Architecture may be described as building at its best, and when we talk
of the architecture of any city or country we mean its best, noblest,
or most beautiful buildings; and we imply by the use of the word that
these buildings possess merits which entitle them to rank as works of
art.
The architecture of the civilized world can be best understood by
considering the great buildings of each important nation separately.
The features, ornaments, and even forms of ancient buildings differed
just as the speech, or at any rate the literature, differed. Each
nation wrote in a different language, though the books may have been
devoted to the same aims; and precisely in the same way each nation
built in a style of its own, even if the buildings may have been
similar in the purposes they had to serve. The division of the subject
into the architecture of Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc., is therefore the
most natural one to follow.
But certain broad groups, rising out of peculiarities of a physical
nature, either in the buildings themselves or in the conditions under
which they were erected, can hardly fail to be suggested by a general
view of the subject. Such, for example, is the fourfold division to
which the reader’s attention will now be directed.
All buildings, it will be found, can be classed under one or other
of four great divisions, each distinguished by a distinct mode of
building, and each also occupying a distinct place in history. The
first series embraces the buildings of the Egyptians, the Persians, and
the Greeks, and was brought to a pitch of the highest perfection in
Greece during the age of Pericles. All the buildings erected in these
countries during the many centuries which elapsed from the earliest
Egyptian to the latest Greek works, however they may have differed
in other respects, agree in this—that the openings, be they doors,
or be they spaces between columns, were spanned by beams of wood or
lintels of stone. Hence this architecture is called architecture of
the beam, or, in more formal language, trabeated architecture. This
mode of covering spaces required that in buildings of solid masonry,
where stone or marble lintels were employed, the supports should not be
very far apart, and this circumstance led to the frequent use of rows
of columns. The architecture of this period is accordingly sometimes
called columnar, but it has no exclusive claim to the epithet; the
column survived long after the exclusive use of the beam had been
superseded, and the term columnar must accordingly be shared with
buildings forming part of the succeeding series.
The second great group of buildings is that in which the semicircular
arch is introduced into construction, and used either together with
the beam, or, as mostly happened, instead of the beam, to span the
openings. This use of the arch began with the Assyrians, and it
reappeared in the works of the early Etruscans. The round-arched
series of styles embraces the buildings of the Romans from their
earliest beginnings to their decay; it also includes the two great
schools of Christian architecture which were founded by the Western
and the Eastern Church respectively—namely, the Romanesque, which,
originating in Rome, extended itself through Western Europe, and lasted
till the time of the Crusades, and the Byzantine, which spread from
Constantinople over all the countries in which the Eastern (or Greek)
Church flourished, and which continues to our own day.
The third group of buildings is that in which the pointed arch is
employed instead of the semicircular arch to span the openings. It
began with the rise of Mohammedan architecture in the East, and
embraces all the buildings of Western Europe, from the time of the
First Crusade to the revival of art in the fifteenth century. This
great series of buildings constitutes what is known as pointed, or,
more commonly, as gothic architecture.
The fourth group consists of the buildings erected during or since
the Renaissance (_i. e._, revival) period, and is marked by a return
to the styles of past ages or distant countries for the architectural
features and ornaments of buildings; and by that luxury, complexity,
and ostentation which, with other qualities, are well comprehended
under the epithet modern. This group of buildings forms what is known
as Renaissance architecture, and extends from the epoch of the revival
of letters in the fifteenth century to the present day.
The first two of these styles occupy those remote times of pagan
civilization which may be conveniently included under the broad term
ancient; and the better known work of the Greeks and Romans—the
classic nations—and they extend over the time of the establishment of
Christianity down to the close of that dreary period not incorrectly
termed the dark ages.
It may excite surprise that what appears to be so small a difference
as that which exists between a beam, a round arch, or a pointed arch,
should be employed in order to distinguish three of the four great
divisions. But in reality this is no pedantic or arbitrary grouping.
The mode in which spaces or openings are covered lies at the root of
most of the essential differences between styles of architecture, and
the distinction thus drawn is one of a real, not of a fanciful nature.
Every building when reduced to its elements, as will be done in these
papers, may be considered as made up of its (1) floor or plan, (2)
walls, (3) roof, (4) openings, (5) columns, and (6) ornaments, and
as marked by its distinctive (7) character, and the student must be
prepared to find that the openings are by no means the least important
of these elements. In fact, the moment the method of covering openings
was changed, it would be easy to show, did space permit, that all
the other elements, except the ornaments, were directly affected by
the change, and the ornaments indirectly; and we thus find such a
correspondence between this index feature and the entire structure as
renders this primary division a scientific though a very broad one.
