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

et. seq.

Footnote 161:

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

be erroneous, as remains of large circular temples have been

discovered at Epidaurus and Olympia.

Footnote 162:

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

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

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

Footnote 163:

Plin. ‘Hist.’ xxxvi. 13.

Footnote 164:

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

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

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

be depended upon or not is another matter.

Footnote 165:

These dimensions, with all those that follow, unless otherwise

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

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

than any others I am acquainted with.

Footnote 166:

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

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

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

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

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

more importance here than the archæology.

Footnote 167:

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

Footnote 168:

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

PROCOS. PANTHEVM VETVSTATE CORRVPTVM CVM OMNI CVLTV RESTITVERVNT.

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

Footnote 169:

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

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

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

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

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

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

attempted at so early an age.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

showed that there was no connection whatever between the two

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

which were continued round the dome, showing that originally the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

buildings.”—ED.]

Footnote 170:

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

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

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

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

painted and gilt.

Footnote 171:

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

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

or at least a funereal monument of some sort.

Footnote 172:

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

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

published in the ‘Transactions of the Royal Institute of British

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

Footnote 173:

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

arrangement will be found stated at length. [See note on page 272.—

ED.]

Footnote 174:

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

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

generally agreed that the centre was not hypæthral.

Footnote 175:

This basilica is generally represented as having an apse at either

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 176:

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

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

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

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

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

whole monument, as it now stands, 140 ft.

Footnote 177:

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

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

hypæthral.

Footnote 178:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the north-west of the Theatre of Marcellus.

Footnote 179:

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

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

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

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

Roman inventions.”

Footnote 180:

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

sq. ft. to each person.

Footnote 181:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 182:

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

Footnote 183:

See note on p. 321.

Footnote 184:

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

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

best account we have of any of these establishments.

Footnote 185:

According to Prof. Middleton this magnificent hall appears to have

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

great girders which supported the ceiling are clearly visible.

Footnote 186:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the whole.

Footnote 187:

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

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

in front of it.

Footnote 188:

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

edifices.

Footnote 189:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 190:

See p. 114, and Woodcut 15.

Footnote 191:

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

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

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

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

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

modern.

Footnote 192:

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

Footnote 193:

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

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

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

approximate correctness. The one difficulty is, that a chronometric

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

suffice. Local peculiarities must be taken into account and allowed

for, and this requires both time and judgment.

Footnote 194:

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

which the above particulars are taken.

Footnote 195:

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

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

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

Footnote 196:

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

Footnote 197:

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

Footnote 198:

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

Footnote 199:

See p. 323.

Footnote 200:

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

Footnote 201:

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

Footnote 202:

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

antiquities of Parthia, &c., 1873.

Footnote 203:

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

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

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

out what has become of them.

Footnote 204:

These are expedients for filling up the corners of square lower

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

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

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

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

Mahomedan Architecture in India, in vol. iii.

Footnote 205:

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

each other, thus—

Serbistan A.D. 350

Firouzabad 450

Ctesiphon 550

To which we may now add

Mashita 620

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

with flesh and restore to life.

Footnote 206:

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

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

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

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

subject the reader is referred to that work.

Footnote 207:

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

Footnote 208:

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

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

Footnote 209:

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

Footnote 210:

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

et seq.

Footnote 211:

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

Footnote 212:

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

Footnote 213:

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

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

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

times?

Footnote 214:

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

chief problems of pointed arch construction in intersecting vaulting

having been worked out before the close of that century.

Footnote 215:

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

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

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

already existed in the East a method of vaulting entirely different

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

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

Footnote 216:

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

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

Footnote 217:

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

Footnote 218:

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

Footnote 219:

For a careful analytical description of the church, see Professor

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

Footnote 220:

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

splendid work on Byzantine architecture published by Day, 1864.

Footnote 221:

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

square, seems to have adopted the same hypæthral arrangement.

Footnote 222:

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

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

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

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

now existing are probably subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem

by Titus.

Footnote 223:

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

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

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

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

Footnote 224:

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

on Byzantine architecture, from which all the particulars regarding

this church are taken.

Footnote 225:

A wayside retreat or shelter.

Footnote 226:

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

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

Baukunst,’ pls. xxxii. and xxxiii.

Footnote 227:

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

Footnote 228:

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

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

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

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

built the churches, and none fit so well.

Footnote 229:

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 230:

Strictly speaking, circular with flattened sides, for the pendentive

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

Footnote 231:

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

cylindrical drum inserted with windows pierced in them to give more

light to the interior.

Footnote 232:

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

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

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

Footnote 233:

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

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

“the circular building standing above the arches is pierced with

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

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

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

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

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

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

examples and those of the lofty cylindrical drums which were employed

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

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

Footnote 234:

They are found in the Mustaphapacha mosque at Constantinople dating

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

Footnote 235:

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

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

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

Footnote 236:

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

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

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

Athos.—ED.]

Footnote 237:

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

Footnote 238:

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

1887.

Footnote 239:

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

Footnote 240:

‘Églises Byzantines en Grèce.’

Footnote 241:

‘Expédition scientifique de la Morée.’

Footnote 242:

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

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

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

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

Athens were erected.

Footnote 243:

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

Footnote 244:

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

1839, 1841.

Footnote 245:

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

Pétersbourg, 1849.

Footnote 246:

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

Pétersbourg, 1864.

Footnote 247:

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

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

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

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

Footnote 248:

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

Footnote 249:

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

Footnote 250:

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

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

be depended upon?

Footnote 251:

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

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

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

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

barbarians worshipped forests and groves, and in their barbarous

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

Bonn, 1833, ii. 471.)

Footnote 252:

The principal part of the information regarding these excavations is

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

Footnote 253:

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

1891.—ED.]

Footnote 254:

All the plans and information regarding the churches at Kief are

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

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

Footnote 255:

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

five domes come beyond it.

Footnote 256:

The particulars and illustrations of this church are taken from a

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

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

exhibited at the Paris Exhibition of 1867.

Footnote 257:

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

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

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

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

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

are abundant examples of Pagan temples converted into Christian

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

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

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

Christianity had no tendency to render the existing basilicas less

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

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

abolish the litigious instincts of our nature, and after fifteen

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

buildings which were rendered useless by the official recognition of

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

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

either the writers or architects of Byzantine times), with its wide

central nave and aisles with galleries over them lighted by clerestory

or side windows, and covered with a timber roof, constituted the

simplest and most economical building of large size which could be

constructed to hold a vast assembly of worshippers; especially as the

only features which can be looked upon as having any architectural

pretensions, viz., the columns and their capitals, could be taken

wholesale from temples and other Roman buildings. The semicircular

apse, which alone in the Roman basilica served as a court of law,

became the tribune for the bishop and presbyters.

Mr. Scott is even inclined to assign an earlier and more independent

origin for the basilican form. According to his theory the germ of the

Christian basilica was a simple oblong aisleless room divided by a

cross arch, beyond which lay an altar detached from the wall. This

germ was developed by the addition of side aisles, and sometimes an

aisle returned across the entrance, and over these upper aisles were

next constructed and transepts added, together with the oratories or

chapels in various parts of the building. Mr. Butler, in his work on

‘The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt,’ accepts this theory, as the

churches of Egypt are rich in evidence that favours it. At the same

time, the first great basilica erected by Constantine, viz., the

Vatican (St. Peter’s), and the Lateran, (St. John Lateran), are of too

great importance to warrant the suggestion that their origin should be

sought for in the very small though possibly earlier examples in Egypt

or the East.—ED.]

Footnote 258:

This probably refers to its foundation, for M. Cattaneo, in his work

‘L’architecture en Italie, 1890,’ judging by its ornamental detail,

places the church in the second half of the seventh century.

Footnote 259:

‘Antiquités,’ vol. i. pl. 97.

Footnote 260:

_Eodem_, vol. iv. pl. 67.

Footnote 261:

Mr. Alfred J. Butler’s work, already referred to, has thrown

considerable light on the subject, though, as he was unable to visit

any of the Coptic churches up the Nile, we are still left in doubt as

to the age of the convent near Siout and other buildings. From

comparison of the plans and descriptions given in Denon, Curzon and

Pococke of these buildings, with those in Cairo and Old Cairo, Mr.

