CHAPTER VIII_How to Study Architecture

MINOAN OR ÆGEAN ARCHITECTURE

In so far as the prehistoric remains of Minoan or civilisation belonged

to the Polished Stone Age and Bronze Age, they are in the phase of

development that is represented in the Peruvian remains of the city of

Machu Picchu. Meanwhile, in its active consciousness of beauty as a

motive, the Minoan reached a perfection within the limits of its

possibilities that carried it far beyond the Peruvian.

This may have been partly due to the influence of the neighbouring

civilisation of Egypt, and also to the fact that the people of the Ægean

area mixed freely in their roving life with one another and with outside

peoples, so that there was a free-trade in ideas, and the seed which

they planted grew and multiplied. But it must also have been due to

something inherent in the race itself. What the race was has not been

determined. So far, the examination of skulls and bones in Cretan tombs

has established only the fact that the race, while showing signs of

mixture, belonged on the whole to the dark, long-haired “Mediterranean

race,” whose probable origin lay in Mid-Eastern Africa. The main

interest of this is to discredit an Asiatic source for Minoan

civilisation. It is apparent from its achievements in engineering and

the arts and industries that it was a race of great intelligence, with

an active interest in life that led it to strive for the beauty as well

as the conveniences of living.

=Palace of Cnossus.=--The palace of Cnossus occupies an area of about six

acres, surmounting the debris of human settlements, which go back, it

has been estimated, to a distance of from 12,000 to 14,000 years before

the Christian era. The remains show that the palace formed a hollow

square, constructed around a central court. The principal entrance was

upon the north, though what appears to have been the royal entrance was

upon the west, opening on to a paved court.

The west wing contained a small council chamber, or office, in which was

found a throne, made of gypsum in a design curiously Gothic, around

which were lower stone benches. The walls of this chamber were decorated

with sacred dragons represented in a Nile landscape. They were executed,

like the other paintings found in these Cretan palaces, in fresco; that

is to say, in water colours mixed with some gelatinous medium, laid on

the still damp plaster, so that as the latter dried the colour became

incorporated in the actual material of the walls. To this council

chamber was attached a bathroom, probably for ritual purposes.

Near it was also discovered a small shrine, containing figures and

reliefs, exquisitely fashioned in faience, one of which shows a snake

goddess and her votaries; this being one of the aspects of the chief

divinity. The walls and pillars of these chambers are repeatedly

decorated with the sign of the Double Axe, while miniature frescoes on

the walls exhibit pillared shrines, with double axes stuck into some of

the wooden pillars.

For the remains of the palace itself show that the pillars used in this

construction were of wood, rounded like posts. The circular sockets

still remain in the stonework and a comparison of the top and bottom

ones shows that the pillar tapered downward, the diameter at the bottom

being six-sevenths of the top one.

Another feature of this west wing is a series of eighteen magazines or

storerooms which contained quantities of clay documents and great stone

jars. The latter are decorated with horizontal bands, connected by

diagonal ones, like the straw work on a modern ginger jar. This design,

wrought upon the stone surface of these colossal jars, is an interesting

memento of one of the primitive methods of clay modelling. For, before

the invention of the potter’s wheel, the method of shaping, almost

universally adopted, was one of the three following: (1) _scooping_ out

from a ball of clay; (2) or _coiling_, in which the clay was rolled out

into thin ropes, which were coiled round and round upon one another and

then smoothed over; (3) or the building up of the form upon a shape of

_basket-work_ or _matting_.

A large bathroom was discovered in the northwest corner of the

quadrangle but the actual residential quarters seem to have occupied the

east wing. There are the remains of a _Megaron_, or great hall of state,

approached directly from the central court, near which were found

painted reliefs, illustrating scenes of the bull-ring, with female as

well as male toreadors. These and other reliefs, some of which also

commemorated incidents of bull-fighting, were not carved upon the stone,

as in the Egyptian temples, or executed in tiles, as in Assyrian or

Persian temples, but applied to the wall with hard plaster. This method,

known as _gesso_ work, was used later in Byzantine decoration and by the

Italians of the Renaissance, for decorative details; by Pinturricchio,

for example, in the Borgia apartments of the Vatican. It has been

revived by modern mural decorators; John S. Sargent, for instance,

employing it in some of his panels in the Boston Public Library.

To the south of the great hall a staircase, of which three flights and

traces of a fourth are still preserved, descended to a series of halls

and private rooms. Attached to one of these, identified as the “Queen’s

Megaron,” was a bathroom, decorated with frescoes of flying fish. The

drainage system in this part of the palace includes a water-closet and

is of a complete and modern kind.

The character and features of this palace are repeated on a smaller

scale in those discovered at Phæstus, Hagia Triada, and other spots in

Crete, and resemble in the main those of Mycenæ and Tiryns.

A glance at the map of ancient Greece shows that these last two cities,

situated at the north of the rich plain of Argolis, commanded the

approaches to the peninsula of the Peloponnesus; Mycenæ occupying a

strategic position on the highroad; Tiryns, on the sea. They were

equally important in resisting invasion from the North across the

Isthmus of Corinth, and in the struggle for supremacy that was waged

between Argolis and the Peloponnesus. Accordingly, the distinguishing

feature of each city was that it occupied an acropolis, the natural

strength of which was increased by fortifications built with irregular

blocks of stone of great size, in the style known as _Cyclopean_.

=Mycenæ.=--Those at Mycenæ surrounded an area which is roughly triangular

in plan, the main entrance being through the above mentioned portal of

the =Lion Gate=. Its side posts and lintel are composed of monoliths and

surmounted by the famous lion-relief, which fills the triangular space

formed by the gradual projection of the stones of the wall. The pillar

or fetish-post corresponds to the alabaster columns, now in the British

Museum, which flanked the entrance of the =Treasury= or =Tomb= of =Atreus=,

just outside the Lion Gate.

The shaft of these columns is without a base and tapers slightly to the

bottom. Ornamented with bands of repeated _chevrons_, which alternately

are plain and embellished with flutings, it supports a cushion or

_echinus_, decorated with plain and spiral bands, on which rests a

square plinth or _abacus_. It comprises, in fact, the features which in

later times were simplified into the Doric column.

The tomb itself is a subterranean chamber, of the style known as

_beehive_ or in Greek, _tholos_. Its circular plan has a diameter of

nearly 50 feet, and the domed ceiling, commencing at the floor and

formed of inwardly projecting courses of stone, rises to about the same

height. It leads into a small square chamber and is itself approached by

a horizontal avenue, 20 feet wide and 115 feet long, the sides of which

are of squared stone, sloping upward to a height of 45 feet.

A trace of this subterranean beehive method seems to survive in some of

the rock-hewn tombs at =Myra=, in =Lycia=. Here the façade represents the

front of a house, which is clearly of primitive wood construction. In

later instances it is composed of Ionic columns and cornices. In the

older examples the entrance is surmounted by a gable, which frequently

takes the curves of the beehive.

Intermediate between these Lycian Tombs and the Minoan structures are

certain rock-cut tombs in =Phrygia= which recall the Lion Gate. The façade

comprises a cornice supported by columns, above which is a gable,

occupied by colossal lions. At =Arslan=, one of these _pediments_ shows

two lions, in this instance not rampant, which support a central pillar.

Inside, however, two rampant lions flank a nude human figure.

At Mycenæ are earlier tombs than that of Atreus, which consist simply of

a deep shaft lowered into the rock. These are situated just inside the

Lion Gate, the area which they occupy being enclosed by two concentric

circles of thin slabs, set up on end with others laid across the top of

them. It is a feature that in its attenuated form seems to recall

Stonehenge. Dr. Schliemann reached the conclusion that these were the

graves which were shown to Pausanias, as being those of Agamemnon,

Cassandra, and her companions.

On the summit of the Acropolis at Mycenæ are the remains of a palace,

similar to, but less extensive than, that of Tiryns, which we may

therefore examine in preference.

=Tiryns.=--The palace of Tiryns, which probably dates to a period between

the fourteenth and twelfth centuries B.C., seems to have combined the

luxuriousness of the residence of an Oriental king with the feudal state

of a mediæval baron and his crowd of retainers. The acropolis is of oval

shape, with its long axis north and south, surrounded by immense

ramparts of Cyclopean masonry, from 30 to 40 feet in thickness, while

the outside height was about 50 feet and that of the inside 10 feet from

the level of the ground. In certain parts chambers were embedded in the

thickness of the wall, and round its inner side ran a colonnade,

supported by wooden posts.

The area thus enclosed was divided into three successive levels, of

which the highest was excavated by Schliemann and Dörpfeld, 1884-1885.

The plan shows the entrance situated on the west side, away from the

sea, which probably was once fitted with a gateway similar to that at

Mycenæ. The approach passes between massive walls to another gate,

whence it proceeds to a propylæa, with rooms for the guard. This opens

into a forecourt, from which another propylæa gives approach to the

actual palace.

The first feature of the =Palace= is a court bounded on three sides by a

post-supported colonnade. An altar or sacrificial pit is in the same

position as that occupied by the altar of Zeus in a later Greek house.

It may be possible in this connection to see evidence that the principal

deity on the mainland of Greece was already, unlike that of Crete, a

male; perhaps a terrible prototype of the later benignant Zeus, to whom

human sacrifices were made, as to the hideous Mexican divinity,

Huitzilopochtli.

On the north side of the court a portico, succeeded by a vestibule,

gives access to the Megaron. In the centre of this is the hearth, a

feature not needed in the warmer climate of Crete and therefore not

found in the palaces of that island. Four columns supported the roof,

the centre of which may have been raised to allow openings for light and

smoke escape. Adjoining the sleeping chambers on the west side of this

hall is a bathroom, about 12 feet by 10 feet, the floor of which is

composed of a single slab of stone, sloped so that the water drained out

through a pipe in the wall.

Another group of buildings, supposed, though without authority, to be

the women’s quarters, lies to the east of the great hall, from which,

however, it is completely cut off by a solid wall; it is entered by two

circuitous passages, one leading from the first propylæa, the other from

a postern gate in the western rampart. Here again the plan shows an

open court, without an altar, from which a vestibule admits to a smaller

megaron.

The floors of the megara are of stucco, incised with a series of lines,

coloured blue and red, while the walls are decorated with frescoes as in

the palace at Cnossus, one of the best preserved paintings showing a

bull-fight scene. On the other hand, the palace of Tiryns shows part of

a frieze of alabaster, sculptured in relief with rosettes and

interlacing patterns and studded with jewel-like pieces of blue glass or

enamel.

The walls to a height of about three feet above ground were of stone,

above which they were continued with sun-dried bricks; the upper story

being probably of wood, with roofs of stamped earth. The doorways,

though sometimes of wood, were more usually constructed of monoliths.

Bronze cup-like sockets, let into the stone thresholds, show that the

doors revolved upon a pivot.

It is agreed that while the palace of Tiryns represents the general

character of a royal house, as it is pictured in the Homeric poems, it

is a mistake to look in it for an explanation of details of

arrangement.

BOOK III

CLASSIC PERIOD

CHAPTER I

HELLENIC CIVILISATION

The use of the term Hellenic can be traced back to the seventh century

B.C. It was the name under which the various streams of

migration--Achæan, Æolian, Dorian, and Ionian--merged their differences

in the proud recognition of a common race.

The date and extent of these migrations are clouded with obscurity; but

certain points are clear. The Ionians came from Armenia and settled in

Asia Minor and the adjacent islands, while the other three penetrated

into Greece from the shores of the Baltic. The Achæan was the first to

arrive and had maintained a long civilisation before the later migration

of Æolians and Dorians. The Dorian invasion seems to have been

especially aggressive and after fastening a hold upon the mainland of

Greece extended to the Ægean Archipelago, overrunning Crete and wresting

supremacy of the Mediterranean from the Minoan Sea-Kings about 1000 B.C.

Hellenic, however, never implied a national bond. The Hellenes were

never united as one people under one government. Hellas was a congeries

of independent states which even allowed their colonies, from the first,

complete self-government. The bond which loosely held them together was

the common sense of superiority to all other races; and as their

civilisation developed, a common pride in its glory, not that this was

sufficient to prevent continuous rivalry and frequent warfare between

states and cities. Consequently, there is properly speaking no such

thing as Greek history; nor would it be profitable for our purpose to

trace the rise and decline of the several states. It is better to

consider Hellenism as a principle, the more or less common ideal of a

people, not confined to Hellas, but spread over the littoral of the

Mediterranean; wherever Hellenes settled--a race of mariners and

merchants, thinkers and artists, who lifted themselves to so high a

pitch of civilisation, that it became a source of inspiration to all

subsequent culture.

In the Minoan and Mycenæan Age the political system was a monarchy that

combined the functions of high priest and commander-in-chief. In the

Homeric Age there were still kings who led their armies and acted as the

intermediaries of the gods, but their power was controlled by a _Boule_,

or consulting assembly. With the Dorians the rule of kings passed to

that of oligarchies, chosen from one or more of the noble classes whose

claim to government was founded on birth and the ownership of land. They

were associated with a Boule, representative of the privileged classes,

while the priestly functions were exercised by magistrates, who,

however, were drawn from the aristocracy.

In many parts of Hellas the oligarchies gave way to “tyrannoi.” These

are not to be understood in the sense that our word “tyrant” has. They

were a step in the evolution of popular government, inasmuch as they

were a means of breaking up the exclusive authority of the privileged

classes. To consolidate their own power, the tyrannoi sought the favour

of the populace and made concessions in the direction of popular

government. Accordingly, while some of the tyrannoi were succeeded by a

return to the oligarchies, in more cases they prepared the way for a

democratic form of government.

In order to take religion out of the exclusive domain of the

aristocracy, the tyrants established popular cults. Peisistrates, for

example, tyrant of Athens, is thought to have established the Great

Dionysiac festival and raised the Panathenæa to the position of the

chief national festival of the Athenian State. Everywhere the tyrants

were the patrons of literature and the arts. To Peisistrates is

attributed the first critical edition of the text of Homer, while under

the encouragement of himself and his successors (the Peisistratids)

which lasted from 560-511 B.C. architecture and sculpture also

progressed to a degree that made possible their grandeur in the “Great

Age.” He is also said to have encouraged Thespes, the Attic poet, to

impersonate characters and thus convert the narrative poem into dramatic

form, laying the foundation of Greek drama.

Peisistrates also gave the people a constitution, extended the power of

Athens by alliances, and increased its commerce. With the fall of the

Peisistratids the rule of the many (_hoi polloi_) was assured. The

government of Athens became democratic.

It is to be noted that while there were various forms of democratic

government in Hellas, all differed from our modern conception of

democracy. The latter is based upon the principle of doing away with

privilege, while the Greek form implied privilege, although it enlarged

its area. No foreigner could acquire citizenship, which also was denied

to native-born inhabitants who were of foreign extraction, on either the

father’s or the mother’s side. Furthermore, the Greeks regarded labour

as a disqualification for political rights, and almost all unskilled

labour and most of the skilled was performed by slaves. The latter,

however, were well treated and not only enjoyed personal liberty but

also the opportunity of becoming prosperous.

