Refadi, Byzantine house at, i, 448.
Reformation, effect on church building of the, ii, 339.
_See_ 349, 418.
Regulini Galeassi tomb at Cervetri, i, 297-299.
Reichenau, basilican church of Mittelzell in island of, ii, 217.
Plan, elevation, &c., _ibid._
Roof, 222.
St. Remi, arched gateway at, i, 349.
Roman tomb, view, 361.
Its object, principal features, &c., _ibid._
Church at Rheims, ii, 121 _note_.
Renaissance style, cause of the, i, 43, 47.
Small love for it in England, ii, 335.
_See_ ii, 340. 442. 470.
Renan (E.), Phœnicia, i, 238 _note_.
S. Reparatus, basilican church of, i, 509.
Rhamnus, form of temple at, i, 269.
Rheims, Roman arch at, i, 349.
Church of St. Remi, ii, 121 _note_.
Cathedral, 131.
Plan, proportions, &c., 135, 136.
Elegance of its façade and buttresses, 139. 173.
External sculptures, 139.
Windows, 164. 166.
Capitals, 178.
Porch, 273.
Rhenish architecture, ii, 209-254.
_See_ Aix-la-Chapelle, Bonn, Cologne, Germany.
Rhine, inferiority of its Castles to those of England, ii, 413.
Settlement of the Goths in its valley, i, 558.
Riaz, Ferdinand, addition to the Giralda by, ii, 550.
Ribe, Schleswig, cathedral of, ii, 321.
Richard II., Westminster Hall rebuilt by, ii, 414.
Rickman on remains of Saxon buildings, ii, 341.
Rieux, church at, ii, 59.
Riez, baptistery at, ii, 59.
Rimini, arch erected by Augustus at, i, 347.
Ripon, Saxon remains at, ii, 341.
Rising Castle, ii, 413.
Rochester: Chapter-house doorway in Cathedral, ii, 407.
Castle, 413.
Rock-cut tombs and temples of the Egyptians, i, 130.
Temple at Ipsamboul, _ibid._
Other examples, 131.
Dynasties by whom constructed, 132, 133.
Fact deducible from the mode of their construction, 133.
As to the assumed intention to conceal their entrances, 134.
Monuments at Doganlu, 233.
Tombs in Lycia, 234-237.
Cyrene, 285-287, 367.
In Etruria, 294.
Petra, 363-368.
Jerusalem, 368-370.
Rock-cut churches in the Crimea, ii, 482.
Roda, Catalonia, church at, ii, 466, 467.
Roeskilde, Denmark, Domkirche at, ii, 318.
Plan and elevation, 319.
Roger, king of Sicily, mosque-like church built by, ii, 24. 29.
Romain-Motier, basilican church at, ii, 218.
Plan, view, _ibid._
Roman architecture: Pagan, _see_ Romans.
Christian, _see_ Rome.
Romance language, definition of, ii, 42 _note_.
Romanesque style, origin of the, i, 411.
Its various phases, 411.
Distinctive features of this style and the Gothic, i, 502.
Early examples in remote parts: African types, 508-510.
Basilicas, 513-530.
Modification of plan in St. Mark’s, Venice, 531.
Basilicas at Parenzo, Grado, and Torcello, 537-541.
Restrictive effect of its antecedents, Circular churches, 542-556.
Lombard types. Basilicas, 558-574.
Circular churches, 574-577.
Towers, 577-581.
Byzantine Romanesque, 582-606. [_See_ Byzantine.]
Secular buildings: Example at Montier-en-Der, ii, 107.
_See_ i, 563, 607; ii, 51, 73, 107, 108, 121, 221, 222, 247, 250,
257.
_See_ also Basilicas. Circular churches.
Romans, architectural elements understood by the, i, 16.
Their constructive merits and defects, 22.
Neglect of proportion, 29.
Modes of decoration introduced by them, 32, 33.
First true constructors of the arch, 216.
Essential differences between them and the Greeks, 238, 289, 290.
Result of their early connection with the Etruscans, 290.
Chief value of their style, 303.
Architectural results of their marvellous career, &c., 304.
First inhabitants of their city, 305.
Their borrowings from the Greeks and Etruscans, 305, 306.
Their extended use of the arch: Buildings evidencing their
inventiveness, 306, 307.
Variety and splendour of their works, 307.
Their modifications and elaborations of the various orders, 307-313.
Arcades, 313.
Temples, 315-326.
Importance attached to their basilicas, 327.
Examples of same, 327-334.
Theatres, 334, 335.
Chief feature of admiration in their buildings, 336.
Amphitheatres: Love for and result of gladiatorial exhibitions, 337.
Flavian and other amphitheatres, 337-342.
Grandeur of their baths, 342.
Present remains of same, 343-346.
Triumphal and commemorative arches, 347-352.
Objectionable features in them and in their columns of Victory,
352-354.
Number and importance of their tombs, 354.
Tombs, columbaria, temple-tombs, &c., 355-363.
Tombs in the East, their character, sites, &c., 363-375.
Domestic architecture: Palace of the Cæsars, 375, 376.
Diocletian’s palace, Spalato, 376-380. [_See_ Diocletian.]
Private dwellings, 380-385. [_See_ Pompeii.]
Use of the metals in buildings, 384.
Constructive skill exhibited in their aqueducts and bridges, 385-388.
Tomb of Marcellus, 454.
Feature in their buildings improved on by Gothic architects, ii, 161.
England after their departure, 337.
Use made of their buildings in Egypt and Spain, 515.
Principle of their arches and domes, i, 485.
Do., vaults, 365.
_See_ ii, 23.
Rome, Christian architecture of: Basilicas, i, 504-527.
Extent of variations in style, 500. 502.
First church towers, 577, 578.
Cloister of St. John Lateran, 599.
Modifications in Sicily, ii, 23.
_See_ Basilicas.
Rood-lofts or screens, Troyes, ii, 181. 292.
Wechselburg, 239.
Naumburg, 293.
North Germany, 305.
Roofs: English examples, ii, 356. 399, 400.
Scottish, 435.
_Artesinado_ roofs, Spain, 497.
Stone roofs, i, 428.
_See_ Arches. Vaults. Wooden types.
Rosheim, façade of church at, ii, 239.
Roslyn Chapel, Spanish traces in, ii, 419. 432.
Exterior and under-chapel, 434.
Rotterdam Church, ii, 207.
Rouen. Cathedral: Plan, luxuriance of detail, &c., ii, 150.
Its iron spire, _ibid._
St. Maclou, 160.
Church of St. Ouen, i, 24; ii, 122. 131.
Its beautiful proportions, details, &c., 157-160.
Windows, 164. 167.
Flat roof, 168.
Flying buttress, 172.
Lantern, 177.
Proportion of solids to area, 179.
Compared with Cologne, 273.
Domestic architecture, 184.
Roueiha, Byzantine church at, i, 424.
Round churches. _See_ Circular churches.
Round towers of Ireland, ii, 450.
Purposes for which built, _ibid._
Examples, 452-454.
Royat, fortified church at, ii, 93.
Runic carving on Norwegian churches, ii, 333.
Ruremonde, Belgium, church at, ii, 192.
Russian mediæval architecture, causes of the low character of, i, 484,
485.
Churches of Kief, 486.
Novogorod, 487.
Tchernigow, 488.
Village churches, 489, 490.
Kostroma, 490, 491.
Troitzka monastery, 493.
Moscow churches and bell-towers, 493, 494.
Church at Kurtea d’Argyisch, 495.
The Kremlin, its towers and gates, 497-499.
Ruvo, i, 595.
S. Sabina, basilican church, Rome, its date, i, 515.
Sacraments Häuschen in German churches, ii, 293.
Saint Clair, William, chapel erected by, ii, 432.
Sainte Chapelle, Paris, ii, 122.
Its proportions, 155.
Painted glass and walls, 155.
Plan, 395.
Saintes, double-arched Roman bridge at, i, 352.
Saints, disposal of the bodies of, i, 512.
Sakkara, pyramid at, i, 103, 104.
Salamanca Cathedral, ii, 470, 475.
Lantern tower, 475.
Section of cimborio, 476.
Pendentives, _ibid._
Salisbury Cathedral, i, 24; ii, 140.
Plan, 349.
N.E. view, 381.
Chapter-house, 390. 393.
Proportions, 417.
_See_ ii, 355. 373. 385.
Salzburg, Franciscan church at, ii, 283.
Arrangement, plan, &c., _ibid._
Samarkand, ii, 581.
Samos, Ionic temple at, i, 256.
Samthawis, Armenia, Byzantine chapel at, i, 474.
Niche, 475.
Sandeo, Gothland, pointed doorway at, ii, 325.
Sandjerli, Armenia, church at, i, 475.
Santiago di Compostella, cathedral of: Plan, ii, 468.
South transept, 469.
Santoppen, brick church at, ii, 308.
View, _ibid._
Saracens, adoption of the pointed arch by the, ii. 45. 47.
Epoch of their style in Sicily, 23.
Example in Palermo, 24.
Their use of brick, 303.
Their practice in Spain, 498.
Their use of the horse-shoe arch, i. 468, 469.
Byzantine Saracenic style: Preliminary considerations, ii. 512-515.
Examples: Jerusalem, 516-522.
Damascus, 522.
Cairo, 525-535
Mecca, 536.
Barbary, 538.
Spain, 542-555.
Constantinople, 557-566.
Saracenic style in Persia, 567-580.
Saragoza, church of St. Paul at, ii, 499.
Sardanapalus, i, 169.
Tomb assumed to be his, 191.
Sardis, i, 229.
Tumulus near, 230.
Ionic octastyle temple, 256.
Sassanian architecture, i, 389.
Architectural practices of the Sassanians, 395.
Palaces of Serbistan and Firouzabad, 395-398.
Tâk Kesra, 398-401.
Palace of Mashita, 401-406;
Of Rabbath-Ammon, 407-408.