Butler ascribes them to the fourth century, that which in fact is

claimed for them as having been founded by Sta. Helena. On this

subject he says, p. 365: “Were there no more of evidence besides to

determine the truth of this tradition, the plan of the Haikal (the

central of the three chapels in a Coptic church) would decide it

beyond question. The persistence with which certain churches are

ascribed to Sta. Helena by a people utterly ignorant of history and

architecture is in itself remarkable, and it is still more remarkable

to find that these churches are always marked by a particular form of

Haikal. Indeed, so regular is the coincidence, that a deep apsidal

haikal with recesses all round it and columns close against the wall

may be almost infallibly dated from the age of Sta. Helena.”

Footnote 262:

The older church has been so altered and ruined by the subsequent

rebuildings that it is extremely difficult to make out its history. It

seems, however, to have been built originally above the site of an old

Mithraic temple, which has recently been cleared out, and probably

before the time of Gregory the Great. It was apparently rebuilt, or

nearly so, by Adrian I., 772, and burnt by Robert Guiscard, 1084. The

upper church seems to have been erected by Paschal, 1099-1118. The

question is, to what age do the frescoes found on the walls of the

older church belong? Some of the heads and single figures may, I

fancy, be anterior even to the time of Adrian; but the bulk of the

paintings seem certainly to have been added between his age and 1084,

and nearer the latter than the former date. If it had not been

entirely ruined in 1084 Paschal would not have so completely

obliterated it a century afterwards. A considerable quantity of the

materials of the old church were used in the new, which tends further

to confuse the chronology.

Footnote 263:

Gutensohn and Knapp, ‘Die Basiliken des Christlichen Roms.’

Footnote 264:

Cicero de Legg., ii. 24; Festus, s. v.; Smith’s ‘Dictionary of

Classical Antiquities.’

Footnote 265:

The dates here given generally refer to the building now existing or

known, and not always to the original foundation.

[Mr. G. G. Scott, in his work before referred to (p. 506), after

giving a full quotation from Eusebius of Constantine’s basilica at

Jerusalem, in which he points out that the orientation of primitive

times is the reverse of that which has become general in later times,

continues his enquiry into the evidence afforded by the numerous early

basilicas in Rome itself. Of about fifty churches of early date, in

forty of them the sanctuary is placed at the western end, and of the

remaining ten (one of which is the great church of St. Paolo fuori le

Mura), there are only seven which appear to have retained their

original form, and which have an eastward sanctuary.

The exact orientation of the sanctuary in each case has been added to

the list.—ED.]

Footnote 266:

‘Il Vaticano discritto da Pistolesi,’ vol. ii. pls. xxiv. xxv.

Footnote 267:

The new church which superseded this one is described in the History

of the Modern Styles of Architecture, vol. i., page 111, woodcut 45.

Footnote 268:

It should be observed that the dosseret is first found in Italy in the

Church of St. Stefano Rotondo, built 468-482, and is there of similar

design to examples in Thessalonica.

Footnote 269:

‘L’architecture en Italie du vie au xi^e siècle.’ Venice, 1891.

Footnote 270:

‘Altchristlichen Kirchen nach Baudenkmalen und alteren

Beschreibungen,’ von D. Hubsch. Carlsruhe, 1862.

Footnote 271:

These piers were built in the 12th century, taking the place of the

columns of the original Basilican church of the 9th century, and the

arches date from the same period (Cattaneo).

Footnote 272:

It is now called S. Martino in Cielo d’Oro, from its having been

decided in the twelfth century that the other church in Classe

possessed the true body of the saint to which both churches were

dedicated.

Footnote 273:

A. F. von Quast, ‘Die Altchristlichen Bauwerke von Ravenna.’

Footnote 274:

The basilica Pudenziana at Rome has similar arcades externally.

Footnote 275:

The twenty-four marble columns are said to have been brought over from

Constantinople, but they were probably obtained from Greek quarries.

Footnote 276:

[The narthex as shown in Woodcut No. 409 is of much later date than

the church, and has been partially rebuilt on two or three occasions.

It is now (1892) being taken down, and the removal of the central

portion has uncovered the triple window which originally lighted the

nave.—ED.]

Footnote 277:

“La basilica di San Marco in Venezia,” by Cattaneo, continued by

Boito. Venezia, 1890.

Footnote 278:

Probably owing to its having been utilized to receive the relics of

St. Mark, which were temporarily hidden there.

Footnote 279:

This church, built by Justinian, no longer exists, having been pulled

down in 1464 by Mohammed II. to make way for his mosque. From the

description of it, however, given by Procopius, the plan was similar

to that adopted in St. Mark, being that of a Greek Cross with central

and four other domes. Procopius speaks of the church being surrounded

within by columns placed both above and below, probably referring to

galleries similar to those in St. Sophia of Constantinople. In St.

Mark’s the columns exist in one storey only, and the main wall is

carried up at the back of the aisles to give increased size inside.

Footnote 280:

Originally, according to M. Cattaneo, his was the vestibule to the

atrium from the south, but it is now blocked up by an altar.

Footnote 281:

[They are shown in the mosaic of the doorway of St. Alipe, executed at

the end of the 13th century, as also the filling in of the great west

window.—ED.]

Footnote 282:

‘Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,’ by T. G. Jackson, M.A. Oxford,

1887.

Footnote 283:

In support of this statement he points out that twice during Christian

times it had been found necessary to raise the floor of the church.

The nave floor, which in 1857 was two steps below that of the aisles,

was raised in 1881 to the same level; but two feet nine inches below

the nave floor before it was raised there existed, according to Prof.

Eitelberger, another mosaic pavement, which must have been the floor

of the first basilica erected, and which was pulled down by Bishop

Euphrasius in 543. This lower pavement extended also under the three

chapels of the confessio, which suggests that these are part of the

first basilica.

Footnote 284:

The same polygonal form is found in the apses of St. Agatha, St.

Apollinare in Classe, St. Apollinare in Nuovo, St. Spirito, and St.

Vitale, all in Ravenna, and St. Fosca, Torcello.

Footnote 285:

The apses of two churches, of the 4th and 6th century respectively, in

the island of Paros, are similarly fitted with marble seats: in the

6th century church there are eight rows, so that the apse looks like a

small amphitheatre.

Footnote 286:

That is on the supposition that the word kirk is derived from the

Latin word “circus,” “circular,” as the French term it, “cirque.” My

own conviction is that this is certainly the case. The word is only

used by the Barbarians as applied to a form of buildings they derived

from the Romans. Why the Germans should employ κυρίου οἶκος, when

neither the Greeks nor the Latins used that name, is a mystery which

those who insist on these very improbable names have as yet failed to

explain.

Footnote 287:

The Tholos at Epidaurus seems to be an exception to this rule.

Footnote 288:

Isabelle, ‘Édifices Circulaires,’ plates 26 and 27.

Footnote 289:

M. Cattaneo states that it was built by Pope St. Simplice, 468-482.

Footnote 290:

Above the capitals are impost blocks or dosserets, the earliest known

examples of that feature in Italy.

Footnote 291:

[The Vaults over the outer aisle of St. Stefano Rotondo were built

with hollow pots, the remains of which can still be traced in the

outer walls of the 2nd aisle.

Prof. Middleton points out also the existence of rings of earthen pots

in the vault of the tomb of Sta. Helena (Woodcut No. 227), and also in

the vaults of the Circus of Maxentius, on the Via Appia.—ED.]

Footnote 292:

In this building they now show a sarcophagus of ancient date, said to

be that of Galla Placidia, daughter of Theodosius. She, however, was

certainly buried at Ravenna; but it may be of her time, and in these

ages it is impossible to distinguish between baptisteries and tombs.

Footnote 293:

Frederick Von Osten, ‘Bauwerke in der Lombardei.’ Darmstadt, 1852.

