Home
  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: History of Ancient Art
Author: Reber, Franz von, 1834-1919
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "History of Ancient Art" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



produced from images available at The Internet Archive)



HISTORY

OF

ANCIENT ART

BY
DR. FRANZ VON REBER

DIRECTOR OF THE BAVARIAN ROYAL AND STATE GALLERIES OF PAINTINGS
PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY AND POLYTECHNIC OF MUNICH

Revised by the Author

_TRANSLATED AND AUGMENTED_

BY

JOSEPH THACHER CLARKE

WITH 310 ILLUSTRATIONS AND A GLOSSARY OF TECHNICAL TERMS

NEW YORK
HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1882, by

HARPER & BROTHERS,

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

_All rights reserved._


The application of the historic method to the study of the Fine Arts,
begun with imperfect means by Winckelmann one hundred and twenty years
ago, has been productive of the best results in our own days. It has
introduced order into a subject previously confused, disclosing the
natural progress of the arts, and the relations of the arts of the
different races by whom they have been successively practised. It has
also had the more important result of securing to the fine arts their
due place in the history of mankind as the chief record of various
stages of civilization, and as the most trustworthy expression of the
faith, the sentiments, and the emotions of past ages, and often even of
their institutions and modes of life. The recognition of the
significance of the fine arts in these respects is, indeed, as yet but
partial, and the historical study of art does not hold the place in the
scheme of liberal education which it is certain before long to attain.
One reason of this fact lies in the circumstance that few of the general
historical treatises on the fine arts that have been produced during the
last fifty years have been works of sufficient learning or judgment to
give them authority as satisfactory sources of instruction. Errors of
statement and vague speculations have abounded in them. The subject,
moreover, has been confused, especially in Germany, by the intrusion of
metaphysics into its domain, in the guise of a professed but spurious
science of æsthetics.

Under these conditions, a history of the fine arts that should state
correctly what is known concerning their works, and should treat their
various manifestations with intelligence and in just proportion, would
be of great value to the student. Such, within its limits as a manual
and for the period which it covers, is Dr. Reber’s _History of Ancient
Art_. So far as I am aware, there is no compend of information on the
subject in any language so trustworthy and so judicious as this. It
serves equally well as an introduction to the study and as a treatise to
which the advanced student may refer with advantage to refresh his
knowledge of the outlines of any part of the field.

The work was originally published in 1871; but so rapid has been the
progress of discovery during the last ten years that, in order to bring
the book up to the requirements of the present time, a thorough revision
of it was needed, together with the addition of much new matter and many
new illustrations. This labor of revision and addition has been jointly
performed by the author and the translator, the latter having had the
advantage of doing the greater part of his work with the immediate
assistance of Dr. Reber himself, and of bringing to it fresh resources
of his own, the result of original study and investigation. The
translator having been absent from the country, engaged in archæological
research, during the printing of the volume, the last revision and the
correction of the text have been in the hands of Professor William R.
Ware, of the School of Mines of Columbia College.

CHARLES ELIOT NORTON.

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS, _May_, 1882.


In view of the great confusion which results from an irregular
orthography of Greek proper names, a return to the original spelling of
words not fully Anglicized may need an explanation, but no apology: it
is only adopting a system already followed by scholars of the highest
standing. The Romans, until the advent of that second classical revival
in which the present century is still engaged, served as mediums for all
acquaintance with Hellenic civilization. They employed Greek names, with
certain alterations agreeable to the Latin tongue, blunting and
coarsening the delicate sounds of Greek speech, much in the same manner
as they debased the artistic forms of Greek architecture by a mechanical
system of design. The clear ον became _um_, ος was changed to _us_, ει
to _e_ or _i_, etc. This Latinized nomenclature, like the Roman triglyph
and Tuscan capital, was exclusively adopted by the early Renaissance,
until, with the increasing knowledge of Greek lands and works of art,
names were introduced which do not happen to occur in the writings of
Roman authors. These were either changed in accordance with the more or
less variable standard in use during the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, or were adopted in their Greek form without change, the
latter method being more and more generally employed. This has gradually
led to a partial revision of Greek names and their spelling. Zeus and
Hermes, Artemis and Athene, have resumed, as Greek deities, their
original titles;--Suni_um_ and Ass_us_ have been changed to Sunion and
Assos; while other names have only been reformed in part, as in the case
of the unfortunate Polycleitos, who at times appears as Polycl_e_tos,
and at times as Polycleit_u_s. Confusion and misunderstanding cannot but
result from this unreasonable triple system of Latinized, Anglicized,
and Greek orthography. Peirithoos may be sought in alphabetically
classified works of reference under Per and Pir as well as under Peir.
Πέργαμον, Pergamon, is written Pergamum, Pergamus, and Pergamos, in the
two latter forms being naturally confused with the Cretan Πέργαμος,
Pergamos, which, in its turn, is Latinized to Pergamus. In the present
book the Greek spelling of Greek names has been adopted in all those
cases where the word has not been fully Anglicized; that is to say,
changed in _pronunciation_, when it would sound pedantic to employ its
original form, as, for instance, to speak of the well-known Pæstum and
Lucian as Poseidonia and Loukianos. The English alphabet provides,
however, two letters for the Greek κάππα, and the more
familiar _c_ has been employed, as in Corinth, acropolis, etc., except
in cases where the true sound is not thereby conveyed,--namely, before
_e_, _i_, and _y_,--when the _k_ is substituted. Moreover, the final αι
is transformed to _æ_, according to the universal usage of our tongue.

JOSEPH THACHER CLARKE.



CONTENTS.


EGYPT.
                                                 PAGE

The Delta. The Oldest Monuments, if
not the most Ancient Civilization of
the World                                        1, 2

Changeless Continuity of Life and
Art                                                 2

ARCHITECTURE.

The Age, Purpose, and Architectural
Significance of the Pyramids                      3-5

The Pyramids of Gizeh                             5-7

Variety of Pyramidal Forms                       8, 9

The Pyramids of Saccara, Meydoun,
Dashour, Abousere, and Illahoun                  9-12

Table of Dimensions                                12

The Younger Pyramids of Nubia. Truncated
Pyramids                                           12

Rock-cut Tombs                                     13

Development of Column from Pier                    14

The Tombs at Beni-hassan                       14, 15

Development of the Lotos-column                16, 17

The Invasion of the Hycsos. Restriction
of the Prismatic Shaft. Extended
Application of the Floral Column
in the New Theban Empire                       18, 19

The Calyx Capital                              20, 21

Piers with Figures of Osiris and Typhon.
Entablature                                        21

Cavern Sepulchres                                  22

Temple Plan, Obelisks                              23

Peristyle Court                                    25

Hypostyle Hall                                 26, 27

The Dwellings of Kings and Priests                 28

Peripteral Temples                                 29

Rock-cut Temples                                   30

The Monuments at Abou-Simbel                   31, 32

Palatial and Domestic Architecture                 33

Interiors                                          34

The Labyrinth                                      35

Unimportant Character of Secular Architecture      36

SCULPTURE.

Fundamental and Changeless Peculiarities           36

Conventional Types                                 37

The Formation of the Head                          38

Head-dresses. Conjunction of Human
Trunks and Animal Heads                            39

The Body. Lack of Progressiveness
and of History                                     40

Animal Forms                                       41

Materials                                          42

Reliefs                                            43

Coilanaglyphics                                    44

The Variety and Interest of the Subjects
Illustrated                                        45

PAINTING.

Intimate Relation to Sculpture. Hieroglyphics      46

Painting as an Architectural Decoration.
Retrospect                                         47


CHALDÆA, BABYLONIA, AND ASSYRIA.

The Traditional Age. The Land and
People                                             48

Building Materials. Clay and Bitumen               49

Perishable Character of the Monuments.
Hills of Rubbish Recognized as
Cities                                             50


ARCHITECTURE.

_Chaldæa._

The Ruins of Mugheir, or Ur                        50

Warka and Abou-Sharein                             51

The Principle of the Arch                          52

Political History                                  53

_Babylon._

The Fabulous Account of Herodotos                  54

The Temple Pyramid at Borsippa                     56

Palace Structures. The Hanging Gardens
of Semiramis                                       57

Private Dwellings. Works of Engineering            58

_Assyria._

Nineveh                                            59

The Discoveries of Layard and Botta                60

The Hills of Coyundjic and Nebbi-Jonas             61

Royal Dwellings                                    62

The Palace at Kisr-Sargon                       63-65

Terrace Pyramids                                   66

Lighting and Roofing                           66, 67

The Restriction of Columnar Architecture           68

The Forms of Small Columns                      69-71

Vaulted Construction                               71

The Pointed Arch                                   72

The General Appearance of the Palaces              73

Sacred Architecture                                74

Terrace Pyramids                                   75

The Cella                                          76

The Dwellings of the Priests                       77

Altars and Obelisks                                78

Domestic Architecture                          79, 80

SCULPTURE.

Little Represented in Chaldæa                      81

Babylonian Seals and Gems                          82

Enamelled Tiles                                    83

Statues                                            85

Conventional Types                             85, 86

Cherubims                                          87

Mural Reliefs                                   87-89

Variance from Egyptian Sculpture                   90

Historical Reliefs                              91-93

Religious Representations                          94

Formal Landscapes. Bronzes                     95, 96

PAINTING.

Upon Tiles and Stucco                              96

Colors                                             97

The General Appearance of Assyrian
Architecture, as Decorated by Reliefs
and Paintings                                      98


PERSIA.

Historical Considerations                          99

The Artistic Poverty of the Medes.
The Achæmenidæ. Their Chief
Cities                                            100

ARCHITECTURE.

Persepolis                                   101, 102

The Characteristic Differences of Persian
and Mesopotamian Building                         102

The Introduction of Columns                       103

Columnar Forms                               103, 104

Capitals                                      105-107

The Entablature                                   108

Plan of the Palace of Darius                  109-113

Its State of Preservation                         110

Illumination                                 110, 111

Upper Stories                                 111-113

The Palace and Hall of Xerxes                     114

The Propylæa                                      115

The Harem                                    116, 117

The Disposition of the Terrace                    117

Fire Altars                                       118

Funeral Monuments                             119-121

Tomb of Cyrus                                     119

Tombs of the Later Achæmenidæ                     120

Tombs of Subjects                                 121

Domestic Architecture                             121

SCULPTURE.

Its Dependence upon the Art of Assyria            121

Egyptian and Hellenic Influences                  122

Mythological and Ceremonial Representations   123-125

The Sculptured Decoration of Palaces
and Terraces                                 126, 127

Rarity of Historical Scenes                       128

PAINTING.

Chiefly Ornamental                                128

General Harmony of the Three Arts                 129


PHŒNICIA, PALESTINE, AND ASIA MINOR.

Extensive Artistic Influence of Mesopotamia
in Point of Distance as well
as of Time                                        130

The Seleucidæ. The Sassanidæ                 131, 132

_Phœnicia._

Explorations in Recent Times                 132, 133

The Chief Cities                                  133

ARCHITECTURE.

Ruins at Amrith                              134, 135

The Monuments known as El-Meghazil            135-137

The Grotto Tombs of Central Phœnicia.
Sarcophagi at Jebeil                         137, 138

Domestic Architecture                             138

SCULPTURE.

Work of Driven Metal (Sphyrelaton)                139

Bronzes                                      139, 140

Inlaid Work. Ivory Carvings. Glass                140

Influence of the Sphyrelaton upon
Sculptural Style                                  141

Stone-cutting                                     142

The Decisive Influence of both Egypt
and Mesopotamia                                   143

_Palestine._

The Dependence of the Jews in Artistic
respects upon Egypt                               143

The Tabernacle                                143-147

Its Disposition                              144, 145

Its Columns. The Horns of the Altar.
The Seven-armed Candlestick                  145, 146

The Holy of Holies. Cherubim                 146, 147

Solomon’s Temple                              147-156

Untrustworthiness of Biblical Accounts            147

Construction of the Building. Its Site            148

The Brazen Laver                                  149

“Jachin and Boaz”                             149-151

The Tower                                    151, 152

Interior. Upper Story                        153, 154

Materials                                         154

Decoration. The Molten Sea. The
Mercy-seat and Cherubim                           155

The Destruction and Rebuilding of this
Temple                                            156

Its Architectural Character                       157

Rock-cut Tombs                               157, 158

_Cyprus and Carthage._

The Rock-cut Tombs at Paphos                      160

The Temple of Aphrodite at Golgoi.
Cesnola’s Discoveries                        161, 162

The Ruins of Carthage                             163

_Malta, the Balearic Isles, Sardinia_             163

_Asia Minor._

An Independent Art Found only in Lycia,
Phrygia, and Lydia                                164

The Rock-cut Tombs of Lycia. The Timbered
Dwelling Carved in Stone                     165, 166

The Monument of the Harpies at Xanthos            167

Lycian Sarcophagi                                 168

Temple Façades Imitated upon Cliffs               169

The Rock-cut Tombs of Phrygia                171, 172

The Tumuli of Lydia                          173, 174


HELLAS.

The Ægean Sea the Centre of Greek
Civilization                                      175

The Dorians and the Ionians                       176

The Development of Poetry Earlier than
that of Art                                       177

ARCHITECTURE.

The Tholos of Atreus                          179-183

The Phœnician Character of its Decoration         183

The Grave at Menidi                               183

The Treasure-houses of the Pelopidæ               184

Tumuli                                            185

The Common Modes of Burial                        186

Pyramids                                     186, 187

Primitive Fortifications. Tiryns                  187

Mykenæ                                            188

Gateways and Portals                          189-193

The Agora of Mykenæ                               192

Primitive Temple Cellas without Columns      192, 193

The Structure upon Mt. Ocha. Timbered
Roofs and Ceilings. The Origin
of the Doric Entablature                      195-197

The Decorative Painting of Woodwork               197

The Doric Column                              197-199

Its Egyptian Prototype                            198

The Development of the Temple-plan            199-202

The Temple in Antis                               199

Prostylos                                         200

Amphiprostylos. Peripteros                        201

Stone Construction                                202

The Entasis                                       203

The Capital                                       204

The Inclination of the Columns                    205

The Details of the Entablature                206-209

Polychromy                                        210

Curvatures                                   211, 212

The Pteroma and Ceiling                           213

Illumination                                      214

Archaic Doric Temples                             215

The Progress of this Style. Selinous              216

Corinth                                           217

Acragas                                           219

Olympia. Ægina                                    222

The Supremacy of Athens                           223

The Theseion                                      224

The Parthenon                                     225

The Propylæa                                      226

Phigalia                                          227

Eleusis                                           228

The Ionic Style. Its Intimate Relation
to Oriental Architecture                     229, 230

The Capital                                   231-233

The Entablature                                   234

Its Want of Historical Development                235

Phigalia                                          236

The Ionic Monuments of Asia Minor             237-240

The Ionic Monuments of Attica                 240-245

The Temple upon the Ilissos                       241

The Propylæa                                      242

The Erechtheion                               243-245

Caryatides                                        245

The Corinthian Capital                        246-249

The Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens             249

Monumental Tombs                                  250

The Mausoleum of Halicarnassos               251, 252

The Monument of the Nereides at Xanthos           252

The Choragic Monument of Lysicrates               253

The so-called Tower of the Winds at
Athens                                            253

The Stoa                                      253-255

The Palæstra                                      255

The Gymnasion                                     256

The Stadion and Hippodrome                        257

The Theatre and Odeion                        258-260

Domestic Architecture. Palaces               260, 261

The Boundless Luxury of the Diadochi              261

SCULPTURE.

The Unrivalled Perfection of the Art.
Its Fundamental Deviation from the
Principles of Egyptian Sculpture             264, 265

Its Dependence upon Western Asia                  266

Empaistic Work. Xoana                             267

Dædalos                                           268

The Homeric Shield of Achilles. Its
Workmanship and Artistic Importance           269-271

Pseudo-Hesiodic Shield of Heracles                272

The Gate of the Lions at Mykenæ              273, 274

Schliemann’s Excavations upon the
Acropolis of Mykenæ                          274, 275

The Chest of Kypselos. The Throne of
Apollo at Amyclæ                              276-278

The Introduction of Bronze Casting.
Marble-cutting and Chryselephantine
Work                                          278-281

The Potter Boutades                               278

Glaucos. Rhoicos and Theodores                    279

Boupalos and Athenis                              280

Dipoinos and Skyllis                         281, 282

The First Metopes at Selinous                283, 284

Archaic Statues at Miletos                        285

Reliefs at Assos. The Apollo of Thera             286

The Stele of Aristion                        287, 288

The Second Metopes at Selinous                    290

Archaistic Works                             291, 292

The Gable Sculptures of the Temple of
Ægina                                         293-296

The School of Ægina: Callon and Onatas       296, 297

The School of Attica: Hegias, Critios,
and Nesiotes                                      297

Canachos                                          298

Agelades                                          299

Calamis                                           300

Pythagoras                                        301

Myron                                        302, 303

The Progress of Athens after the Persian
Wars                                              303

Pheidias                                      304-315

The Athene Parthenos                          310-313

The Panathenaic Frieze                        313-315

The Metopes                                       316

The Scholars of Pheidias. Agoracritos        316, 317

The Gable Sculptures of the Temple of
Olympia                                      317, 318

The Victory of Paionios                           319

The Scholars of Myron                             320

The Phigalian Frieze                              321

Callimachos and Demetrios                         322

Polycleitos                                   322-326

The Third Metopes at Selinous                327, 328

The Extent of the School of Attica and
Argos. Kephisodotos                               329

Scopas                                        330-333

The Niobids                                  331, 332

Praxiteles                                        333

The Scholars of Scopas and Praxiteles.
The Sculptures of the Mausoleum of
Halicarnassos                                     334

The Hermes of Olympia                        335, 336

The Venus of Melos                           338, 339

Silanion and Euphranor                            340

Lysippos                                      340-344

The School of Lysippos                       344, 345

The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Period      346, 347

The Altar at Pergamon                        347, 348

The so-called Dying Gladiator                348, 349

The School of Pergamon                       349, 350

The School of Rhodes. The Laocoon             351-353

The Farnese Bull                              353-355

The Apollo Belvedere                          356-358

The Introduction of Greek Sculpture
into Rome                                     358-360

The Borghese Gladiator                            361

The Belvedere Torso                               362

The Hellenic Renaissance in Rome              363-366

PAINTING.

Lack of all Remains                               366

Its Early Development Fictitiously Related
by Pliny. Eumaros. Kimon                          367

Polygnotos                                   368, 369

The Scenography of Agatharchos. Of
Apollodoros                                       370

Zeuxis                                       371, 372

Parrhasios                                   373, 374

Timanthes                                         374

The School of Sikyon: Eupompos,
Pamphilos                                         375

Melanthios. Pausias                               376

The School of Thebes and Athens: Nicomachos,
Aristides, Euphranor                         377, 378

Nikias                                            378

Apelles                                       379-382

Protogenes                                        383

Antiphilos. Ætion. Asclepiodoros.
Theon                                             384

Hellenistic Painting. Timomachos                  385

Trivial and Obscene Subjects. Mosaic. Sosos       386


ETRURIA.

Relationship to the Arts of Greece                387

ARCHITECTURE.

The so-called Cyclopean Walls. Arched
Gates                                             388

Vaulted Canals                                    389

Cemeteries. Tumuli. The Tomb of
Porsena                                           390

Imitations of Dwellings upon Tombs           391, 392

Grotto Sepulchres                                 392

Imitations of Temple Façades upon
Cliffs                                       393, 394

Norchia                                      394, 395

The Etruscan Temple                          396, 397

The Dwelling-house                                397

Its Court                                    398, 399

Lack of Progressive Architectural History    399, 400

SCULPTURE.

Museums. The Oldest or Decorative
Period. Phœnician Importations                    400

The Influence of Western Asia Superseded
by that of Greece                            401, 402

The Sarcophagus of Cære                           402

Realism. Sculpture in Marble                      403

The Bronze Chariot from Perugia                   404

The Capitoline Wolf. Engraved Mirrors             405

Height of Etruscan Art. Hellenistic Influences    406

Sculptured Sarcophagi                        406, 407

Terra-cottas and Bronzes                          408

The Similarity of late Etruscan to Roman
Sculpture                                    408, 409

PAINTING.

Its Development Similar to that of
Sculpture. The Ornamental and Dependent
Period                                            409

Realistic Characteristics                    409, 410

The Wall-paintings of Cære and Corneto       409, 410

The Influence of Greece                           411

Artistic Manufactures                        411, 412

Sgraffiti. The Importance of Etruscan
Art                                               412


ROME.

The Conditions of Civilization Similar
to those of Etruria                               413

ARCHITECTURE.

Primitive Walls                              414, 415

Gates. Vaulted Canals                             416

Temples: their Tuscan Character. The
Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus                     417

Hellenic Influences                               418

Prostylos and Pseudo-peripteros              419, 420

The Tuscan Order                                  420

The Doric Order                              420, 421

The Ionic Order                              421, 422

The Corinthian Order                         423, 424

The Composite Capital                             424

Constructive Advances. Arching and
Vaulting                                          425

Aqueducts and Sewers                         425, 426

Baths                                         426-429

The Baths of Agrippa. The Pantheon                427

The Baths of Caracalla and of Diocletian     428, 429

The Circus, Theatre, and Amphitheatre         430-436

The Theatre of Marcellus                          433

The Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum)              436

Funeral Monuments                            436, 437

Commemorative Columns                             437

Triumphal Arches                              438-440

Public Buildings. Basilicas                   441-443

Dwellings                                         444

Private Courts of Justice the Prototypes
of the Christian Basilica                     445-447

SCULPTURE.

Lack of Statues during the Earliest
Period. Decorative Work                      447, 448

The Influence of Etruria                          448

The Influence of Greece                           449

Rise of Sculpture after the Samnite
War                                          449, 450

Importations of Statues from Greece               451

Coponius                                          452

Portrait Sculpture                            453-455

Iconic Statues                                    453

The Horses of St. Mark’s                          454

Shortcomings of Roman Reliefs                456, 457

Historical Representations                    457-459

Trajan’s Column                                   458

The Arch of Titus                                 459

The Monument of Antoninus Pius                    460

The Degeneration of Sculpture                     461

Portraiture                                  461, 462

The Arch of Constantine                           463

PAINTING.

The Earliest Paintings by Greek Artists.
The Temple of Ceres                               464

Fabius Pictor                                464, 465

Pacuvius and Metrodoros                           465

Battle-scenes                                465, 466

Panel-painting. Collections                       466

Wall Decorations after the Alexandrian
Fashion                                       466-470

The Golden House of Nero                          467

Landscapes. Architectural Ornamentation      468, 469

Mosaics                                      470, 471

From Herculaneum and Pompeii                      471

Conclusion                                   471, 472

The Christian Paintings of the Catacombs          472

GLOSSARY                                          473

INDEX                                             479



LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.


EGYPT.


FIGURE                                         PAGE

1. The Pyramids of Gizeh                          1

2. The Great Pyramid of Gizeh. Section
N. and S., looking West                           6

3. Section of the Great Pyramid of
Saccara                                           9

4. The Pyramid of Meydoun                        10

5. Southern Stone Pyramid of Dashour             11

6. Section of the Middle Pyramid of
Abousere                                         13

7. Egyptian Wall-painting. Transport
of a Colossus                                    14

8. Section and Plan of the Northernmost
Rock-cut Tomb at Beni-hassan                     15

9. Second Rock-cut Tomb at Beni-hassan           16

10. Pier Decoration from the Tombs of
Sauiet-el-Meytin                                 17

11. Lotos-column of Beni-hassan                  18

12. Column from Sedinga                          19

13. Lotos-columns from Thebes                    20

14. Calyx Capital from Carnac                    21

15. Capitals from Edfou                          22

16. Osiris Pier                                  23

17. Royal Grave near Thebes                      24

18. Southern Temple of Carnac                    25

19. Temple of Edfou                              26

20. Great Temple of Carnac                       27

21. Section of the Hypostyle Hall,
Great Temple of Carnac                           28

22. Chapel upon the Platform of the
Temple of Dendera                                29

23. Temple of Philæ                              30

24. Façade of the Rock-cut Temple of
Abou-Simbel                                      31

25. Hall of the Rock-cut Temple of
Abou-Simbel                                      32

26. Egyptian Wall-painting. Interior
of a House                                       33

27. Labyrinth of the Fayoum                      35

28. Egyptian Profile. Greek Profile              38

29. Husband and Wife. (Munich Glyptothek.)       39

30. The Schoolmaster of Boulac                   40

31. Lion of Reddish Granite. (British
Museum.)                                         41

32. Egyptian Wall-painting. Sculptural
Work                                             43

33. Egyptian Wall-painting. Lance-maker          44

34. Egyptian Wall-painting. Prisoners
of Different Nationalities                       45


CHALDÆA, BABYLONIA, AND ASSYRIA.

35. Relief from Corsabad. Assyrian
Shrines                                          48

36. Temple at Mugheir (Ur)                       49

37. Ruins of Warka                               51

38. Patterned Wall. Warka                        51

39. Tomb at Mugheir                              52

40. Bors-Nimrud. Temple-terrace at
Borsippa                                         54

41. Plan and Elevation of the Temple at
Borsippa                                         56

42. Plan of Babylon                              59

43. Plan of Nineveh                              61

44. Plan of the Palace of Kisr-Sargon,
Corsabad                                         63

45. Ornamented Pavement from the
Northern Palace of Coyundjic                     64

46. Cornice of the Temple Substructure
at Corsabad                                      66

47. Plan of the Northwestern Palace of
Nimrud                                           67

48. Relief from Coyundjic                        68

49. Plan of the Palace of Esarhaddon
at Nimrud                                        69

50. Various Capitals and Bases, from
Assyrian Reliefs                                 70

51. Table, from an Assyrian Relief               71

52. Mouth of a Tunnel under the N. E.
Palace, Nimrud                                   72

53. Tunnel under the S. E. Palace,
Nimrud                                           72

54. View of an Assyrian Palace, Restoration      73

55. Terraced Pyramid, from a Relief,
Coyundjic                                        74

56. Plan and Section of the Terraced
Pyramid, Nimrud                                  75

57. Relief from the Northern Palace,
Coyundjic                                        76

58. Entrance to One of the So-called
Temples, Nimrud                                  77

59. Obelisk from Nimrud                          78

60. Assyrian Dwellings. Relief from
Coyundjic                                        79

61. Tent-like Dwelling. Relief from
Coyundjic                                        80

62. Susa. Relief from Coyundjic                  81

63. Babylonian Seal, and its Impression          82

64. Wall Decoration of Enamelled
Tiles                                            83

65. Statue of a King, from Nimrud                84

66. Winged Lion,        ”    ”                   85

67. Winged Bull,        ”    ”                   85

68. Lion,               ”    ”                   86

69. King and Warrior. Relief from
Corsabad                                         88

70. Heads. Reliefs from Nimrud                   89

71. Temple. Relief from Corsabad                 90

72. A Besieged City. Relief from
Nimrud                                           91

73. Wounded Lioness. Relief from
Coyundjic                                        92

74. Transportation of Stone. Relief
from Coyundjic                                   93

75. Transport of a Cherubim                      94

76. Glazed Terra-cotta, from Nimrud              97


PERSIA.

77. Restoration of the Palace of Darius,
Persepolis                                       99

78. Plan of Persepolis                          101

79. Fragment of a Base from Pasargadæ           103

80. Persian Columns with Bull Capitals          104

81. Spiral Ornaments upon Chairs                105

82. Columns from the Eastern Portico
of the Hall of Xerxes                           106

83. Rock-cut Tomb of Darius                     107

84. Entablature of the Palace of Darius         109

85. Plan of the Palace of Darius at
Persepolis                                      110

86. Persian Door-casing                         112

87. Relief from the Portal of the Hall
of a Hundred Columns                            113

88. Propylæa of Xerxes at Persepolis            115

89. Altar Pedestals at Pasargadæ                118

90. The Tomb of Cyrus                           119

91. Relief from a Portal, Persepolis            124

92. Relief from the Stairs of the Palace
of Darius                                       127


PHŒNICIA, PALESTINE, AND ASIA MINOR.

93. Rock-cut Tombs at Myra                      130

94. Temple Cella (El-Maabed) at Amrith          134

95. The Monuments El-Meghazil at
Amrith                                          136

96. Façade of a Rock-cut Tomb at Jebeil         138

97. From a Relief at Saida                      141

98. From the monument El-Meghazil
at Amrith                                       141

99. From Rock-cut Relief at Mashnaka            142

100. The Mosaic Tabernacle                      143

101. Relief at Thabarieh                        146

102. Vase Discovered in Cyprus                  150

103. Hypothetical Plan and Section of
Solomon’s Temple                                151

104. Rock-cut Tomb at Siloam                    158

105. Rock-cut Tomb at Hinnom                    158

106. Tomb at Paphos in Cyprus                   160

107. Cyprian Pilaster Capitals                  161

108. Votive Figure from Cyprus                  162

109. Cyprian Head                               163

110. Rock-cut Tomb at Antiphellos               164

111. Rock-cut Tomb at Antiphellos               165

112. Rock-cut Tomb at Myra                      166

113. The so-called Monument of the
Harpies at Xanthos                              167

114. Sarcophagus at Antiphellos                 168

115. Rock-cut Tomb at Telmissos                 169

116. Details of Columns from Telmissos,
Myra, and Antiphellos                           170

117. The so-called Tomb of Midas                171

118. Phrygian Rock-cut Tomb near Doganlu        172

119. The so-called Grave of Tantalos            174


GREECE.

120. View of the Athenian Propylæa.
Restoration                                     175

121. Plan and Section of the Tholos of
Atreus                                          179

122. Restoration of the Tholos of
Atreus. Portal                                  180

123. Fragments of an Engaged Column
from the same                                   181

124. The Pyramid of Kencreæ                     186

125. Plan of the Acropolis of Tiryns            188

126. The Gate of the Lions at Mykenæ            189

127. The Smaller Gate at Mykenæ                 189

128. Portal from Samos                          190

129. Gateway of Phigalia                        190

130. Portal upon Delos                          191

131. Gate of Missolonghi                        192

132. Gate of Messene                            192

133. Gate of Thoricos                           193

134. Gate of Ephesos                            193

135. Interior of a Structure upon Mount
Ocha, Eubœa                                     194

136. Elevation of the Corner of the
Middle Temple, Selinous                         203

137. Entablature of the Parthenon               206

138. Scheme of the Doric Entablature            207

139. Plan and Elevation of the so-called
Temple of Theseus                               208

140. Painting over the Pteroma of the
same                                            209

141. Coffered Pteroma Ceiling, Selinous         211

142. Coffered Ceilings from the Parthenon       212

143. Plan of the Middle Temple, Selinous        213

144. Capital from the Northern Temple, Selinous 216

145. Capital from the Middle Temple,
Selinous                                        216

146. Capital from the Temple at Assos           216

147. Capital from the Eastern Plateau,
Selinous                                        217

148. Capital from the Temple of Zeus,
Selinous                                        217

149. Capital from the Temple of Heracles,
Acragas                                         217

150. Capital from the Temple of Theseus,
Athens                                          218

151. Capital from the Portico of Philip,
Delos                                           218

152. Capital from the Temple of Demeter,
Pæstum                                          218

153. Plan of the Great Temple at
Pæstum                                          219

154. Plan, Section, and Elevation of the
Temple of Zeus, Acragas                         220

155. Entablatures of the Older and of
the Present Parthenon                           221

156. Plan of the Temple of Zeus at
Olympia                                         222

157. Plan of the Parthenon                      225

158. Plan and View of the Propylæa,
Athens                                          226

159. Plan of the Temple of Apollo,
Bassæ                                           227

160. Plan of the Temenos at Eleusis             228

161. Ionic Order of the Mausoleum at
Halicarnassos                                   232

162. Plan of the Normal Ionic Capital           233

163. Plan of the Corner Ionic Capital           233

164. Ceiling of the Peripteros of the
Mausoleum. Restored                             235

165. Base and Capital from Bassæ                236

166. Base from the Heraion at Samos             237

167. Base from the Temple of Apollo
Didymæos, Miletos                               237

168. Base from the Temple of Athene,
Priene                                          237

169. Base from the Propylæa, Cnidos             237

170.   ”      ”    Temple of Wingless
Victory, Athens                                 237

171. Ruins of the Temple at Aphrodisias         239

172. The Temple upon the Ilissos                241

173. Plan of the Erechtheion                    242

174. Northwestern View of the Erechtheion       243

175. Order of the Eastern Portico of
the Erechtheion                                 244

176. Corinthian Capital from Bassæ              248

177.     ”        ”     from the Temple
of Apollo, Miletos                              248

178. Corinthian Capital from the Tower
of the Winds, Athens                            248

179. Tomb at Mylassa                            251

180. The Mausoleum at Halicarnassos.
Restoration                                     252

181. The Monument of the Nereides at
Xanthos                                         253

182. Plan of the Stoa Diple at Thoricos         254

183. Plan of the Stadion at Messene             256

184. Plan of the Hippodrome at Olympia          257

185. Plan of the Greek Theatre, according
to Vitruvius                                    258

186. The Theatre at Segesta. Restored           259

187. The Cover of Dodwell’s Vase.
(Munich.)                                       271

188. The Relief over the Gate of the
Lions, Mykenæ                                   273

189. Steles from the Acropolis of Mykenæ        275

190. Golden Mask from Mykenæ                    276

191. Figures from the Vase of Clitias
and Ergotimos                                   277

192. Metope Relief from Selinous                284

193. Statues from Miletos                       285

194. The Apollo of Thera                        286

195. Archaic Relief from Sparta                 287

196. The Stele of Aristion                      288

197. A Stele found at Orchomenos                290

198. Head of a Warrior, Selinous                291

199. Archaistic Artemis, from Pompeii           292

200. Central Figures from the Western
Gable, Ægina                                    294

201. Harmodios and Aristogeiton                 297

202. Apollo, after Canachos                     298

203. The Discos-thrower                         302

204. Statuette of the Athene Parthenos          305

205. Fragment Imitated from the Shield
of Athene Parthenos                             306

206. Coins of Elis                              307

207. Demeter and Persephone, from the
Parthenon                                       311

208. Aphrodite and Peitho, from the
Parthenon                                       312

209. Fragment from the Frieze of the
Cella of the Parthenon                          314

210. Figure from the Temple of Zeus,
Olympia                                         316

211. Figure from the Temple of Zeus,
Olympia                                         317

212. Head of Apollo, from the Temple
of Zeus, Olympia                                318

213. Metope from the Temple of Zeus,
Olympia                                         319

214. The Victory of Paionios, Olympia           320

215. From the Frieze of the Temple at
Phigalia                                        321

216. Copy of the Doryphoros, Naples             323

217. Amazon, after Polycleitos                  325

218. Head of Hera, Naples                       326

219. The Ludovisi Juno, Rome                    326

220. Metope from the Eastern Plateau,
Selinous                                        328

221. Eirene and Ploutos, after Kephisodotos     329

222. The Apollo Kitharoidos                     330

223. Niobids. (Florence.)                       331

224. Head of Niobe                              332

225. Fragment of the Frieze at Halicarnassos    334

226. Head of Eros. (Vatican.)                   335

227. The Hermes of Praxiteles                   336

228. The Head of the Hermes                     337

229. The Venus of Melos                         338

230. Copy of the Apoxyomenos of Lysippos        341

231. The Farnese Hercules                       343

232. The Zeus of Otricoli                       344

233. Boreas, from the Tower of the
Winds                                           346

234. Notos, from the Tower of the
Winds                                           346

235. Coins of the Diadochi                      347

236. The Dying Gladiator                        348

237. The Laocoon                                352

238. The Farnese Bull                           354

239. The Wrestlers                              356

240. The Apollo Belvedere                       357

241. The Artemis of Versailles                  359

242. The Borghese Gladiator                     361

243. The Belvedere Torso                        362

244. Group from the Villa Ludovisi              364

245. The Capitoline Centaur                     365


ETRURIA.

246. The Campana Tomb at Veii                   387

247. The Gate of Falerii                        388

248. Canal of the Marta                         389

249. Restored Plan and Elevation of
the Tomb of Porsena                             391

250. Ceiling of a Tomb at Cervetri              392

251. Plan and Section of a Tomb at
Cervetri                                        393

252. Interior of a Tomb at Cervetri             394

253. Temple Tomb at Norchia                     395

254. Elevation of the Etruscan Temple,
according to Vitruvius                          397

255. Tomb at Corneto                            398

256. Etruscan Sarcophagus                       399

257. Bust from the Grotto dell’ Iside in
Vulci                                           402

258. Sarcophagus of Terra-cotta from
Cære                                            403

259. Etruscan Relief                            404

260. The Capitoline Wolf                        405

261. Etruscan Stone Sarcophagus                 407

262. Painting from Cære                         410


ROME.

263. The Janus Quadrifrons in the
Forum Boarium                                   413

264. Gateway in the Walls of Norba              414

265. Remains of the Servian Wall                415

266. The Cloaca Maxima                          417

267. Plan of the Temple of Fortuna
Virilis                                         419

268. Plan of the Temple of Antoninus
and Faustina                                    419

269. Tuscan Column from the Coliseum            420

270. The Temple at Cori                         421

21. View of the Temple of Fortuna
Virilis                                         422

272. Corinthian Capital from the Pantheon       424

273. Composite Capital                          424

274. Section of the Aqua Marcia Tepula
and Julia                                       426

275. Section of the Pantheon, in its
Present Condition                               427

276. Section of the Pantheon. Restoration
by Adler                                        428

277. Plan of the Baths of Caracalla             429

278. Chief Hall of the Baths of Caracalla       430

279. Plan of the Circus of Romulus              431

280. Scheme of the Roman Theatre,
according to Vitruvius                          432

281. Theatre of Marcellus, Rome                 433

282. Plan of the Flavian Amphitheatre           434

283. Section of the Auditorium of the
Flavian Amphitheatre                            435

284. Façade and Section of a Rock-cut
Tomb at Petra                                   438

285. Triumphal Arch of Titus                    439

286.     ”       ”     Septimius Severus        440

287. Section of the Primitive Roman
Basilica                                        442

288. Plan of the Primitive Roman Basilica       442

289. Plan of the Basilica of Maxentius          443

290. Section of the House of Pansa in
Pompeii                                         444

291. Plan of the House of Pansa in
Pompeii                                         444

292. The Flavian Palace                         445

293. Court of the Palace of Diocletian
at Spalatro                                     446

294. Fragment of the Cista Prænestina           447

295. Janus Bifrons upon an Ancient
Roman Coin                                      448

296. Statue of Isis. (Museum of Naples.)        450

297. Relief of Mithras. (In the Louvre.)        451

298. Vertumnus (Silvanus). (In Berlin.)         452

299. Relief of Bonus Eventus. (British
Museum.)                                        453

300. Statue of Augustus. (In the Vatican.)      454

301. Equestrian Statue of Nonius Balbus,
Jun.                                            455

302. Relief from the Arch of Titus in
Rome.                                           458

303. Relief of Trajan, from the Arch of
Constantine in Rome.                            450

304. Relief upon the Pedestal of the
Column of Antoninus Pius                        460

305. Victory, from the Arch of Constantine      463

306. Wall-painting from the Aurea
Domus of Nero                                   466

307. Ceres. Pompeian Wall-painting              467

308. Wall-painting from Herculaneum             468

309. Landscape-painting from Pompeii            469

310. Wall-painting of Decorative Architecture,
Pompeii                                         470

[Illustration: Fig. I.--The Pyramids of Gizeh.]



EGYPT.


It is a curious chance that the most ancient monuments of human
civilization should stand upon a land which is one of the youngest
geological formations of our earth. The scene of that artistic activity
made known to us by the oldest architectural remains of Africa and of
the world was not Upper Egypt, where steep primeval cliffs narrow the
valley of the Nile, but the alluvion of the river’s delta. It would be
difficult to decide whether the impulse of monumental creativeness were
here first felt, or whether the mere fact of the preservation of these
Egyptian works, secured by the indestructibility of their construction
as well as by the unchangeableness of Egyptian art, be sufficient to
explain this priority to other nations of antiquity--notably to
Mesopotamia. Although no ruins have been found in Chaldæa of earlier
date than the twenty-third century B.C., it is not at all impossible
that remains of greater antiquity may yet come to light in a country
which is by no means thoroughly explored. Nor should we deem the oldest
structures now preserved to be necessarily those first erected. The
perishable materials of the buildings which stood in the plains of the
Euphrates and Tigris, generally sun-dried bricks with asphalt cement,
were not calculated to insure long duration, or to prevent their
overthrow and obliteration by the continual changes in the course of
these rivers, through the silting and swamping of their valleys. Yet,
though tradition would incline us to _assume_ that Chaldæan civilization
and art were the more ancient, the oldest monuments _known_ exist upon
the banks of the Nile.

The changeless blue of the Egyptian sky, the strictly regular return of
all the natural phenomena connected with the Nile, that wonderful stream
of the land’s life, are entirely in accord with the fixedness of
Egyptian civilization in all its branches. Though the high state of
advance which we first find in Egyptian art, three thousand years before
the Christian era, must necessarily have been preceded by less perfected
degrees, it is wholly impossible to perceive such stages of development
in any of the monuments known. After Egypt had attained a certain height
of civilization, its history, during the thousands of years known to us,
shows none of those phases of advance or decline, of development in
short, to be observed in Europe during every century, if not during
every decade.

The Egyptian completed buildings and statues begun by his remote
ancestors without the slightest striving for individual peculiarity. He
commenced new works in the same spirit, leaving them for similar
execution by his great-grandchildren. Numberless generations thus
dragged on without bequeathing a trace of any peculiar character and
ability. It is only by the cartouches of the kings in the hieroglyphic
inscriptions that it is possible to separate the dynasties, and to group
into periods of a thousand years or more, works of art which seem from
their style to belong to one and the same age. What gigantic revolutions
have affected the civilization of Europe during the fourteen centuries
elapsed since the overthrow of the Roman Empire, and how slight are the
appreciable changes during the nearly equal number of years of the
ancient dynasties of Memphis--the period of the pyramids, or again of
the Theban kingdom--from the seventeenth dynasty to the rule of the
Ptolemies!

The true age of the monuments of Lower Egypt has not long been known.
When Napoleon I. fired the spirits of his troops before the Battle of
the Pyramids by the well-known words “Forty centuries look down upon you
from the heights of these pyramids,” he must have been aware that,
according to the conceptions of the archæological science of the time,
he was exaggerating. In fact, however, he was far behind the truth. The
pyramids of Abousere, possibly also those of Dashour, are of the third
dynasty (3338 to 3124 B.C., according to Lepsius), those of Gizeh of the
fourth dynasty of Manetho (3124 to 2840 B.C.). These are structures
which have stood for five thousand years. The pyramids of Cochome,
referred to as the first dynasty of Manetho, are still older, dating
from a time nearly coincident, according to Biblical authority, with the
creation of the world itself (3761 B.C.).

It is true we are still so far from chronological certainty that dates
often differ astonishingly. Osburn, for instance, places the fourth and
fifth dynasties as late as the period between 2228 and 2108 B.C., and
notably the two kings of the fourth dynasty, Shofo and Nu-Shofo, about
2170 B.C. The first twelve dynasties of Memphis, dated by Lepsius about
3892 to 2167, and by Osburn as late as 1959 B.C., are now known
principally by their monumental tombs. Among these, the sepulchres of
the kings are prominent in like manner as the ruler in an absolute and
theocratic monarchy is elevated above his subjects.

The enslaved people labored upon the monuments of their masters, often
during the entire lifetime of these latter. It may be seen from
contemporary wall-paintings that the discipline maintained during the
work of construction was not lacking in strictness, but it was certainly
not that excessive oppression generally imagined. A body of over one
hundred thousand workmen sorely oppressed might, even in Egypt, have
been difficult to manage by a hated despot. It was principally during
the annual inundations of the Nile that the kings employed and fed the
poorer classes, at that time, perhaps, unable otherwise to subsist.
During other seasons the rulers could not have taken the tillers of the
soil from fields and flocks without great injury to their own interests.
It is no mark of a selfish despotism, which builds without reference to
the welfare of land and subjects, that the kings removed their enormous
sepulchral piles from the vicinity of their residences--from the
valuable alluvion of the Nile to the barren edge of the desert. They
thus, as Plato recommends, occupied no place with dwellings of the dead
where it would be possible for the living to find nourishment. The
fertile ground of the valley was not encumbered by the colossal
pyramids, which were so numerous in ancient Egypt that Lepsius found the
remains of sixty-seven in the forty-eight kilometers alone between Cairo
and the Fayoum, on the western bank of the river. Supposing only five
score such pyramids, with an average area of one hundred ares each, two
elevenths of that of the great pyramid of Gizeh, to have stood in the
narrow valley of the Nile, what an enormous loss in the grain production
of that most fertile but limited land would so great a reduction of
arable surface have caused during the past five thousand years!

The fundamental motive of the pyramid is the funeral mound. A small
upheaval above the natural level of the ground results of itself from
the earth displaced by the bulk of the buried body. Our present practice
of interment clearly illustrates this. Increased dimensions elevate the
mound to an independent monument. Many nations, some of a high degree of
civilization, have contented themselves with such imposing hills of
earth over the grave,--tumuli, which, from the manner of their
construction, assumed a conical form. Others placed the mound upon a low
cylinder, thus better marking its distinction from accidental natural
elevations. The Egyptians and the Mesopotamians rejected the cone
entirely, and formed, with plane surfaces upon a square plan, the highly
monumental pyramid. Peculiar to the former people are the inclined sides
which give to the pyramid its absolute geometrical form, as opposed to
the terraced structures of Chaldæa. The sand of the desert ebbed and
flowed fifty centuries ago as constantly as in our time, when the
sphinx, after being uncovered to its base, has been quickly hidden again
to the neck. Rulers, unwilling that their gigantic tombs should be thus
submerged, were obliged to secure to them great height, with inclined
and unbroken sides, upon which the sand could not lodge.

The typical pyramid of Gizeh, near Cairo--the monument of Cheops
(Shofo, Suphis), the first or second king of the fourth dynasty--rises
above the broad necropolis of Memphis, by far the largest and one of the
most marvellous works of mankind. (_Fig._ 1.) With a ground-line mean of
232.56 m., the great pyramid attained an altitude of 148.21 m., of which
the entire apex is now overthrown, leaving a height of about 138 m.[A]
The original intention of the builders was doubtless an absolutely
square plan. The greatest difference in the length of the ground-lines
of the base is 0.45 m. The angle of the upward inclination of the sides
has been found, by measurements at various points, to average 51° 51´
43´´. The entire pyramid is solidly built of massive blocks, pierced by
a few narrow passages which lead to small chambers. (_Fig._ 2.) Like
most of these monuments, the entrance is situated somewhat above the
ground; it opens to a passage which descends with a gentle inclination.
The shaft is covered with stones leaning against each other, so as to
present the great resistance of a gable to the superimposed mass. In
passing out of the masonry it is continued into the natural rock under
the same angle, 26° 27´. Near the point of separation it meets with
another passage, which ascends with an inclination of 26° 6´ to the
centre of the structure, sending off a nearly horizontal branch at
half-way. All three shafts lead to grave-chambers, the highest being the
most important. As the ascent continues above the horizontal branch, its
importance is emphasized by the passage being increased from 1.2 or 1.5
m. high to a corridor 8.5 m. in height, roofed by gradually projecting
blocks, and having upon its floor a slide to facilitate the transport of
the sarcophagus. Thereupon follows a horizontal vestibule, closed most
securely by four blocks of granite which fell like portcullises. Only
three of these had been let down; the fourth remained in its original
position, the lower grooves never having been cut to allow its descent.
The upper chamber, of polished granite, but otherwise not ornamented, is
10.48 m. long, 5.24 m. broad, and 5.84 m. high.[B] It is ceiled
horizontally with nine colossal lintels of granite, a detail which
seemed at first surprising, as other voids of far less width were more
firmly covered, either by projecting and gradually approaching stones,
as in the ascending corridor; or with blocks leaned together so as to
form a gable, as in the other passages, and in the middle chamber,
called that of the Queen. Yet it was for the security of this upper
chamber that the greatest care proved to have been taken. The weight of
the half-height of the pyramid remaining above it was by no means
allowed to rest upon its horizontal lintels. There are above them five
low relieving spaces separated by four stone ceilings similar to the
first; mighty blocks are inclined over all these to a gable triangle. In
case of rupture the horizontal beams would of themselves have formed new
triangles and prevented direct downward pressure. Cheops certainly did
not need to fear the ceiling of his chamber falling in upon him.
Ventilation was provided for the room by two narrow air-channels, which,
inclining upwards, took the shortest course to the outside.

[Illustration: Fig. 2.--The Great Pyramid of Gizeh. Section North and
South, looking West.]

The perfectly geometrical form of the pyramids of Gizeh has from early
times led to speculations upon their having been erected in conformity
with mathematical or astronomical calculations; and endless attempts
have been made to discover the fixed proportions which they are supposed
to embody, and to determine their symbolical or metrical significance.
Too much is often assumed upon the strength of accidental coincidences,
generally only approximate; but if such proportions indeed existed,
whatever may have been their intention, they are evidently beyond the
true province of art.

The second great pyramid, built by the successor of Cheops, Chephren
(Sophris), seems not to have been so regular in its interior
arrangement. The third, that of Chephren’s successor, Mykerinos
(Menkera), is of the most beautiful execution. The unevenness of the
ground was so considerable that a substructure of masonry was here
necessary. The entire kernel is of rectangular courses of stone, and,
with the exception of the exterior casing, is built in the form of
steps. This manner of construction was employed in most of the pyramids,
but is here particularly noticeable. The casing of granite, highly
polished, is still partly intact; the joints of its stones are scarcely
perceptible, and are not wider than the thickness of a sheet of paper.

The mechanical excellence of all these pyramids is indeed wonderful;
they remain as a marvellous proof of the constructive ability of man in
ages far anterior to known periods of the world’s history. Nor are they
mere piles of masonry which could have been erected by an enslaved
people without the guidance of skilled and thoughtful designers. The
arrangement of the passages, of the chambers and their portcullises, of
the quarried stone and polished revetment, was admirably adapted to the
required ends.

In the third pyramid two corridors have been found, one above the other.
The upper, opening within from the first chamber, at some height above
the floor, does not reach the exterior surface, but ends suddenly
against the unpierced outside casings. This peculiarity is explained by,
and in turn gives weight to, the statement that this pyramid, as
originally built by Mykerinos, was considerably smaller than it is at
present, measuring, according to the end of the unfinished upper
corridor, 54.86 m. on the side of the plan, and 42.20 m. in vertical
height. Nitocris, the last queen of the sixth dynasty, prepared the
pyramid to serve also as her own monument by adding courses of stone
which increased these dimensions to 117.29 and 66.75 m. respectively.
But as the original entrance, by the prolongation of its inclined line
outward, would thereby have opened much too high above the ground, a new
corridor beneath the first was rendered necessary. The second chamber,
which probably once contained the sarcophagus of the queen, was found
entirely plundered. The third and lowest, better protected, had been
opened; but in it there still remained in position a magnificent coffer
of basalt. The exterior of this sarcophagus was sculptured with
lattice-work in imitation of a palace-like structure with portals.
Fragments of the wooden coffin, with carved hieroglyphics, once within
it, and of the mummy itself, were flung about the room. The sarcophagus,
of the greatest value as illustrating the architectural forms of its
time, sank in the Mediterranean with the ship which was carrying it away
to England. The mummy and the lid of the coffin are in the British
Museum. Hieroglyphics upon the latter designate the venerable remains as
those of King Menkera, the same Mykerinos whom Herodotos, following
traditions of the Egyptian priests, mentions as one of the best rulers
of the land. The stone ceiling of the Mykerinos chamber was at first
thought to be vaulted, it having the form of a low pointed arch. This
peculiarity proved, however, to be due to a hollowing-out of the
inclined gable blocks.

[Illustration: Fig. 3.--Section of the Great Pyramid of Saccara.]

[Illustration: Fig. 4.--The Pyramid of Meydoun.]

Princes and princesses of these early dynasties appear to have been
buried in smaller pyramids, like those which stand in groups of three
near the first and third great pyramids of Gizeh. Prominent subjects
were allowed to take a place in the royal necropolis; but their pyramids
were always truncated, in form resembling the Egyptian footstool--the
pyramidal point remained the peculiar privilege of the kings. It appears
to have been customary to commence all these structures with a few large
terraces of masonry, which were not fully developed into the perfectly
pyramidal structure until the last stones, the revetments, were put in
place. These terraces generally had vertical sides. Occasionally this
construction was varied by being formed with sloping sides, which
repeated the obtuse ascending angle of the footstool, so that the
separate steps, elsewhere with a vertical rise, were here somewhat
inclined. It is not certain whether the absolute pyramidal form was
always intended to be carried out upon the completion of these latter
monuments. The examples of the inclined terraces which have been
preserved rather seem to show that various attempts were made to develop
architecturally upon the exterior the peculiarity of its inner
construction. The arrangement and line of the kernel were more or less
strictly adhered to, so that the last course of facing-stones showed the
original angle of the interior masonry. The increasing of the terraces
by successive courses--coats, as it were--seems to have been generally
continued as long as the reign of a Pharaoh would permit. The layers,
when inclined, were most numerous at the foot of the pyramid, decreasing
in number as they ascend, that the mass might not take the proportions
of a tower. This manner of building is displayed by the section of the
first pyramid of Saccara (_Fig._ 3.), which, if the courses had been
continued in equal number, would have reached a height of at least one
hundred and fifty meters, instead of the 57.91 m. effected by its
terrace-like contractions. The pyramid of Meydoun shows that this
contraction did not necessarily take place in regular and equal steps.
(_Fig. 4._) There the layers were added, without decreasing in number,
to a considerable height, when the structure was quickly completed by
broad and low terraces. Similar to this must have been those pyramids
which ended in a platform and served as the mighty pedestals of colossal
figures, described by Herodotos as existing in Lake Moeris. A remarkable
variation from these forms is finally to be noticed in the stone pyramid
of Dashour. (_Fig._ 5.) Rising at first with steep inclination, 54° 14´,
it changes its slant at half-height to reach, with a smaller angle, 42°
59´, a more rapid conclusion. This artistically unfortunate form seems
to have been owing to a change of plan during the execution of the work;
it was doubtless originally designed to have been finished like the
pyramid of Meydoun. It is hardly necessary to seek the origin of the
double angle in the analogous obtuse termination of Egyptian obelisks.
This pyramid of Dashour is further remarkable on account of its
magnificent revetment of polished Mocattam limestone, which is almost
entirely preserved.

There is as great a difference in the material as in the form of the
pyramids. As early as the third dynasty King Asychis (Asuchra) built a
pyramid of what Herodotos terms Nile mud; that is to say, of sun-dried
bricks. It is not improbable that the great pyramid of Dashour may be
identified with this. Besides this peculiarity of material, it is of
unusual construction, not having been immediately built upon the natural
ground, but standing on a thick layer of sand, which, enclosed by
retaining-walls, forms an excellent foundation.

[Illustration: Fig. 5.--Southern Stone Pyramid of Dashour.]

One of the group of pyramids at Abousere is built of rubble-stones,
quarried from the high plateau of the desert itself, and roughly
cemented with Nile mud. The builder of this irregular masonry held it
the more necessary to insure the ceiling of his grave-chamber with the
greatest care, and three gables of stones, 10.90 m. long and 3.66 m.
thick, provide a resistance as sufficient against the imposed mass as
does the sixfold roofing of the King’s Chamber at Gizeh. (_Fig._ 6.) The
exterior layers were carefully constructed of blocks from the quarries
of Tourah. Immense dikes, forerunners of our modern causeways, led from
these quarries to the buildings at Abousere. Although intended only for
the conveyance of materials, they were yet so firmly built that they
exist at the present time. Egyptian wall-paintings show in the clearest
manner the transportation of colossal monolithic statues along these
ways upon sledges, either moved upon rollers or dragged over an oiled
slide, as in _Fig._ 7. The pyramid of Illahoun, like the northern
pyramid of Dashour and others, is built of brick; its masonry was
additionally strengthened by walls of stone, the thickest being upon the
diagonals of the plan. The pyramid of Meydoun is built of alternate
horizontal courses of variously quarried stone. The following are the
most important pyramids still standing, with their dimensions in meters:

  --------------------------------------+----------+---------+
           Name of Pyramid.             | Original | Present |
                                        | Height.  | Height. |
  --------------------------------------+----------+---------+
  1.  Great pyramid of Gizeh            | 148.21   | 137.34  |
  2.  Second pyramid of Gizeh           | 139.39   | 136.37  |
  3.  Northern stone pyramid of Dashour | 104.39   |  99.49  |
  4.  Southern stone pyramid of Dashour | 103.29   |  97.28  |
  5.  Pyramid of Illahoun               |   ----   |  39.62  |
  6.  Pyramid of Meydoun                |   ----   |  68.40  |
  7.  Northern Pyramid of Lisht         |   ----   |  20.85  |
  8.  Pyramid of Hovara                 |   ----   |  32.31  |
  9.  Northern pyramid of Lisht         |   ----   |  27.31  |
  10. Southern brick pyramid of Dashour |  81.46   |  47.55  |
  11. Great pyramid of Abousere         |  69.39   |  49.99  |
  12. Third pyramid of Gizeh            |  66.83   |  61.87  |
  13. Northern brick pyramid of Dashour |  65.25   |  27.43  |
  14. Great pyramid of Saccara          |  61.06   |  57.91  |
  15. Pyramid of Abou-Roash             |   ----   |  ----   |
  --------------------------------------+----------+---------+

  --------------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
           Name of Pyramid.             | Side of Plan.  | Angle of Ascent.|
                                        |                |                 |
  --------------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+
  1.  Great pyramid of Gizeh            |         232.56 |        51° 52´  |
  2.  Second pyramid of Gizeh           |         215.09 |        52° 21´  |
  3.  Northern stone pyramid of Dashour |         219.28 |        43° 36´  |
  4.  Southern stone pyramid of Dashour |         187.93 | {above 54° 14´  |
                                        |                | {below 42° 59´  |
  5.  Pyramid of Illahoun               |    now, 170.69 |          ----   |
  6.  Pyramid of Meydoun                |    now, 161.54 |        74° 10´  |
  7.  Northern Pyramid of Lisht         |    now, 137.16 |          ----   |
  8.  Pyramid of Hovara                 |         116.92 |          ----   |
  9.  Northern pyramid of Lisht         |    now, 109.73 |          ----   |
  10. Southern brick pyramid of Dashour |         104.39 |        57° 20´  |
  11. Great pyramid of Abousere         |         109.60 |        51° 42´  |
  12. Third pyramid of Gizeh            |          77.04 |        51° 10´  |
  13. Northern brick pyramid of Dashour |         104.34 |        51° 20´  |
  14. Great pyramid of Saccara          | E. × W. 120.02 |        73° 30´  |
                                        | N. × S. 107.01 |                 |
  15. Pyramid of Abou-Roash             |         104.39 |          ----   |
  --------------------------------------+----------------+-----------------+

The Nubian pyramids on Mount Barkal and in Meroe, far more numerous than
those of Lower Egypt, have lost much of their interest since
investigations have shown that the civilization of Egypt and the
prototypes of monumental art did not descend from Nubia, as was at first
supposed, but arose in the delta and advanced up the stream.
Inscriptions prove these pyramids to be some three thousand years
younger than those of Memphis, dating them at as recent an epoch as the
beginning of the Christian era. They are generally grouped in an
extended necropolis, and differ from those of the ancient kingdom by a
steeper angle of elevation, by a roundel-moulding upon the angles, and,
above all, by much smaller dimensions.

Though the truncated pyramidal form, as has been seen in a number of
tombs at Gizeh, was not excluded from the funeral architecture of
Egyptian subjects, it was never general. Rock-cut tombs were much more
customary. The upright cliffs which border the banks of the Nile led
naturally to such a formation, and in their sides are excavated caverns
of very different dimensions, from the prevalent small, square chambers,
with a narrow entrance high above the level of the valley, to the most
extended series of rooms. These tombs were commonly decorated by mural
paintings alone, but occasionally by carved architectural details, which
always represent a wooden sheathing of slats or lattice-work. The larger
chambers, even of the most primitive period, have the roof supported by
square piers.

[Illustration: Fig. 6.--Section of the Middle Pyramid of Abousere.]

It is from these piers that the Egyptian columns seem to have
originated, dividing from the outset into two classes and developing in
different directions.

One class of columns arose from chamfering the corners of the square
pier, this support being thus transformed into an eight-sided, and, when
the proceeding was repeated, to a sixteen-sided, shaft. The first phase
of change, with its octagonal plan, was simple and advantageous--a
predominance of vertical line was secured to the support, as well as
greater room and ease of passage to the chamber. The second, the
sixteen-sided figure, offered but few new advantages; on the contrary,
the play of light and shade between the sixteen sides and angles was
lost in proportion as the edges became more obtuse and less visible. As
the sleek rotundity of an absolutely cylindrical shaft was not
desirable, the blunt angles of the sixteen-sided prism, of rather coarse
stone, were emphasized to avoid the disagreeable uncertainty which is
felt when the plan is undecided between a polygon and a circle. This was
effected by channelling the sides, making the arris more prominent and
giving a more lively variation of vertical light and shade. The pier
thus maintained, in some degree, its prismatic character while
approaching the cylinder, and the channelled column arose.

[Illustration: Fig. 7.--Transport of a Colossus. Egyptian
Wall-painting.]

[Illustration: Fig. 8.--Section and Plan of the Northernmost Rock-cut
Tomb at Beni-hassan.]

Rock-cut tombs of the twelfth dynasty (2380-2167 B.C., according to
Lepsius) situated at Beni-hassan, and part of the necropolis of the
ancient Nus, a city early destroyed, show the polygonal pier in the two
phases of eight and sixteen sided plan. The most northern of these has
the octagonal unchannelled pier in the vestibule, and the sixteen-sided
channelled column within. Only fifteen channels are executed on the
latter, the sixteenth side being left plane for the reception of a
painted row of hieroglyphics. Both exterior and interior shafts have a
base like a large flat millstone, which projects far beyond the lower
diameter of the column, its edge being bevelled inward. A square abacus
plinth is the only medium between shaft and ceiling, the two columns of
the vestibule lacking even this. A full entablature did not exist in the
interior, as a representative of the outer edge of roof and ceiling
there would naturally have been out of place. The northernmost tomb has
no distinct entablature carved upon the exterior; but its neighbor
(_Fig._ 9.) shows, cut from the solid rock, a massive horizontal
epistyle above the columns, and upon this the projecting edge of the
ceiling, which appears to consist of squarely hewn joists. Lattice-work
was found represented upon the stone sarcophagus of Mykerinos. Here the
model of a wooden ceiling is truthfully imitated upon the rock. As, in
the flat coverings of rainless Egypt, roof and ceiling appear one and
the same, this entablature has but two members--epistyle and cornice;
while the frieze, in Greek architecture the representative of a
horizontal ceiling beneath the inclined roof, does not here exist.

This order of architecture, called, because of the similarity of the
shaft, the Proto-Doric, was predominant in the ancient kingdom. But at
least as early as the twelfth dynasty another class of columns was in
use which had been developed in an entirely different manner. The
Proto-Doric columns originated from the mathematical duplication of the
prismatic sides and angles of the square pier; these second made the
same pier their model, but followed its painted ornament, not its
architectural form. The primitive designer enriched his work with
flowers, striving to preserve the quickly fading natural decoration by
an imperishable imitation. Many of the bands of ornament customary in
antiquity may be considered as rows or wreaths of leaves and flowers,
although often they do not betray their derivation at first sight,
because of the original imperfect representation of nature, the
subsequent strict conventionalization, and final degeneracy into
formalism.

[Illustration: Fig. 9.--Second Rock-cut Tomb at Beni-hassan.]

In Egypt, ornamental adaptations of the lotos-flowers of the Nile appear
at first in long, frieze-like rows, the blossoms being bound together by
the stems in much the same arrangement as similar decorations in
Assyria, or the better conventionalized anthemion friezes in Greece.
When this horizontal ornament was transferred to the narrow vertical
sides of a pier, it was necessary to place the flowers closely together,
to lengthen the curled stems and bind them; in short, to form of the
wreaths, which had answered for the narrow band, a bouquet better
corresponding to the tall, upright space to be filled.

Such a bunch of long-stemmed lotos-buds is shown upon the pillars of the
tombs near Sauiet-el-Meytin (_Fig._ 10.), which, certainly of the
ancient kingdom, were probably of the sixth dynasty. This bouquet may
have been as customary an ornament for the pier as the garlands of
lotos-flowers were for the frieze.

The history of architectural decoration shows that the stone-cutter’s
chisel everywhere followed in the footsteps of color. The four sides of
the pier bore the same painted flowers; if these were to be sculptured,
nothing could be more natural than to carry them from four-sided relief
into the full round, where they offered the same face to all points of
view, and transformed the painted pier into a column formed like a bunch
of lotos-blossoms. This development must have taken place early in the
ancient kingdom, for we find the floral column in the same tombs of the
twelfth dynasty at Beni-hassan which show the so-called Proto-Doric
shaft in its various phases. Form and color so work together in the
floral column as to leave no doubt of the fundamental idea having been
the bunch of lotos-buds painted upon the sides of the pier. Four stems
of rounded profile are engaged, rising from a flat base similar to that
of the polygonal column. They are tied together under the buds by
fivefold ribbons of different colors. Above these the lotos-flowers
spread from the stems, showing between their green leaves the opening
buds in narrow slits of white. The flowers of the painted bouquet
(_Fig._ 10.) are spread apart; but in the sculptured column they are
necessarily united, forming the capital. Even the little blossoms with
short stems, represented upon the painting of Sauiet-el-Meytin, are not
neglected, although the calyx itself has become much smaller, owing to
technical reasons of the execution.

[Illustration: Fig. 10.--Pier Decoration from the Tombs of
Sauiet-el-Meytin.]

Beni-hassan proves that the two orders, the channelled polygonal shaft
and the lotos-column (_Fig._ 11.), had been developed as early as the
twelfth dynasty; but as columnar architecture was not general in the
ancient kingdom, the examples preserved are isolated. The little temple
of that age discovered by Mariette Bey near the great sphinx of Gizeh
shows no trace of columns, their place being supplied by monolithic
piers. The period between the twenty-second and the sixteenth century
B.C., during which the Nile-land was occupied by the nomadic Hycsos, the
shepherd kings, enemies to all civilization, was not favorable to the
further application and development of architectural genius. The columns
do not again appear until the advent of the new Theban kingdom with the
eighteenth dynasty (1591 B.C., according to Lepsius), when they were
extensively employed, especially in temples. It was then that the
typical forms of the orders were determined. The Proto-Doric, the
channelled polygonal column of the tombs at Beni-hassan, fell into
disuse. Its simplicity suited neither the desire for richness of form,
peculiar to the later Egyptians, nor the delight in polychromatic
ornament, which found only one unchannelled strip at its disposal.

[Illustration: Fig. 11.--Lotos-column of Beni-hassan.]

The polygonal shaft received, in certain measure, a new lease of life by
the invention of a necessary part, a capital in place of the meagre
abacus plinth which had formerly been the insufficient medium of
transition between the upright support and the horizontal entablature.
The vegetable prototype was deserted, and a female head, or rather a
fourfold mask about a cubical kernel, crowned the shaft, being
surmounted by an ornament somewhat resembling a chapel. The column
thereby became similar to a Hermes, or to a caryatid figure of Janus
Quadrifrons, as it were. (_Fig._ 12.) But the representation of the
deity Athor had only a limited application, and seems to have prevented
the column from being generally employed.

A far wider field was opened to the floral column, which in its
architectural and ornamental development was removed further and further
from its original model. The changes were brought about in two ways, the
most direct alterations being effected by the sculptor. The four buds
and stems of the lotos-columns of Beni-hassan were increased to eight;
the latter changed their round cylinders to angular prisms, thus giving
up much of the vegetable character. The former straight and stiff shaft,
rising directly from the base, was curved near the bottom by a short
swelling, which suddenly increased the diameter. This entasis was
surrounded by a row of leaves, again characterizing the ascending bundle
as stems. Leaves were also added at the foot of the buds, these being
out of place and impairing the consequential development expressed in
the column of Beni-hassan, though corresponding well enough with the
treatment adopted for the similar enlargement at the foot of the shaft.
The four little flowers, which were tied in by the bands of the
Beni-hassan column, naturally became eight in number with the
duplication of the stems and blossoms. They were before much diminished
in size, but here became an entirely unorganic, rectangular ornament.
The binding ribbons of the neck retained their original variegated
colors; but the painting of the capital itself put aside every likeness
to the natural colors of the flower. (_Fig_. 13 _a_.)

[Illustration: Fig. 12.--Column from Sedinga.]

An entirely picturesque transformation also affected the lotos-column,
and led to the second phase of its development. The stone shaft was cut
cylindrically, the memberings being omitted and all reminiscences of
stem and bud being abandoned. The wreaths of leaves remained at the
lower end of the shaft and of the capital, as did also the binding
ribbons with the little flowers, which were still more broadened and
distorted. The rest of the column gave space for painted, or rather
coilanaglyphic, representations of devotional acts, for the cartouches
of the kings and for hieroglyphic inscriptions (_Fig_. 13 _b_.) The
capital, which had before consisted of four and of eight buds, became
consolidated to a single one; the binding ribbon of the neck was
retained without a function. It was the more natural to open the single
bud to the calyx of a flower, a graceful and satisfactory solution of
the problem which retained its sway henceforth in Egypt much as the
Corinthian capital, so nearly related in form to this Egyptian calyx,
predominated over other Roman varieties. The shaft and the ribbons
remained, as in the painted column of the Memnonium. (_Fig._ 13 _b._) So
also did the row of leaves at the base of the capital; the little
flowers were entirely omitted, and the upper part of the calyx was
thickly covered with royal seals painted between upright ornaments, so
small that their line does not affect the composition of the whole.
(_Fig._ 14.) A discord resulted from the retention of the abacus plinth
of the former bud capital in its original proportions, a defect which in
some degree defeated the æsthetic advantages of the boldly projecting
calyx as a medium between the vertical support and the horizontal mass
above it.

[Illustration: Fig. 13.--Lotos-columns from Thebes.

_a._ Sculptured Column from the Great Temple at Carnac.

_b._ Painted Column from the Memnonium of Ramses II.]

The calyx capital attained no typical and established form in Egyptian
architecture, even as the Corinthian capital received no formal
development in the Hellenic art which originated it. The decoration of
the calyx continued to offer a wide field for the inventive talent of
the Egyptian architect, which was here employed with most fortunate
results. The ruined buildings, especially of later periods, show
hundreds of different capitals, from the simplest upright forms of the
papyrus to elaborately turned and rolled leaves; these floral ornaments
being almost always composed and conventionalized with admirable taste.

A decided advance was made by separating the upper edge of the calyx,
with notches, into four large petals, although the decoration did not
have sufficient influence to affect the column as a whole. The most
satisfactory among the varieties of the floral column, and that most
thoroughly carried out, was certainly the palm; the capital of which
was characterized as a crown of leaves, and the shaft, by an imitation
of the bark, as a palm-stem. The tall leaves rendered a greater height
of the palm capital necessary; thus increased, it most closely
approached the Corinthian in beauty of outline. The division of the
great calyx into eight lobes was another result of this decoration. As
the palm capital was frequently placed among others, especially by the
Egyptians of later periods, it naturally had the effect upon the
varieties to be brought into harmony with it of lowering the necking of
their shafts in the same measure as had been necessary for itself.
(_Fig._ 15.)

The slender proportions prevalent during the time of the Ptolemies
caused the abacus plinth upon the calyx to be heightened to a cube, and
even increased to twice the height of the capital itself, in which case
it was ornamented by the heads of Athor and Typhon, or by the entire
dwarfed figure of the latter. In rare cases, piers take the place of
columns in the temple courts, and are masked by statues of Osiris or of
Typhon. (_Fig._ 16.) These figures have of themselves no constructive
function as supports, and are not to be classed with the caryatides and
telamones of Greece.

[Illustration: Fig. 14.--Calyx Capital from Carnac.]

The great variety of form in the column and capital is not shared by the
entablature. This consists, as seen at the tombs of Beni-hassan, of two
members. The lower stretches from pier to pier, or from column to
column, as a connecting epistyle. The upper, representing the horizontal
ceiling, reposes thereupon, and is crowned by the universal
cornice-moulding--a boldly projecting Egyptian scotia. Between these two
members there is a continuous roundlet, often characterized, by its
ornament of an encircling ribbon, as a bundle of reeds. The cornice is
sometimes marked by rows of reed-leaves bent forward at the top, the
epistyle covered with hieroglyphics. In later times, the decoration of
the entablature became more florid, repetitions of the uræos serpent
appearing as a cornice ornament.

The columns of the new kingdom had, meanwhile, been given up in the
rock-cut tombs, where they first occurred. Yet the cavern sepulchres
themselves remained so much in vogue that they even served the kings of
the Theban dynasties in place of pyramids. Their tendency was rather to
burrow deeply into the cliff than to create large sepulchral chambers,
where the support of columns would have been necessary. The principal
intention of the excavators--to make the royal burial-place as
inaccessible as possible--was adverse to any monumental development of
the interior. The decoration was restricted to paintings upon the long
and repeatedly closed corridors, and sufficed only to rank these above
the bare channels of the pyramids. The formation of the earth on the
border of the desert offered no ground for the exterior architectural
treatment of these graves, and a simple portal is generally all that
designates the entrance to the shafts which were the sepulchres of the
Theban dynasties. The plan of that at Biban-el-Moluc is given in _Fig._
17.

[Illustration: Fig. 15.--Capitals from Edfou.]

The temples of the new kingdom with their numerous halls and courts
offered, on the other hand, most ample scope for the application of
columnar architecture. These extended series of strangely enclosed
rooms and courts, though richly decorated with paintings, would have
seemed bare within and without if the column had not entered into their
composition, and if the building had not been expanded and ornamented by
its help. With the floral orders, the temple interior became an
architectural organism truly deserving of study and admiration.

With exception of that portion of the structure which stood before the
chief portal, and cannot be considered as an integral part of the
building, every Egyptian temple was divided into three principal parts,
contained within an oblong enclosure: namely, the court, the hall of
columns, and the holy of holies--a series of cellas. (_Fig._ 18.) Long
rows of sphinxes generally stand facing the avenue which leads to the
entrance of the temple, and prepare for the sacred silence within. The
doorway is flanked by two enormous towers, so-called pylons, formed like
steep truncated pyramids. The walls of these masses of masonry,
ornamented with coilanaglyphic paintings, show slots upon the front for
the reception of the high flag-poles which are represented upon
contemporary wall-decorations. The towers are crowned with the scotia
cornice, the roundlet of which is continued down the angles. Within they
are pierced by stairways and small chambers, scantily lighted by narrow
slits in the wall. It is probable that the summits of these pylons,
without doubt the highest standpoints in the valley of the Nile, served
as observatories for the Egyptian astronomers and astrologers; a
practical use was thus added to the original purpose of monumental
decorative gate-ways. Two or four colossal sitting figures were
generally placed before the pylons, and sometimes also two obelisks,
bearing the dedicatory inscriptions of the temple.

[Illustration: Fig. 16.--Osiris Pier.]

The obelisks are among the most curious and characteristic structures of
Egypt. They are very comparable to the pyramids, and perhaps may even
be regarded as small pyramids placed as an apex upon a tall shaft. Few
deviate from this type; one of the obelisks of Carnac, crowned by a
profile like a pointed arch, and the obelisk of Medinet-el-Fayoum with
rounded end, are exceptions. The obelisks are monolithic. In
consideration of the difficulty of procuring so large a block from the
granite quarries, of transporting its enormous weight and erecting its
tall mass, this peculiarity added greatly to the imposing effect of the
monument. The delight of the later Roman emperors in the possession of
obelisks caused many of these to be transported to Rome, where they
still form prominent ornaments of the city. Most of those remaining in
Egypt lie overthrown, and often deeply buried under the accumulating
earth of centuries. The two before the Temple of Luxor were both erect
until 1831, in which year one of them was removed to the Place de la
Concorde in Paris. The removal during 1877-78 of an obelisk, and its
erection in London, show what difficulties must have attended the
quarrying, carving, transport, and elevation of these gigantic monuments
in primitive times.[C]

[Illustration: Fig. 17.--Royal Grave near Thebes.]

The chief portal of the temple, flanked by the two pylons, opens upon
the great peristyle court. The colonnades are upon two or three of its
sides, seldom towards the entrance. In the most elaborate instances, as
the Temple of Luxor, the court is bordered with double rows of
supports--columns alternating with piers--before which stand the
above-mentioned figures of Osiris. Sometimes this peristyle court is
duplicated, as in the great Memnonium of Ramses II. and the temples of
Medinet-Abou and Luxor, the two spaces being separated either by smaller
second pylons (Medinet-Abou), by a simple wall pierced by a gate
(Memnonium), or by a narrow colonnade between them (Luxor). In such
cases the architectural treatment of the courts differs, the second
usually being more richly provided with columns and piers than the
first. Smaller temples are often so built against these courts that they
can be entered only from within them (_Fig._ 20.), while they project,
with the greater part of their plan, beyond the chief enclosure.

[Illustration: Fig. 18.--Southern Temple of Carnac.]

[Illustration: Fig. 19.--Temple of Edfou.]

The second chief division of the building--the hall of columns, the
hypostyle--is entered from the court, either directly or through new
pylons. This space, generally not so deep as the outer peristyle, is
entirely covered, the stone ceiling being upheld by close-standing
columns, the number of which varies greatly according to the dimensions
of the building. In the southern Temple of Carnac, the plan of which
(_Fig._ 18.) may be regarded as typical of the usual Egyptian
arrangement, eight columns are sufficient, while the dimensions of the
hypostyle hall of Medinet-Abou render twenty-four necessary--a number
increased to thirty-two in Luxor, forty-eight in the Memnonium of Ramses
II., and to a maximum of one hundred and thirty-four in the Great Temple
of Carnac. Smaller halls may have received their light through the
portal. The upper half of the intercolumniations of the court colonnades
was also occasionally left open, as shown by _Fig._ 19.; but, with the
enormous dimensions of the hypostyle and the close ranges of shafts so
frequent, a more perfect system of illumination was necessary. The light
of day was procured for the hall by an eminently satisfactory
arrangement, which gives the key to the true manner of lighting any
enclosed space from above--the clerestory--so effectively developed in
later ages. The two rows of columns nearest the longitudinal axis were
made half as high again as their neighbors, thus lifting their
entablature and ceiling well above that of the remaining space. These
two ceilings on different levels were connected by piers placed upon the
next range of shorter columns, which supported the edge of the higher
covering. The light entered between these piers, their openings being
but little impeded by stone tracery. The central aisle was thus
brilliantly lighted, and, under the cloudless sky, rays and reflections
could find their way into the most remote corners of the forest of
columns. As shown by _Fig._ 21., the larger central columns were
distinguished by the broad-spreading calyx capital from the others,
which retained the simpler forms of the folded bud. The effect of such a
hall, especially of the great hypostyle of Carnac, must have been
magnificently rich and imposing. The dimensions of the chief columns
were in this instance gigantic. They were 22.86 m. high. Their calyx
capitals were 6.10 m. in diameter, the epistyle beams 6.70 by 1.83 by
1.22 m. The entire hall was 91.44 m. in length. Walls and columns were
thickly covered with carved and painted decorations, which were kept
well subordinated to the grand forms of the architecture, and were so
blended by the varying light and shade that a rich and sober effect was
produced by the somewhat gaudy colors.

[Illustration: Fig. 20.--Great Temple of Carnac.]

One example, the Temple of Soleb, shows this second division of the
building also repeated: that such a duplication was less common than
that of the courts is explained by the far greater requirements of its
construction. The last of the three chief temple divisions was reached
from the hypostyle hall, either by a simple gateway or by a third pylon
portal. The Egyptian priests performed their mystic rites and guarded
the sacred animals in a series of chambers, the innermost of which--the
real temple cella--was exceedingly small in proportion to the entire
building, being sometimes even cut from a single stone.

As the temple served the priesthood for a dwelling, a cloister-like
arrangement of this third space was necessary. The long-accepted
supposition that even the royal palaces were included in the temple
enclosure has recently been questioned, although the hieratic character
of the monarchy, and the strict religious ritual by which the life of
the king in his function of high-priest was governed, even to the
smallest particulars, would render this of itself not improbable. The
plan of the Great Temple of Carnac shows the dwelling of the priests,
with its halls and smaller rooms, separated by a court from the places
of worship.

[Illustration: Fig. 21.--Section of the Hypostyle Hall, Great Temple of
Carnac.]

[Illustration: Fig. 22.--Chapel upon the Platform of the Temple of
Dendera.]

Magnificently as the temple architecture of the Egyptians had developed
since the eighteenth dynasty, its advance had mainly affected the
interior. The temples of every other people were built with more or less
reference to an imposing exterior effect, but those of Egypt generally
remained the fortress-like enclosures which had become typical in the
earliest ages of the land’s history. The peripteral plan, indeed, occurs
in several small cellas of the ancient kingdom, but it was exceptional,
and did not arrive at any systematic development. It has been seen that
Egyptian architecture, though it chanced upon the channelled shaft of
the Proto-Doric column, was apparently unable to utilize this motive,
the great importance of which was not recognized in the land of the
Nile. The peripteral temple plan is a similar advance, which, not fitted
for the requirements and tendencies of Egyptian architecture, lay
dormant for centuries. The unbroken fortress-like walls of the temple
were not pierced and resolved into the surrounding pteroma until the
sceptre of Egypt had been swayed during three centuries by the
semi-Hellenic Ptolemies. These rulers, warned by the example of
Cambyses, were wise enough not to interfere with their Egyptian subjects
in their most sensitive point of religious conceptions, rendered sacred
by the traditions of thousands of years. But they did not hesitate to
reintroduce into the land the exterior splendor of the peripteral plan,
by that time so fully developed in Greece. The free and cheerful
religious rites of the Greeks, performed before the temple, and not
within it, agreed, as did the natural character of the people, with the
peripteral temple, which was opened outwardly by its pteroma. It was
otherwise with the mysterious and sombre precision of the Egyptian
ritual, which demanded absolute seclusion. Though the peripteral temple
plan was in some measure brought into vogue by the Ptolemies, it was, in
Egypt, deprived of its chief characteristic--the freely opened
intercolumniation. The Romans, in their desire similarly to combine
columnar architecture with entire enclosure, merely decorated exterior
walls with engaged shafts and pilasters, giving up the columns as
supporting members of independent function, and using them only as a
suggestive ornament. This merely decorative treatment, rare in Greece,
was not adopted in Egypt until the latest times. The Egyptian preferred
to place a screen-like wall, half the height of the columns, in each
opening; this hid all the interior from view, even when the building was
of small dimensions, as in _Fig._ 22., and permitted the access of light
and air through the upper half of the intercolumniation. The one used as
an entrance was also closed by a door-frame of greater height than the
side screens. Upon the corners of the peripteral building inclined piers
were often retained, as a reminiscence of the original enclosure wall as
well as for greater constructional security. This is shown by the Temple
of Philæ. (_Fig._ 23.) That the arrangement of outstanding columns did
not entirely supplant the closed surrounding walls is evident from the
same plan, where both methods occur side by side in a group of buildings
of the same date.

[Illustration: Fig. 23.--Temple of Philæ.]

There were parts of the narrow valley of the Nile where the cliffs of
the desert so advanced upon the river as to leave absolutely no room for
the erection of temples occupying so much ground. The inhabitants here
had recourse to grotto temples; that is to say, they transferred the
principal rooms of the sanctuary to an excavation in the cliff. When the
space between rock and stream permitted it, the courts and pylons were
built, and only the hypostyle hall and the holy of holies, reduced to
the minimum necessary for the performance of the rites, were cut from
the rock. This is the case in El-Cab, Redesie, Silsilis, and Girsheh.
The last of these, the largest, had a court with Osiris piers upon the
sides and with four columns upon the front, which seems never to have
been flanked by pylons. Its largest excavated space, apparently
corresponding to a second court, is also decorated upon the longer
sides with Osiris piers. Thereupon follows a narrow hall, which but
inadequately represents the hypostyle; and, finally, as the holy of
holies, a small chamber with an altar.

[Illustration: Fig. 24.--Façade of the Rock-cut Temple of Abou-Simbel.]

Far more important than these are the grotto temples of Abou-Simbel, in
the vicinity of the second cataract, where the portals are also cut
wholly from the rock. The larger of the two even attempts to approach,
as well as is possible, the enormous pylons of the great Theban temples.
(_Fig._ 24.) To this end the gentle inclination of the cliff was cut
away to the talus angle of the Egyptian walls and pylons, and the
cornice above, of roundlet and scotia, was worked from the rock. Four
such colossal sitting figures, as are often placed before the pylons,
were also cut from the cliff--an effective ornament and an economy of
labor thus being secured. The representation of the portal between two
pylons was given up; the whole front formed one wall in which the
entrance-door was cut without further decoration. The empty space above
the opening was filled by a high-relief, carved within an oblong niche.
(_Fig._ 24.) The entrance, which has now been cleared of the sand, leads
in natural order to a space corresponding to the court of the
free-standing temples; it is somewhat similar to that of Girsheh, which
was also erected by Ramses II., though more imposing and of better
proportions. (_Fig._ 25.) A following room, the ceiling of which is
supported by four piers, suggests the temple hypostyle, here much
dwindled in extent from the difficulty of its excavation as well as from
the general restriction of this space in Nubian monuments compared with
those of Central Egypt. The innermost chambers of the holy of holies are
not only as small as those of the free-standing temples, but are reduced
in number.

[Illustration: Fig. 25.--Hall of the Rock-cut Temple of Abou-Simbel.]

The second rock-cut temple of Abou-Simbel, situated near the one
described, is of smaller dimensions. It has upright colossal statues
upon the front, which, instead of being cut in the round, have more the
effect of reliefs from the fact that they stand in niches, a difference
arising from the greater steepness of the cliff at this point. The
treatment appears rational in consideration of the smaller amount of
material thereby removed, though the unmonumental effect of the reliefs,
which lean with the inclination of the wall, is an unfortunate result of
this economy. The first hall, analogous to the temple court, has its
ceiling supported by six piers, which are decorated upon the side
towards the central aisle by Athor masks. Three entrances lead from this
hall into a narrow space, here entirely at variance with the character
of a hypostyle, and through this into the holy of holies.
Notwithstanding the contraction of the two inner departments, the three
principal divisions of the free-standing buildings can be recognized in
all rock-cut temples.

[Illustration: Fig. 26.--Interior of a House. Egyptian Wall-painting.]

The existing ruins allow a comparatively clear understanding of the
religious architecture of Egypt, in which class the monumental tombs
must be reckoned as well as the various forms of temples; but we are
left almost entirely uninstructed as to the nature of the private
dwellings. The plan of the cloisters within the great temple of Carnac
(compare _Fig._ 20.) is indeed clear, though, being only a portion of a
larger scheme, it had no individual or exterior expression. The manner
in which these spaces were roofed and lighted is not evident.

The so-called royal pavilion of Medinet-Abou is a complete puzzle in its
development of plan and assumed connection with other structures; it can
only be held to prove that some private buildings were of several
stories. Other peculiarities here noticeable are windows framed by
lintels and jambs of enormous blocks, and rounded battlements above a
projecting cornice.

Egyptian sculptures and wall-paintings often represent the interiors of
well-to-do private houses and of palaces; they show the plans of
dwellings and adjoining vegetable-gardens so well that the very products
of the latter can be distinguished; but, though these plans designate
the separate rooms and their entrances, it is still impossible to
comprehend the general arrangement of a normal house, or its exterior
appearance. The views of the interiors, with their slim columns and
narrow entablatures, with a system of perspective which shows things
above one another instead of behind one another, with their evident
misrepresentations and constructive impossibilities, must have stood in
very much the same relation to the Egyptian reality as the fictitious
architecture of the Pompeian wall-decorations does to the buildings of
the Greeks and Romans. The architectural details introduced by the
painter served only as a frame for the figures or for the contents of
the store-rooms which he represented.

It may be concluded that, when private dwellings were more pretentious
than the single room necessary to provide the most imperative shelter,
columns were not excluded from them; and, from the absence of any
remains of these supports, it is probable they were of wood. The ruins
and rubbish of sun-dried bricks, which compose the overthrown cities
hitherto excavated, show that the great majority of dwellings were no
more than low hovels.

Even palaces seldom went beyond a series of small chambers, and thus did
not present an important architectural problem. This is illustrated by
the gigantic labyrinth, famed in so many fables of antiquity, and
somewhat known by the excavations of Lepsius in the Fayoum. (_Fig._ 27.)
A great number of small chambers are here grouped in three rectangular
wings around an oblong space, which was probably divided into several
courts. The walls remaining do not show that geometrical regularity of
arrangement described by Herodotos, Strabo, Diodoros, and Pliny, but a
really labyrinthic aggregate of small chambers, the destination of which
is not clear. The pyramid which closes the fourth side of the square is
alone of monumental importance. It seems possible that, instead of one
or more palaces, we have here the remains of some city. It is certainly
wrong to connect the work with the Dodecarchia (twenty-sixth dynasty,
685 to 525 B.C.): the twelve pretenders would hardly have united to
erect a common monument. In the list of Manetho, Amenophis III., the
sixth king of the twelfth dynasty, is mentioned as the founder, a notice
corroborated by inscriptions discovered on the site.

[Illustration: Fig. 27.--Labyrinth of the Fayoum.]

That the private buildings were so unimportant in comparison with the
religious architecture of Egypt is explained by the excessive
subjugation of the people to a monastic ritual, and by the favorable
character of the Egyptian climate. It is necessity that prompts
invention, and Egypt, with its ever-cloudless sky and constant
temperature, required no protection against the inclemency of the
weather; the climate did not force man to spend his days within doors,
nor did it destroy the lightest shelter. In the absence of rain, the
most primitive horizontal ceiling was sufficient. According to the
religious conceptions of the Egyptian, it was more important for him to
prepare a permanent house for his death-sleep--he had more at heart the
protection of his corpse than of his living body. Thus thousands of
graves have been preserved, while science cannot find a single dwelling
remaining to betray even the general character of Egyptian domestic
architecture. To these considerations it must be added that the
dwellings stood in the valley of the Nile, and have been subjected to
annual inundations which have formed a considerable alluvial deposit,
while the graves were almost without exception situated upon the
changeless cliffs that border on the desert.

       *       *       *       *       *

The architecture of Egypt was practised in a manner to show almost no
historical development--with the sculpture this is the case in still
greater degree. The most ancient carved remains, which with reasonable
security may be assigned to the fifth dynasty, show the formal system,
retained during the subsequent twenty centuries, as already perfected.
Even at that early date the network of lines, which the Egyptian
sculptors (more as mechanics than as artists) followed down to the time
of the Ptolemies, was already calculated and introduced as a canon.

Besides figures of the gods, the sculpture of Egypt is rich in the
images of kings, queens, and prominent subjects; and in such portraits
the observation of the living model, of the peculiarities of character
which lead to the differences of exterior appearance, would seem to be a
natural consequence. But as the individual disappeared in the mass of
the Egyptian people, so the appreciation of individuality was almost
wholly lacking in the Egyptian artist. Sculptors and painters worked
without the least desire for pre-eminence in ability and distinction,
without thought of perpetuating their names, and the work they produced
expressed these faults. As Brunn truly remarks, we can look upon whole
rows of Egyptian sculptures without a question ever arising in our minds
as to the authorship of this or that work, without observing that one is
superior to the others, or that any were much above manufactures. The
work became what the artist felt himself personally to be--a mere link
in a monotonous chain. The result of this is that the statues generally
represent an entirely abstract human being--not an absolute ideal, for
that can hardly be said to exist in any art, but a type of the Egyptian
race, well understood and unalterably repeated. As soon as the art had
to a certain degree mastered the normal appearance of the human body, it
contented itself therewith and came to a standstill. The peculiarities
in the living model or in the attributed characters of the deities were
rarely considered by the artist, who only distinguished by attributes
what should be otherwise expressed; he did not attempt to show the
effect of the mind upon the outer being, and thus to give to sculpture
its true importance.

[Illustration: Egyptian Profile. Fig. 28. Greek Profile.]

The description of single Egyptian works is consequently almost the same
as the consideration of the entire sculpture and painting of the
land--the more so as the artist not only employed generally one and the
same conventional figure, but in position and movement mainly alternated
between two types. The statues are, with a few exceptions, either
sitting or in an act between standing and stepping, which does not
appear to be an advance, because the feet are too near together; both
soles being flat upon the ground, the centre of gravity falls between
the two legs, almost more upon the one behind than upon the one before.
A figure seems to move only when the body, advanced before the centre of
its two supports, throws the greatest part of its weight upon the
forward leg, and thus relieves the hinder foot, which, with uplifted
heel, touches the ground with the toes, in readiness to be removed. Both
sitting and standing statues have the arms pressed closely to the
body--the former with bent elbows and hands resting flat upon the knees,
the latter with arms hanging straightly and stiffly, the hands holding
the so-called Nile key; or folded upon the breast, the hands grasping
attributes, crook and plough or whip. Individual action is in every case
excluded. If the formation of the body be more closely examined, the
following peculiarities are remarkable: The head, as the comparison of
it with a Greek type at _Fig._ 28. shows, deviates so greatly from the
normal oval that it could almost be drawn within a square, the principal
line of the face being about parallel to the back of the head, as is the
flat outline of the top of the skull to the line from the chin to the
neck. The general directions of the eye, the mouth, and the ear are not
perpendicular to the sides of the parallelogram, inclining too markedly
upward; the comparatively large ear is placed half as high again from
the throat as it should be. These deviations are in some measure
explained by the peculiarities of race characteristic of the Orientals,
and especially of the Egyptians--by the different formation of the skull
and position of the eye. The forehead is almost straight, being on a
line with the upper lip; and, as it recedes from the nose, does not
project at all. It is rendered still more unimportant by the curved
ridge of the brows lacking decision, and the eye itself wanting in
depth. The eye has remained in the rough condition of a primitive
imitation of nature--thick strips surround it in place of lids, and
continue, the upper overlapping the under, beyond its exterior angle
towards the ear. The gently curved, round, broad nose projects but
little over the upper lip, which, instead of preparing the close of the
oval towards the chin, is pushed forward like the lower lip, upward and
outward. The closed, sensually broad lips are sharply outlined. The
corners of the mouth, slightly drawn upward, give, with the similar
inclination of the angles of the eyes, a certain expression of smiling
sarcasm not intended by the designer, and consequently cold and stiff.
The chin is flat and pointed in profile, the line from it to the short
and thin neck almost straight.

Such is the type that was retained through thousands of years, so
unchangeably that even the sexes are scarcely to be distinguished by the
heads. Male figures often have a kind of chin beard, cut at right
angles, and bound on with ribbons which can sometimes be distinctly
traced. The heads, and through them the whole figures, are characterized
by head-dresses, referable to one fundamental form--the pshent, a high
cap like a tiara; but they have been so modified from their prototype
that the _Description de l’Égypte_, pl. 115, shows thirty distinct
varieties.

[Illustration: Fig. 29.--Husband and Wife. (Munich Glyptothek.)]

The deities are frequently recognizable by the heads of animals--of a
lion, ram, cow, ape, jackal, crocodile, hawk, or ibis, as the case may
be. The worship of nature, peculiar to Egypt, found a better expression
in these symbols than in the monotonous representations of man, in
marked contrast to the incorporation of Hellenic myths, where, in the
monstrous conjunction of human and animal forms, the human head was
rarely given up, it being more generally placed upon the body of an
animal.

The figure, as accepted by the Egyptian designer, was, to the smallest
details, drawn according to a network of lines. Diodorus states it to
have had 21¼ units in height, the unit being probably the length of the
nose. The shoulders are drawn upward, and, like the flat breast, are
broad; the hips, on the contrary, are narrow and weakly modelled: they
are girded with a cloth which appears carefully folded and adjusted,
but, with all its tightness, does not fit the forms of the body. When
upon sitting figures, this cloth often stands out as stiffly and
straightly as if carved of wood, giving no indication of the true nature
of its material. The lean arms are muscular, dry, and hard; the hands
are rendered clumsy by the equally thick and almost equally long
fingers. The legs are not powerful, and rather slim, indicating great
elasticity, and, like all other parts of the body, the ability to endure
great exertion. The knees are sharp and drawn with anatomical
understanding; the feet are narrow and long, as are also the toes,
which, lying in their entire length upon the ground, do not greatly
differ in dimensions and form. In female figures the breasts are fully
developed, the nipples being formed like a rosette; a closely fitting
gown reaches from the broad neck-ornament, common with both sexes, to
the ankles, but, being represented without reference to the material and
without the most necessary folds, appears so elastic that its existence
is only surely to be perceived at the borders.

[Illustration: Fig. 30.--The Schoolmaster of Boulac.]

The most ancient sculptures and the later works of Nubia are somewhat
heavy and full, those of the best period (the time of Ramses) more slim
and elastic. After the fifth century B.C. the figures become better
modelled, and a certain influence of Greek sculpture is betrayed. But
the ancient type remained in the chief characteristics unchanged until
the end of the Ptolemaic dynasties, and even to the later ages of the
Roman Empire. Those works of Greek and Roman sculptors, so popular
during the age of Hadrian, which borrowed the costume and position of
Egyptian statues while having nothing else in common with Egyptian art
(such, for instance, as the numerous figures of Antinous to be found in
almost all the larger museums), must not be classed with the truly
national works executed in Egypt and for that country.

The monotony of Egyptian sculpture was not without some exceptions. Less
pretentious works, where the necessity of canonic idealization seems not
to have been so imperative--as in the well-fed form of the so-called
schoolmaster in the museum of Boulac (_Fig._ 30.), which shows not only
in the head, but in the entire body, an undeniable portrait--make it
questionable whether the conventionalized representations may not be
more owing to the restraint of religious authority and tradition, to the
hieratic laws which exercised so complete a sway over the life of the
country in every respect, than to any absolute incapability of the
Egyptian artist for individual characterization.

[Illustration: Fig. 31.--Lion of Reddish Granite. (British Museum.)]

Egyptian sculpture, thus under the ban of religious conservatism, always
dealt more successfully with the forms of animals than with human beings
and deities. In hunting scenes there is wonderful spirit and character
in the drawing of the dogs, and of the animals which they attack. The
artist attained an elastic and life-like force in the representation of
all animal forms, even when these were compelled into monstrous
combinations with human members. The most common of the latter are the
androsphinxes, which differ from the Greek sphinx in being male--having
the head and breast of a man and the body of a crouching lion. At times
the human head is supplanted by that of a ram or hawk. Rams were also
treated as sphinxes, especially before the temples of Ammon and Kneph.
The most important androsphinx is the well-known colossus of Gizeh with
the head of Thothmes IV. The heads of the sphinxes seem usually to have
been portraits of kings. This gigantic guardian of the necropolis of
Memphis, the most enormous monumental figure of the world, with space
between the outstretched front legs for a chapel there built, is now
again buried to the neck by the shifting sand of the pyramid plateau
after having been excavated with great labor. Its face alone is 12.2 m.
long. But it is in cases where the entire lion is represented without
deformation that Egyptian sculpture attains its greatest perfection.
(_Fig._ 31.)

