It would be a tedious and unprofitable task to attempt to particularise

all the churches which were erected in this style in Italy, as hardly

one of them possesses a single title to admiration beyond the very

vulgar one of size. To this Santa Croce, at Florence, adds its

association with the great men who lie buried beneath it, and Sta. Maria

Novella can plead the circumstance—exceptional in that city—of

possessing a façade;[315] but neither of these has anything to redeem

its innate ugliness in the eyes of an architect.

There are two great churches of this period at Venice, the San Giovanni

e Paolo (1246-1420) and the Frari (1250); they are large and richly

ornamented fabrics, but are both entirely destitute of architectural

merit.

[Illustration: 511. Duomo at Ferrara. (From Hope’s ‘Architecture.’)

Scale 50 ft. to 1 in.]

A much more beautiful building is the cathedral at Como, the details of

which are so elegant and so unobtrusively used as in great measure to

make up for the bad arrangement and awkward form of the whole. In design

it is, however, inferior to that of the Duomo at Ferrara (Woodcut No.

511). The latter does not display the richness of the façades of Siena

or Orvieto, nor the elegance of that last named; but among the few

Italian façades which exist, it stands pre-eminent for sober propriety

of design and the good proportions of all its parts. The repose caused

by the solidity of the lower portions, and the gradual increase of

ornament and lightness as we ascend, all combine to render it harmonious

and pleasing. It is true it wants the aspiring character and bold relief

of Northern façades; but these do not belong to the style, and it must

suffice if we meet in this style with a moderate amount of variety,

undisturbed by any very prominent instances of bad taste.

The true type of an Italian façade is well illustrated in the view of

St. Francesco at Brescia (Woodcut No. 512), which may be considered the

germ of all that followed. Whether the church had three aisles or five,

the true Italian façade in the age of pointed architecture was always a

modification or extension of this idea, though introduced with more or

less Gothic feeling according to the circumstances of its erection.

At Florence there is a house or warehouse, converted into a church,—Or

(horreum) San Michele, which has attracted a good deal of attention, but

more on account of its curious ornaments than for beauty of design—which

latter it does not, and indeed can hardly be expected to, possess. The

little chapel of Sta. Maria della Spina at Pisa owes its celebrity to

the richness of its niches and canopies, and to the sculpture which they

contain. In this the Italians were always at home, and probably always

surpassed the Northern nations. It was far otherwise with architecture,

properly so called. This, in the age of the pointed style, was in Italy

so cold and unmeaning, that we do not wonder at the readiness with which

the Italians returned to the classical models. They are to be forgiven

in this, but we cannot so easily forgive _our_ forefathers, who

abandoned a style far more beautiful than that of Italy to copy one

which they had themselves infinitely surpassed; and this only because

the Italians, unable either to comSprehend or imitate the true

principles of pointed art, were forced to abandon its practice.

Unfortunately for us, they had in this respect in that age sufficient

influence to set the fashion to all Europe.

[Illustration: 512. View of St. Francesco, Brescia. (From Street’s

‘Brick and Marble in the Middle Ages.’)]

Of late work in Dalmatia the most remarkable is the Cathedral of

Sebenico (described in Mr. Jackson’s work), built entirely in stone and

marble, and without any brick or timber in its construction. It is a

cruciform building, covered over by a waggon-vault of stone, visible

both inside and outside. It was commenced from the design of Messer

Ambrosia, a Venetian architect, in 1435, to whom may be attributed the

nave and aisles up to the string-course above nave arches. The work was

continued after 1441 by another architect, Messer Giorgio, also from

Venice, who died in 1475, leaving the building still incomplete. The

style of the work is late Venetian Gothic, influenced in its later

portions by the Renaissance revival. The cloisters of the Badia at

Curzola, and of the Dominican and Franciscan convents at Ragusa, are

also beautiful specimens of late Italian Gothic.

END OF VOL. I.

----------------------------

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS LIMITED,

STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

Footnote 1:

The first volume was published in 1865; the second in 1867.

Footnote 2:

‘Mémoire sur les Fouilles exécutés au Madras’en,’ Constantine, 1873.

Footnote 3:

‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos de España.’ Folio. Madrid, 1860, _et

seqq._

Footnote 4:

Parcerisa, ‘Recuerdos y Bellezas de España.’ Folio. Madrid.

Footnote 5:

‘Gothic Architecture in Spain,’ by G. E. Street. Murray. 1865.

Footnote 6:

‘Denkmäler der Kunst des Mittelalters in Unter Italien,’ by H. W.

Schulz. Dresden, 1860. Quarto. Atlas, folio.

Footnote 7:

‘Syrie Centrale,’ by Count M. De Vogüé. Paris.

Footnote 8:

‘Byzantine Architecture,’ by Chev. Texier. London, 1864.

Footnote 9:

‘Mission to the Court of Ava in 1855,’ by Colonel Yule. 4to. London,

1858.

Footnote 10:

‘Travels in Siam and Cambodia,’ by Henri Mouhot. London: John Murray.

1864.

Footnote 11:

The number of illustrations in the chapters of the Handbook comprised

in this first volume of the History was 441. They now stand at 536

(1874); and in the second volume the ratio of increase will probably

be even greater.

Footnote 12:

It may be suggested that the glory of a French clerestory filled with

stained glass made up for all these defects, and it may be true that

it did so; but in that case the architecture was sacrificed to the

sister art of painting, and is not the less bad in itself because it

enabled that art to display its charms with so much brilliancy.

Footnote 13:

The numbers in the table must be taken only as approximative, except

2, 4, 6, and 7, which are borrowed from Gwilt’s ‘Public Buildings of

London.’

Footnote 14:

The Isis-headed or Typhonian capitals cannot be quoted as an exception

to this rule: they are affixes, and never appear to be doing the work

of the pillar.

Footnote 15:

See woodcuts further on.

Footnote 16:

Max Müller, who is the _facile princeps_ of the linguistic school in

this country—in an inaugural lecture which he delivered when, it was

understood, he was appointed to a chair in the Strasburg

University—gave up all that has hitherto been contended for by his

followers. He admitted that language, though an invaluable aid, did

not suffice for the purposes of the investigation, and that the

results obtained by its means were not always to be depended upon.

Footnote 17:

The term “Persistent Varieties” has recently been introduced, instead

of “race,” in ethnological nomenclature, and, if scientific accuracy

is aimed at, is no doubt an improvement. It is an advantage to have a

term which does not even in appearance prejudge any of the questions

between the monogenists and polygenists, and leaves undecided all the

questions how the variations of mankind arose. But it sounds pedantic;

and “race” may be understood as meaning the same thing.

Footnote 18:

The whole of this subject has been carefully gone into by the Author

in a work entitled ‘Rude Stone Monuments’ published in 1872, to which

the reader is referred.

Footnote 19:

All round the shores of the Mediterranean are found the traces of an

art which has hitherto been a stumbling-block to antiquarians.

Egyptian cartouches and ornaments in Assyria, which are not Egyptian;

sarcophagi at Tyre, of Egyptian form, but with Phœnician inscriptions,

and made for Tyrian kings; Greek ornaments in Syria, which are not

Greek; Roman frescoes or ornaments, and architectural details at

Carthage, and all over Northern Africa, which however are not Roman.

In short, a copying art something like our own, imitating everything,

understanding nothing. I am indebted to my friend Mr. Franks for the

suggestion that all this art may be Phœnician, in other words,

Semitic, and I believe he is right.

Footnote 20:

Had there been no Pelasgi in Greece, there probably would have been no

Architecture of the Grecian period.

Footnote 21:

The derivation of the two words Heathen and Pagan seems to indicate

the relative importance of these two terms very much in the degree it

is here wished to express. Heathen is generally understood to be

derived from ἔθνος, a nation or people; and Pagan from _Pagus,

Pagani_, a village, or villagers. Both are used here not as terms of

reproach, but as indicative of their being non-Christian, which is

what it is wished to express, and was the original intention of the

term.

Footnote 22:

‘Rude Stone Monuments,’ 1 vol. 8vo. Murray, 1872.

Footnote 23:

The above scheme of Egyptian Chronology was published by me in the

‘True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ in 1849; and the data on which it

was based were detailed in the Appendix to that work. As there seems

to be nothing in the subsequent researches or discoveries which at all

invalidates the reasoning on which the table was founded, it is here

reproduced in an abridged form as originally set forth.

Footnote 24:

Syncellus, Chron. p. 98, ed. Dindorff, Bonn, 1829.

Footnote 25:

‘Josephus contra Apion,’ i. 14, 16 and 26.

Footnote 26:

Vyse, ‘Operations on the Pyramids at Gizeh in 1837,’ vol. i. p. 297,

et seq.

Footnote 27:

At Wady Meghara, in the Sinaitic peninsula, a king of the 4th dynasty

is represented as slaying an Asiatic enemy. It is the only sign of

strife which has yet been discovered belonging to this ancient

kingdom. Lepsius, Abt. ii. pl. 39.

Footnote 28:

By a singular coincidence, China has been suffering from a Hyksos

domination of Tartar conquerors, precisely as Egypt did after the

period of the Pyramid builders, and, strange to say, for about the

same period—five centuries. Had the Taepings been successful, we

should have witnessed in China the exact counterpart of what took

place in Egypt when the 1st native kings of the 18th dynasty expelled

the hated race.

Footnote 29:

Col. H. Vyse, ‘Operations carried on the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837.’

Lond. 1840-43.