Saulcy, M. de, on the Jerusalem tombs, i, 368 _note_.
Savonières, Anjou, church at, ii, 107.
Saxham, Little, Suffolk, church tower of, ii, 398.
Saxon architecture in England, foreign form analogous to, ii, 256.
Examples of the true style, where to be sought, 337.
Architectural motto of the Saxons, 339.
Remains in England, 341-343.
Saxony, church architecture of, ii, 238. 288.
Scaligers, tombs at Verona of the, their form, &c., ii, 2.
Campanile, Palazzo Scaligeri, 5. 7.
Scandinavia, form of Buddhism carried by Woden to, i, 481.
Scandinavian architecture, ii, 313-332.
_See_ 398. 419.
Schiavi, Torre dei, i, 357. 544.
Schulpforta, Saxony, church of, ii, 288.
Schwartz Rheindorf, double church at, ii, 241-242.
Scipio, sarcophagus of, i, 354.
Scotch church, Ratisbon, ii, 240.
Scotland, architecture of, historical observations, ii. 418-420.
Examples: Leuchars, Jedburgh, and Kelso, 420-422.
Kirkwall, Glasgow, and Elgin, 423-431.
Melrose Abbey and Roslyn Chapel, 431-434.
Bothwell church, 435.
Holyrood, Dunfermline, Dunkeld, Linlithgow, Edinburgh, Pluscardine,
Iona, 436-441.
Scott, Sir George Gilbert, Eleanor-cross reproduced by, ii, 413 _note_.
Scott (Mr. G. G.), Roman basilicas, i, 506, 507 _note_.
Orientation of Churches, 514 _note_.
Saxon architecture, ii, 341, 342.
Sculpture, _see_ Painting.
Sebaste, church at, ii, 37.
St. Sebastian, gate of, Columbarium near, i, 356.
Sebastopol, church-cave near, i, 482, 483.
Sedinga, temples of Amenophis at, i, 127.
Segovia, Roman aqueduct at, i, 386.
Elevation, _ibid_.
Cathedral, ii, 470. 492.
Plan, 493.
Church of St. Millan, with its lateral porticoes, 476, 477.
The Templars’ church, 478.
The Kasr, 506.
Seleucidæ, the, i, 390.
Selim I., mosque of, ii, 558.
Selinus, Doric temples at, i, 254. 269.
The great temple, 270.
Plan, 270.
Seljukians, buildings of the, ii, 570.
Semitic races, i, 57.
Their unchangeableness, 64.
Their religion and its influence on their buildings for worship, 65,
66.
Their chiefs, kings, and prophets, 66.
Their worst faults: Effects of their isolation, _ibid._
High character of their literature, 67.
Their palaces and tombs, 68.
Their one æsthetic art, _ibid._
Their pre-eminence as traders, 69.
Extent of their scientific studies, _ibid._
Sennacherib, i. 169.
His palace, 183.
Sens Cathedral, ii, 147.
William of Sens, 371.
Septimius Severus, triumphal arch of, i, 348.
Sepulchre, _see_ Holy Sepulchre.
Serbistan, Sassanian palace at, i, 395, 396.
Its probable date, 401 _note_.
Sergii, arch of the, i, 348.
SS. Sergius and Bacchus, domical church of, Constantinople, i, 438.
Plan and section, 439.
Capital, _ibid._
Seven churches, a favourite number, ii, 446.
Seven Spheres, temple dedicated to the, i, 161.
Seville, ii, 479.
Cathedral, 489-492.
Churches, 498.
The Giralda, 550.
View, 550.
The Alcazar. 551.
Shah Abbas, _Maidan_ or mosque and bazaar of, ii, 575.
Shepherd Kings’ invasion of Egypt, i, 90.
Period of their rule, 93.
Particulars regarding them, 116.
Shi-ites, sect of, ii, 573.
Sicily, Doric temples in, i, 254.
Elements influencing its medieval architecture, i, 503.
Points of interest in its architectural history, ii, 22.
Its Saracenic and Norman epochs, 23.
Style peculiar to each of its divisions, 24.
Churches and Palaces, 24-31.
The pointed arch, for what purpose used, 30, 31.
_See_ 555 _note_.
_See also_ Monreale, Palermo.
Siebenbürgen, Gothic architecture in, i, 410. ii, 210.
Siena, i, 579. 619.
Cathedral, 614.
Plan, i, 614.
Façade, 615.
Town-Hall, ii, 10.
Silsilis, caves at, i, 131.
Sillustani, Peru, tombs at, ii, 603.
Sinan, Sultan Suleiman’s architect, ii, 564. 566.
Sinzig, church at, ii, 237, 238. 266.
Sion, cathedral tower of, ii, 219.
Sion Church, Cologne, ii, 238. 262.
Sites of English cathedrals, ii, 387, 388.
Skelligs, beehive huts, ii, 446 _note_.
Smyrna, gulf of, tumuli of Tantalais, i, 230.
Soest Church, transitional feature shown in, ii, 231.
Soignies, church of St. Vincent at, ii, 189.
Soissons Cathedral, ii, 148.
Ruined church of St. John, 176.
Solomon’s Palace, time occupied in building, i, 219.
Diagram plan, 220.
House of the cedars of Lebanon, 221.
Materials, ornamentation, &c., _ibid._
Somnites, sect of, ii, 573, 574.
Sta. Sophia, _see_ Constantinople.
Sorrento, cloisters at, i, 605.
Soueideh, five-aisled Byzantine church at, i, 422.
Souillac, cupola church at, ii, 67.
Souvigny, ribbed vaulting at, ii, 170.
Spain, ii, 419.
Early ages of its architecture, 460.
Styles successively introduced; ethnological considerations; Gothic
epoch, 462, 463.
French and German influences, 463.
Examples: Round-arched Gothic, 464.
Early Spanish Gothic, 468.
Middle pointed style, 478.
Late Spanish Gothic, 492-497.
Moresco style, 497.
Civil architecture: Monastic and municipal buildings, 502.
Castles, 505.
Saracenic architecture, 542.
Examples: Mosque at Cordoba, 543, 548.
Palace of Zahra, 547, 548.
Buildings at Toledo, 548.
Giralda and Alcazar, Seville, 550, 551.
The Alhambra, 551-554.
Absence of tombs, 555.
Spalato, palace at, i, 314. _See_ Diocletian.
Sparta, i, 242. 251.
Speos Artemidos, Beni Hasan, grotto of, i, 131.
Sphinx, the, i, 107. Temple near, 107, 108.
Spiegelthal, Herr, tumuli explored by, i, 230.
His notion regarding them, 231.
Spires, early examples of, ii, 87.
St. Stephen’s, Caen, 112.
Chartres, 138, 175, 196.
St. Pierre, Caen, and other French examples, 175-177.
Spire-growth in Germany, 231.
Salisbury, 380.
Great Leighs, Essex, 398.
_See_ Belfries. Towers.
Spires, Cathedral, i. 24, ii, 112, 226.
Effects of fire, war, and restorations, 226.
Dimensions, arrangements, details, &c., 229.
Stability in architecture, principle and illustrative instances of, i,
17.
Staircases at Persepolis, i, 200, 201.
Steinbach, Erwin von, designs erroneously ascribed to, ii, 278.
Steinfurt, Westphalia, chapel at, ii, 241 _note_.
S. Stefano Rotondo, Rome, circular church, i, 545.
S. Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster, _see_ Westminster, St. Stephen’s.
S. Stephen’s, Caen, ii, 111, _see_ Caen.
S. Stephen’s, Vienna, _see_ Vienna.
Sthambas of the Buddhists, i, 578.
Stirling Castle, ii, 440.
Stokes (Prof.), Celtic churches of Ireland, ii, 446 _note_.
Stonehenge, i, 14; ii, 337.
Stone-roofed churches, i, 428-431.
Strasburg Cathedral spire, ii, 138, 195, 196.
Blunder of construction, 266.
Plan and details, 276.
West front, 277.
Erwin von Steinbach’s share in it, 278.
Date of the spire, defects, &c., 279.
Strawberry Hill, result on English architecture of the erection of, ii,
335.
Stregnäs, Sweden, church at, ii, 315.
Street’s ‘Gothic Architecture in Spain,’ obligations of the Author to,
ii, 463 _note_.
Westminster Abbey, 354 _note_.
Sublimity and elegance discriminated, i, 26.
Sufis, dynasty of the, their buildings, ii, 575.
Suger, Abbé, opportune advent of, ii, 121.
Abbey built by him, 122.
His youth, 153.
Suleiman the Magnificent, mosques of:
The Suleimanie, ii, 559-562.
The Prince’s, 563.
Sultanieh, tomb of Mahomet Khodabendah at, ii, 573.
Plan, section and view, 574, 575.
Sun-worshippers, bas-relief from a temple of the, i, 141.
Fate of their monuments, 147.
Susa, i, 209.
Frieze of Arches at, 210.
Tomb of Daniel, ii, 549.
Susa (Piedmont), triumphal arch at, i, 347.
Sutrium, Etruscan amphitheatre at, i, 293. 337 and _note_.
Sweden, church architecture of, ii, 313-331.
Round churches, 316.
Switzerland, ancient monastery at St. Gall in, ii, 213-216
Other examples, 217, 243-246.
Syracuse, Doric temple at, i, 255. _See_ ii, 24.
Syria, Byzantine examples in, and Asia Minor, i, 422-428.
Tabreez, mosque at, ii, 571.
Its Byzantine features, 572.
View, 573.
Tafkha, stone-roofed church at, i, 429.
Plan, sections, mode of construction, &c., 429, 430.
Tag Eiran, Palace of, i, 407.
Tâk Kesra, Ctesiphon, builder and plan of, i, 398.
Its great arch, 399.
Takt-i-Bostan, view of, i, 408.
Takt-i-Gero, Sassanian arch, i, 406, 468.
Talars, or ancient Persian prayer platforms, i, 203.
Talavera, old temple at, i, 314.
