The +MONUMENTS+ of the Classic Revival have been referred to in the

foregoing text at sufficient length to preclude the necessity of further

enumeration here.

CHAPTER XXVI.

RECENT ARCHITECTURE IN EUROPE.

BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Chateau, Fergusson. Also Barqui,

_L’Architecture moderne en France_.--_Berlin und seine Bauten_

(and a series of similar works on the modern buildings of other

German cities). Daly, _Architecture privée du XIXe siècle_.

Garnier, _Le nouvel Opéra_. Gourlier, _Choix d’édifices publics_.

Licht, _Architektur Deutschlands_. Lübke, _Denkmäler der Kunst_.

Lützow und Tischler, _Wiener Neubauten_. Narjoux, _Monuments

élevés par la ville de Paris, 1850-1880_. Rückwardt, _Façaden und

Details modernen Bauten_.--_Sammelmappe hervorragenden

Concurrenz-Entwurfen._ Sédille, _L’Architecture moderne_.

Selfridge, _Modern French Architecture_. Statham, _Modern

Architecture_. Villars, _England, Scotland, and Ireland_ (tr.

Henry Frith). Consult also _Transactions of the Royal Institute of

British Architects_, and the leading architectural journals of

recent years.

+MODERN CONDITIONS.+ The nineteenth century has been pre-eminently an

age of industrial progress. Its most striking advances have been along

mechanical, scientific, and commercial lines. As a result of this

material progress the general conditions of mankind in civilized

countries have undoubtedly been greatly bettered. Popular education and

the printing-press have also raised the intellectual level of society,

making learning the privilege of even the poorest. Intellectual,

scientific, and commercial pursuits have thus largely absorbed those

energies which in other ages found exercise in the creation of artistic

forms and objects. The critical and sceptical spirit, the spirit of

utilitarianism and realism, has checked the free and general development

of the creative imagination, at least in the plastic arts. While in

poetry and music there have been great and noble achievements, the

plastic arts, including architecture, have only of late years attained a

position at all worthy of the intellectual advancement of the times.

Nevertheless the artistic spirit has never been wholly crushed out by

the untoward pressure of realism and commercialism. Unfortunately it has

repeatedly been directed in wrong channels. Modern archæology and the

publication of the forms of historic art by books and photographs have

too exclusively fastened attention upon the details of extinct styles as

a source of inspiration in design. The whole range of historic art is

brought within our survey, and while this has on the one hand tended

toward the confusion and multiplication of styles in modern work, it has

on the other led to a slavish adherence to historic precedent or a

literal copying of historic forms. Modern architecture has thus

oscillated between the extremes of archæological servitude and of an

unreasoning eclecticism. In the hands of men of inferior training the

results have been deplorable travesties of all styles, or meaningless

aggregations of ill-assorted forms.

An important factor in this demoralization of architectural design has

been the development of new constructive methods, especially in the use

of iron and steel. It has been impossible for modern designers, in their

treatment of style, to keep pace with the rapid changes in the

structural use of metal in architecture. The roofs of vast span, largely

composed of glass, which modern methods of trussing have made possible

for railway stations, armories, and exhibition buildings; the immense

unencumbered spaces which may be covered by them; the introduction and

development, especially in the United States, of the post-and-girder

system of construction for high buildings, in which the external walls

are a mere screen or filling-in; these have revolutionized architecture

so rapidly and completely that architects are still struggling and

groping to find the solution of many of the problems of style, scale,

and composition which they have brought forward.

Within the last thirty years, however, architecture has, despite these

new conditions, made notable advances. The artistic emulation of

repeated international exhibitions, the multiplication of museums and

schools of art, the general advance in intelligence and enlightenment,

have all contributed to this artistic progress. There appears to be more

of the artistic and intellectual quality in the average architecture of

the present time, on both sides of the Atlantic, than at any previous

period in this century. The futility of the archæological revival of

extinct styles is generally recognized. New conditions are gradually

procuring the solution of the very problems they raise. Historic

precedent sits more lightly on the architect than formerly, and the

essential unity of principle underlying all good design is coming to be

better understood.[26]

[Footnote 26: See Appendix D.]

+FRANCE.+ It is in France, Germany (including Austria), and England that

the architectural progress of this period in Europe has been most

marked. We have already noticed the results of the classic revivals in

these three countries. Speaking broadly, it may be said that in France

the influence of the _École des Beaux-Arts_, while it has tended to give

greater unity and consistency to the national architecture, and has

exerted a powerful influence in behalf of refinement of taste and

correctness of style, has also stood in the way of a free development of

new ideas. French architecture has throughout adhered to the principles

of the Renaissance, though the style has during this century been

modified by various influences. The first of these was the Néo-Grec

movement, alluded to in the last chapter, which broke the grip of Roman

tradition in matters of detail and gave greater elasticity to the

national style. Next should be mentioned the Gothic movement represented

by Viollet-le-Duc, Lassus, Ballu, and their followers. Beginning about

1845, it produced comparatively few notable buildings, but gave a great

impulse to the study of mediæval archæology and the restoration of

mediæval monuments. The churches of Ste. Clothilde and of St. Jean de

Belleville, at Paris, and the reconstruction of the Château de

Pierrefonds, were among its direct results. Indirectly it led to a freer

and more rational treatment of constructive forms and materials than had

prevailed with the academic designers. The church of +St. Augustin+, by

_Baltard_, at Paris, illustrates this in its use of iron and brick for

the dome and vaulting, and the +College Chaptal+, by _E. Train_, in its

decorative treatment of brick and tile externally. The general adoption

of iron for roof-trusses and for the construction of markets and similar

buildings tended further in the same direction, the +Halles Centrales+

at Paris, by _Baltard_, being a notable example.

[Illustration: FIG. 208.--PLAN OF LOUVRE AND TUILERIES, PARIS.

A, A, _the Old Louvre, so called_; B, B, _the New Louvre._]

[Illustration: FIG. 209.--PAVILION OF RICHELIEU, LOUVRE.]

+THE SECOND EMPIRE.+ The reign of Napoleon III. (1852-70) was a period

of exceptional activity, especially in Paris. The greatest monument of

his reign was the completion of the +Louvre+ and +Tuileries+, under

_Visconti_ and _Lefuel_, including the remodelling of the pavilions de

Flore and de Marsan. The new portions constitute the most notable

example of modern French architecture, and the manner in which the two

palaces were united deserves high praise. In spite of certain defects,

this work is marked by a combination of dignity, richness, and

refinement, such as are rarely found in palace architecture (Figs. 208,

209). The +New Opera+ (1863-75), by _Garnier_ (d.  1898), stands next to

the Louvre in importance as a national monument. It is by far the most

sumptuous building for amusement in existence, but in purity of detail

and in the balance and restraint of its design it is inferior to the

work of Visconti and Lefuel (Fig. 210). To this reign belong the Palais

de l’Industrie, by _Viel_, built for the exhibition of 1855, and several

great railway stations (Gare du Nord, by Hitorff, Gare de l’Est, Gare

d’Orléans, etc.), in which the modern French version of the Renaissance

was applied with considerable skill to buildings largely constructed of

iron and glass. Town halls and theatres were erected in great numbers,

and in decorative works like fountains and monuments the French were

particularly successful. The fountains of +St. Michel+, Cuvier, and

Molière, at Paris, and of +Longchamps+, at Marseilles (Fig. 211),

illustrate the fertility of resource and elegance of detailed treatment

of the French in this department. Mention should also here be made of

the extensive enterprises carried out by Napoleon III., in rectifying

and embellishing the street-plan of Paris by new avenues and squares on

a vast scale, adding greatly to the monumental splendor of the city.

[Illustration: FIG. 210.--GRAND STAIRCASE OF THE OPERA, PARIS.]

[Illustration: FIG. 211.--FOUNTAIN OF LONGCHAMPS, MARSEILLES.]

+THE REPUBLIC.+ Since the disasters of 1870 a number of important

structures have been erected, and French architecture has shown a

remarkable vitality and flexibility under new conditions. Its

productions have in general been marked by a refined taste and a

conspicuous absence of eccentricity and excess; but it has for the most

part trodden in well-worn paths. The most notable recent monuments are,

in church architecture, the +Sacré-Cœur+, at Montmartre, by _Abadie_,

a votive church inspired from the Franco-Byzantine style of Aquitania;

in civil architecture the new +Hôtel de Ville+, at Paris, by _Ballu_ and

_Déperthes_, recalling the original structure destroyed by the Commune,

but in reality an original creation of great merit; in scholastic

architecture the new École de Médecine, and the new +Sorbonne+, by

_Nénot_, and in other branches of the art the metal-and-glass exhibition

buildings of 1878, 1889, and 1900. In the last of these the striving for

originality and the effort to discard traditional forms reached the

extreme, although accompanied by much very clever detail and a masterly

use of color-decoration. To these should be added many noteworthy

theatres, town-halls, court-houses, and _préfectures_ in provincial

cities, and commemorative columns and monuments almost without number.

In street architecture there is now much more variety and originality

than formerly, especially in private houses, and the reaction against

the orders and against traditional methods of design has of late been

growing stronger. The chief excellence of modern French architecture

lies in its rational planning, monumental spirit, and refinement of

detail (Fig. 212).

+GERMANY AND AUSTRIA.+ German architecture has been more affected during

the past fifty years by the archæological spirit than has the French.

A pronounced mediæval revival partly accompanied, partly followed the

Greek revival in Germany, and produced a number of churches and a few

secular buildings in the basilican, Romanesque, and Gothic styles.These

are less interesting than those in the Greek style, because mediæval

forms are even more foreign to modern needs than the classic, being

compatible only with systems of design and construction which are no

longer practicable. At Munich the Auekirche, by _Ohlmuller_, in an

attenuated Gothic style; the Byzantine Ludwigskirche, and _Ziebland’s_

Basilica following Early Christian models; the Basilica by _Hübsch _, at

Bulach, and the Votive Church at Vienna (1856) by H. Von Ferstel

(1828-1883) are notable neo-mediæval monuments. The last-named church

may be classed with Ste. Clothilde at Paris (see p. 371), and St.

Patrick’s Cathedral at New York, all three being of approximately the

same size and general style, recalling St. Ouen at Rouen. They are

correct and elaborate, but more or less cold and artificial.

[Illustration: FIG. 212.--MUSÉE GALLIÉRA, PARIS.]

More successful are many of the German theatres and concert halls, in

which Renaissance and classic forms have been freely used. In several of

these the attempt has been made to express by the external form the

curvilinear plan of the auditorium, as in the +Dresden Theatre+, by

_Semper_ (1841; Fig. 213), the theatre at Carlsruhe, by Hübsch, and the

double winter-summer +Victoria Theatre+, at Berlin, by _Titz_. But the

practical and æsthetic difficulties involved in this treatment have

caused its general abandonment. The +Opera House+ at Vienna, by

_Siccardsburg_ and _Van der Null_ (1861-69), is rectangular in its

masses, and but for a certain triviality of detail would rank among the

most successful buildings of its kind. The new +Burgtheater+ in the same

city is a more elaborately ornate structure in Renaissance style,

somewhat florid and overdone.

[Illustration: FIG. 213.--THEATRE AT DRESDEN.]

Modern German architecture is at its best in academic and residential

buildings. The +Bauschule+, at Berlin, by Schinkel, in which brick is

used in a rational and dignified design without the orders; the

Polytechnic School, at Zürich, by Semper; university buildings, and

especially buildings for technical instruction, at Carlsruhe, Stuttgart,

Strasburg, Vienna, and other cities, show a monumental treatment of the

exterior and of the general distribution, combined with a careful study

of practical requirements. In administrative buildings the Germans have

hardly been as successful; and the new +Parliament House+, at Berlin, by

_Wallot_, in spite of its splendor and costliness, is heavy and

unsatisfactory in detail. The larger cities, especially Berlin, contain

many excellent examples of house architecture, mostly in the Renaissance

style, sufficiently monumental in design, though usually, like most

German work, inclined to heaviness of detail. The too free use of stucco

in imitation of stone is also open to criticism.

[Illustration: FIG. 214.--BLOCK OF DWELLINGS (MARIE-THERESIENHOF),

VIENNA.]

