during construction, as its
upper stages were made to deviate slightly towards the vertical from the
inclination of the lower portion. It has always served rather as a
watch-tower and belvedere than as a bell-tower. The +Campanile+
adjoining the Duomo at +Florence+ is described on p. 263 and illustrated
in Fig. 154, and does not require further notice here. The
black-and-white banded towers of Sienna, Lucca, and Pistoia, and the
octagonal lanterns crowning those of Verona and Mantua, also referred to
in the text on p. 264, need here only be mentioned again as illustrating
the variety of treatment of these Italian towers.

The Renaissance architects developed new types of campanile, and in such
variety that they can only be briefly referred to. Some, like a brick
tower at Perugia, are simple square towers with pilasters; more often
engaged columns and entablatures mark the several stories, and the upper
portion is treated either with an octagonal lantern or with diminishing
stages, and sometimes with a spire. Of the latter class the best example
is that of S. Biagio, at Montepulciano,--one of the two designed to
flank 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 more
massive 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 and
perfect of these square belfries of the Renaissance is that of the
+Campidoglio+ at Rome, by Martino Lunghi, dating from the end of the
sixteenth century, which groups so admirably with the palaces of the

C. +BRAMANTE’S WORKS.+--A more or less animated controversy has arisen
regarding the authenticity of many of the works attributed to Bramante,
and the tendency has of late been to deny him any part whatever in
several of the most important of these works. The first of these to be
given 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 denied
by 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 Rome
showing a somewhat similar architectural treatment. The evidence adduced
in support of this denial is rather speculative and critical than
documentary, but is not without weight. The date 1495 carved on a
doorway of the Cancelleria palace is thought to forbid its attribution
to Bramante, who is not known to have come to Rome till 1503; and there
is a lack of positive evidence of his authorship of the Giraud palace
and the other houses which seem to be by the same hand as the
Cancelleria. To the advocates of this view there is not enough
resemblance in style between this group of buildings and his
acknowledged work either in Milan or in the Vatican to warrant their
being attributed to him.

It must, however, be remarked, that this notable group of works, stamped
with the marks and even the mannerisms of a strong personality, reveal
in their unknown author gifts amounting to genius, and heretofore deemed
not unworthy of Bramante. It is almost inconceivable that they should
have been designed by a mere beginner previously utterly unknown and
forgotten soon after. It is incumbent upon those who deny the
attribution to Bramante to find another name, if possible, on which to
fasten the credit of these works. Accordingly, they have been variously
attributed to Alberti (who died in 1472) or his followers; to Bernardo
di Lorenzo, and to other later fifteenth-century artists. The difficulty
here is to discover any name that fits the conditions even as well as
Bramante’s; for the supposed author must have been in Rome between 1495
and 1505, and his other works must be at least as much like these as
were Bramante’s. No name has thus far been found satisfactory to careful
critics; and the alternative theory, that there existed in Rome, before
Bramante’s coming, a group of architects unknown to later fame, working
in a common style and capable of such a masterpiece as the Cancelleria,
does not harmonize with the generally accepted facts of Renaissance art
history. Moreover, the comparison of these works with Bramante’s
Milanese work on the one hand and his great Court of the Belvedere in
the Vatican on the other, yields, to some critics, conclusions quite
opposed to those of the advocates of another authorship than Bramante’s.

The controversy must be considered for the present as still open. There
are manifest difficulties with either of the two opposed views, and
these can hardly be eliminated, except by the discovery of documents not
now known to exist, whose testimony will be recognized as unimpeachable.

D. +L’ART NOUVEAU.+--Since 1896, and particularly since the Paris
Exposition of 1900, a movement has manifested itself in France and
Belgium, and spread to Germany and Austria and even measurably to
England, looking towards a more personal and original style of
decorative and architectural design, in which the traditions and
historic styles of the past shall be ignored. This movement has received
from 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 to
connote either a really new style or a fundamentally new principle in
art. Indeed, it may be questioned whether any clearly-defined body of
principles whatever underlies the movement, or would be acknowledged
equally by all its adherents. It appears to be a reaction against a too
slavish adherence to traditional forms and methods of design (see pp.
370, 375), a striving to ignore or forget the past rather than a
reaching out after any well-understood, positive end; as such, it
possesses the negative strength of protest rather than the affirmative
strength of a vital principle. Its lack of cohesion is seen in the
division of its adherents into groups, some looking to nature for
inspiration, while others decry this as a mistaken quest; some seeking
to emphasize structural lines, and others to ignore them altogether.
All, however, are united in the avoidance of commonplace forms and
historic styles, and this preoccupation has developed an amazing amount
of originality and individualism of style, frequently reaching the
extreme of eccentricity. The results have therefore been, as might be
expected, extremely varied in merit, ranging from the most refined and
reserved in style to the most harshly bizarre and extravagant. As a
rule, they have been most successful in small and semi-decorative
objects--jewelry, silverware, vases, and small furniture; and one most
desirable 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 the
encouragement of the decorative and industrial arts and the diffusion of
an improved taste. In the field of the larger objects of design, in
which the dominance of traditional form and of structural considerations
is proportionally more imperious, the struggle to evade these
restrictions becomes more difficult, and results usually in more obvious
and disagreeable eccentricities, which the greater size and permanence
of the object tend further to exaggerate. The least successful
achievements of the movement have accordingly been in architecture. The
buildings designed by its most fervent disciples (_e.g._ the Pavillon
Bleu at the Exposition of 1900, the Castel Béranger, Paris, by _H.
Guimard_, the houses of the artist colony at Darmstadt, and others) are
for the most part characterized by extreme stiffness, eccentricity, or
ugliness. The requirements of construction and of human habitation
cannot easily be met without sometimes using the forms which past
experience has developed for the same ends; and the negation of
precedent is not the surest path to beauty or even reasonableness of
design. It is interesting to notice that in the intermediate field of
furniture-design some of the best French productions recall the style of
Louis XV., modified by Japanese ideas and spirit. This singular but not
unpleasing combination is less surprising when we reflect that the style
of Louis XV. was itself a protest against the formalism of the heavy
classic architecture of preceding reigns, and achieved its highest
successes in the domain of furniture and interior decoration.