Tambos, or Peruvian caravanserai, ii, 606.
Tancarville, fortifications at, ii, 185.
Tantalais, tumuli at, i, 230.
Tarazona, Aragon, pierced stone window-tracery at, ii, 503.
Tarragona, Roman aqueduct at, i, 386.
Elevation, _ibid._
Cathedral Dome and Pendentives, ii, 476, 477.
Tarsus, i, 229.
Tartars, Moscow destroyed by the, i, 492.
Their architectural forms, 493.
Tartar mosque and tomb at Tabreez, ii, 571-573.
Taylor, consul, Cufic inscriptions copied by, i, 393 _note_.
Tchekerman, Crimea, excavated church at, i, 482.
Tchernigow Cathedral, its domes and apses, i, 488.
Technic arts, scope and object of, i, 4-10.
Tegea, Arcadia, Ionic temple at, i, 256.
Teheran, throne room in palace at, ii. 579.
Tehuantepec, pyramid of Oajaca at, ii, 590.
Telamones, example of, i, 269.
Tel-el-Amarna, bas-relief at, i, 142.
Grottoes, 147.
Templars’ church at Brindisi, i, 599.
Temples. _See_ Assyrians. Buddha. Chaldean. Etruscan. Greeks.
Jerusalem. Rock-cut temples. Roman. Thebes.
Teocallis, or temples, of Mexico, ii. 589.
Examples, 590. 594.
Teos, Ionic hexastyle temple at, i, 256.
Teotihuacan, Mexico, pyramid-temples at, ii, 590.
Tewkesbury, ii, 349. 411.
Texier, M., researches of, i, 417.
Obligations of the Author to him, 436 _note_.
Tezcuco, Mexico, pyramid at, ii, 590.
Thann, Alsace, spire at, ii, 276.
Theatres of the Greeks, i, 280.
Of the Romans, 334-337.
_See_ Amphitheatre.
Theban dynasties in Egypt; Temples and tombs of the first kingdom, i,
110-116.
Kings of the great Theban period, 118.
Thebes, the “hundred-pyloned city” of, i, 119.
Differences between its architecture and that of Memphis, _ibid._
Comparative completeness of its remains, _ibid._
Number and grandeur of its temples, 120.
Plan and details of the Rameseum, 120, 121.
The Palace-temple of Karnac, its unparalleled magnitude, &c.,
122-126.
Temple of Luxor, its irregularity of plan, &c., 125.
The Memnonium, 126.
Temple of Medinet-Habu, 125.
South Temple of Karnac, its beauty, &c., 127.
Temples at Tanis, Sedînga, _ibid._
Abydus, &c., 128, 129.
Rock-cut tombs and temples, 131.
Theodoric (“Dietrich of Berne”) tomb of (church of Sta. Maria Rotunda),
i, 296 _note_, 554.
Plan, _ibid._
Its peculiar roof, _ibid._
Church built by him, 528.
His palace, 556.
His love for, and adornment of Verona, 569.
Theodosius, temple converted into a Christian church by, ii, 523.
Theotokos, Byzantine church, Constantinople, its value as an example of
the style, i, 457, 458.
Theron, temple founded by, i, 255.
Theseus, Temple of, i, 16.
Its date and real title, 253.
Thessalians, irruption into Greece of the, i, 251.
Thessalonica, Byzantine churches, i, 420-421.
Round churches, 435, 436.
Neo-Byzantine, 458-459.
Church of St. George at, plan, 435.
Section, 436.
View, _ibid._
Éski Djuma, 420.
St. Demetrius, 421-422.
Thierry of Alsace, memorial chapel built by, ii, 192.
Thoricus, Pelasgic gateway at, i, 245.
Thorsager, round church at, ii, 329.
Section and plan, 328.
Dimensions, &c., 329.
Thothmes I., hall built by, i, 122.
Thothmes III., palace built by, i, 123.
Section, 123.
Tia Huanacu, Peru, “Seats of the Judges” (Cyclopean ruins) at, ii, 601.
Tiglath-Pileser, i, 169.
Palace built by him, 185.
Timahoe, round tower at, ii, 452.
Timour the Lame, ii, 581.
Tintern Abbey, a German counterpart of, ii, 268.
_See_ 374.
Tirhakah, temples of, i, 147.
Titus, baths of, i, 343, 382, 384.
Triumphal arch, 348.
Tivoli, Roman temple at, i, 322.
Toledo, ii, 463, 482, 490.
Re-conquered by the Christians, 468.
Cathedral: Plan, 479.
Choir, 480, 482.
Interior, 480.
Churches:
Gothic: San Juan de los Reyes, 494.
Moresco: Sta. Maria, la Blanca, 495, 496, 548, 549.
Nuestro Senora, or El Transitu, 496, 497, 549.
Apse of San Bartolomeo, 497.
St. Roman, 499.
St. Thomé, 500.
Saracenic: St. Cristo de la Luz, 548.
Toltecs of Mexico, ii, 583.
Prosperity and adversity, 584, 585.
S. Tomaso in Limine, i, 576, 577.
Plan section, and particulars, 576.
Tombs: Beni-Hasan, i, 114.
Of Cyrus, 196-198.
Darius, 204.
Alyattes, 230.
Lycian examples, 233-237.
Amrith, 239.
Pelasgic, 243.
Mausoleum, Halicarnassus, 282.
Cnidus, 284.
Cyrene, 285-287.
Etruscan tombs and tumuli, 294-300.
Roman, 354-359.
Petra, 363-368.
Jerusalem, 368-370.
Mylassa, 371.
Dugga, 372.
Armenian, 475, 476.
Ravenna, 553, 554.
Sta. Costanza, Rome, 544.
Italian, 601.
Toulouse, ii, 180.
English examples, 405, 408-411.
Persian, 568, 569, 573-575.
Peruvian, 603, 606.
_See_ Pyramids.
Tongres, Notre Dame de, ii, 194.
Tooloon, mosque of.
_See_ Ibn Tooloon.
Torcello, Romanesque basilica at, i, 538.
Its apse: Church of Sta. Fosca, 539.
Toro, collegiate church at, ii, 473.
Torre dei Schiavi, i, 357, 544.
Tortoom, Ish Khan church at, i, 478, 479.
Toscanella, exceptional style of the churches at, i, 572.
Examples, 573-574.
Tossia family, sepulchre of the, i, 357.
Toul Cathedral, ii, 148.
Toulouse, church of the Cordeliers at, ii, 70.
Suitability of its plan for a Protestant church, 71.
The cathedral, _ibid._
Church of St. Sernin or St. Saturnin, its plan and interior
arrangements, 72.
View, exterior details, &c., 77, 91.
Tomb of St. Pierre, 80.
_See_ 367, 380, 486.
Tour Magne, Nîmes, i, 362, 555.
Tourmanin, Byzantine church at, i, 427.
Tournay Cathedral, ii, 190.
Dimensions, plan, and section, 191, 192.
Belfry, 199.
Tournus, ii, 95.
Abbey church, 97.
Vaults and arches, 97.
Tours, church of St. Martin at: Plan, ii, 74.
Arrangements originally and as rebuilt, 74.
Cathedral, 148.
Towers: Of the Winds, i, 257, 267, 279.
Russian, 496-498.
Italian, 577-581, 603-605; ii, 2-8.
Puissalicon, 59.
Of London, 111.
Norman, 112.
Their original purpose, 175.
English church-towers, ii, 341, 383, 395.
Jerpoint, Ireland, 557.
Moresco church-towers, Spain, 499, 500.
_See_ Belfries. Minarets.
Town-halls, _see_ Civic and Municipal buildings.
Towton, battlefield, epoch in art marked by, ii, 339.
Trabala, Lycia, Byzantine church at, i, 455. 471.
Tracery, _see_ Windows.
Trajan, basilica of, i, 327-329.
His baths, 343.
Triumphal arches: Beneventum, 347.
Alcantara, 352.
His column, 353.
His bridges, 387.
_see_ i, 577.
Trani Cathedral, bronze doors of, 599.
Trau (Dalmatia) Cathedral, i, 589.
Treasuries: ancient tombs so called: Of Atreus, i, 243.
Of Pharaoh, 364, 365.
Trebizond, i, 229.
Tree-worshippers, i, 481 _note_.
Trèves, basilica at, i, 332.
Views of same, 333.
Porta Nigra, 350.
Monument at Igel, 362.
Original cathedral and its successor, ii, 222. 266.
Plans of the two, 223.
Western and eastern apses, &c., 224.
Liebfrauen church, 292.
Triforium in French cathedrals, ii, 168.
Tristram, Dr., discovery of the Um Rasas Tower, ii, 451 _note_.
Triumphal arches, Roman, i, 347-352.
Objectional features in them, 352.
Troitzka, near Moscow, monastery at, 491.
Its doorway, 493.
Troja Cathedral, i, 589.
Façade, 591.
Its bronze doors, 599.
Trondhjem, Norway, cathedral and church of St. Clement at, ii, 316.
Plan, View, &c., ii, 317, 318, 420.
Troy, i, 229.
Tumuli or mounds on the Plain, 231. 249.
Consequence of the great war, 251. 291.
Troyes Cathedral, arrangement and plan, ii, 147, 148.
West front, 149.
Church of St. Urban, 155.
Its perfection, 156.
Rood-screen of the Madeleine, 81. 181.
Trunch Church, Norfolk, roof of, ii, 400.
Tudor style, epoch of the, ii, 339.
The three royal chapels, 339. 393-397.
_See_ 420.
Tumuli in Asia Minor, i, 232.
Attempts to discriminate their epochs, 233.
Etruscan examples, 294-301.
Tunis, Mosque of Kerouan, ii, 538.
Plan, 538.
Entrance in court, 539.
Minaret, 540, 541.
Turanian races, age typified by the, i, 55.
Chief feature in their history, 57.
Ancient and modern types, 57, 58.
Character of their deities and religious worship, 58, 59.
Government, 59.
Morals, 60.
