TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of the paragraph. Some minor changes to the text are
noted at the end of the book.
[Illustration: ST. TROPHYME AT ARLES.]
A SHORT HISTORY
OF
ARCHITECTURE
BY
ARTHUR LYMAN TUCKERMAN
_WITH ILLUSTRATIONS BY THE AUTHOR_
[Illustration]
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
1897
COPYRIGHT, 1887, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
TROW’S
PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY,
NEW YORK.
“To build, to build!
That is the noblest art of all the arts.
Painting and Sculpture are but images,
Are merely shadows cast by outward things
On stone or canvas, having in themselves
No separate existence. Architecture,
Existing in itself, and not in seeming
A something it is not, surpasses them
As substance shadow.”
—LONGFELLOW, in _Michael Angelo_.
PREFACE.
I have written this short history of architecture to meet the
requirements of those who wish to become acquainted with the main facts
without having to read voluminous works, many of which are addressed, not
to the student, but to the connoisseur, who is presumed at the start to
have a knowledge of the subject sufficient to enable him to comprehend
critical and theoretical essays.
The plan I have adopted has been to trace the origin of each style, its
characteristic points and its connection with those which preceded and
succeeded it, without introducing technical terms or any but the most
important dates.
There is a temptation to enter into the social and political histories
of each building race, but brevity forbids this, as well as any of the
gushing descriptions usually found in modern handbooks on art.
I imagine that very few people have the time to read lengthy treatises on
architecture, but that there are many who would be glad to know the chief
historical facts, were these to be presented within a small
compass. I hope, therefore, that this volume may be of interest to the
general reader and may find its way to schools other than those which
make art matters their specialty, for it seems to me that if the average
schoolboy were taught as much about the history of the most useful and
beautiful of the creations of the people of each age, as about the manner
and quantity of warfare and slaughter in which they indulged, he would
obtain as valuable a quality of information.
ART SCHOOLS OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM.
March, 1887
LIST OF PLATES.
ST. TROPHYME AT ARLES, _Frontispiece_.
FACING PAGE
THE GREEK ORDERS, 56
PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF THESEUS AT ATHENS, 62
THE ROMAN ORDERS, 70
PALACE OF DIOCLETIAN AT SPALATRO, 73
PLAN OF THE PANTHEON AT ROME, 74
PLAN OF THE BATHS OF AGRIPPA, 75
PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF THE SUN AT BAALBEK, 76
PLAN OF THE OLD BASILICA OF ST. PAUL’S BEYOND THE WALLS, 89
ST. VITALE, OF RAVENNA, 92
THE TEMPLE OF MINERVA MEDICA, 93
THE TEMPLE OF VESTA, SOMETIMES CALLED THE TEMPLE OF HERCULES, 94
THE BAPTISTERY OF CONSTANTINE, 94
THE PENDENTIVE SYSTEM IN BYZANTINE DOMES, 97
CHURCH OF SERGIUS AND BACCHUS AT CONSTANTINOPLE, 98
PLAN OF ST. SOPHIA, CONSTANTINOPLE, 99
ROMANESQUE CONSTRUCTION, 121
COMPARATIVE SERIES, SHOWING GREEK, ROMAN, ROMANESQUE, AND GOTHIC
METHODS OF SUPPORT, 124
PLAN OF STRASBOURG CATHEDRAL, 128
CHEVET OF NOTRE DAME DU PORT AT CLERMONT, 130
PLAN OF RHEIMS CATHEDRAL, 134
PLAN OF AN ENGLISH CATHEDRAL, 136
PLAN OF ST. PETER’S AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED BY MICHAEL
ANGELO, 155
PLAN OF CHURCH OF THE HOTEL DES INVALIDES AT PARIS, 160
CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION, 1
I.—CELTIC OR DRUIDICAL REMAINS, 5
II.—THE MONUMENTS OF EGYPT, 10
III.—ASIATIC ARCHITECTURE, 30
IV.—GREECE, 52
V.—ETRURIA AND ROME, 68
VI.—THE EARLY CHRISTIAN STYLE, 88
VII.—THE BYZANTINE STYLE, 95
VIII.—MAHOMETAN ARCHITECTURE, 105
IX.—THE ROMANESQUE STYLE, 115
X.—GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE, 132
XI.—THE RENAISSANCE, 151
XII.—CONCLUSION, 162
A SHORT
HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE.
INTRODUCTION.
Architecture is an art combining the qualities of utility and beauty. Its
object is, and has been from its origin, to satisfy both the necessities
and tastes of the various building races.
For this purpose the two distinct, and yet closely related, sciences of
construction and decoration have been employed, and the history of the
progress which has been made in each, goes hand in hand with the history
of each age and each race.
The requirements of the inhabitants of every country have always been
defined by its character and climate, and, in order to satisfy these
requirements, the art has adapted itself to them and grown up and
expanded in the different fields in which it has been directed.