+VIENNA.+ During the last thirty years Vienna has undergone a

transformation which has made it the rival of Paris as a stately

capital. The remodelling of the central portion, the creation of a

series of magnificent boulevards and squares, and the grouping of the

chief state and municipal buildings about these upon a monumental scheme

of arrangement, have given the city an unusual aspect of splendor. Among

the most important monuments in this group are the +Parliament House+,

by Hansen (see p. 360), and the +Town Hall+, by _Schmidt_. This latter

is a Neo-Gothic edifice of great size and pretentiousness, but strangely

thin and meagre in detail, and quite out of harmony with its

surroundings. The university and museums are massive piles in

Renaissance style; and it is the Renaissance rather than the classic or

Gothic revival which prevails throughout the new city. The great blocks

of residences and apartments (Fig. 214) which line its streets are

highly ornate in their architecture, but for the most part done in

stucco, which fails after all to give the aspect of solidity and

durability which it seeks to counterfeit.

The city of +Buda-Pesth+ has also in recent years undergone a phenomenal

transformation of a similar nature to that effected in Vienna, but it

possesses fewer monuments of conspicuous architectural interest. The

+Synagogue+ is the most noted of these, a rich and pleasing edifice of

brick in a modified Hispano-Moresque style.

+GREAT BRITAIN.+ During the closing years of the Anglo-Greek

style a coterie of enthusiastic students of British mediæval

monuments--archæologists rather than architects--initiated a movement

for the revival of the national Gothic architecture. The first fruits

of this movement, led by Pugin, Brandon, Rickman, and others (about

1830-40), were seen in countless pseudo-Gothic structures in which

the pointed arches, buttresses, and clustered shafts of mediæval

architecture were imitated or parodied according to the designer’s

ability, with frequent misapprehension of their proper use or

significance. This unintelligent misapplication of Gothic forms was,

however, confined to the earlier stages of the movement. With increasing

light and experience came a more correct and consistent use of the

mediæval styles, dominated by the same spirit of archæological

correctness which had produced the _classicismo_ of the Late Renaissance

in Italy. This spirit, stimulated by extensive enterprises in the

restoration of the great mediæval monuments of the United Kingdom, was

fatal to any free and original development of the style along new lines.

But it rescued church architecture from the utter meanness and

debasement into which it had fallen, and established a standard of taste

which reacted on all other branches of design.

[Illustration: FIG. 215.--HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, WESTMINSTER,

LONDON.]

[Illustration: FIG. 216.--ASSIZE COURTS, MANCHESTER. DETAIL.]

+THE VICTORIAN GOTHIC.+ Between 1850 and 1870 the striving after

archæological correctness gave place to the more rational effort to

adapt Gothic principles to modern requirements, instead of merely

copying extinct styles. This effort, prosecuted by a number of

architects of great intelligence, culture, and earnestness (Sir Gilbert

Scott, George Edmund Street, William Burges, and others), resulted in a

number of extremely interesting buildings. Chief among these in size and

cost stand the +Parliament Houses+ at Westminster, by _Sir Charles

Barry_ (begun 1839), in the Perpendicular style. This immense structure

(Fig. 215), imposing in its simple masses and refined in its carefully

studied detail, is the most successful monument of the Victorian Gothic

style. It suffers, however, from the want of proper relation of scale

between its decorative elements and the vast proportions of the edifice,

which belittle its component elements. It cannot, on the whole, be

claimed as a successful vindication of the claims of the promoters of

the style as to the adaptability of Gothic forms to structures planned

and built after the modern fashion. The +Assize Courts+ at Manchester

(Fig. 216), the +New Museum+ at Oxford, the gorgeous +Albert Memorial+

at London, by _Scott_, and the +New Law Courts+ at London, by _Street_,

are all conspicuous illustrations of the same truth. They are

conscientious, carefully studied designs in good taste, and yet wholly

unsuited in style to their purpose. They are like labored and scholarly

verse in a foreign tongue, correct in form and language, but lacking the

naturalness and charm of true and unfettered inspiration. A later essay

of the same sort in a slightly different field is the +Natural History

Museum+ at South Kensington, by _Waterhouse_ (1879), an imposing

building in a modified Romanesque style (Fig. 217).

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

+OTHER WORKS.+ The Victorian Gothic style responded to no deep and

general movement of the popular taste, and, like the Anglo-Greek style,

was doomed to failure from the inherent incongruity between modern needs

and mediæval forms. Within the last twenty years there has been a quite

general return to Renaissance principles, and the result is seen in a

large number of town-halls, exchanges, museums, and colleges, in which

Renaissance forms, with and without the orders, have been treated with

increasing freedom and skilful adaptation to the materials and special

requirements of each case. The Albert Memorial Hall (1863, by General

Scott) may be taken as an early instance of this movement, and the

+Imperial Institute+ (Colonial offices), by Collcutt, and Oxford Town

Hall, by Aston Webb, as among its latest manifestations. In domestic

architecture the so-called Queen Anne style has been much in vogue, as

practised by Norman Shaw, Ernest George, and others. It is really a

modern style, originating in the imitation of the modified Palladian

style as used in the brick architecture of Queen Anne’s time, but freely

and often artistically altered to meet modern tastes and needs.

In its emancipation from the mistaken principles of archæological

revivals, and in its evidences of improved taste and awakened

originality, contemporary British architecture shows promise of good

things to come. It is still inferior to the French in the monumental

quality, in technical resource and refinement of decorative detail.

+ELSEWHERE IN EUROPE.+ In other European countries recent architecture

shows in general increasing freedom and improved good taste, but both

its opportunities and its performance have been nowhere else as

conspicuous as in France, Germany, and England. The costly Bourse and

the vast but overloaded Palais de Justice at Brussels, by _Polaert_, are

neither of them conspicuous for refined and cultivated taste. A few

buildings of note in Switzerland, Russia, and Greece might find mention

in a more extended review of architecture, but cannot here even be

enumerated. In Italy, especially at Rome, Milan, Naples, and Turin,

there has been a great activity in building since 1870, but with the

exception of the +Monument to Victor Emmanuel+ and the National Museum

at Rome, monumental arcades and passages at Milan and Naples, and _Campi

Santi_ or monumental cemeteries at Bologna, Genoa, and one or two other

places, there has been almost nothing of real importance built in Italy

of late years.

CHAPTER XXVII.

ARCHITECTURE IN THE UNITED STATES.

BOOKS RECOMMENDED: As before, Fergusson, Statham. Also, Chandler,

_The Colonial Architecture of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and

Virginia_. Cleaveland and Campbell, _American Landmarks_. Corner

and Soderholz, _Colonial Architecture in New England_. Crane and

Soderholz, _Examples of Colonial Architecture in Charleston and

Savannah_. Drake, _Historic Fields and Mansions of Middlesex_.

Everett, _Historic Churches of America_. King, _Handbook of

Boston_; _Handbook of New York_. Little, _Early New England

Interiors_. Schuyler, _American Architecture_. Van Rensselaer, _H.

H. Richardson and His Works_. Wallis, _Old Colonial Architecture

and Furniture_.

+GENERAL REMARKS.+ The colonial architecture of modern times presents a

peculiar phenomenon. The colonizing nation, carrying into its new

_habitat_ the tastes and practices of a long-established civilization,

modifies these only with the utmost reluctance, under the absolute

compulsion of new conditions. When the new home is virgin soil,

destitute of cultivation, government, or civilized inhabitants, the

accompaniments and activities of civilization introduced by the

colonists manifest themselves at first in curious contrast to the

primitive surroundings. The struggle between organized life and chaos,

the laborious subjugation of nature to the requirements of our complex

modern life, for a considerable period absorb the energies of the

colonists. The amenities of culture, the higher intellectual life, the

refinements of art can, during this period, receive little attention.

Meanwhile a new national character is being formed; the people are

undergoing the moral training upon which their subsequent achievements

must depend. With the conquest of brute nature, however, and the gradual

emergence of a more cultivated class, with the growth of commerce and

wealth and the consequent increase of leisure, the humanities find more

place in the colonial life. The fine arts appear in scattered centres

determined by peculiarly favorable conditions. For a long time they

retain the impress, and seek to reproduce the forms, of the art of the

mother country. But new conditions impose a new development. Maturing

commerce with other lands brings in foreign influences, to which the

still unformed colonial art is peculiarly susceptible. Only with

political and commercial independence, fully developed internal

resources, and a high national culture do the arts finally attain, as it

were, their majority, and enter upon a truly national growth.

These facts are abundantly illustrated by the architectural history of

the United States. The only one among the British colonies to attain

political independence, it is the only one among them whose architecture

has as yet entered upon an independent course of development, and this

only within the last twenty-five or thirty years. Nor has even this

development produced as yet a distinctive local style. It has, however,

originated new constructive methods, new types of buildings, and a

distinctively American treatment of the composition and the masses; the

decorative details being still, for the most part, derived from historic

precedents. The architecture of the other British colonies has retained

its provincial character, though producing from time to time individual

works of merit. In South America and Mexico the only buildings of

importance are Spanish, French, or German in style, according to the

nationality of the architects employed. The following sketch of American

architecture refers, therefore, exclusively to its development in the

United States.

+FORMATIVE PERIOD.+ Buildings in stone were not undertaken by the early

English colonists. The more important structures in the Southern and

Dutch colonies were of brick imported from Europe. Wood was, however,

the material most commonly employed, especially in New England, and its

use determined in large measure the form and style of the colonial

architecture. There was little or no striving for architectural elegance

until well into the eighteenth century, when Wren’s influence asserted

itself in a modest way in the Middle and Southern colonies. The very

simple and unpretentious town-hall at Williamsburg, Va., and St.

Michael’s, Charleston, are attributed to him; but the most that can be

said for these, as for the brick churches and manors of Virginia

previous to 1725, is that they are simple in design and pleasing in

proportion, without special architectural elegance. The same is true of

the wooden houses and churches of New England of the period, except that

they are even simpler in design.

From 1725 to 1775 increased population and wealth along the coast

brought about a great advance in architecture, especially in churches

and in the dwellings of the wealthy. During this period was developed

the _Colonial style_, based on that of the reigns of Anne and the first

two Georges in England, and in church architecture on the models set by

Wren and Gibbs. All the details were, however, freely modified by the

general employment of wood. The scarcity of architects trained in Old

World traditions contributed to this departure from classic precision of

form. The style, especially in interior design, reflected the cultured

taste of the colonial aristocracy in its refined treatment of the

woodwork. But there was little or no architecture of a truly monumental

character. Edifices of stone were singularly few, and administrative

buildings were small and modest, owing to insufficient grants from the

Crown, as well as to the poverty of the colonies.

[Illustration: FIG. 218.--CHRIST CHURCH, PHILADELPHIA.]

The churches of this period include a number of interesting designs,

especially pleasing in the forms of their steeples. The “+Old South+” at

Boston (now a museum), Trinity at Newport, and +St. Paul’s+ at New

York--one of the few built of stone (1764)--are good examples of the

style. +Christ Church+ at Philadelphia (1727-35, by Dr. Kearsley) is

another example, historically as well as architecturally interesting

(Fig. 218); and there are scores of other churches almost equally

noteworthy, scattered through New England, Maryland, Virginia, and the

Middle States.

+DWELLINGS.+ These reflect better than the churches the varying tastes

of the different colonies. Maryland and Virginia abound in fine brick

manor-houses, set amid extensive grounds walled in and entered through

iron gates of artistic design. The interior finish of these houses was

often elaborate in conception and admirably executed. Westover (1737),

Carter’s Grove (1737) in Virginia, and the Harwood and Hammond Houses at

Annapolis, Md. (1770), are examples. The majority of the New England

houses were of wood, more compact in plan, more varied and picturesque

in design than those of the South, but wanting somewhat of their

stateliness. The interior finish of wainscot, cornices, stairs, and

mantelpieces shows, however, the same general style, in a skilful and

artistic adaptation of classic forms to the slender proportions of wood

construction. Externally the orders appear in porches and in colossal

pilasters, with well designed entablatures, and windows of Italian

model. The influence of the Adams and Sheraton furniture is doubtless to

be seen in these quaint and often charming versions of classic motives.