Limited nature of their literature, 66.
Excellence attained by them in the Arts, 61-63.
Only science cultivated by them, 63.
Their proficiency as builders and irrigators, 63.
Points of comparison or contrast between them and other races, 63-70.
75. 81. 289. 291.
Their reverence for the dead, 191, 296.
Turin, Palazzo delle Torre at, i, 556.
Turkestan, ii, 581.
Turkey, its architecture and its people. _See_ Constantinople.
Mahomedanism.
Tuscany, architecture of, i, 586.
Tusculum, Etruscan arch at, i, 301.
Tyre and Sidon, non-existence of remains of, i, 219; ii, 462.
Tzarkoe-Selo, wooden church near, i, 490.
Ulm Cathedral, its merits and defects, ii, 280.
The “Sacraments Häuschen,” 293.
Ulpian, or Trajan’s basilica, i, 327.
Um Rasas Tower, ii, 451 _note_.
Uniformity in architecture, i, 39.
Principle followed by the Greeks, 40.
Upsala, cathedral at, ii, 313.
Its French designer, 314 and _note_.
Urnes, Norway, wooden church at, ii, 332.
View, 333.
Usunlar, Armenia, Byzantine church at, i, 469.
Utrecht, church of, ii, 207.
Uxmal, Central America, Casa de las Monjas at, ii, 596.
Plan, 597.
One of its chambers, 598.
Vaison, pointed arches at, ii, 30. 46.
Churches, 53.
Valence, Aymer de, tomb of, ii, 409.
Valence, church at, ii, 58.
Valencia Cathedral, ii, 488.
Its cimborio, 490.
Doorway from the Ablala, 501.
The Casa Lonja, 504.
Valentia, Lord, measurement of obelisk of Axum by, i, 150.
Vardzie, excavations at, i, 483.
Varro’s description of Porsenna’s tomb, i, 298.
Varzahan, Byzantine tomb at, i, 476.
Vaults in Egyptian work, i, 113.
In Assyrian palaces, 176, _note_, 215, 216, 217.
In Pelasgic work, 243, 244.
In Roman work, 306, 307. 317, 318. 321. 331, 332. 345, 346. 357-360.
At Al Hadhr, 391. 395.
Serbistan, 396.
Firouzabad, 397.
Tâk Kesra, 398, 399.
Mashita, 401.
Rabbath-Ammon, Imumzade, Tag Eiran, 407.
Byzantine, 430, 431. 434-444. 449, 450. 454-456. 461. 465. 468. 470.
473. 491.
Romanesque, 532. 540. 547. 550. 554.
Lombard, 559-566. 575-577.
Byzantine-Romanesque, 596, 600.
Pointed Italian, 610. 619. 621.
Sebenico, 634.
Palestine, ii, 36, 37.
France, 45-50. 64-73. 83.
Issoire, 90.
Tournus, 97.
Cluny, 99.
Vezelay, 101.
Stone vault in France first attempted, 107.
Montier-en-Der, 107, 108.
Intersecting vaulting, 111, 113-116.
St. Denis, 122 _note_.
Ribbed vaulting, 123.
French system, 169-170.
Germany: Spires, 229.
St. Gereon, 264.
Cologne Cathedral, 271.
Kuttenberg, 285.
Gothland, 323-325.
English system and examples, 355-367.
Chapter-houses, 389-392.
Chapels, 394-397.
Scotland, 426, 427. 432-435. 437.
Ireland, 448.
Spain, 469. 476, 477. 484. 487. 489.
Poverty of same, 492.
Cairo, 532.
Constantinople, 560.
Persia, 568.
Origin of stalactite vault, 570 _note_. 574.
Venice: St. Mark’s, i, 530-536.
Plan, 531.
Capital, 532.
Dimensions and particulars, _ibid._
View, 533.
Its tower or campanile, 579, 581.
Churches: San Giovanni e Paolo, and the Frari, 632.
San Giorgio, 574 _note_.
Civil and domestic examples, ii, 15.
The Doge’s palace, cause and extent of its claims to admiration, its
actual demerits, &c., 16-18.
The Ca d’Oro, and the Foscari and Pisani palaces, 18, 19.
Picturesque parts of the buildings: angle window; Ponte del Paradiso,
20, 21.
Piazza, 575 _note_.
_See_, i, 456. 500, 501; ii, 32.
Venus and Rome, temple dedicated by Hadrian to, i, 318. 323.
Vercelli, church of St. Andrea at, first example of the pointed style
in Italy, i, 572. 610-629.
Verona, Roman amphitheatre at, i, 341.
Results of Theodoric’s liking for the city, i, 569.
Cathedral apse, 570.
Churches: San Zenone, 570.
Its façade, 571.
Its tower, 581.
Sta. Anastasia, 612.
Tower or campanile, (Scaligeri), ii, 5, 7.
Tombs of the Scaligers, ii, 2.
Windows, 15.
_See_ i, 500, 560, 599, 607.
Vespasian, temple built by, i, 317.
His baths, 383.
Vezelay, ii, 95.
Nave and narthex, 101.
Vaults and roof, 106.
Vianden, Luxemburg, chapel of, ii, 241 _note_.
Viborg (Denmark), cathedral, ii, 321.
Vicenza, town-hall of, ii, 10.
Victory, columns of, i, 352, 353.
Victory, Wingless, _see_ Niké Apteros.
Vienna, St. Stephen’s Cathedral at, ii, 280.
Dimensions, 280.
Its beauties: elegance of its spire, 282.
View, 281.
Failure of the Turkish siege of the city, ii, 556.
Vienne, cathedral of, ii, 58. 102.
Church of St. André le Bas, 59, 60.
Peculiar decoration of the church of St. Généreux, 107.
Villena, Spain, twisted columns in the church at, ii, 493. 505.
Villers, abbey church of, curious window, ii, 193, 194.
Vincennes, keep of, ii, 185.
S. Vincenzo alle Tre Fontane, basilican church, Rome, date of, i, 515.
Its characteristics, 526.
Section and Elevation, _ibid._
French counterparts, ii, 106, 107.
Viollet le Duc, _see_ Le Duc.
Virgins of the Sun, Peru, house of the, ii, 604.
View, 605.
S. Vitale, octagonal church, Ravenna, i, 505, 548; ii, 38.
Plan and section, i, 548.
Capitals, 549, 550.
Copied by Charlemagne, ii, 248.
S. Vito, Roman sepulchre at, i, 357.
Section, 357.
Vitruvius, temples mentioned or described by, i, 274. 291, 292.
Basilica built by him, 334.
Mode of decoration reprobated by him, 384.
Vladimir, cathedral and churches built by, i, 486, 488.
The city so named, 489.
Vogüé, Comte Melchior de, on churches in Syria and Palestine, i, 416,
422-427. 429. 433. 437. 450; ii, 36. _note_. 37.
Domestic architecture, i, 447-448.
Vulci, Cocumella tumulus at, i, 298, 299.
Vyse, Colonel Howard, Egyptian researches of, i, 97. 102.
Wady el-Ooatib, true character of the ruins at, i, 149.
Wales, castles of, ii, 413.
Walid, Caliph, mosques built by, ii, 523.
Walls: Assyrian, i, 169. 173.
Pelasgian, 246.
Peruvian, ii, 587, 588.
Walpole, Horace, impulse given to the revival of the Gothic style by,
ii, 335.
Walpole St. Peter’s, Norfolk, as a type of an English parish church,
ii, 401.
Walsingham, Alan of, examples of the architectural genius of, ii, 350.
396.
Walsingham, New, Norfolk, roof of aisle at, ii, 400.
Waltham Cross, ii, 412
S. Wandrille, Normandy, triapsal oratory at, ii, 110.
Wartburg, palace or castle on the, ii, 257, 258.
Warwick Castle, ii, 413.
Waterloo Bridge, i, 48.
Wechselburg, rood-screen at, ii, 238, 239.
Wells Cathedral, ii, 273.
A Norwegian resemblance, 318.
Its towers, 385.
Site, 388.
Chapter-house, 391. 393.
Sculptures of the façade, 402.
Measurements, 417.
_See_ 390.
West, bishop of Ely, tomb of, ii, 408.
Westeräs, Sweden, church at, ii, 315.
Westminster Abbey: French and English elements in its design, ii, 338.
353.
Apse, 349. 353.
Plan, 354.
Bays of nave, 370.
Painted glass, 374.
Measurements, 417. _See_ 371. 481 _note_.
_Chapter-house_, 391.
_Tombs_: De Valence, 409.
Edward III., 409.
_Chapel of Henry VII._, 353.
Aisle, 364.
Peculiarity of design, 397.
A Spanish counterpart, _see_ 494.
Westminster Bridge, i, 48.
Westminster Hall, roof of, ii, 356. 395. 399.
Dimensions, plan, and section, 414-416.
Westminster, St. Stephen’s chapel, ii, 338.
Roof, 356. 399.
Internal elevation, 394.
Its destruction unwise, 394 _note_.
Plan, 395.
Date, 395 _note_.
Westphalian churches, architecture, ii, 230.
Westropp, Mr. Hodder, suggestions by, ii, 298 _note_. 450.
White Convent near Siout, i, 510.
Plan, 511.
Wilkinson’s ‘Ancient Architecture and Geology of Ireland,’ ii, 444
_note_.
William the Conqueror, memorial church built by, ii, 111.
His tomb, 118.
William I. of Sicily, building erected by, ii, 24.
Willis, Professor, Holy Sepulchre, ii, 33 _notes_, 344 _note_.
Winchester Cathedral, i, 18; ii, 349.
Plan, 350.
Pier arches, 368.
Transformation of nave, 369.
Window tracery, 379.
Western entrance, 385.
Anomalies of style, 387.
Site, 388.
Chapter-house, 390.
Altar screen, 405.
Bishop Gardiner’s tomb, 408.
Measurements, 417.
Winchester School, ii, 414.
Windows and window tracery, ii, 123.
Byzantine, i, 448. 472.