A division of buildings into such great series as these can not,
however, supersede the more obvious historical and geographical
divisions. The architecture of every ancient country was partly the
growth of the soil, _i. e._, adapted to the climate of the country,
and the materials found there, and partly the outcome of the national
character of its inhabitants, and of such influences as race,
colonization, commerce, or conquest brought to bear upon them. These
influences produced strong distinctions between the work of different
peoples, especially before the era of the Roman Empire. Since that
period of universal dominion all buildings and styles have been
influenced more or less by Roman art. We accordingly find the buildings
of the most ancient nations separated from each other by strongly
marked lines of demarcation, but those since the era of the empire
showing a considerable resemblance to one another. The circumstance
that the remains of those buildings only which received the greatest
possible attention from their builders have come down to us from any
remote antiquity, has perhaps served to accentuate the differences
between different styles, for these foremost buildings were not
intended to serve the same purpose in all countries. Nothing but tombs
and temples have survived in Egypt. Palaces only have been rescued from
the decay of Assyrian and Persian cities; and temples, theaters, and
places of public assembly are the chief, almost the only remains of
architecture in Greece.
A strong contrast between the buildings of different ancient nations
rises also from the differing point of view for which they were
designed. Thus, in the tombs, and, to a large extent, the temples of
the Egyptians, we find structures chiefly planned for internal effect;
that is to say, intended to be seen by those admitted to the sacred
precincts, but only to a limited extent appealing to the admiration of
those outside. The buildings of the Greeks, on the other hand, were
chiefly designed to please those who examined them from without; and
though no doubt some of them, the theaters especially, were from their
very nature planned for interior effect, by far the greatest works
which Greek art produced were the exteriors of the temples.
The works of the Romans, and, following them, those of almost all
western Christian nations, were designed to unite external and internal
effect; but in many cases external was evidently most sought after,
and, in the north of Europe, many expedients—such, for example,
as towers, high-pitched roofs, and steeples—were introduced into
architecture with the express intention of increasing external effect.
On the other hand, the eastern styles, both Mohammedan and Christian,
especially when practiced in sunny climates, show in many cases a
comparative disregard of external effect, and that their architects
lavished most of their resources on the interiors of their buildings.
Passing allusions have been made to the influence of climate on
architecture; and the student whose attention has been once called to
this subject will find many interesting traces of this influence in
the designs of buildings erected in various countries. Where the power
of the sun is great, flat terraced roofs, which help to keep buildings
cool, and thick walls are desirable. Sufficient light is admitted by
small windows far apart. Overhanging eaves, or horizontal cornices, are
in such a climate the most effective mode of obtaining architectural
effect, and accordingly in the styles of all southern peoples these
peculiarities appear. The architecture of Egypt, for example, exhibited
them markedly. Where the sun is still powerful, but not so extreme, the
terraced roof is generally replaced by a sloping roof, steep enough
to throw off water, and larger openings are made for light and air;
but the horizontal cornice still remains the most appropriate means of
gaining effects of light and shade. This description will apply to the
architecture of Italy and Greece. When, however, we pass to northern
countries, where snow has to be encountered, where light is precious,
and where the sun is low in the heavens for the greater part of the
day, a complete change takes place. Roofs become much steeper, so as to
throw off snow. The horizontal cornice is to a large extent disused,
but the buttress, the turret, and other vertical features, from which
a level sun will cast shadows, begin to appear; and windows are made
numerous and spacious. This description applies to gothic architecture
generally—in other words, to the styles which rose in northern Europe.
The influence of materials on architecture is also worth notice. Where
granite, which is worked with difficulty, is the material obtainable,
architecture has invariably been severe and simple; where soft stone is
obtainable, exuberance of ornament makes its appearance, in consequence
of the material lending itself readily to the carver’s chisel. Where,
on the other hand, marble is abundant and good, refinement is to be
met with, for no other building material exists in which very delicate
mouldings or very slight or slender projections maybe employed with
the certainty that they will be effective. Where stone is scarce,
brick buildings, with many arches, roughly constructed cornices and
pilasters, and other peculiarities both of structure and ornamentation,
make their appearance, as, for example, in Lombardy and North Germany.
Where materials of many colors abound, as is the case, for example,
in the volcanic districts of France, polychromy is sought as a means
of ornamentation. Lastly, where timber is available, and stone and
brick are both scarce, the result is an architecture of which both the
forms and the ornamentation are entirely dissimilar to those proper to
buildings of stone, marble, or brick.