It may be fair to credit the new movement with one positive
characteristic in its prevalent regard for line, especially for the
effect of long and swaying lines, whether in the contours or
ornamentation of an object. This is especially noticeable in the Belgian
work, 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 alone
can show. Its present vogue is probably evanescent and it cannot claim
to have produced a style; but it seems likely to exert on European
architecture an influence, direct and indirect, not unlike that of the
Néo-Grec movement of 1830 in France (p. 364), but even more lasting and
beneficial. It has already begun to break the hold of rigid classical
tradition in design; and recent buildings, especially in Germany and
Austria, like the works of the brilliant _Otto Wagner_ in Vienna, show a
pleasing freedom of personal touch without undue striving after
eccentric novelty. Doubtless in French and other European architecture
the same result will in time manifest itself.

The search for novelty and the desire to dispense wholly with historic
forms of design which are the chief marks of the Art Nouveau, were
emphatically displayed in many of the remarkable buildings of the Paris
+Exhibition of 1900+, in which a striking fertility and facility of
design in the decorative details made more conspicuous the failure to
improve upon the established precedents of architectural style in the
matters of proportion, scale, general composition, and contour. As usual
the metallic construction of these buildings was almost without
exception admirable, and the decorative details, taken by themselves,
extremely clever and often beautiful, but the combined result was not

In the United States the movement has not found a firm foothold because
there has been no dominant, enslaving tradition to protest against. Not
a few of the ideas, not a little of the spirit of the movement may be
recognized in the work of individual architects and decorative artists
in the United States, executed years before the movement took
recognizable form in Europe: and American decorative design has
generally been, at least since 1880 or 1885, sufficiently free,
individual and personal, to render unnecessary and impossible any
concerted movement of artistic revolt against slavery to precedent.

E. +RECENT AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE.+--Architectural activity in the United
States continues to share in the general prosperity which has marked the
years since 1898, and this activity has by no means been confined to
industrial and commercial architecture. Indeed, while the erection of
“sky scrapers” or excessively lofty office-buildings has continued to be
a feature of this activity in the great commercial centres, the most
notable architectural enterprises of recent years have been in the field
of educational buildings, both in the East and West. In 1898 a great
international 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 the
erection of this colossal project has been begun. An almost equally
ambitious project, by a firm of Philadelphia architects, has been
adopted for the Washington University at St. Louis; and many other
universities and colleges have either added extensively to their
existing buildings or planned an entire rebuilding on new designs. Among
these the national military and naval academies at +West Point+ and
+Annapolis+ take the first rank in the extent and splendor of the
projected improvements. Museums and libraries have also been erected or
begun in various cities, and the +New York Public Library+, now
building, will rank in cost and beauty with those already erected in
Boston and Washington.

In other departments mention should be made of recent Federal buildings
(custom-houses, post-offices, and court-houses) erected under the
provisions of the Tarsney act from designs secured by competition among
the leading architects of the country; among those the +New York Custom
House+ is the most important, but other buildings, at Washington,
Indianapolis, and elsewhere, are also conspicuous, and many of them
worthy of high praise. The tendency to award the designing of important
public buildings, such as State capitols, county court houses, city
halls, libraries, and hospitals, by competition instead of by personal
and political favor, has resulted in a marked improvement in the quality
of 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 afforded
opportunities for a new and thoroughgoing study of the existing portions
of the building and of the surrounding ruins. In these investigations a
prominent part has been borne by Mr. Gorham P. Stevens, representing the
Archæological Institute of America, to whom must be credited, among
other things, the demonstration of the existence, in the east wall of
the original structure, of two windows previously unknown. Other
peculiarities of design and construction were also discovered, which add
greatly to the interest of the building. These investigations are
reported in the _American Journal of Archæology_, Second Series;
_Journal of the Archæological Institute of America_, Vol. X., No. 1, _et
seq._ The illustrations, Figures 35 and 36, are, by Mr. Stevens’
courtesy, based upon, though not reproductions of, his original



ALCAZAR (Span., from Arabic _Al Kasr_), a palace or castle, especially
of a governing official.

ARCHIVOLT, a band or group of mouldings decorating the wall-face of an
arch; or a transverse arch projecting slightly from the surface of a
barrel 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 reception
rooms and saloons; usually the second story (first above the ground

BROKEN ENTABLATURE, an entablature which projects forward over each
column or pilaster, returning back to the wall and running along with
diminished projection between the columns, as in the Arch of Constantine
(Fig. 63).

CANTONED PIERS, piers adorned with columns or pilasters at the corners
or on the outer faces.

CARTOUCHE (Fr.), an ornament shaped like a shield or oval. In Egyptian
hieroglyphics, 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 nude
portions are of ivory and the draperies of gold.

CONSOLE, a large scroll-shaped bracket or ornament, having its broadest
curve at the bottom.

CORINTHIANESQUE, resembling the Corinthian; used of capitals having
corner-volutes and acanthus leaves, but combined otherwise than in the
classic Corinthian type.

EMPAISTIC, made of, or overlaid with, sheet-metal beaten or hammered
into decorative patterns.

EXEDRÆ, curved seats of stone; niches or recesses, sometimes of
considerable size, provided with seats for the public.

FENESTRATION, the whole system or arrangement of windows and openings in
an architectural composition.

FOUR-PART. A four-part vault is a groined vault formed by the
intersection of two barrel vaults. Its diagonal edges or _groins_ divide
it into four sections, triangular in plan, each called a _compartment_.

GIGANTOMACHIA, a group or composition representing the mythical combat
between 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 hung
with black cloth.