Italian, i, 597. ii, 14, 15. 19.
Painted glass, 124, 125.
Examples from French cathedrals, 163-167.
Villers, 193.
Cologne, 262.
English examples, 342. 361. 365. 369. 371. 379.
Scotland, 419. 427. 429. 433. 441.
Irish round towers, 455.
Spanish, 503.
Saracenic, 529.
Winds, Tower of the, i, 257. 267.
Dimensions and description, 279.
Windsor Castle, ii, 413.
St. George’s chapel: Vaulting, 362, 364.
Feature in the roof, 364.
Its merits as a whole, 397.
Wisby, Gothland, early prosperity of, ii, 321.
Helge-Anders and other churches, 322-324.
Wolsey’s choir at Oxford, ii, 366.
Hampton Court, 415.
Woman’s position among the various races: Turanians, i, 60.
Semites, _ibid_.
Celts, 72.
Aryans, 79.
Wood, Mr., explorations of, i, 277, 278.
Wooden Churches of Norway, ii, 332-334.
Of Russia, i, 490.
Wooden types copied in stone, i, 106. 234-237.
Wooden roofs of the Gothic architects, i, 547; ii, 356.
Superiority of English wooden roofs, 356.
English churches, 399-401.
Westminster Hall, 414, 415.
Eltham, 415.
_See_ Roofs.
Worcester Cathedral, chapter house of, ii, 390.
Measurements, 417.
Worms Cathedral, ii, 226.
Plan and bay, 227.
Side elevation, 228.
Dates, details, &c., 227.
Wurka, the Bowariyeh (early Chaldean temple) at, i, 158. 165.
The Wuswus ruin, 165-167. 398.
Wykeham, William of, architectural works of, ii, 349. 369. 378. 414.
Xanten, great church at, ii, 287.
Plan, 287.
Xeres, church of San Miguel at, ii, 494.
Xerxes, palace of, i, 205-208.
Xochicalco, Mexico, pyramid at, ii, 590.
Yaroslaf of Russia, architectural works of, i, 486.
Yezidi house, interior of a, i, 182.
York Cathedral, i, 24; ii, 352.
Periods and styles, 355.
The Five Sisters’ window, 372.
Chapter-house window, 377.
Lady chapel, 387.
Chapter-house, 392, 393.
Measurement, 417.
Yorkshire, remains of abbeys in, ii, 348.
Yousouf, memorial tower built by, ii, 551.
Ypres, church of St. Martin at, ii, 194.
Cloth hall, 200-202. 204.
Boucherie, 204.
Yrieix, Gothic house at, ii, 183.
Yucatan, race inhabiting, ii, 586.
Richness of the region in architectural remains, 593.
Examples, 594.
Zagros, Mount, Takt-i-Gero shrine on, i, 468.
Zahra, palace of, ii, 547, 548.
Zamora, Spain, cathedral of, ii, 471-473.
Zara, Dalmatia, cathedral of: Plan, i. 588.
View, 590.
Church of San Donato, 602, 603; ii. 35.
Zawyet-el-Mayyitûr, lotus pier, i, 115.
Zayi, Yucatan, palace at, ii, 596.
Elevation and plan, 596, 597.
Zechariah, so-called tomb of, i, 368.
Zerbst, Nicholai Kirche at, ii, 291.
Zobeidé, tomb of, its peculiar plan and form, ii, 568.
Zurich Minster, ii, 189.
View and Plan: peculiar details, 243.
Cloister, 259.
View, 260.
LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.
Footnotes
Footnote 1:
The first volume was published in 1865; the second in 1867.
Footnote 2:
‘Mémoire sur les Fouilles exécutés au Madras’en,’ Constantine, 1873.
Footnote 3:
‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos de España.’ Folio. Madrid, 1860, _et
seqq._
Footnote 4:
Parcerisa, ‘Recuerdos y Bellezas de España.’ Folio. Madrid.
Footnote 5:
‘Gothic Architecture in Spain,’ by G. E. Street. Murray. 1865.
Footnote 6:
‘Denkmäler der Kunst des Mittelalters in Unter Italien,’ by H. W.
Schulz. Dresden, 1860. Quarto. Atlas, folio.
Footnote 7:
‘Syrie Centrale,’ by Count M. De Vogüé. Paris.
Footnote 8:
‘Byzantine Architecture,’ by Chev. Texier. London, 1864.
Footnote 9:
‘Mission to the Court of Ava in 1855,’ by Colonel Yule. 4to. London,
1858.
Footnote 10:
‘Travels in Siam and Cambodia,’ by Henri Mouhot. London: John Murray.
1864.
Footnote 11:
The number of illustrations in the chapters of the Handbook comprised
in this first volume of the History was 441. They now stand at 536
(1874); and in the second volume the ratio of increase will probably
be even greater.
Footnote 12:
It may be suggested that the glory of a French clerestory filled with
stained glass made up for all these defects, and it may be true that
it did so; but in that case the architecture was sacrificed to the
sister art of painting, and is not the less bad in itself because it
enabled that art to display its charms with so much brilliancy.
Footnote 13:
The numbers in the table must be taken only as approximative, except
2, 4, 6, and 7, which are borrowed from Gwilt’s ‘Public Buildings of
London.’
Footnote 14:
The Isis-headed or Typhonian capitals cannot be quoted as an exception
to this rule: they are affixes, and never appear to be doing the work
of the pillar.
Footnote 15:
See woodcuts further on.
Footnote 16:
Max Müller, who is the _facile princeps_ of the linguistic school in
this country—in an inaugural lecture which he delivered when, it was
understood, he was appointed to a chair in the Strasburg University—
gave up all that has hitherto been contended for by his followers. He
admitted that language, though an invaluable aid, did not suffice for
the purposes of the investigation, and that the results obtained by
its means were not always to be depended upon.
Footnote 17:
The term “Persistent Varieties” has recently been introduced, instead
of “race,” in ethnological nomenclature, and, if scientific accuracy
is aimed at, is no doubt an improvement. It is an advantage to have a
term which does not even in appearance prejudge any of the questions
between the monogenists and polygenists, and leaves undecided all the
questions how the variations of mankind arose. But it sounds pedantic;
and “race” may be understood as meaning the same thing.
Footnote 18:
The whole of this subject has been carefully gone into by the Author
in a work entitled ‘Rude Stone Monuments’ published in 1872, to which
the reader is referred.
Footnote 19:
All round the shores of the Mediterranean are found the traces of an
art which has hitherto been a stumbling-block to antiquarians.
Egyptian cartouches and ornaments in Assyria, which are not Egyptian;
sarcophagi at Tyre, of Egyptian form, but with Phœnician inscriptions,
and made for Tyrian kings; Greek ornaments in Syria, which are not
Greek; Roman frescoes or ornaments, and architectural details at
Carthage, and all over Northern Africa, which however are not Roman.
In short, a copying art something like our own, imitating everything,
understanding nothing. I am indebted to my friend Mr. Franks for the
suggestion that all this art may be Phœnician, in other words,
Semitic, and I believe he is right.
Footnote 20:
Had there been no Pelasgi in Greece, there probably would have been no
Architecture of the Grecian period.
Footnote 21:
The derivation of the two words Heathen and Pagan seems to indicate
the relative importance of these two terms very much in the degree it
is here wished to express. Heathen is generally understood to be
derived from ἔθνος, a nation or people; and Pagan from _Pagus,
Pagani_, a village, or villagers. Both are used here not as terms of
reproach, but as indicative of their being non-Christian, which is
what it is wished to express, and was the original intention of the
term.
Footnote 22:
‘Rude Stone Monuments,’ 1 vol. 8vo. Murray, 1872.
Footnote 23:
The above scheme of Egyptian Chronology was published by me in the
‘True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ in 1849; and the data on which it
was based were detailed in the Appendix to that work. As there seems
to be nothing in the subsequent researches or discoveries which at all
invalidates the reasoning on which the table was founded, it is here
reproduced in an abridged form as originally set forth.
Footnote 24:
Syncellus, Chron. p. 98, ed. Dindorff, Bonn, 1829.
Footnote 25:
‘Josephus contra Apion,’ i. 14, 16 and 26.
Footnote 26:
Vyse, ‘Operations on the Pyramids at Gizeh in 1837,’ vol. i. p. 297,
et seq.
Footnote 27:
At Wady Meghara, in the Sinaitic peninsula, a king of the 4th dynasty
is represented as slaying an Asiatic enemy. It is the only sign of
strife which has yet been discovered belonging to this ancient
kingdom. Lepsius, Abt. ii. pl. 39.
Footnote 28:
By a singular coincidence, China has been suffering from a Hyksos
domination of Tartar conquerors, precisely as Egypt did after the
period of the Pyramid builders, and, strange to say, for about the
same period—five centuries. Had the Taepings been successful, we
should have witnessed in China the exact counterpart of what took
place in Egypt when the 1st native kings of the 18th dynasty expelled
the hated race.
Footnote 29:
Col. H. Vyse, ‘Operations carried on the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837.’
Lond. 1840-43.
Footnote 30:
This will be best understood by looking at the section (Woodcut 7), in
which it will be seen that the so-called coping or casing-stones were
not simply triangular blocks, filling up the angles formed by the
receding steps, and which might have been easily displaced, but stones
from 7 to 10 feet in depth, which could not have been supported unless
the work had been commenced at the bottom. On the other hand, it is
difficult to understand how the casing-stones for the upper portion
could have been raised up the sloping portion completed. It is
probable, therefore, that the casing was commenced at the angles and
was carried up in vertical planes, thus leaving a causeway of steps in
the middle of each face, which diminished in width as the work
proceeded; this causeway, a few feet wide only, on each face being
then encased from the top downwards after the apex blocks had been
laid.—ED.
Footnote 31:
‘The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh by W. M. Flinders Petrie. Lond.
1883.
Footnote 32:
On the north side the paving is carried under the lowest course.
Footnote 33:
Except the spires of Cologne Cathedral.