Footnote 30:

This will be best understood by looking at the section (Woodcut 7), in

which it will be seen that the so-called coping or casing-stones were

not simply triangular blocks, filling up the angles formed by the

receding steps, and which might have been easily displaced, but stones

from 7 to 10 feet in depth, which could not have been supported unless

the work had been commenced at the bottom. On the other hand, it is

difficult to understand how the casing-stones for the upper portion

could have been raised up the sloping portion completed. It is

probable, therefore, that the casing was commenced at the angles and

was carried up in vertical planes, thus leaving a causeway of steps in

the middle of each face, which diminished in width as the work

proceeded; this causeway, a few feet wide only, on each face being

then encased from the top downwards after the apex blocks had been

laid.—ED.

Footnote 31:

‘The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh by W. M. Flinders Petrie. Lond.

1883.

Footnote 32:

On the north side the paving is carried under the lowest course.

Footnote 33:

Except the spires of Cologne Cathedral.

Footnote 34:

They are situated in latitude 30° N.

Footnote 35:

‘Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh,’ p. 199.

Footnote 36:

Mr. Petrie says, p. 117: “All the chambers of this pyramid are

entirely hewn in the rock.”

Footnote 37:

‘Medum,’ by M. Flinders Petrie. D. Nutt, London, 1892.

Footnote 38:

Diodorus, i. 51.

Footnote 39:

M. Mariette’s discoveries in these tombs were only in progress at the

time of his death: but his manuscript notes and drawings of the

hieroglyphics and figures have since been published in facsimile under

the title of ‘Les Mastabas de l’Ancienne Empire’ Paris 1889. They are,

however, incomplete; some of the plates referred to could not be

found, and M. Maspero, who edited the work, has unfortunately given no

preface of his own, which might have rendered them more intelligible.

At present no sufficient data exist to enable others to realise and

verify the extraordinary revelation it presents to us. It is 2000

years older, and infinitely more varied and vivid, than the Assyrian

pictures which recently excited so much interest.

Footnote 40:

The false door is a niche in the side of the mastaba, the back of

which is carved in imitation of a wooden door.

Footnote 41:

Lucian, ‘De Syria Dea,’ ed. Reetzin, tom. iii. p. 451, alludes to the

fact of the old temples of the Egyptians having no images.

Footnote 42:

The roof slabs are gone, but the lower portions of the slits are still

uninjured.

Footnote 43:

The plan and particulars relating to this temple are taken from Mr. W.

M. Petrie’s work before referred to.

Footnote 44:

The tablet discovered at Gizeh, in which Khufu, the builder of the

Great Pyramid, is recorded to have made some repairs to the Sphinx, is

stated by Mr. Petrie to be a forgery of the 20th dynasty, and his

reasons are given in section 118 of his work.

Footnote 45:

Lepsius, ‘Denkmaler,’ Abt. ii. pls. 115, 116.

Footnote 46:

Syncellus, p. 69; Euseb. Chron. p. 98.

Footnote 47:

‘Hawara, Biahmun, and Arsinoe’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1889.

Footnote 48:

‘Kahun, Garob, and Hawara,’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1890.

Footnote 49:

‘Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob,’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1891.

Footnote 50:

_Ibid._

Footnote 51:

The researches of Mr. Petrie at Kahun have shown that originally this

form of column was in wood, which would account for the base on which,

in Egyptian work, it is always placed.

Footnote 52:

In a tomb of the 4th dynasty found at Sakkara is a wall decoration in

which the lotus column is used in a frieze, examples of it being

carved in low relief to separate the figures in a procession (see

plate 10, ‘Voyage dans la Haute Égypte,’ by F. A. F. Mariette. Cairo,

1878). The polygonal or Proto-Doric column has also been found as a

hieroglyph in an inscription of the 4th dynasty. This carries back the

date of the two columns to a period some twelve centuries prior to the

example at Beni-Hasan.

Footnote 53:

‘Revue Archæologique,’ vol. iii., 1861, p. 97, and v., 1862, p. 297.

Footnote 54:

518 years: ‘Josephus contra Apion.,’ I. 26.

Footnote 55:

Layard, ‘Nineveh and Babylon,’ 281.

Footnote 56:

Tacitus, Ann. II. 60.

Footnote 57:

‘Revue Archéologique,’ vol. x. 1864, p. 170, and vol. xiii. 1866, p.

73.

Footnote 58:

Now in Sir John Soane’s Museum, in Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields.

Footnote 59:

‘Egyptian Archæology,’ by G. Maspero, translated from the French by

Amelia B. Edwards. London, 1887.

Footnote 60:

The information regarding these temples is principally derived from

Hoskins’s ‘Travels in Ethiopia,’ which is the best and most accurate

work yet published on the subject.

Footnote 61:

Herodotus. iii. 24. Diodorus, ii. 15.

Footnote 62:

Woodcuts 982 and 1091 in the first edition of this History.

Footnote 63:

Published in the ‘Rheinischer Museum’ vol. viii. p. 252, et seq.

Footnote 64:

‘Josephus contra Apion,’ i. 14.

Footnote 65:

If the Greeks traded to Naucratis as early as the 1st Olympiad.

Footnote 66:

When the ‘Handbook of Architecture’ was published in 1855, there

existed no data from which these affinities could be traced. It is to

the explorations of Sir Henry Rawlinson and Messrs. Taylor and Loftus

that we owe what we now know on the subject; but even that is only an

instalment.

Footnote 67:

The chronology here given is based on the various papers communicated

by Sir Henry Rawlinson to the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’

vol. x. et seq., and to the ‘Athenæum’ journal. The whole has been

abstracted and condensed in his brother’s ‘Five Great Monarchies of

the Ancient world;’ from which work the tables here given are taken in

an abridged form.

Footnote 68:

Loftus, ‘Chaldæa and Babylonia,’ p. 167.

Footnote 69:

Journal R. A. S., vol. xv. p. 260, et seq.

Footnote 70:

Journal R. A. S., vol. xviii. p. i, et seq., Sir H. Rawlinson’s paper,

from which all the information here given regarding the Birs is

obtained.

Footnote 71:

Flandin and Coste, ‘Voyage en Perse,’ vol. iv. pl. 221.

Footnote 72:

I have ventured to restore the roof of the cella with a sikra (ziggur

or ziggurah, according to Rawlinson’s ‘Five Ancient Monarchies,’ vol.

I, p. 395, et passim), from finding similar roofs at Susa, Bagdad,

Keffeli, &c. They are certainly indigenous, and borrowed from some

older type, whether exactly what is represented here is not clear, it

must be confessed. It is offered as a suggestion, the reason for which

will be given when we come to speak of Buddhist or Saracenic

architecture.

Footnote 73:

Rich gives its dimensions: On the north, 600 feet; south, 657; east,

546; and west, 408. But it is so ruinous that only an average guess

can be made at its original dimensions. [Mr. George Smith, in the

‘Athenæum’ of February 1876, wrote a letter giving an account of a

tablet of the Temple of Belus at Babylon he had deciphered, which

constitutes the only description found giving the dimensions thereof.

The bottom stage was 300 feet square and 110 feet high, the second,

with raking sides, 260 feet square and 60 feet high, the third 200

feet square and 20 feet high, the fourth, fifth, and sixth each 20

feet high and 170, 140, and 110 feet respectively. The top stage,

which was the sanctuary, was 80 × 70 feet and 50 feet high, the whole

height being thus 300 feet, the same as the width of the base. Mr. W.

R. Lethaby, in his work on ‘Architecture, Mysticism, and Myth,’ gives

as a frontispiece a restoration according to these dimensions, the

appearance of which is more impressive and probably approaches more

closely to the actual proportions of a ziggurat than any previously

published, excepting that at Khorsabad, with which in general

proportion it coincides.—ED.]

Footnote 74:

Strabo, xvi. p. 738.

Footnote 75:

There is a slight discrepancy in the measures owing to the absence of

fractions in the calculation.

Footnote 76:

Loftus, ‘Chaldæa and Babylonia,’ p. 188.

Footnote 77:

This chapter and that next following may be regarded as, in all

essential respects an abridgment or condensation of the information

contained in a work published by the author in 1851, entitled, ‘The

Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored,’ the only real difference

being that the more perfect decipherment of the inscriptions since

that work was published has caused some of the palaces and buildings

to be ascribed to different kings and dynasties from those to whom

they were then assigned, and proved their dates to be more modern than

was suspected, for the oldest at least. The order of their succession,

however, remains the same, and so consequently do all the

architectural inferences drawn from it. Those readers who may desire

further information on the subject are referred to the work alluded

to.

Footnote 78:

Published in 1862, in the ‘Athenæum’ journal, No. 1812.

Footnote 79:

This plan, with all the particulars here mentioned, are taken from

Layard’s work, which is the only authority on the subject, so that it

is not necessary to refer to him on every point. The plan is reduced

to the usual scale of 100 ft. to 1 inch, for easy comparison with the

dimensions of all the other edifices quoted throughout this work.

Footnote 80:

The whole of the information regarding Khorsabad is taken from M.

Botta’s great work on the subject, and its continuation, ‘Ninive et

l’Assyrie,’ by M. Victor Place.

Footnote 81:

These particulars are all borrowed from M. Place’s great work, ‘Ninive

et l’Assyrie,’ folio. Paris, 1865.

Footnote 82:

Space will not admit of my entering into all the reasons for this

restoration here. If any one wishes for further information on the

subject, I must refer him to my ‘Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis

Restored,’ published in 1851. Nothing has occurred during the

twenty-three years that have elapsed since that work was published

that has at all shaken my views of the correctness of the data on

which these restorations were based. On the contrary, every subsequent

research has served only more and more to convince me of their general

correctness, and I cannot now suggest any improvement even in details.