It is customary to explain the origin of the art of building somewhat as
follows: The first impulse of the barbarian, in whatever
part of the globe he may be born, is to seek a shelter from the varying
temperature of night and day. If he lives in the mountains, he chooses
the caves and clefts in the rocks for his habitation; if on the plain,
he follows the example of the animals and hollows out a retreat in the
ground where he may seek warmth and protection. Where the soil is rocky,
he gathers branches and moss, and piles them in such a manner as to form
a rude dwelling. Soon after, he perceives the inconvenience of these
untrimmed boughs, and remedies the discomfort by driving four straight
posts into the ground, and roofing them over with cross-pieces, inclined
so as to shed the rain.
This is the first semblance of a thoughtful construction, and the
improvements upon it gradually develop into the more studied forms of
architecture.
When the first requisite of shelter has been obtained, the early builder
cuts off the rough edges and carves upon the posts rude emblems of the
natural objects he sees about him, and in doing this takes the first step
in design and decoration.
When wood is not abundant, he seeks a similar result in stone, and
the treatment of each material gives rise to distinct principles of
construction.
The Greeks, who had marble-quarries of easy access, bridged over their
posts or columns with straight lintels, capable of supporting the weight
of the roof without danger of fracture. The Romans, who found their
travertine difficult to handle, built their baths and palaces of brick,
and, in seeking to connect their pillars and piers, adopted the round
arch as a means of effecting this end, and this round arch was the main
principle of Roman architecture. When, in due time, the pointed arch was
found to combine great strength and beauty, this new method of building
became the leading principle of Gothic art. So, according to each
necessity, the different styles of architecture arose.
When civilization increases the requirements of man, it is no longer
possible to begin a rude construction, and alter it afterward to suit
these needs; therefore it becomes necessary to consider beforehand all
the elements required, and, in order to facilitate this consideration,
drawing comes in as a simple means of placing before one all that enters
into the proposed building.
Therefore, in the study of architecture four divisions of the art must
be considered, namely: The construction of buildings with various
materials, the appropriate proportions of the same, their representation
by draughtsmanship and their history in various times and among various
peoples.
It will be readily understood that each of these divisions embraces a
wide scope individually, and yet no one can be separated from the others
without affecting the result as a whole.
It is proposed, therefore, to review briefly the history of this art, and
the causes which have affected it, in order that, knowing the reasons
which led to the formation of each style, the student may
follow its study with the practical understanding and logical inference
which lead to the best results.
* * * * *
The question of which country furnished the first or earliest period of
approach to civilization in the building of monuments or habitations has
been, and is likely to be, an open one for some time to come.
Speculative discussion on this point can serve no end of importance to
architects; it interests more especially the historian and antiquarian.
Consequently we will, for the sake of convenience, glance over the
periods of architecture in the following order:
1. Celtic or Druidical remains.
2. The Monuments of Egypt.
3. Asiatic architecture.
4. Greece.
5. Etruria and Rome.
6. The Early Christian style.
7. The Byzantine style.
8. Mahometan architecture.
9. The Romanesque style.
10. Gothic architecture.
11. The Renaissance.
I.
CELTIC OR DRUIDICAL REMAINS.
The Celtic race has left enduring marks of its power in the numerous
monuments which are found in various parts of Great Britain, France,
Germany, and Spain, and scattered through adjacent countries.
These consist of collections of huge uncarved boulders, arranged in
geometrical lines, and often found in the centre of vast plains, far
removed from quarry or mountain-side.
The more common forms are called “menhirs or peulvans,” signifying in
Celtic “long stones.” These are either found separately or ranged in long
parallel lines.
The most remarkable examples are at Carnac, in Brittany, where there are
twelve hundred of these huge stones, varying from three to eighteen feet
in height, ranged in eleven rows, leading to a semicircular enclosure.
What purpose they served, and whether of a religious or civil character,
has not been conclusively determined. Some consider that they
served to mark the burial-spot of the Druids; others that
they were landmarks or emblems of victory.
To another class belong the so-called Rocking Stones, which consist
of two immense blocks of rock, placed one upon the other, and either
balanced so exactly that the slightest touch will suffice to shake them,
or pivoted so as to revolve. There are examples at Tenanville, near
Cherbourg, in the north of France, and in Sussex, England. One of these,
called the “Great upon Little,” is estimated to weigh a million pounds.
Batissier considers them to have been erected by the priests, either to
strike terror and wonder into the hearts of the people, whom they sought
to hold in subjection, or as emblems of the world suspended in the air.
We know that they have existed from remote ages, as mention is made of
their antiquity by Pliny and Ptolemy.
Trilitha, or lichavens, are formed with three stones, two vertical
and one horizontal resting upon the others, in the shape of a rude
gateway. This is what they were probably intended for, though it has
been suggested that they were used for altars. Similar to these are the
dolmens, or table-stones, consisting of one large flat boulder supported
by several smaller ones. Their upper surfaces, as a rule, have channels
cut in them, which are generally believed to have been receptacles for
the blood of victims sacrificed upon them, and some are even hollowed
out in the shape of the human body.
The Merchants’ Tables, at Lochmariaker, are the most noted among the many
that still exist.
From fragments of skeletons usually found in the vicinity of dolmens, it
has been imagined that either the priests or their human offerings were
buried there as upon consecrated ground.