Footnote 294:

By an oversight of the engraver, the vault of the nave, which ought to

be made hexapartite, is drawn as quadripartite. [The nave was so

completely restored in the 14th century as to render doubtful the

original existence of a vault.—ED.]

Footnote 295:

Étude de l’Architecture Lombarde,’ par F. de Dartein. Paris, 1878.

Footnote 296:

These are incorrectly shown on woodcut. The central pier is nearly 4

feet wide and carried a transverse rib of the same size and of two

orders.

Footnote 297:

Ferrario, ‘Monumenti Sacri e Profani dell’ I. R. Basilica di S.

Ambrogio,’ Milan, 1824.

Footnote 298:

“Quid dicamus columnarum junceam proceritatem? Moles illas

sublimissimas quasi quibusdam erectis hastilibus contineri substantiæ

qualitate concavis canalibus excavatas vel magis ipsas æstimes esse

transfusas. Ceris judices factum quod metallis durissimis videas

expolitum. Marmorum juncturas venas dicas esse genitales, ubi dum

falluntur oculi laus probatur crevisse miraculis.” In the above,

_metallum_ does not seem to mean metal as we now use the word, but any

hard substance dug out of the ground. (Cassiodorus, Variorum, lib.

vii. ch. 15.)

Footnote 299:

See vol. i. p. 372.

Footnote 300:

‘The Land of Moab,’ by Dr. Tristram (Murray, 1873), pp. 376 _et seqq._

[The small triangular marble panels referred to in Murano are of a

very elementary character in their carving, and have scarcely the

importance attached to them by Mr. Fergusson. Besides, the same wall

decoration in brickwork is found in the apse of St. Fosca, Torcello

(c. 1008), where, however, the triangular recesses are simply covered

with stucco and painted; being closer to the eye in Murano, they

filled the spaces with incised marble slabs: in other words, it seems

more probable that the slabs were made for the triangular panels than

the converse, which is suggested by Mr. Fergusson.—ED.]

Footnote 301:

The typical example of this class is the San Giorgio at Venice, though

it is not by any means the one most like St. Pietro; many attempts

were made before it became so essentially classical as this (see

Woodcut No. 39, Vol. I. in the ‘History of Modern Architecture’).

Footnote 302:

From the boldness of the construction, M. Cattaneo is induced to place

the erection of the building at the end of the 11th or beginning of

the 12th century.

Footnote 303:

The four square towers of San Lorenzo, Milan, and the circular

campanile by the side of the cathedral of Ravenna, are the earliest

examples known, the latter dating from the commencement of the 5th

century.

Footnote 304:

[The tower of St. Satiro at Milan (879 A.D.), is considered by

Cattaneo to be the most ancient campanile known in which the wall

surface is broken up with flat pilasters or vertical bands in relief,

and divided into storeys by horizontal string courses, with ranges of

small blind arches below, carried on corbels, and may be regarded as

the prototype of the most characteristic Lombard towers.—ED.]

Footnote 305:

‘History of Medieval Art,’ by Dr. F. M. Reber, translated by J. T.

Clarke. New York, 1887.

Footnote 306:

‘Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,’ by T. G. Jackson, A.R.A. Oxford,

1887.

Footnote 307:

Schultz, ‘Denkmäler der Kunst der Mittelalters in Unter-Italien.’

Folio, 1860.

Footnote 308:

The polygonal form given to the apse externally shows the direct

influence of Byzantine art.

Footnote 309:

The cornice projects 1 ft. 10 in., and consequently overhangs the base

by 13 ft.

Footnote 310:

The present cathedral is only a portion, viz. the transept of a much

vaster edifice which was never completed; but the beautiful unfinished

south front and portions of the gigantic nave and aisles still exist

on the western side of the present cathedral, and the drawings of it

are preserved in the archives of the Duomo.

Footnote 311:

[Since this was written the façade has been completed to harmonize

with the rest, but not in accordance with the original design, if we

may judge by the painting in Sta. Maria Novella, which shows side

gablets similar to those of the cathedral of Siena.—ED.]

Footnote 312:

If we may trust Wiebeking, the first two bays of the nave from the

front were vaulted in 1588, but the work was suspended till 1647, and

completed only in 1659. Yet no difference can be perceived in the

details of the design.

Footnote 313:

The plan and section being taken from two different writers, there is

a slight discrepancy between the scales. I believe the plan to be the

more correct of the two, though I have no means of being quite certain

on the point.

Footnote 314:

‘Dispareri d’Architettura.’

Footnote 315:

Within the last few years a façade has been added to Sta. Croce, but

about which the less said the better. It is wretched in design.

Footnote 316:

Similar buildings at Bergamo, Brescia, and Monza are illustrated in

Mr. Street’s beautiful work on the architecture of the North of Italy,

from which the two last illustrations are borrowed.

Footnote 317:

In the Bodleian in Oxford is a MS. of the 14th century containing a

view of the Piazzetta, engraved in Yule’s ‘Marco Polo,’ Introduction,

p. xlviii., in which the outer wall of the building is shown resting

on the inner wall of the arcade. This would suggest either that in

Ziani’s building the upper wall was set back or that some subsequent

changes were made in the two parts, of which, however, there is no

record.

Footnote 318:

So called from its having been, according to Signor Boni (see

Transactions R.I.B.A., vol. iii., new series, 1887), richly decorated

with colour and gilding.

Footnote 319:

The same drawing shows that a calle or small street existed on the

west, or left-hand side, as well as on the east, and the enriched work

carved by Giovanni Bon, stonecutter (the architect of the Porta delle

Carta of the Ducal Palace), was to extend along the whole front facing

the Grand Canal and ten feet at each end down the two streets.

Footnote 320:

‘Architecture Moderne de la Sicile,’ fol. Paris, 1826-30.

Footnote 321:

‘Del Duomo di Monreale e di altre Chiese Siculo-Normane,’ fol.

Palermo, 1838.

Footnote 322:

‘Normans in Sicily,’ 8vo. text, fol. plates, London, 1838.

Footnote 323:

Part I. Bk. III. ch. 2.

Footnote 324:

For a complete description of the same, see ‘The Architectural History

of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem,’ by Prof. Willis,

1849, the publications of the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the

‘Holy Places of Jerusalem,’ by Prof. Hayter Lewis.

Footnote 325:

Eusebius, ‘Vita Constantini,’ lib. iii. ch. xxviii.

Footnote 326:

Sæwulf, ‘Peregrinatio,’ &c. (A.D. 1102-3), p. 83.

Footnote 327:

A section of the church is given in Prof. Willis’s work compiled

partly from Bernardino’s work (‘Trattato delle Piante al Imagini de

sacri Edifizi di Terra Sancta,’ 1620), corrected by dimension taken by

Mr. J. J. Scoles and partly from models in the British Museum and

elsewhere.

Footnote 328:

This plan has been worked out from the ordnance survey made in 1864-65

by Sir Ch. Wilson and from Professor Willis’s plan as published in his

work.

Footnote 329:

Quaresimus, ‘Elucidatio,’ ii. p. 386.

Footnote 330:

All these are carefully described and delineated by Count de Vogüé, in

his beautiful work entitled, ‘Les Églises de la Terre Sainte,’ Paris,

1860.

Footnote 331:

A small chart of the same sort has been published by M. de

Caumont,[332] which, though an improvement, still leaves much to be

desired; but until every church is examined, and every typical

specimen at least published, it is impossible to mark out more than

the general features of the chart. Imperfect, however, as they are in

this one, they are still more numerous and more detailed than it will

be easy for us to follow and to trace out in the limited space of this

work.

Footnote 332:

‘Abécédaire d’Architecture,’ p. 174.

Footnote 333:

The use of this term is a little awkward, at first from its having

another meaning in English; it has, however, been long used by English

etymologists to distinguish the Romance languages, such as Italian,

Spanish, and French, from those of Teutonic origin, and is here used

in precisely the same sense as applied to architecture—to those styles

derived from the Roman, but one degree more removed from it than the

early phase of the Romanesque.

Footnote 334:

There seems to be some doubt about the age of the pointed arches in

the mosque of Amrû; the earliest authenticated arches of that form are

found in the Nilometer in the island of Roda which is fixed by Mr.