[It should be noted that the author’s theory as to the covering over

of the Assyrian halls with a flat roof carried on columns has never

been accepted by foreign archæologists, and no trace has ever been

found of the foundations which would be required to carry such

columns. M. Place, who conducted the excavations at Khorsabad, and

Messrs. Perrot & Chipiez, who, among others, have devoted much time

and research to the subject, are of opinion that the halls were

vaulted. It would be difficult now to determine the possibility of

building vaults of thirty feet span in crude or unburnt brick, because

we have no means of testing the resistance to crushing which such

bricks might afford. The brick voussoirs found by M. Place in the

arches of the town gates had been prepared in special moulds, and so

completely dried that liquid clay had been used to cement them

together. In some of the large halls, far away from the walls, and in

some cases in the centre of the rooms, huge blocks of hard clay were

found with their lower surface curved and covered with a layer of

stucco; these masses were sometimes many metres long, one to two

metres wide, nearly a metre thick. According to M. Place they formed

part of a barrel vault covering the halls, and their size would

account for the immense thickness of the walls constructed to carry

them and resist their thrust, as well as for the peculiar shape of the

halls; that is, their length as compared with their breadth. The

sculptured slabs would seem to have been carved to be seen by a high

side-light, which suggests openings of some kind, just above the

springing of the vault, and above the flat roof of the smaller halls

round.—ED.]

Footnote 83:

These gateways are extremely interesting to the Biblical student,

inasmuch as they are the only examples which enable us to understand

the gateways of the Temple at Jerusalem as described by Ezekiel. Their

dimensions are nearly the same, but the arrangement of the side

chambers and of gates generally are almost identical. These gates had

been built 100 years at least before Ezekiel wrote.

Footnote 84:

Layard’s excavations here furnish us with what has not been found or

has been overlooked elsewhere, _e.g._, a ramp or winding staircase

leading to the upper storey (‘Nineveh and Babylon,’ 461). As explained

above, I believe the tops of the walls, which are equal to the floor

space below, formed such a storey. This ramp at Koyunjik would just

suffice to lead to them, and goes far to prove the theory. If it was

similarly situated at Khorsabad it would be in the part fallen away.

Footnote 85:

[This assumption is speculative, no trace of such dwarf columns having

been found; to raise a solid wall thirteen feet thick to carry a

gallery seems unlikely.—ED.]

Footnote 86:

This façade, as I read it, is identical with the one I erected at the

Crystal Palace as a representation of an Assyrian façade, long before

this slab was exhumed.

Footnote 87:

See Rawlinson, ‘Ancient Monarchies,’ vol. i. p. 398.

Footnote 88:

It is called tomb by Strabo, lib. xvi., and Diodorus, xvii. 112, 3;

temple, Herodotus, i. 181, Arrian, vii. 17, 2, Pliny, vi. 26.

Footnote 89:

Texier shows columns on the fourth side.

Footnote 90:

Mr. Weld Blundell in 1892 found a column with fluted base and Doric

capital, but it did not apparently belong to the palace.

Footnote 91:

[It follows from what has already been pointed out in a note

respecting the roofs of the Assyrian palaces; if, as is contended by

French archæologists, the great halls were vaulted, Mr. Fergusson’s

theory respecting the origin of the Persian columns partly falls to

the ground; in that case it would seem more probable that the Persians

owed their columnar architecture to prototypes of wooden posts,

covered with metal plates, such as are described as existing in the

Median palaces of Ecbatana, where Cyrus, the first Persian monarch,

passed so many years of his life.—ED.]

Footnote 92:

The woodcuts in this chapter, except the restorations, are taken from

Flandin and Coste’s ‘Voyage en Perse,’ except where the contrary is

mentioned.

Footnote 93:

It is curious that neither Ker Porter, nor Texier, nor Flandin and

Coste, though measuring this building on the spot, could make out its

plan. Yet nothing can well be more certain, once it is pointed out.

Footnote 94:

‘Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored,’ p. 126.

[The prayer platform or talar represented on the tomb of Darius is

extremely unlike any constructional feature such as an upper storey,

and may have been placed there only to give dignity and importance to

the figure of the king: the hall of the Palace of Darius could easily

have been lighted by clerestory windows over the roofs of the smaller

chambers on each side.—ED.]

Footnote 95:

It is very strange that this similarity, like the plan of the square

halls, should hitherto have escaped observation. Had any one looked at

the matter as a whole we should have been spared some restorations

which are too absurd even to merit exposure.

[The restorations referred to are those in which the columns of the

Great Hall and of the porticoes are shown as isolated features

standing on the platforms. The authors of these designs would appear

to have been misled by Messrs. Flandin and Coste’s plan, in which the

drains are shown as if they ran under the line of the wall proposed by

Mr. Fergusson, the enclosing wall of the Great Hall. Mr. Weld

Blundell’s researches (1891), however, have shown that the main drain

really lies under the hall, and between the enclosure wall and the

first row of columns, and that the vertical rain-water shafts which

were built into the wall communicated direct with this main drain.

These shafts, cut in stone, in some cases rise above the level of the

platform, which show that they were not intended to carry off the

surface water from the platform. Mr. Weld Blundell discovered also the

traces of the foundation of walls at the angles where shown by Mr.

Fergusson. It would seem that in course of time the platforms have

become coated with so hard and uniform a covering as to suggest its

being the natural surface; when once broken through, however, the

evidences of foundations of various walls are abundant.—ED.]

Footnote 96:

M. Dieulafoy’s work on the Acropolis of Susa has just (1893) appeared,

but, so far as the palace is concerned, his discoveries do not add

much to our knowledge. He appears to have arrived at the conclusion

that the great hall (which in plan resembles that of the palace of

Xerxes—Woodcut 94) was not enclosed on the south side, but was left

open to the court in the same way as the great reception halls of the

later Parthian and Sassanian kings at Al Hadhr, Firouzabad, and

Ctesiphon.

Footnote 97:

It is now generally considered that these two buildings were tombs;

the projecting bosses, as shown on woodcut, are in reality sinkings,

and were probably decorative only.—ED.

Footnote 98:

M. Dieulafoy claims to have traced the plan of a temple at Susa which

consisted of a sanctuary the roof of which was supported by four

columns, with a portico-in-antis in front, and a large open court,

measuring about 50 ft. by 40 ft., in the middle of which was placed

the fire-altar. The whole building was enclosed with a corridor or

passage, with entrances so arranged that no one could see inside the

temple from without.—ED.

Footnote 99:

Mr. Flinders Petrie’s latest excavations at Medum have resulted in the

discovery of small brick arches over a passage in the sepulchral pit

of Rahotep of the 4th dynasty.

Footnote 100:

Wilkinson’s ‘Egypt and Thebes,’ pp. 81 and 126.

Footnote 101:

‘Manners and Customs of the Egyptians,’ vol. iii. p. 263.

Footnote 102:

1 Kings vii. 1-12. Josephus, B. J. viii. 5.

Footnote 103:

Josephus, Ant. viii. 5. § 2.

Footnote 104:

The details of this restoration are given in the ‘Dictionary of the

Bible,’ _sub voce_ ‘Temple,’ and repeated in my work entitled ‘The

Holy Sepulchre and the Temple at Jerusalem.’ Murray, 1865.

Footnote 105:

‘Speaker’s Commentary on the Bible,’ vol. ii. p. 520; note on verse

15, chap. vii. 1 Kings.

Footnote 106:

For a restoration of this screen see ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’

Appendix i., p. 270.

Footnote 107:

Since the article on the Temple in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible’

was written, from which most of the woodcuts in this chapter are

taken, I have had occasion to go over the subject more than once, and

from recent explorations and recently discovered analogies have, I

believe, been able to settle, within very narrow limits of doubt, all

the outstanding questions with reference to this celebrated building.

I have in consequence written and published a monograph of the Temple,

but have deemed it more expedient to leave the illustrations here as

they are.

Footnote 108:

2 Chronicles xx. 5.

Footnote 109:

Hecateus of Abdera, in ‘Müller’s Fragments,’ ii. 394.

Footnote 110:

Josephus, Ant. xi. 4, § 2.

Footnote 111:

Josephus, B. J. v. 5, § 4.

Footnote 112:

Dawkins and Wood, ‘The Ruins of Palmyra,’ Lond. 1753.

Footnote 113:

Texier, ‘Arménie et la Perse,’ vol. i. pl. 62 and 68.

Footnote 114:

Texier, ‘Asie Mineure,’ pl. 10 to 21.

Footnote 115:

Herodotus, i. 93.

Footnote 116:

Lydischen Königsgräber, I. F. M. Olfers, Berlin, 1859.

Footnote 117:

“Toward the centre of the monument two large stones were found leaning

at an angle the one against the other, and forming a sort of tent,

like in Woodcut 124, under which was presently discovered a small

statue of Minerva seated on a chariot with four horses, and an urn of

metal filled with ashes, charcoal, and burnt bones. This urn, which is

now in the possession of the Comte de Choiseul, is enriched in

sculpture with a vine branch, from which is suspended bunches of

grapes done with exquisite art.”—‘Description of the Plain of Troy,’

translated by Dalzel, Edin. 1791, p. 149.

If this is so, this is no doubt the vessel mentioned, ‘Iliad,’ xvi.

221, xxiii. 92; ‘Od.,’ xxiv. 71, and elsewhere. But where is it now?

and why has not the fact of its existence been more insisted upon?

Footnote 118:

One of the most interesting facts brought to light in Dr. Schliemann’s

excavations is that between the age of the “Ilium Vetus” of Homer,

rich in metals and in arts, and the “Ilium Novum” of Strabo, a people

ignorant of use of the metals, and using only bone and stone

implements, inhabited the mound at Hissarlik which covered both these

cities. This discovery is sufficient to upset the once fashionable

Danish theory of the three ages—Stone, Bronze, and Iron—but,

unfortunately, adds nothing to our knowledge of architecture. These

people, whoever they were, built nothing, and must consequently be

content to remain in the “longa nocte” of those who neglect the Master

Art.

Footnote 119:

Fergusson’s ‘History of Indian and Eastern Architecture.’ John Murray,

London 1876, page 108 et seq.