KARAFAH, a region in Cairo containing the so-called tombs of the

LACONICUM, the sweat-room in a Roman bath; usually of domical design in
the 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 or

NEO-GOTHIC, NEO-MEDIÆVAL, in a style which seeks to revive and adapt or
apply 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 physical

PAVILION (Fr. _pavillon_), ordinarily a light open structure of ornate
design. As applied to architectural composition, a projecting section of
a façade, usually rectangular in plan, and having its own distinct mass
of roof.

QUARRY ORNAMENT, any ornament covering a surface with two series of
reticulated lines enclosing approximately quadrangular spaces or meshes.

QUATREFOIL, with four leaves or _foils_; composed of four arcs of
circles 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 broken
faces, 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 so
as 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 raking
cornices of a pediment, or between a lintel and the arch over it.

VOUSSOIR, any one of the radial stones composing an arch.


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


The buildings are arranged according to location. Those which appear
only in the lists of monuments at the ends of chapters are omitted.
_Numerals in parentheses refer to illustrations._

    Tope, 403
    Wulfrand, 209, 213
    Stepped pyramid, 9
    Columns, 12.
    Temple, 19, 21.
    Tombs, 11 (+5+)
    Grotto-temple, 22
    Churches in, 157, 262
  AGRA, 149.
    Pearl Mosque, 148.
    Taj Mahal, 148 (+86+)
    Temple of Zeus, 56, 61 (+33+)
    Minster (palatine Chapel), 172.
    Palace of Charlemagne, 176
    Temple of Zeus, 67.
    Theatre, 70
  AJMIR, 148
    Brahman Chaityas, 404;
    viharas, 405
    Tomb, 89
    All Saints’ Cathedral, 394.
    Capitol, 391
  ALBY Cathedral, 185, 205, 206, 212, 249 (+123+)
    Archepiscopal Palace, 350.
    College, 349
    Bridge, 108
  ALENÇON Cathedral, 209, 213
    Palæstra, 71.
    Akbar’s Palace, 148
  ALTENBURG Cathedral, 242.
    Town hall, 344
    Columns, 12
  AMBOISE Castle, 310
  AMIENS Cathedral, 189, 197, 201, 203, 205, 206, 219, 232 (+122+);
    west front of, 207, 208, 212, 227
    Topes, 403
    Bourse (Exchange) Hanse House, Town hall, 336
    Château, 317
    Château, 317
    Cathedral S. Maurice, 200.
    Hospital, 214
  ANGORA (Ancyra), 118
  ANGOULÊME Cathedral, 164
  ANI, 134
    Harwood and Hammond Houses, 386
  ANTIOCH, 115
    Theatre, 70.
    Tombs, 72
    Cathedral, 190, 246, 247.
    Town Hall, 334, 336
    Churches of, 164, 167, 168, 179, 373
    Palace, 352
  AREZZO Cathedral, 257.
    Sta. Maria della Pieve, 159
    Gates, 45
    Spanish churches in, 388
    St. Trophime, 165
    Church, 243
    Biltmore House, 399
  ASIA MINOR, 53, 55, 58, 62, 66, 122
    Theatre, 70
    Church of St. Francis (S. Francesco), 255, 256, 258
  ASSOS, 55.
    Public cquare, 69.
    Temple, 61
    Church, 256
    Rood-screen, 352
    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
    Town hall, 344
  AUSTRIA, 330
  AUTUN Cathedral, 166, 167
    Churches, 204
  AUXERRE Cathedral, 197, 201
    Notre Dame Des Doms, 165
    S. Vincente, 180, 247;
    Tombs in, 352
    Château, 316

  BAALBEC (Heliopolis), 83.
    Circular Temple, 94.
    Temple of Sun, 92
    Tombs, etc., 145, 146
    Viharas, Great Vihara, 405
    Temples, 409, 410
    Church, 243
    Cathedral, 189, 249.
    Sta. Maria del Pi, 249
    Hindu Temple, 409
    Spahlenthor, 246
  BASSÆ (Phigalæa).
    Temple of Apollo Epicurius, 65
    Church, mausoleum, 251
  BAVARIA, 342
  BAYEUX Cathedral, 197, 205
  BAYONNE Cathedral, 197
    Town hall, 316
    Château, 319
    Hospital, 214
  BEAUVAIS Cathedral, 189, 197, 211, 219;
    chapels, 205;
    size, 206, 211, 212, 243
    Rock-cut Temple, 22
    Church, 251, 352.
    Cloister, tower, 352
  BELGIUM, 334.
    Hindu Temples, 408, 409
    Columns, 11, 24, 50.
    Speos Artemidos, 22.
    Tombs, 11 (+6+, +7+)
    Town Hall, 266
    Bauschule, 376.
    Brandenburg Gate, 358.
    Old Museum, 359 (+200+).
    New Museum, 359.
    Parliament House, 377.
    Theatres, 360, 376
    Church of the Nativity, 115
    Chaityas, 404
    Topes, 403
    Hindu temples, 408
  BIDAR, 146
    Tomb of Mahmud, 148, 153 (+85+).
    Jumma Musjid, 148.
    Mogul architecture, 149
  BILTMORE House, 399
    Ruined temple, 408
    Stepped pyramid, 31
  BLENHEIM House, 332 (+188+)
    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
    Minster, 174.
    Baptistery, 175
    Cathedral, spires, 209.
    Grand Théatre, 362
    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+)
    Château, 315
  BOZRAH Cathedral, 117 (+70+)
    St. Catherine, St. Godehard, 244
    Town hall, 246, 344
    Sta. Maria dei Miracoli, 287
    Piastenschloss, 343
  BRISTOL Cathedral, piers, 178
    Ancien Greffe, 334.
    Cloth hall, 247.
    Ste. Anne, 334.
    Town hall, 247
    Burg Dankwargerode, 176.
    Town hall, 246
  BRUSA, 150
    Bourse, 382.
    Cathedral (ste. Gudule), 246.
    Pal. de Justice, 382.
    Renaissance Houses, 335 (+190+).
    Town Hall, 247
    Temple, 13
    Synagogue, 378
    Tope or stupa, 404
    Guaranty Building, 397
    Basilica, 375
    Cathedrals in, 197
  BURGHLEY House, 328 (+184+)
    Château, 315
  BURGOS Cathedral, 248, 249, 251 (+145+)
  BYZANTIUM, 92; See Constantinople