Again, the government under the Hellenic democracy was not

representative. The citizen body was so small that all could meet in the

_Ecclesia_ and register their vote directly on any question. Appointment

to office was by lot and not election, and accordingly the number of

citizens who held at one time or another big or little offices included

a great majority of the whole body. The result of this was an intimacy

on the part of all the citizen body with the machinery of government and

the pros and cons of every question as it arose. They voted with

intelligence and their votes counted directly; a system which helped

immensely to cultivate their intellectual keenness.

The two Persian invasions, the first under Datis and Artaphernes (490

B.C.) in the reign of Darius I, the second by Xerxes in person (480-479

B.C.), had proved the need of closer co-operation among the Hellenic

States, and the Delian League was formed under the leadership of Athens

and with Athens as the “predominant partner.” An annual tribute was paid

by all the member-states for the maintenance of a fleet. Athens was the

treasurer and the fleet was mainly Athenian, while the commanders were

entirely so. The power thus concentrated in Athens gave her so marked a

supremacy that Pericles used the League to form an Athenian Empire. This

lasted about thirty years (461-430 B.C.), during which period Athens

reached the culmination not only of her power but also of her

magnificence. For Pericles spent the money, contributed by the allies

for common defence, in beautifying the Acropolis; the excuse being that

in doing so he was giving glory to Athena, who was the patron goddess of

the League. Pericles also encouraged literature and counted among his

friends three of the greatest Greek writers--Sophocles, Herodotus, and

Thucydides.

But the power of Athens incited the envy of the other states, which

ranged themselves with Sparta. In the Peloponnesian wars, the supremacy

of Athens was broken and the Athenian Empire was succeeded by a Spartan

Empire, which in time succumbed to the Theban Hegemony. Finally Hellas

was conquered by Philip of Macedon and passed into the Macedonian

Empire, established by this king and enlarged by his son, Alexander the

Great.

Through all these struggles Athens, though despoiled of her supremacy,

played a big part until she was conquered by Philip at Chæronæa, in 338

B.C. The latter date is adopted as the end of the Great Age which had

lasted since 480 B.C., including within its circumference the age of

Pericles. Besides its triumphant achievements in architecture and

sculpture, the Great Age comprised in drama the names of Æschylus,

Sophocles, Euripides, and Aristophanes; in history, Herodotus,

Thucydides; in oratory, Demosthenes; in philosophy, Aristotle and Plato.

Meanwhile, the century preceding it had produced, among the poets,

Anacreon and Sappho; and, as representatives of mathematics, astronomy,

geography, and metaphysics, Thales, Pythagoras, Xenophanes, Heraclitus,

Parmenides, Anaximander, and Hecatæus of Miletus.

It is significant that none of these last named poets and thinkers

belonged to the mainland of Hellas, but to the islands and cities of the

Ionian group or to the adjacent Cyclades. And what is true of literature

is equally true of architecture and sculpture. In fact during the fifth

century B.C. and also the three preceding centuries, culture had been

more developed in Ionia than in Attica. For, through its commerce with

the East, Ionia reached a high state of prosperity and borrowed

something of Eastern luxuriousness as well as Eastern thought and art

ideals, just as in turn the East borrowed from it. Miletus was for a

long time the wealthiest and most luxurious of Hellenic cities, rivalled

only by Sybaris on the gulf of Tarentum; one of the flourishing cities

of the so-called Magna Græcia in the south of Italy.

Similarly Corinth under the rule of her tyrants, Cypselus and his son

Periander (657-581 B.C.), had enjoyed a period of great prosperity. She

extended her trade from Asia Minor and Egypt to Magna Græcia in the

west, and was also a great industrial centre, famous for its pottery,

metal work, and other decorative crafts. Moreover, it was reported to

have “invented” painting.

These brief references serve to emphasise two points: first, the wide

spread of Hellenic culture; and, secondly, the variety that it

exhibited. The most cherished sentiment in Hellas, as we have remarked,

was that of autonomy. Even under the hegemonies and empires, individual

cities and colonies were permitted self-government and, as its

corollary, self-development. Hence the variety in unity that

characterised Hellenic culture. The unity was strengthened and the

variety diffused throughout the whole by the Festival-contests which

were held at regular intervals. These originated in local religious

festivals, which in time were thrown open to competitors from all parts

of Hellas.

The oldest and the greatest was the Olympic Festival, held in the valley

of the river Alphæus in Elis, which was celebrated at intervals of four

years. The event became so important in the life of Hellas that the

interval of four years between one celebration and the succeeding one,

called an Olympiad, became the measure for computing time, the first

Olympiad being reckoned as 776 B.C. Originally the festival was held in

honour of Hera, to whom a temple--the earliest as yet known in

Hellas--was dedicated, 1000 B.C. Later the chief honour was paid to the

Olympian Zeus. His temple, which in time contained the celebrated

chryselephantine statue of the god by Pheidias, stood in a sacred grove,

the Altis, which was adorned with statues of the successful athletes,

made by the most famous sculptors. The sacred enclosure was surrounded

by walls and colonnades, adjoining which, on one side, were the

gymnasium, palæstra, and baths for the use of the athletes, whose

training in the sacred precincts lasted for ten months, before they

could compete in the stadium. The latter adjoined the Altis on the east

side.

From all parts of Hellas, states and cities vied with one another in

furnishing competitors and, as the date of the Festival approached,

heralds proclaimed throughout the Hellenic world the “Truce of God”

under which, for the time being, warlike operations were suspended and

safe conduct was guaranteed to all visitors to Olympia.

The influence of Sparta had regulated the character of the contests of

endurance: running, leaping, wrestling, boxing, to which in time was

added chariot racing. But as the spirit of culture spread the Olympian

and the other festivals included musical contests, while the poet

declaimed his verses and the painter showed his work for the pleasure

and profit of the assembled multitudes.

The Olympic festival, in fact, was the supreme realisation of the

Hellenic ideal: perfection of physical development, joined to highest

intellectual development and the finest development of the senses. It

was an ideal that involved the possible perfection of the whole man, a

harmony of body, senses, and intellect--the Hellenic ideal of Beauty.

Olympia, wrote Lysias, is “the fairest spot on earth,” and, surely, in

the loveliness of its natural setting, in the embellishments which the

architect and sculptor had added, in the glory of the youthful vigour of

the competitors and the inspiration of poets and musicians, and, not

least, in the joyous enthusiasm of the spectators was realised, as

perhaps nowhere else at any time, the Beauty of Life; the idea, as Plato

taught, that the Good is the Beautiful, the Beautiful the Good.

Such was the Hellenic ideal. And an ideal, need one add, is not an aim

that is actually achieved but one beyond our capacity to achieve wholly,

that yet gives continuous incentive to higher and nobler effort. This

ideal of the possible perfection of man in all his parts is the highest

to which man has ever aspired and the Hellenes of the Great Age came the

nearest to achieving it. Hence their example has become to succeeding

ages Classic.

Having this ideal, the Hellenes translated it as far as possible into

visible form. No athlete could compete at Olympia unless his body and

his character were free from blemish; no statue or temple must be

erected except as the finest possible expression of organic perfection.

For the beauty involved in the Hellenic ideal is organic beauty.

Everything about Olympia, as everything about a Hellenic Temple, must

perform its function in the organic beauty of the whole.

Further, it is to be noted that in the pursuit of this ideal the Greeks

did not rely upon the feeling of the senses, nor yet upon the judgment

of the intellect; but upon a union of the two. They submitted the

inspiration of the senses to processes of reason. In a word, they

intellectualised their sensations. It is this which has made the

expression of their ideal Classic.

It is not necessary for our present purpose to trace the ebb and flow of

the influence of this ideal through the centuries. But we may observe

that while the Romans despoiled Hellas of her works of art and imitated,

as far as they could, the externals of her ideal of beauty, the Arabs,

Moors, and Saracens in later years more intimately imbibed its spirit

and gave their own expression to it. Italy, however, in the latter half

of the fifteenth century and during the sixteenth, came nearer than any

other nation to both the spirit and the form of Hellenic culture. For

her scholars and artists were more inclined to emulate than to imitate

the example of the Greeks and tried to incorporate the Hellenic ideal

into their own lives.

On the other hand, the Classical revival which began toward the end of

the eighteenth century and has continued intermittently to our own day,

has for the most part made the mistake of imitating instead of

emulating. Artists have tried to copy the form, without imbibing the

spirit. But form so used is like the letter that killeth; without the

spirit that giveth life.

Meanwhile, there are indications that the world to-day is going to

approach nearer to the Hellenic ideal than ever before and in some

respects to better it. For there was a flaw in the latter. It despised

labour and denied workmen a share in government. Its democracy was

merely an extended aristocracy and, since those privileged to share in

it received payment while filling office, it has been said that “the

majority of the Athenian citizens were salaried paupers.” On the other

hand, the theory, at least, of modern society is the honourableness of

labour, and one of the best recognised problems of to-day is the shaping

of conditions in order that labour may in truth be honourable--a

blessing and not a curse, enhancing the beauty of the worker’s life

instead of starving it. In fact, the modern world in adopting anew the

Hellenic ideal of the beauty of the whole life is going to carry it

further, to include the whole life of the whole community.

Moreover, our hope in being able to revive the Hellenic ideal and even

to carry it farther consists in the fact that the foundation of our

progress, as of the Greek, has again become reason, and reason

established on a wider and firmer basis, owing to the immense

development of modern science. And, while science encompasses every

field of human thought and activity, its tendency is more and more

directed to promoting the health and happiness of life. It is aiming

anew at the Hellenic ideal of physical, moral and mental perfection, not

confined to a few, but embracing whole communities and peoples.

There was a further flaw in the Hellenic system. It relegated women to

an inactive position in the public affairs of life. Women were excluded

even as sight-seers from the Olympic Games. The Greek worshipped the

physical in woman, but refused development of her intellectual

faculties. Their ideal was, in fact, centred in a single sex; it could

not breed and perpetuate itself. But to-day the idea is spreading that

this is a woman’s as well as a man’s world, and that to approximate to

the ideal of human perfection needs the full, free, and independent

co-operation of the woman and the man.

In conclusion let us note how in one respect the Hellenic ideal still

transcends our own. There was a logic in the Greek, to which we have

hardly yet attained. It practically amounted to this that “a tree is

known by its fruits.” If a thing is good physically, morally, and

mentally, it must naturally manifest its goodness so that it can be

appreciated by the senses. Beauty must be made visible and audible. The

possibility of the ideal must be made familiar to all, in literature,

song, dance, drama, and the arts of beautiful design.

To the Greeks æsthetics, the study of what is appreciated as beautiful

by the senses, was not a separate department of life, as it is apt to be

with us, but only another aspect of morality and religion. It was the

natural and inevitable expression of the inward spirit of the ideal. How

could a man’s life reach its highest possibility if it did not love and

seek after beauty; how could a city be truly great unless it were

manifestly beautiful?

One can hardly imagine a Hellen, who wished to retain any reputation for

intelligence, asserting, as many people are satisfied and even seem

proud to do in these days: “I don’t know anything about art, but I know

what I like.” To this it is on record that an artist retorted, “And so

does a cow.” Which would have been the sort of retort that a Hellen

might have made to the speaker, whom he would at once determine was a

person of low intelligence.

For Greek art, as we have already said, was not an expression solely of

the senses; but of the sensations guided by the intellect; and it was

just as much a part of a Greek’s intellectual training to know and

understand and feel--in a word, appreciate--art, as it was to fit

himself for other services to the State. Yet, do not forget it, the

Hellenes were a race of traders and manufacturers, like the backbone of

our communities to-day.

CHAPTER II

HELLENIC ARCHITECTURE

We have noted in the previous chapter that Hellenic art, like Hellenic

culture generally, was a product of the senses guided by the

intellect--the expression of intellectualised sensations. To his crude

sensations the artist applied very much the same process that the modern

scientist has applied to crude oil, until, through experiments guided by

observation and reasoning, he has developed refined oil, which gives the

purest and intensest possible illumination. Thus the Hellenic artists,

through generations, refined upon the forms of their architecture, to

create a unity, distinguished by fitness, proportion, harmony and

rhythm, until they brought it to the highest degree of expressional

capacity; appealing alike to feeling and to reason. It reached its

highest expression in the temple, the supreme monument of the

community’s civic consciousness.

The developed form of the Hellenic Temple resembled the Egyptian in

being a product of the “post and beam” principle of construction; but

differed in its purpose that the outside rather than the inside should

present superior dignity of design. The chief feature of the latter was

the Order, as it is called in Hellenic and Roman architecture, or

combination of columns and entablature. It might be confined to a

portico at the entrance or supplemented by another portico in the rear,

or still further extended by a colonnade that surrounded all

[Illustration: SOME TEMPLE PLANS P. 120

TEMPLE OF POSEIDON, PAESTUM. HEXASTYLE-PERIPTERAL

PARTHENON. OCTOSTYLE-PERIPTERAL

TEMPLE OF APOLLO, BASSÆ

DISTYLE IN ANTIS

TEMPLE OF JUPITER OLYMPUS, ATHENS. OCTOSTYLE-DIPTERAL

ERECHTHEION. AT THE LEFT IS THE “NORTH PORCH” OF THE CARYATIDES]

[Illustration: HELLENIC ORDERS

(COLUMNS AND ENTABLATURES.) PP. 123, ET SEQ.

IONIC ORDER

DORIC ORDER

CORINTHIAN ORDER MONUMENT OF LYSICRATES]

[Illustration: ROMAN ORDERS

(COLUMNS AND ENTABLATURES.) P. 163

ROMAN IONIC ORDER

TEMPLE OF FORTVNA VIRILIS: ROME

150 B.C.?

SIDE ELEVATION OF CAPITAL

Doric Order.

ARCH OF

TIRVS: ROME

87 A.D.

ROMAN

COMPOSITE

ORDER

ROMAN TVSCAN

ORDER

ACCORDING TO

VIGNOLA

ROMAN

CORINTHIAN

ORDER

TEMPLE OF CASTOR

AND POLLVX, ROME.

6 A.D.

]

[Illustration: MODEL OF THE ACROPOLIS

(RIGHT) ROMAN GATEWAY AT PROPYLÆA; (LEFT) ERECHTHEION. ADJOINING REMAINS

OF EARLY TEMPLE OF ATHENÆ; BEYOND IS THE PARTHENON; BACK OF THE LATTER,

TEMPLE OF ROME AND AUGUSTUS]

[Illustration:

MODEL OF THE PARTHENON

(RESTORED)]

[Illustration: THE PARTHENON

P. 140, ETC.]

[Illustration: TEMPLES AT PÆSTUM

POSEIDON, AT THE RIGHT. P. 125]

[Illustration: CHORAGIC MONUMENT

OF LYSICRATES, ATHENS. P. 131]

[Illustration: TEMPLE OF NIKE APTEROS

ATHENS, “WINGLESS.” NOTICE LOOPING FILLETS IN CAPITALS. P. 141]

[Illustration: PORTICO OF THE CARYATIDES. ERECHTHEION

IONIC ARCHITRAVE AND CORNICE; NO FRIEZE. P. 141]

[Illustration: DETAIL OF ORNAMENT

IN ORDER FROM BELOW: ANTHEMION, BEAD-AND-SPOOL, EGG-AND-DART,

BEAD-AND-SPOOL, HEART-LEAF. P. 132]

[Illustration: STATUES IN THE ROUND OF PERSEPHONE AND DEMETER

FROM THE EAST PEDIMENT OF THE PARTHENON. P. 135]

[Illustration: FIGURES IN HIGH RELIEF

FROM THE PROCESSION OF WORSHIPERS. FRIEZE OF THE PARTHENON. P. 135]

[Illustration: PLAN OF HOUSE OF PANSA, POMPEII

ENTRANCE FROM R. LEADING TO E. THE ATRIUM, WITH IMPLUVIUM IN THE CENTER.