A great majority of the Egyptian works of sculpture were cut with
marvellous patience in the hardest materials, in variously colored
granite, diorite, syenite, and basalt. Limestone and alabaster were
rarely employed for colossal or life-size statues, but were used more
frequently for works of smaller dimensions; these were also burned in
clay with a surface of blue or green glazing, or were cut in more
valuable stones, such as agate, jasper, carnelian, and lapis-lazuli.
Enamelled clay idols were manufactured in great numbers; modern museums
contain hundreds of these little figures of perfectly similar form. The
so-called scarabæus is also very common--beetle-shaped bodies of clay,
or of the above-named stones--with incised figures or hieroglyphics upon
their lower surface. Such amulets were perforated and worn as beads, and
were placed loosely in the coffins with the mummies.

The artistic manufacture of colored glass was extensive. Fine metal-work
was less common, although ornaments of enamelled gold, silver, and
copper of high artistic value have occasionally been found. Wood-carving
was practised upon the mummy-coffins. Although the valley of the Nile
did not produce large pieces of a satisfactory material, this lack was
supplied by gluing together layers of palm or sycamore wood, and hiding
the defects of this process by a painted priming of stucco. The coffins
themselves are in so far works of sculpture as they represent upon the
cover the form of the swathed body placed within them, and even show the
face as exposed.

The sculpture of reliefs was less developed and less correct than of
the round. As the relief was always very low, and could not express the
greater projections, the artist’s desire to represent the human body
clearly and completely led to an unfortunate conflict between the
profile and front view of the figure. While mostly drawn in profile, and
showing particularly the head and legs in side view, which is the more
favorable for representation in low-relief, the shoulders and breast are
developed in the other direction, and are seen as from in front. It is
only in this position that both arms are visible--an important
consideration to the artist, whose object was solely to represent some
action or attributes. It was also felt as a difficulty that in a relief
of the side view the visible shoulder should project farther than any
other part of the body, the breadth of the breast and arms being more
than double that of the head. The primitive designer, to avoid these
objections, resorted to a forced and clumsy torsion of the body, which
may be noticed in the childhood of almost every art--in the Assyrian as
well as in the most ancient Greek. The head, with exception of the eye,
which was represented as in front, was taken in profile; shoulders and
breast from in front, but arms and hands, as well as hips, legs, and
feet, in profile again. The lower the relief, the less could the surface
be modelled, and this led to a sharp demarcation of the outline, which
exaggerated the peculiar leanness of the Egyptian race to a hard
angularity.

[Illustration: Fig. 32.--Sculptural Work. Egyptian Wall-painting.]

The relief is a transitional stage between sculpture and painting; it
works upon a more or less flat surface, seeks its chief effect in
outline, and lends itself readily to the heightening of color. The most
common Egyptian relief, which has been termed coilanaglyphic, being
hollowed out, stands even nearer to painting than to sculpture. In real
reliefs the surface is so cut away as to leave the figures embossed; but
here the forms do not rise above the background, and the original plane
remains untouched: the sculptor contented himself with firmly incising
the outlines, and slightly rounding the forms of the body within them.
This incised outline is clearly seen only by sharp side light, but it
has the advantage of protecting the borders of the figures and thus
securing the indestructibility of the representation. In other respects
the coilanaglyphics are nothing else than paintings, the space within
the carved outlines being colored in the same manner as are all Egyptian
wall decorations. The limits of the latter art were thus greatly
extended, for all temples were covered with such colored
coilanaglyphics, while the stuccoed sides of rock-cut tombs and of brick
masonry were richly ornamented by paintings.

[Illustration: Fig. 33.--Lance-maker. Egyptian Wall-painting.]

The number of ancient painted decorations which have been preserved is
very great, notwithstanding their age and the perishable nature of all
pigments exposed to air and light. The subjects represented and often
repeated are, for the greater part, religious scenes, which share the
monotony of the strict Egyptian ritual, though often allowing an
interesting insight into the customs of interment, the transport of
mummies by the processional boat, the sacred dances and sacrifices.
Representations of profane scenes are more varied and are exceedingly
interesting; the technicalities of Egyptian art are shown by the cutting
of a monolithic palm-column, the polishing of a granite chapel, the
painting of walls, the writing of hieroglyphics upon tablets and
papyrus, the carving and painting of sphinxes and statues (_Fig._ 32.),
the transport of a colossal figure upon a sledge (_Fig._ 7.), the making
of bricks and walling of brick masonry, the interior of houses (_Fig._
26.), even the plans of dwellings and gardens. Besides numerous tools
and the products of manufacturing trades, there may be recognized upon
these paintings weavers, rope-makers, the preparers of paper and of
linen cloth, ship-builders, carpenters with hand-saw and auger, and the
cutters of bows and lances (_Fig._ 33.), who employ adzes quite similar
to those still in use. Commerce on land and sea is represented by wares,
unpacked or in bales, by scales, various kinds of wagons and trading
vessels, etc., all shown in the clearest manner possible. Ploughs,
sowing and harvesting, the gathering of figs and grapes, the pressing of
oil and wine, illustrate the condition of agriculture; while the
especial ability of the Egyptians for animal representations is
exercised in the hunting scenes of lions, tigers, buffaloes, jackals,
and gazelles; by the snaring of birds and fishes in nets, as well as by
the admirably characterized figures of apes, porcupines, etc. There are
also historical paintings, great battle scenes, the storming of cities,
and the triumph of the returning victors, who bring with them booty and
prisoners, the nationality of whom is often readily distinguishable by
peculiarities of physiognomy and costume. (_Fig._ 34.) The Egyptian
kings appear of superhuman size, either fighting from splendid
war-chariots, or striding forward to sacrifice their kneeling enemies, a
dozen of whom, seized at once by the hair, are decapitated at a blow.

[Illustration: Fig. 34.--Prisoners of Different Nationalities. Egyptian
Wall-painting.]

Extended and varied as these Egyptian representations were, and
instructive as that which through their agency has been preserved now
is, it yet must be confessed that the painting was more a conventional
picture-writing than an art. The seven colors used--red, blue, brown,
yellow, green, black, and white--are, as a rule, applied simply, without
mixture or variation, and without much reference to the appearance of
nature. At least, it is very rarely that any striving after natural
effect is to be noticed; that, for instance, the skin of a negress
appears bluish-gray through a partially transparent white drapery, or
that the typical red-brown complexion of an Egyptian, under similar
conditions, is of a broken yellow. Within the sharply drawn outlines the
colors are flat and without any modification by light and shade, upon
the changing effects of which all pictorial illusion is based. This
illusion is the fundamental principle of painting, the aim of which is
to render the appearance of objects. It being here entirely lacking, we
cannot properly speak of an art of painting in Egypt, or, indeed, in
antiquity at all, before the time of Polygnotos. Egyptian paintings are
entirely of the nature of ornament; the representation of human beings
is conventionalized in the same manner as are floral ornaments,--while
imitated to a certain degree from nature, it is simplified according to
the requirements of decorative laws. The actions shown are all without
truth and life. The beauty of decoration demands a certain harmony in
the choice of colors, which is there unfettered; in Egyptian paintings
this is sought and attained at the cost of truth to nature. It was not
distasteful to the Egyptian to see the same figure repeated a dozen
times in absolute similarity, for an ornament can always bear
repetition.

To these considerations must be added a marked peculiarity of Egyptian
painting. Although the art had been restricted to the portrayal of
merely exterior actions, even this end could hardly have been attained
without the complement of a written explanation, which was here so
adjoined as to harmonize with the figures in composition and even in
color. This conjunction is far more intimate than is that of picture and
text in an illustrated chronicle: the hieroglyphic writing and the
painting are closely allied in character. It was only a step from the
one to the other, and their limits are sometimes hardly distinguishable,
especially in the stucco paintings of the mummy-coffins and the pen and
brush drawings upon papyrus manuscripts, where the carelessness of the
execution increases the similarity. The hieroglyphic inscriptions might
even be considered as the extreme consequence of the hieratically
conventionalized pictures.

The painting of Egypt existed unchanged for a period of more than two
thousand years, with a stability unequalled in the other civilizations
of the world. It was perhaps not quite so extensively employed in the
ancient kingdom as in later times: paintings can be dated as far back as
the third dynasty (3338 to 3124 B.C., according to Lepsius), but they
were restricted to interior decoration. The walls of the pyramids were
unadorned by color. After the practice of art had been greatly limited
by the invasion of the Hycsos (from the thirteenth to the seventeenth
dynasty, 2136 to 1591 B.C.), it arose with new vigor at the advent of
the modern kingdom, especially during the eighteenth and nineteenth
dynasties, when the architecture which flourished at Thebes offered a
wide field for painted decorations. From that time the walls lost their
bareness, and richly colored ornaments were employed even upon the
exterior, enlivening the dead and heavy character of Egyptian building
and somewhat supplying the deficiency of its exterior development.

The art of Egypt attained its greatest elaboration--not, indeed, without
some loss of national character--in the time of Alexander and the
Ptolemies (332 to 30 B.C.), when Hellenic influence broke through the
sombre massiveness of the unmembered walls and applied the brilliant
decoration of colored columns to the exterior.

But, delightful as the island of Philæ appears because of these changes,
it yet marks the commencing decline of Egyptian art, with the negation
of the serious and mystical peculiarities of the land. The excellence of
Egyptian technical processes could only delay the utter exhaustion and
extinction of their art until the time of the later Roman empire.

[Illustration: Fig. 35.--Assyrian Shrines. Relief from Corsabad.]



CHALDÆA, BABYLONIA, AND ASSYRIA.


The traditional culture of the land of the Euphrates and Tigris is not
younger than that of the Nile. Though the third dynasty (commencing,
according to Berosos, with the twenty-third century B.C.) is the first
of which we have monumental remains, it cannot be denied that long
before that time an important people had inhabited the country, a nation
very different from the nomadic hordes which then, as to-day, roved
through the neighboring deserts. Several races of antiquity were
conscious that the most primitive people of civilization had lived in
the land of the two streams. The Jews considered that to have been their
original home. The Patriarch Abraham had emigrated from Chaldæan Ur to
Canaan. The Greek legend of Deucalion points to the history of
Mesopotamia in the same manner as does the Jewish myth of the Deluge;
the oldest Greek knowledge of astronomy, astrology, and the calculation
of time seems to have been derived from the same source. The tale of the
division of the nations in Babel, and their spreading over the face of
the earth from that point, is certainly based upon the existence of a
most ancient centre of civilization upon the banks of the Euphrates.

[Illustration: Fig. 36.--Temple of Mugheir (Ur).]

The land offered no materials for monuments which, like those of Egypt,
could stand uninjured through thousands of years. The narrow valley of
the Nile is enclosed by the cliffs of the desert border, which seemed
directly to encourage, by the excellence of the building-stone there
procured, the erection of immense and indestructible works. The plain of
Mesopotamia, on the other hand, spread far beyond the courses of the two
streams, losing itself in deserts without any line of eminences as a
demarcation. The remote mountains offered no quarries at all comparable
to those of Egypt. The soil was of good clay for the manufacture of
bricks, but fuel was lacking with which to burn and harden them. The
inhabitants of the land were generally obliged to content themselves
with drying the clay in the sun, making up by the great thickness of the
masonry for the firmness lacking to the material. They further
strengthened the massive walls with a facing, or with buttress-like
piers of burnt brick, or solidified the interior with alternate courses
of this harder substance. The bitumen which still flows at Hit, on the
Euphrates, north of Bagdad at the southern border of the higher alluvial
terrace of Assyria, was an excellent substance for cementing the bricks;
in more important works it was used alternately with lime-mortar: in
common buildings, or in the interior of the thickest walls, clay kneaded
with straw answered the purpose of a cement.

It is natural that little should now remain of such structures. They
could only survive the thousands of years that have elapsed since their
building, when an immense thickness secured at least the kernel of the
wall, or when the ruins of other buildings early covered and protected
them. The remains of ancient Chaldæa are generally nothing more than
formless heaps of rubbish, many of which have not yet been opened.
Taylor, Loftus, and their predecessors, Ainsworth, Chesney, and Layard,
discovered the ruins of over thirty cities in the lower half of the
Mesopotamian plain. Of these, Mugheir (the ancient Ur), Warka (Erech),
Niffer (Nipur), and Abou-Sharein offered the most important remains of
great age; while the ruins of Sura, Tel Sifr, Calvadha, and Ackercuf are
mainly of the later Chaldæan period.

[Illustration: Fig. 37.--Ruins of Warka.]

[Illustration: Fig. 38.--Patterned Wall. Warka.]

Recognizable among the rubbish-hills of Mugheir are the remains of a
terrace which consisted of two oblong steps, the lowest measuring 60.35
by 40.54 m. in length and breadth, and about 12 m. in height, standing
upon a platform raised 6 m. above the surrounding country. The greater
part of this is overthrown and buried beneath its own material. The
kernel of the solid structure is of sun-dried bricks; the facing, which
is divided by buttresses, being of burnt brick cemented with bitumen.
The whole is perforated by numerous small air-channels. The second step
is only about half preserved, and that which it must once have supported
has entirely disappeared. A remarkable inscription, repeated upon the
four corners of the upper terrace, explained the purpose of the
structure and the time of its erection. According to Sir H. Rawlinson’s
interpretation of the cuneiform legend, this was dedicated to the deity
Sin (Hurki) as a temple, and was first founded by King Urukh (about 2230
B.C.). The name of the spot is given as Ur, a city known from Biblical
tradition. The inscriptions were not, however, contemporaneous with the
foundation of the building, for, after giving a long line of kings, they
at last name Nabonetos, the last King of Babylon, as the restorer of the
temple--a fact which is further attested by the bricks themselves, those
of the lower terrace having the name of Urukh, those of the upper of
Nabonetos. The temple remains of Warka and of Abou-Sharein unite with
these ruins of Mugheir to show that the Chaldæan temple consisted of a
simple and massive terrace of few steps, crowned, without doubt, by a
chapel, which must be supposed richly decorated with colors and gold
ornaments from the fragments of agate, alabaster, and fine marbles, of
gold-plating and gilded nails, found in Abou-Sharein, and from the blue
enamelled clay tiles of Mugheir. The sides of the great steps were
either plainly buttressed or treated with projections, as is the case
with the terrace wall of a palace at Warka, shown by _Fig._ 37. There
was here a complicated system of reeded projections and stepped
incisions--cylinders and prisms which cannot be called pilasters, as
they were without capitals, and probably also without base-mouldings.
Another ruin of Warka (_Fig._ 38) has a colored wall-facing, made by
driving conical pegs of terra-cotta about 0.1 m. long into the clay, so
that the red, black, and whitish base surfaces form different patterns.
This ruin is further interesting as giving some insight into the private
architecture of the Chaldæans. Rooms were there found separated from one
another by walls fully as thick as the enclosed spaces themselves were
broad--a clumsy heaviness which shows what massive masonry the poor
crumbling material necessitated. The existing remains suggest so
strongly the arrangement of the later Assyrian palaces that there can be
but little doubt that they, in some degree, served as a model for these
latter; although the palace wall, with its revetment of alabaster, might
be erected with less thickness. No trace of window-like openings can be
observed in the ruins of Warka or in those of Abou-Sharein.

[Illustration: Fig. 39.--Tomb of Mugheir.]

The principle of the arch, though not extensively employed, was well
understood and occasionally introduced in Assyria. From a small
grave-chamber discovered at Mugheir, we may conclude that it was not
known in the ancient Chaldæan period. The roofing was then effected by a
gradual projection of the horizontal courses of bricks until the
opposite sides nearly touched each other at the top of the gable thus
formed. (_Fig._ 39.) It may perhaps be assumed that this manner of
covering by the so-called false arch and vault was only employed for
very narrow spaces, while larger rooms were more naturally ceiled by
wooden beams. The ruins of Warka, though they do not give a very clear
understanding of the fortifications of ancient Chaldæa, at least show
that the city walls were not necessarily square, as had been concluded
from the testimony of ancient writers, but, as in this case, followed
the irregular outline of the city.

The political history of Chaldæa was from the earliest times greatly
disturbed by internal divisions. At first the city Nipur, celebrated for
its worship of Bel, appears to have been the most important place, at
least of Southern Chaldæa. To this followed Ur or Hur, the city
worshipping Hurki or Sin, then Nisin or Carrac, and, finally, Larsa, the
present Senkereh. Upper Chaldæan Babylon, originally Ca-dimirra, does
not seem to have become the only capital until the age of King
Cammurabi, about 1500 B.C. A hundred years later Northern Mesopotamia,
Assyria, began to gain predominance, and in the thirteenth century B.C.
Babylon was conquered (for the first time?) by Tiglathi-Nin, a son of
King Salmaneser of Assyria. Chaldæa soon regained its independence, but
only to fall again into the power of the conqueror Tiglath-Pileser, and
to remain for five centuries subjugated to Nineveh. The attempts to
throw off this yoke of Assyrian authority were in vain; even the
uprising under the bold Merodach-Baladan, 731 B.C., was not of long
duration, and finally led to the depopulation and total destruction of
the prominent Chaldæan cities by Sennacherib. The Assyrian Esar-haddon
rebuilt Babylon; but it did not recover its ancient importance until the
Satrap Nabopolassar revolted from his allegiance, and, with the help of
the Medes, made an end of the kingdom of Nineveh; and until his son
Nebuchadnezzar, after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., reduced even
distant Egypt to vassalage, thus taking into possession the full
heritage of the Assyrian empire in both south and west.

[Illustration: Fig. 40.--Bors-Nimrud. Temple-terrace of Borsippa.]

[Illustration: Fig. 41.--Plan and Elevation of the Temple at Borsippa.
(From Oppert’s Measurements.)]

Though the subjugation of the land by Assyria had not been without
effect upon the civilization of Chaldæa, the general character of
Babylonian art remained much the same through all these political
changes. The last king, Nabonetos, could complete the temple of Ur,
which Urukh had founded seventeen centuries before, as though there had
been no interruption in the work. The terraced ruins show that there was
no great difference in the architectural treatment of ages so removed.
Other city ruins show such an intermixture of ancient Chaldæan and
Babylonian walls that their date can be determined only by inscriptions
or by stamps upon the bricks. The earlier remains are predominant in
Mugheir, Warka, and Abou-Sharein; but the later capital of the country,
Babylon, the city of Nebuchadnezzar, is known almost exclusively by the
imposing structures of the modern kingdom. Greek antiquity, up to the
time of Alexander, was acquainted with this city of wonders only by
fables. Even the explicit description of Herodotos is in great degree
mythical, especially his astonishing account of the city walls: 480
stadia (96.557 m.) in length, 200 ells (100 m.) high, and 50 ells (25
m.) broad. The ruins have also proved the account of the famed hundred
gates of the city walls, and the square network of straight streets
which ran from these, to be hyperbolical. Such immense masses of masonry
would, as Layard has maintained, certainly have left heaps of rubbish;
and, in fact, the ruins of a much smaller city enclosure have been
traced. The irregular orientation of the palace plan is also
incompatible with the conception that the city was divided up into
squares with the regularity of a chess-board. The traditional account
that the enormous terraced temple of Bel was built on the borders of the
stream opposite the palace structures is certainly incorrect; for, while
these latter are still represented by extensive brick ruins, there is
not a trace upon the other bank, the supposed site, of massive terraces
which could not possibly have so entirely disappeared. Nor could the
stream have swept away so colossal a building; for a little north of
Hillah, in the immediate vicinity of the spot where Herodotos describes
the temple of Bel, there have been found the remains of a small Mylitta
temple, which would have offered almost no resistance to an inundation.
Yet Herodotos undoubtedly related, besides his fables, much that was
correct about Babylon. His account of the temple of Bel seems only
questionable in so far as the site is concerned; the rest of his
description agrees perfectly with ruins which have been found about
eleven kilometers westward, and are known by the name Bors-Nimrud.
(_Fig._ 40.) The temple thus could not have belonged to the city proper
of Babylon; and inscriptions mention the place as Borsippa, spoken of by
Greek writers as a separate town, which could at best be regarded as a
distant suburb of the extended Babylon. The immense hill of rubbish
standing entirely isolated in the desert has a lower circumference of
685 m. This dimension agrees tolerably well with the six stadia given by
Herodotos as the measure of the first step of the terraced pyramid. The
regularly diminished seven steps, the “towers” of Herodotos, 7.5 m.
high, reaching altogether a total altitude of 75 m., rose from a square
substructure with a side of two stadia (180 m.) and a height of 22.5 m.
The diagonals of these different terraces were not directly above one
another, the steps being 9 m. broad in front and only 3.9 m. broad
behind, while the sides were equal--6.3 m. This peculiarity of the ruin
agrees with the flights of stairs described by Herodotos, which,
notwithstanding the analogy of the palace temple of Kisr-Sargon, may
here naturally be supposed to have been upon the front, where the
terraces were sufficiently broad for this purpose. _Fig._ 41 is an
attempt to restore the chief lines of the structure by means of the
dimensions given by Oppert. Upon the summit of this terraced pyramid
stood the necessarily small temple, which, according to Herodotos,
contained a spacious couch and a golden table, but no statue of the
deity. The sides of the terraces are directed to the cardinal points of
the compass, as was the case also with the ancient Chaldæan temple of
Ur; and, as at Ur, inscribed cylinders were here walled in at the
angles. These relate that Nebuchadnezzar had magnificently completed
the structure--“the temple-pyramid of the seven spheres, the wonder of
Borsippa,” begun by a former king. Rawlinson and Oppert have concluded,
from the remains of glazed bricks of different colors, that each of the
seven terraces was dedicated to one of the seven planets of the
ancients, and was characterized by its color--the upper, gold; the
second, silver; the next, red, blue, yellow, white; and the lowest,
black--according to the hues assigned to the sun, the moon, Mars,
Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn. The lowest terrace has a panelled
architectural treatment similar to that noticed in the ruins at Warka
and the palace temple at Kisr-Sargon. It is probable that these high
terraces in the flat plains of Mesopotamia were elevations which served
the Chaldæan astronomers for their celebrated observatories, as the
pylons of temples upon the banks of the Nile were similarly used by the
Egyptian priests. As Strabo speaks especially of an astronomical school
at Borsippa, there can be little doubt that it was in some way connected
with the terraced pyramid of the seven spheres.

The ruins of Hillah, Casr, Mudjelibeh, and Jumjuma give even less
information concerning the palace buildings than the hill of Bors-Nimrud
does concerning the form of the Chaldæan temple. These masses of masonry
have for centuries served as quarries, and, as far distant as Bagdad,
bricks, bearing the stamp of Nebuchadnezzar, betray that the material
has been transported from the ruins of Babylon. Though the supply is by
no means exhausted, this excavation has rendered much unrecognizable,
and has so greatly increased the destruction that Layard held it
impossible to discover a clew to the plan of the palace structure in the
confusion of its overthrown and rifled rubbish. Oppert assumes the hill
of Jumjuma, or Amran-ibn-Ali, as it is called from the Mohammedan chapel
now standing upon it, to be the remains of the celebrated Hanging
Gardens known as those of Semiramis, the wonder of the ancient world.
But, plausible as his supposition is, it will hardly be possible to
prove by existing remains the correctness of the description given by
Diodoros of the Hanging Gardens, in itself more probable than the report
followed by Strabo. Diodoros speaks of the Gardens as a terraced
structure, the side of the square plan being about 120 m. in length,
with separate steps which ascended from the land side, while upon the
banks of the river a steep wall formed the back of the highest terrace,
measuring 15 m. vertically, and closing the gardens towards the water.
The steps were constructed by the help of thirteen thick parallel walls,
each being higher than the one next below it. They left between them
twelve narrow corridors, the ceilings of which, like those over Assyrian
canals, were probably vaulted, and were then covered with rushes and
bitumen, burnt brick pavements and lead sheathing, so as to bear the
stairways which connected the different terraces, the reservoirs for
cascades and fountains, and the imposed garden--earth with large trees,
etc. Pumping works in the highest of these covered corridors supplied
the garden with the necessary water from the Euphrates.

The ruined terraces of Mudjelibeh (Babil), avoided by the Arabs as the
scene of the punishment of the fallen angels, are so completely
overthrown that it is not possible to determine whether the remains are
those of a temple or of a palace. It is probable that they had some
connection with the great pyramidal tomb of Belus, a structure which may
be assumed to have been much like the stepped pyramid of Nimrud to be
described below. The monument of Mudjelibeh was destroyed as early as
the time of Xerxes II. It has since served as a quarry for the
neighboring cities Seleucia and Ctesiphon, and has been demolished to
the lowest terrace.

The enormous river embankments and dikes which protected Lower
Mesopotamia from flood and drought, though now only to be traced by
inconsiderable remains, are of the greatest importance and interest. The
neglect of these invaluable works, and of the sluices and irrigating
canals in connection with them, has reduced to a deserted and
pestilential swamp that most fertile land known to Herodotos--where once
a harvest of two and three hundredfold was returned to the tiller of the
soil. Though there are vestiges of some ancient bridges in the land, it
is not possible to decide whether the account given by Diodoros of the
great tunnel constructed by Semiramis be true or fabulous.

There seems to have been no reason for the erection of such tall
edifices in the vastly extended Babylon as the three and four storied
houses described by Herodotos, and no analogy to such a peculiarity
exists in the great modern cities of the Orient. It must be remembered
in this connection that the crumbling bricks to which the Mesopotamians
were restricted would, in such high buildings, have demanded clumsily
massive substructures and lower-story walls.

Though the ruins of Babylon have only recently been thoroughly examined,
their existence has long been known. Benjamin of Tudela speaks of
Bors-Nimrud as the Biblical Tower of Babel, and this local tradition has
been handed down to the present day. The palace ruins of the great city
have always been readily recognizable, and the one has been called
Babel, the other Casr (palace), from time immemorial.

[Illustration: Fig. 42.--Plan of Babylon. (According to Rich.)]

It is otherwise with the second great centre of Mesopotamia--Nineveh,
the famed capital of the kingdom of Assyria, in the upper land of the
great streams. As early as the beginning of this century, Carsten
Niebuhr expressed the conviction that the remains of the overthrown city
were to be sought among the hills of rubbish which lie opposite the
present Mosul, beyond the Tigris; but the energetic Rich, who devoted so
much time and labor to the barren ruins of Babylon, paid no attention to
the site. Nineveh had entirely disappeared, and was only traditionally
known from the Book of Jonah and from the legend of Sardanapalos. It was
during two visits to Mosul, in the years 1840 and 1842, that the eminent
English traveller and statesman Sir A. H. Layard conceived the plan of
undertaking investigations in the vicinity. He expressed his convictions
at the time to the French consul, M. P. E. Botta, and in 1843 that
gentleman commenced the excavation of the hill Coyundjic, which lay next
to Mosul. The natives, becoming aware of the nature of the search,
directed his attention to the hill of Corsabad, situated at a distance
of about twenty-five kilometers from Mosul; the excavations were removed
thither, and carried on with most gratifying results. A few days’
digging laid bare a number of walls reveted with huge slabs of
alabaster. The wonderful sculptures in relief upon these excited
redoubled activity, and soon entire chambers of the palace structure
were freed from the overthrown rubbish which had covered it for
well-nigh three thousand years. The French government purchased the
entire village of Corsabad: in M. V. Place was provided a worthy
successor to M. Botta. The inscriptions discovered have proved the ruins
to be those of a palace founded by Sargon about 710 B.C. in the city
Kisr-Sargon or Dur-Sargina.

In the year 1845, Layard obtained, through Sir Stratford Canning, then
ambassador to Turkey, the necessary means for the English government to
take part in the promising undertaking. He at first directed his
attention to Nimrud, a hill of ruins about a day’s journey south of
Mosul, the great size of which promised the existence of important
remains. An immense terrace platform was there found to have supported a
number of palaces, several of which were excavated, the more valuable
sculptures and other objects of interest being transported to the
British Museum. At Nimrud were discovered the most ancient and the most
modern of Assyrian buildings known--namely, the northwestern palace,
temple, and tower built by Assur-nazi-pal shortly after 885 B.C., as
well as the Temple of Assur-ebil-ili, presumably the last Assyrian king,
dating to about 610 B.C. Besides these, there were the southeastern and
central palaces built by Shalmaneser II. after 860, the latter having
been restored by Tiglath-pileser II., from 745 to 727, as Sargon
rebuilt the northwestern palace after 722; and, finally, there was the
southwestern palace of Esar-haddon, from 681 to 668 B.C. The city itself
(Calah) corresponded in grandeur and extent with the palace terrace. It
was founded by Shalmaneser, and long rivalled Nineveh, especially after
its reconstruction by Assur-nazi-pal.

[Illustration: Fig. 43.--Plan of Nineveh.]

It is now beyond a doubt that the chief capital of the country is buried
beneath the hills of Coyundjic and Nebbi-Jonas, the latter so called
from a Mohammedan chapel to the prophet Jonah which traditionally marks
the site of Nineveh. Both these mounds of ruins were examined by Layard.
In the southwestern palace of Coyundjic, built by Assur-bani-pal, from
668 to 626 B.C., was discovered the most extensive among these dwellings
of Oriental despots. The most elaborate of Assyrian palaces was the
northern one of this site, built by Assur-bani-pal about 640 B.C., a
monarch who devoted certain chambers of the southwestern palace,
originally erected by his grandfather, to the reception of inscribed
clay tablets--an inexhaustible wealth for the study of Assyrian history,
of which hardly a third part seems to have been recovered intact. In
Nebbi-Jonas were found traces of the palaces of Vulnirari III., from 812
to 783; of Sennacherib, from 705 to 681; and of Esar-haddon, from 681 to
668 B.C. The line of the city walls, still recognizable among the hills
of rubbish, is shown by the plan at _Fig._ 43. These fortifications
could hardly have enclosed the entire city, and it is probable that only
the inner town, with the palaces and public buildings, was thus
protected, and that the dwelling-houses of the many inhabitants formed
suburbs which extended far around the enclosed centre, gradually losing
themselves in gardens and groves of date-trees, as is the case with
modern capitals of the East. The comparatively small walls of Babylon,
at variance with the report given by Herodotos, lead to the same
conclusion in regard to that city.

The ruins of Calah-Shergat, situated about 100 kilometers down the
stream from Nineveh, are identified with Assur, the oldest capital of
the land, which maintained its pre-eminence until Nineveh, in the
fourteenth century B.C., became the great centre of power. Reson is
thought to be recognized in the ruins of Selamiyeh, lying between Nimrud
and Nineveh, and Erbil in Arbola. These sites have not been sufficiently
examined to be of direct importance in the history of art.

[Illustration: Fig. 44.--Palace of Kisr-Sargon, Corsabad.]

[Illustration: Fig. 45.--Ornamented Pavement from the Northern Palace of
Coyundjic.]

It is plain from the ruins already mentioned that the dwellings of the
kings took the most prominent place among the creations of Assyrian
architecture. The despotic element had in Mesopotamia the same
superiority as the hierarchy in Egypt: in the former country the palace
was as much in the foreground as was the temple in the latter. In
ancient Chaldæa the two elements, and consequently the two classes of
monuments, were more equally represented. Still, in most points of view,
the relation of Chaldæan and Assyrian architecture is very close, and
the differences arose chiefly from the superior material at the
builders’ disposal in Upper Mesopotamia. The terraces of Assyria, like
those of Chaldæa, were solidly constructed of sun-dried bricks and
stamped earth, but the neighboring mountains provided stone for the
complete revetment of these masses with quarried blocks. Carefully hewn
slabs existed upon the terrace platform of Sargon’s palace, and upon the
substructure of the pyramid of Nimrud, while there was rough Cyclopean
stone-work employed in the construction of the city walls at
Kisr-Sargon. The facing of brightly glazed tiles and stucco-paintings,
universal in Chaldæa, is restricted upon Assyrian masonry of the same
brick materials to the upper part of the wall, the lower half being
sheathed and protected by sculptured slabs of alabaster. The appearance
of the whole gained greatly by this change, the revetment of reliefs in
place of the painted figures giving a more imposing and durable
character to the walls. The palace architecture of Assyria is best
exemplified by the plan of the royal dwelling of Kisr-Sargon (_Fig._
44), the isolated position and clear disposition of which are adapted to
show the general character of these structures. The platform terrace
consisted of two divisions, the broader (P) being inside the limits of
the city fortifications, while the remainder (T) projected beyond them.
A double flight of steps (A) led to the chief portal (B), ornamented by
gigantic winged human-headed bulls, which here not only stood on the
sides of the passage itself, as at all principal entrances, but
laterally upon the front walls, within and without. These figures are
among the most characteristic creations of Assyrian art; they will be
treated more in detail in the following consideration of the sculpture
of the country. The triple gateway opened into the first and largest
enclosed court (C). Upon the left of this, one narrow passage led to the
chambers of the harem, which were ranged around six smaller courts (D to
H). Upon the right of the first enclosure were the household offices
(J), with eight courts and numerous halls, magazines, kitchens, cellars,
stables, etc. The side opposite the chief entrance was formed by the
private apartments of the monarch (M) and by the great hall of the
palace--a group of chambers not presenting its chief front to the first
court (C), with which it was connected only by subordinate
entrances--but to a second enclosure of almost equal extent (K), which
may be regarded as the chief open space of the royal dwelling. An
inclined ascent (R) led to the right wing of the inner terrace, by which
the king, approaching in a chariot or borne by attendants in a
sedan-chair, could enter his seraglio without passing the first court
(C) or the entrance to the household offices (J). The encroaching line
of the city wall (P) made it impossible for the portal to the second
court (S) to be arranged in the central axis of that enclosure; but
strict symmetry of plan was not adopted even when there were no such
obstacles. The inner apartments of the king were entered by a
magnificent triple gateway (L) from the court of the seraglio; these
were, in certain measure, regularly planned, being so grouped around a
smaller court (M) that oblong halls, as long as this was square, were
upon three of its sides. The hall upon the south opens into a number of
intricate chambers, probably used as baths, sleeping-apartments, and
rooms for the immediate body-guards of the king and for the temporary
families of the harem. Upon the north a wing was added to the building,
projecting almost to the outer border of the terrace, and dividing this
(T) into a northern and a western court. The addition was the most
richly ornamented portion of the entire palace; it was probably here
that the halls of reception were placed. The walls of other parts of the
seraglio were reveted upon their lower part with sculptured slabs of
alabaster; but this treatment was not elsewhere so freely applied, nor
was it as richly decorated as in this northwestern wing. In the first
hall, which is 35 m. long and 10 m. broad, the walls are ornamented with
continuous scenes representing, as in a procession, the homage and
punishment of prisoners-of-war. In other rooms and in smaller courts
these reliefs, divided by a band of cuneiform inscriptions, are of
smaller dimensions and less pretentious execution, though of marked
interest as forming, with their copious inscriptions, chronicles of
historical events.

The spacious terrace at the west has in its centre an oblong hall (N),
generally supposed to be the temple or chapel of the palace, but which
may with more probability be considered as a hall of state. The scanty
remains of this structure make a sure determination of its purpose
impossible. They consist chiefly of the foundations of solid unburnt
brick masonry, faced with slabs of black basalt. The cornice of this
substructure is of gray limestone, in form much resembling the
characteristic scotia of Egyptian architecture. (_Fig._ 46.)

A small terraced pyramid (O) at the southwest is a more remarkable
structure. Four of its steps, with their facing of white, black, orange,
and blue enamelled tiles, are still remaining. These lead, from analogy
with the pyramid of Borsippa, to the assumption of three further steps,
tiled with the red, silver, and gold assigned to the remaining planets.
The vertical panelling of the sides is somewhat similar to that of the
remains at Warka; it is not here restricted to the walls of the lower
terrace, like that upon the ruins of Mugheir and Borsippa. The square
platform at the top of the terraces, the side of which could have
measured little more than 10 m., received either an altar or a small
cella, not longer than 6 m. Ascent to the top of the pyramid was
provided by an inclined plane, which wound from step to step in a
rectangular spiral. The destination of the pyramid as the palace chapel
seems reasonably certain, from its similarity to other terraced temples
of Assyria.

[Illustration: Fig. 46.--Cornice of the Temple Substructure at
Corsabad.]

The palaces hitherto discovered show the greatest freedom of detailed
arrangement. The variations among the plans may be illustrated by a
comparison of those of the northwestern palace of Nimrud (_Fig._ 47),
the palace of Esarhaddon (_Fig._ 49), and of that of Sennacherib at
Coyundjic. The methods of construction adopted for their erection are
more similar. All have walls built of burnt or unburnt brick and of
stamped clay; those of the larger chambers are reveted in their lower
half with slabs of alabaster or with brightly enamelled tiles, and
ornamented by paintings upon stucco above. All the principal halls are
so narrow in proportion to their length as to resemble corridors--a
peculiarity arising from technical difficulties of ceiling.

[Illustration: Fig. 47.--Plan of the Northwestern Palace of Nimrud.]

The manner of lighting and roofing adopted in Assyrian palaces is not
directly evident from the existing remains; none of the walls, the
highest of which reaches 9 m. above the ground, showing traces of any
window-like openings. Some authorities assume that all the light of the
interior was admitted through the doors. That this may, in some
instances, have been barely possible is evident from the plan of
Sargon’s palace at Corsabad (_Fig._ 44), where the principal chambers
were entered directly from the open courts, or, in exceptional
instances, were preceded by narrow ante-rooms which could not greatly
have interfered with the light. But it is plain from the plan of the
northwestern Palace of Nimrud (_Fig._ 47) that twelve chambers in such
unfavorable positions as those shown upon its eastern side could not
have received the slightest light through the two narrow passages
leading from the confined court. It is futile to deny the necessity of
light and air for the dwellings of man; and theories which suppose these
enormous spaces left in darkness, or unventilated and lighted
artificially, are certainly untenable. Other scholars are of the opinion
that light and air were procured through horizontal openings in the
ceiling and roof; but this imperfect and unpractical arrangement is
particularly ill adapted for inhabited rooms, and is rendered extremely
improbable by the fact that upon the pavements there did not exist the
slightest arrangement for leading off the water which must have fallen
upon them had the roof been an inefficient shelter. The floors were
rarely of stone slabs, like the carved fragments shown in _Fig._ 45, and
in other places the sun-dried bricks would have been rapidly reduced to
mud by the furious rain-storms of Mesopotamia.

[Illustration: Fig. 48.--Relief from Coyundjic.]

The present condition of the ruins, the walls of which nowhere rise to
the full height of the chambers, does not, however, exclude the
possibility of openings for light having existed just beneath the
ceiling. The form of such orifices cannot surely be determined; high
windows could not have existed, and there must have been low openings in
the top of the wall, separated by piers, between which stood small
columns, as is evident from a relief of Coyundjic, given in _Fig._ 48 to
serve as an argument for this manner of illumination. Light and air
could thus have been freely admitted, without inconvenience to the
dwellers within. The high position of the apertures, immediately under
the somewhat projecting roof, prevented the entrance of rain, and shut
off the interior from the view of those without, just as this same
manner of lighting to-day protects the harems of the East. The small
shafts, which were introduced as supports between these windows, appear
to have been the only representatives of columnar architecture in the
Assyrian palace. If columns had been used, in their customary function,
as upholders of the roof,--as members which bore an important
entablature,--some traces of these would certainly have been preserved;
their material could hardly have been more perishable than the sun-dried
brick of the walls. The entire arrangement of plan shows that their
assistance was not relied upon. The chambers were disproportionately
narrow, plainly to render it possible to cover them without the
introduction of intermediate supports. The beauty and fitness of the
corridor-like spaces were so sacrificed to this narrowness that its
universal appearance can be regarded only as a constructive necessity.
It is well illustrated by the cramped principal hall of the palace of
Esar-haddon at Nimrud (_Fig._ 49), where a greater width than that
permitted by the span of ceiling timbers was only to be obtained by the
erection of a division wall to provide a subsidiary support for the
beams. So helpless a make-shift, destroying the unity and grandeur of
the hall, could have been adopted only in entire ignorance of the
opening and supporting element of the column, apparently never
recognized in Assyria.

[Illustration: Fig. 49.--Plan of the Palace of Esar-haddon at Nimrud.]

[Illustration: Fig. 50.--Various Forms of Capitals and Bases, from
Assyrian Reliefs.]

The form of the small columns, which stood in the openings allowed for
light in the upper walls, can be approximately determined from the
representations upon reliefs. The shafts were cylindrical, and probably
without flutings; they had a roundlet, or at least a projecting fillet,
at either end. The base consisted solely of a high tore, sometimes
notched upon the top, or placed upon the back of a striding lion.
(_Fig._ 50.) The most common form of the capitals was a peculiar
conjunction of two spiral scrolls, similar to a doubled Ionic capital,
with an echinos-like roundlet beneath and a stepped abacus above. It is
hardly to be doubted that this was the prototype of the Ionic capital,
although it cannot be determined from the reliefs whether a lateral roll
corresponded to the volute of the front, or whether the helix was
repeated upon all four sides, as is the case with the capitals of
Persian columns. The small scale of the representations upon reliefs,
and their careless execution, do not permit a sure understanding of any
part of the capitals. A table (_Fig._ 51) upon a relief of Coyundjic
better determines the form of the volutes; it has distinct spirals in
place of the rosettes, wrongly shown by Layard’s drawing.[D] There is
reason to suppose that the double helix was not the primitive and normal
form of the Assyrian capital, but was rather an abbreviation of the
leaved calyx so frequently met with in Phœnicia, Palestine, and
Cyprus, and that the rolled ends of the leaves, shown by two of the
examples in _Fig._ 50, originally suggested the volutes of the capital
and the various spiral forms occurring upon carved Assyrian furniture,
as in _Fig._ 81. The question will be considered more at length in the
section upon Syrian architecture.

The columns of Assyria were employed only in this subordinate position,
and the dimensions and shape of larger enclosed spaces were dependent
upon the limited span of the wooden ceiling beams. Assyrian palaces
were, in these respects, unable to fulfil the demands of a monumental
architecture. It can only be surmised how roof and ceiling were
constructed in detail. The beams were naturally so placed as to require
the least possible length to span the clear width; the sinking in the
middle, to which the elastic trunks of palm-trees so much inclined, and
the accumulation of water in the hollow thereby formed, were thus
avoided as well as might be. The constructive details of the
roof-platform are not surely known; it is probable that a layer of clay
and earth was placed upon the beams, being rolled down compactly after
every rain. The exterior representation of roof and ceiling, the wall
entablature, may have consisted of a painted wooden sheathing, bearing
ornaments of the character displayed by the pavement. (_Fig._ 45.) It
was divided, like the Egyptian entablature, into two parts; in neither
case was there a marked distinction between roof and ceiling. The
imitations of building-fronts upon reliefs make it probable that stepped
battlements rose above the main cornice.

[Illustration: Fig. 51.--Table upon an Assyrian Relief.]

[Illustration: Fig. 52.--Mouth of a Channel under the Northwestern
Palace, Nimrud.]

[Illustration: Fig. 53.--Channel under the Southeastern Palace, Nimrud.]

The fundamental principles of vaulted construction, as of columnar
architecture, were known in Assyria, but neither the column nor the arch
was worthily recognized and developed into an important feature capable
of exercising an influence upon the extent or form of the enclosed
spaces. The palace terraces were pierced by narrow vaulted channels,
still to be traced among the ruins. This was the case with the most
ancient structure of Assyria, the northwestern palace of Nimrud. (_Fig._
52.) Though it cannot be proved that the Assyrians were the original
inventors of the arch of wedge-shaped stones, there are certainly no
earlier instances of this manner of building known than those of that
country. Round arch barrel-vaults were not exclusively used for such
channels; an ogive appears upon the same terrace of Nimrud, in the
somewhat later southeastern palace. (_Fig._ 53.) Though the key-stone of
the latter is undeveloped, the vault is yet built upon the principle of
the Gothic pointed arch. It is not impossible that this form may have
descended in uninterrupted tradition from Mesopotamia to the Arabs,
being brought by them to Europe, where, effecting a change in the round
Romanesque arch, it exercised a decisive influence in the development of
mediæval manners of building. The bricks of these vaulted Assyrian
channels are carefully moulded to the more or less marked wedge-form
determined by the size of the arch--a greater refinement than is
practised by modern masons, who use only rectangular bricks, effecting
the curve by the wedge-shape of the mortar-joint. Yet, perfected as
vaulted construction appears in these channels, its application seems to
have been almost restricted to them; Assyrian builders hesitated to
apply vaulted ceilings to spaces of much greater span than gates and
window apertures. Reliefs show arched portals alternating with
horizontally covered openings; and in the fortification walls of
Kisr-Sargon, the city adjoining the palace-ruins of Corsabad, traces of
a barrel-vaulted entrance have been discovered where the arch, of 4.5 m.
clear, rested upon the backs of the winged monsters referred to as the
guardians of all important gateways. A vaulted corridor, considerably
less in span, will be noticed at the temple pyramid of Nimrud. Among the
numerous palace chambers remaining, only a few narrow cells show traces
of vaults; the opinion of some recent investigators, that the customary
horizontal ceilings of smaller rooms were surmounted by cupolas of
beaten earth, does not appear plausible.

[Illustration: Fig. 54.--Restoration of an Assyrian Palace.]

From the chief points gained by this consideration, it is evident that
the restoration given in _Fig._ 54, a variation of the reconstruction by
Layard and Fergusson, cannot greatly misrepresent the once existing
structures. The Assyrian palace was, upon the whole, a more satisfactory
building than the Egyptian temple. The outlines and masses of its
composition were grand; it was richly ornamented, perhaps even
overladen, with sculptured and colored decoration. The massive and
unpierced walls of the lower half bore a kind of open loggia, consisting
of light columns between powerful piers which were fully capable of
upholding the ceiling. The entire edifice being elevated upon a terrace,
upper stories were not necessary to secure an imposing height. The
existence of one lower story alone is indicated by the ruins; no large
staircases, or other means of ascent to an upper floor, were provided.
The apparent duplication of the stories of houses upon reliefs is owing
to a fault of perspective common to the primitive representations of all
nations: things are shown as above and upon, instead of behind and
beyond, one another. The ground-chambers, of which sixty-eight have been
counted in the Palace of Sennacherib at Coyundjic, and over two hundred
in the Palace of Sargon, were surely ample in number and extent.

[Illustration: Fig. 55.--Terraced Pyramid. Relief from Coyundjic.]

[Illustration: Fig. 56.--Plan and Section of the Terraced Pyramid of
Nimrud. 1. Vaulted Corridor. 2. Modern Shafts. 3. Revetment Wall of Cut
Stone. 5. Solid Brick Masonry. 6. Great Palace Terrace. 7. Temple.]

[Illustration: Fig. 57.--Relief from the Northern Palace of Coyundjic.]

Though the royal dwellings of Assyria chiefly attract attention in
considering the architecture of the country, there are also many remains
of sacred buildings in the lands of the Upper Tigris. But we are
acquainted only with those places of worship which stood in immediate
connection with the palaces, no traces of edifices for general and
popular worship having been discovered up to the present time. Even were
we without knowledge of the ruins, it would be natural to suppose the
temples of Assyria similar to those of Mesopotamia; that is to say,
pyramidal terraces, with high lower stories. (Compare _Fig._ 41.) A
relief from Coyundjic, the upper portion of which is unfortunately
destroyed, confirms this view, showing a terraced structure of three or
four steps situated upon a natural elevation. The lower terrace is
decorated, like Chaldæan works of the kind, with pilasters in
low-relief; before it are pylon towers. (_Fig._ 55.) This specifically
Mesopotamian type is to be recognized in the most prominent ruins of
Assyrian sacred architecture--namely, in the terraced pyramid which
occupied one corner of the great palace platform of Nimrud. It is also
to be observed in the more fragmentary remains at Kileh-Shergat, which
time has buried beneath shapeless hills of rubbish, without entirely
obliterating the original disposition. The ruins at this site have not
been thoroughly investigated; those at Nimrud showed the lower part of
the pyramid at least to have been solidly built of bricks, reveted with
a wall of quarried stones. (_Fig._ 56.) In the height of the main palace
terrace was a shaft, the purpose of which is uncertain, as it was
without entrance, and empty; it is interesting in architectural
respects from the admirably executed barrel-vault of brick masonry which
formed its ceiling. The ruin, for the greater part destroyed, offered
beyond this corridor but few peculiarities. The stone revetment has been
almost entirely carried away, and every trace of the temple cella which
must have surmounted these terraces, as it did those of Chaldæa, has
disappeared. The better-preserved but much smaller terraced temple of
the palace at Kisr-Sargon has already been mentioned. Two interesting
reliefs show the general form of such cellas, though in these instances
the structures represented are not raised upon artificial elevations.
(_Figs._ 35 and 57.) They are small temples in antis, rectangular
buildings, three sides of which are formed by walls; while, in the open
fourth, two columns support the entablature and roof. In one case the
ends of the walls upon each side of the columns are undecorated; in the
other the pilasters, though without a base, are crowned with a member
similar to the capitals of the columns. The simple entablature projects
in an oblique line; it is terminated by stepped battlements, in which
the Mesopotamian type of the terraced pyramid is repeated in outline and
adopted as a merely decorative detail. Such temple cellas were erected
not alone upon extensive terraces, but in the plain; perhaps, also, like
the similar structures of Phœnicia, in the midst of sacred lakes. The
reliefs given in the cuts show the chapels to have stood at the foot of
natural elevations, as well as upon them. Another form of sanctuary,
with gabled roof and lanceolate acroteria, is represented upon a relief
of Corsabad. (_Fig._ 71.) The building remotely resembles a Hellenic
peripteros. Its constructive peculiarities cannot well be understood
from the relief, as these considerations were probably not clear to the
sculptor himself. It is possible that the architectural form was one
foreign to the country,--perhaps the imitation of a temple in Southern
Asia Minor. Another variety of these palace chapels appears upon the
terrace of Nimrud, the forms there differing but slightly from those of
the dwelling-chambers; the sacred cellas are distinguished only by the
exclusively mythological character of the reliefs, and by the altars and
offerings placed at the entrance. (_Fig._ 58.) It is possible, however,
that these spaces were used as the dwellings of priests rather than as
sanctuaries, especially as the two examples known are situated near the
base of the great temple of Nimrud, being in this respect admirably
adapted to the uses of the sacerdotal officers in the royal household.

[Illustration: Fig. 58.--Entrance to one of the so-called Temples,
Nimrud.]

The forms of Assyrian altars are illustrated by reliefs. (_Figs._ 35
and 57.) The rectangular shaft, at times furrowed, rests upon a plinth,
and bears a projecting slab, bordered by stepped battlements. A tripod
was found before the entrance to the so-called Temple of Nimrud (_Fig._
58); and upon reliefs are represented fire-altars, upholding by a single
support a basin for burnt sacrifices. These altars and the bronze tables
for offerings were not treated as architectural details, but more
resembled the chairs and thrones variously represented upon reliefs.

[Illustration: Fig. 59.--Obelisk from Nimrud.]

The Assyrian obelisks were of greater importance; though they cannot be
compared to the gigantic wonders of Egyptian mechanical skill, they yet
represent the typical forms of Assyrian art as characteristically as do
the Egyptian shafts the architecture of that land. A small specimen
carved in black basalt, 2.1 m. high and 0.6 m. broad at base, was
discovered in Nimrud and has been transported to the British Museum.
(_Fig._ 59.) The gently diminished pier is crowned with a terraced
pyramid, thus giving the principal monumental form of Mesopotamia, on a
small scale, as distinctly as the termination of Egyptian obelisks does
the more strictly geometrical pyramid of the Nile land. The steps and
part of the shaft are carved with cuneiform inscriptions, and with
reliefs which represent an act of homage--the presentation to the king
of various gifts, animals, etc.

[Illustration: Fig. 60.--Assyrian Dwellings. Relief from Coyundjic.]

Rich as are the results of scientific investigations in regard to the
palaces of Assyria, they are deficient in everything concerning the
cities, which could have been but mean and insignificant in comparison
with the royal dwellings. Only scanty traces of the fortification walls
around Coyundjic, Corsabad, and Nimrud have been preserved. From reliefs
these appear to have been provided with projecting galleries for
defence, with square or circular loop-holes, and with battlements of
rectangular or oblique outline. As before mentioned, there have been
preserved at Kisr-Sargon (Corsabad) the remains of a round-arched city
gate, flanked with winged lions. (A skilful restoration of this is given
by Viollet-le-Duc in his _Entretiens_.) The small hills of rubbish
within the city did not tempt the closer investigation of excavators,
who found such inexhaustible rewards for their labors at the palace
terraces. Private dwellings, which were not, like the chambers of the
kings, constructed with hewn and sculptured stones as a revetment of the
weak masonry of unburnt bricks, are now in so complete a state of
destruction that an understanding of their original form is hardly
possible. The known reliefs are not adequate to convey satisfactory
information in regard to them. Among the clearest of these is a relief
of Coyundjic (_Fig._ 60), which shows buildings with hemispherical and
oval cupolas, much like those still customary in some parts of Syria.
The openings for light and air are distinctly indicated in the summit of
the vaults. On the other hand, dwellings like that shown in _Fig._ 61,
which often occur in great numbers within the enclosure of fortification
walls, are of most perplexing construction, unless assumed to be tents.
Some interior views indicate this character, and the surrounding walls
might accordingly be considered the fortifications of an encampment. The
plan-like illustrations of walled towns, where the houses are repeated
in conventionalized forms, give no definite information concerning the
peculiarities of Assyrian domestic architecture. (_Fig._ 62.) They
remind us rather of the topographical usage prevalent during the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of our era, when, in similar
manner, approximate representations of houses and cottages were
typically employed to designate a village, a town, or a city, upon maps
from which no conception of the nature of the structures could be
obtained. But it may be concluded from these views that a majority of
the dwellings consisted of a higher and a lower division, each being
provided with an independent platform.

[Illustration: Fig. 61.--Tent-like Dwelling. Relief from Coyundjic.]

[Illustration: Fig. 62.--Susa. Assyrian Relief from Coyundjic.]

The character of Egyptian architecture was essentially influenced by the
rich colored ornamentation which covered and enlivened so much of the
wall-surface with the coilanaglyphic paintings peculiar to that country.
Upon the palace buildings of Mesopotamia painting and sculpture were
something more than mere decorative adjuncts to the architectural
construction. They may even be said to have predominated. The brick
walls of Nineveh, instead of bearing ornamental slabs, were themselves
upheld by the richly sculptured revetment. The works of the sculptor and
the painter take a more important place in the history of Assyrian art
than do those of the architect. This, however, was not the case in the
earliest ages of the Chaldæan empire, for monuments like the Temple of
the Moon at Ur (Mugheir), and like the remains at Warka, appear to have
been almost destitute of carved, if not of painted, ornamentation. The
simple treatment of wall-surfaces with glazed and colored tiles, even
when laid in the variegated patterns of the Chaldæan buildings, can
hardly be spoken of as painting; and in that country no surely attested
remains of sculpture have been discovered. Nor could the carving of
stone flourish in the later Babylonian period. The remoteness from
mountains and quarries of the great cities, and especially of the
capital itself, which stood in the midst of an extended alluvion, was
too great to allow stone material to be readily procured even for the
revetment of walls. Only one fragment of a larger relief was found by
Layard among the ruins of Babylon,[E] and this was so entirely similar
to the Assyrian sculptures that it would, without further question, have
been regarded as the work of Nineveh had not the Babylonian character of
the cuneiform inscriptions indicated its origin. A colossal statue of
black basalt, representing a lion standing upon a human being, a work
known to travellers for over a century, still lies in position, half
buried in the earth; it might convey an adequate idea of the sculpture
of Babylon were it not so weathered and imperfect as not to be
considered worth removal. The most numerous examples of the
stone-carving of Southern Mesopotamia--that is to say, of Babylonia--are
given by the cylindrical seals of syenite, basalt, agate, carnelian,
etc. These stones generally measure about 0.03 m. in length and 0.01 m.
in diameter; they are perforated in the line of their axis, to allow of
their being strung upon a cord or fixed upon a metal wire, by which, if
held as a handle, the seal could be rolled over some soft substance,
such as wax, thus leaving the impression of the figures engraved upon
it. (_Fig_. 63.) The great variance between the style of these cylinders
and that of Mesopotamian reliefs is mainly due to the totally different
technical peculiarities of intaglio and relief-cutting. The seals of
Babylonia and Assyria are usually so much alike that they are to be
distinguished only by the character of the cuneiform inscriptions, or,
in some instances, by the mythological subjects represented. The origin
of many of the carved cylinders which lack such indications cannot be
determined, the place of their discovery being of slight importance in
the case of objects so easily transportable. Numbers of these seals
exist in all large European museums, being picked up by the inhabitants
of Hillah after torrents of rain have furrowed the earth in which they
lie concealed.

[Illustration: Fig. 63.--Babylonian Seal in the British Museum, and its
Impression.]

[Illustration: Fig. 64.--Wall Decoration of Enamelled Tiles.]

The Babylonians made up for this national lack of monumental works of
sculpture, due, as has been seen, to the difficulty of obtaining
suitable material, by the development of another branch of decorative
art. Favored by the clayey earth of the Chaldæan alluvion, they did not
content themselves with the manufacture of admirable bricks, or with
exact and durable masonry of this material, but developed a glazed
decoration of their outer surfaces. The walls of chambers seem generally
to have been prepared with a coating of plaster and then painted.
Naturally, no traces of this process exist, but passages in the books
of the Biblical prophets indicate it to have been customary. Exterior
walls, which, on account of climatic influences, could not thus be
treated, were ornamented with enamelled and variously colored tiles.
Upon the steps of temple terraces this was effected by glazing the outer
sides of all the bricks with a single color, but for palace walls entire
compositions were so formed that each separate tile was drawn and
colored in reference to the entire representation. (_Fig._ 64.) Remains
show the glazing to have been quite thick; the colors, chiefly bright
blue, red, dark yellow, white, and black, have been perfectly preserved.
A French traveller of the last century relates that a chamber with walls
of colored tiles, representing, among other objects, the sun, moon, and
a cow, was unearthed from the hill of Mudjelibeh, one of the mounds of
ruins formed by the overthrow of the Babylonian palaces. An account
given by Diodoros, who describes a great hunting scene upon the
innermost city wall, shows how extended this enamel painting must have
been. Among many figures the queen, Semiramis, took a prominent part in
the action, throwing a spear at a panther from her position on
horseback, while the lance of the king transfixed a lion. The general
character of the composition can be understood from the analogy of
similar scenes represented upon reliefs from Nineveh.

[Illustration: Fig. 65.--Statue of a King, from Nimrud. (British
Museum.)]

The palace decorations naturally developed in an entirely different
manner in Northern Mesopotamia--Assyria. The spurs of neighboring
mountains advanced from all sides close upon Nineveh, and good
building-stones, notably the most beautiful alabaster, are found in the
plain, under the shallow strata of alluvial earth. The flat colored
decoration of the walls with glazed bricks was superseded by a carved
revetment of lavish richness, which so generally covered the lower half
of larger palace chambers with reliefs that an almost inexhaustible
material is presented for elucidation of the style by the fragments
discovered during the short period of twenty years.

[Illustration: Fig. 66.--Winged Lion from Nimrud. (British Museum.)]

[Illustration: Fig. 67.--Winged Bull from Nimrud. (British Museum.)]

[Illustration: Fig. 68.--Lion from Nimrud. (British Museum.)]

Sculpture so concentrated itself upon this decorative field of revetment
reliefs that it appears rarely to have ventured the execution of
independent works. Statues in the full round are extremely rare, and the
few known are nearly as similar to each other as are those of Egypt. The
best-preserved figure was found in the so-called temple at the foot of
the terraced pyramid of Nimrud, and has been carried to the British
Museum. (_Fig._ 65.) It is about 1 m. in height, hewn from a hard
limestone, and represents a king in the garb of a priest. The round head
is covered with long thick hair, which, falling somewhat over the
forehead, is not parted, but divided into wavy horizontal rows; it ends
upon the shoulders in a straight section of closely and regularly
arranged spiral curls. The imposing beard is still more
conventionalized; beginning in thick curls, it is arranged in alternate
courses of rope-like twists and rows of small coils. The ends of the
mustache curl into marked spirals. The large eyes, of rather oblique
position, are situated too low, and are consequently without expression.
Their strap-like lids do not sufficiently protrude, while the thick
eyebrows, excessively curved upward and meeting above the bridge of the
nose, so interfere with the natural form of the forehead as to give to
the face a gloomy and almost bestial expression. The curved Semitic nose
is broad and fleshy, as are all the features, which, though not
appearing puffy, have a decided tendency to fatness. The well-formed ear
is placed lower than is that of Egyptian statues, and is ornamented with
large rings. The thick and short neck disappears behind under the full
locks of hair; the round shoulders make the back appear broader than the
breast, but are more correctly modelled than those of Egyptian figures.
The long priestly garment, thickly fringed, covers one of the fleshy
arms up to the wrist, and falls without folds or indication of the lower
body beneath it, being girded around the stout waist by a twisted sash;
it leaves only the toes visible. The right hand holds an instrument
formed like an augur’s crook, probably of some sacred significance; the
left grasps the sceptre. Arms and hands have broad muscles, blunt,
rounded outlines, and the short and thick proportions peculiar to the
entire body. With the exception of the face, the sculptor made few
absolute misrepresentations of nature, though evidently more skilled in
relief-carving, and paying but little attention to the side view. An
inscription upon the breast designates the statue as that of King
Ashurakbal, the builder of the northwestern palace and of the so-called
temple of Nimrud, “the conqueror of the upper valley of the Tigris to
Lebanon and the great sea, who brought under his power all the lands,
from the rising to the setting of the sun.”

[Illustration: Fig. 69.--Relief from Corsabad. (Louvre.)]

[Illustration: Fig. 70.--Fragments of Reliefs from Nimrud. (British
Museum.)]

The monsters mentioned above form a peculiar transitional step between
the full round and relief sculpture. (_Figs._ 66 and 67.) Winged bulls,
or, more rarely, lions, with human heads and animal ears, flanked the
larger portals as sacred guardians of the entrance. On the sides of the
passage they were executed in relief up to the heads, which were worked
almost entirely free, and project, with the royal or divine tiara, from
the main block. In the front view, the breast and fore legs, as well as
the head, appear in the round. This combination of round and relief
carving resulted in two abnormities. In the first place, the animals
have five legs, as the side was allowed four, while the front, besides
the support which it had in common with the side, demanded another, that
it might not appear one-legged. Further, the monsters seem, in the
relief, to be striding and advancing, but in the front view to be firmly
standing. These cherubims--for thus the commentators of the Bible call
such “forms having a human head, the body of a lion or bull, and the
wings of an eagle”--are among the most characteristic works of
Mesopotamian sculpture. They were imposing symbols of guardian deities;
the hair of the head and beard curled tightly, as did that of breast,
abdomen, and the end of the tail; the feathers of the powerful wings
were almost straight, the legs hard and muscular, the expression of the
face severe and majestic. Lions of normal formation, exceptionally
occurring in the place of these cherubims, show so masterly an
understanding of nature and such wise conventionalization that, with the
sphinx-like lions of Egypt (compare _Fig._ 31), they rank among the most
successful representations of animals in any period of sculpture.
Prominent among the subjects shown by the reliefs, serving the purposes
of mural decoration, is the so-called tree of life, a symbol not
adequately explained, a plant form woven in ribbons and anthemions to an
ornamental play of lines, before which stand sacrificing figures or
winged genii with eagle-heads, holding in the one hand a basket, in the
other a species of pine-cone, or in the one a lotos-flower or a scourge,
and in the other a gazelle or a small lion. Upon this follow the long
processions advancing in homage before the king, which so fittingly
covered the walls of the courts. The monarch stands to receive his
vizier, who is followed by several warriors. (_Fig._ 69.) Behind stand
eunuchs--one holding a sun-shade, another a fan for flies, a third a
handkerchief, a fourth drinking-vessels, a fifth jugs with bottoms
formed like the jaws of a lion (used to dip out wine from the large
cooling-vessels), a sixth a wine-skin; the two following have a large
platter with food and the stand belonging thereto; another comes with
two models of cities, perhaps to be explained as dishes; then two with a
throne, the next with a table, those following with a bench; others,
again, with a magnificent chariot, the tongue of which is carved as a
horse’s head and the cross-pieces as the heads of gazelles, while the
rich back of the seat is supported by human figures; two helmeted
warriors follow this, with a less elaborate war-chariot, and others lead
four horses to the scene. A similar representation shows subjects
bringing gifts to the king. Some lead horses; numbers of others present
flowers and fruits, among which apples, pomegranates, grapes,
pineapples, figs, etc., may be distinguished; those following offer
cakes, locusts strung upon sticks, hares, birds, and the like. The
figures upon these ceremonial reliefs, generally over life-size, are
carefully executed to the smallest detail. Little can be said concerning
their peculiarities of feature beyond that stated above, in the
consideration of the statue of King Ashurakbal. In opposition to the
wiry toughness of the Egyptian type, the voluptuous and vigorous fulness
of the Assyrian appears distinctly in the full cheeks, the thick eyelids
and brows, the widely opened eyes with curved and projecting balls, the
energetic aquiline nose, the pouting lips, and the imposing growth of
hair and beard, so neglected in Egyptian sculptures. Eunuchs are
characterized by a lack of beard; the usual fulness degenerates into
mere obesity in all the features, but especially in the heavy and
hanging under-jaw, and the weak, fleshy arms, the only parts of the body
not hidden by the garments. The fragments illustrated by _Fig._ 70, when
compared with Egyptian heads from reliefs (_Fig._ 28), will convey an
idea of the entire difference of race and artistic style in the lands of
the Tigris and of the Nile.

[Illustration: Fig. 71.--Temple. Relief from Corsabad.]

In the works of Assyria, as in those of Egypt, the breast is usually
presented in front view, for the reasons already set forth, but the
attempt to show this part of the body in true profile is more common in
the former country; an instance may be observed in the vizier of _Fig._
69. The wrists, like the arms, are muscular and stout; the hands broad,
coarse, and awkwardly stiff. Bracelets, closing firmly by means of a
spiral spring, are placed upon the wrists and above the elbows. The
magnificence of these and similar ornaments, which have frequently been
copied by modern jewellers, and also the dignity of the swords and other
accoutrements, strictly depend upon the rank of the wearer, being graded
from the king and vizier to the warrior and eunuch. The most customary
garment in time of peace reached from the neck to the ankles, and was
often edged with a fringe of tassels and a double or fourfold border of
pearls. The underdress is smooth and white, that of the king alone being
richly patterned. The overgarment seems to have consisted almost wholly
of fringes, leaving the right arm free. The royal mantle was also in
this respect an exception, having two sleeves and covering the
shoulders, besides being ornamented with rosettes or embroidered with
mythological representations. The feet in Assyrian reliefs are long and
powerful, more supple and true to nature than the hands, though the
toes lie too closely upon the ground. The monarch and his escort have
rings upon the great toe of each foot; they wear a kind of sandal which
covers only the heel, in wise recognition of the fact that a complete
sole disturbs in some measure the natural elastic action of the ball of
the foot and the toes. When the underdress is short, as is the case in
hunting and warlike costumes, the leg below the knee is correctly but
rather stiffly modelled; the muscles protrude like hard bands, without
giving to the limb the vigorous force peculiar to Egyptian works. Yet
the whole composition, as well as every detail of Assyrian sculpture,
displays more direct study of nature than was to be found in Egypt,
where the figures were created upon an abstract model,--a canon founded
more upon convention than upon observation of life. Instead of remaining
behind reality, as did the Egyptian, the Assyrian sculptor went beyond
natural truth, exaggerating and coarsening. There the figures were
without flesh and blood, ghost-like, as if their slim trunks and
extremities were not fitted for earthly nourishment; here the material
existence was expressed in the most positive manner. A voluptuous
fulness was chosen as a type of the luxurious and contemplative
Mesopotamian, in the same way as the elastic leanness of the Egyptian
figure characterized the sinewy Fellah, emaciated from scanty
nourishment and fatiguing exertion in his dry climate.

[Illustration: Fig. 72.--Relief from Nimrud.]

[Illustration: Fig. 73.--Wounded Lioness, from Coyundjic.]

More than three quarters of the historical reliefs are warlike scenes,
mostly on a small scale, with figures less than half a meter high.
Cities are surrounded, set on fire, and plundered; when the fortress is
situated upon a height, the besiegers build ramparts of fascines, and,
sheltered by these, attack the walls with battering-rams similar to
those used by the Romans. The defenders attempt to burn these offensive
machines with torches and to cripple them with chains, the latter being
warded off from below with hooks and poles. It is also shown how warfare
was carried on in the open field, upon wooded mountains, in swamps, and
on the marshy banks of rivers, with the aid of lances, slings, and bows.
The archers are sometimes protected by a kind of chain mail. It is
represented with great clearness and fulness how the defeated enemies
seek to save themselves by flight to a swamp, how friends and foes swim
rivers supported upon inflated skins, while the king is transported in
his chariot upon a ferry-boat. Some battle-fields are covered with the
slain, whose severed heads are piled up to form a trophy of victory
truly Oriental. At times the male prisoners of war are shown suffering
death by torture; they are stripped to the skin and beaten with clubs,
or are impaled and flayed alive in great numbers. The tongues and ears
of others are cut off; while prisoners of higher rank are dragged by
rings through the under-lip before the victorious king, who languidly
deigns to blind them with a lance. At the same time, the monarch
receives homage from kneeling subjects; players of stringed instruments
celebrate his victory, while eunuchs record the amount of booty brought
before him. The spoil is shown with great circumstantiality; female
captives, holding children by the hand and infants at the breast,
advance on foot or are borne upon carts, and all manner of utensils and
provisions are carried upon beasts of burden and drays. The captured
herds--beeves, sheep, and camels--are given with wonderful truth to
nature; like the animal types occurring in the act of homage upon the
obelisk of Nimrud already mentioned, they are of masterly
characterization--the peculiarities of the lion, antelope, buffalo,
rhinoceros, elephant, and ape being carefully observed and admirably
rendered. The same understanding of animal forms is shown in the
often-repeated hunting scenes: the conception of the wounded beasts is
truly wonderful. (_Fig._ 73.) Besides the capture of gigantic lions and
buffaloes, the snaring of small game, hares and birds, is shown. Even
the various species of fish can be distinguished in the reliefs, which
show net and rod fishing.

[Illustration: Fig. 74.--Transport of Stone. Relief from Coyundjic.]

Many industrial occupations are also represented. Trees are felled, the
trunks of which are floated upon the river as rafts, or are dragged
behind boats, for the building of a royal palace; terraced mounds are
heaped up by enslaved laborers with baskets of earth. Larger masses of
building-stone, and the cherubims already described, are brought down
stream from the quarries by means of rafts, the buoyancy of which is
increased by inflated skins bound beneath them. (_Fig._ 74.) The statues
are carried to the terrace platforms by inclined planes, up which they
are drawn by hosts of workmen, who pull upon the cordage attached to the
sledge, which slides over rollers, and are driven forward by blows from
the over-seers. (_Fig._ 75.)

[Illustration: Fig. 75.--Transport of a Cherubim.]

Religious representations are much rarer than in theocratic Egypt. The
kings of despotic Mesopotamia arrogated to themselves the supremacy
allowed in Egypt to the gods, who in the latter country had been placed
by the priests in relation with every human action, and whose ceremonial
scenes were so predominant. The typical winged figure described above
occurs continually in small reliefs, and even in diminutive ornaments.
In rare instances a griffin or a kind of Pegasos is employed in its
place upon purely decorative works. The sacred symbol of the tree of
life, or that of the great god Ashur--the winged and encircled figure
already mentioned--is worshipped by standing or kneeling human beings
and by inferior deities. Processions are represented bearing images upon
thrones, and the sacrifice of lambs is shown, the animals being
slaughtered and burned piecemeal. These purely ceremonial reliefs differ
fundamentally from the historical scenes. In the former the figures are
over life-size; they are carved with great attention to detail, and are
never grouped, but placed at regular distances: in the latter the human
beings do not receive the attention devoted to the inanimate objects
occurring in the pictured story, and especially to the indications of
its locality. The fortifications of besieged towns are mapped out with
scrupulous exactness, and are easily understood when it is borne in mind
that the effect of distance, from the lack of perspective in this
primitive art, is expressed by piling things _upon_ one another which
were in reality _behind_ one another. Buildings are shown by reliefs
like those given in _Figs._ 35 and 57, with a more or less successful
attempt to clearly illustrate constructive details.

The landscape is conventionalized in a peculiar manner. Fields of grain
upon regularly rolling hills are designated by wavy lines; the trees are
usually suggestive of the carved toys accompanying the well-known Noah’s
ark of our children--this impression being heightened by the trunks
radially diverging from the hill, that they may be the more closely
grouped together. The childlike art of the Assyrians here expressed a
common error of childhood--that more trees can grow upon the increased
surface of a hill than upon a plain with an area equal to the base of
the hill-cone. At times, when necessary for the characterization of a
locality, palms, grape-vines, figs, and other plants are indicated by a
detailed imitation of leaves and fruit. Lakes, rivers (_Fig._ 74), and
swamps are carefully drawn in wavy parallel lines with spirally
conventionalized ripples; they are bordered with reeds and sedges, and
inhabited by aquatic animals easily recognized by the naturalist. The
events are represented in a simple and straightforward manner;
unimportant figures are diminutive and less carefully carved, while the
chief actors in a scene not only tower above their fellow-beings, but
even above trees and fortifications. As the only intention of the artist
was to represent a locality and an occurrence, he did not hesitate to
give a city such proportions that the defenders upon its battlements
could never have passed through its gates, and, standing upon the
ground, would have overtopped the towers.

These conventionalized types do not appear in the bronzes, sheathings of
thin wood-work, bowls, and other vessels, or in the rarer remains of
ivory carvings. A number of objects of this kind, discovered during the
excavations of Nineveh, are deposited in the British Museum. The better
preserved and more easily recognizable among the ivory carvings are of
Egyptian style, and even in some instances represent Egyptian religious
ceremonies. This is also, in a measure, the case with the bronzes,
which are composed of ten parts of copper and one of tin; though a
majority of these show thicker and heavier forms, especially in the
animals, and strikingly remind one of similar utensils discovered in
Phœnicia and Cyprus. These articles must be considered either to have
been directly imported, or so slavishly copied from foreign originals
that they are at present not surely distinguishable. There can be little
doubt that the native place of the bronze vessels was Phœnicia, and
not Egypt. The former country, as proved by the repeated allusions of
Homer and other early authors, was famed in the pre-historic ages of
Greece for the manufacture of metal utensils, and especially for an
extended employment of the bronze supplied by the copper-mines of Cyprus
and the tin trade with England. When considered in connection with the
well-known extent of Phœnician commerce, this derivation of the metal
remains found at Nineveh is rendered more than probable.

[Illustration: Fig. 76.--Glazed Terra-cotta, from Nimrud.

Red. Brown. Green. Black.]

The few and unimportant vestiges of Assyrian painting add little
material to the history of art. It has already been mentioned that the
palace walls were covered with a colored facing, shown by fragments
found among the ruins to have been of painted stucco and glazed tiles.
It consisted of bands of ornament, rows of rosettes and anthemions,
woven strap-work, conventionalized mythical animals, and other forms
arranged in set regularity. This treatment was adopted especially for
the exterior and for the courts, where imposing ceremonial reliefs with
colossal figures covered the lower surface of the wall. Animals the size
of life are given in yellow upon a blue ground, such mosaic mural
decorations being formed of tiles drawn and colored with reference to
their ultimate position. (_Fig._ 64.) There are also paintings
corresponding to the reliefs of alabaster common upon the lower half of
important walls. With figures somewhat over 0.2 m. high, they represent
scenes which appear to have stood in some relation to the carved
ornaments of interior chambers. The most important of the fragments
preserved shows a king, who, returning from battle or the hunt, is about
to place to his lips a bowl handed him by a servant. (_Fig._ 76.) The
bow which he holds in his left hand rests upon the earth; a sword hangs
by his side. A eunuch with bow, quiver, and sword, and a warrior in
short dress, with lance and pointed helmet, follow him. The garments are
outlined by a broad band of yellow color, somewhat similar in effect to
the heavy leading of mediæval stained glass-work, which increases the
impression of flat stiffness peculiar to the Assyrian costumes of baggy
cloth without folds. The head, arms, and legs are drawn in simple lines.
A dark-yellow border separates the green dress from the red background,
and the brownish color of the exposed flesh. White is intermingled with
yellow in the rosettes, fringes, swords, etc.; the hair, beard, sandals,
and the pupils of the eyes are black. Other fragments illustrated by
Layard have a green background, yellow flesh, blue garments, horses,
fishes, etc., all drawn with a heavy white, or, in rare instances,
brown, outline. It would be difficult to determine whether these
pigments have preserved their original color, and whether, indeed, some
tints are not entirely lost. Chemical analysis has demonstrated that
several metallic preparations were known to the Assyrians. The yellow is
that preparation of antimony and lead which, under the name of Naples
yellow, has been supposed a modern invention; the blue is a combination
of copper and lead, also praised as a device of recent date in its
application as a flux for glazing. The white is an enamel of oxidized
tin, commonly held to have been first employed by the Arabs of Northern
Africa in the eighth or ninth Christian century; the red is a suboxide
of copper.

In regard to the style of these paintings, little can be added to that
already stated in the consideration of Assyrian sculpture. The figures
are somewhat more slender, and seem at times to betray a slight Egyptian
influence. As in that country, the tones of color within the firm
outlines are without modulation, differing only in the hues of the
substances they represent. The composition is, perhaps, more
picturesque, the figures frequently covering each other with varied
position and action. The carved slabs which served as a revetment of the
lower wall-surfaces were brought into harmony with the paintings above
them by the addition of color to the reliefs. The hair, beard, and the
pupils of the eyes were black; some parts of the dress, as the ribbons
of the tiara, the sandals, etc., red. There is no doubt that other
tints, not now recognizable, were added to the sculptures; but it must
not be held that this painting was so brilliant and decided as some
restorations represent. If the uniform effect of a completely painted
wall-surface had been desired, the carving would largely have been given
up. The best ornamental treatment of the architecturally bare surface
was given by the marked division of its height. If the light openings of
columns and pilasters, just under the ceiling, be assumed to have
existed above the high and unpierced wall, as a distinct horizontal
member crowning the enclosing mass, we can but admire this combination,
in the Assyrian palace, of superposed courses of sculptured, painted,
and architectural works.

[Illustration: Fig. 77.--Restoration of the Palace of Darius,
Persepolis.]



PERSIA.


The fall of Nineveh, instead of being despicable--according to the
common legend--from the weakness of Sardanapalus, the last Assyrian
king, deserves rather, from the heroic ruin of the monarch with his
city, to be compared to the fall of Carthage or of Jerusalem. It removed
for some time the centre of Western Asiatic power farther to the east,
beyond the Mesopotamian streams: first to mountainous Media, whose
inhabitants, through want of culture, were better fitted to destroy than
to build, and who, therefore, play almost no part in the history of art.
As the short reign of Median greatness passed away, political power
tended to the southeast, to Persia, which raised its world-renowned
kingdom upon the ruins of the Median, and stretched the boundaries of
the new empire far beyond any former compass of Western Asiatic
sovereignty. Cyrus, the first historical monarch of Persia, not only
conquered all resistance, notably that of Nebuchadnezzar and his
Babylonian dominion, and of the Lydian king Crœsus (by no means
remarkable solely on account of his great riches), but carried his
victorious arms even to the Ægean Sea; so that Asia, in so far as it was
known to Europe, was synonymous with Persia. Cambyses, successor to
Cyrus, crushed the oldest power of the world, that of the Pharaohs; and
the third Persian king crossed the Bosporos, that he might embody in the
colossal Persian empire the eastern lands of Europe and the borders of
the Pontos. Persia, by the personal greatness of some of its rulers, by
the healthy force of its original inhabitants, as well as by marked
good-fortune, thus attained a position in the history of the world
hitherto equalled by no other country; and it was by no means wanting in
a corresponding monumental expression of this advance.

The chief cities of the land--Susa, Pasargadæ, and Persepolis, for which
latter, a name known through Greek historians, we might substitute New
Metropolis of the Persians--strove, at least in their royal palaces, to
surpass the cities of the Assyrians and Babylonians. Diodoros speaks of
Persepolis as “the world-renowned royal fortress,” imposing even to the
Greeks. The thousands of years that have passed have yet left remains
sufficient for an ideal reconstruction of the whole, and a conception of
the artistic ability of the Persians may there be obtained. This is less
the case with Susa, more destroyed, and in no wise thoroughly examined.
Its site, known by the name Shush, which still clings to the ruins, is
revered by Mohammedan pilgrims as that of the tomb of Daniel, in like
manner as the location of Nineveh found traditional confirmation among
them in the Mohammedan chapel of Jonas. The remains of Pasargadæ, near
Murgab, are somewhat better preserved than are those of Susa. Beside its
palace terraces, among its other tombs, altars, etc., there rises,
nearly intact, one of the most wonderful monuments of the world--the
tomb of the great Cyrus. Most important, however, and worthy of chief
consideration, is New Pasargadæ, or Persepolis, where the massive palace
ruins near Istakr, known under the name of Chehil-Minar (forty columns)
or Takt-i-Jemshid (throne of Jemshid), have for centuries been the
wonder of travellers.

[Illustration: Fig. 78.--Plan of Persepolis.

_A._ Grand Stairway. _B._ Propylæa of Xerxes. _C._ Cisterns. _D_, _E_,
_F_, _G_. Great Hall of Xerxes. _H._ Portal between the Palaces and
Harem. _K._ Palace of Darius. _L_, _M_, _N_. Palace of Xerxes. _O._
Unrecognized Ruins. _P._ Harem. _Q._ Portal to the Court of the Harem.]

The Persians, of later development than the Mesopotamians, naturally
based their art upon the older culture of the people conquered by them.
The palaces were similarly placed upon extensive terraces, which, like
those in Nimrud, seem to have been afterwards enlarged to make room for
several royal dwellings. The palace terrace of Persepolis (_Fig._ 78)
is, as an exception, not isolated, but so placed as to employ a rocky
plateau, which, levelled partly by excavation, partly by filling,
acquired architectural character by the vertical revetment of its
borders: it abutted with one of its oblong sides upon a cliff, this
forming a background of richly carved tomb-façades. The casing of the
platform beneath the Palace of Kisr-Sargon (Corsabad) consisted of a
masonry formed of quite regularly hewn stones. At Persepolis, on the
other hand, is employed, in a similar position, a kind of Cyclopean
masonry with predominant horizontal lines--a proof that this wall does
not necessarily indicate a greater age than does a facing of hewn stone.

In spite of the close relationship of the architecture of Persia to that
of Assyria, the ruins still show in many points such a fundamental
difference that Mr. Fergusson’s nearly absolute identification of the
art of the two nations cannot be accepted, and a higher grade of
independent position, at least in architecture, must be granted to the
Persians. The Assyrian ruins showed walls and no columns; in Persia, on
the contrary, we find columns and no walls. In view of this, it is a
daring hypothesis to assume that chance has preserved here only the one,
there only the other, constructional member--that the Persian ruins
exhibit the skeleton, as it were, the Assyrian the flesh, of one and the
same architectural body, the totality of which is only to be understood
and explained by the mutual complement, the combination of the two. For
such is Mr. Fergusson’s view. The inadmissibility of transferring
Persian columns to Assyrian palaces has already been made evident.

The peculiar formation of plan recognized in the ruins of Nineveh, the
narrow and corridor-like chambers, required no interior supports. The
clumsy disproportion of the long and cramped Assyrian rooms seems rather
to have been decided by the lack of such constructive assistance; with
it, on the other hand, the Persian palace was enabled to develop freely.
The subordinate shafts in the windows of the palaces at Nineveh did not
partake of the true nature of a column, they did not serve to enlarge an
enclosed space, but were merely decorative substitutes for the piers
which elsewhere separated the openings. It is not possible to transfer
the characteristic Persian details either to these or to the columns in
antis of the Assyrian temple cellas. The sculptured reliefs mentioned
above, from which alone the columns of Assyria are known, present an
entirely different class of forms. The Persians recognized the full
importance of columnar construction in opening and enlarging enclosed
spaces as no other nation has done except the Egyptians. It is in this
that the artistic advance of the former beyond their Chaldæan and
Babylonian predecessors consists.

[Illustration: Fig. 79.--Fragment of a Base from Pasargadæ.]

[Illustration: Fig. 80.--Persian Columns with Bull Capitals.]

The columns of Persia were developed with a characteristic
conventionalization which, though not entirely without foreign
precedents, was upon the whole original, and, at least in the more
simple varieties, decidedly artistic; the capital was peculiarly adapted
to its functions. But one small fragment has been found of the ancient
remains of Pasargadæ, dating, according to inscriptions, to the epoch of
Cyrus. It is a base, and is fortunately characteristic and interesting.
(_Fig._ 79.) The tore is similar, upon the one hand, to the
plinth-mouldings of Assyrian columns; upon the other, in its detail, to
the more recent creation of the Ionic column, which was not without
connection with the art of Mesopotamia. The ornamentation consists of
shallow horizontal channellings, with sharp arrises like those of the
so-called Proto-Doric shafts of Egypt, and is closely allied to the
bases of the most ancient examples of the Ionic style. The terrace of
Persepolis, with its monuments, built during or after the time of
Darius, displays these bases only in the palaces built by that king. The
tore there occurring was placed upon two square plinths. The later
monuments of Persepolis, which, for the greater part, were built by
Xerxes, show the base to have kept pace with the further advance of the
shaft, and to have consisted of multiplied and embellished members. The
square plinth is supplanted by a beautifully curved calyx, turned
downward and ornamented by two rows of leaves--the upper rounded and
heart-shaped, the lower lanceolate. To this is sometimes added a wreath
of anthemions, which appears to have been taken from Syrian or
Phœnician models. The projecting moulding of these more elaborate
examples is diminished in size, and has lost the horizontal grooves.
The shaft, with thirty-six shallow channels, separated by sharp arrises
like those of the primitive base, rises upon the combined tore and
plinth to a height of nine times its lower diameter. It is not
inconsiderably diminished. The junction between shaft and base is
effected, as in the Ionic style, by a gentle curve, ornamented by a
small roundlet. The capital shows, instead of the floral form usual in
other countries, an animal combination, which, from the analogy of
certain gold coins of Western Asia, appears to have been a widely known
symbol. It consists of two bull’s heads and shoulders, grown together
back to back, with the front legs bent under them in a recumbent
position. The head is drawn upward, the elegantly curved neck being
ornamented by a rich chaplet. Upon the common back of the two animals
lies the chief transverse beam of the ceiling. A description of the
peculiar style of carving will be given in the section upon Persian
sculpture. It may only be here premised that the general treatment of
the animals is quite similar to that noticed in Assyria. The capital is
particularly well adapted to receive and support two ceiling timbers
crossing above it at right angles; the lower of these shows its section
upon the front of the building, and rests upon the back of the bulls;
while the epistyle beam upon it, which joins the columns and is seen in
its whole length upon the front, is supported by the heads and by the
main timber between them. This method of laying the ceiling beams was
the reverse of that followed by the architects of other nations. The
timbers of the ceiling, which run at right angles, are usually placed
upon, and not beneath, the connecting epistyle.

[Illustration: Fig. 81.--Spiral Ornaments upon Chairs.

_a._ From an Assyrian Relief. _b._ From the Vicinity of Miletos. _c._
From Xanthos. _d, e, f._ From Paintings upon Greek Vases.]

[Illustration: Fig. 82.--Columns from the Eastern Portico of the Hall of
Xerxes.]

[Illustration: Fig. 83.--Rock-cut Tomb of Darius.]

In the time of Xerxes, these simple bull capitals appear not to have
satisfied the increasing demands of luxurious elegance. Three new
members were therefore placed below them, and the entire capital became
almost as high as the remainder of the shaft, which was naturally much
curtailed by this innovation. (_Fig._ 80.) The two lower of these new
members may perhaps be counted as one--the wreath of falling leaves
being regarded as part of the calyx above it. These leaves are very
simply treated; they do not curve, and are terminated by a semicircle:
between them and the calyx there is a small egg-and-dart moulding; that
is to say, a wreath of small leaves entirely bent over. As the
derivation of this characteristic member cannot be traced to Syria, the
supposition is natural that it was derived from the Hellenic
architecture of Asia Minor, which had been fully developed in its
principal aspects since the time of Darius. The general form, as well as
the detailed decoration of the upright calyx by narrow bundles of
lotos-flowers, points so distinctly to an Egyptian model that it must,
without further question, be ascribed to the influence of that land,
which had been subjugated by the Persian Cambyses. After a repetition of
the egg-and-dart moulding, there follows above the calyx a remarkable
member of sixteen spiral rolls, as similar to the forms of Assyrian as
to those of Ionic capitals. The spirals are so placed around the oblong
kernel of the shaft that two touch upon each of its angles--thus
standing vertically, and not horizontally. The derivation of the form
appears to be owing more to Assyrian-Mesopotamian reminiscences than to
any influence of the Greek Ionic style. The remarkable vertical position
of the volutes is better explained by subordinate ornaments of the
former than by architectural members of the latter land. The decorations
upon the legs of thrones and other parts of furniture, shown by reliefs,
prove the helix to have been more frequently used by the Assyrians as
the vertical ornament of a shaft than as a horizontal coronation--a
capital. (_Fig._ 81.) That the former usage was extensive is shown by
the similar occurrence of the form upon Greek examples from Asia Minor.
The spiral, with concave or convex fluting, with ribbed and channelled
rolls, was originally double; in Persia it was transferred to a
four-sided shaft, to serve, not as a coronation, but as a vertical
ornament, as one of the three or four distinct members of the
complicated capital. The double-headed animals were placed upon it as
the termination of the column. In the mythological sculptures of
Mesopotamian lands, lions and bulls shared equally the honors of
frequent representation; and upon the capitals of Persepolis a horned
and double-headed lion was substituted for the double-headed bull. This,
however, was not in an important position, and the change is known by
only a single example--the eastern portico of the Great Hall of Xerxes.
(_Fig._ 82.) The isolated attempt was the more successful because no
other animal forms had been so well conceived and characterized by the
Orientals as the lion; that king of beasts, with open mouth and powerful
paws, was the favorite subject for decorative treatment down to the
latest times of Hellenic art. As the comparatively short fore legs of
the lion could not be bent underneath the body, but were necessarily
extended from the shoulder, the general outline of the capital was
impaired by a long and straight horizontal line just at its junction
with the shaft; and on this account the lions, notwithstanding their
more majestic heads, could not displace the traditional bulls.

As the entablature was in all probability entirely constructed of wood,
and has disappeared without a trace, the restoration of this part of the
building is difficult. But the normal forms may yet be determined with
greater correctness than is presented in Coste’s restoration (_Fig._
82), which is a tasteful combination of the scotia and roundlet cornice
common to both Egyptian and Assyrian architecture, with dentils and the
leaved ornaments found above all the doors and windows of Persian
remains, and with the decorations upon the borders of staircase
buttresses. A number of rock-cut tombs appertaining to the early Persian
kings, the Achemenidæ, and dating from the time of Darius, represent the
façades of royal palaces, and give important information concerning the
exterior appearance of such structures. The oldest and best-preserved of
these is designated by cuneiform inscriptions as the tomb of Darius.
(_Fig._ 83.) It is especially interesting as illustrating the formation
of the entablature. An epistyle, triply stepped, like that of the Ionic
style, so that each face slightly projects beyond the one beneath it, is
placed above the transverse beam, which lies upon the backs of the
double-headed animals forming the capitals of the columns. The
multiplication of the faces of the epistyle is explained by the weakness
of the timber produced by Mesopotamia and Persia, which, in opposition
to the single and massive Doric lintel-block, required the employment of
several beams to obtain the desired capability of support. Upon it
followed the ornaments known as dentils, representatives of the small
and closely lying joists of the horizontal, slightly projecting roof.
They are quite similar to the dentils upon the tombs of Beni-hassan, and
to those of the still more naïve imitations of wooden houses found in
Lycia, which will be considered in the following section.

In Persia, the proportions of the dentils and of the distances between
them are still characteristic of the original timbered construction--a
truthfulness of imitation which was lost as early as the development of
the Ionic style. The nature of the band following above is not clear; it
might be natural to suppose in it a representative of such a hollow
cornice with leaves as Coste has introduced upon his entablature, were
it not that a frieze-relief with ornamental lions is visible upon this
member in another tomb, and that a remarkable block of the Palace of
Darius at Persepolis bears further testimony against it. One of the
corner piers of the front portico of that building has been preserved to
such a height that the side bearing of the lintel can be observed. This
renders the projection and outline of the entablature certain. It was
six times stepped, and may best be reconstructed, as in _Fig._ 84, by a
series of narrow bands, which represent in some measure the layers of
the horizontal ceiling and roof. From a comparison with the rock-cut
tomb, it is plain that a further cornice, like that over the door and
window-frames, was here not possible. If a parapet had been desired for
the accessible platform of the roof, it must have taken the form of a
light balustrade, not that of a heavy scotia cornice.

[Illustration: Fig. 84.--Entablature of the Palace of Darius.
Reconstructed from the Bearing.]

[Illustration: Fig. 85.--Plan of the Palace of Darius at Persepolis.]

The oldest and, because best-preserved, the most intelligible of the
royal dwellings upon the terrace of Persepolis is that shown by
inscriptions to have been built by Darius. (_Fig._ 85; and K upon the
topographical plan of Persepolis, _Fig._ 78.) It exhibits a regular and
well-considered plan, the oblong form and general disposition of which
are somewhat similar to the simpler Greek houses. A flight of steps led
from each side to the narrow southeastern front--a double tetrastyle
loggia. This was flanked by two moderately large rooms, which, as they
could be entered only from the portico and had no connection with the
interior, were probably intended for guards or servants. A door, between
four windows, opened into the square hall, the ceiling of which was
supported by sixteen columns, standing in line with those of the loggia.
This space corresponded to the atrium of Greek and Roman houses. Three
of its sides, that of the front being excepted, had access to inner
rooms--those upon the right and left being small, while, opposite the
entrance, they were more spacious, and separated from the hall by a
corridor. The walls were enriched by niches as well as by door and
window openings. Through one of the chambers upon the left was a
lateral entrance, reached by a double flight of steps upon the
southwest. Notwithstanding the preservation of the special foundation
terrace, of the steps, of the door, window, and niche frames, as well as
of some corner piers, the ruin did not at first glance make evident the
disposition here described. All the columns of the palace have
disappeared. It is uncertain whether this is because the supports of the
less pretentious structure were of wood, or whether stone shafts, of the
moderate dimensions which must be assigned to them, were carried away
during the two thousand years in which the ruins of the palace terrace
have served as a quarry for neighboring towns. The square plinths upon
which the columns stood have, however, remained in their original
position, so that the number and site of the supports may be easily and
surely determined. The greater portion of the walls has also
disappeared. Some corner piers and the marble frames of doors, windows,
and niches, cut from immense monolithic blocks, alone stand erect; but
their perfect state of preservation and well-marked position permit the
nature of the wall between them to be determined without difficulty. It
seems that this was of small quarried stones, or even of brick, thus
being easily removed, or, in the latter case, reduced to dust by
atmospheric influences; while the massive door and window casings were
secure from removal by man and from the injuries of time. Their stepped
jambs are decorated upon the inner side with reliefs; the heavy lintels
have a scotia cornice, carved with a triple row of leaves and bordered
below by an astragal. Of the openings for providing light to the great
hall no traces remain. If, as is usually supposed, the windows now
recognizable were all that ever existed, the chambers of the palace
would have been most gloomy, with the exception of the hall of columns,
which had four openings upon the loggia, besides the door. The light of
the hall itself must have been dim, for it could not enter directly, the
windows and doors being beneath the shade of the deep portico, with its
double range of columns; and when still more impeded by the
close-standing shafts of the hypostyle, it would have been wholly
insufficient for the chambers. It is further to be remarked that several
of the inner rooms have no direct communication with the hall, while if
they had depended on it for light they would certainly have been
provided with window-openings in place of the blind niches. It is
evident from the existence of a second story, presently to be discussed,
that horizontal apertures in the roof and ceiling could not have
existed; this would be even more inadmissible here than in the palace
buildings of Nineveh. It is necessary, however, to assume other openings
for illumination and ventilation than those now to be observed in the
ruins, and windows were most probably arranged in the manner in which
the Orientals still secure their dwellings from the view of the outer
world while admitting light and air--the manner customary with the
Assyrians, as well as with the more ancient Greeks. The apertures were
probably upon the exterior walls, just under the ceiling, high above the
ground. All traces of architectural members in such a position must
necessarily have disappeared when the mass of masonry which supported
them was overthrown. It is possible that their form was entirely plain,
like that given in the restoration of the Palace of Darius at the head
of this section (_Fig._ 77), and offered no carved details to aid in
their recognition.

[Illustration: Fig. 86.--Persian Door-casing.]

A comparison of the rock-cut façade upon the tomb of Darius with the
palace of that king will aid in the consideration of the upper story. As
the tomb represents the palace with but slight variations, even agreeing
tolerably well with its proportions, it may be supposed that the monarch
copied his dwelling upon the front of his grave, that he might, as it
were, inhabit it even after his death. This is not an isolated instance
of such a proceeding in the history of architecture. The second story,
distinctly recognizable upon the tomb, cannot be regarded as an
insignificant decoration, especially as the Palace of Darius at
Persepolis seems, from its plan, to have been thus arranged. The
limited area covered, exceeded by many a modern private house, renders
an enlargement by a second story natural; and this is also made probable
by the hypostyle, which occupies a place where an open court, with full
upper light, would otherwise have been more suitable. Space for the
staircases was provided by the two narrow corridors next the rear
chambers. The second story was not, however, extended over the entire
ground-plan, but seems to have left the flat roof of the side chambers
as an elevated veranda, perhaps sheltered from the sun by canopies, as
the _talar_, a similar though smaller upper structure, stands as a
pavilion upon the modern houses of Persia. The walls of the second story
could scarcely have been placed elsewhere than upon the otherwise
unreasonably thick partition-enclosure of the hypostyle hall. They could
not have stood over an intercolumniation, as upon the façade of the
rock-cut tomb--for this would have been difficult, if not impossible of
construction--but in other respects the upper part of the palace may
have been like that representation. Its corner supports, which are a
strange combination of scotias and roundlets, ending below in lion’s
paws and above in a one-sided lion capital, have, at least, every
appearance of being copied from an architectural model, and are similar
in their lower half to the legs of the throne given in _Fig._ 87. The
standing figures, which, in double row, support the ceiling, may have
been carved in relief or simply painted. That this was a common ornament
is evident from its repetition upon the reliefs of gateways, where such
typical figures are admirably characterized as representatives of the
various nations subjugated by the Persian power, they literally
supporting the throne. The entrance and the second-story windows may be
supposed to have been upon the side opposite the front, where the
veranda was broadest and the staircases led from the lower floor, as
otherwise the imitation of the façade upon the rock-cut tomb would have
shown windows and doors as well as a staircase, which probably led in
double flight to the uppermost roof. That this house-top was flat and
accessible is evident from the reliefs considered in this connection
(_Figs._ 83 and 87), one of which represents the royal throne shaded by
a canopy, the other one of those fire-altars which, according to Persian
custom, was placed upon the highest level of the house. This altar upon
the summit of a royal palace is mentioned in the Bible, when Hezekiah,
overthrowing the Sabæan worship of the sun, destroyed “the altar which
is upon the top of the upper rooms of Ahaz.” In the restoration of the
Palace of Darius (_Fig._ 77), the introduction of the altar with the
royal canopy may be considered as more than a mere decoration of the
design. This simplest and best-preserved ruin upon the terrace of
Persepolis permits a comparatively trustworthy understanding of the
elements of Persian palace architecture.