Lane as 861 A.D., eighteen years older than that of Tulûn.—ED.

Footnote 335:

For the detail of the argument I must refer the reader to a paper read

by me to the Institute of British Architects on June 18th, 1849, and

published in the ‘Builder,’ and other papers of the time. See also a

paper read in the same place in the following month (July, 1849), by

Sir Gardner Wilkinson.

Footnote 336:

The Scotch and Irish Celts seem to have had a conception of this

truth, and in both these countries we find some bold attempts at true

stone roofs: the influence, however, of the Gothic races overpowered

them, and the mixed roof became universal.

Footnote 337:

Laborde, ‘Monuments de la France,’ vol. i. p. 92, plates cxv. and

cxvi.

Footnote 338:

[A valuable and well-illustrated work, entitled ‘The Architecture of

Provence and the Riviera, Edinburgh, 1888,’ by Mr. David MacGibbon,

has since added to our knowledge in this respect. Mr. MacGibbon

accepts the date of 12th century for the Church of St.

Paul-Trois-Châteaux, and attributes its Roman character to ancient

work in the provinces.—ED.]

Footnote 339:

Wood’s ‘Letters of an Architect,’ vol. i. p. 163.

Footnote 340:

These are all illustrated more or less completely by Renouvier,

‘Monuments de Bas Languedoc.’ Montpellier, 1840.

Footnote 341:

M. Verneilh, in his work “Architecture Byzantine en France,” 4to,

Paris, 1851, based his arguments chiefly on the supposition that it

was copied from St. Mark’s, Venice. The discoveries to which we have

already referred (p. 530, vol. I.) prove that the latter was not built

till 1063-71, so that it follows that a much later date must be given

to St. Front, unless the latter be, like St. Mark’s, a copy of the

church of the Apostles at Constantinople. Against this supposition

there remains the fact that the churches of St. Mark, Venice, and St.

Front, Périgueux, are identical in their dimensions if we replace

Italian feet by French feet. There is also a record quoted by Mr.

Gailhabaud that the original church of St. Front was destroyed by fire

in 1120; but the existing church is entirely built in incombustible

material, and therefore it would seem to be more probable that a much

later date, viz. 1120-1140, must be given to it. It should however be

taken into account that St. Front is generally accepted as the

prototype of all the domed churches in France, so that if any of its

successors could be proved to have an earlier date our argument would

fall to the ground. So far as the architectural details of the church

are concerned they have more the character of the 12th than of the

11th century, and the introduction of the pointed arch at so early a

date seems improbable, except so far as the pointed barrel vault is

concerned, the necessity for which was pointed out on page 46.

Footnote 342:

This building is well illustrated in Turner’s ‘Domestic Architecture.’

Footnote 343:

See a paper on this church by Mr. Street, in 1861, read to the

Institute of British Architects. (R. I. B. A. Transactions, 1860-61.)

Footnote 344:

‘Histoire Générale de Bourgogne,’ 4 vols. fol., Dijon, 1739; p. 81.

Footnote 345:

“Style Latin” is the name generally adopted for this style by the

French architects.

Footnote 346:

From a paper by Mr. Parker on this subject, read to the Institute of

British Architects.

Footnote 347:

This arrangement is known by the name of _hexapartite_, or

_sexapartite_, because the compartment of the vault having been

divided into four by the great diagonal arches crossing one another in

the centre (which was the _quadripartite_ arrangement), two of the

four quarters were again divided by the arch thrown across from one

intermediate pillar to the other, thus making six divisions in all,

though no longer all of equal dimensions, as in the quadripartite

method. Both these arrangements are shown in plan on Woodcut No. 612.

Footnote 348:

The Church of St. Rémi at Rheims ought perhaps to be treated as an

exception to this assertion: it has, however, been so much altered in

more modern times as almost to have lost its original character. It

nevertheless retains the outlines of a vast and noble basilica of the

early part of the 11th century, presenting considerable points of

similarity to those of Burgundy.

Footnote 349:

It is in the vaulting of the choir aisle of St. Denis that we find the

earliest example of the new value of the pointed arch rib: four

independent ribs rise to the centre of the aisle, it being no longer

necessary to place the opposite ribs in the same plane. M. Louis Gonse

in his ‘L’Art Gothique,’ however, points out one or two earlier

examples such as the churches of Morienval and Bellefontaine, both in

the Oise Department; the latter only is dated—1125; but no

illustrations of the vault are given. The former is so crude in its

design that it is probably earlier, and it is in fact evident from the

perfection shown in St. Denis that many previous experiments must have

been made, examples of which it would be interesting to trace.—ED.

Footnote 350:

These generally consisted of strong iron bars, wrought into patterns

in accordance with the design painted on the glass.

Footnote 351:

Royal Academy lectures, delivered in 1881, by G. E. Street, R.A.,

Professor of Architecture.

Footnote 352:

It should be noted that the last bay of the nave and the first bay of

the choir are wider than any of the other bays, and this gives an

increased dimension to the aisles of north and south transepts, which

contributes in no slight degree to the effect of vastness given to

this part of the church.—ED.

Footnote 353:

The height of the old spire is 342 ft. 6 in. with the cross; of the

new, 371 ft.

Footnote 354:

The choir of Beauvais is considered to be one of the four wonders of

mediæval France, the others being the south spire of Chartres, the

porch of Rheims and the nave of Amiens.

Footnote 355:

‘Compte Rendu des Travaux de la Commission des Monuments,’ &c.:

Rapport présenté au Préfet de la Gironde, 1848 et seq.

Footnote 356:

A plan of the Sainte Chapelle will be found further on (page 395) when

comparing it with St. Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster.

Footnote 357:

Mr. Beresford Hope, in his ‘English Cathedrals of the XIXth Century,’

contends that this church was only commenced in 1419; and also

maintains that the west front was completed by an English architect

named Patrick in 1429. If this were so, we must abandon all our

chronology founded on style. It is all a mistake if the east end is

not a century earlier. I am, however, unwilling to go to school again,

on the faith of a little pamphlet published by a French curé in a

remote village.

Footnote 358:

The earlier form is found retained at Noyon, at Paris, and in most of

the churches of the 12th century; but in the first years of the 13th

it gave place to the second, and was not afterwards revived.

Footnote 359:

See Introduction, page 29, Woodcut No. 4.

Footnote 360:

The French antiquaries employ this word as if it signified a pointed

arch, whence they designate the style itself as _ogival_. There is no

doubt, however, that the word has nothing to do with the form of the

arch or the ogee, but is the name of a rib common to the round-arched

as well as to the pointed style.

Footnote 361:

See Woodcuts Nos. 621, 629, 641, &c.

Footnote 362:

This was taken down in 1856 to relieve the piers of the tower which

were being crushed owing to their defective construction. After the

rebuilding of the piers in 1856-59, a poorly designed Gothic lantern

was substituted.—ED.

Footnote 363:

M. Viollet le Duc’s ‘Dictionnaire d’Architecture’ contains several

hundred examples of these minor architectural details of French

Mediæval architecture. All are there drawn with skill, and engraved

with exquisite taste. They form a wonderful illustration of the

exuberance of fancy and fertility of invention of the French

architects in those days. The limits of this work do not admit of more

than a mere passing allusion to this most fascinating subject.

Footnote 364:

Viollet le Duc, in his ‘Architecture Militaire,’ p. 96, gives a

section of the Donjon at Coucy, which, however, by no means explains

how the interior was lighted, nor does it accord with what I believe I

saw there.

Footnote 365:

A beautiful drawing of this façade to a very large scale still exists

in the town-hall of the city, as well as a model in stone, from which

the intended effect may be seen.

Footnote 366:

A large work was commenced a few years ago on the church at Bois le

Duc; but after the first numbers it seems to have been discontinued,

and has not been since heard of—in this country at least. [Since this

was written a fine work in 8 vols., entitled ‘Documents classés de

l’art dans les Pays-Bas du x^{me} au xviii^{me} Siècle,’ and

illustrated with ink photos, has been compiled by M. Van Ysendyck; and

although the greater number of the plates represent Renaissance work,

some of the finest flamboyant Gothic buildings, both in Belgium and

Holland, are there reproduced.—ED.]