F. PERISTYLE ENCLOSING A SMALL GARDEN OR FISH POND. B. LIVING ROOMS,

TRICLINIUM TO THE RIGHT. C. KITCHEN QUARTERS. SLEEPING APARTMENTS A. AND

OPENING ON THE COURTS. PLAN ENDS ON LEFT WITH PORTICO, OPENING ONTO

GARDEN. P. 181]

[Illustration: PLAN OF THEATRE OF DRAMYSSUS

ONE HUNDRED FEET TO ONE INCH]

four sides of the _cella_ or _domos_, house of the god, in which case it

is called a _peristyle_.

The emphasis of the order as a constructive and decorative feature has

been traced back by some students to the Dorian people’s primitive

custom of worshipping in groves. The religious ceremonies, which

included a procession of the worshippers, would be conducted amid the

trees surrounding the altar or shrine, and in time a roofing of cross

pieces thatched with boughs may have been attached to the trees.

Accordingly, those who adopt this view suggest that when the use of a

grove was succeeded by a constructed temple, the original feature was

the peristyle. And possibly there is a commemoration of this in the

peristyle of the Parthenon, where a procession of worshippers of the

goddess is represented in the sculptured frieze that embellishes the

outside of the walls of the cella--thus embodying in the most highly

developed form of Hellenic temple its origin in primitive religion.

The character of the form seems to have originated in wood construction,

certain features of which--to be referred to later--were retained after

stone or marble was employed and were translated into details of

decoration. The gradual transition to materials of construction, less at

the mercy of fire, is hinted at by Pausanias, a Greek geographer and

writer on art of the second century B.C., in his description of the

=Heraion= or =Temple of Hera= (Juno) at =Olympia=, the oldest known example of

a Doric Temple, attributed to 1000 B.C.

The cella wall, he says, was constructed of sun-dried bricks on a lower

course of stonework, but the entablature was still of wood, covered with

terra-cotta. One wooden column was still standing in the _opisthodomos_,

but elsewhere as the wooden columns decayed they had been replaced by

stone ones; the design of their capitals showing that the work of

restoration lasted from the sixth century to Roman times. The roof was

covered with tiles. The cella was divided into a central _nave_ and

_side-aisles_ by two rows of columns for the support of the roof, and

the aisles were intersected by small screen walls; thus forming alcoves,

corresponding to the side-chapels of a Gothic cathedral. In one of these

alcoves German explorers in 1878 discovered the _Hermes_ of Praxiteles,

which is probably the only marble statue in existence that was actually

wrought by the hands of one of the great sculptors.

=Early Doric Examples.=--The Dorian migration pushed down through

Macedonia and Thessaly into the peninsula of Greece and spread through

the islands of the Ægean as far as Crete, afterward planting colonies at

=Pæstum= and other sites in Southern Italy and at =Syracuse=, =Selinus=, and

=Agrigentum= in Sicily. Throughout all this wide area they carried their

particular style of Order--the Doric. In developing it, they brought

into play what has been judged their distinguishing trait of

character--sense of proportion.

The earliest known examples of Doric temples, built originally of stone,

are at =Corinth= and that of =Phœbus Apollo= on the island of =Ortygia=, at

the entrance to the harbour of Syracuse. In these, which are attributed

to the seventh century B.C., the columns are monoliths with widely

projecting capitals, and set so close together that the

intercolumniation was less than one diameter of the column. For the

early Greeks appear to have been distrustful of the bearing capacity of

stone as compared with wood.

Belonging to the sixth century are the colossal =Temples= =of Zeus= at

=Selinus= and =Agrigentum= and the =Temple of Poseidon= (Neptune) in =Pæstum=.

In the last the columns are composed of sections or “drums,” and there

are still in position in the cella the smaller columns, superimposed on

the main ones for the support of the roof.

The temples of the fifth century are distinguished by increased

refinement in the matter of proportion and details and by superior skill

and workmanship. They include the =Temple of Athene= (Minerva) on the

island of =Ægina=; the so-called =Theseum=, supposed to have been dedicated

to =Heracles= (Hercules), in =Athens=; and the =Temple of Zeus= which forms

one of the group of temples at =Olympia=. It is the most complete

temple-group yet discovered, and was the scene of the religious

ceremonies in connection with the Pan-Hellenic Games.

With the second half of the fifth century began the supremacy of Athens

in the affairs of Hellas under the rule of Pericles, which enabled her

as custodian of the Hellenic treasury to undertake the beautifying of

the Acropolis. This culminated in the =Parthenon=, the noblest example of

the Doric style and, as Mr. A. D. F. Hamlin writes, “the most faultless

in design and execution of all buildings erected by man.”

Following, apparently, the tradition of worshipping in groves, the

Dorians placed their temples in a _temenos_, or enclosure in which were

other shrines, altars, and treasuries. Whether this temenos was on a

hill-top, as in the case of the Acropolis in Athens and the site of the

temple-group in =Agrigentum=, or in a valley on sloping ground as at

=Delphi=, the irregularities of the ground were taken advantage of in the

disposition of the buildings. Thus was created an ensemble in which art

and nature united, while in the case of a level site, as at =Olympia=,

=Delos=, and =Pæstum=, the temples were grouped in picturesque

irregularity.

=Temple Plans.=--The nucleus of the temple plan was the _naos_, containing

the statue of the deity. Adjoining it were other chambers, connected

with the ritual of worship; and this aggregate of naos and chambers,

enclosed within walls, is known as the _Cella_.

It was approached from the front, which faced the _east_, by a covered,

columned vestibule, open at the sides, called the _pronaos_. This was

often repeated at the rear under the name of _epinaos_, or, as the

Romans called it, _posticum_.

The pronaos was entered through a _portico_. When the latter was

composed of columns, set between the prolonged sides of the cella, the

type of plan was called _in antis_.

When the side-walls were not prolonged, but terminated in pilasters,

known as _antiæ_, and the supporting members of the front façade were

solely columns, the type was called _prostylar_ or _prostyle_.

If, under the same conditions the portico was repeated at the rear, the

type was called _amphi-prostylar_ or _amphi-prostyle_.

If the whole were surrounded by a colonnade or _peristyle_ the type was

_peripteral_; while if a second row of columns were added on each side,

as in the great =Temple= of the =Olympian Zeus=, erected in Athens during

the Roman occupation, the type was _dipteral_. The external aisle,

formed by the colonnade on each side was known as the _pteroma_.

Where there was no peristyle, but columns, known as false or

engaged, were built into the wall of the cella, the type was

_pseudo-peripteral_.

There are also to be mentioned the octagonal plan, as seen in the =Tower

of the Winds= in =Athens=; the circular peripteral plan of the =Tholos= at

=Epidauros= and the examples of irregular planning presented by the

=Erechtheion= and =Propylæa=.

The type was further distinguished by the number of columns--four, six,

eight, or ten--composing the portico, as, respectively, tetrastyle,

hexastyle, octostyle, and decastyle.

Thus the =Parthenon= is _octostyle peripteral_; Temple of =Poseidon=,

=Paestum=, hexastyle peripetral; of =Jupiter Olympios=, =Atucus=, _octostyle

dipteral_; of =Apollo=, =Bassæ=, _in antis_.

=Temple Form.=--The cella, or chamber for the god, was built originally of

wood; later of sunburnt bricks on a lower course of stonework, the whole

being coated with a thin layer of stucco, as is found to have been the

practice also in later Doric temples in Sicily and Italy, where the

material was soft stone. To protect it from the damp of the ground as

well as to dignify it, the cella was raised on a platform, approached by

steps.

On the top of the walls was laid a framework of timber sills, crossed by

transverse beams, on which stood posts to hold the ridge-piece, from

which the rafters sloped to the sills, so that the roof which was of

wood, covered with sunburnt brick and later by tiles, formed eaves to

protect the cella from the roof-rain.

The next step to add dignity to the entrance would be to prolong the

gable end in front and support it by posts, so as to form a porch or

portico. At first the weight of this might be chiefly carried by an

extension of the side walls. Then a superior effect of lightness and

dignity would be given to the portico by omitting the support of the

sides and substituting posts; while, for further embellishment, a

similar portico might be extended from the rear of the cella.

Then, in the search for dignity and also to give more protection from

weather to the walls of the cella, the eaves of the roof would be

further prolonged outward and made to rest on sills that were supported

by a series of posts. In this way the cella was completely surrounded by

a colonnade or peristyle.

As the use of stone or marble was adopted, the platform became the

_stylobate_, which was approached by three steps, carried along the

entire length of all the sides. The cella was built of marble or

stucco-covered stone, and marble or stone took the place of the sills

and beams of the roof, but the latter continued to be constructed of

wood, supported by small columns resting on the capitals of larger ones.

The outside sheathing of the roof was of terra-cotta or marble tiles.

Unlike the roof of an Egyptian temple which was raised in the centre to

admit clerestory windows, that of a Hellenic temple had an uninterrupted

slope. Whence then was the light derived for the interior?

=Lighting.=--Since all roofs, being of wood, have perished, the

explanations that have been attempted are purely conjectural. A remark

by Vitruvius, the Roman architect and author of ten books on

architecture, regarding the =Temple of Zeus= at =Athens= that it was

_hypæthral_ (open to the sky) has led to a suggestion that part of the

roof may have been open, as in the case of the Pantheon in Rome. But, at

the time he wrote, the cella was exposed because Sulla had carried off

to Rome some of the supporting columns. Another Roman writer, Strabo,

describes the decastyle =Temple of Apollo= near =Miletus= as hypæthral, but

gives as the reason the enormous size of the cella, in which precious

groves of laurel bushes grew. So, it is purely a surmise that the

portion of the roof may have been omitted and that the temples were

hypæthral.

Another theory, founded upon the discovery in a temple at =Bassæ= of three

marble tiles, or thin slabs, pierced with holes about 18 inches by 10,

is that some five of these, let into each side of the roof, would have

lighted the interior amply without admitting much rain. Again, the use

of marble tiles has afforded a suggestion that, Parian marble being very

translucent, the light might have penetrated through. James Fergusson,

on the other hand, conjectured that a trench was let into each side of

the roof; but this would have needed drains to carry off the water and

no sign of a system of drainage has been found in any temple. Other

authorities, however, maintain that it was only through the open doorway

that light was admitted, which owing to the clear atmosphere of Greece

and the reflection from the marble pavement, would be sufficient.

=The Orders.=--In Hellenic architecture there are two fully developed

Orders--or combinations of Columns and Entablature--the Doric and the

Ionic. To these are usually added a third, the Corinthian, which,

however, though invented by the Hellenic artists, did not receive its

full development as an independent order until employed by the Romans.

The principal members of the classic column are the _capital_, _shaft_,

and, except in the Doric order where the shaft was set directly on the

stylobate, the _base_.

=Doric Column.=--It is possible that the Dorians took the character of

their column originally from the example of Minoan architecture. For in

a fresco at Cnossos appear the façades of three temples with columns,

and the representation of the latter corresponds with the facts

discovered in the actual remains of the palace. The columns are of wood,

and have no base, since the shaft is let into a socket in the masonry.

It is crowned by a _torus_, or circular cushion with a half-round edge,

on which rests a square block, the _abacus_. The shaft differs in one

respect, it narrows downward; whereas all Hellenic columns taper upward.

The reason assigned for the Cretan practice is that the tree-trunk was

inverted so that it might retain the sap.

All these features are reproduced in stone in the columns of the doorway

of the =Tomb of Atreus= at =Mycenæ=, which has been already mentioned. The

shafts of these columns are decorated with _chevrons_, whereas the

Greeks in their best examples never decorated the shaft, nor, in fact,

any other part of the structure that carried the chief strains.

Upon this crude type the Dorian architects continually improved until

they had evolved an order of the most subtle refinement. In the earlier

examples the diminution upward of the shaft is more pronounced than in

the Parthenon, where the diameter at the bottom is 6 feet 3 inches and

at the top 4 feet 9 inches, which gives a diminution of slightly over

one quarter of the lower diameter. The shaft, except in one or two

temples that were not completed, was always fluted. The flutes usually

numbered twenty, and were elliptic in section, meeting in a sharp edge

or arris, thus differing from the flat-edged fillet that separated the

flutings of the Ionic and Corinthian. In order to correct the optical

illusion, suggested in a diminishing shaft, that the contours are

concave, they were made slightly convex, the swell of this _entasis_,

as the convex is called, being greatest at about one-third of the

distance from the bottom.

As the shaft nears the capital, it is encircled by a narrow groove or

_annula_. At the top of the shaft is a series of annulæ, some of which

are cut in the shaft and others in the lower member of the capital, the

_echinus_, so that the shaft appears to project in a necking, into which

the capital is set. The _echinus_ is a circular cushion with an

eccentric curve; a curve, that is to say, that is not part of a circle.

(Compare by contrast the semi-circular curve of the _torus_.) Upon the

echinus sets firmly the _abacus_, a square block with a side measurement

the same as the diameter of the echinus.

The height of the column varied in its proportion to the lower diameter.

In the =Temple of Poseidon=, at =Pæstum=, the height is four times the

diameter; in the later example of the =Parthenon= nearly five and a half

times, while in the =Temple of Jupiter Nemæus= it is six and a half times.

The _intercolumniation_, or space between the columns, also varies. In

the older temples it was about one diameter of the column, the space

between the angle columns being always less; while in the case of the

Parthenon the distance varies from one diameter to 1.24; this being an

instance of deviation from geometrical regularity to be referred to

later.

It remains to mention the _antæ_. These were flat, right-angled columns,

projecting slightly from the wall of the pronaos at the corners, facing

the end columns. While they correspond to the latter, they differ in

three respects. The shaft did not taper and was set on a small base,

while the capital was distinguished by different mouldings. For the

mouldings suitable to a free-standing column, supporting actual weight

were felt to be unsuited for a member attached to a wall, whose

functions were decorative.

=Doric Entablature.=--The principal members of the entablature are the

_architrave_ or supporting member, the _frieze_ or decorative member,

and the _cornice_ or protecting member.

The _architrave_, as its name implies, “the chief beam” of the

entablature, rests immediately upon the abacus; its edge corresponding

neither with that of the abacus nor with the top edge of the shaft, but

so adjusted to both as to ensure a feeling of complete stability. The

architrave was usually plain[1] and crowned with a projecting fillet,

called the _tænia_, which beneath the _triglyphs_, is supplemented by a

lower fillet, known as the _regula_. On the under side of the latter

were six studs, which recall perhaps the wooden pegs with which the ends

of the beams in primitive construction were fastened.