Footnote 120:

This tomb is considered by M. Renan (Mission de Phœnicie, Paris 1864)

to be of Phœnician origin, who remarks generally on their work:

“Phœnician tombs are generally excavated in the solid rock; their

architecture is the carved rock without columns; they obtained all

they could out of the solid rock, leaving it as they found it, with

more or less attempt to make it graceful; the fact that it was worked

before being transported suggests that as it left the quarry so it

remained, no sound of hammer or saw being heard during its erection.”

There is another tomb at Marathos also attributed to the Phœnicians,

which is partly cut out of the rock and partially built in large

blocks of masonry.

Footnote 121:

In reality the monument stands exactly over the centre of the rock-cut

sepulchre. The section-line must, therefore, be understood to be

carried back about 10 feet from the face of the monument.

Footnote 122:

Josephus, Ant. xvi. 7, § 1.

Footnote 123:

Beule’s excavations have proved that the outer gate of the Acropolis

was in front, not at the side, as here shown. ‘Acropole d’Athènes.’

Paris, vol. i. pl. i. and ii.

Footnote 124:

For details of this see Bötticher, ‘Baumkultus der Hellenen.’ Berlin,

1856.

Footnote 125:

Pausanias, ix. 38.

Footnote 126:

It appears that on the back of the stones laid in horizontal courses

were others of great size piled on the top.

Footnote 127:

The same scroll exists at New Grange in Ireland, in the Island of Gozo

near Malta, and generally wherever chambered tumuli are found.

Footnote 128:

A cast of these is to be found in the South Kensington Museum.

Footnote 129:

These antæ (parastades) or responds were destined in the first case to

protect the angles of the wall, and in the second case to support the

beams carried by them and the columns between, the sun-dried brick

wall being not to be relied on; in the later Greek temples the walls

were built in stone and marble, and the parastades became therefore no

longer constructional necessities, being retained only as decorative

features, of which so many others are found in the style.

Footnote 130:

Pausanias, vi. 19.

Footnote 131:

The dimensions are 94 feet by 45, covering consequently only 4230

feet.

Footnote 132:

This refers only to the columns and antæ; the lower portion of the

walls, 3 feet 6 inches high, were in stone; above this clay bricks

were employed in building the walls, and it was to the disintegration

of these that we owe the preservation of the Hermes of Praxiteles,

which was found embedded in a thick layer of clay. At first it was

thought that this clay had been washed down from the neighbouring

slopes of the hill of Kronos.

Footnote 133:

M. J. Thacher Clarke, who directed the American expedition in 1881, is

now occupied with a monograph on the subject, and a report by him was

published in 1882. Boston and London. J. Trübner.

Footnote 134:

A proto-Ionic capital of early date was found in 1882 on the summit of

Mount Chigri, in the Troad, by Mr. J. Thacher Clarke, and is described

in the American Journal of Archæology, Baltimore. 1886. Another

example ascribed to Phœnician artists was found at Trapeza in Cyprus,

and is now in the Louvre; both are of the same type as that which is

represented in the ivory carvings from the north-western palace of

Nimroud, now in the British Museum, so that the Asiatic origin of the

order is thus confirmed.

Footnote 135:

Pausanias, viii. 45.

Footnote 136:

Bohn.

Footnote 137:

[The earliest example in stone at Benihasan is of less diameter than

the columns at Kalabscheh, so that it is difficult to draw this

distinction; we have already shown also (p. 115 note) that wooden

shafts of the twelfth dynasty have been found at Kahun, and this and

the existence of the base proves their wooden origin. If therefore the

Greek Doric column was derived originally from Egypt, as Mr. Fergusson

believed, then its earlier wooden parentage must be accepted. Further

evidence on this subject however has been afforded by the discoveries

at Olympia, and the references in consequence made to Greek authors;

all these show without doubt that the columns of the temple of Hera

were originally in wood, and were gradually replaced by stone. The

theory that the pillars in Egypt or early Greece were built in

brickwork or rubble masonry is not borne out by the discoveries at

Tiryns, for the walls of the palace there, in rubble and clay mortar,

were of such weak construction that posts of timber were required to

carry the epistyle or beam, either isolated as columns or built up

against the wall as antæ.

Mr. Fergusson’s theory that a pillar, originally copied from the

wooden post, is slenderer at first, and gradually departs from the

wood form as the style advances, is borne out by the evidence of the

Egypt lotus column; this, as found in the rock-cut tombs of Benihasan,

is of very small diameter, and quite unequal to carry the weight of

any stone superstructure; whereas afterwards in the temples at Thebes

it assumes a proportion nearer that of the earliest Greek Doric

example at Corinth.—ED.]

Footnote 138:

These facts have all been fully elucidated by Mr. Penrose in his

beautiful work containing the results of his researches on the

Parthenon and other temples of Greece, published by the Dilettanti

Society.

Footnote 139:

For measurements we depend on Penrose, ‘Principles of Athenian

Architecture,’ &c., fol.; and Cockerell, ‘The Temples of Egina and

Bassæ,’ Lond. 1860. The details of the system were first publicly

announced by Watkiss Lloyd, in a paper read to the Institute of

British Architects in 1859; afterwards in an appendix to Mr.

Cockerell’s work, and in several minor publications.

Footnote 140:

The pyramid-building kings of Lower Egypt seem to have had some

distinct ideas of a system of definite proportions in architectural

building, and to have put it into practice in the pyramid, and

possibly elsewhere, but it has not yet been sought for in the other

buildings of that age.

At times I cannot help suspecting more affinity to have existed

between the inhabitants of Lower Egypt and those of Greece than is at

first sight apparent.

Footnote 141:

It was called Zoophorus (_life_ or _figure bearer_).

Footnote 142:

[The reasons which induced the late Mr. Fergusson to suggest an

“opaion,” or clerestory, were fully set forth in the ‘True Principles

of Beauty in Art,’ in 1849. A paper on the same subject was

communicated by him to the Royal Institute of British Architects in

1861, and published in their “Transactions” for that year. Since his

death, however, Mr. Penrose’s discovery that the Temple of Jupiter

Olympius at Athens was really octastyle has thrown a new light on the

question of hypæthral temples; and, as Dr. Dorpfield remarks in his

essay on the “Hypæthral Temple” (communicated to the R. I. B. A. on

Dec. 19): “The words of Vitruvius have now received quite another

interpretation, through the excavation of the Olympieion at Athens, to

that which they have had up to the present. The most important proof

of the hypæthral lighting of the temples of antiquity has now turned

into a proof against the same;” and he concludes his arguments by

stating: “After it has been shown by the excavations that the

Olympieion at Athens is the sole example of a great hypæthral temple

mentioned by Vitruvius, we can answer this much-vexed question of the

lighting of the temples of antiquity in this way—that a few great

dipteral hypæthral temples existed, but that the Greek and Roman

temples had as a rule no light from above, and were only lighted from

the door.”—ED.]

Footnote 143:

See Woodcuts Nos. 22, 24, 27.

Footnote 144:

Vitruvius, lib. i. ch. 1.

Footnote 145:

Boeckh, Corpus Inscript. Græc. No. 109.

Footnote 146:

Attica, xxvi.

Footnote 147:

Historia, viii, 41.

Footnote 148:

Among the many attempts made to restore the interior of this temple,

the last and most elaborate is that by the late E. Beulé, ‘Acropole

d’Athènes,’ 1854, vol. ii. pl. ii.; but it is also one of the worst.

Indeed it is quite painful to see how the author twists his

authorities to meet a preconceived theory. Without going into it,

there is one objection which seems fatal to the whole.

Like most antiquaries when in difficulties for lighting Greek temples,

he takes off the roof and makes the Temple of Pandrosus an open

courtyard, in which he plants the olive. This is so opposed to the

whole spirit of Greek art as to be inadmissible on general grounds,

but in this instance it introduces the further absurdity that the

Greeks opened three windows in the west wall of the temple to light

this courtyard which was already open to the sky! The mode of lighting

a temple by vertical windows is so exceptional that it would not have

been introduced here had any other means existed of lighting the

interior, and consequently the combination shown by M. Beulé seems

simply impossible.

Footnote 149:

“Universo Templo longitudo est ccccxxv. pedum, latitudo ccxx. Columnæ

centum viginti septem a singulis regibus factæ, lx. pedum altitudine:

ex iis xxxvi. cælatæ, una a Scopa.”—H. N. xxxvi. 14.

Footnote 150:

[Mr. Wood places two in the pronaos and two in the posticum, thus

reducing the depth of the opisthodomus; beyond the pronaos he places a

vestibule and omits the staircases as shown on plan 159. In 1883, Mr.

Fergusson returned to the subject again, and published in the

Transactions of the Institute (session 1882-83) a revised plan, to

which we refer our readers.—ED.]

Footnote 151:

The finial ornament is triangular in plan, and there are three scrolls

on the roof with mortices in them, showing that something must have

stood on them to support the projecting angles. Dolphins and various

other objects have been suggested. My own conviction is that they were

winged genii, most probably in bronze, and gilt like the neckings of

the capitals.

Footnote 152:

[Dr. Dorpfield is of opinion that in the Greek theatres of the best

period there was no proscenium, or raised stage, and that the actors

played their parts in the orchestra on the same level as the chorus.

Professor Middleton also points out that in the earliest Greek

theatres built in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. the orchestra was a

complete circle, the space being gradually diminished by the bringing

forward of the stage.—ED.]

Footnote 153:

It will not be necessary to enter here into all the details of this

restoration. They will be found in a separate work published by me on

the subject, to which the reader is referred. [The student should also

refer to the restoration suggested by M. Pullan in the work published

by him and Sir Charles Newton (‘Discoveries at Halicarnassus, 1862’).