The Hancock House, Boston (of stone, demolished); the Sherburne House,

Portsmouth (1730); Craigie House, Cambridge (1757, Fig. 219); and

Rumford House, North Woburn (Mass.), are typical examples.

[Illustration: FIG. 219.--CRAIGIE (LONGFELLOW) HOUSE, CAMBRIDGE.]

In the Middle States architectural activity was chiefly centred in

Philadelphia and New York, and one or two other towns, where a number of

manor-houses, still extant, attest the wealth and taste of the time. It

is noticeable that the veranda or piazza was confined to the Southern

States, but that the climate seems to have had little influence on the

forms of roofs. These were gambrelled, hipped, gabled, or flat, alike in

the North and South, according to individual taste.

+PUBLIC BUILDINGS.+ Of public and monumental architecture this period

has little to show. Large cities did not exist; New York, Boston, and

Philadelphia were hardly more than overgrown villages. The public

buildings--court-houses and town-halls--were modest and inexpensive

structures. The Old State House and Faneuil Hall at Boston, the Town

Hall at Newport (R.I.), and Independence Hall at Philadelphia, the best

known of those now extant, are not striking architecturally. Monumental

design was beyond the opportunities and means of the colonies. It was in

their churches, all of moderate size, and in their dwellings that the

colonial builders achieved their greatest successes; and these works are

quaint, charming, and refined, rather than impressive or imposing.

To the latter part of the colonial period belong a number of interesting

buildings which remain as monuments of Spanish rule in California,

Florida, and the Southwest. The old Fort S. Marco, now Fort Marion

(1656-1756), and the Catholic cathedral (1793; after the fire of 1887

rebuilt in its original form with the original façade uninjured), both

at St. Augustine, Fla.; the picturesque buildings of the California

missions (mainly 1769-1800), the majority of them now in ruins;

scattered Spanish churches in California, Arizona, and New Mexico, and a

few unimportant secular buildings, display among their modern and

American settings a picturesque and interesting Spanish aspect and

character, though from the point of view of architectural detail they

represent merely a crude phase of the Churrigueresque style.

[Illustration: FIG. 220.--NATIONAL CAPITOL, WASHINGTON.]

+EARLY REPUBLICAN PERIOD.+ Between the Revolution and the War of 1812,

under the new conditions of independence and self-government,

architecture took on a more monumental character. Buildings for the

State and National administrations were erected with the rapidly

increasing resources of the country. Stone was more generally used;

colonnades, domes, and cupolas or bell-towers, were adopted as

indispensable features of civic architecture. In church-building the

Wren-Gibbs type continued to prevail, but with greater correctness of

classic forms. The gambrel roof tended to disappear from the houses of

this period, and there was some decline in the refinement and delicacy

of the details of architecture. The influence of the Louis XVI. style is

traceable in many cases, as in the New York City Hall (1803-12, by

_McComb_ and _Mangin_), one of the very best designs of the time, and in

the delicate stucco-work and interior finish of many houses, The

original +Capitol+ at Washington--the central portion of the present

edifice--by _Thornton_, _Hallet_, and _B. H. Latrobe_ (1793-1830; Fig.

220), the +State House+ at Boston (1795, by _Bulfinch_), and the

University of Virginia, at Charlotteville, by _Thomas Jefferson_ (1817;

recently destroyed in part by fire), are the most interesting examples

of the classic tendencies of this period. Their freedom from the rococo

vulgarities generally prevalent at the time in Europe is noticeable.

[Illustration: FIG. 221.--CUSTOM HOUSE, NEW YORK.]

+THE CLASSIC REVIVAL.+ The influence of the classic revivals of Europe

began to appear before the close of this period, and reached its

culmination about 1830-40. It left its impress most strongly on our

Federal architecture, although it invaded domestic architecture,

producing countless imitations, in brick and wooden houses, of Grecian

colonnades and porticos. One of its first-fruits was the White House, or

Executive Mansion, at Washington, by _Hoban_ (1792), recalling the large

English country houses of the time. The +Treasury+ and +Patent Office+

buildings at Washington, the Philadelphia Mint, the +Sub-treasury+ and

+Custom House+ at New York (the latter erected originally for a bank;

Fig. 221), and the +Boston Custom House+ are among the important Federal

buildings of this period. Several State capitols were also erected under

the same influence; and the Marine Exchange and +Girard College+ at

Philadelphia should also be mentioned as conspicuous examples of the

pseudo-Greek style. The last-named building is a Corinthian dormitory,

its tiers of small windows contrasting strangely with its white marble

columns. These classic buildings were solidly and carefully constructed,

but lacked the grace, cheerfulness, and appropriateness of earlier

buildings. The Capitol at Washington was during this period greatly

enlarged by terminal wings with fine Corinthian porticos, of Roman

rather than Greek design. The +Dome+, by _Walters_, was not added until

1858-73; it is a successful and harmonious composition, nobly completing

the building. Unfortunately, it is an afterthought, built of iron

painted to simulate marble, the substructure being inadequate to support

a dome of masonry. The Italian or Roman style which it exemplified, in

time superseded the less tractable Greek style.

+THE WAR PERIOD.+ The period from 1850 to 1876 was one of intense

political activity and rapid industrial progress. The former culminated

in the terrible upheaval of the civil war; the latter in the completion

of the Pacific Railroad (1869) and a remarkable development of the

mining resources and manufactures of the country. It was a period of

feverish commercial activity, but of artistic stagnation, and witnessed

the erection of but few buildings of architectural importance. A number

of State capitols, city halls and churches, of considerable size and

cost but of inferior design, attest the decline of public taste and

architectural skill during these years. The huge Municipal Building at

Philadelphia and the still unfinished Capitol at Albany are full of

errors of planning and detail which twenty-five years of elaboration

have failed to correct. Next to the dome of the Capitol at Washington,

completed during this period, of which it is the most signal

architectural achievement, its most notable monument was the +St.

Patrick’s Cathedral+ at New York, by _Renwick_; a Gothic church which,

if somewhat cold and mechanical in detail, is a stately and

well-considered design. Its west front and spires (completed 1886) are

particularly successful. Trinity Church (1843, by _Upjohn_) and Grace

Church (1840, by Renwick), though of earlier date, should be classed

with this cathedral as worthy examples of modern Gothic design. Indeed,

the churches designed in this style by a few thoroughly trained

architects during this period are the most creditable and worthy among

its lesser productions. In general an undiscriminating eclecticism of

style prevailed, unregulated by sober taste or technical training. The

Federal buildings by _Mullett_ were monuments of perverted design in a

heavy and inartistic rendering of French Renaissance motives. The New

York Post Office and the State, Army and Navy Department building at

Washington are examples of this style.

+THE ARTISTIC AWAKENING.+ Between 1870 and 1880 a remarkable series of

events exercised a powerful influence on the artistic life of the United

States. Two terrible conflagrations in Chicago (1871) and Boston (1872)

gave unexampled opportunities for architectural improvement and greatly

stimulated the public interest in the art. The feverish and abnormal

industrial activity which followed the war and the rapid growth of the

parvenu spirit were checked by the disastrous “panic” of 1873. With the

completion of the Pacific railways and the settlement of new communities

in the West, industrial prosperity, when it returned, was established on

a firmer basis. An extraordinary expansion of travel to Europe began to

disseminate the seeds of artistic culture throughout the country. The

successful establishment of schools of architecture in Boston (1866) and

other cities, and the opening or enlargement of art museums in New York,

Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Detroit, Milwaukee, and elsewhere,

stimulated the artistic awakening which now manifested itself. In

architecture the personal influence of two men, trained in the Paris

École des Beaux-Arts, was especially felt--of _R. M. Hunt_ (1827-95)

through his words and deeds quite as much as through his works; and of

_H. H. Richardson_ (1828-86) predominantly through his works. These two

men, with others of less fame but of high ideals and thorough culture,

did much to elevate architecture as an art in the public esteem. To all

these influences new force was added by the Centennial Exhibition at

Philadelphia (1876). Here for the first time the American people were

brought into contact, in their own land, with the products of European

and Oriental art. It was to them an artistic revelation, whose results

were prompt and far-reaching. Beginning first in the domain of

industrial and decorative art, its stimulating influence rapidly

extended to painting and architecture, and with permanent consequences.

American students began to throng the centres of Old World art, while

the setting of higher standards of artistic excellence at home, and the

development of important art-industries, were other fruits of this

artistic awakening. The recent Columbian Exhibition at Chicago (1893),

its latest and most important manifestation, has added a new impulse to

the movement, especially in architecture.

[Illustration: FIG. 222.--TRINITY CHURCH, BOSTON.]

[Illustration: FIG. 223.--LIBRARY AT WOBURN, MASS.]

+STYLE IN RECENT ARCHITECTURE.+ The rapid increase in the number of

American architects trained in Paris or under the indirect influence of

the École des Beaux-Arts has been an important factor in recent

architectural progress. Yet it has by no means imposed the French

academic formulæ upon American architecture. The conditions, materials,

and constructive processes here prevailing, and above all the

eclecticism of the public taste, have prevented this. The French

influence is perceived rather in a growing appreciation of monumental

design in the planning, composition, and setting of buildings, than in

any direct imitation of French models. The Gothic revival which

prevailed more or less widely from 1840 to 1875, as already noticed, and

of which the +State Capitol+ at Hartford (Conn.; 1875-78), and the +Fine

Arts Museum+ at Boston, were among the last important products, was

generally confined to church architecture, for which Gothic forms are

still largely employed, as in the Protestant +Cathedral+ of +All Saints+

now building at Albany (N.Y.), by an English architect. For the most

part the works of the last twenty years show a more or less judicious

eclecticism, the choice of style being determined partly by the person

and training of the designer, partly by the nature of the building. The

powerfully conceived works of Richardson, in a free version of the

French Romanesque, for a time exercised a wide influence, especially

among the younger architects. +Trinity Church+, Boston (Fig. 222), his

earliest important work; many public libraries and business buildings,

and finally the impressive +County Buildings+ at Pittsburgh (Pa.), all

treated in this style, are admirable rather for the strong individuality

of their designer, displayed in their vigorous composition, than on

account of the historic style he employed (Fig. 223). Yet it appeared in

his hands so flexible and effective that it was widely imitated. But if

easy to use, it is most difficult to use well; its forms are too massive

for ordinary purposes, and in the hands of inferior designers it was so

often travestied that it has now lost its wide popularity. While a

number of able architects have continued to use it effectively in

ecclesiastical, civic, and even commercial architecture, it is being

generally superseded by various forms of the Renaissance. Here also a

wide eclecticism prevails, the works of the same architect often varying

from the gayest Francis I. designs in domestic architecture, or free

adaptations of Quattrocento details for theatres and street

architecture, to the most formal classicism in colossal

exhibition-buildings, museums, libraries, and the like. Meanwhile there

are many more or less successful ventures in other historic styles

applied to public and private edifices. Underlying this apparent

confusion, almost anarchy in the use of historic styles, the careful

observer may detect certain tendencies crystallizing into definite form.

New materials and methods of construction, increased attention to

detail, a growing sense of monumental requirements, even the development

of the elevator as a substitute for the grand staircase, are leaving

their mark on the planning, the proportions, and the artistic

composition of American buildings, irrespective of the styles used. The

art is with us in a state of transition, and open to criticism in many

respects; but it appears to be full of life and promise for the future.

[Illustration: FIG. 224.--“TIMES” BUILDING, NEW YORK.]

+COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS.+ This class of edifices has in our great cities

developed wholly new types, which have taken shape under four imperative

influences. These are the demand for fire-proof construction, the demand

for well-lighted offices, the introduction of elevators, and the

concentration of business into limited areas, within which land has

become inordinately costly. These causes have led to the erection of

buildings of excessive height (Fig. 224); the more recent among them

constructed with a framework of iron or steel columns and beams, the

visible walls being a mere filling-in. To render a building of twenty

stories attractive to the eye, especially when built on an irregular

site, is a difficult problem, of which a wholly satisfactory solution

has yet to be found. There have been, however, some notable achievements

in this line, in most of which the principle has been clearly recognized

that a lofty building should have a well-marked basement or pedestal and

a somewhat ornate crowning portion or capital, the intervening stories

serving as a die or shaft and being treated with comparative simplicity.