    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
    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+)
    Spanish missions and churches, 388
    Temple of Nakhon Wat, 413
  CAMBRAY Cathedral, 197
    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
    Palace of, 300
    Amphitheatre, 103
  CARIA, 71; see Halicamassus
  CARINTHIA, 338, 339
  CARLTON House, 357
    Royal Palace, 304
    Church, 178
    Topes, 403
    Cloister, 213
  CHÂLONS (Châlons-sur-Marne) Cathedral, 205
    Château, 314
    Château, 314 (+177+, +178+)
  CHANTILLY. “Petit Château,” 317
    St. Michael’s, 385
    University of Virginia, 390
  CHARLTON Hall, 328
  CHARLTON-ON-OXMORE. Plate tracery (+110+)
    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
    Château, 316, 317
    Certosa, 255
    Auditorium Theatre, 399.
    Columbian Exposition, 393, 399.
    Masonic Building, 396.
    Fisher Building, Schiller Building, 397
  CHICHESTER Cathedral, spire, 229
    Church, 352
    Dravidian Temple, Mantapa of Parvati, 411
    Villa, 328, 329
    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+)
    Abbey Church, 166.
    Houses at, 214.
    Hôtel de (at Paris), 216
    Church of St. Castor, 237
    Sta. Cruz, 352
    House, 329
    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
    Town hall (broletto), 266
    St. Iago, 180
    Dravidian temple, 411
    Amphitheatre, 92
    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
    Exchange, Fredericksborg, 336
  CORDOVA, 141;
    Great Mosque, 142, 143 (+83+)
    Temple of Zeus, 60
  COUTANCES Cathedral, 197;
    chapels of, 205;
    spires, 209
  CRACOW Castle, 338.
    Chapel of Jagellons,  338
    Town hall, 266
    Tâk-kesra, 145

  DAMASCUS, Mosque of El-walîd, 136
    Town hall, 344
    Pyramid, 9
    Tomb-temple of Hatasu, 15, 21
    Temple of Hathor, 19
    Jaina Temples, 407.
    Jumma Musjid, 148.
    Mogul Architecture of, 149.
    Palace of Shah Jehan, 148.
    Pathan arches, Etc., 148
    Gates, 45;
    Portico of Philip, 67
    Temple of Hathor, 17.
    Group of Temples, 22, 24.
    Hathoric columns, 24
    Majestic Building, 397
    Church of St. Jacques, 213
    St. Michel, 312
  DOL Cathedral, east end, 205
    Castle, Georgenflügel, 342.
    Church of St. Mary (Marienkirche) 346 (+194+).
    Theatre, 376 (+213+).
    Zwinger Palace, 346 (+193+)
    Circular church, 175
  DURHAM Cathedral, 177, 178, 220, 221 (+102+);
    central tower of, 228;
    Chapel of Nine Altars, 232

    Tower, 176
    Château, 316
    Great Temple, 16, 17, 22 (+9+, +10+, +14+).
    Peripteral Temple, 22
    High School, Royal Institution, 357
    Early Christian buildings in, 118
    Temple of Amenophis III., 22
  EL KAB. Temple of Amenophis III.; 18
    Propylæa, 69
    Chaityas, 404.
    Dravidian Kylas, 413
    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
    Monastery, 351
    Hathoric columns, 25.
    Temple, 23.
    Nun’s choir, 172
    Church spire, 240
    Byzantine monuments, 134
  EVREUX Cathedral, 197
  EXETER Cathedral, 221 (+129+)
    Church of St. George, 117

    Rock-cut Temple, 22
  FERRARA Cathedral, 261, 304.
    Churches, 277, 293.
    Palaces Scrofa, Roverella, 283
    Sassanian Buildings, 144
    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+).
      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+)
    Town hall (Hôtel de Ville), 335
    Palace, 313, 318
    Abbey, 164
    Cloister, 213
    Romanesque monuments (list), 170, 171;
    Gothic monuments (list), 216, 217;
    Renaissance monuments (list), 324, 325
    Salt House, 346
  FREIBURG Cathedral, 239, 242, 243;
    Spire, 240
    Golden portal, 242
    Church, 243
    Monastery, 172, 173, 175
    Abbey, pointed arches, 219
    Mosque of Akbar, 148

    Monasteries, 404
    Château, 310
    Abbey Church, 243. Castle ruins, 176
    Campo Santo, 382.
    Cathedral, west front, 261.
    PALACES:--Balbi, Brignole, Cambiasi, Doria-tursi (municipio),
      Durazzo (reale), Pallavicini, University, 302.
    Sta. Maria Di Carignano, 299
    Mediæval, 172.
    Romanesque monuments (list), 180.
    Gothic monuments (list), 252.
    Renaissance monuments (list), 353
    Romanesque church, 173
  GERONA Cathedral, 185, 249, 250
  GHENT (Gand).
    Cloth hall, 247
    Rock-cut temple, 22
  GHERTASHI (Kardassy).
    Temple, 23
    Pyramids, 4;
    Pyramid of Cheops, 7 (+1+, +2+);
    of Chephren, 8;
    of Mycerinus, 8.
    Sphinx, Sphinx temple, 10 (+3+, +4+)
    Jaina temples, 407.
    Temple of Neminatha, 407
    Churches in Greek style, 357
  GLOUCESTER Cathedral, 178, 220, 222;
    cloisters, 222;
    east window, 227;
    central tower, 228;
    Lady Chapel, 234
    Palace of Henry III., 176
    Columns, 24.
    Temple, 21
    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
    Gothic monuments (list), 235, 236.
    Norman monuments (list), 181.
    Renaissance monuments (list), 337
    Infantado, 350
  GUJERAT, 146
    Jaina Temples, 407.
    Palace, 409.
    Teli-ka-mandir, 409