[Illustration: Fig. 87.--Relief from the Portal of the Hall of Hundred
Columns.]

The ruin O of the topographical plan (_Fig._ 78) shows the remains of a
similar structure of about the same dimensions, later, and therefore of
less interest, than the Palace of Darius. The Palace of Xerxes (L, M, N)
was nearly double this size, being provided with a spacious terrace
before its gates, and with a colonnade upon one side, the nature of
which cannot readily be explained. On the other hand, it had no large
chambers behind the hypostyle, as the rooms upon the right and left
seem, by their more spacious proportions, to have rendered these
unnecessary. The portico was hexastyle, and the square hall behind it
consequently provided with thirty-six columns. Two of the side chambers
were so large that their ceilings required the support of four columns.

Of still greater dimensions, more than eight times the area of the
Palace of Darius, was the Palace Hall of Xerxes (D, E, F, G) which was
preceded by a magnificent double flight of steps. The ceiling of the
imposing hypostyle was upheld by thirty-six columns of gigantic size.
There are no traces of chambers having been connected with it; three of
its sides were provided with hexastyle porticos, which masked and
artistically enlivened the dead enclosing-walls. The masonry has
disappeared, with the exception of unimportant remains of the portal
(G), which Coste has restored as the foundations of pedestals. Although
a similar ruin at Susa, examined by Loftus, was also without walls, it
is impossible to agree with Coste that these were originally altogether
lacking, and that the columns of the central space were unenclosed--that
the three portals, provided with separate roofs, were grouped around
this without any connection. While we agree with Fergusson in as far as
regards the completion of the wall line and the unity of the whole under
a common roof, we must yet discredit his further assumption that this
building was provided, like the Palace of Darius, with an upper story;
all the requisite conditions for this were lacking. The ruin is
remarkable from the remains of the colossal columns being in the
comparatively best state of preservation. They represent the three
orders described above: those of the western portico having the
double-headed bull; those of the eastern the double-headed lion, and the
others the form of shaft coronation combined of three or four members.
The destination of this building was not that of a dwelling, but,
without doubt, that of a festive hall for the audiences and ceremonies
of the vainest and most magnificent of despotic monarchs. To this end it
was fittingly placed next to the entrance-gate of the palace terrace. It
is one of the most enormous buildings of the world; the area covered by
its plan, about 10,500 sq. m., nearly equals that of the Cathedral of
Milan, and surpasses that of the Cologne cathedral by about 2350 sq. m.

[Illustration: Fig. 88.--Propylæa of Xerxes at Persepolis.]

The imposing portal next to it, B, proved by inscriptions to have also
been erected by Xerxes, remains upright in the grand masses shown by
_Fig._ 88. An adequate explanation of its nature is not possible. It is
only clear that its principal disposition, like that of the similar
portal, H, of the terrace, was determined by the intersection of
passages, the crossing being marked by four columns, while the parallel
walls were of sculptured marble blocks. In a former work upon the
history of ancient architecture,[F] the author has expressed the
supposition that side walls were built in the directions marked by
dotted lines upon the topographical plan (_Fig._ 78), connecting the
portal with the ascending staircase. The gate would thus receive the
character of a fortification, a termination of the palace terrace,
instead of being the useless structure, easily to be circumvented, which
it is commonly considered. It is probable that these side walls existed
also at the chief portals of the Assyrian palaces, as otherwise the
entrances, especially that of the harem, would have been too much
exposed. These masses of masonry have disappeared from the ruins of
Nineveh, because of the crumbling of the terrace borders, and in
Persepolis, where all walls have been overthrown and carried away, their
extent is not marked by the more durable door and window frames, which
alone remain of the palace enclosures.

The assumption of similar communicating walls in connection with the
other portal structures of the palace terrace (H and Q) not only renders
to these their full importance, but throws light upon a building of
enormous extent (C), the destination of which has hitherto been
problematical. This edifice has been called, in lack of a better name,
the Hall of a Hundred Columns. It is an extended enclosure of square
plan, within which stood columns, traceable by the remains of six of
their number. Upon the front was a portico, not decastyle, like the
interior, but octastyle; two bases remaining _in situ_ determine its
arrangement and dimensions. The columns may be calculated, from their
lower diameter, to have been about 7 m. high. The enclosure of the hall,
determined in extent by the remains of all the portals and niches,
measured 68 m. upon each side. According to general acceptance, the
building was restricted to the area now covered by its ruins, and served
as a second great hall for ceremonies. Fergusson terms it a coronation
hall. But, apart from the fact that the Hall of Xerxes must have been
far better fitted by its imposing proportions for such a purpose than
this low and broad space, where the forest of columns would have impeded
the view, it is hardly possible that two such extensive buildings would
have been provided upon the terrace for the same use. But some adequate
space is yet to be assigned to that important necessity of Oriental
custom, the harem, which tradition particularly asserts to have existed
among the Persian palaces. If the ruin is examined in its relation to
the other palace structures of Persepolis, it becomes plain that it can
be nothing else than the central hall of a similar, but more extended,
series of chambers, of which, as is also the case with the ruined
remains at O, hypostyle and portico have alone been preserved, while the
walls of all the outer rooms have disappeared. Only the doors and
windows of any wall upon the terrace now exist; and as the entrances
were naturally small and the openings for light high above the ground,
in the enclosure of the harem, it is not surprising that this masonry
has disappeared in almost its entire extent. Two principal portals,
perhaps the only ones of the outermost walls, have been preserved,
however, and mark the outline of the building. These are the gateways H
and Q of the topographical plan: the first of these even shows some
trace of the enclosing wall; it is the entrance from the palaces K, L,
M, N, and O; the second probably led to an open court, to which access
must have been allowed the fair prisoners. The space between the
hypostyle and the exterior wall, indicated upon the plan by dotted
lines, must have been occupied by the numerous small rooms which
provided dwellings for the three hundred girls of the harem. The low and
broad central hall served as a place of assemblage; the great number of
its columns and the excessive lowness of the ceiling exclude the idea of
its having been used for public ceremonies, but render it particularly
fitted for this purpose, the many shafts separating the groups of
intimate conversers. The dim twilight of the room was, at these evening
assemblies, enlivened by the many-colored lamps of the East. The harem
upon the terrace thus received a development analogous to that of the
royal dwellings, and its necessarily great extent was provided for in a
becoming place. By the assumption that the remains at P are those of the
harem, an integral part of the Oriental palace is recognized, and a
large tract of the terrace area is occupied, the use of which could not
otherwise be designated upon the topographical plan.

The disposition of the terrace under Darius appears to have differed
considerably from that under his successors. It is not known whether its
extent has since been increased; to establish this point, extensive
excavations would be required. It is probable that the northwestern side
of the plateau has been built out by adding earth to the natural rock;
the buildings upon the southern half appear the more primitive: it is
certain, however, that the position of the ascent was changed during the
great reconstruction completed by Xerxes, and possibly commenced during
the latter part of the reign of Darius. The orientation of the Palace of
Darius, which, of all the buildings at Persepolis, alone faces the
south, shows the great staircase to have been originally upon the
southern end of the terrace. Enormous dowelled blocks of stone assured
the stability and preservation of the newer parts of the substructure.
The broad and gently rising flights of steps remain in so good a
condition that it is even to-day possible to ascend them upon horseback.

[Illustration: Fig. 89.--Altar Pedestals at Pasargadæ.]

Among the remaining monuments of Persian architecture there are no
temples; it would be vain to seek such structures; the worship of the
land did not demand closed rooms, requiring only sacrifice and prayer
upon the summits of mountains or artificial elevations. Herodotos
relates that the Persians not only scorned temples, but did not erect
images of their deities, nor even altars. This last point is certainly
incorrect; the worship of fire particularly called for altars, and these
are represented upon the ornamented façades of the rock-cut tombs.
(_Fig._ 83.) It is probable that two pedestals, standing near each other
upon the palace terrace of Pasargadæ, are ancient Persian. They are
cubes, each about 3 m. high; one is terminated by steps, and has upon
one side a straight line of ascending stairs; the platform at the summit
was sufficiently large to receive an altar, or may perhaps itself have
been used as a receptacle for fire and sacrifices. They are similar to
the altar upon the upper story of the Palace of Darius, used for
religious devotion. The supposition may be ventured that these two
altars, in such vicinity, point to the dualism of the Persian worship of
Ormuzd and Ahriman.

Other large monuments of the land may have had something to do with
religious observances; but as they lack any characteristic form, this
cannot be proved. Such is the case with the cone of Darabgerd, known as
Kella Darab, apparently an imitation of a natural mound. It is
surrounded by a circular wall, perforated in eight equidistant places,
and rises, in two rings of masonry, to a height of 48 m. A similar
structure is the massive tower of Firuz-Abad, a rectangular obelisk 27
m. high, measuring 8.5 m. upon each side of its base. Near it is an
enormous platform, with broad buttresses upon the four sides, which are
directed to the cardinal points of the compass; the foundation of the
mass measures 61 by 78 m. The masonry is of carefully hewn stone, of a
workmanship not found in the country after the advent of the Christian
era; the swallow-tail dowelling of the blocks is similar to that upon
the pavement of the terrace at Persepolis.

[Illustration: Fig. 90.--Tomb of Cyrus.]

To the consideration of these structures must be added that of the
semi-sacred tombs. Though few other monuments can be traced back to the
age of the founder of the Persian sovereignty, the heroic Cyrus, fortune
appears to have preserved his tomb almost entirely intact in
architectural respects. The description of it by Arrian is not precise,
but his account may still be identified with an interesting and
evidently ancient Persian monument, now known as Medshed
Mader-i-Suleiman, the tomb of the mother of Solomon. Its situation is in
Murgab, not distant from the ruins of Pasargadæ, which contain
inscriptions with the name of Cyrus, and reliefs commemorating his
exploits. The monument consists of a terrace seven times stepped,
covering a ground surface of 12.5 by 13.5 m.; it is built of enormous
blocks carefully joined, and bears a cella with gabled roof. The simple
and gently curved mouldings of the cornice and base of the cella do not
betray Greek influence, but it is possible that the form of the roof,
rare in the Orient, may be attributed to reminiscences of Hellenic
construction observed during the campaigns of Cyrus in Asia Minor. The
entrance, described by Arrian as very small, is 0.9 m. broad and 1.2 m.
high; the exterior of the cella is 5.2 m. broad and 6.3 m. long; the
chamber itself only 3 m. long and 2.1 m. broad and high. There is
naturally no longer any trace of the objects once within the
interior--the table, coffin, and bier of solid gold; the garments of
royal purple. The inscriptions have, unfortunately, also disappeared.
The blocks of the chamber floor are swallow-tailed into each other with
great exactness; to which circumstance, and to the exact jointing of all
the massive masonry, this exceptionally fine state of the building’s
preservation is to be ascribed. The whole structure gives the impression
of a terraced Chaldæan temple. It is not improbable that the Tomb of
Cyrus received this sacred form because the character of a hero of
Western Asia was attributed to the king soon after his death. A
colonnade appears to have enclosed the sombre pile; several drums of its
columns still project above the ground. The accounts of Greek authors
refer to buildings erected for the priests to whose care the monument
was intrusted; these are believed to have been recognized in the remains
of a neighboring caravansary.

The tombs of later Persian kings, which, during the entire dynasty of
the Achæmenidæ, were almost alike, are of a totally different nature
from that of Cyrus, being cut in and upon the face of the rock. Upon the
steep cliff of Naksh-i-Rustam and Persepolis there are seven of these
facades, which form an imposing feature of the landscape, whether viewed
in the vicinity or from afar. All follow the type of the Tomb of Darius
described above, giving a representation of the royal dwelling upon the
wall before the grave-chamber. (_Fig._ 83.) Only the lower half of the
door is used as an entrance, the upper part being closed by an imitation
of slat-work. It leads to a corridor running parallel to the face of
the cliff; in the Tomb of Darius this extends to the left, beyond the
breadth of the façade, to three chambers, each of which is arranged for
three coffins. All these graves had been plundered when investigated by
Coste and Flandin. A rock-cut tomb at Serpul-Zohab is of still simpler
disposition; originally it had two columns upon the front, but was not
further decorated; the interior consisted of a small chamber, providing
only sufficient space for two sarcophagi. It is not certain whether
other monuments in the vicinity of Naksh-i-Rustam and of Pasargadæ
should be regarded as tombs. They resemble towers; their corners are
strengthened by pilasters, and they have oblong niches upon each side,
the frames of which are triply stepped. Of the tombs of Persian subjects
nothing whatever is known; it may be possible that the people of that
nation were accustomed formerly, as at present, to carry down their dead
from the highlands to the Necropolis of Chaldæa, where millions of
graves still await scientific investigation.

As little is known of Persian domestic architecture. No vestiges of
private houses have been found which belong to an historical period
earlier than that of the Roman emperors. The habitations of subjects
were not to be compared with the magnificent palaces of their despotic
rulers, and must have been built of the most destructible materials. We
may imagine the Persian house somewhat to have resembled, in disposition
of plan, the royal dwellings, though of course greatly simplified by the
substitution of an open court for the hypostyle hall, by the omission of
terraces, columns, and carvings, and by the reduction of all spaces and
dimensions to a minimum.

The Persians developed far less independence in sculpture than in
architecture. They showed themselves, in their carvings, to be but
meanly endowed scholars of the Assyrians, and gained little by
subjecting themselves to the influence of other nations, the spirit of
which they did not comprehend or employ towards any possible improvement
of Assyrian traditions. The Mesopotamians were, in their artistic
development, thrown upon their own resources; they therefore looked
earnestly to the fountain-head of nature as the model of their
sculptured work; but the Persians, in the wider extent of their
kingdom, instead of profiting by the study of nature, so requisite to
true progress, depended upon forms and methods inherited from the
Assyrians, upon which they engrafted certain peculiarities borrowed from
the Egyptians, and also, in still greater measure, from the higher art
practised among the Greeks of Asia Minor in the time of Darius and
Xerxes. In this adoption of foreign properties, in this mingling of
Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Hellenic manners of expression, they utterly
sacrificed originality and simplicity of style, and made of their
sculpture a repulsive hybrid of inharmonious elements. It may well be
conceived that with this lifeless imitation the creative impulse
languished, and art became more and more limited, until it shrank at
last into mere ornamental handiwork. The Persians could the more easily
forego the revetment of their walls with carved slabs, after the
Assyrian fashion, as their architecture itself, far more than that of
Mesopotamia, fulfilled its own aim,--accomplished with its own means
what was elsewhere effected by sculpture and painting.

With Persian statues in the full round we have no acquaintance. Several
examples remain of colossal monsters in the half round, like those met
with in Assyrian sculpture. In conception and in detail, in proportion
and in situation, they scarcely differ from those of Assyria: they are
only somewhat stiffer; their strap-like sinews and veins, their muscles
and hair, are conventionalized almost to pure ornament; they have
entirely lost the life-like natural truth of the works of Nineveh. The
tendency towards decoration is well expressed in the wings of these
monsters. The rectilinear feathers of the models upon the Tigris were in
Persia transformed into the graceful but unnatural curves seen also in
the griffins of Greek architecture. This Colossus is found in the best
state of preservation at the Propylæa of Xerxes near the ascent of the
terrace of Persepolis. On the front are perfect bulls, with
proportionately small heads; on the back are the cherubim already
mentioned, with long-bearded, tiara-crowned human heads. These purely
Assyrian monsters of the gateway may perhaps be regarded as trophies
from Mesopotamia, which, in the course of time, had become naturalized
into the Persian practice of palace architecture.

[Illustration: Fig. 91.--Relief for a Portal of Persepolis. (See Fig.
86.)]

If the masonry, probably of brick, had received a richly sculptured
stone revetment, like that which covered the Assyrian walls, some
remains of this would certainly have been found. It seems, however, that
the wall surfaces were ornamented only with paintings. In proportion as
carved decoration was diminished, the architectural treatment of the
enclosing masses was increased, by doors, windows, and niches, and by
the repeatedly stepped epistyle beams and its crowning scotia, richly
ornamented with leaves over the lintels. Only the inner surfaces of the
door-jambs were used for representations in relief, the subjects being
partly mythological, partly ceremonial. The ruins of Pasargadæ show such
a mythological figure, in long, close-lying garments without folds,
according to the Assyrian tradition, though of somewhat lighter
proportion. It has a less pronounced Semitic profile, Egyptianized by
long twisted ram’s horns upon the head, and with the irrelevant
ornaments of the Nile situla, disks, and uræos-serpents; the greater
part of it is so destroyed that only the outline is recognizable. Upon
the terrace of Persepolis there is repeated a kingly or divine being
lifting a lion into the air while strangling it, such as appears in more
vigorous design upon the reliefs of Nineveh; or this figure pierces with
a short sword a bull, lion, or griffin standing upright upon its hinder
legs. One of these peculiar mythological representations is given in
_Fig._ 91. The head of the male figure, ornamented with a diadem, is
distinguished from the Assyrian type only by a longer and less
protruding nose, and by some diminution of the luxuriant hair and beard.
The exposed limbs, the arms and legs, have more slender proportions;
with a softer and somewhat Hellenized swing of the outlines, there is
less modelling than was found upon the Tigris. The expression of great
muscular power, of striking and healthy energy of action, peculiar to
the Assyrians, is lost in Persia. The garments are not sack-like and
close-fitting; with the richly patterned treatment of surfaces, there is
an attempt, not altogether fortunate, to indicate the folds of drapery
and the free flow of cloth. It is possible to recognize in this respect
the influence of Asiatic Hellas, falling, indeed, upon rather sterile
ground, and received with little understanding. The strapped shoes take
from the cramped foot its true form, being curved in the sole even more
than is the case with the naked instep. The power, long since acquired
by the Greeks, of so raising the hinder foot of a moving figure that
only the toes touch the ground, was as far from being possessed by the
Persians as was the power of causing the whole body to take part in an
action--carrying forward the momentary position. The human being is
apparently able neither to turn the animal away from himself, nor, by
additional exertion, to give the death-blow. The opposing griffin is
similarly petrified; it here appears with eagle’s head and feathered
tail, occurring in other representations with lion’s head and scorpion’s
tail. Both paws of the fore feet, and one of the eagle’s claws of the
hind feet, are in the position of attack; one paw grasps the right arm,
as it reaches towards the head of the monster; the other is laid upon
the left, which pierces its body with a broad and pointed dagger. At the
same time, one of the bird-like hinder legs touches the front knee of
the human figure. But nowhere is there the energetic movement of
seizing or pressure found upon Assyrian sculptures; there is a posture,
but no action; and thus the lion-eagle monster has no frightful
power--only something hatefully comical in figure and bearing. Nor has
the bull or lion, which occasionally takes the place of the griffin,
anything of the Assyrian force; the scene might be considered as a
harmless play of the man with the animal, were it not for the sword half
buried in the body.

The most accessible subjects for such an art were naturally mere
ceremonial representations, where the action, reduced to a minimum, was
naturally neither momentary nor energetic. There are the promenades of
the king, with staff and lotos-flower in his hands, followed by eunuchs,
one third of his size, who carry his handkerchief and sunshade, and cool
him with a fan of peacock’s feathers. It is worthy of curious notice
that, upon a door at the back of the palace, the sunshade is omitted
from the relief, as being of use only in going out. A casual observation
of Persian sculpture may be deceptive, and we may seem to recognize
quiet dignity in what is mere want of all expression. It is thus with
the frequently repeated ceremonial scenes, the architectural employment
of which has been mentioned above. (_Fig._ 87.) The canopied throne
appears raised upon an elevation; the king sits with his feet resting
upon a footstool, his retinue before him with censers. Three superposed
rows of men stand as supporters of the throne, with outstretched arms
bearing the platform. The figures are placed in such regular position
that the effect is purely ornamental; but are individually interesting,
in so far as they are intended to represent, in feature and costume, the
different nationalities of the Persian empire. Notwithstanding the
celebrated description of the review of the Persian army upon the banks
of the Hellespont given by Herodotos, it would be hopeless to attempt to
recognize among the figures the types of known tribes. Of a similar kind
are the upper parts of the rock-cut reliefs upon the tombs of the
Achæmenidæ, the architectural peculiarities of which have already been
mentioned. Because of the sacred character of these graves, the kings
are not represented enthroned, but standing upon a stepped platform
before an altar, over which floats the winged and encircled deity, near
the disk of the sun or moon. A consideration of the exterior treatment
of the upper story of the palaces would here be in place if it could be
shown that the ornamentation was indeed carved.

Persian sculpture received its most extensive application upon the
buttresses of the steps placed before every palace. Here are found the
ceremonial scenes of the Assyrian courts in a feeble rendering, far
removed from the sharp and careful cutting of the details, and the
naturalistic modelling of the bodies, peculiar to the works of
Mesopotamia. Long processions of men represent different nationalities,
characterized by their costumes and by the treatment of hair and beard;
by their various feather-caps, hoods, capuchins, pointed hats; short
skirts, with wide pantaloons; long garments, with great fulness at the
bottom, and sleeves falling in multiplied folds; by the skins of animals
worn as mantles; by girdles, sword-belts and swords, bows and quivers;
by peculiar sandals, shoes, boots, and the like. These subjects bring to
the monarch most manifold gifts--horses, dromedaries, musk-oxen, rams,
goats, a wagon, elephants’ tusks, stuffs, garments (among which various
kinds of stockings are even distinguishable), swords, double-headed
hammers, bracelets for the arms; censers, with vessels for incense;
salve, in little bowls, borne upon trays which hang like scales;
wine-skins, goblets, globular and flat cake-like loaves of food, carried
in the palm of the hand; carved cups and saucers; little bags, etc.
Others bear only lotos-flowers and pomegranates. They are slim,
narrow-chested figures; the short upper body is given in profile,
without anatomical truth in general form or detail; not only without
motion, but apparently incapable of it. At times the position of the
arms shows, not, indeed, a gesture, but some attempt of varied position;
the hands lie upon one another, or touch the mouth, the end of the
beard, the hilt of the sword hanging at the side, or the quiver, or are
extended so as to rest upon the shoulders of the preceding figure in the
procession.

[Illustration: Fig. 92.--Relief from the Stairs of the Palace of
Darius.]

Lifeless as these appear, they are still superior to the guards, armed
with a lance, who march towards each other from opposite sides, in long
processions. (_Fig._ 92.) The heads differ from the Assyrian type only
in the pointed chin-beard; the bodies alternate between uniforms of two
fixed patterns. One of these is without a shield, in a closely fitting
leathern garment, with awkward pantaloons bound at the ankles, and a
globular cap of surpassing clumsiness. The other, distinguished by
shield and plumes, with a long robe drawn up at the hips, and with wide
sleeves hanging in folds, is more tolerable. The elliptical shields,
like those of Bœotia, have a round cut upon both sides, in which the
lance was probably placed; they are strengthened by a circular plate
riveted to the centre. Upon the terrace stairs, in the triangles formed
by the ascending steps, are groups of animals--lions seizing bulls from
behind. Though the forms are rendered with but little understanding of
detail, the entire composition is well fitted to the triangular space
allowed it, and thus has a certain decorative and architectural value.
The parapet of the staircase terrace is decorated with rows of highly
conventionalized lotos-flowers upon leafy stems; in its centre is the
winged divinity of the disk between crouching lions. These carvings upon
the staircase buttress, though monotonous, were still so rich that they
gave to this member much the same distinction as that of the gable in
Greek architecture, to which it is somewhat similar in outline, the
ascent from each side forming a triangle. The representations upon it
are, in their subjects, suited to the palace fronts, where guards were
in place, as well as gift-bearing deputies from tributary nations.
Though the division of the surface into several horizontal stripes by
rows of figures, one over another, is not artistically beautiful, it
still has the advantage that the standard of proportion is not infringed
upon, as is so often the case when colossal statues are placed before
buildings; the disadvantage may perhaps be less when life-sized figures,
like these, are dwarfed by being brought into comparison with enormous
edifices.

Only one important historical scene is known--the rock-cut relief of
Bi-Sueton. A king, followed by guardsmen, sets his foot and bow upon a
victim lying backwards on the ground, who stretches up his hands in a
beseeching manner, while a procession of nine prisoners approaches,
their hands tied behind them, and bound one to the other. Above is the
winged deity. The proud bearing of the king, and the stooping of the
helpless enemies, show a slightly superior artistic ability. Though
Persian sculpture was successful in some rare instances, the conviction
must still remain that, in comparison with the art of Assyria, it was
not only a dependent imitation, but failed to attain any of the
superiorities of its model. That which was borrowed from other lands
than Mesopotamia was superficially carried into execution in unimportant
details. Strictly speaking, we can hardly acknowledge the existence of
the art of sculpture in Persia, as it was without either independent
foundation or any progress of its own.

Of Persian painting there are no remains or information. The walls were
without doubt plastered and colored. If there had been a revetment of
glazed tiles, according to the Mesopotamian practice, some fragments of
this almost indestructible material would surely have been found. From
analogy of the carvings, it is probable that paintings upon the walls
were chiefly ornamental and of subordinate importance. Upon the
principal front of the buildings there remained but little space where
painted decorations could be employed; the façade of the Tomb of Darius
was largely covered with inscriptions. On the other hand, the
restoration of the Palace of Darius, at the head of this chapter (_Fig._
77), shows that the aid of color was particularly needed upon the other
sides, which would have been bare and monotonous without painted
ornaments. We may suppose that the Persians felt this need, and that
decorative painting was extensively employed; they were led to it by
familiarity with the methods of Assyrian art, and with the colored mural
decorations universal in Egypt, both which lands they considered their
tributary provinces. Though we cannot speak of monumental independence
in Persian sculpture and painting--of which, indeed, no ancient
Orientals had any conception--the art of the land had at least the
superiority that its three branches, in their application, stood in true
relations to each other, inasmuch as architecture employed and brought
forward the sister arts as secondary, decorative aid; painting and
sculpture did not predominate in the excessive degree characteristic of
the older nations of the East. The Egyptians, whose architecture,
otherwise so richly developed, was chiefly restricted to the interior,
made excessive use of painting and coilanaglyphics to enliven the dead
masses of exterior walls. The Assyrians needed sculptured revetment and
painted stucco to support and hide the weakness of their masonry, and
its incapacity for architectural treatment, within and without. Merely
decorative art thus gained an undue supremacy in both countries. Among
the Persians, on the other hand, architecture attained its full rights
by important and harmonious advances, while decorative sculpture and
painting withdrew to their proper subordinate positions.

[Illustration: Fig. 93.--Rock-cut Tombs of Myra.]



PHŒNICIA, PALESTINE, AND ASIA MINOR.


The primitive tradition which makes the valley of the Euphrates and
Tigris the centre of the most advanced culture of the earth is
illustrated by the extraordinary expanse of Mesopotamian influence in
both time and space. Extending eastwards even to the Ganges, in a
westerly direction passing beyond the Adriatic, bounded on the north
only by inhospitable Scythia (Siberia), and on the south by the Indian
Ocean, its roots, long after the advent of the Christian era, sent forth
fresh shoots into Western Asia, recognizable in the monuments of the
Sassanidæ and in the works of the world-conquering Arabians. The spring
of native civilization was not entirely exhausted, although, after the
fall of the Persian empire and the foundation of a Greek Asiatic
monarchy by Alexander the Great, Hellenism had expanded itself over
Western Asia for five centuries,--first among the luxurious Seleucidæ,
who had attached to themselves the Asiatic half of the Macedonian
empire, and in later times under the strict military power of the
imperial Roman period. Nor could the barbarism of the Parthians wholly
obliterate from the land the reminiscences of ancient Persian and
Mesopotamian culture. These influences appear again when the Persian
Ardshir--boasting a direct descent from the Achæmenidæ, and therefore
called Artaxerxes by the Byzantine Greeks--shook off the yoke of the
barbaric Parthians in the year 226 after Christ, as his forefather
Cyrus, eight centuries previously, had founded his empire upon that of
the Medes. Ardshir was the first ruler of a new national Persian
dynasty, named after his father, Sassan,--a race under whose sway the
land east of the Tigris was raised to a glory and importance which made
itself felt even in distant and powerful Rome. One Roman emperor, the
unhappy Valerian, was even forced to languish during the last ten years
of his life in a Persian prison, the Romans not venturing to free him
from the despicable slavery of the Sassanian Shahpur I., who meanwhile
took care to hand down to posterity that world-renowned result of
Persian bravery and cunning by numerous monuments and rock-carved
reliefs, which testify, as a leaf of authentic history, to an event so
humiliating to Rome.

The Palace of Ctesiphon,--the Sassanian representative of the Hellenic
Seleucia upon the Tigris, a city of the Diadochi which had itself taken
the place of the Chaldæan Babylon on the Euphrates,--the dwellings of
Sarbistan and Firuz-Abad, with many other buildings and monuments
sculptured upon the face of cliffs, give evidence of the artistic
ability of the new Persian kingdom, which continued to flourish until
the foundation of the Mohammedan power in Mesopotamia, 641 A.D. Much was
certainly lost, and the artistic ornamentation of architecture, as
illustrated by the columns and pilasters of Sarbistan, which are without
capital or base, sank again to the rudeness of the ancient monuments of
Chaldæa; but, on the other hand, the constructive gain was not
inconsiderable, notably in the greater development of gateways, windows,
and niches, as well as in the appearance of immense arches, cylindrical
vaults, and cupolas, which received peculiar forms of parabolic lines,
though not excluding the round arch. The later Persians had marked
influence upon the conquering Arabs, who, with few native traditions,
were readily receptive: this is illustrated by the horse-shoe arch, so
characteristic of Moorish architecture, which may be traced in the works
of the Sassanidæ from the Palace of Ctesiphon to the Monument of
Tak-i-Gero. Chronological considerations and the increasing influence of
Greek and Roman elements seem, however, to forbid the treatment of
Sassanian architecture in this sequence. Indian art is omitted chiefly
upon the ground that the best work of the Farther East does not
appertain to a history of antiquity at all; the remains antedating the
Christian era, such as the columns of Asoka, are too undeveloped and
wanting in independence to deserve separate consideration. This would be
even less the place for a review of Sassanian sculpture, because in
this, in spite of the recurrence of ancient Mesopotamian figures and
details, and notwithstanding the national peculiarities observable in
the modelling of muscles and draperies, the Hellenic and Roman
influences are too great to allow of a proper treatment of the subject
apart from the artistic development of Greece and Italy. Sassanian and
Indian art, though standing in a certain relation to the civilization of
antiquity, may receive a more just historical treatment if considered
immediately before the advent of Mohammedan methods of building,--upon
the threshold of the Middle Ages.

The chief currents of culture and intellectual development have ever
flowed steadily towards the West: such was the course of the
wide-spreading artistic influence of Mesopotamia. The valley of the
Euphrates and Tigris is divided from the shores of the Mediterranean by
desert tracts which did not allow Assyrian traditions, though directed
and furthered by the important trade-roads, to take immediate and
undisputed possession of the strip of Phœnician coast. Egypt lay too
near for this; its influence could not remain unfelt by the seafaring
inhabitants of the Syrian lands. Indefinite theories have been prevalent
for some time concerning the meeting and blending of the peculiar
civilizations of the lands of the Nile and the Tigris, but until
recently Phœnicia was the least-known country of the ancient world.
The Syrian expedition of the French under the auspices of Napoleon
III., like the Egyptian under Napoleon I., presented the possibility of
a thorough and systematic exploration of Phœnician remains. The
difficulties of prosecuting the investigations were not less than they
had been in Chaldæa. “The land,” says Renan, who was commissioned to
conduct the explorations, “is now completely deserted. The destruction
of the forests has everywhere done its evil work; the soil, year after
year carried off by the inhabitants of the villages or washed away by
the torrents of winter rain, has disappeared from the native rock; the
flow of water from the springs, more and more exhausted, has become too
weak to find its way to the sea against the many hinderances; hemmed in
by dunes and alluvial formations, it fills the plain with the poisonous
exhalations of swamps, so that the once blooming and populous land has
become a pestilent desert, where for miles there is scarcely a hut to be
seen.”

The remaining monuments are chiefly grouped around the five principal
trading towns of the coast,--Ruad (Aradus), Amrith (Marathus), Jebeil
(Byblus), Saida (Sidon), and Sur (Tyre),--which follow one another from
north to south in the given succession. Still farther to the south are
isolated ruins near Gabr-Hiram and Um-el-Auamid. Beyrout, now the most
important city of all the original Phœnician territory, has the
fewest remains of antiquity; the greater number are at the totally
deserted site of Marathus, where the neighboring brook, Nahr-el-Amrith,
alone retains a trace of the city’s anciently celebrated name. The city
Aradus, frequently mentioned in the Mosaic Scriptures, founded Marathus,
its most important colony, as well as Paltus, Balaneia, Carnek, and
Enhydra. Of Aradus itself little exists beyond a few enormous blocks of
hewn stone; the fanaticism of the present inhabitants of Ruad prevented
an adequate examination of the site. All these cities lost their
importance in the Roman period, with the ascendency of Antaradus, the
mediæval Tortosa.

[Illustration: Fig. 94.--Temple Cella (El-Maabed) of Amrith.]

The remains at Amrith are barely sufficient to give a conception of the
temple buildings and monumental tombs of the Phœnicians. One fane, in
an exceptionally good state of preservation, is still called by the
inhabitants El-Maabed (the temple). It consists of a rectangular area,
the temenos, 48 m. broad and 55 m. long, sunk into the native rock, so
that three of its sides are formed by the perpendicular cut, and reach
the height of 5 m. Upon the north, the entrance, the enclosure was
completed by a wall, which was also continued around the other three
sides, and there heightened the boundary. Two piers, in the southeastern
and southwestern corners, standing 3.5 m. from the edge of the rock, and
numerous sockets for the ends of the beams, plainly visible in the
walls, lead to the supposition that a gallery was carried partially or
entirely around the space. The whole sunken area formed the court of a
temple, perhaps a sacred lake, as many traces of paved springs in the
interior seem to indicate. The small cella, which rises exactly in the
centre of the quadrangle, thus became an unapproachable sanctuary.
(_Fig._ 94.) It is formed of only five stones. The socle is hewn from
the solid rock, 3 m. high and 5.5 m. square, with traces of a stairway
upon the right side. The three-walled cella, open to the north, is 5 m.
high; its ceiling is monolithic, while the walls consist of three
superposed blocks cut to the plan of the chamber. The roof, chiselled
within to the form of a flat-arched vault, juts forward over the
opening; its projection may have been supported by light columns of
metal, the probable form of which will be considered in connection with
the rock-cut reliefs of Mashnaka. Upon the side-walls, which stand 2.34
m. apart, there are two low benches, leaving a ground-space of only 0.8
m. between them. The architectural decoration of this shrine is limited
to a cornice of scotia and roundlet; though this appears also in Assyria
and Persia, it still gives an Egyptian character to the cella exterior,
which in plan and general disposition is very similar to the
Mesopotamian chapels represented upon Assyrian reliefs (_Figs._ 35 and
57), and to such structures as appear to have existed upon the terraced
pyramids of Chaldæa. In this cella we possess the oldest and the only
Semitic temple known, still in admirable preservation, although the
downfall of the crumbling mass is predicted by the authorities who
accompanied the Phœnician expedition. Of two similar structures,
which stood near the city of Marathus, Renan could discover only
overthrown blocks buried in the swamp of Ain-el-Hayat (fountain of the
serpents) and hidden by oleander-bushes. They stood at a distance of 10
m., their open sides turned towards each other. The remains of the
better-preserved cella show it to have been entirely monolithic. It
stood upon a double substructure, of which, strange to say, the lower
part is considerably smaller than the upper. It betrays still closer
relationship with Egyptian works of the kind by rows of uræos-serpents
over the cornice scotia and the winged disk upon the inner ceiling. From
their plan, they appear to have had no columnar supports, and resemble,
in the careful restoration made by Mr. Thobois, the monolithic cellas of
Philæ preserved in Leyden and in the Louvre. Traces of three other
sanctuaries, or at least of their temenos enclosure, which is partly cut
in the rock and partly built, exist in the vicinity of the Stadion of
Amrith, now known as El-Meklaa (the quarry), and designated by Renan,
upon insufficient grounds, as itself ancient Phœnician.

[Illustration: Fig. 95.--The Monuments El-Meghazil of Amrith.]

The monumental tombs of Amrith are not less important than these places
of worship; the ruins known under the name El-Auamid-el-Meghazil (the
spindle-columns) are truly majestic. (_Fig._ 95.) The first rises in
three cylindrical steps upon a square platform little elevated above the
ground. The lower part, 2.5 m. in height and 5.15 m. in diameter, built
of two stones, is ornamented over the corners of the platform with
engaged lions, which are among the most prominent works of Phœnician
sculpture known, and will be considered at greater length below. Upon
this first cylindrical step rests a block 7 m. high, ornamented at the
base with delicately curved moulding, and at the summit with dentils and
battlements. These latter are found also upon fragments from Jebeil in
conjunction with squares and rosettes and a particularly characteristic
frieze of straight-lined laurel branches; they show great similarity to
Mesopotamian remains. In the circular plan of the structure there is no
reminiscence of Egyptian methods of art; an hemispherical termination
lends to the whole so marked an individuality that, although its form
seems not to have been universal, or even the most common, upon the
Syrian coasts, there yet may be recognized in this monument a truly
original Phœnician type. In the development of memorial stones a
cultured people generally expresses its fundamental artistic
conceptions, as is the case with the pyramidal termination of Egyptian
obelisks, and with the Assyrian piers terminated by a stepped terrace,
in both of which are embodied the lines predominant in the architecture
of those nations. A stairway hewn in the rock leads to the subterranean
burial chambers; its entrance is at some little distance from the
monument, as shown in the section _Fig._ 95. Only 6 m. removed from this
rises a second pile, which, from a certain parallelism of position,
seems to belong with it. It is simpler than the first, consisting of a
cube measuring 3 m. upon the side, so roughly hewn that it appears a
block taken just as it was quarried; upon it is a monolithic cylinder 4
m. high and 3.7 m. in diameter, terminated by a five-sided pyramid of
steep inclination. Somewhat removed from these are two similar
monuments, of which the better preserved stands upon steps and rises in
two cubes, separated by a cornice of wavy outline, the upper block
terminating in a four-sided pyramid, now almost entirely overthrown. It
is remarkable for the monolithic horizontal covering of the entrance to
the grave chambers, which is again a little distant from the base. Of
the pyramidal termination of its neighbor, only traces remain. All these
monuments were in part cut from the native rock and in part composed of
enormous monoliths; a fifth, of considerably greater dimensions, was
built of quarried stones. Of this latter, the commanding mausoleum known
under the name of Burdj-el-Bezzak (Tower of the Snails), little remains
beyond the platform, which measures 11 m. in height and 9 m. in the
square plan. The four-sided pyramid, of obtuse inclination, placed upon
this elevation, is now entirely overthrown. The blocks, 5 m. long, are
hewn only upon the joints, and left with a rough face. A cornice of
curved profile ran around the platform; within it are two chambers, each
lighted by a small window, the existence of which rendered the otherwise
customary grotto beneath the pile superfluous.

Grotto tombs, with a decorated entrance cut upon the rock wall, seem to
have been most generally employed in Central Phœnicia. They are
exemplified by the numerous remains of this kind at Saida (Sidon) and
Jebeil (Byblus). A tomb at the latter place shows a simple but
interesting façade; its ornamentation, by the heavy gable and
ring-formed acroterium, is strikingly similar to forms occurring in
Central Asia Minor (Phrygia). (_Fig._ 96.) Its flat border and plain
five-leaved rosette in the tympanon triangle give no evidence of
Hellenic influence. The interior of these tombs is generally a large
room, with curved ceiling and niches upon three of its sides, sunk into
the rock, one above another, like those of the Catacombs, to hold the
rows of coffins. The finest of the sarcophagi of Jebeil is decorated
with festoons, wreaths, single leaves and branches, in a naïve style of
ornament betraying no knowledge of Greek sculpture. In Southern
Phœnicia a monumental development of the sarcophagus seems to have
been chiefly favored. The tomb known as that of Hiram (Gabr-hiram),
south of Sur (Tyre), is an immense coffer, 3 m. high, with a heavy
arched cover, raised upon a plinth built of hewn blocks 4.24 m. long,
2.64 m. broad, and 3 m. high, the upper part of which is formed by a
monolithic slab almost one meter in thickness. Not far from this site,
at Um-el-Auamid, is a large sarcophagus, 2.40 m. long and 1.24 m. broad,
with a gable-shaped lid decorated by clumsy corner acroterias. Against
one of its sides stands a small altar, remarkable for the corners of its
battlemented termination, which must be similar to the horns of the
altar which stood in the tabernacle of Solomon’s Temple.

[Illustration: Fig. 96.--Façade of a Rock-cut Tomb at Jebeil.]

Of the domestic architecture of Phœnicia can be mentioned only an
entirely unornamented house, hewn from the rock, in Amrith, and a portal
at Um-el-Auamid, where the middle block of the triple lintel is
decorated with the Egyptian disk and uræos-serpents upon either side.
The materials employed by the Phœnician architects seem generally to
have been the cedars of Lebanon and the various metals of transmarine
commerce; it is on this account that the preserved monuments are so few,
and their remains so bare of carved decoration.

This explains also the lack of examples illustrating the sculpture and
extended industrial art of the country. The Homeric epics constantly
point to the Syrian coast as the home of all contemporary skill in
metal-work, pottery, and weaving. Stone statues were rare; metal was the
favorite material of Phœnician sculpture, although it was but seldom,
as in the columns before the Temple of Jerusalem, employed for casting.
The usual proceeding of the artificer was to make a core of wood for the
work, whether this were to be in relief or in the full round; upon it
sheets of metal were secured, and these finally beaten with the hammer
to the modelling of the carved wood beneath, thus forming a so-called
sphyrelaton. The sculptures of Solomon’s Temple illustrate this process,
and, according to the Biblical account, may unhesitatingly be ascribed
to Phœnician artists. In some instances the beaten metal was gold,
this being the case with the Temple of Jerusalem and with a small temple
at Carthage, which contained an image similarly overlaid. Silver was
more rarely thus employed, though it is known that from the earliest
times the Spanish silver-mines were worked by the Phœnicians. The
metal was perhaps more frequently devoted to utensils like the twelve
silver vessels discovered upon Cyprus, of which those now in the Louvre
show a workmanship nearly akin to that of the before-mentioned Assyrian
bronzes. It has been remarked in the section upon Assyria that this
style was neither purely Mesopotamian nor Egyptian, but rather a mixture
of both, the latter predominating. This points to the Phœnician
origin of such works, and these silver vessels of Cyprus lend a striking
confirmation to the supposition. The beaten metal was usually a bronze,
the copper in its composition being derived from the Phœnician island
Cyprus, the tin an article of commerce brought from England. It is
natural that the Phœnicians, to whom alone these metals were
accessible, should be regarded as the inventors of that amalgamation of
ten parts of copper with one of tin known as bronze, of so great
importance in casting. Homer’s mention of vessels and utensils from
Sidon, and the discovery of Phœnician bronzes in the ruins of
Nineveh, prove a most ancient and extended trade in objects formed of
that metal.

The carved wooden form covered with sheets of metal, the sphyrelaton, is
a peculiarly Phœnician product. Such beaten reliefs were generally of
copper, pure, or with a small percentage of tin; gold, silver, and even
tin were, however, similarly employed, in conjunction with mosaics of
precious stones, ivory, and notably with amber, a substance greatly
prized in early antiquity, and brought by the enterprising Phœnicians
from the coasts of the North Sea. A certain effect of color was thus
obtained. In the decoration of weapons, a ground of metal served instead
of the wood as a foundation. This inlaid work was known to the Greeks of
the Homeric age. It stood in the same relation to primitive monumental
painting as the mosaic of the Byzantines did to the decline of the art,
its greatest height of development being reached by the so-called
chryselephantine sculpture, where a combination of carving and inlaying
was effected with gold and ivory upon a wooden kernel. The throne of
Solomon was an example of this, the lions carved upon its arms rendering
it the work rather of a sculptor than of an artisan. Carvings entirely
of ivory are mentioned by Hezekiah as frequently existing in the
sanctuaries of Tyre, and in Nineveh there have been found many
fragments, apparently Egyptian, which may, without doubt, be attributed
to the Phœnicians. The Biblical prophets speak of great works in Tyre
composed of precious stones, and Theophrastos mentions an entire obelisk
of emerald as existing in the Temple of Melkarth of that city, which is
explained to have been of a colored glass (_plasma di smeraldo_). Glass
itself, assumed to have been invented by the Phœnicians, but common
in Egypt before the fifteenth century B.C., appears to have been made
only in colored, and generally opaque, masses. The most ancient piece of
white transparent glass known is described by Layard as a cup whereupon
is cut the name of King Sargon in cuneiform characters--consequently an
Assyrian work from the end of the seventh century B.C.

[Illustration: Fig. 97.--From a Relief of Saida.]

[Illustration: Fig. 98.--From the Monument El-Meghazil of Amrith.]

Phœnician sculpture is almost exclusively represented by metal-work,
and, as this was mostly beaten, it is natural that it should assume
that peculiar style of conventionalization which, even in works of
stone, reminds us of empaistic prototypes,--that is to say, of the
characteristic forms and modes of conception originally decided by the
properties of beaten metal. This style is shown by the Phœnician
leaved ornaments upon architectural details, and is especially striking
in the representations of animal forms. Upon a frieze at Saida (_Fig._
97), for example, is a remarkable illustration of the Phœnician
sphyrelaton, which enables us to understand the form of the bulls upon
the brazen laver in the Temple of Jerusalem. The half-lions upon the
monument of Amrith, also, although carelessly carved and much weathered,
are still more interesting in this regard. (_Figs._ 95 and 98.) Besides
their peculiarities as imitations of empaistic work, especially
recognizable in the primitive legs, they show some reminiscences of
Egyptian granite forms and of a Mesopotamian conception of animal
nature, marked also upon the bull’s-head by the strap-like formation of
the sinews. Less direct insight can be gained from other Phœnician
sculptures because of their more advanced state of destruction. The
rock-cut reliefs of Gineh and of Mashnaka, however, well deserve to be
mentioned. The first shows upon one side an animal, apparently a bear,
leaping upon a man, while at the right, in a sunken rectangular frame,
is an enthroned figure, and in another a man in front view, with two
dogs, which are scarcely recognizable. Enough is still preserved to show
that the work is not of Egyptian origin, but may more justly be compared
to Assyrian sculptures, though without the stiff character of courtly
ceremonial peculiar to the works of Nineveh. The two rock-cut reliefs of
a mountain-pass near Mashnaka (_Fig._ 99) are more important to the
history of the architecture than to that of the sculpture of Western
Asia, because of the remarkable forms of the capitals represented upon
them; they will be considered in connection with Solomon’s Temple. The
smaller, movable sculptures found in Phœnicia, which were possibly
not the work of the country, are of less interest; they usually exhibit
decided Egyptian influence. Numerous marble sarcophagi found in Saida
are characterized by the confusion of style peculiar to Phœnicia. The
covers are imitated from the swathed human forms represented upon the
lids of Egyptian mummy-coffins; the heads betray in some measure the
influence of Greece, and render it probable that they were executed in
the time of the Seleucidæ.

[Illustration: Fig. 99.--Rock-cut Relief of Mashnaka.]

As might be expected from the position of the country, lying between
Egypt and Chaldæa, and from the national commerce and manufactures,
which attracted the products of both countries, the artistic style of
Phœnicia was a mixture of Egyptian and Mesopotamian elements. This
was, of course, also the case with that of the Jews, who, in their
architecture and sculpture, were as dependent upon the Phœnicians as
were the primitive Romans upon the Etruscans. The influence of Egypt was
felt in Palestine in a greater degree than in Phœnicia, because the
Israelites had grown to a people upon the banks of the Nile, and without
doubt transplanted many artistic conceptions, as well as methods and
details, to the Promised Land. This is noticeable in the tabernacle and
in the temple, the latter, as is well known, receiving its general
disposition from its relation to that former encampment. The tabernacle
(_Fig._ 100) is in fundamental character a repetition in movable tents
of the triple Egyptian temple system of court, hall, and cella. At the
time of the emigration of the Jews from their long sojourn in Goshen,
they could have been familiar only with Egyptian forms; we cannot
mistake if we suppose them, before their intercourse with the
Phœnicians, to have supplied all their artistic needs from Egyptian
precedents.

[Illustration: Fig. 100.--The Mosaic Tabernacle.]

The simple enclosure of the tabernacle formed a court, with a front of
fifty cubits, and twice as long as it was broad. There were twenty-one
columns, like tent-poles, upon the sides, and eleven upon the front;
those of the corners being counted twice. These supports were five
cubits high, ornamented with silver capitals, and standing in sockets of
bronze; they must have been entirely similar to the shafts represented
upon Egyptian wall-paintings. They appear not to have been joined by
cross-bars. White immovable hangings were fastened between them, beneath
their capitals, with the exception of the four central
intercolumniations of the eastern front, where hung movable curtains of
blue, purple, and scarlet linen. The tabernacle itself, _b_, did not
stand in the centre of this enclosure, but nearer the western end,
probably so that a square of fifty cubits was left before its entrance,
in which space there stood the altar, _c_, of earth and wooden sheathing
for burnt-offerings, five cubits square and three cubits high, and the
laver of brass, _d_. There thus remained upon the three other sides a
space of twenty cubits between the tabernacle and the enclosure. This
disposition is not expressly affirmed, but may naturally be assumed from
the indications presented by the dimensions of the tabernacle, which was
thirty cubits long and ten broad. Except in the front, _e_, where were
five columns, it was formed of forty-eight boards overlaid with
sheet-gold. These boards, like the poles of the enclosure, were not
rammed into the earth, but stood upon double sockets of silver; they
were fastened together by tenons and by bars, which were pushed through
projecting golden rings. The arrangement of the five columns of the
front, also overlaid with gold, is not certain. It is hardly possible
that they were placed in antis; for, although the shafts were but thin
poles, the six intercolumniations thus formed would have had a width of
only one and a half cubits each--too narrow for passage. The two
outermost columns may, from this consideration, be assumed to have stood
before the ends of the boarded wall, in prostyle arrangement, or close
upon this, as indicated in the plan at _e_; a method of avoiding the
narrowing of the space by the two exterior intercolumniations which was
adopted in much later times upon the so-called tombs of Absalom and
Zachariah, to be considered below, where the forms may have been in some
measure decided by reminiscences of these primitive constructions. If
the ten cubits of the tabernacle front were divided into four parts
instead of six, passage would have been easy.

There is no information concerning the appearance of these shafts. Their
sockets of bronze may have been similar to the high bases of Moorish
columns, and to those which support the canopy-poles of our churches. If
the shafts were neither connected by cross-braces nor rammed into the
earth, they must have been provided with a footing even broader than
that of either of the instances mentioned, and have resembled the
wide-spreading plinths of Egyptian lotos columns. That the columns were
disproportionately slim is evident from the consideration that five
shafts of normal Egyptian, or Greek Doric, proportions, ten cubits high,
would have entirely occupied the narrow front of the tabernacle, and
have left no space for the intercolumniations. Mere tent-poles would
have been sufficient, as the building was provided with no fixed roof,
but was covered, like the tents of Bedouins, with colored linen, cloths
of goat-hair, and the skins of rams and seals. As this covering received
its chief support from the side walls, a light epistyle of wood was
sufficient to unite the summits of the front columns. It cannot be said
that there was any entablature, in the proper sense of the word.

The proportions of the tabernacle, three times as long as it was broad,
were like those of the Egyptian temple. It was divided into two unequal
compartments, the front, _f_, being twice the depth of the innermost
holy of holies, _g_. The altar for incense, _h_, one cubit square in
plan and two cubits high, probably stood in the centre of the first
space; it was of acacia-wood, covered with beaten gold. Like the altar
for burnt-sacrifices, its corners were ornamented with “horns,” the
nature of which has been variously explained, but which could have been
nothing else than corner acroteria, like those upon the monuments,
sarcophagi, etc., of Asia Minor, and those of the small altar found at
Um-el-Auamid, in Phœnicia. Such acroteria--which do, indeed, somewhat
resemble upright horns--were not merely for ornament, but served to hold
the golden lattice-work (_zer_) surrounding the top of the altar, to
prevent the scattering of coals. Next to the northern side-wall stood
the table for shew-bread, _i_; in the southwestern corner of the space
the seven-armed candlestick, _k_, was so obliquely placed that, to a
person entering, its flames were in a line. The form of the candlestick
is known from the representation upon the Arch of Titus, which, though
possibly not copied from the original--as Josephus relates that only an
imitation was paraded during the triumph of Titus--yet agrees with the
main points of the Biblical description. The seven arms consisted of
three concentrical semicircles and a vertical staff, all of which ended
at the same height. The base was polygonal, and ornamented with
sculptures, the support decorated with leaves, the arms represented
branches with buds and blossoms, ending in the open calyxes of the
flowers which bore the lamps. Its importance, as was the case with all
the appurtenances of Jewish worship, was considerably greater in
material than in artistic respects; the candlestick was without doubt
solid, and was made of a talent of gold--worth more than four hundred
pounds sterling. A relief of Thabarieh, probably older than the
Christian era, shows its general form; it is given in _Fig._ 101 as
further illustrative of the peculiar metallic style of the
Phœnician-Israelitic art of stone-cutting.

[Illustration: Fig. 101.--Relief of Thabarieh.]

The holy of holies, a cubical space of ten cubits on the side, was
separated from the larger antechamber by four columns, _l_, which were
also covered with gold, and stood upon silver sockets; they bore a
second curtain of four colors. This cella contained the palladium of the
people, the ark of the covenant, _m_, a coffer of acacia-wood, two
cubits and a half long and a cubit and a half high, borne upon poles
fixed in golden rings. Upon the lid, the so-called mercy-seat, were the
figures of two cherubim, monstrous combinations of bulls, lions, eagles,
and human bodies; or, at least, of three of these--the body of either
the lion or the bull being adopted. Though De Saulcy and Layard do not
doubt that these cherubim were perfectly similar to the symbolical
monsters before the portals of the palaces of Nineveh, it must not be
forgotten that the Jews were, at this period of their wanderings, so
completely influenced by Egyptian conceptions of art that peculiarly
Assyrian forms could not have existed in the tabernacle. The cherubim
must rather have been Egyptian--entirely similar to the sphinxes, which,
as has been seen, frequently presented this same combination of human
head and breast, with the body of a lion. Neumann considers the cherubim
to resemble the animals upon an Assyrian ornament, with sunken head and
bent fore-legs; but it is more probable that they were crouched like a
sphinx, or were, perhaps, sitting upon their hinder quarters, like the
figures of a Phœnician throne of rather later period published by
Renan. They were carved in wood and overlaid with thin sheets of gold,
as was also the golden calf with which the Israelites in the desert
sought to imitate the Egyptian idolatry of animals. This is all that can
be said of the Jewish sculpture of the period; the Second Commandment
entirely prevented any independent development of art.

The form and arrangement of the tabernacle are in the main clear. This
is not the case with the monumental temple which Solomon, according to
the plan of his great predecessor, erected to take its place, after King
David had recovered, and brought to the plateau of Moriah (at present
known as Haram-el-Sherif) the ark of the covenant, which had for some
time been held as booty in the hands of enemies. The Biblical accounts
enlarge, after the well-known manner of the Jews, principally upon the
great cost of the materials, and are thus rather archæological notices
than artistic descriptions. As might be expected from writers ignorant
of art, the statements are, for the greater part, vague and confused.
The conditions of Jewish architecture and sculpture appear radically
changed since the time of Moses. Immediately after the exodus, Egyptian
conceptions and manners of work were dominant; but, as time advanced
without further direct communication between the two countries, these
became more and more outgrown, and at last completely changed to a
dependency upon the civilization and art of Phœnicia. The Egyptian
element, however, by no means disappears, for, as has been seen, it
existed in Phœnicia itself, as might be expected from its
geographical position between Mesopotamia and Egypt: The Jews were not
so far developed from a nomadic people as to be able themselves to
create imposing architectural works. These call for centuries of
practice in the art of building. The construction of their temple was
given over to their northern neighbors, the more readily as Solomon was
in friendly alliance with Hiram, King of Tyre. The Tyrian architect
Hiram was sent with a great number of assistants to Jerusalem.
Stone-cutters of Byblos worked, with the aid of Jews, in the quarries of
Jerusalem; the necessary timber was hewn in the Phœnician forests of
Lebanon; and upon the Jordan, in the vicinity of Scythopolis, a
metal-foundry for the temple ornaments was built under Phœnician
direction. An understanding of the activity among these artisans during
the time of building may be obtained from a consideration of the number
of workmen employed: eighty thousand stone-cutters were assisted by
seventy thousand bearers of burdens. This multitude of laborers would
not have needed one year to complete the temple, far less the seven
years actually employed (1014 to 1007 B.C.), had it not been for the
imposing substructure of the rocky plateau,--a mass of masonry which may
almost be compared to the Egyptian pyramids; surpassing the remains at
Ruad, if not in the colossal size of the blocks, at least in the
exactitude of their workmanship. From the numbers said to have labored
in Jerusalem at one time, it appears probable that by far the greater
part of the immense foundations was built under Solomon, though the
supporting vaults of the southeastern corner are known to date from the
time of Herod, if not even later. The erection of enormous terraced
foundations plays a prominent, and at times even the most important,
part in the architecture of all the people of Western Asia.

The temple itself occupied but a very small part of the oblong area,
more than 1500 m. in circumference, which was gained by this artificial
extension of the rocky plateau. This space was provided with gates upon
all four sides, to some of which access was had by arched bridges; it
was surrounded by thick walls and double ranges of columns, asserted by
Josephus to have been monolithic. This outer court, accessible to all,
contained a smaller interior enclosure formed by other colonnades, and
probably also by several large halls; four gateways with gilded bronze
doors led to the interior, to which every worthy Jew had access.
Infidels were debarred from farther advance by a grating almost 1.5 m.
high, which enclosed the space corresponding to the outer court of the
Mosaic tabernacle. The altar for burnt-offerings had been increased in
plan to a square of twenty cubits, and to a height of ten cubits; an
inclined ascent of considerable size was necessary to reach the summit.
It is believed that the kernel of this altar is the holy rock in the
present Mosque of Omar.

The brazen laver (the _kijor_) had developed into the so-called molten
sea,--a basin of ten cubits in diameter, cast in bronze, and supported
at a height of five cubits upon the backs of twelve bronze oxen. It may
be conceived as very similar to the fountain of the Court of the Lions
in the Alhambra. The oxen were so divided in groups of three that they
faced the cardinal points of the compass, “and all their hinder parts
were inward.” These figures, so purely Phœnician, must have been far
more similar to the productions of Assyria than could have been the case
with the Mosaic cherubim. Their heads probably resembled that shown
above (_Fig._ 97) upon the relief of Saida, their legs those of the
primitive animals upon the monument of Amrith (_Fig._ 98), or of the
lions in the court of the Alhambra. The altar and the molten sea were
situated before the front of the temple, the axis of which was turned
east and west, at right angles to the general direction of the outer
court, which ran north and south.

[Illustration: Fig. 102.--Vase Discovered in Cyprus.]

The entrance to the temple was ornamented by two bronze columns, known
as Jachin and Boaz; their height is given in different passages as 18
and 35 cubits, and here begins the confusion caused by the Biblical
contradictions which make it so difficult to obtain a reliable
understanding of the nature of Solomon’s building. It cannot even be
decided whether these columns were in the entrance, as architectural
supports, or stood before the gates, without a function,--they being
spoken of as _in_, _upon_, and _before_ the portico. If they stood in
the entrance itself, as supports of its lintel (as assumed by Baehr), it
is probable that they did not divide its width into three equal
intercolumniations. The diameter of the shafts was four cubits, and such
an arrangement would so have occupied the total opening of the portal,
only fourteen cubits, that but two cubits would have remained for each
of the three passages. It is more probable that they were placed next
to the jambs in the manner assumed for the front of the tabernacle. If
the columns be supposed to have stood before the portico, without any
function of support, like obelisks, all difficulty is avoided. In either
case it would be important, for an understanding of the style of
Solomon’s Temple and of Phœnician workmanship, to comprehend the long
description given of their capitals. It is only clear that these were
four or five cubits high, and had the general form of lilies, probably
that of a calyx, as if derived from the floral capitals of Egypt. A
column discovered in the foundation vaults of the temple exhibits a
peculiarly heavy capital of this kind, which is, however, though
evidently of primitive outline and proportions, characterized by the
acanthus-like carving as a work influenced by the later art of Greece.
It is to be observed that the normal Egyptian-bell calyx, without
additions, could not be spoken of as having the form of a lily, by which
name the curled ends of leaves were usually designated in the Orient.
The volutes thus especially referred to must have been similar to those
upon the Assyrian capital, and notably to those of the rock-cut relief
in the Pass of Mashnaka (_Fig._ 99), which, situated upon Phœnician
territory, offer the most striking analogy. An illustration of the
extensive ornamental employment of the helix termination is offered by
the decoration of a vase recently discovered in Cyprus (_Fig._ 102), and
by pilaster capitals in the Cesnola collection. (_Fig._ 107.) It is an
anachronism to bring the columns, because of their channelled shafts and
some minor peculiarities, into connection with the forms of Persian
architecture, which could not have been developed so long before the
time of Cyrus. The additions--wreaths of chains, nets of checker-work,
hanging pomegranates, etc.--of which the Scriptures render a chaotic
account, cannot, in detail, be understood or explained. If the shafts
are supposed to have been united by a lattice-work of metal, it is more
natural to seek a parallel in the free-standing columns of an Assyrian
relief than in the canopies of Persian thrones suggested by Julius
Braun. That the chains, net-work, and the pomegranates did not hang upon
the capitals themselves has been argued by Vogué, from the analogy of an
ancient capital of the Mosque of Haram, and is made evident by Braun’s
question, how, indeed, it would be possible to count two hundred
pomegranates strung around a capital at such a height above the ground.

[Illustration: Fig. 103.--Hypothetical Plan and Section of Solomon’s
Temple.]

An important portal stood before the halls of the temple. With a plan of
10 cubits deep and 20 cubits broad, the astonishing height of 120 cubits
is attributed to this tower, a number appearing in the Chronicles, and
repeated in the Septuagint and by Josephus, so that it cannot be
regarded as the mistake of a transcriber. But even if the first measures
are arbitrarily assumed to refer only to a small interior space enclosed
by walls of enormous thickness, the constructive impracticability of
erecting a tower of such height is evident; it appears impossible that
the temple could have been preceded by a pile twice as high as the
principal building was long, and six times as high as this was broad! We
would not venture to present a restoration with such proportions, and
must agree with Hirt, Streber, De Saulcy, De Vogué, and others, that the
account is a Scriptural exaggeration, passed on from hand to hand. It is
hardly to be explained by the suggestions of De Saulcy and Streber. The
first of these authorities wishes to reduce the elevation by the
supposition that one half of the entire height existed under the earth
as a foundation, so that only 60 cubits remained visible above. This is
ludicrous; the solid rock beneath the temple rendered such remarkable
foundations useless and impossible to execute. Streber, also seeking to
uphold the Biblical authority, would have it that the 120 cubits was
obtained by adding together the heights of two pylons. But this is no
less inadmissible, apart from the extreme improbability of heights
having been given in so unwonted a manner; the portal appears, from its
narrow width, to have been a single tower, and not divided, like those
of Egypt, into two separate pylons. It is at least probable, however,
that the structure rose above the main building; like the pylons of
Egypt, it must have had a marked talus, and without doubt a cornice of
scotia and roundlet, as these forms appear upon the monumental tombs of
Siloam (_Fig._ 104)--the oldest of Palestine--and as this cornice was
common in Phœnicia, and appears also in Assyria, upon the temple
terrace of Kisr Sargon, and in Persia, over door and window openings.
The entrance, 14 cubits broad, was probably diminished as its walls
ascended, sloping like the outer angle of the elevation, so that the
construction of the lintel presents little difficulty, especially when
we consider the enormous stones employed in the restoration of the
building by Herod, some of which Josephus relates to have been 5 and 6
cubits broad and thick, and 45 (!) cubits long. Above the lintel the
same principle of a relieving triangle seems to have been practised, as
may be observed in various parts of Egypt and in Mykenæ: the blocks
over the door did not lie directly upon the lintel, but gradually
approached from both sides above the jambs, leaving between them a
gable-shaped opening, which was closed, in order to spare the beam
beneath, by only a slab of marble, as at Mykenæ, or by light, thin
masonry. This method of construction is indicated by the mention that a
golden candlestick, dedicated by Queen Helena, was so placed over the
temple entrance as to be shone upon by the sun; and especially by the
reference to a triangle existing over the door which opened into the
holy of holies. The first gate had jambs of olive-wood and movable doors
of cypress, both overlaid with gold. It led to the larger hall, 20
cubits broad, 40 cubits long, and 30 cubits high; to which adjoined the
holy of holies, a cubical space of 20 cubits side. The access to this,
permitted in rare instances, was through a richly carved door, overlaid
with gold and draped with a magnificent curtain. The separating wall was
of gilded cedar. These two halls were surrounded upon all sides, with
the exception of the front, by a large number of small chambers, in
three stories, lighted from without by three rows of windows. These
secondary sacristies were each 5 cubits in height within, and, with
their ceilings, must have attained an altitude of 20 cubits. The holy of
holies was consequently entirely surrounded, and must have been without
windows, and dark. The larger space still rose 10 cubits above this side
structure, and in this clerestory its windows, which are especially
mentioned, must have found place. The flat roof, or, rather, the
terraces upon different heights of which it was composed, mounted from
the holy of holies to the portal tower in steps somewhat more than 20,
30, and perhaps 60 cubits high. According to Eupolemo (Eusebius), the
covering was of copper sheathing.

The temple bore an upper story, explicitly described by Josephus, as it
appeared after Herod’s reconstruction of the building, but which is only
once mentioned before his time, with the remark that these upper
chambers were overlaid with gold (2 Chron. iii. 9). The height of this
second story is evident from Josephus, who gives 60 cubits as the total
elevation of the building, while the space beneath it had but 30 cubits
in this dimension. In regard to the extent of its plan, it must be
assumed that it was not built above the lateral chambers or the holy of
holies, as the height of the principal hall was far greater than that of
the chambers; this would have made the upper story on entirely different
levels, and have required staircases large enough to occupy the whole of
the space above the 20 square cubits of the holy of holies; and the
height of this chamber would, upon the exterior, have become thrice that
of its length and breadth--namely, 60 cubits. Such deformities,
impracticable of execution, without purpose, and offending all sense of
fitness and beauty, may be rejected when the authorities for them are
indefinite and contradictory, or, as is the case with Maimonides (1190
A.D.), are assuredly unauthentic. It is probable that the upper story
was built only upon the ceiling of the larger hall; and that it was not
formed of the massive materials employed for the walls of the lower
temple, but, as is indicated by the statement that these upper chambers
were overlaid with gold, was built lightly of wood. Such a manner of
construction would have permitted a passage to be left around it in the
width of the hall ceiling, thus uniting the suitability and the æsthetic
advantages of a terraced form, and agreeing with Mesopotamian and
Persian analogies. The suggestion may even be ventured that it was by a
misunderstanding connected with these upper chambers that the fabulous
height of 120 cubits was originally assigned to the portal tower, which,
perhaps, was regarded as twice the height of the principal hall; if the
elevation of the lower hall and the upper-story had been taken together,
if 60 cubits had been doubled in the place of 30, this would account for
the 120 cubits taking the place of the more probable 60.

The lower walls of the temple were built of hewn blocks of white marble.
The remarkable statement that a layer of cypress or cedar beams always
followed upon one of stone cannot be explained otherwise than as a
reference to the interior revetment of the masonry with wood. The wall
of the court, where the beams are said to have followed three courses of
stone, must be considered as of triple thickness, its quarried blocks
being hidden by a sheathing, like that of the temple. The statement that
the ceiling joists of the smaller surrounding chambers were not sunk
into the stone wall itself, but were borne upon the beams, now becomes
intelligible; they rested upon the studding of the wooden revetment. The
entire interior of the temple, exclusive of the passage through the
portico, is particularly asserted to have been provided with this
sheathing. The partition between the holy of holies and the principal
hall was probably altogether of wood, as here only the two revetments
were visible. Upon these walls were sculptured ornaments overlaid with
beaten gold. This wood-carving, with its surface of sheet-metal, here
took the place of the sculptured and painted decoration upon the walls
of Nineveh; it is in this point that the chief difference between the
mural treatment of Upper Mesopotamia and Phœnicia appears to have
consisted. Quarries of alabaster were common in Assyria; Mount Lebanon,
on the other hand, provided the most beautiful wood for carving, and
Phœnician commerce procured the metals for the characteristic beaten
work--the sphyrelaton.

The few notices preserved concerning the decorations of Solomon’s Temple
prove them to have been similar, in both subject and design, to those of
Nineveh; they represented cherubim, palms (the so-called tree of life),
and floral wreaths. It was only in the cherubim and in the oxen bearing
the molten sea that the exercise of sculpture in the full round was at
all permitted, and these subjects did not greatly encourage the artistic
study of nature. The cherubim stood in the holy of holies as guardians
of the ark of the covenant. They were independent colossal figures,
carved of olive-wood and overlaid with beaten gold. They were no longer,
as in the Mosaic tabernacle, upon the lid of the ark--the mercy-seat--in
a recumbent or sitting position, but stood at either side of the holy
coffer, and were without doubt greatly different in style from their
predecessors. In the consideration of the cherubim of the tabernacle,
the similarity of these works to Assyrian parallels was denied, for the
Israelites, immediately after the exodus, were naturally acquainted
alone with the artistic traditions of Egypt; but this was by no means
the case in the time of Solomon, when we have to deal with Phœnician
styles,--that is to say, with a combination of various manners of
artistic conception and expression. The cherubim of Solomon may fairly
be assumed to have in the main resembled the monstrous guardians of
Assyrian palaces; the chief deviation from the cherubim of Nineveh was
that their wings were not folded closely, but were outstretched as if
for flight, so that the tips of their feathers touched together over the
ark of the sanctuary, and extended to the side walls of the holy of
holies, measuring ten cubits in entire span. The ark of the covenant
itself and the other vessels of the temple were either overlaid with
gold or were of the solid metal. The altar of incense, the shew-bread
table, and the seven-armed candlestick remained as they had been in the
tabernacle; to them were added, besides many less important utensils,
ten further lamp-holders of gold. As the beaten metal not only extended
over all the carved walls of wooden sheathing, but even covered the
horizontal ceiling, the eye saw nothing but gold--a decoration which the
many-flamed candlesticks must have rendered particularly brilliant, but
which was eminently barbaric, as the metal was probably not enlivened by
colored enamels. It is in questionable taste, even in the most prominent
members of an architectural composition, to outbid the artistic
expression of a work by employing for it a material of too striking
intrinsic value; but it is wholly condemnable to paralyze the
concentrating effect, which is always attained by the moderate use of a
very bright and valuable material, by its universal employment, and thus
to lose the precious character of the centre through the attempted
magnificence of the whole.

As is well known, Solomon’s Temple was destroyed at the command of the
Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, in 587 B.C. The attempt to rebuild it
was not entirely successful until Cyrus ended the Babylonian exile, and
not only permitted the building to proceed, but even returned the sacred
utensils, which had been carried off as booty, and kept in the Temple of
Bel. This reconstruction, named, after the ruler, Zerubbabel, was not
completed until after forty-six years, when, under Darius, all the
difficulties in the way of its prosecution were overcome. There is
reason for supposing that the influence of Persia made itself felt upon
the style of the new work, but nothing of importance to the history of
art is directly known concerning it. The magnificent restoration of
Herod, commenced in 16 or 15 B.C., was executed in ten years, to be
destroyed within a century by Titus, so that, literally, not one stone
remained upon the other. The remodelled temple is not important to the
history of Phœnician-Israelitic art; though the original plan and
arrangement were in the main preserved, its style became a debasement of
the Greek and Roman orders. The gigantic platform, the site of the
building with which so many remarkable events are connected, will always
continue to be of peculiar interest in the history of the world’s
development.

The description of Solomon’s palace given by the Scriptures is too vague
to convey any adequate conception of it. It was a building extended by
columns and provided with an upper story: the shafts were of cedar-wood;
their form is not mentioned. The walls were of stone, hewn
rectangularly, as might be expected from the similar masonry of the
temple. The cedar beams of the ceiling must be supposed, agreeably to
Solomon’s preference for costly materials, to have been overlaid with
gold. There is nothing in these descriptions to suggest Persian
arrangement or details, which did not develop from Assyrian methods of
building until four centuries later. As the Phœnician architecture of
this epoch can be compared to that of no younger land than Mesopotamia,
and as the plans of the known Assyrian palaces are provided with no
halls of columns, it is natural to seek for the origin of the hypostyle
disposition in Egyptian elements, which, in other respects, take so
important a place in the development of Israelitic art. Buildings of
wood overlaid with metal are, on the other hand, peculiarly
characteristic of the Syrian coast.

All this magnificence has totally disappeared, and it would be natural
to expect that, as in other parts of Western Asia, the rock-cut tombs in
the vicinity of Jerusalem, preserved by their indestructibility, would
give the most direct and trustworthy information concerning the
Phœnician-Israelitic style. But the more ancient of these
monuments--those erected before the time of the Seleucidæ--are of such
extreme simplicity that, from lack of detail, they convey no
understanding of Phœnician columns and entablatures, nor, indeed, of
any characteristic architectural forms. A simple stairway leads to the
smaller grotto graves, which, excavated in the cliff, were once closed
by slabs of stones. Their plan is generally square, the ceiling cut to
the form of a flat barrel-vault. In the larger family sepulchres the
burial-chambers are grouped around an antechamber, the bodies in them
being placed upon stone benches or pushed into coffin-like niches. When
the entrance is at all architecturally characterized upon the exterior,
which is of comparatively rare occurrence, it displays the heavy
Egyptian scotia and roundlet (_Fig._ 104), or a simple framing with a
gable and a ridge acroterium of double volutes, like the rock-cut tombs
of Phrygia. (_Fig._ 105.) Where there is carved foliage in the gables
and friezes, as upon the so-called tombs of the judges and kings, these
are the conventional traces of a later period, though these ornaments
frequently retain in design and execution the peculiar dry angularity
characteristic of the imitation of beaten metal which is so universal in
Phœnicia.

[Illustration: Fig. 104.--Rock-cut Tomb of Siloam.]

[Illustration: Fig. 105.--Rock-cut Tomb of Hinnom.]

The influence of Greece and Rome is distinctly betrayed in the so-called
Tomb of Jacob, the pretended sepulchres of the kings, and the tombs
attributed, without reason, to Absalom and Zachariah. These monuments,
some of which have been cut entirely from the native rock, are
ornamented by Doric friezes with Roman disks in the metopes, and by
Doric and Ionic columns and engaged shafts, which reproduced the debased
forms which characterize the treatment of Greek architecture under the
Romans. Yet in all this there are still traces of national
peculiarities. At times vegetable ornaments, grapes and grape-leaves,
pomegranates, ivy, laurel, and acorns fill the tympanon and the frieze,
interrupted by the triglyphs. The general form of the two last-named
tombs is peculiar. That of Zachariah is a cube of a little over 5 m. on
the side; that of Absalom of almost 7 m. They are ornamented by
pilasters and debased Ionic engaged shafts, and have heavy cornices of
the Egyptian roundlet and scotia, to which is added, upon the Tomb of
Absalom, a late Doric frieze. The former is concluded by a pyramid, 3.6
m. high, cut also from the native rock, a termination which gives to the
general form a certain similarity to the Tomb of Amrith known as the
Snail-tower. The latter supports upon the cube a smaller and much lower
mass of masonry, built of quarried stones, and bearing upon a doubly
stepped cylindrical base a cone of concave outline, which terminates, at
a height of 13.5 m. above the ground, in a clumsy, tulip-like flower.
The entrance to the burial-chamber cut in the rock substructure of
Absalom’s tomb has been broken in above the scotia cornice; the traces
of nails upon the walls of the small space point to the customary
sheathing of metal. Notwithstanding such isolated reminiscences of
indigenous--that is to say, Phœnician--manners of building, it is
impossible to agree with several noted authorities in recognizing, in
the Doric and Ionic details which appear combined with them,
predecessors and models of the Hellenic development of these styles.
Such prototypes should least be sought among a people who, possessing no
art of their own, did but borrow from their neighbors. And, moreover,
these forms appear by no means to be primitive attempts, but clearly
exhibit the lifelessness and debasement of the latest period of Greek
architectural history. These monuments may safely be ascribed to the
last two centuries B.C. Although the Corinthian order almost entirely
superseded the older styles in Italy during the time of the Cæsars,
these provincial Doric and Ionic forms may still be assumed to date
rather from the later than from the earlier half of this period.

[Illustration: Fig. 106.--Tomb at Paphos in Cyprus.]

Palestine, in the history of art, may be regarded as a domain of
Phœnicia, and the same thing may be said of Cyprus and of Carthage.
All the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, lying as it did between the
great powers of civilization in the valley of the Nile and the plain of
the Euphrates and Tigris, seemed destined by nature, as we have seen, to
combine the artistic peculiarities of Egypt and Assyria. Cyprus, in a
somewhat similar position, shared the Phœnician civilization and was
also exposed to the influence of the Greeks, especially to that of the
Dorians, who had founded colonies upon the southern islands of the
Ægean, and who early possessed a stronghold in Crete. It is therefore
not surprising that upon the rock-cut tombs of Cyprus the Doric style of
architecture was not restricted to the late and debased forms found upon
the tombs near Jerusalem, but may occasionally be met with in a very
primitive state of development. An instance of this is offered by a tomb
near Paphos. (_Fig._ 106.) In general, the position of the island
exposed it more to the influence of Egypt than of Mesopotamia; it is not
evident in how marked a degree this was felt. Of the chief Phœnician
sanctuary upon Cyprus--the Temple of Astarte at Paphos--there exist only
insufficient representations upon coins and upon an engraved gem of the
Museo Pio-Clementino. These prove no more than that, within a circular
enclosure of lattice-work, there stood a tall structure towering above
low side-buildings, which were supported, like porticos, upon columns.
Two Egyptian shafts appear to have been placed before the entrance,
without function as supports, and, like Jachin and Boaz, without
strictly architectural purpose. Still less is known of the temples of
Amathus and Golgoi. It is hardly probable that the remains of a building
discovered by General Cesnola in the village of Atienu, near the present
port of Larnaka (the Biblical Chitim and Greek Kition) are those of the
world-famed Temple of Aphrodite at Golgoi. The structure seems rather to
have been a treasure-house, in some way connected with the great temple,
which once contained, with the votive statues there discovered, other
objects belonging to the temenos. The oblong plan with irregular
entrances, the bareness of its walls, and especially the carelessly
arranged pedestals which filled the space within, seem to point to its
original destination as that of a magazine. The only objects of
architectural interest discovered in these remains are the columns which
flank the doors, in a position corresponding to that of the columns of
the Mosaic tabernacle. The bases, found in position, are channelled like
those of Persia. The shafts and capitals are not preserved. The form of
the latter may perhaps be surmised from a comparison of fragments in the
Cesnola collection (_Fig._ 107), analogous to the capitals of Mashnaka,
to the double spirals of Assyrian architecture, and to the descriptions
given of the lily-capitals of Solomon’s Temple.

[Illustration: Fig. 107.--Cyprian Pilaster Capitals.]

Cesnola’s discoveries upon Cyprus are more important in sculptural than
in architectural respects, and are worthy to rank with those of Botta,
Layard, and Schliemann. The chief works are limestone statues of various
sizes. To these are added, from the investigations of other ruins,
doubtless of tombs, a great number of minor articles: terra-cotta
figures, vases and lamps, and various objects of glass, metal, etc.
These works are easily divided into two great groups, each of peculiar
style, with which the inscriptions that have been discovered agree in
general character and in relative number. Among the eighty-five
inscriptions found up to 1870, thirty-three are Greek, twenty
Phœnician, and thirty-two Cyprian. The styles of Phœnician and
Cyprian sculpture resemble each other far more closely than did the
languages of those countries, so that in the comparative rarity of
examples it is difficult to distinguish the origin of these works. They
show a kind of compromise between Egyptian, Syrian (Assyrian), and early
Greek methods--a combination agreeing with the geographical position of
the island, and with the descent and history of its inhabitants. All
Cyprian sculpture shows, in so far as it is not influenced by a
reflection of the later Greek and Roman forms, the Phœnician style
which has been described as developed from beaten metal-work; this is
evident even in the stone carvings. (_Figs._ 108 and 109.)

[Illustration: Fig. 108.--Votive Figure from Cyprus]

The destruction of Carthage is as famous for its completeness as that of
Jerusalem, which, indeed, it resembled in other respects, and it is
natural that but few traces of this magnificent Queen of the Sea should
have been preserved. Recent French and English investigations under
Bente and Davis describe the considerable remains of the fortification
walls of the Byrsa, built of colossal blocks of tufa. Their great
thickness, 10 m., permitted the formation of semicircular chambers in
three superposed stories, which, being accessible from within, served as
casemates and magazines. The numerous rock-cut tombs are, as in
Phœnicia, provided with steps from above, and form an oblong crypt,
about which the deep niches for the reception of bodies are grouped.

The remains of barbaric temples upon Malta and the neighboring islands
are of subordinate importance, if indeed they are to be mentioned at
all, in the consideration of Phœnician art. The double temple upon
Gozo is the most important of them. It consists of two adjoining spaces,
each concluded by a semicircular apse, having upon both sides similar
niches, so that the entire enclosure appears as a combination of apses
around an oblong. The pavement is partly of rectangular blocks, so
stepped as to show an interior division; but the Cyclopean masonry of
the walls is so rough that, in its entire lack of ornamental treatment,
the structure has but little interest for the history of art, and
permits no conclusions concerning Phœnician architecture, which
elsewhere produced such incomparable masonry of hewn stones.

[Illustration: Fig. 109.--Cyprian Head.]

The funeral monuments of the remaining Punic lands, of the Balearic
Isles, and notably of Sardinia, though of greater artistic value, are
fully as uncertain in their origin. Their form is at times like that of
the monuments of Amrith; yet they may very possibly be of Etruscan
derivation, for, apart from their resemblance to the tombs of Etruria,
they are almost exclusively upon the eastern coast of Sardinia, the side
turned towards Italy, while the Phœnicians would more naturally have
come in contact with the western part of the island.

[Illustration: Fig. 110.--Rock-cut Tomb at Antiphellos.]

The most advanced outpost of the extended civilization of Phœnicia
was Asia Minor. Under the dominion of the Seleucidæ and of the Romans,
the influence of Greek art was so felt upon the Syrian coast, and even
as far as the banks of the Tigris, that purely national works of
architecture and sculpture are comparatively rare. But this influence
was doubly great in the land of which, from the earliest times, the
Ionians had possessed the seaboard, and where they had founded a number
of flourishing cities which had attained to a degree of prosperity and
culture not less than that of their relatives upon the peninsula of the
Peloponnesos. Yet, although Ionian art bore some of its finest fruit
upon Asiatic soil, and from roots which may partly be traced back to
Mesopotamia, this can be historically treated only in connection with
the civilization of Greece and its common origin and development.
Hellenic Asia Minor and the countries under its influence--that is to
say, the coasts and islands of the Ægean, Propontis and Pontus--cannot
be separately considered. All the sculpture of these regions must
therefore be reserved for a later page; but there are a few
architectural monuments of the southern coast and of the interior which
require our present attention as being peculiarly national. Yet even in
these territories, divided according to their ancient population into
Lycia, Phrygia, and Lydia, all the monumental architecture was greatly
affected by the long Asiatic sway of the Diadochi, and by the military
power of Rome. The temples and public edifices gave up their national
peculiarities for manners of building characteristic of Greece and Rome.
It was only in the tombs that original conceptions retained a stubborn
hold. These, when cut in the rock, became imitations of the dwellings of
the country. Types of house construction were represented which had been
determined by the climatic necessities and by different building
materials of each province. By their massive simplicity and by the
popular consideration that a changeless dwelling best suited the quiet
repose of the dead, the rock-cut tombs retained their primitive
peculiarities without sensible alteration, being exposed only to
unimportant modifications. Little reference was made in them to the
advance of artistic or constructional methods from age to age. Though we
have to deal exclusively with the tombs of the country, they allow us
to draw conclusions concerning the appearance of other buildings,
whether temples or dwellings, which they had taken as their models.

[Illustration: Fig. 111.--Rock-cut Tomb at Antiphellos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 112.--Rock-cut Tomb at Myra.]

Next to the Phœnician coast, and opposite Phœnician Cyprus, lies
Lycia, embracing the greater part of the southern sea-line of Asia
Minor. It calls for chief consideration because of its almost numberless
tombs, some of which are admirably preserved, and because of their
instructive variety. Entire cliffs, like the Necropolis of Myra, shown
in _Fig._ 93 at the head of this section, are literally covered with
such monumental façades, picturesquely grouped according to the natural
configuration of the rock. The greater number are excavated grottoes,
the fronts of which are careful imitations of timbered houses. They
might be called log-house tombs if other than the roof beams were of
unsquared trunks. The interstices between the framing, when not
remaining open as an entrance, are closed by panels. The individuality
of these monuments is as marked as could have been possible among the
dwellings of Lycian mountaineers, whose wealth was not great, and whose
architectural demands did not much vary. An exact imitation of the
ingenious carpentry is cut in the rock down to the smallest detail: the
stiles of the panelling, the round unhewn timbers of the roof, the
clamping and dovetailing of the beams, and the primitive tree-nails with
which these are secured are shown with the greatest distinctness. The
appearance of the whole, when intact, must have resembled a petrified
village. These groups of tombs are among the most curious and striking
remains of antiquity. The attempt was made by several races of early
civilization to prepare a funeral-chamber which should resemble as
closely as possible the dwellings inhabited during life; but this
intention was not elsewhere so thoroughly carried out, and never
resulted in so piquant a contradiction to the material in which it was
executed. The native rock was made completely to deny its nature, and to
present the image of a distinctively wooden construction. Upon abrupt
cliffs this was usually restricted to a façade, which at times was very
simple, but quite characteristic, as in a tomb at Antiphellos (_Fig._
110), where the wooden framing underneath the flat projecting roof forms
two windows, left open as entrances to the cavern. A somewhat more
complicated example is shown by another tomb of this site (_Fig._ 111),
which is especially remarkable on account of the carefully imitated
coping of the cross-beams. In this case only one of the door and window
panels is open, and a gabled roof appears, which seems to have been
customary in Asia Minor, and to some degree in Phœnicia. The framing
of an interior or of side walls is also shown by the stone imitation, as
in the case of a fine example at Myra (_Fig._ 112), which seems to
illustrate the utmost limit of the style. But here the contradiction
between the form and the material is so glaring that the curious
elegance of the result does not redeem it. The repeating of wooden
constructions in stone without any modification--which is at first
sight, and in less extent, pleasing and piquant--has here become
disagreeably obtrusive. This is still more striking upon the rarer
monumental sarcophagi at Phellos and Myra, where the block-house is
carved in the full round from the native rock. These works represent the
wooden model upon all four sides, so completely and conscientiously that
it would be possible, by their aid, to reconstruct the dwelling-house of
a Lycian mountaineer in wood--to repeat from such a petrified copy the
original, though its frail materials perished more than twenty centuries
ago. It is curious how greatly the present huts of the country resemble
their antique predecessors.

[Illustration: Fig. 113.--So-called Monument of the Harpies at Xanthos.]

Near these tombs, in some instances even connected with them, though
usually independent, stand upright monuments of the nature of obelisks,
but with an upper member characteristic of Lycia. In place of the
pyramidal point of Egypt, or of the hemispherical or stepped termination
of Phœnicia and Assyria, there is here a cornice of projecting slabs,
upon which rests a small but comparatively high block. The most
important example is that known as the Monument of the Harpies (_Fig._
113), now in considerable part transported to the Lycian Hall of the
British Museum. It consisted of a gigantic monolith bearing a small
burial-chamber, the enclosing slabs of which were ornamented by the
famous reliefs, so important in the history of Greek sculpture.

The third group of Lycian sepulchral monuments, the smaller sarcophagi,
is the most numerous, forming at times an extended necropolis. Though
the majority are not free from Hellenic influences, they yet generally
maintain the peculiar national characteristics, being imitations of
wooden constructions somewhat similar to the rock-cut tombs. The lid in
some instances appears to be of slat-work, and, instead of the
semicircular gable common in Phœnicia, presents a pointed arch. The
cornice dentils distinctly betray their derivation from the projecting
ceiling beams, which, upon the block-house tombs, had still preserved
the round form of unhewn timbers. A tomb at Antiphellos (_Fig._ 114) has
a channel cut upon the summit of the lid, probably to serve as a socket
for the ridge-crestings. The heads of lions and other projecting
ornaments upon the sides enrich the architectural treatment. The
monument cannot be spoken of as a sarcophagus, in the true sense of the
word, for its lid was not movable, the body being introduced from the
front, where window-like openings were provided for the purpose.

[Illustration: Fig. 114.--Sarcophagus at Antiphellos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 115.--Rock-cut Tomb at Telmissos.]

A fourth class of Lycian rock-cut tombs, those with a façade resembling
a small temple-front, is of particular interest to the history of
architecture. Many among these display the influence of a late Hellenic
period, yet some preserve such primitive forms as to make it certain
that Lycia took a prominent part in the development of the Ionic
style--that the southern coast of Asia Minor was an important station,
marking the advance of artistic culture from Mesopotamia to the Ægean
Sea. These tombs generally represent the front of a temple in
antis--that is to say, of a portico with two columns between the
advanced side walls. The predominant Ionic forms are singularly
primitive in the capital and entablature, the greater number of the
examples showing no trace of the decline of the style, or of the Roman
type, so easily recognizable by the formal character of the details.
These differ greatly, and seem to show the experiments of an early
period of development, which may still have been contemporaneous with a
far higher advance of the style upon the more northern coasts of the
Ægean Sea and Sporades, being influenced in a different degree by the
same Western Asiatic motives. The important combination which
characterizes the perfection of Ionic architecture--the conjunction of
the volute with the Doric echinos beneath it--does not appear upon these
capitals; the spiral has not a graceful curve, and the contraction of
the side rolls of the volute is lacking; the abacus is badly profiled,
and the shafts are often joined without a curve to the clumsy bases.
(Compare _Fig._ 116.) As was always the case among the Orientals, who
knew of no independent gable and roof formation above the ceiling, the
entablature consisted of only two members,--the epistyle, uniting the
columns, and the terminating cornice. The triple division of the
entablature, of so marked importance in the perfected style, was not
known; even the two members here occurring were not sharply defined, and
the dentils of the cornice were fully developed at a time when their
original constructive significance had not yet been forgotten in their
decorative application. The gable acroteria are clumsy knops, similar to
the circular ridge ornaments and the horn-like corner pieces of
Phœnician monuments. In short, we may trace in the rock-cut tombs of
Lycia, if not a Proto-Ionic style, yet a distinct parallel development
of the most primitive Ionic forms. These did not exclude the influence
of Greece, after the full perfection of the style had been attained, but
rather prepared its way. An example of such later semi-Hellenic work may
be observed in the magnificent monument of Xanthos, built in the middle
of the fourth century B.C. as a trophy after the capture of Telmissos by
the Xanthians. This also has been in part transported to the British
Museum. This structure was not cut from the solid rock, but was built of
quarried stones. It shows the full development of Ionic forms. Upon a
comparatively high substructure there stood a cella surrounded by
columns--of a peripteral arrangement rare in Lycia, where all the tombs
which represent temples seem to show that the national places of
worship, like those of Assyria and Phœnicia, were restricted to a
portico in antis, the evolution of the peripteros being an improvement
of the Greeks. The naïve originality observable in the Ionic does not
exist in the more isolated Doric forms, although a few very archaic
monuments of the latter style are known. Their existence is explained by
the vicinity of Crete, that southern outpost of early Doric culture, as
well as by the neighboring Doric colonies which flourished upon the
southwestern extremity of Asia Minor.

[Illustration: Fig. 116.--Details of Columns from Telmissos, Myra, and
Antiphellos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 117.--So-called Tomb of Midas.]

[Illustration: Fig. 118.--Phrygian Rock-cut Tomb near Doganlu.]

Lycia appears to have had but little influence upon the other countries
of the seaboard, which were almost entirely Hellenized; nor did its
influence penetrate as far into the interior country as Phrygia, where
the civilization of the Greeks was introduced only by way of the Ægean
and Pontic coasts. There were neither frequented ports nor navigable
streams to open the way. The tracklessness of wooded mountains
restricted the commercial and intellectual horizon of the Phrygians,
who, as a nomadic people, were contented with the slightest artistic
exertion. In the same way as the Lycian carved his wooden hut upon the
face of the cliff, that he might retain after his death the beloved
dwelling of his life, the Phrygian ornamented the front of his grotto
graves by a representation of his movable house, the nomadic tent. Only
the cloth of the tent, with its woven pattern, was shown; its
constructive ribs, not visible upon the exterior of the original, were
omitted from the imitation. The most important of these tomb
frontispieces, between Kiutahija and Sivrihissar upon the Saquaria,
which are attributed to Phrygian kings, is called by the Turks
Yasili-Kaia (the inscribed stone). (_Fig._ 117.) It is known as the Tomb
of Midas from the one legible word, Midai, occurring in an
unintelligible inscription. Upon the face of the cliff there is cut a
square surface, 11 m. broad and about 9 m. high, terminated above by a
low gable, which, with the acroterium, adds 3 m. to the height of the
whole. The triangle is framed by a light lattice-work in low relief, and
crowned with two volutes, similar to the circular ridge decorations of
Phœnician tombs. The tympanon is not carved, but probably, with the
entire front, was painted. The extensive rectangular surface beneath is
covered with a complicated meander ornament in relief--a play of lines
evidently taken from a woven pattern and resembling the decorations of
Moorish walls, where the fundamental motive was also the tent-cloth. The
border of this surface represents, without conventionalization, an
edging set with precious stones, such as may have been customary upon
costly Syrian stuffs. The small interior chamber was only large enough
for the reception of a sarcophagus. The entrance to it was not marked by
any architectural features--even as the tent itself was not provided
with a door--but the passage was originally closed by a slab, upon the
face of which the woven pattern was without doubt continued. A second
tomb of the vicinity, also marked by an undecipherable inscription, is
of similar character. (_Fig._ 118.) The gable represents a wooden
construction, somewhat like the framing of Lycian sarcophagi; its double
acroterium is decorated with three rosettes. The principal surface, the
square below, is without carving, and had probably a painted pattern. A
third frontispiece of this type shows a floral frieze of alternate
palmettoes and buds, resembling an Assyrian motive, but inverted,
perhaps because its direct model was the border of a carpet. It recalls
the hanging rows of pomegranates upon the columns Jachin and Boaz of
Solomon’s Temple. The cliffs of Phrygia are honey-combed by such
rock-cut tombs. Especially in the district north of Seid-el-Ar are there
numberless small grottoes, the entrances to which are either perfectly
plain or provided only with a simple triangular gable--all giving proof
of the rarity of artistic effort among these idyllic mountains.

The influence of Assyrian and Persian methods is evident even to the
west of the river Halys, the border of the Mesopotamian dominion before
Cyrus; but upon its farther banks, in Eastern Phrygia, Oriental art is
universally prevalent. At Eyuk there are remains, supposed to be those
of a temple, with a portal flanked by monsters like the cherubim of
Nineveh and Persepolis. At Boghaz-Kieui, besides rock-cut reliefs
entirely similar to those of Persia, there are the foundations of a
terrace with the ruins of a palace, built upon the plan of the royal
dwellings of Persepolis.

Lydia, the last of the three independent countries of Asia Minor, was so
near to the Ionic cities of the coast, and so exposed to the influence
of their civilization, that but few national peculiarities were
preserved in the historical period. The tumulus was there, as in early
Greece, the customary form of the monumental tomb. In Lydia, as in
Etruria, numbers of these mounds stood in an extended necropolis. The
conical tumulus is as characteristic a form for the extreme west of Asia
Minor, for the Troad, as the strictly geometrical pyramid is for Egypt,
or its terraced variation for Mesopotamia. The mound of earth was at
times reveted with a masonry of large polygonal blocks, or placed upon a
low cylindrical drum of such Cyclopean walls; the only architectural
ornaments were simple base and cornice mouldings. The best-preserved,
though not the most important, monument of this kind is the so-called
Grave of Tantalos upon Mount Sipylos, near Smyrna, one of a group of
twelve. (_Fig._ 119.) The rectangular chamber in its centre, 3.5 m. long
and almost 3 m. high, is roofed by a false vault, the horizontal,
gradually projecting stones being cut within to the outline of a pointed
arch. The entrance to this tumulus, like the shafts of the Egyptian
pyramids, was hidden by the casing of exterior masonry. The fragments of
a stone pier near by, somewhat like the Meghazil monument of Amrith,
probably belonged to the ornament upon the summit of the cone, which,
with a diameter of plan equal to 33.6 m., attained a height of 27.6 m.
Of greater grandeur, though in an entire state of destruction, are the
royal graves of the Lydian capital. The world-renowned name of Sardis
has been preserved in the appellation of the squalid village Sarabat now
standing upon its site. In its vicinity are the remains of more than one
hundred tumuli. The most important of these, with a cylindrical drum 257
m. in diameter and 18.5 m. high, still rises to an elevation of 61.5 m.
It is with some probability identified with that monument of Alyattes
described by Herodotos, who exaggerates its dimensions to a diameter of
400 m. The cone of rammed earth was apparently not reveted with stone.
Upon its apex there was a pier of five blocks, which bore a
hemispherical termination; of this various fragments have been found.

[Illustration: Fig. 119.--The So-called Grave of Tantalos.]

These tumuli approach in dimensions closely to the pyramids of Egypt.
The elevation of the cone upon a cylindrical base was a certain advance,
but its execution was such as to allow of no comparison between the
monuments of the two countries. The pyramids of Egypt were built; the
tumuli of Lydia were merely heaped up of earth. The former demanded
great technical ability and the assistance of a commanding and
calculating mind; the latter were the works of an enslaved people alone.
But, on the other hand, the Lydian cones more closely resembled the
natural form of a funeral mound than did the pyramids of Egypt and
Mesopotamia, and on this account were capable of greater development.
Such tumuli are to be met with from Asia to Etruria, and were adopted
even by the great architects of Greece: the highest artistic
civilization always gives preference to the simplest solution of a
problem.

[Illustration: Fig. 120.--View of the Athenian Propylæa. Restoration.]



HELLAS.