In the arrangement and design of the podium it accords better with

other examples of Greek tombs than Mr. Fergusson’s. The three columns

as shown at the angle of Mr. Fergusson’s peristyle would be quite

repugnant to any student of Greek architecture.—ED.]

Footnote 154:

Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 5.

Footnote 155:

The figures given in the text are all Greek feet: the difference

between them and English feet, being only 1¼ per cent., is hardly

perceptible in these dimensions, without descending to minute

fractions, and disturbing the comparison with Pliny’s text.

Footnote 156:

The circumstance of Asoka, the Buddhist king of India B.C. 250, having

formed an alliance with Megas of Cyrene for the succour of his

co-religionists in the dominions of the latter, points to such a

conclusion even if nothing else did.—‘Journal Asiatic Society of

Bengal,’ vii. p. 261; J. R. A. S. xii. p. 223 et seq.

Footnote 157:

Beechy’s ‘Journey to Cyrene,’ p. 444; see also Smith and Porcher, pl.

37.

Footnote 158:

Vitruvius, iv. 7.

Footnote 159:

Dionysius, iv. 61.

Footnote 160:

For more detail, see ‘The True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ p. 446

et. seq.

Footnote 161:

The Etruscan and Roman origin of the circular temple is now known to

be erroneous, as remains of large circular temples have been

discovered at Epidaurus and Olympia.

Footnote 162:

Even in more modern times I know of no building showing a trace of

these forms except the tomb of Theodoric at Ravenna. This, however, is

Etruscan both in form and detail, as will be seen farther on.

Footnote 163:

Plin. ‘Hist.’ xxxvi. 13.

Footnote 164:

A diagram is given in ‘The True Principles of Beauty in Art’ p. 459,

which shows at least that there is no difficulty in designing a

monument in perfect accordance with the text. Whether the latter is to

be depended upon or not is another matter.

Footnote 165:

These dimensions, with all those that follow, unless otherwise

specified, are taken from Taylor and Cresy’s ‘Architectural

Antiquities of Rome,’ London, 1821. They seem more to be depended upon

than any others I am acquainted with.

Footnote 166:

These two temples, like almost all the others of Rome, have recently

been renamed by the Roman or rather German antiquaries. The Jupiter

Tonans is now the Temple of Saturn, and the Jupiter Stator is decreed

to have been the Temple of Castor and Pollux. The names by which they

are currently known has been adhered to, as the architecture is of

more importance here than the archæology.

Footnote 167:

Laborde, ‘Monumens de la France,’ vol. i. pls. xxix. xxx. p. 68.

Footnote 168:

IMP. CÆS. M. AVRELIVS ANTONINVS PIVS FELIX AVG. TRIB. POTEST V. COS.

PROCOS. PANTHEVM VETVSTATE CORRVPTVM CVM OMNI CVLTV RESTITVERVNT.

Isabelle, ‘Édifices Circulaires,’ p. 37, pl. xii.

Footnote 169:

When the first edition of this work was written I believed the rotunda

to have been added to the portico by Severus; and if this were so it

would get over many of the difficulties arising from its size and the

character of its brickwork. My personal examination, however, has

forced me very unwillingly to give up this hypothesis. It certainly

is, however, very astonishing that such a vault should have been

attempted at so early an age.

[There seems to be some probability that Mr. Fergusson’s first belief

was correct, and that the Rotunda was built by Hadrian, bricks with

the stamp of his period having been found in the casing and in the

bond courses in the solid concrete both of the drum and in the dome.

The discovery is due to M. Chedanne, one of the “Grand Prix” students

in the Villa Medici, who had selected the subject for his “Envoi de

Rome,” and was allowed to superintend certain repairs and restorations

which were required in the Pantheon. It would seem that the portico

erected by Agrippa preceded a temple with cella of the ordinary form,

the pavement of which has been found nearly seven feet below the floor

of the present church. From this it follows that when the Rotunda was

erected in the first half of the second century, the portico, which is

undoubtedly of Agrippa’s time, must have been taken down and rebuilt

on to it, and this explains Mr. Fergusson’s reasons for insisting that

the portico was built on to the Rotunda. The theory as to the Pantheon

forming part of Agrippa’s bath is thus disposed of. Independently of

that, however, Prof. Middleton has pointed out that the discoveries

made in 1882, by the removal of the block of houses at the back,

showed that there was no connection whatever between the two

buildings. Traces exist of the original marble lining, and of cornices

which were continued round the dome, showing that originally the

complete circuit was exposed to view. “Moreover,” Prof. Middleton

states, “if further proof were wanting to contradict the theory that

the Pantheon was over the Calidarum or Laconicum of the bath, this is

supplied by the fact that there is no trace of any hypocaust under the

floor, but merely an ancient drain to carry away the rain-water that

fell through the opening in the dome. The Pantheon, too, is on the

north side of the Thermæ—a very improbable position for the Laconicum,

or hot room, which was usually placed on the sunny side of the

buildings.”—ED.]

Footnote 170:

The bronze plates which were removed by Pope Urban VIII. in 1626 to

make cannon, and also for the great Baldachino in St. Peter’s, were

taken from the portico; the coffers of the interior of the dome were

decorated, according to Prof. Middleton, with mouldings in stucco

painted and gilt.

Footnote 171:

This building is commonly called a temple, though it is not known to

what deity it was dedicated. My own impression is that it was a tomb,

or at least a funereal monument of some sort.

Footnote 172:

Owing to a misreading of Vitruvius’s statement respecting the temple

it had always been classed as decastyle. See Mr. Penrose’s researches

published in the ‘Transactions of the Royal Institute of British

Architects,’ vol. iv. New Series. 1888.

Footnote 173:

See ‘The True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ where the reasons for this

arrangement will be found stated at length. [See note on page

272.—ED.]

Footnote 174:

Canina, in his restoration, shows a flat roof with coffers, so there

is probably no exact authority for its form, though it seems to be

generally agreed that the centre was not hypæthral.

Footnote 175:

This basilica is generally represented as having an apse at either

end; but there is no authority whatever for this, and general analogy

would lead us rather to infer that it was not the case. Prof.

Middleton, however, is of opinion that an apse existed at both ends,

and shows the same in his restoration of the plan of Trajan’s

form.—‘The Remains of Ancient Rome,’ by J. H. Middleton, Fig. 52, vol.

ii.

Footnote 176:

One of the pillars of this basilica remained _in situ_ till the year

1614, when it was removed by Carlo Maderno, by order of Paul V., and

re-erected in the piazza of St. M. Maggiore, where it now stands as a

monumental column, supporting a statue of the Virgin. The column, with

its base and capital, is as nearly as may be 60 ft. in height; the

whole monument, as it now stands, 140 ft.

Footnote 177:

As it was sunk slightly below the pavement of the peristyle, and

drains leading from it were traced by Mr. Ashpitel, it was probably

hypæthral.

Footnote 178:

The theatres of Curio and Scaurus were in timber, except the

proscenium of the latter, which was partly decorated with marble and

mosaics. The Theatre of Pompey, B.C. 54, was in stone, and parts of it

still exist (Prof. Middleton). The Theatre of Marcellus was begun by

Julius Cæsar, but not completed till 13 B.C., when it was opened by

Augustus. It was subsequently restored after a fire by Vespasian, but

the purity and simplicity of the architecture, and the refinement of

the details, in comparison with those of the Colosseum, 70-80 A.D.,

are in favour of the earlier date assigned to it. Prof. Middleton

quotes another theatre, that of Cornelius Balbus (13 B.C.), built to

the north-west of the Theatre of Marcellus.

Footnote 179:

According to Prof. Middleton the Amphitheatre of Sutrium is of Roman

origin, and but little earlier than the Colosseum at Rome. “There is

really no evidence,” he says (p. 76), “that amphitheatres were built

by the Etruscans; and there can be little doubt that they were purely

Roman inventions.”

Footnote 180:

At the Crystal Palace it has always been found necessary to allow 6

sq. ft. to each person.

Footnote 181:

Considerable difference of opinion seems to exist as to the extent of

the velaria which sheltered the arena; this was supported by masts

fixed outside the upper part of the walls, resting on brackets, 14 ft.

below the cornice, which was cut away to allow the mast to fit close

against the wall. M. Gérôme suggests, in his well-known picture of the

Roman gladiators, that the velaria extended over a portion of the

arena only. Prof. Middleton states, “The awning did not, as has been

sometimes supposed, cover the whole amphitheatre, a thing which would

have been practically impossible, owing to the enormous strain of so

long a bearing, far beyond what any ropes could bear. It simply sloped

down over the spectators in the cavea, leaving the whole central arena

uncovered.” In case of rain, however, this might have been

inconvenient, and it would not have protected the spectators from the

sun, supposing that the performances lasted the whole day. Besides,

there is no reason why the masts should have been carried so high

above the wall, as shown in the restoration in Prof. Middleton’s book,

p. 70. Mr. Alma Tadema is of opinion that the velarium extended over

the whole arena, and was suspended on a principle similar to that of a

suspension bridge, the ridge, or highest portion lying between the

foci of the ellipse. This accounts in a much more satisfactory way for

the height of the masts, and would afford facilities for the draining

off of the rain on to the top of the gallery round.

Footnote 182:

Maffei, ‘Verona Illustrata,’ vol. vii. p. 84 et seq.

Footnote 183:

See note on p. 321.

Footnote 184:

These baths have been carefully measured by M. Blouet, who has also

published a restoration of them. This is, on the whole, certainly the

best account we have of any of these establishments.

Footnote 185:

According to Prof. Middleton this magnificent hall appears to have

been what Spartianus calls the _cella soliaris_, the ceiling of which

he says was formed of interlaced bars of gilt bronze. When the

excavations in this hall were being made, many tons of fragments of

iron girders were found. These were (according to Prof. Aitchison)

compound girders, formed of two T bars riveted together, and then

cased in bronze. A sort of lattice-work ceiling had been formed with

these bronze-cased girders, the panels being probably filled in with

concrete made of light pumice-stone, worked with fine stucco reliefs,

painted and gilt. Prof. Middleton is of opinion that the central part

over the swimming-bath was left open for the admission of light. In

the upper part of the walls deep sinkings to receive the ends of the

great girders which supported the ceiling are clearly visible.

Footnote 186:

St. George’s Hall at Liverpool is the most exact copy in modern times

of a part of these baths. The Hall itself is a reproduction both in

scale and design of the central hall of Caracalla’s baths, but

improved in detail and design, having five bays instead of only three.

With the two courts at each end, it makes up a suite of apartments

very similar to those found in the Roman examples. The whole building,

however, is less than one-fourth of the size of the central mass of a

Roman bath, and therefore gives but little idea of the magnificence of

the whole.

Footnote 187:

The left-hand wing of this arch has since been restored by M.

Viollet-le-Duc, and the right-hand wing cleared of the square building

in front of it.

Footnote 188:

These two buildings are described further on (p. 544) as Christian

edifices.

Footnote 189:

Professor Middleton states: “This building appears to be a nymphæum,

or a part of some baths of about the time of Gallienus (263-268

A.D.).” It was known in the Middle Ages as the “Terme de Gallucio.”

The site of the real Temple of Minerva Medica was discovered in 1887

(according to the same authority) between the new Via Macchiavelli and

the Via Buonarroti, about 7 ft. below the present ground-level.

Footnote 190:

See p. 114, and Woodcut 15.

Footnote 191:

M. de Saulcy has recently attempted to prove that these tombs are

those of the kings of Judah from David downwards. Their architecture

is undoubtedly as late as the Christian era, and the cover of the

sarcophagus which is now in the Louvre under the title of that of

David is probably of the same date as these tombs, or if anything more

modern.

Footnote 192:

‘Voyage dans la Marmarique, la Cyrénaique, &c.’ Didot, Paris, 1827-29.

Footnote 193:

Though the dates of all these tombs at Cyrene are so uncertain, there

seems little doubt that if any one thoroughly versed in the style were

to visit the place, he could fix the age of all of them with

approximate correctness. The one difficulty is, that a chronometric

scale taken from the buildings at Rome, or even in Syria, will not

suffice. Local peculiarities must be taken into account and allowed

for, and this requires both time and judgment.

Footnote 194:

‘Le Tombeau de la Chrétienne,’ par A. Berbrugger, Alger. 1867, from

which the above particulars are taken.

Footnote 195:

It is understood that it too has been explored, but no account of the

result has yet reached this country, and such rumours as have reached

are too vague to be quoted. Even its dimensions are not known.

Footnote 196:

‘De Situ Orbis,’ I. vi. p. 38. edit. Leyden, 1748.

Footnote 197:

For plan of same, see Prof. Middleton’s ‘Ancient Rome,’ 1891.

Footnote 198:

By an oversight this difference is not expressed in the woodcut.

Footnote 199:

See p. 323.

Footnote 200:

These are well epitomised by Gibbon, Book xlvi. vol. v. p. 528.

Footnote 201:

Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, ix. pl. 9. p. 476.

Footnote 202:

The sixth great Oriental monarchy; or the geography, history and

antiquities of Parthia, &c., 1873.

Footnote 203:

These inscriptions were all copied by Consul Taylor, and brought home

to this country. I never could learn, however, that they were

translated. I feel certain they were never published, and cannot find

out what has become of them.

Footnote 204:

These are expedients for filling up the corners of square lower

storeys on which it is intended to place a circular superstructure.

They somewhat resemble very large brackets or great coves placed in an

angle. Examples of them are shown on page 434 when speaking of

Byzantine architecture, and others will be found in the chapter on

Mahomedan Architecture in India, in vol. iii.

Footnote 205:

These three buildings probably date as near as may be one century from

each other, thus—

Serbistan A.D. 350

Firouzabad 450

Ctesiphon 550

To which we may now add

Mashita 620

A bare skeleton, which it will require much time and labour to clothe

with flesh and restore to life.

Footnote 206:

‘The Land of Moab,’ by H. B. Tristram, M. A., &c. Murray, 1873. As all

the information respecting the palace is contained in that book, pp.

195 to 215, all the illustrations here used are taken from it, it will

not be necessary to refer to it again. For further information on the

subject the reader is referred to that work.

Footnote 207:

Rich, ‘Residence in Koordistan,’ ii. 251 et seq.

Footnote 208:

The plan made by Dr. Tristram’s party, which is all we yet have, was

only a hurried sketch, and cannot be depended upon for minute details.

Footnote 209:

Flandin and Coste, vol. iv. pls. 214, 215.

Footnote 210:

Texier and Pullan. ‘Byzantine Architecture.’ 4to. 1864. Pl. iv. p. 40

et seq.

Footnote 211:

Ruskin, ‘Stones of Venice,’ vol. ii. pls. 3, 4, and 5.

Footnote 212:

‘L’art Antique de la Perse,’ by Marcel Dieulafoy. Paris.

Footnote 213:

In the Museum at Pesth are a number of objects of Egyptian art, said

to have been found in this quarter. Is it too much to assume the

pre-existence of a Phœnician or Egyptian colony here before the Roman

times?

Footnote 214:

As a matter of fact, 12th century would be more exact; nearly all the

chief problems of pointed arch construction in intersecting vaulting

having been worked out before the close of that century.

Footnote 215:

[The domical construction of the vaults of the two great cisterns

erected by Constantine, the Binbirderek, or thousand-and-one columns,

and the Yeri Batan Seraï, both in Constantinople, suggests that there

already existed in the East a method of vaulting entirely different

from that which obtained in Rome, and which may have been a

traditional method handed down even from Assyrian times.—ED.]

Footnote 216:

‘Syrie Centrale: Architecture civile et religieuse du I^{er} au

VII^{me} Siècle. Par le Comte Melchior de Vogüé.’

Footnote 217:

‘Byzantine Architecture,’ by Texier and Pullan. Folio, London, 1864.

Footnote 218:

De Vogüé, ‘Églises de la Terre Sainte,’ p. 101.

Footnote 219:

For a careful analytical description of the church, see Professor

Willis, ‘Architectural History of the Holy Sepulchre,’ London, 1849.

Footnote 220:

The particulars for these churches are taken from Texier and Pullan’s

splendid work on Byzantine architecture published by Day, 1864.

Footnote 221:

Another very small church, that of Moudjeleia, though under 50 ft.

square, seems to have adopted the same hypæthral arrangement.

Footnote 222:

A great deal of very irrelevant matter has been written about these

“giant cities of Bashan,” as if their age were a matter of doubt.

There is nothing in the Hauran which can by any possibility date

before the time of Roman supremacy in the country. The very earliest

now existing are probably subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem

by Titus.

Footnote 223:

The constructive dimensions of the porch at Chillambaram (p. 353.

History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, 1876.) are very similar to

those of this church: both have flat stone roofs, but in the Indian,

though a much more modern example, there is no arch.

Footnote 224:

These are all given in colours in Texier and Pullan’s beautiful work

on Byzantine architecture, from which all the particulars regarding

this church are taken.

Footnote 225:

A wayside retreat or shelter.

Footnote 226:

A restoration of the church from Procopius’s description, ‘De

Ædificiis,’ lib. i. ch. iv., will be found in Hübsch, ‘Altchristliche

Baukunst,’ pls. xxxii. and xxxiii.

Footnote 227:

See vol. iii., in chapter on Indian Saracenic Architecture.

Footnote 228:

The Renaissance dome which fits best to the church on which it is

placed is that of Sta. Maria at Florence; but, strange to say, it is

neither the one originally designed for the place, nor probably at all

like it. All the others were erected as designed by the architects who

built the churches, and none fit so well.

Footnote 229:

[The apses on each side of central apse are said to be additions to

the original structure. The triple apses in Greek churches are found,

according to Dr. Freshfield (‘Archæologia,’ vol. 44), only in churches

erected subsequent to Justin II. In St. Simeon Stylites and St.

Sergius at Bosra the side apses have been added afterwards.—ED.]

Footnote 230:

Strictly speaking, circular with flattened sides, for the pendentive

has a longer radius than half the diagonal of the square.

Footnote 231:

The two eastern cupolas have been raised in Arab times, and a

cylindrical drum inserted with windows pierced in them to give more

light to the interior.

Footnote 232:

There are numerous examples of this class of structure in North Syria,

but whether they are memorials or tombs is not known. See ‘Reisen

Kleinasien und Nord Syria’ by Karl Humann and Otto Puchstein.

Footnote 233:

[This rule cannot be made a hard and fast one. Procopius states that

in the central dome of the Church of the Apostles, Constantinople,

“the circular building standing above the arches is pierced with

windows, and the spherical dome which over-arches it seems to be

suspended in the air.” In the church of St. Sergius at Constantinople

the walls of the octagon, which are pierced with windows, are carried

up to the vault, and in the church of Sta. Sophia at Thessalonica the

windows are pierced in an upright dome cylindrical internally. In all

these cases, however, there is a marked distinction between these

examples and those of the lofty cylindrical drums which were employed

in the Neo-Byzantine churches. Mr. Fergusson’s rule, therefore, with

these exceptions, may be taken as absolute.—ED.]

Footnote 234:

They are found in the Mustaphapacha mosque at Constantinople dating

from 430 A.D., but rebuilt in the 13th century.

Footnote 235:

[It is now considered that the Church of the Holy Apostles was the

original model. This church, rebuilt by Justinian, was pulled down in

1464 A.D. by Mohammad II. to furnish a site for his mosque.—ED.]

Footnote 236:

[This work has lately been undertaken by Messrs. Barnsley and Schultz,

who are preparing their drawings for publication, and hope to follow

up the task with a survey of the more important churches in Mount

Athos.—ED.]

Footnote 237:

‘Die Kunst in den Athos Kirchen,’ Leipzig, 1890.

Footnote 238:

‘Athos; or, the Mountain of the Monks,’ by Athelstan Riley, M.A.,

1887.

Footnote 239:

See the photogravure of the interior of the Catholicon at Dochiariu.

Footnote 240:

‘Églises Byzantines en Grèce.’

Footnote 241:

‘Expédition scientifique de la Morée.’

Footnote 242:

There would seem however to have been a revival in the 11th century,

possibly a reflex of that which was taking place in West Europe. And

it was during this period that the churches of St. Luke in Phoeis, the

church at Daphné and the churches of St. Nicodemus and St. Theodore in

Athens were erected.

Footnote 243:

C. Texier, ‘Arménie et la Perse.’ 2 vols. folio. Paris.

Footnote 244:

Dubois de Montpereux, ‘Voyage autour du Caucase.’ 6 vols. 8vo. Paris,

1839, 1841.

Footnote 245:

Brosset, ‘Voyage Archéologique dans la Georgie et l’Arménie.’ St.

Pétersbourg, 1849.

Footnote 246:

D. Grimm, ‘Monuments d’Architecture en Georgie et Arménie.’ St.

Pétersbourg, 1864.

Footnote 247:

Texier gives three dates to this church. In the ‘Byzantine

Architecture,’ p. 174, it is said to be of the 7th, and at p. 4, of

the 9th century. In the ‘L’Arménie et la Perse,’ at p. 120, the date

is given as 1243. My conviction is that the first is correct.

Footnote 248:

Flandin and Coste, ‘Voyage en Perse,’ pls. 214, 215.

Footnote 249:

Texier and Pullan, ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ pp. lix., lx.

Footnote 250:

I am a little doubtful regarding the scales of these two buildings.

They are correctly reduced from M. Brosset’s plates. But are these to

be depended upon?

Footnote 251:

Even if it should be asserted that this is no proof that the

inhabitants of these countries were Buddhists in those days, it seems

tolerably certain that they were tree-worshippers, which is very

nearly the same thing. Procopius tells us that “even in his day these

barbarians worshipped forests and groves, and in their barbarous

simplicity placed the trees among their gods.” (‘De Bello Gotico,’

Bonn, 1833, ii. 471.)

Footnote 252:

The principal part of the information regarding these excavations is

to be found in the work of Dubois de Montpereux, _passim_.

Footnote 253:

[See paper by Mr. Wm. Simpson in R. I. B. A. Transactions, vol. vii.,

1891.—ED.]

Footnote 254:

All the plans and information regarding the churches at Kief are

obtained from a Russian work devoted to the subject, procured for me

on the spot by Mr. Vignoles, C.E.

Footnote 255:

The first bay, as shown on plan (Woodcut No. 382), is the narthex; the

five domes come beyond it.

Footnote 256:

The particulars and illustrations of this church are taken from a

paper by Heinrich Keissenberger, in the ‘Jahrbuch der K. K. Commission

für Enthaltung der Baudenkmale,’ 1860. A model of it, full size, was

exhibited at the Paris Exhibition of 1867.

Footnote 257:

[It has been assumed that the Roman basilicas were taken possession of

by the early Christians for their own religious services, but as Mr.

G. G. Scott points out in his ‘Essay on the History of English Church

Architecture,’ “there is no well-authenticated instance of the

conversion of any Pagan basilica into a Christian church, whilst there

are abundant examples of Pagan temples converted into Christian

sanctuaries” (see Texier and Pullan’s ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ pp.

75, 103). Indeed, it is, as Mr. Scott observes, “on the face of it

improbable, if we reflect that the conversion of the government to

Christianity had no tendency to render the existing basilicas less

necessary for legal business, after the peace of the church, than they

had been before that event. Christianity, unfortunately, could not

abolish the litigious instincts of our nature, and after fifteen

centuries of the gospel the legal profession still flourishes.” The

buildings which were rendered useless by the official recognition of

the new faith were not the basilicas but the temples, the fact being

that the class of building known as a basilica (a term never used by

either the writers or architects of Byzantine times), with its wide

central nave and aisles with galleries over them lighted by clerestory

or side windows, and covered with a timber roof, constituted the

simplest and most economical building of large size which could be

constructed to hold a vast assembly of worshippers; especially as the

only features which can be looked upon as having any architectural

pretensions, viz., the columns and their capitals, could be taken

wholesale from temples and other Roman buildings. The semicircular

apse, which alone in the Roman basilica served as a court of law,

became the tribune for the bishop and presbyters.

Mr. Scott is even inclined to assign an earlier and more independent

origin for the basilican form. According to his theory the germ of the

Christian basilica was a simple oblong aisleless room divided by a

cross arch, beyond which lay an altar detached from the wall. This

germ was developed by the addition of side aisles, and sometimes an

aisle returned across the entrance, and over these upper aisles were

next constructed and transepts added, together with the oratories or

chapels in various parts of the building. Mr. Butler, in his work on

‘The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt,’ accepts this theory, as the

churches of Egypt are rich in evidence that favours it. At the same

time, the first great basilica erected by Constantine, viz., the

Vatican (St. Peter’s), and the Lateran, (St. John Lateran), are of too

great importance to warrant the suggestion that their origin should be

sought for in the very small though possibly earlier examples in Egypt

or the East.—ED.]

Footnote 258:

This probably refers to its foundation, for M. Cattaneo, in his work

‘L’architecture en Italie, 1890,’ judging by its ornamental detail,

places the church in the second half of the seventh century.

Footnote 259:

‘Antiquités,’ vol. i. pl. 97.

Footnote 260:

_Eodem_, vol. iv. pl. 67.

Footnote 261:

Mr. Alfred J. Butler’s work, already referred to, has thrown

considerable light on the subject, though, as he was unable to visit

any of the Coptic churches up the Nile, we are still left in doubt as

to the age of the convent near Siout and other buildings. From

comparison of the plans and descriptions given in Denon, Curzon and

Pococke of these buildings, with those in Cairo and Old Cairo, Mr.

Butler ascribes them to the fourth century, that which in fact is

claimed for them as having been founded by Sta. Helena. On this

subject he says, p. 365: “Were there no more of evidence besides to

determine the truth of this tradition, the plan of the Haikal (the

central of the three chapels in a Coptic church) would decide it

beyond question. The persistence with which certain churches are

ascribed to Sta. Helena by a people utterly ignorant of history and

architecture is in itself remarkable, and it is still more remarkable

to find that these churches are always marked by a particular form of

Haikal. Indeed, so regular is the coincidence, that a deep apsidal

haikal with recesses all round it and columns close against the wall

may be almost infallibly dated from the age of Sta. Helena.”

Footnote 262:

The older church has been so altered and ruined by the subsequent

rebuildings that it is extremely difficult to make out its history. It

seems, however, to have been built originally above the site of an old

Mithraic temple, which has recently been cleared out, and probably

before the time of Gregory the Great. It was apparently rebuilt, or

nearly so, by Adrian I., 772, and burnt by Robert Guiscard, 1084. The

upper church seems to have been erected by Paschal, 1099-1118. The

question is, to what age do the frescoes found on the walls of the

older church belong? Some of the heads and single figures may, I

fancy, be anterior even to the time of Adrian; but the bulk of the

paintings seem certainly to have been added between his age and 1084,

and nearer the latter than the former date. If it had not been

entirely ruined in 1084 Paschal would not have so completely

obliterated it a century afterwards. A considerable quantity of the

materials of the old church were used in the new, which tends further

to confuse the chronology.

Footnote 263:

Gutensohn and Knapp, ‘Die Basiliken des Christlichen Roms.’

Footnote 264:

Cicero de Legg., ii. 24; Festus, s. v.; Smith’s ‘Dictionary of

Classical Antiquities.’

Footnote 265:

The dates here given generally refer to the building now existing or

known, and not always to the original foundation.

[Mr. G. G. Scott, in his work before referred to (p. 506), after

giving a full quotation from Eusebius of Constantine’s basilica at

Jerusalem, in which he points out that the orientation of primitive

times is the reverse of that which has become general in later times,

continues his enquiry into the evidence afforded by the numerous early

basilicas in Rome itself. Of about fifty churches of early date, in

forty of them the sanctuary is placed at the western end, and of the

remaining ten (one of which is the great church of St. Paolo fuori le

Mura), there are only seven which appear to have retained their

original form, and which have an eastward sanctuary.

The exact orientation of the sanctuary in each case has been added to

the list.—ED.]

Footnote 266:

‘Il Vaticano discritto da Pistolesi,’ vol. ii. pls. xxiv. xxv.

Footnote 267:

The new church which superseded this one is described in the History

of the Modern Styles of Architecture, vol. i., page 111, woodcut 45.

Footnote 268:

It should be observed that the dosseret is first found in Italy in the

Church of St. Stefano Rotondo, built 468-482, and is there of similar

design to examples in Thessalonica.

Footnote 269:

‘L’architecture en Italie du vie au xi^e siècle.’ Venice, 1891.

Footnote 270:

‘Altchristlichen Kirchen nach Baudenkmalen und alteren

Beschreibungen,’ von D. Hubsch. Carlsruhe, 1862.

Footnote 271:

These piers were built in the 12th century, taking the place of the

columns of the original Basilican church of the 9th century, and the

arches date from the same period (Cattaneo).

Footnote 272:

It is now called S. Martino in Cielo d’Oro, from its having been

decided in the twelfth century that the other church in Classe

possessed the true body of the saint to which both churches were

dedicated.