Footnote 34:
They are situated in latitude 30° N.
Footnote 35:
‘Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh,’ p. 199.
Footnote 36:
Mr. Petrie says, p. 117: “All the chambers of this pyramid are
entirely hewn in the rock.”
Footnote 37:
‘Medum,’ by M. Flinders Petrie. D. Nutt, London, 1892.
Footnote 38:
Diodorus, i. 51.
Footnote 39:
M. Mariette’s discoveries in these tombs were only in progress at the
time of his death: but his manuscript notes and drawings of the
hieroglyphics and figures have since been published in facsimile under
the title of ‘Les Mastabas de l’Ancienne Empire’ Paris 1889. They are,
however, incomplete; some of the plates referred to could not be
found, and M. Maspero, who edited the work, has unfortunately given no
preface of his own, which might have rendered them more intelligible.
At present no sufficient data exist to enable others to realise and
verify the extraordinary revelation it presents to us. It is 2000
years older, and infinitely more varied and vivid, than the Assyrian
pictures which recently excited so much interest.
Footnote 40:
The false door is a niche in the side of the mastaba, the back of
which is carved in imitation of a wooden door.
Footnote 41:
Lucian, ‘De Syria Dea,’ ed. Reetzin, tom. iii. p. 451, alludes to the
fact of the old temples of the Egyptians having no images.
Footnote 42:
The roof slabs are gone, but the lower portions of the slits are still
uninjured.
Footnote 43:
The plan and particulars relating to this temple are taken from Mr. W.
M. Petrie’s work before referred to.
Footnote 44:
The tablet discovered at Gizeh, in which Khufu, the builder of the
Great Pyramid, is recorded to have made some repairs to the Sphinx, is
stated by Mr. Petrie to be a forgery of the 20th dynasty, and his
reasons are given in section 118 of his work.
Footnote 45:
Lepsius, ‘Denkmaler,’ Abt. ii. pls. 115, 116.
Footnote 46:
Syncellus, p. 69; Euseb. Chron. p. 98.
Footnote 47:
‘Hawara, Biahmun, and Arsinoe’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1889.
Footnote 48:
‘Kahun, Garob, and Hawara,’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1890.
Footnote 49:
‘Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob,’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1891.
Footnote 50:
_Ibid._
Footnote 51:
The researches of Mr. Petrie at Kahun have shown that originally this
form of column was in wood, which would account for the base on which,
in Egyptian work, it is always placed.
Footnote 52:
In a tomb of the 4th dynasty found at Sakkara is a wall decoration in
which the lotus column is used in a frieze, examples of it being
carved in low relief to separate the figures in a procession (see
plate 10, ‘Voyage dans la Haute Égypte,’ by F. A. F. Mariette. Cairo,
1878). The polygonal or Proto-Doric column has also been found as a
hieroglyph in an inscription of the 4th dynasty. This carries back the
date of the two columns to a period some twelve centuries prior to the
example at Beni-Hasan.
Footnote 53:
‘Revue Archæologique,’ vol. iii., 1861, p. 97, and v., 1862, p. 297.
Footnote 54:
518 years: ‘Josephus contra Apion.,’ I. 26.
Footnote 55:
Layard, ‘Nineveh and Babylon,’ 281.
Footnote 56:
Tacitus, Ann. II. 60.
Footnote 57:
‘Revue Archéologique,’ vol. x. 1864, p. 170, and vol. xiii. 1866, p.
73.
Footnote 58:
Now in Sir John Soane’s Museum, in Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields.
Footnote 59:
‘Egyptian Archæology,’ by G. Maspero, translated from the French by
Amelia B. Edwards. London, 1887.
Footnote 60:
The information regarding these temples is principally derived from
Hoskins’s ‘Travels in Ethiopia,’ which is the best and most accurate
work yet published on the subject.
Footnote 61:
Herodotus. iii. 24. Diodorus, ii. 15.
Footnote 62:
Woodcuts 982 and 1091 in the first edition of this History.
Footnote 63:
Published in the ‘Rheinischer Museum’ vol. viii. p. 252, et seq.
Footnote 64:
‘Josephus contra Apion,’ i. 14.
Footnote 65:
If the Greeks traded to Naucratis as early as the 1st Olympiad.
Footnote 66:
When the ‘Handbook of Architecture’ was published in 1855, there
existed no data from which these affinities could be traced. It is to
the explorations of Sir Henry Rawlinson and Messrs. Taylor and Loftus
that we owe what we now know on the subject; but even that is only an
instalment.
Footnote 67:
The chronology here given is based on the various papers communicated
by Sir Henry Rawlinson to the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’
vol. x. et seq., and to the ‘Athenæum’ journal. The whole has been
abstracted and condensed in his brother’s ‘Five Great Monarchies of
the Ancient world;’ from which work the tables here given are taken in
an abridged form.
Footnote 68:
Loftus, ‘Chaldæa and Babylonia,’ p. 167.
Footnote 69:
Journal R. A. S., vol. xv. p. 260, et seq.
Footnote 70:
Journal R. A. S., vol. xviii. p. i, et seq., Sir H. Rawlinson’s paper,
from which all the information here given regarding the Birs is
obtained.
Footnote 71:
Flandin and Coste, ‘Voyage en Perse,’ vol. iv. pl. 221.
Footnote 72:
I have ventured to restore the roof of the cella with a sikra (ziggur
or ziggurah, according to Rawlinson’s ‘Five Ancient Monarchies,’ vol.
I, p. 395, et passim), from finding similar roofs at Susa, Bagdad,
Keffeli, &c. They are certainly indigenous, and borrowed from some
older type, whether exactly what is represented here is not clear, it
must be confessed. It is offered as a suggestion, the reason for which
will be given when we come to speak of Buddhist or Saracenic
architecture.
Footnote 73:
Rich gives its dimensions: On the north, 600 feet; south, 657; east,
546; and west, 408. But it is so ruinous that only an average guess
can be made at its original dimensions. [Mr. George Smith, in the
‘Athenæum’ of February 1876, wrote a letter giving an account of a
tablet of the Temple of Belus at Babylon he had deciphered, which
constitutes the only description found giving the dimensions thereof.
The bottom stage was 300 feet square and 110 feet high, the second,
with raking sides, 260 feet square and 60 feet high, the third 200
feet square and 20 feet high, the fourth, fifth, and sixth each 20
feet high and 170, 140, and 110 feet respectively. The top stage,
which was the sanctuary, was 80 × 70 feet and 50 feet high, the whole
height being thus 300 feet, the same as the width of the base. Mr. W.
R. Lethaby, in his work on ‘Architecture, Mysticism, and Myth,’ gives
as a frontispiece a restoration according to these dimensions, the
appearance of which is more impressive and probably approaches more
closely to the actual proportions of a ziggurat than any previously
published, excepting that at Khorsabad, with which in general
proportion it coincides.—ED.]
Footnote 74:
Strabo, xvi. p. 738.
Footnote 75:
There is a slight discrepancy in the measures owing to the absence of
fractions in the calculation.
Footnote 76:
Loftus, ‘Chaldæa and Babylonia,’ p. 188.
Footnote 77:
This chapter and that next following may be regarded as, in all
essential respects an abridgment or condensation of the information
contained in a work published by the author in 1851, entitled, ‘The
Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored,’ the only real difference
being that the more perfect decipherment of the inscriptions since
that work was published has caused some of the palaces and buildings
to be ascribed to different kings and dynasties from those to whom
they were then assigned, and proved their dates to be more modern than
was suspected, for the oldest at least. The order of their succession,
however, remains the same, and so consequently do all the
architectural inferences drawn from it. Those readers who may desire
further information on the subject are referred to the work alluded
to.
Footnote 78:
Published in 1862, in the ‘Athenæum’ journal, No. 1812.
Footnote 79:
This plan, with all the particulars here mentioned, are taken from
Layard’s work, which is the only authority on the subject, so that it
is not necessary to refer to him on every point. The plan is reduced
to the usual scale of 100 ft. to 1 inch, for easy comparison with the
dimensions of all the other edifices quoted throughout this work.
Footnote 80:
The whole of the information regarding Khorsabad is taken from M.
Botta’s great work on the subject, and its continuation, ‘Ninive et
l’Assyrie,’ by M. Victor Place.
Footnote 81:
These particulars are all borrowed from M. Place’s great work, ‘Ninive
et l’Assyrie,’ folio. Paris, 1865.
Footnote 82:
Space will not admit of my entering into all the reasons for this
restoration here. If any one wishes for further information on the
subject, I must refer him to my ‘Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis
Restored,’ published in 1851. Nothing has occurred during the
twenty-three years that have elapsed since that work was published
that has at all shaken my views of the correctness of the data on
which these restorations were based. On the contrary, every subsequent
research has served only more and more to convince me of their general
correctness, and I cannot now suggest any improvement even in details.
[It should be noted that the author’s theory as to the covering over
of the Assyrian halls with a flat roof carried on columns has never
been accepted by foreign archæologists, and no trace has ever been
found of the foundations which would be required to carry such
columns. M. Place, who conducted the excavations at Khorsabad, and
Messrs. Perrot & Chipiez, who, among others, have devoted much time
and research to the subject, are of opinion that the halls were
vaulted. It would be difficult now to determine the possibility of
building vaults of thirty feet span in crude or unburnt brick, because
we have no means of testing the resistance to crushing which such
bricks might afford. The brick voussoirs found by M. Place in the
arches of the town gates had been prepared in special moulds, and so
completely dried that liquid clay had been used to cement them
together. In some of the large halls, far away from the walls, and in
some cases in the centre of the rooms, huge blocks of hard clay were
found with their lower surface curved and covered with a layer of
stucco; these masses were sometimes many metres long, one to two
metres wide, nearly a metre thick. According to M. Place they formed
part of a barrel vault covering the halls, and their size would
account for the immense thickness of the walls constructed to carry
them and resist their thrust, as well as for the peculiar shape of the
halls; that is, their length as compared with their breadth. The
sculptured slabs would seem to have been carved to be seen by a high
side-light, which suggests openings of some kind, just above the
springing of the vault, and above the flat roof of the smaller halls
round.—ED.]