Footnote 367:

See two papers on this subject in ‘Jahrbuch der Central Commission zur

Erhaltung der Baudenkmale,’ vol. ii. p. 65, and vol. iii. p. 149.

Footnote 368:

The work of F. Östen on the architecture of Lombardy, and that of

Geier and Görtz on the style in the Rhine country, combined with the

works of Boisserée, have already furnished considerable materials for

such a history. Both these first-named works were left incomplete, the

former from the death of the author, the latter owing to the late

troubles of the country.

Footnote 369:

See vol. i. p. 513.

Footnote 370:

All the particulars regarding this church are taken from Hübsch,

‘Altchristliche Bauwerke,’ pp. 109, xlix. Dohme ascribes the church to

the 11th century, and gives the length as 283 ft.

Footnote 371:

That shown in the woodcut is a suggestion of Dr. Hübsch.

Footnote 372:

If there are any remains of the monastic buildings at Reichenau it is

extremely desirable that they should be examined, in order to see how

far they accord with the St. Gall plan. What if it should turn out to

be a perfected plan of Reichenau sent after its completion by the

abbot Heiton to his friend Gospertus?

Footnote 373:

‘Histoire de l’Architecture Sacrée du 4^{me} au 10^{me} Siècle dans

les Évêchés de Genève, Lausanne, et Sion,’ 1853.

Footnote 374:

The earliest example is found in the Baptistery at Ravenna, 396 A.D.

Footnote 375:

Kallenbach, (‘Deutsche Baukunst,’) states that it was built by Bishop

Garibald, 740-752. It is the chapel on the north side of cloisters of

Cathedral (see ‘King’s Study Book,’ vol ii. p. 81).

Footnote 376:

At Aquileja, at the upper end of the Adriatic Gulf, Poppo, the

archbishop, between the years 1019-1042, erected a building almost

identical with this in every respect between the old basilica and the

baptistery, so as to make a double-apse church out of the old Lombard

arrangement. The similarity of the two buildings may probably bring

down the date of that at Ratisbon to the 10th century.

Footnote 377:

‘Baukunst des Mittelalters in Sachsen.’

Footnote 378:

The church was burnt in 937, and is said to have had two choirs (added

_c._ 816 by Abbot Engil), a western transept, and eleven bays to the

nave.

Footnote 379:

It is by no means clear that there were not six pillars originally

separating the nave from the aisles instead of the four now built into

the piers of the Gothic church.

Footnote 380:

Taken from R. Dohme, ‘Geschichte der Deutschen Baukunst.’ Berlin,

1887.

Footnote 381:

Möller, ‘Deutsche Baukunst,’ vol. i. plate vi.

Footnote 382:

This has been entirely rebuilt, with a modern front.—ED.

Footnote 383:

For a description of this abbey see a paper read by Mr. Charles Fowler

(R. I. B. A. Transactions, 1882-83).

Footnote 384:

[Much has been said with regard to the use of double churches and

chapels in Germany. In the cases of the chapels at Eger, Goslar,

Nuremberg, Lohra, Landsberg, Freiburg on the Unstrutt, Coburg,

Steinfurt, and Vianden, it is apparent, as they were in connection

with a castle or palace, that the Emperor (or Prince) with his retinue

could enter the upper chapel by a connecting gallery from the palace.

But Schwartz Rheindorf is so much larger than any other double church

or chapel known, that it would seem probable the object of the upper

church was to provide a place of worship for the inhabitants in the

case of floods, which in early times must have taken place yearly:

admission being obtained through a door on N. side, the sill of which

is about 8 ft. from ground, and communicates with a stair-case leading

to upper church.—ED.]

Footnote 385:

The building is as yet practically unedited, notwithstanding its

importance in the history of architecture. I have myself examined this

edifice, but in too hurried a manner to enable me to supply the

deficiency. I speak, therefore, on the subject with diffidence.

Footnote 386:

Taken from Schayes’ ‘Histoire de l’Architecture en Belgique,’ vol. ii.

p. 18, taken by him, I believe, from Lassaulx.

Footnote 387:

See paper by Mr. Petit in the ‘Archæological Journal,’ vol. xviii. p.

110.

Footnote 388:

Boisserée, ‘Nieder Rhein,’ p. 36.

Footnote 389:

There is a slight error in the scale of this plan, the artist in

reducing it having used the scale of French instead of English feet.

It ought to be 1-16th larger.

Footnote 390:

The best _résumé_ of the arguments on this question will be found in

the controversy carried on by F. de Verneilh, the Baron de Rosier, and

M. Boisserée, in Didron’s ‘Annales Archéologiques,’ vol. vii. _et

seq._

Footnote 391:

Within the last few years also the cathedral has been isolated on all

sides, so that it has now the appearance of an overgrown monster—ED.

Footnote 392:

From the ‘Jahrbuch der Central Commission zur Erhaltung der

Baudenkmale,’ vol. ii. p. 37.

Footnote 393:

See ‘Mittelalterliche Kunstdenkmale Östereichs,’ vol. i. p. 171.

Footnote 394:

The façade designed for the cathedral at Louvain (mentioned p. 196)

was identical with this group of spires in arrangement, though on a

much larger scale, and infinitely richer in ornament.

Footnote 395:

Mr. Hodder Westropp was, I believe, the first to suggest this identity

of the Round Towers with these “Fanals,” or Lanternes des Mortes. It

seems to be the most plausible suggestion yet made, though far from

meeting the whole difficulty.

Footnote 396:

‘Denkmäler der Baukunst in Ermeland.’ Berlin.

Footnote 397:

Mr. Tavenor Perry, in his paper on the ‘Mediæval Architecture in

Sweden’ (R.I.B.A. Transactions, vol. vii. new series, 1891), points

out that the architecture of the choir is of much earlier date than

Étienne de Bonnueill’s advent, that the foundation was laid in 1258,

and already in 1273 was well advanced. He takes objection also to the

assumed French origin of the plan, which is more like German work. The

plan bears some resemblance to the chevet of Westminster Abbey, the

lady-chapel of which, pulled down by Henry VII., was commenced in 1220

by Henry III. There are only five chapels, as in Westminster Abbey,

and they are of greater width than any French examples. Étienne’s work

was probably confined to the three great portals, though Mr. Perry

believes that he did much to improve the design, and probably helped

to “found a new school of sculptors.”—ED.

Footnote 398:

‘The Priory of St. Mary Overie, Southwark.’ F. T. Dollman, London,

1881.

Footnote 399:

These churches are nearly all brick: those of Lund and Linköping are

in stone.

Footnote 400:

Both in design and purpose this circular part of Trondhjem Cathedral

is an exact counterpart of Becket’s Crown at Canterbury. That was

erected as a baptistery and burial-place for the archbishops, and

seems to have been afterwards incorporated in the cathedral, _more

Francorum_.

Footnote 401:

The octagonal dome on the east end has been lately restored, but not

improved.—ED.

Footnote 402:

The plan and elevation are taken from a description of the church by

Steen Friis, published at Copenhagen, 1851. In both cuts the modern

additions are omitted.

Footnote 403:

It has lately been well restored (1881).—ED.

Footnote 404:

Gothland was Christianized by St. Olaf in 1028; the first churches, in

wood, were soon burnt down, and the earliest stone examples now known

are those of Akebäch and Ala, which date from 1149.

Footnote 405:

An elevation and section of the church by Mr. Haig is given in the R.

I. B. A. Transactions, new series, vol. ii.

Footnote 406:

Two examples are pointed out by Mr. Carpenter (R.I.B.A. Transactions,

new series, vol. ii. 1886) as existing in England, viz.: Hannington

Church, Northamptonshire, and Caythorpe Church, Lincolnshire.

Footnote 407:

‘One Year in Sweden,’ Murray, 1862.

Footnote 408:

‘The Ecclesiology of Gothland and the Churches of Bornholm,’ by Major

Alfred Heales, F.S.A., 1889.

Footnote 409:

Two in Zealand—Storehedinge and Biernede; one in Funen—Horne, at

Faaborg; one in Jutland—Thorsager; and four in Bornholm—Oester

Larsker, Nykers, Ols, and Ny. (Vol. ii. p. 49.)

Footnote 410:

Documentary evidence now establishes the fact that the nave of Waltham

Abbey was Harold’s original work, though subsequently enriched by

carving.

Footnote 411:

This has been restored, as far as the materials admit, by Professor

Willis, in his ‘Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral,’

published in 1845.

Footnote 412:

“Qui ecclesiam in orientali parte majoris ecclesiæ eidem pene

contiguam in honore Beati Johannis Baptistæ fabricavit; ut et

Baptisteria et examinationes Judiciorum, &c.—et Archiepiscoporum

corpora in eâ sepelirentur.”—‘Anglia Sacra,’ vol. ii. p. 75.

Footnote 413:

The internal dimensions of Durham Cathedral are 413·10 feet, exclusive

of the Galilee. The nave is 81 feet wide, the choir, 77·2. (Billings.)

Footnote 414:

The proper effect of this part of Ely Cathedral has been seriously

marred by the erection of the new reredos. In itself a fair specimen

of modern Gothic, it is placed so far from the choir as to lose its

proper effect. It is painfully dwarfed by the large plain area in

front of it. But worse than this, it cuts up and destroys the most

beautiful presbytery in England after the Angel Choir at Lincoln. The

architects of Walsingham’s time glazed two compartments of the

triforium to throw light upon the principal object in the choir, which

was intended to stand two bays farther forward. It would have been

well if the 19th-century restorers had taken the hint.

Footnote 415:

The foundations of the Lady Chapel of Henry III. were found a few

years ago almost at the extreme east end of Henry VII.’s Chapel, so

that it can scarcely be said to have formed part of a circlet.

Footnote 416:

It should be remembered, however, that the first addition, made in

1220, was the original Lady Chapel; when Henry III. determined to

rebuild the church and to adopt the plan of the French chevet, the

width of the other chapels would seem to have been governed by that of

the Lady Chapel. This, however, was 30 ft. wide—much greater than any

French chapel. To complete the ring, therefore, he was obliged to

carry them further west, so that the five chapels occupy a space equal

in comparison to the seven chapels of Amiens, where the width of each

is only 25 ft. A comparison of the two chevets will show how ingenious

was the English arrangement; and as the vaulting is essentially

English in its setting out and in its design, it is only the idea of

the plan which was borrowed. On this subject Mr. Street remarks, p.

426 (‘Lectures on English Architecture,’ Memoir of G. E. Street, R.A.,

by A. E. Street, M.A. 1883), “Here the evidence of the building itself

seems to be conclusive that the king had resolved to build a church

after the model of the great French churches, but employed an English

architect to design it, and he made his plan on lines which are

distinct and different from those of any French church.”

Footnote 417:

The roofs here alluded to must not be confounded with the barn-like

roofs of remote village churches which modern architects are so fond

of copying, but such roofs as that of St. Stephen’s Chapel, and many

of those of the Lancastrian era.

Footnote 418:

This, and a considerable number of the woodcuts in this chapter, are

borrowed from the plates of the beautiful series of ‘Handbooks of the

English Cathedrals,’ published by Mr. Murray. In order to prevent

needless repetition, they are marked Cath. Hb.

Footnote 419:

This has already been explained in the chapters on French

architecture, especially at pages 114 and 169.

Footnote 420:

In Woodcut No. 822 the right-hand bay is that of the nave generally,

the left-hand bay is adapted to the greater width of the aisle of the

transept, and is less pleasingly proportioned in consequence. Woodcuts

Nos. 822 and 823 are drawn to the scale of 25 feet to 1 inch, or

double that usually employed for elevations in this work.

Footnote 421:

It is not necessary to repeat here what was said on the subject in

speaking of French tracery, p. 164, to which the reader is referred.

Footnote 422:

This was not so much the case in Paris and Rouen, where the houses

were carried up to a much greater height than in other towns.—ED.

Footnote 423:

A splendid chance of trying the effect of this occurred a few years

ago, when it was determined to restore the lantern, as a memorial to

Dr. Peacock. In a fit of purism, only the ugly temporary arrangement

was made new. It looked venerable before the recent repairs; now that

it is quite new again, it is most unpleasing.

Footnote 424:

The towers of Lincoln were surmounted by three spires, removed about

100 years ago.

Footnote 425:

The central octagon of the Parliament Houses is 65 ft. in diameter,

and is the best specimen of a modern Gothic dome which has been

attempted.

Footnote 426:

A chapel, properly speaking, is a hall designed for worship, without

any separation between classes. A church has a chancel for the clergy,

a nave for the laity. A cathedral has these and attached chapels and

numerous adjuncts which do not properly belong to either of the other

two.

Footnote 427:

Few things of its class are more to be regretted than the destruction

of this beautiful relic in rebuilding the Parliament Houses. It would

have been cheaper to restore it, and infinitely more beautiful when

restored than the present gallery which takes its place. It is sad,

too, to think that nothing has been done to reproduce its beauties.

When the colleges of Exeter at Oxford, or St. John’s, Cambridge, were

rebuilding their chapels, it would have been infinitely better to

reproduce this exquisite specimen of English art than the models of

French chapels which have been adopted.

The work on St. Stephen’s Chapel, published for the Woods and Forests

by Mr. Mackenzie, is rendered useless by the addition of an upper

storey which never existed.

Footnote 428:

The Sainte Chapelle was commenced 1244, and finished 1248. The works

of St. Stephen’s were commenced apparently 1292, but were not finished

till 1348.

Footnote 429:

_Vide ante_, p. 264, and p. 328.

Footnote 430:

Mr. Scott produced a free copy of one of them as the Oxford Martyrs’

Memorial, and Edward Barry another as a restoration of Charing Cross.

Both are very beautiful objects, but neither of them exhausts the

subject.

Footnote 431:

It is not pretended that this Table is quite correct in all details,

but it is sufficiently so to present at a glance, a comparative view

of the fourteen principal churches of England, and to show at least

their relative dimensions.

Footnote 432:

The illustrations in this chapter being taken from the beautiful work

by R. W. Billings, entitled ‘The Baronial and Ecclesiastical

Antiquities of Scotland,’ the source of each will not be specified,

except when it forms an exception to this rule. Mr. Billings’ work is

certainly the most correct and beautiful that has yet appeared on the

subject, and if completed with the necessary plans and architectural

details, would be unrivalled as a monograph of an architectural

province.

Footnote 433:

Britton’s ‘Architectural Antiquities,’ vol. xiv. p. 81.

Footnote 434:

For the drawings and information regarding Bothwell Church, I am

indebted to Mr. John Honeyman, jun., architect, of Glasgow.

Footnote 435:

The same class of tracery is found in the Lamberti Kirche at Münster,

and generally in Westphalia; some specimens being almost absolutely

identical with the Scotch examples.

Footnote 436:

The woodcuts in this chapter are, with one or two exceptions, borrowed

from Wilkinson’s ‘Ancient Architecture and Geology of Ireland.’

Footnote 437:

No buildings with architectural details in them are known prior to

1000 A.D.

Footnote 438:

Seven churches are also found at Scattery and Innis Caltra in Clare,

Tory Island, Donegal, Rattoo in Kerry, Inchclorin, Longford, and

Arranmore in Galway.

Footnote 439:

The Rev. Professor Stokes, in a paper communicated to the Royal

Society of Antiquaries in Ireland, and published in their Journal,

1891, states: “The connexion with Egypt of the Celtic Church of these

Western Islands of Britain, as well as of Ireland, cannot now be

controverted.” He points out that the object of the ancient monks of

the 5th and 6th centuries was “not to draw large assemblies, but to

get as far away from them as possible; and assuredly they selected a

lonely if not a weird spot when they selected the Skelligs.” The

Professor gives a long list of places where specimens of these island

monasteries can be found; the best example still existing being that

of Incheleraun in Lough Ree, and commonly called Quaker Island, some

ten miles above Athlone, where six or seven tiny churches just like

those of Clonmacnoise (Woodcut No. 904) or Glendalough (Woodcut No.