There are several instances where these dolmens form covered ways
or avenues, being placed one beside another in continuous line, and
generally surrounded by a plantation of trees. They are frequently
divided by blocks of stone into several compartments, and, like the
tumuli or barrows, were probably used as places of interment for the dead.
The most interesting, perhaps, of any of these groups of stones are the
“cromlechs”: enclosures formed of numerous boulders, arranged either in
elliptic rows or in concentric circles, with a large monolith in the
central point. Each circle is composed of a definite number of “menhirs,”
and the whole is usually surrounded by a ditch.
It is supposed that each stone represented a minor deity, and the central
one the chief of the gods. Their purpose apparently was to mark the place
of large assemblies, called together for the administration of civil,
military, and religious rites.
The cromlech of Stonehenge in Wiltshire is the most celebrated and one of
the largest known. The country folk call it the Cor-Gaur,
or dance of giants, and attribute its formation to the magic of the
famous enchanter, Merlin. It is composed of two circular and two elliptic
enclosures, the one within the other, and is several hundred feet in
circumference.
In none of these Celtic monuments is there anything which may be called
strictly architectural, but some of them illustrate a principle of
building which is of importance to note. To place a row of stones in
upright positions denotes no special phase of intelligent thought,
beyond a desire to permanently mark some interesting locality, but when
the ancient race which raised these massive rocks conceived the idea
of supporting one block upon a number of smaller ones, it had reached
a first principle of construction, destined to be employed for many
centuries afterward in some of the finest buildings. After the trilithon
came the table-stones, and from these it was but a step to the covered
alleys, which were in themselves a first conception of a rude habitation,
walled in and roofed over. There can be nothing more elementary than
this, and no simpler constructional expedient, in whatever country it
may first have been evolved. We do not know the precise date of Celtic
monuments, nor is it probable that they are as ancient as the Egyptian
pyramids, but as in any case they illustrate the transition from brutal
ignorance to an era of thought, we may place them at the commencement of
our chronological list. In the various themes and discussions advanced
by archæologists, and the strange legends and tales of the peasantry
with regard to them, we have no concern. It is sufficient for us to know
that they exist and afford us an insight into the dawning efforts of a
barbaric people to progress in the art which we propose to study.
II.
THE MONUMENTS OF EGYPT.
The history of Egypt is divided into five periods, from the earliest ages
down to its conquest by the Romans at the beginning of the Christian era.
The first period comprises the first fourteen dynasties of ancient kings,
among whom the most important are: Menes, founder of Memphis, Shoofoo
or Cheops, Shafra or Chephren, and Mycerinus, builders of the pyramids
of Gizeh, and the two Theban monarchs, Osirtasen I. and Amenemha III.,
by whom the tombs at Beni Hassan, the Labyrinth and Lake Moeris were
constructed. According to Bunsen these fourteen dynasties date from 3623
to 2547 B.C.
The second period is marked by the invasion of the Hyksos, or Shepherd
Kings, of whom there were three dynasties. They remained in power until
1625 B.C. and were a warlike and destructive race, leaving no permanent
traces of their occupation.
The third period is the most brilliant in Egyptian history, extending
from 1625 to 525 B.C., and comprising nine dynasties of great conquerors
and builders. The best known of these are: Amosis, Thothmes III., Sethi
I., Rameses II. (the Great), called also Sesostris, and Rameses III.
Under these kings the great temples of Luxor, Abydus, and Karnak were
erected and the arts were assiduously cultivated.
The Persians under Cambyses occupied the country in the year 525 B.C.
They were expelled a century later, but were again victorious in 340
B.C., and remained in possession until the conquest of Alexander the
Great in 332. This fourth period was as unproductive in works of art as
had been that of the Hyksos dominion.
After Alexander, the Ptolemys ruled until the close of the first century
before Christ. Their government promoted the cultivation of the arts and
industries and formed the fifth and last period in the history of ancient
Egypt as an independent state.
Of these five epochs there are, therefore, only three—namely, the first,
third, and fifth—during which architecture flourished, and these three in
reality form but one long period in the history of an art which remained
almost unaltered, scarcely either improving or receding, from the
remotest times to its last day.
Our knowledge of ancient Egypt has been chiefly derived from
bass-reliefs, mural paintings and hieroglyphics. The latter were
unintelligible until the discovery of the Rosetta stone by the French
consul Champollion, in 1798. This was part of a stone tablet bearing
three inscriptions, one in hieroglyphics, one in the Cursive letters used
by the lower classes, and the third in Greek. By means of this the old
alphabet was reconstructed and all the ancient inscriptions deciphered.
_TOMBS_.
The most important monuments of the first period are the pyramids, the
oldest of which were built between three and four thousand years before
Christ.
There remain about a hundred of these in the vicinity of the ancient
city of Memphis, extending over a considerable extent of country, and
others are found in Thebes and at Meroë in Ethiopia. There have been
many theories advanced upon the subject of their origin and purpose, and
many arguments set forth seeking to prove that they were observatories,
temples, granaries, meteorological monuments, or tombs. Nearly all modern
authorities agree upon the last as the most probable solution of the
problem, not only from the sarcophagi and mummies found within many of
them, and from inscriptions relating events in the lives of important
personages which adorn the walls of some of their inner chambers, but
from the fact that these buildings are never found beyond the confines of
cemeteries.