The difficulties of scale and of handling one hundred and fifty to three

hundred windows of uniform style have been surmounted with conspicuous

skill (+American Surety Building+ and Broadway Chambers, New York; Ames

Building, Boston; Carnegie Building, Pittsburgh; Union Trust, St.

Louis). In some cases, especially in Chicago and the Middle West, the

metallic framework is suggested by slender piers between the windows,

rising uninterrupted from the basement to the top story. In others,

especially in New York and the East, the walls are treated as in

ordinary masonry buildings. The Chicago school is marked by a more

utilitarian and unconventional treatment, with results which are often

extremely bold and effective, but rarely as pleasing to the eye as those

attained by the more conservative Eastern school. In the details of

American office-buildings every variety of style is to be met with; but

the Romanesque and the Renaissance, freely modified, predominate. The

tendency towards two or three well-marked types in the external

composition of these buildings, as above suggested, promises, however,

the evolution of a style in which the historic origin of the details

will be a secondary matter. Certain Chicago architects have developed an

original treatment of architectural forms by exaggerating some of the

structural lines, by suppressing the mouldings and more familiar

historic forms, and by the free use of flat surface ornament. The

Schiller, Auditorium, and Fisher Buildings, all at Chicago, Guaranty

Building, Buffalo, and Majestic Building, Detroit, are examples of this

personal style, which illustrates the untrammelled freedom of the art in

a land without traditions.[27]

[Footnote 27: See Appendix, D and E.]

[Illustration: FIG. 225.--COUNTRY HOUSE, MASSACHUSETTS.]

+DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE.+ It is in this field that the most

characteristic and original phases of American architecture are to be

met with, particularly in rural and suburban residences. In these the

peculiar requirements of our varying climates and of American domestic

life have been studied and in large measure met with great frankness and

artistic appreciation. The broad staircase-hall, serving often as a sort

of family sitting-room, the piazza, and a picturesque massing of steep

roofs, have been the controlling factors in the evolution of two or

three general types which appear in infinite variations. The material

most used is wood, but this has had less influence in the determination

of form than might have been expected. The artlessness of the planning,

which is arranged to afford the maximum of convenience rather than to

conform to any traditional type, has been the element of greatest

artistic success. It has resulted in exteriors which are the natural

outgrowth of the interior arrangements, frankly expressed, without

affectation of style (Fig. 225). The resulting picturesqueness has,

however, in many cases been treated as an end instead of an incidental

result, and the affectation of picturesqueness has in such designs

become as detrimental as any affectation of style. In the internal

treatment of American houses there has also been a notable artistic

advance, harmony of color and domestic comfort and luxury being sought

after rather than monumental effects. A number of large city and country

houses designed on a palatial scale have, however, given opportunity for

a more elaborate architecture; notably the Vanderbilt, Villard, and

Huntington residences at New York, the great country-seat of +Biltmore+,

near Asheville (N.C.), in the Francis I. style (by R. M. Hunt), and many

others.

+OTHER BUILDINGS.+ American architects have generally been less

successful in public, administrative, and ecclesiastical architecture

than in commercial and domestic work. The preference for small parish

churches, treated as audience-rooms rather than as places of worship,

has interfered with the development of noble types of church-buildings.

Yet there are signs of improvement; and the new +Cathedral+ of +St. John

the Divine+ at New York, in a modified Romanesque style, promises to be

a worthy and monumental building. In semi-public architecture, such as

hotels, theatres, clubs, and libraries, there are many notable examples

of successful design. The +Ponce de Leon Hotel+ at St. Augustine,

a sumptuous and imposing pile in a free version of the Spanish

Plateresco; the Auditorium Theatre at Chicago, the Madison Square Garden

and the Casino at New York, may be cited as excellent in general

conception and well carried out in detail, externally and internally.

The Century and Metropolitan Clubs at New York, the +Boston Public

Library+, the Carnegie Library at Pittsburgh, the +Congressional

Library+ at Washington, and the recently completed Minnesota +State

Capitol+ at St. Paul, exemplify in varying degrees of excellence the

increasing capacity of American architects for monumental design. This

was further shown in the buildings of the +Columbian Exposition+ at

Chicago in 1893. These, in spite of many faults of detail, constituted

an aggregate of architectural splendor such as had never before been

seen or been possible on this side the Atlantic. They further brought

architecture into closer union with the allied arts and formed an object

lesson in the value of appropriate landscape gardening as a setting to

monumental structures.

It should be said, in conclusion, that with the advances of recent years

in artistic design in the United States there has been at least as great

improvement in scientific construction. The sham and flimsiness of the

Civil War period are passing away, and solid and durable building is

becoming more general throughout the country, but especially in the

Northeast and in some of the great Western cities, notably in Chicago.

In this onward movement the Federal buildings--post-offices,

custom-houses, and other governmental edifices--have not, till lately,

taken high rank. Although solidly and carefully constructed, those built

during the period 1875-1895 were generally inferior to the best work

produced by private enterprise, or by State and municipal governments.

This was in large part due to enactments devolving upon the supervising

architect at Washington the planning of all Federal buildings, as well

as a burden of supervisory and clerical duties incompatible with the

highest artistic results. Since 1898, however, a more enlightened policy

has prevailed, and a number of notable designs for Federal buildings

have been secured by carefully-conducted competitions.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

ORIENTAL ARCHITECTURE.

INDIA, CHINA, AND JAPAN.

BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Cole, _Monographs of Ancient Monuments of

India_. Conder, _Notes on Japanese Architecture_ (in Transactions

of R.I.B.A., for 1886). Cunningham, _Archæological Survey of

India_. Fergusson, _Indian and Eastern Architecture_; _Picturesque

Illustrations of Indian Architecture_. Le Bon, _Les Monuments de

l’Inde_. Morse, _Japanese Houses_. Stirling, _Asiatic Researches_.

Consult also the _Journal_ and the _Transactions_ of the Royal

Asiatic Society.

+INTRODUCTORY NOTE.+ The architecture of the non-Moslem countries and

races of Asia has been reserved for this closing chapter, in order not

to interrupt the continuity of the history of European styles, with

which it has no affinity and scarcely even a point of contact. Among

them all, India alone has produced monuments of great architectural

importance. The buildings of China and Japan, although interesting for

their style, methods, and detail, and so deserving at least of brief

mention, are for the most part of moderate size and of perishable

materials. Outside of these three countries there is little to interest

the general student of architecture.

+INDIA: PERIODS.+ It is difficult to classify the non-Mohammedan styles

of India, owing to their frequently overlapping, both geographically and

artistically; while the lack of precise dates in Indian literature makes

the chronology of many of the monuments more or less doubtful. The

divisions given below are a modification of those first established by

Fergusson, and are primarily based on the three great religions, with

geographical subdivisions, as follows:

THE BUDDHIST STYLE, from the reign of Asoka, _cir._ 250 B.C., to the 7th

century A.D. Its monuments occupy mainly a broad band running northeast

and southwest, between the Indian Desert and the Dekkan. Offshoots of

the style are found as far north as Gandhara, and as far south as

Ceylon.

THE JAINA STYLE, akin to the preceding if not derived from it, covering

the same territory as well as southern India; from 1000 A.D. to the

present time.

THE BRAHMAN or HINDU STYLES, extending over the whole peninsula. They

are sub-divided geographically into the NORTHERN BRAHMAN, the CHALUKYAN

in the Dekkan, and the DRAVIDIAN in the south; this last style being

coterminous with the populations speaking the Tamil and cognate

languages. The monuments of these styles are mainly subsequent to the

10th century, though a few date as far back as the 7th.

The great majority of Indian monuments are religious--temples, shrines,

and monasteries. Secular buildings do not appear until after the Moslem

conquests, and most of them are quite modern.

+GENERAL CHARACTER.+ All these styles possess certain traits in common.

While stone and brick are both used, sandstone predominating, the

details are in large measure derived from wooden prototypes. Structural

lines are not followed in the exterior treatment, purely decorative

considerations prevailing. Ornament is equally lavished on all parts of

the building, and is bewildering in its amount and complexity. Realistic

and grotesque sculpture is freely used, forming multiplied horizontal

bands of extraordinary richness and minuteness of execution. Spacious

and lofty interiors are rarely attempted, but wonderful effects are

produced by seemingly endless repetition of columns in halls, and

corridors, and by external emphasis of important parts of the plan by

lofty tower-like piles of masonry.

The source of the various Indian styles, the origin of the forms used,

the history of their development, are all wrapped in obscurity. All the

monuments show a fully developed style and great command of technical

resources from the outset. When, where, and how these were attained is

as yet an unsolved mystery. In all its phases previous to the Moslem

conquest Indian architecture appears like an indigenous art, borrowing

little from foreign styles, and having no affinities with the arts of

Occidental nations.

+BUDDHIST STYLE.+ Although Buddhism originated in the sixth century

B.C., the earliest architectural remains of the style date from its wide

promulgation in India under Asoka (272-236 B.C.). Buddhist monuments

comprise three chief classes of structures: the _stupas_ or _topes_,

which are mounds more or less domical in shape, enclosing relic-shrines

of Buddha, or built to mark some sacred spot; _chaityas_, or temple

halls, cut in the rock; and _viharas_, or monasteries. The style of the

detail varies considerably in these three classes, but is in general

simpler and more massive than in the other styles of India.

+TOPES.+ These are found in groups, of which the most important are at

or near Bhilsa in central India, at Manikyala in the northwest, at

Amravati in the south, and in Ceylon at Ruanwalli and Tuparamaya. The

best known among them is the +Sanchi Tope+, near Bhilsa, 120 feet in

diameter and 56 feet high. It is surrounded by a richly carved stone

rail or fence, with gateways of elaborate workmanship, having three

sculptured lintels crossing the carved uprights. The tope at Manikyala

is larger, and dates from the 7th century. It is exceeded in size by

many in Ceylon, that at Abayagiri measuring 360 feet in diameter. Few of

the topes retain the _tee_, or model of a shrine, which, like a lantern,

once crowned each of them.

Besides the topes there are a few stupas of tower-like form, square in

plan, of which the most famous is that at +Buddh Gaya+, near the sacred

Bodhi tree, where Buddha attained divine light in 588 B.C.

+CHAITYA HALLS.+ The Buddhist speos-temples--so far as known the only

extant halls of worship of that religion, except one at Sanchi--are

mostly in the Bombay Presidency, at Ellora, Karli, Ajunta, Nassick, and

Bhaja. The earliest, that at Karli, dates from 78 B.C., the latest (at

Ellora), _cir._ 600 A.D. They consist uniformly of a broad nave ending

in an apse, and covered by a roof like a barrel vault, and two narrow

side aisles. In the apse is the _dagoba_ or relic-shrine, shaped like a

miniature tope. The front of the cave was originally adorned with an

open-work screen or frame of wood, while the face of the rock about the

opening was carved into the semblance of a sumptuous structural façade.

Among the finest of these caverns is that at +Karli+, whose massive

columns and impressive scale recall Egyptian models, though the

resemblance is superficial and has no historic significance. More

suggestive is the affinity of many of the columns which stand before

these caves to Persian prototypes (see Fig. 21). It is not improbable

that both Persian and classic forms were introduced into India through

the Bactrian kingdom 250 years B.C. Otherwise we must seek for the

origin of nearly all Buddhist forms in a pre-existing wooden

architecture, now wholly perished, though its traditions may survive in

the wooden screens in the fronts of the caves. While some of these

caverns are extremely simple, as at Bhaja, others, especially at

+Nassick+ and +Ajunta+, are of great splendor and complexity.

+VIHARAS.+ Except at Gandhara in the Punjab, the structural monasteries

of the Buddhists were probably all of wood and have long ago perished.