Footnote 83:
These gateways are extremely interesting to the Biblical student,
inasmuch as they are the only examples which enable us to understand
the gateways of the Temple at Jerusalem as described by Ezekiel. Their
dimensions are nearly the same, but the arrangement of the side
chambers and of gates generally are almost identical. These gates had
been built 100 years at least before Ezekiel wrote.
Footnote 84:
Layard’s excavations here furnish us with what has not been found or
has been overlooked elsewhere, _e.g._, a ramp or winding staircase
leading to the upper storey (‘Nineveh and Babylon,’ 461). As explained
above, I believe the tops of the walls, which are equal to the floor
space below, formed such a storey. This ramp at Koyunjik would just
suffice to lead to them, and goes far to prove the theory. If it was
similarly situated at Khorsabad it would be in the part fallen away.
Footnote 85:
[This assumption is speculative, no trace of such dwarf columns having
been found; to raise a solid wall thirteen feet thick to carry a
gallery seems unlikely.—ED.]
Footnote 86:
This façade, as I read it, is identical with the one I erected at the
Crystal Palace as a representation of an Assyrian façade, long before
this slab was exhumed.
Footnote 87:
See Rawlinson, ‘Ancient Monarchies,’ vol. i. p. 398.
Footnote 88:
It is called tomb by Strabo, lib. xvi., and Diodorus, xvii. 112, 3;
temple, Herodotus, i. 181, Arrian, vii. 17, 2, Pliny, vi. 26.
Footnote 89:
Texier shows columns on the fourth side.
Footnote 90:
Mr. Weld Blundell in 1892 found a column with fluted base and Doric
capital, but it did not apparently belong to the palace.
Footnote 91:
[It follows from what has already been pointed out in a note
respecting the roofs of the Assyrian palaces; if, as is contended by
French archæologists, the great halls were vaulted, Mr. Fergusson’s
theory respecting the origin of the Persian columns partly falls to
the ground; in that case it would seem more probable that the Persians
owed their columnar architecture to prototypes of wooden posts,
covered with metal plates, such as are described as existing in the
Median palaces of Ecbatana, where Cyrus, the first Persian monarch,
passed so many years of his life.—ED.]
Footnote 92:
The woodcuts in this chapter, except the restorations, are taken from
Flandin and Coste’s ‘Voyage en Perse,’ except where the contrary is
mentioned.
Footnote 93:
It is curious that neither Ker Porter, nor Texier, nor Flandin and
Coste, though measuring this building on the spot, could make out its
plan. Yet nothing can well be more certain, once it is pointed out.
Footnote 94:
‘Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored,’ p. 126.
[The prayer platform or talar represented on the tomb of Darius is
extremely unlike any constructional feature such as an upper storey,
and may have been placed there only to give dignity and importance to
the figure of the king: the hall of the Palace of Darius could easily
have been lighted by clerestory windows over the roofs of the smaller
chambers on each side.—ED.]
Footnote 95:
It is very strange that this similarity, like the plan of the square
halls, should hitherto have escaped observation. Had any one looked at
the matter as a whole we should have been spared some restorations
which are too absurd even to merit exposure.
[The restorations referred to are those in which the columns of the
Great Hall and of the porticoes are shown as isolated features
standing on the platforms. The authors of these designs would appear
to have been misled by Messrs. Flandin and Coste’s plan, in which the
drains are shown as if they ran under the line of the wall proposed by
Mr. Fergusson, the enclosing wall of the Great Hall. Mr. Weld
Blundell’s researches (1891), however, have shown that the main drain
really lies under the hall, and between the enclosure wall and the
first row of columns, and that the vertical rain-water shafts which
were built into the wall communicated direct with this main drain.
These shafts, cut in stone, in some cases rise above the level of the
platform, which show that they were not intended to carry off the
surface water from the platform. Mr. Weld Blundell discovered also the
traces of the foundation of walls at the angles where shown by Mr.
Fergusson. It would seem that in course of time the platforms have
become coated with so hard and uniform a covering as to suggest its
being the natural surface; when once broken through, however, the
evidences of foundations of various walls are abundant.—ED.]
Footnote 96:
M. Dieulafoy’s work on the Acropolis of Susa has just (1893) appeared,
but, so far as the palace is concerned, his discoveries do not add
much to our knowledge. He appears to have arrived at the conclusion
that the great hall (which in plan resembles that of the palace of
Xerxes—Woodcut 94) was not enclosed on the south side, but was left
open to the court in the same way as the great reception halls of the
later Parthian and Sassanian kings at Al Hadhr, Firouzabad, and
Ctesiphon.
Footnote 97:
It is now generally considered that these two buildings were tombs;
the projecting bosses, as shown on woodcut, are in reality sinkings,
and were probably decorative only.—ED.
Footnote 98:
M. Dieulafoy claims to have traced the plan of a temple at Susa which
consisted of a sanctuary the roof of which was supported by four
columns, with a portico-in-antis in front, and a large open court,
measuring about 50 ft. by 40 ft., in the middle of which was placed
the fire-altar. The whole building was enclosed with a corridor or
passage, with entrances so arranged that no one could see inside the
temple from without.—ED.
Footnote 99:
Mr. Flinders Petrie’s latest excavations at Medum have resulted in the
discovery of small brick arches over a passage in the sepulchral pit
of Rahotep of the 4th dynasty.
Footnote 100:
Wilkinson’s ‘Egypt and Thebes,’ pp. 81 and 126.
Footnote 101:
‘Manners and Customs of the Egyptians,’ vol. iii. p. 263.
Footnote 102:
1 Kings vii. 1-12. Josephus, B. J. viii. 5.
Footnote 103:
Josephus, Ant. viii. 5. § 2.
Footnote 104:
The details of this restoration are given in the ‘Dictionary of the
Bible,’ _sub voce_ ‘Temple,’ and repeated in my work entitled ‘The
Holy Sepulchre and the Temple at Jerusalem.’ Murray, 1865.
Footnote 105:
‘Speaker’s Commentary on the Bible,’ vol. ii. p. 520; note on verse
15, chap. vii. 1 Kings.
Footnote 106:
For a restoration of this screen see ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’
Appendix i., p. 270.
Footnote 107:
Since the article on the Temple in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible’
was written, from which most of the woodcuts in this chapter are
taken, I have had occasion to go over the subject more than once, and
from recent explorations and recently discovered analogies have, I
believe, been able to settle, within very narrow limits of doubt, all
the outstanding questions with reference to this celebrated building.
I have in consequence written and published a monograph of the Temple,
but have deemed it more expedient to leave the illustrations here as
they are.
Footnote 108:
2 Chronicles xx. 5.
Footnote 109:
Hecateus of Abdera, in ‘Müller’s Fragments,’ ii. 394.
Footnote 110:
Josephus, Ant. xi. 4, § 2.
Footnote 111:
Josephus, B. J. v. 5, § 4.
Footnote 112:
Dawkins and Wood, ‘The Ruins of Palmyra,’ Lond. 1753.
Footnote 113:
Texier, ‘Arménie et la Perse,’ vol. i. pl. 62 and 68.
Footnote 114:
Texier, ‘Asie Mineure,’ pl. 10 to 21.
Footnote 115:
Herodotus, i. 93.
Footnote 116:
Lydischen Königsgräber, I. F. M. Olfers, Berlin, 1859.
Footnote 117:
“Toward the centre of the monument two large stones were found leaning
at an angle the one against the other, and forming a sort of tent,
like in Woodcut 124, under which was presently discovered a small
statue of Minerva seated on a chariot with four horses, and an urn of
metal filled with ashes, charcoal, and burnt bones. This urn, which is
now in the possession of the Comte de Choiseul, is enriched in
sculpture with a vine branch, from which is suspended bunches of
grapes done with exquisite art.”—‘Description of the Plain of Troy,’
translated by Dalzel, Edin. 1791, p. 149.
If this is so, this is no doubt the vessel mentioned, ‘Iliad,’ xvi.
221, xxiii. 92; ‘Od.,’ xxiv. 71, and elsewhere. But where is it now?
and why has not the fact of its existence been more insisted upon?
Footnote 118:
One of the most interesting facts brought to light in Dr. Schliemann’s
excavations is that between the age of the “Ilium Vetus” of Homer,
rich in metals and in arts, and the “Ilium Novum” of Strabo, a people
ignorant of use of the metals, and using only bone and stone
implements, inhabited the mound at Hissarlik which covered both these
cities. This discovery is sufficient to upset the once fashionable
Danish theory of the three ages—Stone, Bronze, and Iron—but,
unfortunately, adds nothing to our knowledge of architecture. These
people, whoever they were, built nothing, and must consequently be
content to remain in the “longa nocte” of those who neglect the Master
Art.
Footnote 119:
Fergusson’s ‘History of Indian and Eastern Architecture.’ John Murray,
London 1876, page 108 et seq.
Footnote 120:
This tomb is considered by M. Renan (Mission de Phœnicie, Paris 1864)
to be of Phœnician origin, who remarks generally on their work:
“Phœnician tombs are generally excavated in the solid rock; their
architecture is the carved rock without columns; they obtained all
they could out of the solid rock, leaving it as they found it, with
more or less attempt to make it graceful; the fact that it was worked
before being transported suggests that as it left the quarry so it
remained, no sound of hammer or saw being heard during its erection.”
There is another tomb at Marathos also attributed to the Phœnicians,
which is partly cut out of the rock and partially built in large
blocks of masonry.
Footnote 121:
In reality the monument stands exactly over the centre of the rock-cut
sepulchre. The section-line must, therefore, be understood to be
carried back about 10 feet from the face of the monument.
Footnote 122:
Josephus, Ant. xvi. 7, § 1.