The _frieze_ is a vertical surface, composed alternately of triglyphs

and metopes. The _triglyphs_, so called because they are divided into

three vertical channels, represent the ends of the primitive

longitudinal sills of the cella roof; and a recollection of the

woodworker’s craft was still preserved in the chamfer or hollow of their

outer edges. The function of the triglyphs was to support the cornice.

Generally they were set above and between the columns, but at each end

of the entablature one adjoins the corner, thereby increasing the effect

of stability.

The space between the triglyphs, called the _metope_, was originally

left open, except for a wooden shutter to keep out birds. But in the

most elaborate examples of later date the metope was decorated with

sculpture in high relief. Those of the Parthenon contained groups,

representing fights with Centaurs, Amazons, and Trojans.

Above the frieze was the cornice, which, as a protection from the drip

of the roof, projected to a distance, about one-third of the diameter of

a column. Its chief members were a vertical band, known as the _corona_,

and an under-part, the _soffit_. The latter sloped down under the corona

at about the same angle as the slope of the roof, and was decorated

above each triglyph and metope with a _mutule_ or square block, studded

with eighteen _guttae_, or drops, a device that recalls the method of

making fast the ends of the rafters with wooden pegs.

The cornice was carried up the two sloping edges of the roof, but here

distinguished by an additional feature, the _cymatium_ or gutter. The

triangle or gable thus formed by the three cornices was called the

_pediment_. It was embellished at the top and ends with small pedestals,

_acroteria_, on which stood figures or conventional ornaments.

In a Doric temple the corona, on the sides of the building was without a

cymatium, but studded instead with _ante-fixae_, ornaments of

terra-cotta or marble, placed opposite the end of each tile-ridge of the

roof. The latter, as we have already noted, was covered with tiles of

marble or terra-cotta, and finished at the top with ridge-tiles.

The mere reading of these details is dry enough. They should be read

with an eye on the examples illustrated but also with a mind constantly

alert to think out the function and appropriateness of each feature. For

the principle of Hellenic construction was that every member should

perform a special function. The architect’s logic would not permit him,

as we say, to send a boy on a man’s errand or waste a man by employing

him at boy’s work, still less to confuse the responsibility for the

function between two or more members. Accordingly, the student who is

reading intelligently will assure himself at each step as to what

particular responsibility was laid upon each member and how

appropriately it was fitted to its function.

=Ionic Order.=--From the grandiose simplicity of the Doric order we pass

to the slenderer and more graceful and decorated order of the Ionic. It

is almost like passing from a masculine to a feminine type: from a

reflection of the severe discipline of the old Dorian, as perpetuated by

the Spartans, to the more pleasure-loving and elegant life of the

wealthy Ionians; from the grave influence of the Olympian Zeus, chief

god of the Dorians, to the grace of the youthful Apollo and Artemis,

beloved of the Ionians.

For the Ionic order, as the name implies, was developed by the Asiatic

Hellenes whose migration from Armenia has been already noted. From them

the Greeks of Europe borrowed it. Among the earliest known examples are

a =Temple of Apollo= at =Naucratis=, in Egypt, and the archaic =Temple of

Artemis=, at =Ephesus=, both belonging to about 560 B.C. The remains of the

latter are in the British Museum. They include two capitals, inscribed

with the name of Crœsus, who is known to have contributed to the temple.

As in the Doric order, the Ionic temple rested on a _stylobate_ of three

steps, but the column is also provided with a base. The latter was

usually composed of two _tori_, of semi-circular profile, separated by

a concave moulding or _scotia_. Sometimes, as in the =Erechtheion= at

Athens, the base stood upon a square, flat base-block, or _plinth_.

Frequently the tori were embellished with horizontal flutings or the

interlacing wave-lines, called _guilloche_.

The Ionic shaft was proportionately higher than the Doric, being from 8

to 10 diameters in height as compared with the 4⅓ to 7 of the Doric.

Consequently, the entasis was less. The intercolumniation was sometimes

as much as two diameters. The shaft was incised with twenty-four narrow

flutings, separated by flat-edged fillets.

The capital usually commenced with a narrow convex moulding, called the

_astragal_, which was often enriched with the alternate bead and spool

ornament. Above this was the _echinus_, decorated with the egg-and-dart

pattern. But the _echinus_ is only partly visible, since it is

encroached upon by the main feature of the capital, a fillet that passes

across the face and at the sides winds inward upon itself, forming a

_volute_, which projects beyond the _echinus_. Above this was a low

_abacus_, enriched with ornament, on which set the _architrave_.

In some instances, as in the =Erechtheion=, the fillet forms a looping

curve, the volute is enriched with intermediate fillets and the necking

is decorated with the _anthemion_ ornament.

The Ionic capital presented awkward features which the ingenuity of the

architects never quite succeeded in disguising. In the first place the

abacus projected beyond the face of the architrave which from the side

view offered an unsightly appearance. Secondly arose the problem of

treating the volutes of the corner columns, so that the effect might be

symmetrical on both sides of the building. This was solved by converting

the side end of the capital into another face, the adjacent volutes at

the corner being brought out at an angle of forty-five degrees. This

results in an awkward arrangement at the back where two half-volutes

intersect each other at right angles.

The Ionic architrave consists of two or more _fasciæ_, or vertical

faces, projecting one over the other. This recalls the original wooden

construction and suggests that the Ionians used planks, while the

Dorians used a single beam. It was crowned with small mouldings,

frequently enriched with ornament.

Above this was the frieze, sometimes left plain, at other times enriched

with sculptured reliefs. It was joined by a moulding to the cornice.

The latter, in the simpler form adopted by the Athenians, consisted of a

plain corona, a fillet of _bead-and-spool_ ornament, a row of

_egg-and-dart_ moulding, and the cymatium or gutter, which was often

embellished with lion heads.

In Asiatic-Ionic examples, however, the cornice was more elaborate: a

row of narrow blocks or _dentils_, crowned with a carved fillet, being

inserted beneath the corona, while, further, the cymatium was

embellished with a repeat of the _anthemion_ decoration. This style is

distinguished by the term Ornamented Ionic.

The origin of the dentil may probably be traced to the Lycian Tombs,

where they are represented by the ends of the beams of the roof or

gable. The volute appears as a decorative feature on the façade of the

so-called =Tomb of Midas= in =Phrygia=. It also occurs as a decorative

feature in Assyrian art and is found in the capitals of the small

columns of a pavilion represented in the reliefs at Khorsabad. The

motive of the spiral is also found in Mycenæan jewelry. Professor

William H. Goodyear in his “Grammar of the Lotus,” suggests that the

volute may have originated in successive variations of the Egyptian

lotus patterns.

The Doric and Ionic orders were sometimes combined in the same building,

as in the =Propylæa=.

=Corinthian Order.=--The Corinthian order represents a still further

advance in ornateness, which however by the Hellenic architects was

confined to the capital of the column. For the base and shaft of the

columns and the entablature followed the Ionic order. The embellishment

of the capital may have been derived from the old custom of attaching

metal ornaments or actual foliage to altars and pedestals; and it may be

possible to trace the growth of the Corinthian style from the Ionic in

the repeat of palmettes that occurs below the volutes in the capitals of

the east portico of the =Erechtheion=. On the other hand, the general

bell-form of the capital may have been derived from Egyptian lotus

capitals.

The Corinthian order was used by the Athenians only in their smaller

structures[2] and reached its most refined form in the =Choragic Monument=

of =Lysicrates= in =Athens=. Here the flutings of the shaft terminate at the

top in leaves that curve outward. Above them is a band that may have

been covered with a bronze collar, from which spring a row of small

lotus leaves. Then come eight beautiful acanthus leaves, between each of

which is an eight-petalled rosette, suggesting a lotus-flower. They are

surmounted at the corners by stalks of the acanthus, partly sheathed

with leaves, that turn over with a spiral and form scrolls to support

the abacus. The latter in the Corinthian order has concave sides.

The details vary so much in Hellenic examples of Corinthian capitals

that, as we have already noted, the type had not yet been developed into

an independent order. Its final development was worked out by the

Romans, to whom its magnificence especially appealed.

=Ornament.=--The _acanthus_ plant belongs to Southern Europe and the

warmer parts of Asia and Africa. The common species found throughout the

Mediterranean, has large, deeply cut, hairy leaves. As a decorative

motive the Greeks first reproduced it in metal and then carved it in

stone, using it with particularly fine effect on the upright form of

tombstone known as _stela_. While they conventionalised the leaves, they

preserved the character of vigorous and at the same time graceful

growth. They gave a sharpness to the tips of the leaves that

distinguishes their use of it from the Roman.

The _anthemion_ ornament is often called the “honeysuckle pattern” from

its resemblance to that flower. But it is supposed to be a

conventionalisation of the flower of the acanthus, while related as a

decorative motive with the forms of the Egyptian lotus and the Persian

palmette.

The _egg-and-dart_ border presents a repeat in which the form of an egg,

set in a concave oval, alternates with a vertical bar that may or may

not terminate below in a more or less pronounced arrow-tip. It permits

the most subtle treatment of the planes of the egg, and of the contrast

between the smooth surfaces and the sharpness of the other details.

The _bead-and-spool_ repeat explains itself. It shows a variation,

according as the conventionalisation was derived from a spool that is

wound or that is unwound.

The _heart-leaf_, also sometimes called the _lily-leaf_, is a remarkable

instance of the closeness with which the Greek artist studied nature and

of the imagination he displayed in simplifying the natural form into a

convention, while at the same time preserving the principles of its

construction.

=Projections.=--Unlike Egyptian architecture, the Hellenic is

distinguished by the number and importance of its projections; which may

be compared to the lines, angles, and curves which constitute the

features of a human face and give it expression. They are the means by

which the architect engraves upon his buildings expressive designs of

light and shade. We have already spoken of the projections involved in

the column and entablature, but may now specifically enumerate the

various types of moulding that these involve; noting at the same time

the particular ornament that was employed on each, if it were decorated.

For such was the logic and refinement of the Hellenic taste that it

adopted motives of ornament that corresponded to the planes of the

surfaces of the moulding.

Thus, when the moulding took the form of the _cyma recta_--a curve

outward growing into a curve inward--Hogarth’s “line of beauty”--the

decorative feature applied to it was the anthemion, whose curves have a

corresponding direction. On the other hand, for the reversed form of

moulding, known as the _cyma reversa_ where the inward precedes the

outward curve, they used the heart-leaf. Again, the moulding known as

_ovolo_, in which the contour of an egg is followed, is enriched with

the egg-and-dart.

The _fillet_, a small band used to separate the other mouldings, was

usually left plain; as also were the simple hollow, called _cavetto_,

and the deep hollow which separated the two _tori_ in the base of

columns. When the torus was embellished, the motives used on the

semicircular surface were the interweave or plait, known as guilloche,

or rows of leaves, tied with bands, so that the moulding resembled a

wreath. Another small, separating moulding was the _bead_, which in

contour approaches a circle, and, when decorated, received the

bead-and-spool enrichment.

The distinction of the Hellenic use of all these mouldings and

enrichments was the extreme delicacy of the cutting, which the hardness

of the marble permitted and the clear sunshine helped to reveal; so that

it has been said that “while the Hellenes built like Titans, they

finished like jewellers.” But this did not involve a finicking

precision, for it was but an instance of the feeling for proportion and

choice relation of parts to one another that embraced the whole

building.

=Organic Relations.=--The height of the building was thoughtfully

proportioned to the length and width; the height of the shaft of the

column was considered in relation to the diameter. Similar care was

expended on the proportions of the several members of the capitals and

entablature, and the intercolumniation bore relation to the lower

diameter of the shafts. In every particular, great or little, the effort

was to create a unified impression of organic harmony and rhythmical

relations.

Now the term organic is primarily used of the living bodies of animals

and plants, the parts of which are not only connected but perform

certain functions in relation to the well-being of the whole. And it is

an extension of this idea that the Hellenes applied to the geometrical

harmony on which their architecture was based. They considered the

functions of each part--the amount of support it gave or strain it had

to sustain and so forth; and having made provision for this as

constructors, they were consistent to the principle also in their

æsthetic consideration as artists. They modified the sculptural

decoration according to the function of the parts; giving least to those

whose function of support was most important and increasing the quantity

and the boldness of the curving as the structural strain diminished.

Thus the shaft of the column was free of any carving except the fluting,

which, however, served the purpose of channels to carry the rain water

and helped to preserve the mass from decay. The capital in the Doric

style was not enriched with ornament, and similarly plain, with very few

exceptions, was the architrave. Meanwhile, sculptured figures in high

relief were introduced into the metopes which originally had been

openings, while the _tympanum_ or flat surface of the pediment received

groups of figures in the round. This increased boldness of relief,

accompanied by foreshortening of the figures, was adopted to offset the

diminishing effect that their greater distance from the spectator’s eye

would otherwise have suggested. Moreover, in the sculptures, as in the

carving of the mouldings, the varying quantities of light were

considered. The mouldings on the outside of a temple in full sunlight

were differently planned from those in the interior; and the shadow cast

by the cornices was taken into account in graduating the relief of the

sculptures in the metopes and pediments.

Nor was the actual work done by artists, but under their supervision by

pupils and masons. From the records of payments made to the sculptors

who worked on the Erechtheion it appears that they were ordinary masons,

some of them not even citizens, who were paid for each figure the sum of

60 drachms, or 12 dollars!

Finally, the decoration of a Greek Temple comprised not only sculpture,

but also painting. A large part of every Doric temple was covered with

strong, bright colours, while certain prominent details were treated

with elaborate patterns. The figures of the sculpture also were painted

and relieved against a background of contrasted colour.

It has been discovered that the triglyphs were painted blue and the

metopes red and that the mouldings were decorated with ornament in red,

blue, green, and gold. The walls and the columns were probably stained

yellow or buff, perhaps by the use of wax melted on the surface

(_encaustic_).

=Asymmetries or Refinements.=--It might seem that, in the various

particulars we have noted, Hellenic intellect and feeling had exhausted

the possibilities of refinement. But there is yet another instance,

which was first revealed by the detailed measurements of Hellenic

temples made independently by two Englishmen, Francis Cranmer Penrose

and John Pennethorne, and by a German architect, Joseph Hoffer. The

results were published in 1838 and in 1851, and have been corroborated

by other students. They are known as architectural “refinements” or

“asymmetries.”

It had been assumed that, since the form of the temple type was

apparently symmetrical, it also involved absolute symmetry of details;

that geometrical regularity and mathematical accuracy were the necessary

and natural conditions of the architectural design. By those

investigators, however, it was discovered that though the principles of

geometry and mathematics were the foundation of the planning and

designing, regularity and accuracy were purposely avoided; and that so

far from the details being symmetrical they exhibit intentional

asymmetries.

One of these irregularities is the substitution of curved for straight

lines. We have already mentioned the entasis or swell in the vertical

contour of the column--a fact not observed by modern architects until

1810; but curvature is also found in the horizontal lines of the

stylobate and the architrave, frieze, and cornice, and in the gable

lines of the pediments. And since these were discovered other variations

of equal importance and significance have been found.

“In the =Parthenon=, for instance,” (the quotation is from the writings of

Professor William H. Goodyear) “surfaces or members which are set true

to perpendicular are most exceptional. Perhaps the end walls are the

only exception. All the columns lean inward about three inches in thirty

feet toward the centre of the building. The side walls lean inward. The

antæ, or flat pilasters at the angles of the ends of the walls, lean

forward one unit in eighty-two units. The faces of the architrave and

frieze lean backward, whereas the acroteria, the face of the cornice and

the face of the fillet between architrave and frieze lean forward.

Furthermore, the columns and capitals of the Parthenon are of unequal

size, and the widths of the metopes and the intercolumnar spacings are

also unequal.”

The discovery of these variations was pooh-poohed by architects who had

been trained to believe that “correct” architecture depended upon

geometrical regularity and mathematical accuracy. They dismissed them

lightly as “mason’s errors.” But this will not hold for three reasons.

Firstly, these asymmetries only occur in the finest examples, where the

design and the details are of superior refinement and the skill of the

masons most unmistakable. Secondly, the number of variations increases

_pro rata_ with the superiority of the design, reaching their maximum in

the =Parthenon=. And, thirdly, in cases which are unquestionably due to

mason’s errors the amount of the variation is practically negligible. Is

it likely, for example, that the masons who brought the two ends of the

Parthenon within one quarter of an inch of being exactly equal in width,

would have been so careless as to let the presumably horizontal lines

curve up four inches on the sides of the buildings and two inches at its

ends? Or, again, would they have committed so flagrant an error as

giving the stylobate a convex curve upward, since it necessitated a

corresponding curve to the base of each column, a most difficult and

delicate operation of cutting? The perfect adjustment of these two

curves, by the way, is one of many arguments against the theory that

these variations were caused by settlements in the foundations or, in

the case of the Parthenon, by the explosion which wrecked it in 1687,

when it was being used by the Turks as a powder magazine.

The fact having been established that these variations were intentional,

how are they to be explained? A generally accepted explanation of the

curvatures in place of straight lines has been that they were intended

to correct an optical effect of curvature in the opposite direction.

Thus, if the contour of a column shaft were a straight line, it would

appear to the eye to curve inward; similarly, the horizontal lines of

the stylobate and entablature would appear to sag downward. Accordingly,

the “refinements” were designed as optical corrections of optical

effects of irregularity; in other words, geometrical effect is supposed

to have been sought by departures from geometric fact.

This, however, would not explain the other variations that have been

noted. Moreover, it is contradicted even in the case of curvatures by a

discovery of Professor Giovannoni of Rome, that the façade of the =Temple=

at =Uri= has a curvature in _plan_.[3] The columns, that is to say, are

not set to a straight line but to a curve which is concave to the

exterior; consequently the entablature is correspondingly curved, the

effect of which to the eye as it looks up is the very one that it was

explained the architects strove to avoid--a sag downward from the ends.

In this case they deliberately designed the façade to produce the

effect.

This explanation of optical corrections, then, as well as others, have

been proved erroneous by Professor William H. Goodyear, who has made a

life-long study of the subject and carried his investigations also into

Gothic architecture, in which, as we shall see, he has discovered

numerous instances of refinements and asymmetries. His explanation,

supported by a wealth of conclusive evidence which is set forth in his

“Greek Refinements,” is that the motive was æsthetic. The refinements

were modulations designed to please the eye by avoiding the inartistic

effects produced by formal monotony. They were planned to do away with

the monotony and rigidity that result from geometrical regularity and

mathematical accuracy and to introduce a suggestion of elasticity. They

imparted to the structure something of the irregularity that

characterises organic growth. It is because, with rare exceptions, they

are not found in modern classical buildings, that the latter appear by

comparison so stiff and formal.

These asymmetries, in fact, were intended to offset the liability of the

beauty’s becoming “faultily faultless, icily regular, splendidly null,

dead perfection, no more.”

* * * * *

With few exceptions the Hellenic temple was oriented; its four sides

facing exactly the four points of the compass, the principal entrance

being on the east. It opened into the cella which was usually divided

into what may be called a nave and side aisles by two rows of columns

which carried smaller columns that supported the pitch of the roof.

Where the cella was narrow, as in the =Temple of Apollo Epicurios= (“The

Helper”) at =Bassæ=, near Phigaleia, the rows of columns were replaced by

half-columns, attached to projections from side walls. The cella was

occupied by the statue of the deity, which in the case of the =Parthenon=

was the Athene Parthenos, the Maiden Athene, one of the most renowned

works of Phidias. The draped figure of the goddess was represented

standing, armed with helmet, spear and shield, supporting in one hand a

Wingèd Victory. The statue was about forty feet high and of the kind

known as “chryselephantine,” the draperies and accessories being of gold

plates, the flesh parts ivory, with precious stones inserted in the

eyes.

Behind this statue was the entrance to a small room, situated between

the cella and the opisthodomos, an exceptional feature from which the

name of the temple was derived. It was the Parthenon proper, or

Virgin’s Chamber, which seems to have been used as a treasury. Its

ceiling was supported by four Ionic columns.

The Ionic order in conjunction with the Doric was also employed in the

=Propylæa= or monumental gateway of the =Acropolis=. This masterpiece of

Mnesicles presents an irregularity of plan, exhibiting the Hellenic

architect’s readiness to adapt his design to the peculiarities of the

site. While Doric columns mark the exterior, Ionic were used in the

interior to dignify the central passageway. A similar use of this order

for interior embellishment was adopted by Ictinus, the chief architect

of the Parthenon, in his otherwise Doric design of the =Temple= of =Apollo

Epicurios=.

On the other hand, the Ionic order was employed on the exterior of the

=Erechtheion=, another work of Mnesicles also irregular in plan. It

occupies a sloping site on the Acropolis, where an older temple, burnt

by the Persians, had stood. Spoils of the Persian conquest were

preserved in it with other relics, held in special veneration. The

nucleus of the design is a cella without colonnades (apteral), the

sanctuary of Athena Polias (the City’s Guardian) and of Erechtheus (a

mythic hero of the Athenians) and the Ocean-god, Poseidon. The exterior

is distinguished by two Ionic porticoes, and by a third, a smaller one,

in which the columns are replaced by caryatides, six draped female

figures whose heads support the architrave. All these figures face

south, the three to the west resting their weight on the right legs; the

three eastern on the left--in each case the outer legs--thus giving to

the outer contour of their bodies the effect of entasis.

Another Ionic example on the Acropolis is the =Temple of Athene Nike=

(Victory), known as the Temple of =Nike= =Apteros=; the term “Wingless,”

however, not describing the statue of the goddess but, as used above,

the style of the design--without colonnades.

=Theatres.=--Only second in importance to the Hellenic temples were the

theatres. Both served as memorials of the ancient traditions of the race

and as an incentive to higher citizenship. For the drama, which had its

origin in religious observances, was a civic institution, maintained by

the state and free to all citizens.

The origin of the Greek drama is to be found in the primitive worship of

Dionysos, the god of productiveness, and to the last the Greek stage and

auditorium perpetuated in their form some trace of their religious

origin. The nucleus was an altar consecrated to Dionysos. In earliest

times each family may have erected its own altar, presided over by the

father of the family as priest. Later each community would have its

official priest, and on the god’s feast-day all the villagers would move

in procession to the common altar, headed by the priest and a choir of

singers, trained by him. The altar reached, the priest would mount the

pedestal, surrounded by the choir, while the body of worshippers

disposed themselves around the spot. The priest would recite the

greatness of the god and at intervals the choir of voices would chant

the dithyrambic song, moving around the altar and accompanying the song

with rhythmic movement of body and limbs.

From this root of a religious drama in time grew successive stems. The

prowess of some hero would be adopted as a theme. At first the priest,

or it may be some wandering poet, would narrate the story; later he

would treat it in the first person, impersonating the hero, sometimes

engaging in dialogue with the chorus. Still later, other personages in

the story would be separately impersonated, and so the scope of the

dramatic representation developed.

Meanwhile the affair still maintained a semi-religious character; the

place of presentation was still around the altar of Dionysos and the

chorus was retained, taking its part in the action with explanation and

comment, still delivered, however, in dithyrambic measure and with

accompaniments of rhythmic gesture. The platform of the altar being

limited in space, the dialogue was usually confined to two actors at a

time, though a third was sometimes allowed. If there were other

characters involved, these actors would often “double” the parts;

disguising themselves by change of costume, especially by the use of

masks. This demanded some kind of a screen behind which the actors could

change their costumes and also wait until their presence was required.

Skins hung upon poles would at first serve the purpose, or a _skene_ or

tent, from which we derive our word scene, might be used. Whichever it

were, it would interfere with the view of the action from the back and

so draw the audience to the “front.”

* * * * *

The most important remains of Hellenic theatres are the =Theatre of

Dionysos=,[4] cut out of the side of the Acropolis, and the theatre at

=Epidauros=, in Argolis, Greece. The plan of the theatre of Dionysos is

that of a semi-circle, the ends of which are prolonged for a short

distance in a direction at right angles to the front of the skene.

Within the horseshoe was the circular orchestra, still whole at

=Epidauros=, in which the main action was carried on by actors and chorus.

A different plan is given by the Roman architect, Vitruvius. It is to be

noted, however, that Vitruvius lived in the reign of Augustus, by which

time what was pure Hellenic had become modified by foreign influences

into Hellenistic. He relates, for example, that in his time the height

of the _logeion_ or speaking platform--the stage of to-day--was from 10

to 12 feet. In earlier times, including probably the period of the

Classic drama, the logeion was the platform around the altar,

supplemented possibly by a platform two or three feet high extending

across the front of the _skene_, from which, at certain points in the

play, some, at least, of the actors spoke. This platform, being in front

of the scene and enclosed at the sides by projections of the latter, was

called the _proskenion_, from which is derived our word proscenium with

its different meaning.

By the time that the Hellenic theatre had evolved into a permanent

structure, the _skene_, originally a temporary screen, took the form of

an architectural background, some ten feet high, with a central door for

the entrances of the actors. But the idea of the original screen was

perhaps retained in the row of columns which stood a little in front of

the _skene_, and could be used, if needed, for the hanging of curtains

or even of painted cloths. Meanwhile, the roof of the portico, which

extended from the columns to the _skene_, could be utilised by the

actors at certain stages of the drama.[5]

The interest of the discussion raised by Vitruvius’ description

consists in the question how far the actors mingled with or were

separated from the chorus, which continued to occupy the _orchestra_ or

circle on the floor of the auditorium, corresponding to the place of the

orchestra stalls in a modern theatre. The orchestra of a Greek theatre

was originally the sole “stage,” but gradually, as the dramas involved

more complexity of scenes, the actors would vary their position between

the orchestra and the proscenium; and later, in Hellenistic times, as

the religious origin of the drama was forgotten and the use of a chorus

began to fall into abeyance, the use of the proscenium would increase.

Finally, when the Romans began to imitate the Greek drama, they dropped

the chorus; the acting was confined to the proscenium, and the orchestra

no longer needed for the play, became a part of the auditorium, reserved

for distinguished spectators. The Roman theatre, in fact, like our own,

represented the complete separation of the audience and the stage.

=Odeion.=--Supplementing the theatre was the Odeion or concert hall, which

was constructed on the same general lines but distinguished by the

addition of a roof for acoustic purposes. The oldest known is the =Skias=

at Sparta, so called from its roof resembling the top of a parasol. The

=Odeion of Pericles=, which served as a model for subsequent halls, was

built on the southeastern slope of the Acropolis, its roof being made in

imitation of the tent of Xerxes and constructed of the masts of Persian

vessels, captured at the battle of Salamis. The most magnificent

example, however, was erected A.D. 162 on the southwest slope, by a

wealthy citizen, =Herodes Atticus=, in memory of his wife. Its ceiling is

said to have been composed of beams of cedar, carved with ornament,

while decorations in the form of paintings and other works of art

embellished the interior, which had accommodation for eight thousand

persons.

CHAPTER III

ROMAN CIVILISATION

Such empire as Hellas achieved was succeeded by the Roman Empire. The

earlier, as we have seen, was an empire loosely founded on kinship of

race, ideals, and character, and on common interests of commerce. It was

an empire of individualism; preserving the individuality of cities and

their individual states, producing a few men of rare individuality and,

as it spread throughout the Mediterranean, planting colonies which

maintained their independence both against the Motherland of Hellas and

the people in their immediate surroundings. It was, from the first, an

empire of the spirit and, as such, survived its physical dissolution and

has maintained its dominion over the human mind even to the present

time.

On the contrary, the Roman Empire, in so far as it succeeded, was an

empire of constructive organisation. It grew, cell by cell, each added

cell becoming gradually impregnated with the life-principle of the

earliest one, so that every part of the unwieldy body was an organic

part of the whole. Thus, in time, each independent city and its

adjoining community, alien races and huge slices of foreign territory,

became gradually absorbed into the practical system of government that

originated with the little settlement of Latins which first occupied the

Palatine Hill and then extended its authority over the seven hills of

Rome. Part after part became absorbed into the system of the Lex Romana

and enjoyed the benefits of the Pax Romana. The Roman citizenship,

judiciously extended over the whole empire, carried with it substantial

rights and equally substantial duties. The provinces of the empire

contributed men of learning, generals, and statesmen to the central

government. In time some of the provinces, notably those of Spain and

Southern France, became more characteristically Roman than Rome herself.

They had absorbed her system and her culture, and, far removed from the

petty intrigues which convulsed the capital, reached a degree of

civilisation that represented the finest product of the Roman ideal; an

ideal that included individual uprightness, a sense of service and

self-sacrifice for the common weal, and a high regard for order. It was

a practical ideal, little concerned with abstractions, not devoted to

excessive refinement, but centred on the effectual accomplishment of the

individual and collective requirements of everyday life.

It is true that this ideal was never fully achieved. This is only to say

that the ideal was truly human and therefore at the mercy of human

chances and weaknesses. Moreover, that it was really an ideal; a

principle of life, that is to say, which by reason of its bigness was

only possible of partial achievement. And if the Romans failed in

achieving theirs, they failed nobly, and with sufficient success to have

left behind them a legacy of law and order and constructive principles

of government that, like the cultural ideals of the Hellenes, survive to

the present time.

And the Roman Empire played a part in the progress of the world, more

immediately necessary than that of Hellas. The latter’s Empire of Spirit

was in advance of its age. The world outside of the scattered outposts

of Hellas was too rude, too backward in the very necessaries of life, to

accept its message of beauty. Recognising this, the Hellenes called all

other races and nations barbarians and held aloof from them. The Romans,

on the contrary, absorbed the aliens, instilled into them the rudiments

of their own civilisation, while taking advantage of any good trait in

the people themselves, so that they helped them to rise out of

themselves to a higher plane of living. In a lawless world they became

the great exponents of order, the upbuilders and engineers of a system

of organised society, and so firmly did they lay the foundations and so

strongly did they build that, although subsequent hordes of barbarians

overthrew the dominion of the empire of Rome and laid waste many of the

visible signs of her building, the destroyers were gradually absorbed

into her system and became its continuers.