In erecting these monuments, the Egyptians usually selected a site upon
a rocky plateau, on which a space equal to the superficial area required
for the base was made level, a mound being left in the centre which was
bonded in with the masonry. Below this platform a sepulchral chamber and
connecting passage were hollowed in the rock. The pyramid was built over
this chamber and contained one or more additional apartments, reached
from the outside by narrow and inclined corridors. It was generally
constructed with blocks of limestone, in successive steps receding at
an angle varying from forty-five to seventy degrees. The outside was
afterward cased with slabs of polished syenite, upon which inscriptions
were engraved or painted. The interior chambers and corridors were
likewise lined with polished granite, sometimes so mathematically jointed
that a needle could not be pushed between the stones. Ceilings were
formed by inclined slabs resting against each other or the walls were
corbelled inward until they met.
The entrances to the passages were invariably closed and concealed, and
portcullises of heavy granite blocks, sliding in grooves, were placed
at intervals along the corridors, the more effectually to preserve the
sepulchre from violation. Nearly all have, nevertheless, been entered
and rifled, so that but little is left to aid the archæologist in his
researches. Fragmentary inscriptions and local observations compared
with the accounts given by Greek and Latin authors have, however,
resulted in the piecing together of what may be presumed to be an
accurate history of the pyramid-builders. The three largest pyramids
are situated at Gizeh, a small village near Cairo, and are respectively
those of Cheops, known also as Suphis or Shoofoo, Chephren or Shafra,
and Mycerinus.
The following table shows the dimensions given by two of the best
authorities:
SIDE OF BASE. PERPENDICULAR HEIGHT.
Sir G. Col. H. Sir G. Col. H.
Wilkinson. Vyse. Wilkinson. Vyse.
Cheops 756′ 764′ 480′ 9″ 480′ 9″
Chephren 707′ 9″ 453′ 454′ 3″
Mycerinus 364′ 6″ 208′
All of these are oriented and the entrances are all on the North sides.
This is a rule applicable to all the pyramids except that of Sakkarah,
which is placed without reference to the points of the compass and was
probably erected at a much later date.
The first or Great Pyramid contains one subterranean chamber, reached by
a passage some three hundred feet long, and two other apartments above
the level of the ground, the one above the other, called the King’s and
Queen’s sepulchres. The entrance to the connecting corridors is placed 45
feet above the ground and 23 feet away from the true centre in order to
deceive explorers. The Queen’s Chamber is about 18 feet square by 20 feet
in height, and is placed directly under the apex of the pyramid. It is 67
feet above the ground, and 71 feet below the King’s Chamber. The passage
leading to the latter is 28 feet high, formed by corbelled walls. This
chamber is roofed by a flat ceiling and measures 34 feet in length by
17 in breadth, and is 19 feet high. The walls and ceiling are built of
finely polished granite, and the apartment contains a sarcophagus of
the same material. The weight of the superincumbent masonry is relieved
by five other compartments placed over the chamber, four of which are
covered by flat slabs, and the fifth by inclined stones resting against
each other. It was in this highest compartment that some hieroglyphics
scrawled in red ochre on the walls were discovered, by means of which the
name Shoofoo became known. Herodotus says that one hundred thousand men
were employed during twenty years in building the Great Pyramid, after
they had devoted ten years, previous to its erection, to the construction
of a causeway to the Nile, over which the stone was carried, which had
been brought down the river from the Arabian hills.
Diodorus asserts that the number of workmen employed was upward of three
hundred and sixty thousand.
The second pyramid contains two chambers, the most important of which is
on the ground level, partly sunk in the rock. Its dimensions are 46 feet
long by 16 in width, and 22 feet high. Within it a granite sarcophagus
was found, containing the bones of an ox. This discovery gave rise to
much speculation, as to whether the pyramids were not originally intended
for the sepulchres of the animal deities worshipped by the
Egyptians, the bull Apis in particular. The third pyramid was covered by
a casing of polished red granite, formed of blocks with bevelled edges.
There are several chambers inside, one of which contained a mummy and
case, now transferred to the British Museum.
Near the pyramid of Cheops, on the same plateau, is the Sphinx. This
great statue, with a human head and the body of a lion, is carved in the
natural rock, deficiencies being made up by added masonry. Its dimensions
are colossal, the body being 140 feet long, and the face 30 feet high
by 14 feet in breadth. This mysterious creation was intended as the
representation of a god, and as such had sacrifices offered before it,
as the altars and temples erected beneath it attest. From inscriptions
upon a stone found near by, it is known that the Sphinx was called
Hor-em-khoo, “The Sun in his Resting-place.” The head was originally
surmounted by a royal helmet, the face had a beard, fragments of which
have been unearthed, and it is otherwise badly mutilated. This fanciful
creature has doubtless much affinity with the winged bulls and lions of
the Assyrian epoch.