Footnote 123:
Beule’s excavations have proved that the outer gate of the Acropolis
was in front, not at the side, as here shown. ‘Acropole d’Athènes.’
Paris, vol. i. pl. i. and ii.
Footnote 124:
For details of this see Bötticher, ‘Baumkultus der Hellenen.’ Berlin,
1856.
Footnote 125:
Pausanias, ix. 38.
Footnote 126:
It appears that on the back of the stones laid in horizontal courses
were others of great size piled on the top.
Footnote 127:
The same scroll exists at New Grange in Ireland, in the Island of Gozo
near Malta, and generally wherever chambered tumuli are found.
Footnote 128:
A cast of these is to be found in the South Kensington Museum.
Footnote 129:
These antæ (parastades) or responds were destined in the first case to
protect the angles of the wall, and in the second case to support the
beams carried by them and the columns between, the sun-dried brick
wall being not to be relied on; in the later Greek temples the walls
were built in stone and marble, and the parastades became therefore no
longer constructional necessities, being retained only as decorative
features, of which so many others are found in the style.
Footnote 130:
Pausanias, vi. 19.
Footnote 131:
The dimensions are 94 feet by 45, covering consequently only 4230
feet.
Footnote 132:
This refers only to the columns and antæ; the lower portion of the
walls, 3 feet 6 inches high, were in stone; above this clay bricks
were employed in building the walls, and it was to the disintegration
of these that we owe the preservation of the Hermes of Praxiteles,
which was found embedded in a thick layer of clay. At first it was
thought that this clay had been washed down from the neighbouring
slopes of the hill of Kronos.
Footnote 133:
M. J. Thacher Clarke, who directed the American expedition in 1881, is
now occupied with a monograph on the subject, and a report by him was
published in 1882. Boston and London. J. Trübner.
Footnote 134:
A proto-Ionic capital of early date was found in 1882 on the summit of
Mount Chigri, in the Troad, by Mr. J. Thacher Clarke, and is described
in the American Journal of Archæology, Baltimore. 1886. Another
example ascribed to Phœnician artists was found at Trapeza in Cyprus,
and is now in the Louvre; both are of the same type as that which is
represented in the ivory carvings from the north-western palace of
Nimroud, now in the British Museum, so that the Asiatic origin of the
order is thus confirmed.
Footnote 135:
Pausanias, viii. 45.
Footnote 136:
Bohn.
Footnote 137:
[The earliest example in stone at Benihasan is of less diameter than
the columns at Kalabscheh, so that it is difficult to draw this
distinction; we have already shown also (p. 115 note) that wooden
shafts of the twelfth dynasty have been found at Kahun, and this and
the existence of the base proves their wooden origin. If therefore the
Greek Doric column was derived originally from Egypt, as Mr. Fergusson
believed, then its earlier wooden parentage must be accepted. Further
evidence on this subject however has been afforded by the discoveries
at Olympia, and the references in consequence made to Greek authors;
all these show without doubt that the columns of the temple of Hera
were originally in wood, and were gradually replaced by stone. The
theory that the pillars in Egypt or early Greece were built in
brickwork or rubble masonry is not borne out by the discoveries at
Tiryns, for the walls of the palace there, in rubble and clay mortar,
were of such weak construction that posts of timber were required to
carry the epistyle or beam, either isolated as columns or built up
against the wall as antæ.
Mr. Fergusson’s theory that a pillar, originally copied from the
wooden post, is slenderer at first, and gradually departs from the
wood form as the style advances, is borne out by the evidence of the
Egypt lotus column; this, as found in the rock-cut tombs of Benihasan,
is of very small diameter, and quite unequal to carry the weight of
any stone superstructure; whereas afterwards in the temples at Thebes
it assumes a proportion nearer that of the earliest Greek Doric
example at Corinth.—ED.]
Footnote 138:
These facts have all been fully elucidated by Mr. Penrose in his
beautiful work containing the results of his researches on the
Parthenon and other temples of Greece, published by the Dilettanti
Society.
Footnote 139:
For measurements we depend on Penrose, ‘Principles of Athenian
Architecture,’ &c., fol.; and Cockerell, ‘The Temples of Egina and
Bassæ,’ Lond. 1860. The details of the system were first publicly
announced by Watkiss Lloyd, in a paper read to the Institute of
British Architects in 1859; afterwards in an appendix to Mr.
Cockerell’s work, and in several minor publications.
Footnote 140:
The pyramid-building kings of Lower Egypt seem to have had some
distinct ideas of a system of definite proportions in architectural
building, and to have put it into practice in the pyramid, and
possibly elsewhere, but it has not yet been sought for in the other
buildings of that age.
At times I cannot help suspecting more affinity to have existed
between the inhabitants of Lower Egypt and those of Greece than is at
first sight apparent.
Footnote 141:
It was called Zoophorus (_life_ or _figure bearer_).
Footnote 142:
[The reasons which induced the late Mr. Fergusson to suggest an
“opaion,” or clerestory, were fully set forth in the ‘True Principles
of Beauty in Art,’ in 1849. A paper on the same subject was
communicated by him to the Royal Institute of British Architects in
1861, and published in their “Transactions” for that year. Since his
death, however, Mr. Penrose’s discovery that the Temple of Jupiter
Olympius at Athens was really octastyle has thrown a new light on the
question of hypæthral temples; and, as Dr. Dorpfield remarks in his
essay on the “Hypæthral Temple” (communicated to the R. I. B. A. on
Dec. 19): “The words of Vitruvius have now received quite another
interpretation, through the excavation of the Olympieion at Athens, to
that which they have had up to the present. The most important proof
of the hypæthral lighting of the temples of antiquity has now turned
into a proof against the same;” and he concludes his arguments by
stating: “After it has been shown by the excavations that the
Olympieion at Athens is the sole example of a great hypæthral temple
mentioned by Vitruvius, we can answer this much-vexed question of the
lighting of the temples of antiquity in this way—that a few great
dipteral hypæthral temples existed, but that the Greek and Roman
temples had as a rule no light from above, and were only lighted from
the door.”—ED.]
Footnote 143:
See Woodcuts Nos. 22, 24, 27.
Footnote 144:
Vitruvius, lib. i. ch. 1.
Footnote 145:
Boeckh, Corpus Inscript. Græc. No. 109.
Footnote 146:
Attica, xxvi.
Footnote 147:
Historia, viii, 41.
Footnote 148:
Among the many attempts made to restore the interior of this temple,
the last and most elaborate is that by the late E. Beulé, ‘Acropole
d’Athènes,’ 1854, vol. ii. pl. ii.; but it is also one of the worst.
Indeed it is quite painful to see how the author twists his
authorities to meet a preconceived theory. Without going into it,
there is one objection which seems fatal to the whole.
Like most antiquaries when in difficulties for lighting Greek temples,
he takes off the roof and makes the Temple of Pandrosus an open
courtyard, in which he plants the olive. This is so opposed to the
whole spirit of Greek art as to be inadmissible on general grounds,
but in this instance it introduces the further absurdity that the
Greeks opened three windows in the west wall of the temple to light
this courtyard which was already open to the sky! The mode of lighting
a temple by vertical windows is so exceptional that it would not have
been introduced here had any other means existed of lighting the
interior, and consequently the combination shown by M. Beulé seems
simply impossible.
Footnote 149:
“Universo Templo longitudo est ccccxxv. pedum, latitudo ccxx. Columnæ
centum viginti septem a singulis regibus factæ, lx. pedum altitudine:
ex iis xxxvi. cælatæ, una a Scopa.”—H. N. xxxvi. 14.
Footnote 150:
[Mr. Wood places two in the pronaos and two in the posticum, thus
reducing the depth of the opisthodomus; beyond the pronaos he places a
vestibule and omits the staircases as shown on plan 159. In 1883, Mr.
Fergusson returned to the subject again, and published in the
Transactions of the Institute (session 1882-83) a revised plan, to
which we refer our readers.—ED.]
Footnote 151:
The finial ornament is triangular in plan, and there are three scrolls
on the roof with mortices in them, showing that something must have
stood on them to support the projecting angles. Dolphins and various
other objects have been suggested. My own conviction is that they were
winged genii, most probably in bronze, and gilt like the neckings of
the capitals.
Footnote 152:
[Dr. Dorpfield is of opinion that in the Greek theatres of the best
period there was no proscenium, or raised stage, and that the actors
played their parts in the orchestra on the same level as the chorus.
Professor Middleton also points out that in the earliest Greek
theatres built in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. the orchestra was a
complete circle, the space being gradually diminished by the bringing
forward of the stage.—ED.]
Footnote 153:
It will not be necessary to enter here into all the details of this
restoration. They will be found in a separate work published by me on
the subject, to which the reader is referred. [The student should also
refer to the restoration suggested by M. Pullan in the work published
by him and Sir Charles Newton (‘Discoveries at Halicarnassus, 1862’).
In the arrangement and design of the podium it accords better with
other examples of Greek tombs than Mr. Fergusson’s. The three columns
as shown at the angle of Mr. Fergusson’s peristyle would be quite
repugnant to any student of Greek architecture.—ED.]
Footnote 154:
Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 5.
Footnote 155:
The figures given in the text are all Greek feet: the difference
between them and English feet, being only 1¼ per cent., is hardly
perceptible in these dimensions, without descending to minute
fractions, and disturbing the comparison with Pliny’s text.
Footnote 156:
The circumstance of Asoka, the Buddhist king of India B.C. 250, having
formed an alliance with Megas of Cyrene for the succour of his
co-religionists in the dominions of the latter, points to such a
conclusion even if nothing else did.—‘Journal Asiatic Society of
Bengal,’ vii. p. 261; J. R. A. S. xii. p. 223 et seq.
Footnote 157:
Beechy’s ‘Journey to Cyrene,’ p. 444; see also Smith and Porcher, pl.
37.
Footnote 158:
Vitruvius, iv. 7.
Footnote 159:
Dionysius, iv. 61.
Footnote 160: