A Text-Book of the History of Architecture A. D. F. Hamlin 1704 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Text-Book of the History of
Architecture

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: A Text-Book of the History of Architecture

Author: A. D. F. Hamlin

Release date: August 15, 2008 [eBook #26319]
Most recently updated: October 28, 2023

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/26319

Credits: Louise Hope, Joseph R. Hauser and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A TEXT-BOOK
OF THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE ***

This text uses utf-8 (unicode) file encoding. If the apostrophes and quotation
marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, you may have an incompatible
browser or unavailable fonts. First, make sure that your browser’s “character

set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change
the default font.
Technical Note: The illustrations were scanned at 500dpi and resized to 25%
(125dpi). They will therefore display slightly larger than their original size; the
exact value depends on your monitor settings. The Frontispiece and Figures
78 and 171 were printed as full-page plates and resized to 1/6, so they will be
a little smaller proportionally. The quality of the photographs reflects the
quality of the printed book.
Errors are shown with mouse-hover popups. Spelling variations are generally
unchanged. Details about some types of inconsistencies, including names,
are given at the end of this file.

COLLEGE HISTORIES OF ART
EDITED BY

JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L.H.D.

HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
A. D. F. HAMLIN

COLLEGE HISTORIES OF ART
EDITED BY

JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L.H.D.

Professor of the History of Art
in Rutgers College

HISTORY OF PAINTING
By John C. Van Dyke, the Editor of the Series. With Frontispiece and 110
Illustrations, Bibliographies, and Index. Crown 8vo, $1.50.
HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
By Alfred D. F. Hamlin, A.M. Adjunct Professor of Architecture,
Columbia College, New York. With Frontispiece and 229 Illustrations
and Diagrams, Bibliographies, Glossary, Index of Architects, and a
General Index. Crown 8vo, $2.00.
HISTORY OF SCULPTURE
By Allan Marquand, Ph.D., L.H.D. and Arthur L. Frothingham, Jr.,
Ph.D., Professors of Archæology and the History of Art in Princeton
University. With Frontispiece and 112 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, $1.50.

THE PARTHENON, ATHENS, AS RESTORED BY CH. CHIPIEZ.
(From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York.)

A TEXT-BOOK

OF THE

History of Architecture

BY

A. D. F. HAMLIN, A.M.
PROFESSOR OF THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
IN THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE,
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

SEVENTH EDITION
REVISED

L O N G M A N S , G R E E N , A N D C O.
91 and 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK
LONDON, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA

1909

Copyright, 1895, by
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.

All rights reserved.

First Edition, March, 1896
Printed and Revised, December, 1896.
December, 1898 (Revised)
October, 1900 (Revised)
October, 1902 (Revised)
September, 1904, June, 1906 (Revised).
November, 1907 (Revised)
January, 1909

Press of J. J. Little & Ives Co.
425–435 East 24th Street, New York

PREFACE.
The aim of this work has been to sketch the various periods and styles of
architecture with the broadest possible strokes, and to mention, with such
brief characterization as seemed permissible or necessary, the most
important works of each period or style. Extreme condensation in
presenting the leading facts of architectural history has been necessary, and
much that would rightly claim place in a larger work has been omitted here.
The danger was felt to be rather in the direction of too much detail than of
too little. While the book is intended primarily to meet the special
requirements of the college student, those of the general reader have not
been lost sight of. The majority of the technical terms used are defined or
explained in the context, and the small remainder in a glossary at the end of
the work. Extended criticism and minute description were out of the
question, and discussion of controverted points has been in consequence as
far as possible avoided.

The illustrations have been carefully prepared with a view to elucidating the
text, rather than for pictorial effect. With the exception of some fifteen cuts
reproduced from Lübke’s Geschichte der Architektur (by kind permission of
Messrs. Seemann, of Leipzig), the illustrations are almost all entirely new.
A large number are from original drawings made by myself, or under my
direction, and the remainder are, with a few exceptions, half-tone
reproductions prepared specially for this work from photographs in my
possession. Acknowledgments are due to Messrs. H. W. Buemming, H. D.
Bultman, and A. E. Weidinger for valued assistance in preparing original
drawings; and to Professor W. R. Ware, to Professor W. H. Thomson, M.D.,
and to the Editor of the Series for much helpful criticism and suggestion.
It is hoped that the lists of monuments appended to the history of each
period down to the present century may prove useful for reference, both to
the student and the general reader, as a supplement to the body of the text.
A. D. F. Hamlin.
Columbia College, New York,
January 20, 1896.
The author desires to express his further acknowledgments to the friends who have at various times
since the first appearance of this book called his attention to errors in the text or illustrations, and to
recent advances in the art or in its archæology deserving of mention in subsequent editions. As far as
possible these suggestions have been incorporated in the various revisions and reprints which have
appeared since the first publication.

A. D. F. H.
Columbia University,
October 28, 1907.

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY.
(This includes the leading architectural works treating of more than one period or style. The reader
should consult also the special references at the head of each chapter. Valuable material is also
contained in the leading architectural periodicals and in monographs too numerous to mention.)

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.
Agincourt, History of Art by its Monuments; London.
Architectural Publication Society, Dictionary of Architecture; London.
Bosc, Dictionnaire raisonné d’architecture; Paris.
Durm and others, Handbuch der Architektur; Stuttgart. (This is an
encyclopedic compendium of architectural knowledge in many volumes;
the series not yet complete. It is referred to as the Hdbuch. d. Arch.)
Gwilt, Encyclopedia of Architecture; London.
Longfellow and Frothingham, Cyclopedia of Architecture in Italy and the
Levant; New York.
Planat, Encyclopédie d’architecture; Paris.
Sturgis, Dictionary of Architecture and Building; New York.

General Handbooks and Histories.
Bühlmann, Die Architektur des klassischen Alterthums und der
Renaissance; Stuttgart. (Also in English, published in New York.)
Choisy, Histoire de l’architecture; Paris.
Durand, Recueil et parallèle d’édifices de tous genres; Paris.
Fergusson, History of Architecture in All Countries; London.
Fletcher and Fletcher, A History of Architecture; London.

Gailhabaud, L’Architecture du Vme. au XVIIIme. siècle; Paris.—Monuments
anciens et modernes; Paris.
Kugler, Geschichte der Baukunst; Stuttgart.
Longfellow, The Column and the Arch; New York.
Lübke, Geschichte der Architektur; Leipzig.—History of Art, tr. and rev. by
R. Sturgis; New York.
Perry, Chronology of Mediæval and Renaissance Architecture; London.
Reynaud, Traité d’architecture; Paris.
Rosengarten, Handbook of Architectural Styles; London and New York.
Simpson, A History of Architectural Development; London.
Spiers, Architecture East and West; London.
Stratham, Architecture for General Readers; London.
Sturgis, European Architecture; New York.
Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects; London.
Viollet-le-Duc, Discourses on Architecture; Boston.

Theory, the Orders, etc.
Chambers, A Treatise on Civil Architecture; London.
Daviler, Cours d’architecture de Vignole; Paris.
Esquié, Traité élémentaire d’architecture; Paris.
Guadet, Théorie de l’architecture; Paris.
Robinson, Principles of Architectural Composition; New York.
Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture; London.
Sturgis, How to Judge Architecture; New York.
Tuckerman, Vignola, the Five Orders of Architecture; New York.
Van Brunt, Greek Lines and Other Essays; Boston.

Van Pelt, A Discussion of Composition.
Ware, The American Vignola; Scranton.

HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE.

INTRODUCTION.
A history of architecture is a record of man’s efforts to build beautifully.
The erection of structures devoid of beauty is mere building, a trade and not
an art. Edifices in which strength and stability alone are sought, and in
designing which only utilitarian considerations have been followed, are
properly works of engineering. Only when the idea of beauty is added to
that of use does a structure take its place among works of architecture. We
may, then, define architecture as the art which seeks to harmonize in a
building the requirements of utility and of beauty. It is the most useful of
the fine arts and the noblest of the useful arts. It touches the life of man at
every point. It is concerned not only in sheltering his person and ministering
to his comfort, but also in providing him with places for worship,
amusement, and business; with tombs, memorials, embellishments for his
cities, and other structures for the varied needs of a complex civilization. It
engages the services of a larger portion of the community and involves
greater outlays of money than any other occupation except agriculture.
Everyone at some point comes in contact with the work of the architect, and
from this universal contact architecture derives its significance as an index
of the civilization of an age, a race, or a people.
It is the function of the historian of architecture to trace the origin, growth,
and decline of the architectural styles which have prevailed in different
lands and ages, and to show how they have reflected the great movements
of civilization. The migrations, the conquests, the commercial, social, and
religious changes among different peoples have all manifested themselves
in the changes of their architecture, and it is the historian’s function to show

this. It is also his function to explain the principles of the styles, their
characteristic forms and decoration, and to describe the great masterpieces
of each style and period.
STYLE is a quality; the “historic styles” are phases of development. Style
is character expressive of definite conceptions, as of grandeur, gaiety, or
solemnity. An historic style is the particular phase, the characteristic manner
of design, which prevails at a given time and place. It is not the result of
mere accident or caprice, but of intellectual, moral, social, religious, and
even political conditions. Gothic architecture could never have been
invented by the Greeks, nor could the Egyptian styles have grown up in
Italy. Each style is based upon some fundamental principle springing from
its surrounding civilization, which undergoes successive developments until
it either reaches perfection or its possibilities are exhausted, after which a
period of decline usually sets in. This is followed either by a reaction and
the introduction of some radically new principle leading to the evolution of
a new style, or by the final decay and extinction of the civilization and its
replacement by some younger and more virile element. Thus the history of
architecture appears as a connected chain of causes and effects succeeding
each other without break, each style growing out of that which preceded it,
or springing out of the fecundating contact of a higher with a lower
civilization. To study architectural styles is therefore to study a branch of
the history of civilization.
Technically, architectural styles are identified by the means they employ to
cover enclosed spaces, by the characteristic forms of the supports and other
members (piers, columns, arches, mouldings, traceries, etc.), and by their
decoration. The plan should receive special attention, since it shows the
arrangement of the points of support, and hence the nature of the structural
design. A comparison, for example, of the plans of the Hypostyle Hall at
Karnak (Fig. 11, h) and of the Basilica of Constantine (Fig. 58) shows at
once a radical difference in constructive principle between the two edifices,
and hence a difference of style.
STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES. All architecture is based on one or more
of three fundamental structural principles; that of the lintel, of the arch or
vault, and of the truss. The principle of the lintel is that of resistance to