The Egyptians also buried their dead in smaller tombs, in subterranean
vaults, and in catacombs excavated in the rock of mountainous regions.
A great number of these smaller tombs were built in the vicinity of
ancient Memphis and are now commonly called “mastabahs.” In arrangement
they were nearly all similar, the sepulchre consisting of three parts: a
temple overground, a pit or well, and a subterranean chamber. The temple
was in the shape of a frustum of a pyramid, the walls inclining inward
at an angle of seventy degrees. It contained one or several apartments,
used as places of assembly for the relatives and friends of the deceased,
who came at stated intervals to hold services and to bring offerings
of a suitable character. A list of these occasions was placed over the
entrance, and on a second tablet or stella, inside, the name, titles, and
virtues of the dead were recorded. The walls were brilliantly painted,
domestic and religious scenes being the usual subjects depicted. The
well-opening was usually concealed and filled with masonry. Its sides
were formed of slabs of granite down to rock level and then excavated in
the rock, sometimes thirty or forty yards below the surface. From the
bottom of the pit a doorway, usually walled up, opened into a chamber
containing a stone sarcophagus, in which the mummy was placed.
The finest excavated grottos are found at Beni Hassan and in the
neighborhood of Thebes. Those at Beni Hassan follow the type of the
“mastabah,” having the assembly hall, the well, and the chamber beneath,
all being hollowed out of the rock. The sides are decorated with columns,
architraves, and cornices, in imitation of constructive architecture, and
the ceilings are cut out to represent vaults, the uncarved
surfaces being adorned with paintings and hieroglyphics. The columns are
especially interesting, as having evidently furnished the Greeks with
the model for their Doric temples, and the order has in consequence been
called the proto-doric. They have a diameter of five feet and are sixteen
feet high; the shaft has sixteen sides with flutings and is surmounted by
a tile or abacus. Besides these, there are other columns with capitals
in the form of a lotus or papyrus bud, which are more commonly found in
Egyptian temples.
The tombs of the kings at Thebes are arranged on a different principle;
they consist of long sloping corridors opening into chambers and halls,
and penetrating in a continuous line into the mountain rock. There are
several groups, the most important of which is situated in the valley of
Biban-el-Molook, or the “Gates of the Kings.” The tomb of Sethi I., the
father of Rameses II., discovered by the explorer Belzoni in the earlier
part of the century, is the finest example, the sculpture and paintings
which it contains being very remarkable for their execution and of great
historical interest, as they illustrate very completely the manners and
customs of the ancient Egyptians. Every effort had evidently been made to
conceal the tomb, for not only was the entrance closed and covered with
loose rock, but the first chamber, reached by a succession of passages
and steep staircases, had been walled up and the four sides painted, so
as to have the appearance of being the limit of the extent
of the tomb. The hollow sound, caused by hammering on the walls at one
point, led the explorer to continue his efforts, which were rewarded by
the discovery of several more halls and chambers, terminating in a great
vaulted chamber, thirty feet long, containing an alabaster sarcophagus.
It has been conjectured that many of these excavated grottos were
occupied as residences by the kings and great personages of the empire
during their lifetime, and converted into sepulchres after death. The
custom of relatives meeting at intervals in an assembly hall connected
with the tomb does not seem to have prevailed here as at Memphis, but it
is not improbable that the great Theban temples were used, if indeed they
were not erected for this purpose.
The great mass of the people were not honoured by such magnificent tombs,
but were buried in subterranean vaults in the necropolis (Greek, “city of
the dead”) attached to each great town. The largest are those of Saïs,
Sakkarah near Memphis, Thebes, and Abydus. These underground galleries
were reached by deep wells, and often contained several stories of small
chambers in which the embalmed bodies were placed, together with vases,
statuettes, and other votive offerings. There were also cemeteries in
which the animals worshipped by the Egyptians were buried, containing
thousands of embalmed birds and reptiles, particularly the ibis and
crocodile. The Apis mausoleum at Sakkarah, where the sacred
bulls were interred, is one of the most important, the chambers and
galleries being excavated in the rock and covering an immense area. The
mausoleum was connected with the Serapeum, a temple above ground, where
the living bull was worshipped as a deity.
_TEMPLES._
There are two classes of Egyptian temples—those hollowed out of the
mountain rock, commonly called speos, and those built upon the open
plain and distinguished by the term “hypæthral” (Greek, “under air”).
The most important of the latter are the temples of Sethi I., at
Abydus; Amun re, at Kooneh; the great and small temples of Medeenet
Haboo, erected by Rameses III. and Thothmes II.; the Rameseum or
Memnonium, of Rameses II.; Luxor and Karnak, at Thebes; and the temples
of Denderah, Edfou, and Philæ, built by the Ptolemys. All of these
are similar in general plan, consisting of a greater or less number
of courts, halls, and sanctuaries, which in each case are placed “en
suite,” that is, one opening into the other in a continuous line, the
larger apartments being in about the centre of this line and gradually
diminishing in size, the last chamber being the smallest. As the main
characteristics of the largest temples apply in a modified form to
the smallest, a description of a complete temple would seem to be
the best way of explaining the usual arrangements. A wall of crude
brick usually enclosed the whole structure, which was surrounded by a
sacred grove, or temenos. This wall was entered by an outer gate, or
pylon, built in the shape of a frustum of a pyramid, and surmounted by
a coved cornice, the doorway having perpendicular or slanting jambs.