The Mediterranean Sea was the heart of the Old World; the important
lands of the early history of civilization were grouped about its richly
indented shores, generally decreasing in respect of culture as they
receded from it. The northeastern part of the Mediterranean, because of
its many islands, having an even greater proportionate coast-line, was
the centre of the countries ennobled by Hellenic civilization.
Separating and uniting at once, like all the waters of the earth, the
Ægean Sea formed the boundary between the two chief races of Greek
intellectual life--the Dorians and the Ionians; while it was, at the
same time, the favoring medium of exchange for the productions of their
genius. European Greece, with its predominating Doric population, and
the almost exclusively Ionic coasts of Asia Minor, equally looked upon
this sea as their own, traversing it with thousands of ships, and
gaining more from the trackless waters before them than from the
interior lands of the immense continents whose seaboard alone they were
content to occupy. In Asia the Greeks were restricted to the countries
upon its uttermost western border; in European Greece the development
was chiefly directed towards the eastern coast, paying even less
attention to their own shores on the Adriatic than to the early
colonized ports of Magna-Græcia and Sicily. The Archipelago itself
provided convenient strongholds and outposts in every direction. The
numerous harbors and anchoring-places of its many islands offered
protection against the notorious treachery of the Ægean main--a
protection imperatively necessary for the primitive seafarers of
antiquity. But, as in the history of all civilization, the currents of
Greek intellectual and artistic progress moved distinctly from east to
west. The European (Doric) culture was in itself less calculated to
influence Asia than the Asiatic (Ionic) to affect the younger continent.
It was, as decided by nature, upon European soil, upon Attica--the most
advanced promontory of European Greece--that the two branches of the
Greek race united, and bore in Athens that double fruit at which we
marvel. The Dorians, displaced, in some measure, by the rapid growth of
Ionic Asia and Europe, turned still farther westward, and settled upon
the shores of Sicily and the Gulf of Tarention, where imposing monuments
still attest the extent of their power.

The legends of the wanderings of Hellenic tribes, and especially of the
so-called Doric migration, were based upon the busy currents of
intercourse between Asia and Europe, over seas and straits, and between
the European continent and the Morea, the Island of Pelops. The
relations and the quarrels of Hellenic and semi-barbaric peoples upon
each side of the Ægean are illustrated by the tales of the Argonauts and
their voyage, and of the Trojan War, both of which bear the stamp of a
certain piratical rivalry. The fatal lack of unity, resulting from the
separate development of neighboring districts, could not be more
distinctly characterized than by the fact that the Greek races, although
they felt themselves divided from other nations--from _barbarians_--by
an impassable gulf, and were aware of their own absolute intellectual
superiority, yet lacked any comprehensive designation for themselves:
the name _Greeks_, or _Hellenes_, is of comparatively recent origin.

The Homeric epics prove that the intellectual development of the people
to whom the immortal poet belonged stood, at least as early as the ninth
century B.C., at a height to which nations of such primitive
civilization as the Egyptians and Chaldæans had never attained.
Phenomenal as the appearance of those poems may have been, they still
could not have stood so high above their time--which they evidently
represent with a certain transfiguration--that contemporaries were not
able to comprehend and enjoy them. The creative arts stood, at this
epoch, in strange contrast to so great an intellectual height; they were
far surpassed by the advance of poetry. Though certain textile and
ceramic manufactures (the making of wooden and bronze utensils, woven
stuffs, and pottery) must have been practised to some extent in Greece
proper, the better artistic productions are continually referred to as
imported from the civilized countries of Asia. Larger objects, and
notably buildings, were either exceedingly primitive, or, in the lack of
trained native ability, were erected and ornamented in foreign styles.
The Homeric epics know nothing of a columnar temple, nothing of artistic
images of the gods, nothing even of dwellings corresponding to the
importance of their princely heroes. Even at a much later time a
Spartan, accustomed to erect his own house with saw and axe alone, might
be astonished at the squarely hewn beams of a ceiling, which he
previously had seen formed only of round trunks, like those imitated
upon the Lycian block-house tombs.

It is of this exceeding simplicity that we must picture to ourselves the
palaces of the kings, one of which is so attractively described by the
singer of the Odyssey, in the account of the royal dwelling at Ithaca.
The entire establishment must have been similar to a grange--a wall
enclosing a number of buildings with the court before them. The rustic
parallel is clearly brought to mind by the description of this
farm-yard, where the compost-heap, surrounded by swine and geese, was
the bed of the old watch-dog, who, in Homer’s truly idyllic account,
alone recognizes his master, and, dying, wags his tail in greeting. From
this yard a gate led to an inner court, comparable to the peristyle of
later buildings, but without the ornament of columns, and in all
respects extremely primitive. Goats and beeves were driven in here
without further ado to be slaughtered. This adjoined upon one side the
chambers of the men, upon the other those of the women, so separated
that the tumultuous massacre of the suitors in the principal hall did
not disturb the slumber of Penelope, and only reached the ears of the
maids like distant moaning. Upon the third side, probably opposite the
entrance, was the hall of the men, a ceiled space, which must have been
of considerable extent, as the hundred and eight unwelcome guests could
here unite in the banquet and other amusements. Its ceiling, like that
of the armory and that of the royal sleeping-chamber, was supported by
upright beams of wood. We may imagine these similar to the shafts in the
Palace of Oinomaos at Elis, one of which, bound together with iron
hoops, was preserved as a relic in the time of Pausanias. The ceiling
beams of the hall were smoked and blackened by open fires and
torch-lights as in rustic dwellings. Of the walls there is no mention,
though the supposition is not improbable that the bright metal sheathing
of the palaces of Menelaos and Alkinoös existed here also. It would be
explained by the Phœnician overlaying of wood-work with beaten
bronze, or, to speak more correctly, with copper. The space could not
have been without openings for light and air. These are not directly
mentioned by the poet, but may be assumed, from the analogies offered by
other civilized nations of early antiquity, to have existed in the wall,
immediately under the ceiling. Here the interstices between the immense
horizontal beams, which rested upon the walls, were left open, and the
motive of the subsequent Doric metope resulted of itself. That the
timbers overhead were not sheathed with boards is evident from a Homeric
simile: Athene rose to the ceiling, and there sat, “like unto the
resting swallow;” that is to say, upon the cross-beams of the open
triangle formed by the roof-framing. Further evidence is offered by the
account of the hanging of Epicaste upon a ceiling beam, which must have
been exposed from all sides.

The tholos of the palace at Ithaca was an isolated circular structure,
before the court, and may perhaps be identified with the high thalamos
to which Telemachos descended. In this also lay gold and metal in
heaps; while shrines containing garments, and amphoras filled with oil
and wine, etc., stood around. Its double door, of careful workmanship,
agrees with the character of a treasury. If this identification of the
tholos and thalamos be accepted, no doubt can remain that we have here
to deal with a space similar to many yet remaining in Greece, generally
known under the name of treasure-houses. Examples exist at Orchomenos,
near Pharsalos, Amyclæ, Menidi, and in Mykenæ.

[Illustration: Fig. 121.--Plan and Section of the Tholos of Atreus.]

[Illustration: Fig. 122.--Restoration of the Tholos of Atreus. Portal.
(Clarke.)]

[Illustration: Fig. 123.--Fragments of an Engaged Column from the Tholos
of Atreus.]

One of the five in Mykenæ, known as the Treasury, or the Tholos, of
Atreus, remains in an admirable state of preservation, especially as
regards the interior. This consists of a space of circular plan, 15 m.
in diameter, and of the same height, formed like a pointed vault.
(_Fig._ 121.) Its walls begin to curve from the floor, which is of
stamped clay pisé. Upon this the first circular course of masonry
immediately reposes. The walls then rise, in parabolic outline, to a
pointed apex. They are not constructed upon the principle of a
vault--that is to say, with wedge-shaped stones, and with the direction
of joints to a common centre--but are laid in horizontal beds, each
course so projecting over the one beneath it that, by this diminution of
the concentric circles, they finally unite at the summit. They were
smoothly cut upon the jointing surfaces, while the face was not
chiselled until after the completion of the masonry. The blocks were
rectangular, and the joints, which consequently increased radially in
plan, were filled with the same pisé used for the floor; the interstice
between the wall door and the rock-cut inner chamber upon one side being
also cemented with this substance. An entrance-passage, the dromos, led
from the valley to the tholos in a gently inclined ascent. It was
bordered by walls of cut stone, but nowhere ceiled. Its floor, 6.20 m.
broad and 36 m. long, was paved with pisé. Thisentrance-passage was
terminated without by a terraced retaining-wall, and within by an
elaborate portal façade. The recent investigations of Stamatakis and
Thiersch have given sufficient information concerning the composition
and details of this front to permit a restoration of its chief masses.
(_Fig._ 122.) The lower part was constructed of long stones, carefully
cut and jointed. The stepped jambs of the opening, peculiar to all
antique doors, were probably cut after the blocks were in position. Upon
either side were decorative engaged columns, which are so entirely
similar to the one represented upon the Gate of the Lions at Mykenæ that
it is possible completely to understand their nature by that general
guide; by the help of fragments which still exist, and others drawn in
former publications, though now lost; by traces upon the wall, and
especially by the sockets cut for the swallowtail clampings of the bases
and capitals. The shaft, instead of being diminished, increases as it
ascends, as does also the column upon the relief over the Gate of the
Lions. Its base, from this analogy, and from the narrow space left for
it by the clampings, seems to have consisted of a simple tore. The
abacus and parts of the mouldings beneath it still exist; the coronation
was formed by two roundlets, separated by a scotia, the lower being
considerably smaller in height and diameter than the upper. (_Fig._
123.) Without the lower member, there is a certain similarity of the
capital to a Doric echinos, which is increased by the proportions of the
boldly projecting abacus; but the whole is so similar to an Asiatic
(Ionic) base that it was not natural to believe it a capital, and the
fragment published by Donaldson has hitherto been believed to be the
foot of the shaft. The columns were entirely covered with an
ornamentation in relief of zigzag lines alternating with the well-known
spiral wave; they stood upon rectangular pedestals, of which the triply
stepped plinths have been preserved. The existence of bronze ornaments
upon the lintel of the door is evident from the traces of nails; five
lion-heads can be distinctly recognized. An epistyle extended from
capital to capital across the entire front of the portal; it projected
far beyond the lintel, upon which it partly reposed. Above this
entablature was a surface, like an attica, which masked the triangle
formed by the relieving blocks over the lintel. The upper walls were not
originally visible, having been reveted by thin slabs of stone, secured
in position by dowels. Fragments from Mykenæ deposited in the British
Museum, in the Munich Antiquarium, and in Athens appertained to this
upper façade; they all show spiral ornaments between horizontal grooves,
and are similar to many other decorations of the same age. The borders
of the casing over the relieving triangle and its extreme upper corner
were patterned in like manner, as is plain from the mitre-joint of some
of the slabs, and from a small fragment exactly fitting the upper angle
of the opening. The entire triangle was probably closed by some light
stone carving, since it could have had no function as a passage for
light. The door, as may be seen from traces of pivots upon the sill and
lintel, had two wings, which, from their bolt-holes, appear to have been
so large that, when closed, they considerably overlapped. Upon the
exterior jambs a broad strip of metal was affixed, still to be traced by
two vertical rows of nail-holes, in which fragments of bronze
occasionally remain. This work leads to the supposition that the wings
of the door were themselves overlayed with metal, and, with the
characteristic forms of the decoration upon the monument, points to the
peculiarities of Asiatic art. It is natural to attribute this to the
influence of Phœnicia; indeed, the effect of the civilization of that
country upon early Greece can hardly be overestimated. A broad,
horizontal strip of metal sheathing existed also upon the exterior, and
small fragments of it are repeatedly met with in the rubbish filling the
tholos; similar vestiges are found in a second monument of the kind near
by. This overlaying of walls with sheet copper was by no means uncommon
in ancient Greece. The subterranean bronze chamber of Danae may be
explained as a tomb sheathed with metal. In mythical ages, in the
sanctuary at Delphi, as well as in later times, in the Chalkioicos of
Athene at Sparta, this wall-treatment appears employed for temples, even
as Homer described it in palaces at Sparta and the Island of the
Phæacians. The Tholos of Atreus was itself subterranean; the exterior of
the conical mass of masonry was covered with a hill of earth. In
consideration of the almost perfect preservation of the interior, it is
evident that some remains of a strictly architectural exterior would
have been recognizable, had it existed. A tumulus covered and protected
the structure; though its earth is now, for the greater part, washed
away, to it must still be ascribed the good condition in which the
kernel has remained.

The recently discovered grave at Menidi, in Attica (Lolling), is a
parallel construction. As regards beauty of execution and richness of
ornament, it is far inferior to the Tholos of Atreus; it is also much
smaller, having an average diameter of 8.35 m. and 9 m. original height.
Its only peculiarity is that the relieving blocks over the lintel,
instead of projecting one over the other so as to form a triangle, are
so placed as to leave four voids between as many horizontal beams, in a
manner similar to the arrangement for relieving the ceiling of the
principal chamber of the great pyramid of Gizeh.

The Tholos of Atreus offers a welcome commentary upon the thesauros of
the royal palace at Ithaca, but only in respect to its construction. The
purpose of the circular buildings still existing in Greece seems to have
been entirely different from that of the treasure-house described in the
Odyssey. It is true that eminent authorities deny this difference--and
the analogies of the round Homeric building, of the treasure-vaults at
Mykenæ mentioned by Pausanias, and of the treasury of Minyas in
Orchomenos, lend their arguments some weight, and, at least, a greater
probability than the suppositions that the structures of tholos form
were intended for spring-houses (Forchhammer) or places of worship
(Pyl). But there are reasons against all these assumptions. The
treasure-houses of the Pelopidæ must have been upon the acropolis,
inside the fortification walls, not at various distances outside their
limits, as is the case with those of Mykenæ. Still less could such
vaults for hoarded valuables have been as distant from the city as was
the Tholos of Baphio from the ancient Amyclæ, which stood entirely
isolated in the midst of an open plain, without the possibility of
communication with any royal residence. The tumuli of earth above the
crypts would have but ill suited them to form a part of the palace
building; while for a cell which was only to receive precious goods--for
a magazine of deposit--the rich overlaying of the interior walls with
sheet metal, and especially the elaborate carving of the portal front,
seem out of place. These peculiarities, not to mention some of less
importance, point to another purpose, for which they are, one and all,
fitted--namely, the destination of the structures as tombs. Their
position, before the acropolis and without the city walls; the covering
of the chamber with earth in a tumulus form; the impossibility of their
having had any communication with other buildings; the elaborate
decoration of the entrance, and the princely wealth of metals in the
interior--all support, with the striking analogies beyond the Ægean,
this conception of the tholos buildings advocated by Welcker and Mure.
It is possible that it is to these structures that Pausanias refers as
the treasure-houses of the Atridæ; but Pausanias, like us, knew Mykenæ
only by its ruins. That patron of all _ciceroni_ upon classic ground
was not exacting for proofs of their legends. The hypothesis of Pyl may
in so far be correct that the tholos itself did not serve as the place
of sepulchre, which was provided by the small side chamber, but was a
chapel for the funeral worship naturally to be assumed in connection
with an heroic dynasty.

It is not possible to assign these tombs to individuals, like those of
the early Persian monarchs, or even to dynasties: the questionable
identification of the graves discovered in the agora of the acropolis,
ventured by Schliemann, would here be inadmissible. It is reasonably
certain, however, that the best-preserved tholos, that known by the name
of Atreus, is about contemporaneous with the Gate of the Lions, and
dates from the most flourishing period of the heroic age--before the
downfall of the Atridæ upon the return of Agamemnon.

A small chamber, only of sufficient size to receive the cinerary urn, in
the centre of an upheaval of earth, was sufficient for the graves of the
heroes who fell before Troy. Several of these tumuli exist. The larger
of them, those of Hector and of Achilles, had a considerable elevation,
and, standing upon a low promontory, were visible far at sea. They were
without architectural features or decoration, mere cones of earth and
stones; terminated, as Homer relates concerning those of Ilos, Sarpedon,
and Elpenor, by a monument like a column, which must have resembled the
piers upon Lydian tumuli. It is questionable whether the trees which
grew in later times upon the mounds of Protesilaos before Troy, and of
Alcmæon in Arcadia, were originally and intentionally there placed, and
are to be deemed characteristic of such works. Those planted upon the
tumulus of Augustus in Rome may certainly be referred to his individual
desire. From the account given by Pausanias of the tumulus of Æpytos at
Pheneos, in Arcadia; from foundations remaining upon the island of Syme,
and from later ruins at Kyrene--not to mention a well-preserved tumulus
of very considerable dimensions, reveted with stone, which, from its
situation in Algerian territory, might perhaps be ascribed to the
Carthaginians, or even to the Romans--from all these examples, it is
evident that such mounds, like the tumuli of Lydia and Etruria, were,
for the greater part, elevated upon cylindrical foundations. But
whether the interior were chambered or solid, whether the cone of earth
rose directly from the earth or from a drum substructure, the tumulus
appears to have been, in primitive times, the most customary form of
monumental tomb for persons of high rank.

The common man was probably buried in pits, as at the present day, the
grave being marked by an upright stone, with or without some slight
ornament. Schliemann’s discoveries in the agora of Mykenæ show that,
under certain circumstances, this procedure was adopted even for
princes. The kingly importance of these sepulchres is assured by their
position, and by the immense quantity of gold and valuables found within
them. The decorative style of these objects dates them conclusively to
the heroic age; but the assignment of the different graves to Agamemnon
and his associates is a mere hypothesis.

[Illustration: Fig. 124.--Pyramid of Kenchreæ.]

A pyramidal form was only in isolated instances substituted for the
tumulus. Of a pyramid, described by Pausanias as existing between Argos
and Epidauros, there now remains a mass of masonry measuring 12 m. in
the line of the diagonal. A second, near Kenchreæ, between Argos and
Tegea, is better preserved. (_Fig._ 124.) Its plan is oblong, 14.5 m.
long and nearly 12 m. broad; the two chambers of the interior are at
present unroofed. The structure appears to have served as a common
place of sepulchre for the fallen, and, at the same time, as a memorial
of victory. This destination is also evident in two further pyramidal
remains, in Laconia and near Lessa, which are described by Curtius and
by Ross. The Greeks adopted both Asiatic and Egyptian forms for their
funeral monuments; but in the construction of both tumulus and pyramid
they introduced comparatively large chambers, early striving for ends
foreign to those despotic lands:--a wise economy of material and labor
and a gain of space.

Mausoleums and sepulchres are always among the first traces of
civilization, and the most ancient examples of architectural art. In
Greece, however, there are contemporaneous remains significant of other
purposes. Chief among these are the fortifications of towns, although in
general these works enclosed only the acropolis, which contained the
residences of the rulers and the sanctuaries of the people. The true age
of these defences can by no means be surely determined. Not all
Cyclopean masonry is to be attributed to the earliest ages of Hellenic
antiquity, for this manner of polygonal jointing remained in use long
after a time when cut and squared stones were generally employed. On the
other hand, immense rectangular blocks, laid in horizontal courses,
frequently occur in city walls which are known to be of the greatest
antiquity and even to have been totally ruined in the historical period,
such monoliths being regularly used upon corners, the jambs of gates,
etc., where especial strength and independent firmness were called for.
When the surface of Cyclopean walls is perfectly smooth and exactly
jointed, these may confidently be regarded as not of primitive
antiquity; the erection of such masonry is a subtlety of greater
difficulty than that of square blocks and horizontal beds. But walls
built of enormous boulders, unhewn, and roughly piled up without
calculation, the larger interstices being filled with smaller stones,
are of extreme age. Such masonry appeared to later generations to be the
work of giants, of Cyclops, and hence a name which might more fittingly
be changed to Pelasgic than to Poseidonic, as suggested by Gladstone.
The walls of Tiryns (_Fig._ 125) are of such gigantic blocks--bulwarks
mentioned by Homer and Hesiod, and admired in their ruins by Pausanias.
They are built upon a ridge of rock, which is over 190 m. long, only 70
m. broad, and elevated 10 m. above the surrounding plain. The masonry is
from 7 to 15 m. thick; of its original height, estimated as 18 m., there
remains from 10 to 12 m. The enormous stones vary from 2 to 3 m. in
length and 0.9 to 12. m. in thickness. In its greatest breadth the wall
is provided with galleries, roofed by projecting stones laid in
horizontal beds and cut to the outline of a pointed arch. Such spaces
are provided with loopholes upon the exterior, and, without doubt,
served as magazines and casemates. Within these fortifications must have
stood the royal residence, famed in the legends of Heracles and
Eurystheus; of it no recognizable traces remain.

[Illustration: Fig. 125.--Plan of the Acropolis of Tiryns.]

The walls of Mykenæ are not of equally gigantic masonry, but are fully
as old, and are especially interesting because of the city having been a
complete ruin in the earliest historical times. Besides casemate
galleries in the walls, there are in Mykenæ a number of highly important
gateways and portals; those of the fortifications at Tiryns were
entirely destroyed, an inclined plane leading to the eastern side of the
acropolis is there alone to be recognized as an approach.

[Illustration: Fig. 126.--Gate of the Lions at Mykenæ.]

[Illustration: Fig. 127.--Smaller Gate of Mykenæ.]

The doors were naturally of greater technical perfection than the long
line of bulwarks; having been created for both admittance and defence,
they required a certain constructive calculation, and permitted the
employment of more exterior ornament. The simplest possible form of a
gateway is the combination of three stones--the two jambs and the
lintel--observable in two examples at Mykenæ. (_Figs._ 126 and 127.)
Such a construction had the disadvantage that the upright blocks could
not be joined to the wall, and that the lintel, which necessarily lay
clear for a considerable length, could not immediately receive the
massive continuation of the masonry above it. Notwithstanding the
convergence of the jambs upon the great gate of Mykenæ, the beam has a
length of 4.6 m., with a span of 3.05 m.; the bottom of the door being
3.2 m. wide, and its height 3.25 m. A relieving gable was consequently
constructed, similar to that common in Egypt during the age of the
Pyramids, and to that described in the consideration of the Tholos of
Atreus. A triangular opening remained above the lintel, by which the
efficacy of the wall as a fortification was considerably impaired. The
orifice was closed by one or two slabs, which did not press heavily upon
the lintel; but they could not have been sufficient to escape fracture
by heavy missiles, or to resist the blows of a battering-ram. The attack
was therefore diverted from this vulnerable point by moral means. The
panel received a certain consecration by some protecting sacred symbol
being carved upon it--such, for instance, as a Gorgon’s head--a recourse
which was effective in times when the slightest desecration of a divine
emblem was deemed more impious than the bloodiest deed of human
violence. Such a carving has been preserved over the gateway of Mykenæ,
which has received its name from the lions represented upon it. As a
work of sculpture, it will be considered below. The column between the
animals has, however, a bearing upon the architectural forms of the
epoch. It is the same shaft, diminishing from summit to base, which has
been noticed upon the portal front of the Tholos of Atreus. A second
gate of Mykenæ resembled the Gate of the Lions, but was smaller and
simpler. (_Fig._ 127.)

[Illustration: Fig. 128.--Portal upon Samos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 129.--Gate of Phigalia.]

The form of three blocks appears to have been soon changed, the wall
itself serving in place of an especial jamb. The span of the lintel was
decreased by two or four boldly projecting blocks as brackets. Examples
of this development are offered by portals of Samos and Phigalia.
(_Figs._ 128 and 129.) But in the same measure as the danger from the
great span of the lintel was diminished, that of the brackets being
pressed downward and disjointed was increased. A third manner of
covering the opening, by stones leaned against each other at an angle,
was a still further advance. (_Fig._ 130.) When the side thrust could be
well borne--and for this the walls were always sufficient--such a gable
could support any pressure that could possibly be imposed, while
allowing a great breadth of passage. Finally, a triangular construction
could be obtained by a gradual projection of horizontal stones, laid as
they had been in so many instances for the relief of a lintel beneath
them. This construction occurs in two varieties, differing in
appearance, though not in principle: the projection of the horizontal
courses of stone either began directly from the ground (_Fig._ 130), as
has been noticed in the Tholos of Atreus (_Fig._ 122), or commenced at
some height, the jambs being carried up vertically. (_Fig._ 132.) In
both these varieties the line of the gable frequently appears concavely
curved, as in the parabolic walls of the tholos, and the outline of a
pointed arch was thus obtained. (_Figs._ 133 and 134.) In spite of their
early familiarity with the abstract principle of the arch, as shown in
_Fig._ 130, the Greeks refused to adopt the true arch, with its
wedge-shaped stones, even in late historical ages, when they assuredly
were acquainted with its construction. An illustration of their feeling
in this respect is given by the aqueduct adjoining the Tower of the
Winds in Athens, where the semicircles are cut from monoliths.

[Illustration: Fig. 130.--Portal upon Delos.]

The influence of the gateways upon the masonry is evident from the more
frequent adoption of the rectangular blocks, which had at first only
been employed to give the portals an independent strength, both for the
ramparts and for the out-works and protecting towers which these
openings necessitated. Such a fortification, erected for the defence of
a gate, still stands in Tiryns--the city to which succeeding ages
ascribed the invention of tower-building (Pliny, _Hist. Nat._ vii. 56);
it reaches a height of 13 m. Thetower which defended the gate of Mykenæ
was even larger. Homer mentions such structures at Troy, Thebes, and
Calydon, and is also familiar with casemates and battlements. The latter
are shown by paintings upon archaic vases to have been of the normal
rectangular shape.

Schliemann’s excavations in Mykenæ have proved that in this city the
agora was situated just within the principal gate. Some of the stone
benches encircling the agora were found in almost perfect preservation;
they were constructed of slabs standing erect in concentric rows to
receive the horizontal seats. They lend a new confirmation of Homer’s
truthful characterization of locality, illustrating a passage which
occurs in the description of the shield of Achilles, which describes
the judgment scene upon the marketplace:

    “On polish’d chairs, in solemn circle, sat
     The rev’rend elders.”

[Illustration: Fig. 131.--Gate of Missolonghi.]

[Illustration: Fig. 132.--Gate of Messene.]

Though the remains of these prehistoric ages show in some degree the
form of an ancient Greek acropolis, with its royal dwelling of courts
and halls, and the sepulchral monuments before its gates, they are yet
insufficient to complete even the main outlines of the picture by giving
any understanding of the temple--that structure destined to become the
ideal of Hellenic architecture. While the life and customs contemporary
with the Homeric poems are, in other respects, represented with
incomparable truth and distinctness, the epics are entirely silent upon
this subject. It appears that the temples were neither of great size nor
of artistic importance; among the ruins of Tiryns and Mykenæ there are
no vestiges of columns or entablatures. The symbolical images of the
deities were placed upon cliffs, in caverns, among the branches of
sacred trees, or in the hollows of their trunks, and simple altars were
erected before them. Frequently the worship of a deity was merely
connected with a grove, or with some other locality fitted by nature for
this purpose, and was there performed without an image or other dead
symbol. It was thus with the most primitive god of Greek mythology, Zeus
of Dodona. When a building was provided at all, it was, in the heroic
ages, restricted to the cella, a ceiled chapel of oblong plan, which
stood in the centre of a consecrated area, the temenos. This original
form--the whole of the primitive shrine--is recognizable even in the
developed peripteros, as the kernel within the outstanding columns. It
does not appear strange that we should be acquainted with so few of
these chapels when it is considered that hardly greater traces remain of
the entire architecture of the Teutonic races during the first seven
Christian centuries. It is natural, in the development of civilization,
that sanctuaries exemplifying different phases of advancement should
seldom stand next to each other; after the destruction of the old, the
new arises in its place, upon its consecrated site. Examples of such
original cellas are not, however, entirely wanting. Several remains
published by Dodwell and Stackelberg are to be explained as chapels. A
structure upon Delos, designated by Thiersch as a tomb, is quite
comparable to a columnless temple cella. There is less probability that
the ruins upon Mount Ocha and near the village Stoura, upon Eubœa,
were temples. They are chambers sheltered from above by slabs of stone,
inclined like a gable. (_Fig._ 135.)

[Illustration: Fig. 133.--Gate of Thoricos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 134.--Gate of Ephesos.]

This method of roofing could not have been generally practised in early
times, when simple and natural constructions utilized the materials at
hand best adapted to the purpose. The builders, among the bald mountains
of Eubœa, were forced to such a manner of covering their chamber by
lack of wood. The south of the island produces no trees which could
provide the timber for roof-beams; while, on the other hand, open
quarries in the neighborhood furnished a kind of slate-stone which is
easily split into large slabs like joists and boards. So clumsy a
ceiling construction as that upon Mount Ocha was not natural in
countries of dense forests, such as was the original home of the
Dorians. In other parts of Hellas than the rocky and sterile islands of
the Ægean, the chapels must have been roofed with wood. The most obvious
considerations make it evident that ceiling and roof of the primitive
cella were originally of wood. In the later marble architecture of
Greece this assumption is confirmed by numerous reminiscences of
timbered construction, sufficient even to explain the methods and form
of the original carpentry.

[Illustration: Fig. 135.--Interior of a Structure upon Mount Ocha,
Eubœa.]

A pitched and gabled roof seems to have been generally employed for
these early structures. The horizontal ceiling might be sufficient for
the changeless blue sky of Egypt, but could not suffice in Greece,
where, in certain seasons, heavy rains were frequent, and even
hail-storms not unknown. Still no land upon the Mediterranean was
familiar with the great steepness of roof made necessary by the enduring
snow and ice of the North. In colder climates the pitch of the covering
was not only greatly increased, but all horizontal projections were
avoided, and the upper surfaces of smaller members and mouldings
inclined. The rafters required ceiling beams beneath them; because of
the necessary support and jointing, they could not be placed directly
upon the stone walls, and it was further desirable to support the summit
of the triangle by a king-post. The ceiling thus provided stood in such
relation to the roof that a beam tied together each pair of rafters, and
was, consequently, so laid across the oblong enclosure that the ends
reposed upon the side walls. Upon these horizontal timbers planks were
placed which concealed the inclined roof. By this an independent
ceiling was created; and, as the boarding was laid upon the beams and
not fastened to their lower side, this gave rise to the formation of
lacunæ or long coffers. The ends both of the horizontal ceiling beams
and of the roof rafters were visible upon the exterior: the latter,
forming the eaves, projected beyond the wall, to further the shedding of
water and to protect the sides of the building. As the upper surface of
the roof had been so closed as to be water-tight, it is natural that
this sheathing should have been carried around upon all sides of the
projecting rafter ends. It was otherwise with the spaces between the
beams, which, being protected by the eaves, were not covered and masked
by boards. The artistic instinct of the Greek would not permit him thus
to conceal constructive forms when this was not rendered necessary by
practical considerations. They received, on the contrary, an especial
emphasis, that they might express their peculiar function with full
force. Moreover, the closing of the aperture between the ends of the
beams would have required the provision of other openings for light, as
there were no windows in the walls of masonry.

This manner of roof and ceiling construction was generally employed in
European Greece, being customary for palaces and dwellings as well as
for the primitive temples. Open interstices between the horizontal beams
existed in the hall of the royal dwelling at Ithaca. There can be no
further doubt as to the development and original function of the metopes
of the Doric entablature when it is considered that the Greeks, as late
as the time of Euripides (_Iphig. in Taur._ 113), were familiar with the
idea that it was possible to enter a primitive structure through these
openings between the ends of the beams. The masking of the metopes would
thus have been not only purposeless, but even detrimental; it was
reasonable, however, to sheathe the ends of the beams themselves by
small boards, which should at once protect and ornament them. The hewn
extremities of such great timbers were rough and ugly; without covering,
they would have been exposed to rapid decay. The simple decoration of
three narrow strips of wood affixed to the ends of the beams was so
customary in primitive carpentry that it became a typical motive in the
later architecture of Greece. The chamfering of sharp edges of boards
has been practised by the wood-workers of all nations. When two corners
thus treated are placed together, there results a prismatic groove,
which distinctly marks the edges of the separate pieces. Thus originated
the primitive form of the triglyph, as the most natural and practical
decoration of the rough-hewn ends of the ceiling beams by sheathing. The
upper edges of the three strips were hidden against a plate beneath the
rafters; the lower were covered by a continuous board, which united the
various members of the frieze, and concealed any inexact jointing
between the beams and the top of the wall. By placing the chamfered
boards upright, an æsthetic advantage was obtained: a vertical line was
repeated just before the conclusion of the entablature by the cornice,
being thus emphasized in the midst of horizontal members. Other
ornamental details were added, based, likewise, upon motives of the
original wooden construction. The continuous strip affixed to the lower
edges of the triglyphs was securely and visibly fastened. This was
effected by several thick trunnels, so driven in from below that the
heads were left protruding. Under the end of each beam the strip was
doubled, to give additional strength where the wood was most weakened by
perforation. The ends of the rafters were also sheathed, and brought
into harmony with the frieze. The inclined eaves were covered with
boards, and as these did not stand erect, like those before the ceiling
beams, but hung from the lower sides of the rafters, there was
particular need for an increased and distinctly secure attachment. The
sheathing was consequently pinned by more numerous trunnels; and as
every triglyph had been provided with a second strip, here a second
board was placed under the end of each rafter. The projecting heads of
these nails were called _guttæ_ by the later Romans, but this cannot
convince us that the peculiar form was intended as an ornamental
petrifaction of hanging rain-drops: such a glorification of bad weather
would have been foreign to the Greeks, accustomed to the clearest skies;
and, for so primitive a construction, this explanation appears
far-fetched. The imitation of rain-drops could nowhere have been more
out of place than upon the inclined lower side of the eaves; drops
might, perhaps, hang from the front edge of the cornice, but never upon
its under slope, which rain could not even wet. The construction of an
original work of carpentry thus provided the motives of the Doric
entablature--naïvely expressing the advance from the roughest practical
necessity to high architectural perfection. In the apertures between the
beam-ends, or metopes, and in the open triangle of the gable, were
placed votive offerings, which there found a secure and sheltered stand,
heightening the exterior importance of the work. In small chapels this
interference with the openings for light could have been of no
disadvantage. The gable was closed by a boarding, which hid from view
the rough inner construction of the roof. This veil, the tympanon, was
placed behind the triangle formed by the outer cross-beam and rafters,
as the ceiling had been laid above the other horizontal timbers. The low
gable thus naturally developed upon the front; and in later times, when
the votive offerings had been exchanged for sculptured figures, formed a
most characteristic and imposing feature.

The effect was heightened by the partly protective, partly decorative,
painting of all the wooden surfaces. Red and blue appear originally to
have been the chief colors; the former, in a dark shade, being used for
the sheathing of the tympanon, the latter for the triglyphs and other
members. Upon the bands were figured ornaments, most of which had
developed from Asiatic prototypes; they consisted of the meander,
anthemions, and the woven ribbons, etc., observable upon Assyrian
sculptures and upon the archaic bronzes and vases of Greece and Central
Italy. The extended polychromatic treatment of the marble temple is
doubtless a reminiscence of this painted wood. Without such traditions,
it would have developed differently: upon a structure of stone it would
have been less restricted to the frieze and cornice.

The entablature had thus far advanced without connection with that most
noble work of architecture--the Doric column. The shaft and entablature
of the style were not created in connection or simultaneously; the forms
of triglyph and mutule are not a growth from the columnar root, but
rather prove the Doric frieze and cornice to have been the primitive
Hellenic expression of roof and ceiling, which preceded the column, even
as the plainest constructive necessities precede ornament. The peculiar
wooden character of the entablature could exercise no important
influence upon the shaft. If the existence, in heroic times, of the
peripteros, the temple with outstanding columns, be denied--and of such
structures there is not a vestige--it cannot be supposed that columns
existed at all. Interior supports of wood are, indeed, mentioned by
Homer, and engaged shafts formed part of the façade of the Tholos of
Atreus, and were represented upon the relief over the Gate of the Lions
in Mykenæ; but between these and the Doric column there is a distance
only to be explained by the assumption that Asiatic influence was
paramount, if not exclusive, in the architecture of the heroic ages of
Greece. Though it is possible that rudiments of the Doric echinos may be
recognized in the upper tore and scotia of the engaged columns of
Mykenæ, it is yet evident that the turned-work of these members resulted
from a wooden prototype, and that the overladen decoration of the shaft,
in its style, is due to familiarity with a sheeting of beaten
metal--_i.e._, to Phœnician artistic traditions. That the forms of
the entablature were not created for the peripteros appears from the
circumstance that the metopes lose their value as windows by the change
of plan, and leave the cella without openings for light and air when
surrounded by columns. With the appearance of the peripteral temple, the
Doric entablature, which upon the oblong chapel had been the natural
expression upon the exterior of roof and ceiling construction, became a
functionless ornament, needing, as will be seen, many changes to bring
it into harmony with the outstanding colonnade.

The development of the Doric column is not perfectly clear; it is more
than probable that it was not wholly autochthonic and primitive Greek,
like the entablature of the style. Its principal part, the shaft, was
certainly imported. No prominent architectural feature can be deemed
newly invented that has been in common usage in a neighboring and
accessible country for centuries. The Doric shaft, with its
characteristic diminution and channellings, was known in Egypt more than
a thousand years before its introduction into Greece, as proved by the
monuments of Beni-Hassan. Commercial intercourse had existed between the
two countries for centuries, and it cannot be assumed that the Greeks
had not seen Egyptian works of architecture; they could not have arrived
at precisely the same results by independent invention. It would rather
be difficult to conceive how the receptive Greeks could have refused all
instruction from the neighboring people, so far in advance of them for
centuries after the Trojan war. Eight-sided drums have been found at
Bolymnos, and an octangular shaft at Trœzen; but these isolated
instances offer no proof that the development of the channelled shaft
from the square pier was effected in Greece in the same manner as had
been done fifteen centuries or more previously in Egypt.

The genius of the Greeks, however, always showed its independence when
the artistic perception of the neighboring nations had been at fault or
defective. It was impossible for them to rest content with the
termination of the so-called Proto-Doric columns of Beni-Hassan. A
simple plinth upon the upper end of the shaft was insufficient; it left
without mediation the contrast between the forcible upright line of the
channels and the long level of the epistyle. Some interposition was
necessary between the vertical and the horizontal members, and a
moulding of inclined outline was best fitted to fulfil this natural
requirement, which almost appears to be an æsthetic law. The abacus
plinth was retained as the transition from the circular drums of the
shaft to the broader oblong of the lintel. The oblique and projecting
member between the two, the echinos, was a link connecting the plans, as
well as the directions, of column and entablature. The perfectly
straight outline of an inverted cone was rarely employed in Greece for
the echinos; a stele of Artemis Brauronia upon the Athenian acropolis,
shown by inscriptions to be of great age, is an isolated instance. This
rigid line was early exchanged for a curve, which, in its advancing
stages of refinement, became one of the most characteristic features of
Doric architecture. The moulding seems, at times, to have been
ornamented with painted leaves, which, in the Ionic echinos beneath the
roll, was changed, in the manner peculiar to that order, from the
colored indication to carving. It is not certain whether this floral
decoration was generally adopted, or existed only in the isolated
instance by which it is known--the so-called Temple of Theseus. Upon the
translation of the wooden construction to a stone entablature, which
resulted in a narrow intercolumniation, the base was given up, and the
upper step of the stylobate was regarded as a common plinth.

It appears that the employment of columns connected with temples
commenced, in Greece, in the manner observed upon the rock-cut tomb
façades of Egypt and Lycia, and the chapels of Mesopotamia and
Phœnicia: two columns were placed within the open front, between the
projecting side walls; that is to say, the temple was _in antis_.

The next step was the removal of these side walls, or parastadæ, columns
taking their place in the corners before them, and the _prostyle_ temple
was thus obtained. These changes rendered several important alterations
necessary. They caused a new wall to be erected before the interior of
the cella, the naos, the colonnade of the front thus acquiring the
nature of a portico, the pronaos. The jambs of the door in this wall
were so inclined as to diminish the span of the lintel, the frame
receiving upon its upper corners the stepped ears, or parotides,
customary in Western Asia. A new member of the entablature was needed to
replace the omitted wall and provide a bearing for the ceiling
cross-beams--namely, the epistyle. It is possible that this member,
distinctly separated, existed before the change, but it certainly was
not necessary. The division of the cella into naos and pronaos finally
altered the position of the front ceiling-beams; in the naos they lay,
as before, resting upon the side walls, but in the pronaos they were
placed lengthwise--from the columns to the newly erected division wall.
Besides improving the construction of the portico ceiling, this greatly
added to the beauty of the front entablature: epistyle and ceiling-beams
would otherwise have lain upon each other, in the same direction, but
from this change resulted the frieze of triglyphs and metopes upon the
front, as upon the sides. The gain was not effected without a difficulty
arising in the frieze above the end of the side wall and the corner
column, the outer ceiling-beam of the pronaos thus lying in its length
upon the epistyle without the formation of a metope. And here the
constructive truth was first sacrificed in favor of the exterior
appearance: a cube, standing above the corner column, took the place of
the outer beam, and the continuous alternation of triglyphs and metopes
was carried out.

Having so far deviated from logical construction, the desire for an
harmonious treatment of the exterior led to other and greater changes.
The dead-wall of the rear had had no part in the development of the
frieze, and appeared intolerably bare. This deficiency could hardly be
overcome otherwise than by a repetition of a portico upon the back,
creating the epinaos, and carrying the entablature of triglyphs and
metopes around the entire building, thus perfecting the _amphiprostyle_
temple.

The more these alterations were made in favor of the exterior
appearance, the more was the original structure dismembered. The extreme
boundary of possible concessions was attained, and, at the next step,
the entablature, translated into stone, separated itself entirely from
the construction and became an applied ornament. In one stride the
ultimate type of the Hellenic temple was determined, by carrying
outstanding columns entirely around the cella,--the building became a
_peripteros_.

It is probable that these extensive alterations took place almost
simultaneously, and were adopted at once for the most prominent shrines,
while the preceding varieties--the temple in antis and the prostyle and
amphiprostyle temples--though their entablatures were also executed in
stone, were only employed in subordinate positions. With the heightened
importance of the decorative exterior the monumental significance of the
temple rose above the mere necessities of a chamber for the sacred
image. The structure acquired equal solidity in every part exposed to
view. It was built of a homogeneous material. The timbering of roof and
ceiling was hidden by the stone symbols placed before the ends of the
rafters and beams; the entablature was allowed an independent freedom of
development and proportion. The heaviness of the material made it
necessary to diminish the voids and increase the solids of the supports
as much as was feasible. The stone shafts were allowed a greater
diameter and placed more nearly together than when, as was the case in
Etruria at a much later period, their burden had been of timber. The
stone cornice, which was not as high as the epistyle, could not span the
same clear width, and called for a second support over the
intercolumniations,--a further triglyph. This was the more acceptable,
as the appearance of the frieze was improved by its adoption; the
breadth of triglyph and metope became nearly equal and better
proportioned, their alternating rhythm more pleasing. The metopes,
having upon the peripteros no importance as windows, were closed by
thin slabs, which added to the unity and imposing force of the edifice.
It is surprising how faithfully the traditional forms were still
retained, even to the smallest details, while they yet received a truly
artistic conventionalization and those proportions which make the Doric
temple the grandest and most perfect monument of architectural history.
It is probable that the completed peripteros existed as early as the
seventh century B.C. The first steps of advance were rapidly made, and
may, perhaps, be referred to the ages immediately preceding. It would
indeed be interesting to know when, where, and by whom the incomparable
design was perfected which gave to the world its proudest edifice; but
it must suffice to understand the intentions of which the Doric temple
was the final result.

[Illustration: Fig. 136.--Corner Elevation of the Middle Temple of the
Acropolis of Selinous. Restoration.]

Semper has suggested that a canopy-like roof, supported by columns, was
placed above and around the small temple cella to increase its extent,
and, at the same time, to express its power and sacredness by that
oldest symbol of terrestrial and celestial authority. This attractive
assumption does not interfere with the theory of the previous
development of the temple in antis and the prostylos, or with the
historical considerations based upon the appearance of an imperfect
peripteros centuries before in Egypt. The cella and outstanding columns
rose from a stepped foundation, the crepidoma, the kernel of which, the
stereobate, was formed of massive walls, or, when possible, of the
native rock. The blocks were too high for human steps, and are not to be
conceived as stairs. Such an ascent entirely surrounding the temple
would have been purposeless, and contrary to the isolating character of
the crepidoma. They formed a base, such as is displayed in an
exaggerated manner by the Mesopotamian sanctuaries, where, however, the
chapels elevated upon the gigantic terraces were small in proportion to
the substructure. In buildings of greater dimensions, the few and
massive steps serving as the base of the Greek temple were increased,
not in number, but in size. They were thus always proportional and
fitted to their function as a foundation. Accessible stairs from all
sides would have given a pyramidal effect to the lower part of the
composition; while, at the foot of the upright supports, the horizontal
line should rather be emphatically pronounced. Smaller intermediate
blocks were provided for the ascent to the temple, thus made possible
only upon the front. The upper step, the stylobate, was, as has been
said, the common plinth, the columns being without base-moulding, and,
consequently, without individual functions or isolated independence. The
comparatively narrow intercolumniations were the better passages from
this absence of projections at the foot of the columns. The powerful
shafts were doubly modified by the diminution and by the entasis. The
first refinement found its model in the natural contraction of all
ascending bodies; a greater strength is needed below because of the
increasing weight. To this must be added an optical motive: every
diminution modifies the perspective effect, increasing the apparent
height or distance of bodies thus bordered by lines slightly converging,
though apparently parallel. The entasis was entirely decided by such
optical considerations. It overcame a deception, resulting from the
diminution, which makes a straight-lined cone of very steep sides appear
of slightly concave outline. The shafts usually had twenty, in a few
instances sixteen, channels, of nearly elliptical profile, separated by
sharp arrises. As may be seen in unfinished temples, these grooves were
not executed until the last stone of the building was in place, that the
chipping of the delicate edges by the imposition of the drums or blocks
next to them, and by other accidents during the process of building,
might be avoided. It was only upon the capital that the channels were
cut in advance, as a guide. To avoid the chipping of this stone, it was
necessary to prevent its sharp lower edges from resting directly upon
the top of the drum beneath it. To this end a diminutive step, a
scamillus of smaller diameter, was turned upon the bottom of the capital
block, or the same effect was attained by slightly slanting off and
increasing the right angle of its lower edge. It was contrary to the
artistic feeling of the Greek architect for constructive truth to mask
even this slight necessity by priming and painting. It was, rather, made
more distinct by increased size and a characteristic profile, in some
instances even by a repetition of the incision. The upper end of the
shaft was thus distinctly separated, notwithstanding the continuous
channellings, and was related to the capital as the mediating neck of
the column, the hypotrachelion. The echinos began its projection with
several annulets, which still more definitely marked the junction of the
capital with the shaft. It would be difficult to decide whether these
mouldings were reminiscences of the binding-ribbons upon the necking of
Egyptian floral columns. They were not placed beneath the echinos, but
upon it, and consequently follow the curved profile, enlarging
concentrically with its projection. The Doric capital, among all
capitals that we know, attains the highest æsthetic perfection by its
fulfilment of the requirements of a transitional member: by the
proportion of its projection, and especially by its expressive and
characteristic curve, which rises from a firm and almost straight line
to the decided turn beneath the abacus. The outline is more elastic
than a simple oblique angle, more vigorous and capable of resistance
than the concave curve. The echinos provides the requisite projection;
the abacus upon it forms the second transition from the circular plan of
the shaft to the rectangle of the entablature. In the Doric style this
upper half is about the same height as the echinos beneath it, while in
the capitals of other orders the curved members of circular plan have
been developed at the expense of this plinth, which is dwarfed to a thin
plate.

It was first noticed by Cockerell in 1829 that the axes of the columns
surrounding the cella are not vertical, but lean inward. This
peculiarity was chiefly adopted to counteract an optical deception,
resulting, like the deviation which led to the entasis, from the
diminution of the shafts, making these, when perfectly upright, appear
inclined away from the neighboring wall and from each other. The
deception is particularly felt upon the corner shafts; these were
corrected to lean in the direction of the diagonal, and decided the
inclination of the columns of the front and side. The absolute deviation
from the vertical is very slight, about 1-150th of the height, and by no
means makes the inner sides of the diminished columns parallel to the
wall. The inclination was effected by the irregular cutting of the first
block, which was lower within than without, being so formed that the
surface of its base was not circular, but slightly elliptical. All the
succeeding drums had perfectly round beds, and consequently slanted in
the manner decided by the first. The contact of these stones of the
shaft was restricted to a narrow rim upon the exterior of their plan. In
their centre they were steadied by an encased dowel of wood, the form of
which is known from the remains of the Parthenon; this served as a pivot
for the grinding of one block upon the other.

The stone beams of the epistyle lay from axis to axis of the columns. In
buildings of great dimensions several slabs were laid side by side as
lintels, each having the entire height of this member, which, as forming
the conjunction of the columns, may be conceived as a representative of
the wall. The outer surface of the epistyle block was carved upon its
upper edge with the tainia and trunnels, described as securing the
triglyphs of the original timbered entablature. The forms of these
details show the great reverence with which the primitive wooden
prototypes were imitated, while, at the same time, they were fitted to
be cut in stone in a far more artistic manner than were the direct
copies of carpentry observed in Lycia. The slits of the triglyph
terminated at first in elliptical lines, which became, in the decline of
the style, straight and horizontal. The triglyphs themselves were so
distributed that one was placed over each column and one over the centre
of each intercolumniation. An exception was made at the corner, where
the triglyph could not be placed in the axis of the shaft, being needed
for the support of the angle. It would be contrary to the open and
non-sustaining character of the metope for this to be assigned to a
position so constructively important. Vitruvius, regardless of this
consideration, recommends that the corner triglyph be placed in the axis
of the column beneath it, like all the others; but only one debased
instance is known where this occurs--the so-called Temple of Demeter at
Pœstum. The disturbance of symmetry which resulted to the frieze by
the removal of the corner triglyph from the axis was counterbalanced by
the metopes being made slightly larger, and especially by the outer
intercolumniations being greatly diminished in width. This last step was
also desirable from other considerations, notably because the dark
background of the cella caused the openings between the inner shafts to
appear narrower than the free and light space between those of the
exterior.

[Illustration: Fig. 137.--Entablature of the Parthenon.]

All these changes were primarily caused by the Doric entablature not
having been created for the peripteros; it was necessary thus to fit it
for decorative employment.

The metopes were originally open interstices between the beams;
intertrabies, as they might be called, with reference to the
intercolumniations; having, upon the peripteros, been closed within and
without by light slabs, the votive offerings, formerly placed in the
apertures, were now superseded by sculptures in relief upon these
stones, which gave to the entire entablature--or, when the carving was
restricted, to that of the fronts--an imposing decoration. A continuous
band, like that beneath the triglyphs, terminated the frieze; but the
individuality of triglyph and metope was even here maintained, the
superposed member being broken around them, as a separate coronation for
each.

[Illustration: Fig. 138.--Scheme of the Doric Entablature.]

[Illustration: Fig. 139.--Plan and Elevation of the so-called Temple of
Theseus, Athens.]

[Illustration: Fig. 140.--Painting upon the Pteroma of the Temple of
Theseus.]

The cornice showed reminiscences of the projecting eaves by its corona
being cut with a downward slant, such as would never have been invented
for the treatment of stone. That this inclination was not precisely the
same as the pitch of the roof rafters cannot be adduced as an argument
against its fundamental idea; in the marble structure there was nothing
to call for so exact a resemblance. The decoration of the lower surface
of the corona shows the original motive of its wooden construction as
distinctly expressed as was the formation of the triglyph in the frieze.
The position of the ends of the rafters, beneath the sheathing, is
marked by boards, each being pinned upon it with eighteen wooden pegs.
From the duplication of the triglyphs in the stone building there
resulted an equal number of mutules, and these were still further
multiplied by being placed over each metope--this latter increase having
been at first attempted with members of half the normal width, as at
_Fig._ 136. The whole composition was thus the more richly divided the
higher the building ascended; upon one column rested two triglyphs and
four mutules. It is further remarkable that, to make the decoration
harmonious upon all sides of the edifice, these mutules were also
introduced upon the front and rear entablatures; this repetition, with
the inclination of the corona upon the fronts, naturally without a
gutter, must be regarded as a further concession, made, contrary to the
genetic signification of members, in favor of the monumental appearance
of the entire exterior. The corona is bordered by the so-called Doric
cyma, or beak-moulding, distantly resembling the scotia of Egypt and
Mesopotamia. The concluding gutter is of a beautifully curved outline.
When it occurs upon the sides of the building, where it is frequently
restricted to the corners, it is provided with lions’ heads, which,
arranged over the columns as gargoyles, throw from their open jaws the
rain-water of the roof beyond the steps of the crepidoma. An isolated
instance--the Heraion of Olympia, which seems never to have been
provided with a stone entablature--shows that the timbered roof and
ceiling were placed at times with a wooden epistyle directly upon the
stone columns of a peripteros. The covering of the roof was formed, in
the best period, by flat marble tiles, the joints of which were covered
by smaller curved blocks, running from ridge to eaves, and terminated
over the cornice by antefixes. The apex and corners of the gable were
provided with acroteria, standing upon special bases. They are
reminiscences of an ancient usage of Western Asia: those of the corners
found their origin in the ornaments of primitive altars and sarcophagi,
known in Biblical accounts as horns. They were sometimes supplanted by
votive offerings suited to the position, such as tripods, or by griffins
and other symbolical figures. The pointed acroterium of the apex was
usually the whole of the two half-anthemions represented upon those of
the corners; in larger monuments it was often replaced by statues, just
as extended compositions of figures were created for the tympanon
beneath, as a substitute for the dedicated objects which appear to have
originally filled the gable.

The polychromy of the Doric temple was one of the most important
features of its external appearance. It is probable that the greater
part of its marble surface, possibly the whole, was colored. Our
Northern conceptions can with difficulty comprehend the full value of
this treatment in the general composition; in our gray landscape, a
building thus painted might appear harsh and variegated. The color of
the lower supporting members was restricted to a light tint, the
so-called baphe, which had first been applied to the stucco priming
necessary for the coarse and porous stone of older temples, and was
afterwards transferred from this to the marble of later monuments. It
stained the surface with a light golden-brown tint, moderating the harsh
chalky white of lime stucco, or of marble, and investing the newly
erected building with the patina by which age always modulates the color
of stone. This baphe was employed for the marble temple on account of
the traditional painting of the stucco priming, because of the too
dazzling white natural to the freshly hewn material, and, finally, in
order to harmonize the columns and stylobate with the intensely rich
colors of the entablature. Dark and positive pigments were restricted to
the frieze and cornice, having, without doubt, been first employed to
preserve the original wooden material. The beams and slat-work, like the
triglyphs with their regulas and the mutules, were designated by blue;
the trunnels were red or gilded. That which had at first been open was
treated as a dark-red background; the metopes and tympanon thus clearly
outlining the reliefs and groups of statues which ornamented them. The
continuous members were treated with particular richness; the narrower
strips were painted with the meander and other woven forms; the gutter
with anthemions; while the Doric cyma was decorated with leaves of
various colors, so artistically conventionalized as but little to
resemble nature. The inner side of the entablature was still more richly
colored. (_Fig._ 140.)

[Illustration: Fig. 141.--Coffered Pteroma Ceiling of the Southern
Temple upon the Eastern Plateau of Selinous. Restoration.]

One of the most wonderful refinements of Greek architecture was the
attention paid to optical deceptions, and the correction of these by the
curvature of all straight and horizontal lines. It has been mentioned
that the peripteral columns did not stand mathematically upright, all
the axes being inclined inwards; the discovery of this fact was followed
by a publication, made by the architect Hoffer in 1838, which maintained
that no perfectly level line existed upon the entire temple, the
horizontals being curved slightly upwards. Hoffer’s assertions were
verified by the micrometrical studies made by Penrose, in 1846, upon the
Parthenon, the so-called Theseion, the Propylæa, Erechtheion, and the
Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens, and afterwards upon the temples of
Nemea and Segesta. His measurements make evident a curvature of 0.069 m.
in 30.876 m. upon the front of the Parthenon, and of 0.108 m. in 69.525
m. upon its sides. Though so very slight a deviation is not readily
apparent, there are no mathematically rectangular forms upon the entire
building; the corner metopes are, for instance, trapezoidal. Whether
these curves, the existence of which is not to be denied, were really
intentional, was questioned by Boetticher, but it has been proved beyond
a doubt by the further investigations of Ziller. The motive for the
adoption of refinements, so extraordinarily delicate and difficult of
execution, was the same desire to correct displeasing optical deceptions
which prompted the entasis of the columns and the inclination of their
axes from the vertical. The apparent deviation of the lines, sagging
from the horizontal, was most disagreeably apparent upon the front
entablature--the base of the gable triangle, which, when straight,
invariably appears concave, while a corona, in reality curved upwards,
presents itself to the eye as perfectly level. By a deviation from the
absolutely horizontal, the appearance of greater correctness was
attained.

[Illustration: Fig. 142.--Fragments of Coffered Ceilings from the
Parthenon.

_A._ From the Side Pteroma. _B._ From the Epinaos.]

The peripteral columns of the Doric style worthily express the peculiar
character of the Dorians by their simple dignity. By them a passage was
formed around the cella, the pteroma, the ceiling of which was most
richly decorated with cofferings. (_Fig._ 141.) So short a span was here
required of the horizontal beams that it was possible to translate them
into stone simultaneously with the outer entablature; this seems to have
been universal in the larger peripteral temples, that of Zeus in
Olympia possibly being an exception. The ceiling did not remain in its
original position, resting upon the epistyle, but, with the increased
dimensions of the stone frieze, was considerably elevated. The spaces
between the lintels were closed by slabs of stone which retained the
form of the original wooden cofferings, being hollowed by stepped
lacunæ, diminishing in size. A transitional moulding was placed in each
angle formed by a vertical and horizontal surface. Upon the coffered
ceilings of Attic monuments (_Fig._ 142) this member is the Lesbian
cyma, supplemented by an astragal, these signs of an Ionic influence
being further noticeable in other parts of these buildings. The wall of
the cella, though surrounded by the pteroma, still bears traces of the
entablature, which, as shown above, preceded the outstanding columns;
the triglyphs and metopes are repeated, or in their place is a frieze of
sculptured reliefs, in which the isolated carvings of the metope become
continuous and connected. At times there remain beneath the latter the
tænia, regulas, and trunnels--only to be explained and justified as the
reminiscences of portions of an originally well-founded decoration which
had, in part, been gradually supplanted.

[Illustration: Fig. 143.--Plan of the Middle Temple upon the Acropolis
of Selinous.]

The cella itself, within the pteroma, appears in plan either without
columns, as a temple in antis, as a prostylos, or as an amphiprostylos,
thus supporting the assumption that these were the original forms of its
development. The cella was often greatly increased in length; this made
its transverse division desirable, and there resulted the front portico,
or pronaos, the principal hall of the temple, or naos, and the space
partitioned off at the rear, called, analogically, the epinaos. An
especial chamber of the building was at times isolated to serve as a
treasury; this was known as the opisthodomos. (_Fig._ 143.) The pronaos,
whether with or without columns, was closed, if at all, only by a light
bronze grating; from it a wide portal, occupying almost the entire
division wall, opened into the naos. Its upper part was fixed, but
entrance was afforded through its lower part by folding wings. The
grooves worn by the doors are still visible upon the Parthenon floor.
The interior was disproportionately narrow, a result of the peripteral
enclosure and of the limitations imposed by the gable, which would have
become too high and heavy if the front had been greatly widened in favor
of the interior breadth; moreover, the horizontal ceiling was
unfavorable to width, which was limited to the natural span of the
beams.

The possibility of admitting much light had been given up with the
change in the position of the entablature and metopes. Notwithstanding
the size of the door, sufficient daylight could not enter through this;
it was itself in the shadow of the pteroma, and generally, also, of a
pronaos. But little illumination was required for the small chapel when
this served solely as a receptacle for the sacred image. A dim and
mystical twilight was easily obtained by the use of one or more
perpetually burning lamps, which could only have been favorable to the
artistically unpretentious interior. It was otherwise with the larger
and more important temples, opened for festive assemblages. Their
interiors were divided by architectural members, and contained manifold
works of art and objects of value--a varied richness, which called for
an increased splendor of light, possible only by artificial
illumination.[G]

In the desire to increase the available space of the temple interior,
the enclosing walls were advanced more closely to the columns of the
peripteros, thus decreasing the width of the pteroma; while the hall was
divided by two rows of inner shafts into three aisles, the outer two of
which, considerably narrower than the middle, were partitioned into two
stories by the introduction of galleries, accessible by staircases at
either side of the chief portal.

We now turn from this general consideration of the Doric style to a
review of the principal monuments remaining, dividing them, as well as
possible, into groups representative of certain ages and periods of
development. The oldest peripteral temples known are not situated in
Greece proper, but in the early colonies upon the coasts of Magna Græcia
and Sicily. They are distinguishable from later buildings by a naïve
freedom of form and the lack of any strictly systematical
development--any canonical type. The carving of details is as careful as
the coarse and porous limestone permits. The columns stand so far apart
that the low and heavy proportion of the whole is not altered by the
comparatively high stylobate. The great distance of the shafts from the
wall reduces the naos to a corridor-like narrowness, the more noticeable
as the whole temple plan is very long. (_Fig._ 143.) The columns
themselves are low, never having a height greater than five lower
diameters. The monolithic shaft is much diminished, and has an excessive
entasis; it is provided with twenty, or in rare instances sixteen,
channels of segmental outline. The incisions beneath the capital block,
bordering the hypotrachelion, are generally multiplied, often being
three in number. The necking upon the columns of Sicilian temples is not
merely the straight commencement of the channellings, but often forms,
under the rings, a slight scotia--the apophyge--which weakly detaches
the echinos from the shaft by interrupting its organic connection. The
echinos has too great a projection; its outline is soft, and the small
rings are placed too high. The entire capital appears powerless and
flat: on this account the thickness of the entablature has not been
increased; the outer and inner surfaces of the epistyle do not project
beyond the upper diameter of the shaft. The members of the entablature
are exceedingly high and heavy, as are the details, down to the trunnels
and cyma. The frieze alone is low, and the metopes consequently small,
being framed by massive triglyphs, the chamferings of which have
circular or lanceolate endings. The mutules above the triglyphs have the
same great breadth; in one instance there remains above the metope only
space for half a mutule. (_Fig._ 136.) The polychromy is, in general,
sombre--yellow-brown and black, with little red, being the colors
chiefly employed; the patterns of the ornaments are distinctly of
Oriental origin.

[Illustration: Fig. 144.--Northern Temple upon the Acropolis of
Selinous.]

[Illustration: Fig. 145.--Middle Temple upon the Acropolis of Selinous.]

[Illustration: Fig. 146.--Temple of Assos.]

The most prominent monuments of this class are at Selinous, upon the
western extremity of Sicily. That city was founded in 628 B.C.: its
acropolis appears to have been early occupied by temples; at least the
northernmost of these buildings, with the widest intercolumniations, of
two and two thirds lower diameter, and the most spacious pteroma, dates
from the commencement of the sixth century B.C. The middle temple of the
acropolis appears scarcely fifty years younger; it is celebrated for the
primitive reliefs of its metopes, which will be considered in the
section upon Greek sculpture. A corner of the building is given above,
_Fig._ 136; its capital is _Fig._ 145. A third example of this earliest
period of development--which is designated by Semper as the laxly
archaic style--is known under the name Tavola dei Palladini, and stands
among the ruins of the Elian colony, Metapontion, a city founded as
early as 768 B.C., but entirely rebuilt in 586 B.C., after its
destruction by the original inhabitants of Lower Italy. The fifteen
columns at present upright probably date from the sixth century B.C. The
intercolumniations are wide, the shafts excessively diminished, and the
curve of the echinos too pronounced. It is difficult to decide whether
to this class may belong the remains of the temple at Cadacchio upon
Corfu (Corkyra), and of that built of lava at Assos, in the Troad.
(_Fig._ 146.) The former has been greatly disfigured by a late
restoration, and it is not at present possible to determine the date of
the latter, known only by insufficient publications.

The next advances of temple architecture consist in placing the higher
columns more nearly together and in heightening and narrowing the
triglyphs. The elegance of proportion and detail was thus considerably
increased. Ionic elements were first introduced in this period, greatly
to the advantage of the style, which is designated as the archaic. An
example is the middle temple upon the eastern plateau of Selinous, where
the columns are cut with Ionic flutes. It is also important in the
history of sculpture from the remains of metopes carved with scenes of
the gigantomachia. (_Fig._ 147.) Of similar character is the great
uncompleted Temple of Zeus upon the same plateau, 110 m. long and 50 m.
broad, with three aisles and galleries in the interior (_Fig._ 148); and
also the so-called Chiesa di Sansone at Metapontion, of which small
temple there are only few and scattered remains. A third Doric temple of
this site, discovered during the last few months, is as yet inedited. It
is uncertain whether the Temple of Artemis upon the island of Syracuse
(Ortygia) should be reckoned with this group.

[Illustration: Fig. 147.--Middle Temple upon the Eastern Plateau of
Selinous.]

[Illustration: Fig. 148.--Temple of Zeus upon the Eastern Plateau of
Selinous.]

[Illustration: Fig. 149.--So-called Temple of Heracles, Acragas.]

One example of the epoch exists in Greece proper--the Temple of Corinth.
Its columns were once heavily primed with stucco, and are now so
weathered that it is impossible to draw any definite conclusions from
them. The outline of the capital is primitive, though not in the degree
formerly supposed, when this ruin was thought to be the oldest monument
of the Doric style. The two last-mentioned remains and the Temple of
Athene upon the island Ortygia have the heaviest and lowest proportions,
the lower diameter of the columns comparing to the height as 1 to 4.27
(Athene), 1 to 4.29 (Artemis), and 1 to 4.32 (Corinth).

[Illustration: Fig. 150.--So-called Temple of Theseus, Athens.]

[Illustration: Fig. 151.--Porticus of Philip, Delos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 152.--So-called Temple of Demeter, Pæstum.]

[Illustration: Fig. 153.--Plan of the Great Temple of Pœstum.]

[Illustration: Fig. 154.--Plan, Section, and Elevation of the Temple of
Olympian Zeus at Acragas.]

The Temple of Zeus at Selinous was the first of a number of colossal
structures, in which the architectural ability of the Greeks, by that
time thoroughly schooled, sought also to develop itself in enormous
size. The hexastyle front was increased to the octastyle, thus
permitting wider dimensions of the cella, which still, however, did not
attain the greatest possible extent, the architect being unwilling to
reduce the breadth of the pteroma. The columns became even shorter and
thicker; they were less diminished and had a more delicately adjusted
entasis; the intercolumniations were increased. The separation of the
capital from the shaft by an apophyge was abandoned; the entasis was
made steeper and of a more vigorous outline. The disproportionately high
and weak triglyphs are especially characteristic of this stage of
development; with the exception of these, the entablature still
remained low and heavy. Marble came more and more into use as a
building-stone; the execution of details in stucco was rarer. The new
material did not limit the use of color, which, in place of the former
tones, became brighter--red, blue, and yellow prevailing. The most
imposing, because the best-preserved, of these colossal works is the
magnificent Temple of Pœstum, with its two stories of inner columns
partly intact. (_Fig._ 153.) The triglyphs have not as yet disappeared
from the walls of the cella, but otherwise the construction shows no
primitive traits, being fully fitted for its execution in stone.
Resembling this in many points is the Temple of Acragas, or Agrigentum,
termed that of Heracles. (_Fig._ 149.) The great Temple of Zeus of the
same city was of the most gigantic dimensions ever attempted in the
sacred architecture of the Greeks. It was also, unfortunately, even
greater than was really practicable for a trabeated construction in such
a building-material, and consequently became a monstrosity. The temple
was heptastyle, that is, had seven columns upon the front, which
rendered impossible the normal entrance in the middle. It differed still
more decidedly from other Greek temples in that the cella was not
surrounded by an open pteroma, the outstanding columns being supplanted
by a wall decorated with engaged shafts. It would be difficult to decide
whether this peculiar pseudo-peripteros owed its conformation to the
building-stone at disposal, only to be quarried in blocks too short for
the lintels of the pteroma, or whether other considerations led to this
abnormal negation of the fundamental principles of columnar
architecture, which here has no relation to the better-founded practices
of Roman builders in the application of engaged shafts. The
transformation of the pteroma made an entire change in the general
disposition of plan; but too little of the building now remains above
ground to render its arrangement certain. If door-openings be assumed at
both sides of the middle column, as in the illustration, this would have
been possible only upon the west, the middle column of the east--the
customary entrance-front--being proved by the remains to have been
engaged. It is not probable that windows existed in the wall between the
columns; the supposition is more natural that some of the side metopes
were unclosed, and provided the pteroma with sufficient daylight. This
would have been no innovation, but rather, in this case, where it was
impossible to execute the open peripteros, a return to the original
method of illumination through the interstices between the beams upon
the top of the cella wall. The before-mentioned Temple of Athene upon
the island of Ortygia is another Sicilian example belonging to this
archaic period of gigantic dimensions.

The two colossal monuments of Athens, built during the second half of
the sixth century, are more important, although the older Parthenon upon
the acropolis, if, indeed, ever completed, could not have stood longer
than half a century, and the Doric temple of Olympian Zeus was
discontinued before its construction had far advanced. A comparison of a
fragment of the earlier building with the entablature of the present
Parthenon shows how disproportionately high were the triglyphs and how
heavy and broad the tænia and regulas of the archaic period. (_Fig._
155.)

[Illustration: Fig. 155.--Entablatures of the Older and Present
Parthenon.]

[Illustration: Fig. 156.--Plan of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia.]

The exercise of the designer’s individual ability in these works, and
the hieratic retention of every constructive and æsthetic gain thus
obtained, prepared for the fullest perfection of the Doric style. The
advance was effected by a slight attenuation of the too massive columns,
a further reduction of the height of the entablature, and an increase in
the projection of the smaller decorative members. The temples built
during, or shortly after, the time of the Persian wars show the gradual
introduction of these changes. Among the Sicilian remains of this period
are the uncompleted Temple of Segesta, the so-called Temple of Concordia
at Acragas, and the six peripteral temples upon the acropolis and
eastern plateau of Selinous not previously mentioned. Among those of
Greece proper, the Temple of Athene upon Ægina and the Temple of Zeus at
Olympia (_Fig._ 156) are most prominent. The frieze of triglyphs was
omitted from the cella walls of the Temple of Ægina, but the regulas and
trunnels were retained with curious effect: it is as though the designer
were only slowly and with difficulty led to give up, one by one, the
traditions of a primitive wooden construction. The date of the building
of the Olympian temple is uncertain, but the name of its architect,
Libon, of Elis, has been handed down, with one exception the earliest
connected with Greek architecture. The recent excavations have entirely
exposed the overthrown ruins. They show that the forms of the edifice
are more primitive than would have been expected from the age in which
Pheidias completed the celebrated chryselephantine statue of the temple
deity. It is possible that the advance of the building was slow, or that
there were long interruptions of the work before its final completion.
An especially important result of the investigations is the evidence
that an enclosed ædicula for the statue of Zeus, hitherto advocated by
restorers because of the supposed opening in the roof and ceiling for
light, did not exist, the interior having been divided into three aisles
like the great Temple of Pæstum. The proportions of the peripteros were
of great vigor and beauty. It was built of poros, with the exception of
the metope reliefs upon the fronts of the cella, and the carved gutter
and roof tiles, which were of marble. This so-called poros, a stone
almost exclusively employed for the earlier buildings of the Greeks, is
a rough shell conglomerate, usually brought to a surface by a heavy
priming of stucco. The floor of the pteroma of the great temple at
Olympia was of a pebble cement, the small inner staircases of wood.

While the architecture of the Peloponnesos still retained traces of the
archaic style, the highest perfection of Doric forms was attained in
Attica, reaching its fulfilment at a time, after the Persian wars, when
the political supremacy of Athens was far greater than that ever enjoyed
by any state of the world so restricted in territory. The deserved
sovereignty of Athens over Greece, its naval power, imposing even to the
Orientals of Western Asia and Egypt, and, finally, the necessity and
opportunity of rebuilding the Attic capital after its destruction by the
Persians, before the decisive battle of Salamis, caused a monumental
rebirth of the noble city, which not only became the classic model in
those ages throughout the extent of Greece and its colonies upon distant
shores, but the highest ideal of architecture to the present day and for
the entire future of the human race. Attica was fitted to cultivate
equally the artistic peculiarities of the two branches of the Hellenic
stock, its Ionic population being intermingled, in a marked degree, with
Doric elements. It had attained the highest development of civilization,
and was the home of the most famed artists. By the taxes levied upon the
eastern mainland and the islands of the Archipelago, Athens had almost
unlimited means at its disposal. To this nature added the incomparable
marble building-material, quarried almost before the gates of the city,
which indeed possessed all the conditions requisite for the first
monumental capital of Greece and of the civilized world. Familiarity
with the Ionic style did not permit that heaviness and clumsiness of
architectural members observable upon the contemporaneous temples of the
Peloponnesos. The columns of the Temple of Ægina had been allowed a
height as great as 5.3 times their lower diameter. In the Doric
buildings of Athens this was still further increased, the so-called
Temple of Theseus having the proportion of 5.62 to 1, the Parthenon as
5.47 to 1. The diminution and entasis of the shaft were reduced to just
relations; the delicate curve of the latter, as demanded by the optical
deception it was to correct, was greatest below the half height of the
column. The channellings no longer remained segmental arcs, but received
an independently designed, elliptical profile. The echinos became
steeper, rising in an almost straight line to the firm and sharp turn
beneath the abacus. The triglyphs, returning slightly to former
proportions, became broader than those of the preceding period; smaller
members were diminished in height, but were made more projecting. The
colors of the entablature became still more intense; blue and red
predominated; green was also employed, and gilding appeared upon the
trunnels and in the beautifully composed surface patterns. Ionic
elements, almost entirely disused during the latter ages, reappeared in
very general employment, especially in the deep cofferings of the
pteroma ceiling and upon the capitals of the pilasters.

The typical monuments of this Attic Doric style are the so-called
Theseion, and the Parthenon and Propylæa of the Athenian acropolis. The
first of these buildings (_Fig._ 139) was certainly not sacred to
Theseus; its dedication is not surely known. It preceded the highest
perfection, still betraying some slight archaic influences. The
triglyphs are too high, the smaller members, notably the regulas and
trunnels, too heavy. Ionic elements are freely introduced. Besides the
coffering of the pteroma ceiling and the before-mentioned pilaster
capitals, there was an Ionic zophoros, or continuous frieze of figures,
bordered above and below by leaved cyma-mouldings and astragals, in
place of the Doric entablature usually employed, at least in part, upon
the walls of the cella. The ornamental painting was extended to the
capitals of the pteroma columns (_Fig._ 150), which bore a series of
leaves, and to the walls, the interior of the naos having been prepared
for the reception of pigments. The perfect preservation of the building
is owing to its early transformation into a Christian church.

[Illustration: Fig. 157.--Plan of the Parthenon.]

The Parthenon far surpassed the Theseion in artistic perfection; it was,
indeed, worthy the superintendence of a Pheidias. Its architect,
Ictinos, conceived his work to stand so high above contemporary
buildings that he celebrated it in an especial monograph, mentioned by
Vitruvius, though, unfortunately, not consulted by him. The dimensions
of the octastyle temple were imposing; the edge of the stylobate
measured about 30 by 68 m.; elevated upon the steep acropolis, it could
be seen from a great distance. Though its site was not limited, the
economy of space was carried to an extreme. The intercolumniations are
narrow, especially those of the front; the pteroma was thus reduced in
breadth to less than one and one half times the lower diameter of the
columns. (_Fig._ 157.) The pronaos and epinaos had no side walls, the
cella being amphiprostyle, enclosed by high grilles. The depth of these
vestibules was less than one quarter of their breadth. The remaining
interior was partitioned into two chambers of unequal size: the naos and
the opisthodomos, the latter of which served as a treasury. The naos was
divided by ranges of columns into three chief aisles, and the gallery
over the sides was carried across the nave, next to the rear wall. The
world-renowned chryselephantine statue of Athene, 12 m. high, stood
before the transverse columns, between which and the partition there was
allowed a passage, nearly equal in breadth to the side aisles. The
stairs to the gallery may, from the analogies of the great temples of
Olympia and Pæstum, be assumed to have existed at either side of the
entrance.

[Illustration: Fig. 158.--Plan and View of the Propylæa, Athens.]

The Propylæa of the Athenian acropolis, by which the architect Mnesicles
made his name immortal, were not less perfect than the Parthenon. Work
upon them was begun shortly before the completion of the latter
building, in 438 B.C., and occupied five years. Ionic members had
frequently been employed upon Doric structures, but the Propylæa offer
the first instance of a combination of the styles in almost equal
proportions: the interior of these gates was entirely Ionic, the
exterior entirely Doric. (_Figs._ 120 and 158.) Six Ionic columns bore
the famed marble ceiling of great span, while two Doric porticos formed
the fronts. The stone-cutting of all the monuments upon the Athenian
acropolis was incomparably exact and beautiful, as was the harmony of
their proportions and forms.

[Illustration: Fig. 159.--Plan of the Temple of Apollo at Bassæ.]

The Temple of Phigalia, or Bassæ, in Arcadia, though stated to have been
built by the architect of the Parthenon, shows that the perfection of
the monuments last considered was possible only upon Attic ground. The
sanctuary of Arcadia was dedicated to Apollo Epicourios in gratitude for
the deliverance of the district from the plague of 431 B.C. Its plan
(_Fig._ 159) was excessively long, having fifteen side columns, with a
hexastyle front. The elevation offers a remarkable combination of
archaic traditional forms and of exaggerated novelties. Though the three
incisions of the capital necking are peculiarly primitive, the echinos
has become even steeper than it was upon the Parthenon. Ionic sculptured
ornaments begin to appear upon the entablature. The inward inclination
of the axes of the columns and the curvature of the horizontals have
been neglected in Bassæ, as if the architect had not considered it worth
while to display such refinements to the uncultivated Arcadians. In the
interior of the temple Ionic columns are engaged upon short transverse
walls, which project from the sides. These are so remarkably archaic in
form (_Fig._ 165) that it is difficult to explain how Athenian
architects, who must have been familiar with the interior columns of the
Propylæa and those of the Erechtheion, then in course of construction,
could have prepared the designs. An extremely ancient and undeveloped
Corinthian capital (_Fig._ 176) has been found among the ruins of Bassæ;
it will be referred to below. Many of the anomalies of the temple would
be explained by the assumption that the building occupied the site of a
former chapel, the entrance to which had naturally been upon the east,
and that the lack of available ground prevented the retention of the
original and usual orientation, making the peripteros, as the
enlargement of a former fane, open the inner chamber of the naos upon
one of the long sides.

[Illustration: Fig. 160.--Plan of the Temenos of Eleusis.]

Other Attic remains, some of which date from the end of the fifth
century, also show traces of the deterioration of the art. Chief among
these are the Propylæa of Eleusis and the house of assemblage for those
initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries, known as the Telesterion, a
square hypostyle hall, fronted by a portico of twelve columns,
apparently without a gable. (_Fig._ 160.) It is not known how soon after
the Persian wars the temples of Rhamnous and Sunion were rebuilt; they
may have slightly preceded the age of decline. The increasing love of
magnificence and luxury felt among the Greeks was not satisfied with the
simple majesty of the Doric style; the Ionic was more and more
frequently substituted in preference. The latter had been employed for
the Propylæa of the Athenian acropolis, and had appeared independently
in smaller temples, and, finally, in the national shrine of Attica, the
Erechtheion. The Doric became restricted to porticos and peristyles,
and, in double-storied interiors, to the lower order, for which
important constructional functions it was fitted by the great solidity
of the column. But the desire to simplify the execution of Doric
members, and reduce the expense which must have been attendant upon the
delicate refinements of curvatures, introduced dry and hard geometrical
forms, and the æsthetic value of the style was, for the greater part,
lost. An example of this debasement is offered by the portico of Philip
upon Delos, where the echinos projects in an absolutely straight line.
(_Fig._ 151.) In the colonies, upon the other hand, even as late as the
Roman period, the style was archaistically treated, with a provincial
lack of good taste, illustrated by the weak echinos and apophyge of the
capital of the so-called Temple of Demeter at Pæstum. (_Fig._ 152.)

An entirely different manner of building had early appeared by the side
of the Doric style, which cannot be accounted of quite equal birth with
that eldest male offspring of Hellenic civilization, but, to carry out
the simile, should rather be considered as a step-sister. The
development of the peripteral plan, the echinos coronation of the
channelled shafts, and the entablature of triglyphs, metopes, and
mutules, appear autochthonic and purely Greek; while the Ionic style,
though adopting the plan and general disposition of the former, was, in
its most characteristic details, an importation from Asia. It is not
meant by this that the perfected style was not characteristically
Hellenic. The Greeks accepted none of the products of their neighbors
without a change--a transformation of disposition and detail by their
peculiar genius. But the fundamental motives, the elements of the style,
in as far as these are not identified with the Doric, had been taken
from neighboring Eastern lands of primitive civilization: from the
coasts of Asia Minor and Syria.

The Ionic column betrays this relationship in both base and capital. The
former consists fundamentally of a tore elevated upon a drum, usually
hollowed by a scotia. This tore was employed as a footing for the
columns of Nineveh, and is familiar through one example and through
representations upon reliefs. From thence it was transplanted to Persia,
where, in the middle of the sixth century B.C., it appears with the
horizontal channelling found upon the more primitive Ionic monuments.
(_Fig._ 79.) The concave profile of the under plinth is new and
Hellenic. The delicate perception of the Greek designer recognized the
advantage of this scotia over the clumsy heaviness which had resulted
from the tore being placed immediately upon the ground or upon a
rectangular slab, and the lower member was made to harmonize with the
channelled moulding above it by the emphasis of horizontal lines. It is
uncertain whether the slender proportions of the Ionic shaft, so marked
in comparison with the strength of the Doric style, is to be attributed
to Oriental influences. It agreed as well with the light Ionic
entablature and ceiling as did the powerful Doric column with the great
weight imposed upon it; and it may be regarded as one of the principles
of architectural construction that the strength of the support has ever
been originally determined by the weight of the ceiling and
superstructure: the column has been adapted to the entablature, not the
height of epistyle, frieze and cornice to the diameter of the shaft.
With this consideration agreed the desire to attain great elegance and
lightness of proportion, peculiar to the Ionic race. The Ionic column,
thus made of greater proportional height, had diminution and entasis
like the Doric. It differed remarkably in the fluting. A vertical
grooving cannot be traced upon the columns of Assyria; upon those of
Persia it is similar to the Doric channels, with sharp arrises. The
development of the flute itself may perhaps be deemed peculiarly Greek.
As painted ornaments were gradually given up, they were replaced by
architectural carvings; such sculptured decorations were harmoniously
introduced upon the shaft, and the channels were deepened to a
semicircular profile. This rendered a change of the arrises necessary,
for if the ends of the arcs were to have abutted, as upon the Doric
column, the deep flute, with its extremely sharp edge, could only have
been executed upon a plane. Upon a convexly curved surface, like that of
the cylindrical drums, it would have been impossible to cut semicircular
grooves immediately adjoining, as their outlines would have intersected.
The sharp arrises were therefore relinquished, and a broad vertical
band, the surface of the original cylinder, was left in its place, the
play of light and shade which enlivened the body of the shaft being
increased by these flutings, but the evidence of the derivation of the
channelled column from the polygonal pier was entirely sacrificed, the
cylindrical form being characterized as original by the remaining
fillets. The carving of the shaft was rendered more difficult from the
slight projections left at the top and bottom as transitional members to
the base and to the capital. This horizontal fillet was a further gain
to the outline of the column, concave and convex surfaces thus
alternating from floor to ceiling. The flutings were terminated above
and below, before reaching this transverse member, by a semicircle,
which agreed with their sectional outline.

[Illustration: Fig. 161.--Ionic Order from the Peripteros of the
Mausoleum of Halicarnassos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 162.--Plan of the Normal Ionic Capital.]

[Illustration: Fig. 163.--Plan of the Corner Ionic Capital.]

The capital consisted, in part, of an echinos, similar to that of the
Doric style, the leaves, which, at least in one instance, had been
painted upon it, being here carved, and an astragal taking the place of
the necking rings. This echinos is almost entirely covered by a spiral
roll, which gives to the style its most striking characteristic. With
the discovery of the helix upon the capitals of Assyrian reliefs, all
the labored explanations of the significance and derivation of this
member have fallen to the ground. It is impossible to believe, with
Vitruvius, that the Ionic column was considered as the representative of
the fair sex: that the locks of hair were indicated by the spiral line
of the capital, the folds of the wide garments and draperies by the
flutes and fillets, and the sandals by the base. Nor are the theories
more satisfactory which seek for such natural motives as spiral shells
or twisted ram’s horns, assumed to have been primitive ornaments of the
sanctuaries. And it is still worse to regard the peculiar form of the
capital as decided by the conception of an elastic cushion, which,
displaced by the weight of the entablature, curls again at either side
of the echinos. The Ionic helix was a form of capital imported from the
East, where it had been used by barbaric designers as a mere ornament
upon upright legs of furniture (_Fig._ 81), or upon Persian columns
(_Fig._ 80)--a form developed by the Greeks into an architectural member
of the first importance. The Assyrians, by doubling the volutes, had
formed with this motive a capital not particularly well adapted to the
functions of a transitional member between vertical support and
horizontal burden. The Hellenic architect perceived that a more decided
projection was necessary, and therefore placed an echinos beneath the
volute, leaving the roll as the medium between the circular shaft and
oblong entablature, which, in the Doric style, had been formed by the
abacus. The horizontal lines of the abacus, thus supplanted, were
represented upon the Ionic column only by a narrow moulding, curved to
the profile of a cyma and sculptured with a leaved ornament. In the
Greek capital the spirals became an elegantly curved roll, of greater
length than breadth, with tightly curled ends, which were bound
together, upon either side of the echinos, by a band. The capital thus
shows its true profile, the helices upon front and back, and upon the
subordinate sides rolls of their thickness. (_Fig._ 161.) This
difference between face and side resulted in one great difficulty upon
the corners, which, like the irregularity of the division of the Doric
frieze of triglyphs and metopes in the same place, proves that the Ionic
style also did not originate upon the peripteral plan, but was adapted
to it from a temple in antis. It was natural that the more ornamental
side of the column should face the entrance front, and thus the capitals
upon the longer sides of the building were forced to show their rolls,
the _partie honteuse_, unless the corner capital assumed an unnatural
deformation to present the helices upon two adjoining, instead of two
opposite, faces. (_Figs._ 162 and 163.) The corner capital thus became a
miserable hybrid, which, because of the impossibility of its execution
in a natural manner, from the intersection of the outer volutes when
these proceeded in a straight line parallel to the epistyle, lost not
only all constructive significance and harmony with those next to it,
but also its individual beauty. There was no other expedient than to
bend the faces of the corner volutes outward in the line of the
diagonal--a malformation visible at every standpoint. A further
difficulty was presented by the corners of the spirals over the echinos,
which required to be masked by floral decorations. Upon the narrow
abacus moulding rested the entablature, remarkable for the Oriental
character of the details, and notably for reminiscences of primitive
wooden construction, which are almost as evident in the Ionic as in the
Doric style. The epistyle, formed in the latter by a single plane block,
was here triply stepped to agree with the multiplied beams required by
the nature of Oriental timber--generally provided by the various species
of palms. According to the description of Vitruvius, the motive was also
employed for the wooden epistyle beams of Etruscan temples. Each face
projected slightly beyond the one beneath it, as previously customary in
Asia, and shown by the ruins of the palace of Darius (_Fig._ 84) and the
rock-cut façade of that monarch’s tomb (_Fig._ 83). The epistyle is
terminated by a Lesbian cyma and an astragal, the latter being, in some
instances, repeated upon every light step from beam to beam beneath. The
frieze, known in this style as the zophoros, the bearer of figures, is
an original Hellenic creation, the Oriental entablature consisting of
only two members as representative of only two constructive features:
the epistyle that connected the columns, and the ceiling and roof,
which, in the rainless countries of the East, appear as one and the same
member. In Greece the inclined roof was separated fundamentally from the
horizontal ceiling, and the entablature consequently expressed a triple
character. The naïve and truthful manner of this expression, peculiar to
the Doric style, was not followed by the Ionic. The second member of the
entablature, the frieze, should represent the ceiling, but the symbols
of that constructive feature, the dentils, were crowded up among the
details of the cornice, while the zophoros itself, perhaps as a result
of the relief sculpture employed upon the Doric metopes, became a
continuous decoration of carving. The dentils, as significant of the
ends of the small ceiling-beams, were in their proper place, touching
the epistyle, upon the monuments of Persia (_Fig._ 83), and also upon
the tombs of Lycia (_Figs._ 110 and 111), so closely allied to the
Mesopotamian tradition; they were there of far greater size than in the
Greek Ionic, where their position and diminutive dimensions reduced them
to a mere ornament. The members of the cornice stand in no such relation
to the interior construction of beams and rafters as did the mutules and
trunnels of the Doric temples. The curved gutter, however, is ornamented
with lion’s-heads and anthemions, which seem in both styles to have
been derived from western Asia. The stone beams of the pteroma ceiling
rest directly upon the epistyle, and are consequently as far below their
exterior representatives, the cornice dentils, as, in the Doric, they
were above the triglyphs. Between them are the rich cofferings, not with
small lacunæ, calculated to produce an effect mainly by color, but in
broad surfaces, frequently stepped, with carved cyma-mouldings in the
angles. (_Fig._ 164.) The plan of the cella differed but slightly from
that of Doric temples. The doors are usually provided with parotides,
the doubly-spiral brackets which have remained a popular ornament
beneath the coronations of door and window openings until the present
day.

[Illustration: Fig. 164.--Ceiling from the Peripteros of the Mausoleum
of Halicarnassos. Restoration.]

[Illustration: Fig. 165.--Base and Capital from Bassæ.]

The historical development of the Ionic temple is not illustrated by as
many examples as was that of the Doric style, and, indeed, there was no
such marked and regular advance as that observable in the temples of
Selinous, Olympia, and Athens. A great number of Ionic monuments stand
in a district not as yet thoroughly examined: the southern coasts of
Asia Minor. Towards the border of Lycia traces of an archaic or
proto-Ionic style have been observed, more closely allied to Eastern
motives than were the developed temples of Greece. The capitals of
Lycian tombs (_Fig._ 110) have no echinos, by the addition of which so
great an advance was subsequently made; the formation of the rolls upon
the sides was also primitive, they being at times perfectly straight, at
times disproportionately curved. The difficult transition from the end
of the shaft to the volutes was evaded, and masked by anthemions or
other ornaments. The only example of such an imperfect formation in
European Greece existed in the interior of the Temple of Apollo at Bassæ
(_Fig._ 159); the date of its erection, however, shows this example not
to have been archaic, but rather archaistic,--that is to say,
intentionally and affectedly imitated from primitive peculiarities of
form. (_Fig._ 165.) The columns, engaged to transverse walls, have bases
of excessive projection, the thin and feeble tore being out of
proportion to the high member beneath it. The lower end of the shaft
itself forms a second projection, which greatly exceeds the usual
_congé_ and fillet of the bottom drum. The shallow flutings are
continued up to the very top of the shaft, there being concluded by an
almost straight line. The capital itself is most strikingly archaistic,
presenting the helices upon each of its three exposed faces; it is an
applied decoration which has given up all semblance of constructive
unity or function, leaving the prismatic kernel, without an abacus
moulding, to project above the curves and support the imposed
entablature. The narrow space remaining between the two large spirals of
each side is almost entirely filled by a decoration of anthemions, and
the introduction of an echinos is thus rendered unnecessary. The
sculptured zophoros of the interior entablature, now one of the chief
treasures of the British Museum, betrays in its figures the greatest
freedom from convention, in marked contrast to the affectedly antique
character of the architectural forms.

[Illustration: Fig. 166.--From the Heraion upon Samos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 167.--From the Temple of Apollo Didymæos, Miletos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 168.--From the Temple of Athene at Priene.]

[Illustration: Fig. 169.--From the Propylæa of Cnidos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 170.--From the Temple of Wingless Victory, Athens.]

[Illustration: Fig. 171.--Temple Ruin at Aphrodisias.]

The northern coast of Asia Minor, as far as it is at present known,
offers few Ionic remains of the archaic period. The original Temple of
Artemis, at Ephesos, according to Pliny the most ancient peripteros of
the style, has been totally obliterated by frequent reconstructions and
the famed conflagration of Herostratos. A second fane of national
importance, the Temple of Hera, at Samos, is at present known only by
one unfluted column, 1.6 m. in lower diameter, and by horizontally
fluted tores and plinths. These two buildings were of such interest that
their architects saw fit to celebrate their constructive peculiarities
in monographs, as had been done for the Doric Parthenon. The writings of
Chersiphron and of the Cretan Metagenes upon the Artemision at Ephesos,
and of Theodoros, the son of the Samian Illecles, upon the Heraion of
that island, are mentioned as late as the time of the Roman emperors.
These peripteral temples, built about the middle of the sixth century
B.C., were of very considerable dimensions, but were far surpassed in
size by a third national shrine of the Ionians, the Temple of Apollo
Didymæos, rebuilt by Paionios of Ephesos and Daphnis of Miletos almost a
century later than the former monuments, 470 B.C., upon the site of an
ancient structure destroyed by the Persians. The temple was a dipteros
decastylos, that is, had a double row of outstanding columns around the
cella, with ten upon the front; it measured 91 m. in length and 49 m. in
breadth. The columns were proportionately tall, 19 m. in height, which
equals nine and a half lower diameters, and were placed closely
together, the intercolumniations being only one and a half diameters
wide. The scotia of the base was divided by a projecting moulding and
elevated upon a square plinth; the tore had no horizontal flutings.
(_Fig._ 167.) The capital had a straight connection between the spirals,
and the epistyle was stepped but twice. The interior of the temple was
provided with pilasters, the capitals of which are of an Oriental
character, richly decorated with floral motives. A Corinthian capital
also occurs upon the building (_Fig._ 177), which will be referred to
below. The enormous temple of which there are fragmentary remains at
Sardis, supposed to be that of Cybele, appears to have been erected
during this period, and resembles the shrine of Apollo Didymæos at
Miletos. The Temple of Athene Polias at Priene, the work of the
architect Pythios, who celebrated its completion in a monograph, dates
from the middle of the fourth century B.C., as it was dedicated by
Alexander the Great. It was a hexastyle peripteros, of normal
dimensions, 35 m. long and 19 m. broad. The plans of Ionic temples
differed in proportion from those of the Doric style, their length
being less than twice their width. The base of the temple at Priene
(_Fig._ 168) is peculiar, in that the horizontal flutings of the tore,
entirely lacking in the Didymaion, were restricted to its lower half;
this can hardly be taken to prove that the building was never completed,
but is rather explained by the consideration that no escape was possible
for the rain-water which dripped into the upper grooves. The connection
between the spirals of the capital face is curved downward; the
ornaments of the entablature are more florid, and the gutter is almost
overladen with floral motives. The tetrastyle Ionic Propylæa of the same
place appear to be of more recent date; the capitals of the inner
pilasters are decorated similarly to those within the Didymaion. Another
structure of this kind at Cnidos is of more beautiful detail, the base
(_Fig._ 169) being particularly graceful in outline and proportions; the
increased curve of its tore obviated the trouble of water standing in
the horizontal flutings. There are but few remains of the temples of
Artemis Leucophryne at Magnesia, and of Dionysos at Teos, built towards
the end of the fourth century B.C., and celebrated in monographs by the
architect Hermogenes. The first of these was, according to Strabo, the
third largest fane of Asia Minor, measuring 64 m. in length and 29 m. in
breadth. The influence of Attic architecture is evident in the bases and
in the rich decoration of the capital rolls. The building is thought to
be the first example of a pseudodipteros, that is, of a peripteros
having a pteroma equal to the breadth of that upon a temple with two
ranges of outstanding columns, a dipteros. Resembling this, though
smaller, was the hexastyle peripteros of Teos, at first intended to have
been of the Doric style, the plan being altered to Ionic after all the
material had been provided. Traces of decline in the art prove the
octastyle peripteros of Apollo at Claros, near Colophon, and the temple
at Pessinus, in Galatia, to have been more recent. The Temple of
Panhellenic Zeus and the Sanctuary of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias (_Fig._
171) are referred to the beginning of the Christian era. The excessive
attenuation of the columns of the latter, which have a height equal to
ten lower diameters, the extension of the floral ornaments even to the
channels of the shaft and the connection of the capital spirals, the
so-called egg-and-dart moulding in the cyma, the diminutive dentils and
the introduction of consoles above them, all betray the tasteless
magnificence of the Roman imperial period.

[Illustration: Fig. 172.--Temple upon the Ilissos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 173.--Plan of the Erechtheion. (Boetticher.)]

[Illustration: Fig. 174.--Northwestern View of the Erechtheion.]

[Illustration: Fig. 175.--From the Eastern Pronaos of the Erechtheion.]