Therefore, when we consider the Romans specifically in relation to

architecture, we look back to them as tireless and prodigious builders,

constructors, and engineers, whose sense of beauty in architecture, as

well as their aspirations in all branches of higher culture, were

derived from the Hellenes. Their respect for the latter was such that so

long as possible they tried to treat them as an independent power, with

whom they could pursue the mutual advantages of commerce. Gradually,

however, the tangle of politics made absorption necessary, and after a

series of invasions Hellas herself became a province of the Roman

Empire.

War, in those days, as for centuries after, involved the barbarous

practice of looting, and the Romans, with their shrewd instinct for

acquiring what they most needed for their own development, bore back

home in increasing quantity the treasures of architectural and

sculptural art. Later, as the power of Hellas dwindled, Rome became the

centre to which Hellenic artists and scholars flocked.

The conquest of Hellas and gradual absorption of a part of her culture

occupied the second century before the Christian era and the earlier

years of the first. By this time, however, Rome herself had become a

prey to the rivalries of political factions, beginning with the

conspiracy of Sulla and ending with the civil war that followed upon the

assassination of Julius Cæsar. The latter’s great-nephew, Octavianus, in

conjunction with Marc Antony, conquered Brutus and Cassius at Philippi

in Macedonia and Octavianus assumed authority over the West, while

Antony established himself as ruler in the East. But his infatuation for

Cleopatra raised the suspicion in Rome that he intended to marry her and

make himself despot of an Oriental empire with Alexandria as its

capital. War was declared against him as a national enemy and he was

defeated at Actium, B.C. 31. The authority of Octavianus was now

supreme. Republicanism, as a practical form of government, was dead.

Conditions demanded one-man rule and Octavianus, in B.C. 27, resigned

his office as Triumvir and received from the Senate the title of

Augustus, which hitherto had been reserved for the gods.

During this period of struggle the Hellenic influence had been rapidly

growing. The sons of the ruling class had Greek tutors; many studied in

the schools of Athens and Rhodes, and Roman writers began to emulate the

Greek authors. Cæsar published his Commentaries on the Gallic War and on

the Civil War; Sallust wrote on the Conspiracy of Catiline and the

Jugurthine War and Cornelius Nepos compiled biographies of eminent men.

Cicero published under the name of “Philippics” the speeches which he

made against Antony in the Senate, as well as “Letters” to various

friends on the topics of the times, while Lucretius composed in verse a

treatise on the “Nature of the World” and Varro was the author of an

encyclopædic work relating to the history, geography, agriculture, law,

literature, philology, philosophy, and religion of the Romans. To Varro

also had been assigned by Julius Cæsar the collection of a public

Library of Greek and Roman writers.

The enthusiasm for literature was encouraged by Augustus and his

minister, Mycæenas, who saw in it a means of allaying the bitterness of

party strife. To this, the “Augustan” or “Golden Age,” as the writers

called it in flattery of their patron, belong Horace, Livy, and Virgil.

In an effort also to lead the people back to the honourable simplicity

of their forefathers, Augustus revived the ancient religious ceremonies

and restored the temples. He became chief pontiff and, being regarded as

the son of the deified Julius--in reality, his great-nephew--was treated

almost as a divinity in Rome and deified by the provincials who built

temples in his honour.

It was in the Augustan Age that Roman architecture virtually commenced

and its developments are associated with Imperial rule. Of the period

immediately preceding the new era Mommsen writes as follows: “There was

in the world as Cæsar found it much of the noble heritage of past

centuries and an infinite abundance of pomp and glory, but little

spirit, still less taste and least of all true delight in life. It was

indeed, an old world; and even the richly gifted patriotism of Cæsar

could not make it young again.”

Rome, the heart of the Empire, was corrupt. The ruling class coveted

pensions from the public exchequer to be spent on luxurious living;

while the mass of the populace clamoured for “panem et

circenses”--feeding and shows at the public charge. To satisfy their

hunger both classes would have taxed the provinces. But among the chief

duties of the emperors were the development of the resources of the

provinces and the protection of the frontiers; and, while the best of

the emperors performed these functions from high motives, even the worst

found it politic to court the growing power of the provinces. Thus, the

main vitality of the empire was in its extremities, and, although the

emperors beautified Rome, they also encouraged public works of utility

and beauty in the provinces. To this end a law was passed, permitting

municipalities to receive bequests and gifts from private individuals.

In the liberality with which wealthy provincials enriched their

communities, Dr. Ferrero, the latest historian of Rome, has seen a

parallel to the munificent public gifts of American millionaires.

Accordingly, this great era of Roman building left its impress not only

upon Italy, but in Greece and northward as far as the Danube, in Asia

Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, along the whole Northern coast of

Africa, and in Spain, France, and Great Britain as far as the Firth of

Forth. It was distinguished not only by the magnitude of the operations

but also by their character.

Whereas in Egypt the architectural works had consisted of temples and

tombs; and in Hellas these had been supplemented by theatres and odeia;

while Assyria and Persia left their memorials in palaces, those of the

Roman Empire embraced all of these types and many more. The Romans

applied architecture to the practical needs of everyday life, and

reinforced it with engineering. They overlaid the Empire with fine

trunk-roads, many of which survive to-day; constructed sewers; spanned

rivers with bridges; conveyed water in countless miles of aqueducts;

erected fora and market-places, triumphal arches, temples, palaces,

villas, baths, basilicas, theatres, and hippodromes; providing alike for

the necessities of life, the needs of government, and the amusements and

luxuries of living.

To accomplish so prodigious an amount of building the Romans

systematised the methods of construction in regard to both the labour

and the material. The labour was mainly of an unskilled kind, including

soldiers of the legions, slaves, and subjects liable through debt or

other causes to statute labour. This employment of unskilled labour was

made possible by the Roman habit of carrying the principle of repetition

of motives to its utmost limit, and also by the methods of construction

which they invented.

This was the extended use of concrete. During the Republic the Romans

had followed the Greek method of building with large blocks of stone,

unconnected with mortar. Their practical spirit, however, urged them to

make a more economical use of materials and instead of composing the

walls entirely of blocks of stone or marble, they used these or bricks

as a facing, filling in the thickness of the wall with small fragments

of stone mixed with lime or mortar.

They had been led to this practice by the existence of _pozzolana_, a

volcanic product of clean, sandy earth, found in Rome and in greater

quantities at Pozzuoli on the Bay of Naples, which, when mixed with

lime, formed a concrete of exceptional hardness, strength, and

durability. Material, approximating the properties of pozzolana and

lime, was procurable in all parts of the Empire. Accordingly the use of

this method of construction gave a similarity to Roman building

everywhere.

While the chief, and almost sole building material in Greece was marble,

the geological formation of Italy supplied stone as well as marble and

plentiful supplies of clay, which was converted into terra-cotta or

bricks. The bricks were of two shapes: either square, from 1 to 2 feet

in size and 2 inches thick or triangular in plan and of about 1½ inches

in thickness. The latter were especially used for the facing of the

walls, their pointed ends being driven into the concrete to form the

smooth surfaces, while at the corners the points projected. In Rome

itself the following materials were available: _travertine_, a hard

limestone from Tivoli; _tufa_, a volcanic substance of which the hills

of Rome are mainly composed; and _peperino_, a stone of volcanic origin

from Mount Albano.

* * * * *

While Roman architecture was developed under the stimulus of Greek art

and culture it probably owes its origin to the example of the Etruscans.

The origin of this race is uncertain, but its own traditions ascribe it

to Lydia in Asia Minor, whence it may have passed during that general

migration from Hellas into Italy about B.C. 1000. It was for long the

dominant power in Italy, extending at various times over a territory

that reached from the Tiber to the Apennines, and southward into

Campania. This gave the Etruscans command of the Tyrrhenian Sea and made

them commercial rivals of the Carthagenians. Their enmity toward the

rising city of Rome would be natural and some authorities believe that

the reign of the Tarquin kings was a period of Etruscan domination. Then

the Romans expelled the tyrants, established a republic of their own,

and by degrees wore down the power of the Etruscans, who had become

enervated through increase of luxury. Their civilisation long antedated

that of the Romans. The earliest remains of art, found in Etruria, are

now believed to have been imported from Hellas; but the tombs have

revealed a quantity of later art objects which prove this people to have

been skilful in the modelling and colouring of terra-cotta, in mural

paintings, jewellery, and household adornments.

“The houses of the earliest period, to judge by the burial urns, known

from their shape as ‘hut-urns,’ were small single room constructions of

rectangular plan, similar to certain types of the _capanne_ used by the

shepherds to-day. Probably the walls were wattled and the roofs were

certainly thatched, for the urns show plainly the long beams fastened

together at the top and hanging from the ridge down each side.”

(Encyclopædia Britannica, “Etruria.”) Tombs erected even later than the

fifth century B.C. were cut in imitation of a most simple form of post

and beam construction. The elements of the decoration, such as capitals,

mouldings, rosettes, patterns, etc., were borrowed from Greece, Egypt,

and elsewhere.

The architectural remains comprise tombs, city walls, gateways, bridges,

and aqueducts, the walls of which are remarkable for their cyclopean

masonry, while the general character of the construction resembles the

early work of Tiryns and Mycenæ.

No example remains of Etruscan temples, but Vitruvius has described

them. The plan was nearly square and the cella was divided into three

chambers, since it was in groups of three that the Etruscans worshipped

their deities. The columns represented in rude form the Doric order, set

so far apart that it is concluded they were surmounted by beams of

timber. A further distinction of the Etruscan temple, adopted by the

Romans, was the replacing of the stylobate by a _podium_. This was a

continuous pedestal or low wall on which the columns were carried. It

was approached in front by a flight of steps, enclosed between the

prolongation of the side-walls of the podium. The most famous example

was the Temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline Hill, dedicated B.C. 509,

which contained three chambers, for the statues of Jupiter, Minerva, and

Juno. It was destroyed by fire B.C. 83, and rebuilt by Sulla, who

brought over for the purpose some of the Corinthian columns from the

temple of Zeus Olympius in Athens. (See p. 122.)

Until recently the great sewer, or “Cloaca Maxima,” of Rome, constructed

about B.C. 578, has been attributed to the Etruscans and considered a

proof that they introduced the use of the arch to the Romans. But in

1903, when excavating the Forum, Commendatore Boni proved that the drain

was originally uncovered and that the arch, which consists of three

rings of voussoirs, each 2 feet 6 inches high, was added at the end of

the Republic. “Thus the honour, not of discovering the arch, for it was

known in the East, as we noted, but of popularising its use, does not

belong to the Etrurians, though they did use it at a comparatively late

time for city gates, as at Volterra.” (Encyclopædia Britannica,

“Etruria.”)

* * * * *

Following Augustus, the emperors under whom Roman architecture chiefly

flourished were: Nero (A.D. 54-69), Vespasian (69-79), Trajan (98-117),

Hadrian (137-138), Septimus Severus (193-211), Caracalla (211-217), and

Diocletian (284-305). By Constantine (306-337) were inaugurated two

changes of policy, which affected the destinies of the world. For by

granting toleration to all religions he raised Christianity to equal

footing with paganism and thus paved the way for the power of the

Church; and in establishing his capital at Byzantium took the first step

in the partition of the Empire into East and West. Aided by his vigorous

efforts, architecture, which had declined, enjoyed a measure of revival,

in which, as we shall see later, the Church began to play a conspicuous

part.

With the commencement of the fifth century, A.D., began the irruption of

Barbarians. Attila’s Huns swept like a scourge over Europe, while the

German tribes conquered the provinces in turn and occupied them. In 455

Rome was sacked by the Vandals. In 476 Odoacer was proclaimed by his

troops King of Italy, and thus the Western part of the Empire was

finally separated from the Eastern. This is the date selected to mark

the “Fall” of the Roman Empire. Meanwhile the steady decline of the

power of the emperors had been long in process and was accompanied by a

corresponding increase in the power of the Popes. Henceforth, during the

“Dark Ages” of civil confusion, the influence and authority of the

Church were the chief sources of social as well as religious

organisation.

* * * * *

The Roman ideal of civilisation received its most characteristic

architectural expression in the several fora, beginning with the

oldest--the Forum Romanum. From ancient times it was the heart of the

city; the centre of civil activity; the scene of some of the most

stirring incidents in the growth of Rome; in later times the nucleus of

the pomp and pride of the Empire. Here at some time was erected a

cylindrical monument in three tiers, the Umbilicus or Navel of Rome, and

hard by it stood the Milliarium, a marble column, sheathed in bronze

and inscribed with the names and distances of the chief cities on the

great trunk-roads that radiated throughout the Empire from the

thirty-seven gates of Rome.

Between these two monuments extended a platform, decorated with the

bronze beaks of conquered vessels and hence called the Rostra, from

which any citizen could speak who had aught to say concerning the

commonweal. For it faced the Comitium or open space, which from earliest

times had been the meeting place of the General Assembly of the people.

It is true that the voice of the people was too often dominated by the

Patrician class whose Curia or Senate House overlooked the Comitium; but

the Comitium continued to represent, at least, the theory of Roman

Government and to be the veritable nucleus of the Roman Forum.

Since the Forum embodied the ideals and the progress of Rome, its

architectural aspects were continually changing throughout the more than

one thousand years of Rome’s vicissitudes. But without attempting to

follow these changes--many of which are shrouded in obscurity--let us

try to picture the Forum in its general aspects and particularly as the

embodiment of the Roman ideal.

The ancient citadel was the Capitoline Hill on which in early times had

been erected the temple already mentioned to the three divinities of

Male and Female Power and of Wisdom--Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva. It

corresponded to the Acropolis of Athens and her Parthenon. But whereas

the Parthenon was the nucleus of the Hellenic ideal, as embodied in

architectural glory--the embodiment of an ideal, detached and lifted up

above the common life--the formal grandeur of Rome descended from the

Capitoline Hill and occupied the low ground that separated it from the

Palatine, so that it might identify itself with the practical, everyday

ideals of the city.

And, first, for the purely practical. The southern side of the Forum was

in early times bordered with the tabernæ or wooden booths of the

butchers and other produce merchants, while on the north were the shops

of the gold-and silversmiths, and money changers. The Forum, in fact,

was the central market of Rome and came to be its financial centre, and,

as a necessary result, the centre also of legal and judicial procedure.

In later times, as the volume and intricacies of business increased, the

tabernæ were replaced by basilicas, which included halls of justice and

of exchange for merchants. Meanwhile, let us try to picture the Forum as

the embodiment of Roman ideals.

It was bounded on both sides by the Via Sacra, or Sacred Way; the two

forks uniting near the foot of the Palatine Hill, around which the

Sacred Way continued to its junction with the Appian Way. Its stones

were sacred because they had been trod by the countless hosts of Rome’s

victorious armies, returning in triumphal procession to pay their homage

to the deities of Male and Female Power and of Wisdom upon the Capitol.

As the soldiers swept out of the Appian Way, they would skirt the spot,

where in later times arose the Colosseum, and the roadway was spanned by

the Arch of Constantine, and a little farther on by the Arch of Titus.