From this an avenue, or dromos, bordered with sphinxes with human or
rams’ heads, led up to the propylæa, or towers. The latter resembled
the outer pylons, but were on a larger scale, containing staircases
leading to upper terraces. They were spaced a short distance apart to
admit of a passage between them, which was entered through a second
gateway similar to the first. The sides of these buildings were usually
elaborately painted, and rings were inserted in the masonry to hold
the poles upon which the royal banners were hoisted. This second
entrance was often flanked by two obelisks—long tapering monoliths with
pyramidal summits, covered with hieroglyphic inscriptions recounting
the dedication of the temple by the king to his favorite divinity.
These obelisks were sometimes ninety feet high, and mounted upon
square blocks. They were not always of equal size, probably owing to
the difficulty of obtaining single stones of such enormous length. It
is of interest to note that their sides were made slightly convex in
order to prevent their appearing concave, which would be the effect
had they been left quite flat. A second set of towers, or propylæa,
with staircases, came next, with a court or area intervening. On each
side of this court a colonnade was generally placed; and sometimes
before the entrance to the towers two colossal statues of the king,
represented seated, with his hands resting upon his knees in the
conventional attitude of repose. The most famous are those known
as the Colossi of Memnon, which stand on the plain of Thebes. They
were probably in the court of the temple of Amunoph III., of which
scarcely any vestige now remains. They are fifty feet high, mounted
upon pedestals. One of them is called the Vocal Memnon, as, in ancient
times, it gave forth sounds at the break of day—a phenomenon more
easily explained as a trick of the priests, than by natural causes.
Beyond this court there was usually an inner vestibule, with columns
forming porticos on the four sides; those opposite the entrance being
connected by stone screens, reaching half-way up, forming a shaded
anteroom, or pronaos, to the great hall of assembly, which was the next
apartment.
The shafts and capitals of the columns varied in different buildings.
The plain cylinder, carrying an inverted bell decorated with palm or
other smaller leaves, or a capital in the shape of the lotus flower were
the commonest forms. A column, representing the stems of water-plants
bound together with rings, and swelling out at the top in the place of
the capital, was also often employed. Besides these, statues of kings,
or shafts surmounted by the heads of Isis or Osiris, were
used as supports. The architrave, or beam, did not rest directly upon the
capital, but upon an intermediate block. This block, when on the heads of
deities, was in the shape of a miniature pylon. The cornices were formed
of a deep cove and fillet decorated with winged asps.
Some idea of the size of these inner vestibules, or peristyles, may be
formed from the dimensions of that in the great temple of Medeenet Haboo,
which measures 123 by 133 feet, and has a height of 39 feet 4 inches.
Each of the porticos of the East and West sides is supported by five
columns; those on the North and South by eight Osiride pillars, having a
circumference of 23 feet and a height of 24 feet.
The great hall of assembly, which adjoined the vestibule, was generally
the finest portion of the temple. The architraves supporting the roof
rested upon a great number of lofty columns, which in the centre rose
to a greater height, in order to obtain a clerestory, by which the
hall was lighted. The largest of these is in the temple of Karnak,
measuring 170 by 329 feet. The central avenue consists of twelve
columns, 62 feet high by 11 feet 6 inches in diameter. Besides these
there are one hundred and twenty-two others, 42 feet 6 inches in height
and 28 feet in circumference. The lintel over the doorway by which it
is entered measured 40 feet in length. The sanctuary was contiguous
to the great hall, and terminated the suite. This consisted of a
chamber, either occupying the whole of the rear space, or
isolated by corridors on each side, with smaller sanctuaries opposite.
In many of these, altars and statues have been found, some of the former
formed of a single block, hollowed at the top and pierced through from
top to bottom, so that sacrifices placed upon them could be consumed
apparently without ignition, by means of fires kindled in subterranean
vaults.
In connection with the halls in the temple of Abydus and elsewhere
there were a number of vaulted chambers; the vault not being formed of
a series of true arches, that is, with joints radiating to a common
centre, but consisting of stone beams placed one beside the other, and
hollowed out on the under side. The arch, however, was not unknown to
the Egyptians—there are stone vaulted tombs at Sakkarah of the time of
Psammetichus (650 B.C.), and crude brick arches have been found at Thebes
dating as far back as the period of the eighth dynasty (2925 B.C.?). The
antiquity of the arch has been the subject of much debate, owing chiefly
to the fact that the Greeks made no use of it; recent explorations have,
however, shown that this constructive expedient was known both in Egypt
and Assyria many years before it was adopted by the Etruscans, to whom
its invention was long attributed.
The exterior walls of all temples were built on a batter, sloping inward
at an angle of about seventy degrees and with scarcely any openings.
The inside walls were perpendicular, and decorated with bass-reliefs and
paintings. These were often of a most elaborate character, and it is from
them that so much has been learned concerning the ancient history of the
country.