transverse strains, and appears in all construction in which a cross-piece or
beam rests on two or more vertical supports. The arch or vault makes use
of several pieces to span an opening between two supports. These pieces are
in compression and exert lateral pressures or thrusts which are transmitted
to the supports or abutments. The thrust must be resisted either by the
massiveness of the abutments or by the opposition to it of counter-thrusts
from other arches or vaults. Roman builders used the first, Gothic builders
the second of these means of resistance. The truss is a framework so
composed of several pieces of wood or metal that each shall best resist the
particular strain, whether of tension or compression, to which it is
subjected, the whole forming a compound beam or arch. It is especially
applicable to very wide spans, and is the most characteristic feature of
modern construction. How the adoption of one or another of these
principles affected the forms and even the decoration of the various styles,
will be shown in the succeeding chapters.
HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT. Geographically and chronologically,
architecture appears to have originated in the Nile valley. A second centre
of development is found in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates, not
uninfluenced by the older Egyptian art. Through various channels the
Greeks inherited from both Egyptian and Assyrian art, the two influences
being discernible even through the strongly original aspect of Greek
architecture. The Romans in turn, adopting the external details of Greek
architecture, transformed its substance by substituting the Etruscan arch for
the Greek construction of columns and lintels. They developed a complete
and original system of construction and decoration and spread it over the
civilized world, which has never wholly outgrown or abandoned it.
With the fall of Rome and the rise of Constantinople these forms underwent
in the East another transformation, called the Byzantine, in the development
of Christian domical church architecture. In the North and West,
meanwhile, under the growing institutions of the papacy and of the
monastic orders and the emergence of a feudal civilization out of the chaos
of the Dark Ages, the constant preoccupation of architecture was to evolve
from the basilica type of church a vaulted structure, and to adorn it
throughout with an appropriate dress of constructive and symbolic
ornament. Gothic architecture was the outcome of this preoccupation, and it

prevailed throughout northern and western Europe until nearly or quite the
close of the fifteenth century.
During this fifteenth century the Renaissance style matured in Italy, where
it speedily triumphed over Gothic fashions and produced a marvellous
series of civic monuments, palaces, and churches, adorned with forms
borrowed or imitated from classic Roman art. This influence spread through
Europe in the sixteenth century, and ran a course of two centuries, after
which a period of servile classicism was followed by a rapid decline in
taste. To this succeeded the eclecticism and confusion of the nineteenth
century, to which the rapid growth of new requirements and development of
new resources have largely contributed.
In Eastern lands three great schools of architecture have grown up
contemporaneously with the above phases of Western art; one under the
influence of Mohammedan civilization, another in the Brahman and
Buddhist architecture of India, and the third in China and Japan. The first of
these is the richest and most important. Primarily inspired from Byzantine
art, always stronger on the decorative than on the constructive side, it has
given to the world the mosques and palaces of Northern Africa, Moorish
Spain, Persia, Turkey, and India. The other two schools seem to be wholly
unrelated to the first, and have no affinity with the architecture of Western
lands.
Of Mexican, Central American, and South American architecture so little is
known, and that little is so remote in history and spirit from the styles above
enumerated, that it belongs rather to archæology than to architectural
history, and will not be considered in this work.
Note.—The reader’s attention is called to the Appendix to this volume, in which are gathered some
of the results of recent investigations and of the architectural progress of the last few years which
could not readily be introduced into the text of this edition. The General Bibliography and the lists of
books recommended have been revised and brought up to date.

College Histories of Art.

A HISTORY OF PAINTING.
BY

JOHN C. VAN DYKE, L.H.D.
Professor of the History of Art in Rutgers College, and Author of “Principles of Art,” “Art for Art’s
Sake,” etc.

With Frontispiece and 110 Illustrations in the text, reproduced in half-
tone from the most celebrated paintings. Crown 8vo, 307 pages, $1.50.

“... The initial volume of a promising series ... seems a model of pith,
lucidity, and practical convenience; and that it is sound and accurate the
author’s name is a sufficient guarantee. Essential historical and biographical
facts, together with brief critical estimates and characterizations of leading
schools and painters, are given in a few well-chosen words; and for students
who wish to pursue the subject in detail, a list of selected authorities at the
head of each chapter points the way. Serviceable lists are also provided of
principal extant works, together with the places where they are to be found.
The text is liberally sprinkled with illustrations in half-tone.”—Dial,
Chicago.
“Prof. Van Dyke has performed his task with great thoroughness and good
success.... He seems to us singularly happy in his characterization of
various artists, and amazingly just in proportion. We have hardly found an
instance in which the relative importance accorded a given artist seemed to
us manifestly wrong, and hardly one in which the special characteristics of
a style were not adequately presented.”—Nation, N.Y.
“... Gives a good general view of the subject, avoiding as a rule all elaborate
theories and disputed points, and aiming to distinguish the various historical
schools from one another by their differences of subject and technique ...
we do not know of anybody who has, on the whole, accomplished the task

with as much success as has Mr. Van Dyke. The book is modern in spirit
and thoroughly up-to-date in point of information.”—Art Amateur.
“Professor Van Dyke has made a radical departure in one respect, in
purposely omitting the biographical details with which text-books on art are
usually encumbered, and substituting short critical estimates of artists and
of their rank among the painters of their time. This feature of the work is
highly to be commended, as it affords means for comparative study that
cannot fail to be beneficial.... Altogether Professor Van Dyke’s text-book is
worthy of general adoption, and as a volume of ready reference for the
family library it will have a distinct usefulness. It is compact,
comprehensive, and admirably arranged.”—Beacon, Boston.

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.,
91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK.

A History of Sculpture.
BY

ALLAN MARQUAND, Ph.D., L.H.D.
AND

ARTHUR L. FROTHINGHAM, Jr., Ph.D.
Professors of Archæology and the History of Art in Princeton University.

With Frontispiece and 113 Illustrations in half-tone in the text,
Bibliographies, Addresses for Photographs and Casts, etc. Crown 8vo,
313 pages, $1.50.

Henry W. Kent, Curator of the Seater Museum, Watkins, N.Y.
“Like the other works in this series of yours, it is simply invaluable, filling
a long-felt want. The bibliographies and lists will be keenly appreciated by
all who work with a class of students.”

Charles H. Moore, Harvard University.
“The illustrations are especially good, avoiding the excessively black
background which produce harsh contrasts and injure the outlines of so
many half-tone prints.”

J. M. Hoppin, Yale University.
“These names are sufficient guarantee for the excellence of the book and its
fitness for the object it was designed for. I was especially interested in the
chapter on Renaissance Sculpture in Italy.”

Critic, New York.

“This history is a model of condensation.... Each period is treated in full,
with descriptions of its general characteristics and its individual
developments under various conditions, physical, political, religious and the
like.... A general history of sculpture has never before been written in
English—never in any language in convenient textbook form. This
publication, then, should meet with an enthusiastic reception among
students and amateurs of art, not so much, however, because it is the only
book of its kind, as for its intrinsic merit and attractive form.”

Outlook, New York.
“A concise survey of the history of sculpture is something needed
everywhere.... A good feature of this book—and one which should be
imitated—is the list indicating where casts and photographs may best be
obtained. Of course such a volume is amply indexed.”

Notre Dame Scholastic, Notre Dame, Ind.
“The work is orderly, the style lucid and easy. The illustrations, numbering
over a hundred, are sharply cut and well selected. Besides a general
bibliography, there is placed at the end of each period of style a special list
to which the student may refer, should he wish to pursue more fully any
particular school.”

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., Publishers,
91 & 93 Fifth Avenue, NEW YORK.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

page

Preface

List of Illustrations (Figures 1–157) xi

CHAPTER I.
Primitive and Prehistoric Architecture 1

CHAPTER II.
Egyptian Architecture 6

CHAPTER III.
Egyptian Architecture, Continued 16

CHAPTER IV.
Chaldæan and Assyrian Architecture 28

CHAPTER V.
Persian, Lycian, and Jewish Architecture 35

CHAPTER VI.
Greek Architecture 43

CHAPTER VII.
Greek Architecture, Continued 60

CHAPTER VIII.
Roman Architecture 74

CHAPTER IX.
Roman Architecture, Continued 88

CHAPTER X.
Early Christian Architecture 110

CHAPTER XI.
Byzantine Architecture 120

CHAPTER XII.
Sassanian and Mohammedan Architecture—Arabian, Moresque, 135
Persian, Indian, and Turkish

CHAPTER XIII.
Early Mediæval Architecture in Italy and France 155

CHAPTER XIV.
Early Mediæval Architecture in Germany, Great Britain, and 172
Spain

CHAPTER XV.
Gothic Architecture 182

CHAPTER XVI.
Gothic Architecture in France 196

CHAPTER XVII.
Gothic Architecture in Great Britain 218

CHAPTER XVIII.
Gothic Architecture in Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain 237

CHAPTER XIX.

Gothic Architecture in Italy 254

CHAPTER XX.
Early Renaissance Architecture in Italy 270

CHAPTER XXI.
Renaissance Architecture in Italy—The Advanced Renaissance 288
and Decline

CHAPTER XXII.
Renaissance Architecture in France 308

CHAPTER XXIII.
Renaissance Architecture in Great Britain and the Netherlands 326

CHAPTER XXIV.
Renaissance Architecture in Germany, Spain, and Portugal 338

CHAPTER XXV.
The Classic Revivals in Europe 354

CHAPTER XXVI.
Recent Architecture in Europe 368

CHAPTER XXVII.
Architecture in the United States 383

CHAPTER XXVIII.
Oriental Architecture—India, China, and Japan 401

Appendix 417

Glossary 429
Index of Architects 431

Index 435

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

A few illustrations include links to larger versions. Figure 24 has been
reformatted for this e-text; it was printed vertically, with the Plan below the
Section. Figure 138 is shown as printed.

The authorship of the original drawings is indicated by the initials affixed: A. = drawings by the
author; B. = H. W. Buemming; Bn. = H. D. Bultman; Ch. = Château, L’Architecture en France; G. =
drawings adapted from Gwilt’s Encyclopædia of Architecture; L. = Lübke’s Geschichte der
Architektur; W. = A. E. Weidinger. All other illustrations are from photographs.
page

Frontispiece. The Parthenon Restored (from model in Metropolitan
Museum, New York)
1 Section of Great Pyramid (A.) 8
2 Section of King’s Chamber (A.) 9
3 Plan of Sphinx Temple (A.) 9
4 Ruins of Sphinx Temple (A.) 10
5 Tomb at Abydos (A.) 11
6 Tomb at Beni-Hassan (A.) 11
7 Section and Half-plan of same (A.) 12
8 Plan of the Ramesseum (A.) 14
9 Temple of Edfou. Plan (B.) 17
10 Temple of Edfou. Section (B.) 17
11 Temple of Karnak. Plan (L.) 18
12 Central Portion of Hypostyle Hall at Karnak (from model in 20
Metropolitan Museum, New York)
13 Great Temple of Ipsamboul 21
14 Edfou. Front of Hypostyle Hall 23

15 Osirid Pier (Medinet Abou) (A.) 24
16 Types of Column (A.) 25
17 Egyptian Floral Ornament-Forms (A.) 26
18 Palace of Sargon at Khorsabad. Plan (L.) 30
19 Gate, Khorsabad (A.) 32
20 Assyrian Ornament (A.) 34
21 Column from Persepolis (B.) 37
22 Lion Gate at Mycenæ (A.) 44
23 Polygonal Masonry, Mycenæ (A.) 45
24 Tholos of Atreus; Plan and Section (A.) 46
25 Tholos of Atreus, Doorway (after Clarke) (A.) 46
26 Greek Doric Order (A.) 48
27 Doric Order of the Parthenon. (From cast in Metropolitan 49
Museum, New York)
28 Greek Ionic Order, Miletus (A.) 51
29 Side View of Ionic Capital (B.) 52
30 Greek Corinthian Order (A.) 53
31 Types of Greek Temple Plans (A.) 54
32 Carved Anthemion Ornament, Athens 57
33 Temple of Zeus, Agrigentum; Plan (A.) 61
34 Ruins of the Parthenon 63
35 Plan of the Erechtheum (A.) 64
36 West End of the Erechtheum (A.) 64
37 Propylæa at Athens. Plan (G.) 65
38 Choragic Monument of Lysicrates. (From model in 67
Metropolitan Museum, New York)
39 Temple of Olympian Zeus, Athens. Plan (A.) 68
40 Plan of Greek Theatre (A.) 70
41 Mausoleum at Halicarnassus (A.) 72