  HADDON Hall, 326
    Town hall, 336
  HÄMELSCHENBURG Castle, 343 (+191+)
  HALBERSTADT Cathedral, 244.
    Town hall, 245
    Mausoleum, 4, 53, 71, 72 (+41+)
    Temple, 410
  HAMPTON Court, 326, 332
    State Capitol, 393
    Roman works in, 92;
    domestic buildings, 118
  HARDWICKE Hall, 328
  HATFIELD House, 328
    Romanesque church, 173
  HEIDELBERG Castle, 343 (+192+).
    Ritter House, 346
  HEILSBERG Castle, 245
  HELDBURG Castle, 342
  HENGREAVE Hall, 326
    Amphitheatre, 92.
    Houses, 107.
    Theatre, (+61+)
  HEREFORD Cathedral, 220
    Early Christian buildings in, 118
    Kaiserhaus, 346.
    Renaissance houses, 345.
    St. Godehard, 173.
    Town hall, 245.
    Wedekindsches Haus, 346
  HOLLAND House, 328
  HOWARD Castle, 332
    Temples, 409;
    double temple, 410 (+228+);
    Kaît Iswara, 410

    Church, 179 (+104+)
  INDIA, 146-149.
    Moslem monuments (list), 154.
    Non-moslem monuments (list), 415
  INNSBRÜCK, Schloss Ambras, 339
    (Abou Simbel). Grotto temples, 21, 22 (+13+)
    Celtic Towers, 176
    Meidan (Meidan-Shah), Mesjid-Shah, Bazaar, Medress, 146
    Church of St. Paul, 165, 204
    Early Christian monuments (list), 119;
    Romanesque monuments (list), 170;
    Gothic monuments (list), 268-269;
    Renaissance monuments (list), 306-307

  JAEN Cathedral, 348, 350
    Monastery, 405
    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

    Columns, 12.
    Temple, 23
    Church, 117 (+69+)
    Hindu temples, 408
    Hindu temple, 408
  KARDASSY (Ghertashi).
    Temple, 23
    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
    Mound, 31
  KELAT SEMAN. Church of St. Simeon
    Stylites, 117
    Jaina temples, 407.
    Kandarya Mahadeo, 408
    Palace of Sargon, 31, 32 (+18+).
    City Gate, 32, 33, (+19+)
  KIRKSTALL Abbey, pointed arches, 219
    Church At, 244
    Palaces of Sennacherib and Assur-bani-pal, 31
    Church of St. Barbara, 239, 240

    Abbey of, 174
  LABYRINTH (of Moeris or Fayoum in Egypt), 26
    Château, 314
    Residenz, 342.
    St. Martin’s, 240, 244
  LANGRES Cathedral, 167
  LAON Cathedral, 197, 205, 206, 210;
    porches, 208
    Château, 315
  LAVAL Cathedral (La Trinité), 201
  LE MANS Cathedral, 197, 200, 205, 206 (+118+);
    tomb in, 310
    Cathedral, 189, 249.
    Panteon of S. Isidore, 179, 180
  LE PUY (Puy-en-Vélay).
    Church, 204;
    cloister of same, 213
    Fürstenhaus, 346
    Town hall, 344
    Town hall, 336
  LICHFIELD Cathedral, 225, 229 (+135+);
    west front, 228 (+134+);
    spire, 229
    Archbishop’s Palace, 334.
    Church of St. Jacques, 247
    Church, 193
    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
    St. George’s Hall, 358 (+199+)
    Churches of, 165
    Romanesque Monuments In, 157
    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+).
      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
    Cathedral, 246, 247.
    Cloth hall, 247.
    Town hall, 248 (+144+)
    City Gates, 246.
    St. Mary’s, 242, 244.
    St. Catharine’s, 244.
    Town hall, 246
    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
    Church at, 352
    Tombs, 37, 39, 52

    First Palace, 350.
   New Palace, 352
  MADRID, Château de (at Boulogne), 314
    Choultrie of Tirumalla Nayak, 411.
    Great Temple, corridors, 411.
    Palace, 413
    Palace, 353
  MAGDEBURG Cathedral, 189, 242, 243
    Castle portal, 338
    Château, 322
    Alcazar, 142, 143.
    Cathedral, 348
  MALINES (Mechlin).
    Cathedral of St. Rombaut, 246, 247.
    Cloth hall, 247.
    Hôtel du Saumon, 324
    Assize Courts, 380 (+216+)
    Tope, 403
    Collegiate Church, 249
    Theatre, 69
    Campanile, 264.
    Church of S. Andrea, 279.
    Early Renaissance palaces, 283.
    Palazzo del Té, 289
    St. Elizabeth, 240, 242 (+140+)
  MARIENBURG Castle, Great Hall, 245
    Castle, 245
    Chapel of St. Lazare, 310.
    Fountain of Longchamps, 372 (+211+)
    Palace of Chosroes, 145
  MASSACHUSETTS. Country house in (+225+)
    Monastery, 176
  MAYENCE Cathedral, 174
  MEAUX Cathedral, 212
    Kaabah, 136
    Rood-screen, 352
    Osirid piers, 24 (+15+).
    Pavilion of Rameses III., 26.
    Peripteral temple, 22.
    Tomb-temple of Rameses III., 15, 21
    Albrechtsburg, 245
    Pyramids, 9
  METZ Cathedral, 244
    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
    Temple of Apollo Didymæus, 53, 66 (+28+, +29+)
  MINDEN Cathedral, 244
    Labyrinth of, 26
    Cloister, 170, 213
    Churches, cathedral, 162
    Cathedral, St. Wandru, 246, 247
    Church of S. Biagio, 294
    Cloister, 170, 213
    Abbey, 167, 168, 213, 214;
      cloister of same, 213
    House of Francis I., 316
    The Kremlin, 366
  MOSUL, 33
    Jaina temples, Temple of Vimalah Sah, 405, 406 (+226+)
    Monastery, 134
    Temple of Sin Or Hurki, 30
    Mound, 31
    Hindu temples, 409
    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.
    Church at, 243.
    Town hall, 245
    Castle ruins, 176
    Fortifications, 44 (+23+).
    Lion Gate, 44 (+22+).
    Tholos of Atreus, 45, 46, 148 (+24+, +25+).
    Tombs, 4
    Tomb, 72
    Theatre, 69.
    Tombs, 72