The rock-cut temples of Nubia are laid out on much the same plan. They
usually consist of a pronaos, naos, and sanctuary, forming a suite, with
an entrance marked by colossal statuary hewn out of the side of the
cliff. Some have a dromos of sphinxes, propylæa, and a peristyle court of
masonry preceding the excavated portions. The temple of Wady Sabooah is
the best example of the latter. Of the former none can compare with the
Great and Small temples of Aboo Simbel, or Ipsambool, which are of the
time of Rameses the Great.
The smaller of the two is dedicated to the goddess Athor, the Venus of
the Egyptians. The exterior is ornamented with six statues of deities
recessed in the rock, each measuring thirty-five feet in height. In the
interior there is a first hall, supported by square pillars, opening into
a corridor, flanked by smaller halls, leading to the sanctuary.
The front of the Great temple is adorned with four statues of the king
seated upon his throne, each sixty feet high. In the great hall there
are eight Osiride pillars, upward of thirty feet in height. The sides
of the speos are carved with bass-reliefs, representing the conquests
of Rameses the Great. There are some sixteen smaller chambers, the
suite terminating in the sanctuary, which contains an altar and four
statues—the three deities, Amun re, Phre, and Phtah, with the king
seated in their company.
Under the headings tombs and temples are comprised the chief
architectural works of the Egyptians. Besides these there were one or two
gigantic constructions, famous in antiquity, but which have now almost
disappeared. Of these, the Labyrinth and the Lake Moeris were the most
important. The former appears to have been an immense structure, half
palace, half tomb, built by Amenemha III., of the twelfth dynasty. It was
built on three sides of an open square, measuring about five hundred feet
on the side, consisting of numerous chambers and courts, in two stories,
one above and the other below the level of the ground. At the open end
was placed a large pyramid, of which the ruins still remain. Herodotus
admired the Labyrinth more than any other of the Egyptian buildings,
declaring it to surpass the pyramids in labour and expense. Near by was
the artificial Lake Moeris, formed to retain the Nile waters during
the inundation, for the purpose of irrigating the country surrounding
Memphis, during the dry season. It covered an immense area; tradition
says 450 miles in circumference. The banks were fortified with massive
masonry, and the waters distributed by means of locks and sluices.
The Egyptians appear as a civilized nation, having a scientific,
artistic, and political knowledge of no mean order, at a
time when the greater part of the world’s inhabitants were but a step
removed from the level of ignorant savages, and when, according to a
generally accepted chronology, the world itself had existed but a few
hundred years. The construction of the Pyramids reveals a building
capacity which has rarely been rivalled, requiring not only immense
mechanical power, but an accuracy of judgment and calculation in the
adjustment of blocks of granite weighing many tons, not simply piled one
above the other, but perfectly jointed and polished, and so disposed that
passages and chambers were roofed over and their ceilings relieved from
superincumbent weight by ingeniously contrived compartments, one above
the other, and closed by sliding doors of monolithic stones, the handling
of which could only have been successful by people well versed in the
theories of equilibrium and support; and yet all this was done at a date
which the best authorities agree in saying could not have been later
than three thousand years before Christ. Their temples show an equally
advanced erudition, and the paintings and hieroglyphics with which the
walls of these buildings are adorned give a faithful representation of
the customs of a people acquainted with the minor arts and sciences and
the appliances requisite for agriculture.
The admiration with which we may regard the excellence of so ancient an
art is tempered when we find that it contained no element of progress.
The monuments of the eighteenth dynasty, though numerous
and imposing, scarcely differ from those of the preceding period, and
even in the days of the Ptolemys, who encouraged the native art, there
was nothing attempted but a repetition of the old methods. From beginning
to end the arts were so fettered by conventionality and dogmatic laws,
opposed to originality or change, that the only improvements made were in
mere mechanical execution.
A great prevailing thought seems to have actuated this people,—that of
death and eternity. Their aim in erecting their buildings was to render
them quasi-eternal, and by embalming the bodies of the dead they even
sought to perpetuate the semblance of life. Their kings at the beginning
of their reigns commenced the construction of their own sepulchres,
employing hundreds of workmen and immense expenditure of the national
funds for the purpose, and countless thousands passed their lives in
hollowing temples in the mountain rock and in carrying huge blocks
from great distances for the building of the pylons and hypostylic
halls of the Nile, in which durability and massiveness were considered
all-important.
Egyptian architecture, simply from the enormous scale of everything
it produced, was always dignified and it had also the merit of severe
simplicity; but mere size can scarcely be rated as an artistic quality
of a high order, and on that account it cannot compare favourably with
the art of the Greeks, who were probably inspired by what
they saw in Egypt, but who, in their own work, succeeded in combining
the qualities of majesty and beauty without resorting to the use of
extraordinary materials.
III.
ASIATIC ARCHITECTURE.
It would, perhaps, be reasonable to suppose that in India, where the
Aryan race had its origin, the earliest traces of dawning art would be
found. It has, however, been fairly well established that all remnants
of very ancient art, which may have existed there in former times, have
now virtually disappeared, and that at present there are no remains in
Hindostan of a remoter antiquity than the second or third century before
the Christian era.