42 Roman Doric Order from Theatre of Marcellus. (Model in 77
Metropolitan Museum, New York)
43 Roman Ionic Order (A.) 78
44 Roman Corinthian Order. (From model in Metropolitan 79
Museum, New York)
45 Roman Arcade with Engaged Columns (A.) 80
46 Barrel Vault (A.) 81
47 Groined Vault (A.) 81
48 Roman Wall Masonry (B.) 83
49 Roman Carved Ornament. (Lateran Museum) 85
50 Roman Ceiling Panels (A.) 86
51 Temple of Fortuna Virilis. Plan 89
52 Circular Temple, Tivoli (A.) 90
53 Temple of Venus and Rome. Plan (A.) 93
54 Plan of the Pantheon (B.) 94
55 Interior of the Pantheon 95
56 Exterior of the Pantheon. (Model in Metropolitan Museum, 96
New York)
57 Forum and Basilica of Trajan (A.) 97
58 Basilica of Constantine. Plan (G.) 98
59 Ruins of Basilica of Constantine 99
60 Central Block, Thermæ of Caracalla. Plan (G.) 100
61 Roman Theatre, Herculanum 101
62 Colosseum at Rome. Half Plan (A.) 102
63 Arch of Constantine. (Model in Metropolitan Museum, New 104
York)
64 Palace of Diocletian, Spalato. Plan (G.) 106
65 Plan of House of Pansa, Pompeii (A.) 107
66 Plan of Santa Costanza, Rome (A.) 111

67 Plan of the Basilica of St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls, Rome (A.) 113
68 St. Paul-beyond-the-Walls. Interior 114
69 Church at Kalb Louzeh (A.) 116
70 Cathedral at Bozrah. Plan (A.) 117
71 Diagram of Pendentives (A.) 123
72 Spandril, Hagia Sophia 125
73 Capital with Impost Block, S. Vitale 126
74 Plan of St. Sergius, Constantinople (A.) 127
75 Plan of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople (A.) 128
76 Section of Hagia Sophia (A.) 128
77 Interior of Hagia Sophia (full page) 129
78 Plan of St. Mark’s, Venice (A.) 132
79 Interior of St. Mark’s 133
80 Mosque of Sultan Hassan, Cairo. Sanctuary 137
81 Mosque of Kaîd Bey, Cairo 139
82 Moorish Detail, Alhambra 141
83 Interior of Great Mosque, Cordova 142
84 Plan of the Alhambra (A.) 144
85 Tomb of Mahmûd, Bijapur. Section (A.) 147
86 The Taj Mahal, Agra 149
87 Mosque of Mehmet II., Constantinople. Plan (L.) 151
88 Exterior of Ahmediyeh Mosque, Constantinople 152
89 Interior of Suleimaniyeh Mosque, Constantinople 153
90 Interior of San Ambrogio, Milan 157
91 West Front and Campanile, Cathedral of Piacenza 158
92 Baptistery, Cathedral, and Leaning Tower, Pisa 160
93 Interior of Pisa Cathedral 161
94 Plan of St. Front, Perigueux (G.) 164

95 Interior of St. Front (L.) 165
96 Plan of Notre Dame du Port, Clermont (Ch.) 166
97 Section of same (Ch.) 166
98 A Six-part Ribbed Vault (A.) 167
99 Plan of Minster at Worms (G.) 173
100 One Bay, Cathedral of Spires (L.) 174
101 East End, Church of the Apostles, Cologne 175
102 Plan of Durham Cathedral (Bn.) 177
103 One Bay, Transept of Winchester Cathedral (G.) 178
104 Front of Iffley Church (A.) 179
105 Constructive System of Gothic Church (A.) 183
106 Plan of Sainte Chapelle, Paris (Bn.) 184
107 Early Gothic Flying Buttress (Bn.) 185
108 Ribbed Vault, English Type (Bn. after Babcock) 186
109 Penetrations and Intersections of Vaults (Bn.) 187
110 Plate Tracery, Charlton-on-Oxmore 188
111 Bar Tracery, St. Michael’s, Warfield (W.) 189
112 Rose Window from St. Ouen, Rouen (G.) 190
113 Flamboyant Detail, Strasburg 191
114 Early Gothic Carving (A.) 192
115 Carving, Decorated Period, from Southwell Minster 193
116 Plan of Notre Dame, Paris (L.) 198
117 Interior of Notre Dame 199
118 Interior of Le Mans Cathedral 200
119 Vaulting with Zigzag Ridge Joints (A.) 201
120 One Bay, Abbey of St. Denis (G.) 203
121 The Sainte Chapelle, Paris. Exterior 204
122 Amiens Cathedral; Plan (G.) 205

123 Alby Cathedral. Plan (A. after Lübke) 206
124 West Front of Notre Dame, Paris 207
125 West Front of St. Maclou, Rouen 208
126 French Gothic Capitals (A.) 210
127 House of Jacques Cœur, Bourges (L.) 215
128 Plan of Salisbury Cathedral (Bn.) 219
129 Ribbed Vaulting, Choir of Exeter Cathedral 221
130 Lierne Vaulting, Tewkesbury Abbey 222
131 Vault of Chapter House, Wells 223
132 Cloisters of Salisbury Cathedral 225
133 Perpendicular Tracery, St. George’s, Windsor 226
134 West Front, Lichfield Cathedral 228
135 One Bay of Choir, Lichfield Cathedral (A.) 229
136 Fan Vaulting, Henry VII.’s Chapel 231
137 Eastern Part, Westminster Abbey. Plan (L.) 232
138 Roof of Nave, St. Mary’s, Westonzoyland (W.) 233
139 One Bay, Cathedral of St. George, Limburg (L.) 239
140 Section of St. Elizabeth, Marburg (Bn.) 240
141 Cologne Cathedral, Plan (G.) 242
142 Church of Our Lady, Treves (L.) 243
143 Plan of Ulm Cathedral (L.) 244
144 Town Hall, Louvain 247
145 Façade of Burgos Cathedral 249
146 Detail from S. Gregorio, Valladolid 251
147 Duomo at Florence, Plan (G.) 256
148 Duomo at Florence, Nave 257
149 One Bay, Cathedral of S. Martino, Lucca (L.) 258
150 Interior of Sienna Cathedral 259

151 Façade of Sienna Cathedral 261
152 Exterior of the Certosa, Pavia 262
153 Plan of the Certosa, Pavia 263
154 Upper Part of Campanile, Florence 265
155 Upper Part of Palazzo Vecchio, Florence 266
156 Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence 267
157 West Front of Doge’s Palace, Venice 268
158 Capital, Palazzo Zorzi, Venice 275
159 Section of Dome, Duomo of Florence (Bn.) 276
160 Exterior of Dome, Duomo of Florence 277
161 Interior of S. Spirito, Florence 278
162 Court of Riccardi Palace, Florence 279
163 Façade of Strozzi Palace, Florence 280
164 Tomb of Pietro di Noceto, Lucca 282
165 Vendramini Palace, Venice 285
166 Façade of Giraud Palace, Rome (L.) 290
167 Plan of Farnese Palace, Rome (L.) 292
168 Court of Farnese Palace, Rome 293
169 Bramante’s Plan for St. Peter’s, Rome (L.) 294
170 Plan of St. Peter’s, Rome, as now standing (Bn. after G.) 295
171 Interior of St. Peter’s (full page) 297
172 Library of St. Mark, Venice 301
173 Interior of San Severo, Naples 302
174 Church of Santa Maria della Salute, Naples 303
175 Court Façade, East Wing of Blois 311
176 Staircase Tower, Blois 313
177 Plan of Château of Chambord (A.) 314
178 Upper Part of Château of Chambord 314

179 Detail of Court of Louvre, southwest portion 315
180 The Luxemburg Palace, Paris 318
181 Colonnade of the Louvre 321
182 Dome of the Invalides, Paris 322
183 Façade of St. Sulpice, Paris 323
184 Burghley House 327
185 Whitehall Palace. The Banqueting Hall 329
186 Plan of St. Paul’s Cathedral, London (G.) 330
187 Exterior of St. Paul’s Cathedral 331
188 Plan of Blenheim (G.) 332
189 St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields, London 333
190 Renaissance Houses, Brussels 335
191 The Castle, Hämelschenburg 341
192 The Friedrichsbau, Heidelberg Castle 344
193 Pavilion of Zwinger Palace, Dresden 345
194 Marienkirche, Dresden 346
195 Portal of University, Salamanca 349
196 Court (Patio) of Casa de Zaporta 350
197 Palace of Charles V., Granada 351
198 Façade of British Museum, London 357
199 St. George’s Hall, Liverpool 358
200 The Old Museum, Berlin 359
201 The Propylæa, Munich 360
202 Plan of the Panthéon, Paris (G.) 361
203 Exterior of the Panthéon 362
204 Arch of Triumph of l’Étoile, Paris 363
205 The Madeleine, Paris 364
206 Door of École des Beaux-Arts, Paris 365

207 St. Isaac’s Cathedral, St. Petersburg 366
208 Plan of Louvre and Tuileries (A.) 371
209 Pavilion Richelieu, Louvre 372
210 Grand Staircase, Paris Opera House 373
211 Fountain of Longchamps, Marseilles 374
212 Galliéra Museum, Paris 375
213 Royal Theatre, Dresden 376
214 Maria-Theresienhof, Vienna 377
215 Houses of Parliament, London 379
216 Assize Courts, Manchester 380
217 Natural History Museum, South Kensington 381
218 Christ Church, Philadelphia 386
219 Craigie House, Cambridge (Mass.) 387
220 National Capitol, Washington 389
221 Custom House, New York 390
222 Trinity Church, Boston 394
223 Public Library, Woburn (Mass.) 395
224 Times Building, New York 396
225 Country House (Mass.) 398
226 Porch of Temple of Vimalah Sah, Mount Abu. 406
227 Tower of Victory, Chittore 407
228 Double Temple at Hullabîd: Detail 410
229 Shrine of Soubramanya, Tanjore 412

CHAPTER I.

PRIMITIVE AND PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURE.

Books Recommended: Desor, Les constructions lacustres du lac de Neufchatel. Fergusson,
Rude Stone Monuments. R. C. Hoare, Ancients Wiltshire. Lyell, The Antiquity of Man.
Lubbock, Prehistoric Times. Nadaillac, Prehistoric America. Rougemont, L’age du Bronze.
Tylor, Primitive Culture.