  NAKHON WAT, Temple of, 413
  NAKSH-I-ROUSTAM (persepolis), 36.
    Tomb of Darius, 37
    Ducal Palace, 216, 311
    Porcelain Tower, 414
    Arcade, 382.
    Arch of Alphonso, 287.
      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
    Chaityas, 404
    Church At, 243
    Gothic monuments (list), 252-253
    Church of St. Peter And St. Paul, 243
    St. Étienne, 165
    Spanish churches, 388
    Town hall, 388.
    Trinity Church, 386
    American Surety Building, Broadway Chambers, 397.
    Casino, 399.
      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
    Amphitheatre, 92.
    Maison Carrée, 93, 94
    Palaces of Assur-nazir-pal and Shalmaneser, 31, 32
  NIPPUR (Niffer).
    Ruins of, 29, 31
    Romanesque churches in, 167, 177;
    cathedrals in, 197, 213
    Brick churches in, 244
    Rumford House, 387
  NORWICH Cathedral, 177, 178, 220
  NOYON Cathedral, 197, 200, 203, 205, 246
    Early Christian buildings, 118
    Churches of St. Sebald, St. Lorenz, 245.
    Funk, Hirschvogel, and Keller houses, 346.
    Renaissance houses, 345.
    Town hall, 344.
    Shrine of St. Sebald, 347

    Altis, Echo Hall, 69.
    Heraion, 50, 62.
    Temples, 55;
      sculptures from, 57.
    Temple of Zeus, 62
    St. Catharine’s, 239, 242, 244
    Hindu temples, palace, 409
    Theatre, 101
    Ceiling, 47
    Houses, 316.
    Town hall (hôtel de ville), 311
  ORVIETO Cathedral, 257, 259, 261;
    façade of same, 260
    Church at, 243
    Church at, 172
    Town hall, 247
    Hospital, 214
    All Souls’ College, 333.
    Cathedral (Christ Church), 220, 222.
    Christ Church Hall, 233, 234.
    Merton College Chapel, 234.
    Radcliffe Library, 333.
    Sheldonian Theatre, 332

    Town hall, 344
    Arena chapel, 258.
    Palazzo del Consiglio, 287
    Basilica, 69.
    Temples, 61
    Château, 317
    Churches of Eremitani, La Martorana, 162
  PALMYRA, 83.
    Temple of the Sun, 92.
    Ceiling panels (+50+ a)
    Jaina temples, 407
    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+).
      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.
      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+).
      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.
    Romanesque church, 173
  PAVIA, 157.
    Certosa, 255, 262, 263, 278, 283, 284 (+152+, +153+).
    Church of S. Michele, 159.
    Domical churches, 278
    Summer pavilion, Temple of Great Dragon, 414
  PERGAMON (Pergamus). Altar of Eumenes II., 67.
    Christian buildings, 118
    St. Front, 164 (+94+, +95+)
    Temple, 411
    Columns, 37, 38 (+21+).
    Hall of Xerxes, 36, 37.
    Palaces, 35, 69
    Moslem architecture, 145, 146 (list 154).
    Sassanian buildings, 144, 145
    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
    Christ Church, 386 (+218+).
    Girard College, 390, 391.
    Independence Hall, 388.
    Marine Exchange, Mint, 390.
    Municipal Building, 391
    Great Temple, 22.
    Peripteral temple, 22
  PIACENZA, 157.
    Campanile, 159 (+91+).
    Cathedral (+91+).
    Town hall, 266
  PIASTENSCHLOSS at Brieg, 343
    Palazzo Piccolomini, etc., 282
    Château, 371
    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
    Campanile, 264.
    Churches, 161, 261.
    Podestà, Palazzo Communale, 266.
    Sta. Maria dell’ Umiltà, 293
    Carnegie Building, 397.
    Carnegie Library, 399.
    County Buildings, 394
    Castle, 343
    Castle, 343
  POITIERS Cathedral, 197, 201, 205
    Amphitheatre, 92, 102
    Amphitheatre, 92.
    Baths, 86.
    Houses, 72, 107, 108;
    House of Pansa (+65+).
    Theatre, 101.
    Tombs, 105
    Bridge, 108
  PORTSMOUTH. Sherburne House, 387
  PORTUGAL, 352.
    Gothic monuments (list), 253
    St. Nicholas Church, 359
    Belvedere, 339.
    Cathedral, 239, 242, 244.
    Palace on Hradschin, Schloss Stern, Waldstein palace, 339
    Churches in, 161, 293.
    Madonna delle Carceri, 278
    Church, 244
    Ionic order, 53;
    Propylæa, 69
  PROVENCE, 164.
    Houses at, 214
    Temples, 408.
    Temple of Jugganât, 409
    Rock-cut raths, 413