The Gandhara monasteries of Jamalgiri and Takht-i-Bahi present in plan

three or four courts surrounded by cells. The centre of one court is in

both cases occupied by a platform for an altar or shrine. Among the

ruins there have been found a number of capitals whose strong

resemblance to the Corinthian type is now generally attributed to

Byzantine rather than Bactrian influences. These viharas may therefore

be assigned to the 6th or 7th century A.D.

The rock-cut viharas are found in the neighborhood of the chaityas

already described. Architecturally, they are far more elaborate than the

chaityas. Those at Salsette, Ajunta, and Bagh are particularly

interesting, with pillared halls or courts, cells, corridors, and

shrines. The hall of the +Great Vihara+ at +Bagh+ is 96 feet square,

with 36 columns. Adjoining it is the school-room, and the whole is

fronted by a sumptuous rock-cut colonnade 200 feet long. These caves

were mostly hewn between the 5th and 7th centuries, at which time

sculpture was more prevalent in Buddhist works than previously, and some

of them are richly adorned with figures.

+JAINA STYLE.+ The religion and the architecture of the Jainas so

closely resemble those of the Buddhists, that recent authorities are

disposed to treat the Jaina style as a mere variation or continuation of

the Buddhist. Chronologically they are separated by an interval of some

three centuries, _cir._ 650-950 A.D., which have left us almost no

monuments of either style. The Jaina is moreover easily distinguished

from the Buddhist architecture by the great number and elaborateness of

its structural monuments. The multiplication of statues of Tirthankhar

in the cells about the temple courts, the exuberance of sculpture, the

use of domes built in horizontal courses, and the imitation in stone of

wooden braces or struts are among its distinguishing features.

[Illustration: FIG. 226.--PORCH OF TEMPLE ON MOUNT ABU.]

+JAINA TEMPLES.+ The earliest examples are on +Mount Abu+ in the Indian

Desert. Built by Vimalah Sah in 1032, the chief of these consists of a

court measuring 140 × 90 feet, surrounded by cells and a double

colonnade. In the centre rises the shrine of the god, containing his

statue, and terminating in a lofty tower or _sikhra_. An imposing

columnar porch, cruciform in plan, precedes this cell (Fig. 226). The

intersection of the arms is covered by a dome supported on eight columns

with stone brackets or struts. The dome and columns are covered with

profuse carving and sculptured figures, and the total effect is one of

remarkable dignity and splendor. The temple of +Sadri+ is much more

extensive, twenty minor domes and one of larger size forming cruciform

porches on all four sides of the central _sikhra_. The cells about the

court are each covered by a small _sikhra_, and these, with the

twenty-one domes (four of which are built in three stories), all grouped

about the central tower and adorned with an astonishing variety of

detail, constitute a monument of the first importance. It was built by

Khumbo Rana, about 1450. At +Girnar+ are several 12th-century temples

with enclosed instead of open vestibules. One of these, that of

+Neminatha+, retains intact its court enclosure and cells, which in most

other cases have perished. The temple at +Somnath+ resembles it, but is

larger; the dome of its porch, 33 feet in diameter, is the largest Jaina

dome in India. Other notable temples are at Gwalior, Khajuraho, and

Parasnatha.

In all the Jaina temples the salient feature is the sikhra or _vimana_.

This is a tower of approximately square plan, tapering by a graceful

curve toward a peculiar terminal ornament shaped like a flattened melon.

Its whole surface is variegated by horizontal bands and vertical breaks,

covered with sculpture and carving. Next in importance are the domes,

built wholly in horizontal courses and resting on stone lintels carried

by bracketed columns. These same traits appear in relatively modern

examples, as at Delhi.

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

+TOWERS.+ A similar predilection for minutely broken surfaces marks the

towers which sometimes adjoin the temples, as at Chittore (tower of +Sri

Allat+, 13th century), or were erected as trophies of victory, like that

of +Khumbo Rana+ in the same town (Fig. 227). The combination of

horizontal and vertical lines, the distribution of the openings, and the

rich ornamentation of these towers are very interesting, though lacking

somewhat in structural propriety of design.

+HINDU STYLES: NORTHERN BRAHMAN.+ The origin of this style is as yet an

unsolved problem. Its monuments were mainly built between 600 and 1200

A.D., the oldest being in Orissa, at Bhuwanesevar, Kanaruk, and Puri. In

northern India the temples are about equally divided between the two

forms of Brahmanism--the worship of Vishnu or _Vaishnavism_, and that of

Siva or _Shaivism_--and do not differ materially in style. As in the

Jaina style, the _vimana_ is their most striking feature, and this is in

most cases adorned with numerous reduced copies of its own form grouped

in successive stages against its sides and angles. This curious system

of design appears in nearly all the great temples, both of Vishnu and

Siva. The Jaina melon ornament is universal, surmounted generally by an

urn-shaped finial.

In plan the vimana shrine is preceded by two or three chambers, square

or polygonal, some with and some without columns. The foremost of these

is covered by a roof formed like a stepped pyramid set cornerwise. The

fine porch of the ruined temple at +Bindrabun+ is cruciform in plan and

forms the chief part of the building, the shrine at the further end

being relatively small and its tower unfinished or ruined. In some

modern examples the antechamber is replaced by an open porch with a

Saracenic dome, as at Benares; in others the old type is completely

abandoned, as in the temple at +Kantonnuggur+ (1704-22). This is a

square hall built of terra-cotta, with four three-arched porches and

nine towers, more Saracenic than Brahman in general aspect.

The +Kandarya Mahadeo+, at Khajuraho, is the most noted example of the

northern Brahman style, and one of the most splendid structures extant.

A strong and lofty basement supports an extraordinary mass of roofs,

covering the six open porches and the antechamber and hypostyle hall,

which precede the shrine, and rising in successive pyramidal masses

until the vimana is reached which covers the shrine. This is 116 feet

high, but seems much loftier, by reason of the small scale of its

constituent parts and the marvellously minute decoration which covers

the whole structure. The vigor of its masses and the grand stairways

which lead up to it give it a dignity unusual for its size, 60 × 109

feet in plan (_cir._ 1000 A.D.).

At Puri, in Orissa, the +Temple+ of +Jugganat+, with its double

enclosure and numerous subordinate shrines, the Teli-ka-Mandir at

Gwalior, and temples at +Udaipur+ near Bhilsa, at +Mukteswara+ in

Orissa, at Chittore, Benares, and Barolli, are important examples. The

few tombs erected subsequent to the Moslem conquest, combining Jaina

bracket columns with Saracenic domes, and picturesquely situated palaces

at Chittore (1450), Oudeypore (1580), and Gwalior, should also be

mentioned.

+CHALUKYAN STYLE.+ Throughout a central zone crossing the peninsula from

sea to sea about the Dekkan, and extending south to Mysore on the west,

the Brahmans developed a distinct style during the later centuries of

the Chalukyan dynasty. Its monuments are mainly comprised between 1050

and the Mohammedan conquest in 1310. The most notable examples of the

style are found along the southwest coast, at Hullabid, Baillur, and

Somnathpur.

+TEMPLES.+ Chalukyan architecture is exclusively religious and its

temples are easily recognized. The plans comprise the same elements as

those of the Jainas, but the Chalukyan shrine is always star-shaped

externally in plan, and the vimana takes the form of a stepped pyramid

instead of a curved outline. The Jaina dome is, moreover, wholly

wanting. All the details are of extraordinary richness and beauty, and

the breaking up of the surfaces by rectangular projections is skilfully

managed so as to produce an effect of great apparent size with very

moderate dimensions. All the known examples stand on raised platforms,

adding materially to their dignity. Some are double temples, as at

Hullabid (Fig. 228); others are triple in plan. A noticeable feature of

the style is the deeply cut stratification of the lower part of the

temples, each band or stratum bearing a distinct frieze of animals,

figures or ornament, carved with masterly skill. Pierced stone slabs

filling the window openings are also not uncommon.

The richest exemplars of the style are the temples at +Baillur+ and

Somnathpur, and at Hullabîd the +Kait Iswara+ and the incomplete +Double

Temple+. The Kurti Stambha, or gate at Worangul, and the Great Temple at

+Hamoncondah+ should also be mentioned.

[Illustration: FIG. 228.--TEMPLE AT HULLABÎD. DETAIL.]

+DRAVIDIAN STYLE.+ The Brahman monuments of southern India exhibit a

style almost as strongly marked as the Chalukyan. This appears less in

their details than in their general plan and conception. The Dravidian

temples are not single structures, but aggregations of buildings of

varied size and form, covering extensive areas enclosed by walls and

entered through gates made imposing by lofty pylons called _gopuras_. As

if to emphasize these superficial resemblances to Egyptian models, the

sanctuary is often low and insignificant. It is preceded by much more

imposing porches (_mantapas_) and hypostyle halls or _choultries_, the

latter being sometimes of extraordinary extent, though seldom lofty. The

choultrie, sometimes called the Hall of 1,000 Columns, is in some cases

replaced by pillared corridors of great length and splendor, as at

+Ramisseram+ and +Madura.+ The plans are in most cases wholly irregular,

and the architecture, so far from resembling the Egyptian in its scale

and massiveness, is marked by the utmost minuteness of ornament and

tenuity of detail, suggesting wood and stucco rather than stone. The

+Great Hall+ at Chillambaram is but 10 to 12 feet high, and the

corridors at Ramisseram, 700 feet long, are but 30 feet high. The effect

of _ensemble_ of the Dravidian temples is disappointing. They lack the

emphasis of dominant masses and the dignity of symmetrical and logical

arrangement. The very loftiness of the gopuras makes the buildings of

the group within seem low by contrast. In nearly every temple, however,

some one feature attracts merited admiration by its splendor, extent, or

beauty. Such are the +Choultrie+, built by Tirumalla Nayak at Madura

(1623-45), measuring 333 × 105 feet; the corridors already mentioned at

Ramisseram and in the +Great Temple+ at Madura; the gopuras at

+Tarputry+ and Vellore, and the +Mantapa+ of +Parvati+ at Chillambaram

(1595-1685). Very noticeable are the compound columns of this style,

consisting of square piers with slender shafts coupled to them and

supporting brackets, as at Chillambaram, Peroor, and Vellore; the richly

banded square piers, the grotesques of rampant horses and monsters, and

the endless labor bestowed upon minute carving and ornament in

superposed bands.

+OTHER MONUMENTS.+ Other important temples are at Tiruvalur, Seringham,

Tinevelly, and Conjeveram, all alike in general scheme of design, with

enclosures varying from 300 to 1,000 feet in length and width. At

+Tanjore+ is a magnificent temple with two courts, in the larger of

which stands a _pagoda_ or shrine with a pyramidal vimana, unusual in

Dravidian temples, and beside it the smaller +Shrine+ of +Soubramanya+

(Fig. 229), a structure of unusual beauty of detail. In both, the

vertical lower story with its pilasters and windows is curiously

suggestive of Renaissance design. The pagoda dates from the 14th, the

smaller temple from the 15th century.

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

+ROCK-CUT RATHS.+ All the above temples were built subsequently to the

12th century. The rock-cut shrines date in some cases as far back as the

7th century; they are called _kylas_ and _raths_, and are not caves, but

isolated edifices, imitating structural designs, but hewn bodily from

the rock. Those at Mahavellipore are of diminutive size; but at

+Purudkul+ there is an extensive temple with shrine, choultrie, and

gopura surrounded by a court enclosure measuring 250 × 150 feet (9th

century). More famous still is the elaborate +Kylas+ at +Ellora+, of

about the same size as the above, but more complex and complete in its

details.

+PALACES.+ At Madura, Tanjore, and Vijayanagar are Dravidian palaces,

built after the Mohammedan conquest and in a mixed style. The domical

octagonal throne-room and the +Great Hall+ at Madura (17th century), the

most famous edifices of the kind, were evidently inspired from Gothic

models, but how this came about is not known. The Great Hall with its

pointed arched barrel vault of 67 feet span, its cusped arches, round

piers, vaulting shafts, and triforium, appears strangely foreign to its

surroundings.