The architecture of India loses much of its interest for us from the fact
of its having had no influence upon the origin or development of the
European styles of building, which, starting in Egypt and Assyria, formed
a continuous chain, each linked with its predecessor and successor down
to modern times.
The Indians were, in fact, never a migratory or colonizing race of
people, and their architecture was a distinctly native production,
executed in accordance with the rules laid down by the priests in their
sacred books, having no affinity with the constructive principles of the
Western world and showing no trace of the arts practised by
Western nations, except in the slight resemblance of a few mouldings and
fragments of sculpture.
The chief structures of the country are temples, pagodas, and dagobas,
which are found in many different parts of the peninsular and adjacent
islands, resembling each other in general style, but with some local
peculiarities which have caused them to be usually classified in certain
comprehensive divisions, of which the following are the most important:
The Buddhist style, including the stambhas or lats, a species of
commemorative pillar, the stupas or topes, of which the best examples are
found at Sarnath and Manikyala, and the viharas of Bengal.
The Dravidian style, exemplified in the temples of Chidambaram, Tanjore,
Combaconum, and Madura, and the rock-cut temples of Mahavellipore, and
those known as the Kylas at Ellora.
The Indo-Aryan, or Northern, comprising the temples of Kanaruc,
Bhuwaneswur, Jajepur, and Cuttack, in the province of Orissa.
The stupas, or dagobas, were a form of structure specially erected for
the purposes of Buddhist worship. They were sometimes built in the
shape of a square tower upon rising ground, of which that at Sarnath,
north of Benares, is the best known. The more important, however, are
cylindrical and surmounted by a semicircular dome. These are usually
erected on artificial mounds or tumuli, and are constructed either with
jointed stones or with rough blocks bedded in cement. The interiors are
of solid masonry, with the exception of a small square chamber, used as
a repository for sacred emblems, the walls of which are continued up to
the top of the dome. The stupa at Manikyala, is of great size, being
upward of eighty feet in height, and measuring some three hundred feet in
circumference. The base of the building is in the form of a cylinder, six
or seven feet high, supporting an attic decorated with pilasters; above
this the walls recede, and are capped by a hemispherical dome. There are
a great number of dagobas in Ceylon, in the mountainous districts. They
are usually placed in a walled enclosure, and surrounded by commemorative
pillars. Smaller constructions of the same description are found in the
interior of some of the temples, being placed where the baldachins, or
altars, would be placed in Christian edifices.
The rock temples of India are of two classes, the one consisting of
grottos hollowed in the mountain side, and the other of a series of
monolithic buildings cut bodily out of the solid rock, and detached from
the surrounding hill plateaus by wide excavated areas.
The former, resembling the speos of Egypt, consists of long galleries,
divided into aisles by piers of the natural rock left at regular
intervals to sustain the superincumbent mass. A recess or sanctuary is
placed at one extremity, containing the statue of the divinity to whom
the temple is dedicated. In some cases the interior is terminated by a
semicircular apse with a hemispherical vault, and the entrance preceded
by a vestibule containing votive figures, the whole forming a plan very
similar to that of the Latin basilicas, which will be described in a
subsequent chapter. The grottos are frequently excavated in several
stories and connected by corridors and ramps.
The walls or sides are ornamented with rude sculptures, representing
various forms of animal life and monstrous creations of native fancy. The
piers or pillars are generally either square or octagonal, decorated with
mouldings and flutings, and having well defined capitals and bases. The
capitals usually support a stone beam or bracket, evidently in imitation
of those used in wooden construction, in which a similar expedient would
be employed to distribute the sustaining power over a wider surface
than that directly above the column or post. This imitation of wooden
forms, which we have already noticed in Egypt, is found universally in
all ancient constructions showing that in nearly every country wooden
architecture was employed before stone.
The group known as the Kylas of Ellora, is the finest example of the
temples fashioned both inside and outside from the solid rock.
The whole edifice is monolithic and situated in an oblong court formed by
a trench excavated “vivo saxo” on the four sides. The exterior surfaces
are richly carved, and the piers shaped to represent elephants, lions,
and fantastic creatures supporting the superstructure on their backs.
The court is entered from a monumental porch, the upper story of which
is connected with a small chapel by a bridge. This chapel is flanked by
two colossal elephants, and by two columns or towers standing isolated
on either side. A second bridge leads from this to the hall of Shiva,
the chief room in the suite, which is divided by sixteen columns, with
corresponding pilasters on the walls. At the farther extremity is the
sanctuary containing the statue of the presiding divinity. Beyond this
are open terraces, surrounded by chapels. The great hall is connected
laterally with subterranean chambers in the surrounding cliffs, reached
also from excavated corridors which follow the perimeter of the court,
the mass above being sustained by square piers spaced at short distances
apart.
The inside walls are decorated with bass-reliefs and the ceilings
ornamented with stucco relievos, which were originally brilliantly
painted. The height of the hall of Shiva is about fifty feet, the
hillside opposite to it being about ninety feet high.