  RAMESSEUM (Thebes).
    Tomb-temple of Rameses II., 15, 21, 24 (+8+)
    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+)
    Amphitheatre, 92
  REIMS Cathedral, 189, 197, 201, 202, 203, 205;
    size, 206;
    west front, 207, 213, 227;
    towers, 209;
    portals, 208, 210
    S. Francesco, 277
  ROCHESTER Cathedral, 220
  RODEZ Cathedral, 197, 212
    Ancient monuments, (list) 108, 109.
    Amphitheatre of Statilius Taurus, 102.
      in general, 77, 103;
      of Constantine, 80, 103 (+63+);
      of Septimius Severus, 103;
      of Titus, 92, 103;
      of Trajan, 97, 103.
      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.
      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.
      Maximus, 103;
      of Caligula and Nero, 103, 113.
    Cloaca Maxima, 81, 90.
    Colosseum (Flavian amphitheatre) 91, 92, 102 (+45+, +62+).
      of Marcus Aurelius, 104;
      of Trajan, 97, 104.
    Early Christian monuments, 111; (list), 118, 119.
      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.
      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.
      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.
      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
    Church façade, 175
    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+)
    Early Christian church, 117
  ROYAL DOMAIN, 166, 167, 197
    Topes, 403
  RUSSIA, 367.
    Byzantine monuments (list), 134

    Temple, 406
    Pyramid, 9
    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+)
    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
    Viharas, 405
    Church of St. Francis, 242
    Gate, 45
    Brahman temple, 404.
    Tope, 403
    Royal Palace, 352
    Casa de Zaporta, 350 (+196+)
  SAXONY, 173
    Castle, 339
  SCHLETTSTADT Cathedral, 239
  SCHLOSS PORZIA at Spital, 338
  SCHLOSS STERN at Prague, 339
    Church, 174
    Town hall, 344
  SCINDE, 146
    Tomb of Akbar, 148
    Hathoric columns, 24
  SÉEZ Cathedral, 197
  SEGOVIA Cathedral, 190, 249, 348.
    Church of S. Millan, of Templars, 180
    Temples, 49;
    northern temple, 60;
    Temple of Zeus, 61
    Pavilion, 26
  SENLIS Cathedral, 197, 200, 209
    Archbishop’s palace, 317.
    Cathedral, 203, 219
    Sassanian buildings, 144
    Alcazar, 142, 143.
    Casa de Pilato (House of Pilate), 142, 350.
    Cathedral, 244, 250, 257, 351.
    Giralda, 142, 143, 352
    Pathan arches, 148
    Brick houses, 266.
    Campanile, 264.
    Cathedral (Duomo), 257, 259, 263 (+150+);
     west front, 260 (+151+).
    Loggia del Papa, 282.
    Minor works, 282.
      Del Governo, Piccolomini, Spannocchi, 282;
      Palazzo Pubblico, 266.
    Renaissance churches, 293.
    S. Giovanni in Fonte, 260
    Grotto temple, 22
  SOISSONS Cathedral, 197, 200, 203, 205, 243
    Jaina temple, 407
    Chalukyan temples, 409, 410
  SOUTHWELL Minster, carving from, (+115+)
  SPAIN, 347.
    Gothic monuments (list), 253.
    Romanesque churches, 179-180
    Palace of Diocletian, 92, 106, 113 (+64+)
    Schloss Porzia, 338
  SPIRES (Speyer) Cathedral, 174 (+100+)
  ST. ALBAN’S Abbey, tombs, etc., in, 234
    Fort Marion (S. Marco), 388.
    Ponce de Leon Hotel, 399.
    Roman Catholic cathedral, 388.
    Antechurch, 177
    Abbey, 197, 198, 200, 202, 203 (+120+);
      tomb of Louis XII. in, 316;
      of Francis I., 317
    Château, 313;
      Royal chapel in, 204
    Church, 165
    Union Trust Bdg., 397
    State Capitol, 400
  ST. PETERSBURG, 366, 367.
    Admiralty, 367.
    Cathedral of St. Isaac, 367 (+207+).
      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.
    Tombs, 105
  STABIÆ, 92
    Palace, 337
    Cathedral, 243;
      spire of, 238, 240, 241, 243.
    University Buildings, 376
    Old Castle, 343.
    Technical School, 376
  STYRIA, 339
    Château, 317
    Tomb, 145
    Propylæa, 69
  SUSA, 145.
    Palaces, 35
    Theatre, 70
  SYRIA, 122;
    early Christian churches in, 115, 116, 117; (list), 119

    Ruined Mosque, 145
    Early Christian Church, 117
    Monastery, 405
    Church, 244
    Great temple, 412.
    Palace, 413.
    Shrine of Soubramanya, 412 (+229+)
    Gopura, 411
  TEHERAN, 146
  TEWKESBURY Abbey, 222 (+130+)
    Amenopheum, 15.
    Ramesseum, 15 (+8+)
    Gate, 45;
    Stoa Diple, 69
    Dravidian temples, 411
    Dravidian temples, 411
  TIRYNS, 44
    Circular temple, 90, 356 (+52+).
      D’Este, 293;
      of Hadrian, 87, 106
    Great Palace, 415
    Archbishop’s Palace, 360.
    Cathedral, 189, 248, 348.
    Gate of S. Martino, 350.
    Hospital of Sta. Cruz, 349.
    S. Juan de los Reyes, 251
    Hospital, 214
    Hartenfels Castle, 342
    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+)
    Cathedral, 197, 201, 205;
      size, 206;
      west portals, 209.
    St. Urbain, 212
    Church, 352
    Topes, 403
    Church of La Superga, 365
  TURKEY, 149.
    Monuments (list), 154
    Amphitheatre, 92
  TYROL, 338, 339

  UDAIPUR (near Bhilsa).
    Hindu temples, 409
  ULM Cathedral, 238, 239, 241, 243;
    spire, 241
  UR, 30
    Ducal palace, 287
  UTRECHT Cathedral, 244

