The palace at Madrid is the last of the series, and although it was

begun at a much later period, by Philip V. in 1737, from the designs

of the Italian architect Sachetti, it is a fine and simple

composition, consisting of a lofty ground storey with coursed masonry,

carrying semi-detached columns of the Ionic order, rising through

three storeys, the whole crowned by an entablature and a bold

balustrade. The slightly projecting wings at each end of the main

front and the central frontispiece give that variety and play of light

and shade of which one regrets the absence in the Cancellaria palace

at Rome.

We must, however, retrace our steps to the beginning of the 16th

century, to take up the early buildings of the style; the palace of

the Conde de Monterey at Salamanca, built in 1530 from the designs of

Alonso de Covarrubias, is a fine example. The masonry of the ground

and first floors is of the simplest character, the decoration being

confined to the entrance doorways and to the windows of the important

rooms. It is on the second floor that the design becomes enriched with

an open arcade and entablature above, crowned with a rich cresting. In

the wings at the angles, and in the central block, the buildings are

carried up an additional storey, the plain masonry of which gives

value to the open galleries between. On these wings and the central

block are other galleries crowned with entablature and cresting. These

features therefore form towers, which break the sky-line. There is

still another treatment peculiar to the Spanish Renaissance, in which

the example of the Moorish palaces would seem to have been followed,

viz. the elaborate carving of the pilasters and their capitals, of the

panelling and the horizontal friezes, which is extremely minute and

finished in the lower storeys, but increases in scale and projection

towards the upper storeys. This is very notable in the entrance

gateway of the university of Salamanca (Plate V., fig. 73), where the

carved arabesque in the panelling above the doors is of the finest

description, equal to what might be found in cabinet work, whilst that

of the upper portion immediately under the cornice is at least twice

the scale of that below and is in bold relief.

The principal buildings characteristic of the Spanish Renaissance, in

chronological order, are:--the hospital of Santa Cruz at Toledo, built

in 1504-1514, and the Hospicio de los Reyes at Santiago (1504), both

from the designs of Enrique de Egas, the former with a magnificent

portal rising through two storeys and a gallery with an open arcade

above; the Irish college at Salamanca, built (1521) from the designs

of Pedro de Ibarra, Alonso de Covarrubias, and Berruguete; the convent

of San Marcos, Leon, by Juan de Badajoz (1514-1545)--here, however,

the whole facade is panelled out in imitation of late Gothic work,

Renaissance pilasters and devices taking the place of the buttresses

set angle-wise and flamboyant panelling; the Colegio de San Ildefonso

at Alcala de Henares (formerly the seat of the university), built in

1557-1584 by Rodrigo Gil de Ontanon.

Of municipal buildings the Lonja or exchange at Toledo (1551), built

in brick-work, is somewhat Florentine in style.

The town hall of Seville (1527-1532), by Diego de Riano and Martin

Garuza, may be taken as the most gorgeous example in Spain (Plate V.,

fig. 74). The front facing the square is very simple, compared with

the facade in the street at the rear, and here again we find, in the

ornamental carving of the windows and door mouldings on the ground

floor, a different scale from that adopted on the first floor, where

the shafts are enriched with a superabundance of carved ornament in

strong relief. There is still one other feature of great importance in

Spain, the magnificent galleries of the patios or courts found in all

the important buildings. It is from these galleries that access is

obtained to the rooms on the first floor. They have sometimes arcades

on the first floor, and columns with bracket-capitals on the upper

storey. There is an infinite variety of design in these capitals, the

brackets on each side of which lessen the bearing of the architrave.

The earliest Renaissance example of these patios (1525) is in the

Irish college at Salamanca; it was carved by Berruguete, Alonso de

Covarrubias being the architect. In the same town is the Casa de la

Salinas, another example with fine sculpture. In the Casa Polentina

(1550) at Avila, and the Casa de Miranda at Burgos, columns with

bracket-capitals are employed on both storeys. Rich examples are found

in the Casa de la Infanta and Casa Zaporta (1580), both at Saragossa.

Of late examples the patio of the Lonja at Seville by Juan de Herrera

resembles in its style the courtyard of the Farnese palace at Rome;

and the same style obtains in the court of the Escorial, built at a

time when the purer Italian style was introduced into Spain. These

courts, though cold in design, compared with the earlier Renaissance

type, are of fine proportion. Two other examples are found in the

bishop's palace at Alcala de Henares, one of which has a magnificent

staircase. (R. P. S.)

RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN ENGLAND

In England, as in France, the influence of the Classic Revival was first

seen in connexion with tombs and church work, though not nearly to the

same extent as in France, where throughout the country the work of the

Italian sculptor is to be found not only in churches but in country

mansions. On the other hand, two if not three of the Italian artists who

came over to England were men of some reputation, such as Pietro

Torrigiano, a Florentine sculptor who was invited over by Henry VIII.

and entrusted with the tomb of Henry VII. in Westminster Abbey

(1512-1518), and executed the tomb of John Young (in terra-cotta) in the

Rolls chapel (1516). Another Italian was Giovanni da Maiano, who was

also a Florentine, who modelled the busts of the emperors in the

terra-cotta medallions over the entrance gates at Hampton Court, and

probably the panel flanked by Corinthian pilasters, in which are

modelled the arms of Cardinal Wolsey, also in terra-cotta. Benedetto da

Rovezzano (1478-_c._ 1552), and Toto del Nunziata, Italian artists of

note, were also employed in England, the first on the tomb of Cardinal

Wolsey (now destroyed), and the second on the palace of Nonsuch, built

by Henry VIII., which was pulled down in 1670. Other early Renaissance

work is found at Christchurch Priory, in the Salisbury Chantry (1529),

the design of which is Gothic and some of the details Italian, and in

the tombs of the countess of Richmond in Westminster Abbey (1519), of

the earl of Arundel in Arundel church, Sussex, of Henry, Lord Marney, at

Layer Marney (1525), of the duke of Richmond (1537) and the duchess of

Norfolk (1572) in Framlingham church; and of Queen Anne of Cleves (1557)

in Westminster Abbey, attributed to Haveus of Cleves. The sedilia (in

terra-cotta) of Wymondham church, Norfolk, the choir screen at St Cross,

and Bishop Gardiner's chantry, Winchester, and the vaulted roof of

Bishop West's chapel at Ely, all show the direct influence of the

Italian cinque-cento style. The most beautiful example in England of

Italian woodwork is the organ screen in King's College chapel, Cambridge

(1534-1539), which, except for the coats of arms, the roses, portcullis

and other English emblems, might be in some Italian church, so perfect

is its design and execution. Of early domestic work, Sutton Place

(1523-1525), near Guildford, Surrey, is a good example of transition

work. The design is Tudor, but the window mullions and panels inserted

throughout the structure, which is built in brick, are all enriched with

cinque-cento details in terra-cotta, and probably executed by Italian

craftsmen. Similar enrichments in the same material are found decorating

the entrance tower (1522-1525) at Layer Marney, Essex.

Nearly all the examples above mentioned come within the first half of

the 16th century. Passing into the second half and dealing with domestic

architecture, we find the history of the introduction of classic work

into England more complicated than in other countries, because in

addition to the Italian, we have French, Flemish and German influences

to reckon with, and it is sometimes difficult to decide from which

source the features are borrowed. There were, however, two still more

important considerations to be taken into account--firstly, the

extremely conservative character of the English people, who were

satisfied with the traditional work of the country, and the methods by

which it was carried out, and secondly, the great progress in design

which was made during the Elizabethan period, resulting in a phase which

was peculiarly English and did not lend itself easily to classic

embellishment.

Already in the last phase of Gothic work, to which the title of Tudor is

generally given, important changes were being made in the planning of

the larger country mansions, and features were introduced which seemed

to give an impetus towards their further development.

The most important of these features were the following:--the bow

window, rectangular or polygonal, of which the earliest examples date

from the reign of Edward IV. (1461-1483), such as Eltham Palace in

Kent, Cowdray Castle in Sussex, and Thornbury Castle in

Gloucestershire, and at a later period at Hampton Court; octagonal

towers or turrets flanking the entrance gateway at each end of the

main front; the projecting forward of the side wings so as to get

better light to the rooms in them by having windows on both sides,

such projections varying the otherwise monotonous effect of a uniform

facade without breaks; the long gallery (generally on an upper floor),

which was an important characteristic of the Elizabethan house; and

last but not least, the adherence to the type of old Tudor window,

with its moulded mullions and transoms but with square head.

One of the first modifications was the introduction of semicircular

bow windows, as in Kirby Hall, Northamptonshire, followed by a second

example at Burton Agnes in Yorkshire (1602-1610), and a third at

Lilford Hall in Northamptonshire (1635). They were carried up through

three storeys at Kirby Hall, the upper storey in the roof; three

storeys at Burton Agnes with balcony and balustrade; and two storeys

at Lilford Hall--these features being extremely simple but fine in

effect, and the windows with moulded mullions and transoms lending

themselves naturally to the curve.

The projecting bays and bow windows seemed to have such an attraction

for the builders of these country mansions that at Burton Agnes (with

a rectangular plan of 120 ft. by 80 ft.) there are no fewer than

thirteen of them, which break up the wall surface and give a

picturesque group externally, whilst internally they add to the fine

effect of the rooms. At Barlborough Hall, Derbyshire, with a frontage

of 80 ft., there is a central rectangular bay forming the entrance

porch and carried up above the roof, and two large octagonal bow

windows which rise as towers with an extra storey. In all these

mansions the only influence which the Revival seems to have exerted

was in the introduction of an entablature, which sometimes takes the

place of the Gothic string course, balustrades which crown the

building, but with no projecting cornice, and gables with curved

outlines and Renaissance panels or scrolls. The fact is that, with

prominent features so widely differing from those which were

represented on the perspective drawings attached to the earlier

publications of the five orders, such as those of Serlio (1537) and

Vredeman de Vries of Antwerp (1577), the only course left open to the

master-mason was to decorate the principal entrance with columns and

pilasters of the Classic orders, sometimes superposed one upon the

other.

To the further development of this singular introduction of the

Classic orders we shall return; for the moment it will be better to

follow a chronological sequence and take up the principal examples of

the country mansion, some of which were from the first intended to be

Classic buildings. Of the house built at Gorhambury in Hertfordshire

(1563) for Sir Nicholas Bacon, the father of Lord Bacon, too little

remains to render its design intelligible, except that it still

retains in its lofty window the Tudor pointed arch; but in Longleat in

Wiltshire, built by Sir John Thynne (1567-1580), we have a typical

example, the design of which departs from the English type, though it

would seem to have been carried out according to the traditional

custom of entrusting the whole work to a master-mason, and furnishing

him with sketch designs of some kind suggesting the required

arrangements of the plan, the principal features of the exterior

elevation and the internal disposition. This custom was adhered to far

into the 18th century at Oxford and Cambridge, where the alterations

and additions to some of the colleges, such as the chapel of Clare

College, Cambridge (1763), were carried out by master-masons or

builders who were supplied with sketch designs and sometimes even the

materials for the buildings they had to carry out, notwithstanding the

existence of properly trained architects, who from the first half of

the 17th century were usually entrusted with the preparation of the

necessary designs for new structures of any considerable importance.

The name of the designer of Longleat is not known; the master-mason

was Robert Smithson, who in 1580 went to Wollaton in Nottinghamshire

and constructed the mansion there. Longleat is so Italian in style

that it must have been conceived by some one who had been in Italy,

because it departs from the usual English type. The plan is

rectangular, with a frontage of 220 ft. by 180 ft. deep, an entrance

porch in the centre, with two projecting bays on each side carried up

through the three storeys, and three similar bays on the flanks. The

whole block is crowned with a parapet, the centre portion of which is

pierced with a balustrade, but the main cornice bears no resemblance

to the Italian feature, being only that of the entablature of the

upper order. The projecting bays are decorated with pilasters of the

Doric, Ionic and Corinthian orders, each with its proper entablature.