902) still perpetuate the name of St. Dermot or St. Diarmaid, the

teacher of St. Kieran, and a Celtic saint and doctor who lived just

after the days of St. Patrick and St. Bridget. The monastic cells at

the Skelligs, which are known as beehive huts, are sometimes square

and sometimes circular in plan, in both cases covered with domical

roofs of stone laid in horizontal courses similar to the Treasury of

Atreus (Woodcut No. 124). In some cases those chambers are so limited

in height and width that it is possible neither to stand upright nor

lie down in them with ease. These beehive huts are apparently the

prototypes of the oratories which, though rectangular in plan, are,

like the Oratory of Gallerus (Woodcut No. 917) and St. Kevin’s

Kitchen, Glendalough (Woodcut No. 902), covered with roofs of stone

all laid in horizontal courses.—ED.

Footnote 440:

‘The Ecclesiastical Architecture of Ireland anterior to the

Anglo-Norman Invasion.’ Dublin, 1845.

Footnote 441:

See Viollet le Duc, ‘Dictionnaire d’Architecture,’ _sub_ “_fanal_.”

Footnote 442:

One of the towers in the East that bears most directly on the history

of these Irish towers is that discovered by Dr. Tristram near Um

Rasas. It is described and figured at page 145 in his work on the

‘Land of Moab;’ but unfortunately the woodcut is taken from the side

that does not represent the doorway with the cross over it so like

that at Antrim (Woodcut No. 907), and elsewhere. Like most of the

Irish examples, it is situated at about 10 ft. from the ground. There

is no other opening to the tower, except one on each face at the top.

It has also the peculiarity that it stands free but close to a small

cell or chapel, as is the case with almost all the Irish towers. The

one point in which it differs from the Irish examples is that its plan

is square instead of being circular. This does not seem so important

as it at first sight may appear, seeing how many circular minarets

were afterwards erected in the East, which must have had a model

somewhere. Practically, therefore, this Moabite tower may be

described, _Hibernicè_, as a square Irish round tower.

[Illustration: 903. Doorway in Tower at Um Rasas. (From a Photograph.)]

Footnote 443:

Compare this with the contemporary tower at Ghazni, in the chapters on

Saracenic Architecture in India in vol. iii.

Footnote 444:

Numerous examples of Byzantine interlaced work of all periods will be

found in Cattaneo’s work ‘On the Influence of Byzantine Art in Italy

from the 5th to the 11th centuries.’

Footnote 445:

So much of the information regarding Spanish architecture which is

contained in the following pages, is derived from Mr. Street’s

beautiful work, entitled ‘Gothic Architecture in Spain,’ published in

1865, that it has not been thought necessary to refer specially to

that work in the text. With one or two exceptions, all the plans are

reduced from those in Mr. Street’s book, and many of the woodcuts are

also his. If any one will take the trouble of comparing the very

meagre account of Spanish architecture contained in the ‘Handbook,’

with what is said in this work, they will at once perceive my

obligations to Mr. Street. His work is a model of its class, and has

quite revolutionised our knowledge of the subject.

Footnote 446:

Parcerisa, ‘Recuerdos y Bellezas de España,’ Asturias, p. 78.

Footnote 447:

‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos.’

Footnote 448:

‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos.’

Footnote 449:

Ibid.

Footnote 450:

These external porticoes would be admirably adapted for imitation in

the climate of India.

Footnote 451:

The Spanish arrangement has recently been adopted in Westminster

Abbey, more by accident than design; with an effect as disastrous as

anything in Spain, and apparently as little felt. In monastic churches

the choir is always in a gallery above the west doorway.

Footnote 452:

The Church of St. Eustache at Paris was commenced as late as 1532,

and, although its plan is almost as Gothic as those of the Spanish

examples, the details of the French church are far more essentially

Renaissance throughout.

Footnote 453:

The room called Paranimfo in the University of Alcala (see Woodcut No.

89, History of Modern Architecture, vol. i.) is of precisely similar

design to this, only carried out with Renaissance instead of Moorish

detail.

Footnote 454:

An engraving of this tower is given in Street’s ‘Gothic Architecture

in Spain,’ page 225, accompanied with a very complete enumeration of

all the examples of the style to be found in Toledo.

Footnote 455:

Another example exists at Palma, in the island of Majorca, in which

there are no capitals to the columns, the ribs of the vault dying into

the shaft.

Footnote 456:

These were destroyed by a fire which occurred between thirty and forty

years ago.

Footnote 457:

Abulfeda, ed. Reiske, vol. i. p. 32.

Footnote 458:

‘The History of Jerusalem.’ Besant and Palmer, 1888.

Footnote 459:

‘The Holy Places of Jerusalem,’ by T. Hayter Lewis, F.S.A. Murray,

1889.

Footnote 460:

‘Description of Syria,’ by Mukaddasi. Translated and annotated by

George le Strange for the Palestine Pilgrims’ Society. London, 1886.

Footnote 461:

Mejr ed-Deen. ‘Fundgruben des Orients.’

Footnote 462:

Transactions of the Royal Institution of British Architects, 1878-79.

Footnote 463:

Ante, p. 228, vol. i.

Footnote 464:

I state these dimensions very doubtfully, the ground outside the

present mosque never having been carefully surveyed by any one

competent to restore the original plan.

Footnote 465:

‘History of Jerusalem,’ translated by the Rev. M. Reynolds, p. 409 _et

seqq._

Footnote 466:

Translated by Jaubert, tom. i. p. 303. The particulars of the

description in the text are taken from M. Girault de Prangey

‘Monuments Arabes,’ compared with M. Coste’s ‘Edifices de Caire.’

Footnote 467:

It should be noted that all these arcades run in the direction of the

Kibleh or Mecca wall, and the same principle is observed at Kerouan,

Cordoba, and other mosques built entirely for Mahomedan worship.

Footnote 468:

M. Coste makes all these arches pointed. M. de Prangey states that

they are all circular; the truth being that they are partly one,

partly the other.

Footnote 469:

Since then the arches have been built up, and it was for a time

converted into a hospital. This now (1892) is under the care of the

Commissioner for the preservation of ancient monuments, but is too far

ruined to be long preserved.

Footnote 470:

See Coste’s ‘Edifices de Caire,’ p. 32, quoting from Makrisi.

Footnote 471:

‘The Ancient Coptic Churches,’ by A. J. Butler, Oxford, 1884.

Footnote 472:

The marble wall decoration and the mosaics which are found in later

mosques are of different design and execution from that found in

Byzantine buildings; in fact as Mr. Butler remarks: “this form of art

was borrowed by the Muslim builders, or rather was lent by the Coptic

architects and builders, whom the Muslims employed for the

construction of their mosques.” “Although the Saracens in Syria

borrowed the art from Byzantium and used vitreous enamels for the

decoration of their mosque walls, as well as for inlaying jewelry and

steel armour on a smaller scale, yet the Mahomedans of Egypt never

adopted any but the native or Coptic marble mosaic, partly because its

unpictorial character suited their taste, and partly because they

found, ready made, both art and artists—artists whose names have

perished, but whose skill is still recorded in work of unexampled

splendour which adorns the great Mosques of Cairo.”

Footnote 473:

The mosque cathedrals of Cordoba and Seville and the contemporary

Arabic buildings. Transactions, R.I.B.A., 1882-83.

Footnote 474:

A view of it will be found in vol. ii. ‘History of the Modern Style of

Architecture,’ 1891, p. 314.

Footnote 475:

To get it within the page, the scale of the plan is reduced to 200

French, or 212 English ft. to 1 in.

Footnote 476:

When the great national work, entitled ‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos

d’España,’ is complete, this reproach will be removed, but that

certainly will not be the case for ten or twelve years to come, if it

ever does attain completion. The scale is too large, and the total

want of principle on which it is carried out renders it useless till

it is further advanced. Twenty-three numbers are published, but not

one important building is complete, and, excepting a plan of Toledo,

not one of the larger buildings is even attempted—Cosas d’España.