From this the road advanced in an easterly direction and then turned

north.

Then from earliest times two objects would greet the victors’ eyes. Upon

the right stood the arch of two-headed Janus, god of gates and doors. It

was all but a certainty that its two doors would be standing open; for,

although this army was returning victorious, there were others almost

continuously engaged on the frontiers of the empire. So the soldiers,

glutted with fighting and hungry for the sight of their loved ones,

would turn more eagerly to the left, where rose the circular temple of

Vesta, guardian of the home and hearth. It was the symbol of the ideal

of sane and simple home life, on which the greatness of Rome was

founded, and as the Vestal Virgins thronged the steps of their convent

or atrium, hard by the temple, the eagles would be lowered and every

bronzed warrior would salute the maiden priestesses, who, in their

absence, had kept perpetually alive the sacred fire.

Just beyond this spot in later times Cæsar Augustus erected a Triumphal

Arch. Meanwhile, from Rome’s early days the victorious hosts would next

defile past the Temple of Castor and Pollux, memorial of the victory

gained at Lake Regillus with the help of these twin gods. Close by it

came to be erected the Temple of Cæsar, in front of which the great

Julius caused a rostrum to be placed, from the steps of which the

oration over his dead body was spoken by Marc Antony.

At this spot the veterans would enter the Forum proper, welcomed by the

cheers of the merchants; in old times, from the fronts of their booths

and later from the porticoes of the Basilica Æmilia on the right and the

Basilica Julia on the left. Then, both early and late in Rome’s history,

would be reached the ancient Temple of Saturn, god of seed growing and

the bounties of the soil, a god of meaning to the soldiers, for many a

veteran had been left behind in distant lands, planted upon farms that

were to consolidate the power and prosperity of the Empire. Moreover,

in some of the chambers of the Temple, which formed the official

Treasury of Rome, a part of their spoils of war would be deposited.

The procession by this time is filing past the Comitium, filled with

enthusiastic crowds, while orators welcome it from the rostra and the

Senators are ranged in ranks upon the steps of the Curia. The roar of

welcome is still in the ears of the host as it begins the ascent of the

Capitol, passing under the Arch of Septimus Severus, if the date be

after A.D. 203. Midway of the ascent, it passes the Temple of Concord,

memorial of the termination of the internecine struggle between the

Patricians and the Plebs; skirts the Tabularium, wherein the archives of

the Empire were preserved, and finally reaches the summit of the

Capitol.

Let us take one glance back before the picture fades. The scene is

superb but not without confusion. The Romans paid no attention to

orientation; consequently there is little uniformity in the placing of

the several structures. They vary not only in size and design, but also

in the direction which they face. In the contracted space the various

edifices seem crowded. Indeed, the conjectured restoration of the Roman

Forum and vicinity suggests rather a medley of magnificence.

But even in this respect the character of this heart of Rome, lying

between the Capitoline and Palatine hills, symbolised the magnificent

variety of elements that composed the Empire. One may find some parallel

to Rome’s confusion of appearances in the variety and, for the most

part, lack of an organic lay-out in the modern London, the present

mother-city of an Empire, founded, like the Roman, upon commerce, and

like it in having grown, cell by cell, transcending it, however, not

only in size but in grandeur. For the policy of the British Empire has

gradually evolved beyond the Roman, substituting for the process of

absorption the principle of free, self-governing dominions.

[Illustration:

Courtesy A. S. Barnes & Co. from “A History of Art,” by William H. Goodyear

CONJECTURED RESTORATION OF THE FORUM ROMANUM

LOOKING N. E. TO THE CAPITOL. ON LEFT, TEMPLE OF CASTOR AND POLLUX AND

THE BASILICA JULIA. RIGHT, THE CURIA. AT THE END, TEMPLE OF VESPASIAN]

[Illustration: MAISON CARRÉE: NÎMES

ENGAGED COLUMNS ON CELLA WALL (PSEUDO-PERIPTERAL) COLUMNS SURMOUNT THE

PODIUM. P. 169]

[Illustration: ARCH OF CONSTANTINE

ENTABLATURE, BROKEN ROUND COLUMNS. NOTE DECORATIVE USE OF LETTERING. P.

178]

[Illustration: PANTHEON, ROME

P. 171]

[Illustration: SECTION OF PANTHEON]

[Illustration: COLOSSEUM, ROME

P. 174]

[Illustration: SECTION OF COLOSSEUM

SHOWING THE SYSTEM OF VAULTING AND PIERS]

[Illustration: BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE

SHOWING THE BARREL-VAULTED CEILINGS. P. 178]

[Illustration: ROMAN VAULTING

FROM BATHS OF DIOCLETIAN. NOTE ABSENCE OF TRANSVERSE RIB AND DOMING. P.

166]

[Illustration: GOTHIC VAULTING

FROM SALISBURY CATHEDRAL. NOTE CURVE IN RIDGE BETWEEN GROINS. P. 272]

[Illustration: THEATRE OF ORANGE, FRANCE

CONJECTURED RESTORATION. NOTE RAISED STAGE, ARCHITECTURAL SCENE AND

CEILING ROOF, ORCHESTRA RESERVED FOR MAGISTRATES AND NOTABLES]

[Illustration: PLAN OF THEATRE OF ORANGE

CONJECTURED RESTORATION. P. 176]

[Illustration: PORTA AUREA

GOLDEN GATE, PALACE OF DIOCLETIAN, SPALATO, DALMATIA. P. 180]

[Illustration: PONT-DU-GARD; AQUEDUCT NEAR NÎMES

P. 183]

[Illustration: PERISTYLE AND COURT OF THE HOUSE OF THE VETTII

WITH GARDEN AND SCULPTURED OBJECTS RESTORED TO THEIR ORIGINAL

ARRANGEMENT. P. 181]

[Illustration: WALL PAINTINGS IN THE HOUSE OF THE VETTII]

CHAPTER IV

ROMAN ARCHITECTURE

The Romans enlarged the scope of architecture in the direction of the

art of the engineer. While Hellenic architecture had been an expression

of the faculties of reasoning and of taste, co-operating in a singular

harmony, Roman architecture was the product of reasoning stimulated by a

practical sense and an extraordinary energy and audacity. In place of

excessive refinement and sense of proportion, it is distinguished by

variety, vastness of scale and exuberance of decorative detail. While

every part of a Greek temple was constructional, having its distinct

function in contributing to the stability as well as adornment of the

whole structure, the Romans, as we have noted, had a uniform system of

building in which they applied the structural details of the Greeks,

very largely in the way of added embellishment.

Their aptitude for borrowing and adapting is apparent in their orders of

columns and entablatures.

=Roman Orders.=--In the first place, they borrowed from the Etruscans the

so-called Tuscan order. This had a rudimentary Doric form; the column

being seven diameters in height; the shaft unfluted and tapering toward

the capital, while the entablature was simpler, having no triglyphs,

mutules, or guttæ.

In borrowing from the Hellenes, the Romans made little use of the Doric

order. When it is used, as in the form of engaged columns in the =Theatre

of Marcellus=, the height of the columns was increased in proportion to

their diameters; the shafts were either smooth or channelled with

semicircular, instead of the subtler, elliptic flutings, separated by

narrow fillets; a base was added and modifications were made in the

details of the capital. The architrave did not overhang the face of the

column and was reduced in height; the triglyphs were used in the frieze

only over the centre of the columns, even at the angles, while the

cornice was lighter, with dentils sometimes taking the place of mutules.

The Doric, in fact, did not appeal to the Roman taste for rich

decoration, and, in so far as it was used, was degraded in style.

The same is true of the Roman adaptation of the Ionic order. Simpler and

more commonplace curves replace the extreme refinement of the volutes

and the fillet of the latter was carried invariably across the top of

the echinus or cushion, while the ornamentation of the entablature was

more profuse. The best use of this order is found in the upper story of

the =Theatre of Marcellus=; the worst, on the eight remaining columns of

the =Temple of Saturn= in the Forum Romanum.

The Corinthian order, of which no type sufficiently definite to

constitute an order had been evolved by the Greeks, was fully worked out

by the Romans, with the assistance of Greek artists, and became the

favourite expression of their taste for richness. The shaft was either

smooth, as in the early example of the Pantheon (B.C. 27), or fluted as

in the great temple of Castor and Pollux; the heights in these two cases

being respectively 9¾ and 10 diameters. A special base was designed,

consisting of tori, scotia, and fillets, resting on a square plinth.

The inverted bell of the capital was surrounded by an upper and lower

row of acanthus leaves, which differ from the Hellenic forms in being

blunter at the tips. Above the rows of leaves projected the stalks, or

“caulicolæ,” which terminated in spirals, both in the centre of each

face and at the angles of the abacus. The four sides of the latter are

concave and decorated in the centre with a rosette. In the more

sumptuous examples further enrichment of ornament was added to the

capital, while the capitals of the =Temple= of =Castor and Pollux= present a

unique instance of the central spirals being interlaced.

The Corinthian architrave in Hellenic usage consisted, it will be

remembered, of three bands, as in the Ionic order. The Romans frequently

embellished the middle one with a version of the anthemion motive. They

also added enrichments to the bed mould beneath the frieze. The latter

was frequently carved with acanthus scrolls, grotesque figures, and

ox-skulls, and garlands. The cornice was also enriched with carved

ornament, of which the most characteristic were _modillions_ or

brackets, which appear to support the cornice.

The Composite order was an invention of the Romans and possibly

suggested by the capitals of the =Erechtheion= in =Athens=, where the Ionic

spirals appear above a necking carved with anthemion ornament. The

capital of the Composite order consisted in the upper part of Ionic

spirals, often richly decorated with foliage, and in the lower of two

rows of acanthus leaves, as in the Corinthian order, which was followed

also in the other details of the column and entablature.

The mouldings in Hellenic architecture are distinguished by the

refinement of the contours, in Roman by the richness of carved ornament.

The anta, which appears in Greek temples at the corners of the cella

walls was developed by the Romans into the _pilaster_. This was a

square pier, projecting about one-sixth of its width from the wall; used

either to divide up and decorate the wall surfaces, or to serve as a

“respond” to a column. It was frequently fluted and corresponded with

the column in its details.

=Arch-Vaulting.=--The Romans did not invent the arch, but generalised its

use and elaborated it into vaulting, thus introducing into architecture

an element of construction capable of endless application and lending

itself not only to utility but also to variety and magnificence. In

doing so they were assisted by their discovery of the use of concrete.

By means of supports and sheathings of rough timber, temporarily

erected, they were able to cast their arches or vaultings in any form

and practically of any size. The concrete “set” quickly and the arch or

vaulting thus became a solid mass, which exerted but little thrust and

covered the space with the rigidity of a lid or cup.

Such method of construction lessened the tendency of the arch or

vaulting to exert a lateral strain or _thrust_ which occurs when the

arch is composed of _voussoirs_ or, similarly, separate blocks of stone

or brick are used in the vault. It tended to concentrate the strain on

the vertical supports. Yet the Romans, though concentration of strains

was a chief principle of their building, took no chances in the matter

of stability and also distributed the strains. For example, the nave

vaulting of a basilica would be reinforced by aisle vaulting, which was

carried on walls that were either at right angles or parallel to the

nave. But owing to the method of concrete construction and to the

facility with which it could be employed, the Romans were able to erect

vaults over buildings of complex plan and spaces of great size.

The vaultings were of three kinds:

1. The _semicylindrical_ vault, called also the _wagon-headed_ vault or

_barrel_ vault.

2. The _cross_ or _groined_ vault.

3. The _dome_ or _semidome_.

The semicylindrical vault was a continuous arch spanning an oblong

space, a corridor, and sometimes a curved passageway.

The cross or groined vault was used over square spaces, its weight being

carried at the four angles. It was formed by the intersection at

right-angles of two semicylindrical vaults. When employed over long

apartments or corridors, the ceiling was divided into a series of square

compartments or _bays_, each covered by a cross-vault. Since the

vaulting in each case was carried upon the corner supports, these became

piers, and the wall spaces in between them, being thus relieved of the

pressure of the vaulting, could be utilised for the openings of doors

and windows. Moreover, a square space could be subdivided into bays,

rendering it possible to vault a large area with no interruption to the

floor-space except that of the piers.

The dome was used for covering circular spaces, and when the space is

small the covering is called a _cupola_ or little cup. Semidomes were

employed over recesses.

The finest existing example of a Roman dome is that of the =Pantheon=,

which, however, affords an exception to the usual method of

construction. For here, instead of being composed of concrete, thus

forming a solid shell, the dome, so far as it has been examined, is

found to be built of bricks, laid in almost horizontal courses.

It is to be noted that the so-called “pendentive” dome, supported by

arches over a space, _square in plan_, is not found in strictly Roman

buildings and was a development of the Byzantine architects.

The Romans also employed flat roofs and ceilings. In certain of the

baths so much iron has been found amid the debris, that it is supposed

the roofs were constructed with a framework of this material, fitted

together with T joints. Otherwise the ceilings were made of crossed

beams, dividing the space into _coffers_. The exterior of the roofs was

covered with a sheathing of terra-cotta tiles or, as in the original

roof of the Pantheon, of bronze gilded plates, which now are replaced by

lead.

=Vault and Wall Decoration.=--Sheathing was also applied to the exterior

and interior of the whole structure, forming, as it were, a garment of

decoration. In the case of vaulting, the interior decoration was

composed of stucco coffering; square, hexagonal, or octagonal panels,

inclosed within raised framework that was arranged in a geometrical

pattern. Sometimes the coffering was replaced by mosaics; which were of

two kinds.

1. _Opus tessellatum_ formed of tesseræ or cubes of marble or glass,

arranged in patterned designs that often included figures.

2. _Opus sectile_, in which the tesseræ were cut into various shapes, to

form the pattern, as in marquetrie. A rich kind, made of red and green

porphyry, was distinguished as _Opus Alexandrinum_.

At other times the vaulting and walls were covered with hard plaster,

wrought to a fine surface, which was polished and frequently embellished

with mural painting.

The walls were also overlaid with slabs of coloured marble, in the

selection and treatment of which the Romans took a notable pride.

Further, both the exterior and the interior walls were relieved with

carved decoration, which took the form of pilasters, arches, mouldings,

and panels, encrusted with arabesques. These and the other

embellishments could be so easily applied to the concrete shell, that

Roman decoration had a tendency to become profuse and over-elaborated.

Whereas in Hellenic architecture every decorative detail was an

intrinsic part of the structure, Roman decoration was something added

after the structure was completed. It was, in effect, like clothing,

fitted to the form of the body, and varying in design and sumptuousness

according to the taste and purse of the wearer. Since architecture

generally was an expression of pomp, pride, and power, it was inevitable

that the richness of decoration should frequently run to extravagance.

To the lay-student, at least, the actual forms of Roman architecture are

of less interest than the uses to which they were put. For the Roman

genius was displayed in practicalness; in the resourcefulness with which

it extended the scope of architecture to serve the necessities and

ideals of life. Hence the temple-form has ceased to occupy the chief

attention; the truly monumental character of Roman architecture is

distributed over a variety of achievements of magnificence and utility.