EARLY BEGINNINGS. It is impossible to trace the early stages of the
process by which true architecture grew out of the first rude attempts of man
at building. The oldest existing monuments of architecture—those of
Chaldæa and Egypt—belong to an advanced civilization. The rude and
elementary structures built by savage and barbarous peoples, like the
Hottentots or the tribes of Central Africa, are not in themselves works of
architecture, nor is any instance known of the evolution of a civilized art
from such beginnings. So far as the monuments testify, no savage people
ever raised itself to civilization, and no primitive method of building was
ever developed into genuine architecture, except by contact with some
existing civilization of which it appropriated the spirit, the processes, and
the forms. How the earliest architecture came into existence is as yet an
unsolved problem.
PRIMITIVE ARCHITECTURE is therefore a subject for the archæologist
rather than the historian of art, and needs here only the briefest mention. If
we may judge of the condition of the primitive races of antiquity by that of
the savage and barbarous peoples of our own time, they required only the
simplest kinds of buildings, though the purposes which they served were the
same as those of later times in civilized communities. A hut or house for
shelter, a shrine of some sort for worship, a stockade for defence, a cairn or

mound over the grave of the chief or hero, were provided out of the simplest
materials, and these often of a perishable nature. Poles supplied the
framework; wattles, skins, or mud the walls; thatching or stamped earth the
roof. Only the simplest tools were needed for such elementary construction.
There was ingenuity and patient labor in work of this kind; but there was no
planning, no fitting together into a complex organism of varied materials
shaped with art and handled with science. Above all, there was no
progression toward higher ideals of fitness and beauty. Rudimentary art
displayed itself mainly in objects of worship, or in carvings on canoes and
weapons, executed as talismans to ward off misfortune or to charm the
unseen powers; but even this art was sterile and never grew of itself into
civilized and progressive art.
Yet there must have been at some point in the remote past an exception to
this rule. Somewhere and somehow the people of Egypt must have
developed from crude beginnings the architectural knowledge and resource
which meet us in the oldest monuments, though every vestige of that early
age has apparently perished. But although nothing has come down to us of
the actual work of the builders who wrought in the primitive ages of
mankind, there exist throughout Europe and Asia almost countless
monuments of a primitive character belonging to relatively recent times, but
executed before the advent of historic civilization to the regions where they
are found. A general resemblance among them suggests a common heritage
of traditions from the hoariest antiquity, and throws light on the probable
character of the transition from barbaric to civilized architecture.
PREHISTORIC MONUMENTS. These monuments vary widely as well
as in excellence; some of them belong to Roman or even Christian times;
others to a much remoter period. They are divided into two principal classes,
the megalithic structures and lake dwellings. The latter class may be
dismissed with the briefest mention. It comprises a considerable number of
very primitive houses or huts built on wooden piles in the lakes of
Switzerland and several other countries in both hemispheres, and forming in
some cases villages of no mean size. Such villages, built over the water for
protection from attack, are mentioned by the writers of antiquity and
portrayed on Assyrian reliefs. The objects found in them reveal an incipient
but almost stationary civilization, extending back from three thousand to

five thousand years or more, and lasting through the ages of stone and
bronze down into historic times.
The megalithic remains of Europe and Asia are far more important. They
are very widely distributed, and consist in most cases of great blocks of
stone arranged in rows, circles, or avenues, sometimes with huge lintels
resting upon them. Upright stones without lintels are called menhirs;
standing in pairs with lintels they are known as dolmens; the circles are
called cromlechs. Some of the stones are of gigantic size, some roughly
hewn into shape; others left as when quarried. Their age and purpose have
been much discussed without reaching positive results. It is probable that,
like the lake dwellings, they cover a long range of time, reaching from the
dawn of recorded history some thousands of years back into the unknown
past, and that they were erected by races which have disappeared before the
migrations to which Europe owes her present populations. That most of
them were in some way connected with the worship of these prehistoric
peoples is generally admitted; but whether as temples, tombs, or memorials
of historical or mythical events cannot, in all cases, be positively asserted.
They were not dwellings or palaces, and very few were even enclosed
buildings. They are imposing by the size and number of their immense
stones, but show no sign of advanced art, or of conscious striving after
beauty of design. The small number of “carved stones,” bearing singular
ornamental patterns, symbolic or mystical rather than decorative in
intention, really tends to prove this statement rather than to controvert it. It
is not impossible that the dolmens were generally intended to be covered by
mounds of earth. This would group them with the tumuli referred to below,
and point to a sepulchral purpose in their erection. Some antiquaries,
Fergusson among them, contend that many of the European circles and
avenues were intended as battle-monuments or trophies.
There are also walls of great antiquity in various parts of Europe, intended
for fortification; the most important of these in Greece and Italy will be
referred to in later chapters. They belong to a more advanced art, some of
them even deserving to be classed among works of archaic architecture.
The tumuli, or burial mounds, which form so large a part of the prehistoric
remains of both continents, are interesting to the architect only as revealing

the prototypes of the pyramids of Egypt and the subterranean tombs of
Mycenæ and other early Greek centres. The piling of huge cairns or
commemorative heaps of stone is known from the Scriptures and other
ancient writings to have been a custom of the greatest antiquity. The
pyramids and the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus are the most imposing and
elaborate outgrowths of this practice, of which the prehistoric tumuli are the
simpler manifestations.
These crude and elementary products of undeveloped civilizations have no
place, however, in any list of genuine architectural works. They belong
rather to the domain of archæology and ethnology, and have received this
brief mention only as revealing the beginnings of the builder’s art, and the
wide gap that separates them from that genuine architecture which forms the
subject of the following chapters.

MONUMENTS: The most celebrated in England are at Avebury, an avenue, large and small
circles, barrows, and the great tumuli of Bartlow and Silbury “Hills;” at Stonehenge, on
Salisbury Plain, great megalithic circles and many barrows; “Sarsen stones” at Ashdown;
tumuli, dolmens, chambers, and circles in Derbyshire. In Ireland, many cairns and circles. In
Scotland, circles and barrows in the Orkney Islands. In France, Carnac and Lokmariaker in
Brittany are especially rich in dolmens, circles, and avenues. In Scandinavia, Germany, and
Italy, in India and in Africa, are many similar remains.

CHAPTER II.

EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE.

Books Recommended: Champollion, Monuments de l’Egypte et de la Nubie. Choisy, L’art de
bâtir chez les Egyptiens. Flinders-Petrie, History of Egypt; Ten Years Digging in Egypt, 1881–
91. Jomard, Description de l’Egypte, Antiquités. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und
Aethiopien. Mariette, Monuments of Upper Egypt. Maspero, Egyptian Archæology. Perrot and
Chipiez, History of Art in Ancient Egypt. Prisse d’Avennes, Histoire de l’art égyptien. Reber,
History of Ancient Art. Rossellini, Monumenti del Egitto. Wilkinson, Manners and Customs of
Ancient Egyptians.

LAND AND PEOPLE. As long ago as 5000 b.c., the Egyptians were a
people already highly civilized, and skilled in the arts of peace and war. The
narrow valley of the Nile, fertilized by the periodic overflow of the river,
was flanked by rocky heights, nearly vertical in many places, which
afforded abundance of excellent building stone, while they both isolated the
Egyptians and protected them from foreign aggression. At the Delta,
however, the valley widened out, with the falling away of these heights, into
broad lowlands, from which there was access to the outer world.
The art history of Egypt may be divided into five periods as follows:
I. The Ancient Empire (cir. 4500?-3000 b.c.), comprising the first ten
dynasties, with Memphis as the capital.
II. The First Theban Monarchy or Middle Empire (3000–2100 b.c.)
comprising the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth dynasties reigning at
Thebes.
The Hyksos invasion, or incursion of the Shepherd Kings, interrupted the
current of Egyptian art history for a period of unknown length, probably not
less than four or five centuries.
III. The Second Theban Monarchy (1700?-1000 b.c.), comprising the
eighteenth to twentieth dynasties inclusive, was the great period of Egyptian

history; the age of conquests and of vast edifices.
IV. The Decadence or Saitic Period (1000–324 b.c.), comprising the
dynasties twenty-one to thirty (Saitic, Bubastid, Ethiopic, etc.), reigning at
Sais, Tanis, and Bubastis, and the Persian conquest; a period almost barren
of important monuments.
(Periods III. and IV. constitute together the period of the New Empire, if we
omit the Persian dominion.)
V. The Revival (from 324 b.c. to cir. 330 a.d.) comprises the Ptolemaic or
Macedonian and Roman dominations.
THE ANCIENT EMPIRE: THE PYRAMIDS. The great works of this
period are almost exclusively sepulchral, and include the most ancient
buildings of which we have any remains. While there is little of strictly
architectural art, the overwhelming size and majesty of the Pyramids, and
the audacity and skill shown in their construction, entitle them to the first
place in any sketch of this period. They number over a hundred, scattered in
six groups, from Abu-Roash in the north to Meidoum in the south, and are
of various shapes and sizes. They are all royal tombs and belong to the first
twelve dynasties; each contains a sepulchral chamber, and each at one time
possessed a small chapel adjacent to it, but this has, in almost every case,
perished.
Three pyramids surpass all the rest by their prodigious size; these are at
Ghizeh and belong to the fourth dynasty. They are known by the names of
their builders; the oldest and greatest being that of Cheops, or Khufu; 1 the
second, that of Chephren, or Khafra; and the third, that of Mycerinus, or
Menkhara. Other smaller ones stand at the feet of these giants.

FIG. 1.—SECTION OF GREAT PYRAMID.
a, King’s Chamber; b, Queen’s Chamber; c, Chamber cut in Rock.

The base of the “Great Pyramid” measures 764 feet on a side; its height is
482 feet, and its volume must have originally been nearly three and one-half
million cubic yards (Fig. 1). It is constructed of limestone upon a plateau of
rock levelled to receive it, and was finished externally, like its two
neighbors, with a coating of polished stone, supposed by some to have been
disposed in bands of different colored granites, but of which it was long ago
despoiled. It contained three principal chambers and an elaborate system of
inclined passages, all executed in finely cut granite and limestone. The
sarcophagus was in the uppermost chamber, above which the
superincumbent weight was relieved by open spaces and a species of
rudimentary arch of Λ-shape (Fig. 2). The other two pyramids differ from
that of Cheops in the details of their arrangement and in size, not in the
principle of their construction. Chephren is 454 feet high, with a base 717
feet square. Mycerinus, which still retains its casing of pink granite, is but
218 feet in height, with a base 253 feet on a side.
Among the other pyramids there is considerable variety both of type and
material. At Sakkarah is one 190 feet high, constructed in six unequal steps
on a slightly oblong base measuring nearly 400 × 357 feet. It was attributed
by Mariette to Ouenephes, of the first dynasty, though now more generally
ascribed to Senefrou of the third. At Abu-Seir and Meidoum are other
stepped pyramids; at Dashour is one having a broken slope, the lower part
steeper than the upper. Several at Meroë with unusually steep slopes belong

to the Ethiopian dynasties of the Decadence.
A number of pyramids are built of brick.
TOMBS. The
Ancient Empire
has also left us a
great number of
tombs of the type
known as
Mastabas. These
are oblong
rectangular
FIG. 2.—SECTION OF
structures of stone
KING’S CHAMBER. FIG. 3.—PLAN OF SPHINX TEMPLE.
or brick with
slightly inclined sides and flat ceilings.
They uniformly face the east, and are internally divided into three parts; the
chamber or chapel, the serdab, and the well. In the first of these, next the
entrance, were placed the offerings made to the Ka or “double,” for whom
also scenes of festivity or worship were carved and painted on its walls to
minister to his happiness in his incorporeal life. The serdabs, or secret inner
chambers, of which there were several in each mastaba, contained statues of
the defunct, by which the existence and identity of the Ka were preserved.
Finally came the well, leading to the mummy chamber, deep underground,
which contained the sarcophagus. The sarcophagi, both of this and later
ages, are good examples of the minor architecture of Egypt; many of them
are panelled in imitation of wooden construction and richly decorated with
color, symbols, and hieroglyphs.
OTHER MONUMENTS. Two other
monuments of the Ancient Empire also
claim attention: the Sphinx and the
adjacent so-called “Sphinx temple” at
Ghizeh. The first of these, a huge sculpture
carved from the rock, represents
Harmachis in the form of a human-headed FIG. 4.—RUINS OF SPHINX TEMPLE.
lion. It is ordinarily partly buried in the
sand; is 70 feet long by 66 feet high, and forms one of the most striking