The above note was written twenty-five years ago and is true now,

except that the twenty-three must be now eighty-nine, where it stopped

nine years ago.

Footnote 477:

Alcazar = el-Kasr, “the Castle.”

Footnote 478:

A perfect copy of this court was reproduced by Mr. Owen Jones at the

Crystal Palace in 1854. Except being slightly curtailed in plan, every

detail and every dimension is identical with the original.

Footnote 479:

Nothing need be said here of La Cuba and La Ziza, and other buildings

in Sicily, which, though usually ascribed to the Saracens, are now

ascertained to have been built by the Normans after their conquest of

the island in the 11th century. They are Saracenic in style, it is

true, and were probably erected by Moslem artists, but so were many

churches and chapels in Spain, as mentioned above; and I am not aware

of any building now extant there which can be safely ascribed to the

time when the island was held by the Moslems, or was then erected by

them for their own purposes. Till that is ascertained, Sicily of

course does not come within the part of our subject which we are now

considering.

Footnote 480:

Plate lxxxii.

Footnote 481:

For the plan and section of this mosque I was indebted to the kindness

of my friend, the late M. C. Texier, who placed his MS. plans at my

disposal for the purpose of being engraved for this work.

Footnote 482:

For the plan of this building I am indebted to the unpublished

drawings of the late M. C. Texier.

Footnote 483:

The steps by which the transformation may have been arrived at,

passing through the traditional method of constructing vaults in

plaster, which is still practised in Persia, were suggested in an

article contributed to the Proceedings of the R. I. B. A., 1888, vol.

iv., new series.

Footnote 484:

Both the plan and view are taken from Baron Texier’s ‘Arménie et la

Perse,’ which gives also several coloured plates of the mosaic

decorations, from which their beauty of detail may be judged, though

not the effect of the whole.

Footnote 485:

The earliest attempt in this direction that I am acquainted with is

the great portal of the palace at Mashita (Woodcut No. 268).

Footnote 486:

Texier, from whose work the illustrations are taken, ascribes the

building to another Khodabendah of the Sufi dynasty, A.D. 1577-85. Our

knowledge, however, of the style is sufficient to show that the

monument must be 200 or 300 years older than that king; and besides,

the Sufis, not being Tartars, would not build tombs anywhere, much

less in Sultanieh, where they never resided.

Footnote 487:

‘Travels,’ vol. i. p. 277.

Footnote 488:

Ker Porter’s ‘Travels,’ vol. i. p. 432 _et seq._ I cannot help

suspecting that there is some mistake about these dimensions—they seem

excessive. The Piazza of St. Mark’s at Venice, which resembles it more

than any other area, is only 560 ft. long, with a mean breadth of

about 250 ft. Probably 1500 feet by 500.

Footnote 489:

‘Views of monuments in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan.’ 25

plates, folio. London, 1844.

Footnote 490:

‘Incidents of Travel in Central America and Yucatan,’ by J. L.

Stephens. 1st and 2nd series, 4 vols. 8vo. Murray, 1841, 1843.

Footnote 491:

The evidence collected by the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, ‘Voyage de

Tehuantepec,’ seems, if it can be depended upon, to confirm this idea.

Footnote 492:

Ausland, 1845, Nos. 165, 168.

Footnote 493:

D’Eichthal, ‘Revue Archæologique,’ vol. x. 1864, p. 188, and following

numbers.

Footnote 494:

Sir Stamford Raffles’s ‘History of Java,’ vol. ii. p. 51.

Footnote 495:

‘Anahuac,’ by Edward B. Tylor, 1861; pp. 188, 194.

Footnote 496:

The plate published by Humboldt, representing one of the bas-reliefs,

is so incorrect as to be absolutely worthless.

Footnote 497:

There is a celebrated bas-relief on the back wall of a small temple at

Palenque, representing a man offering a child to an emblem very like a

Christian cross. It is represented in the first series of the

‘Incidents of Travel,’ vol. ii. p. 344. None of the sculptures have

given rise to such various interpretations; but nothing would surprise

me less than if it turned out to be a native mode of representing a

Christian baptism, and was therefore subsequent to the conquest.

Footnote 498:

Since the first edition of this work was published, a folio work has

appeared in Paris, entitled ‘Les Ruines de Palenque,’ illustrated by

plates, made under the superintendence of M. de Waldeck, with text by

the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg. The text is certainly not to be

trusted. The plates add little to what we learn from Catherwood’s

drawings, and I do not feel sure how far that little is to be depended

upon.

In so far as they go they confirm the idea of the famous cross

bas-relief being of Christian origin.

Footnote 499:

It is only fair to state that Mr. Markham (Journal Roy. Geo. Soc.,

vol. xli. p. 307) denies the Aymara origin of the Tia Huanacu ruins,

and ascribes them to the Incas, and consequently disputes the

distinction pointed out above. The truth seems to be that, until we

get more photographs or detailed drawings, all conclusions regarding

Peruvian architecture must be considered as more or less hypothetical.

Footnote 500:

For the principal part of this information I am indebted to Mr.

William Bollaert and the photographs of the Messrs. Helsby, of

Liverpool, and also to a paper on the Aymara Indians, by Dr. David

Forbes, communicated to the Ethnological Society of London in June

1870.

Transcriber’s Notes

This book often uses inconsistent hyphenation and spelling, particularly

with respect to accents. These were left as printed unless the author

showed a clear preference for one form.

Some presumed printer’s errors have been corrected, including

normalizing punctuation. Page number references and entries in the Table

of Contents and in the Index were corrected where errors were found.

Several instances of area being given in ft. were changed to sq. ft. and

feet to square feet. The marker for footnote 483 was missing and so it's

placement was assumed.

Further corrections are listed below with the original text (top) and

the corrected text (bottom).

Volume I

every pains has been taken

every pain has been taken p. xxii

progres

progress p. 48

cotemporary

contemporary p. 50

formula

formulæ p. 77

Sedinag

Sedinga Illustration 27.

longed ceased

long ceased p. 219

Nor is is

Nor is it p. 247

ines

lines p. 372

Roumeia

Roumeïa p. 372

Nimes

Nîmes p. 385

Vogüe

Vogüé p. 423

neo-Byzantine

Neo-Byzantine p. 455

iconicon

icon p. 460

orginally

originally p. 538

turned the

turned to the p. 558

100 ft. to

100 ft. to 1 in. Illustration 451.

467. Illustration 467 (missing number added)

next

next to p. 596

Volume II

Churches Gelnhausen

Churches at Gelnhausen p. vi

Perigueux

Périgueux p. v

Gloucester Cathderal

Gloucester Cathedral p. xi

Toraccio

Torracio p. 3

content with the knowadge

content with the knowledge p. 55

Moyen Âge

Moyen-Âge Figure 548

painted plass

painted glass p. 70

Le-Puy-en-Vélay

Le-Puy-en-Velay p. 94

diapeared

disapeared p. 145

architectual object

architectural object p. 171

it canot

it cannot p. 196

apparent stabilty

apparent stability p. 226

p. 233 its aspidal gallery

its apsidal gallery

Paul-Trois-Chateaux

Paul-Trois-Châteaux p. 255

Moyen-Age

Moyen-Âge Figure 735

Boisseree

Boisserée Illustration 746.

enthnographic

ethnographic p. 302

gables on east face

gables on the east face p. 324

Duration of Late Pointed Perpendicular corrected from 108 to 156 p.

337

church inexistence

church in existence p. 342

Munster

Münster Footnote 120

better that

better than p. 472

ribs of vault

ribs of the vault Footnote 140

It total length

Its total length p. 509

the slighest attempt

the slightest attempt p. 516

it is dificult to

it is difficult to p. 525

enjoyment if the passing hour

enjoyment of the passing hour p. 554

east coast of America

west coast of America p. 586

buildiugs

buildings p. 589

Woodcut No. 1039

Woodcut No. 1029 p. 603