Footnote 273:

A. F. von Quast, ‘Die Altchristlichen Bauwerke von Ravenna.’

Footnote 274:

The basilica Pudenziana at Rome has similar arcades externally.

Footnote 275:

The twenty-four marble columns are said to have been brought over from

Constantinople, but they were probably obtained from Greek quarries.

Footnote 276:

[The narthex as shown in Woodcut No. 409 is of much later date than

the church, and has been partially rebuilt on two or three occasions.

It is now (1892) being taken down, and the removal of the central

portion has uncovered the triple window which originally lighted the

nave.—ED.]

Footnote 277:

“La basilica di San Marco in Venezia,” by Cattaneo, continued by

Boito. Venezia, 1890.

Footnote 278:

Probably owing to its having been utilized to receive the relics of

St. Mark, which were temporarily hidden there.

Footnote 279:

This church, built by Justinian, no longer exists, having been pulled

down in 1464 by Mohammed II. to make way for his mosque. From the

description of it, however, given by Procopius, the plan was similar

to that adopted in St. Mark, being that of a Greek Cross with central

and four other domes. Procopius speaks of the church being surrounded

within by columns placed both above and below, probably referring to

galleries similar to those in St. Sophia of Constantinople. In St.

Mark’s the columns exist in one storey only, and the main wall is

carried up at the back of the aisles to give increased size inside.

Footnote 280:

Originally, according to M. Cattaneo, his was the vestibule to the

atrium from the south, but it is now blocked up by an altar.

Footnote 281:

[They are shown in the mosaic of the doorway of St. Alipe, executed at

the end of the 13th century, as also the filling in of the great west

window.—ED.]

Footnote 282:

‘Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,’ by T. G. Jackson, M.A. Oxford,

1887.

Footnote 283:

In support of this statement he points out that twice during Christian

times it had been found necessary to raise the floor of the church.

The nave floor, which in 1857 was two steps below that of the aisles,

was raised in 1881 to the same level; but two feet nine inches below

the nave floor before it was raised there existed, according to Prof.

Eitelberger, another mosaic pavement, which must have been the floor

of the first basilica erected, and which was pulled down by Bishop

Euphrasius in 543. This lower pavement extended also under the three

chapels of the confessio, which suggests that these are part of the

first basilica.

Footnote 284:

The same polygonal form is found in the apses of St. Agatha, St.

Apollinare in Classe, St. Apollinare in Nuovo, St. Spirito, and St.

Vitale, all in Ravenna, and St. Fosca, Torcello.

Footnote 285:

The apses of two churches, of the 4th and 6th century respectively, in

the island of Paros, are similarly fitted with marble seats: in the

6th century church there are eight rows, so that the apse looks like a

small amphitheatre.

Footnote 286:

That is on the supposition that the word kirk is derived from the

Latin word “circus,” “circular,” as the French term it, “cirque.” My

own conviction is that this is certainly the case. The word is only

used by the Barbarians as applied to a form of buildings they derived

from the Romans. Why the Germans should employ κυρίου οἶκος, when

neither the Greeks nor the Latins used that name, is a mystery which

those who insist on these very improbable names have as yet failed to

explain.

Footnote 287:

The Tholos at Epidaurus seems to be an exception to this rule.

Footnote 288:

Isabelle, ‘Édifices Circulaires,’ plates 26 and 27.

Footnote 289:

M. Cattaneo states that it was built by Pope St. Simplice, 468-482.

Footnote 290:

Above the capitals are impost blocks or dosserets, the earliest known

examples of that feature in Italy.

Footnote 291:

[The Vaults over the outer aisle of St. Stefano Rotondo were built

with hollow pots, the remains of which can still be traced in the

outer walls of the 2nd aisle.

Prof. Middleton points out also the existence of rings of earthen pots

in the vault of the tomb of Sta. Helena (Woodcut No. 227), and also in

the vaults of the Circus of Maxentius, on the Via Appia.—ED.]

Footnote 292:

In this building they now show a sarcophagus of ancient date, said to

be that of Galla Placidia, daughter of Theodosius. She, however, was

certainly buried at Ravenna; but it may be of her time, and in these

ages it is impossible to distinguish between baptisteries and tombs.

Footnote 293:

Frederick Von Osten, ‘Bauwerke in der Lombardei.’ Darmstadt, 1852.

Footnote 294:

By an oversight of the engraver, the vault of the nave, which ought to

be made hexapartite, is drawn as quadripartite. [The nave was so

completely restored in the 14th century as to render doubtful the

original existence of a vault.—ED.]

Footnote 295:

Étude de l’Architecture Lombarde,’ par F. de Dartein. Paris, 1878.

Footnote 296:

These are incorrectly shown on woodcut. The central pier is nearly 4

feet wide and carried a transverse rib of the same size and of two

orders.

Footnote 297:

Ferrario, ‘Monumenti Sacri e Profani dell’ I. R. Basilica di S.

Ambrogio,’ Milan, 1824.

Footnote 298:

“Quid dicamus columnarum junceam proceritatem? Moles illas

sublimissimas quasi quibusdam erectis hastilibus contineri substantiæ

qualitate concavis canalibus excavatas vel magis ipsas æstimes esse

transfusas. Ceris judices factum quod metallis durissimis videas

expolitum. Marmorum juncturas venas dicas esse genitales, ubi dum

falluntur oculi laus probatur crevisse miraculis.” In the above,

_metallum_ does not seem to mean metal as we now use the word, but any

hard substance dug out of the ground. (Cassiodorus, Variorum, lib.

vii. ch. 15.)

Footnote 299:

See vol. i. p. 372.

Footnote 300:

‘The Land of Moab,’ by Dr. Tristram (Murray, 1873), pp. 376 _et seqq._

[The small triangular marble panels referred to in Murano are of a

very elementary character in their carving, and have scarcely the

importance attached to them by Mr. Fergusson. Besides, the same wall

decoration in brickwork is found in the apse of St. Fosca, Torcello

(c. 1008), where, however, the triangular recesses are simply covered

with stucco and painted; being closer to the eye in Murano, they

filled the spaces with incised marble slabs: in other words, it seems

more probable that the slabs were made for the triangular panels than

the converse, which is suggested by Mr. Fergusson.—ED.]

Footnote 301:

The typical example of this class is the San Giorgio at Venice, though

it is not by any means the one most like St. Pietro; many attempts

were made before it became so essentially classical as this (see

Woodcut No. 39, Vol. I. in the ‘History of Modern Architecture’).

Footnote 302:

From the boldness of the construction, M. Cattaneo is induced to place

the erection of the building at the end of the 11th or beginning of

the 12th century.

Footnote 303:

The four square towers of San Lorenzo, Milan, and the circular

campanile by the side of the cathedral of Ravenna, are the earliest

examples known, the latter dating from the commencement of the 5th

century.

Footnote 304:

[The tower of St. Satiro at Milan (879 A.D.), is considered by

Cattaneo to be the most ancient campanile known in which the wall

surface is broken up with flat pilasters or vertical bands in relief,

and divided into storeys by horizontal string courses, with ranges of

small blind arches below, carried on corbels, and may be regarded as

the prototype of the most characteristic Lombard towers.—ED.]

Footnote 305:

‘History of Medieval Art,’ by Dr. F. M. Reber, translated by J. T.

Clarke. New York, 1887.

Footnote 306:

‘Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,’ by T. G. Jackson, A.R.A. Oxford,

1887.

Footnote 307:

Schultz, ‘Denkmäler der Kunst der Mittelalters in Unter-Italien.’

Folio, 1860.

Footnote 308:

The polygonal form given to the apse externally shows the direct

influence of Byzantine art.

Footnote 309:

The cornice projects 1 ft. 10 in., and consequently overhangs the base

by 13 ft.

Footnote 310:

The present cathedral is only a portion, viz. the transept of a much

vaster edifice which was never completed; but the beautiful unfinished

south front and portions of the gigantic nave and aisles still exist

on the western side of the present cathedral, and the drawings of it

are preserved in the archives of the Duomo.

Footnote 311:

[Since this was written the façade has been completed to harmonize

with the rest, but not in accordance with the original design, if we

may judge by the painting in Sta. Maria Novella, which shows side

gablets similar to those of the cathedral of Siena.—ED.]

Footnote 312:

If we may trust Wiebeking, the first two bays of the nave from the

front were vaulted in 1588, but the work was suspended till 1647, and

completed only in 1659. Yet no difference can be perceived in the

details of the design.

Footnote 313:

The plan and section being taken from two different writers, there is

a slight discrepancy between the scales. I believe the plan to be the

more correct of the two, though I have no means of being quite certain

on the point.

Footnote 314:

‘Dispareri d’Architettura.’

Footnote 315:

Within the last few years a façade has been added to Sta. Croce, but

about which the less said the better. It is wretched in design.

Transcriber’s Notes

This book often uses inconsistent spelling, particularly with respect to

accents. These were left as printed unless the author showed a clear

preference for one form.

Some presumed printer’s errors have been corrected, including

normalizing punctuation. Page number references in the Table of Contents

were corrected where errors were found. Further corrections are listed

below with the original text (top) and the corrected text (bottom).

every pains has been taken

every pain has been taken p. xxii

progres

progress p. 48

cotemporary

contemporary p. 50

formula

formulæ p. 77

Sedinag

Sedinga Illustration 27.

longed ceased

long ceased p. 219

Nor is is

Nor is it p. 247

ines

lines p. 372

Roumeia

Roumeïa p. 372

Nimes

Nîmes p. 385

Vogüe

Vogüé p. 423

neo-Byzantine

Neo-Byzantine p. 455

iconicon

icon p. 460

orginally

originally p. 538

turned the

turned to the p. 558

100 ft. to

100 ft. to 1 in. Illustration 451.

467. Illustration 467 (missing number added)

next

next to p. 596