monuments of Egyptian art. Close to it lie the nearly buried ruins of the
temple once supposed to be that of the Sphinx, but now proved by Petrie to
have been erected in connection with the second pyramid. The plan and
present aspect of this venerable edifice are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. The hall
was roofed with stone lintels carried on sixteen square monolithic piers of
alabaster. The whole was buried in a rectangular mass of masonry and
revetted internally with alabaster, but was wholly destitute internally as well
as externally of decoration or even of mouldings. With the exception of
scanty remains of a few of the pyramid-temples or chapels, and the temple
discovered by Petrie in Meidoum, it is the only survival from the temple
architecture of that early age.
THE MIDDLE EMPIRE: TOMBS. The
monuments of this period, as of the
preceding, are almost wholly sepulchral.
We now encounter two types of tombs.
One, structural and pyramidal, is
represented by many examples at Abydos,
the most venerated of all the burial grounds
of Egypt (Fig. 5). All of these are built of
brick, and are of moderate size and little FIG. 5.—TOMB AT ABYDOS.
artistic interest. The second type is that of
tombs cut in the vertical cliffs of the west bank of the Nile Valley. The
entrance to these faces eastward as required by tradition; the remoter end of
the excavation pointing toward the land of the Sun of Night. But such
tunnels only become works of architecture when, in addition to the
customary mural paintings, they receive a decorative treatment in the design
of their structural forms. Such a treatment appears in several tombs at Beni-
Hassan, in which columns are reserved in cutting away the rock, both in the
chapel-chambers and in the vestibules or porches which precede them.
These columns are polygonal in some cases, clustered in others. The former
type, with eight, sixteen, or thirty-two sides (in these last the arrises or
edges are emphasized by a slight concavity in each face, like embryonic
fluting), have a square abacus, suggesting the Greek Doric order, and giving
rise to the name proto-Doric (Fig. 6). Columns of this type are also found at
Karnak, Kalabshé, Amada, and Abydos. A reminiscence of primitive wood

construction is seen in the dentils over the
plain architrave of the entrance, which in
other respects recalls the triple entrances
to certain mastabas of the Old Empire.
These dentils are imitations of the ends of
rafters, and to some archæologists suggest
a wooden origin for the whole system of
columnar design. But these rock-cut shafts
and heavy architraves in no respect
FIG. 6.—TOMB AT BENI-HASSAN. resemble wooden prototypes, but point
rather to an imitation cut in the rock of a
well-developed, pre-existing system of stone construction, some of whose
details, however, were undoubtedly derived from early methods of building
in wood. The vault was below the chapel and reached by a separate
entrance. The serdab was replaced by a niche in which was the figure of the
defunct carved from the native rock. Some of the tombs employed in the
chapel-chamber columns of quatrefoil section with capitals like clustered
buds (Fig. 7), and this type became in the next period one of the most
characteristic forms of Egyptian architecture.

FIG. 7.—SECTION AND HALF-PLAN OF A TOMB AT BENI-HASSAN.

TEMPLES. Of the temples of this period only two have left any remains of
importance. Both belong to the twelfth dynasty (cir. 2200 b.c.). Of one of
these many badly shattered fragments have been found in the ruins of
Bubastis; these show the clustered type of lotus-bud column mentioned
above. The other, of which a few columns have been identified among the

ruins of the Great Temple at Karnak, constituted the oldest part of that vast
agglomeration of religious edifices, and employed columns of the so-called
proto-Doric type. From these remains it appears that structural stone
columns as well as those cut in the rock were used at this early period (2200
b.c.). Indeed, it is probable that the whole architectural system of the New
Empire was based on models developed in the age we are considering; that
the use of multiplied columns of various types and the building of temples
of complex plan adorned with colossal statues, obelisks, and painted reliefs,
were perfectly understood and practised in this period. But the works it
produced have perished, having been most probably demolished to make
way for the more sumptuous edifices of later times.
THE NEW EMPIRE. This was the grand age of Egyptian architecture and
history. An extraordinary series of mighty men ruled the empire during a
long period following the expulsion of the Hyksos usurpers. The names of
Thothmes, Amenophis, Hatasu, Seti, and Rameses made glorious the
eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties. Foreign conquests in Ethiopia, Syria,
and Assyria enlarged the territory and increased the splendor of the empire.
The majority of the most impressive ruins of Egypt belong to this period,
and it was in these buildings that the characteristic elements of Egyptian
architecture were brought to perfection and carried out on the grandest scale.
TOMBS OF THE NEW EMPIRE. Some of these are structural, others
excavated; both types displaying considerable variety in arrangement and
detail. The rock-cut tombs of Bab-el-Molouk, among which are twenty-five
royal sepulchres, are striking both by the simplicity of their openings and
the depth and complexity of their shafts, tunnels, and chambers. From the
pipe-like length of their tunnels they have since the time of Herodotus been
known by the name syrinx. Every precaution was taken to lead astray and
baffle the intending violator of their sanctity. They penetrated hundreds of
feet into the rock; their chambers, often formed with columns and vault-like
roofs, were resplendent with colored reliefs and ornament destined to solace
and sustain the shadowy Ka until the soul itself, the Ba, should arrive before
the tribunal of Osiris, the Sun of Night. Most impressively do these brilliant
pictures, 2 intended to be forever shut away from human eyes, attest the
sincerity of the Egyptian belief and the conscientiousness of the art which it
inspired.

While the tomb of the private citizen was complete
in itself, containing the Ka-statues and often the
chapel, as well as the mummy, the royal tomb
demanded something more elaborate in scale and
arrangement. In some cases external structures of
temple-form took the place of the underground
chapel and serdab. The royal effigy, many times
repeated in painting and sculpture throughout this
temple-like edifice, and flanking its gateways with
colossal seated figures, made buried Ka-statues
unnecessary. Of these sepulchral temples three are
of the first magnitude. They are that of Queen
Hatasu (XVIIIth dynasty) at Deir-el-Bahari; that of
Rameses II. (XIXth dynasty), the Ramesseum,
near by to the southwest; and that of Rameses III.
(XXth dynasty) at Medinet Abou still further to the
southwest. Like the tombs, these were all on the
FIG. 8.—PLAN OF THE
west side of the Nile; so also was the sepulchral
RAMESSEUM.
temple of Amenophis III. (XVIIIth dynasty), the
a, Sanctuary; b, Hypostyle
Amenopheum, of which hardly a trace remains Hall; c, Second court; d,
except the two seated colossi which, rising from the Entrance court; e, Pylons.
Theban plain, have astonished travellers from the
times of Pausanias and Strabo down to our own. These mutilated figures,
one of which has been known ever since classic times as the “vocal
Memnon,” are 56 feet high, and once flanked the entrance to the forecourt
of the temple of Amenophis. The plan of the Ramesseum, with its sanctuary,
hypostyle hall, and forecourts, its pylons and obelisks, is shown in Figure 8,
and may be compared with those of other temples given on pp. 17 and 18.
That of Medinet Abou resembles it closely. The Ramesseum occupies a
rectangle of 590 × 182 feet; the temple of Medinet Abou measures 500 ×
160 feet, not counting the extreme width of the entrance pylons. The temple
of Hatasu at Deir-el-Bahari is partly excavated and partly structural, a model
which is also followed on a smaller scale in several lesser tombs. Such an
edifice is called a hemispeos.

1. The Egyptian names known to antiquity are given here first in the more familiar classic
form, and then in the Egyptian form.
2. See Van Dyke’s History of Painting, Figure 1.

CHAPTER III.

EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE—Continued.

Books Recommended: Same as for Chapter II.

TEMPLES. The surpassing glory of the New Empire was its great temples.
Some of them were among the most stupendous creations of structural art.
To temples rather than palaces were the resources and energies of the kings
devoted, and successive monarchs found no more splendid outlet for their
piety and ambition than the founding of new temples or the extension and
adornment of those already existing. By the forced labor of thousands of
fellaheen (the system is in force to this day and is known as the corvée)
architectural piles of vast extent could be erected within the lifetime of a
monarch. As in the tombs the internal walls bore pictures for the
contemplation of the Ka, so in the temples the external walls, for the glory
of the king and the delectation of the people, were covered with colored
reliefs reciting the monarch’s glorious deeds. Internally the worship and
attributes of the gods were represented in a similar manner, in endless
iteration.
THE TEMPLE SCHEME. This is admirably shown in the temple of
Khonsu, at Karnak, built by Rameses III. (XXth dynasty), and in the temple
of Edfou (Figs. 9 and 10), though this belongs to the Roman period. It
comprised a sanctuary or sekos, a hypostyle (columnar) hall, known as the
“hall of assembly,” and a forecourt preceded by a double pylon or gateway.
Each of these parts might be made more or less complex in different
temples, but the essential features are encountered everywhere under all
changes of form. The building of a temple began with the sanctuary, which
contained the sacred chamber and the shrine of the god, with subordinate
rooms for the priests and for various rites and functions. These chambers
were low, dark, mysterious, accessible only to the priests and king. They

were given a certain dignity by being raised upon a
sort of platform above the general level, and
reached by a few steps. They were sumptuously
decorated internally with ritual pictures in relief.
The hall was sometimes loftier, but set on a slightly
lower level; its massive columns supported a roof
of stone lintels, and light was admitted either
through clearstory windows under the roof of a
central portion higher than the sides, as at Karnak,
or over a low screen-wall built between the
columns of the front row, as at Edfou and
Denderah. This method was peculiar to the
Ptolemaic and Roman periods. The court was
usually surrounded by a single or double
colonnade; sometimes, however, this colonnade
only flanked the sides or fronted the hall, or again
was wholly wanting. The pylons were twin
buttress-like masses flanking the entrance gate of FIG. 9.—TEMPLE OF
the court. They were shaped like oblong truncated EDFOU. PLAN.
pyramids, crowned by flaring cornices, and were
decorated on the outer face with masts carrying banners, with obelisks, or
with seated colossal figures of the royal builder. An avenue of sphinxes
formed the approach to the entrance, and the whole temple precinct was
surrounded by a wall, usually of crude brick, pierced by one or more gates
with or without pylons. The piety of successive monarchs was displayed in
the addition of new hypostyle halls, courts, pylons, or obelisks, by which the
temple was successively extended in length, and sometimes also in width,
by the increased dimensions of the new courts. The great Temple of Karnak
most strikingly illustrates this growth. Begun by Osourtesen (XIIth dynasty)
more than 2000 years b.c., it was not completed in its present form until the
time of the Ptolemies, when the last of the pylons and external gates were
erected.

FIG. 10.—TEMPLE OF EDFOU. SECTION.