The Ionic style in Attica developed in a peculiar manner, being there
superior, both as regards breadth of form and beauty of detail, to the
works of Asia Minor. The Doric had been perfected in Athens, and the
most noble Ionic monument, the Erechtheion, stood beside the Parthenon;
the Athenian acropolis presented the noblest examples in both methods of
building, standing unrivalled at the head of the Hellenic world in
architectural, as in political and intellectual respects. Characteristic
of the Attic Ionic are the so-called Attic base and the entablature
without dentils. The former consists of a second tore beneath the
concave plinth of the usual base; by this addition its symmetry was
increased, and a rhythmical profile of great beauty was gained: two
convex and two concave members of harmonious proportion alternating
from the upper slip to the commencement of the fluting. The Attic
architect evidently did not accept the significance of the dentils as
representatives of the ceiling-joists, and preferred to cut a decided
drip upon the lower surface of the corona, which had so marked a slant
in the more familiar Doric cornice. In the place of the dentils, a
transition was provided by a cyma and astragal, which mouldings received
in Athens their typical perfection. The few Ionic ruins of European
Greece do not illustrate the historical development of the Attic Ionic
style. The interior columns of the Temple of Apollo at Bassæ (_Figs._
159 and 165) cannot be considered in this connection; their archaistic
details by no means express the influence of Athens, notwithstanding
that the work is attributed to the architect Ictinos. The peculiarities
of Attic Ionic architecture are well exemplified by the small
amphiprostyle temple upon the Ilissos, near Athens, which, though now
entirely destroyed, was in existence up to the end of the last century,
and was measured and drawn by Stuart and Revett. (_Fig._ 172.) The lower
tore of the base is here small and weak, as if a hesitating attempt to
improve the usual outline. The shaft was short, perhaps from the
influence of the Doric examples; the epistyle, from the same
consideration, was without the characteristic steps. Similar to this is
another tetrastyle amphiprostylos, the Temple of Wingless Victory before
the Propylæa of the acropolis, which, as if to compensate for the loss
of the temple upon the Ilissos, was rebuilt in 1835, with overthrown
fragments rescued from a Turkish bastion, and has become one of the
chief ornaments of the ascent. (_Fig._ 158.) The entire crepidoma is so
small--8 m. long and 5.5 broad--that the cella, after the deduction of
the front and rear porticos, is even broader than it is deep. The
architectural details are of exceeding delicacy and perfection (_Fig._
170); the sculptures of the zophoros and of the balustrade will be
considered in the following section. The inner columns of the Athenian
Propylæa show the lower tore fully developed, and the base-mouldings
isolated by a plinth of slightly concave profile, elsewhere adopted
only at Eleusis, in imitation of this building. The highest perfection
of the Ionic style was, as before said, attained in the second national
sanctuary of the Athenians--the world-renowned Temple of Athene Polias
upon the acropolis, the Erechtheion. The construction of the edifice
seems to have been undertaken immediately after the burning of the
ancient building by the Persians, in 480 B.C., but, in consequence of
the miseries of the Peloponnesian war, its completion was delayed until
eighty years after that date. It was a combination of several shrines
which, necessarily constructed upon different levels, rendered a perfect
symmetry of plan impossible. Other double temples, like those of Leto
and Asclepios, and of Aphrodite and Ares at Mantinea, or of Apollo
Carneios and of Hypnos at Sikyon, were not, upon the exterior,
distinguishable from the common type, as, with an equal division of the
cella, entrances could be allowed upon either front. In the Erechtheion
this simple arrangement was not practicable, because of the complicated
nature of the combined sanctuaries and the irregularity of the ground;
yet this did not prove a disadvantage: to the architectural perfection
of the monument was thus added a charm of picturesque composition
usually foreign to the temple buildings of Greek antiquity. The plan
given (_Fig._ 173) is according to Boetticher’s restoration, but the
mooted question of the interior division of the building is still far
from being decided. Upon the principal eastern front was a hexastyle
portico, _a_, through which entrance was given to the naos of Athene
Polias, _b_, occupying nearly one half of the cella. Access to the other
division was obtained through the tetrastyle hall, _c_, upon the
northwestern corner, opening directly into the narrow sanctuary of
Pandrosos, _d_, from which four portals led to as many chambers: the
first, _g_, to the Chapel of Boutes; the second, _h_, by means of a
short staircase, to the Crypt of Poseidon, _e_; from the third, _i_, was
a descent to a corridor leading to a space under the Naos of Athene
Polias; while the last, opposite the hall, led to the Porch of the
Caryatides, _f_. This complicated disposition was, as has been said,
dependent upon the peculiar natural position of the ancient national
shrines: the tomb of Cecrops and the memorials of the contest between
Poseidon and Athene for the possession of Athens,--the impression of the
trident with which Poseidon smote the cliff, leaving a spring of salt
water, and the olive-tree which, at the command of Athene, sprang from
the same rock. Of the interior of the building there are almost no
vestiges; but the form of the exterior is, in the main, clear. (_Fig._
174.) The capitals upon the columns of the eastern portico (_Fig._ 175),
and upon the pilasters of the western wall, which was pierced by
windows, are of almost excessive magnificence. The outlines of the
spirals are doubled, the side-rolls are grooved, and ornamented with
astragals; there is a band carved with a woven ornament above the
egg-and-dart moulding of the echinos, and an entirely new feature has
been added to the capital--a broad and rich necking of carved
anthemions. The effect of this band was particularly favorable because
the decoration upon it could be repeated beneath the capitals of the
pilasters, and a greater harmony of the corresponding members thus
secured. The columns of the northwestern porch are larger and even
richer in detail, especially the bases, the upper tore being ornamented
with a woven motive in place of the customary horizontal grooving. The
entablature, from which the dentils are missing, is of the utmost
elegance of proportion, the carving of its cyma-mouldings being the most
delicate work of architectural carving known. The reliefs upon the
zophoros were not cut from its substance, but were merely attached to
its plane surface; few fragments have, consequently, been preserved. One
of the most beautiful features of the building is the Porch of the
Caryatides in the southwestern corner (F). In place of columns, the
figures of virgins support the horizontal marble ceiling, which is of no
great weight. The model for these was doubtless taken from the
basket-bearing maidens of the Panathenaic procession, the Canephoræ. The
origin of the term _caryatides_ is not known. Both geographical and
historical proofs are wanting to make probable the account given by
Vitruvius,--that the motive for these figures was derived from the women
of the Peloponnesian town Carya, who were condemned to slavery for
treachery during the Persian war. From the baskets of the Canephoræ has
been developed a capital member, like an echinos, decorated with the
egg-and-dart moulding and an astragal, and provided with an abacus. The
frieze is lacking from the entablature, in recognition of the fact that
roof and ceiling are here one and the same member. The dentils appear in
the cornice, it being possible for them to take their true position upon
the epistyle. The faultless beauty of the decorative carving is
particularly evident upon the casings of the portals.

Monuments of the Ionic style, not numerous in Attica, are rare in the
Peloponnesos, and exceptional farther west, where the Doric element of
the population predominated. When Ionic ruins are found in the latter
districts, they generally betray the influence of the Attic school,
which is perceptible even in the Ionic order of Rome. It is not strange
that, after the acquaintance of the Romans with Hellenic lands, this
method of building should, in their universal eclecticism, have been
frequently adopted. It will be seen in the following section how Italy,
the heir of the decaying civilization of the East, reduced the forms of
Ionic architecture to a facile and commonplace scheme.

[Illustration: Fig. 176.--From Bassæ.]

[Illustration: Fig. 177.--From the Temple of Apollo, near Miletos.]

[Illustration: Fig. 178.--From the Tower of the Winds, Athens.]

During the age of Pericles a foreign growth, the Corinthian capital, had
been engrafted upon the Ionic style, which changed the character of the
whole, the more decidedly because introduced upon the most prominent
feature. This “Corinthian” innovation affected the capital alone, and
cannot be considered as an order, still less as a style, when compared
to the Doric and Ionic. It was a mere variety of the latter, which, in
all other respects than the capital, remained unaltered. The new form is
mentioned as an innovation of Callimachos, a sculptor celebrated for the
magnificent golden lamp and funnel made by him for the Erechtheion. The
name of that artificer may have given authority to the first
introduction of the Corinthian capital into Greek lands; but the
detailed account of Vitruvius in regard to its origin can hardly be
deemed more than a fable. He relates that a loving nurse had placed a
basket of toys, covered with a tile, upon the grave of a Corinthian
girl, and that in the spring-time an acanthos-plant, upon which it
stood, sent forth shoots covering the basket and curling beneath the
tile, thus providing a model directly imitated by Callimachos. The calyx
capitals of Egypt had long been known to the Greeks. In transferring
this floral motive across the Mediterranean, the decorative foliage of
papyrus and lotus had been given up, those unknown plants not being
adapted to Hellenic conventionalization. National art ever seeks the
subjects for floral ornament from the growths of its native soil. It was
on this account that oak-leaves, thistles, grape-leaves, and ivy were
employed in Gothic architecture; and, in a similar manner, the Greek
could make no more fortunate choice than the Hellenic thistle, the
acanthos, the forms of which even surpass in beauty the serrated outline
of the grape-leaf. The Corinthian capital suited well the prevalent
tendency to attenuate the shaft, and, at the same time, it furthered an
harmonious agreement between the capitals of columns and of pilasters.
Its forms presented a better solution of the problem of the capital, and
were more perfect in an abstract, if not in an artistic, point of view
than any of the preceding varieties. The two functions of the
transitional member--the projection, the oblique line between the
vertical and the horizontal, and the change from a circular to a
rectangular plan--had, in the Doric and Ionic capitals, been effected by
two separate bodies; in the Corinthian they were accomplished by one
alone. The kernel gave the projection, considerably steeper, according
to its height, than the Doric or Ionic echinos. The oblique line, convex
in the former style, is here slightly concave, although still
sufficiently vigorous in character to bear the light entablature. The
surrounding floral decoration effects the transition from the circle to
the rectangle; the upper leaves project towards the corners of the thin
abacus, under which they curl, giving to the capital, at some little
distance below its plinth, a section nearly square. A canonical form of
the Corinthian capital did not exist in progressive Hellenic art. This
does not appear until the order was reduced to a system by the
thought-saving and practical Romans. The completed type, so familiar in
the monuments of Italy, and used for centuries since in all parts of the
world, does not occur in Greece, the creation of the Corinthian order,
as such, being emphatically a work of the Romans. The Corinthian capital
was, in Hellenic architecture, merely a fanciful and ever-varied
decoration of foliage around a concave calyx. The before-mentioned
example from the Temple of Apollo in Bassæ shows how imperfect the
arrangement was at first. (_Fig._ 176.) The single row of leaves at its
base does not sufficiently ornament the kernel; the spirals upon the
four corners and the anthemions between them leave too much of its
surface uncovered. The thin abacus is neither provided with a profile
moulding, nor at all carved; upon its edge is painted a Doric meander;
its sides are curved in plan, advancing above the corner spirals so that
these might project farther from the calyx. A decided advance is shown
by the capital of an engaged column employed within the Temple of Apollo
Didymaios at Miletos (_Fig._ 177), which appears to be of more recent
date. A double wreath of acanthos-leaves surrounds the calyx, those
upon the corners being made sufficiently tall to support the spirals;
between them are anthemions. Fragments brought from the ruins of Knidos
to the British Museum are of similar form. These remains all resemble,
in a more or less marked degree, the ultimate typical development of the
Corinthian capital. Others, and among them some of a later period, lack
important constituent parts. A second variety, discovered in the
Didymaion, had only one wreath of leaves, and no connection with the
square abacus by corner spirals. The capitals of the so-called Tower of
the Winds in Athens (_Fig._ 178) resemble them. Behind the
acanthos-leaves rises a simple row of lanceolate reeds, which follows
the outline of the calyx. The Choragic Monument of Lysicrates, built
more than a century previous, in 334 B.C., presents a beautiful instance
of a fanciful Corinthian capital. Between the shaft and the calyx there
is a preparatory necking of small leaves, similar to those which existed
upon the example within the temple at Bassæ. Above the low acanthos
wreath rises a rich garland of foliage and flowers, with a central
anthemion rising to the top of the abacus. The heavy corner volutes
cannot compensate for the excessive contraction of the calyx, which
takes away from the unity and force of the main transitional curve.

The Corinthian capital appears to have attained the form under which it
is now known in the middle of the second century B.C. The Temple of
Olympian Zeus in Athens received its peripteros of Corinthian columns
under Antiochos Epiphanes, 176-164 B.C.; though its crepidoma, probably
intended for an edifice of the Doric style, had been prepared as early
as the time of Peisistratos. The architectural direction of the building
had been intrusted to a Roman, Cossutius, and it was, in fact, destined
to provide material for Rome itself, as, soon after its completion, the
columns were carried away by Sulla and employed in the restoration of
the temple upon the Roman Capitol, shortly before destroyed by fire. The
capitals thus removed appear to have been regarded as models, and to
have exercised a great influence upon the development of the Corinthian
order, as cultivated, almost exclusively, by the Romans. The calyx
decorated with acanthos foliage corresponded to the taste of the
imperial epoch for architectural magnificence, and its employment was
not embarrassed by the difficulties upon the corners of peripteral
temples which have been discussed in the consideration of the Doric
frieze and the Ionic capital. The floral decoration soon extended to the
entablature, increasing the number and dimensions of its minor members.
The most striking result was the transformation of the dentils into the
richly carved consoles of doubly spiral profile, which were imitated
from the parotides of the Ionic portal coronation, but were placed
horizontally instead of vertically. The use of both dentils and consoles
is a barbaric duplication, characteristic of the tasteless architectural
magnificence of the Roman decline. The so-called Corinthian base is no
real characteristic of the order, being only a combination of Ionic and
Attic forms, with a double scotia between the two tores.

Hellenic architecture has thus far been considered exclusively in its
relations to sacred edifices, because the art of building, among nations
whose civilization has been influenced by religious conceptions, is
always best exemplified by temples. But it was natural that Doric and
Ionic forms should be employed, though in a less conventional manner,
for all the buildings of Greece, being richly elaborated in monumental
works, and more or less simplified and adapted in structures intended
for private or public usefulness, as economy and civic destination alike
forced restrictions upon the disposition and decoration of the design.

The sacred nature of monumental tombs allied them most nearly to the
temples. The conical tumulus had preceded the Hellenic peripteros, and
when that helpless form was entirely given up, after the perfection of
the columnar temple, the cinerary urn remained as a leading motive,
which excluded the lengthened plan of the peripteral temple and rather
tended to increase the height of the monument--otherwise a subordinate
dimension. Graves of less importance were marked by columns, upright
blocks of stone with an ornamental cap, or by steles, the angular
termination of which often betrayed the influence of the temple gable,
while the shaft retained the nature of the pier. More prominent
sepulchres consisted of ranges of columns upon a cube, which, containing
a sarcophagus, took the place of the cylinder beneath the conical
tumulus. As the columns had, in general, only a decorative importance,
it was not necessary to construct a cella in connection with them. This
was only added when a chapel was required for funeral worship, or when,
as in mausoleums of great dimensions, inner walls were needed to provide
a bearing for the ceiling beams. The termination of these structures was
characteristic. The sacred gable was generally avoided, in just
appreciation of its significance, and the form of the tumulus was
retained, so far as the rectangular plan would permit, a pyramidal
superstructure taking the place of the cone.

[Illustration: Fig. 179.--Tomb at Mylassa.]

That this pyramid was constructed in steps is evident from a small tomb
without a cella at Mylassa (_Fig._ 179), and from that magnificent
monument, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos, one of the wonders of the
antique world. (_Fig._ 180.) The latter was erected by Artemisia, the
widow and successor of King Mausolos, who called to her assistance the
most celebrated architects of the time, Satyros and Pythios; as well as
the greatest sculptors, Scopas, Bryaxis, Leochares, and Timotheos. It is
known by the extensive English excavations of 1856 and 1857. Although
the opinions of prominent authorities differ greatly as to its design,
it is yet certain that upon the massive oblong foundation, 30 m. long,
24 m. broad, and over 15 m. high, which contained the small sepulchral
chamber, there stood a cella surrounded by thirty-six Ionic columns, and
terminated by a stepped pyramid, the truncated apex of which bore a
colossal marble quadriga, with the statues of the queen and of a female
charioteer, the whole attaining a height of 42 m. The works of
sculpture--the figures which stood in the intercolumniations and the
reliefs upon the wall of the cella, and perhaps also upon the
substructure--will be considered in the next section. It is possible
that the destination of the edifice was not that usually attributed to
it, Urlichs having argued that it was a heroön, and a memorial of
victory.

[Illustration: Fig. 180.--Mausoleum of Halicarnassos.]

The Monument of the Nereides at Xanthos (_Fig._ 181) resembled the
Mausoleum in many respects. It was a peristyle of sixteen Ionic columns
elevated upon a massive foundation. Statues stood in its
intercolumniations, while the zophoros and substructure were carved with
reliefs. A gabled roof seems, however, to have indicated the sacred
character of the edifice. The cella and the surrounding columns of this
class of buildings were united in various manners, a remarkable example
of a pseudo-peripteros being offered by the so-called Tomb of Theron in
Acragas in Sicily. In other instances three stories resulted from a
duplication of the foundations beneath the peripteros, as in the alleged
Tomb of Mikipsas at Constantina, the ancient Cirta in Numidia. This
multiplication was particularly frequent in the Roman period. The tomb
of this nature at Saint-Remi, in Southern France, the ancient Glanum,
built during the reign of Augustus, is one of the most beautiful ruins
known.

[Illustration: Fig. 181.--Monument of the Nereides at Xanthos.]

Among the choragic monuments of Greece, the most interesting is that
erected by Lysicrates in commemoration of the victory gained by a chorus
of boys of the Phyle Acamantis led by him. It served as a pedestal for
the prize bestowed, a tripod, and was a pseudo-monopteros of small
dimensions and beautiful details. Engaged columns with Corinthian
capitals supported a monolithic ceiling, the floral termination of which
originally served as a base for the tripod. The so-called Tower of the
Winds was a clepsydra, built by Andronicos Kyrrhestes, and was also
furnished outside with dials and a weathercock. It is especially
interesting on account of the peculiar forms of its Corinthian capitals.
(_Fig._ 178.)

[Illustration: Fig. 182.--Stoa Diple at Thoricos.]

The most extensive employment of columns in civic architecture was in
the porticos, the stoas, which surrounded the market-places and extended
through many streets, being connected with baths, gymnasions,
palaestras, stadia, and hippodromes, and even appearing as independent
buildings. The market-place, the agora, was, in ancient cities, commonly
of an irregular form; when possible it was surrounded by colonnades. In
more recent settlements care was taken to provide a rectangular space
for the purpose, in which double porticos of considerable extent were
built for shelter in bad weather. In view of the effeminacy of the
Ionians, it is easy to credit the account that this race first provided
the chief places in towns with the protection of stoas, introducing this
custom in Greece, where it soon became general. Extended colonnades were
frequently connected with them, traversing the principal streets. The
independent stoas, which were arranged in the greatest variety of
combinations, are of particular interest. The Stoa Poikile (the
many-colored), upon the market-place of Athens, was built by Peisianax,
the brother-in-law of Cimon, this latter causing the walls to be
decorated by Polygnotos and his assistants--upon one wing with scenes
from the battle of Marathon, upon the other from that of Oinoe, while
the long background of the principal hall was similarly treated. Upon
the market-places the porticos were often increased in width by a second
row of columns, and in later times a dividing-wall was frequently placed
between these ranges as a spina. According to Pausanias, this was the
case with the so-called Kerkyraion Hall of Elis. The form of a _stoa
diple_, or double colonnade, was more customary; in it the central wall
was replaced by a third range of columns, as the case appears to have
been at Thoricos (_Fig._ 182), where the entrance was provided in the
middle of the longer sides by wider intercolumniations. The enlargement
was carried still farther by making the colonnade of three aisles, with
two inner ranges of columns, as in the Stoa of the Hellanodikæ: covered
spaces of great breadth, open upon all sides, and admirably adapted to
their purpose, were thus provided. It is natural to assume that the
great grain market of the Piraios was such an extended stoa, as was
likewise the so-called Basilica of Pæstum, a structure of three aisles,
lacking exterior enclosure. The latter building is assuredly misnamed,
the nature of a basilica being dependent upon outer walls. The prototype
of the Roman and Christian basilicas is rather to be sought in the law
courts of the Archon Basileus in Athens, a combination of enclosed halls
and chambers, which, by their future development, received an historical
and practical importance exceeding that of any other work of Hellenic
architecture, not excepting the temples, which became useless with the
extinction of Hellenic religious conceptions. The columns of stoas were
multiplied above, as well as beside, one another, analogous to the
galleries over the side aisles of the larger temples. This appears to
have been the case upon the so-called Persian Hall at Sparta, where,
instead of upper shafts, there were piers decorated with the statues of
Persians, comparable to the corresponding architectural members of the
Incantada at Thessalonica, though the figures of gods and heroes were,
in the latter instance, attached to the supports in three-quarter
relief, while the statues at Sparta appear to have been in the full
round. It is evident from the Roman basilicas, to be considered in
another section, that the employment of galleries was general in the
enclosed stoas of Greece.

[Illustration: Fig. 183.--Stadion at Messene.]

[Illustration: Fig. 184.--Hippodrome at Olympia.]

Chief among the public buildings of Hellas, after the agoras and stoas,
were the arrangements for the festive games. These were divided into two
classes: bodily exercises and scenic representations. The former were
the more important, forming a prominent part in the education of every
Greek citizen. Palaistras and gymnasia were provided for the
manœuvres, stadia and hippodromes for the public contests and races.
In primitive times the palaistras had no architectural character; a
meadow and a sandy reach, generally upon the bank of a brook and shaded
by trees, sufficed as a training-ground. The private palaistras seem
never to have exceeded this simplicity; but the great importance of
drill for the military power of the State early demanded the erection of
suitable structures, and there resulted the gymnasion, a combination of
covered chambers and halls with open courts, which provided separate and
fitting spaces for the different gymnastic exercises and for the baths,
as well as for the higher intellectual entertainments of the
philosophers, rhetoricians, and poets. These structures were probably
varied in character until the most suitable arrangement was decided by
experience. It seems early to have become customary to surround a
rectangular space by colonnades, to which were added extensive wings,
semicircular exedras, and the like, for scientific and æsthetic
instruction. Upon one side were grouped a number of chambers known as
the Ephebeion, Apodyterion, Elaiothesion, Conisterion, Corykeion,
Laconicon, Lutron, etc., serving the youths as places of assemblage,
rooms for dressing and anointing, hot and cold baths, etc. Opposite to
them extended the stadion, while, within the enclosure, promenades
between groups of trees and beds of flowers alternated with grounds for
shorter races, quoit-throwing, wrestling, and other contests. Some
examples, like those of Ephesos, Hierapolis, and Alexandria, still
display in their ruins the chief features of this arrangement, though
more or less influenced by the customs of imperial Rome, where the baths
had been in great measure separated from the gymnasia. The spirit of
emulation was excited by the publicity of these institutions, and
increased by the periodical festive competitions to a height far
exceeding our modern conceptions. A wreath of laurel or olive leaves, a
small quantity of oil, a tripod, or other similar rewards of victory,
such as were given as prizes in the games of Olympia, Delphi, Nemea,
Corinth, and Athens, conferred almost divine honor, even the years being
known by the name of the temporary hero of Olympia. The five chief
divisions of the gymnastic exercises, the pentathlon--running, jumping,
wrestling, boxing, and the throwing of the discos--were practised in the
stadion, a space from 180 m. to 300 m. long, usually chosen close to the
side of a hill, which, more or less prepared by terracing and grading,
provided seats for spectators. If a narrow valley were near at hand, as
in the case of the Athenian stadion of the suburb Agrae, the opposite
slopes were thus occupied. The seats near the goal were naturally the
more desirable, and it was here that the architectural features were
concentrated, terraces being carried in a semicircle around this centre.
Examples are not wanting, as in Aphrodisias in Asia Minor, where both
ends were thus terminated, and the space for spectators carried around
the entire race-course, thus pointing the way to a building of this
form, the amphitheatre, which was to become the delight of the Roman
world. The stadion of Messene (_Fig._ 183) shows how natural
inclinations were followed and utilized, though at the expense of a
symmetrical disposition; yet this example dates from the later
extravagant period of Greek history, and is far removed from the
patriarchal simplicity of primitive times. The stadion did not suffice
for the races of horses and chariots which had been favorites with the
Greeks since the Trojan war. In such early ages, any goal chosen in the
plain was sufficient, like the oak-trunk mentioned by Homer; but it
could not have been long before the need was manifest of a sloping stand
for the spectators and an enclosure for the contestants, and thus the
hippodrome, the race-course, was developed similarly to the smaller
stadion. The most celebrated, and perhaps the oldest, hippodrome of
Greece, that of Olympia, is described by Pausanias. The right side, the
longer, consisted of an artificial embankment of earth, while the slope
of a hill was employed for the left; at the entrance was a colonnade
devoted to the preparations of the charioteers. The starting-point, the
aphesis, had, according to the expression of Pausanias, a form like the
prow of a vessel--that is, advanced in a pointed form--to facilitate the
start. The plan here given, _Fig._ 184, is altered from Visconti’s
restoration by these gates being opened towards the first turning-point,
the _taraxippos_, or terror of the horses.

[Illustration: Fig. 185.--Scheme of the Greek Theatre, according to
Vitruvius.]

[Illustration: Fig. 186.--Restored View of the Theatre of Segesta.]

The theatres, as enclosures for musical and scenic representations,
offered greater scope for architectural development. When possible, the
auditorium was in a situation where a natural semicircular inclination
served instead of the immense foundations which would otherwise have
been necessary for the elevated seats; the stage and surrounding
buildings were, however, free-standing works of architecture. The
arrangement of the Greek theatre is described by Vitruvius: three
squares were inscribed in a circle, thus forming a twelve-pointed star
(_Fig._ 185); one of the sides, _a b_, served as the line of the front
foundation of the stage. This platform, the logeion, was closed at the
rear by a wall, treated like a façade, and forming a background, the
skene; its position being decided by the tangent _c d_, parallel to the
front side. The remainder of the circle, the orchestra, was reserved for
the evolutions of the chorus and for the stand of the musicians, the
thymele; it was not until the development of the Roman theatre that
spectators were admitted to this enclosure. Its extent was slightly
increased by drawing the outline from the diameter, _e f_, to the stage
with a doubled radius. Around seven twelfths of the original circle was
constructed the concentrical auditorium of ascending seats, divided by a
platform at half-height, the diazoma, into two parts, and accessible by
radial passages. The statement of Vitruvius, who, as usual, substitutes
a thought-saving canon for the living individuality of Hellenic art, is
not borne out by the numerous remains of Greek theatres. The orchestra
and auditorium exceed the semicircle in every instance where local
conformations have not rendered this impossible; but they either do
this by elongating the arc with tangents, as in the theatres of Segesta
(_Fig._ 186), Syracuse, Tyndaris, and Tauromenion, or by continuing the
circumference of the original circle without deviation, as in those of
Athens, Epidauros, Megalopolis, Delos, Melos, Cnidos, Laodikeia, Side,
Myra, Telmissos, Patara, Aizanis, etc. Among all known Greek theatres
only two, those at Mantinea and Alabanda, are situated in the plain and
entirely built of masonry; the others, contrary to Roman custom, utilize
natural inclinations, as before explained. The seats were either cut in
the native rock, or were walled and reveted with slabs of marble; when
the slope was of earth, important foundations were undertaken.

The arrangements of odeions, or partially covered theatres for festive
musical representations, appear to have preceded, and in some degree
influenced, the architecture of the theatres. The oldest known example
of these structures is the Skias in Sparta, a circular building provided
with a pitched roof, which was probably built in accordance with forms
customary in Asia Minor, as a Samian architect (Theodoros, the son of
Telecles) was called from Samos to superintend its erection. The odeion
upon the Ilissos near Athens appears to have been of similar
disposition, and, like the former, constructed chiefly of wood.

The private dwellings of Greece stood in no relation to the monumental
public buildings. That we are acquainted with no Greek house is a proof
that these were of the same subordinate importance as was the family in
the Hellenic state. The house was nothing more than the scene of the
family labors, and turned modestly inward, confined and simple chambers
being grouped around a central court. The life of the Greeks was, for
the most part, spent away from home, upon the market-places and in the
gymnasia and stoas; it was only at meal-times and for repose that he
sought the retirement of his house. This was completely separated from
the outer world, the dwelling-chambers having no windows upon the street
and the façade being unimportant. The rooms, with the exception,
perhaps, of the dining-hall, were but little developed, being generally
lighted through the door alone. Their windowless walls presented no
opportunity for architectural treatment, this being restricted to the
court, a space of considerable size, surrounded by a colonnade. For
centuries there was nothing to lead to any increase of this simple
dwelling, or to the development of a palace architecture; in the ages of
the heroes and tyrants the constructive ability was insufficient, and
later republican equality was inimical to all individual ostentation. It
was not until royal power had, in the Macedonian epoch, taken the place
of democracy that private architecture made a decided advance,--less,
however, in monumental importance than in luxury and display. The
chambers were multiplied by a repetition of the courts, the rooms still
remaining small; while a refined extravagance, borrowing its decoration
from the sister arts, took the place of architectural invention.
Notwithstanding the Greek terms applied to various forms of rooms by
Vitruvius, they appear to have been comparatively restricted in size.
The so-called Corinthian hall, covered with a barrel-vault, is
specifically a Roman creation; the Egyptian hall, with a clerestory over
the central aisle, may have been built in remembrance of Alexandrian
models, while that of Kyzicos is illustrative of methods customary in
Asia Minor, and especially in Pergamon. The three chief cities of the
Diadochi must have presented imposing monuments of private and palatial
architecture: Alexandria, the Egyptian residence of the Ptolemies, had
been founded by Alexander himself, and in great part designed by his
architect, Deinocrates; Antioch, upon the Orontes in Syria, was built by
Seleucos Nicator, with the aid of the architect Xenaios, and rapid
increase soon quadrupled its original extent; Pergamon had been restored
and enlarged by Eumenes. The wonderful works of that time show
architecture to have lost all earnestness and truthfulness through the
extravagant demands created by the luxurious courts of the Ptolemies,
Seleucidæ, and Attalidæ; their sham theatrical pomp was surpassed only
by the Oriental costliness and splendor of the materials. The monuments
were expressive of the weakness and superficiality into which the
Eastern Hellenic world had fallen, and for which the forms of Greek art
were employed only as a transparent varnish. Alexander the Great had
himself led the way to this profusion of monumental and private
buildings. It was he, for instance, who had caused Deinocrates to erect
a pyramidal pyre for the burning of the body of his favorite
Hephaisteion, which was a marvel of tastelessness and extravagance: the
square substructure of brick masonry, with sides one stadion long, each
ornamented with two hundred and forty golden prows of vessels and nine
hundred and sixty statues, bore a second terrace decorated with golden
wreathed torches; the third and fourth stages were reveted with reliefs
of gold representing hunting scenes and the battles of the centaurs; the
fifth with golden lions and bulls, upon which followed Macedonian arms
and trophies taken from the barbarians. The whole was terminated by
golden figures of sirens, the hollow bodies of which accommodated the
singers of the funeral chant. A similar piece of display was the
magnificent wagon for the funeral procession of Alexander. Other works
were the gigantic tent for the Dionysian procession of Ptolemy II.,
Philadelphos, with its supports formed like palms and thyrses, with its
cupola-shaped roof, secret grottoes, etc.; and the Thalamegos, or
colossal Nile bark, a floating palace built by Ptolemy IV., Philopator,
with its Temple of Aphrodite and many halls, one of which had
chryselephantine Corinthian columns, and was decorated by a frieze of
reliefs executed in ivory and affixed to a golden ground. A
dining-saloon was built in the Egyptian manner, as a hypostyle, and the
hall of Dionysos was provided with an apse formed like a grotto. At the
same time, wonders of technical and mechanical skill divided attention
with these works of barbarous luxury. As early as the time of Hiero II.
of Syracuse, Archimedes and Archias built a monstrous ship, intended for
the transportation of grain, which is said to have comprised an entire
city, with a gymnasion, a public park, towers, reception-rooms,
dining-halls, etc. It had three decks, and was propelled by twenty rows
of oarsmen. Even this was surpassed by Ptolemy IV., who built a vessel
with forty rows of oars. In short, gigantic dimensions and tasteless
magnificence, favored by the insane competition among the followers of
Alexander, extinguished true art, the more rapidly as works of these
later ages were not executed with the solidity which preserved Roman
architecture from similar decline, even though it accepted many unsound
artistic influences from these Hellenic and barbarian despots.

       *       *       *       *       *

The sculpture deserves even more unlimited admiration than the
architecture of Greece. Hellenic building shows monumental ideals such
as the creative power of no other people has attained; yet the problems
which presented themselves for solution were of a limited nature. In
sculpture, on the other hand, a height was reached which the artists of
all later times have scarcely been able to comprehend, far less to
equal. For centuries cultivated nations have drawn from this
inexhaustible fountain, in unconditional admiration,--learning from
Greek statues, and acknowledging their matchless perfection. Although it
may justly be concluded that a direct reconstruction of the
architectural remains, as a whole, were it possible, is not to be
recommended, still no one can hesitate to regard the best examples of
Hellenic sculpture as a model worthy of direct emulation, the
controlling influence of which upon the present age is only to be
desired. And though the Gothic cathedral may appear to some a higher
artistic conception than the Doric peripteros, no one would give
preference to the sculptures of the ancient Orientals, of the Mediæval
Christians, or even of the great masters of the Renaissance, over the
marble treasures gathered in any of the larger collections of antiques.

As, among all the works of antiquity, it is to Hellenic sculpture that
the undisputed palm of precedence is given, it is befitting that
particular attention should be devoted to it--that it should be treated
as the central point, the focus, of the history of ancient art. This is
made possible by the accounts of classic authors handed down concerning
it, and by the multitudinous remains preserved and accessible in the
museums of all great cities; it is rendered easy by the circumstance
that the attention and industry of the archæological explorer and of the
student of art have been directed to no other field of antique life with
equal zeal and with equally important results. The history of the
development of Hellenic sculpture thus lies, in its main features, more
clearly before us than does that of any other ancient art. Although
different views still exist in regard to many particulars, the arguments
advanced in their support only serve for greater general enlightenment.
The lively discussion which the question of the beginnings of Greek
sculpture has called forth may be considered as terminated, since the
Egyptian origin, advocated by Thiersch, Ross, Feurbach, Julius Braun,
Stahr, and others, has been refuted, or at least reduced to the
secondary and later influence assumed by Friedrichs. Indeed, the oldest
Grecian sculptures, when compared with those of Egypt, display a
complete contrast, and prove that such a connection, if it existed at
all, was by no means intimate. Egyptian art worked upon purely
mechanical principles, according to a typical network of lines.
Sculpture was drawn into the province of architecture, and slavishly
subordinated to it; carved figures became little else than architectural
members through uniformity, symmetrical regularity, and multiplicity of
repetition. Piers masked by the form of Osiris were thus substituted for
columns, and long rows of sphinxes or colossal statues were set, like
the obelisks, to decorate the avenues leading to the temples. The fixed
standard after which the heads of such figures were patterned--more like
the capitals of columns than imitations of life--and the members,
without action, and constructed according to an established height or
breadth, like the shafts of pillars, and similarly regulated in
proportions by their diameter--took away all independence as works of
sculpture, and caused the statues rather to appear as parts of an
architectural composition. The ordinary Egyptian stone-cutter knew of
only two positions, well established by custom; he renounced
fundamentally the countless different appearances of life, and, with
this, all representation of action and of individuality. Primitive Greek
sculpture, on the contrary, arose from a sound naturalism, which
directed the eye of the artist to real and peculiar appearances from the
outset, often neglecting the proportions of the whole in the desire
characteristically to express important details. The first Hellenic
figures are wanting in that which was so prominent in the Egyptian: a
correct, or at least a schooled, outline and modelling; while the
pleasing imitation of life in detail, utterly foreign to Egyptian
sculptures, is most forcibly presented. This naturalistic tendency
prevented Hellenic sculpture from degenerating into an Egyptian
formalism; the Greek artist did not blindly attach himself to a hieratic
model, but studied organic life, thus keeping his works free from that
ossified conventionalism common to all Eastern civilization. The very
first carvings of Greece had a power of development which was wanting in
all the other nations of that period.

To these differences of artistic principle must be added differences in
characteristic forms, dependent partly upon race and partly upon the
different conceptions of the two nations--differences so marked as to
enable us to distinguish their works without hesitation. The Egyptian
head differs decidedly from the Greek head in the high position of the
ear, the long, narrow, and somewhat obliquely placed eyes, the wide flat
nose, and the thick lips. (_Fig._ 28.) The Egyptian figure is slim, the
primitive Greek almost stunted; in the former the shoulders are high and
broad, in the latter sloping and narrow; there the hips are small, here
large. The garments of Egyptian works are either elastic, without
natural folds, clinging so closely to the body as often to be
recognizable only at the borders, or are heavily pressed together in
broad and angular masses. The scanty clothing introduced into ancient
Hellenic sculptures shows throughout a close observation of nature; and
the drapery is pleasing even in unsuccessful imitations, because it
betrays the loving care of the artist. In the oldest productions of
Greece we perceive a slumbering genius and capacity for development
which were wholly lacking in the trained handiwork of Egyptian art,--as
the faulty free-hand drawing of an intelligent boy, who tries to show
what he has seen, awakens greater interest and hope than do the labored
copies and tracings of an illiterate mechanic.

When compared with these weighty reasons against the dependence of
primitive Grecian sculpture upon that of Egypt, the arguments adduced in
favor of the supposition seem insufficient. Chief among these is the
opinion of several ancient writers who vaguely imply that the oldest
sculpture of the Greeks was related to that of the Egyptians, and
derived from it as a later production. But it is well known that
Pausanias and Diodoros were not exacting as to proofs of their opinions
in regard to the history of art. In this instance, they were deluded by
the same outward resemblance which has been so deceptive in modern
times,--a similarity dependent upon that stiffness of archaic statues
common to every primitive art, and to the attenuation and union of the
extremities, which resulted from the economy of material and labor
natural to both countries. But though, in the beginning of Greek
sculpture, certain difficulties of execution were avoided in the same
manner as in Egypt, and the material of the carved figures, whether
wood or stone, was meted out as scantily as possible, it does not follow
that they were directly dependent upon the Egyptian works which were
influenced by like considerations.

It is otherwise with the relations between Western Asiatic art and the
early sculpture of Greece. The preceding section has made it evident
that the most prominent characteristics of the Ionic style were
developed from this root, and the influence of Asiatic motives was as
marked in regard to the sculpture as to the architecture of Hellas. The
fully perfected flower, however, but little betrays an Oriental
derivation in either province. The art of Asia Minor and of Syria had
taken an essentially different starting-point from that of Egypt--one
more nearly allied to the Greek point of view. Instead of formulating
the human figure by a fixed canon after the manner of the Egyptians, it
looked to nature itself, with a decided realistic tendency. But in its
later development, as already shown, Mesopotamian art went as much too
far beyond reality as that of Egypt had remained behind it; and the
self-sufficiency of the Eastern despotisms resulted in that utter
standstill which checked the life of art in Assyria, Persia, and
Phœnicia. The acquired forms, as upon the Nile, stiffened into
conventional types, with the difference that those of Egypt took more
the character of a written chronicle, those of Mesopotamia and its
dependencies more that of ornament. Hellenic genius could only remain
upon such a low level during its immaturity; there are, therefore,
almost no traces of direct Asiatic influence evident in the sculptures
of Greece after the most primitive period, although in this it is
unmistakable. We may call this period of development the heroic age, and
understand by it the epoch from the earliest times to the first
Olympiad, 776 B.C. Even the native legends concerning the beginning of
Greek art point towards the East. The mythical founders of monumental
buildings, the Cyclops, to whom were ascribed the oldest stone
sculptures, like those upon the Lions’ Gate of Mykenæ, came from Lycia.
The Dactylæ appear in groups upon the mountains of Phrygia and Crete
often bearing names characteristic of their significance as cunning
artisans--Kelmis, Damnameneus, and Acmon (hammer, tongs, and anvil);
while the Telchinæ--Chryson, Argyron, and Chalkon (workers in gold,
silver, and copper)--inhabited Rhodes. The personification of various
metal-workers in these mythical guilds is unequivocal, and the
attributed locality of their dwellings has a corresponding meaning,
pointing to the coasts of Western Asia, where the process of overlaying
wooden carvings with beaten metal was predominant, as in Phœnicia and
the intermediate island of Cyprus. This empaistic work, of plates shaped
upon a model by hammer and punch, presupposes the carving of the model
itself, without which the creation of the sphyrelaton was obviously
impossible. The gold overlaying of Solomon’s Temple was formed upon
reliefs carved in cedar-wood, and was, perhaps, beaten over them: before
the discovery of bronze-casting, we may conclude this also to have been
the case with works of statuary in the round. The art of sculpture in
wood seems to have been native among the early Greeks; carved idols,
xoana, soon appearing as substitutes for those stones and trunks of
trees (Paus. vii. 22), which, provided at times with the attributes of
trident, caduceus, lance, or sceptre, were at first worshipped as divine
symbols. These were frequently so old that no account could be given of
their origin, and they were consequently said to have fallen from the
skies. It is difficult adequately to conceive the rudeness of these most
ancient xoana. The arms were not at all separated from the body, and
were indicated only in as far as was necessary to attach to them
characteristic attributes, like the garment and spindle in one hand, and
the lance in the other, of the Trojan Athene described by Homer. The
sacred figure was frequently quite covered with real doll-like clothing,
as is the Virgin or the _Bambino_ in many modern places of pilgrimage
provided by the Roman Catholic Church. The difficulty of representing
the hair of these puppets appears, from the later treatment of the heads
in marble, as seen in the Apollo of Tenea, to have been evaded by the
use of a woolly covering like a wig. The want of definition in the faces
is evident from the statement that some xoana had closed eyes. This is
not to be explained by the pious legends of antiquity that the image had
refused to look upon some deed of sacrilege,--such, for instance, as the
rape of Cassandra,--but by the fact that the eye was indicated only by a
horizontal painted line. It was from such rude figures that Daidalos
advanced. It was not only said that he was the inventor of various
instruments for wood-working, such as the axe, saw, auger, and plummet;
but certain improvements in the shaping of the statues were also
ascribed to him, such as the opening--that is to say, the formation--of
the eye, and the separating of feet, as if in the act of stepping. The
progress cannot, in fact, have been great. The traditional account that
the images had to be bound after the freeing of their legs, to prevent
their running away, must not lead us to imagine an ideal perfection, or,
indeed, any striking resemblance to life. The classical authorities who
knew the works attributed to Daidalos say, indeed, that they were
“wonderful to look upon,” and that “the master would have made himself
ridiculous by such works in our day.” The personality of Daidalos is
hardly better assured than that of the mythical workers in metal, the
Dactylæ and Telchinæ; the name itself, signifying the cunning workman,
is nothing else than a personification of artistic skill, a collective
term for all primitive skill and activity in wood-carving. As this had
developed from handiwork, the legend calls the father of Daidalos,
Palamaon, the contriver, or Eupalamos, the skilful artisan. The travels
which Daidalos is said to have made from Athens to Crete, Sicily,
Thebes, Pisa, Egypt, etc., merely result from the appearance of
so-called Daidalian works in those places. In the time of Homer, the
ninth century B.C., these images were already regarded as of great age;
so that the period of the beginning of Greek sculpture must be at least
as remote as the tenth century B.C. The one statue directly mentioned in
the Iliad, the sitting Athene at Troy, upon whose knees the Trojan women
laid a garment, appeared to the author of the Homeric epics to be a work
in the manner of Daidalos. If another passage (Iliad, i. 14) may be
understood as referring to an image of Apollo, this must, like the
Athene, have been at least partially covered with real clothing. Such
figures were also overlaid with metal; it is not to be doubted that the
gold and silver dogs, and the youthful torch-bearers of gold, in the
Palace of Alkinoos were carved models of wood covered with beaten plate.
The empaistic process, native to Phœncian countries, was early imitated
in heroic Greece. Though the island of the Phæacians was idealized by
the fancy of the poet, he yet cannot be supposed to have invented new
technical processes in an account which was to be generally
intelligible. It seems, however, that sculptural art had no great range
during the heroic ages; perhaps the works overlaid with beaten metal,
which were known to Homer, may have been the results of an accidental
and superficial knowledge gained by intercourse with the Oriental
peoples inhabiting the coasts of Western Asia.

[Illustration: Fig. 187.--Cover of Dodwell’s Vase, in Munich. Full
size.]

The manufacture of furniture and smaller decorative objects was probably
more important. Homer was acquainted with the use of the lathe; while
relief-carving in wood, and inlaying of metal, ivory, and amber, were
early practised. The latter process can also be referred to Phœnician
influence, in consideration both of the materials employed and of
historical analogy. Even kings busied themselves with such handiwork, as
the building of his nuptial couch by Odysseus proves; and royal ladies,
such as Penelope, Andromache, and Helen, embroidered and wove elaborate
textures. Professional workmen are also mentioned: Icmalios was the
maker of Penelope’s seat; and some productions of this nature, like the
chest of Kypselos, were as late as the beginning of the historical ages
of Greece. Sculptured utensils of metal, vessels, tripods, and weapons,
are particularly and distinctly described in the Homeric epics. The jars
and vases described as “embossed with flowers” may be imagined as
decorated with wreaths, like those found in Assyria and on Cyprus, and
as similar to the early Italian bronzes. Cups with knobs (Iliad, xi.
633) were discovered in the excavations at Nineveh; conventionalized
animals, serpents and birds (Iliad, xi. 17 and 634; Odyssey, xi. 610,
and xix. 227), are to be found upon many primitive vases, and may be
supposed to have existed as handles to vessels as well as upon clasps,
sword-belts, and armor. References to the Asiatic derivation of the
bronze-works known in prehistoric Greece are given by Homer, who
mentions craters from Sidon and a Cyprian coat of mail. The shields were
especially rich, being formed by several thin plates of metal secured
one over the other; every disk was of greater circumference than that
above it, only a narrow concentric rim of each thus remaining visible.
The inner circle alone upon the comparatively simple shield of Agamemnon
(Iliad, xi. 32) was ornamented with sculpture, in this case a
Gorgoneion, the outer edges being provided with ten knobs of tin; upon
the handle was a three-headed dragon. The shield of Achilles (Iliad,
xviii. 468) was wonderfully elaborate, and, as the work of Hephaistos,
probably exceeded by far the ordinary ornamentation of heroic arms; but
it does not, on this account, give less reliable information concerning
the general form and nature of prehistoric armor. Five layers of metal
were superimposed,--two of bronze, two of tin, perhaps alternating, that
in the centre being of gold; four rings were thus formed around the
inner circle, each covered with rich sculptural decoration. Symbols of
earth, sea, and sky, with the sun, moon, and stars, were within the
golden disk. Upon one side of the first concentric band was shown a city
in time of peace, with a wedding procession and a court of justice; upon
the other a besieged city, with a sally of the defenders and a general
engagement. Upon the second ring were the four seasons, indicated by
ploughing, harvesting, the vintage, and by a herd of peacefully grazing
cattle attacked by lions. A harvest dance of youths and maidens, before
whom was a singer with a harp, decorated the third ring; while the
fourth and outermost, probably narrower than the others, was ornamented
by waves representing the sea, which, according to the conception of the
ancients, surrounded the circular land of the earth. The figures were
cut from thin sheets of different metals, and were riveted to the
ground; it is uncertain whether these were first beaten to a relief, or
were left flat, giving the effect of a silhouette. The metals were
naturally chosen of colors different from that of the band to which they
were affixed, and the treatment, in principle, thus somewhat approached
the art of painting. The ground and the vineyards, in the pictures of
the seasons, were of gold, yet “the grapes shone blackish;” the poles
appear to have been of silver, the trenches of iron, and the hedges of
tin, while upon the dancers “hung golden daggers upon silver straps.”
Such empaistic work must have been more closely related to surfaces of
inlaid metal upon wooden forms than to the statuesque Phœnician
sphyrelaton. Homer’s account of the shield of Achilles should be
considered not from a technical, but from an artistic, point of view.
The vivid description is, of course, due altogether to poetical license;
but we may well believe that subjects like the harvest dances, festive
processions, warlike scenes, symbols of the seasons, etc., may have been
attempted upon utensils and weapons, though in a more simple and
decorative manner, their object not being an artistic setting-forth of
details, but an intelligible indication of the whole. With what limited
means this is possible is proved by Egyptian coilanaglyphics, Assyrian
reliefs, and the paintings upon Greek vases of the most primitive style.
(_Fig._ 187.) The artist of the heroic age cut his figures from thin
sheets of metal, just as children snip paper, and set them together upon
the background, filling up the intervening spaces as best he might with
ornaments and names. Direct Oriental models were hardly needed for this;
but it is probable that, as in the sphyrelaton, the influence of Asia
Minor was felt: the conventional character of the types painted upon the
oldest Greek vases bears distinct evidence of a Phœnician impulse.
There was little that was artistic in the details of such early
decorations, but all the more in the conception as a whole: the manner
of expression was weak, but the thought was admirable. Figures appear
upon Assyrian sculptures, so similar to those described by the poet
that by their help one might almost reconstruct the Homeric shield; in
Mesopotamia, however, the representations lacked unity in the
fundamental conception, they were not well grouped in the given space,
and appear, as Brunn says, like a chronicle written in figures when
compared with such a poem as the artistic compositions, made up,
perhaps, of the same elements, described by Homer. The pseudo-Hesiodic
shield of Heracles resembled that of Achilles, the chief difference in
outward form being that the three inner of the five circular layers were
bordered upon the outer edges by narrow rings of steel. The middle plate
was decorated with the head of Phoibos, encircled by twelve serpents
like a Gorgon. The next band displayed a warlike scene and one of peace:
the combat of the Lapithæ and Centaurs in one half, and Apollo among the
Muses in the other. The third had a like contrast between a besieged and
a peaceful city, similar in composition to those upon the shield of
Achilles; while the fourth was also a representation of the seasons,
chiefly distinguished from those of Homer by the substitution of a
hare-hunt as the symbol of winter. The reliefs upon the four narrow
steel rings must have differed in action from the larger groups; in the
latter the radial lines of the upright figures prevailed, in the former
a contrary movement was predominant. On the innermost steel ring boars
and lions moved concentrically around the shield; upon the next
following was an arm of the sea, over which flew Perseus, pursued by the
Gorgons. The third was a chariot-race at full speed; and upon the outer
rim were conventionalized waves, with fishes and swans, forming an
ornamental band similar to the border of the Homeric shield.

[Illustration: Fig. 188.--Relief from the Gate of the Lions at Mykenæ.]

Our knowledge of the sculptural activity of Greece in the heroic ages
has, up to the most recent times, been derived almost entirely from the
poets, whose idealized descriptions are supported, in regard to form,
only by the analogy of Assyrian reliefs and the paintings upon archaic
vases. Works of a primitive period have, indeed, not been entirely
wanting; but it being impossible to date them, they lend no aid to an
historical consideration. The derivation and age of only two are
assured, and the characteristic forms of one of these--the Niobe upon
Mt. Sipylos, near Magnesia, mentioned in the Iliad, xxiv. 613--are
entirely obliterated. It is so rudely executed, or so weather-beaten,
that even in antiquity it appeared to Pausanias, even when seen from the
immediate vicinity, as but a shapeless rock, in which the human figure
was scarcely to be recognized, while, at a distance, it resembled a
woman bowed down with grief and weeping. The account has been verified
in recent times by the discovery of a rock-cut relief of three times the
size of life, so disintegrated that satisfactory drawings of its human
forms could not be made. This renders the other pre-Homeric monument,
the most ancient known sculpture of Greece and of Europe, all the more
important--namely, the relief over the gate of Mykenæ, called by the
poet that of the Lions--the chief portal of the fortress of the Atridæ,
the witness of the departure of Agamemnon for the Trojan war, and of the
downfall of his house on his return. (_Figs._ 188 and 126.) The
structure has been already described from an architectural point of
view. The relief upon the slab which closes the triangle above the
lintel represents two lions standing upright upon either side of a
column; their heads, turned outward, were separate pieces, fastened with
dowels to the background, and have disappeared. The designation of these
animals need not be deemed erroneous because they have no manes.
Pausanias speaks of them as lions (though this in itself may not be of
great weight), and in the Phœnician examples of beaten metal-work, as
in the archaic paintings upon Greek vases, the indication of hair is
always wanting. The Asiatic influence which, in architectural respects,
had made itself felt upon the Tholos of Atreus, must be acknowledged
here also; thus alone is it possible to account for a peculiar modelling
of the forms, entirely foreign to sculpture in stone. The resemblance of
these lions to the animal figures of Assyria is readily recognizable; it
is the same resemblance as that which the art industry of the Syrian
coasts showed to that of Mesopotamia. The Phœnician tradespeople,
themselves skilled in many novel technical processes, formed the medium
between the cultured countries upon the Tigris and the Ægean Sea. The
Lycian Cyclops had also borrowed from these neighbors, and to them was
traditionally attributed this wonderful stone carving at Mykenæ, a work
which, from all appearance, was an isolated attempt. Such sculptures
could not become national and native so long as the requirements of the
heroic Greeks were satisfied with the mere decoration of useful objects.
The impulse towards monumental art seems first to have been awakened
with the introduction of the columnar temple. Schliemann’s excavations
upon the Acropolis of Mykenæ in 1876 have brought to light some few
works of sculpture which deserve to be considered. Prominent among them
are the memorial stones, two of which are shown in Fig. 189. They are
remarkable for a naïve primitiveness of conception and the desire to
display the subject chosen as distinctly as possible. A vigorous action
and a certain observation of nature are not lacking, though the forms
are incorrect, both in general effect and in detail. The similarity of
these works to Asiatic sculptures is marked; but no trace of Egyptian
influence is to be recognized in the attenuated figures. The same
derivation is evident in the spiral ornaments, which closely resemble
those upon the façade of the Tholos of Atreus, and upon Phœnician and
Cyprian remains. All the reliefs imply models of beaten metal, and lend
further support to the hypothesis which connects the heroic age of
Greece with the civilization of Western Asia, through the medium of
Phœnician traders.

[Illustration: Fig. 189.--Steles from the Acropolis of Mykenæ.]

The golden masks found in the graves are not less interesting, whether
the assignment of these to the Homeric worthies--Agamemnon, Eurymedon,
etc.--be accepted or not. (_Fig._ 190.) It is at least certain that they
are memorials of the heroic age, and the great quantities of gold found
in the sepulchres make it probable that they appertained to a royal
race, and were buried at a time when the prosperity of Mykenæ was great
and its power extensive. The masks, like the grave-stones, are formed
with the helpless realism peculiar to the art of Western Asia, and
entirely foreign to that of Egypt. It is easy to believe that they were
imported directly from Phœnicia. This must certainly have been the
case with the beautifully executed ornaments of gold--disks, diadems,
stars, etc.--the beaten workmanship of which is of a perfection only
possible to trained and practised manufacturers. The spirals and other
linear designs are executed with exceeding accuracy, by peculiar
instruments. Their motives are taken from the animal and vegetable
world, from cuttle-fishes, butterflies, and various forms of leaves and
flowers. It is certain that the perforated cylinders, cut, like gems, in
intaglio, with scenes of war and hunting, were introduced directly from
Asia; they are strikingly similar to the rolling seals of carnelian and
agate found in Mesopotamia. A small model of a temple is peculiarly
Phœnician, like that repeated upon Paphian coins.

[Illustration: Fig. 190.--Golden Mask from Mykenæ.]

[Illustration: Fig. 191.--From the Vase of Clitias and Ergotimos.]

During the first two historical centuries, after the commencement of
reckoning time by Olympiads, the direction of activity in art appears to
have changed but little. Sculpture, represented by guilds, or families,
of handicraftsmen in Athens, Argos, and Sikyon, remained little else
than decoration, though, at least in the selection of subjects, it
opened for itself new fields. In the heroic ages the scenes were limited
to the most immediate realities; but, after the Homeric epics had become
the property of the nation, the picturesque treasures of many legends
became available. Arctinos of Miletos, in the middle of the eighth
century, and, somewhat later, Lesches of Lesbos, continuing the Iliad,
sang of the downfall of Troy. Stasimos of Cyprus chose preceding events
as his theme; while the myths of the Seven against Thebes, of the
Titanomachia, and of the exploits of Heracles and Theseus found similar
epic illustration. These poems not only provided the subjects for
sculpture, but described them with plastic vividness. This is shown by
the two chief works of this period,--the Chest of Kypselos and the
Throne of Apollo at Amyclæ. The first was an oblong shrine of
cedar-wood, which Kypselos, tyrant of Corinth, consecrated in the
Heraion of Olympia, in memory of his preservation as a child, when,
hidden in a fruit-box, he had escaped from the persecution of the
Bacchiadæ. This chest, either upon three sides--the fourth standing
against the wall--or upon the long front side alone, was ornamented with
carvings, in five bands, one over the other, probably of unequal height.
The reliefs, partly inlaid with ivory and gold, must have been of a
workmanship similar to that customary in the heroic ages. The uncommonly
rich and varied representations, almost exclusively mythological and
heroic, were taken from the before-mentioned cyclic poems (Pausanias, v.
17 to 19). The figures appear to have somewhat resembled in style those
upon the Vase of Clitias and Ergotimos in Florence (_Fig._ 191), which,
on account of its banded arrangement and the similarity of its mythical
subject, deserves, rather than the cover of Dodwell’s vase given above
(_Fig._ 187), to be compared to the Chest of Kypselos. The Throne of
Apollo at Amyclæ, near Sparta, has been connected with the name of one
of the oldest artists known, Bathycles of Magnesia, who lived half a
century later than the maker of the Chest of Kypselos. This throne also
has been minutely described by Pausanias (iii. 18 to 19). In regard to
its sculptured decoration, his account of its construction is
unintelligible; it is only clear that the framework was colossal, and
that the ancient doll-like image stood within it, without any seat. Not
less than forty-one scenes, besides the larger compositions upon the
pedestal of the statue, covered the outer and inner sides of the throne
with carvings in low-relief, similar in style to those of the Chest of
Kypselos. Upon the legs in full, or at least in three-quarter, relief
were figures of the Graces, the Hours, Tritons, etc.; upon the back
were portraits of the master and of his Magnesian assistants, besides
sphinxes, panthers, and lions.

These works were still chiefly of a decorative character. Monumental
sculpture had not yet freed itself from the trammels of inadequately
developed technical processes. So long as the artisan had no choice
other than the sphyrelaton and the xoanon, a material foundation was
wanting for the development of an independently artistic sculpture. Even
when isolated works of a higher order were attempted, as in the colossal
Zeus, of beaten gold-plate over a wooden form, dedicated in Olympia by
Kypselos or his son Periander, they can be considered, like the other
sphyrelata of this and of the heroic age, only as figures of great
material value but of little artistic importance. Want of skill in
execution favored that clinging to old honored types of devotional
figures inherent in the nature of all religions. These influences stood
in such close, interchangeable relations that it is impossible to say
whether, in the province of sculptured images, the slowness of progress
should be placed more to the account of religious prejudices and the
difficulties thrown in the way of all change by hieratic institutions,
or of the technical limitations of doll-like xoana and sphyrelata.

New mechanical acquirements were needed for the furtherance of the art.
Three great discoveries, or, to speak more correctly, the extended
application of known processes, date from the beginning of the sixth
century B.C.: the casting of bronze, the sculpture of marble, and
chryselephantine work (the inlaying of gold and ivory upon a wooden
kernel). Each of these had its gradual development, at least the first
and the last being furthered by auxiliary inventions. It was
indispensable for the casting of bronze that modelling in clay should
have attained a certain perfection. The name of the Sikyonian potter
Boutades is connected with the introduction of this branch of art; it
appears to have been in the middle of the seventh century B.C. that he
ornamented the acroteria and antefixes of the temple roof, first with
low-relief (prostypon) and then with high-relief (ectypon). He also left
a portrait panel in terra-cotta, shown in the Nymphaion of Corinth until
the destruction of that city as the first work of its kind. In
connection with it was told the pleasing anecdote that the daughter of
Boutades, in taking leave of her lover, sketched his shadow upon the
wall with charcoal, the father afterwards filling out the outline with
clay and burning the relief thus produced. Neither of these accounts are
of great direct value, but that a potter could achieve a lasting
reputation as an artist may perhaps show that modelling in clay had
already made essential progress, and thus prepared the way for
brass-founding, which requires an original and mould of this more
plastic material. The discovery of soldering was also not without
significance; it formed, in metal work, a connecting link between the
riveting of the sphyrelaton and casting, even indispensable to larger
statues of the latter process, which, at least in the beginning, were
executed in pieces. Soldering seems first to have been employed upon
iron. Glaucos of Chios attained great results by this means, and
attracted general attention to it in the seventh century B.C. His iron
crater-stand, dedicated at Delphi by Alyattes, was an elaborate work,
ornamented upon the legs and clasps with sculptured animals and plants.

The way was thus prepared for monumental bronze-founding, which was not,
indeed, discovered by the Samians Rhoicos and Theodoros, the sons of
Phileas and Telecles, to whom it was attributed by antiquity,--for, as
has been seen, it was practised by the Phœnicians,--but was by them
first introduced into Greek art. The dates assigned to their epoch vary
from the beginning of the seventh to the middle of the sixth century
B.C.; but it is the more reasonable to place them, with Brunn, at the
close of this period, without supposing that there were two masters by
the name of Theodoros, a father and a son. The innovation probably began
with the solid casting of smaller works, but whether Rhoicos and
Theodoros were limited to this is at least doubtful. Economy of material
and the lessening of weight in figures of great dimensions must soon
have led to hollow casting upon a fire-proof kernel; it is possible that
it was this very progress that made the two artists celebrated as
discoverers. The development of their technical improvements seems at
first to have impaired the artistic aspects of the works; Pausanias says
of a female statue by Rhoicos, probably in the Temple of Artemis at
Ephesos, that it was even more archaic and rude than a figure of Athene
in Amphissa which was there held to be Trojan. That the two Samians also
practised in beaten metal work is clear from the colossal silver
mixing-vessel, containing six hundred amphoras (about 200,000 litres),
executed by Theodoros and dedicated at Delphi by Crœsus, from a
golden vine with grapes of mounted jewels, and a golden plane-tree in
the possession of the Persian kings; the latter works remind us of
examples of similar workmanship in the Assyrian palaces, the existence
of which has been proved by the fragments of palms in gold-plate, lately
found by Place upon a portal in the palace of Sargon, at Corsabad. If
Theodoros worked thus extensively in the precious metals, it is not
surprising that he produced such small toreutic objects as those
indicated by the legend of the ring of Polycrates, ascribed to him, and
the fabulous portrait statue of a man, with a quadriga in his hand which
a fly might have covered with its wings.

A still more brilliant future was open to the second innovation, that of
sculpture in marble. Chios was the birthplace of Hellenic marble
statuary, as Samos had been of bronze-casting. Coarse stone had been
employed from the earliest times, in isolated instances like the relief
over the Gate of the Lions at Mykenæ, for figures and for small images;
and the introduction of marble statuary was older than bronze-founding,
for Melas, ancestor of a long race of sculptors in Chios, lived about
the middle of the seventh century B.C. Of Melas himself and his son
Mickiades little except the names are known; an artist of the third
generation, Achermos, could venture to represent a winged Victory, yet
even he was surpassed by his sons Boupalos and Athenis. It is evident,
from several notices, that marble sculpture flourished greatly under
these latter, who, living about 540 B.C., had become very particular in
the choice of material--using only the fine-grained and translucent
Parian lychnites. No one venturing to dispute their precedence, they
could place upon their sculptures, exhibited in Delos, the
self-conscious inscription: “Chios is celebrated, not alone for its
vineyards, but for the works of the sons of Achermos.” Numerous works by
them are mentioned by ancient visitors, being collected in later times
by princely _dilettanti_. Augustus employed such sculptures upon the
exterior of many of his buildings, notably in the gable of the Palatine
temple of Apollo; he had an especial and, as it appears, a not
ill-founded liking for them, and these works could not have been a
disfigurement, even to the universal magnificence of imperial Rome. An
explanation of this marked advance at so early a date is given by this
very fancy of Augustus: the works thus architecturally utilized could
not have been devotional images of the deities; they must have been
decorative sculptures. The former class, from reasons already touched
upon, were hindered in artistic progress; the latter being beyond the
jurisdiction of hieratic institutions, developed untrammelled. It was
only in ornamental figures that the assiduous and talented sculptors of
early times found free scope, and it was fortunate that the demand for
these architectural and decorative works must naturally have been
greater than for the more rare devotional images, which were piously
transferred from the older sanctuaries to the new buildings which took
their place. The gable groups of Ægina show how unequally art advanced
in these different and distinct fields.

During the time of Boupalos and Athenis, art began to flourish in other
places than Chios. First in Sikyon, with the two Cretans Dipoinos and
Skyllis, who may have been even older than the last Chian masters. They
were called, it seems, to Sikyon, and there chiefly employed their
energies in founding a school, changing at times the site of their
labors to Argos, Cleonæ, and Ambrakia. Like the masters of Chios, they
chiefly employed the marble of Paros, and it appears, from the accounts
of a group representing Apollo, Artemis, Athene, and Heracles, that they
too sought their fame less in devotional images for the interior of
temples than in monumental compositions for architectural ornament.
Although these Cretan sculptors, according to the testimony of Pliny,
acquired great celebrity in marble working, they are more important as
the founders of the third among the statuesque arts above
mentioned--that process of gold and ivory overlaying which culminated in
the greatest masterpieces of Pheidias. It seems to have originated from
the native xoana of early times, by transferring the inlaid decoration
observed upon the furniture of the heroic ages to sculpture in the
round. It developed in plainly distinguishable stages. Dipoinos and
Skyllis still only in part covered the carved core of wood, and
restricted this overlaying to ivory. This is illustrated by the accounts
of a group of the mounted Dioscuri, with their mistresses Hilasia and
Phœbe, and their sons Anaxis and Mnasinos, in the Temple of the Isius
at Argos, which was cut out of common wood and ebony, the former being
covered with ivory. Statues were made by Hegylos and his son Theocles,
scholars of Dipoinos and Skyllis, for the treasure-house of the
Epidamnians in Olympia, which represented Heracles with the Nymphs of
the Hesperides, and Atlas bearing the heavenly globe; Pausanias
describes this work as cut from cedar-wood, and the serpent and the tree
with the golden apples of the Hesperides must certainly have required
the inlaying of gold, if not of ivory. The author particularly mentions
the employment of gold upon another group: the struggle of Heracles with
Acheloos for Deianeira, the work of Donycleidas and Dontas of
Lacedæmonia, also scholars of the Cretan masters. The perfection of the
chryselephantine process seems early to have been obtained, the wood,
before in great part visible, was by the latter artists used only as a
kernel, being completely covered with ivory and gold. This was, at
least, the case with the Themis of Donycleidas in the Temple of Hera at
Olympia. That Pausanias considers these statues extremely archaic must
be understood as a relative judgment; it is to be borne in mind that
works by which a new process is introduced are always of a primitive and
imperfect appearance, if not artistically backward. A sphyrelaton of
beaten copper-plates riveted together was still possible to this school,
for a figure of Athene Chalkioicos at Sparta was the work of Clearchos
of Rhegion, a member of this guild. The sphyrelaton was, indeed, nearly
related to chryselephantine work which was virtually a combination of
the sphyrelaton with the ancient xoanon. The Æginetan Smilis, of this
group of scholars, was celebrated as the first great artist of his
island. His connection with the Cretans is more certain than with the
later sculptors of Ægina; if he should prove to be older than the native
Sikyonian masters, as has recently been asserted, this would add another
site to the primitive schools of Greek art.

[Illustration: Fig. 192.--Metope Relief from the Middle Temple of the
Acropolis of Selinous.]

The history of sculpture, drawn from the remarks of ancient writers,
would bear only upon the development of these technical processes, and
would give but little information concerning the style of this period,
if it were not possible to compare their accounts with several ancient
monuments which by great good-fortune have been preserved to our own
time. But it is necessary here not to overlook one point which is
frequently lost sight of altogether--namely, the local differences
betrayed by works of one or the same epoch. Examples of archaic stone
sculpture are presented by European Greece, by the Hellenic colonies of
the East in Asia Minor, and by those of the West in Sicily, which show
the two latter provinces to have followed a somewhat different course of
artistic development, and even the works of the Peloponnesos early to
have betrayed considerable variations, in conception and in principle,
from those of the more northern tracts of the Continent. Among the
provincial monuments, the first to be noted, because the oldest known,
are the metope reliefs upon the middle temple of the Acropolis of
Selinous in Sicily. The city was founded about 628 B.C., and, though
this temple may not have been the first built in the new colony, it must
be considered as dating at least from the first half of the sixth
century. Among numerous fragments of the metope sculptures two tablets
have been preserved almost uninjured which are of the greatest value
from the plainness with which they express both the artistic advance and
the imperfections of this early age. It would be a mistake, however, to
see in them representatives of the sculptural style of Greece proper,
for they betray in many respects the peculiar influences of Sicilian
Doric. In as far as the artistic understanding of the works permitted,
they evince a fresh and sound naturalism, and a careful observation of
the living model. But this did not extend beyond the more independent
members; while arms and legs, hands and feet, are relatively excellent,
the body and head are disagreeably heavy, rude, and ill-proportioned.
This contrast is particularly noticeable in that of the two reliefs
which represent Heracles carrying upon his bow the two Kercopes. The
more successful modelling of the details of the limbs shows it to have
been the work of an abler artist than the other (_Fig._ 192), where
Perseus, in the presence of Athene, cuts off the head of Medusa. The
deity, with naïve helplessness, turns her right foot sideways, though
otherwise facing entirely towards the front; the insufficient depth
rendered it impossible otherwise to give the foot its full length, and
the artist was perhaps withheld from a more correct form by an
unconscious dependence upon the more familiar style of low relief. The
left leg of the Medusa appears, on account of the confining frame, too
short by half, and the little Pegasos stands upon long, kangaroo-like
hinder legs, in order that the body may come within reach of the arm of
Medusa. Yet the weakness of the transition from the front view of the
upper body to the profile of the legs is less striking than in the
Egyptian and Assyrian sculptures, and both Perseus and Heracles are
wholly free from that typical petrifaction which characterized the art
of the Nile and of the Tigris. In spite of the first impression made by
the monstrous and disproportioned figures, these works have, with all
their imperfections, the peculiar charm of earnest effort, which is the
guarantee of ultimate success.

[Illustration: Fig. 193.--Statues from Miletos. British Museum.]

The most ancient Hellenic sculptures of Asia Minor do not show the same
self-reliance and direct study of nature. There the influence of
Mesopotamia, Phœnicia, Cyprus, and even of Egypt was so strongly felt
that art could not remain wholly free from canonical tendencies, and did
not develop simply and directly from natural models. The sitting
colossal statues which flanked the sacred way from the port of Panormos
to the Temple of Apollo Didymaios near Miletos, and, according to the
characters of the inscriptions, date from about 540 B.C., show the
naturalistic elements of Greek work in the treatment of the bodies, and
especially in the garments, with their scanty but correct folds; though
it is not to be denied that the arrangement in rows like the avenues of
sphinxes, and the enthroned, Memnon-like position of the priests and
priestesses betray reminiscences of Egyptian conceptions,--while the
fulness of the bodies and the technical details of the seats are more
similar to the traditional forms of Assyria and Phœnicia. The Asiatic
influence is still more evident in the epistyle and metope reliefs of
the remarkable Doric temple at Assos, now in the Louvre; though the
rudeness of their forms may be in part owing to the loss of the stucco
coating with which the coarse and excessively hard stone was doubtless
overlayed and in which many of the finer details may have been executed.
A similarity to the beaten work of metal plate peculiar to Phœnicia
is easily recognizable, and reliefs analogous in style, and even in
subject, to the sculptures of Assos are offered by the Etruscan
bronze-work of a chariot found in Perugia, now in the Munich Glyptothek.

[Illustration: Fig. 194.--Apollo of Thera.]

[Illustration: Fig. 195.--Archaic Relief from Sparta.]

A number of sculptures found in various parts of European Greece are
wholly different from these provincial works. Chief among them are
entirely nude youthful figures standing in a stiff position, the arms
hanging close to the body, and the legs separated--the left being
generally a little advanced; the head, with receding brow, is slightly
inclined, and looks directly forward; the eyes are large and protruding;
the smiling mouth drawn outward at the corners; while the wig-like hair
falls low over the shoulders. They are commonly designated as statues of
Apollo, although the want of all attributes, such as were so universally
employed by primitive art for the figures of deities, and which were so
necessary for their characterization, makes this more than uncertain.
Moreover, according to Plutarch, a Delian statue of Apollo, the work of
Tectaios and Angelion, teachers of the Æginetan Callon, and consequently
of this period, showed the god with outstretched hands; a position which
was typical in early antiquity, and seems long to have been retained, as
in the Milesian Apollo of Canachos, and the small bronze figure in the
Louvre. The supposition appears plausible that these figures are those
of victors in the national games of Greece; such votive offerings are
known to have been carved of wood in the earliest times, but, after 560
B.C., they appear to have been of stone, like that of Arrhachion in
Phigalia, described by Pausanias (viii. 40). The Apollo of Thera, now in
Athens (_Fig._ 194), is one of the more ancient of these works; the soft
and yet not voluptuous forms of the body, the beauty of outline, united
with an evident uncertainty, do not denote a later phase of artistic
development than the hard sharpness and strict conventionalism of the
greater number of archaic statues. The beginning of this discipline is
shown by the Apollo of Tenea, now at Munich, in which there is but
little grace and artistic beauty, but all the more an earnest striving
after close correctness of modelling, which is more successfully
attained in the limbs than in the trunk. Of this epoch, and similar in
style, though approaching more nearly to the Apollo of Thera, are the
marble statues of Orchomenos, preserved only to the knees, and the
torsos of Megara and Naxos, now in Athens. The more ancient sculptures
found in Greece proper are less antique in style than the sculptures and
reliefs already mentioned, with the exception of some marble steles from
Sparta, the most important of which represents upon the one side the
meeting of Orestes and Iphigenia, upon the other the murder of
Clytaimnestra (_Fig._ 195). The rude, short figures are somewhat similar
to those in the metopes of the middle temple upon the Acropolis of
Selinous. This excessive heaviness and awkwardness appears almost
entirely overcome in the stele of Aristion, found in northern Attica,
and now in Athens. The low relief (_Fig._ 196), designated as the work
of Aristocles, represents a man armed as a hoplite, and is similar, in
many important respects, to the Apollo of Tenea, though a decided
advance beyond that work. The Attic relief of a woman mounting a
chariot, notwithstanding a primitive harshness of form, shows, in the
graceful drapery, the inclination of the head and the position of the
arms, as well as in the greater certainty of the drawing, qualities
which cannot be ascribed exclusively to the superior perception of the
inhabitants of Attica, but must be due, at least in part, to a later and
more advanced stage of development. With these works may be compared the
so-called Leucothea relief in the Villa Albani, which does not, indeed,
equal them in composition, but is superior in grace of bearing and
beauty of detail. Another sculpture represents the bringing of a child
to a female figure seated upon a throne, perhaps the dead mother, and is
similar in subject to the celebrated reliefs of the Monument of the
Harpies at Xanthos, now in the British Museum, where the Harpies bear
children or souls to the deities of the lower world. The former, by
greater fulness and softness, as also by less clearness and
understanding in the general treatment, seems to precede the latter in
point of time, dating from the period between the Milesian colossal
figures and the Attic reliefs described, that is to say, from 520 to 500
B.C.

[Illustration: Fig. 196.--Stele of Aristion, by Aristocles.]

The older metopes of Selinous, the statues of Miletos, the reliefs of
Assos, and even the so-called figures of Apollo from Thera, Naxos,
Orchomenos, and Tenea, betray great looseness and uncertainty of form;
like the productions of every period of experiment, they give no
evidence of systematical and accepted principles--the canonical
establishment of a certain degree of perfection. In the subsequent
period there was, in various cities, an earnest endeavor to make an end
to this want of training by thorough and academic discipline. These
efforts could not, in Greece, result in that typical lifelessness, that
faulty execution and mannerism, universal in Egypt and the despotic
lands of the East, which operated against all direct study of nature;
but, by the combination of individual observations and improvements,
they increased and purified the artistic appreciation, no longer
restricting it to details, to the _partial_, but directing it to the
_complete_. Athens was most active in this advance, as is evident from
several ancient works closely related to that of the woman mounting the
chariot. The progress is illustrated by the statue of Athene found upon
the northern side of the Athenian Acropolis. A strict treatment of
details, like the aigis, the folds of the garments, the hair, etc., is
united to a considerable understanding of the forms of the body and the
functions of the limbs, which are sharply and perhaps a little hardly
modelled; while the work has in great measure freed itself from the
exactions of conventional symmetry, so markedly exemplified by the
sitting statues of Miletos and the Apollo of Tenea. The figure of Hermes
bearing a calf, found in Athens, is a somewhat similar work; its head
and hair are hard even to ugliness, but decided ability is shown in the
formation of the back and hams, and in the truth to nature of the calf,
held by the legs and pressed close to the neck. The progress is not less
plain in the bronze statuette of Apollo in the Louvre, nearly one meter
high, with the Greek inscription “to Athene from the tithes;” provided,
indeed, that the period of its origin is certain, and the work does not
belong to the extensive group of archaistic imitations.

The reliefs from the beginning of the fifth century are similar in
character. That upon a marble fountain-drum from Corinth represents the
meeting of Heracles and Hebe; it still preserves the silhouette-like
outline, the small parallel folds and general ornamental style of the
drapery, and the stepping of both feet flatly upon the soles; while the
unschooled endeavor and evident embarrassment of the artist does not
give an unpleasing expression of awkwardness to the figures, which have
a certain dignity and grace, especially remarkable in the garments and
in the action of the extremities. Here is attained at last that strict
and completed style which has cast off all loose uncertainty, and has
adopted a conventional form for accessories in order to secure the
harmonious execution of the whole. This is also noticeable upon a relief
discovered in Thasos, now in the Louvre, which, when compared with the
before-mentioned Corinthian relief, and with the monument of the
Harpies, displays the influence of the neighboring coasts of northern
Asia Minor, together with a certain picturesqueness of conception
peculiar to northern Greece. A beautiful stele, found in Orchomenos, the
work of Alxenor, an artist from Naxos, instead of giving to the portrait
figure the stiff position of parade, formerly universal, represents it
with crossed legs, lazily leaning upon a gnarled stick. The archaic
meagreness is, however, still to be seen in the form of the hand, and in
the folds of the cloak (_Fig._ 197). The stele from the Borgia
collection, at present in Naples, resembles it in general style. All the
merits and defects of the period are to be seen also in a number of
terra-cotta reliefs from Melos, not to mention some small figures in
clay and bronze, for the most part superficially executed, the
clumsiness of which may be ascribed to the maker’s individual want of
ability.

[Illustration: Fig. 197.--Stele by Alxenor, found in Orchomenos.]

The growth of art in Asia Minor, Sicily, and Lower Italy, in so far as
these lands were Hellenic, does not appear to have kept equal pace with
that of Greece proper; yet the intercourse, during the last decades of
the sixth century, was so active that they could not remain far behind.
The most remarkable examples of the sculptures of this class, perhaps of
a little later date than the Attic works described, are the metope
reliefs from the Middle Temple of the Eastern Plateau at Selinous,
representing the gigantomachia, as preserved in scanty fragments.
Although the crudeness of outline and modelling in the bodies of the
fallen giants in many respects recalls the older metopes of the
corresponding temple of the acropolis, the draperies of the goddesses,
on the other hand, show a skill exceeding in truth and beauty many of
the archaic works of Greece itself. The one remaining head of a giant,
wounded and outstretched in death (_Fig._ 198), shows, in spite of the
antique hardness in the form of the face and treatment of the hair, an
expression which could have resulted only from the intelligent study of
nature. A relief from Aricia, now in Palma, upon the island of Mallorca,
representing the murder of Ægisthos by Orestes, is known only through
insufficient representations; it shows weakness in composition and
inequality in rendering, the garments being sensibly inferior to the
treatment of the nude.

[Illustration: Fig. 198.--Head from a Metope of the Middle Temple upon
the Eastern Plateau of Selinous.]

Before mentioning by name those artists who carried art beyond this
stage of development, another class of monuments, numerically very
important, should be considered. It is well known that in all ages
antiquity has had a certain charm, either as appearing strange and
interesting in comparison with existing circumstances, or from religious
associations. When a devotional figure, with which many legends have
become associated, as is the case to-day with the altar-pieces of our
churches, was particularly reverenced on account of its antiquity, there
was a desire to preserve its primitive type, even from recognized
improvements. Hence arose an imitation of the original work, called
_archaistic_ in contradistinction from the _archaic_, or really old.
This imitative style became fashionable in later times; while an amateur
with the means of the Emperor Augustus was able to acquire an original
Boupalos or Athenis, other lovers of the antique were obliged to content
themselves with copies, or with works conventionalized after the manner
of the early masters. These products are not always to be distinguished
from the truly archaic, as is also the case with some modern imitations;
but usually some conventional, technical, or circumstantial oversight or
anachronism furnishes an easy criterion. There can be no doubt, for
example, concerning the age of a work of sculpture in which a Roman
Corinthian temple stands in the background, as upon a well-known relief
representing Victory filling a cup for Apollo Kitharoidos, who is
followed by Artemis and Leto. In other cases the head, hands, or
feet,--the expression or gesture,--or the step, which in ancient works
characteristically rests upon both soles,--betray a much later period
than the hard or regular folds of the drapery, as is the case with the
Artemis at Naples. (_Fig._ 199.) Sometimes the accessories are of a
later style, as in the ten scenes from the Gigantomachia upon the border
of the garment of Athene in Dresden; or, finally, the drapery upon one
figure of a group is strictly antique, while that of the others is free,
as upon a tripod of the same museum,--not to mention other less
important inconsistencies.

[Illustration: Fig. 199.--Archaistic Artemis from Pompeii.]

[Illustration: Fig. 200.--Central Figures of the Western Gable, Temple
of Athene upon Ægina.]

[Illustration: Fig. 201.--Harmodios and Aristogeiton. (Copies in
Naples.)]

[Illustration: Fig. 202.--Apollo after Canachos. (British Museum.)]

An established conventionalism,--that contentment with the mere
handiwork of acquired forms which existed for centuries in the lands of
the Nile and Tigris,--was not possible in the early art of progressive
Greece. Upon the foundation of the artistic ability already attained at
this period, various local schools and individual sculptors rose to a
higher level, and effected an advance, partly by opening new channels
for the artistic industry of all Hellas, partly by pursuing paths which
remained peculiar to themselves. Athens and Ægina are especially
prominent in this activity; but, notwithstanding many scholarly
researches, the history of art is not able to distinguish with certainty
between the works of the two cities, an Attic example analogous to the
chief work of the island being wanting for instructive comparison. The
chief difference between the two may have been that the former school
had a less strict and trained execution than the latter, with more grace
of form and nobility of bearing. Callon and Onatas were prominent
artists of Ægina, the latter seeming to have been the more celebrated.
On account of the hardness of their work, both were considered inferior
to Calamis. Onatas is particularly interesting from our knowledge of two
of his chief sculptures--extensive dedicatory offerings to Olympia and
Delphi, one of which represented the Greeks before Troy, casting lots to
determine upon an opponent for Hector, and the other the combat over the
fallen King of the Tapygians, Opis. The subjects of these works,
especially the latter, and the peculiarity emphasized by Pausanias that
the heroes before Troy were represented armed only with helmet, spear,
and shield, probably to give scope for the display of the artist’s skill
in the treatment of the nude, remind us of the two well-preserved groups
from the gables of the Temple of Athene at Ægina, which, in point of
style, must have been closely allied to those of Onatas. These priceless
marbles were discovered in 1811, and the next year, by a chain of
fortunate circumstances, came into the possession of Louis I., then
Crown-prince of Bavaria. Ten of the remaining statues belong to the
western gable, and five to the eastern; the greater part of the former
group is thus preserved, and, as the scenes in both gables are almost
entirely alike, their general arrangement may be restored with
reasonable certainty. That over the chief front represents the struggle
for a fallen hero, probably Oicles in the contest of Heracles and the
Æginetan Telamon with Laomedon of Troy. In the rear tympanon the scene
is the recovery of the body of Achilles or of Patroclos. Subjects so
closely allied could lead to no great difference of composition, at most
to such slight variations as the characterization of Heracles in the
first group or of Paris in the second, if this latter be considered an
episode in which that hero took part. In both gables the fallen warrior
lay at the feet of the protecting Athene (_Fig._ 200), while on each
side, symmetrically disposed, a combatant of either party endeavors to
seize the body and drag it forth from the fray. Above these stooping
figures warriors threaten each other with lances; but it is not certain
whether there were two or four of these actively engaged. The latter
number has been recently assumed from numerous fragmentary remains,
which, if appertaining to the group at all, it is impossible otherwise
to locate; the refutation of this theory of Lange, which has been
attempted by Julius, does not terminate the vexed question. These
warriors were followed, according to Brunn’s arrangement, by two
kneeling lance-bearers, perhaps protecting the two archers in similar
position with their shields. One of the archers is shown by a leathern
cuirass and the so-called Phrygian cap to be an Oriental, perhaps Paris.
With the exception of Heracles in the eastern gable, who is
characterized by his lion’s skin, none of the other combatants are
personally distinguishable. The corners of the triangle are filled by
two fallen warriors. The whole group is thus composed with strict
reference to symmetrical correspondence, and to the conditions imposed
by the gable; all attempt to attain relative action and realism is
abandoned, and the impression of a pantomime is inevitable. The outlines
of the bodies, their position and action, are correct even to the
minutest details, and show a certainty of form and a technical
perfection, which, in the absence of all support for the bodies, or for
the extreme thinness of the shields, is truly astonishing. The figures
of the eastern gable appear particularly perfect, and are apparently the
works of later sculptors, less limited, in point of style and artistic
ability, than the master, or masters, of the western group. If in the
latter, as before remarked, it is natural to think of Onatas, the former
is correspondingly attributable to Calliteles, the son, scholar, and
assistant of Onatas, who worked in great measure like his father, but
also under the progressive influence of a younger generation. In
remarkable contrast to the excellent and, in formal characterization,
almost faultless, anatomical treatment of the bodies, two things appear
particularly important as indicating the limits of the artistic ability
of the time--namely, all the heads and the two statues of the deity
Athene. The former are without ideal beauty or expression, for which the
sculptor evidently felt himself incapable. He therefore carved the
features according to a certain formula, and the apparent smile,
resulting from the mouth being drawn outward and the corners of the
eyelids extended, is to be regarded as a meaningless reminiscence of the
older style. The eyes are too protruding and the chin too pointed and
small, defects of the earlier practice, not as yet entirely overcome.
The Athene shows how obstinately the devotional images were denied the
advances made in other sculptures, so that the traditional and hallowed
type might be preserved, as much as possible, from change. While for the
other statues the artist had before his eyes the living combatants of
the palaistra, his model for this was the sacred image standing within
the temple. The evident contrast between the stiff bearing and archaic
garments of the Athene and the rest of the group is thus more naturally
explained than by the view that, in the artist’s conception, the goddess
did not need any real action, that a slight lifting of the shield, as a
divine “thus far and no farther,” was sufficient to show her
supernatural power and to protect the fallen. The awkward turn of the
feet, which was owing less to the limitations of space than to the
reminiscence of an antique devotional image, might the more safely be
ventured, because it could not be seen at all from below. That the
sculptor, however, in his loving devotion to his work, took small
advantage of this last consideration, is clear from the fact that the
bodies are as carefully finished upon the back as upon the front,
although one half of this labor could never have been appreciated from
the first installation of the figures until their discovery among the
overthrown ruins and their reception in the Munich Glyptothek. The
effect of the whole was essentially heightened by the bronze
accessories, such as lances, belts with swords, bows, arrows, a
Gorgoneion and serpents upon the aigis of Athene, etc.; and even more by
the intense red, blue, and other colors upon the helmets and waving
crests, shields, and borders of the garments, sandals, and leather-work,
as well as by the tinting of the hair, eyes, and lips--all which
painting was probably in strict harmony with the neighboring
architectural members, which were doubtless treated with similar
pigments. Of other statues of archaic stamp only one has proved to be
contemporaneous with, and of the same school as, the gable sculptures of
Ægina--namely, the so-called Strangford youth in the British Museum. The
work is more closely allied to the statues of the western than to those
of the later eastern gable of the temple; but, notwithstanding a marked
similarity in the treatment of the torso, the formation of the features
differs so distinctly that the figure can hardly be ascribed to the same
master. When Pausanias says of Onatas that, although belonging to Ægina,
he still does not rank him below any contemporaneous sculptor of Attica,
this summary praise speaks less directly for the individuality of Onatas
than for the decided relative position of the two schools. It shows that
in general the style of Ægina was esteemed inferior. It may be concluded
that there were at least three Athenian sculptors of this time who
surpassed the artists of the gable groups of the temple upon Ægina,
namely, Hegias (Hegesias), Critios, and Nesiotes, not to mention the
somewhat older Endoios, Antenor, and Amphicrates. Literary notices of
their works do not convey any valuable information; but Friedrichs has
discovered in the sculptures of the Museum of Naples which hitherto had
passed under the name of the Gladiators, copies from one of the best
works of Critios and Nesiotes. (_Fig._ 201.) They represent Harmodios
and Aristogeiton, the assassins of the tyrant Hipparchos,--a group
recognized by an Attic tetradrachm, by the relief ornamenting a marble
seat at Athens, and by a weaker reproduction now in the Giardino Boboli
at Florence. As copies of this kind do not allow definite conclusions
concerning the style of celebrated monuments, we must regard in them
only the general composition. They suffice, however, to show that the
figures, which are of a free and bold action, cannot be referred to the
Monument of Antenor, built as early as 509 B.C. Besides the schools of
Ægina and Athens, there were at this period sculptural workshops of good
repute in Sikyon, Argos, Corinth, and Thebes. As early as the time of
the Cretan Daidalidæ Dipoinos and Skyllis, Sikyon was one of the chief
cities of artistic industry; and at the beginning of the fifth century
two celebrated brothers, Canachos and Aristocles, stood at the head of a
local school which lasted for seven generations. The chief work of
Canachos, the colossal Apollo of the Branchidæ sanctuary in Miletos,
holding a movable, probably automatic, stag in the outstretched right
hand, is known only by representations upon coins, and by a bronze
statuette in the British Museum (_Fig._ 202); the latter shows that the
master was but little removed from the archaic hardness of earlier
times, though endeavoring to attain greater power and nobility of form,
particularly in the head and features. Another colossal Apollo by
Canachos in Thebes differed from the figure in Miletos in being made of
wood. The chryselephantine Aphrodite in Sikyon, represented with the
polos upon the head and with poppy flower and apples in the hands, must
have been particularly archaic in conception. Two other works, more
removed from hieratic influences and limitations, were probably of a
less restricted style; namely, the Muse with the Syrinx, executed with
two others by the master’s brother, Aristocles, and the Young Racers.

The school of Argos is celebrated by one great name, immediately
connected with the highest development of art, Ageladas, the
contemporary of the masters of Ægina, Athens, and Sikyon previously
mentioned. From the silence of ancient authors in regard to this
master’s style, little information can be given concerning it; it is
only known that the Muse with the Barbiton, his many figures of Zeus and
Heracles, various statues of victors, quadrigas, and groups of votive
offerings in Delphi, were of bronze. Ageladas was the teacher of three
of the greatest sculptors of Greece--Myron, Polycleitos, and Pheidias;
and he must, if on this account alone, be ranked above his
contemporaries. The history of art would receive but little furtherance
by a detailed consideration of the other Argive sculptors, Aristomedon,
Glaucos, and Dionysios; of the Corinthians, Diyllos, Amyclaios, and
Chionis; of the Thebans, Aristomedos, Socrates, and others; of Callon of
Elis; or of the Spartan Gitiades. Prominent as these must have been,
they appear rather to have demonstrated the vigor of their schools, and
the influence of those of Ægina and Athens, than by individual gifts to
have raised themselves above the academic art of their time. As masters
of personal importance, in whom the progress made by their own genius
far exceeded their early training, may be mentioned three younger
sculptors: Calamis, probably of Athens; Pythagoras of Rhegion, in Magna
Græcia; and Myron of Eleutheræ, on the borders of Bœotia. Calamis
worked chiefly in devotional figures, and in these could not entirely
throw off the hieratic limitations in regard to position and treatment
of details. He was accounted somewhat less hard in style than Canachos
or Callon, but inferior to Myron in truthfulness to nature. This master
seems to have made little advance in the modelling of the body as a
whole, though Lucian praises the rhythmical position of the feet and the
beauty of the joints of his Sosandra; but in the representation of the
head he succeeded in making decided progress when compared with the
artists of the gable groups of Ægina. In this respect his Alcmene must
have been highly important; but chief among the works of Calamis was the
Sosandra, probably an Aphrodite, which became proverbial on account of
its grace and beauty. Lucian, when comparing the most distinguished
examples among all the works of art to illustrate perfect beauty, did
this with the significant words, “Calamis may ornament our ideal with
chaste modesty, and its smile may be honorable and unconscious as that
of Sosandra.” In view of this judgment, it is plain that the stiff, ugly
heads of the Æginetan marbles are not to be imputed to the works of
Calamis; that the graceful and beautiful formation of the features was
one of the chief improvements effected by him. The limitations of his
art are indicated by another notice. Pliny relates that Calamis was
unsurpassed in his representations of horses; but Praxiteles removed a
charioteer from one of the older quadrigas, and created another in its
place, “that the men of Calamis might not appear inferior to his
animals.” His charioteer must consequently have contrasted unfavorably
with the horses and disturbed the harmony of the whole; this need by no
means be considered as contradictory to the accounts of the beauty of
his devotional images, for the charming grace which distinguished the
quiet figures of deities and heroes was to be exchanged in the
charioteer for an athletic life, corresponding, in position and action,
to the exciting situation, and such representations evidently were
beyond the powers of the otherwise able master. Examples authentically
referable to Calamis do not exist, though the statue of Apollo upon the
Omphalos, found in Athens, shows at once the archaic limitations and the
advancing mastery which may be ascribed to this period of Greek
sculpture; while the so-called Vesta, now in the possession of Torlonia,
may have preserved reminiscences of the Sosandra. Both these works are
evidently the products of artists who did not conceive the gods as
merely graceful and pleasing, but as strict and serious beings. Statues
of Apollo by Calamis are known to have been brought from the Kerameicos
in Athens, and from a city upon the shores of the Pontos, to the Roman
capitol; but this can hardly be adduced as an argument in favor of the
authenticity of the figure upon the Omphalos.

To those very points in which Calamis failed, the two other artists
named devoted themselves with signal success. The works of Pythagoras of
Rhegion, who limited himself to bronze as a material, while Calamis
worked in marble, gold, and ivory, betray no connection with those of
the latter in regard to subjects, for the greater number were statues of
victors and representations of heroes in somewhat genre-like conception.
Of the former, Pausanias and Pliny praise the Enthymos as one of the
most excellent among the forest of images dedicated at Olympia; of the
latter, the limping Philoctetes was celebrated by many epigrams, as
causing the observer to himself feel the pain of the wounded foot. To
attain such an expression, it is not sufficient to characterize the
suffering in the affected limb alone, but the pain must be evident in
the entire body, in bearing as well as in step; in the continued tension
of all the muscles, and in the one-sided strain upon the sound leg. The
Philoctetes illustrates an otherwise incomprehensible account of the
master’s ability. Diogenes of Laerte says that Pythagoras, of all
sculptors, first regarded rhythm and symmetry. This unity of motion or
rhythm, with the equipoise or symmetry which alone lends a feeling of
security and harmonious perfection to the different members of figures
under excitement, is that which made the work so effective. The same
principles must have distinguished the statues of victors, which were
apparently intended rather as examples of the various modes of combat,
or the preparations therefor, than as individual portraits. The chief
merit of this master appears, according to this, to have consisted in
the organic truthfulness to nature of his figures, and this is by no
means contradicted by the rather trivial judgment of Pliny that
Pythagoras was the first to indicate sinews and veins, and to more
carefully model the hair; for increased anatomical correctness came
naturally with the organic action and realism of these works.

[Illustration: Fig. 203.--Marble Copy of the Discos-thrower by Myron.
(In the Palazzo Massimi alle Colonne in Rome.)]

In this expression of the movement by every part of the body exercised,
Pythagoras was still surpassed by Myron. A founder of metal, like the
former, he acquired his fame chiefly as a maker of the statues of
victors, although, with acknowledged versatility, he executed numerous
images of deities and heroes. Two of the first were highly
celebrated--the Runner Ladas and the Discos-thrower; both of them
belonging to that class of works which illustrated the nature of the
game itself. For Ladas was shown at the moment when, after overstrained
effort, he had reached the goal, and there, as victor, had fallen dead:
according to the expression of an epigram upon the work, it was as if
the last breath from the empty lungs were passing his lips. For such a
creation even the most perfect position of running, and indication of
relative action in trunk and arms, were not sufficient; the great point
lay in the panting breast and the open mouth and nostrils: the last
effort of the lungs must have been wonderfully shown. Another epigram
speaks of the “_breather_,” not of the _runner_, Ladas. That this
marvellous representation of concentrated action was not to the
disadvantage of the outer members is shown by the other victor before
mentioned, the discos-thrower, the fame of which is demonstrated not
only by the praise of Lucian, but by the numerous copies made during
antiquity. Many of the latter have been preserved, marbles of the size
of the original, and bronze statuettes, giving evidence of the
fascinating action in the swing of the discos; the athletic body of the
youth bending forward to gain greater impetus; the toes of one foot
clinging to the ground, those of the other slid along its surface; and
everything prepared for the fling which is instantly to follow. And yet
the best-preserved copy, that in the Palazzo Massimi (_Fig._ 203), must
certainly be in every respect inferior to the original. A mythological
genre-group by Myron appears from existing copies to have been equally
effective: it illustrated the legend of the flute, invented and cast
away with a curse by Athene, and found by the unfortunate Marsyas.
Statues in the Lateran and British Museum show the Satyr starting back
in surprise, the momentary action of desire and fear being seized and
expressed with as consummate mastery as were the athletic movements of
the runner and the discos-thrower. It was this same spirit of life that
caused Myron’s cow to be so celebrated in antiquity that no less than
thirty-six epigrams have been handed down concerning it. Petronius, in
praising this master, says that, in representing animals, Myron seemed
to enclose the very breath of life in the bronze; and when Pliny says
that he multiplied nature, he can have no other meaning than that the
artist attained so life-like an effect that his works appeared rather to
have grown than to have been an artistic creation.

[Illustration: Fig. 204.--Statuette of the Athene Parthenos, Athens.]

[Illustration: Head of Pheidias.]

[Illustration: Fig. 205.--Fragment in the British Museum, imitated from
the Shield of the Athene Parthenos.]