+CAMBODIA.+ The subject of Indian architecture cannot be dismissed

without at least brief mention of the immense temple of +Nakhon Wat+ in

Cambodia. This stupendous creation covers an area of a full square mile,

with its concentric courts, its encircling moat or lake, its causeways,

porches, and shrines, dominated by a central structure 200 feet square

with nine pagoda-like towers. The corridors around the inner court have

square piers of almost classic Roman type. The rich carving, the perfect

masonry, and the admirable composition of the whole leading up to the

central mass, indicate architectural ability of a high order.

+CHINESE ARCHITECTURE.+ No purely Mongolian nation appears ever to have

erected buildings of first-rate importance. It cannot be denied,

however, that the Chinese are possessed of considerable decorative skill

and mechanical ingenuity; and these qualities are the most prominent

elements in their buildings. Great size and splendor, massiveness and

originality of construction, they do not possess. Built in large measure

of wood, cleverly framed and decorated with a certain richness of color

and ornament, with a large element of the grotesque in the decoration,

the Chinese temples, pagodas, and palaces are interesting rather than

impressive. There is not a single architectural monument of imposing

size or of great antiquity, so far as we know. The celebrated +Porcelain

Tower+ of Nankin is no longer extant, having been destroyed in the

Tæping rebellion in 1850. It was a nine-storied polygonal pagoda 236

feet high, revetted with porcelain tiles, and was built in 1412. The

largest of Chinese temples, that of the +Great Dragon+ at Pekin, is a

circular structure of moderate size, though its enclosure is nearly a

mile square. Pagodas with diminishing stories, elaborately carved

entrance gates and successive terraces are mainly relied upon for

effect. They show little structural art, but much clever ornament. Like

the monasteries and the vast _lamaseries_ of Thibet, they belong to the

Buddhist religion.

Aside from the ingenious framing and bracketing of the carpentry, the

most striking peculiarity of Chinese buildings is their broad-spreading

tiled roofs. These invariably slope downward in a curve, and the tiling,

with its hip-ridges, crestings, and finials in terra-cotta or metal,

adds materially to the picturesqueness of the general effect. Color and

gilding are freely used, and in some cases--as in a summer pavilion at

Pekin--porcelain tiling covers the walls, with brilliant effect. The

chief wonder is that this resource of the architectural decorator has

not been further developed in China, where porcelain and earthenware are

otherwise treated with such remarkable skill.

+JAPANESE ARCHITECTURE.+ Apparently associated in race with the Chinese

and Koreans, the Japanese are far more artistic in temperament than

either of their neighbors. The refinement and originality of their

decorative art have given it a wide reputation. Unfortunately the

prevalence of earthquakes has combined with the influence of the

traditional habits of the people to prevent the maturing of a truly

monumental architecture. Except for the terraces, gates, and enclosures

of their palaces and temples, wood is the predominant building material.

It is used substantially as in China, the framing, dovetailing,

bracketing, broad eaves and tiled roofs of Japan closely resembling

those of China. The chief difference is in the greater refinement and

delicacy of the Japanese details and the more monumental disposition of

the temple terraces, the beauty of which is greatly enhanced by skillful

landscape gardening. The gateways recall somewhat those of the Sanchi

Tope in India (p. 403), but are commonly of wood. Owing to the danger

from earthquakes, lofty towers and pagodas are rarely seen.

The domestic architecture of Japan, though interesting for its

arrangements, and for its sensible and artistic use of the most flimsy

materials, is too trivial in scale, detail, and construction to receive

more than passing reference. Even the great palace at Tokio,[28]

covering an immense area, is almost entirely composed of one-storied

buildings of wood, with little of splendor or architectural dignity.

[Footnote 28: See Transactions R.I.B.A., 52d year, 1886, article

by R. J. Conder, pp. 185-214.]

+MONUMENTS+ (additional to those in text). BUDDHIST: Topes at

Sanchi, Sonari, Satdara, Andher, in Central India; at Sarnath,

near Benares; at Jelalabad and Salsette; in Ceylon at

Anuradhapura, Tuparamaya, Lankaramaya.--Grotto temples (chaityas),

mainly in Bombay and Bengal Presidencies; at Behar, especially the

Lomash Rishi, and Cuttack; at Bhaja, Bedsa, Ajunta, and Ellora

(Wiswakarma Cave); in Salsette, the Kenheri Cave.--Viharas:

Structural at Nalanda and Sarnath, demolished; rock-cut in Bengal,

at Cuttack, Udayagiri (the Ganesa); in the west, many at Ajunta,

also at Bagh, Bedsa, Bhaja, Nassick (the Nahapana, Vadnya Sri,

etc.), Salsette, Ellora (the Dekrivaria, etc.). In Nepâl, stupas

of Swayanbunath and Bouddhama.

JAINA: Temples at Aiwulli, Kanaruc (Black Pagoda), and Purudkul;

groups of temples at Palitana, Gimar, Mount Abu, Somnath,

Parisnath; the Sas Bahu at Gwalior, 1093; Parswanatha and Ganthai

(650) at Khajuraho; temple at Gyraspore, 7th century; modern

temples at Ahmedabad (Huttising), Delhi, and Sonaghur; in the

south at Moodbidri, Sravana Belgula; towers at Chittore.

NORTHERN BRAHMAN: Temples, Parasumareswara (500 A.D.), Mukteswara,

and Great Temple (600-650), all at Bhuwaneswar, among many others;

of Papanatha at Purudkul; grotto temples at Dhumnar, Ellora, and

Poonah; temples at Chandravati, Udaipur, and Amritsur (the last

modern); tombs of Singram Sing and others at Oudeypore; of Rajah

Baktawar at Ulwar, and others at Goverdhun; ghâts or landings at

Benares and elsewhere.

CHALUKYAN: Temples at Buchropully and Hamoncondah, 1163; ruins at

Kalyani; grottoes of Hazar Khutri.

DRAVIDIAN: Rock-cut temples (raths) at Mahavellipore; Tiger Cave

at Saluvan Kuppan; temples at Pittadkul (Purudkul), Tiruvalur,

Combaconum, Vellore, Peroor, Vijayanagar; pavilions at Tanjore and

Vijayanagar.

There are also many temples in the Kashmir Valley difficult of

assignment to any of the above styles and religions.

APPENDIX.

A. +PRIMITIVE GREEK ARCHITECTURE.+--The researches of Schliemann

commented by Schuchardt, of Dörpfeld, Stamakis, Tsoundas, Perrot, and

others, in Troy, Mycenæ, and Tiryns, and the more recent discoveries of

Evans at Gnossus, in Crete, have greatly extended our knowledge of the

prehistoric art of Greece and the Mediterranean basin, and established

many points of contact on the one hand with ancient Egyptian and

Phœnician art, and on the other, with the art of historic Greece. They

have proved the existence of an active and flourishing commerce between

Egypt and the Mediterranean shores and Aegean islands more than 2000

B.C., and of a flourishing material civilization in those islands and on

the mainland of Greece, borrowing much, but not everything, from Egypt.

While the origin of the Doric order in the structural methods of the

pre-Homeric architecture of Tiryns and Mycenæ, as set forth by Dörpfeld

and by Perrot and Chipiez, can hardly be regarded as proved in all

details, since much of the argument advanced for this derivation rests

on more or less conjectural restorations of the existing remains, it

seems to be fairly well established that the Doric order, and historic

Greek architecture in general, trace their genesis in large measure back

in direct line to this prehistoric art. The remarkable feature of this

early architecture is the apparently complete absence of temples.

Fortifications, houses, palaces, and tombs make up the ruins thus far

discovered, and seem to indicate clearly the derivation of the

temple-type of later Greek art from the primitive house, consisting of a

hall or _megaron_ with four columns about the central hearth (whence no

doubt, the atrium and peristyle of Roman houses, through their Greek

intermediary prototypes) and a porch or _aithousa_, with or without

columns _in antis_, opening directly into the _megaron_, or indirectly

through an ante-room called the _prodomos_. Here we have the prototypes

of the Greek temple _in antis_, with its _naos_ having interior columns,

whether roofed over or hypæthral (see pp. 54, 55). It is probable also

that the evidently liberal use of timber for many of the structural

details led in time to many of the forms later developed in stone in the

entablature of the Doric order. But it is hard to discover, as Dörpfeld

would have it, in the slender Mycenæan columns with their inverted

taper, the prototype of the massive Doric column with its upward taper.

The Mycenæan column was evidently derived from wooden models; the sturdy

Doric column--the earliest being the most massive--seems plainly derived

from stone or rubble piers (see p. 50), and thus to have come from a

different source from the Mycenæan forms.

The _gynecæum_, or women’s apartments, the men’s apartments, and the

bath were in these ancient palaces grouped in varying relations about

the _megaron_: their plan, purpose, and arrangement are clearly revealed

in the ruins of Tiryns, where they are more complete and perfect than

either at Troy or Mycenæ.

B. +CAMPANILES IN ITALY.+--Reference is made on page 264 to the towers

or campaniles of the Italian Gothic style and period, and six of these

are specifically mentioned; and on page 305 mention is also made of

those of the Renaissance in Italy. The number and importance of the

Italian campaniles and the interest attaching to their origin and

design, warrant a more extended notice than has been assigned them in

the pages cited.

The oldest of these bell-towers appear to be those adjoining the two

churches of San Apollinare in and near Ravenna (see p. 114), and date

presumably from the sixth century. They are plain circular towers with

few and small openings, except in the uppermost story, where larger

arched openings permit the issue of the sound of the bells. This type,

which might have been developed into a very interesting form of tower,

does not seem to have been imitated. It was at Rome, and not till the

ninth or tenth century, that the campanile became a recognized feature

of church architecture. It was invariably treated as a structure

distinct from the church, and was built of brick upon a square plan,

rising with little or no architectural adornment to a height usually of

a hundred feet or more, and furnished with but a few small openings

below the belfry stage, where a pair of coupled arched windows separated

by a simple column opened from each face of the tower. Above these

windows a pyramidal roof of low pitch terminated the tower. In spite of

their simplicity of design these Roman bell-towers often possess a

noticeable grace of proportions, and furnish the prototype of many of

the more elaborate campaniles erected during the Middle Ages in other

central and north Italian cities. The towers of Sta. Maria in Cosmedin,

Sta. Maria in Trastevere, and S. Giorgio in Velabro are examples of this

type. Most of the Roman examples date from the eleventh and twelfth

centuries.

In other cities, the campanile was treated with some variety of form and

decoration, as well as of material. In Lombardy and Venetia the square

red-brick shaft of the tower is often adorned with long, narrow pilaster

strips, as at Piacenza (p. 158, Fig. 91) and Venice, and an arcaded

cornice not infrequently crowns the structure. The openings at the top

may be three or four in number on each face, and even the plan is

sometimes octagonal or circular. The brick octagonal campanile of

+S. Gottardo+ at Milan is one of the finest Lombard church towers. At

Verona the brick tower on the Piazza dell’ Erbe and that of S. Zeno are

conspicuous; but every important town of northern Italy possesses one or

more examples of these structures dating from the eleventh, twelfth, or

thirteenth century.

Undoubtedly the three most noted bell-towers in Italy are those of

Venice, Pisa, and Florence. The great +Campanile+ of +St. Mark+ at

Venice, first begun in 874, carried higher in the twelfth and fourteenth

centuries, and finally completed in the sixteenth century with the

marble belvedere and wooden spire so familiar in pictures of Venice, was

formerly the highest of all church campaniles in Italy, measuring

approximately 325 feet to the summit. But this superb historic monument,

weakened by causes not yet at this writing fully understood, fell in

sudden ruin on the 14th of July, 1902, to the great loss not only of

Venice, but of the world of art, though fortunately without injuring the

neighboring buildings on the Piazza and Piazzetta of St. Mark. Since

then the campanile of S. Stefano, in the same city, has been demolished

to forestall another like disaster. The +Leaning Tower+ of Pisa (see

p. 160, Fig. 92) dates from 1174, and is unique in its plan and its

exterior treatment with superposed arcades. Begun apparently as a

leaning tower, it seems to have increased this lean to a dangerous

point, by the settling of its foundations during construction, as its

upper stages were made to deviate slightly towards the vertical from the

inclination of the lower portion. It has always served rather as a

watch-tower and belvedere than as a bell-tower. The +Campanile+

adjoining the Duomo at +Florence+ is described on p. 263 and illustrated

in Fig. 154, and does not require further notice here. The

black-and-white banded towers of Sienna, Lucca, and Pistoia, and the

octagonal lanterns crowning those of Verona and Mantua, also referred to

in the text on p. 264, need here only be mentioned again as illustrating

the variety of treatment of these Italian towers.