The variations in the details of this general type were numerous. Thus, at El
Kab, the temple of Amenophis III. has the sekos and hall but no forecourt.
At Deir-el-Medineh the hall of the Ptolemaic Hathor-temple is a mere porch
in two parts, while the enclosure within the circuit wall takes the place of
the forecourt. At Karnak all the parts were repeated several times, and under
Amenophis III. (XVIIIth dynasty) a wing was built at a nearly right angle to
the main structure. At Luxor, to a complete typical temple were added three
aisles of an unfinished hypostyle hall, and an elaborate forecourt, whose
axis is inclined to that of the other buildings, owing to a bend of the river at
that point. At Abydos a complex sanctuary of many chambers extends
southeast at right angles to the general mass, and the first court is without
columns. But in all these structures a certain unity of effect is produced by
the lofty pylons, the flat roofs diminishing in height over successive portions
from the front to the sanctuary, the sloping windowless walls covered with
carved and painted pictures, and the dim and massive interiors of the
columnar halls.

FIG. 11.—TEMPLE OF KARNAK. PLAN.
Larger View

TEMPLES OF KARNAK. Of these various temples that of Amen-Ra is
incomparably the largest and most imposing. Its construction extended
through the whole duration of the New Empire, of whose architecture it is a
splendid résumé (Fig. 11). Its extreme length is 1,215 feet, and its greatest
width 376 feet. The sanctuary and its accessories, mainly built by
Thothmes I. and Thothmes III., cover an area nearly 456 × 290 feet in
extent, and comprise two hypostyle halls and countless smaller halls and
chambers. It is preceded by a narrow columnar vestibule and two pylons
enclosing a columnar atrium and two obelisks. This is entered from the
Great Hypostyle Hall (h in Fig. 11; Fig. 12), the noblest single work of
Egyptian architecture, measuring 340 × 170 feet, and containing 134
columns in sixteen rows, supporting a massive stone roof. The central
columns with bell-capitals are 70 feet high and nearly 12 feet in diameter;
the others are smaller and lower, with lotus-bud capitals, supporting a roof
lower than that over the three central aisles. A clearstory of stone-grated
windows makes up the difference in height between these two roofs. The
interior, thus lighted, was splendid with painted reliefs, which helped not
only to adorn the hall but to give scale to its massive parts. The whole
stupendous creation was the work of three kings—Rameses I., Seti I., and
Rameses II. (XIXth dynasty).

FIG. 12.—CENTRAL PORTION OF HYPOSTYLE HALL AT KARNAK.
(From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York.)

In front of it was the great court, flanked by columns, and still showing the
ruins of a central avenue of colossal pillars begun, but never completed, by
the Bubastid kings of the XXIId dynasty. One or two smaller structures and

the curious lateral wing built by Amenophis III., interrupt the otherwise
orderly and symmetrical advance of this plan from the sanctuary to the huge
first pylon (last in point of date) erected by the Ptolemies.
The smaller temple of Khonsu, south of that of Amen-Ra, has already been
alluded to as a typical example of templar design. Next to Karnak in
importance comes the Temple of Luxor in its immediate neighborhood. It
has two forecourts adorned with double-aisled colonnades and connected by
what seems to be an unfinished hypostyle hall. The Ramesseum and the
temples of Medinet Abou and Deir-El-Bahari have already been
mentioned (p. 15). At Gournah and Abydos are the next most celebrated
temples of this period; the first famous for its rich clustered lotus-columns,
the latter for its beautiful sanctuary chambers, dedicated each to a different
deity, and covered with delicate painted reliefs of the time of Seti I.

FIG. 13.—GREAT TEMPLE OF IPSAMBOUL.

GROTTO TEMPLES. Two other styles of temple remain to be noticed.
The first is the subterranean or grotto temple, of which the two most
famous, at Ipsamboul (Abou-simbel), were excavated by Rameses II. They
are truly colossal conceptions, reproducing in the native rock the main
features of structural temples, the court being represented by the larger of

two chambers in the Greater Temple (Fig. 13) Their façades are adorned
with colossal seated figures of the builder; the smaller has also two effigies
of Nefert-Ari, his consort. Nothing more striking and boldly impressive is to
be met with in Egypt than these singular rock-cut façades. Other rock-cut
temples of more modest dimensions are at Addeh, Feraig, Beni-Hassan (the
“Speos Artemidos”), Beit-el-Wali, and Silsileh. At Gherf-Hossein,
Asseboua, and Derri are temples partly excavated and partly structural.
PERIPTERAL TEMPLES. The last type of temple to be noticed is
represented by only three or four structures of moderate size; it is the
peripteral, in which a small chamber is surrounded by columns, usually
mounted on a terrace with vertical walls. They were mere chapels, but are
among the most graceful of existing ruins. At Philæ are two structures, one
by Nectanebo, the other Ptolemaic, resembling peripteral temples, but
without cella-chambers or roofs. They may have been waiting-courts for the
adjoining temples. That at Elephantine (Amenophis III.) has square piers at
the sides, and columns only at the ends. Another by Thothmes II., at
Medinet Abou, formed only a part (the sekos?) of a larger plan. At Edfou is
another, belonging to the Ptolemaic period.
LATER TEMPLES. After the architectural inaction of the Decadence came
a marvellous recrudescence of splendor under the Ptolemies, whose Hellenic
origin and sympathies did not lead them into the mistaken effort to impose
Greek models upon Egyptian art. The temples erected under their dominion,
and later under Roman rule, vied with the grandest works of the Ramessidæ,
and surpassed them in the rich elaboration and variety of their architectural
details. The temple at Edfou (Figs. 9, 10, 14) is the most perfectly preserved,
and conforms most closely to the typical plan; that of Isis, at Philæ, is the
most elaborate and ornate. Denderah also possesses a group of admirably
preserved temples of the same period. At Esneh, and at Kalabshé and
Kardassy or Ghertashi in Nubia are others. In all these one notes innovations
of detail and a striving for effect quite different from the simpler majesty of
the preceding age (Fig. 14). One peculiar feature is the use of screen walls
built into the front rows of columns of the hypostyle hall. Light was
admitted above these walls, which measured about half the height of the
columns and were interrupted at the centre by a curious doorway cut
through their whole height and without any lintel. Long disused types of

capital were revived and others greatly elaborated; and the wall-reliefs were
arranged in bands and panels with a regularity and symmetry rather Greek
than Egyptian.

FIG. 14.—EDFOU. FRONT OF HYPOSTYLE HALL.

ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. With the exception of a few purely
utilitarian vaulted structures, all Egyptian architecture was based on the
principle of the lintel. Artistic splendor depended upon the use of painted
and carved pictures, and the decorative treatment of the very simple
supports employed. Piers and columns sustained the roofs of such chambers
as were too wide for single lintels, and produced, in halls like those of
Karnak, of the Ramesseum, or of Denderah, a stupendous effect by their
height, massiveness, number, and colored decoration. The simplest piers
were plain square shafts; others, more elaborate, had lotus stalks and flowers
or heads of Hathor carved upon them. The most striking were those against
whose front faces were carved colossal figures of Osiris, as at Luxor,
Medmet Abou, and Karnak (Fig. 15). The columns, which were seldom over
six diameters in height, were treated with greater variety; the shafts, slightly
tapering upward, were either round or clustered in section, and usually
contracted at the base. The capitals with which they were crowned were
usually of one of the five chief types described below. Besides round and
clustered shafts, the Middle Empire and a few of the earlier monuments of
the New Empire employed polygonal or slightly fluted shafts (see p. 11), as
at Beni Hassan and Karnak; these had a plain square abacus, with

sometimes a cushion-like echinus beneath it. A round plinth served as a base
for most of the columns.
CAPITALS. The five chief types of capital were:
a, the plain lotus bud, as at Karnak (Great Hall); b, the
clustered lotus bud (Beni-Hassan, Karnak, Luxor,
Gournah, etc.); c, the campaniform or inverted bell
(central aisles at Karnak, Luxor, the Ramesseum);
d, the palm-capital, frequent in the later temples; and
e, the Hathor-headed, in which heads of Hathor adorn
the four faces of a cubical mass surmounted by a
model of a shrine (Sedinga, Edfou, Denderah, Esneh).
These types were richly embellished and varied by the
Ptolemaic architects, who gave a clustered or quatrefoil
plan to the bell-capital, or adorned its surface with
palm leaves. A few other forms are met with as FIG. 15.—OSIRID
exceptions. The first four are shown in Fig. 16. PIER (MEDINET
ABOU).
Every part of the column was richly decorated in color.
Lotus-leaves or petals swathed the swelling lower part of the shaft, which
was elsewhere covered with successive bands of carved pictures and of
hieroglyphics. The capital was similarly covered with carved and painted
ornament, usually of lotus-flowers or leaves, or alternate stalks of lotus and
papyrus.

FIG. 16.—TYPES OF COLUMN.
a, Campaniform; b, Clustered Lotus-Column;
c, Simple Lotus-Column; d, Palm-Column.

The lintels were plain and square in section, and often of prodigious size.
Where they appeared externally they were crowned with a simple cavetto
cornice, its curved surface covered with colored flutings alternating with
cartouches of hieroglyphics. Sometimes, especially on the screen walls of
the Ptolemaic age, this was surmounted by a cresting of adders or uræi in
closely serried rank. No other form of cornice or cresting is met with.
Mouldings as a means of architectural effect were singularly lacking in
Egyptian architecture. The only moulding known is the clustered torus
(torus = a convex moulding of semicircular profile), which resembles a
bundle of reeds tied together with cords or ribbons. It forms an astragal
under the cavetto cornice and runs down the angles of the pylons and walls.
POLYCHROMY AND ORNAMENT. Color
was absolutely essential to the decorative
scheme. In the vast and dim interiors, as well as
in the blinding glare of the sun, mere sculpture
or relief would have been wasted. The
application of brilliant color to pictorial forms
cut in low relief, or outlined by deep incision
with the edges of the figures delicately rounded
FIG. 17.—EGYPTIAN FLORAL
(intaglio rilievo) was the most appropriate
ORNAMENT-FORMS.
treatment possible. The walls and columns were
covered with pictures treated in this way, and the ceilings and lintels were
embellished with symbolic forms in the same manner. All the ornaments, as
distinguished from the paintings, were symbolical, at least in their origin.
Over the gateway was the solar disk or globe with wide-spread wings, the
symbol of the sun winging its way to the conquest of night; upon the ceiling
were sacred vultures, zodiacs, or stars spangled on a blue ground. Externally
the temples presented only masses of unbroken wall; but these, as well as
the pylons, were covered with huge pictures of a historical character. Only
in the tombs do we find painted ornament of a purely conventional sort (Fig.
17). Rosettes, diaper patterns, spirals, and checkers are to be met with in
them; but many of these can be traced to symbolic origins. 3
DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. The only remains of palaces are the
pavilion of Rameses III. at Medinet Abou, and another at Semneh. The
Royal Labyrinth has so completely perished that even its site is uncertain.

The Egyptians lived so much out of doors that the house was a less
important edifice than in colder climates. Egyptian dwellings were probably
in most cases built of wood or crude brick, and their disappearance is thus
easily explained. Relief pictures on the monuments indicate the use of
wooden framing for the walls, which were probably filled in with crude
brick or panels of wood. The architecture was extremely simple. Gateways
like those of the temples on a smaller scale, the cavetto cornice on the walls,
and here and there a porch with carved columns of wood or stone, were the
only details pretending to elegance. The ground-plans of many houses in
ruined cities, as at Tel-el-Amarna and a nameless city of Amenophis IV., are
discernible in the ruins; but the superstructures are wholly wanting. It was in
religious and sepulchral architecture that the constructive and artistic genius
of the Egyptians was most fully manifested.