These classic features would seem to have been copied from a work by

John Shute, painter and architect, who had been sent to Italy by the

duke of Northumberland in 1551, and in 1563 brought out his _Chief

Groundes of Architecture_, the first practical work published in

English on architecture. Shute died in the same year, but two other

editions appeared in 1579 and 1584, which shows that it must have had

an extensive circulation and probably exercised the greatest influence

on English architecture. A second book on the orders, already referred

to as published in 1577 by Jan Vredeman de Vries of Antwerp, was not

of the same type, for instead of confining his work, like Shute and

Serlio, to a simple representation of the Classic orders, he

introduced, on the shafts of his columns and on the pedestals, designs

of the most debased rococo type, with additional plates suggesting

their application to various buildings. Robert Smithson, or his client

Sir Fr. Willoughby, apparently obtained a copy of this book, and the

result is seen (Plate VI., fig. 76) in the mansion built at Wollaton

(1580-1588), in which we find the first examples of elaborately

decorated pedestals; crestings on the angle towers, the design of

which is known as strap-work; and medallions with busts in them,

enclosed with twisted curves similar to those which flowers and leaves

take when thrown into the fire. The plan and the scheme of the design

of Wollaton is, however, so far superior to the usual type, that it

may fairly be ascribed to John Thorpe, an architect or surveyor, of

whose drawings there is a large collection in the Soane Museum,

representing many of the more important mansions of the Elizabethan

era; some of his own design, others either plans measured from

existing buildings upon which he was called in to report or copies

from other sources, and some reproduced from published works such as

Vredeman de Vries's pattern book and Androuet du Cerceau's _Des plus

excellents bastiments de France_ (1576).

To John Thorpe is also attributed the design of Kirby Hall (1570-1572)

in Northamptonshire, in which the plan of the feudal castle with great

central court is still retained. This court is symmetrically designed,

and was evidently considered to be the principal feature, the

decoration being far richer than that of the exterior of the building.

Amongst other important mansions are Moreton Old Hall (1550-1559,

partly rebuilt in 1602; see HOUSE, Plate III., fig. 11) in Cheshire, a

fine house in half-timber; Knole House, Kent (1570), possibly also

designed by John Thorpe; Charlecote Hall (1572) near

Stratford-on-Avon; Burleigh House, Northamptonshire (1575), the most

remarkable feature in which is the great tower in the courtyard,

decorated with the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian orders superposed, the

design apparently suggested by a similar feature in the chateau of

Anet, France (published in du Cerceau); Apethorpe Hall,

Northamptonshire (1580); Montacute House, Somersetshire (1580-1600);

Castle Ashby, Northamptonshire (1583-1589); Brereton Hall, Cheshire

(1575-1586), in brick and stone; Westwood Park, Worcestershire (1590);

Wakehurst Place, Sussex (1590); Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire (1590-1597);

Longford Castle, Wiltshire (1591-1612); Cobham Hall, Kent (1594);

Dorton House, Buckinghamshire (1596); Speke Hall, Lancashire (1598),

partly in half-timber work; Holland House, Kensington (1606; wings and

arcades, 1624); Bolsover Castle, Derbyshire (1607-1613); Charlton

House, Kent (1607); Bramshill, Hampshire (1607-1612), an interesting

example of Jacobean architecture; Hatfield, Hertfordshire (1608-1611),

with an extremely fine courtyard (north side in brick and stone,

1621); Audley End, Essex (1610-1616), a great portion of which was

afterwards pulled down; Ham House, Surrey (1610), chiefly in brick;

Pinkie House, at Musselburgh in Midlothian (1613); Aston Hall near

Birmingham (1618-1635); Blickling Hall, Norfolk (1619); Heriot's

hospital, Edinburgh (1628-1659); and Lanhydroc, Cornwall (1636-1641),

which brings us down to the period of the pure Italian Revival

introduced by Inigo Jones.

We have already referred to the reproduction of the Classic orders,

superposed as an enrichment of the principal entrance doorways. In

addition to Burton Agnes and Burleigh House, there are endless

examples in mansions and country houses, but the most remarkable are

those at Oxford: in the old Schools, where coupled columns flank the

entrance gateway with the five orders superposed, and in Merton and

Wadham Colleges, with four orders (the Tuscan being omitted), in

neither case taking any cognizance of the levels of windows or string

courses of the earlier building to which they were applied, or serving

any structural purpose. The orders were all taken from one of the

pattern books, and in the Schools and in Merton College the rococo

ornament and strap-work found in Vredeman de Vries's work were copied

with more or less fidelity to the original. There are, however, two or

three buildings in Northamptonshire which are free from rococo work,

and in their design form a pleasant contrast, as much to the

elaboration of the buildings just described as to the cold formality

of the works of the later Italian style. Lyveden new buildings (1577),

the Triangular Lodge at Rushton, and the Market House at Rothwell, are

all examples in which the orders from Serlio or John Shute are

faithfully represented, and are of a refined character; in the first

named the entablatures only of the orders are introduced. In Rushton

Hall (1595) the cresting of the bow windows shows the evil influence

of Vredeman de Vries's pattern-book and of numerous designs by him and

other Belgian artists, which were printed at the Plantin press. Two

other publications of a similar rococo type were brought out in

Germany, one by Cammermayer (1564) and the other by Dietterlin (1594),

both at Nuremberg; neither of them would seem to have been much known

in England, but indirectly through German craftsmen they may have

influenced some of the work of the Jacobean period, and more

particularly the chimney pieces and the ceilings of the gallery and

other important rooms in which strap-work is found. Among the finer

examples of ceilings of early date are those of Knole, Kent; Haddon

Hall, Derbyshire; Sizergh Hall, Westmorland; South Wraxall Manor

House, Wiltshire; the Red Lodge, Bristol; Chastleton House; and Canons

Ashby--in the last three with pendants. Two of the best-designed

ceilings of modest dimensions are those of the Reindeer Inn at Banbury

and the Star Inn at Great Yarmouth. The principal decorative feature

of the reception rooms was the chimney-piece, rising from floor to

ceiling, in early examples being very simple--as those at Broughton

House and Lacock Abbey--but at a later date overlaid with rococo

strap-work ornament and misshapen figures, as at South Wraxall and

Castle Ashby. One of the most beautiful chimney-pieces is in the

ballroom at Knole, probably of Flemish design, but at Cobham Hall,

Hardwick, Hatfield and Bolsover Castle are fine examples in which

different-coloured marbles are employed, there being a remarkable

series at the last-named place.

The long gallery has already been incidentally mentioned. Its origin

has never been clearly explained; it was generally situated in an

upper storey, and may have been for exercise, like the eaves galleries

in Spain. The dimensions were sometimes remarkable; one at Ampthill

(no longer existing) was 245 ft. long; and a second at Audley End, 220

ft. long and 34 ft. wide. Of moderate length, the best known are those

of Haddon Hall, with rich wainscotting carried up to the ceiling,

Hardwick, Knole, Longleat, Blickling Hall and Sutton Place, Surrey.

In early work the staircases were occasionally in stone with circular

or rectangular newels, but the more general type was that known as the

open well staircase, with balustrade and newels in timber. Of these

the more remarkable examples are those at Hatfield; Benthall Hall,

Shropshire; Sydenham House, Devonshire; Charterhouse, London; Ockwells

Manor House, Berkshire; Blickling, Norfolk; and the Old Star Inn at

Lewes, Sussex.

One of the important features in the old halls was the screen

separating the hall from the passage, over the latter being a gallery;

the front of the screen facing the hall was considered to be its chief

decoration, and was accordingly enriched with columns of the Classic

orders, and balustrade or cresting over. The screens of Charterhouse

(London), Trinity College (Cambridge), Wadham College (Oxford), and

the Middle Temple Hall (London), are remarkable for their design and

execution. The great hammer-beam roof (1562-1572) in the last named is

the finest example of the Renaissance in existence (see ROOFS, Plate

I., fig. 25).

With the exception of chantry or other chapels added to existing

buildings, there was only one church built in the period we are now

describing, St John's at Leeds. This church is divided down the centre

by an arcade of pointed arches, virtually constituting a double nave,

and the rood-screen is carried through both. The window tracery and

the arcade show how the master-mason adhered to the traditional Gothic

style, but the rood-screen, notwithstanding its rococo decoration, is

a fine Jacobean work, eclipsed only by the magnificent example at

Croscombe, which, with the pulpit and other church accessories, dating

from 1616, constitutes the most complete example of that period.

Inigo Jones.

The pure Italian style, as it is sometimes called, was introduced into

France probably by Serlio, and the result of its first influence is

shown in the Louvre, begun in 1546. It entered Spain about 20 years

later, under the rule of Philip II., and Germany about the same time,

creating about 100 years later a reaction in Spain in favour of a less

cold and formal style, and scarcely taking any root in Germany. In

England its first appearance does not take place till 1619, when Inigo

Jones, after his second visit to Rome, designed an immense palace,

measuring 1150 ft. by 900 ft., of which the only portion built was the

Banqueting House in Whitehall (Plate VI., fig. 75); a fine design, in

which the emphasizing of the central portion by columns in place of

pilasters is an original treatment not found in Italy, but of excellent

effect. Unfortunately many subsequent designs of Inigo Jones were either

not carried out or have since been destroyed; but nothing approached

this admirable work in Whitehall.

Among his buildings still remaining are St Paul's, Covent Garden

(1631), a simple and massive structure which requires perhaps an

Italian sun to make it cheerful; York Stairs Water-gate (1626); the

front of Wilton House, near Salisbury (1633); the Queen's House,

Greenwich (1617), a very poor design; Coleshill, Berkshire; Raynham

Park, Norfolk, with weakly-designed gables and an entrance doorway

with curved broken pediment, which can scarcely be regarded as pure

Italian; and Ashburnham House, Westminster (the staircase of which is

extremely fine), carried out after his death by his pupil John Webb,

who, at Thorpe Hall, near Peterborough (1656), shows that he possessed

some of his master's qualities in his employment of simple and bold

details.

Wren.

Sir Christopher Wren, who follows, was by far the greatest architect of

the Italian school, though curiously enough he had never been in Italy.

His first work was the library of Pembroke College, Cambridge

(1663-1664), followed by the Sheldonian theatre at Oxford, in the

construction of the roof of which, with a span of 68 ft., he showed his

great scientific knowledge. In 1665 he went to Paris, where he stopped

six months studying the architectural buildings there and in its

vicinity, and where he came across Bernini, whose designs for destroying

the old Louvre (fortunately not carried out) were being started. On his

return Wren occupied himself with designs for the rebuilding of the old

St Paul's, but these were rendered useless by the great fire of the 22nd

of September 1666, which opened out his future career. His plan for the

reconstruction of the city was not followed, owing to the opposition of

the owners of the sites, but he began plans for the rebuilding of the

churches and of St Paul's cathedral. In his treatment of the former,

where he was obliged to limit himself to the old sites, often very

irregular, and in most cases to the old foundations, he adopted, perhaps

quite unconsciously, one of the principles of ancient Roman

architecture, and made the central feature the key of his plan, fitting

the aisles, vestries, porches, &c., into what remained of the site; this

central feature varied according to its extent and proportions, and

sometimes from a desire to work out a new problem. The central dome was

a favourite conception, the finest example of which is that of St

Stephen's, Walbrook (1676); other domed churches are St Mary-at-Hill, St

Mildred's, Bread Street, St Mary Abchurch (1681), where the dome

virtually covers the whole area of the church, and St Swithin's, Cannon

Street, an octagonal example. In St Anne and St Agnes, Aldersgate, the

crossing is covered with an intersecting barrel vault; and in this small

church, about 52 ft. square with four supporting columns, he manages to

get nave, transept and choir with aisles in the angles. In those

churches where there was sufficient length, the ordinary arrangement of

nave and aisle is adopted, with an elliptical barrel vault over the

nave, sometimes intersected and lighted from clerestory windows, the

finest example of these being St Bride's, Fleet Street; other examples

are St Mary-le-Bow (Cheapside), Christchurch (Newgate) and St Andrew's

(Holborn). In St James's, Piccadilly, of which the site was a new one,

the plan of nave and aisles with galleries over, and a fine internal

design with barrel-vaulted ceiling, was adopted; the exterior is very

simple, which suggests that Wren attached much more importance to the

interior. It should be pointed out that in all these cases, the vaults,

to which we have referred, were in lath and plaster, and consequently

covered over with slate roofs, and as a rule the exteriors (which are

rarely visible) were deemed to be of less importance. This is, however,

made up for by the position selected for the towers, and in their varied

design those of St Mary-le-Bow, St Bride's (Fleet Street) and St Magnus

(London Bridge) are perhaps the finest of a most remarkable series.

The foundation stone of St Paul's cathedral was laid in 1675, and the

lantern was finished in 1710. The silhouette of the dome (Plate II.,

fig. 66), which is, of course, its principal feature, is far superior

to those of St Peter's at Rome, or the Invalides or Pantheon at Paris,

and the problem of its construction with the central lantern was

solved much more satisfactorily than in any other example. Wren

realized that the attempt to render a dome beautiful internally as

well as externally could only be obtained by having three shells in

its construction; the inner one for inside effect, the outer one to

give greater prominence externally, and the third, of conical form, to

support the lantern.

In plan, Wren's design (fig. 53) was in accordance with the

traditional arrangement of an English cathedral, with nave, north and

south transepts and choir, in all cases with side aisles, and a small

apse to the choir. The great dome over the crossing is, like the

octagon at Ely, of the same width as nave and aisles together. It

resembles the plan of that cathedral also in the four great arches

opening into nave, transepts and choir, with smaller arches between.

Instead of the great barrel vault of St Peter's, Rome, Wren introduced

a series of cupolas over the main arms of the cathedral, which enabled

him to light the same with clerestory windows; these are not visible

on the exterior, as they are masked by the upper storey which Wren

carried round the whole structure, in order, probably, to give it

greater height and importance; by its weight, however, it serves to

resist the thrust of the vaults transmitted by buttresses across the

aisles. The grouping of the two lanterns on the west front with the

central dome is extremely fine; the west portico is not satisfactory,

but the semicircular porticoes of the north and south transepts are

very beautiful features. Greater importance is given to the cathedral

by raising it on a podium about 12 ft. above the level of the pavement

outside, which enables the crypt under the whole cathedral to be

lighted by side windows.

The principal examples of the churches which followed are those of St

George's, Bloomsbury; St Mary Woolnoth; Christ Church, Spitalfields,

by Nicholas Hawksmoor; and St Mary-le-Strand (1714), and St

Martin's-in-the-Fields (1721), by James Gibbs. Gibbs's interiors are

second only to those of Wren, while Hawksmoor's are very weak; in both

cases, however, the exteriors are finely designed. Amongst subsequent

works are St John's, Westminster, and St Philips, Birmingham (1710),

by Thomas Archer; St George's, Hanover Square (1713-1714), by John

James; All Saints' church, Oxford, by Dean Aldrich; St

Giles-in-the-Fields (1731), by Henry Flitcroft; and St Leonard's,

Shoreditch (1736), by George Dance.

[Illustration: FIG. 53.--Plan of St Paul's Cathedral, London.]

Sir Christopher Wren's chief monumental work was Greenwich hospital,

in the arrangement of which he had to include the Queen's House, and a

block already begun on the west side. His solution was of the most

brilliant kind, and seen from the river the grouping of the several

blocks with the colonnade and cupolas of the two central ones is

admirable.

Wren's next great work was the alterations and additions to Hampton

Court palace, begun in 1689, the east front facing the park (Plate

VI., fig. 77), the south front facing the river, the fountain court

and the colonnade opposite the great hall. Chelsea hospital

(1682-1692), the south front (now destroyed) to Christ's hospital

(1692), and Winchester school (1684-1687), are all examples in brick

with stone quoins, cornices, door and window dressings, which show how

Wren managed with simple materials to give a monumental effect. The

library which he built in Trinity College, Cambridge (1678), with

arcades on two storeys divided by three-quarter detached columns of

the Doric and Ionic orders, is based on the same principle of design

as those in the court of the Farnese palace at Rome by Sangallo, a

part of the palace which is not likely to have been known by him.

The results of the Italian Revival in domestic architecture were not

altogether satisfactory, for although it is sometimes claimed that the

style was adapted by its architects to the traditional requirements

and customs of the English people, the contrary will be found if they

are compared with the work of the 16th century. The chief aim seems to

have been generally to produce a great display of Classic features,

which, even supposing they followed more closely the ancient models,

were quite superfluous and generally interfered with the lighting of

the chief rooms, which were sacrificed to them. In fact there are many

cases in which one cannot help feeling how much better the effect

would be if the great porticoes rising through two storeys were

removed. This is specially the case in Sir John Vanbrugh's mansion,

Seaton Delaval, in Northumberland (1720); his other works, Blenheim

(1714) and Castle Howard (1702), are vulgarized also by the employment

of the large orders. The same defect exists in Stoneleigh Abbey,

Leamington, where the orders carried up through two and three storeys

respectively destroy the scale of the whole structure.

Among other mansions, the principal examples are Houghton in Norfolk

(1723), a fine work, the villa at Mereworth in imitation of the Villa

Capra near Vicenza, and the front of old Burlington House (1718),

copied from the Porto palace at Vicenza, by Colin Campbell; Holkham in

Norfolk and Devonshire House, London, by William Kent; Ditchley in

Oxfordshire, and Milton House near Peterborough, by Gibbs;

Chesterfield House, London, by Isaac Ware; Wentworth House in

Yorkshire (1740), and Woburn Abbey in Bedfordshire (1747), by Henry

Flitcroft; Spencer House, London (1762), by John Vardy; Prior Park and

various works in Bath by John Wood; the Mansion House, London, by

George Dance; Wardour in Wiltshire, Kedleston Hall in Derbyshire, and

Worksop in Nottinghamshire (1763), by James Paine; Gopsall Hall, Ely

House, Dover Street, London (1772), and Heveringham Hall in Suffolk,

by Sir Robert Taylor, to whose munificence we owe the Taylor Buildings

at Oxford; Harewood House in Yorkshire (1760), Lytham Hall in

Lancashire, and (part of) Wentworth House in Yorkshire, by John Carr;

and Luton Hoo (1767), now largely reconstructed, and Sion House

(1761), the best-known mansions by Robert Adam, who with his brothers

built the Adelphi and many houses in London. Adam designed a type of

decoration in stucco for ceilings and mantelpieces, the dies of which

are still in existence and are utilized extensively in modern houses.

His labours were not confined to buildings, but extended to their

decoration, furniture and fittings.

The works of Sir William Chambers were of a most varied nature, but

his fame is chiefly based on Somerset House in the Strand, London

(1776), with its facade facing the river, a magnificent work second

only to Inigo Jones's Whitehall, but infinitely more extensive and

difficult to design. He was also the author of a work on _The

Decorative Part of Civil Architecture_, which is still the standard

work on the subject in England. His pupil, James Gandon, won the first

gold medal given by the Royal Academy in 1769, and his principal work

was the Custom House in Dublin (1781). Newgate prison (1770), a

remarkable building now destroyed, was the chief work carried out by

George Dance, jun.

Other buildings not yet mentioned are the Alcove and Banqueting Hall

(Orangery) of Kensington Palace, by Wren; the Radcliffe library,

Oxford, by Gibbs, an extremely fine work both externally and

internally; Queen's College, Oxford, by Hawksmoor; the county hall,

Northampton, by Sir Roger Norwich; the town hall, Abingdon (1677),

designer unknown; the Ashmolean museum, Oxford (1677), by T. Wood;

Clare College, Cambridge, and St Catherine's Hall, Cambridge

(1640-1679), by Thomas and Robert Grumboll, master-masons; the custom

house, King's Lynn (1681), by Henry Bell; Nottingham Castle, designed

by the duke of Newcastle in 1674 and carried out by March, his clerk

of works--the central portion is finely proportioned, and it is only

in the pilasters at the quoins that one recognizes the amateur; two

houses in Cavendish Square, London (1717), on the north side, by John

James; Lord Burlington's villa (1740) at Chiswick, by William Kent,

which with its internal decorations is still perfect; the celebrated

Palladian Bridge at Wilton, by R. Morris; and last but not least, in

consequence of its great influence on modern architecture, Sparrowe's

house at Ipswich (1567-1662), the timber oriel windows of which are

now so often reproduced. (R. P. S.)

RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN GERMANY

The classical revival does not seem to have taken root in Germany much

before the middle of the 16th century, some forty to fifty years later

than in France, from which country it is said to have been introduced,

and in some of the early work there is a great similarity to French

examples, but without the refinement and variety of detail which one

finds in the chateaux of the Loire and in many of the French towns. In

the rood-screen of the cathedral at Hildesheim (1546), the court of the

town hall at Gorlitz (1534), the portal of the Petershof at Halberstadt

(1552), and the entrance gateway of the castle at Brieg (1553), one is

able to recognize certain ornamental details and a similar superposition

of pilasters in several storeys to that which is found in various towns

in Normandy and on the Loire. In both countries the new style was

engrafted on the last phase of the Gothic period, so forming at first a

transitional style, which lasted about fifty years. Thus the lofty roofs

which prevailed in the 15th century are developed further, but with this

great divergence in the two countries. In France there are rarely gable

ends, in Germany they are not only the chief characteristic feature of

the main front, but are introduced in the side elevations in the shape

of immense dormers with two or three storeys and rising the full height

of the roof, as in the castle at Hamelschenburg near Hameln. Throughout

Germany, therefore, the gable end and the dormer gable became the chief

features on which they lavished all their ornamental designs, the main

walls of the building being as a rule either in plain masonry, rubble

masonry with stucco facing, or brick and stone. Other prominent features

are the octagonal and circular oriel windows rising through two or three

storeys at the corners of their buildings--rectangular bow windows in

two or three storeys, which were allowed apparently to encroach on the

pavement, and octagonal turrets or towers instead of circular as in

France. In the vicinity of the Harz mountains, where timber was

plentiful, a large proportion of the factories, houses and even public

buildings, are erected in half-timber work with elaborate carving of the

door and window jambs, projecting corbels, &c. At Hildesheim,

Wernigerode, Goslar, &c., these structures are sometimes of immense size

and richly decorated. Among early examples in stone, the porch added to

the town hall of Cologne (1571), the projecting wings of the town halls

at Halberstadt and Lemgo (1565), and the town halls at Posen (1550),

Altenburg (1562-1567) and Rothenburg (1572-1590), are all picturesque

examples more or less refined in design. In the last-named example the

purer Italian style has exercised its influence in the principal doorway

and in the arcaded gallery on the east front. This same influence shows

itself in the courtyard of the town hall at Nuremberg, where the arcades

of the two upper storeys might be taken for those of the courts of the

palaces at Rome.