The schools of Ægina, Athens, Sikyon, Argos, Rhegion, and the other
cities where art had chiefly centred, flourished during the Persian
wars--that greatest period of Greece, from 490 to 450 B.C., when Myron,
the scholar of Ageladas, was still young. The unequalled grandeur of
this age, which resulted in the splendid culmination of all Hellenic
life, must have furthered art, all the more as the devastation of the
war, and the subsequent enrichment of the victors, offered full
opportunity and means for monumental activity. What influence this had
upon architectural industry has been described in a foregoing section,
and it may be easily understood that sculpture went hand-in-hand with
this; the larger temples needed their images of the gods, their gable
groups, metope reliefs, and friezes, as also their complement of
sculptural votive offerings, prompted by the gratitude of the victors.
Athens, more than any other place in Greece, found occasion and means
for these works, having been laid waste in 480 and 479 B.C. by Xerxes
and Mardonios as no other large city of Greece had been. By means of the
taxes levied upon the confederated states after the siege of Mycale,
its possessions were greater than those of all the other Hellenic
republics together. Athens therefore saw the most perfect flower of
Grecian architecture come forth from the ashes of the Persian
catastrophe, and by its side appeared the grandest creations of
sculpture. Yet neither of these arose like magic from the wasted ground;
it was necessary that the nation should first take breath, should
recover from the almost supernatural exertions made during the war, and
provide for defence and shelter by the building of fortifications and
dwellings. It was not until after this that they could devote themselves
to great monumental undertakings, the perfect completion of which
required more than one generation, and sculptured ornamentation was thus
still further postponed. The older masters hitherto considered had
little or no part in the chief works of this period. The mind of
Themistocles was so practical, and so much directed towards
fortifications, that he could have little thought for occupying the
artists with monumental sculpture. His successor, Kimon, son of
Miltiades, began to build anew the places of worship, but did not go so
far as to institute sculptural ornament, at least in its chief
constituent, statuary. This first ripened to perfection in the reign of
Pericles, and a favorable fate ordained that, just at this time, when it
was needed as never before, a genius appeared under whose guidance the
most complete development was attained. This greatest of sculptors was
Pheidias, the son of Charmides, an Athenian by birth. When a boy of ten
years, he had seen his countrymen, under Miltiades, go forth to
Marathon, and, as a youth, had shared in the rejoicing over the glorious
victory of Salamis. At that time, having probably left the school of
Hegias, his first teacher, he turned towards Ageladas the Argive, who
may have come to Athens in order that, in the rebuilding of the city, he
might employ his art in works which have remained unknown to us. When
Pericles entered upon his much celebrated presidency (444 B.C.),
Pheidias, already advanced in years, enjoyed a fame so great throughout
all Greece that, as soon as Pericles had installed him at the head of
the entire monumental work of Athens, artists of distinguished rank
placed themselves, without envy, under his lead. With only the scanty
and scattered literary notices that we possess, it is impossible, from
the works of this master, to illustrate his life before the time of
Pericles, these being not only imperfectly known, but connected with but
few chronological facts. Chief among his productions is to be mentioned
a group in bronze consecrated at Delphi by the Athenians under Kimon,
from a tithe of the booty taken at Marathon. It represented Miltiades
between Athene and Apollo, surrounded by the ancestral heroes of the ten
Attic Phylæ. In artistic respects nothing more is known of this than of
the statue of a youth crowning himself with the victor’s band in
Olympia; of a wounded Amazon, a work prepared for a competition in which
Pheidias was surpassed by Polycleitos; of a marble Hermes in Thebes; or
of three draped statues of Aphrodite, one of which, that in Elis, was
chryselephantine, the other two having been of marble. The artist
employed his powers mostly in a higher province--in figures of Athene
and of Zeus. Six of the former are more or less known; the most
celebrated was the bronze Athene of Lemnos upon the Acropolis of Athens,
so called because dedicated by Attic colonists from that place, and
distinguished by the name of “the beautiful;” a second was the colossal
statue, likewise of bronze, standing between the Erechtheion and the
Propylæa, whose helmet-crest and lance-point gleamed above the roof of
the Parthenon, twenty metres high, and was visible at sea as far as the
promontory of Sunion. The shield standing upon the ground--and perhaps a
later creation--was ornamented by Mys, after a design by Parrhasios,
with an embossed centauromachia. Not to speak of the Athene Areia at
Platæa, a colossal wooden figure with garments of gold, the nude parts
being of marble, we come finally to the incomparable chryselephantine
figure in the Parthenon at Athens, in which the type of Athene was
forever firmly established. Some few accounts--a marble statuette
lately found in Athens (_Fig._ 204), a miserably careless imitation; and
also a poor copy in marble of the shield, discovered soon after, in the
British Museum (_Fig._ 205)--render it possible to understand the
composition in its chief outlines. Standing erect, the head slightly
inclined forward, clothed with the sleeveless chiton and the ægis, the
helmet decorated with the sphinx, she supported her left arm upon the
shield, at the same time holding the lance, which leaned against her
shoulder and bore the serpent of Erichthonios, coiling upward; the right
arm, outstretched, carried a figure of Victory, two metres in height,
which, turned towards the goddess, offered her a wreath of gold. The
base of the statue, and even the rims of the thick-soled sandals, were
ornamented with reliefs. The golden shield showed, within, the
gigantomachia, and, without, the battle of the Amazons, concerning
which we have further information from the discovery above mentioned.
The fatal portrait of the artist himself may be plainly recognized in
the strongly individualized features of a bald-headed man with the
battle-axe in his uplifted hands, prominent because of his almost entire
nakedness among the completely equipped youths. This portrait caused the
merciless persecution of the sculptor and his patrons; after the charge
of embezzling the gold upon the garments of the Athene had been proved
groundless by the removal and weighing of the metal, this figure gave
opportunity for complaint of sacrilege, and the artist was forced to
pass the remainder of his life in a prison. The Athene Parthenos was
surpassed by the colossal statue of the Panhellenic Zeus in Olympia,
likewise chryselephantine, which exhibited the highest triumph of
Pheidias. The god, with a green enamelled olive-wreath crowning his
golden locks, and in garments brightly bordered with gold, was seated
upon a magnificent throne, the legs of which were ornamented with
figures of Victory in two rows, and the arms with sphinxes, while the
back was terminated with groups of Horæ and Charites, the steps,
cross-bars, sheathing-boards, etc., of the support being decorated with
many other sculptures in the round and in relief. In his right hand,
turning towards him, was a Victory, and in his left a sceptre, tipped
with the eagle, formed from a combination of many metals. This figure
was majestic, with an expression mild, yet so powerful that a gesture
would seem sufficient to make earth and heaven tremble. The artist had
made this double expression his aim, guided in his creation by the lines
of Homer where he portrays the God of gods nodding in assent to Thetis,
who begs for the glorification of her son Achilles:

    “He said, and nodded with his shadowy brows,
     Wav’d on th’ immortal head th’ ambrosial locks,
     And all Olympos trembled at his nod.”

[Illustration: Fig. 206.--Coins of Elis. One third enlarged.]

[Illustration: Fig. 207.--From the Eastern Gable of the Parthenon.
Demeter and Persephone.]

[Illustration: Fig. 208.--From the Eastern Gable of the Parthenon.
Aphrodite and Peitho.]

That Pheidias attained his ideal was unanimously attested by his own
time, and by the later world so long as it had opportunity to see this
wonderful production. Even divinity itself must have approved, since,
according to the beautiful legend, as the master, at the perfecting of
his work, prayed for a sign of favor from heaven, a stroke of lightning
entered the temple and fell upon the floor in a spot which was marked
in later times as sacred. A feeling pervaded all antiquity that the
Olympian Zeus of Pheidias was the grandest and most divine of all works
of art, which not to have seen was a misfortune to be lamented, and the
sight of which lifted from the soul its cares and sorrows. Instead,
therefore, of dwelling upon the praises given by the ancients to the
details, we should seek rather to understand the principal traits which
justified this opinion, and which were characteristic of the master. The
archaic constraint prevalent in works of Ageladas and Calamis had been
overcome; but the combination of all previous results, and a nearly
absolute correctness of form, united to an ideal beauty quite beyond any
real experience, could not have been the chief causes of this
admiration. These were, indeed, important, especially in view of the
enormous difficulties presented by the chryselephantine process--in the
working of gold-plate; in the preparation, shaving, and uniting of the
ivory, so unpliant to the chisel, and, finally, in securing it to the
wooden form. But the essential and characteristic merit lay in the
bodily incarnation of a grand and truly godlike ideal, employing the
human form only as a word through which the elevated thought found
expression. The artist had set before himself the most exalted
aim--namely, to present to the eyes of the world the highest conception
of divinity as seen in Athene, the goddess of the mind, and in Zeus, the
king of gods. Hence the large number of Athenes executed by Pheidias,
and the Aphrodite Urania, the great “heavenly” goddess, the feminine
principle of the universe; hence, also, the fewer representations of
masculine or heroic forms, or of subordinate deities, in which this
master might be excelled--as by Polycleitos in his Amazon--because they
did not accord with his nature, or contain within themselves that ideal
greatness which he wished to unfold. Although the two chryselephantine
colossal statues, notwithstanding the perishable nature of their
construction, were comparatively long preserved--being in existence at
the end of the fourth century A.D.--still, there are no copies which
show more than their general composition. The marble statuette of Athene
(_Fig._ 204) has already been mentioned; in regard to the Olympian Zeus,
a copy upon a coin of Hadrian, which shows the usual carelessness and
weakness (_Fig._ 206), has in later times been justly preferred to the
mask of Zeus from Otricoli, formerly considered a copy after Pheidias.
Though the classical notices frequently give the only information
concerning the masterpieces of Pheidias, numerous original remains from
his workshop still exist. We cannot adduce as examples the glorious
metopes and frieze of the so-called Theseion in Athens, perfect as
appear these representations of the deeds of Heracles and Theseus upon
the former, and of the battle of the Centaurs and Titans upon the
latter; for as it is not known when this temple was dedicated, it cannot
be shown that its ornaments were executed in the period which came under
the artistic direction of Pheidias. Nor can we attribute to this school
the sculptures of the Erechtheion, which were not completed until
408--the beautiful caryatides of the portico, or the remnants of relief
from the frieze, preserved, unfortunately, only in scanty fragments.
These figures, indeed, instead of being carved from the blocks of the
frieze itself, were formed piecewise of Pentilic marble, and fastened
upon a dark ground of Eleusinian stone, probably for the effect of
color. As little may we cite the better-preserved reliefs upon the
frieze and balustrade of the small temple of Wingless Victory before the
Propylæa, which, from their great likeness to the sculptures upon the
mausoleum of Halicarnassus, seem rather to belong to the following
period. Overbeck thinks it probable that the frieze has reference to the
battle at Platæa; and the balustrade, according to Kekule, may have
something to do with the return of Alkibiades. In judging the Pheidian
school, the Parthenon offers, however, abundant material in the three
kinds of sculpture--round statues, high and low relief; although the
unhappy bombardment of Athens by the Venetians in 1687, when the
bursting of a bomb in the beautiful temple, then used as a
powder-magazine, and the succeeding explosion, destroyed more than half
the work. The last two centuries also have not passed without leaving
their mark; so that Lord Elgin’s robbery may, after all, have proved an
advantage, the greater part of the sculptures having been protected and
rendered accessible, since the beginning of this century, in the halls
of the British Museum. It is particularly unfortunate that the gable
groups have suffered most; for the perfection of these chief works must
have appeared of the greatest importance to the artist, and these
colossal statues would have given the best exposition of his ability.
Before the catastrophe above mentioned, however, these were badly
injured in consequence of the Temple of Athene Parthenos having been
transformed into the Church of Maria Parthenos, and later into a mosque,
the destruction appearing also to have been aided by the wilful malice
of Christian and Moslem fanatics. They were still further reduced after
the explosion by the unsuccessful attempt of the Venetians to carry off
as trophy a marble chariot and horses. The few notes of Pausanias upon
the subjects of the gable groups, the drawings of a French artist,
Carrey (taken not long before the bombardment), and the remains
preserved in the British Museum are sufficient to convey a conception of
the general composition. The eastern gable represented the birth of
Athene; not the unfortunate, artificial scene where the goddess springs,
ready equipped, from the head of Zeus, as frequently shown in pictures
upon vases and bronze mirrors, but the moment after, when she appears
before the deities of Olympos. The entire central part of the group
including the highest deities, the chief feature of the composition, is
lost; the rest is in greater part preserved. As the scene was in
Olympos, Helios and Selene, with their quadrigas, were fittingly chosen
as the limits of the composition; the former rising from the sea, in the
left angle of the gable, the latter sinking in the right; night
disappearing before the dawn. The adjoining statues, though much
mutilated, have been preserved. Next to Helios was Dionysos, resting
upon his tiger’s skin; with two sitting female figures, Demeter and
Persephone (_Fig._ 207), to whom hastens Iris, announcing the birth of
Athene. Upon the other side, next to Selene, lay Aphrodite in the lap of
Peitho (_Fig._ 208); and then Hestia, to whom Hermes, as the other
messenger, brings the glad tidings: these latter sculptures were almost
entirely destroyed in the time of Carrey. Nike--Victory--remaining only
as a torso, appears to have followed with Ares, advancing towards the
middle of the gable bringing greetings to the newly born goddess. All
the rest was destroyed before 1680 A.D., and the principal figures of
the composition are consequently unknown; but it is probable that
between the Victory and Athene stood Hephaistos, recoiling after having
delivered the blow upon the head of Zeus. Athene stood beside her
father, but it is not certain whether the latter was exactly in the
centre of the gable, or whether the two figures were equally removed
from it. If this last were the case, which is perhaps probable, the
division of the space would require still another deity upon the right
side. The remaining gods of Olympos, Poseidon, Artemis, and Apollo, were
probably arranged in this order between Zeus and Iris. The group of the
western gable represented the contest of Athene and Poseidon for the
Attic land. The composition is reasonably certain, though the middle
figures have here also disappeared. The two chief deities, standing at
either side of the olive-tree in the centre, turn towards their
chariots, that of Athene being driven by Victory, that of Poseidon by
Amphitrite; horses were harnessed to both, that of Poseidon not having
been drawn by dolphins or hippocamps, as formerly supposed. The
consciousness of victory was expressed by the bearing of Athene and of
her steeds, while the bowed head of Poseidon acknowledged his defeat:
the exclusion of the salt waves of the sea from the blooming meadows and
groves watered by the Kephissos. The angles of the gable beyond the
chariots were occupied by the retinue of the contestants, and by local
deities; the accurate determination of these is impossible, though upon
the side of Athene may have been grouped the representatives of the
Athenian continent, and upon that of Poseidon those of the sea and the
islands; while the figure of Kephissos is supposed to have filled the
extreme corner at the left, and Ilissos with Callirrhoe that of the
right. The scene was laid in Attica; and, as the earthly locality was to
be clearly characterized and populated, it was advisable not to
introduce again all the Olympian deities of the eastern gable. It is
probable that during antiquity the landscape seen from this chief front
of the Acropolis was famous for many local myths no longer familiar to
the scholar, in ignorance of which an adequate explanation is
impossible. The compositions alone give evidence of the grandeur and
elevation of the master who produced and arranged them, in a
truthfulness to nature at once ornamental and unconstrained. The
remains, with great simplicity and breadth of detail, show a force and
majesty which raise them above all known works of sculpture. In their
loving and perfect modelling of the nude and of the drapery, in their
freedom from affectation of motive or of rendering, and in their utter
lack of any striving after meretricious effects, they appear rather the
creations of magic than the labored carvings of men.

[Illustration: Fig. 209.--Fragment from the Frieze of the Parthenon
Cella.]

The glorious and celebrated frieze, or, to speak more correctly,
zophoros, surrounded the entire cella. It is preserved in nearly four
fifths of its entire length, the chief part of the remains being in the
British Museum. It is evident that but little, if any, of this extensive
decorative work could have been executed by the hand of Pheidias
himself; but the grand design may be assumed to have been his, and the
carving was certainly done under his supervision. The scene represented
is the festive Pan-Athenaic processions, an imposing consecration of
elaborate gifts to the guardian deity, and probably also a division of
prizes to the victors in the various hippic, gymnastic, and musical
games. The movement of the train commences upon the southwestern corner
of the cella, and advances thence to the east, the entrance side of the
temple. It is thus naturally divided into two parts, one of which
occupies the western and northern, the other the southern side of the
cella; these are united above the pronaos, where the double procession
is shown as having arrived at the temenos before the temple; a priest
and priestess, with the persons directly employed in the sacrifice, are
preparing themselves for the sacred act--the former by laying aside his
upper garment, which he gives to the youth standing beside him, the
latter by taking a folding-seat from a female servant. (_Fig._ 209.)
Between this central group and the remainder of the divided procession
several deities, turned from the former figures, are watching the
approach of the train. At the left sits Zeus, enthroned, beside the
veiled Hera; these are followed by the Winged Victory, Ares clasping his
right knee with both hands, Demeter with the torch, and Dionysos, who
rests his right arm carelessly upon the shoulder of Hermes. Upon the
right, next to the high priest, was naturally the place of Athene, and
upon her left hand are still traces of the fallen Ægis; beside her was
Hephaistos, leaning upon his knotted stick; then, looking towards him,
Apollo, and further Peitho, Aphrodite, and Eros, the latter carrying a
shade for the sun. The gods sit comfortably as spectators who feel
themselves to be invisible. The first figures of the train, the leaders,
have already attained their destination, and stand quietly conversing,
supported upon their wands. In the succeeding women and virgins, who
bear vases, cups, cooling-vessels, braziers for incense, and baskets--a
wonderful train of perfectly beautiful forms--the advance decreases in
movement as they approach the centre. Upon the two long sides follow
herds of animals for sacrifice; the cows, proceeding quietly, scarcely
need guidance, while the bulls are more or less restless, reminding one,
in their forcible and momentary action, of the life-like works of Myron.
After them follows the music of the procession--players upon the flute
and lyre and the festive chorus; then begins the long line of chariots
and of horses with their riders, which fill the greater part of the
zophoros upon the longer sides and all of that over the epinaos. The
beauty and truth in the action of these figures are unsurpassed; the
most manifold variation of position is combined with perfect adaptation
to the peculiar style of low-relief, and the wisest reference to the
fitting of the composition within the space defined by the architectural
lines. While upon the eastern front the procession had arrived at its
destination, on the western the scene was still at the place of
assemblage and marshalling. Here the horses are bridled and arranged in
ranks; but the groups of men and youths stand in disorder, some hastily
arming themselves, others binding their sandals or adjusting their
mantles. Every action and gesture is simple and full of meaning; they
never mar the unity of the whole nor interfere with the neighboring
figures. The nude forms and the drapery are most carefully and equally
executed throughout; the accessories are forcibly, though less
elaborately, indicated. When the ceremonial reliefs of Assyria or Persia
are compared with the frieze of the Parthenon, it becomes strikingly
evident that the magnificence of personal accoutrements and inanimate
objects which was so painfully and minutely detailed by the Asiatic
sculptor, and elevated even above his schematic representations of
deities and human beings, was as nothing to the Greek artist in
comparison with the intellectual and physical beauty to which the great
Hellenic race gave their chief interest.

The third group of Parthenon sculptures, the ornaments of the metopes,
must least have harmonized with the nature of Pheidias. The
architectural framework must have become a hindrance and a fetter, and
the problem how to fill ninety-two square tablets of exactly the same
size with similar representations must indeed have appeared a thankless
task. These reliefs are in greater part lost, or so mutilated as to be
unintelligible; but as far as can be judged by the scanty remains, the
subject of the metopes upon the eastern side was the gigantomachia, that
of both long sides principally the Centauromachia, while that of the
western side was either the battle of the Amazons or of the Persians. In
contrast to the low-relief of the frieze, these, originally colored,
were--on account of the conditions of light--worked in such high-relief
as even, in some parts, to be freed from the ground. The variation of
subjects bearing so strong a resemblance is wonderful, especially in the
struggling Centaurs and Greeks, where but little scope in the victory of
one or the other combatant was possible: these are interrupted by the
rape of virgins and other scenes not surely to be determined. Naturally,
this desperate task would not have been completed without some few
artistic inequalities, repetitions, and far-fetched modifications,
especially as much of the execution must necessarily have been submitted
to inferior sculptors; but some of the metope reliefs appear, in point
of composition within the given space, and in grand, characteristic
drawing, scarcely less admirable than the frieze of the cella. From all
these works the spirit of the school of Pheidias is manifest in its
imposing majesty and ideal simplicity; at times, also, traces of the
forcible action of Myron may be observed.

[Illustration: Fig. 210.--From the Eastern Gable of the Great Temple of
Zeus, Olympia.]

These extensive productions of the school and workshop of Pheidias
cannot be directly attributed to any of the known scholars and
assistants of the master, many of whom attained individual celebrity. In
the first rank of these should be mentioned Agoracritos of Paros, the
favorite pupil of Pheidias, whose works were so perfect that the
ancients were frequently in doubt to which of these sculptors they
should be ascribed; it is possible, however, that this doubt may have
arisen from the predominant impression left upon some of the statues by
the guidance and assistance of the master. The chief creations of
Agoracritos were two Athenes, a Zeus, and notably the colossal figure of
Nemesis at Rhamnous, supposed to have developed from the unsuccessful
Aphrodite prepared for the competition with Alcamenes. Another scholar
and assistant of Pheidias was Colotes of Paros, a sculptor who appears
to have restricted himself to the chryselephantine process, and who is
especially noted for the part taken by him in the execution of the great
Olympian Zeus. Other works in gold and ivory by Colotes were the Athene
upon the Acropolis of Elis, an Asclepios erected in the vicinity, and
the sacred table in the great Temple of Zeus, for the division of prizes
after the Olympic games, the sides of which were ornamented with
reliefs.

[Illustration: Fig. 211.--From the Western Gable of the Great Temple of
Zeus, Olympia.]

[Illustration: Fig. 212.--Head of Apollo, from the Western Gable of the
Great Temple of Zeus, Olympia.]

Alcamenes of Athens, or Lemnos, and Paionios of Mende have hitherto been
considered as chief among the scholars of Pheidias; but the recent
excavations at Olympia have done much to refute this opinion, unless, as
is very possible, Pausanias makes a mistake (v. 10) in assigning to
Alcamenes the sculptures in the front gable of the Temple of Zeus,
instead of the acroteria above them, which alone is mentioned in an
inscription as his work. No one can detect in the discovered fragments
of these gable sculptures, more numerous than those of the Parthenon,
the slightest dependence upon the art of Pheidias, which they appear to
precede in point of development. The group of the eastern front,
ascribed by Pausanias to Paionios, represented the instant before the
chariot race of Oinomaos and Pelops (_Fig._ 210); that of the western
the struggle of the Lapithæ and Centaurs at the wedding of Peirithoos.
(_Figs._ 211 and 212.) The character of these works seems rather to
connect them with the school of Calamis than with that of Pheidias, this
being especially the case with the metopes. (_Fig._ 213.) The question
will hardly be decided until authenticated sculptures by Calamis, or
remains of the gable groups of the temple at Delphi, which were the
production of his scholars Praxias and Androsthenes of Athens, have
become known to science. In the meantime, it is impossible to disprove
the hypothesis of Brunn, who sees in those of Olympia examples of an art
peculiar to Northern Greece, remarkable for its picturesque realism and
lack of artistic and ideal conventionalization. It is only certain that
these groups are far inferior to those of the Parthenon, and, indeed, to
those produced by any workshop of Athens after the time of Pheidias.
Even if the questionable account of Pausanias prove to be true, it is
certain that a judgment of the artistic style of Alcamenes and Paionios
cannot be formed upon these decorative sculptures alone. Works of the
stage of development shown by the western gable of Olympia could not
have ranked with the bronze Pentathlos of the former artist, which was
known in antiquity by the predicate “exemplary;” nor could an Aphrodite
of Alcamenes have been preferred to a statue by Agoracritos, which had
been retouched by Pheidias himself. The extensive employment of
Alcamenes in Athens among the greatest successors of Pheidias and Myron
would have been impossible had not his works been far higher in every
respect than those attributed to him among the recent discoveries in
Olympia, in view of which it is inconceivable how Pausanias could speak
of Alcamenes and Pheidias almost as equals. The same argument applies to
Paionios, of whose works a fortunate illustration has been provided by
one of the most important discoveries made in the Altis, the Victory
(_Fig._ 214), authenticated by an inscription upon the high triangular
pedestal. This figure does indeed recall the spirit and methods of the
Pheidian sculpture, and differs greatly from the remains of the eastern
gable, as may readily be seen by comparison of _Figs._ 210 and 214. This
contrast is only to be explained by a gigantic and almost inconceivable
progress, or by the assumption that they were the works of different
artists and periods.

[Illustration: Fig. 213.--Metope from the Cella of the Great Temple of
Olympia. Atlas, Heracles, and the Nymph of the Hesperides.]

[Illustration: Fig. 214.--Victory of Paionios, from Olympia.]

[Illustration: Fig. 215.--From the Frieze of the Temple of Phigalia.]

If the Attic artists of this age be likened to planets revolving about
the Pheidian sun, there were not wanting stars of the second magnitude,
belonging to other systems and moving in other circles. Especially
prominent among these latter was the direct and indirect school of
Myron, an artist so pronounced in his wonderful naturalism that his
style could not be extinguished even by the dominating idealism of
Pheidias. Lykios, son of Myron, appears, from two celebrated works, to
have followed closely in the footsteps of his father. These were the
statues upon the Acropolis of Athens representing two boys, one of whom
bore a basin for holy-water, while the other blew the coals in a censer
into a lively glow. The latter reminds one of Myron’s Breathing Ladas;
in this, as in the Runner, the quickened breath was the essential thing,
and was not confined alone to the swollen cheeks, but must have been
evident in the breast and body. The figure bearing the font was a
zealous choir-boy, panting under a too heavy burden; and this also
recalls the Ladas. Still another statue, the Pancratiast Autolicos,
claimed by Urlich for Lykios, seems to have resembled the Discos-thrower
of Myron. That Lykios did not confine himself to such genre-like
specialties is shown by groups like the Argonauts, and by the votive
offering of the citizens of Apollonia at Olympia, a truly grand
composition representing Zeus deciding the result of the strife between
Memnon and Achilles, according to the Æthiopis of Arctinos. In
connection with Lykios may be mentioned Styppax of Cyprus, whose
masterpiece, the Splanchnoptes--the entrail-roaster, a man fanning a
fire--recalls in turn the choir-boy blowing the coals. Similar to the
Dying Ladas, though less directly connected than these last examples,
was the mortally wounded warrior of Cresilas, in which, according to
classical accounts, the last moments of life could be measured; his
wounded Amazon also appears to have been more in the style of Myron and
Pythagoras than of Pheidias. No works by the immediate followers of
Myron now remain, nor any attested copy; still there can be little
hesitation in ascribing to this school an important achievement, not
perhaps belonging to it so fully as do the architectural sculptures of
the Parthenon to the workshop of Pheidias, yet having more in common
with the school of Myron than with that of any previous master. This is
the frieze of the Temple of Apollo at Phigalia--now in the British
Museum--the architectural position of which has already been defined.
The temple is said to have been built under the direction of an Athenian
architect; it is probable, therefore, that Attic sculptors were employed
for its ornamentation, especially as the sculptures betray no trace of
the Argive influence which prevailed elsewhere in the Peloponnesos, and
which will be further treated below. Though the subjects were Attic, as
battles of Amazons and Centaurs, they cannot be likened to the school of
Pheidias, for, instead of the passionless grandeur and ideal simplicity
which characterized the sculptures of the Parthenon, there is in them a
vehemence and excitement known at this period only in the works
influenced by Myron. It is not strange that this excessively passionate
action should sometimes be wanting in beauty; the power of execution at
command in the remote city among the Arcadian mountains was not of the
first rank, and the guidance of a master, like him who directed the
sculptural work of the Parthenon, was wanting.

Two artists of this period were entirely independent, proceeding in
degenerate directions; first, Callimachos, noted as an artisan in
metal-work, who executed the rich and elegant lamp of the Erechtheion,
and was said to have originated the Corinthian capital; but who, as a
sculptor, carried a refined delicacy and formal perfection even to an
extreme. This won for him the cognomen of Catatexitechnos--the
unreasonably careful. Callimachos did not, like Apelles, know when to
withdraw his hand from his work, which agrees with Pliny’s judgment
concerning him, that, by over-exactness in execution, all grace was
lost. A still more questionable tendency is shown by Demetrios of
Alopeke, in Attica, the first realist. Pre-eminently a sculptor of
portraits, he affected striking characteristics at the expense of
beauty, and made it his specialty to represent the likenesses of
decrepit men and women. A priestess sixty-four years old, and an aged
Corinthian field-officer, Pelichos--“a bald-head with a pot-belly,
tangled and flying beard, and veins projecting roundly under the
withered skin,” according to the description of Lucian--must have been
so far from ideal and refreshing beauty that it would seem rather to
have been the aim of the artist to illustrate age as its destroyer.
Thus, in comparison with Pheidias and Myron, Demetrios resembled
Thersites among the heroes of Troy.

[Illustration: Fig. 216.--Copy of the Doryphoros in the Museum of
Naples.]

Argos deserves the second place as the site of the artistic industry of
this period, which had then been greatly advanced by Polycleitos of
Sikyon, a fourth scholar of Ageladas, and somewhat younger contemporary
of Pheidias, but in a direction different from that of the Attic school.
Myron had characterized intense and momentary animal life, Pheidias
that of absolutely ideal and divine being. Polycleitos chose as his aim
the artistic representation of the highest human beauty--a positive type
of bodily perfection. The Doryphoros, known in antiquity as the
masterpiece of the latter, and celebrated as a canon, was a youth in a
quiet position, bearing a lance; it was considered the embodiment of
perfect form, the master himself having written a treatise upon the
proportions of the human figure in illustration of this statue. It is
not improbable that Polycleitos, in this work, desired to set a pattern
before his numerous scholars; that he was himself too dependent upon
this academical tendency may be judged from the slightly disparaging
words of Pliny that “his works were almost as if taken from one model.”
According to the intention of the artist and to the general conviction
of his time, the Doryphoros represented absolute perfection of the human
body; and this left the master but little scope for the varying of his
model, if he would not prove untrue to that beauty which Cicero has
praised so highly in all his works. The so-called Apoxyomenos--an
athlete scraping himself with a strigil--similar in subject to the
statue of Lysippos (_Fig._ 229), was also a figure placed in the quiet
attitude of parade, if not, like the Doryphoros, with an academic
purpose. A third work, the so-called Diadoumenos, a boy binding his head
with a fillet--sometimes considered as a companion piece to the
Doryphoros--appears to have shown a more youthful and less athletic
development of form. It is not strange that archaeologists have taken
great pains to identify, among the numberless works of Roman sculptors,
imitations of these two canonical figures, the existence of which was
naturally assumed from the great celebrity of the Greek originals. The
scholars Friederichs, Schwabe, Michaelis, Helbig, Kekule, and Benndorf
have accordingly discovered six repetitions of the Doryphoros, preserved
in Cassel, Naples, Florence, the Vatican, and the Villa Medici; while
several other statues in Dresden, the Louvre, the Vatican, and the Villa
Albani have been recognized as variations differing more or less from
this type (_Fig._ 216). In like manner, copies of the Diadoumenos have
been found in Madrid, in two marbles of the British Museum, in a bronze
statuette of the National Library of Paris, and in a relief of the
Vatican: all of which are allied in point of conception and artistic
character. Still it is inexplicable how these thick-set and muscular
forms could be spoken of by Pliny as _viriliter puer_ and as _molliter
juvenis_, or by Lucian as graceful dancers; though it is possible that,
in these academical studies, the canonical perfection of form decided by
Polycleitos was not so well embodied as in the bronze Idolino of the
Florentine Museum. The question is far from settled, and it should not
be forgotten that eminent authorities doubt this origin, Conze imputing
them rather to the school of Cresilas, while Petersen even maintains the
type to have been a Roman invention.

An Amazon in a quiet pose gave Polycleitos an opportunity for portraying
a female form of muscular development, yet of typical beauty. It is not
difficult to believe that this statue was adjudged even superior to the
similar productions of Pheidias, Cresilas, and Phradmon, which could
hardly have been the case if the subject treated had been a deity or a
figure of momentary action. (_Fig._ 217.) The artist could even better
follow his academic aim in the two Canephoræ--basket-bearers--whose
quiet pose and want of inner expression were so well suited to display
an outward, formal beauty and correctness of modelling. But the
Astragalizontes--the boy throwing dice of knuckle-bones--which,
according to Pliny, was the most perfect work of art in Greece, should
not be imagined in an excited, striking situation, or as a street scene
conceived with a truthfulness to nature characteristic of Murillo, but
as representing the consummation of boyish beauty.

[Illustration: Fig. 217.--Amazon, after Polycleitos.]

When Quintilian says that Polycleitos elevated the human figure above
what is seen in nature, and yet, contrary to Pheidias in his statues of
the deities, had not attained to the majesty of the gods, this signifies
that he had not so fully represented the divine nature. His devotional
images are few and without especial fame, with exception of the colossal
chryselephantine Hera in the temple between Argos and Mykenæ. The
goddess, seated upon a throne, was draped in garments of gold, with
only the head and arms bare; the sceptre in her right hand was crowned
with the cuckoo, symbol of conjugal fidelity, and in her left was a
pomegranate; at her side stood Hebe, the work of Naukydes, the master’s
best assistant. As the Pheidian head of Zeus has been recognized in the
mask of Otricoli, so the splendid colossal mask of the Ludovisi Juno
(_Fig._ 219) has been referred to an original by Polycleitos. But it is
probable that the head of Hera, in the museum at Naples (_Fig._ 218)
came nearer to this original (Brunn). Though it be asserted that all the
heads of Zeus may be referred to the complete and established type of
Pheidias, the ideal of Polycleitos, by no means divine, renders it
doubtful whether his Hera acquired a similar position among the
succeeding representations of that goddess.

[Illustration: Fig. 218.--Head of Hera, in Naples.]

[Illustration: Fig. 219.--So-called Juno Ludovisi, in Rome.]

The effort after perfection of form sufficed to make the master of Argos
a pre-eminent teacher; yet none of his many direct scholars, with the
exception perhaps of the before-mentioned Naukydes, acquired such fame
as the associates of Pheidias, perhaps on account of this very schooling
and discipline, the rigid constraint of a canon fettering the wings of
artistic individuality. We are not able to judge how far this tendency
was furthered during the short period of Theban ascendency by the
somewhat later branch of the Theban school, although, among many others,
the Theban artists Hypatodoros and Aristogeiton were of considerable
importance. The groups consecrated at Delphi about 380 B.C. were of
particular interest; they represented the advance of the Seven against
Thebes, and the successful repetition of the invasion by the sons of
those warriors. It was not until Lysippos, an indirect scholar of
Polycleitos, in his desire to represent men as they should be, had
raised himself entirely above the canon of his master, who aimed to show
them as they are, that another artist of the first rank appeared.
Examples from the workshop of Polycleitos still exist, though
unfortunately scarcely recognizable in the mutilated fragments of
sculpture from the Temple of Hera, discovered by Rangabe and Bursian in
1854--works which were doubtless executed under the direct guidance of
the Argive master, as those of the Parthenon were under that of
Pheidias.

[Illustration: Fig. 220.--Metope of the Southern Temple upon the Eastern
Plateau of Selinous.]

The influence of Attica and Argos not only prevailed in Greece proper,
but made itself felt even in the most remote colonies. The Zeus upon one
of the metopes of the southern temple on the eastern plateau of Selinous
(_Fig._ 220) may have been developed from the figures of Zeus by
Ageladas, and suggests the sculptures of the Olympian temple which was
completed about the same time. This metope represents Zeus fascinated by
Hera upon Mount Ida (Il. xiv. 300), and the artist, in his figure of the
god, has surpassed his former efforts, but the Hera is harder and more
antique. The other well-preserved metopes of this temple--one of which
shows a Heracles in strife with Amazons, and the other Actaion lacerated
by dogs--though not without provincial weakness, have an unmistakable
affinity to those of the Theseion. These were nearly contemporaneous,
but an entire generation later there appeared at Messene, in the most
remote part of the Peloponnesos, the sculptor Damophon, an artist
decidedly of the Pheidian style, on account of which he was called to
restore the Olympian statue, already warped and disjointed. Although a
sculptor of ability, it would seem that he did not entirely withstand
the current of a new direction in art; besides the statues in the
Pheidian circle of divinities, others were ascribed to him, of a nature
similar to those cultivated by preference during the succeeding period
of Attic sculpture. The progressive force inherent in the people and in
the art of Greece did not rest until the highest point had everywhere
been reached. This impulse afterwards led to excess and decadence,
permitting no lasting enjoyment of the previous gains. The art of
Polycleitos prevailed somewhat longer in the Peloponnesos, the Dorians
being by nature conservative, but in Attica the new elements early
obtained a sway which could not but essentially change the character of
all Hellenic sculpture. The frieze upon the Temple of the Wingless
Victory in Athens, and the somewhat coarser one within the naos of
Phigalea, began already to give evidence of an inclination towards the
pathetic and passionate; the sculptures also upon the balustrade of the
Athenian temple, executed probably about 390 to 380 B.C., appear to be
the unmistakable forerunners of a new style. The Athenian Kephisodotos
the elder stood, so to speak, upon the threshold of this transformation.
His position in the history of art is assured by the fortunate discovery
of a copy of his Eirene with Ploutos, now in the Glyptothek at Munich
(_Fig._ 221). This work combined the tendencies of the new Attic style
with those of Pheidias. Though the noble simplicity and grandeur, the
earnestness and strictness, of the earlier period still remained, there
had already dawned an expression of deeper feeling, and of a more
spiritual life.

[Illustration: Fig. 221.--Eirene and Ploutos, after Kephisodotos.]

The representation, as Friederichs says, of the deep interchange of
affection between mother and child, as shown in the Eirene of
Kephisodotos, united with much of the hardness of the older works,
culminated in two masters--the Parian Scopas and the Athenian
Praxiteles, the latter possibly the son of Kephisodotos. Their
productions were so nearly related that, even in antiquity, it was
doubtful whether a work of celebrity should be ascribed to one or to the
other. The chief creations of both were statues of the deities, both
worked in marble, choosing this material not by chance, but from the
nature of their subjects. With the exception of such colossal figures,
of a highly monumental character, as the chryselephantine statues of
Zeus and Athene Parthenos by Pheidias, and the Hera by Polycleitos, the
delicate beauty of soft and transparent stone was best fitted for the
images of deities enshrined within the temple; bronze, on the contrary,
is peculiarly suited to statues of victors and athletes intended for
outdoor exposure. It was on this account that it had been so largely
employed by Myron and Polycleitos.

[Illustration: Fig. 222.--Apollo Kitharoidos. (Vatican.)]

The Raging Bacchante, designated by epigrams and descriptions as the
most celebrated work of Scopas, was one of the first masterpieces of
antiquity. The head was thrown back in an ecstasy of passion, the hair
loosened, and the long garment fluttering in the wind; thus did the
Mainad appear rushing to the heights of Kithairon, holding in her hands
the kid rent in her fury. If the rhetor Kallistratos was, as he says,
speechless at sight of the countenance, admiring particularly the
expression of a soul stung into madness, we can well believe that
passion itself was embodied in this work. The excitement was more
moderate in the Apollo of the Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnous, brought by
Augustus to the Palatine, playing the lyre and singing with lyric
inspiration. It is not improbable that the motive of the Apollo in the
Vatican, with the long flowing garments (_Fig._ 222), may be referred to
this original. The entire bearing more closely resembles that of the
figures of the children of Niobe. We can hardly think without enthusiasm
of the Bithynian Achilles group, placed in later times in the Temple of
Neptune, near the Circus Flaminius in Rome, which, according to Pliny,
would have made the master celebrated even though he had created nothing
else during his lifetime. It represented Achilles upon the island of
Leuke after his death, and his reception among the deities, and
displayed, besides Thetis and Poseidon, numerous fantastic creatures of
the sea. Some idea of these last may be gained from a magnificent frieze
found in the vicinity of the Temple of Neptune, and now in the
Glyptothek at Munich. But it cannot belong to this group, and, in its
main features, has no close relations with it.

[Illustration: Fig. 223.--Central Figure of the Niobids. (Florence.)]

[Illustration: Fig. 224.--Head of Niobe.]

Delicate beauty and warmth of feeling must be ascribed to the works of
Scopas, otherwise Pliny could not have placed the Aphrodite found in the
Temple of Mars, near the Circus Flaminius, above that of Praxiteles. Nor
can we imagine the groups at Megara--Eros, Himeros, and Pothos (Love,
Yearning, and Desire)--described by Pausanias; or Aphrodite, with her
priestly lover Phaethon; or Pothos, in Samothrace, to have been without
these traits. The group of Leto with the nurse Ortygia carrying the
children, Apollo and Artemis, as the personification of a mother’s joy
and pride, must have been full of deep meaning. It is evident, from the
long list of his works, that his power was many-sided: his peculiar
style is best exemplified in a grand composition, the group of the
Niobids, though Pliny is in doubt whether it should be ascribed to
Scopas or to Praxiteles. The original of this no longer exists, and even
the very unequally executed pieces--to be found chiefly in the Uffizi at
Florence, and in various repetitions in different museums--are not
complete; still even thus they betray the greatness and individuality of
this wonderful work. Niobe, wife of King Amphion of Thebes, and mother
of fourteen children, in a boastful spirit, inherited from her father
Tantalos, compared herself with Leto, who had only two, and ordered
sacrifices to be made to herself rather than to that goddess. For this
she was terribly chastised by Apollo and Artemis, her children being all
slain before her eyes by the avenging arrows of the two deities. She
herself, trying in vain to protect her youngest daughter, pressing
against her, makes an attempt to draw her mantle over her head to hide
the expression of despairing woe which, according to the legend, in a
few moments turned her to stone. The figure, in its royal nobility and
motherly despair, yet so free from contortion, has wonderful effect.
(_Figs._ 223 and 224.) The children, already wounded and hurrying
towards her, show pain, fear, and need of help in different degrees, but
with that dignity and fine control which render it a tragedy in the
highest sense. The various struggles of feeling in the beautiful young
faces; the excited wrestling with an invisible, unconquerable,
relentless power, in every gesture, and in every motion of the swaying
garments; the plaintive character of the lines throughout the whole
composition, entirely opposed to the vertical tendency of the
statuesque, and especially of the architectural art; the wavy flow which
distinguishes it from the group at Ægina, and even from the quiet action
of the figures in the gables of the Parthenon--are all so peculiar to
this pathetic school, and so characteristic of its productions, that the
Niobe will ever be considered the greatest example of its style.

In a study of the artistic character of Scopas, we must content
ourselves, for the most part, with a few copies, and some not very full
accounts. Still, original remains from his hand are not altogether
wanting. We have seen that he was engaged in the sculptural
ornamentation upon the eastern side of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos;
while upon the south and north sides his younger associates were
employed--Timotheos, Bryaxis, and Leochares, the latter known to us by a
copy in the Vatican of his Ganymede Carried Away by the Eagle of Zeus.
But the greater part of the recognizable reliefs upon the frieze, the
most important group of which represents the so often recurring battle
of the Amazons, notwithstanding the wonderful beauty and pathos of the
action, peculiar to the sculptured art of this period, is the work of
artisans, and certainly not by the hand of a master of the first rank.
(_Fig._ 225.) Among the numerous fragments of the statues found in the
English excavations of 1856, which, from analogy with the mausoleums of
the Roman emperors, may have stood between the columns, one at least, a
well-preserved torso, probably of Zeus, found upon the eastern side, has
been ascribed to Scopas. The others are, unfortunately, too much
mutilated to allow of any reliable judgment, as the varying views of
different authorities testify. At all events, these decorative works
cannot be ranked with the more celebrated examples of this master.

[Illustration: Fig. 225.--Fragment of the Frieze from the Mausoleum of
Halicarnassos.]

An acquaintance with the art of Scopas is extended by the study of his
younger and still more important contemporary Praxiteles. The
masterpieces of this artist are similar in character, and betray all the
preference of the former for the ideal beauty of youth. Not less than
five statues of Aphrodite by Praxiteles are known to have existed,
among which the famous statue at Cnidos was regarded as one of the
wonders of the world, and was ranked with the Olympian Zeus. It was so
highly prized among lovers of art that King Nicomedes of Bithynia, for
instance, in vain offered to the people of Cnidos the entire amount of
their State debt in exchange for it. The brow, the moist glowing eyes,
and soft smile of the slightly parted lips are described as wonderful;
the whole figure being so executed as to cause the marble to be
forgotten and the goddess of love to appear a reality. Coins of Cnidos
show the figure to have been entirely nude, the left hand holding her
drapery, partly lying upon a vase, and the right shielding herself in
modesty. The best in this style among the numerous remaining statues
were the Braschi Aphrodite, now in the Glyptothek at Munich, and that of
the Vatican, which is, however, inferior in execution, and is,
unfortunately, disfigured in the lower part by hard, modern drapery.
Next to that of Cnidos in nobility and beauty must have been a draped
Aphrodite from Cos, provided the people of that place had any
understanding of art; for, when the choice between the two was offered
them by the artist, they gave the preference to this. Of the three
others, less known, the Thespian was placed next to the statue of
Phryne, as contrasting divine with human beauty. To Praxiteles were
ascribed, also, at least two representations of Eros--blooming,
youthful figures, of which the most celebrated seems to have been the
Thespian or Bœotian one, which was installed between the Phryne and
the Aphrodite. Epigrams and accounts describing the god as wounding not
with the arrow, but the eye, appear to relate to this figure; for the
second statue from Parion, in Mysia, according to the coins, showed the
god unarmed, and with head uplifted.

[Illustration: Fig. 226.--Head of Eros. (Vatican.)]

A tender and almost effeminate character was exhibited in these
beautiful figures of youth, similar to which were the Sauroctonos--the
lizard-killer--the best copy of which is in the Louvre; the dreamily
reposing Satyr, of which there are copies in various museums; and the
smiling, sentimental Dionysos with the doeskin, leaning upon the
thyrsos. Great depth of suffering and sorrow is the fundamental feature
of two groups, one representing the rape of Proserpine, the other her
delivery by Demeter to the lower world, to which she returned after
every harvest, as a symbol of the following fruitless season.

This last was as pathetic an illustration of a sorely tested mother as
could be found in any other work of Praxiteles. The mild Demeter was not
less frequently presented by this master than was Aphrodite.

That greatest of all modern discoveries, the Hermes with the infant
Dionysos, found in the Heraion at Olympia (_Figs._ 227 and 228), has
proved the error of imputing to all the works of Praxiteles a delicate
gracefulness verging upon weakness, which had arisen from the study of
the only examples hitherto known--the copies of the Sauroctonos, the
Satyr, and the Aphrodite. The manly force of this statue, in character
midway between the conceptions of Pheidias and Lysippos, is, indeed, so
surprising that some scholars have even been inclined to assume a second
sculptor by the name of Praxiteles, there being no reason to doubt the
direct testimony of Pausanias as to the authorship of this work. The
beauty of this torso exceeds that of all other antique statues known;
the expression of the head conveys that intense sympathy between the
loving protector and the child which must have characterized the work of
Kephisodotos referred to above. It is possible that the Hermes was the
product of an earlier period of the sculptor’s development, more closely
related to the tendency and ideals of Pheidian art. When it is
considered that this torso is the only surely authenticated original
production of any great master of Greek sculpture--for it is by no means
certain that the gable groups of the Parthenon are by the hand of
Pheidias himself--there is no need for further discussion of the
fundamental importance of this most fortunate discovery.

[Illustration: Fig. 227.--Hermes with the Infant Dionysos. (From the
Heraion at Olympia.)]

Notwithstanding the astonishing many-sided genius and productivity of
Praxiteles, nearly all the Olympian deities appearing in the half
hundred of his works, it must still be acknowledged that, besides his
pathetic tendency, he particularly affected that province in which the
figures of maidens or youths gave opportunity for the development of the
greatest charms. His works portray a sensual loveliness distinguished
alike from that hard and abstract beauty, that outward perfection of
form sought and attained by Polycleitos, and from that elevated, godlike
being ideally embodied by Pheidias in his Zeus and his Athene. Neither
entirely human, as with Polycleitos, nor divine, as with Pheidias, this
emotional loveliness seemed created for the world of gods, but little
raised above the sight and experience of men; and this type appears to
have been as well established by Praxiteles as that of the higher
deities by Pheidias. Its examples are the Aphrodite and Eros, the
youthful Dionysos with his train, the Demeter, and the Eleusinian
circle.

[Illustration: Fig. 228.--Head of the Hermes of Praxiteles.]

[Illustration: Fig. 229.--Venus of Melos. (Louvre.)]

However important the school of these two masters of pathos may have
been, but few among the numerous names that have been preserved became
prominent. The chief exceptions are the above-mentioned assistants of
Scopas upon the mausoleum, and the two sons of Praxiteles, Kephisodotos
the younger, and Timarchos. Two of the greatest works of statuary,
however, may be ascribed to their most vigorous scholars--the Venus of
Melos in the Louvre (_Fig._ 229) and the so-called Ilioneus in the
Glyptothek at Munich. If the doubtful inscription of the artist upon the
former be credited, which, in characters of the first century B.C.,
designated it as the production of |Ale|xandros, son of Menides of
Antioch upon the Meander, but which, together with the corresponding
part of the plinth, has disappeared, we should possess in this work an
inexplicable anachronism, a creation of the highest rank in art produced
during a period of decided decadence. As, however, through this loss,
this assumption cannot be verified, science must proceed to judge it by
its style alone. Its grandeur and dignity, in contrast to the immodest
coquetry of later works; the fulness of the flesh in this body of
ever-blooming youth, in comparison with their attenuated grace; the mild
softness of the surface beside the cold polish of the other figures of
Aphrodite--would place this statue between the period of highest
perfection at the time of Praxiteles, and that of the Roman
reproductions. The reference of the Venus of Melos to the school of
Praxiteles has found a justification not to be undervalued in the
discovery of the Hermes at Olympia, this figure of manly youth forming
as complete a pendant to the maidenly Venus as could be imagined. In
artistic character this is far more nearly related to the Hermes than
is any other statue of Aphrodite, not excepting the undoubted Roman
reproduction of that of Cnidos. At any rate, it is clearly an Hellenic
original, not belonging to the period of later Hellenistic art.

Unfortunately, no explanation of this statue hitherto advanced has been
entirely satisfactory. The two arms are wanting, and the fallen drapery
covering the lower limbs has hidden from us the only accessory
evidence--namely, the object upon which the lifted left leg is
supported; so that even the name of Venus is not to be applied with the
usual certainty. The Roman types of Victory, also half nude, with the
same garments and position, and with the shield upon which the conquest
is inscribed, suggest an Aphrodite-Victory analogous to the Attic
Athene-Victory. The restorations all present points of difficulty; among
them may be mentioned that commonly received, where the goddess
contemplates herself in the shield of Ares, supported by the analogy of
a statue mentioned by Pausanias (ii. 5), an interpretation equally
applicable to the Venus of Capua, now in Naples; that also of Wiesler,
with the lance in the uplifted left hand; and the combination of the
goddess in a group with Ares by Quatremère de Quincy.

It is even less easy to find a reliable explanation of the beautiful
torso in the Glyptothek at Munich, formerly held, falsely, to be
Ilioneus among the Niobids, and even believed to be an original. As the
Venus of Melos is an illustration of ripened womanly beauty, the
entirely nude, cowering figure, without head or arms, represents the
perfection of youth; and the position suggests a subject equal in
pathetic import to that of the children of Niobe.

As the works of Scopas and Praxiteles frequently found their way to the
islands of the Ægean Sea, and as the former, at least, had certainly
dwelt for some time in Asia Minor, the influence of these two masters
appears to have extended eastward, and their style to have had decided
sway even longer there than in Greece proper. The farthest outlying
examples are presented by the fragmentary statues of the Nereids from
the Monument of Xanthos, to which they have given the name.

At that period, even in Athens, some highly esteemed artists not only
partially followed their own ways, but in these surpassed the former
masters, and pursued aims which did not become generally prevalent until
the middle of the fourth century, and then in quite other localities.
These were Silanion of Athens and Euphranor of the Isthmos. The first
devoted himself chiefly to portraits and representations of victors, and
was so especially successful in the former as to make them a real
embodiment of personal character; as, for instance, the portrait of the
passionate sculptor Apollodoros was made to appear a personification of
sudden rage. Silanion distinguished himself from Praxiteles in the
subjects of his art, in which he had much in common with Lysippos.
Euphranor was also, perhaps in a still greater degree, a painter, and,
in the coarser power of his creations, was opposed to the delicate style
of Praxiteles, showing more affinity with Lysippos, so far, at least, as
we can judge of his sculptures by the accounts of his paintings.

Similar to the transitional position between Pheidias and Scopas, held
by the elder Kephisodotos, was the position taken by these two sculptors
between the art of Scopas and Praxiteles and that of Lysippos, for whom
the studies and innovations in the canons of human proportions prepared
the way. Though self-taught, for as a youth he had been a hand-worker in
brass, and from this had raised himself to the position of an artist, he
was still not without connection with the schools, since he took as his
model the Doryphoros of Polycleitos, the academic pattern mentioned
above, and also worked in bronze, the material most favored by
Polycleitos and the artists of the Peloponnesos. He cannot, however, be
called a direct scholar of Polycleitos, whose canon he corrected and
even replaced by a new one, better adapted to the artistic aims of the
younger masters. The model of Polycleitos was the human body, but
Lysippos felt that he must set his ideal of humanity higher than in the
average of real examples, because he considered these, in comparison
with the perfect figure, to be degenerate and dwarfed. Although he
worked with reference to this view, still he developed his types from
the real appearances of nature; and when asked by the painter Eupompos
of Sikyon for advice as to the best teacher, he pointed to an assemblage
of people. He wished to represent man, however, not as he is, but as he
should be, and employed only those features which did not fall below
the average determined by Polycleitos. His ideal type of the human body
became more slender and larger, the size being especially apparent
because the head and extremities, which take their proportions from the
whole, were made smaller.

[Illustration: Fig. 230.--Marble Copy of the Apoxyomenos of Lysippos.
(In the Vatican.)]

Lysippos, however, followed the footsteps of Polycleitos in considering
the establishment of a canon as the greatest essential in art, and
exercised his powers chiefly in the province of humanity. His
Apoxyomenos--the athlete scraping himself with the strigil, a marble
copy of which is in the Vatican--is the most celebrated among his
statues of athletes and victors. (_Fig._ 230.) In this he seems to have
set forth his new confession of faith, in opposition to that of
Polycleitos. This aim must have had the most important influence upon
portrait-sculpture, the chief field of his activity. It is clear from
the accounts of some likenesses of persons long dead, or even legendary,
that he fully expressed the character in the features, as in the
Apollodoros of Silanion, and did not aim at that over-scrupulous
reproduction of details and attention to circumstantial matters which
endeavor to attain a likeness by sharp observation of external things,
unessential to the whole. This inferior style of portraiture was
pursued by Lysistratos, the brother of Lysippos, who formed his figures
after plaster casts from nature. Although earlier portraits might have
informed the sculptor in regard to the true features of some historical
personages, certainly this could not have been the case with Æsop, or
the Seven Wise Men, for whose individuality and intellectual tendencies
he was obliged to create a characteristic type. In the portrait which he
most frequently executed, that of Alexander the Great, it was of
especial importance to illuminate the ugly and faulty formation of the
monarch’s face by the expression of his powerful character, and to
execute it so appropriately that even the likeness was increased by such
depth of appreciation. The artist thus produced portraits of the
conqueror which differed as much, and as favorably, from the realistic
and chance appearance of the king as the historic illustration of a
great personage does from the knowledge of that individual in every-day
life. Alexander, accordingly, would be represented in sculpture by no
one except Lysippos, as he would be painted by none but Apelles. Even
that best-preserved portrait of Alexander, the bust in the Capitol, does
not suffice to make clear the whole conception of Lysippos. How grand
such monumental portraitures really were may be gathered from the
account of the group at Dium--afterwards transferred to the Portico of
Octavia in Rome--illustrating a scene from the battle upon the Granicos,
where twenty-five warriors on horseback and nine on foot were grouped
about the king, to which many of the enemy may doubtless be added.

The work next in importance after this was the representation of
Heracles by this master. Not in the elevation of the ideal above the
human, but rather in the emphasizing of this latter quality, did the
Heracles of Lysippos stand in distinct opposition alike to the merely
human model of Polycleitos, to the superhuman and godlike beings of
Pheidias, and especially to the divinely charming beauty of the
Aphrodite and the Eros, as seen in the best creations of Scopas and
Praxiteles. The Heracles of Lysippos, the embodiment of strength
developed beyond human possibility, appeared colossal, whether the
absolute dimensions were really great--like the statue from Tarention
which represented him resting upon a basket after the labor of cleansing
the Augean stables--or whether in miniature, suitable for a table
ornament--like the celebrated Epitrapezios, showing the hero as a
drinker. Copies, in part, still remain of the Labors of Heracles,
executed in twelve groups for Alyzia, in Acarnania. They show the same
type that is reproduced in the affected, overstrained statue of the
later Athenian artist Glycon--the so-called Farnese Hercules in Naples.
(_Fig._ 231.)

[Illustration: Fig. 231.--Farnese Hercules of Glycon. (In the Museum of
Naples.)]

Besides these prominent groups by Lysippos, evidences of his creative
energy, the figures of the deities appear to have been few in number.
That examples from the circle of young and beautiful divinities, which
formed the principal field for the art of Praxiteles, should be almost
entirely wanting, was to be expected, he who had perfected the type of
Heracles naturally preferring a powerful figure. Four statues of Zeus
are mentioned. Though the colossal size of these seems to have been a
prominent feature--the Zeus of Tarention measuring eighteen metres in
height--still they should not be considered as executed after a
conventional pattern, and consequently offering nothing worthy of
remark. In view of all that is known of Lysippos, it seems not
improbable that the Zeus of Otricoli (_Fig._ 232), formerly referred to
the Pheidian type, may be more nearly related to its modification by
Lysippos. The Helios upon the quadriga in Rhodes, besides its human
beauty, may possibly have been of great importance in type and
conception; but this is not assured by the fact that Nero prized it
highly, and ordered it to be gilded. If it be added that Lysippos worked
more industriously and rapidly than any other known sculptor--provided
the account be true that the number of his productions amounted to
fifteen hundred--it cannot be supposed that the time required for new
conception and careful execution would be given to them all.

[Illustration: Fig. 232.--Zeus of Otricoli. (Vatican.)]

The school of Lysippos was not wanting in names of renown. His most
gifted son, Euthycrates, appears to have equalled his father in groups
of portrait statues, like the Gathering of Riders and a Hunt of
Alexander in Thespia; while another son, Boidas, awakens our interest
from the circumstance that the celebrated Praying Boy, in the museum at
Berlin, may possibly be referred to him. Chares of Lindos produced the
greatest known work of Greek sculpture in regard to size--namely, the
colossal statue of the sun at Rhodes, over thirty metres high. Pliny
describes it as already fallen and in ruins, therefore his words give us
no information as to the conception and style; and the current account
of its having stood so high above the entrance to the harbor that
vessels sailed between the legs is a fabulous reminiscence of the figure
projected at Mount Athos by Deinocrates. Among the scholars of Lysippos,
Eutychides seems to have been the most independent; the goddess
Anticheia, a copy of which is in the Vatican, was distinguished by
excellence in the motive, ease of position, and effective drapery; but,
in its genre-like treatment, it excluded all thought of religious art,
to which a certain strictness and dignity should pertain. This goddess
was seated with dignity, like a city itself, while another
personification--the river-god--appeared “more flowing than water.” This
marked significance in both cannot be ascribed to a happy chance, but
must be regarded as evidence of that highly developed characterization
by which the great Sikyonian master endeavored to conceive the whole
being and to embody it in his portraits and representative figures.
Among the nameless works from the school of Lysippos, creations are to
be found of the highest merit. The originator of the Barberini Faun, now
in the Glyptothek at Munich, whoever he may have been, should be ranked
among the greatest masters of all times.

[Illustration: Fig. 233.--Boreas.]

[Illustration: Fig. 234.--Notos. From the Tower of the Winds, Athens.]

With Lysippos the development of art in its principal directions was
terminated. As Overbeck says, “the summit lies behind us; we descend,
and our way downwards may still lead through charming landscapes; but
the pure, clear ether soon ceases to surround us, and, before the
far-reaching glance, rises from the mist of centuries the flat and
endless desert, in the sands of which the stream of Grecian art is
quenched.” Alexander himself was the patron of the last of the seven
great masters of sculpture; with him ended the fresh directness of
Hellenic creations, as well as the greatness of Greece itself. He and
his successors built temples afterwards to be furnished, as before, with
statues of the deities and outwardly ornamented with sculptures; but
they took their models from those earlier works which, elevated to a
typical and canonical importance, were not to be surpassed, and employed
themselves simply in reproducing. They followed more willingly the easy
path open to them because, in the Alexandrian period, scepticism, empty
formalism, and chilling indifference had already laid the ravaging axe
to the Hellenic religion. With the spread of Hellenic power into the
heart of Asia, its art, like its polity, lost its individuality,
becoming _expansive_ instead of _intense_, in decorative subjection to
the requirements of elegance and use. Losing its former independent
nobility, sculpture soon fell from the height which it had occupied for
a century and a half. Athens, Sikyon, and Argos, hitherto central points
of development, where art had brought forth its richest fruits as a
model for the entire Hellenic world, now became provincial cities of
the Macedonian kingdom, and lost their glory--some for a long period,
and others forever. Following the example of Lysippos, artists preferred
wandering from court to court of Alexander’s successors; and in
Alexandria, Antioch, Seleucia, in Nicomedia, Pergamon, Ambrakia, mostly
new and elegant cities of royal residence, occupation could not have
been wanting, though the quantity of work may have tended to hasten the
decline. How extensive and extravagant were the artistic requirements of
the Diadochi, how excessive the incense of flattery offered them, is
shown in the description of the luxurious works of the Ptolemies and of
the Seleucidæ, and by the three hundred statues erected to Demetrius
Phalereus in Athens alone. These last may have been somewhat better than
the representation of the winds upon the clepsydra and vane of
Andronicos Kyrrhestios (_Figs._ 233 and 234), but even they must be
classed as mere artisan-work. Much was done in portrait-statuary after
the time of Alexander, who turned art in this direction; and the
successive dynasties also encouraged it, as may easily be imagined. This
is evident from the statues still preserved, from the Ptolemaic cameos,
and especially the coins of the Diadochi. The heads of these kings have
never been equalled, for fine and lifelike characterization and
modelling, in all the portrait coins and medallions which have been
struck down to the present time. (_Fig._ 235.)

Though a great deal was produced in the period of the Diadochi, and, in
the line of portraiture, much that was good, still there must have been
truth in the saying of Pliny that “after the 121st Olympiad (290 B.C.)
art ceased, and revived again only in the 156th (150 B.C.).” It ceased,
namely, in so far as it was made subservient to courts and decoration;
but upon the soil of Greece itself, and among the people, it grew, and
strove after higher aims. The production continued, but its artisan-like
elaboration did not make good the lost artistic originality. Men of
vigorous talent followed in the paths of Praxiteles and Lysippos,
producing works which are the ornaments of our antique collections; but
the character of reproductions, clinging to their creations, robs them
of the name of artist in the full sense of the word. The scanty notices
of Pliny are, in general, correct; but he omits to mention some
exceptions which represent a further development of sculpture, not quite
unimportant, though questionable in principle.

[Illustration: Antiochos I. of Syria. 281 to 262.

Philip V. of Macedon. 220 to 178.

Perseus of Macedon. 178 to 168.

Fig. 235.--Coins of the Diadochi.]

[Illustration: Fig. 236.--The So-called Dying Gladiator. School of
Pergamon.]

In two places, at the royal court of Pergamon and in the republic of
Rhodes, productive art rose again to a certain independence and
originality. Pliny himself, in another place, says that “several artists
illustrated the battles of Attalos and Eumenes against the Gauls;
namely, Isigonos, Phycomachos, Stratonicos, and Antigonos.” The great
victory over these barbarians was fought in 229 B.C. by Attalos, with
which Eumenes, by a misunderstanding easily to be explained, appears to
have been connected. Attalos erected in his capital a grand monument to
his victory, and, not contenting himself with this, consecrated another
upon the Acropolis at Athens, perhaps in part a copy of that in
Pergamon. Remnants of both monuments still exist which give a
comparatively good knowledge of the artistic peculiarities of this
school. The investigations upon this site, now approaching completion,
have unearthed hundreds of fragments in high-relief, part of a
gigantomachia originally forming the decoration of an altar. The altar
was surrounded by Ionic colonnades, the high stereobate of which was
ornamented with sculptures in high-relief, the whole being elevated upon
a gigantic terrace, 38 m. long, and 34 m. broad. The frieze,
representing the gigantomachia, stands midway between the works of
Lysippos and the Laocoon, and forms the most extensive and important
monument of sculpture remaining from the time of the Diadochi; it is in
many respects a parallel to that of the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos which
represents the decorative work of the school of Scopas and Praxiteles.
These works have now found their way to Berlin, but a critical account
of them will be possible only when they shall have been made generally
accessible by an official publication. The statue of the so-called Dying
Gladiator of the Capitol belonged to the group in Pergamon already known
(_Fig._ 236); as did the two figures in the Villa Ludovisi, representing
a Gaul who, to escape the shame of slavery, has stabbed his wife, who
sinks beside him, and is about to thrust the sword into his own neck.
In the so-called Dying Gladiator, the rough hair growing low upon the
neck, the strongly marked indentation between the brow and the
projecting Northern nose, the beard shorn to the upper lip, the heavy
cheek-bones, the fleshy and somewhat clumsily formed body, the hard and
calloused skin upon the hands and feet, the twisted neckband, and the
curved battle-horn have long since shown the meaning of this statue. In
the group in the Ludovisi Villa, the same marble, a like and peculiar
treatment of the forms, with the same type of head, leave no doubt that
this also belonged to a large group representing a victory over the
Gauls. From its style, it cannot be considered as a Roman monument,
particularly as some notices of the Athenian Votive Offering of Attalos
clearly identify it.

The most striking novelty in these monuments, and also in the school of
art at Pergamon, is the characteristic following-out of ethnographical
differences. Previously, when artists would distinguish barbarians, they
were content to make the nationality clear by costume and accessories;
but this could not suffice for Lysippos, who had carried individual
characterization to such a height in his portrait-statues, and who
probably, in his group of the battle upon the Granicos, illustrated the
peculiarities of the Persian race. In groups of portrait-statues it was
necessary to treat the action with absolute truthfulness, thus leading
the way to historic art. This is perfected in the monument in question,
the ideal battle scene being based upon real details; it was not merely
a strife among men, but Greeks and Celts stood opposed, each nation with
its marked features and peculiarities, the barbarians distinguished not
outwardly alone, but by their natural wildness.

This is evident from a number of figures of the Athenian votive offering
of Attalos, still preserved; our knowledge of their connection with the
Dying Gladiator and the school of Pergamon is due to Brunn. According to
Pausanias, this votive offering consisted of figures half the size of
life, in four groups, showing the gigantomachia, the combat of the
Amazons, the battle of Marathon, and the victory of Attalos. Figures
exist from them all; from the first, a giant, dead and outstretched, is
in the museum at Naples, as also one of the second, a fallen Amazon;
from the third, a dead body clad in breeches, and two nude Persians
kneeling, are in Naples, the Vatican, and in the possession of Signor
Castellani. From the fourth, a kneeling figure, at Paris, and one
kneeling and one falling backward, at Venice, are unmistakable Gauls;
while a sitting figure, wounded, also at Venice, and a youthful one,
dead, at Naples, are probably also of that race. Judging from these
remains, the composition must have included numerous figures, as the
five existing Gauls--perhaps also several more--bespeak a corresponding
number at Pergamon, and forty is the lowest that can be reckoned for the
whole. Their position was probably upon the steps of the monument, which
possibly bore the statue of the founder. It must have stood near the
wall of the Acropolis, since it has been said that a figure from the
gigantomachia was thrown by a storm into the theatre which stood at the
foot of this fortress. That only the conquered are found among the
pieces preserved seems to be an evidence that these remnants are from
the original rather than from any copy, because, aside from the
improbability that so extensive a work would have been copied in later
times, the effect of the storm suggests the thought that the erect
statues of the victors would have been less likely to last through so
many centuries than the lying and cowering figures, not so easily
injured on account of their closer connection with the base.
Notwithstanding their relation in style to the Capitoline statue and to
the group in the Ludovisi Villa, these are distinctly inferior and
harder. Brunn is probably right in his supposition that they are the
work of scholars, and a contemporaneous reproduction from the studio of
that master, who himself executed the monument at Pergamon, the figures
of which ranked in merit with the Dying Gladiator. Many deficiencies may
be accounted for by its reduction to half life-size; its repetition at
this scale, for the Athenian votive offering, appearing to have
satisfied the king.

The work most nearly related to this, also in marble, and perfectly
similar in conception, is a figure of the Marsyas group, the celebrated
Knife-sharpener in the Uffizi at Florence. This is also a representative
of barbarism, probably a Scythian, the others having been Gauls; but,
artistically, this makes no difference. No originals remain of the other
figures in the group, of which the barbarian, cowering upon the ground
and sharpening the knife for the flaying of Marsyas, probably formed no
very important part. Another aim, the careful anatomical treatment of
the body, is ostentatiously displayed in the copies of this work now in
Berlin and Florence. The group suggests another locality, and forms a
connecting medium between those two most important centres of art in
that period, Pergamon and Rhodes.

Among the few republics of the time, the island of Rhodes was able to
rival the brilliant courts of kings, in regard to artistic treasures, by
its wealth of commerce and its political neutrality--the latter being
rendered possible, as nowhere else, by its situation and importance.
That the influence of Lysippos prevailed there is clear from the fact
that, after this master had sent thither his Phoibos upon the quadriga,
the Rhodian Chares went to learn of him, and afterwards executed for his
native city the above-mentioned colossus. This was followed in the same
place by a hundred other colossal figures, which were probably related,
in point of style, to the works of Lysippos. The statement of Pliny that
each, singly, would have sufficed to make the place of its exposition
famous is hardly intelligible. Numerous names of artists, mostly of
Rhodes, found partly in inscriptions upon the bases, and partly
mentioned by Pliny, might here be mentioned.

The multiplied productions of colossal works, however, would not suffice
to give a very favorable idea of the state of art in Rhodes, were it not
for the preservation of two examples, prominent among many, which were
famous even in antiquity. These were the group of the Laocoon, in the
Vatican, and the so-called Farnese Bull, in Naples. The first (_Fig._
237), which Pliny, with extravagant praise, calls the work of three
Rhodians, Agesandros, Athanodoros, and Polydoros, was found in 1506--not
in one piece, as he describes it, but in six--among the ruins of the
house of Titus, in whose palace Pliny says it was placed. It represents
the priest Laocoon, who sinned at the altar through love, and whom
Apollo chastised by means of two serpents. This expiation became tragic,
from its having taken place at the moment when Laocoon had resolved to
save his native city, Troy; and also from the suffering of the children,
innocent, though born in sin. The serpents have encircled the three
figures; the youngest is falling from the deadly sting; the father,
sinking upon the altar after a desperate defence, is no longer able to
protect himself; while the elder son, not yet threatened with instant
death, but hopelessly entangled in the coils of the serpent, turns upon
his father a look of despairing horror.

[Illustration: Fig. 237.--Group of Laocoon and his Sons, by Agesandros,
Athanodoros, and Polydoros. (Vatican.)]

This grand work, though from Pliny down to later times esteemed beyond
its real merit, still makes evident to us peculiarities in the art of
Rhodes which, in many respects, render it of independent value. We find
in it a choice of subject new in sculpture, the technical and artistic
difficulties of which appear almost insurmountable, so that it could
only be treated by ability well trained and long experienced. It gave
opportunity to surpass all existing productions in its display of
artistic technical superiority. When the body of the Laocoon is compared
with the type of Heracles, it cannot be doubted that the canon of
Lysippos was followed; but the forms, which with him were developed from
the living model, in this, as in the Marsyas of Pergamon, are taken from
anatomical studies, and are wanting in fulness of life: the overdetailed
muscles are too studied, distinct, and separated; they are marble, and
not flesh. The composition would, in real life, be impracticable; the
action is visibly so ordered that it never could be possible, and is
throughout developed with an aim towards the greatest effect. But this
effect is by no means merely formal, limited to the restless and
disquieting play of the lines of the limbs and trunks, and of the coils
of the serpents. It is in the highest degree pathetic. Thus this element
of the school of Praxiteles existed in this work, both the leading
characteristics of that master being here displayed with an excessive
ostentation. The pathos confronts us too exclusively, not modified by
any ethic principle. The work does not, therefore, have the tragic power
which lies in the descriptions of Sophocles, because, in the group, only
the effect is to be seen; we have no hint as to the cause. The pathetic
blends far more with the pathological event than with the ethical. The
mastery of rendering, the composition, the effect--everything is
wonderful; but it all lies in the realm of display: our admiration is
given to the artist rather than to the work. It cannot be denied that
this effective treatment was the dominant feature in the art of Rhodes;
but it set technical mastery in the foreground, to the neglect of
absolute and intrinsic merit.

[Illustration: Fig. 238.--The Farnese Bull of Apollonios and Tauriscos.
(In Naples.)]

This applies equally to the second great work, the so-called Farnese
Bull (_Fig._ 238), the creation of two artists from Tralles, Apollonios
and Tauriscos, who may have worked in Rhodes, as, according to Pliny,
the group was to be seen there before it was brought to Rome under
Augustus. This large group was found in the Baths of Caracalla soon
after the discovery of the Laocoon, and was transported to Naples, where
it now stands in the Museo Nazionale. The scene is probably taken from
the _Antiope_, a tragedy of Euripides, and an understanding of the story
is necessary to its comprehension. Antiope was the daughter of King
Nycteus of Thebes; he being angry with her because of the love of Zeus,
and incredulous as to the cause of her pregnancy, she fled to Mount
Kithairon, where she bore the twins Zethos and Amphion. Having given
these to the care of a shepherd, she was received by King Epopeus of
Sikyon; but Lycos, the brother and successor of Nycteus, carried on the
hateful persecution, even to the extent of making war against her
protector. Sikyon was destroyed, and Antiope returned as a slave to
Thebes, where the ill-treatment of Dirke, wife of Lycos, obliged her to
fly once more to the mountains. There, at a festival of Bacchus, she was
found again by her persecutor, and, for her flight, was given the
terrible punishment of being dragged to death by a bull. Zethos and
Amphion were ready to execute the command when a recognition took place,
and a just vengeance brought the fate intended for Antiope upon the head
of Dirke. This moment forms the imposing scene of the group. The raging
bull is only with difficulty held by the avenging sons; Dirke, a most
beautiful woman, praying in vain for grace, clasps the knee of one while
the other is ready to throw around her the noose by which she is to be
dragged over the rough ground of Kithairon. The passion of the avenging
sons, and the fear of Dirke, make the work highly pathetic and
impressive; but it is not so really tragic as the Laocoon, because the
motive of the evidently brutal deed, though not entirely neglected, as
in the former, is still not entirely comprehensible. Antiope, the
heroine of the tragedy, is indeed present. But she is not brought into
the action, and stands, in fact, behind the principal characters. She is
therefore hardly more than a lay figure, expressing nothing. It might
perhaps have been better to omit Antiope altogether, and to leave the
action without any motive at all. The figure has, however, an interest
of its own, being in an excellent state of preservation, while the
others have suffered by restoration and by retouching. The composition,
with its numerous figures, admirably executed, has a picturesque effect
which is somewhat new in the history of Greek sculpture. This is
enhanced by the accessories of the story, the rocky ground, and many
local details symbolical of the occasion. Besides a fine large dog,
really belonging to the group, there are a chaplet and a basket, a
disproportionately small boy ornamented with a wreath, and, still more
inferior in size, two lions seizing a bull and a horse. There are also
two boars coming out from a grotto, a lioness, a stag, a hind, a ram, an
eagle with a snake, and a falcon over a dead bird; even turtles,
snakes, and snails are represented. The mastery over the technical and
artistic difficulties in this work is scarcely less admirable than in
the Laocoon, and it gives the same impression of a successful piece of
bravura, astonishing and quite fascinating for its novelty, boldness,
and versatile power. The age, indeed, satiated with the best products of
various schools, demanded the stimulus of an excessive appeal to
superficial sources of interest. The group of the Marsyas is attributed
to artists of Pergamon, and the Wrestlers in the Uffizi at Florence
(_Fig._ 239) may, with greater certainty, be ascribed to those of
Rhodes.

[Illustration: Fig. 239.--The Wrestlers. (In the Uffizi, Florence.)]

[Illustration: Fig. 240.--Apollo Belvedere. (In the Vatican.)]

Before we pass to the last active period of Hellenic art, one other
work, preserved from this age, the Apollo Belvedere of the Vatican
(_Fig._ 240), still claims our consideration. Though without the name of
the artist, or of the place of its origin, and not, perhaps, to be
classed directly with the greatest productions of Pergamon and Rhodes,
it is yet not unworthy to rank by their side. It is, like the Laocoon,
one of the best-known statues among the existing treasures of
antiquity, and scarcely needs a minute description. The splendid
triumphant head looking into the distance, the slender figure, as fine
in modelling as it is noble, the pleasing grace of the light step,
assure for it an admiration, the more universal as these beauties--the
combined result of the schools of Lysippos and of Praxiteles--are just
those which are the most generally recognized. It is not an original
work, in the full sense of the word, but an early Roman copy from the
bronze, and seems to bear a closer relation to it than does the lately
discovered head which is now in the museum at Basle. This latter has
lost the characteristic features of the bronze style, and from the
greater freedom of its treatment may be called a _translation_ into
marble, in distinction from the _copy_ in the Vatican. Another
reproduction of this work recently made known by Stephani, a bronze
statuette in the Strogonoff collection, at St. Petersburg, has given an
additional explanation of the action in which the god was represented.
In the marble the left hand was wanting, and in the restoration this was
supplied with a bow; but in the Strogonoff Apollo remains are still to
be seen of the ægis, held in the hand, with which the deity drove back
the Greeks, as described by Homer, Il. xv. 306. If the far-shooter be
thus changed into the ægis-bearer, the shaking of the ægis symbolizing
the storm, a plain reference may be found to the original motive of the
work. When the Gauls threatened Delphi in 279 B.C., the defence of the
Greeks was effectively assisted by a terrible storm, which threw the
barbarians into a fearful panic, and which was regarded by the Greeks as
caused by the personal intervention of Apollo, Athene, and Artemis. This
might well have had an effect upon art similar to that of the victory of
Attalos over the Gauls in Asia Minor. The Ætolians, indeed, proposed to
erect at Delphi a votive offering, with figures of field-officers and of
the three gods, while a statue of Apollo was erected in Patrae from a
similar reason. In view of this, Overbeck has ventured to combine the
Apollo Belvedere, the Artemis of Versailles (_Fig._ 241), and the
striding Athene of the Capitoline Museum into one group, to which ideal
union the unsimilarity of the workmanship, and even of the scale of the
three statues, is not so much opposed--since these are all copies that
have come down to us from different times--as is the movement of the
Apollo, the middle figure, towards the right. This difficulty might be
met by changing the positions, so that Athene should stand at the right
and Artemis at the left, whereby the action of the figures might be
from, rather than towards, each other, Artemis being turned decidedly
more towards the front. If, however, this work originated in consequence
of the victory in 279 B.C., it shows that a generation before the time
of Attalos, at least in Greece proper, although attention had already
been devoted to momentary action, art nevertheless still stood upon an
ideal height, and could still delineate gods worthy of admiration.

[Illustration: Fig. 241.--Artemis of Versailles.]

These artistic efforts do not, on the whole, refute the opinion of Pliny
that art ceased from the 121st to the 156th Olympiad--that is, from 300
to 150 B.C. The chief localities of its activity, Pergamon and Rhodes,
may be considered only as asylums found by the higher sculpture after it
had lost all foothold in its native home. But when he says it took a new
flight at the close of that period, we must acknowledge that the result
was not of that kind which could charm us as it did the Roman narrator.
As Brunn remarks, the date of Pliny agrees with that period when
Hellenic art attained a decided mastery in Rome. Scarcely any evidences
of the monumental art of Greece were to be recognized in Rome before the
conquest of Syracuse in 212 B.C. After this time the Roman triumphs
brought forth, one after another, an almost oppressive number of
productions, so that the art of the Greek colonies, and of Greece
itself, overflowed Rome in a broad stream. Not to mention the plundering
of Capua, Tarention, and numerous Grecian cities in Lower Italy, we have
an example in the triumphs of Quintius Flaminius, the conqueror of
Kynoskephalæ, 197 B.C., when the transportation of the statues lasted
an entire day. The booty taken from Western Greece by M. Fulvius
Nobilior, in 189 B.C., also contained not less than five hundred and
fifteen statues. These extensive plunderings were at least equalled by
the triumphs of L. Cornelius Scipio, the victor over Antiochos; of
Æmilius Paulus, conqueror of Perseus; of Metellus Macedonicus, and of
the destroyer of Corinth, Mummius, who has become proverbial for his
barbarous robberies. It was not strange that at last a living art
followed the triumphal chariot of Roman victories. Metellus employed
many Grecian artists in the erection and ornamentation of his new
buildings in Rome.

The scene of artistic industry thus became changed, and Rome, a foreign
city, became the central point--first of possession, and afterwards of
artistic activity. It might therefore be questioned whether what follows
were not better suited to the chapter upon Rome; but it must be
considered that the Romans were, from our present point of view, only
wealthy collectors and patrons of art, and that the artists employed
were still Grecian, and of the Hellenic school. This was not altered by
their working in Rome, or even by their learning from the numberless
productions accumulated there.

Roman grandeur was long contented with artistic booty for the
ornamenting of its forums, temples, and public buildings; the immense
wealth of the empire and proconsulate giving opportunity for procuring
celebrated works by force, by purchase, or as honorary gifts. This
brought forth dilettanteism, which led to the study of art, and to a
zeal for collecting which made every new acquisition an additional
incentive to covetousness. Study choked that impulse which, in a
degenerate way, had endeavored to outdo what had been done by masters of
the best period, and, accounting their method to be exclusively good,
turned art back by a sort of reaction upon those earlier paths. The
passion for collecting was not limited to the works ready at hand, but
would have restorations and imitations by contemporary artists, made in
the spirit of the originals. It could not have been otherwise than that
art, after having exhausted the originals, and attained its aims in all
directions, should react upon itself; but doubtless the circumstances of
Rome had an essential influence upon the manner in which this took
place, and greatly furthered this renaissance--to use a somewhat
unsuitable term which, in its restricted sense, has been adopted for the
far more original awakening of art at the close of the Middle Ages.

[Illustration: Fig. 242.--Borghese Gladiator of Agasias. (In the
Louvre.)]

In the desire to enliven the different phases of artistic development,
it was natural not to return to first principles, but rather to take
those creations which lay near at hand, and try to find in them the way
to improvement. The period under consideration, up to the commencement
of the empire, offers examples of every stage of development, the dates
of which can only here and there be given; but it seems that the way for
an Hellenic renaissance was, during this period, partially opened.

Agasias of Ephesos appears as successor to the master of the Laocoon and
of the Farnese Bull. The celebrated Borghese Gladiator in the Louvre,
which represents a warrior in fictitious battle with a horseman, may be
referred to the school of Rhodes. (_Fig._ 242.) As the statue did not
belong to a group, but was independent, we see in it nothing but a show
figure, in which the artist only sought for a position where he might
outdo all that had gone before, and give opportunity to parade his
technical mastery and his anatomical knowledge. That the work should be
placed in this time, and not in the best period of the Rhodian school,
is plain from the later character of the writing in the artist’s
inscription, from the inferior understanding of the mutual relations of
the muscles, and particularly from the insignificance of the idea, and
the entire lack of the pathetic, all which elements lent to the works of
Rhodes an especial value.

As examples from Rhodes and Pergamon not only lay near at hand for the
artists of Asia Minor, but were germane to their civilization, so the
numerous Attic masters of this period looked to the time of perfection
in Attica and Sikyon. The tenets of the school of Lysippos still held
sway there, and what splendid fruit it bore, even at this time,
notwithstanding the retrogression from its earlier overvalued merit, is
shown by the much admired torso, now in the Vatican Belvedere, by
Apollonios, son of Nestor of Athens. (_Fig._ 243.) This must certainly
have been a sitting Heracles, a motive repeatedly treated by Lysippos,
though no restoration of it has yet been decidedly successful. The most
probable is the latest by Petersen, which represents him as playing the
kithara. The somewhat later statue by Glycon of Athens, the Heracles,
who stands leaning upon his club (_Fig._ 231), though approaching
somewhat in conception to a work of Lysippos, is far inferior. With this
may be mentioned a still poorer repetition, the Heracles of the Pitti
Palace in Florence, through a false inscription ascribed to Lysippos.

[Illustration: Fig. 243.--Belvedere Torso, by Apollonios. (In the
Vatican.)]

Besides Apollonios, who was distinguished also by his youthful satyr and
an Apollo, which are too little known for a more minute description, the
school of Scopas and Praxiteles was followed by the son of Apollodoros
of Athens, Cleomenes, the sculptor of the Venus de’ Medici. When
compared with the divine figure of the Venus of Melos, though pleasing,
it appears degenerate. The godlike beauty which we impute to the Cnidian
Aphrodite, and find in the Venus of Melos, is lost by the continual
emphasis of sensuous effects, notwithstanding all the mastery and
delicate feeling for beauty. With the exception of the Braschi Venus at
Munich and the Venus of the Capitol, which are more nearly related to
that of Cnidos, nearly all the nude figures of Venus in the various
museums belong to the same circle and stage of development, even when
they betray later work. The masters by no means appear to have been mere
copyists; but the works of Praxiteles were altered, to suit the taste of
the times, by artists in whom individuality was not quite extinct.

The school of Pheidias, with its high ideal, of which the age in
question had little understanding, could never have become popular in
the same degree. Rome possessed but few works of this master which could
have served as examples, and those not the most important. Still,
reminiscences of the best Attic style were not wanting, especially in
those figures of the gods the type of which had been established by
Pheidias, as in the statues of Zeus and Athene. The chryselephantine
Zeus, by Polycles and Dionysios, in Metellus’s Temple of Jupiter, as
also the Capitoline of the same material by Apollonios, may justly be
referred to the Olympian original; the former at least with the more
certainty, when it is considered that the sons of Polycles--Timocles and
Timarchides--copied the sculptures upon a shield of the Parthenos for an
Athene, designed for Elateia in Phokis. It is possible--and this may,
perhaps, be still further established by Brunn, who has pointed out this
connection--that the Pallas in the Villa Ludovisi, by Antiochos of
Athens, which has been estimated below its worth, may be a reproduction
of the Parthenos, modified and perhaps formed from memory. The treatment
of the garments, and the whole position of this otherwise ill-executed
figure, remind us of the chryselephantine works, and possess something
of the dignity and nobility of the better period.

[Illustration: Fig. 244.--Group by Menelaos. (In the Villa Ludovisi.)]

At a time when Cicero could say that in his opinion “the works of
Polycleitos were perfectly beautiful” the master from Argos must have
come into fashion. The artistic representative of this stage of
appreciative development was Pasiteles, who worked in the time of
Pompey, and whose important school has left traces of this influence in
examples that have been preserved. The pathetic tendency was not
entirely to be avoided, and, though not so evident in the academic male
figure of the Villa Albani, which bears the name of Stephanos, the
scholar of Pasiteles, is yet undeniable in the groups of Orestes and
Electra in Naples, and of Orestes and Pylades in the Louvre. This trait
is still more marked in a work of Menelaos, the scholar of Stephanos,
the beautiful and celebrated group in the Villa Ludovisi (_Fig._ 244),
designated by Winckelmann and Welcker as Electra and Orestes; by Jahn,
as Merope and Cresphontes; by Kekulé, as Deianeira and Hyllos; and by
Schulze and Burckhardt, as Penelope and Telemachos. Though the artist
has here made concessions to more recent influences, they did not give
the work an eclectic character, as asserted by Kekulé, but rather
displayed a somewhat archaistic conception, and the short proportions of
Polycleitos, long since abandoned for the canon of Lysippos. On the
other hand, the remark of Kekulé appears just, that the characters do
not seem conceived and modelled after nature, but rather as seen
through the medium of the tragedy of Euripides.

When the reproductions had run through the entire circle of styles from
the best period of art, the archaic was at last brought forward. It is
known that Augustus ornamented his buildings, particularly the gable of
the Palatine Temple of Apollo, with sculptures of the masters from
Chios, Boupalos and Athenis, and that he also carried away from Tegea
the Athene of the old Attic Endoios. Archaic art, always possessing a
charm for devotional images which was doubled in a time of such satiety,
came thus into fashion. A large number of archaistic works appeared,
imitated after the antique, as has already been mentioned. They not
seldom betray the influence of single figures from larger compositions
in relief, as in the instance of the Amphora of the Athenian Sosibios in
the Louvre.

[Illustration: Fig. 245.--Capitoline Centaur of Aristeas and Papias.
(Capitoline Museum.)]

The more or less free reproductiveness of this period, which we have to
thank for a large proportion of the contents of our museums, naturally
came to a conclusion in that unbridled mixture of style which combined
in the same relief not only the various aims of different schools, but
their well-known motives, as is the case with the relief of the Salpion
upon the font of Gaeta. There was very little originality, and that was
limited to genre, particularly to the idyllic, as in the play of Cupids,
the best of which might be referred to old models. It is not known
whether this was the case with the lioness of Arkesilaos, in the
possession of Varro, which, according to Pliny’s description, bound by
Cupids, was drinking from a horn, with mittens upon the paws to render
them harmless. Models for this may be sought in the paintings of
Alexandria. It is certain that the centaurs, bound and worried by
Cupids, the best examples of which are preserved in the Louvre, the
Vatican, the Doria Palace, and the Capitoline Museum, with that of
Aristeas and Papias from Aphrodisias, are imitations of bronze
originals. (_Fig._ 245.)

       *       *       *       *       *

Hellenic architecture and sculpture, from their unsurpassed perfection,
require a more comprehensive treatment than that accorded to those arts
in any other ancient nation. This is especially the case with sculpture,
because, in Greece, the demands of its nature were more completely
fulfilled by the Greeks than has ever happened, at any time, with any
other people; while Grecian architecture, notwithstanding its wonderful
monumental perfection, did not deal with all the possibilities of the
art. Both, however, demand our attention in a greater degree than does
Hellenic painting. Architecture has left great masses of ruins, and
sculpture numerous collections of antique treasures; but of Grecian
painting there are no remains; its history is accordingly a history
rather of artists than of art. If this necessitates for painting a more
limited treatment, we must not therefore conclude that its development
was, in reality, inferior to that of its sister arts, since, in fact, it
fully equalled that of architecture and sculpture. This has often been
unjustly doubted, but it would be fully evident were nothing more known
than the almost measureless fame of the first masters.

The course of development of Grecian painting is by no means so obvious
as that of sculpture: we have no sure date of its beginning, but it is
at least equally remote. Conze shows painting to have been even the most
primitive, it having existed among the aborigines in the decoration of
pottery and terra-cotta. The notes of Pliny upon the matter (xxxv. 15)
appear to be hardly more than a supplementary reconstruction of a
conjectured state of development, garnished vaguely with the names of
ancient artists. The first stages, the employment of a simple tone in
the filling of outline figures with a color of brick-dust, called
monochromatic painting, had long since been mastered by the neighboring
peoples--the Mesopotamians, Phœnicians, and Egyptians, who were
acquainted also with the use of bright colors. This work must early have
been known to the Greeks through imported articles--Homer mentioning
vessels and fabrics--even though they could not apply it to the
productions of their own land. Monochromatic painting upon pottery,
familiar to the primitive Ionians, seems to have originated upon the
Syro-Phœnician coasts. A faint reminiscence of the ancient, widely
extended employment of color may be found in Pliny, who designates an
Egyptian, bearing the Greek name of Philocles, as the discoverer of
linear painting. Works of this kind, however, were purely decorative,
like the older Greek vase-paintings (_Figs._ 187 and 191), and of great
similarity; it seems unnecessary to offer conjectures as to the source
whence this impulse came. Of still less significance are the names of
artists which have been fabulously attached to the various inventions,
such as Cleanthes, Aridikes, and Ecphantos, of Corinth; Telephanes and
Craton, of Sikyon; and Saurias, of Samos. Unless, from the fact that
several are mentioned as dwelling in Corinth and Sikyon, it may be
concluded that decorative painting probably flourished in those cities
before the sixtieth Olympiad (530 B.C.). What Pliny says of Eumaros of
Athens does not justify the supposition of any considerable progress,
although, in figures, he distinguished between male and female,
expressed in some slight degree age and characteristic peculiarities,
and, at least, made an end to that crudeness which found satisfaction in
writing names over forms otherwise precisely alike. Greater progress was
made by his successor, Kimon of Cleonæ--500 to 480 B.C.--who improved
the former sack-like garments (_Fig._ 191) by folds, and gave a more
detailed drawing to the nude, placing the eye in a profile head also in
profile, instead of making it look towards the front, as in the figure
mentioned above. With him began truthfulness to nature, and correctness
of drawing, at a time when sculpture in Ægina, Athens, Sikyon, and Argos
was preparing for that highest perfection attained afterwards by
Pheidias.

After the Persian war, through two generations, the progress of painting
was proportionate to its former backwardness, until it attained a
height little short of that reached by sculpture. The first master
worthy of mention--and likewise one of the greatest artists we
know--demands particular attention, from having been the founder of
painting as an art. Polygnotos of Thasos (475 to 455 B.C.), the son of
Aglaophon, who also is mentioned as a painter, executed the greater
number of his works in Athens, where he was much respected by Kimon. Of
the pictures in the Stoa Poikile, painted under his direction, at least
the Conquest of Troy, and the Council of Princes sitting in judgment
upon the sacrilege committed by Ajax against Cassandra, were by his
hand. The Battle of the Amazons was by Micon, the Battle of Marathon by
Panainos and Micon; the fourth, perhaps the latest, was the Battle
between the Athenians and Lacedæmonians near Oinoe: the artist is not
known. Polygnotos worked, together with Micon, upon other Athenian
frescos, scenes from the lives of heroes in the Temple of Theseus. In
the Temple of the Dioscuri he painted the Rape of the Daughters of
Leukippos, next to which was the Return of the Argonauts, by Micon. In
the Pinacotheca of the Propylæa was a series of representations, among
which Brunn has recognized as companion pieces Diomedes Robbing
Philoctetes of his Bow, and Odysseus Seizing the Palladion; the Murder
of Ægisthos by Orestes, and the Sacrifice of Polyxena; Odysseus
Appearing before Nausicaa and her Companions, and Achilles among the
Daughters of Lycomedes. Of the other works by this master may be
mentioned those at Thespeia and Plataia; that in the Temple of Athene at
the latter place represented Odysseus attacking the suitors. The best of
all the creations of Polygnotos, the paintings in the Lesche of the
Cnidians at Delphi, illustrating the conquest of Ilion and the nether
world, are so minutely described by Pausanias (x. 25-31) that they
furnish the most important material for an understanding of his art.

We should hardly be able justly to estimate this master were it not for
the descriptions of Pausanias; for the other classic authors, with some
exceptions in Aristotle, deal only with secondary matters. In regard to
his coloring, Cicero, in his “Four Colors,” says nothing, speaking only
of his drawing, while Quintilian merely wonders how, in his time, there
could still be admirers of such primitive painting. It was merely a
coloring without light and shade, a simple treatment by local tones of
surfaces within outlines. That these tones were not unbroken, as upon
the Nile and Tigris, but finely graded and everywhere characteristic, we
learn from the special mention of the doves, of the shaded coloring of
the fish in the Acheron, of the blackish-blue color of the
corpse-devouring Eurynomos, and of the gray of the shipwrecked Ajax. The
red cheeks of Cassandra, admired by Lucian, give evidence of several
colors within the same outline. But though Cicero praises the drawing,
the little which is intelligible in Pliny’s account of the master tends
the other way. Still, it must be acknowledged that more is implied by
the motive of the Olympian Jupiter, by the encomium upon Cassandra’s
eyebrows by Lucian, and by the exaggerated expression of an epigram--“in
the lids of Polyxena lay the whole Trojan war”--than the petty
peculiarities with which Pliny invests the painter would lead us to
expect. Ælian praises the strict carefulness and fineness of the outline
drawing, the expression, and the garments. But the most remarkable
testimony concerning this master is that of Aristotle, who describes his
figures as surpassing nature; while artists like Dionysios contented
themselves with equalling it, and others, like Pauson, were content to
remain below it. Elsewhere he calls him the painter of _ethics_--that
is, of character--in a grand style which the works of Zeuxis failed to
attain. Combining this judgment with that of Ælian, who ascribes
grandeur to Polygnotos, we may conclude that this artist drew in a broad
and ideal style. That to this were united an epic clearness and
liveliness of treatment, not only in the single figures and groups, but
in the entire composition, is fully evident from the description which
Pausanias gives of the paintings in the Lesche. In short, correctness,
richness, and grandeur of composition must be accounted the chief merits
of Polygnotos--merits to which none of his successors attained, though
they may have far surpassed him in execution, as painters in a more
restricted sense. Less painter than artist, he pursued, in his wall
decorations, a thoroughly monumental direction, which after his time,
through change of aim, was neglected.

The most celebrated companions of Polygnotos, but, as Ælian remarks, not
equalling him in greatness, were Micon of Athens, whose name has already
been mentioned, and Panainos, a cousin of Pheidias, who, besides the
battle of Marathon in the Poikile, executed the paintings upon the
throne of the Pheidian Zeus in Olympia. Dionysios of Colophon and Pauson
have already been spoken of. The first seems to have carried out the
strict carefulness of his model, Polygnotos, to a degree which was
naturally unfavorable alike to grace and to greatness of style. Pauson,
though accounted an artist by Aristotle, may be compared to Buffalmacco,
scorned and derided, among the companions of Giotto; not fitted for
productions of a grand style, he did not attempt them, and his nude
paintings, without ethical significance, were harmful to young
observers.

Among the other distinguished masters of this time, Calliphon appears
most nearly to have followed in the footsteps of Polygnotos; but his
brother Aristophon, who brought painting upon panels into general use,
pursued technical methods opposed to this school. The style of
Polygnotos was also abandoned by the Samian Agatharchos, a
self-instructed decorator and scene-painter who, in an essay upon
scenographic painting, established principles upon which, after his
time, this art was further developed. In scene-painting the
indispensable aim after illusory appearances must have led to the
observation and imitation of the effect of more or less light--that is
to say, of paler or deeper shades in the local color--and thus have
brought painting to a point of development not hitherto attained by any
nation of antiquity.

The important advance indicated by Agatharchos in scenography was made
in the painting of figures by Apollodoros of Athens. The accounts of him
are few, and in part incomprehensible; but Plutarch says plainly that he
discovered the mixing of colors and the variation of shade upon them,
and Pliny calls him the first master of illusion. Strictly speaking, he
was not the sole author of the innovation, since Agatharchos went before
him; and if he received the cognomen of _skiagraphos_--painter in light
and shade--it must be understood that the word skiagraphia was used to
signify scenography. But he was, at all events, the first to apply these
principles to figure-painting, developing a treatment quite different
from that employed in the architectural painting so extensively in use
for the stage. The important result of this innovation may well be
imagined, and it is not strange that the ground thus gained should have
been promptly occupied by other masters of the art, who rapidly brought
painting to a perfection almost equal to that of sculpture.

These were Zeuxis of Heraclea, in Lower Italy, and Parrhasios of
Ephesos. The teachers of the former are not of importance; the impulse
through which Zeuxis became one of the most brilliant geniuses of Greece
not having been given by these, but rather by Apollodoros, who is not
mentioned among them. His fame was at its height during the
Peloponnesian war, and in the following ten years; so that we can easily
understand why Zeuxis did not establish himself in Athens, where
Polygnotos and Apollodoros had raised painting to an art, but, after
many wanderings, found an asylum in Ephesos. His works, in contrast to
the wall-paintings of Polygnotos, were chiefly upon panels, as,
according to Pliny, we may suppose those of Apollodoros to have been.
Among those of Zeuxis, the Olympos was exceptional in regard to subject;
of the deities, Zeus is particularly celebrated. The only other
representations of the deities we find are the Rose-crowned Eros, and
Apollo Chastising Marsyas. Neither Pan, nor Heracles Strangling the
Serpents in his Infancy, can be reckoned in this category. The Trojan
legends appear in three of his more celebrated pictures--Helen in
Crotona, the Weeping Menelaos Bringing his Brother the Offering for the
Dead, and Penelope, “in whom propriety itself is embodied.” If we may
connect with the Odyssey, the Storm at Sea, in which Boreas and Triton
are mentioned, it will form a fourth. In his athletes he seems to have
intended to establish a canon for painting, as Polycleitos had done for
sculpture. Two others, the Family of Centaurs, and the Boy bearing
Grapes, are genre pictures.

It is not by chance that we have the fullest accounts of Zeuxis; his aim
not being so high as that of Polygnotos, he took his motives from other
fields more favorable to the new methods. Historic painting, the
foundation of that higher kind of monumental art which gives grand
representations of character, was forsaken; as Aristotle expresses it,
the works of Zeuxis were wanting in ethic significance. Excessive
striving after illusion, after the semblance of reality, brings forward
outward and momentary appearances, supplanting the inwardly essential
and lasting. Penelope seems to speak, and yet we know not in what
situation she is delineated; the weeping of Menelaos certainly does not
give his character; and as little does the merry play of the Centaurs
with their young, go charmingly described by Lucian, represent the
mythological nature of these monsters. Still less can we rank the Helen
of Zeuxis, in conception, upon a level with the female figures in the
Conquest of Troy by Polygnotos, since we know that Zeuxis chose as
models the loveliest virgins of Crotona; that is to say, sought after
perfect outward female beauty in truthfulness to nature, but not after
that breadth and grandeur expressed in the brow of Cassandra, or which
spoke in the glance of Polyxena.

If, at times, Zeuxis took a higher flight, he still differed from the
epic character of Polygnotos in his tendency to dramatic effect, which,
according to its nature, is transient. This is shown, for example, by
the celebrated play of countenance in the Family of Centaurs, the
weeping of Menelaos, the horror of Alcmene and Amphitryon at sight of
the serpents encircling the young Heracles, and by the actors as well as
spectators in the chastisement of Marsyas: these are all scenes which,
with slight modification, might be shown in dramatic action upon the
stage. With Zeuxis, contrary to Polygnotos, the subject was of less
importance than the manner of presenting it, the _what_ less than the
_how_; in short, the composition, in which the picturesque sufficed, was
subordinate to the painting. The master himself was displeased when the
novelty of the subject, in his family of Centaurs, caused the technical
finish to be overlooked. The expression of Pliny was therefore a just
one, that Zeuxis had given great glory to the brush. The judgment of
Quintilian that Zeuxis originated the correct application of light and
shade is not to be disputed, in so far as this refers to the consequent
achievement of expression. The degree of perfection he attained in
illusive effects, by chiaroscuro, reflections, and the like, is
illustrated by the anecdote of the boy with grapes, so deceptive that
the birds flew towards them; at the same time, the limitation is shown,
as the artist himself acknowledged, in that the illusion had not
succeeded in making the boy capable of frightening the birds. It was
because of the painter’s power in this realism that his contemporaries
regarded him with almost boundless admiration. His fame was exceeded
only by his vanity. In later years he presented his pictures as gifts,
because it was impossible to recompense them with money; he appeared at
Olympia clothed with a garment upon which his name was embroidered in
golden letters. The history of Greek sculpture has no parallel to such
conceits.

Zeuxis himself, notwithstanding his pride, was forced to acknowledge
that he was excelled by his contemporary Parrhasios of Ephesos, who, in
regard to style, was akin to him in many respects. In subject the works
of Parrhasios may be divided like those of Zeuxis. The deities were
seldom chosen; his Dionysios with Arete was not one of his most
celebrated productions, and his Hermes was really a portrait of the
artist himself. Among the heroes represented were Prometheus, Heracles,
Meleager, Perseus, and Theseus. The greater part of his productions
refer to the Trojan epics, as the Assumed Madness of Odysseus, the
Healing of Telephos, the Strife of Ajax with Odysseus for the Armor of
Achilles, Philoctetes upon Lemnos, and Æneas. The others are the Demos
of Athens, and portraits like the comedian Philiscos, the Archigallos, a
ship-captain, a Thracian nurse with a child; and, finally, pictures like
the priest with a temple-boy, two boys, two heavily armed warriors, and
lewd genre paintings, closing with the celebrated “curtain” of the
master. In many respects these betray a relationship to Zeuxis, and yet
much that is independent. There are numerous characteristic heads
illustrative of temperament, and other psychological subjects, among the
fore-most of which should be named the Demos, who, according to Pliny,
was shown as changeable, angry, unjust, inconstant; also as exorable,
kind, compassionate, boastful, sublime, low, undisciplined, and fickle.
This would be so impossible in a single head, without making it a
chaotic, incomprehensible caricature, that the author has no hesitation
in describing the painting as a group, in each figure of which one of
the characteristics named was expressed. That representing the assumed
madness of Odysseus must have had great psychological meaning, as also
the Prometheus, Philoctetes upon Lemnos, and the Telephos. Parrhasios
had by these works placed himself above Zeuxis through more correct and
careful drawing, and a marked technical progress in the art. Pliny says
that, according to the judgment of artists, Parrhasios had reached the
highest perfection in the representation of figures; that previously
painters had succeeded in giving only to the outlines of the figure a
truthful appearance and action, but that the edges of color should be so
rounded that one might be led to imagine the continuation of the body
upon the other side, suggesting what could not be seen. This may be
conceived to mean that, by attention to chiaroscuro and reflections, the
illusive effect was increased from that of a relief to that of a figure
in the round, whereby figures first appeared to free themselves from the
background; that, for instance, he made clear to the observer the
distinction between a globe, only one side of which is seen, and a
hemisphere affixed to a plane. The illusion consequently became more
perfect, the capacity for motion being thus brought into the
“outstepping” figures. The grapes of Zeuxis did not need this power of
action to tempt the birds as did the boy in order to frighten them. The
curtain of Parrhasios possessed this capacity for movement, with the
freeing of the objects from the background, and could therefore deceive
even Zeuxis himself, who thought it possible really to withdraw it from
the panel.

If his proud rival Zeuxis bowed before this skill, it cannot be thought
strange that such a result should have moved Parrhasios to outdo his
competitor in arrogance also. Among other follies, he proclaimed himself
a descendant of Apollo; as King of Art he was crowned with a diadem and
golden wreath, and donned the purple mantle of royalty. By adopting the
cognomen of Habrodiaitos, or high-liver, he brought upon himself the
nickname of Rhabdodiaitos, or brush-man. Parrhasios also was surpassed
by a younger contemporary, though, as it appears, only in a single
instance. Timanthes of Kythnos won the victory in a competition--the
Strife of Ajax and Odysseus for the Armor of Achilles. Pliny gives
preference to the latter, because his compositions were so arranged that
more might be perceived in them than at first sight appeared. There was
withal a deeper motive than Zeuxis and Parrhasios had shown; this was
evident in the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, in which every degree of
suffering was presented: Calchas being sad, Odysseus painfully moved,
Ajax crying aloud, Menelaos in an ecstasy of grief; but, as the
expression of anguish could not be carried beyond that of the latter,
the father, Agamemnon, was shown hiding his face. The murder of
Palamedes, perhaps, gave scope for the same depth of motive. A small
genre picture was conceived in a more jesting tone, representing a
sleeping Cyclops, and a satyr measuring the length of the giant’s thumb
with a thyrsos, thus adding a living scale of comparative dimensions.
The hero of Timanthes and the athlete of Zeuxis were equally celebrated
among Grecian paintings as ideals of manly form.

It would seem that Timanthes passed the latter part of his life in
Sikyon. The art of painting found a home in Ephesos during the
Peloponnesian war, but did not connect itself with any school, and
returned to Greece after the close of that disastrous conflict. Athens
could not at once recover the commanding position it had held under
Polygnotos and Apollodoros; but artistic activity, with its increasing
requirements, was concentrated in Sikyon and Thebes, where flourishing
academies were established with different aims.

Eupompos appeared about this time in the former city, as the founder of
an important school, but, with the exception of a few superficial
notices, we know nothing of him. His pupil, Pamphilos of Amphipolis or
Nicopolis, flourishing from 390 to 360 B.C., was at the head of this
school. His works are little known, having been described only by Pliny,
so scantily and unintelligibly that one may be taken for a family
picture, another as the appearance of Leucothea to Odysseus after the
shipwreck near the island of the Phæacians, and a third possibly as the
victory of the Athenians at Phlious. Pliny is more to the point when he
relates that Pamphilos considered education in science, particularly in
mathematics and geometry, indispensable to artistic work. As he thought
drawing an essential part of cultivation, he exerted himself, with good
result, to have it taught in the higher schools. He believed that from
this alone could proceed a rational conception of art grounded upon
science, in which the mutual relations of teacher and scholar should be
considered; and that Sikyon was the place best adapted to this purpose.
At a somewhat earlier period Polycleitos had established a canon for
sculpture by his system of proportions. Pamphilos, following in the
footsteps of Eupompos, now took the same position in respect to Greek
painting, with, perhaps, even greater success. He was pre-eminently a
teacher, and, as such, appears to have striven after correctness in
composition, drawing, and painting, to the disadvantage, it may be, of
freedom in artistic development. But this aim, which won for the school
of Sikyon the name of Chrestographia (correct drawing), operating upon
the pupil from the beginning to the close of his scholarship, must have
been serviceable both in laying a foundation and in purifying and
restraining. It certainly was for the advantage of Apelles to have
finished his studies in this school, which must indeed have had a
salutary influence upon the general development of Grecian painting. The
element of degeneracy in the tone of Zeuxis and Parrhasios was long held
in restraint among their followers by the academic authority of Sikyon.
Pamphilos turned his attention chiefly towards correctness of execution
in details, and, following Polycleitos, towards the human figure. His
pupil Melanthios was a master of composition; this, however, in
accordance with the whole character of the school, seems to have
consisted less in the choice of scenic situation and action than in a
formal distribution and balance of the grouping.

Pausias, a fellow-pupil of Melanthios, distinguished himself from this
somewhat doctrinal art by greater freedom of creation. The subjects of
his works show this by their individuality, as, for instance, the Boy,
painted in a day, the Girl Binding a Wreath, Methe Drinking from a
Glass, and a flower piece, which, from the descriptions, appears to have
resembled our still-life pictures. His Sacrifice of a Bull displayed a
new mastery; the animal, foreshortened from the front, as Pliny remarks,
showed his entire length. Pausias was the first to win fame in encaustic
painting, although its technical processes had for some time been known.
Of this it is only certain that the colors, mixed with wax, were melted
by a rod of metal, and thus affixed to the ground. This process, because
of the more brilliant, transparent, and deeper hue given by the wax, was
as far superior to the former distemper as our own more convenient
oil-painting is to every other method. That such peculiarities of
subject and treatment did not lead the master to renounce the artistic
earnestness of the school of Sikyon is shown in the direction imparted
to his pupils. The works of the most celebrated among these, Nicophanes,
were extremely labored; but, from the predominant brown, hard in color.
Aristolaos, the son of Pausias, was rigid and academical.

During this period a second school of painting, not less prominent,
flourished in Thebes, and, after the hastily acquired importance of this
city had as rapidly declined, was transferred to Athens. At its head was
Nicomachos--360 B.C.--son and pupil of the otherwise unknown artist,
Aristiæos. Eight of his pictures are mentioned; but, though he was
accounted one of the greatest masters, we have little information in
regard to the painter himself. As contrasted with the quiet, stately
works of the Sikyonians, we may conclude, from the subjects, that there
was greater excitement and action in those of Nicomachos, among which
are mentioned the Rape of Proserpine, Victory Ascending with a Quadriga,
and Bacchantins Surprised by Satyrs. His unsurpassed rapidity in
painting was praiseworthy only because united to great talents, with an
unusual and masterly sureness of hand. The character of his pupil
Aristides is more intelligible, and more important. If ever there was a
painter whose subjects alone sufficed to give an idea of his chief aim,
it was Aristides. One of his most celebrated works was the Conquest of a
City: a wounded mother, lying upon the ground, sees her infant creeping
towards her breast, and visibly betrays the fear that, when the milk
fails, the child will take the blood. Another, a woman who, “for love of
her brother, gives herself up to death.” A third, according to Pliny
most highly prized, represented a sick man. In these, and in one more,
perhaps also to be ascribed to Aristides, the Heracles Suffering from
the Poisoned Garment of Deianeira, a fundamental tone of great pathos is
unmistakable. In the praying man, whose voice one almost seemed to hear,
and in the old man teaching a boy to play upon the harp, the predominant
expression of feeling was unmistakable. The latter reminds us of that
beautiful Pompeian wall-painting of the Centaur Cheiron instructing the
boy Achilles. Pliny distinctly says that Aristides aimed at the
pathetic, by which is meant the expression of tender as well as painful
and passionate emotions. In this master, therefore, may be recognized
one whose aims were similar to those of Scopas and Praxiteles.

Euphranor, a pupil of Aristides--360 to 330 B.C.--was a remarkable
phenomenon in the domain of art. Few, either in sculpture or in
painting, have been so many-sided, and yet, though standing in the first
rank, the insufficient accounts of his pictures that have come down to
us prevent our forming any positive judgment about them. A certain
indication, however, lies in the remark of the artist himself, that the
Theseus of Parrhasios looked as if fed upon roses; his own, on the
contrary, as though nourished by the flesh of oxen. This comparison must
have included two points, color and drawing; the likeness to roses would
have been inapt if Parrhasios had not failed in depth of flesh-tint; on
the other hand, besides the healthy color, the strong nourishment
suggested by the Theseus of Euphranor proved an energetic development of
muscles. It was probably a somewhat massive figure, characteristic of
Euphranor, and, with certain limitations, reminding us of the Heracles
of Lysippos. It may be understood, from the noble expression of the
Theseus, how Euphranor brought his heroes to a typical perfection. In a
similar sense he had raised his Poseidon to such power that there
remained no further means at his command for surpassing it in his
conception of Zeus. The remark of Euphranor expressed not only the
difference, and his own superiority to Parrhasios, but suggested a
certain relationship in subject and aim, both masters having painted the
Theseus, and the Assumed Madness of Odysseus.

The Isthmian Euphranor had changed the scene of his labors, and, at the
same time, the centre of the entire school, to Athens, which continued
to be the artistic metropolis for his scholars and successors. Among the
latter, Nikias is especially celebrated--340 to 300 B.C. He devoted his
attention chiefly to feminine beauty, somewhat influenced, perhaps, by
his older contemporary Praxiteles, in connection with whom he is
mentioned. His taste was for extensive compositions, surprising for
their novelty of conception, and, like Parrhasios, he endeavored to give
roundness to his figures. The lack in the Theban-Attic school of that
individuality which existed in the Sikyonian was completely overcome by
Euphranor, and gave place to a more universal aim. He and Nikias were
artists whose tone came less from their school than from their own
personal convictions. They early learned to understand technical and
artistic acquisitions of all kinds, and to carry them forward
independently. We may conceive them as holding the same loose relations
towards their teachers which existed between the Sikyonian master
Pamphilos and their contemporary Apelles.

Apelles was destined to bear away the palm from all his predecessors and
successors. Although three cities--Colophon, Ephesos, and Cos--claimed
the honor of calling him their own, it is reasonably certain that the
first was the place of his birth, the second that where his labors
commenced, and the third may not improbably have been that of his death.
The Ephesian Euphoros is named as his first teacher, but his fame dates
from the time when he left the academy of Pamphilos for that of Sikyon.
Perhaps the fact that Pamphilos was a Macedonian by birth may have paved
the way for Apelles to the royal court at Pella, whence he appears to
have returned to Ephesos among the followers of Alexander the Great. He
seems never to have founded a permanent school; at least, we gather from
classical notices that he worked transiently at Athens, Corinth, Rhodes,
and even in Alexandria. We learn also that he outlived, by a
considerable time, his great patron Alexander. His works are to be
divided into three groups--paintings of gods and heroes, allegories, and
portraits; these were also sometimes combined. At the head of the first
group stands the Aphrodite Anadyomene, one of the most celebrated
pictures of antiquity. It was transferred to Augustus for the remission
of one hundred talents of taxes; by him carried to Rome and placed in
Cæsar’s Temple of Venus, where it became so much injured--thus obtaining
the sobriquet Monocmenon, one-legged--that Nero had it taken away and
replaced by a copy. She was represented as the “sea-born,” nude, and
pressing with her hands her dripping hair. Far from being an ideal
figure, it was rather patterned after the celebrated courtesans of the
time, two of whom are named--Pancaste, or Pancaspe, the paramour of
Alexander, who afterwards presented her to the artist himself; and
Cratine, or Phryne, mistress of Apelles, who may have been the more
direct model for the Venus, as, at the festival of Poseidon at Eleusis,
she bathed, naked, in the sea before the eyes of the assemblage. A
second Aphrodite, in which Apelles hoped to surpass the first, remained
unfinished at his death. Of these representations the first was
certainly without any devotional or even ethic character; but the
Artemis, in the Sacrifice of the Virgins, was something more than a
genre piece with a mythological motive; and his heroes, who, according
to Pliny, challenged nature itself, were more than mere stately
portraits.

The Heracles may be regarded as a study. Charis and Tyche were
allegories, the latter having been represented sitting “because
happiness does not stand fast.” The most celebrated of them all,
Calumny, is minutely described by Lucian. It portrayed a man, whose
inclination to credit evil reports was characterized by large ears,
sitting between two women, Ignorance and Mistrust, and receiving
Calumny, a magnificent woman excited with passion, preceded by Envy; she
drags in a youth by the hair, who vainly, with hands uplifted, calls the
gods to witness. Behind the train advances Repentance, a mourning female
figure in black, looking back with pain and shame upon the tardy
appearance of Truth. Similar in character is the picture of the chained
war demon, belonging partly to the group of portraits. A third allegory,
of little intrinsic worth, is set forth with great artistic
ability--Bronte, Astrape, and Keraunobolia--thunder, with the flash and
stroke of lightning.

Among the portraits, allegorical in nature, was the famous picture in
which Alexander, with lightning in his right hand, was represented as
Jupiter. The monarch himself was so well pleased with this that he said
there were two Alexanders--one the unconquered son of Philip, the other
the inimitable creation of Apelles. But little is known of the king’s
portraits, whether equestrian, in triumphal chariots, or surrounded by
deities and allegorical figures; nor of those of Philip and his
generals, of the tragic actor Gorgosthenes of Habron, nor of that of the
artist himself.

If Apelles be scrutinized more closely in order to make clear the chief
characteristics by which he won such brilliant renown, it will be found
that it was not in composition. In this, as in treatment of perspective,
he gave precedence to his fellow-pupils Melanthios and Asclepiodoros.
That he was aware of this weakness, and avoided occasion for manifesting
it, is shown by the fact that most of his paintings contained few
figures. When more appeared, instead of being picturesquely grouped and
treated, they were ranged in rows, almost like reliefs, better suited to
the allegorical subjects so prevalent with Apelles, and so common in his
time, than to mythological and historical representations. Though
allegory may, in great measure, be unfavorable to true art, because, as
Winckelmann says, it forces the painter “to tint his brush with reason,”
still that of Apelles has lately been too much depreciated. The Calumny
has been pronounced an error of fancy, rough symbolism, and an
inharmonious assemblage of persons and personifications. But these were
the legitimate materials of the artist, and he succeeded, at least, in
the representation of character and in truthfulness of drawing. The
lightning group was something more than a piece of technical bravura.
Who would prize the picture less because thunder and lightning were
represented instead of Zeus, a deity who would have been attempted by no
painter of antiquity, or, indeed, of later times? Though his motive may
have been purely intellectual, the painter remained the same, whether he
portrayed a Cassandra or a Diabole--whether he more or less displayed
his astounding mastery. Apelles will be more rightly judged if he be
treated as a painter rather than an artist; as such we recognize in him
a technical and many-sided perfection. Different accounts speak of him
as rapid and sure in drawing, his lines being not only correct, but in
the highest degree characteristic. The maxim of Apelles “No day without
a line”--that is, without exercise in drawing--has become a proverb, if
not quite in its original sense. Through this incessant practice his
hand acquired such sureness that it followed the will implicitly, and
made possible even the hair-splitting execution related in an anecdote
which has been unjustly discredited by critics. Apelles entered one day
the workshop of Protogenes, in the absence of the latter, and made known
his visit by drawing a line upon a tablet at hand with such swing and
surety, such purity and smoothness, that the Rhodian master, upon his
return, recognized the hand of Apelles. In order to show himself equal,
Protogenes split the line by a second one in a different color, but
acknowledged himself defeated when Apelles divided this through its
entire length by a third. An evidence of the sharpness and certainty of
his characterization with simple lines is given in the story of a
servant who had injured him, and whom Apelles, though he had seen him
only once, so sketched with charcoal upon the wall that the likeness was
recognized by King Ptolemy after the first strokes. It will readily be
understood that such capacity must have fitted the artist especially for
portraiture; and his portraits attained such striking likeness and
truthfulness that a physiognomist assumed to be able, by them, to
discern not only the exact age of the subject, but even the time of his
future death. No further testimony is needed than the Anadyomene to
prove that his works were perfect in correctness and expression as well
as in beauty.

The employment of color had fully kept pace with this matchless drawing,
though Apelles seems to have been limited to painting in distemper,
without the use of encaustic. The softened glazings are particularly
mentioned, which made the unbroken light all the more brilliant. In the
portrait of Alexander, the hand, outstretched with the lightning,
appeared to stand quite out from the panel, a result perhaps equally
owing to masterly foreshortening in the drawing. The beauty of his color
was noted, and especially its vigor; the fame of the Aphrodite cannot be
understood without the former, nor that of the Alexander and the
Lightning without the latter. This many-sided, technical perfectness,
unattained before Apelles, and in which Pliny says that he excelled all
other painters together, may have had its germ in the school of
Pamphilos, as the Sikyonians devoted especial attention to artistic
execution. To these eminent qualities, however, were added the intrinsic
merits of the master himself, upon which he laid the greatest stress,
and which he ascribed to that charm understood by the Greeks in the word
_charis_. That this was chiefly to be found in the just measure of
completeness was explained by Apelles when he declared himself to have
been surpassed by Protogenes in all but the knowledge of the right
moment to lay aside the brush, without which this charm, through
overmuch care, is lost.

By this technical mastery, clearness of characterization and grace,
Apelles so delighted all who saw his works that, according to the
numerous anecdotes that illustrate his position, he was the most popular
artist of all antiquity. In face of such authority, it would be unjust
to see in him, as some have done, the beginnings of the decline of art.
Though his artistic efforts may not have equalled those of Polygnotos,
because he could more easily satisfy the ethical demands of his time,
still it must be acknowledged that, as a painter, he surpassed him as
far as, in sculpture, Praxiteles surpassed Calamis and the other
predecessors of Pheidias. But in Pheidias a high ideal was united to an
absolute perfection of execution which, in painting, Polygnotos was far
from having attained. “In the history of painting,” says Brunn, “each of
these two fields has its separate point of greatest elevation; the fame,
therefore, which, in sculpture, undoubtedly raised Pheidias above all
others, appeared, in painting, divided between Polygnotos and Apelles.”

Protogenes of Caunos, or rather, with reference to his work, of Rhodes,
was a rival of Apelles. He seems to have been self-taught, or, at least,
to have been the pupil of an entirely obscure master. The admiration of
Apelles for Protogenes was so great that he expressed a desire to buy up
his works and publish them as his own; but numerous anecdotes show that
Apelles was in the way of bestowing his flattery upon every great and
celebrated man. Protogenes is said to have painted over his Ialysos four
times, the better to secure it from destruction, so that, on the peeling
of the outer layer of pigment, the surface below might present the same
color. But this can only be a foolish legend, invented to illustrate his
extreme care. Similar tales of a later time reported him to have worked
upon the Ialysos seven or eleven years, and to have fed upon nothing but
lupines, for fear that luxury might blunt the acuteness of his senses.
Perhaps this means that the painter’s genius was not recognized until
late in life, up to which time he had lived in great poverty. Of his
picture in the Propylæa at Athens, representing Paralos and
Hammonias--personifications of Athenian ships--there is an equally idle
story that he did not paint the ships themselves because, until his
fifteenth year, he had earned his bread as a ship-painter.

In Protogenes we may conceive a perfection such as only the most
unwearied care could attain. This perfection was neither in the ideas
nor in the composition; for the subjects of his pictures, known to us as
heroic or historical portraits, or, at most, as groups of few persons
without action, were in themselves far less important than those of
Apelles. But the illusive effect must have been complete if, as
Petronius says, one could not look even at the sketches without a
feeling of awe on account of their truthfulness to nature. This
carefulness extended even to the smallest accessories, like the wonder
of the partridge at the reclining satyr, and the foam on the mouth of
the dog in the Ialysos; an effect which, it is said, was at last
accomplished by the pressure--not the throwing--of a sponge. Yet the
wearisomeness of this perfection was not to be denied, and here, in the
eyes of Apelles, lay the weakness of this master.

The relations of Apelles with another rival, the Egyptian Antiphilos,
were not so friendly. The great celebrity of this painter rested upon a
peculiarity directly contrary to that of Protogenes, designated by
Quintilian as facility; that is, a freshness and genial security of
conception and treatment in everything which his brush touched. His
range of subjects exceeded that of Protogenes, or even of Apelles; for
he painted with equal excellence pictures of the deities, mythological
scenes, portraits, genre pieces, such as the Wool-comber and the Boy
Blowing the Fire; and even caricatures, such as that of Gryllos, with a
face reminding one of the significance of his own name--the Porker;
whence it comes that all caricatures were, in antiquity, called Grylli.
That he was fond of startling effects of light is evident from the Boy
Blowing the Fire, the glow of which was reflected upon his face; also
from his renowned satyr Aposcopeuon--the Gazer--whose glance the
shielding hand seemed at once to intensify and to conceal.

Aetion, according to Brunn, also belongs to the group of artists
contemporary with Apelles. His importance can be measured only by the
esteem of antiquity, and by the minute descriptions of one of his
pictures. This represented the marriage of Alexander and Roxana; the
latter, sitting modestly upon a couch, is served by Cupids, who take the
veil from her head and loosen her sandals. The king, accompanied by
Hephaistion as attendant, with torches, is led towards the bride by an
Eros; two more, panting under the weight of the shaft, bear the lance of
the conqueror, while others carry by the handles a shield; and one
Cupid, who has crept into a coat of mail, seems, from his hiding-place,
to lie in wait for those about to pass. It is not strange that this
composition, so charming in the description of Lucian, should have led
modern painters to attempt to reproduce it; as in the frescos of Raphael
in the Borghese Gallery, and those of Razzi in the Farnesina.

Among other masters of the time of Alexander were the Athenian
Asclepiodoros, of whom we know little more than that Apelles gave him
the preference in composition; and Theon of Samos, whose works
degenerated into an attempt to secure a theatrical rather than a natural
effect. Besides tragic scenes, like the murder of his mother by Orestes,
and the blinding of the singer Thamyris, this is shown in the heavily
armed warrior called by Quintilian his masterpiece--a man in the
violence of attack with a drawn sword. To increase the theatrical
effect, this picture was exhibited by the artist accompanied with the
flourish of trumpets. If we here bear in mind the so-called Borghese
warrior of Agasias--that sculptural cousin of the Hoplite--we cannot
mistake the spirit of a time which, after the inner significance had
perished, clung entirely to the external, and, renouncing truthfulness
in composition, which here would have demanded a group, was satisfied
with a theatrical sham. The farthest remove from the conceptions of
Polygnotos had now been reached.

Hellenism, by which is meant the civilization of the period after
Alexander, when the Grecian kingdom had become cosmopolitan, satisfied
its artistic requirements by a repetition of what the previous centuries
had produced. The attempt was made, in sculpture and in painting, to
combine results already won, generally in a shallow eclecticism. Of the
numerous painters in that decorative period few names have been handed
down. The most was accomplished by the masters of Sikyon where the
tradition of the energetic school of Pamphilos was not yet lost.
Protogenes in Rhodes, and Antiphilos in Egypt, also had some followers
who were not quite without fame. Timomachos of Byzantion, at least, was
equal to his great predecessors of the time of Alexander. His Medea was
purchased by Cæsar for eighty talents, and his other works are not less
praised; among them one, perhaps historical, showing two men in
conversation, and the Gorgo, may be connected with an event related by
Herodotos (v. 51). If, as we are told, there was a Medea represented
before the murder of her children, in a struggle between hatred of her
husband and motherly love--a subject treated in a Pompeian wall-painting
in the museum at Naples; an Ajax, after his fury, meditating suicide;
and an Iphigeneia in Tauris, perhaps recognizing her brother, we may
conclude that Timomachos had returned to the pathetic element, and that
he united with it, so far as possible, the technical perfection of the
Alexandrian period. It is possible that the painter stood in the same
artistic relation to the sculptors Pasiteles, Stephanos, and Menelaos
as did Theon to Agasias.

After Parrhasios, side by side with the grander style had developed a
species of cabinet-painting which seems to have been devoted especially
to obscene subjects (Pornographia). Already in the time of Alexander,
pictures of a small size were much in favor; besides the Egyptian
Antiphilos already mentioned as celebrated in this direction, Callicles
and Calates worked in it exclusively, and Peiræicos had great fame as a
painter of this kind. His subjects were not of a lewd nature, but were
taken from the lower ranks of life, such as booths of barbers and
cobblers, donkeys, eatables, etc.; by which one is reminded of the genre
pieces and still-life paintings of the Netherlands. Pornographia was
thus changed to Rhopographia, painting of small wares. In later times
the term employed for obscene painting seems to have been
Rhyparographia.

This trivial painting naturally continued to be prevalent in the periods
of the Diadochi and the Romans, since art, when reduced to mere
decoration, cultivated by preference graceful and lively subjects. It
was extended even to the floors, for which mosaic had been used as early
as the time of the royal court of Pergamon. If the decoration of walls
is based upon tapestry, as Semper has made evident, this is especially
the case with colored floors. The effect of mosaic, in which form
painting now took possession of the pavement, differed little from that
of weaving and embroidery. Sosos was considered as the oldest and most
celebrated master of this process, perhaps because he first carried it
beyond simple patterns. He represented, in the so-called “unswept hall”
at Pergamon, remnants of food, fruit-rinds, etc., as if scattered upon
the floor; also a dove drinking from a shell. The celebrity of these
works makes it natural that several repetitions of the dove should have
been found. It seems, however, that the practice of this art was not in
extensive use before the time of the Roman empire, when it spread over
all the floors, as painting did over all the walls. The mosaics in the
Temple of Zeus at Olympia, which are composed of rough pebbles, may,
however, be even more ancient than the works of Sosos in Pergamon.

[Illustration: Fig. 246.--The Campana Tomb at Veii.]



ETRURIA.


At the time when Hellenic influence had developed to its fullest extent
in Magna Græcia, the Etruscans had long passed their highest point of
perfection. Roman tradition gives no little significance to their
civilization, in its artistic as well as in its political aspects,
though it was far less grand and brilliant than that of their neighbors
in the south of the Italian peninsula. But as Rome rose, Etruria fell;
and in the time of the Peloponnesian war it had but a shadow of its
former dominant position in Italy.

Whether this people were related to the ancient Greeks, or merely mixed
with the Pelasgic and Hellenic element through emigration from the
western coasts of Greece, it is certain that the older culture of the
nation shows a great resemblance to that of the countries beyond the
Adriatic. This may have been owing partly to common Oriental prototypes,
and to native imitation of these, and partly to the fact that certain
primitive results of civilization, under like material premises,
naturally assume a more or less similar form without any real historical
connection.

The method of building the Etruscan walls is particularly a case in
point. The resemblance of these to the most ancient fortifications of
Greece makes possible, though it does not establish, an intimate
communication between the two races, to which also the use of Greek
letters for the strange Etruscan language certainly points. The
so-called Cyclopean jointing, however, presents itself in every
civilized land where rock is found which naturally breaks in polygonal
forms. So also square-stone masonry early appears wherever the material,
quarried without difficulty in rectangular forms, favors this more
satisfactory method. Besides both these varieties, the Etruscans made
use of bricks, as shown by the foundations of the walls of Veii, which
above-ground are mainly built of cut stone. These are at least as
ancient as the time of the later kings.

[Illustration: Fig. 247.--Gate of Falerii.]

[Illustration: Fig. 248.--Canal of the Marta.]

Some of the remaining ruins of Etruria, and of Central Italy--for the
peculiar civilization of that region is not strictly confined to the
limits of the Etruscan language--show in the building of gates a new
technical element. It has been seen how the Greeks in vain sought a
substitute for the arch, to them an inadmissible, if not an
unattainable, feature; and exhausted every conceivable method of
horizontal stone-laying in order to cover their gateways. Similar
evasive attempts are not wanting in Etruria; the Cyclopean walls,
especially, present portal constructions similar to those of Mykenæ. But
through the perfection of stone-cutting, and building with rectangular
blocks, the ceiling of the passage by means of the arch was early
attained. That this step was taken before the invasion of the Gauls is
shown by the still remaining Gate of Falerii (_Fig._ 247), which city,
as is well known, lost its importance under Camillus. It is not certain
whence the people of Central Italy attained their knowledge of the arch.
Though it had been familiar to the Assyrians as early as the ninth
century B.C., it is possible that they made this important discovery
independently, perhaps somewhat later than the Mesopotamians. The vault
of the Cloaca Maxima in Rome dates from the sixth century B.C., but it
shows, even at this early period, a perfection which gives evidence of
long previous use. Canal-building was one of the first conditions of
existence on the western coast of Central Italy, where the drainage of
the swamps--the neglect of which, since the Middle Ages, has reduced the
once populous Maremma to a pestilential desert--the discharge of the
mountain lakes, which otherwise overflow from time to time, desolating
the lower country, and the regulation of the river-courses, alone made
possible the settlement of a people and the founding of flourishing
cities west of the Apennines. It is therefore not improbable that the
great canal discovered by Dennis, which once drained the swampy Valley
of the Marta, preceded the Cloaca Maxima, and, indeed, antedated the
Roman period altogether. (_Fig._ 248.) The enormous stones employed in
its construction, and its great extent, display, even in this primitive
age, that marked inclination for works of general usefulness which
distinguished the people of Italy above all others of antiquity.

Of the long-forgotten cities, discovered in the present century by their
walls, little else remains than extensive cemeteries, which, as
repeatedly happens among the ruined places of the earth, have outlasted
by more than two thousand years the dwellings of the living. The streets
and buildings of these settlements, already in ruins under the Romans,
have disappeared almost without a trace; while the monuments of the dead
are so well preserved as frequently to give information concerning even
the domestic architecture of their builders. By far the greater number
of the tombs were tumuli, conical hills of earth, which generally, as in
Lydia, were elevated upon a low cylinder and reveted by an outer course
of stone. These have now almost all been reduced to the appearance of
natural mounds. Their dimensions in some instances are almost as great
as those of the smaller Egyptian pyramids. The base of the monument at
Poggio Gajella, near Chiusi, formerly falsely held to be the tomb of
Porsena, measures 256 m. in its circumference, while that at Monteroni,
between Rome and Civita Vecchia, is 195 m. These gigantic foundations at
times bore several cones. This appears to have been the case with the
so-called tomb of Cucumella at Vulci, where two tall tower-like
elevations still remain, which doubtless served as substructures for the
terminating piers. The cippus may be imagined to have been analogous to
the upper members of the tombs in Lydia, or, perhaps, to have resembled
a pear-shaped capital, like the fragment found near the ruins of the
so-called tomb of Pythagoras, or the imitations upon terra-cotta
reliefs--similar to the cone which so generally terminated Roman tholos
roofs. When several cones were placed upon one base, the angle of
elevation was made steeper, as may probably have been the case with the
tomb of Porsena at Clusium, the description of which is given by Pliny
(xxxvi. 3) after Varro. If the tombs called those of the Horatii and
Curiatii at Albano, which display many Etruscan reminiscences, be
compared with this account, it is possible to present a restoration of
the structure, correct in at least its principal aspects. Upon the
corners of the triply stepped, diminishing substructure stood twelve
cones, the thirteenth being in the centre of the upper terrace. (_Fig._
249.)

The fundamental idea of the Etruscan tombs was not alone the creation of
a monument which, covering the remains and protecting them from
desecration, should plainly mark the place of interment, but the
survivors sought, at the same time, to provide a room in which the dead
might dwell in a manner corresponding to their circumstances during
life. This conception was foreign to the Greeks, who seldom employed
burial chambers of great size; but it was prevalent among the Egyptians,
Persians, Lycians, and other nations of antiquity, though not by them
carried out so logically as by the Etruscans, who usually placed the
bodies upon stone benches, shaped like a bed, as if sleeping.
Sarcophagi, when existing at all, appear to have been added upon further
use of the sepulchre. It is thus, for instance, with the tomb of
Veii--of which _Fig._ 246, at the head of this section, gives an inner
view--with the tomb called that of Regulini-Galassi at Cære, and with
numerous other sepulchres discovered in various cemeteries, notably of
Southern Etruria. There, however, the chambers have mostly proved to
have been plundered in former centuries.

[Illustration: Fig. 249.--Restored Plan and Elevation of the Tomb of
Porsena.]

The dwelling-rooms represented are as diverse as those of the living
must naturally have been. No great width of these spaces was possible,
because of the imposed weight of the tumulus; and the apartments
consequently became narrow passages, ceiled by stone lintels, by blocks
leaning against each other as a gable, or by the gradual approach of the
horizontal courses by the projection of each over that beneath it.
Examples of all these methods are provided by the tombs of Alsium, the
present Monteroni; and the before-mentioned Regulini-Galassi tomb of
Cære, the present Cervetri. The latter, so called after its discoverers,
has furnished numerous treasures to the Etruscan Museum of the Vatican;
it consisted of a corridor separated by a wall into compartments, with
rock-cut lateral chambers of oval plan.

[Illustration: Fig. 250.--Ceiling of a Tomb at Cervetri.]

When the burial-chamber was a grotto--that is to say, was wholly
excavated from the native rock--a greater width could be obtained. The
ceiling was then carved, either to the outline of a low vault, as in the
Campana tomb at Veii, or, more commonly, in imitation of the beams of a
wooden ceiling. In the latter case various forms appear; for small inner
chambers a simple horizontal ceiling sufficed, and a simple
cross-timbering, overlaid with boards, was chosen as a pattern. The
spacious vestibules frequently have an inclined roof, when ridge-beams,
rafters, and the slats laid upon them are carefully and truthfully
imitated. (_Fig._ 250.) A noteworthy example at Corneto (_Fig._ 255)
shows in its outer room a plain imitation of the Italian atrium, or
court, of the kind termed by Vitruvius _cavædia displuviata_. It is
roofed by four main beams, laid diagonally and inclined outward, which
support the framework of a middle orifice for light and air, and shed
the water without instead of within. From this instance it appears that
the fundamental idea of the chief sepulchral chamber was the atrium,
which was the common gathering-place of the Italian house, as was the
peristyle of the Greek; while the inner chambers represented the various
rooms.

This imitation of an Etruscan dwelling--a remarkable counterpart, in
architectural respects, to the copies of the exterior of wooden houses
in the Lycian rock-cut tombs--was further carried out by a corresponding
ornamentation of the rooms. The couches hewn from the rock, upon which
the bodies rested, were at times a close imitation of cushions and
pillows; the supports beneath were sculptured like bedsteads, while
stone easy-chairs and footstools stood near to increase the apparent
comfort. The apertures in the wall which separates the two spaces are
reproductions of the framework of doors and windows. (_Fig._ 251.) The
sides of the chambers are stuccoed with plaster of Paris, and covered
with cheerful paintings, illustrating feasts, dances, sacred festivals,
and games. Every conceivable variety of household utensils hang upon the
walls or stand leaning against them, with great numbers of the
well-known painted vases and other works of pottery. These objects, when
not provided in reality, are imitated in stucco-relief and brilliantly
painted, as in a tomb at Cervetri (_Fig._ 252), where walls and piers
are covered with the representations of familiar household articles and
weapons.

[Illustration: Fig. 251.--Plan and Section of a Tomb at Cervetri.]

Although the tumuli were the more common funeral monuments, there were
parts of Etruria, among the Apennines, where the limited extent of the
level ground offered no spacious cemetery for the mounds, and where
rocky mountains and abrupt cliffs led to a different form of sepulchre.
A façade was cut upon the background provided by nature, where the
appearance of a dwelling could be imitated with little expenditure of
labor. The most numerous examples of these fronts are in the cemeteries
of Castel d’Asso, near Viterbo. The forms are plain, and not
particularly characteristic; a blind niche, the only architectural
feature of the lower surface, was substituted for a door, the real
entrance being through an insignificant shaft beneath the earth; and the
façade was terminated by a complicated cornice--a confused mass of
roundlets, cyma-mouldings, and rectangular bands, almost without
projection. A stairway was often cut upon one or both sides of the tomb,
leading to a platform or to other sepulchres situated upon a higher
level.

[Illustration: Fig. 252.--Interior of a Tomb at Cervetri.]

More remarkable than these monuments at Castel d’Asso are the rock-cut
façades of Norchia, to the west of Viterbo, upon which are imitated the
fronts of temples. The four columns or pilasters, now destroyed, were
placed wide apart, according to the proportions of the Tuscan order.
The entablature consists of a narrow epistyle and a frieze decorated
with clumsy triglyphs, or rather diglyphs, with pointed trunnels under
the regula, above which follows a weak cornice with dentils. The gable
is still more peculiar. Its outer ends curl into a volute, with a
Gorgoneion in its centre, which originally served as a base for the
acroteria; the triangle is filled with reliefs. The whole front gives
the impression of a barbarous mixture of indigenous elements with
Grecian forms, ill understood and roughly rendered. (_Fig._ 253.)

[Illustration: Fig. 253.--Temple Tomb at Norchia.]

These remains are interesting, but elements seem to have crept in which
could not originally have belonged to the Etruscan style, and the
façades of Norchia can hence be deemed of but secondary importance in
the study of the temple structures. The plan of these was quite
different from that of the Doric temple. Instead of the length being at
least double the width of the front, as in Greece, the breadth was here
to the length as five to six. The cella did not form a centre around
which stood the columns, but it entirely occupied the rear half of the
area, while the front remained open as a columned porch. Three cellas,
with the images of nearly related deities, were usually grouped
together, the middle one being the largest, and also of the greatest
hieratic importance. In some instances rows of columns were ranged upon
the two long sides of a cella; but the rear wall was always bare. All
artistic effect was here abandoned, and the building was, on this
account, often so placed as to abut immediately against an enclosing
rampart, or against a natural cliff.

The plan and general arrangement were thus entirely different from those
of the Greek temple. But the same thing is by no means to be said in
regard to the architectural details and members of the building. The
Etruscan column was closely allied to the Doric, and greatly resembled
it, in spite of some marked variations arising from the lingering
influence of the original timbered construction, and the inferior
perception of artistic proportions. The Etruscan shaft, in contrast to
the Doric, had a base consisting of a circular plinth and a tore, both
of equal height. The capital was formed of three parts, equally high, of
which the two upper, the echinos and abacus, were similar to the Doric.
The third beneath--the necking of the column--which, in the Greek
prototype, was divided from the shaft only by slight incisions or an
apophyge, was in this separated by a roundlet; what in Greek
architecture was based upon technical necessities, in Etruria became an
unmeaning decoration. The shaft, apparently not channelled, rose in a
lightness akin to the Ionic, tapering to three quarters of its lower
diameter, and reached a height of seven diameters. The unusually wide
distance between the columns--seven times the lower diameter of the
shaft--in contrast to that in the intercolumniation of the Doric style,
which rarely equalled two diameters, had its origin in the light wooden
beams, which did not require such frequent and powerful supports as did
the stone epistyle of the Greeks.

The entablature consisted of wooden epistyle beams placed one over
another, fastened together by iron clamps, in at least two courses. From
the text of Vitruvius--from whom the entire description must be taken,
since, on account of the wooden beams, there are no remains of Etruscan
temples--we cannot learn whether these smooth layers took the place of
both architrave and frieze, or whether the upper member resembled the
Doric frieze with triglyphs. From a remark of this writer, the former
appears more probable, as many epistyle timbers being fastened one above
another as the size of the building seemed to require; moreover,
notwithstanding the Hellenic influence, triglyphs were not always
introduced into the Roman Tuscan order. The arrangement of the roof
rafters was doubtless such that their support upon the beams of the
epistyle beneath was hidden, and perhaps rendered more solid by
mortising or dovetailing. Upon the longer sides the roof projected
considerably, fully one quarter of the height of the columns. By this
means the size of the gable was decidedly increased. These gables may
have been decorated with sculptural ornament in the tympanon, of clay or
bronze, and with acroteria, as may be gathered from several notices, as
well as from the rock-tombs of Norchia. Concerning these decorations
Vitruvius is silent; but they could not have altered the heavy, low, and
clumsy character of which he complains, and which is apparent in the
restorations that have been made according to his theory. (_Fig._ 254.)
The Etruscan temple could not become really monumental so long as it
retained the wooden construction in its most essential constituents, and
this seems never to have been given up in the entablature, even when the
direct Grecian influence first made itself felt among the Romans. How
this ultimately changed the fundamental architectural forms of Central
Italy will be explained in the section upon Roman building, which united
the traditions of Etruscan and Hellenic art.

[Illustration: Fig. 254.--Elevation of the Etruscan Temple according to
Vitruvius.]

[Illustration: Fig. 255.--Tomb at Corneto.]

One of the chief features of the Etruscan or primitive Italian
dwelling-house, the inner court, has already been mentioned in the
consideration of the tombs. As in Hellenic architecture, so here this
formed the central point, the chief space of the dwelling, around which
were grouped the ceiled chambers, subordinate in dimensions and in
importance. As the court was intended to be the chief gathering-place, a
partial covering could not have sufficed in these northern Apennines, as
did the Grecian peristyle; for continued rain, snow, and piercing winter
frost were not so rare here as in the lands upon the Kephissos and
Meander. The central aperture was diminished, and the effect of storms
or cold more completely excluded. The Italian atrium, or cavædium,
acquired thus a form essentially different from the Grecian court. If
the aperture open to the sky were reduced to a small orifice for light
and air, only large enough to carry off the smoke from the hearth and
provide sufficient illumination, columnar supports would not be needed,
the rafters being inclined outward, and framed into the square of the
opening, as is conspicuously the case in the tomb at Corneto (_Fig._
255), and as is also described by Vitruvius (vi. 3). Vertical props
obstructing the space would be the less necessary, inasmuch as the
dimensions of the court were small, on account of the lower temperature
of the region. The Italian court thus differed from that of Greece by an
entire absence of columns, as well as by the outward inclination of the
roof. The latter peculiarity had the advantage that, notwithstanding the
restriction of the central aperture, more light was admitted, the
slanting rays of the sun falling high upon the walls; while, on the
other hand, the interior of the house was free from the objectionable
rain-drip, and, by covering the orifice in bad weather or at night,
could be entirely isolated and protected. A remarkable copy of a roof
upon an Etruscan clay sarcophagus (_Fig._ 256) shows the outward aspects
of the dwellings of Central Italy, as the tomb at Corneto (_Fig._ 255)
does the interior. The roof of the atrium, rising like a clere-story,
inclined outward, while the covering of the chambers surrounding this
space carried the drip still farther from the central aperture. The
practical sense of the Italians was thus expressed, as opposed to the
more cheerful and elevated ideals of form among the Greeks. These
constructive advantages were attained, however, at the cost of that
artistic, or at least tasteful, development of the whole which was
characteristic of the Greeks, even when striving mainly after public
usefulness or private comfort.

[Illustration: Fig. 256.--Etruscan Sarcophagus.]

The remaining monuments of Etruria are almost entirely limited to tombs,
among which it is not possible to recognize progressive stages of
architectural design. Still it is evident that examples like the
Regulini-Galassi tomb of Cære, which shows a most primitive covering of
the chambers, and that of Alsium, or the Campana tomb at Veii, must
belong to an earlier period than do those sepulchres in which the
imitation of a dwelling-house, particularly in regard to the
roof-timbering, shows an advanced intelligence and great technical
skill. This skill is equally evident in the decorative members:
pilasters before the piers, the carvings of the coffin-benches, and
utensils upon the walls, with Hellenic features of a late and advanced
period. A further division of Etruscan monuments into chronological
periods is not possible; it is only to be concluded that the most
primitive are less ancient than has usually been supposed, and are
probably to be referred to the seventh century B.C., while the later and
more perfected tombs may date from 250 to 150 B.C.

       *       *       *       *       *

The numerous sculptural productions of Etruria may be better grouped.
They are preserved in the Gregorian Museum of the Vatican, the British
Museum, the earlier Campana collection in the Louvre, and special
collections in various towns in Tuscany, particularly at Perugia. Others
are scattered among the many museums of Europe. As the practical
character of the Italians might lead us to expect, the greater part of
these works consist of utensils and implements; those which bear the
stamp of the greatest antiquity belonging almost exclusively to this
class. The earliest period may be called the _decorative_, in which art
was employed only for the ornamentation of useful articles. The most
ancient specimens of this handiwork are those in the British Museum,
found in the Grotto dell’ Iside of Vulci, and those in the Gregorian
Museum of the Vatican, from the Regulini-Galassi tomb at Cære. The
material is gold, silver, and bronze--occasionally amber and ivory; the
objects are ornaments, such as breastplates, ear-rings, bracelets of
gold wire and thinly beaten gold; also golden and amber necklaces,
silver bowls, candelabra, kettles, tripods, couches, censers, and
shields of bronze. All these are evident imitations of imported wares.
The beaten figures of the breast ornaments remind one of the vessels
excavated at Nineveh, Cyprus, and Mykenæ; the decorations of the silver
bowls are more like the discoveries in Cyprus and Phœnicia; the
bulb-like candelabra are similar to the Cyprian bronze utensils, and
also to the seven-armed candlestick of the Temple of Jerusalem. Having
already designated the vessels of Nineveh and those of Mykenæ as of
Phœnician workmanship, and the Egyptianized ivoryware found upon the
Tigris as having been brought into Mesopotamia by the Phœnicians as
an article of trade, there can be no hesitation in referring the objects
discovered in Etruria to the same origin. The beaten work in sheet-metal
was among the best-executed productions of the Phœnicians, and among
their most important articles of commerce; and intercourse between the
Phœnicians and the Etruscans is known to have been active. Through
this current of trade must also have come the vials and alabasters with
Egyptian hieroglyphics and symbols; the gilded bronze birds with the
pshent upon their heads, like those from the Grotto dell’ Iside; and the
beetle-shaped bodies of clay, like the scarabæus, found in different
places, for the Etruscans had no direct intercourse with Egypt. It is
possible, however, that some of the objects which bear the
characteristic forms of those countries are to be regarded as Etruscan
manufactures, adhering closely to the imported patterns.

The era next following is distinguished as being emancipated from the
earlier dependence upon the East, the Asiatic influence being gradually
replaced by that of Hellas. Here may be mentioned the half-mythical
report that, about 650 B.C., the Corinthian artists Eucheir, Diopos, and
Eugrammos--whose names, as personification of handiwork in art, give
little confidence--emigrated to Italy and there introduced sculpture.
Though this may be taken to indicate an active artistic impulse, it
cannot alone explain the great and decided advance that we find. In
Southern Etruria monumental sculpture must early have attained a certain
importance, since Tarquinius Priscus ordered from Vulca, or Vulcanius of
Veii, a statue of the Capitoline Jupiter, and a quadriga for the gable
ridge of his temple. The material for such colossal works was
terra-cotta with a painting, perhaps monochromatic; at least, the nude
parts of the image of Jupiter were repeatedly tinted with a red color.
The roughness of such conventionalized work can hardly be conceived; the
trunk, in a sitting figure, was not detailed; the extremities, on the
contrary, had all the ugliness of realism; the head was sharply
individualized, verging upon portraiture. As the oldest example of this
treatment of the head may be mentioned the bust found in the Grotto
dell’ Iside at Vulci (_Fig._ 257), which shows, at the same time, that
the germ of that specific Etruscan motive--the conception of the
individual, to the neglect of the general or ideal--existed even in the
period of dependence upon Asiatic influence. This characteristic
Etruscan formation of the head, though in a less artistic and more
superficial style, is also shown in the so-called _canopi_ of
Chiusi--jugs with portrait heads upon the lids. These are distantly
related to the Egyptian jars of the kind, but show scarcely a trace of
the early conventional influence of ideal Greek sculpture; the heads, of
extreme rudeness, are yet sharp and hard in modelling; coarse
caricatures of the round skull and low, retreating forehead, which yet
betray a certain observation of nature.

[Illustration: Fig. 257.--Bust from the Grotto dell’ Iside in Vulci.]

Greek influence is first apparent, though still overbalanced by native
individualization and realistic elements, in a somewhat later
sarcophagus of terra-cotta, found in Cære, now one of the chief
treasures of the Campana collection in the Louvre. (_Fig._ 258.) The
sarcophagus itself shows a draped couch with technical and ornamental
details similar to those found upon the furniture of Assyrian, Xanthian,
and ancient Greek reliefs, and particularly upon archaic vase-paintings.
A man and woman of life-size, leaning with their left elbows upon
leathern cushions, form the lid. If, at first sight, this group has a
somewhat frightful and repellent character, not felt in the most
shocking distortions of primitive art, the cause lies in its prosaic
realism, strikingly heightened by color. Notwithstanding many failures
in point of detail, the effect of life was given by the artist without
additions or idealizations. Rather inclined to caricature--that is, to
the exaggeration of individual characteristics--the Etruscan artist
sensibly failed in the reproduction of the head, because wanting in that
training in fundamental correctness, through the canonical formation of
a true type, which preceded the Grecian perfection. The representation
of the individual, instead of being the first aim, should have been left
to the last, and it was on this account that the skulls were deformed by
various peculiar defects, while the eyes and mouth were drawn upward in
a manner that is natural only to the Mongolian race. The same is true in
regard to the terra-cotta reliefs of this period, in which the striving
after action and naturalness of appearance caused an excessive
restlessness in all the motions of the dislocated arms and hands,
particularly evident in the ivory reliefs upon a number of caskets.

[Illustration: Fig. 258.--Sarcophagus of Terra-cotta from Cære.
(Louvre.)]

Sculpture in marble at this period, about 550 to 300 B.C., was less
developed; single archaic reliefs in this material--of which Southern
Etruria offers but few--appear flat, and entirely under the influence of
painting. The inadequacy of the artistic ability of this time is shown,
for example, in a relief of Chiusi, representing the lamentation for the
dead, where expression of sorrow is combined with caricatured individual
features, very rude in drawing and form. (_Fig._ 259.)

[Illustration: Fig. 259.--Etruscan Relief.]

The bronze-work, which is closely connected with the terra-cotta work,
was of greater importance, and betrays a more decided and enduring
Phœnician influence than do the terra-cotta statues. This is shown in
the beaten bronzes, thin plates of which were used to overlay wooden
forms. The most important example, the remains of a chariot found at
Perugia, is preserved in the Glyptothek and Antiquarium at Munich. The
representations of a sea-horse, a woman with fins, sphinxes, and a man
who holds or strangles two lions, give evidence rather of Oriental than
of Hellenic prototypes. The uncertainty in form and proportions, the
ungainliness of the figures, and the awkwardness of the entire
composition are in no wise compensated by the careful execution of the
finely engraved details to be seen only upon close inspection. A tripod,
found at the same time in Perugia, also now in Munich, shows a certain
advance. Its three sides have representations of Hercules, and the
Italian Juno Sospita, with the so-called Bœotian shield and pointed
shoes, in somewhat higher beaten reliefs, very carefully engraved. This
tripod is distinguished from the preceding examples as being the work of
a more skilful artist, but differs little, or perhaps not at all, in
point of age. The upper part of this vessel, now lacking, was mostly of
bronze casting; the borders of the seat and the ends of the shafts upon
the Perugian chariot were decorated with statuettes of solid metal; but
these, as well as the handles upon utensils, seem to have been mere
artisan work, not unlike the ornaments upon the handles, the furniture,
chariots, etc., shown by the reliefs of Nineveh.

Works in bronze of considerable size must have been numerous at that
period, as, in 260 B.C., Volsinii alone was in possession of two
thousand bronze statues; but only a single example remains of
well-attested Etruscan origin, the Capitoline Wolf (_Fig._ 260);
probably the same which, soon after 300 B.C., was consecrated in Rome
under the Ruminal fig-tree. It is a hollow cast, which, with great
hardness and carefulness of treatment, gives the well-understood
character of this animal excellently, almost to the point of caricature.
It well illustrates the peculiarities of Etruscan art above described,
inasmuch as it sacrifices to realism all artistic beauty. The chimera of
Arezzo in Florence, and a griffin in Leyden, are similar in style; but,
notwithstanding their Etruscan inscriptions, it is doubtful whether they
are of Tuscan workmanship.

[Illustration: Fig. 260.--Capitoline Wolf.]

Here should be mentioned the bronze utensils ornamented by
drawings--_sgraffiti_--particularly the mirrors, generally in the form
of plates, one side of which had a polished surface, while the other was
engraved. The handles upon these either represented figures like
caryatides, or, more commonly, ended in a deer’s head. Toilet cistas, a
further variety of these works, were of cylindrical form, usually with
the claws of animals for feet, and a group of human figures upon the
cover as a handle; but these, on account of their engravings, should
rather be considered in the section upon painting, and are mentioned
here merely because of the accompanying castings. Only a small part of
them belongs to the archaic period.

About 300 B.C. the art of Etruria appears to have reached its highest
point of independence and perfection, which, in sculpture, is
illustrated by the terra-cotta sarcophagus of Cære in the Louvre, and by
the Capitoline Wolf. The old ignorance of proportions had disappeared,
and a tolerable correctness was attained; the realistic tendency no
longer struggled with unpliant forms, as in the former period, when it
might have been likened to the lisping and stammering of children. Yet
the Etruscan artists never succeeded in harmonious combinations, or in
mastery and surety of form. The stream of Grecian art, long restrained,
or, so far as possible, turned aside, at length overcame all obstacles.
Up to this time the taste of the Etruscans for the archaic and the
archaistic, aided by the importations of that character, had given to
their art an antiquity of aspect in form and in painting far beyond its
true age. But when political Etruria ceased to exist, as its walls were
destroyed at the opening of the cities by the Romans, Grecian art, of
the period of the Diadochi, entered from the coasts of Magna Græcia.

This is first noticeable in the sculptured lids of the sarcophagi of
this Hellenistic period. That of Cære, mentioned above, was executed in
almost entire independence of the influence of Greece: a copy was made
directly from life, with a prosaic realism which, without restraint or
culture, and with no feeling for the beautiful, was still fascinating
from its naturalness. In later times this unpoetical sobriety and
truthfulness to individual peculiarities still existed; but they were
affected by Hellenic forms and formulas, which, being without organic
unity or intrinsic significance, and void of capacity for development,
were merely an exterior varnish. This period is most clearly represented
by the lids of three sarcophagi carved in alabaster and a soft stone. Of
these, one bears a reclining image with five statues in the full round
at the head and feet (_Fig._ 261); the two others, from Vulci, represent
a man and woman upon the marriage bed, wrought in high-relief. The
portraiture of the chief personages is by no means limited to the heads.
Apart from the accessories, chosen from the purely human sphere of daily
existence, the position and modelling of the nude portions of the body
were evidently taken from living models. The secondary figures and the
drapery show a decided Grecian influence, in visible contrast to the
inherent realism. Organic connection and unity of style are wanting, and
this want leaves it to be regretted that Greek forms should ever have
found admission into Etruria, for by them the native tendency towards
the realistic was checked, while the originality sacrificed was not
compensated by a merely external Greek formalism, never essentially
understood.

[Illustration: Fig. 261.--Etruscan Stone Sarcophagus.]

This condition of things is most strikingly exemplified by the reliefs
upon the two sarcophagi of Vulci, the lids of which have been referred
to above. Upon the front of one is shown a wedding procession, and upon
the end a funeral chariot drawn by mules, with the married pair seated
under a canopy. In the arrangement and drapery they somewhat resemble
Grecian sculptures, but the heads, especially of the important figures,
are portraits, with traits of realistic coarseness in all the nude
parts. Even in subject, as Brunn remarks, this naturalism is apparent.
While the Greeks would have chosen to represent a mythological wedding
like that of Heracles, Peleus, or Cadmus, and the Romans would have
illustrated the bridal pair--in a conception more theological than
mythological--by Victory, Juno, and Venus, with the Graces in their
train, the Etruscans show the marriage in a literal manner, the united
pair being followed by servants, with couch, sun-shade, wash-basin,
crook, horn, flutes, and harp. In the reliefs upon the other sarcophagus
the subjects selected offered no opportunity for purely Etruscan
motives; battles of the Amazons, and heroic encounters of naked youths,
on foot and upon horse, gave no scope to realistic treatment. They
consequently appear almost entirely Greek, but clumsy and superficial,
justifying, by the slavishness of their imitation and the weakness of
their composition, the suggestion of Brunn, that the Etruscan artists
not only made use of Hellenic designs as a kind of pattern-book, but,
when they would illustrate some scene for which they had no complete
guide, combined separate groups from different examples. In the steer
seized by lions, and the horse lacerated by griffins, upon the small
sides of the same sarcophagus, may be recognized not only Oriental
conceptions, but an Asiatic treatment.

The terra-cotta sculptures of this period show the same Hellenic
tendency, with, the same superficiality and relation to the late Greek
degeneracy. Examples of this are to be found in the antefixes of a
sarcophagus from Vulci, and some fine urns belonging particularly to
Northern Etruria--Volterra, Clusium, and Perugia--which appear in tufa
and travertine, and represent the latest period--150 to 100 B.C. Grecian
legendary scenes have been observed upon earlier works, and afterwards
they became more general; but a certain preference for particular and
better known fables is evident, and native additions are easily
recognized.

Not to speak of later examples in bronze, and the engraved drawings upon
cistas and mirrors, which will be treated of below, the most important
statue is the so-called Mars from Todi, now in the Vatican museum.
According to its inscription, it is Umbrian, but it is properly to be
considered here, because for the too limited term Etruscan art might
well be substituted Italian, or at least Central Italian. Vigorous in
all its details, and betraying throughout the later Hellenic style, the
Mars is yet stiff, heavy, and without organic understanding. Similar to
it are other figures of warriors; but the Boy with the Duck, in the
museum at Leyden, in spite of the stiff and hard features, would,
perhaps, not be recognized as Etruscan at all, were it not for the
inscription upon his right leg, and the bulla upon his neck-band. The
life-like statue of an orator in Florence might, in like manner, pass
for Roman, were there not something in the head, and in the lame
position of the legs, particularly hard and commonplace, a quality
which, in the Roman works of this kind, is always tempered by some
degree of heroic conception. The difference is less evident because the
primitive art of the Romans and Etruscans was much the same, and the
Greek influence the same in both, though this was earlier and more
active in Rome.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Illustration: Fig. 262.--Painting from Cære.]

The painting of Etruria naturally followed a process of development
similar to that of the sculpture. In the earliest times it appears that
painting was rare in comparison with the decorative works of beaten
metal plate, and that the little there was followed Phœnician and
Egyptian models, in so far, at least, as may be judged from the few
utensils which have been found in the so-called Grotto dell’ Iside in
Vulci. These are ornamented partly with painting, partly with colored
enamel. This decorative and dependent period lasted at least until the
beginning of the sixth century; and the Oriental tendency towards
decoration was by no means lost with its transition into the independent
monumental and realistic style, as is proved by the pictures of the
Campana tomb at Veii, with their attenuated animal figures. But the
obtrusive archaistic ornament upon the human figures began already to
show the native realistic tendency, which obtained complete mastery in
the two tombs of Corneto, called the Tomba del Morto, and Tomba delle
Inscrizioni, of about the same date. A painting upon slabs of
terra-cotta from Cære (_Fig._ 262) is perhaps still older. In the former
examples, though known to be antique, the treatment was more archaistic
than archaic, and the monstrous decorative style of Asia was apparent,
like that upon ancient vase-paintings. But in the Cære slabs the
fundamental principle was realistic imitation of the life. The influence
of Hellenic art, increasing because of the importation of Greek vases,
is first evident upon a number of clay figures from Cære. There is
little unity in the subjects: they appear to be devotional and
ceremonial rather than mythological, the demoniacal and funereal
elements predominating. The colors are sombre, with no decided blue,
red, or green; only brown, yellow, reddish brown, gray, and black were
employed upon a white ground. No trace of shading is perceptible, and
the drawing, with exception of the outline, is limited to the indication
of the almond-shaped eyes, and to slight suggestions of the knees,
elbows, and nails. The forms are heavy and without dignity, the motions
stiff, and the step as though climbing, with the arms thrown violently
upward, as if running in the greatest haste. Still, they give evidence
of great observation of nature, with the avoidance of a systematic
uniformity in drawing, motion, and gesture; but the imitation is hardly
successful, though in the reclining figures, for which a living model
was most easily obtained, there is a certain degree of truthfulness. In
the picture from Cære the many-colored altar, with its peculiar top
reminding one of the profiles of Castel d’Asso, is very characteristic.
The wall-paintings in the older tombs of Corneto, already mentioned, are
somewhat more advanced in regard to understanding of form and
truthfulness in the expression of the heads; also in the soles of the
feet being no longer so flatly set. At the same time, Grecian influence
is very distinctly visible. One of these, the Tomba del Morto,
represents a death-bed and its surroundings, with a group of dancers and
drinkers; the other, the Tomba delle Inscrizioni, shows racing, boxing,
wrestling, and preparations for a feast. A third sepulchre at Corneto,
the so-called Tomba del Barone, is, perhaps, still further developed,
with the strictness of the archaic Hellenic vase-painting. Youthful
riders, men and women with bowls, and finely modelled garments are
separated by small trees.

This archaic hardness was again modified in the next later group of four
tombs: the Grotto delle Bighe, the Grotto del Citharedo, the Grotto
Marzi, or del Triclinio, and the Grotto Querciola, mostly named from
some chief motive of the representation within. The garments allow the
outlines of the figure to be seen: the forms have become more slender,
the position of the limbs, step, and action more correct; while the
color, from the use of red and green, is brighter. Although the archaic
tendency still prevails, as may be seen from the more marked Hellenic
influence, a decided effort to develop the native realism is evident in
the contemporary paintings from Chiusi, of the Tomba Ciaja, the Tomba di
1833, and the Tomba François. These certainly do not show the fine
modulation and clearness of the Corneto paintings, but, instead, a
greater variety, originality, and truth. In the Tomba di 1833, for
example, the eye appears drawn in profile. These works are the
perfection of the second period, the time of independent realistic
development, dating from the fifth to the fourth century B.C.

The last phase of Etruscan painting, when the Hellenic influence
predominated as largely as in the sculptural works of the third and
second centuries B.C., commenced with the extensive adoption of the
Greek myths, previously but seldom employed. This epoch is illustrated
by coins, occasionally found in tombs, which still show the native
naturalistic traits, and a certain quaint sobriety not overcome by the
exaggeration of gesture. The effect is far more picturesque than that of
the older works, from a very moderate but still appreciative use of
light and shade. The close of the period is marked by a novelty of
subject, the introduction of Italian legends, such as the
half-historical personifications of Mastarna (or Servius Tullius) and
Cælius Vibenna. The art, which, more or less substantially, outlived the
independence of its narrow home, thus acquired a Roman character.

       *       *       *       *       *

Numerous and varied products testify to the Etruscan industry in
artistic manufactures; the bronze utensils in the tombs, with
_sgraffiti_, or engraved drawings, bore the same historical relation to
ancient paintings that copper-plate engraving does to the modern. Of the
thousand hand-mirrors known, only a few belong to the earlier period;
but in the subjects of the more developed archaic examples, Greek
character predominates. The frequently recurring representations of
Bacchus and Eros and of the Judgment of Paris remind one of the festival
and morning toilets; Ariadne and the female deities suggest womanly
customs. A great portion of the Greek mythology is illustrated upon the
mirrors of the third period, which show extreme Hellenic influence. Most
of these productions are naturally mere handiwork, and artistically
valueless; but single specimens, from their extraordinary beauty, might
pass for Grecian work did not the inscriptions and accessories,
specifically Etruscan, like the bullæ, prevent this assumption. For
example, the unequalled mirror, in which Semele embraces the youthful
Dionysos in so charming a manner, represents the heroine in such noble
proportions that it may, without hesitation, be reckoned among the most
beautiful results of artistic industry. Similar in character are the
engraved cistas, cylindrical toilet-cases, which illustrated Grecian
myths, like those of Perseus and Prometheus, the Judgment of Paris, and
the rites over the body of Patroclos, in a careful manner and with
vigorous drawing, but not without the hardness peculiar to Etruscan
composition. Italian myths also appear, like that of Æneas; and Latin
inscriptions, as those upon the magnificent cista of Ficoroni,
ornamented with illustrations of the legend of the Argonauts, show that
this process of engraving was also employed with success by the early
Romans.

A consideration of Etruscan art is important, because, without it, an
understanding of Roman art is not possible, at least in the fields of
architecture and sculpture. Up to a certain point of time, Roman art was
entirely developed from Etruscan art, or, perhaps, went hand in hand
with it, as will be more particularly shown in the following section.
The subject should be more closely investigated, especially in the
province of painting, with the hope that, from analogous illustrations,
much which still remains dark in primitive Hellenic art may also be made
clear.

[Illustration: Fig. 263.--Janus Quadrifrons in the Forum Boarium.]



ROME.


It has been remarked in the preceding section that the term “Etruscan
art” admits, in many respects, of no definite restriction. The southern
boundaries of the country between the Po and the Gulf of Tarention had
early been colonized by the Greeks, but its artistic industry was, in
the primitive historical ages, chiefly in the hands of the Etruscans,
and their name alone has on this account been applied to the
architecture, sculpture, and painting of all Central Italy. But
neighboring races, notably the Umbrians, Latins, and Sabines, also took
part in the development of this artistic civilization--advancing, in
great measure, from common starting-points, and with like results. The
migrations and commerce of the nations inhabiting the Italian peninsula
were not less extended and active than were those of the people
occupying the Peloponnesos and the islands of the Ægean Sea: the
relations to the Orient, through the medium of Phœnician traders,
were much the same in both cases, and it is not strange that similar
phases of advance are noticeable, though restricted in rapidity and
degree, among tribes dwelling in the regions more remote from the sea.

[Illustration: Fig. 264.--Gate of the Walls of Norba.]

Between the Tiber and Garigliano, as well as between the Arno and Tiber,
there exist extensive remains of Cyclopean masonry, as well as walls of
hewn and squared stones. The former were predominant in the mountainous
interior, as at Alatrium, Arpinum, Aurunca, Cora, Cures, Ecetræ,
Ferentinum, Medullia, Norba, Præneste, Signia, Sora, Tibur, Verulæ,
etc.; the latter in the low rolling land between the Apennines and the
Tyrrhenian Sea, as at Æsernia, Antium, Ardea, Aricia, Aufidena,
Lavinium, Politorium or Apiolæ, Satricum, Scaptia, Tellenæ, Tusculum,
and Rome. They frequently occur in contemporary works, as, for example,
in the well-preserved polygonal ruins of Norba and Signia (the present
Norma and Segni) and the horizontal courses of the Servian
fortification, both of which constructions date from the period of the
later kings. The age of these works can usually be roughly estimated:
the Cyclopean walls of Olevano, of enormous unhewn boulders, like the
fortifications of Tiryns, are evidently of greater antiquity than the
carefully fitted polygonal masonry of Norba and Signia (_Fig._ 264),
where the separate stones are tooled to plane faces and sides; while the
irregular horizontal courses of unequal thickness, which form the older
Latin ramparts, precede, in point of time, the exactly jointed blocks of
the Servian walls of Rome. A more exact classification or chronological
determination is not possible.

[Illustration: Fig. 265.--Remains of the Servian Wall upon the
Aventine.]

Among all the remains of primitive walls in Italy, those of Rome are
naturally the most interesting. It unfortunately cannot be definitely
proved that a part of a rampart upon the western corner of the Palatine,
excavated thirty years ago from the rubbish and brick revetment of the
imperial period, appertained to the fortifications which surrounded the
city of Romulus. But this masonry, though not perhaps attributable to
the eighth century, is certainly of an early age of Roman history. It is
formed of oblong stones, exactly hewn, and laid in courses of stretchers
and headers, without the use of mortar, the careful jointing showing a
high degree of technical perfection. The better-authenticated remains of
the circuit wall of Servius Tullius are similar in character. They have
been best preserved upon the southern slope of the Aventine, east of the
Via di S. Prisca, where they attain a height of 10 m., with a length of
30 m. (_Fig._ 265.) The arrangement of the jointing, however, is not so
well considered as that in the former example, the vertical interstices
of adjoining courses being frequently continuous.

The passage formed a small vestibule or chamber in the thickness of the
wall, which required inner and outer portals, like those of the Temple
of Janus upon the Velabrum, which, long after the ruin of the Servian
fortifications, and even down to the time of the empire, were sacredly
preserved as relics. A similar arrangement existed in Etruria even more
frequently than in the Latin cities.

The Roman gates were so doubled as to form two passages side by
side--one for entrance, the other for exit; a comparatively narrow
opening could thus provide ample space for those moving only in the same
direction. It is not certainly known how these Roman gates were covered.
The oldest vestiges of masonry in Latium show no traces of vaulting,
while other means of accomplishing the connection have been preserved
almost intact, such as the heavy lintels upon vertical or inclined
jambs, as at Segni, Circello, Alatri, and Olevano; or the gradual
projection of the horizontal courses beyond those beneath them, as at
Arpino. The primitive houses for springs, and the so-called Mamertine
Prison, show that vaulting was not practised in Rome or the neighboring
Latin cities during the early ages; the Prison, probably built in the
time of Servius Tullius, appears to have been somewhat similar in
construction to the Greek tholos. A further example of this kind is the
chamber for a fountain in Tusculum, where the stone slabs of the ceiling
lean so as to form a sort of continuous gable.

Rome owed more to the last fifty years of its hated kings than to the
two following centuries. From the royal period dates one of the most
important monuments of vaulted construction, the Cloaca Maxima of Rome,
built in the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, and probably under the
direction of engineers from his native Etruria. To this gigantic work,
admired even in the time of the magnificent Roman empire, is undoubtedly
owing the preservation of the Eternal City, which it has secured from
the swamping that has befallen its neighboring plains. Its quarried
stones are still visible beneath the later brick arches in the vicinity
of S. Giorgio in Velabro. (_Fig._ 266.) The building of drains naturally
led to extensive works upon the banks of the river, which protected the
thickly populated city; it was forgotten that, in earlier ages, it had
often been necessary to traverse the Velabrum in boats, and that the
spring freshets had extended a sheet of water between the Palatine and
Capitoline hills.

[Illustration: Fig. 266.--Cloaca Maxima.]

All these structures were emphatically works of engineering; the
building of walls, gateways, drains, and vaulted roofs presented nothing
to elevate them into independent and artistic monuments of architecture.
Among the Roman temples of this period only two appear to have been of
importance for the history of art--the national shrine of Diana upon the
Aventine, and the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus; both built by the last
three kings, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquinius
Superbus. The first of these structures has been compared to the
Artemesion at Ephesos, the national sanctuary of the Ionians; but it
would be wrong to draw from this a conclusion in regard to the style of
the Latin temple of the same goddess, which was most probably Tuscan, as
that of the Temple of Jupiter is known to have been, from descriptions
given by ancient writers as well as from the recent excavations of
Jordan. According to Dionysios of Halicarnassos, the substructure of
this latter building--eight hundred Roman feet in circumference--was
only fifteen feet greater in length than in width; these dimensions
agree well with the proportion of five to six given by Vitruvius for the
temple architecture of the Etruscans. The cella of the Capitoline temple
was divided into three ædiculæ, another peculiarity assigned by the
Roman writer to the sacred edifices of Etruria; it had three ranges of
columns, of six each, before the cella, which provided a portico equal
in depth to half the entire length of the building. The ornamentation,
which will be treated more fully in the section upon Roman sculpture,
was wholly the work of the Etruscans. This race had, indeed, settled in
Rome between the Capitol and the Palatine, where the name of Vicus
Tuscus preserved, until late historical times, the memory of their
settlement and of the considerable part taken by them in the peopling of
ancient Rome. It is even stated by Pliny (xxxv. 12, 45, and 154) that,
for seventeen years after the expulsion of the kings--namely, until the
building of the Temple of Ceres upon the Circus--all the sanctuaries of
Rome were Etruscan; that is to say, were not only built in the Tuscan
style, which might more properly be called the ancient Italian, but were
erected by Etruscan artificers, or, at least, under the direction of
Etruscan artists.

Even the Temple of Ceres appears to have been Tuscan in general
disposition, its cella having been triply divided and its
intercolumniations excessively great, as may be seen by the remains of a
later restoration still existing in S. Maria in Cosmedin. In this
temple, however, the influence of Greek architecture, introduced through
the Hellenic colonies of Magna Græcia, had already begun to gain ground
in the arrangement and the details, though the ancient Italian
traditions were too deeply rooted to permit it essentially to alter the
original distribution. The structure remained nearly square, being
equally divided between the portico and the cella. This is illustrated
by the Temple of Concord, erected by Camillus upon the Forum at the foot
of the Capitol in 367 B.C. The limited area, defined by the neighboring
buildings and by the steep slope of the hill against which it stood,
prevented even later restorations from elongating its plan. The extended
oblong of the Hellenic temple was naturally adopted, in place of the
heavy proportions of the Tuscan temples, as soon as the execution of the
entablature in stone rendered the excessively wide intercolumniations
impossible, and placed insurmountable difficulties in the way of the
broad front. Still, the Etruscan or ancient Italian division of the
building was retained, inasmuch as the columns were usually restricted
to a pronaos of great depth, such as is shown by the ruins of four
temples in the Forum Romanum. The Roman prostylos, as Vitruvius terms a
temple thus planned, may be regarded as the first compromise effected
between the ancient Italian and the Hellenic disposition. (_Figs._ 267
and 271.)

[Illustration: Fig. 267.--Temple of Fortuna Virilis.]

[Illustration: Fig. 268.--Temple of Antoninus and Faustina.]

The early Italian manner of abutting the undeveloped back of the
building upon the circuit wall of the temenos, or against a cliff, seems
to have long remained in practice; but, in cases where this was
impossible, the bare sides and rear of the cella appeared intolerable
when compared with the outstanding wings of the Greek peripteros.
Although, in some instances, the prostylos plan was adopted in later
ages, as in the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina (_Fig._ 268) in the
Forum, where the enclosing walls of the cella are treated with
pilasters, this was only in cases where the sanctuary was so crowded by
adjoining buildings that little else than the portico could be seen. In
completely isolated structures the desire of approaching the peripteral
effect led to the application of engaged columns to the side and rear
walls of the cella, thus attaining, in the so-called prostylos
pseudoperipteros, the highest stage of that development of sacred
architecture which was peculiar to Rome. The purely peripteral form was
naturally adopted in later times, primitive cellas being enclosed by
outstanding ranges of columns; but two fundamental peculiarities were
always retained: the pronaos always formed a deep portico, and the naos
always remained a spacious hall, the peripteral columns being fitted to
it, and made of subordinate importance. The dimensions of the cella were
thus not restricted by the pteroma, as was the case in the temples of
Greece, and especially in those of Sicily; for the chief difference
between the architectural tendencies of the Greeks and the Romans was
that the former devoted their attention almost exclusively to the
perfection of external appearance, creating monuments of unequalled
beauty, while the latter held material usefulness to be of the first
importance, assigning to technical excellence a second place, and to
artistic design but a third, thus creating imposing interiors admirably
adapted to their purposes.

[Illustration: Fig. 269.--Engaged Tuscan Column from the Flavian
Amphitheatre]

The details of their architecture were with the Romans purely decorative
and applied. The Doric style, which had predominated in Lower Italy and
Sicily, and must have offered the most numerous models near at hand, was
nevertheless least employed. It would be difficult to decide whether
this is to be ascribed to the similarity of the Tuscan and Doric styles,
and their derivation from a common prototype, or to the development of
the two manners of building in different directions; certain it is that
the channelled shaft was not employed, and the Doric entablature
appeared only in an attenuated and purely ornamental imitation, above
the wide intercolumniations of the ancient Italian façade. The Tuscan
(_Fig._ 269) became somewhat higher in proportion to its diameter, and
was slightly altered in detail. The epistyle was diminished to a narrow
band, and, in the smaller temples, was usually carved from one stone
with the frieze of triglyphs, thus destroying the separate importance of
these two members. The diminutive triglyphs were frequently increased in
number above the intercolumniations; the chamferings were terminated
above by a straight line, while the guttæ were lengthened and had a more
marked conical form. The proportionally small metopes were either
entirely without sculptured ornament, or were provided with rosettes,
disks, and the heads of oxen; which last were introduced as a
reminiscence of the barbaric custom, prevalent in early times, of
affixing the skulls of the sacrificed animals to the wooden entablature.
The corona was usually not inclined like this member in the Doric
cornice; the mutules lost their _guttæ_, and became simplified to plain
consoles. (_Fig._ 270.) In some instances Ionic elements were introduced
into the Doric entablature, as in the sarcophagus--now in the
Vatican--of L. Corn. Scipio Barbatus, who was consul in 298 B.C., where
an Ionic cornice surmounts the frieze of triglyphs, and Ionic spirals
decorate the lid. The Theatre of Marcellus displays a similar
combination; and, in other cases, Doric forms are entirely supplanted by
simplified Ionic members.

[Illustration: Fig. 270.--Temple at Cori.]

[Illustration: Fig. 271.--Temple of Fortuna Virilis.]

Towards the end of the third century B.C. the Ionic style was generally
introduced; yet, according to the nature of Roman architecture, which
did but borrow external features from foreign nations, itself supplying
the general disposition and constructive forms, it became nothing more
than a decorative adjunct: the Grecian _style_ became a Roman _order_.
Attic Ionic influences were naturally more prevalent than those of Asia
Minor. This was particularly fortunate, because a canon of mathematical
rules early took the place of independent development, hardening the
forms into formulas. This mechanical method of design was favored by the
extended application of engaged columns and pilasters which did not
require the complete execution of the elaborate capital, while, in the
decoration of colossal buildings of several stories, the distance from
the eye rendered a simplification of the Ionic helices natural, as well
as more suitable to the coarse and porous stone employed by the Roman
builders. (_Fig._ 271.) The complicated corner capital of the Ionic
style could not, however, be avoided upon the free-standing columns of
the temple fronts, and the execution of this member must have been
exceedingly troublesome to artisans accustomed to work everything after
one model. It is therefore to be regarded as a direct consequence of
the Roman architectural system that a variety of the Ionic capitals
appeared in later times which omitted the rolls and displayed the
spirals upon all four sides. This form, as exemplified by the Temple of
Saturn upon the Clivus Capitolinus, seems to have arisen by repeating
the two outer sides of the corner capital upon those remaining. The
entablature was of great simplicity, perhaps because the comparatively
rare employment of this order left it undeveloped.

Before the Roman had decided upon the practical but inartistic
repetition of the volutes upon all four sides--by which the nature of
the Ionic capital was destroyed, and the spiral treated in the early
Asiatic manner as mere ornament--the Corinthian capital had come into
general and popular use. It has already been explained, in the section
upon Hellenic architecture, that the Corinthian capital attained no
typical form in its native country, and could not be ranked with the
Doric and Ionic styles, being a mere variety of the Ionic capital
without any individual formation of the shaft and entablature. The
Corinthian columns of the uncompleted Temple of the Olympian Zeus at
Athens, which Sulla transported to Rome about the year 84 B.C. for the
rebuilding of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, were, if not the first
in Rome, at least those which were in later times taken by Roman
architects as typical examples of their style. The Roman architect
justly preferred the Corinthian capital because of its capacity for more
varied application, without that fatal difficulty at the corners
inherent in the Ionic style, and because of its rich effect, even when
less carefully and delicately detailed. The preference for the
Corinthian may be justifiable, but that form of Composite capital into
which it developed, by a multiplication of its ornaments and the
addition of four spirals upon the corners, must be regarded as a
debasement. (_Fig._ 273.) The fact should not be overlooked that this
arrangement of acanthus around a concave kernel best solves the problem
of the capital as a mediating member between the vertical support and
the horizontal entablature, as well as between the circular plan of the
shaft and the rectangle of the epistyle. (_Fig._ 272.)

The leaves and tendrils of the capital were at last introduced into the
entablature, which thereby assumed a peculiar character, and permitted
the Romans, for whom the forms of Hellenic architecture were nothing
more than a decorative mask, to place the Corinthian, as an independent
order, by the side of the Ionic and the Tuscan or Doric. As the
Corinthian base had been formed by a combination of the Ionic and Attic
mouldings, the consoles of the cornice resulted from a fusion of Ionic
dentils and Doric mutules. The simplicity and slight projection of the
dentils did not suffice for the requirements of florid Roman
architecture; the horizontal mutules without guttæ, characteristic of
the later Tuscan style, consequently took their place, supported by the
spiral brackets which had been already employed as the parotides beneath
the cornices over Ionic doorways. A richly foliated ornamentation fully
harmonized these new members with the acanthus capital, and gave to the
entire cornice an independent importance and a certain lavish elegance,
soon, however, debased by the extravagance of the decorators. Continued
increase of ornament resulted in a want of attention to the general
composition--a loss which the multiplication of the details could ill
supply, especially as they were without even formal beauty.

[Illustration: Fig. 272.--Corinthian Capital from the Pantheon.]

[Illustration: Fig. 273.--Composite Capital.]

The sacred buildings of the Romans have been considered thus at length
because offering the best opportunity for a characterization of the
orders; yet the significance of their national architecture is not to be
found in the temples, but rather in their structures for public utility
and comfort. In these the technical naturally far exceeded the artistic
element, and it is consequently in points of construction that the great
advances of the Romans appear. In these methods they were almost wholly
independent, and were by far the most important people of antiquity.
Masonry of brick and hewn stones early attained great extent and
perfection, furthered by the excellent materials at hand--the hard
Tiburtine and Travertine limestones, the tufa so easily carved, the
unequalled clay for bricks, and the famous volcanic sand and pozzuolana
which, when combined with lime, harden to the firmest stone. Vaulting
was generally introduced as early as the time of the kings, the walls
and ceiling forming an uninterrupted mass of homogeneous materials; the
vertical and horizontal members, support and covering, being blended
together without marked transition. Before this system of construction
was invented the spacious and monumental development of protected rooms
had been possible only under great limitations; without it these chief
ends of Roman architecture could not have been attained.

The building of barrel vaults with hewn stones, as observed in the
Cloaca Maxima, was attended with certain difficulties; the great weight
of the masonry permitted a moderately large span only when immense and
cumbrous buttresses were provided. This objection was, in a great
degree, obviated by the employment of bricks, but the size of the spaces
covered was limited by the necessity of heavy supporting-walls at the
sides. The full scope of vaulted construction was not recognized until
the introduction, by the Romans, of the intersecting or cross vaults, or
the so-called groined arch. This replaced the two side walls previously
necessary to support the barrel vault, by piers upon the four corners,
at the same time opening the covered space on all four sides. The way
was thus prepared for an indefinite series of such quadrangular
compartments, or bays, covering a continuous space. A third development
of this principle, the hemispherical vault or cupola, was of more
restricted application, having been employed only for circular
buildings, or, when bisected, for apses, or semicircular additions to
the plans of rectangular temples and halls. The date of the first
appearance of the cross-vault can hardly have been earlier than the
second century B.C.

[Illustration: Fig. 274.--Section of the Aqua Marcia Tepula and Julia,
near the Porta San Lorenzo.]

[Illustration: Fig. 275.--Section of the Pantheon, in its Present
Condition.]

[Illustration: Fig. 276.--Section of the Pantheon. Restoration by
Adler.]

[Illustration: Fig. 277.--Plan of the Baths of Caracalla.]

[Illustration: Fig. 278.--Chief Hall of the Baths of Caracalla.]

The first secular buildings which attained monumental importance were
undoubtedly those erected for public usefulness, like the extensive
covered canals so requisite to the very existence of Rome. On the one
hand, it was necessary, by means of gigantic sewers, to drain the low
land, which was not only full of springs, but was periodically flooded
by the Tiber; on the other, to provide the metropolis with good water by
aqueducts extending to great distances. Still, it was not until the year
312 B.C., more than two centuries after the building of the Cloaca
Maxima, that the first work of this kind, the Aqua Appia, was completed,
simultaneously with the first great military road, by the famous censor
Appius Claudius Cæcus. This entirely subterranean aqueduct, eight Roman
miles long, was followed, down to the time of Diocletian, by no less
than thirteen similar constructions of increased dimensions and
magnificence. (_Fig._ 274.) Almost all extended to the mountains which
surround the Campagna, even reaching a length of forty-two Roman miles.
They provided so great a quantity of excellent water that one third part
of it would have been more than sufficient for the real necessities of
the city. Stupendous arches raised the conduits high above the ground,
while valleys and ravines were spanned by mighty works of engineering,
even rivalling the bridges upon the great military roads. The greater
part of the water thus obtained was used for the baths, which were
increased under the emperors to a measureless luxury, and provided the
chief means by which these rulers purchased the favor of the populace.
There were in Rome no less than eight hundred and fifty-six private
baths open to the use of every citizen for a certain price, besides the
great imperial structures which were free to the public. The first
founder of these free baths was Agrippa, in 25 B.C., who appears to have
followed, in their general arrangement, the type of a Greek gymnasion.
The bodily exercises of early times, by which the military power of the
State had been trained, were succeeded under the empire by a luxurious
care for physical well-being; gymnastic drill appeared unnecessary to
the sovereigns of all the known world, while the bath and the toilet
became more and more important. Thus, in the Roman baths, the spaces for
serious athletic contests, which had formed the principal part of the
Greek gymnasion, were wholly subordinated to the departments for
indolent luxury and light amusements. The primitive bathing-chambers
were enlarged to magnificent halls, which offered the greatest scope for
the development of that interior architecture which was cultivated with
such great success by the Romans. This grandeur is evident in the
imposing rotunda still remaining from the Baths of Agrippa, the
remarkable circular structure which, because of its beauty, was
transformed by Agrippa himself into a temple--the Pantheon--by the
addition of Corinthian columns. (_Figs._ 275 and 276.) The building, not
having been originally planned for an isolated position, is wholly
undeveloped upon the exterior, but its massive construction and
harmonious proportions have merited the admiration accorded to it in all
ages. From the existing remains it cannot be surely determined whether
the Baths of Nero, Titus, Trajan, and Commodus, which followed the great
creation of Agrippa, surpassed it in dimensions and magnificence; but it
is certain that this was the case with the enormous structures of
Caracalla and of Diocletian, as the entire plan of the former, with
parts of the mosaic pavements, still remains; while the main hall of the
latter, in almost perfect preservation, forms the chief part of the
Church of S. Maria degli Angeli. The principal structure was usually
surrounded by an extensive enclosure, which, in the case of the Baths of
Caracalla (_Fig._ 277), was formed upon the front (_a_) by a series of
separate cabinets. Upon the sides were segmental projections, or exedras
(_b_), with various chambers (_c_), probably intended for intellectual
entertainments, such as rhetorical and poetical dissertations, etc.;
while the rectangle was closed by a one-sided stadion, with spaces for
gymnastic purposes (_d_), and a reservoir for water (_e_). The central
building provided upon either side enormous halls for games, preparatory
to the ablutions (_g_, _p_), between them (_i_, _k_, _l_) the spaces for
the cold, tepid, and hot baths; while the adjoining smaller chambers
served as rooms for dressing and the manifold processes of the toilet.
Between this chief structure and the enclosure race-courses and
promenades, with fountains and beds of flowers, added the charms of
nature to the magnificence of architecture. The public Baths of
Alexander Severus, Decius, and Constantine appear to have been less
extended; but these were far surpassed in size by the constructions of
Diocletian, which could accommodate three thousand bathers. The Roman
buildings for the circus, the theatres, and amphitheatres were of
scarcely less importance. The extreme simplicity of the Circus Maximus
recalls the early Greek hippodrome; the slopes of the Palatine and
Aventine served as a station for the spectators, while the level ground
in the valley between formed the arena. It was not until 327 B. C. that
the barriers (_carceres_) were architecturally embellished, and even the
rebuilding of the whole by Cæsar was limited to the erection of the
lower stories of the auditorium in stone. The wooden superstructure was
not replaced by a more permanent and monumental construction until the
time of Domitian and Trajan. The general plan was adopted from the Greek
model, the peculiarities of the Roman arrangement being a low division
wall, or spina, the position of the barriers, and the moat which
surrounded the arena (_euripis_), intended to protect the lower tiers of
spectators during the combats of wild beasts. The spina, connecting the
two turning-posts (_metæ_), was ornamented with memorial columns,
altars, ædiculas, statues, obelisks, and the like; it did not follow a
direction precisely parallel to the side seats, but allowed a
considerably broader space upon the right than upon the left, so that
the many chariots here crowded together early in the race might not be
too greatly impeded. That all the competitors might have an equally
favorable position when brought into line, it was necessary that the
starting-points should be arranged in the segment of a circle, the
centre of which was a little to the right of the spina. This plan may be
recognized in the best-preserved Roman circuses, as, for instance, in
that at Bovillæ, near Albano, and that of Romulus, the son of Maxentius,
upon the Via Appia. (_Fig._ 279.) The Circus Maximus, like all the other
structures of its kind in Rome, has been entirely destroyed.

[Illustration: Fig. 279.--Plan of the Circus of Romulus.]

[Illustration: Fig. 280.--Scheme of the Roman Theatre, according to
Vitruvius.]

In the earlier periods of Roman history, the theatre did not receive the
recognition and assistance of the government; and the law in force until
the end of the republic, which permitted no theatre with seats to be
constructed within the limits of the city, prevented any monumental
development in this direction. Dramatic representations, however, were
not to be suppressed after an acquaintance with the Greek drama had once
been formed. Comedy was especially popular, and Roman authors devoted
their attention to it with success. But these plays were performed only
upon festival days, and were undertaken by individuals. The creation of
the improvised stage, for transient usage, thus fell to the lot of those
politicians whose desire it was to win the favor of the populace. In the
latter days of the republic structures were reared which equalled the
extravagant magnificence of the Diadochi; the ædile M. Scaurus, for
instance, erected a gigantic theatre, to stand only a few days, which
provided seats for no less than eighty thousand spectators, the stage
being ornamented by three hundred and sixty marble columns and three
thousand bronze statues. This boundless waste was brought to an end
through the building of the first stone theatre in Rome, by Pompey, who,
notwithstanding his great political power, could succeed in silencing
the objections made by the conservative party against this innovation
only by the pretence that the stone seats were the steps of a temple,
which he erected upon the summit of the _cavea_. This first permanent
structure was succeeded during the reign of Augustus by two other
theatres, those of Marcellus and of Balbus; the first could seat but a
quarter as many spectators as did the theatre of Pompey--namely, twenty
thousand--while that of Balbus provided places for only eleven thousand
six hundred. In later imperial times even this capacity was found too
great. The theatre lost much of its attraction after the Roman people
had once seen blood flow in the arena. Yet in all the Roman empire there
was scarcely a city of importance where a stone theatre was not erected
during the reign of Augustus; even small towns like Tusculum, where the
remains are particularly well preserved, boasted of these monuments. The
characteristic differences between the Roman theatre and the Greek, its
prototype, were that the orchestra did not exceed a semicircle, the
front of the stage (A A) being so advanced as to form its diameter,
which thus brought the actors nearer to the spectators. (_Fig._ 280.)
The open half of the circle was not, as in Greece, reserved for the
evolutions of the chorus, but was occupied by the senators and the
higher classes of citizens, who brought thither their own seats. The
auditorium, which, with the orchestra, had been restricted to a
semicircle, assumed a peculiar form upon the exterior, the entire
building standing in a plain, and only rarely, as in Tusculum, occupying
a natural slope. With the introduction of vaulting, massive foundations
of masonry were rendered unnecessary. Barrel vaults were placed one
above another, terminating upon the exterior in a series of arcades, the
decorative features of Roman architecture being usually so applied that
the lower story displayed engaged Tuscan columns, the second Ionic, and
the third Corinthian pilasters, with their respective entablatures. This
treatment of the exterior is shown in the best preservation by the
remaining amphitheatres; but vestiges of theatres may still be seen
sufficient to serve as illustrations, like that of Marcellus (_Fig._
281), and those at Orange in Southern France, at Aspendos in Asia Minor,
etc.

[Illustration: Fig. 281.--Theatre of Marcellus, Rome.]

[Illustration: Fig. 282.--Plan of the Flavian Amphitheatre.]

[Illustration: Fig. 283.--Section of the Auditorium of the Flavian
Amphitheatre.]

Imposing as the architectural appearance of the Roman theatre was,
magnificently and suitably as it was planned, it could never attain
great national, and consequently historical, importance, because tragedy
was never popular and comedy never political. The warlike and bloody
scenes presented by the mortal combats of gladiators and wild beasts had
a far greater attraction for a people who, by nature, felt more
reverence for Mars than for the Muses. It was long, however, before
these exhibitions were provided with especial arenas. After the
introduction of the gladiatorial contests by Marcus and Decius Brutus,
in 264 B.C., upon the occasion of funeral games, the prisoners of war
had fought together upon the Forum; and the slaughter of powerful
animals, inaugurated under Metellus by the killing of elephants taken
from the Carthaginians in 252 B.C., and continued under Æmilius Paullus
by the sacrifice of deserters to beasts of prey, had taken place in the
Circus. But this could not have been well suited to the purpose, as its
limited width was impeded by the spina, and its side barriers could not
have offered sufficient protection to the spectators from the desperate
attempts of the infuriated animals to escape. As early as 59 B.C., Caius
Curio had surprised the Roman people with two wooden theatres, built
back to back, and arranged so as to turn bodily upon their axes after
the conclusion of the scenic performances, so that the two auditories
faced one another, and left between them an arena for the succeeding
combats of gladiators. It is not certain whether this was the original
of the amphitheatre, or whether the oval plan arose from simply giving
broader proportions to that form of stadion, like the one at Aphrodisias
in Caria, which was terminated by a semicircle at each end. But it is
scarcely to be doubted that the wooden Theatrum Venatorium of Cæsar had
the disposition which was repeated, with but few alterations, in the
stone amphitheatre of Statilius Taurus, built during the reign of
Augustus, and in those of wood erected by Augustus, Tiberius, and Nero.
By the time of the Flavians it was recognized that no gift was so
acceptable to the Roman populace as the provision of a magnificent place
fitted for these inhuman games, and thus arose that most gigantic
edifice of all ages--the Colosseum. (_Figs._ 282 and 283.) Even
provincial towns like Reggio, Pompeii, Herculaneum, Albanum, Tusculum,
Sutri, Pola, Verona, Nismes, Treves, Constantine, etc., were provided
with edifices of this kind, fully as important in proportion to the
number of their inhabitants.

The mausoleums and monuments erected in honor of prominent citizens
constitute an important class in the architectural history of Rome. In
early times a tumulus form, similar to that of the Etruscan tombs, seems
to have predominated. The older monuments in the vicinity of Rome were
thus constructed. A tumulus, the lower cylinder of which appears to have
been elevated upon a square substructure decorated with Tuscan
pilasters, may be assumed to have existed above the remarkable
sepulchral labyrinth of the Scipios, outside the Porta Appia, and within
the present Porta S. Sebastiano. In course of time the circular drum of
masonry increased, while the original cone was diminished to a pointed
roof; the magnificent tombs of Cæcilia Metella, the wife of Crassus, and
of the Plautii upon the Via Appia and Via Tiburtina, show it as already
preponderating. The tumulus of Augustus upon the Via Flaminia, at
present within the Porta del Popolo, displays a cylinder of 24 m. in
diameter, decorated by thirteen niches once provided with statues; while
the cone of earth above, which was archaistic agreeably to the
affectation of Augustus, was planted with cyprus-trees and terminated by
a colossal image of the imperial builder. Even more gigantic was the
mausoleum built by Hadrian, the lower portion of which now forms the
substructure of the Castle of S. Angelo. It was once surmounted by a
second smaller cylinder bearing a conical roof. When the area at
disposal was too limited for the adoption of so extended a base, the
monument rose, like a tower, to a great height, in successive stories of
decreasing dimensions, with or without columns, as in the fine example
of St. Remy in Southern France. The endless rows of tombs upon the Via
Appia vary from simple piers and subterranean burial-chambers (called
_columbaria_, from the thousands of niches for funeral urns resembling
the nests of doves) to colossal mausoleums. The remains of bulwarks
prove that many of these elevations were utilized for mediæval
fortresses. Even foreign forms were employed; the so-called Tomb of the
Horatii at Albano resembles that of Porsena, while the Egyptian pyramid
is reproduced in the mausoleum of C. Cestius near the Porta di S. Paolo.
The conformation of the land presented but little opportunity for the
execution of rock-cut tombs with a front carved in the cliff; but one
remarkable example has been preserved upon the Lake of Albano, called,
from the twelve fasces introduced in its decoration, the Tomb of the
Consuls. In the mountainous provinces of the East these sepulchres were
more common, as, for instance, in Petra, where numbers of façades hewn
in the rock, with a kind of decorative temple-like architecture, betray
magnificence rather than good taste. (_Fig._ 284.)

[Illustration: Fig. 284.--Façade and Section of a Rock-cut Tomb at
Petra.]

[Illustration: Fig. 285.--Triumphal Arch of Titus.]

The monuments commemorative of individuals do not, as in Greece, deserve
to be treated in the section upon sculpture; in Rome the architectural
pedestal was more important than the statuesque carving, and, indeed,
the image was frequently supplanted altogether by inscriptions. Statues
were often placed upon columns. These were often provided with
characteristic decorations--as is the case with the prows of vessels
upon the shaft of Duilius, erected in 260 B.C.--and were often of
gigantic dimensions, thus withdrawing the figures upon their summits
from close inspection. The most sumptuous example of these monuments is
presented by Trajan’s Column, the base of which contained the
sarcophagus of that emperor. The surface of the shaft was either covered
with reliefs of many figures which, like the interior staircase,
ascended spirally upward, as upon the Columns of Trajan and of Marcus
Aurelius, or were merely treated with architectural forms like the
granite column of Antoninus Pius, the relief upon the pedestal of which
is given below. (_Fig._ 304.) There are similar shafts, dating from the
Roman occupation, at Cussi in France, at Alexandria, Constantinople, and
Ancyra. In all these works the portrait was far exceeded in importance
by the monument; sculpture was rendered subordinate to architecture.
This was the case in a still greater degree in the triumphal and
commemorative arches. As the equestrian statues and quadrigas have
disappeared from all the works of this kind now preserved, it might
easily be forgotten that these figures were in reality the principal
part of the composition, and the arches beneath them little else than
pedestals placed above the streets, and consequently provided with
passages. Festive portals constructed of light timbers and decorated for
gala-days doubtless afforded the prototype for these works. Triumphal
arches were comparatively rare in the time of the republic, but very
common under the emperors. They express the nature of Roman art better,
perhaps, than any other class of structures: the mass of masonry,
encased in columns and entablatures which were merely ornamental
features without constructive functions; the reliefs of small figures
crowded together as in a chronicle; the numerous decorative statues
above the columns as well as upon the top; the extended inscriptions
upon the attic above the arches, which thus formed, in a more restricted
sense, the pedestal of the crowning group--these all express
characteristic tendencies, and present the best example of the solid but
ostentatious construction which predominated in Roman architecture,
subordinating ideal beauty to the temporary purpose. Augustus, Trajan,
and Hadrian were the chief builders of these monuments, which have
remained in all the provinces of Rome: at Benevento, Ancona, Rimini,
Susa, and Aosta in Italy; at St. Remy, Orange, Besançon, Cavaillon, and
Rheims in France; at Alcantara, Merida, Bara, and Caparra in Spain; at
Theveste and El Casr in Africa, etc. There are four of these arches in
Rome--two with a single passage (those of Drusus and of Titus [_Fig._
285]), and two (those of Septimius Severus [_Fig._ 286] and of
Constantine) with additional openings on either side. The Arch of
Constantine surpasses its known predecessors in beauty of composition
and proportion only because it was patterned after an arch of Trajan,
and even built with the same materials. This arch is at once the
memorial of one of the most important victories recorded by history, the
battle near the Milvian Bridge, and of that unexampled poverty of
artistic invention, or rather want of productive energy, which
characterized all Roman intellectual life after the time of Constantine.

[Illustration: Fig. 286.--Triumphal Arch of Septimius Severus.]

The so-called Janus portals were erected above the streets and squares
of Rome, much in the same manner as the triumphal arches. They were
commonly simple, like the three Jani upon the Forum Romanum, but were
increased at street-crossings to extensive quadrifrontes, or structures
presenting the same face upon all four sides. The former bore two-faced
Jani upon their summits, the latter a four-faced combination like that
upon some figures of Hermes--an image well adapted to represent the
watcher over the crowded thoroughfares. The Janus Quadrifrons upon the
Forum Boarium (_Fig._ 263) is, with exception of the attic, particularly
well preserved; it was richly ornamented by the statues of deities, no
less than thirty-two niches being provided upon its walls.

[Illustration: Fig. 287.--Section.]

[Illustration: Fig. 288.--Plan of the Primitive Roman Basilica.
Restoration by Reber.]

[Illustration: Fig. 289.--Plan of the Basilica of Maxentius.]

The buildings which surrounded the public squares corresponded in lavish
magnificence to the altars, statues, dedicatory columns, and triumphal
arches. Broad colonnades with shops formed the enclosure, interrupted by
temples, and courts of justice, or curias, which can have differed but
little in external appearance from the sacred edifices. Most important
among these public buildings were the basilicas, which, in name,
purpose, and form, were derived from Greek prototypes. As halls of
justice and places for commercial traffic, they may be regarded as
covered extensions of the open squares. Several of these buildings,
erected during the imperial epoch, are known by considerable remains,
but they deviate so greatly in disposition as to have no plan in common
beyond that of a hall surrounded by narrow aisles. The oldest Roman
structure of this kind, the Basilica Porcia built by Cato in 185 B.C.,
was of an oblong shape, abutting with one of its ends upon the Forum,
while the other was enlarged by a small exedra, or apse. (_Figs._ 287
and 288.) The chief space was surrounded upon all four sides by
two-storied aisles, the central hall, however, not rising above them, as
in the Christian basilica, this being difficult of construction because
of the slightness of the shafts, and not necessary for the introduction
of light. A portico with a flat roof was erected above the entrance,
enlivening the bare and extended front wall. Thus the Basilica Porcia
did not differ in principle from the early Christian church, and the
similarity appears also in the other basilicas of the Roman republic,
all of which had their front upon the smaller side. In the courts of the
imperial epoch, however, this primitive type was treated with great
freedom, and nothing remained of the original arrangement but a large
central hall surrounded by a double passage of arcades upon piers,
without columns and without an apse. The normal basilica, described by
Vitruvius, with two-storied side aisles, faced with its greatest length
upon the public square, and had an apse; the basilica at Fanum, built by
the Roman writer, was similarly arranged upon the facade, but a
clere-story supported upon gigantic columns rose above the lateral
passages. These passages opened, from the end opposite the entrance,
into an adjoining temple, the pronaos of which served as the tribune of
the forensic court. The basilica at Pompeii, of which the narrow side
was the front, had no apse, while the Basilica Ulpia had great exedras
upon both ends, with the entrance portal upon the longer side. The
Basilica of Maxentius (_Fig._ 289), which was completed by Constantine,
was an exception in every respect, being entirely vaulted, and having
two apses upon adjoining sides opposite to the two chief entrances. The
whole formed one of the most remarkable and important halls of
antiquity, with the consideration of which the history of Roman
architecture may well be terminated. The original type of the basilica
was wholly neglected by later architects, who treated the problem of a
forensic hall without restrictions, utilizing the accidental formations
of the ground, while endeavoring to combine suitability and the display
of ingenious constructions with magnificent novelties of their own
invention.

[Illustration: Fig. 290.--Section.]

[Illustration: Fig. 291.--Plan of the House of Pansa in Pompeii.]

[Illustration: Fig. 292.--Flavian Palace.

A. Tablinum; B. Lavarium; C. Basilica; D. Atrium; E. Dining-hall
(Œcus); F. Nymphæum.]

[Illustration: Fig. 293.--Court of the Palace of Diocletian at
Spalatro.]

The Roman dwelling-house was, in the earliest ages, identical with that
of Etruria, and, indeed, of all Central Italy. Although related to
Hellenic prototypes, the peculiarly Italian atrium, without columnar
supports for the roof, remained in use even after the general
introduction of the Greek peristyle. At Pompeii a combination of these
two varieties of court is met with, the front space being a simple
atrium, and that further within a peristyle. Each enclosure was
surrounded by chambers. (_Figs._ 290 and 291.) The mosaic and painted
decoration of the floors and walls will be treated in a later section.
The small chambers were lighted only through doors opening from the
inner courts, and did not share in the architectural importance
assigned to the larger halls, which, in the last years of the republic
and in the imperial period, transformed the houses of the wealthy into
veritable palaces. With the luxury of the table, the magnificence of the
dining-room was increased; and, with the growing taste for literature
and art, extensive libraries and galleries of pictures became prominent
features. Many of the forms adopted for this palatial architecture
appear to have been derived from the later Greeks; the designation of
halls, as those of Egypt and of Kyzicos, employed by Vitruvius, pointing
to the sovereignties of the Diadochi. This enlargement of extensive
rooms by columns was, however, in a great degree supplanted by vaulting,
in which case the columns were introduced merely as decorative members.
Much attention was devoted to a lavish enrichment of these rooms, the
shafts being colored marble monoliths, the lacunæ of the vaulted
ceilings overlaid with bronze or richly gilded, and the capitals being
sometimes formed of solid metal. One of the halls in these palatial
residences, the private basilica, though it may not have been universal,
deserves especial consideration because of its great importance in later
times. Such courts of justice are mentioned by writers of the Augustan
age as forming part of the dwellings of men of condition, “because in
their houses councils were held upon public and private matters, and
civil cases decided.” These halls were naturally modelled in a great
degree after the public basilicas upon the forums, such as the Porcian,
Æmilian, Sempronian, and Opimian basilicas, which had been built during
the republic; but they appear, when compared with the primitive type of
the Roman basilica, to have differed fundamentally in two respects. In
the first place, the hall, being surrounded by the chambers of the
dwelling, could not be provided with windows like the free-standing,
forensic basilicas, and a clerestory rising above the adjoining rooms
was consequently adopted. This rendered necessary a second modification.
To impose a heavy wall of masonry, besides the timbered ceiling and
roof, upon a double story of columns must have seemed inadmissible to
the Roman taste for substantial construction. The aisles upon the front
and rear were consequently given up, the columns and galleries remaining
upon the sides only, the massive masonry of the enclosure thus receiving
the thrust of the clere-story wall, and greatly increasing its
stability. (_Fig._ 292.) This loss of continuity could have been of no
great disadvantage in the private basilica, as it did not serve, like
the free-standing public structures, for traffic and promenades, as
well as for sessions of justice. The galleries over the side aisles were
frequently omitted, and it appears to have been in these halls that the
connection of columns by arches, in the place of lintels, was first
introduced. Such archivolts are first known by examples built during the
reign of Diocletian, as at Spalatro (_Fig._ 293); but they soon came
into general usage, their practical advantages outweighing the want of
æsthetic fitness inherent in such curved entablatures. It was from these
private basilicas that the first Christian churches were architecturally
developed. The believers had assembled, during the imperial ages, in the
houses of wealthy converts; and as these halls of justice had been used
for religious services during times of persecution, it is not strange
that, after the recognition of Christianity by the Roman government,
their arrangement and even their name should have been retained.

[Illustration: Fig. 294.--Fragment of the Cista Prænestina.]

       *       *       *       *       *

In Roman architecture were found great intelligence in the solution of
the constructive problems involved in the enclosing of large spaces,
great independence in the development of technical perfection, and a
masterly conformity to the purpose of the structure; but Roman
sculpture, although of very extended application, had less independence
and significance. The Romans, originally too practical to provide a
place for the beautiful beside the useful, first gave decided admission
to this art when the political growth of the world’s metropolis had
reached the acme of its power; and even then they transferred the
question of sculpture to foreign artists in their employ. In the earlier
republican period, their practice of this art was scarcely worthy of
mention; in the time of the kings, or, at least, until the year 170 of
the city, sculpture seems not to have existed in Rome, or only to have
been employed in the ornamentation of utensils like the Cista Prænestina
(_Fig._ 294) with Phœnician-Etruscan anthemions and figures of
animals riveted on. If these may be considered rather as a direct
importation from Etruria and the neighboring Grecian and Phoenician
colonies than as their own work, it may be said that the Romans of this
period had no images of the gods.

[Illustration: Fig. 295.--Janus Bifrons upon an Ancient Roman Coin.]

The first work of statuary which appears to have been exhibited in Rome
was by an Etruscan, Volcanius, or Volca, from Veii. This was the
colossal Jupiter sitting upon a throne, ordered by Tarquinius Priscus
for the Capitoline Temple. Formed of terra-cotta, the face colored red,
and wearing upon the head a chaplet of oak-leaves--originally, perhaps,
of bronze, but afterwards of gold--it appears, with the exception of the
head, to have been but slightly modelled, as it was covered with an
embroidered garment. A Hercules within, and the quadriga upon the gable
of the same temple, both also of terra-cotta, are ascribed to this
artist. The chariot was, in 296 B.C., replaced by a bronze, which ninety
years later was gilded.

Even from the beginning the tone of Roman sculpture was affected by
Grecian as well as by Etruscan influences. The image in the Temple of
Diana built by Servius Tullius upon the Aventine was a xoanon--a rude
puppet of wood imitated from the Artemis of Massalia (Marseilles)--a
work after the manner of the Ephesian Artemis, and consequently still
undeveloped, and, at the best, Daidalian. Two generations later a more
advanced Hellenic style obtained, when, in 493 B.C., two Greeks of Lower
Italy, Gorgasos and Damophilos, decorated the Temple of Ceres with
paintings and figures of terra-cotta. Eight years later, these were
followed by the three divinities of the temple--Ceres, Liber, and
Libera--which were the first bronze statues in Rome. But, at the same
time with the work of the Grecian artists, and as if to prevent a
decided Hellenic preponderance, the wooden image of Juno Regina was
brought from Veii to Rome; and this cannot have been without effect upon
the figures of Fortuna Muliebris, consecrated four or five years later,
in 487 or 486 B.C. In the epoch next following, rife with civil wars and
misfortunes of every kind, the pursuit of art seems to have languished,
and its necessities to have been met chiefly by booty from the conquered
cities of Etruria, though many of the subjects were Roman, like the
Janus Geminus, copies of which have been preserved upon coins. (_Fig._
295.) Of this period are the Vertumnus and the Lavinian Penates, and
especially the first portrait statues of heroes like those of the
Ephesian Hermodorus, the interpreter among the lawgivers of the
Decemvirate, in 450 B.C.; of Ahala and L. Minucius, as protectors from
usurpation, in 439 B.C.; and of the four ambassadors murdered by the
Fidenates, in 438 B.C.

Art first became more active when, at the close of the Samnite war, in
288 B.C., the Roman authority began to make itself felt in the Grecian
towns of Lower Italy. Then originated the rich sculptured ornaments of
the Forum--the statues in honor of Mænius, Camillus, Tremulus, and
Duilius, and also of the Greeks Pythagoras and Alkibiades, commanded by
the oracle; further, as shown by Detlefsen to be probable, portraits of
the Sibyls, and of Attus Navius, Horatius Cocles, M. Scævola, and
Porsena, falsely attributed to earlier times. The Capitol was decorated
by statues of the seven kings, and of Tatius and Brutus; and the Via
Sacra, besides those of Romulus and Tatius, with an equestrian statue of
Clœlia. Nothing remains of these works, which were almost exclusively
of bronze, and only one sacred figure gives any illustration of their
technicalities and style--the Wolf--now preserved in the Capitol.
Although the two sucking children are lost, it is probably the one
consecrated by Ogulnius under the Ruminal fig-tree, in 295 B.C. (_Fig._
260.) Without doubt, the characteristics of this period were more
Italian, or, according to the usual term, Etruscan, than Greek; and, in
considering the sculptures generally, the predominant influence in the
portrait-statues may be ascribed to the Etruscans, and, in those of a
devotional character, to the Greeks, since it was from the Greeks that
the Romans chiefly borrowed this type.

[Illustration: Fig. 296.--Statue of Isis. (Museum of Naples.)]

Two other works preserved from the third century B.C., and designated in
the inscription as by Roman artists, show plainly the conflict of the
two tendencies. The first of these is the celebrated Cista of Ficoroni,
made in Rome, with the inscription of Novius Plautius engraved in the
ancient character, found near Palestrina (the ancient Præneste), and now
in the Kircherian Museum in Rome. Its chief feature, an episode from the
legend of the Argonauts, represented in _sgraffito_ upon the vessel, is
so purely Greek that it might be regarded as imported ware were it not
for the accessories--the bulla, bracelet, and shoes--which point to
Italy, perhaps to Lower Italy. According to Mommsen, Plautius was from
Campania. The handle and feet, on the contrary, are entirely Etruscan,
and exhibit quite a different tendency. Though the name of the artist
and the dedicatory inscription are placed upon the handle, they cannot
relate to these castings, which are of quite ordinary manufacture, but
rather to the engraving, Plautius having obtained the vessel ready-made
in Rome, where he worked. The second of these works, nearly
contemporary with the other, is a small head of Medusa, in high-relief,
with the artist’s name upon it, C. Ovius, from the Tribus Aufentina. In
this the two factors, Grecian and ancient Italian, which formerly stood
side by side, appear to blend, and thus to perfect what must be
designated as the specifically Roman style.

But at the close of the second Punic war, about 200 B.C., began the
extensive importation of statues, first from the Grecian cities of
Italy, afterwards from Greece proper. It has been related how Rome, in
150 B.C., became the central point of Grecian activity in art, and the
seat of that renaissance which followed the past stages of Hellenic
artistic development in reversed succession. As the Roman deities had
become throughout almost identical with those of the Greeks, and as the
statuary that ornamented the squares, streets, gardens, baths,
fountains, houses, and villas were either Grecian spoil or copied from
celebrated Hellenic originals, there remained for the peculiarly Roman
art, as it had arisen from the combination of Etruscan and Hellenic
elements, only a comparatively small field.

[Illustration: Fig. 297.--Relief of Mithras. (In the Louvre.)]

The Grecian stamp was given, so far as might be, even to those deities,
such as Juno Lanuvina, who, on account of their decided individuality,
could not be exchanged with those of the Greeks, nor with the gods
borrowed from the Oriental mythology. This did not, indeed, flourish in
the West until the late times of Hellenism, two centuries B.C., and
appeared, for the most part, still later in Rome, as shown by the
worship of Isis, and the frequent statues of that goddess (_Fig._ 296)
and of Harpocrates, and by the Persian homage to Mithras, with its
sacrifice of bulls. (_Fig._ 297.) It was the same with the uncommonly
numerous Roman personifications and allegories, the individual type of
which was, as a rule, quite commonplace and without expression, the
intention of the artist being recognizable only by attributes. A draped
female figure, such as the Flora or Pudicitia, might be a Concordia,
Constantia, or Fides; a Pax, Libertas, or Securitas; a Virtus, Justitia,
or Æquitas; a Salus, Pietas, or Annona--according to what was placed in
the hand, upon the head, or at the feet; the age, garments, or position
being rarely taken into consideration. With the male representations the
difference in regard to nudity and manner of clothing (_Figs._ 298 and
299) was greater, and the interchange of related deities facilitated, as
in the use of Hermes for Bonus Eventus. In personifications the
character, garments, and attributes were doubtless more marked. To the
most celebrated works of this kind belong the figures of the fourteen
nations conquered by Pompey in the Porticus ad Nationes. These were
executed by Coponius, the only distinguished sculptor certainly known
with a Roman name. We may, perhaps, consider these as analogous to the
Germania Devicta (Thusnelda) in Florence, but probably, after the manner
of representations of Asiatic cities upon the base of Puteolani, they
were more varied and less cold than the mere allegories of abstract
ideas. Generally, in carrying out these conceptions, individuality of
characterization in the figure or the action was not attempted, a
certain common correctness, grace, and superficial beauty being held to
suffice.

[Illustration: Fig. 298.--Vertumnus (Silvanus). (In Berlin.)]

[Illustration: Fig. 299.--Relief of Bonus Eventus. (British Museum.)]

[Illustration: Fig. 300.--Statue of Augustus. (In the Vatican.)]

In portraiture, the Roman sculpture developed far more speciality and
meaning. The early tendency of ancient Italian art towards the
individual has already been described, and it may easily be understood
that, in the line of portraiture, this had an important influence, even
after Hellenic art had completely established itself upon the Tiber. In
this province it best served its purpose. Still, it is evident that the
vacant, external individualization peculiar to the primitive works of
Etruria and Rome, such as the wax masks of their ancestors, required
improvement by greater expression of life and character, for which
Lysippos, in portrait-sculpture, had so decidedly opened the way. By the
combination of these two elements, the portraits became the most
successful works of Roman sculpture. The Hellenic tendency to idealize
prevailed in those statues which presented the person heroically--as
Achilles, for instance--or were rendered divine by attributes of Zeus,
or Apollo, Juno, Ceres, Venus, and others. The figure was then usually
nude, and was only so far imitated from life as to give to the head the
true features, with a certain transfiguration. This treatment,
exemplified in many of the statues of Antinous, had prevailed in
Hellenic art since the time of Lysippos, the great master of
portrait-sculpture. The native Italian tendency, on the contrary, had
sway in the so-called “iconic” statues; in those, namely, in which the
personal and human character was carried out. In these the clothing was
given with more detail and significance; as, for example, in the figures
of the emperors wearing the toga (_statuæ togatæ_), or the presidents of
the senate. Others are represented as high-priests, with the drapery
drawn over the back of the head; others (_statuæ thoracatæ_) as
field-officers, in coats of mail, as, among many examples, in the
celebrated Augustus of the Vatican, found, in 1863, before the Porta del
Popolo. (_Fig._ 300.) In these the action generally chosen seems to have
been that of address to the senate or to the army. Equestrian statues
belonged chiefly to the _thoracatæ_, though they appear also in
conception like Achilles, nude, or clothed only with the himation. As
they were all of bronze, few remain; so that the Marcus Aurelius upon
the Capitoline, notwithstanding its hardness and other faults, is the
most celebrated, and has become the standard for countless modern
statues. The figures upon chariots, on the contrary, and especially
those which ornamented the triumphal arches, were, for the most part,
_togatæ_. The mention of triumphal groups with six pairs of horses, or
of elephants, shows to what extreme of tastelessness Roman art had
become debased in the time of the emperors. The better works of this
class are most suitably represented by the four bronze horses, falsely
ascribed to Lysippos, which were brought by the Venetians from
Constantinople in 1204, and which have been placed over the portal of
St. Mark’s Church in Venice. Iconic female statues are distinguished by
careful imitation of garments falling in rich folds, and, even in the
early times, by exaggerated head-dresses, which gave them the appearance
of fashion-plates. Noble ladies, sitting comfortably, and with dignity,
in arm-chairs, are among the most successful of Roman works. Yet there
is in all these portrait-statues, especially in the usual oratorical
gestures, a typical character as little to be mistaken as is the
softening influence of Hellenic idealism in most of the heads. Without
injuring the individuality, it increases the beauty and heroic elevation
of the entire figure. Not unfrequently, however, instead of inner
significance, we find merely richness of drapery and detailed
accessories, particularly in reliefs upon coats of mail, etc.

[Illustration: Fig. 301.--Equestrian Statue of Nonius Balbus, Jun.
(Sculptor unknown.)]

The same combination of native Italian tendency with Hellenic
enlightenment, found in portrait-sculpture, is shown in the reliefs
which thereby became specifically Roman. These appear to have been very
numerous, as it pleased this people to leave few vacant surfaces upon
their monuments, which were not only ornamented, but literally covered
with reliefs and inscriptions. Thus sculpture became as much a written
chronicle as a decoration. In limited spaces, such as pedestals and
capitals, and the key-stones of arches, it became merely ornamental; the
subjects of the ornamentation, in keeping with the style, being chiefly
allegorical, such as Victories bearing trophies, the Seasons, etc. Upon
large surfaces sculpture completely took the nature of chronicles and
inscriptions, and thus were developed the truly Roman historical reliefs
in connection with inscriptions.

These, in accordance with the Italian view of art in general, rested
almost entirely upon a realistic foundation. Mythology disappeared, and
allegory alone still exercised a small influence; as, for example, the
Genius of Immortality bearing upward a deified emperor, Roma with the
triumphal quadriga, Victory upon a shield perpetuating the memory of
conquest; while personifications of cities or rivers, and even of
swamps, indicated the locality of the action, or Jupiter Pluvius
signified the coming of the saving rain. After the Antonines, the events
are related with simple truth to nature, as a mere chronicle, without
any idealization at all. The subjects of Roman reliefs are distinguished
from the Grecian only by the Greeks having substituted, whenever
possible, mythological for human or common events; and there was no less
difference in the artistic treatment. The Greek never lost sight of that
conventional law in sculptural reliefs by which the figures are
conceived in a situation to give the most pleasing outline. The whole
procession of persons, one behind the other, excluding all effect of
foreshortening and perspective, was displayed upon a surface, and
developed, so far as the figure would permit, in harmonious unity, and,
whether represented sitting on horseback, or on foot, occupying the same
space in regard to height and in regard to the depth of relief. It
resulted that the design was arranged in reference to two planes
only--the original surface of the stone, which disappeared with the work
(except in the highest points), and the common background. Roman
sculpture, on the other hand, freed itself from all such laws of style.
The profile position no longer predominated, and the figures in the
mutilated remnants, where the details are lost, appear like formless
masses, which, in the Hellenic system, would have been impossible. The
outline loses its significance, and the figures are arranged with such
disregard of the surface upon which they are placed that they rather
resemble portions of statues. The projection from the background also
varies, many parts, particularly the head and arms, standing entirely
disengaged. In the arrangement of several figures, one behind another,
against a landscape or architectural background, an attempt was made to
distinguish the forms in front from those behind by higher or lower
relief, with something of the effect of perspective. (_Fig._ 302.) From
this ensued a confusion of lines and a want of clearness, atmospheric
effect not assisting in sculpture, as in painting, to separate the
farther object from the nearer, and thus to define the distance. This
crowding was still more objectionable when, besides being grouped one
behind another, the figures were placed one over another, representing
the scene as if from a bird’s-eye view.

It thus happened that Roman sculpture in relief was characterized rather
by a realistic and picturesque tendency than by well-conventionalized
composition. But the forms remained Hellenic, at least so far as the
circumstances represented in Grecian examples would permit. When,
however, a river was to be represented, for which the Greeks always
placed a local deity as symbol, or when the besieging of towns, castles,
or bridges was given, the Romans approached more nearly to the
conception of Oriental nations. As the subject was of more importance
than the composition, the deed than the artistic illustration, a certain
common and formal correctness sufficed--an artistic handwriting, so to
speak, which might be easily read. Their work might be termed an
unconscious translation from the Assyrian or Egyptian into the Roman
language.

[Illustration: Fig. 302.--Relief from the Arch of Titus in Rome.]

It does not appear that the sculpture of historical reliefs was
developed much before the time of the Empire; at least, not more of
these remain than of the Roman portrait-statues that can be imputed to a
more remote period. Historic sculpture was best exhibited in triumphal
monuments. To this class belong the two world-renowned columns of Trajan
and of Marcus Aurelius. With more than five thousand figures and over
two hundred scenes, they are among the most magnificent sculptural
representations of all times. Upon these ascending spiral reliefs are
unrolled the chronicles of the Dacian and Marcomannic wars. The main
events are recognizable throughout, and the barbaric tribes may be
distinguished by their costumes, arms, and physiognomy; so that if
written history were wanting, the reliefs upon Trajan’s Column would be
an important source of information in regard to the biography of this
emperor and Roman imperial history. Vigorous in treatment and skilful in
drawing as it must be admitted that they are, still their artistic
value, from want of style in composition, is very small.

[Illustration: Fig. 303.--Relief of Trajan, from the Arch of Constantine
in Rome.]

The oblong tablets of relief upon the triumphal arches occupy a somewhat
more favorable position, because the frame led to a more formal, and the
duplication to a more harmonious, composition. The reliefs upon the Arch
of Titus, particularly those on the sides of the two large passages,
notwithstanding the ignorance which they betray, are of far higher
importance in art; and the same may be said of the reliefs upon the
monuments of Hadrian and Trajan. (_Fig._ 303.) How far the graces of
form and order, inherited from the Greeks and hitherto prevalent, had
disappeared even in the time of the Antonines, and given place to a
formal and vacant hardness, is shown by the relief upon the pedestal of
the lost statue of Antoninus Pius. (_Fig._ 304.) This represents the
apotheosis of Antoninus and Faustina, who appear seated upon the back of
a stiff, floating Genius of Immortality, in the weakest of compositions,
while cold and all-controlling Allegory places by the side of Roma a
personification of the Campus Martius, recognizable by the attribute of
the obelisk which was erected there by Augustus.

[Illustration: Fig. 304.--Relief upon the Pedestal of the Column of
Antoninus Pius.]

Roman sculpture reached its highest point under Hadrian. This emperor
filled all spaces with sculpture, as Trajan covered them with
inscriptions commemorating his restorations, acquiring thus, in later
times, the nickname of the “Lichen.” Even the golden house of Nero was,
in this respect, surpassed by the Villa of Hadrian at Tibur, where it
pleased him to reproduce all the wonderful works of architecture and of
sculpture which he had noticed in his extended travels through the Roman
world. After the death of Hadrian, however, who, as an enthusiastic
admirer of Greek art, naturally directed the artistic industry of his
time to the best possible reproductions of the highest products of
Hellenic art, the Romans began to follow the works of the later ages.
The lower they placed their aim, and the farther they were removed from
the original source of inspiration the more rapid was their decline.

Ideal art degenerated into increasing formalism, carelessness, weakness
of sentiment, and shallowness, though still retaining much that was
good, because the originals, though copied and recopied, still dated
back to the best periods. Portraiture naturally retained more
independence; but this also would have been stifled by the enormous
requirements, even if the declining art had possessed fresh vigor. To
understand this excessive demand, it is only necessary to bear in mind
the rapid succession of emperors after Antoninus, with the consequent
changing of imperial statues in all the cities of the Roman empire. With
the Antonines expired the ideal element in sculptural portraits; and
prosaic realism, as it had existed in ancient Italian art, obtained
exclusive mastery. Anxious struggles after external likeness in small
and inartistic details, like wrinkles, and abnormities such as the curly
and frizzled hair of the Antonines, and of L. Verus, with locks like
porous pumice-stone, took the place of the lost ideal--remarkable
examples, which failed to preserve the lifelike expression. Within a
century art had altogether lost the capacity for characterization, even
in portraiture; and the numerous busts of the later empire can hardly be
distinguished one from another. They are mostly portraits of emperors,
empresses, and princes, whose heads are stiffened and hardened into a
common type. Previously, with a change of the sovereign, they had
altered the heads of the Achilleic and iconic imperial statues; but it
now sufficed merely to vary the inscription, and, at most, the
accessories. But it was not difficult to change the face also, since it
pleased them, in making busts, to combine marbles of different hues, so
as to realize the local colors. Thus the mask was of simple white, the
hair of dark marble, the garments of red, green, and gray marble or
granite, and even the band for the forehead and the clasp for the toga
were of a suitable hue. In the heads of ladies this disagreeable
polychromy had the advantage that, upon the portrait of the same
sovereign, not only the mask, but the wig, could be altered, which,
according to the fashion of the day, might be blond, red, or dark, with
any desired mode of dressing the hair.

Carving in relief, after the Antonines, suffered a similar decline. The
sculptures upon the Column of Marcus Aurelius, in comparison with those
of Trajan’s Column, notwithstanding their unmistakable dependence upon
the older example, show the want of energy, of appreciation of form, of
variety, and of technical ability which characterizes the loss of
creative power, and the mere reproduction of models. The reliefs of the
Arch of Marcus Aurelius, once upon the Corso at Rome, now in the palace
of the Capitol, betray the same vacuity of expression and hardness of
form, in comparison with the illustrations from the life of Trajan upon
the Arch of Constantine; even when compared with the sculptures upon the
pedestal of the Column of Antoninus Pius, a decline is visible from the
time of the older to the younger Antoninus. But even these are superior
to the reliefs upon the Arch of Septimius Severus, erected in 201 B.C.,
which, in the main parts, have a fourfold division, in order to gain
space for the utmost possible number of representations. From the nature
of the design, the spiral reliefs upon the columns of Trajan and of
Marcus Aurelius exhibited such parallel rows, one above another; but
here the same method is employed upon a plane surface, although it
crowds the subject to such an extent that the figures become
insignificant and, at a little distance, indistinct. In these four lines
are given scenes of war, not, apparently, so much to celebrate combat
and victory in general as to register especial facts, battles fought
with various weapons, sieges, capitulations, and the transport of booty.
Though many of the details were vigorous, the forms in general tolerably
correct, and the technical ability considerable, yet the composition
appears barbaric, the grouping awkward, and the filling of the given
space, the composition, and the artistic construction altogether
unfortunate.

After Septimius Severus, statuesque art degenerated into mere
stone-cutting; the portraits are unrecognizable, the reliefs without
expression or effect, except, as in Egyptian art, from the number of
figures and accessories. In religious sculptures, finally reduced to
bungling artisan work, the last spark of Hellenic tradition died out in
continued weak copies. In historical reliefs the impulse to create
perished with the artistic ability. When large monumental constructions
were required, the material was frequently drawn from the works of
former emperors; and even in triumphal memorials, like the Arch of
Constantine, there was no hesitation in inserting reliefs unmistakably
celebrating the deeds of Trajan, or installing statues connected with
his conquests upon the Danube, the builders contenting themselves with
filling out what was lacking, as in the case of the Victories upon the
pedestals of the columns (_Fig._ 305), and the narrow frieze of reliefs
over the side passages. The figures err greatly in proportions: dumpy,
formless, and awkward, appearing incapable of motion, they already
exemplify that perfect rigidity which, in the following centuries, was
to hold sculpture in bondage. Even where the nature of the
representations permitted the influence of the old models, the decline
of technical ability is striking, as may be seen by comparing these
figures with the Victories upon the pedestals of the Arch of Septimius
Severus, which, though superficial, are not without a certain style. The
folds, for example, look like the holes and lines of the wood-worm; they
are simple stripes cut into the garment, without movement or purpose,
hard, rough, and hasty, as is the entire treatment.

[Illustration: Fig. 305.--Victory, from the Arch of Constantine.]

       *       *       *       *       *

If in Roman art the province of architecture is the most important, and
that of sculpture the most richly represented, that of painting is the
most charming. In this, as in sculpture, the decorative character
predominated. Traces of that monumental art which creates for itself,
and for its own sake, are found only in works of the earlier time, and
even then in few and isolated instances. Even more than sculpture,
painting appears dependent and imitative, vacillating in the first five
centuries between the influence of ancient Italy and of Greece; later,
in close subjection to the latter, as developed in the Hellenistic
period after Alexander.

The earliest notice of monumental painting in Rome relates to the
decoration of the temples of Ceres, Liber, and Libera by the Greek
artists of Lower Italy, Gorgasos and Damophilos, in 493 B.C., of which
mention has already been made. Although they made use of four colors,
their method was that of the time before Polygnotos, and their work was
little distinguished from the older painting upon vases, such as those
of Ergotimos and Clitias in Florence, the surfaces within the outlines
being treated in color, without gradation of light or shade. It may
therefore be concluded that, in the two chief temples of the last period
of the kings, colored ornament, whether upon the plaster itself, or upon
a revetment of terra-cotta slabs, as in the tomb at Cære (_Fig._ 262),
was as little wanting as in the temples and tombs of Etruria. It may be
judged that in Rome this was specifically Etruscan, since Pliny refers
to the ornamentation of the Temple of Ceres only because in this Grecian
artists first appear to have taken part, while before “everything in the
Roman temple had been Etruscan.” Much as we may be inclined to regard
the primitive art of Etruria as dependent upon that of Greece, the
difference must have been considerable; and the Grecian wall-paintings
in the Temple of Ceres must have been held in great estimation, since,
according to Pliny, they were protected when the temple was restored,
being removed from the walls with great care, framed upon tablets, and
replaced.

It can scarcely be doubted that these wall-paintings opened the way to
Hellenic influence, although a guild of Etruscan artists for a long time
worked by the side of the Greeks in Rome, for purposes of ordinary
decoration. If, according to Pliny, “art came early to be honored in
Rome,” and even patricians did not hesitate to devote themselves to it,
it would seem that this must have been brought about through Grecian
methods. Fabius Pictor, whose wall-paintings, according to Dionysios of
Halicarnassos, were carefully drawn, of a fresh, agreeable color, and
composed in a grand historical style, acquired his sobriquet and his
great fame by his paintings in the Temple of Salus, executed in the year
304 B.C. His rank in regard to drawing may be exemplified by the
wonderful _sgraffiti_ of the Cista of Novius Plautius in Rome, although
the latter, having flourished half a century later, may take a somewhat
higher rank. The paintings of the tragic poet Pacuvius, from 220 to 130
B.C., were still more advanced. Among these a picture, probably upon a
panel, in the Temple of Hercules in the Forum Boarium, was very
celebrated; and it may be assumed that, in order to obtain renown, the
artist adopted with success the technical refinements of the period of
the Diadochi. The aged artist, before his death, must have witnessed the
extensive robberies which brought to the metropolis, besides the
sculptural works, the most distinguished pictures of Greece, it having
happened in his prime that the Athenian painter and philosopher
Metrodoros was called to Rome by Æmilius Paulus--as a philosopher to
educate his children, and as an artist to illustrate his triumphs.
Metrodoros, who, in his artistic and scholarly versatility, had written
a book upon architecture, gave assistance even in the construction of
triumphal arches. Still, Æmilius Paulus may well have wished to glorify
his deeds by historical paintings, as had been customary with the
conquerors for a century. In 293 B.C., M. Valerius Maximus Messala had
placed a battle-scene in the Curia Hostilia, illustrating his victory
over the Carthaginians and Hiero of Syracuse--an example which was
followed by L. Scipio, in 190 B.C., with a representation of his success
at Magnesia over Antiochus of Syria. These, however, must be regarded
less as works of art than as realistic delineations of the events,
analogous to the Roman historical reliefs in the time of the Empire; at
least, great importance was given to details in the picture representing
the Conquest of Carthage which L. Hostilius Mancinus, in 146 B.C.,
exhibited upon the Forum and explained to the people, and which
especially showed the Roman preparations for a siege. Such works, the
background of which was probably treated more or less as a landscape,
like the topographical representations of earlier antiquity, must have
been similar in conception and composition to the Assyrian reliefs that
represent battles and sieges, and to the pictures of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries of the Christian era.

In the notices of these panel-paintings there are no names of artists to
assist in their classification; but it may be concluded that Metrodoros
was encouraged in this work, and Serapion, in 100 B.C., really
distinguished himself in such historical scenes. The artists of
importance in the last century of the republic, like Sopolis, Dionysios,
and their pupil Antiochus Gabinius, found themselves forced into
portraiture; the specialty of Iaia, or Laia, of Kyzicos was the painting
of women upon ivory, and Arellius portrayed his mistresses as goddesses.
But in the beginning of the empire, tablet-painting seems to have been
entirely abandoned, being supplanted by a new decorative tendency which
again, in quite an unmonumental manner, led back to mural painting.

[Illustration: Fig. 306.--Wall-painting, from the Aurea Domus of Nero.]

It is clear from the term “Pinacotheca,” applied to certain halls in the
city palaces, that the eagerness for collecting among the Roman emperors
and nobles extended as well to the paintings of Greece as to the
statues. In sculpture copies were substituted when originals were
wanting, but this seems to have been rarely the case with
panel-paintings. As the statues were employed for decoration,
originality in these was not so important; but with paintings preserved
in cabinets, genuineness was more imperative. Painting upon panels,
however, became less frequent when pictures came to be imitated upon
the wall itself and brought into harmony with the remainder of the mural
ornamentation, as, according to Helbig, was customary, particularly in
Alexandria, even in the time of the Diadochi. This is shown, not only by
the new discoveries among the buildings of Tiberius upon the Palatine,
but also in the frescos of those subterranean baths of Titus which may
be regarded as part of the ruins of the Golden House of Nero. (_Fig._
306.) Ornaments, garlands, and architectural designs divide the walls
into many spaces, within which groups or single figures (_Fig._ 307),
often dancing or floating, are placed directly against a ground of
intense color, sometimes black--the paintings of Campania showing
unsurpassed lightness and charm in the lines. (_Fig._ 308.)

[Illustration: Fig. 307.--Ceres. Pompeian Wall-painting.]

Sometimes they are ornamented with imitations of framed panel-pictures,
mostly containing mythological groups, and scenes in small genre. To
these was generally given a background of landscape, so that the figures
represented were little more than picturesque accessories; and this
custom seems to have led, perhaps even in the Hellenistic period, to
true landscape-painting. (_Fig._ 309.) According to Pliny, Ludius, or
Studius, introduced this style in the time of Augustus, of which,
besides those of Campania, the frieze decorations of the newly
discovered house of Tiberius upon the Palatine give the best
representations, and form an illustrated commentary upon the
descriptions of the works of Ludius. These are characterized as showing
“villas and halls, artificial gardens, hedges, woods, hills,
water-basins, tombs, rivers, shores, in as great a variety as could be
desired;” besides “figures sitting at ease, mariners, and those who,
riding upon donkeys or in wagons, look after their farms; fishermen,
snarers of birds, hunters, and vine-dressers; also swampy passages
before beautiful villas, and women borne by men who stagger under the
burden, and other witty things of this nature; finally, views of
seaports, everything charming and suitable;” that is to say, of a
certain facility and shallowness. The aim was to give an open and
cheerful effect, and this could be attained without correct and
naturalistic method or unity of idea; on the contrary a fantastic
unreality, and even impossibility, was its chief charm, like the
painting upon Japanese lacquered wares.

[Illustration: Fig. 308.--Wall-painting from Herculaneum.]

[Illustration: Fig. 309.--Landscape-painting from Pompeii.]

The case was similar with architectural ornamentation, another branch of
Roman decorative painting, generally known under the name of the
Pompeian style. (_Fig._ 310.) Even in the time of Augustus, Vitruvius
complains of a blind seeking after scenic effect, which, in disdain of
all constructive laws, and in a manner quite impossible, piled heavy
gables and upper stories upon reed-like columns of no supporting power.
His blame, however, seems unjustifiable. That architectural painting
which aims at illusion should be condemned as worthless; but this is not
the case with that which, after the analogy of conventional
landscape-painting, renounces all semblance of reality and assiduously
avoids all illusion. Spaces may be apparently extended by an
architectural painting which, not deceptively, but poetically, opens the
narrow walls of small rooms, and carries the eye dreamily through a wide
perspective. Hence the fresh and by no means realistic colors, which,
tapestry-like, are not intended to deceive, but to ornament and please.
They bear witness to the deep feeling for polychromy, inherited from
Hellenic, or at least Hellenistic, predecessors, which was
characteristic of the Romans even after their decline. What delight must
there have been in a work so extended, and yet free from all slavish
copying! Not only Amulius, who, by compulsion, painted the Golden House
of Nero, and was celebrated by Pliny for his valuable and finely colored
pictures, but countless other artists were everywhere busily employed in
covering the walls with paintings and ornaments--a work now intrusted to
common decorators. In the time of Nero the activity in ornamental
painting, judged by the discoveries among the ruined cities of Campania,
must have been greater than has ever been known at any other period.

[Illustration: Fig. 310.--Wall-painting of Decorative Architecture,
Pompeii.]

In the consideration of Hellenic painting, mention has been made of the
origin of floor-decorations in mosaic by Sosos at the royal court of
Pergamon. By this is only meant mosaic painting with illusory effects,
as practised by him; imitations of tapestry patterns and merely
ornamental mosaic-work must have been older. His drinking-doves in the
“unswept hall” appear to have continued a favorite subject, judging from
three well-known imitations; one of which, found upon the Aventine, now
in the Museum of the Lateran, bears the inscription of the artist
Heraclitos. Though the names of other workers in mosaic are known, they
as little deserve mention here as do the numerous vase-painters, their
mosaic being almost wholly a technical process; its very laboriousness
rendered a truly artistic activity almost impossible. Unfortunately, no
name is attached to the most important work of this kind, over four
meters long and two wide, apparently representing an Alexandrian
battle-scene. This is also the best-preserved historical painting of
antiquity, but it is related rather to the Grecian types than to the
Roman battle-pieces above mentioned. The greater part of the well-known
mosaics, being from Herculaneum and Pompeii, may be referred to the time
of Nero; but those of Præneste with the Egyptianized conventional
landscapes may date back to the time of Sulla, while the extensive
example with figures of athletes from the Baths of Caracalla--now in the
Lateran--belongs to the time of that emperor. Many others, however,
especially those discovered in the distant provinces, are of later
times. Vigorous as are some of the representations of landscapes and of
animals among them, it is not to be denied that, as Semper says, mosaic
oversteps its boundary in going beyond the patterns of woven tapestry,
and trying to make us forget that it is outstretched like a level floor
upon which we would walk without hindrance.

“It would be difficult, connectedly, to pursue the history of ancient
painting later than the eruption of Vesuvius, which, in the year 79
A.D., by a wonderful fortune, preserved for the later world the artistic
treasures of three cities of Campania--Herculaneum, Pompeii, and
Stabiæ--and, at the same time, cost the life of Pliny, whom we have to
thank for the greatest completeness of written description.” Thus Brunn
rightly concludes his “History of the Grecian Painters,” for the works
of succeeding generations, even when names of artists are attached, do
not deserve to be called art, being nothing more than hasty and crude
decorations; such, for example, are the servants’ rooms in the Vigna
Nussiner, upon the southern slope of the Palatine, which, in recent
times, have acquired some celebrity by the careless scratches of the
slaves found upon their walls. The most important illustrations that
have been preserved of the shallowness and roughness of this lingering
art are in the tombs; and with these in painting, with the basilica in
architecture, and the sarcophagi in sculpture, the boundaries of the
antique and of the Christian era flow into each other, and are scarcely
distinguishable. When Christianity arose from the sepulchre, it allied
itself in monumental art to that stage of debasement which painting had
reached in the heathen and the Christian catacombs of the fourth
century; indeed, art continued still to decline through ages, until the
Northern races and the life of the common people breathed into it the
spirit of a new life.



GLOSSARY.


It has been the translator’s endeavor to avoid technical terms wherever
this was possible without detracting from exactness of expression. Of
those which it has proved necessary to introduce into the present
History, it is intended in this glossary to define neither words in
common usage, like basilica, battlement, column, etc., nor those
designations of infrequent occurrence which should be interpreted
whenever employed, like the Greek and Latin names of the many divisions
of the ancient theatre, bath, and gymnasion. A few of the former--as,
for instance, the too often interchanged _channel_, _flute_, and
_reed_--have, however, been given for the sake of discrimination. In
these cases, and in the case of some other words which are often
employed in senses too widely extended to allow of their being used
without qualification in careful architectural descriptions, it has been
attempted to make some advance towards precision of usage.

=Ab´acus= (Gr. ἄβαξ-ακος. Lat. _abax_ and _abacus_, a slab. Possibly in
its architectural signification from βαστάζω, to lift up, to bear). The
plinth which forms the upper part of the capital--supporting the
entablature by bearing the lower surface of the epistyle beam. The
abacus is the crowning member of the capital, as the capital is of the
column. In the Doric style it is thick and of square plan, in the
Corinthian order thin and curved upon the sides.

=Acrote´rion=, pl. acroteria (Gr. from ἄκρος, outermost).
The ornaments, such as statues or anthemion shields, placed upon the
angles of the gable--whether of the outer corners or of the apex. The
term is also applied to the pedestals of these ornaments.

=Ag´onal=, adj. (from Gr. ἀγών, festive gathering,
especially an assembly met to see games; also the place of contest
itself). Pertaining to a festive destination. The word _agones_ is used
for the arena itself by Grote. (For the hypothetical distinction between
agonal temples and those consecrated alone to the worship of a deity,
introduced by Boetticher, see p. 214.)

=Ag´ora= (Gr. an assemblage of the people; hence, the place where such
meetings were commonly held). A public square or marketplace. Synonymous
with the more familiar Latin _forum_.

=Amphiprosty´los=, adj. amphip´rostyle (from Gr. ἀμφί, on
both sides; πρό, in front of; and στῦλος,
column). A term applied to a temple having a columned portico at the
rear (epinaos), as well as at the front (pronaos), but without lateral
columns.

=An´nulet= (Lat. _annulus_, or, according to the best manuscripts,
_anulus_, ring, terminated by Ital. diminutive). A small fillet
encircling the base of the Doric echinos. The number of annulets is
commonly three.

=An´ta=, pl. antæ (Lat.). Terminations similar to pilasters upon the ends
of the lateral walls of the cella, in pronaos and epinaos. Though a
corresponding member, the anta is in form but little allied to the
column, because its individual function is so different.

=An´tefix= (from Lat. _ante_, before, and _fixus_, fixed). An upright
ornament like a small shield, placed above the corona when the gutter is
omitted, to hide the end of the jointing tile ridge.

=Anthe´mion= (Gr. patterned with flowers, from ἀνθέω, to
blossom). The so-called palmetto or honeysuckle ornament, employed on
acroteria and antefixes, and also as a continuous decoration on bands,
gutters, etc., and the necking of some Ionic capitals.

=In an´tis= (Lat.). The simplest variety of temple plan, so called by
Vitruvius because the pronaos or portico is formed by the projection of
the side walls, terminated by antæ, between which stand columns.

=Apoph´yge= (Gr. escape; from ἀπό, from, and φεύγω, to flee. In its
technical employment, of the same significance as the Fr. _congé_ and
Ger. _Ablauf_). The hollow, or scotia, beneath the Doric echinos, the
juncture between shaft and capital, occurring in archaic examples of the
style, and relinquished with its advance.

=Ar´ris= (Lat. _arista_, beard of an ear of grain, bone of a fish. Old Fr.
_areste_). The sharp edge formed by two surfaces meeting at an exterior
angle. Particularly the ridge between the hollows of Doric channellings.

=As´tragal= (Gr. ἀστράγαλος, knuckle-bone, one of the
vertebræ of the neck, the bone of the ankle-joint). A roundlet moulding
carved into the form of beads; employed on the Ionic capital, and to
separate the projecting faces of the epistyle and coffering beams.

=Atlas=, pl. Atlan´tes (Gr. the fabled upholder of the heavens). Figures
of male human beings, generally of colossal size, carved either in the
full or half round, and employed in the place of columns or pilasters to
support an entablature.

=A´trium= (Lat.; from Gr. αἰθρία, open sky?). The chief
space of the Roman dwelling-house; an inner court usually surrounded by
columns.

=At´tica= (from Gr. ἀττικός, pertaining to Attica). The
upright portion of a building above the main cornice.


=Bar´biton= (Gr.). An ancient Greek musical instrument of many strings,
resembling a lyre.


=Caryat´id=, pl. caryat´ides (Gr. pl. priestesses of Artemis at Caryæ in
Laconia, the connection of which with the architectural support has not
as yet been satisfactorily explained). Figures of female human beings
employed in the place of columns to support an entablature.

=Cel´la= (Lat.; from _celare_, to hide). All that portion of the temple
structure within the walls. The term cella is comprehensive, including
pronaos, naos, and, if such there be, opisthodomos and epinaos.

=Cham´fer= (Fr. _chamfrein_, Old Engl. _chanfer_). A slope or small splay
formed by cutting off the edges of an angle.

=Chan´nel= (a modification of canal, from Lat. _canna_, reed). A curved
furrow, immediately adjoining its repetition, and separated from it only
by an arris, as in the Doric column.

=Chorag´ic= (Gr. χοραγικός or χορηγικός, from χορός, chorus, and ἄγω, to
lead). Pertaining to, or in honor of, a choregos, _i. e._ one who
superintended a musical or theatrical entertainment among the Greeks,
and provided a chorus at his own expense.

=Chryselephan´tine= (Gr. χρυσελεφάντινος, from
χρυσός, gold, and ἔλεφας, ivory). A
kind of sculpture in gold and ivory overlaying a wooden kernel--the
drapery and ornaments being of the former, the exposed flesh of the
latter, material.

=Clere´-story= (Fr. _clair-étage_, _claire-voie_, from _clair_, light).
That portion of a central aisle which is so raised above the surrounding
parts of the building as to permit the illumination of the interior
through windows in its side walls.

=Coilanaglyph´ic= (from Gr. κοίλος, hollow, and γλυφή, carving). That
species of carving in relief in which no part of the figure represented
projects beyond the surrounding plane, the relief being effected by
deeply incising the outlines.

=Cor´nice= (Gr. κορωνίς, Lat. coronis, terminating curved
line; flourish with the pen at the end of a book). The uppermost
division of the entablature--the representative of the roof--consisting
of projecting mouldings and blocks, usually divisible into bed-moulding,
corona, and gutter. Hence, in general usage, any moulded projection
which crowns and terminates the part upon which it is employed.

=Coro´na= (Lat. crown). The chief member of the cornice, directly beneath
the gutter, by its great projection and rectilinear faces forming the
drip.

=Crepido´ma= (Gr. from κρηπίς-ιδος, boot). The entire
foundation of the temple, including the stereobate, the stylobate, and
the remaining steps.

=Cy´ma= (Gr. wave). A moulding composed of two distinct curves. The Doric
cyma is commonly called the beak-moulding, the Lesbian cyma the _cyma
reversa_.

=Den´til= (Lat. _denticulus_, from _dens_, _dentis_, tooth). Small
rectangular blocks in the bed-moulding of a cornice, originally
representing the ends of the slats which formed the ceiling.

=Diad´ochi= (Gr. successors, from διαδέχομαι, to
receive from another), a term applied to the successors of Alexander.

=Diminution.= In architectural usage, the continued contraction of the
diameter of the shaft as it ascends.

=Dip´teros=, adj. dip´teral (from Gr. δίς, double, and
πτερόν, wing). That variety of a temple plan which has
two ranges of columns entirely surrounding the cella.

=Dro´mos= (Gr. course). A road; particularly applied to the
entrance-passages to subterranean treasure-houses.


=Echi´nos=, pl. echi´ni (Gr. hedgehog, so called from the resemblance of
the member to the shell of the sea-urchin). The curved and projecting
moulding which supports the abacus in the Doric capital.

=Egg-and-dart moulding.= Term applied to the well-known carving of the
roundel common in the Ionic style.

=Empais´tic= (Gr. ἐμπαιστική; from ἐν, in,
and παίω, to stamp). Stamped and embossed work of metal;
also sheets of metal applied or inlaid.

=Entab´lature= (Lat. _intabulamentum_; from _tabula_, board, table). In
the Greek styles the whole of the structure above the columns, excepting
the gable. The entablature consists of three members: the epistyle, or
architrave, joining the columns and taking the place of the wall; the
frieze, standing before, and in the Doric style imitating, the ceiling
and its beams; and the terminal cornice, the representative of the ends
of the roof rafters.

=En´tasis= (Gr.; from ἐντείνω, to bend a bow). The
swelling of the column towards its middle, the object of which is to
counteract an optical delusion causing the diminished shaft, when formed
with absolutely straight lines, to appear hollowed in the centre.

=Epina´os= (formed by analogy with pronaos; from Gr. ἐπί,
after, behind, and ναός, naos). The open vestibule behind
the naos.

=Ep´istyle= (Gr. ἐπιστύλιον; from ἐπί,
after, upon, and στῦλος, column). The lower member of
the entablature, the representative of the wall, consisting, as the name
imports, of beams laid horizontally upon the capitals of the columns.
The epistyle is commonly spoken of by its Roman name, architrave.


=Fascine´= (Lat. _fascina_; from _fascis_, bundle). A bundle of long, thin
sticks employed in military engineering for filling ditches, raising
parapets, etc.

=Fil´let= (Fr. _filet_, thread; from Lat. _filum_). A ribbon; a narrow,
flat band used in the separation of one moulding from another.
Especially the ridge between the flutes of the Ionic shaft.

=Flute.= In architectural usage, a curved and usually semicircular furrow,
separated from its repetition by a narrow fillet, as in the Ionic
column. So called from its similarity to the musical instrument.

=Frieze= (Ital. _freggio_, adorned?). The second member of the
entablature. When enriched by carvings of men or animals in relief, as
is common in the Ionic style, and as occurs upon the cella wall of the
Doric Parthenon, the frieze is in classic architecture called
_zophoros_.


=Gar´goyle= (Fr. _gargouille_; from _gargouiller_, to dabble, to paddle).
A carved waterspout projecting from the gutter.

=Gymna´sion= (Gr.; from γυμνός, naked). Originally an open
space, but in later times extensive courts and buildings, devoted to
mental as well as bodily instruction and exercises.


=He´lix=, pl. hel´ices (Gr. anything twisted or spiral; from ἑλίσσω, to
turn around). A spiral, particularly the volutes of the Ionic capital
and the corner leaves and tendrils of the Corinthian.

=Hexasty´los=, adj. hex´astyle (from Gr. ἕξ, six, and στῦλος, column). A
building, particularly a temple, upon the front of which are six
columns.

=Hip´podrome= (Gr. ἱππόδρομος; from ἵππος, horse, and δρόμος, way). A
course prepared for the races of horses and chariots.

=Hypæ´thron=, adj. hypæ´thral (Lat. _hypæthrus_; from Gr. ὑπό, under,
and αἰθήρ, clear sky). Term applied to a temple supposed by some writers
on Greek architecture to have been lighted from above, by an orifice
through roof and ceiling.

=Hyper´oön= (Gr.). The upper stories of a house; particularly the
galleries above the side-aisles in the interior of the Greek temple.

=Hyp´ostyle= (Gr. ὑπόστυλον; from ὑπό,
under, and στῦλος, column). A space, with or without
lateral enclosure, the ceiling of which rests upon columns.


=Inci´sion.= In architectural usage, the deep groove which separates the
necking of the column from the upper drum of the shaft beneath. At times
repeated to emphasize this separation.

=Intercolumnia´tion= (from Lat. _inter_, between, and _columna_, column).
The open space between two columns, measured at the base. The measures
are often taken from centre to centre of the columns.


=Lacu´na=, pl. _lacunæ_ (Lat.; from Gr. λάκος, pit,
originally anything hollow). A sunken panel in the under surface of any
constructive feature, particularly of a horizontal ceiling.

=Log´gia= (Ital.; from Lat. _locus_, place). A covered space enclosed by
walls, but with one or, in exceptional instances, two sides entirely
open to the air.

=Lychni´tes= (Gr. λυχνίτης λίθος; from λύχνος, light). A variety of
fine-grained marble from the island of Paros, probably so called because
quarried by torchlight.


=Met´ope= (Gr.; from μετά, between, and ὀπή,
opening). Originally the orifice between the beam-ends of the Doric
ceiling; hence, in later times, the stones which were employed to close
these openings. The nearly square slabs between the triglyphs.

=Monop´teros= (from Gr. μόνος, alone, single, and πτερόν, wing). A
circular structure of outstanding columns, commonly without a cella
enclosed by walls.

=Mu´tule= (Lat. _mutulus_). A projection upon the soffit of the Doric
corona, which originally marked the position of the rafter-ends beneath
the sheathing.


=Na´os= (Gr.). The innermost chamber of the Greek temple.

=Neck´ing.= In architectural usage, the space, if such be separated,
between the top of the shaft and the projecting members of the capital.
In the Doric style, for instance, the continuation of the channellings
above the incision or incisions to the annulets of the echinos,
including the hypophyge, when this occurs.


=Octosty´los=, adj. oc´tostyle (from Gr. ὀκτώ, eight, and
στῦλος, column). A building, particularly a temple, upon
the front of which are eight columns.

=Odei´on= (Gr.; from ᾠδή, song). A hall, similar to a modern
theatre, devoted to the production of the lyric works of poets and
musicians.

=Ogive´= (Fr.). The pointed arch.

=Opisthod´omos= (Gr. from ὄπισθε, behind, and δόμος, house). An enclosed
chamber in a temple, entered from the epinaos, commonly employed to
contain the treasure of the temple or of the state.


=Palais´tra= (Gr.; from παλαιστής, wrestler). A
building or enclosure devoted to wrestling, boxing, and kindred
gymnastic exercises; commonly, also, containing baths.

=Perip´teros=, adj. perip´teral (Gr.; from περί, around, and
πτερόν, wing). A temple entirely surrounded by columns.

=Per´istyle=, noun and adj. (from Gr. περί, around, and
στῦλος, column). A term applied to a secular building,
or a court, which is entirely or for the greater part surrounded by a
colonnade.

=Pisé= (Fr.; from _piser_, to build with stamped clay). A species of
tenacious clayey earth, employed for walls and pavement by being rammed
down.

=Plinth= (Lat. _plinthus_, from Gr. πλίνθος, tile). Any
rectangular and projecting member of considerable size. A narrow and
long plinth is a fillet.

=Po´ros= (Gr.). A light, coarse tufa-limestone almost exclusively employed
during the earliest ages of Greek architecture.

=Prona´os= (Gr.; from πρό, before, and ναός).
The open vestibule before the naos.

=Propylæ´on=, pl. propylæ´a (Gr.; from πρό, before, and
πύλη, gate). The portal structure before the entrance to a
Greek temenos.

=Prosty´los=, adj. pro´style (from Gr. πρό, before, and
στῦλος, column). That variety of temple plan in which
the projecting wall and pilasters of the temple in antis have been
transformed to corner columns, thus altering the pronaos from a loggia
to an open portico.

=Pseudodip´teros= (pseudo from Gr. ψευδής, false;
dipteros, see above). A temple planned upon the dipteral arrangement, in
which the inner rank of columns surrounding the cella is wanting.

=Pseudoperip´teros= (pseudo from Gr. ψευδής, false;
peripteros, see above). A temple in which the columns surrounding the
cella are engaged upon a continuous enclosure wall, as in the great
temple of Acragas (Agrigentum).

=Ptero´ma= (Gr.; from πτερόν, wing). The passage
surrounding the cella of a peripteral temple.

=Py´lon= (Gr.; from πύλη, gate). The towers of truncated
pyramidal form on either side of the gateways of Egyptian temples.


=Quirk.= In architectural usage, a moulding formed by a sharp turn in a
continuous line.


=Reed.= In architectural usage, a small convex moulding applied to a
regular surface and frequently repeated. The term is commonly employed
for the ornamentation of columns by reversed channels or flutes.

=Reg´ula= (Lat. any straight piece of wood, a ruler). The short band,
corresponding to the triglyph, beneath the tænia moulding which crowns
the epistyle; the listel. Originally determined by the slat of wood
which strengthened the wall-plate at the point of its perforation by the
trunnels.

=Revet´ment=, vb. to revete (Fr. _revêtement_, from _revêtir_, to clothe).
A facing of metal, stone, or wood encasing a kernel--usually of some
less firm or sightly material.

=Round´el=, dim. roundlet. A moulding of semicircular profile.


=Scamil´lus= (Lat. little bench, foot-stool). A slight projection, cut by
means of a joggle, upon a constructive feature in such a manner as to
prevent its adjacent edges from touching and possibly chipping those of
the next block. A scamillus thus creates the incision between the upper
drum of the shaft and the necking of the Doric capital, and is also
occasionally inserted between the top of the abacus and the soffit of
the epistyle.

=Sco´tia= (Gr. darkness). A hollow curved moulding, so called from the
deep line of shadow which it casts.

=Soc´le= (Lat. _socculus_, dim. of _soccus_, low shoe, slipper). The low,
plain foundation of a pedestal or building.

=Sof´fit= (Ital. _soffitta_; from Lat. _suffigere_, to fasten beneath).
The under side of any part of a building, particularly of lintels,
epistyles, and coronas.

=Sphyrel´aton= (Gr.; from σφῦρα, hammer, and ἐλαύνω], to drive).
Metal-work beaten to the shape of a carved kernel by a hammer.

=Spi´na= (Lat.; from Gr. σπινός, lean, thin). The barrier
dividing the race-course longitudinally into two tracks.

=Sta´dion= (Gr.; from στάδιος, standing firm). A
race-course of fixed dimensions, whence a measure of length, 600 Greek
feet.

=Ste´le= (Gr.). An upright stone employed as a monument.

=Ste´reobate= (Gr. στερεοβάτης; from στερεός, firm, solid, and βάσις,
base). The substructure of rough masonry beneath a temple.

=Sto´a= (Gr.). An extended colonnade, usually adjoining a public place,
and affording protection against the heat of the sun.

=Sty´lobate= (Gr. στυλοβάτης; from στῦλος, column, and βαστάζω, to light
up, support). The uppermost step of the peripteros, which forms a
continuous base beneath the columns.


=Tæ´nia= (Gr. ribbon). The continuous fillet which crowns the epistyle,
representative of the wall-plate of the original timbered Doric
construction.

=Ta´lus= (Lat. ankle). The slope or angle of inclination of the sides of a
wall.

=Taraxip´pos= (Gr. adj. frightening the horses). An altar upon the
turning-point of the Greek race-course.

=Tel´amon= (Gr. bearer). In architectural usage of the same significance
as Atlas, which see above.

=Tem´enos= (Gr.; from τέμνω, to cut, to draw a line). A
piece of land marked off from common usages and dedicated to a deity.
The sacred enclosure around the temple.

=Tetrasty´los=, adj. tet´rastyle (from Gr. τέτρα, four, and
στῦλος, column). A building, particularly a temple, upon
the front of which are four columns.

=Thal´amos= (Gr.). Term applied by Homer to inner rooms or chambers,
especially those of women. In the usage of Xenophon a store-room.

=Tho´los= (Gr.). A chamber of circular plan, generally subterranean,
approaching in interior form that of a pointed vault.

=Tore= (Lat. _torus_, swelling, protuberance). A large roundel moulding.

=Trac´ery.= A patterning of thin bars, usually of stone, in a window or
other opening.

=Tri´glyph= (Gr. τρίγλυφος; from τρί,
three, and γλυφή, carving, because of the three slats
originally chamfered). The most prominent member of the Doric frieze,
originally significant of the ends of the ceiling beams. A rectangular
tablet slightly projecting beyond the face of the metopes, with which it
alternates, and emphasized by vertical grooves and chamfers.

=Trun´nel= (allied etymologically to tree-nail and trunnion). A wooden pin
or peg. Carved in stone beneath the regulas and mutules of the Doric
entablature, the trunnels mark the position of these primitive
constructive features. In form they are commonly the frustum of a cone.

=Tym´panon= (Gr. drum). The triangular space enclosed by the inclined
mouldings of the gable and the horizontal cornice of the entablature
beneath.


=Vela´rium= (Lat.). The great curtain, or awning, extended above the
auditories of the Roman theatre and amphitheatre to protect the
spectators from the sun and rain.

=Volute´= (Lat. _voluta_; from _volvere_, to roll). A spiral scroll. The
term is particularly employed for such features in the Ionic and
Corinthian capitals.


=Xo´anon=, pl. xoana (Gr.; from ξέω, to work in wood by
scraping). A rude and primitive image carved in wood; particularly
antique statues of the deities.



=Zoph´oros= (Gr.; from ζῶον, being, figure, and φέρω, to bear). A
continuous frieze, sculptured in relief with the forms of human beings
and animals.



INDEX.


(The names of places are in common print, those of artists in italics.)

Abou-Roash, 12.

Abousere, 3, 11.

Abou-Sharein, 50-52, 54.

_Achermos_, 280.

Ackercuf, 50.

Acragas, 219, 220, 222, 253.

Ægina, 222, 224, 282, 293-296, 298, 303.

Æsernia, 414.

_Aetion_, 384.

_Agasias_, 361, 362.

_Agatharchos_, 370.

_Ageladas_, 299, 304.

_Agesandros_, 351.

_Aglaophon_, 368.

_Agoracritos_, 316, 317.

Agrae, 257.

Agrigentum. See Acragas.

Aizanis, 260.

Alabanda, 260.

Alatrium (Alatri), 414, 416.

Albanum (Albano), 390, 436, 437.

_Alcamenes_, 317-319.

Alcantara, 439.

Alexandria, 256, 261, 346, 438.

_Alexandros_, 338.

Algiers, 185.

Alopeke, 322.

Alsium, 399.

_Alxenor_, 290.

Alyzia, 343.

Ambrakia, 281, 346.

_Amphicrates_, 297.

Amphipolis, 375.

Amphissa, 279.

Amran-ibn-Ali, 57.

Amrith, 133, 135-137, 141, 149.

_Amulius_, 470.

Amyclæ, 179, 184, 276, 277.

_Amyclaios_, 299.

Ancona, 439.

Ancyra, 438.

_Androsthenes_, 318.

_Angelion_, 286.

Antaradus, 133.

_Antenor_, 297, 298.

_Antigonos_, 347.

Antioch, 261, 346.

_Antiochos_, 363.

_Antiochos Gabinius_, 466.

Antiphillos, 166, 168.

_Antiphilos_, 384, 386.

Antium, 414.

Aosta, 439.

_Apelles_, 379-382.

Aphrodisias, 240, 257, 366, 436.

Apiolæ, 414.

_Apollodoros_, sculptor, 360;
  painter, 370.

_Apollonios_, 353, 362, 363.

Aradus, 133.

Arbola, 62.

Ardea, 414.

_Archias_, 262.

_Archimedes_, 262.

_Arellius_, 466.

Argos, 186, 276, 281, 282, 298, 299, 303.

Aricia, 291, 414.

_Aridikes_, 367.

_Aristeas_, 366.

_Aristiæos_, 377.

_Aristides_, 377.

_Aristocles_, 287, 298, 299.

_Aristogeiton_, 327.

_Aristolaos_, 376.

_Aristomedon_, 299.

_Aristomedos_, 299.

_Aristophon_, 370.

_Arkesilaos_, 366.

Arpinum, 414.

_Arrhachion_, 289.

_Asclepiodoros_, 380, 384.

Asoka, 132.

Aspendos, 433.

Assos, 216, 286, 288.

Assur, 62.

_Athanadoros_, 351.

_Athenis_, 280, 281, 291, 365.

Athens, 191, 221-227, 241-245, 248, 249, 253, 260,
   276, 289, 293, 298, 303, 346, 377, 378.

Aufidena, 414.

Aurunca, 414.


Babil, 58.

Babylon, 50, 53, 58, 59, 81, 82.

Bagdad, 57.

Balaneia, 133.

Baphio, 184.

Bara, 439.

Bassæ, 227, 236, 241, 247, 249.

_Bathycles_, 277.

Beni-hassan, 14-18.

Besançon, 439.

Beyrout, 133.

Biban-el-Moluk, 22.

Bi-Sueton, 128.

Boghaz-kieni, 173.

_Boidas_, 344.

Bolymnos, 199.

Bors-Nimrud, 57-59.

Borsippa, 55-57.

Boulac, 41.

_Boutades_, 278.

Boupalos, 281, 291, 365.

Bovillæ, 431.

_Bryaxis_, 251, 333.

Byblus, 133, 148.

Byrsa, 162.


Cadacchio, 216.

Ca-dimirra, 53.

Cære, 391, 392, 406, 409.

Cairo, 4.

Calah, 61, 62.

_Calamis_, 293, 299, 301, 318.

_Calates_, 386.

_Callicles_, 386.

_Callimachos_, 246, 322, 386.

_Calliphon_, 370.

_Calliteles_, 295.

_Callon_, 286, 293, 299.

Calydon, 191.

_Canachos_, 286, 298.

Caparra, 439.

Capua, 339, 359.

Carnac, 24-28.

Carnek, 133.

Carpentras, 439.

Carthage, 139, 159, 162.

Casr, 57.

Castel d’Asso, 394.

Caunos, 383.

Cavaillon, 439.

Cervetri, 392, 394.

_Chares_, 344, 351.

_Charmides_, 304.

_Chersiphron_, 238.

_Chionis_, 299.

Chios, 279-281.

Chiusi, 390, 401, 403, 411.

Circello, 416.

Cirta, 253.

Claros, 240.

_Cleanthes_, 367.

_Clearchos_, 282.

_Cleomenes_, 363.

Cleonæ, 281, 367.

_Clitias_, 277, 464.

Clusium, 390, 408.

Cnidos, 239, 248, 260, 334.

Cochome, 3.

Colophon, 240.

_Colotes_, 317.

Constantina, 253, 436.

Constantinople, 438.

_Coponius_, 452.

Cora, 414.

Corfu, 216.

Corinth, 218, 278, 289, 298, 299.

Corkyra. See Corfu.

Corneto, 392, 398.

Corsabad, 60, 66, 73, 76, 78, 79, 280.

Cos, 334.

_Cossutius_, 249.

Coyundjic, 60, 61, 66, 68, 70, 74-76, 78.

_Craton_, 367.

_Cresilas_, 321.

Crete, 160, 170, 266.

_Critios_, 297.

Ctesiphon, 58, 131.

Cures, 414.

Cussi, 438, 439.

Cyprus, 96, 139, 150, 159, 162, 267, 321.


_Dactylæ_, 266.

_Daidalos_, 267, 268.

_Damophilos_, 449, 464.

_Damophon_, 327.

_Daphnis_, 238.

Darabgerd, 118.

Dashour, 3, 10, 11.

_Deinocrates_, 261, 344.

Delos, 191, 193, 229, 260, 280.

_Demetrios_, 322.

_Dionysios_, 299, 363, 370, 466.

_Diopos_, 401.

_Dipoinos_, 281, 282, 298.

Dium, 342.

_Diyllos_, 299.

Dodona, 192.

_Dontas_, 282.

_Donycleidas_, 282.

Dur-Sargina, 60.


Ecetræ, 414.

_Ecphantos_, 367.

Elateia, 363.

El-Cab, 30.

El-Casr, 439.

Eleusis, 228.

Eleutheræ, 299.

Elis, 222, 254, 299.

_Endoios_, 297, 365.

Enhydra, 133.

Ephesos, 237, 256, 279, 361, 371, 375.

Epidauros, 186, 260.

Erbil, 62.

Erech, 50.

_Ergotimos_, 277, 464.

Eubœa, 193.

_Eucheir_, 401.

_Eugrammos_, 401.

_Eumaros_, 367.

_Eupalamos_, 267.

_Euphranor_, 340, 377, 378.

_Eupompos_, 375.

_Euthycrates_, 344.

_Eutychides_, 344.

Eyuk, 173.


_Fabius Pictor_, 464.

Falerii, 388, 389.

Fanum, 442.

Fayoum, 4, 34, 35.

Ferentinum, 414.

Firuz-Abad, 118, 131.

Florence, 227.


Gabr-Hiram, 133.

Gineh, 141.

Girsheh, 30.

_Gitiades_, 299.

Gizeh, 3, 4-6, 13, 17, 42.

Glanum, 253.

_Glaucos_, 279, 299.

_Glycon_, 343, 362.

_Gorgasos_, 449, 464.

Goshen, 143.

Gozo, 163.


Halicarnassos, 250-252.

Haram-el-Sherif, 147.

_Hegias_, 297, 304.

_Hegylos_, 282.

Heraclea, 371.

_Heraclitos_, 471.

Herculaneum, 436, 471.

_Hermogenes_, 240.

Hierapolis, 256.

Hillah, 57.

Hit, 49.

Hovara, 12.

_Huram_, 148.

_Hypatodoros_, 327.


_Iaia_, 466.

_Icmalios_, 269.

_Ictinos_, 225.

Illahoun, 12.

_Illecles_, 238.

_Isogonos_, 347.

Istakr, 100.

Ithaca, 177, 178, 184.


Jebeil, 133, 136, 138.

Jerusalem, 139, 147-157.

Jumjuma, 57.


Kalwadha, 50.

Kenchreæ, 186.

_Kephisodotos_: the elder, 329;
 the younger, 338.

Kileh-Shergat, 75.

_Kimon_, 367.

Kisr-Sargon, 57, 60, 62-66, 73, 79, 152.

Kiutahija, 171.

_Kypselos_, 276.

Kyrene, 185.

Kythnos, 374.

Kyzicos, 261.


Lacedæmonia, 282.

Laconia, 187.

_Laia_, 466.

Laodikeia, 260.

Latium, 416.

Lavinium, 414.

Lemnos, 305, 317.

_Leochares_, 251, 331, 333.

Lessa, 187.

_Libon_, 222.

Lindos, 344.

Lisht, 12.

_Ludius_, 467.

Luxor, 24, 25.

_Lykios_, 320.

_Lysippos_, 341, 345, 450, 453.

_Lysistratos_, 342.


Magnesia, 240, 272, 277.

Malta, 163.

Mantinea, 243, 260.

Marathus, 133, 135.

Marseilles. See Massalia.

Mashnaka, 135, 141, 142, 150.

Massalia, 449.

Medinet-Abou, 25, 34.

Medinet-el-Fayoum, 24.

Medullia, 414.

Megalopolis, 260.

Megara, 287.

_Melanthios_, 376, 380.

_Melas_, 280.

Melos, 260.

Memphis, 3, 5, 12, 42.

Mende, 317.

_Menelaos_, 364.

Menidi, 179, 183.

Merida, 439.

Meroe, 12.

Messene, 327, 357.

_Metagenes_, 238.

Metapontion, 216, 217.

_Metrodoros_, 465, 466.

Meydoun, 10, 12.

_Mickiades_, 280.

_Micon_, 368, 369.

Miletos, 238, 247, 285, 288, 298.

_Mnesicles_, 226.

Mœris, 10.

Moriah, 147.

Mosul, 59, 60.

Mt. Barkal, 12.

Mt. Ocha, 193, 194.

Mudjelibeh, 57, 58, 83.

Mugheir, 50, 52, 54, 80.

Murgab, 100, 119.

Mykenæ, 179-185, 188, 189, 192, 198, 273-276, 280.

Mylassa, 250.

Myra, 165, 167, 260.

_Myron_, 299, 301, 303, 320.

Mys, 305.


Naksh-i-Rustam, 120, 121.

Naxos, 288, 290.

Nebbi-Jonas, 61.

Nemea, 211.

_Nesiotes_, 297.

_Nicomachos_, 377.

Nicomedia, 346.

_Nicophanes_, 376.

_Nicopolis_, 375.

Niffer, 50.

_Nikias_, 378.

Nimrud, 57-60, 66, 67, 69, 71, 75, 77, 78, 85, 87.

Nineveh, 53, 59, 61, 62, 80, 84, 95, 140.

Nipur, 50, 53.

Norba, 414, 415.

Norchia, 394-397.

Norma, 414.

_Novius Plautius_, 450.

Nubia, 12, 40.

Nus, 14.


Olevano, 414, 416.

Olympia, 209, 222, 223, 258, 276, 278, 282, 307,
  308, 317, 319, 335, 336, 386.

_Onatas_, 293, 295, 297.

Orange, 433, 439.

Orchomenos, 179, 184, 287, 288.

Ortygia, 218, 221.

Otricoli, 309.

_Ovius_, 451.


_Pacuvius_, 465.

Pæstum, 206, 223, 229, 255.

_Paionios_, architect, 238.

_Paionios_, sculptor, 317, 319.

_Palamaon_, 268.

Palestrina, 450.

Palma, 291.

Paltus, 133.

_Pamphilos_, 375, 382.

_Panainos_, 368, 369.

Paphos, 160.

_Papias_, 366.

Paros, 317.

_Parrhasios_, 305, 371, 373, 374.

Pasargadæ, 100, 103, 118, 120, 123.

_Pasiteles_, 364.

Patara, 260.

_Pausias_, 376.

_Pauson_, 370.

_Peiræicos_, 386.

Pergamon, 261, 346-350, 353, 356, 358, 362.

Persepolis, 100-102, 107, 117, 120, 122, 123.

Perugia, 286, 400, 404.

Pessinus, 240.

Petra, 437, 438.

Pharsalos, 179.

_Pheidias_, 225, 299, 304-322.

Phellos, 167.

Pheneos, 185.

Phigalia, 190, 227, 287, 321.

Philæ, 30, 47, 105, 135.

_Phileas_, 279.

_Philocles_, 367.

Phokis, 363.

_Phycomachos_, 347.

Piraios, 255.

Plataia, 305, 368.

Pola, 436.

Politorium, 414.

_Polycleitos_, 299, 323, 328.

_Polycles_, 363.

_Polydoros_, 351.

_Polygnotos_, 254, 368-370, 383.

Pompeii, 436, 442, 444, 468, 471.

Præneste, 414, 450, 471.

_Praxias_, 318.

_Praxiteles_, 300, 330, 332-336, 338, 340.

Priene, 238.

_Protogenes_, 383, 384.

_Pythagoras_, 299, 301.

_Pythios_, 238, 251.


Redesie, 30.

Reggio, 436.

Reson, 62.

Rhamnous, 228, 330.

Rhegion, 282, 299, 301, 303.

Rheims, 438.

Rhodes, 267, 344, 351, 353, 356, 358, 362, 363.

_Rhoicos_, 279.

Rimini, 439.

Ruad, 133, 148.


Saccara, 9.

Saida, 133, 138, 141, 149.

Saint-Remi, 253, 437, 439.

Samos, 141, 190, 238, 260, 280.

Sarbistan, 131, 171.

Sardinia, 163.

Sardis, 174.

Satricum, 414.

_Satyros_, 251.

Sauiet-el-Meytin, 16.

_Saurias_, 367.

Scaptia, 414.

_Scopas_, 251, 330-333.

Scythopolis, 148.

Segesta, 211, 222, 259, 260.

Segni, 414, 416.

Seid-el-Ar, 172.

Selamiyeh, 62.

Seleucia, 58, 131, 346.

Selinous, 216, 218, 222, 283, 288, 290, 327.

_Serapion_, 466.

Serpul-Zohab, 121.

Side, 260.

Sidon, 133, 138.

Signia, 414, 415.

Sikyon, 243, 276, 281, 282, 298, 299, 303, 322, 340, 375-378.

_Silanion_, 340, 341.

Siloam, 152.

Silsilis, 30.

Sipylos, 173, 272.

Sivrihissar, 171.

_Skyllis_, 281, 282, 298.

_Smilis_, 282.

Smyrna, 173.

_Socrates_, 299.

Soleb, 27.

Sopolis, 466.

Sora, 414.

_Sosibios_, 365.

_Sosos_, 386, 470.

Spalatro, 447.

Sparta, 183, 255, 260, 282, 287, 299.

Stabiæ, 471.

_Stephanos_, 364.

Stoura, 193.

_Stratonicos_, 347.

_Studius_, 467.

_Styppax_, 321.

Sunion, 228.

Sur, 133, 138.

Sura, 50.

Susa, Italy, 439.

Susa, Persia, 100.

Sutri, 436.

Syracuse, 217, 260, 262.


Tak-i-Gero, 132.

Tarention, 242, 243, 249.

_Tauriscos_, 353.

Tauromenium, 260.

_Tectaios_, 286.

_Telchinœ_, 266.

_Telecles_, 260, 279.

Telenæ, 414.

_Telephanes_, 367.

Telmissos, 260.

Tel-Sifr, 50.

Tenea, 267, 287, 288.

Teos, 240.

Thabarieh, 146.

Thasos, 289, 368.

Thebes, Egypt, 22, 47.

Thebes, Greece, 191, 298, 299, 375, 377.

_Theocles_, 282.

_Theodoros_, 238, 260, 279, 280.

_Theon_, 386.

Thera, 287, 288.

Thespeia, 368.

Thessalonica, 255.

Theveste, 439.

Thoricos, 254.

Tibur, 414.

_Timanthes_, 374, 375.

_Timarchides_, 363.

_Timarchos_, 338.

_Timocles_, 363.

_Timomachos_, 385.

_Timotheos_, 251, 333.

Tiryns, 187, 188, 192.

Todi, 408.

Tortosa, 133.

Tourah, 11.

Tralles, 353.

Treves, 436.

Troezen, 199.

Troy, 185, 191, 267, 268.

Tusculum, 414, 433, 436.

Tyndaris, 260.

Tyre, 133, 138, 140.


Um-el-Auamid, 133, 138, 145.

Ur, 48, 50, 53, 80.


Veii, 388, 391, 401, 448.

Velabro, 416.

Venice, 450.

Verulæ, 414.

Viterbo, 394.

_Volca_ (_Vulcanius_), 401, 448.

Volsinii, 405.

Volterra, 408.

Vulci, 390, 401, 406, 407.


Warka, 50, 52, 54, 80.


Xanthos, 167, 170, 252, 288, 339.

_Xenaios_, 261.


_Zeuxis_, 371-374.


THE END.


VALUABLE AND INTERESTING WORKS
FOR
STUDENTS OF ANCIENT AND MODERN ART.


=> HARPER & BROTHERS _will send any of the following works by mail,
postage prepaid, to any part of the United States or Canada, on receipt
of the price_.

=> _For a full list of works published by_ HARPER & BROTHERS, _see_
HARPER’S ENLARGED CATALOGUE, _360 pp., 8vo, which will be sent by mail,
postage prepaid, on receipt of Ten Cents_.

=History of Mediæval Art.=

By Dr. FRANZ VON REBER, Author of “A History of Ancient Art,” &c.
Translated and Augmented by JOSEPH THACHER CLARKE. Profusely
Illustrated. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

=History of Ancient Art.=

By Dr. FRANZ VON REBER, Director of the Bavarian Royal and State
Galleries of Paintings, Professor in the University and Polytechnic of
Munich. Revised by the Author, and Translated and Augmented by JOSEPH
THACHER CLARKE. With 308 Illustrations, and a Glossary of Technical
Terms. 8vo, Cloth, $3 50.

=Ilios.=

Ilios, the City and Country of the Trojans. The results of Researches
and Discoveries on the Site of Troy and throughout the Troad in the
years 1871-’72-’73-’78-’79. Including an Autobiography of the Author. By
Dr. HENRY SCHLIEMANN, F.S.A. With a Preface, Appendices, and Notes by
Professors RUDOLF VIRCHOW, MAX MÜLLER, A. H. SAYCE, J. P. MAHAFFY, H.
BRUGSCH-BEV, P. ASCHERSON, M. A. POSTOLACCAS, M. E. BURNOUF, Mr. F.
CALVERT, and Mr. A. J. DUFFIELD. With Illustrations representing nearly
2000 Types of the Objects found in the Excavations of the Seven Cities
on the Site of Ilios. Maps, Plans, and Illustrations. Imperial 8vo,
Cloth, $12 00; Half Morocco, $15 00.

=Troja.=

Troja. Results of the Latest Researches and Discoveries on the Site of
Homer’s Troy, and in the Heroic Tumuli and other Sites, made in the year
1882, and a Narrative of a Journey in the Troad in 1881. By Dr. HENRY
SCHLIEMANN, F.S.A. Preface by Professor A. H. SAYCE. With 150 Wood-cuts
and 4 Maps and Plans. pp. xl., 434. 8vo, Cloth, $7 50; Half Morocco, $10
00.

=A History of Wood-Engraving.=

By G. E. WOODBERRY. With Numerous Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $3 50.

=South Kensington.=

Travels in South Kensington. With Notes on Decorative Art and
Architecture in England. By MONCURE DANIEL CONWAY. Illustrated. 8vo,
Cloth, $2 50.

=The Land and the Book.=

By WILLIAM M. THOMSON, D.D. In Three Volumes. Copiously Illustrated.
Square 8vo, Ornamental Cloth, $6 00; Sheep, $7 00; Half Morocco, $8 50;
Full Morocco, Gilt Edges, $10 00 per Volume. (_The Volumes sold
separately._)

Vol. I. SOUTHERN PALESTINE AND JERUSALEM. (140 Illustrations and Maps.)

Vol. II. CENTRAL PALESTINE AND PHŒNICIA. (130 Illustrations and
Maps.)

Vol. III. LEBANON, DAMASCUS, AND BEYOND JORDAN. (147 Illustrations and
Maps.)

Popular Edition, Copiously Illustrated, 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $9 00.

=Cyprus: its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Temples.=

A Narrative of Researches and Excavations during Ten Years’ Residence in
that Island. By General LOUIS PALMA DI CESNOLA, Mem. of the Royal
Academy of Sciences, Turin; Hon. Mem. of the Royal Society of
Literature, London, &c. With Appendix, containing a Treatise on “The
Rings and Gems in the Treasure of Kurium,” by C. W. KING, M.A.; a “List
of Engraved Gems found at Different Places in Cyprus;” a Treatise “On
the Pottery of Cyprus,” by A. S. MURRAY; Lists of “Greek Inscriptions,”
“Inscriptions in the Cypriote Character,” and “Inscriptions in the
Phœnician Character.” With Portrait, Maps, and 400 Illustrations.
Third Edition. 8vo, Cloth, Gilt Tops and Uncut Edges, $7 50.

=Caricature and other Comic Art.=

In all Times and Many Lands. By JAMES PARTON. With 203 Illustrations.
8vo, Cloth, Gilt Tops and Uncut Edges, $5 00.

=Spanish Vistas.=

By GEORGE PARSONS LATHROP. Illustrated by CHARLES S. REINHART. 8vo,
Ornamental Cover, Gilt Edges, $3 00.

=Peru.=

Incidents of Travel and Exploration in the Land of the Incas. By E. G.
SQUIER, M.A., F.S.A., late U. S. Commissioner to Peru; Author of “The
States of Central America,” “Nicaragua: its People, Scenery, Monuments,
Resources, Condition, and Proposed Canal,” &c. With Map and 258
Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

=The Mikado’s Empire.=

Book I. History of Japan, from 660 B.C. to 1872 A.D.--Book II. Personal
Experiences, Observations, and Studies in Japan, 1870-1874. By WM.
ELLIOT GRIFFIS, A.M., late of the Imperial University of Tōkiō,
Japan. Fifth Edition, revised. Copiously Illustrated. 8vo, Cloth, $4 00;
Half Calf, $6 25.

=A Hand-Book of Pottery Painting.=

By JOHN C. L. SPARKES. 32mo, Paper, 20 cts.; Cloth, 35 cts.

=Atlantis:=

The Antediluvian World. By IGNATIUS DONNELLY. Illustrated. 12mo, Cloth,
$2 00.

=Bible Lands:=

Their Modern Customs and Manners Illustrative of Scripture. By the Rev.
HENRY J. VAN-LENNEP, D.D. Illustrated with upward of 350 Wood-engravings
and Two Colored Maps. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00; Sheep, $6 00; Half Morocco, $8
00.

=Ancient America,=

In Notes on American Archæology. By JOHN D. BALDWIN, A.M. With
Illustrations. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.

=Fresh Discoveries at Nineveh and Babylon.=

Fresh Discoveries at Nineveh and Babylon; with Travels in Armenia,
Kurdistan, and the Desert: being the Result of a Second Expedition
undertaken for the Trustees of the British Museum. By AUSTEN HENRY
LAYARD, M.P. With all the Maps and Illustrations in the English Edition.
8vo, Cloth, $4 00; Half Calf, $6 25.

=From Egypt to Palestine,=

Through Sinai, the Wilderness, and the South Country. By _S. C.
Bartlett_, D.D., LL.D. Illustrated. 8vo, Cloth, $3 50.

=The North Americans of Antiquity.=

Their Origin, Migrations, and Type of Civilization Considered. By JOHN
T. SHORT. Illustrated. 8vo, Cloth, $3 00.

=The Ceramic Art:=

A Compendium of the History and Manufacture of Pottery and Porcelain. By
JENNIE J. YOUNG. Illustrated. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

=The China Hunters Club.=

By the Youngest Member. Illustrated. Post 8vo, Cloth, $1 75.

=Art Education Applied to Industry.=

By GEO. WARD NICHOLS. Illustrated. 8vo, Cloth, Illuminated and Gilt, $4
00.

=Art Decoration Applied to Furniture.=

By HARRIET PRESCOTT SPOFFORD. With Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $4 00;
Half Calf, $6 25.

=Historical Studies of Church-Building=

In the Middle Ages. Venice, Siena, Florence. By CHARLES ELIOT NORTON.
8vo, Cloth, $3 00.

=Sketches and Studies in Southern Europe.=

By JOHN ADDINGTON SYMONDS. In Two Volumes. Post 8vo, Cloth, $4 00.

=The Mythology of Greece and Rome,=

With Special Reference to its Use in Art. From the German of _O.
Seemann_. Edited by G. H. BIANCHI, B.A., late Scholar of St. Peter’s
College, Cambridge, Brotherton Sanskrit Prizeman, 1875. With 64
Illustrations. 16mo, Cloth, 60 cents.

=The Student’s History of Greece.=

A History of Greece, from the Earliest Times to the Roman Conquest. With
Supplementary Chapters on the History of Literature and Art. By WM.
SMITH, D.C.L., LL.D. Illustrated. 12mo, Cloth, $1 25.

=The Student’s History of Rome.=

A History of Rome, from the Earliest Times to the Establishment of the
Empire. With Chapters on the History of Literature and Art. By H. G.
LIDDELL, D.D., Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. Illustrated. 12mo, Cloth,
$1 25.

=Carthage and Her Remains:=

Being an Account of the Excavations and Researches on the Site of the
Phœnician Metropolis, in Africa and other Adjacent Places. Conducted
under the Auspices of Her Majesty’s Government. By Dr. N. DAVIS,
F.R.G.S. Profusely Illustrated with Maps, Wood-cuts, Chromo-Lithographs,
&c. 8vo, Cloth, $4 00; Half Calf, $6 25.

=Art Hints.=

Architecture, Sculpture, and Painting. By JAMES JACKSON JARVES. 12mo,
Cloth, $1 50.

=Lessons from My Masters:=

Carlyle, Tennyson, and Ruskin. By PETER BAYNE, M.A., LL.D., Author of
“The Chief Actors in the Puritan Revolution,” “Life and Letters of Hugh
Miller,” &c. 12mo, Cloth, $1 75.

=She Stoops to Conquer; or, The Mistakes of a Night.=

A Comedy. By Dr. GOLDSMITH. With Drawings by EDWIN A. ABBEY, Decorations
by ALFRED PARSONS, and Introduction by AUSTIN DOBSON. Folio, Illuminated
Calf, Gilt Edges (in a Handsome Box), $20 00.

=Herrick’s Poems. Illustrated by Abbey.=

Selections from the Poems of Robert Herrick. With Drawings by EDWIN A.
ABBEY. pp. xviii., 188. 4to, Illuminated Cloth, Gilt Edges, $7 50. (_In
a Box._)

=Sketching Rambles in Holland.=

By GEORGE H. BOUGHTON, A.R.A. Beautifully and Profusely Illustrated with
Wood-engravings from Drawings by the Author and EDWIN A. ABBEY, pp.
xvi., 342. 8vo, Illuminated Cloth and Tile, $5 00; Gilt Edges, $5 25.

=The Raven. Illustrated by Doré.=

The Raven. By EDGAR ALLAN POE. Illustrated by GUSTAVE DORÉ. With Comment
by EDMUND CLARENCE STEDMAN. Folio, Illuminated Cloth, Gilt Edges, $10
00. (_In a Box._)

=The Ancient Mariner. Illustrated by Doré.=

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. By SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE. Illustrated
by DORÉ. Folio, Cloth, Gilt Edges, $10 00. (_In a Box._)

=Happy Hunting-Grounds.=

By W. HAMILTON GIBSON. Illustrated by the Author. pp. 202. 4to,
Illuminated Cloth, Gilt Edges, $7 50. (_In a Box._)

=Highways and Byways.=

By W. HAMILTON GIBSON. Illustrated by the Author. pp. 158. 4to,
Illuminated Cloth, Gilt Edges, $7 50. (_In a Box._)

=Pastoral Days.=

By W. HAMILTON GIBSON. Illustrated by the Author. pp. 154. 4to,
Illuminated Cloth, Gilt Edges, $7 50. (_In a Box._)

=Nature’s Serial Story.=

By EDWARD P. ROE. Beautifully and Profusely Illustrated with
Wood-engravings from Drawings by W. HAMILTON GIBSON and FREDERIC
DIELMAN. pp. xvi., 430. 4to, Illuminated Cloth, $5 00; Gilt Edges, $5
25.

=The Heart of the White Mountains.=

By SAMUEL ADAMS DRAKE. Illustrated by W. HAMILTON GIBSON. pp. xvi., 318.
4to, Illuminated Cloth, Gilt Edges, $7 50. (_In a Box._)

=Home Fairies and Heart Flowers.=

Copiously Illustrated with Drawings and Engravings by FRANK FRENCH. With
Poems by MARGARET E. SANGSTER. pp. 96. 4to, Illuminated Cloth, Gilt
Edges, $6 00. (_In a Box._)

=Higginson’s Larger History of the United States.=

A Larger History of the United States of America to the Close of
President Jackson’s Administration. By THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON.
Illustrated by Maps, Plans, Portraits, and other Engravings. pp. xii.,
470. 8vo, Cloth, $3 50.

=The Life and Habits of Wild Animals.=

Illustrated from Designs by JOSEPH WOLF. Engraved by J. W. and EDWARD
WHYMPER. With Descriptive Letter-press by DANIEL GIRAUD ELIOT, F.L.S.,
F.Z.S. pp. 122. 4to, Ornamental Cloth, Gilt Edges, $5 00.

=Life of Benjamin Robert Haydon,=

Historical Painter, from his Autobiography and Journals. Edited and
Compiled by TOM TAYLOR. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 00.

       *       *       *       *       *

Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:

referred to the first dynasty of Manetho=> referred to as the first
dynasty of Manetho {pg 3}

The greatest diference=> The greatest difference {pg 5}

Mesopotomia=> Mesopotamia {pg 78}

sepaated by sharp arrises=> separated by sharp arrises {pg 104}

who had caused Deionocrates=> who had caused Deinocrates {pg 261}

impression of a pantomine=> impression of a pantomime {pg 295}

Temple of Apollo at Phigalea=> Temple of Apollo at Phigalia {pg 321}

Benihassan, 14-18.=> Beni-hassan, 14-18. {pg 479}

_Skyllis_, 251, 330-333.=> _Skyllis_, 281, 282, 298. {pg 481}


FOOTNOTES:

[A] The measurements in the text are the mean of the results attained by
the French academicians in 1799, and by Colonel Howard Vyse in 1837. The
recent measurements of Mr. Thomas Inglis make the north side 231.64 m.,
the south 231.49 m., the east and west sides alike 231.19 m., or an
average of 231.38 m.

[B] According to Piazzi Smyth.

[C] The fellow of this monolith, known as Cleopatra’s Needle, until
recently stood at Alexandria, whither it had been moved from Heliopolis;
but having been presented by the late Khedive to the city of New York,
it has been shipped across the Atlantic, and erected in the Central Park
of that city.

[D] _Discoveries_, p. 444.

[E] _Nineveh and Babylon_, p. 508.

[F] “Geschichte der Baukunst im Alterthum.” Franz Reber. Leipzig,
1864-1866.

[G] The modern hypothetical distinction between agonal, or festal,
temples and those used only for worship is now generally regarded as
erroneous; while the existence of a so-called hypæthron--an opening
supposed to have existed in the roof and ceiling of the naos for the
admission of daylight--is inadmissible from the point of view both of
design and of structure.





*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "History of Ancient Art" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.



Home