  VALENCIA Cathedral, 249
    Cathedral, 350.
    S. Gregorio, portal (+146+)
    Gopura, 411
  VENDÔME Cathedral, portal, 209
  VENETIA, 157, 262, 305
  VENICE, 300.
    Campaniles of St. Mark, of S. Giorgio Maggiore, 305.
      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+)
    S. Andrea, 256, 263
    Château, 317
  VERONA, 157.
    Amphitheatre, 92, 102.
    Campanile, 264.
      of Sta. Anastasia, 256, 258;
      of S. Zeno, 159, 175.
      Bevilacqua, Canossa, 300;
      del Consiglio, 286;
      Pompeii, Verzi, 300.
      Tombs of Scaligers, 264
  VERSAILLES Palace, 320
    Abbey, 166, 198, 203
  VICENZA, 300, 301.
    Basilica, 301.
      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
    Palace, 413
    Royal chapel, 204
    Houses, 267.
    Town hall (Palazzo Communale), 266.
    Villa Lante, 293
  VOLTERRA (Volaterræ).
    Gate, 88

    Abbey, 178.
    Eleanor’s Cross, 234
    St. Michael’s, window (+111+)
  WARKAH (Erech).
    Palace terraces, 31
  WARTBURG Castle, 176
    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+)
  WESTONZOYLAND. Ceiling of St. Mary’s (+138+)
  WESTOVER House, 386
    Town hall, 385
  WILTON House, 329
  WINCHESTER Cathedral, 178, 220, 222, 226, 229 (+103+);
    tombs, etc., in, 234
    St. George’s Chapel, 223, 227, 234
    Castle (Fürstenhof), 343.
    City Gates, 246
  WOBURN. Public Library (+223+)
  WOLLATON Hall, 328
    Marienkirche, 345
  WOLTERTON Castle, 326
    Kurti Stambha, 410
  WORCESTER Cathedral, 232
    Minster (cathedral), 174 (+99+)
    University Church, 345

    Church, 242
    Nereid monument, 71

  YORK Cathedral, 192, 225, 226;
    west front, 227;
    tower, 228;
    minor works in, 234
    Cloth hall, 247

    Polytechnic School, 376
  ZWETTL Cathedral, 242

       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *

College Histories of Art.




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 in
half-tone from the most celebrated paintings. Crown 8vo, 307 pages,

“... The initial volume of a promising series ... seems a model of pith,
lucidity, and practical convenience; and that it is sound and accurate
the author’s name is a sufficient guarantee. Essential historical and
biographical facts, together with brief critical estimates and
characterizations of leading schools and painters, are given in a few
well-chosen words; and for students who wish to pursue the subject in
detail, a list of selected authorities at the head of each chapter
points the way. Serviceable lists are also provided of principal extant
works, together with the places where they are to be found. The text is
liberally sprinkled with illustrations in half-tone.”--DIAL, CHICAGO.

“Prof. Van Dyke has performed his task with great thoroughness and good
success.... He seems to us singularly happy in his characterization of
various artists, and amazingly just in proportion. We have hardly found
an instance in which the relative importance accorded a given artist
seemed to us manifestly wrong, and hardly one in which the special
characteristics of a style were not adequately presented.”--NATION, N.Y.

“... Gives a good general view of the subject, avoiding as a rule all
elaborate theories and disputed points, and aiming to distinguish the
various historical schools from one another by their differences of
subject and technique ... we do not know of anybody who has, on the
whole, 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 of
information.”--ART AMATEUR.

“Professor Van Dyke has made a radical departure in one respect, in
purposely omitting the biographical details with which text-books on art
are usually encumbered, and substituting short critical estimates of
artists and of their rank among the painters of their time. This feature
of the work is highly to be commended, as it affords means for
comparative study that cannot fail to be beneficial.... Altogether
Professor Van Dyke’s text-book is worthy of general adoption, and as a
volume of ready reference for the family library it will have a distinct
usefulness. It is compact, comprehensive, and admirably
arranged.”--BEACON, BOSTON.


91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK.

       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *

A History of Sculpture.





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, 313
pages, $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 keenly
appreciated by all who work with a class of students.”

CHARLES H. MOORE, _Harvard University_.

“The illustrations are especially good, avoiding the excessively black
background which produce harsh contrasts and injure the outlines of so
many half-tone prints.”

J. M. HOPPIN, _Yale University_.

“These names are sufficient guarantee for the excellence of the book and
its fitness for the object it was designed for. I was especially
interested in the chapter on _Renaissance Sculpture in Italy_.”

CRITIC, _New York_.

“This history is a model of condensation.... Each period is treated in
full, with descriptions of its general characteristics and its
individual developments under various conditions, physical, political,
religious and the like.... A general history of sculpture has never
before been written in English--never in any language in convenient
textbook form. This publication, then, should meet with an enthusiastic
reception among students and amateurs of art, not so much, however,
because it is the only book of its kind, as for its intrinsic merit and
attractive form.”

OUTLOOK, _New York_.

“A concise survey of the history of sculpture is something needed
everywhere.... A good feature of this book--and one which should be
imitated--is the list indicating where casts and photographs may best be
obtained. Of course such a volume is amply indexed.”


“The work is orderly, the style lucid and easy. The illustrations,
numbering over a hundred, are sharply cut and well selected. Besides a
general bibliography, there is placed at the end of each period of style
a special list to which the student may refer, should he wish to pursue
more fully any particular school.”

LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., Publishers,

91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK.

       *       *       *       *       *
           *       *       *       *


Missing or invisible punctuation has been silently supplied, as have
missing umlauts and line-end hyphens; errors of this type were assumed
to 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 occurrences
of “mantelpiece” are at line-break; the hyphen was omitted based on
usage in the 8th edition.

Alphabetization in the Index is as printed.


  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 an
unambiguous 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]

    QUATREFOIL, with four leaves or _foils_  [QUARTREFOIL]

      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 the
expected “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]


The form “Herculanum” (for Herculanum) was used consistently. The
English city is Peterboro’ (with apostrophe) in its first few
appearances, and then changes to Peterborough for the remainder of
the book. The Italian city was conventionally spelled “Sienna” (with
two n’s) in English.

Many names, especially non-European ones, differ significantly from
their 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


  Nakhon Wat: better known as Angkor Wat

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Text-Book of the History of Architecture - Seventh Edition, revised" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.