MONUMENTS: The principal necropolis regions of Egypt are centred about Ghizeh and
ancient Memphis for the Old Empire (pyramids and mastabas), Thebes for the Middle Empire
(Silsileh, Beni Hassan), and Thebes (Vale of the Kings, Vale of the Queens) and Abydos for
the New Empire.
The Old Empire has also left us the Sphinx, Sphinx temple, and the temple at Meidoum.
The most important temples of the New Empire were those of Karnak (the great temple, the
southern or temple of Khonsu), of Luxor, Medinet Abou (great temple of Rameses III., lesser
temples of Thothmes II. and III. with peripteral sekos; also Pavilion of Rameses III.); of
Abydos; of Gournah; of Eilithyia (Amenophis III.); of Soleb and Sesebi in Nubia; of
Elephantine (peripteral); the tomb temple of Deir-el-Bahari, the Ramesseum, the
Amenopheum; hemispeos at Gherf Hossein; two grotto temples at Ipsamboul.
At Meroë are pyramids of the Ethiopic kings of the Decadence.
Temples of the Ptolemaic period: Philæ, Denderah.
Temples of the Roman period: Koum Ombos, Edfou; Kalabshé, Kardassy and Dandour in
Nubia; Esneh.

3. See Goodyear’s Grammar of the Lotus for an elaborate and ingenious presentation of the
theory of a common lotus-origin for all the conventional forms occurring in Egyptian
ornament.

CHAPTER IV.

CHALDÆAN AND ASSYRIAN ARCHITECTURE.

Books Recommended: As before, Reber. Also, Babelon, Manual of Oriental Antiquities. Botta
and Flandin, Monuments de Ninive. Layard, Discoveries in Nineveh; Nineveh and its Remains.
Loftus, Travels and Researches in Chaldæa and Susiana. Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in
Chaldæa and Assyria. Peters, Nippur. Place, Ninive et l’Assyrie.

SITUATION; HISTORIC PERIODS. The Tigro-Euphrates valley was the
seat of a civilization nearly or quite as old as that of the Nile, though inferior
in its monumental art. The kingdoms of Chaldæa and Assyria which ruled in
this valley, sometimes as rivals and sometimes as subjects one of the other,
differed considerably in character and culture. But the scarcity of timber and
the lack of good building-stone except in the limestone table-lands and more
distant mountains of upper Mesopotamia, the abundance of clay, and the
flatness of the country, imposed upon the builders of both nations similar
restrictions of conception, form, and material. Both peoples, moreover, were
probably, in part at least, of Semitic race. 4 The Chaldæans attained
civilization as early as 4000 b.c., and had for centuries maintained fixed
institutions and practised the arts and sciences when the Assyrians began
their career as a nation of conquerors by reducing Chaldæa to subjection.
The history of Chaldæo-Assyrian art may be divided into three main
periods, as follows:
1. The Early Chaldæan, 4000 to 1250 b.c.
2. The Assyrian, 1250 to 606 b.c.
3. The Babylonian, 606 to 538 b.c.
In 538 the empire fell before the Persians.
GENERAL CHARACTER OF MONUMENTS. Recent excavations at
Nippur (Niffer), the sacred city of Chaldæa, have uncovered ruins older than

the Pyramids. Though of slight importance architecturally, they reveal the
early knowledge of the arch and the possession of an advanced culture. The
poverty of the building materials of this region afforded only the most
limited resources for architectural effect. Owing to the flatness of the
country and the impracticability of building lofty structures with sun-dried
bricks, elevation above the plain could be secured only by erecting buildings
of moderate height upon enormous mounds or terraces, built of crude brick
and faced with hard brick or stone. This led to the development of the
stepped pyramid as the typical form of Chaldæo-Assyrian architecture.
Thick walls were necessary both for stability and for protection from the
burning heat of that climate. The lack of stone for columns and the difficulty
of procuring heavy beams for long spans made broad halls and chambers
impossible. The plans of Assyrian palaces look like assemblages of long
corridors and small cells (Fig. 18). Neither the wooden post nor the column
played any part in this architecture except for window-mullions and
subordinate members. 5 It is probable that the vault was used for roofing
many of the halls; the arch was certainly employed for doors and the barrel-
vault for the drainage-tunnels under the terraces, made necessary by the
heavy rainfall. What these structures lacked in durability and height was
made up in decorative magnificence. The interior walls were wainscoted to
a height of eight or nine feet with alabaster slabs covered with those low-
relief pictures of hunting scenes, battles, and gods, which now enrich the
museums of London, Paris, and other modern cities. Elsewhere painted
plaster or more durable enamelled tile in brilliant colors embellished the
walls, and, doubtless, rugs and tapestries added their richness to this
architectural splendor.

FIG. 18.—PALACE OF SARGON AT KHORSABAD.

CHALDÆAN ARCHITECTURE. The ruins at Mugheir (the Biblical Ur),
dating, perhaps, from 2200 b.c., belong to the two-storied terrace or
platform of a temple to Sin or Hurki. The wall of sun-dried brick is faced
with enamelled tile. The shrine, which was probably small, has wholly
disappeared from the summit of the mound. At Warka (the ancient Erech)
are two terrace-walls of palaces, one of which is ornamented with convex
flutings and with a species of mosaic in checker patterns and zigzags,
formed by terra-cotta cones or spikes driven into the clay, their exposed
bases being enamelled in the desired colors. The other shows a system of
long, narrow panels, in a style suggesting the influence of Egyptian models
through some as yet unknown channel. This panelling became a common
feature of the later Assyrian art (see Fig. 19). At Birs-Nimroud are the ruins
of a stepped pyramid surmounted by a small shrine. Its seven stages are said
to have been originally faced with glazed tile of the seven planetary colors,
gold, silver, yellow, red, blue, white, and black. The ruins at Nippur, which
comprise temples, altars, and dwellings dating from 4000 b.c., have been
alluded to. Babylon, the later capital of Chaldæa, to which the shapeless

mounds of Mujehbeh and Kasr seem to have belonged, has left no other
recognizable vestige of its ancient magnificence.
ASSYRIAN ARCHITECTURE. Abundant ruins exist of Nineveh, the
Assyrian capital, and its adjacent palace-sites. Excavations at Koyunjik,
Khorsabad, and Nimroud have laid bare a number of these royal dwellings.
Among them are the palace of Assur-nazir-pal (885 b.c.) and two palaces of
Shalmaneser II. (850 b.c.) at Nimroud; the great palace of Sargon at
Khorsabad (721 b.c.); that of Sennacherib at Koyunjik (704 b.c.); of
Esarhaddon at Nimroud (650 b.c.); and of Assur-bani-pal at Koyunjik (660
b.c.). All of these palaces are designed on the same general principle, best
shown by the plan (Fig. 18) of the palace of Sargon at Khorsabad, excavated
by Botta and Place.
In this palace two large and several smaller courts are surrounded by a
complex series of long, narrow halls and small, square chambers. One court
probably belonged to the harem, another to the king’s apartments, others to
dependents and to the service of the palace. The crude brick walls are
immensely thick and without windows, the only openings being for doors.
The absence of columns made wide halls impossible, and great size could
only be attained in the direction of length. A terraced pyramid supported an
altar or shrine to the southwest of the palace; at the west corner was a
temple, the substructure of which was crowned by a cavetto cornice
showing plainly the influence of Egyptian models. The whole palace stood
upon a stupendous platform faced with cut stone, an unaccustomed
extravagance in Assyria.

FIG. 19.—GATE, KHORSABAD.

ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. There is no evidence that the Assyrians
ever used columnar supports except in minor or accessory details. There are
few halls in any of the ruins too wide to be spanned by good Syrian cedar
beams or palm timbers, and these few cases seem to have had vaulted
ceilings. So clumsy a feature as the central wall in the great hall of
Esarhaddon’s palace at Nimroud would never have been resorted to for the
support of the ceiling, had the Assyrians been familiar with the use of
columns. That they understood the arch and vault is proved by their
admirable terrace-drains and the fine arched gate in the walls of Khorsabad
(Fig. 19), as well as by bas-reliefs representing dwellings with domes of
various forms. Moreover, a few vaulted chambers of moderate size, and
fallen fragments of crude brick vaulting of larger span, have been found in
several of the Assyrian ruins.
The construction was extremely simple. The heavy clay walls were faced
with alabaster, burned brick, or enamelled tiles. The roofs were probably
covered with stamped earth, and sometimes paved on top with tiles or slabs
of alabaster to form terraces. Light was introduced most probably through
windows immediately under the roof and divided by small columns forming
mullions, as suggested by certain relief pictures. No other system seems
consistent with the windowless walls of the ruins. It is possible that many
rooms depended wholly on artificial light or on the scant rays coming
through open doors. To this day, in the hot season the population of Mosul

takes refuge from the torrid heats of summer in windowless basements
lighted only by lamps.
ORNAMENT. The only structural decorations seem to have been the
panelling of exterior walls in a manner resembling the Chaldæan terrace-
walls, and a form of parapet like a stepped cresting. There were no
characteristic mouldings, architraves, capitals, or cornices. Nearly all the
ornament was of the sort called applied, i.e., added after the completion of
the structure itself. Pictures in low relief covered the alabaster revetment.
They depicted hunting-scenes, battles, deities, and other mythological
subjects, and are interesting to the architect mainly for their occasional
representations of buildings and details of construction. Above this wainscot
were friezes of enamelled brick ornamented with symbolic forms used as
decorative motives; winged bulls, the “sacred tree” and mythological
monsters, with rosettes, palmettes, lotus-flowers, and guilloches (ornaments
of interlacing bands winding about regularly spaced buttons or eyes). These
ornaments were also used on the archivolts around the great arches of palace
gates. The most singular adornments of these gates were the carved “portal
guardians” set into the deep jambs—colossal monsters with the bodies of
bulls, the wings of eagles, and human heads of terrible countenance. Of
mighty bulk, they were yet minutely wrought in every detail of head-dress,
beard, feathers, curly hair, and anatomy.
The purely conventional ornaments
mentioned above—the rosette, guilloche,
and lotus-flower, and probably also the
palmette, were derived from Egyptian
originals. They were treated, however, in a
quite new spirit and adapted to the special
materials and uses of their environment.
Thus the form of the palmette, even if FIG. 20.—ASSYRIAN ORNAMENT.
derived, as is not unlikely, from the Egyptian
lotus-motive, was assimilated to the more familiar palm-forms of Assyria
(Fig. 20).
Assyrian architecture never rivalled the Egyptian in grandeur or constructive
power, in seriousness, or the higher artistic qualities. It did, however,

produce imposing results with the poorest resources, and in its use of the
arch and its development of ornamental forms it furnished prototypes for
some of the most characteristic features of later Asiatic art, which
profoundly influenced both Greek and Byzantine architecture.

MONUMENTS: The most important Chaldæan and Assyrian monuments of which there are
extant remains, have already been enumerated in the text. It is therefore unnecessary to
duplicate the list here.

4. This is denied by some recent writers, so far as the Chaldæans are concerned, and is not
intended here to apply to the Accadians and Summerians of primitive Chaldæa.
5. See Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis, for an ingenious but unsubstantiated
argument for the use of columns in Assyrian palaces.

CHAPTER V.

PERSIAN, LYCIAN AND JEWISH ARCHITECTURE.