The Renaissance architects developed new types of campanile, and in such

variety that they can only be briefly referred to. Some, like a brick

tower at Perugia, are simple square towers with pilasters; more often

engaged columns and entablatures mark the several stories, and the upper

portion is treated either with an octagonal lantern or with diminishing

stages, and sometimes with a spire. Of the latter class the best example

is that of S. Biagio, at Montepulciano,--one of the two designed to

flank the façade of Ant. da S. Gallo’s beautiful church of that name.

One or two good late examples are to be found at Naples. Of the more

massive square type there are examples in the towers of S. Michele,

Venice; of the cathedral at Ferrara, Sta. Chiara at Naples, and Sta.

Maria dell’ Anima--one of the earliest--at Rome. The most complete and

perfect of these square belfries of the Renaissance is that of the

+Campidoglio+ at Rome, by Martino Lunghi, dating from the end of the

sixteenth century, which groups so admirably with the palaces of the

Capitol.

C. +BRAMANTE’S WORKS.+--A more or less animated controversy has arisen

regarding the authenticity of many of the works attributed to Bramante,

and the tendency has of late been to deny him any part whatever in

several of the most important of these works. The first of these to be

given a changed assignment was the church of the Consolazione at Todi

(p. 293), now believed to be by Cola di Caprarola; and it is now denied

by many investigators that either the Cancelleria or the Giraud palace

(p. 290) is his work, or any one of two or three smaller houses in Rome

showing a somewhat similar architectural treatment. The evidence adduced

in support of this denial is rather speculative and critical than

documentary, but is not without weight. The date 1495 carved on a

doorway of the Cancelleria palace is thought to forbid its attribution

to Bramante, who is not known to have come to Rome till 1503; and there

is a lack of positive evidence of his authorship of the Giraud palace

and the other houses which seem to be by the same hand as the

Cancelleria. To the advocates of this view there is not enough

resemblance in style between this group of buildings and his

acknowledged work either in Milan or in the Vatican to warrant their

being attributed to him.

It must, however, be remarked, that this notable group of works, stamped

with the marks and even the mannerisms of a strong personality, reveal

in their unknown author gifts amounting to genius, and heretofore deemed

not unworthy of Bramante. It is almost inconceivable that they should

have been designed by a mere beginner previously utterly unknown and

forgotten soon after. It is incumbent upon those who deny the

attribution to Bramante to find another name, if possible, on which to

fasten the credit of these works. Accordingly, they have been variously

attributed to Alberti (who died in 1472) or his followers; to Bernardo

di Lorenzo, and to other later fifteenth-century artists. The difficulty

here is to discover any name that fits the conditions even as well as

Bramante’s; for the supposed author must have been in Rome between 1495

and 1505, and his other works must be at least as much like these as

were Bramante’s. No name has thus far been found satisfactory to careful

critics; and the alternative theory, that there existed in Rome, before

Bramante’s coming, a group of architects unknown to later fame, working

in a common style and capable of such a masterpiece as the Cancelleria,

does not harmonize with the generally accepted facts of Renaissance art

history. Moreover, the comparison of these works with Bramante’s

Milanese work on the one hand and his great Court of the Belvedere in

the Vatican on the other, yields, to some critics, conclusions quite

opposed to those of the advocates of another authorship than Bramante’s.

The controversy must be considered for the present as still open. There

are manifest difficulties with either of the two opposed views, and

these can hardly be eliminated, except by the discovery of documents not

now known to exist, whose testimony will be recognized as unimpeachable.

D. +L’ART NOUVEAU.+--Since 1896, and particularly since the Paris

Exposition of 1900, a movement has manifested itself in France and

Belgium, and spread to Germany and Austria and even measurably to

England, looking towards a more personal and original style of

decorative and architectural design, in which the traditions and

historic styles of the past shall be ignored. This movement has received

from its adherents and the public the name of “L’Art Nouveau,” or,

according to some, “L’Art Moderne”; but this name must not be held to

connote either a really new style or a fundamentally new principle in

art. Indeed, it may be questioned whether any clearly-defined body of

principles whatever underlies the movement, or would be acknowledged

equally by all its adherents. It appears to be a reaction against a too

slavish adherence to traditional forms and methods of design (see pp.

370, 375), a striving to ignore or forget the past rather than a

reaching out after any well-understood, positive end; as such, it

possesses the negative strength of protest rather than the affirmative

strength of a vital principle. Its lack of cohesion is seen in the

division of its adherents into groups, some looking to nature for

inspiration, while others decry this as a mistaken quest; some seeking

to emphasize structural lines, and others to ignore them altogether.

All, however, are united in the avoidance of commonplace forms and

historic styles, and this preoccupation has developed an amazing amount

of originality and individualism of style, frequently reaching the

extreme of eccentricity. The results have therefore been, as might be

expected, extremely varied in merit, ranging from the most refined and

reserved in style to the most harshly bizarre and extravagant. As a

rule, they have been most successful in small and semi-decorative

objects--jewelry, silverware, vases, and small furniture; and one most

desirable feature of the movement has been the stimulus it has given

(especially in France and England), to the organization and activity of

“arts-and-crafts” societies which occupy themselves with the

encouragement of the decorative and industrial arts and the diffusion of

an improved taste. In the field of the larger objects of design, in

which the dominance of traditional form and of structural considerations

is proportionally more imperious, the struggle to evade these

restrictions becomes more difficult, and results usually in more obvious

and disagreeable eccentricities, which the greater size and permanence

of the object tend further to exaggerate. The least successful

achievements of the movement have accordingly been in architecture. The

buildings designed by its most fervent disciples (_e.g._ the Pavillon

Bleu at the Exposition of 1900, the Castel Béranger, Paris, by _H.

Guimard_, the houses of the artist colony at Darmstadt, and others) are

for the most part characterized by extreme stiffness, eccentricity, or

ugliness. The requirements of construction and of human habitation

cannot easily be met without sometimes using the forms which past

experience has developed for the same ends; and the negation of

precedent is not the surest path to beauty or even reasonableness of

design. It is interesting to notice that in the intermediate field of

furniture-design some of the best French productions recall the style of

Louis XV., modified by Japanese ideas and spirit. This singular but not

unpleasing combination is less surprising when we reflect that the style

of Louis XV. was itself a protest against the formalism of the heavy

classic architecture of preceding reigns, and achieved its highest

successes in the domain of furniture and interior decoration.

It may be fair to credit the new movement with one positive

characteristic in its prevalent regard for line, especially for the

effect of long and swaying lines, whether in the contours or

ornamentation of an object. This is especially noticeable in the Belgian

work, and in that of the Viennese “Secessionists,” who have, however,

carried eccentricity to a further point of extravagance than any others.

Whether “L’Art Nouveau” will ever produce permanent results time alone

can show. Its present vogue is probably evanescent and it cannot claim

to have produced a style; but it seems likely to exert on European

architecture an influence, direct and indirect, not unlike that of the

Néo-Grec movement of 1830 in France (p. 364), but even more lasting and

beneficial. It has already begun to break the hold of rigid classical

tradition in design; and recent buildings, especially in Germany and

Austria, like the works of the brilliant _Otto Wagner_ in Vienna, show a

pleasing freedom of personal touch without undue striving after

eccentric novelty. Doubtless in French and other European architecture

the same result will in time manifest itself.

The search for novelty and the desire to dispense wholly with historic

forms of design which are the chief marks of the Art Nouveau, were

emphatically displayed in many of the remarkable buildings of the Paris

+Exhibition of 1900+, in which a striking fertility and facility of

design in the decorative details made more conspicuous the failure to

improve upon the established precedents of architectural style in the

matters of proportion, scale, general composition, and contour. As usual

the metallic construction of these buildings was almost without

exception admirable, and the decorative details, taken by themselves,

extremely clever and often beautiful, but the combined result was not

satisfactory.

In the United States the movement has not found a firm foothold because

there has been no dominant, enslaving tradition to protest against. Not

a few of the ideas, not a little of the spirit of the movement may be

recognized in the work of individual architects and decorative artists

in the United States, executed years before the movement took

recognizable form in Europe: and American decorative design has

generally been, at least since 1880 or 1885, sufficiently free,

individual and personal, to render unnecessary and impossible any

concerted movement of artistic revolt against slavery to precedent.

E. +RECENT AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE.+--Architectural activity in the United

States continues to share in the general prosperity which has marked the

years since 1898, and this activity has by no means been confined to

industrial and commercial architecture. Indeed, while the erection of

“sky scrapers” or excessively lofty office-buildings has continued to be

a feature of this activity in the great commercial centres, the most

notable architectural enterprises of recent years have been in the field

of educational buildings, both in the East and West. In 1898 a great

international competition resulted in the selection of the design of Mr.

_E. Bénard_ of Paris for a magnificent group of buildings for the

+University of California+ on a scale of unexampled grandeur, and the

erection of this colossal project has been begun. An almost equally

ambitious project, by a firm of Philadelphia architects, has been

adopted for the Washington University at St. Louis; and many other

universities and colleges have either added extensively to their

existing buildings or planned an entire rebuilding on new designs. Among

these the national military and naval academies at +West Point+ and

+Annapolis+ take the first rank in the extent and splendor of the

projected improvements. Museums and libraries have also been erected or

begun in various cities, and the +New York Public Library+, now

building, will rank in cost and beauty with those already erected in

Boston and Washington.

In other departments mention should be made of recent Federal buildings

(custom-houses, post-offices, and court-houses) erected under the

provisions of the Tarsney act from designs secured by competition among

the leading architects of the country; among those the +New York Custom

House+ is the most important, but other buildings, at Washington,

Indianapolis, and elsewhere, are also conspicuous, and many of them

worthy of high praise. The tendency to award the designing of important

public buildings, such as State capitols, county court houses, city

halls, libraries, and hospitals, by competition instead of by personal

and political favor, has resulted in a marked improvement in the quality

of American public architecture.

F. +THE ERECHTHEUM: RECENT INVESTIGATIONS.+--During the past two years,

extensive repairs and partial restorations of the Erechtheum at Athens,

undertaken by the Greek Archæological Society, have afforded

opportunities for a new and thoroughgoing study of the existing portions

of the building and of the surrounding ruins. In these investigations a

prominent part has been borne by Mr. Gorham P. Stevens, representing the

Archæological Institute of America, to whom must be credited, among

other things, the demonstration of the existence, in the east wall of

the original structure, of two windows previously unknown. Other

peculiarities of design and construction were also discovered, which add

greatly to the interest of the building. These investigations are

reported in the _American Journal of Archæology_, Second Series;

_Journal of the Archæological Institute of America_, Vol. X., No. 1, _et

seq._ The illustrations, Figures 35 and 36, are, by Mr. Stevens’

courtesy, based upon, though not reproductions of, his original

drawings.

GLOSSARY

OF TERMS NOT DEFINED IN THE TEXT.

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

of a governing official.

ARCHIVOLT, a band or group of mouldings decorating the wall-face of an

arch; or a transverse arch projecting slightly from the surface of a

barrel or groined vault.

ASTYLAR, without columns.

BALNEA, a Roman bathing establishment, less extensive than the _thermæ_.

BEL ETAGE, the principal story of a building, containing the reception

rooms and saloons; usually the second story (first above the ground

story).

BROKEN ENTABLATURE, an entablature which projects forward over each

column or pilaster, returning back to the wall and running along with

diminished projection between the columns, as in the Arch of Constantine

(Fig. 63).

CANTONED PIERS, piers adorned with columns or pilasters at the corners

or on the outer faces.

CARTOUCHE (Fr.), an ornament shaped like a shield or oval. In Egyptian

hieroglyphics, the oval encircling the name of a king.

CAVETTO, a concave, quarter-round moulding.

CHEVRON, a V-shaped ornament.

CHRYSELEPHANTINE, of ivory and gold; used of statues in which the nude

portions are of ivory and the draperies of gold.