=Temple Plans.=--The plan of the Roman temple was circular, polygonal, or

rectangular; the last being the most usual type. The best preserved

example is the so-called “=Maison Carrée=” at =Nîmes= in Provence, which was

erected during the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138). Its form is of the

favourite kind: pseudo-peripteral, that is to say, the columns which

surround the sides and end are not detached from but built into the

walls of the cella. The portico has a deep projection, supported by ten

detached columns. As usual in a Roman temple the stylobate is replaced

by a podium, in this case about twelve feet high, which projects in

front, enclosing the entrance steps. The columns are of the Corinthian

order, 32 feet in height, supporting an entablature which measures 8

feet to the lower angles of the pediment. The frieze is bored with

holes, in which it is supposed the letters of an inscription were fixed,

and the cornice is richly decorated.

Another very interesting example at =Nîmes= is the so-called =Temple of

Diana=, which probably was a _nymphæum_, or structure for flowers,

statuary, and fountains, attached to some _thermæ_. The plan shows a

central chamber, flanked by two passages; the exterior walls being

devoid of columns. Meanwhile, the interior walls of the central chamber

have a series of detached columns, supporting an entablature from which

spring the curves of the barrel-vaulted ceiling. The outward thrust of

the latter is offset by the continuous vaulting of the side-passages. It

is probable, as we shall see, that this arrangement furnished a type for

many of the Romanesque churches of Southern France.

Of the circular temples the best known examples are the =Temple of Mater

Matuta= in =Rome=, the =Temple of Vesta= at =Tivoli=, and the =Pantheon=. Nothing

but a few fragments remain of the =Temple of Vesta= in the =Forum Romanum=.

The first named, situated in the =Forum Boarium=, is peripteral,

consisting of a cylindrical cella, 28 feet in diameter surrounded by a

circular colonnade of 20 Corinthian columns, 34 feet 7 inches high; the

whole standing on a podium raised 6 feet from the ground. In the case of

the Temple of Vesta at Tivoli the Corinthian columns, 18 in number, are

11 feet lower. “The reason for this difference,” writes Professor

Banister-Fletcher, “is instructive. The Temple of Mater Matuta, placed

in a low, flat situation, has columns of slender proportion in order to

give it the required height; whereas the Tivoli example, placed on the

edge of a rocky prominence and thus provided with a lofty basement, has

columns of sturdier proportions.” A further difference is found in the

foliage decoration of the capitals of the two temples; those of the

=Temple of Mater Matuta= having pointed leaves of the Hellenic type of

acanthus, while in the Temple of Tivoli the Roman type is adhered to.

The most famous circular example, as well as the most impressive of

Roman temples to the modern mind, is the =Pantheon=. Investigation has

proved that the circular part or Rotunda occupies the site of an earlier

nymphæum, on the south side of which, in the reign of Augustus, B.C. 27,

Agrippa erected a temple, consecrated to the Divinities of the Julian

house under the name of Pantheum (“all-holy”). Hence the inscription on

the frieze of the present portico: “M. Agrippa L. F. Cos. tertium

fecit.” This temple, which, from Pliny’s account seems to have had a

dome, was destroyed in the great fire in A.D. 80.

The present edifice was built by Hadrian, A.D. 120-124. The Rotunda

occupies, as we have said, the site of an ancient nymphæum, the floor of

which, however, was raised 8 feet. Agrippa’s portico was removed from

the south to the north side and set up with a front of 8 columns instead

of 10. There are 16 in all. The portico is supported by 16 Corinthian

columns, each a granite monolith 42½ feet high, with marble Corinthian

capitals. The tympanum was originally filled with bronze reliefs,

representing a _gigantomachia_, or battle of the gods and giants.

The walls of the rotunda, which are of solid tufa concrete, faced with

thin bricks, are nearly twenty feet thick. This mass was partly to

support the dome and partly to admit of eight recesses, opening from the

interior. One forms the entrance, while three of the others are

semicircular in plan and the remaining four rectangular. The exterior

walls, carried far above the spring of the dome, was veneered with

porphyry and marble and enriched with Corinthian pilasters and

sculptured ornament, a considerable part of which still exists.

Meanwhile, it is the interior of the building that presents the chief

impressiveness. Here the walls, which originally were faced with

precious Oriental marbles, extend to a height of only two stories,

crowned by the vast dome, which in the interior has a height equal to

its diameter--one hundred forty-two and one-half feet. It is embellished

with coffers, which in order to assist the perspective effect are

foreshortened, diminishing in width as they ascend. Thus the gaze is

carried up with a sweep to the central aperture at the summit, an open

circle twenty-seven feet in diameter, the sole source of light to the

interior. “One great eye opening upon Heaven--by far the noblest

conception for lighting a building to be found in Europe.” It is as if

the soaring imagination of the architect could brook no limit to its

vision and must incorporate with his vault the firmament itself. In this

magnificent audacity men have seen a symbolic reference to the ancient

worship of Jupiter, the god of gods, beneath the open vault of heaven.

Meanwhile, the architect may have derived the idea from the old nymphæum

with its court open to the sky. And of the two, some will prefer to

believe the latter, seeing in it a beautiful illustration of how the

artist can and sometimes will use the requirements of practical

conditions as an inspiration to the creativeness of his own imagination.

* * * * *

From structures circular in plan, we may pass to those in which the plan

had the form of an ellipse, or comprised as its chief feature portions

of a circle. In the first class belong the amphitheatres and to the

latter the various circuses and theatres.

The prototype of all these was the Hellenic Theatre, in the construction

of which the architect took advantage of a sloping site.

The Romans, on the other hand, with their general use of arch and

vaulting, were independent of natural assistance and usually built their

circuses and amphitheatres and theatres in the open.

=Circus.=--The Roman circus was an adaptation of the Hellenic Stadium,

which, however, was used chiefly for athletic games, while the Circus

was employed for horse and chariot races. The oldest was the =Circus

Maximus=, situated between the Palatine and Aventine; but the one of

which most remains have been preserved is the =Circus Maxentius=, near the

tomb of Cæcilia Metella on the Appian Way. Its plan presents a long

rectangle terminating at one end in a semicircle. Surrounding this were

tiers of marble seats, supported by raking vaults and an external wall

of concrete. At the square end were situated the _Carceres_ or stables

and down the centre of the rectangle ran a _spina_ or barricade, with a

_meta_ or post at each end to mark the turning points. “To graze the

meta” was a Roman saying for the taking of great chances. The course was

seven times round and on the top of the spina were oval objects, one of

which was removed on the completion of each lap of the race.

=Amphitheatre.=--The most magnificent of the amphitheatres was the

Flavian, known since the eighth century as the =Colosseum=, probably from

the colossal statue of Nero which once adorned it. Its plan is

elliptical, the main axis being about 615 feet and the shorter about 510

feet; while the arena, which is oval, is 281 feet long by 177 feet wide.

The number of spectators that it could accommodate has usually been

stated as 87,000; but the calculation is now said to have been based on

a misapprehension of the records and has been corrected to 45,000 seats

and standing room for 5000.

The exterior comprises four stories. The three lower are composed of

arches supported by intermediate piers which are ornamented with

columns, respectively, of the Tuscan, Ionic, and Corinthian orders. The

fourth story, which, when the amphitheatre was completed in A.D. 82,

appears to have been of wood, presents a wall adorned with Corinthian

pilasters. Between these, projecting from the cornice, were corbels,

pierced to hold the poles that sustained the _velarium_ or awning. The

imposing character of the exterior is due not only to the structure’s

immense size, but to the difference in unity secured by the application

of the three orders, and to the magnificently sweeping lines of the

entablatures.

The interior shows the arena surrounded by a smooth wall, above which

the seats rise in concentric tiers to the height of two stories. Here

they are bounded by a wall, through which are entrances to the seats

while it also acted as a parapet to the upper gallery. The fourth story

formed a continuous peristyle. The whole area for spectators was called

the _cavea_.

The place of honour was the circle nearest to the arena, called the

podium, in which sat the Emperor, senators, principal magistrates,

Vestal Virgins, and the provider or “Editor” of the show. In the

amphitheatre at Nîmes seats in the podium were also assigned to the

various guilds, whose names are still inscribed upon the seats with the

number of places reserved for each.

The principle of construction adopted in the Colosseum, as may be seen

from the plan, is that of wedge-shaped piers, radiating from the arena

to the exterior. These were connected by vaults which ran downward

toward the centre and also in concentric rings, forming passageways to

all parts of the cavea. The system is one of concrete vaulting resting

on piers of the same material, the latter being reinforced by tufa where

the pressure was greater and in the parts of greatest strain by blocks

of travertine, four feet thick, sheathed with brick work. “The supports

have been calculated at one-sixth of the whole area of the building.”

=Theatre.=--The form of the Roman theatre grew directly out of that of the

Hellenic, but was modified to suit the change which had come over the

character of drama. The religious origin of the Hellenic drama had been

completely left behind. There was no longer any pretence of a chorus;

accordingly the circular space of the orchestra, which had been used by

it, was now filled with seats, reserved for persons of distinction. It

became, in fact, that part of the auditorium which we still distinguish

as the orchestra seats.

Already, in later Hellenic drama, the action of the principal players,

which originally had been confined to the orchestra, had extended more

and more to the slightly raised platform in front of the proskenion. It

was therefore but another step to limit the action to the platform,

which, now that the orchestra was filled with spectators, was raised

higher from the floor, and, to accommodate the players, was made

broader. The separation of the actors from the audience was complete.

The proscenium now became a background, built up to represent a façade

of several stories, embellished with pilasters and engaged arches and

with niches holding statues. The remains of such a permanent “scene” are

found in the =Theatre of Orange=, in Southern France, where what we now

call the stage is 203 feet wide and 45 feet deep, framed in at the ends

by return walls at right angles to the proscenium. Near the top of the

walls are two tiers of corbel stones, pierced to receive flag-staffs

that supported the velarium.

=Baths.=--Public baths, _thermæ_, were as necessary a feature of Roman

cities as the amphitheatre. Rich citizens, like Mæcenas and Agrippa, set

the fashion of building them, and it was followed by emperors seeking to

ingratiate themselves with the populace. For the charge for admission

was only a quarter of an =as=--about one quarter of a cent or half a

farthing; and even this was waived by certain emperors.

The principal =Thermæ= in Rome were those of =Agrippa=, =Nero=, =Titus=,

=Domitian=, =Commodus=, =Caracalla=, =Diocletian=, and =Constantine=. Many of them

assumed immense proportions; the ground plan of the =Baths of Caracalla=,

for example, occupying a square quarter of a mile. Besides the actual

bathing conveniences, which included hot water baths, vapor baths,

cooling chambers and plunges, there were rooms for ball-playing,

gymnasiums, colonnades, libraries, theatres, and open courts with shade

trees.

From two of the sides of the =Baths of Caracalla= projected long

_exhedras_, or semi-circular recesses, furnished with benches, which are

supposed to have been the meeting places for the discussion of

philosophy and poetry. In fact, the great thermæ were the clubs of the

period; the resort of all classes, offering cleanliness to the poor,

luxury to the rich, and healthful exercise and opportunity of cultured

intercourse between those who desired it. And the highest skill was

represented in making the walls of the various chambers and reservoirs

impervious to moisture, in conducting and heating the water, and in

providing flues for hot air.

=Basilica.=--Equally characteristic of Roman life were the _Basilicas_.

These structures seem to have been intended at first to relieve the

congestion of business in the various fora and to afford quiet as well

as protection from the weather, for the transaction of business. The

earliest in Rome was erected B.C. 184 by Porcius Cato; hence called the

=Basilica Porcia=. Then followed the =Basilica Fulvia=, =Basilica Æmilia=, and

=Basilica Julia=, the last being the largest of the five which existed

during the reign of Augustus. In A.D. 112, Trajan built the great

=Basilica Ulpia= in connection with his forum, and some two hundred years

later was erected the vaulted =Basilica of Maxentius= or =Constantine= on

the Via Sacra. In all there came to be some twenty basilicas in Rome

alone.

One great interest of the basilica halls consists in the fact that from

them were derived the plan and form of the early Christian churches. It

has been conjectured that the plan of a basilica was derived from that

of a Greek temple, the cella walls being replaced by ranges of columns,

opening into the peristyle where in turn the columns were replaced by

side walls. The colonnades thus became aisles to the central nave; the

vestibule being retained at one end and later to be called a _narthex_,

while at the opposite end an apse projected. Here in the Roman basilica

were the seats of the quæstor and his assessors, occupied in early

Christian basilica churches by the bishop and presbyters.

The interiors of the Roman basilicas present two types of treatment. In

the =Basilica of Constantine=, for example, the nave columns were attached

to great piers which supported groined vaults, the thrust of which was

sustained by walls at right angles to the piers. These walls divided

each aisle into three _bays_, corresponding to the three bays of the

nave, and over each aisle-bay was a barrel-vault, which, being at right

angles to the nave, served as extra support to the nave-vaults. Light

was admitted through windows in the side walls of the aisles and also

through windows in the upper part of the nave, above the aisle vaults.

On the other hand, in the interior of the =Basilica Ulpia= a range of

columns, supporting an entablature, took the place of the piers on each

side of the nave. On the entablature rested another range of columns,

surmounted by another entablature, above which walls, pierced with

windows, were carried up to carry the flat, coffered ceiling. Both tiers

of nave columns opened into the aisle, which correspondingly had two

stories, the upper crowned with a flat ceiling.

=Arches, Columns of Victory.=--The magnificence of Rome and other cities

was further displayed in the Triumphal Arches and Columns of Victory

erected in honour of emperors and conquerors. The arch was of two types:

the single arch and the three-arched. A famous example of the former is

the =Arch of Titus=, which commemorated the capture of Jerusalem, A.D. 70.

Examples of the three-arched type are those of =Septimus Severus=, and of

=Constantine= in =Rome=, and the =Arch at Orange=. The façades were adorned

with columns of the Corinthian or Composite orders, partially or wholly

detached, supporting a _broken_ entablature--one, in which the

uniformity of projection is interrupted by a projection over each

capital. Above it is a top-story, known as the _attic_. The soffit of

the arch was richly coffered and the wall spaces embellished with

low-reliefs, representing incidents of triumph, while the attic bore

upon its face an inscription and was surmounted by statues or a

four-horse triumphal chariot (_quadriga_).

The most famous of all the pillars of victory is =Trajan’s Column=,

erected in connection with his Basilica. It is a column of the Roman

Doric order, mounted upon a lofty pedestal, the height over all being

147 feet. The shaft, 12 feet in diameter at the base, encloses a spiral

staircase of marble, while its exterior is decorated with a spiral band,

800 feet long and 3½ feet wide, carved with reliefs, representing

incidents in Trajan’s victorious campaigns against the Dacians. It stood

originally in a court of the =Basilica Ulpia=, from the several galleries

of which the sculpture could be viewed. The statue of Trajan which

originally adorned the summit of the pillar has been replaced by a

bronze statue of St. Peter.

A special pillar of imperial times was the Rostral Column, erected in

commemoration of a naval victory and decorated with the bronze beaks or

prows taken from the enemy’s ships.