Amongst other 16th-century work there are two entrance gates at

Danzig, the Hohe Tor (1588), a fine massive structure, and the

Langgasse Tor (1600), more or less pure Italian in style. At Augsburg,

the arsenal (1603-1607), by the architect Elias Holl (1573-1646), is

of a bold and original design, and the town hall has magnificent

ceilings and wainscotting round the walls of the principal halls. This

brings us to the castle of Heidelberg (Plate VII., figs. 78, 79 and

80), which is looked upon by the Germans as the chef d'oeuvre of the

Renaissance in Germany. As seen from the great court it forms an

interesting study, there being the work of three periods: in the

centre the picturesque group of the older building (c. 1525), on the

right the Otto-Heinrichs-Bau (1556-1559), and on the left the

Friedrichs-Bau (1602-1607). Of the two the latter is the finer. The

architect of the Otto-Heinrichs-Bau would seem to have been undecided

whether to give greater prominence and projection to his pilasters and

cornices or to his windows with their dressings and pediments, so he

has compromised the matter by making them both about the same, and the

effect is most monotonous. In the Friedrichs-Bau, which is a

remarkable work, the pilasters are of great projection, with bold

cornices and simple windows well set back, while the tracery of the

ground-floor windows is a pleasant relief from the constant repetition

of pilaster window dressings. The gables also of the Friedrichs-Bau

break the horizontal sky-line agreeably. A more minute examination of

the decorative details, however, betrays the advent of a peculiar

rococo style of a most debased type, which throughout the 17th century

spread through Germany, and the repetition of the same details

suggests that it was copied from some of the pattern books which were

published towards the end of the 16th century, comprising

heterogeneous designs for title pages, door heads, frontispieces, and

even extending to new versions of the orders, which apparently

appealed to the German mason and saved him the trouble of invention.

These books, compiled by de Vries and Dietterlin, emanated from the

Low Countries, and their influence extended to England during the

Elizabethan period. At all events in Germany it would seem to have

arrested the purer Italian work, which we have already noticed, and

henceforth in the gable ends one finds the most extraordinary

accumulation of distorted forms which, though sometimes picturesque,

disfigure the German work of the 17th century. An exception might

perhaps be made in favour of the Peller'sche Haus in Nuremberg (1625),

one of the best houses of modest dimensions in Germany. The facade in

the Aegidien-Platz is a fine composition; inside is a very picturesque

court and staircase, and the painted ceiling and the wainscotting of

one of the rooms in woods of different colours, though not very pure

in style, are of excellent design and execution.

Some of the most characteristic work of this type exists at Hameln,

where the facades of the Rattenfangerhaus (1602), the Hochzeitshaus

(1610), and many other buildings, are covered with the most

extraordinary devices, leaving scarcely a foot of plain masonry as a

relief. The south front of the town hall of Bremen (1612) is in the

same style (Plate IV., fig. 70), relieved, however, by the fine large

windows of the great hall and the arcade in front, in which there is

some picturesque detail. Later in the century the degradation

increases until it reaches its climax in the Zwinger palace at Dresden

(1711), the most terrible rococo work ever conceived, if we except

some of the Churrigueresque work in Spain.

Among the most pleasing features in Germany are the fountains which

abound in every town; of these there are good examples at Tubingen,

Prague, Hildesheim, Ulm, Nuremberg, already famed for its Gothic

fountains, Mainz and Rothenburg. In the latter town, built on an

eminence, they are of great importance for the supply of the town, and

some of them are extremely picturesque and of good design.

Up to the present we have said nothing about the ecclesiastical

buildings in Germany, for the reason that the period between the

Reformation and the conclusion of the Thirty Years' War was not

favourable to church building. The only example worth mentioning is

the church of St Michael at Munich (1583-1597), and that more for its

plan than for its architecture. It has a wide nave covered with a

barrel vault, and a series of chapels forming semicircular recesses on

each side, the walls between acting as buttresses to the great vault.

The transept is not deep enough to have any architectural value, but

if at the east end there had been only an apse it would have been a

better termination than the long choir. The Liebfrauenkirche at

Dresden (1726-1745) has a good plan, but internally is arranged like a

theatre with pit, tiers of boxes, and a gallery, all in the worst

possible taste, and externally the dome is far too high and destroys

the scale of the lower part of the church. An elliptical dome is never

a pleasing object, and in the church of St Charles Borromeo, at

Vienna, there are no other features to redeem its ugliness. The

Marienkirche at Wolfenbuttel (1608-1622) has a fine Italian portal;

its side elevation is spoilt by the series of gable dormers, which are

of no possible use, as the church (of the _Hallenkirchen_ type) is

well lighted through the aisle windows. The portal of the

Schlosskapelle (1555) at Dresden is a fine work in the Italian style;

and lastly the church at Buckeburg, in a late debased style, is

redeemed only by the fact that it is built in fine masonry and that

the joints run through all the rococo details. (R. P. S.)

RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE IN BELGIUM AND HOLLAND

The Gothic development in the 15th century in Belgium, as evidenced in

her magnificent town halls and other public buildings, not only supplied

her requirements in the century following, but hindered the introduction

of the Classic Revival, so that it is not till the second half of the

16th century that we find in the town hall of Antwerp a building which

is perhaps more Italian in design than any work in Germany. There are,

however, a few instances of earlier Renaissance, such as the Salm Inn

(1534) at Malines; the magnificent chimneypiece, by Conrad van

Noremberger of Namur, in the council chamber of the palais de justice at

Bruges (1529); and the palais de justice of Liege (1533), formerly the

bishop's palace, in the court of which are features suggesting a Spanish

influence. The influence of the cinque-cento style of Italy may be

noticed in the tomb of the count de Borgnival (1533) in the cathedral of

Breda, and in the choir stalls of the church at Enkhuisen on the borders

of the Zuyder Zee, both in Holland, and in the choir stalls of the

cathedral of Ypres in Belgium; the carving of these bears so close a

resemblance to cinque-cento work in design and execution that one might

conclude they were the work of Italian artists, but their authors are

known to have been Flemish, who must, however, have studied in Italy.

Again, in the stained-glass windows of the church of St Jacques at

Liege, the details are all cinque-cento, with circular arches on

columns, festoons of leaves and other ornament, all apparently derived

from Italian sources, but necessarily executed by Flemish painters, as

stained-glass windows of that type are not often found in Italian

churches.

Of public buildings in Belgium, the most noted example is that of the

town hall at Antwerp, designed by Cornelius de Vriendt (1564). It has

a frontage of over 300 ft. facing the Grande Place, and is an imposing

structure in four storeys, arcaded on the lower storey and the classic

orders above, with mullioned windows between on the three other

storeys, the uppermost storey being an open loggia, which gives that

depth of shadow obtained in Italy by a projecting cornice. It is

almost the only building in Belgium without the usual gable, the

centre block being carried up above the eaves and terminated with an

entablature supporting at each end a huge obelisk, and in the centre

what looks like the miniature representation of a church. The only

other classic building is the Renaissance portion of the town hall at

Ghent, which is very inferior to the older Gothic portion.

What is wanting in the town halls, however, is amply replaced by the

magnificence of the houses built for the various gilds, as for

instance those of the Fishmongers at Malines (1580), of the Brewers,

the Archers, the Tanners and the Cordeliers (rope-makers) at Antwerp,

and, in the Grande Place at Brussels, the gilds of the Butchers, the

Archers, the Skippers (the gable end of which represents the stern of

a vessel with four cannons protruding), the Carpenters and others.

Besides these, and especially in Antwerp, are to be found a very large

series of warehouses, which in the richness of their decoration and

their monumental appearance vie with the gilds in the evolution of a

distinct style of Renaissance architecture--a type from which the

architect of the present day might derive more inspiration than from

the modest brick houses of Queen Anne's time.

In domestic architecture, the best-preserved example of the 16th and

17th centuries is the Musee Plantin at Antwerp, the earliest portion

of which dates from 1535. This was bought by Ch. Plantin, who was

employed by Philip of Spain to print all the breviaries and missals

for Spain and the Netherlands; the fortune thus acquired enabled him

and his successors to purchase from time to time adjoining properties

which they rebuilt in the style of the earlier buildings. After 1637

the buildings followed the style of the period, but up to that date

they were all erected in brick with stone courses and window dressings

round a central court. Internally the whole of the ancient fittings

are retained, including those of the old shop, the show-rooms,

reception rooms and the residential portion of the house, with the

wainscotting and Spanish leather on the walls above, panelled

ceilings, chimney-pieces, stained glass, &c., the most complete

representation of the domestic style of Belgium.

Of ecclesiastical architecture in the Renaissance style there are

scarcely any examples worth noting. The tower of the church of St

Charles Borromeo at Antwerp (1595-1610) is a fine composition similar

in many respects to Wren's steeples, and the nave of St Anne's church

at Bruges is of simple design and good proportion. The Belgian

churches are noted for their immense pulpits, sometimes in marble and

of a somewhat degraded style. The finest features in them are the

magnificent rood-screens, in which the tradition of the Gothic

examples already quoted seems to have been handed down. In the

cathedral at Tournai is a fine specimen by Cornelius de Vriendt of

Antwerp (1572), and there is a second at Nieuport, both similar in

design to the example from Bois-le-Duc now in the Victoria and Albert

Museum; and in the church of St Leonard at Leau is a tabernacle in

stone, over 50 ft. high, in seven stages, with numerous figures by

Cornelius de Vriendt (1550).

In Holland, nearly all the principal buildings of the Renaissance date

from the time of her greatest prosperity when the Dutch threw off

their allegiance to the Spanish throne (1565). With the exception of

the palace at Amsterdam (1648-1655), an immense structure in stone

with no architectural pretensions, there are no buildings in Holland

in which the influence of the purer style of the Italian revival can

be traced. Internally the great hall of the palace and the staircase

in the Louis XIV. style are fine examples of that period.

The earliest Renaissance town hall is that of the Hague (1564),

situated at the angle of two streets, which is an extremely

picturesque building, in fact one of the few in which the architect

has known how to group the principal features of his design. The

Renaissance addition made to the old town hall of Haarlem is a

characteristic example of the Dutch style. The walls are in red brick,

the decorative portions, consisting of superimposed pilasters with

mullioned and transomed windows, cornices and gable end, all being in

stone. Inside this portion of the town hall, which is now a gallery

and museum, is an ancient hall (not often shown to visitors) in which

all the decorations and fittings date from the 17th century. There is

a second example of an ancient hall in the Stadthuis at Kampen, one of

the dead cities of the Zuyder Zee, which served originally as a court

of justice, and retains all its fittings of the 16th century,

including a magnificent chimneypiece in stone, some 25 ft. high and

dated 1543.

The town hall at Bolsward in Friesland is another typical specimen of

Dutch architecture, in which the red brick, alternating with stone

courses running through the semi-detached columns which decorate the

main front, has given variety to the usual treatment of such features.

The external double flight of steps with elaborate balustrade, and the

twisted columns which flank the principal doorway, are extremely

picturesque, if not quite in accordance with the principles of

Palladio or Vignola.

A similar flight of steps with balustrade forms the approach to the

entrance doorway (on the first floor) of the town hall at Leiden,

where the rich decoration of the centre block and its lofty gable is

emphasized by contrast with the plain design of the chief front.

In the three chief cities in Holland, the Hague, Amsterdam and

Rotterdam, there are few buildings remaining of 17th-century work, so

that they must be sought in the south at Dordrecht and Delft, or in

the north at Leiden, Haarlem, Alkmaar, Hoorn, Enkhuisen, or, crossing

the Zuyder Zee into Friesland, in Leeuwarden, Bolsward, Kampen and

Zwolle, the dead cities. In all these towns ancient buildings have

been preserved, there being no reason to pull them down. Of the

entrance gateways at Hoorn there is an example left, of which the

lower portion might be taken for a Roman triumphal arch, so closely

does it adhere to the design of those monuments, extending even to a

long Latin inscription in the frieze. The tower (1531-1652), built to

protect the entrance to the harbour, has no gateway. There are some

old buildings in Kampen, in one of which the entrance gateway is a

simple and fine composition in brick and stone, the chief

characteristics of the gateways here being the enormously high roofs

of the circular towers flanking them. A finer and more picturesque

grouping of roofs exists in the entrance gateway (Amsterdam Gate) at

Haarlem, which is perhaps, however, eclipsed by those of the Waaghuis

at Amsterdam with its seven conical roofs.

The Waaghuisen, or weighing-houses for cheeses, are, next to the town

halls, the most important buildings in Holland, and in fact vie with

them in richness of design. The example at Alkmaar possesses not only

an imposing front with gable in three storeys, but a lofty tower with

belfry. At Deventer the main building is late Gothic (1528), in brick

and stone, with an external double flight of steps and balustrades

added in 1643.

The Fleesch Halle (meat-market) at Haarlem, also in brick and stone,

is of a very rococo style, but notwithstanding all its vagaries

presents a most picturesque appearance.

The domestic architecture of Holland and the shop fronts retain more

of their original dispositions than will be found in any other

country. At Hoorn, Enkhuisen and other towns, there has virtually been

no change during the last 200 years. In the more flourishing towns as

Amsterdam and Rotterdam, the increasing prosperity of the inhabitants

led them in the latter portion of the 17th and in the 18th centuries

to adapt features borrowed from the French work of Louis XIV. and

Louis XV., without, however, their refinement, luxuriance or variety,

so that although substantial structures they are extremely monotonous

in general effect. (R. P. S.)

MAHOMMEDAN ARCHITECTURE

Before proceeding with "modern architecture," to which the styles now

discussed have gradually led us, we have still another important

architectural style to describe, in Mahommedan architecture. The term

"Mahommedan" has been selected in preference to "Saracenic," because it

includes a much wider field, and enables us to bring in many

developments which could not well come under the latter title. It was

the Mahommedan religion which prescribed the plan and the features of

the mosques, and it was the restriction of that faith which led to the

principal characteristics of the style. The term "Saracenic" could

hardly be applied to the architecture of Spain, Persia or Turkey.

The earliest mosques at Mecca and Medina, which have long since passed

away, were probably of the simplest kind; there were no directions on

the subject in the Koran, and, as Fergusson remarks, had the religion

been confined to its native land, it is probable that no mosques

worthy of the name would have ever been erected. In the first

half-century of their conquest in Egypt and Syria the Mahommedans

contented themselves with desecrated churches and other buildings, and

it was only when they came among the temple-building nations that they

seemed to have felt the necessity of providing some visible monument

of their religion. The first requirement was a structure of some kind,

which should indicate to the faithful the direction of Mecca, towards

which, at stated times, they were to turn and pray. The earliest

mosque, built by Omar at Jerusalem, no longer exists, but in the

mosque of 'Amr at Cairo (fig. 54), founded in 643 and probably

restored or added to at various times, we find the characteristic

features which form the base of the plans of all subsequent mosques.

These features consist of (a) a wall built at right angles to a line

drawn towards Mecca, in which, sunk in the wall, was a niche

indicating the direction towards which the faithful should turn; (b)

a covered space for shelter from the sun or inclement weather, which

was known as the prayer chamber; (c) in front of the prayer chamber,

a large open court, in which there was a fountain for ablution; and

(d) a covered approach on either side of these courts and from the

entrance. The materials employed in the earlier mosque were all taken

from ancient structures, Egyptian, Roman and Byzantine, but so

arranged as to constitute the elements of a new style. The columns

employed were not always of sufficient size, and therefore in order to

obtain a greater height, above the capitals were square dies, carrying

ranges of arches, all running in the direction of Mecca; to resist the

thrust, wood ties were built in under the arches, so that the

structure was of the lightest appearance. The same principle was

observed in the mosque of Kairawan, in Tunisia (675), and in the

mosque of Cordova (786-985), copied from it. Similar wooden ties are

found in the mosque of El Aksa and the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem

(built 691), so that they became one of the characteristics of the

style. For constructional reasons, however, this method of building

was not always adhered to, and in the mosque of Tulun (fig 55) in

Cairo (879), the first mosque in Egypt, built of original materials,

we find an important departure. The arcades, instead of running at

right angles to the Mecca wall, are built parallel with it, on account

of the great thrust of the arches, all built in brick (fig. 56). The

wood ties would have been quite insufficient to resist the thrust, and

in the case of this mosque were probably used to carry lanterns.

[Illustration: FIG. 54.--Plan of Mosque of 'Amr. Old Cairo.

1. Kibla. 5. Fountain for Ablution

2. Mimbar. 6. Rooms built later.

3. Tomb of 'Amr. 7. Minaret

4. Dakka. 8. Latrines.]

The mosque of Tulun is the earliest example in which the pointed arch

appears throughout, and it forms the leading and most characteristic

constructional feature of the style in its subsequent developments in

every country, except in Barbary and Spain, where the circular-headed

horse-shoe arch seems to be preferred. As it is also the earliest

mosque in which the decoration applied is that which was by inference

laid down in the Koran, some allusion to the restrictions therein

contained, and the consequent result, may not be out of place. The

representation of nature in any form was absolutely forbidden, and

this applied generally to foliage of all kinds, and plants, the

representation of birds or animals, and above all of the human figure.

The only exceptions to the rule would seem to be those found in the

very conventional representations of lions carved over the gateways of

Cairo and Jerusalem and in the courts of the Alhambra. It was this

restriction which produced the extremely beautiful conventional

patterns which are carried round the arches of the mosque of Tulun,

and are found in the friezes, string-courses and the capitals of the

shafts, and when these patterns form the background of the text of the

Koran in high relief, in the splendid Arabic characters, it would be

difficult to find a more beautiful decorative scheme in the absence of

natural forms. As the mosque of Tulun was built by a Coptic architect,

and its decoration is evidently the result of many years of previous

developments, it is probably to the Copts that its evolution was due.

The second type of decoration is that which is given by geometrical

forms, and either in pavements or wall decorations in marble, or in

the framing of woodwork in ceilings, or in doorways, the most

elaborate and beautiful combinations were produced. The third type of

decoration is one which in a sense is found in the origin of most

styles, but which, restricted as the Mahommedans were to conventional

representations, received a development of far greater importance, and

in one of its forms--that known as stalactite vaulting--constitutes

the one feature in the style which is not found in any other, and

which, from the western coast of Spain to the east of India, at once

differentiates it from any other style.

A complete account, with illustrations of the origin of the stalactite

will be found in the _Journal of the Royal Institute of British

Architects_ (1898) The earliest example is found in the tomb of

Zobeide, the favourite wife of Harun al-Rashid, at Bagdad, built at

the end of the 8th century. This tomb, octagonal in plan, and of

modest dimensions, was vaulted over by a series of niches in nine

stages or levels rising one above the other, and brought forward on

the inside, so that the ninth course completed the covering of the

tomb. It was built in this way to save centreing, each niche when

completed being self-supporting. There is a second tomb at Bagdad, of

later date--the tomb of Ezekiel,--constructed in the same way, except

that in each stage the niches are built not one over the other but

astride between the two, and this is the way in which in subsequent

developments it always appears to have been built. Its application to

the pendentives of the portals of the mosque at Tabriz and Sultaniya

was the next development; and when some two centuries later it is

found in Europe, in the palaces of the Ziza at Palermo, dating from

about the beginning of the 11th century, it has lost its brick

constructive origin, and, being cut in slabs of stone, has become

simply a decorative feature. Its earliest example in Egypt is in the

tomb of ash-Shafi'i at Cairo, built by Saladin about 1240. Here and in

all subsequent examples throughout Egypt and Syria it is always carved

in stone. In the Alhambra another material was employed, the elaborate

vaults being built with a series of small moulds in stucco. In the

ceilings of the mosques at Cairo it was frequently carved in wood, and

consequently lost all trace of its origin.

[Illustration: FIG. 55.--Plan of Mosque of Tulun, Cairo.

From Coste's _Architecture Arabe en Caire_]

Two other decorative features, but having a constructive origin, are

(1) the alternating of courses of stone of different colour, probably

derived from Byzantine work, where bands of brick were employed; and

(2) the elaborate forms given to the voussoirs of the arches of the

Mecca niche.

Having now described the principles which ruled the plans of the

mosques and formed the _motifs_ of their architectural design, it

remains to take the principal examples in the various countries where

the style was developed.

Although the tendency of modern research points to Persia as the

country in which the first development of the art took place, and we

have already referred to two tombs at Bagdad, in which the earliest

examples of a stalactite vault are found, so far as remains are

concerned nothing can be traced earlier than the work of Ghazan Khan

(1294), whose mosque at Tabriz, half in ruins, is the earliest

example.

It is to Egypt therefore we turn first. There still exist--and

sometimes in good preservation--mosques and other buildings in Cairo

of every period showing the development of the Mahommedan style, from

the 9th to the 17th century. Owing to the magnificent material at

their command--for unfortunately more of it was taken from the ancient

Egyptian monuments than from the quarries--a much purer style was

evolved than in Persia; and owing to the absence of rain those

ephemeral structures built in brick and covered with stucco, which in

other countries would long have passed away, retained the crispness of

their flowing ornament, which is still as sharp and well defined as

when executed. We have already referred to two of the earlier

mosques, those of 'Amr in Old Cairo and of Tulun. The next in date,

and built also in brick, is the mosque El Hakim (c. 1003). The mosque

of El Azhar ("the Splendid") was founded about 970, but entirely

rebuilt in 1270 and enlarged in 1470. It is the university, and its

Liwan or prayer chamber is the largest in Cairo, there being 380

columns carrying its roof.

The mosque of al-Zahir (founded 1264) is now occupied as barracks. In

one of its entrance porches the arches are decorated with the

well-known zigzag or chevron ornament, and a second porch with cushion

voussoirs, features found elsewhere only in Sicily, so that the mosque

was probably built by masons brought from thence. Then follows a

series of mosques: Kalaun (1287); al-Nasir (1299-1303); Merdani

(1338); all based on the same plan as those described with a large

courtyard surrounded by porticoes. The mosque of al-Nasir has a portal

with clustered piers and pointed and moulded orders. This is said to

have been brought over as a trophy from Acre, but it is more probable

that Syrian masons were imported to carry on the style introduced by

the Crusaders.

[Illustration: FIG. 56.--Court of the Mosque of Tulun, Cairo. (From

Coste.)]

[Illustration: FIG. 57.--Plan of the Mosque of the Sultan Hasan.]

The mosque of Sultan Hasan (1357-1360) marks an important change in

the scheme of its plan, which served afterwards as a future model

(fig. 57). It consists of a central court, 117 ft. by 105 ft. open to

the sky, and instead of the covered porticoes on each side there are

immense recesses covered over with pointed vaults. The prayer chamber

is 90 ft. deep, 90 ft. high to the apex of the vault and 69 ft. wide,

a greater span than any Gothic cathedral, and only exceeded in

dimensions by the great hall of the palace at Ctesiphon built by the

Sassanian dynasty. The mosque covers a large area, and would seem to

have been occupied by four religious sects, whose rooms, situated on

the outer side, are lighted by windows in eight or ten storeys, giving

the appearance of a factory. Its entrance portal, 60 ft. to 70 ft.

high, is the finest in Egypt, and is only exceeded in dimensions by

those of the Persian and Indian mosques. The vestibule is covered by a

dome with stalactite pendentives, and is perhaps the most complete and

perfect example in Cairo. Beyond the prayer chamber is the tomb of the

founder, which is covered by a dome. This, according to Poole, was not

originally a feature in Saracenic mosques. A dome, he says, has

nothing to do with prayer and therefore nothing with a mosque. It is

simply the roof of a tomb, and only exists when there is at least a

tomb to be covered. The greater number of the mosques in and outside

Cairo are mausoleums, which accounts for the large number of domes

found there.

Of the tombs of the caliphs, outside Cairo, the most important is the

tomb of ash-Shafi'i, reputed to have been built by Saladin but now

quite changed by restoration. The tomb of Barkuk, in which the

courtyard plan of Sultan Hasan is retained, has porticoes round it,

which are of much more solid construction than those in earlier

examples, and carry small domes. The two great domes on the east side

and the minarets on the west are among the finest in Cairo. The

tomb-mosque of Kait Bey (c. 1470), though comparatively small, is the

finest in design and most elegant of its type in Egypt. Here the

central court is covered by a cupola lantern (fig. 58), and the

ceiling over the prayer chamber and other recesses is framed in timber

and elaborately painted and gilded. The tomb is at the south-east

corner, and is covered with a dome in stone, beautifully carved with

conventional designs. In some of the mosques by the side of the portal

is a fountain enclosed with bronze grilles, and above it a small room

sometimes used as a school with open arcades on two sides. This

feature in the mosque of Kait Bey, with the portal on its right, the

lofty minaret beyond, and the great dome at the farther end, makes it

the most picturesque in aspect of any Cairene mosque. (For plan see

MOSQUE, fig. 3.)

[Illustration: PLATE VII.

FIG 78.--HEIDELBERG CASTLE, FRIEDRICHSBAU.

_Photo L.L. Paris._

FIG 79.--HEIDELBERG CASTLE, OTTO HEINRICHSBAU.

_Photo L.L. Paris._

FIG. 80.--HEIDELBERG CASTLE, OTTO-HEINRICHSBAU.

_Photo L.L. Paris._]

[Illustration: PLATE VII.

FIG. 81.--PORCH, PETERBORO' CATHEDRAL.

_Photo, J. Valentine, Ltd._

FIG. 82.--ELY CATHEDRAL.

_Photo, G.W. Wilson & Co._

FIG. 83.--THE LOUVRE--PAVILLON HENRI II.

(_Portion of Lescot's work on left._)

_Photo, Neurdein._

FIG. 84.--GRAND STAIRWAY, CHATEAU OF BLOIS.

_Photo, Neurdein._]

It was in Egypt that the minaret received its highest development. The

earliest example is that of the mosque of Tulun, which is of unusual

shape, and has winding round it an inclined plane or staircase of easy

ascent which can be made on horseback. The original design of this

scheme was probably derived from the mosque of Samara, a town 60 m.

north of Bagdad, where the minaret built c. 850 has a spiral ascent

round it, recalling that of the Assyrian ziggurat as at Khorsabad. The

general design of the Cairo minarets would seem to have been

universally adhered to from the 12th century onwards, but the upper

storeys are all varied in detail, there being virtually no two alike.

As a rule the lower portion of the minaret forms part of the main wall

of the mosque, and was carried up square a few feet above the

cresting. It then became octagonal on plan, the sides decorated with

niches or geometrical ornaments in bold relief. This, the first

independent storey, was crowned by a stalactite cornice carrying the

balcony (fig. 59), from which the _muezzin_ (call-to-prayer) was

chanted. In the early and fine examples the balustrade round it

consisted of vertical posts with panels between, pierced with

geometric ornaments, and all in stone. The second storey, also

octagonal, was set back sufficiently to allow a passage round, and

this was crowned by a similar stalactite cornice and balustrade. A

third storey, sometimes circular on plan, completed the tower, which

was crowned with a bulbous terminal. In one of the mosques, that of El

Azhar, the first storey is square on plan, and the second storey has

twin towers with lofty bulbous finials. The elaboration of the carved

ornament on the various storeys of the minarets is of considerable

beauty. Among the most remarkable, other than those already referred

to, are the minarets of the mosque of al-Bordeni, of Kalaun, al-Nazir,

Mu'ayyad (built on the semicircular bastion wall of the Zuwela Gate),

Sultan Barkuk (1348), and numerous other mosques or tombs outside

Cairo.

[Illustration: FIG. 58.--Interior of Kait Bey Mosque. (From Coste.)]

The earlier domes were quite plain, hemispherical, with buttresses

round the base, similar to those of St Sophia at Constantinople. In

the later domes it was found that by raising the upper portion so as

to take the form in section of a pointed arch, they could be built in

horizontal courses of masonry up to about two-thirds of their height,

the upper portion forming a lid without any thrust. It is probably

owing to this method of construction that they still exist in such

large numbers. The outer surfaces are decorated in various ways with

geometrical designs, star patterns, chevrons, diapers, &c. Domes built

in brick were covered with stucco and divided up into godroons.

We have already referred to the lofty portal of the mosque of Sultan

Hasan; portals of smaller dimensions form the principal entrance to

all the mosques and private houses. The recessed portion rises to

twice or three times the height of the door, and its pointed or cusped

head is always filled by a rich stalactite vault.

The descriptions of the disposition of plan, and the principles which

have governed the plans of the Cairene mosques, apply equally to those

in Syria, so that it now only remains necessary to quote the chief

examples. Of these the earliest is the Dome of the Rock, incorrectly

called the mosque of Omar, which was built by Abdalmalik in 691,

partly with materials taken from the buildings destroyed by Chosroes.

At first it consisted of a central area enclosing the sacred rock,

covered with a dome and with aisles round carried on columns and

piers, and like the smaller Dome of the Chain open all round, but the

climate of Syria is very different from that in Egypt, and

consequently at a later period (813-833) the sultan Mamun built the

walls which now enclose the whole structure. Many restorations have

taken place since, and the dome with its rich internal decoration is

attributed to Saladin (1189). The magnificent Persian tiles which

encase the walls, the marble casing of some of the piers, and the

stained glass, form part of the works of Suleiman (1520-1560).

The great mosque of Damascus occupied the site of an ancient church

dedicated to St John the Baptist, which for a time was divided between

the Christians and the Mahommedans. But in 705 the caliph al-Walid

took possession of the whole church, which he rebuilt, retaining,

however, the whole of the south wall, portions of which belonged to a

Roman temple. This, which by chance happened to face south, became the

Mecca wall, the niche being sunk in one of the doorways of the

original temple. Its plan, therefore, is a variation of those we have

already described. It consists of a transept with dome over the

centre, three aisles of equal width, running both east and west, and a

great court on the north side surrounded by arcades. The great

transept is virtually the prayer chamber. The new building was erected

by Byzantine masons sent from Constantinople, and decorated with

marbles and mosaic by Greek artists. The mosque was almost entirely

destroyed by fire in 1893, but has since been rebuilt.

[Illustration: FIG. 59.--Exterior of Kait Bey Mosque, Cairo. (From

Coste.)]

The mosque of El Aksa in the sacred enclosure in Jerusalem, and south

of the Dome of the Rock, was commenced by Abdalmalik (691), who used

up materials taken from the church of St Mary, built by Justinian on

Mount Sion, which had been destroyed by Chosroes. There have been so

many restorations and rebuildings since, owing to destructive

earthquakes and other causes, that it is difficult to give the precise

dates of the various portions. The columns of the nave and aisles are

extremely stunted in proportion, and their capitals are of a very

debased type, copied by inferior artists from Byzantine models. They

carry immense wood beams cased, and above them a range of pointed

arches, among the earliest examples used throughout a mosque, and

probably dating from the rebuilding (774-785). The Crusaders made

various additions in the rear, but the great entrance porch is said to

have been added by Saladin, after 1187, and was built probably by

Christian masons who were allowed to remain in the country.

The numerous minarets at Jerusalem and Damascus in general design

follow those of Egypt, but instead of the incised work are generally

encased with marble in geometric patterns.

The great mosque at Mecca, from which it was thought at one time the

plan of the Egyptian and other mosques was taken, is necessarily

different from all others, because the Ka'ba or Holy Stone, towards

which all the niches in all other mosques turn, stood in its centre.

The arcades which surround the court were nearly all rebuilt in the

17th century, as the whole mosque was washed away by a torrent in

1626.

The mosque of Kairawan in Tunisia was built in 675. It occupies an

area of 427 ft. deep and 225 ft. wide, with a prayer chamber at the

Mecca end of 17 aisles and 11 bays deep, more than twice, therefore,

that of 'Amr in Old Cairo. The columns to the prayer chamber, all

taken from ancient buildings, are 22 ft. high in the central aisle and

15 ft. in all the others. They carry horse-shoe arches, which, as in

the mosque of 'Amr, are all tied together by wood beams inserted at

the springing of the arches.

The mosque of Cordova was built by Abdarrahman (Abd-ar-Rahman) in

786-789 in imitation of the mosque of Kairawan. There were eleven

aisles of twenty-one bays, the centre one slightly wider than the

other. The materials were taken from earlier buildings, and, as the

columns and caps were not considered high enough, above the horse-shoe

arches are built a second row of arches which carry the barrel vaults.

To this mosque Hakim added twelve more bays in depth at the Mecca end

(962), and in 985 Mansur added eight more aisles of thirty-three bays

on the east side. Part of the open court on the north side dates from

Abdarrahman's foundation (690) and part from Mansur.

[Illustration: FIG. 60.--Capital and Springing of Arch, from the Hall

of Abencarrages, Alhambra.]

In the mosque of Cordova we find the earliest example of the cusped

arch, in the additions made by Hakim in 961; in order to obtain a

greater height above the columns, it became necessary to employ the

expedient of raising arch above arch in order to obtain the height

they required for the ceilings; and as these arches formed purely

decorative features, which might otherwise have become monotonous,

variety was given by introducing the cusped form of arch and

interlacing them one within the other. It is probably this elaborate

design which suggested the plaster decorations of the screens above

the arches in the court of the Alhambra. Though commenced in 1245, the

existing palace of the Alhambra was built in the first half of the

14th century, at a time when the style was fully developed. There are

two great courts at right angles to one another, the most important of

which was the Court of the Lions, so called from the fountain in the

centre, with twelve conventional representations of that animal

carrying the basins. This court is surrounded by an arcade with

stilted arches carried on slender marble columns with extremely rich

decoration above, partly in stucco painted and gilt. The hall of the

Abencerrages (35 ft. square) has a polygonal dome covered with

arabesque (fig. 60). Two other halls are roofed with lofty stalactite

vaults of great intricacy, richly gilded and of remarkable effect

(fig. 61), but the employment of stucco instead of stone, as in Egypt,

has led to an abuse in the wealth of enrichment, which is only partly

redeemed by the plain masonry of the towers and walls enclosing the

palace. The Giralda at Seville is the only example of a tower, but it

does not seem to have served the purpose of a minaret.

With the exception of the tombs of Zobeide and Ezekiel near Bagdad,

and a hospital at Erzerum of the 12th century, built by the Seljukian

dynasty, the Mahommedan style in Persia dates from the 13th century, i

e. if Ghazan Khan built the mosque at Tabriz in 1294. The plan is that

of a Byzantine church with a central dome, aisles and sanctuary. The

portal consists of a lofty niche vaulted with semi-domes and

stalactite pendentives, similar in many respects to the well-known

example of Sultan Hasan in Cairo, built sixty years later. It is built

in brick and covered internally and externally with glazed bricks of

various colours, wrought into most intricate patterns with interlacing

ornament and with Cufic inscriptions. The dazzling and perfect beauty

in point of colour is not to be surpassed, but from the architectural

point of view it possesses the fatal sin of not showing its

construction. The bricks and tiles are only a veneer, and though in

certain features (such as the portal and the dome) the construction is

at least suggested, the tendency is to trust to decoration alone to

produce architectural effects. (But see TABRIZ.)

The great mosque at Isfahan (1585) is a good illustration of the

danger attending a too free use of surface decoration. Strip the walls

of their tiles, and nothing is left except square box-like forms with

pointed arched openings of different form. The interior, however,

owing to the variety of its features, and the varied play of light and

shade given in the hemispherical vaults of its transepts and niches

and the vaulted aisles, constitutes one of the most beautiful

monuments of Mahommedan art.