CONSOLE, a large scroll-shaped bracket or ornament, having its broadest

curve at the bottom.

CORINTHIANESQUE, resembling the Corinthian; used of capitals having

corner-volutes and acanthus leaves, but combined otherwise than in the

classic Corinthian type.

EMPAISTIC, made of, or overlaid with, sheet-metal beaten or hammered

into decorative patterns.

EXEDRÆ, curved seats of stone; niches or recesses, sometimes of

considerable size, provided with seats for the public.

FENESTRATION, the whole system or arrangement of windows and openings in

an architectural composition.

FOUR-PART. A four-part vault is a groined vault formed by the

intersection of two barrel vaults. Its diagonal edges or _groins_ divide

it into four sections, triangular in plan, each called a _compartment_.

GIGANTOMACHIA, a group or composition representing the mythical combat

between the gods and the giants.

HALF-TIMBERED, constructed with a timber framework showing externally,

and filled in with masonry or brickwork.

IMAUM, imâm, a Mohammedan priest.

KAABAH, the sacred shrine at Meccah, a nearly cubical structure hung

with black cloth.

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

Khalifs.

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

the larger thermæ.

MEZZANINE, a low, intermediate story.

MUEDDIN, a Mohammedan mosque-official who calls to prayer.

NARTHEX, a porch or vestibule running across the front of a basilica or

church.

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

apply to modern uses the forms of the Middle Ages.

OCULUS, a circular opening, especially in the crown of a dome.

OGEE ARCH, one composed of two juxtaposed S-shaped or wavy curves,

meeting in a point at the top.

PALÆSTRA, an establishment among the ancient Greeks for physical

training.

PAVILION (Fr. _pavillon_), ordinarily a light open structure of ornate

design. As applied to architectural composition, a projecting section of

a façade, usually rectangular in plan, and having its own distinct mass

of roof.

QUARRY ORNAMENT, any ornament covering a surface with two series of

reticulated lines enclosing approximately quadrangular spaces or meshes.

QUATREFOIL, with four leaves or _foils_; composed of four arcs of

circles meeting in cusps pointing inward.

QUOINS, slightly projecting blocks of stone, alternately long and short,

decorating or strengthening a corner or angle of a façade.

REVETMENT, a veneering or sheathing.

RUSTICATION, treatment of the masonry with blocks having roughly broken

faces, or with deeply grooved or bevelled joints.

SOFFIT, the under-side of an architrave, beam, arch, or corona.

SPANDRIL, the triangular wall-space between two contiguous arches.

SQUINCH, a bit of conical vaulting filling in the angles of a square so

as to provide an octagonal or circular base for a dome or lantern.

STOA, an open colonnade for public resort.

TEPIDARIUM, the hot-water hall or chamber of a Roman bath.

TYMPANUM, the flat space comprised between the horizontal and raking

cornices of a pediment, or between a lintel and the arch over it.

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

INDEX OF ARCHITECTS.

The _surname_ is in all cases followed by a comma.

Abadie, 373

Adams, Robert 234

Agnolo, Baccio d’ 291

Agnolo, Gabriele d’ 287

Alberti, Leo Battista 277, 280

Alessi, Galeazzo 299, 302

Ammanati, Bartolomeo 300

Anselm, Prior 219

Anthemius of Tralles, 127

Antonio, Master 259

Arnold, Master 243

Arnolfo di Cambio, 162, 265

Baccio D’ Agnolo, 291

Ballu, 371, 373

Baltard, Victor 371

Barry, Sir Charles 380

Bassevi, 356

Battista, Juan 351

Benci di Cione, 266

Benedetto da Majano, 280, 281

Bernardo di Lorenzo, 282

Bernini, Lorenzo 295, 303, 319

Berruguete, Alonzo 348, 350

Bianchi, 305

Bondone, Giotto di 258, 263, 272

Boromini, Francesco 303, 304

Borset, 334

Bramante Lazzari, 289, 290, 294, 295, 321

Brandon, Richard 378

Bregno, Antonio 284

Brongniart, 363

Brunelleschi, Filippo 275, 276, 280, 281, 289

Bullant, Jean 316, 317

Bulfinch, Charles 390

Buon, Bartolomeo 284

Buonarotti, Michael Angelo 289, 292, 294, 295, 296, 299

Burges, William 380

Callicrates, 63

Cambio, Arnolfo di 162, 265

Campbell, Colin 333

Campello, 255

Caprarola, Cola da 293

Caprino, Meo del 286

Chalgrin, 362

Chambers, Sir William 333

Chambiges, Pierre 313

Chrismas, Gerard 327

Christodoulos, 150

Churriguera, 348, 352

Cimabue, 258

Civitale, Matteo 281, 283

Columbe, Michel 310

Cortona, Domenico di 316

Cossutius, 68

Cronaca, 280, 291

Dance, George 334

De Brosse, Salomon 318, 319

De Fabris, 261

De Key, Lieven 336

De Keyser, Hendrik 336

Della Porta, Giacomo 292, 299, 300

Della Robbia, Luca 281

De l’Orme, Philibert 316, 317

Déperthes, 373

Derrand, François 319

Desiderio da Settignano, 281

De Tessin, Nicodemus 337

De Vriendt (or Floris), Cornelius 334, 335

Diego de Siloë, 348

Domenico di Cortona, 316

Donatello, 275

Dosio, Giovanni Antonio 291

Duban, Félix 364

Duc, 364, 365

Du Cerceau, Jean Batiste 318

Edington, 226

Emerson, William 382

Enrique de Egaz, 349

Erwin von Steinbach, 241

Fain, Pierre 310

Federighi, Antonio 282

Ferstel, H. von 375

Fiesole, Mino da 281

Filarete, Antonio 283

Flitcroft, 333

Floris (De Vriendt), Cornelius 334, 335

Fontaine, 362

Fontana, Domenico 295, 299, 300, 304

Fra Giocondo, 286

Fra Ristoro, 256

Fra Sisto, 256

Fuga, Ferdinando 305

Gabriel, Jacques Ange 324, 367

Gabriele d’Agnolo, 287

Gaddi, Taddeo 263

Gadyer, Pierre 315

Galilei, Alessandro 305

Garnier, Charles 372

Gerhardt von Riel, 243

Giacomo di Pietrasanta, 286

Gibbs, James 332, 333, 356, 385

Giocondo, Fra 286

Giotto di Bondone, 258, 263, 272

Giuliano da Majano, 286, 287

Giulio Romano, 289, 292

Goujon, Jean 316, 321

Gumiel, Pedro 349

Hallet, Stephen (Étienne) 389

Hansen, Theophil 360

Have, Theodore 327

Hawksmoor, 332

Hendrik de Keyser, 336

Henri de Narbonne, 249

Henry of Gmünd, 255

Herrera, Francisco 352

Herrera, Juan d’ 348, 350, 351

Hitorff, J. J. 364, 372

Hoban, Thomas 390

Holbein, Hans 327

Hübsch, Heinrich 375, 376

Hunt, Richard M. 393

Ictinus, 62, 63, 65

Isodorus of Miletus, 127

Ivara, Ferdinando 352, 365

Jacobus of Meruan, 255

Jansen, Bernard 327

Jefferson, Thomas 390

John, Master 243

John of Padua, 328

Jones, Inigo 328, 332, 333

Juan Battista, 351

Junckher of Cologne, 241

Kearsley, Dr. 386

Kent, 333

Klenze, Leo von 359, 360, 367

Labrouste, Henri 364

Lassus, J. B. A. 371

Latrobe, Benjamin H. 389

Laurana, Francesco 310

Laurana, Luciano 287

Le Breton, Gilles 313

Lefuel, Hector 372

Lemercier, Jacques 312, 319, 322

Le Nepveu, Pierre 314

Lescot, Pierre 316, 321

Le Vau (or Levau) 320

Lieven de Key, 336

Ligorio, Pirro 293

Lippi, Annibale 293

Lira, Valentino di 343

Lombardi, Antonio 284

Lombardi, Martino 284

Lombardi, Moro 284

Lombardi, Pietro 284

Lombardi, Tullio 284, 293

Longhena, Baldassare 304

Lorenzo, Bernardo di 282

Louis, Victor 362

Luca della Robbia, 281

Lunghi, Martino (the elder) 304, 305

Machuca, 351

Maderna, Carlo 295, 303

Majano, Benedetto da 280, 281

Majano, Giuliano da 286, 287

Mansart, François 322

Mansart, Jules Hardouin 320, 321, 322

Marchionne, 305

Marini, Giovanni 339

Martino, Pietro di 287

Matthew of Arras, 243

Meo del Caprino, 286

Meruan, Jacobus of 255

Métézeau, 318

Michelozzi, Michelozzo 279, 283

Mino da Fiesole, 281

Mnesicles, 65

Mullet, A. B. 392

Narbonne, Henri de 249

Nénot, Henri P. 374

Ohlmüller, 375

Palladio, Andrea 299, 301, 319, 328, 350

Percier, Charles 362

Perrault, Claude 320

Peruzzi, Baldassare 289, 291, 292, 294

Phidias, 62

Philibert de l’Orme, 316, 317

Pietrasanta, Giacomo di 286

Pintelli, Baccio 286

Pisano, Giovanni 260

Pisano, Niccolo 272

Polaert, 382

Poyet, 363

Pugin, A. Welby 378

Pythius, 71

Raphael Sanzio, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293

Renwick, James 391, 392

Revett, Nicholas 355, 358

Richardson, Henry H. 393, 394

Rickman, Thomas 378

Riel, Gerhardt von 243

Ristoro, Fra 256

Rizzio, Antonio 284

Romano, Giulio 289, 292

Rossellini, Bernardo 286

Ruiz, Fernando 352

Salvi, Niccola 305

Sammichele, Michele 293, 299, 300, 329

San Gallo, Antonio da (the Elder) 294

San Gallo, Antonio da (the Younger) 289, 291, 294

San Gallo, Giuliano da 278, 291, 292, 294

Sansovino, Giacopo Tatti 289, 293, 299, 300, 304

Satyrus, 71

Scamozzi, Vincenzo 299, 339

Schinkel, Friedrich 358, 360, 376

Schmidt, F. 378

Scott (General) 382

Scott, Sir Gilbert 380

Semper, Ottfried 376

Sens, William of 219

Servandoni, 323

Settignano, Desiderio da 281

Shaw, Norman 382

Siccardsburg, 376

Smirke, Robert 356

Smithson, Robert 328

Soane, Sir John 356

Soufflot, J. J. 362

Steinbach, Erwin von 241

Stella, Paolo della 339

Stern, Raphael 305, 365

Street, George Edmund 380

Stuart, James 355, 358

Stuhler, 359

Talenti, Francesco Di 259, 263

Talenti, Simone di 266

Taylor, Robert 334

Tessin, Nicodemus de 337

Thomson, Alexander 357

Thornton, 389

Thorpe, John 328

Titz, 376

Torregiano, 327

Trevigi, 327

Upjohn, Richard 392

Val Del Vira, 348

Valentino di Lira, 343

Van Aken, 343

Van Brugh, Sir John 332

Van Noort, William 336

Van Noye, Sebastian 336

Van Vitelli, 304

Vasari, Giorgio 162

Viart, Charles 311

Viel, 372

Vignola, Giacomo Barozzi da 289, 292, 296, 299, 300, 301

Vignon, Pierre 362

Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene Emmanuel 370, 371

Vischer, Kaspar 343

Vischer, Peter 347

Visconti, Louis T. J. 371, 372

Vitoni, Ventura 293

Vitruvius, 56, 71, 77

Von der Null, 376

Wallot, Paul 377

Wallot, Jean 333

Walter, Thomas Ustick 391

Waterhouse, Alfred 381

Webb, Aston 382

Wilkins, 357

William of Sens, 219

William of Wykeham, 222, 226

Wood, 333

Wren, Sir Christopher 329, 331, 332, 356, 385

Ziebland, 375

INDEX.

The buildings are arranged according to location. Those which appear

only in the lists of monuments at the ends of chapters are omitted.

_Numerals in parentheses refer to illustrations._