Apart from the great development of Mahommedan architecture in India

(see INDIAN ARCHITECTURE), there remains now to be described only one

other phase of the style, that found in Constantinople.

Prior to the conquest of Constantinople in 1445, two mosques were

built by the Turks at Brusa in Asia Minor. The plan of Ulu Jami, the

great mosque, follows the original courtyard type. Yeshil Jami, the

Green mosque (1430), built on the site of a Byzantine church, is

cruciform on plan. In both of them the Persian influence is shown, in

the magnificent towers with which they are covered, the marble casing

and the stalactite vaults.

[Illustration: FIG. 61.--Pendentive, from the Court of the Lions,

Alhambra.]

After the conquest of Constantinople, the supreme beauty of St Sophia,

and the adaptability of its plan to the requirements of the Mahommedan

faith, caused it to be accepted as the model on which all the new

mosques were based. The first two erected were the Bayezid (1497-1515)

and the Selim mosques (1520-1526). In the former the dome and its

pendentives are carried on octagonal piers, and the dome, 108 ft. in

diameter, is greater than in any subsequent example. The finest

mosque, and the example in which we find the complete development of

the Turkish style, is that erected by Suleiman the Magnificent in

1550-1555. This mosque, designed by Sinan, an Armenian architect, is

still quite perfect. The plan follows very closely its model, St

Sophia, and consists of a central dome, 86 ft. in diameter and 156 ft.

high, carried on pendentives, resting on great arches which are

slightly pointed, with great apses on the east and west sides, and

three smaller apses in each, the arches of which ate all circular. The

principal change in design is that found in the north and south walls,

under the arches carrying the dome; in St Sophia they were subdivided

into two storeys with galleries overlooking the church, but in the

Suleimanic mosque the galleries are set back in the outer aisles, and

the screen walls consist of a wide central and two side pointed

arches, and voussoirs alternately of black and white marble. The

tympana above this is pierced with eighteen windows filled with

geometric tracery. Stalactite work is employed in the pendentive of

the smaller apses and in the capitals of the columns carrying the

pointed arches. The columns are of porphyry, the shafts, 28 ft. high,

being taken from the Hippodrome and probably brought originally from

Egypt. The walls are cased with marble up to the springing of the

dome, but the magnificent mosaics of St Sophia are here replaced by

vulgar colouring and plaster decoration of a rococo style, due

probably to recent restorations. The mosque is preceded by a

forecourt, surrounded by an arcade on all sides and containing a

fountain, and in the garden in the rear is the tomb of the founder and

his wife.

The Shah-Zadeh mosque, known as the prince's mosque, was also built by

Sultan Suleiman, from the designs of Sinan, the same Armenian

architect who built the Suleimanic mosque. Here, instead of confining

the great apses to the east and west sides, they are introduced on the

north and south sides in place of the screen, and produce a monotonous

and poor effect. The same design is found in the Ahmedin mosque, built

1608, and with the same result. Externally, however, they are both

fine, owing to the variety of domes, semi-domes and other curved forms

of roof.

The minarets of the Turkish mosques are very inferior to those of

Cairo. They are of great height, generally semicircular, with narrow

balconies round the upper part, and crowned with extinguisher roofs.

To a certain extent, however, they contrast very well with the domes

and semi-domes of St Sophia and those of the mosques built by the

Turks.

In the mosque of Osman, built 1748-1757, we find the first trace of

Western influence in its rococo design, but here, as in the mosque of

Mehemet Ali in Cairo, built in 1837, the scheme is so good that,

notwithstanding the great falling off in design, and, in the latter

mosque, the construction, the effect of the interior is very fine.

Amongst other architectural features, the fountains in the courtyards

of the mosques and those which decorate the public squares are

extremely pleasing in design. The latter are square on plan with

polygonal angles elaborate niches with stalactite heads, with

overhanging eaves on each side; the ornament is very varied and the

colour sometimes very attractive. The roofs have sometimes most

picturesque outlines. (R. P. S.)

MODERN ARCHITECTURE

The beginning of the 19th century may be considered to mark the

beginning of the modern era in architecture. The 19th century is the

period _par excellence_ of architectural "revivals." The great

Renaissance movement in Italy already described was something more than

a mere revival. It was a new spirit affecting the whole of art and

literature and life, not an architectural movement only; and as far as

architecture is concerned it was not a mere imitative revival. The great

Italian architects of the Renaissance, as well as Wren, Vanbrugh and

Hawksmoor in England, however they drew their inspiration from antique

models, were for the most part original architects; they put the ancient

materials to new uses of their own. The tendency of the 19th-century

revivals, on the other hand, except in France, was distinctly imitative

in a sense in which the architecture of the great Renaissance period was

not. Correctness of imitation, in the English Gothic revival especially,

was an avowed object; and conformity to precedent became, in fact,

except with one or two individual architects, almost the admitted test

of excellence.

[Illustration: FIG. 85--Bank of Ireland, Dublin.]

Classical revival in British architecture.

The earliest classical London building of note in the 19th century is

Soane's Bank of England, which as a matter of date belongs in fact to

the end of the 18th century; but its architect lived well into the 19th

century, and the bank may be classed with this section of the subject.

Soane had to make something architectural out of the walls of a very

extended building of only one storey, in which external windows were not

admissible; and he did so by applying a classical columnar order to the

walls and introducing sham window architraves. The latter are

indefensible, and weaken the expression of the building; the columnar

order was the received method at the time of making a building (as was

supposed) "architectural," and the building has grace and dignity, and

could hardly be taken for anything except a bank, although a more robust

and massive treatment would have been more expressive of the function of

the building, as a kind of fortress for the storage of money. It was

only some years later that the Greek revival took some hold of English

architects (the Bank of England is rather Roman than Greek); the impetus

to it was probably given by the "Elgin marbles"; Stuart and Revett's

great work on the _Antiquities of Athens_ had been issued a good while

previously, the three first volumes being dated respectively 1762, 1787

and 1794; but the appearance of the fourth volume in 1816 was no doubt

influenced by the transportation to London of the Elgin marbles, and the

sensation created by them. One of the first architectural results was

the erection, at an immense cost in comparison with its size, of the

church of St Pancras in London (1819-1822), designed by Inwood, who

published a fine and still valuable monograph on the Erechtheum, and

showed his enthusiasm for Greek architecture by copying the Erechtheum

order and doorways for his facade, and erecting over it a tower composed

of the Temple of the Winds with an octagonal imitation of the monument

of Lysicrates imposed above it. This use of Greek monuments was

architecturally absurd, though at the time it was no doubt the offspring

of a genuine enthusiasm.

A better use was made of the study of Greek architecture by William

Wilkins (1778-1839), who was in his way a great architect, and whose

University College (1827-1828), as designed by him, was a noble and

dignified building, of which he only carried out the central block with

the cupola and portico. The wings were somewhat altered from his design

but not materially spoiled, but the university authorities permitted the

vandalism of erecting a low building as a partial return of the

quadrangle on the fourth side, for the purposes of a mechanical

laboratory, which ruined the appearance of the building.[4] Wilkins's

other well-known work is the National Gallery (1832-1838), which he was

not allowed to carry out exactly as he wished, and in which the cupola

and the "pepperpots" are exceedingly poor and weak. But his details,

especially the profiles of his mouldings, are admirably refined, and

show the influence of a close study of Greek work. Among other prominent

English architects of the classic revival in England are Sir Robert

Smirke and Decimus Burton (1800-1881). To Burton we owe the Constitution

Hill arch and the Hyde Park screen. The latter is a very graceful

erection of its kind; the arch has never been completed by the quadriga

group which the architect intended as its crowning feature, though for

many years it was allowed to be disfigured by the colossal equestrian

statue of Wellington, completely out of scale and crushing the

structure. Smirke is kept in memory by his fine facade of the British

Museum, which has been much criticized for its "useless" colonnades and

the wasted space under them. The criticism is hardly just; for classic

colonnades have at least some affinity with the purposes of a museum of

antique art, and it conveys the impression of being a frontispiece to a

building containing something of permanent value and importance. The

early classic revival set its mark also, in a very fine and unmistakable

manner, on the capital of the sister island. Dublin is almost a museum

of fine classic buildings of the period, among which the most remarkable

is the present Bank of Ireland (fig. 85), originally begun as the

Parliament House. The beginning of the building belongs to the 18th

century, but it was not completed in its present form till 1805, and

was the work of five successive architects, only one of them, James

Gandon (1743-1823), a man of the first importance; but it was Gandon who

in 1790 did most to give the building its effective outline on plan, by

introducing one of the curved quadrant walls, the building being

subsequently finished in accordance with this suggestion. It is a

remarkable combination of symmetry and picturesqueness, and as a

one-storey classic building is far superior to Soane's Bank of England,

with which a comparison is naturally suggested. Gandon's custom house,

with its fine central cupola, is another notable example. Edinburgh too

can show examples of the classic revival, and bears the title of "modern

Athens" as much from her architectural experiments as from her

intellectual claims; she illustrates the application of Greek

architecture to modern buildings in two really fine examples, the Royal

Institution by W.H. Playfair (1780-1857), and the high school by Thomas

Hamilton (1784-1858). It was a pity that she added to these the

collection of curiosities on the Calton Hill.

[Illustration: FIG. 86.--Liverpool Branch of the Bank of England.

(Cockerell.)]

But before we quit the classic revival in England, there are two

architects to be named who came a little later in the day, living in

fact into the time of the Gothic revival, who were superior to any of

the earlier classic practitioners: Harvey Lonsdale Elmes and C.R.

Cockerell. Elmes, who died very young, seems to have been as completely

a born architectural genius as Wren, and his great work, St. George's

Hall at Liverpool, has done more than any other building in the world to

glorify the memory of the classic revival. Granting all that may be said

as to the unsuitability of Greek architecture to the English climate,

one can hardly complain of any movement in architecture which gave the

opportunity for the production of so grand an architectural monument. It

is true that it is badly planned and lighted, and the exterior and

interior do not agree with each other (the exterior is Greek, and the

great hall is Roman); but if from our present point of view it is a

mistake, it is certainly one of the finest mistakes ever made in

architecture. Cockerell, who completed the interior of the building

after Elmes's death, was an architect permeated with the principles and

feeling of Greek architecture, who brought to his work a refinement of

taste and perception in regard to detail which has rarely been equalled

and never surpassed. Perhaps the very best example of his scholarly

taste in the application of classic architecture to modern uses is to be

found in his facade to the branch Bank of England at Liverpool (fig.

86).

[Illustration: FIG. 87.--Royal Theatre, Berlin. (Schinkel.)

From a photo by W A Manseli & Co.]

[Illustration: FIG. 88.--Nikolai Kirche, Potsdam. (Schinkel.)

From a photograph by W.A. Manseli & Co.]

[Illustration: PLATE IX.

FIG. 115.--PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS, BUDAPEST. (STEINDL.)

_Photo, Seer._

FIG. 116.--PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS, VIENNA. (HANSEN.)

_Photo, Lowy._

FIG. 117.--PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS, BERLIN. (WALLOT.)

_Photo, Linde._]

[Illustration: PLATE X.

FIG. 118.--HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, LONDON. (BARRY.)

_Photo, F.G.O. Stuart._

FIG. 119.--SCOTLAND YARD, LONDON. (SHAW.)

_Photo, Emery Walker._]

Classical revival in Germany.

In Germany, and especially at Berlin and Munich, the Greek revival took

hold of architecture in the early part of the century in a more decisive

but also in a more academical spirit than in England. The movement is

connected more especially with the name of one eminent architect, Karl

Friedrich Schinkel, who must have been a man of genius to have so

impressed his taste on his generation as he did in Berlin, where he was

regarded as the great and central power in the architecture of his day;

yet his buildings are marked by learning and academical correctness

rather than original genius. Elmes's St George's Hall, already referred

to as one great English work of the classic revival, is by no means a

mere piece of academical architecture; it exhibits in some of its

details a great deal of originality, and in its general design a

remarkably fine feeling for architectural grouping. In particular, the

solid masses and the heavy square columns at the ends of his

building, which seem like Greek architecture treated with Egyptian

feeling, give support to, while they form a most effective contrast

with, the richer and more delicate Corinthian order of the central

portion. The only work of Schinkel's which shows something of the same

feeling for contrast in architectural composition is one of his smaller

buildings, the Konigswache or Royal Guard-house, in which a Doric

colonnaded portico is effectively flanked and supported by two great

masses of plain wall. But in general Schinkel does not seem to have

known what to do with the angles of his buildings, or to have realized

the value of mass as a support to his colonnades. This is strikingly

exemplified in his museum at Berlin, where the tall narrow piers at the

angles have a very weak effect, and are quite inadequate as a support to

the long open colonnade. His Royal theatre also (fig. 87), though the

central portico is fine, is monotonous and weak in its two-storeyed

repetition of the small order in the wings, and it has also the fault

(which it shares, no doubt, with a great many theatres, large and small)

that its exterior design gives no hint of the theatre form; it might

just as well be a museum. His. Nikolai Kirche (1830-1837) at Potsdam

(fig. 88), which has considerable celebrity, though not so merely

academical in character, and in fact possessed of a certain originality,

has a fault of another kind, in its entire lack of architectural unity;

the dome does not seem to belong to or to have any connexion with the

substructure, while the portico is quite out of scale with the great

block of building in its rear, and looks like a subsequent addition. The

fault of the Schinkel school of architecture is an almost total want of

what may be called architectural life; it is an artificial production of

the studio. The same kind of cold classicism prevailed at Munich, where

Leo von Klenze (1784-1864), though a lesser man than Schinkel, played

somewhat the same part as the latter played at Berlin. His Propylaea

(fig. 89), in which Greek and Egyptian influences are combined, is a

characteristic example of his cold and scholastic style. His well known

_Ruhmeshalle_, with its boldly projecting colonnaded wings and the

colossal statue of Bavaria in front of it, is in its way a fine

architectural conception--perhaps finer and more consistent in its kind

than any one work of Schinkel, though he evidently did not exercise so

wide an influence on the German art of his day. A third eminent name in

the German classic revival is that of Gottfried Semper (1803-1879),

somewhat later in date (Schinkel was born in 1781), but more or less of

the same school. Semper practised successively at Dresden and at Zurich,

but finally settled in Vienna, where, however, he did not live to see

the execution of his two most important designs, the museum and the

Hofburg theatre, which were carried out by Baron Karl von Hasenauer

(1833-1894) from his designs, or approximately so. Semper's theatre at

Dresden, however, shows that he could recognize the practical basis of

architecture, as the expression of plan, in a way that Schinkel could

not; for in that building he frankly adopted the curve of the auditorium

as the _motif_ for his exterior design, thus producing a building which

is obviously a theatre, and could not be taken for anything else, and

putting some of that life into it which is so much wanting in Schinkel's

rigid classicalities.

[Illustration: FIG. 89.--Propylaea at Munich. (Von Klenze.)

From a photograph by Ferd. Finsterlin.]

French Classicism.

In spite of the Romanizing influence of the First Empire, the classic

revival did not leave by any means so academical a stamp on French as on

German architecture of the early period of the century. French

architects in the main have always had too much original genius to be

entirely taken captive by a general movement of this kind. There is the

weak classicism of Bernard Poyet's facade to the chamber of deputies, a

very poor affair; and there are two important buildings in the guise of

Roman peripteral temples, devoted respectively to business and to

religion--the Bourse, by Alexandre Theodore Brongniart (1739-1813), and

the Madeleine, begun under Napoleon, as a "Temple de la Gloire," by

Pierre Vignon (1763-1828), and completed as a church in 1841 by Jean

Jacques Huve (1783-1852). Both of these are very well carried out

externally, and enable us to judge of what would be the effect of a

Roman temple of the kind. It must be admitted that the plain oblong mass

of the Bourse has really been very much improved by the recent addition

of the two wings, carried out by Cavel, though there was a great deal of

opposition at first to meddling with so celebrated a building.

Unfortunately, the exterior of the Bourse is a mere piece of

architectural scenery, quite unconnected with the internal object and

arrangement of the building. The Madeleine is a really fine exterior in

its way; if a modern church was to put on the guise of a pagan temple,

the task could hardly have been better carried out; and the interior

might have been as fine if properly treated, but it has little artistic

relation with the noble exterior, and is spoiled by poor architectural

treatment and bad ornament. The church of St Vincent de Paul, by Jacques

Ignace Hittorff (1792-1867), an architect who was one of the most

learned students of Greek architecture of his day, is another important

example of the French classical church of the period (Plate XII., fig.

125). In this the interior is more consistent with the exterior than is

the case in the Madeleine; and by adding a tower at each angle of the

facade, above the colonnaded portico, the architect gave it more the

expression of a church, which the Madeleine wants. In the Arc de

l'Etoile, by Jean Francois T. Chalgrin (1739-1811), we have a really

great, even sublime work, which, though suggested by the Roman triumphal

arches, is no mere copy, but bears the impress of the French genius in

its details as well as in Francois Rude's grand sculptures on the east

face, while its great scale places it above everything else of the kind

in the world. It is only after ascending the interior and seeing the

vaults carrying the roof that one fully realizes what a stupendous piece

of work this is. Under Napoleon there was at least no jerry-building.[5]

[Illustration: FIG. 90.--Halifax Town Hall. (Barry.)]

Barry's "common-sense" style, in England.

Returning to the consideration of architecture in England, we come, at

about the close of the classic revival, to the name of the man who was

undoubtedly the most remarkable English architect since Wren, Sir

Charles Barry. To class him, as some would do, with the classic revival,

would be a misapprehension. Barry was no revivalist; he never attempted

to recreate Greek architecture on English soil. He adopted for most of

his works what has been called, for want of a better name, the Italian

style, which may really rather be called the common-sense style of a

civilized society. The two first works which brought him into notice,

the Travellers' and Reform clubs in London, were no doubt based on

special Italian models, the Pandolfini and Farnese palaces; but a

consideration of his whole career shows that he was in fact anything but

a copyist. The comparison of him with Wren is justified by the fact that

he was, like Wren, a born architect, in the sense that he grasped every

problem presented to him from the true architect's point of view; with

both of them architecture was not the dressing up of an exterior, but

the fashioning of a building as a conception based on plan and section

as well as on the desire to secure a certain external appearance; and,

like Wren, he never failed to grasp the true requirements of a site and

to adapt his architectural conception to it; a power perfectly different

from that of merely producing agreeable elevations in this or that

adopted style. Though very careful of his detail, he did not rely on

detail, but on the general conception of an architectural scheme. This

power was never so remarkably shown as in his grand scheme, unhappily

never carried out, for the concentration of all the British government

offices in one great architectural _ensemble_, which was to extend, on

the west of Parliament Street and Whitehall, from Great George Street

nearly to Charing Cross, the whole of the buildings to be carried out as

one design, distributed into quadrangles, each of which was to be

connected with one department of the administration, while all would

have internal communication. Had this great idea been carried out we

might at the present day have found some of the detail of the building

unsatisfying to our taste, as we often find the detail in some of Wren's

buildings, but we should have had a grand architectural achievement

which would have made London pre-eminent among the capitals of the

world. Nothing so great had been proposed in England since Inigo Jones's

plan for Whitehall Palace, which also survives only in drawings, except

the one noble bit of classic architecture known as the Banqueting House

(Plate VI., fig. 75). It was one of the greatest misfortunes to London

as a capital city that the government of the day could not rise to the

height of Barry's ambitious scheme, in which there was nothing

financially insuperable, since it was all designed to be carried out by

portions at a time, as funds could be spared; but each government office

built would in that way have been one step towards the completion of a

great central idea; whereas the nation now spends the same money in

erecting detached government buildings which have no architectural

connexion with each other.

Barry's two clubs before mentioned are almost ideals of club

architecture--the architecture of a civilized society; his Bridge-water

House is a building on a larger scale of the same type. That he had

architectural ideas less staid and sober than these is shown, however,

by the remarkable tower and spire of the Halifax Town Hall (fig. 90),

his last work, which he did not live to see carried out, in which he

contrived with remarkable success to give the Gothic spirit and

multiplicity of effect to a tower which is nevertheless classic in

detail. This tower is one of the most original and striking things in

modern English architecture and shows how Barry's architectural ideas

were developing up to the close of his life.

Barry's great building, the Houses of Parliament (Plate X., fig. 118),

with which his name will always be more especially associated, comes

accidentally, though not by natural development nor by his own choice,

under the head of the Gothic revival. The style of Tudor Gothic was

dictated to the competitors, apparently from a mistaken idea that the

building ought to "harmonize" with the architecture of Henry VII.'s

chapel adjacent to the site. Had Barry been left to himself, there is

no doubt that the Houses of Parliament, with the same main

characteristics of plan and grouping, would have been of a classic

type of detail, and would possibly have been a still finer building

than it is; and since the choice of the Gothic style in this case was

not a direct consequence of the Gothic revival movement, it may be

considered separately from that. The architectural greatness of the

building consists, in the first place, in the grand yet simple scheme

of Barry's plan, with the octagon hall in the centre, as the

meeting-point for the public, the two chambers to north and south, and

the access to the committee-rooms and other departments subordinate to

the chambers. The plan (fig. 91) in itself is a stroke of genius, and

has been more or less imitated in buildings for similar purposes all

over the world; the most important example, the Parliament House of

Budapest (Plate IX., fig. 115 and fig. 92), being almost a literal

copy of Barry's plan. Thus, as in all great architecture, the plan is

the basis of the whole scheme, and upon it is built up a most

picturesque and expressive grouping, arising directly out of the plan.

The two towers are most happily contrasted as expressive of their

differing purposes; the Victoria Tower is the symbol of the State

entrance, a piece of architectural display solely for the sake of a

grand effect; the Clock Tower is a utilitarian structure, a lofty

stalk to carry a great clock high in the air; the two are

differentiated accordingly, and the placing of them at opposite ends

of the structure has the fortunate effect of indicating, from a

distance, the extent of the plan. The graceful spire in the centre

offers an effective contrast to the masses of the two towers, while

forming the outward architectural expression of the octagon hall,

which is, as it were, the keystone of the plan.

The detail is another consideration. Barry, having had a style forced

upon him (most unwisely), which he had not studied much and with which

he was not much in sympathy, associated Pugin with him to design a

good deal of the detail; exactly how much is not certainly known;

probably Pugin was responsible for all the interior detail and

fittings; the exterior detail may have been only suggested or sketched

by him. On this ground absurd attempts have been made, by people who

do not seem to understand what architecture in the true sense means,

to claim for Pugin what they call the "artistic merit" of the Houses

of Parliament. The artistic merit consists in the whole plan,

conception and grouping, which are entirely Barry's, and which

represent something beyond Pugin's grasp; the detail is in fact the

weak element in the building. That Pugin's Gothic detail is better

than Barry's would have been is very likely the case; but had Barry

been left unfettered to work out the detail in his own school, the

result would probably have been still better. Even as it is, however,

the Houses of Parliament is one of the finest buildings in the world,

ancient or modern, and it is to be regretted that Englishmen generally

seem to be so little aware of this.

[Illustration: FIG. 91. HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, WESTMINSTER

Plan of Principal Floor.