Books Recommended: As before, Babelon; Bliss, Excavations at Jerusalem. Reber. Also
Dieulafoy, L’Art antique de la Perse. Fellows, Account of Discoveries in Lycia. Fergusson,
The Temple at Jerusalem. Flandin et Coste, Perse ancienne. Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art
in Persia; History of Art in Phrygia, Lydia, Caria, and Lycia; History of Art in Sardinia and
Judæa. Texier, L’Arménie et la Perse; L’Asie Mineure. De Vogüé, Le Temple de Jérusalem.

PERSIAN ARCHITECTURE. With the Persians, who under Cyrus (536
b.c.) and Cambyses (525 b.c.) became the masters of the Orient, the Aryan
race superseded the Semitic, and assimilated in new combinations the forms
it borrowed from the Assyrian civilization. Under the Achæmenidæ (536 to
330 b.c.) palaces were built in Persepolis and Susa of a splendor and majesty
impossible in Mesopotamia, and rivalling the marvels in the Nile Valley.
The conquering nation of warriors who had overthrown the Egyptians and
Assyrians was in turn conquered by the arts of its vanquished foes, and
speedily became the most luxurious of all nations. The Persians were not
great innovators in art; but inhabiting a land of excellent building resources,
they were able to combine the Egyptian system of interior columns with
details borrowed from Assyrian art, and suggestions, derived most probably
from the general use in Persia and Central Asia, of wooden posts or columns
as intermediate supports. Out of these elements they evolved an architecture
which has only become fully known to us since the excavations of M. and
Mme. Dieulafoy at Susa in 1882.
ELEMENTS OF PERSIAN ARCHITECTURE. The Persians used both
crude and baked bricks, the latter far more freely than was practicable in
Assyria, owing to the greater abundance of fuel. Walls when built of the
weaker material were faced with baked brick enamelled in brilliant colors,
or both moulded and enamelled, to form colored pictures in relief. Stone
was employed for walls and columns, and, in conjunction with brick, for the

jambs and lintels of doors and windows. Architraves and ceiling-beams
were of wood. The palaces were erected, as in Assyria, upon broad
platforms, partly cut in the rock and partly structural, approached by
imposing flights of steps. These palaces were composed of detached
buildings, propylæa or gates of honor, vast audience-halls open on one or
two sides, and chambers or dwellings partly enclosing or flanking these
halls, or grouped in separate buildings. Temples appear to have been of
small importance, perhaps owing to habits of out-of-door worship of fire
and sun. There are few structural tombs, but there are a number of imposing
royal sepulchres cut in the rock at Naksh-i-Roustam.
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. The Persians, like the Egyptians, used the
column as an internal feature in hypostyle halls of great size, and externally
to form porches, and perhaps, also, open kiosks without walls. The great
Hall of Xerxes at Persepolis covers 100,000 square feet—more than double
the area of the Hypostyle Hall at Karnak. But the Persian column was
derived from wooden prototypes and used with wooden architraves,
permitting a wider spacing than is possible with stone. In the present
instance thirty-six columns sufficed for an area which in the Karnak hall
contained one hundred and thirty-four. The shafts being slender and finely
fluted instead of painted or carved, the effect produced was totally different
from that sought by the Egyptians. The most striking peculiarity of the
column was the capital, which was forked (Fig. 21). In one of the two
principal types the fork, formed by the coupled fore-parts of bulls or
symbolic monsters, rested directly on the top of the shaft. In the other, two
singular members were interposed between the fork and the shaft; the lower,
a sort of double bell or bell-and-palm capital, and above it, just beneath the
fork, a curious combination of vertical scrolls or volutes, resembling certain
ornaments seen in Assyrian furniture. The transverse architrave rested in the
fork; the longitudinal architrave was supported on the heads of the monsters.
A rich moulded base, rather high and in some cases adorned with carved
leaves or flutings, supported the columns, which in the Hall of Xerxes were
over 66 feet high and 6 feet in diameter. The architraves have perished, but
the rock-cut tomb of Darius at Naksh-i-Roustam reproduces in its façade a
palace-front, showing a banded architrave with dentils—an obvious
imitation of the ends of wooden rafters on a lintel built up of several beams.

These features of the architrave, as well as the fine
flutings and moulded bases of the columns, are found
in Ionic architecture, and in part, at least, in Lycian
tombs. As all these examples date from nearly the same
period, the origin of these forms and their mutual
relations have not been fully determined. The Persian
capitals, however, are unique, and so far as known,
without direct prototypes or derivatives. Their
constituent elements may have been borrowed from
various sources. One can hardly help seeing the
Egyptian palm-capital in the lower member of the
compound type (Fig. 21).
The doors and windows had banded architraves or
trims and cavetto cornices very Egyptian in character.
The portals were flanked, as in Assyria, by winged
monsters; but these were built up in several courses of
stone, not carved from single blocks like their
FIG. 21.—COLUMN
prototypes. Plaster or, as at Susa, enamelled bricks,
FROM PERSEPOLIS.
replaced as a wall-finish the Assyrian alabaster
wainscot. These bricks, splendid in color, and moulded into relief pictures
covering large surfaces, are the oldest examples of the skill of the Persians
in a branch of ceramic art in which they have always excelled down to our
own day.
LYCIAN ARCHITECTURE. The architecture of those Asiatic peoples
which served as intermediaries between the ancient civilizations of Egypt
and Assyria on the one hand and of the Greeks on the other, need occupy us
only a moment in passing. None of them developed a complete and
independent style or produced monuments of the first rank. Those chiefly
concerned in the transmission of ideas were the Cypriotes, Phœnicians, and
Lycians. The part played by other Asiatic nations is too slight to be
considered here. From Cyprus the Greeks could have learned little beyond a
few elementary notions regarding sculpture and pottery, although it is
possible that the volute-form in Ionic architecture was originally derived
from patterns on Cypriote pottery and from certain Cypriote steles, where it
appears as a modified lotus motive. The Phœnicians were the world’s traders

from a very early age down to the Persian conquest. They not only
distributed through the Mediterranean lands the manufactures of Egypt and
Assyria, but also counterfeited them and adopted their forms in decorating
their own wares. But they have bequeathed us not a single architectural ruin
of importance, either of temples or palaces, nor are the few tombs still
extant of sufficient artistic interest to deserve even brief mention in a work
of this scope.
In Lycia, however, there arose a system of tomb-design which came near
creating a new architectural style, and which doubtless influenced both
Persia and the Ionian colonies. The tombs were mostly cut in the rock,
though a few are free-standing monolithic monuments, resembling
sarcophagi or small shrines mounted on a high base or pedestal.
In all of these tombs we recognize a manifest copying in stone of framed
wooden structures. The walls are panelled, or imitate open structures framed
of squared timbers. The roofs are often gabled, sometimes in the form of a
pointed arch; they generally show a banded architrave, dentils, and a raking
cornice, or else an imitation of broadly projecting eaves with small round
rafters. There are several with porches of Ionic columns; of these, some are
of late date and evidently copied from Asiatic Greek models. Others, and
notably one at Telmissus, seem to be examples of a primitive Ionic, and may
indeed have been early steps in the development of that splendid style which
the Ionic Greeks, both in Asia Minor and in Attica, carried to such
perfection.
JEWISH ARCHITECTURE. The Hebrews borrowed from the art of every
people with whom they had relations, so that we encounter in the few extant
remains of their architecture Egyptian, Assyrian, Phœnician, Greek, Roman,
and Syro-Byzantine features, but nothing like an independent national style.
Among the most interesting of these remains are tombs of various periods,
principally occurring in the valleys near Jerusalem, and erroneously ascribed
by popular tradition to the judges, prophets, and kings of Israel. Some of
them are structural, some cut in the rock; the former (tomb of Absalom, of
Zechariah) decorated with Doric and Ionic engaged orders, were once
supposed to be primitive types of these orders and of great antiquity. They
are now recognized to be debased imitations of late Greek work of the third

or second century b.c. They have Egyptian cavetto cornices and pyramidal
roofs, like many Asiatic tombs. The openings of the rock-cut tombs have
frames or pediments carved with rich surface ornament showing a similar
mixture of types—Roman triglyphs and garlands, Syrian-Greek acanthus
leaves, conventional foliage of Byzantine character, and naturalistic carvings
of grapes and local plant-life. The carved arches of two of the ancient city
gates (one the so-called Golden Gate) in Jerusalem display rich acanthus
foliage somewhat like that of the tombs, but more vigorous and artistic. If of
the time of Herod or even of Constantine, as claimed by some, they would
indicate that Greek artists in Syria created the prototypes of Byzantine
ornament. They are more probably, however, Byzantine restorations of the
6th century a.d.
The one great achievement of Jewish architecture was the national Temple
of Jehovah, represented by three successive edifices on Mount Moriah, the
site of the present so-called “Mosque of Omar.” The first, built by Solomon
(1012 b.c.) appears from the Biblical description 6 to have combined
Egyptian conceptions (successive courts, lofty entrance-pylons, the
Sanctuary and the sekos or “Holy of Holies”) with Phœnician and Assyrian
details and workmanship (cedar woodwork, empaistic decoration or
overlaying with repoussé metal work, the isolated brazen columns Jachin
and Boaz). The whole stood on a mighty platform built up with stupendous
masonry and vaulted chambers from the valley surrounding the rock on
three sides. This precinct was nearly doubled in size by Herod (18 b.c.) who
extended it southward by a terrace-wall of still more colossal masonry.
Some of the stones are twenty-two feet long; one reaches the prodigious
length of forty feet. The “Wall of Lamentations” is a part of this terrace,
upon which stood the Temple on a raised platform. As rebuilt by Herod, the
Temple reproduced in part the antique design, and retained the porch of
Solomon along the east side; but the whole was superbly reconstructed in
white marble with abundance of gilding. Defended by the Castle of Antonia
on the northwest, and embellished with a new and imposing triple colonnade
on the south, the whole edifice, a conglomerate of Egyptian, Assyrian, and
Roman conceptions and forms, was one of the most singular and yet
magnificent creations of ancient art.

The temple of Zerubbabel (515 b.c.), intermediate between those above
described, was probably less a re-edification of the first, than a new design.
While based on the scheme of the first temple, it appears to have followed
more closely the pattern described in the vision of Ezekiel (chapters xl.-
xlii.). It was far inferior to its predecessor in splendor and costliness. No
vestiges of it remain.

MONUMENTS. Persian: at Murghab, the tomb of Cyrus, known as Gabré-Madré-Soleiman
—a gabled structure on a seven-stepped pyramidal basement (525 b.c.). At Persepolis the
palace of Darius (521 b.c.); the Propylæa of Xerxes, his palace and his harem (?) or throne-
hall (480 b.c.). These splendid structures, several of them of vast size, resplendent with color
and majestic with their singular and colossal columns, must have formed one of the most
imposing architectural groups in the world. At various points, tower-like tombs, supposed
erroneously by Fergusson to have been fire altars. At Naksh-i-Roustam, the tomb of Darius,
cut in the rock. Other tombs near by at Persepolis proper and at Pasargadæ. At the latter place
remains of the palace of Cyrus. At Susa the palace of Xerxes and Artaxerxes (480–405 b.c.).
There are no remains of private houses or temples.
Lycian: the principal Lycian monuments are found in Myra, Antiphellus, and Telmissus. Some
of the monolithic tombs have been removed to the British and other European museums.
Jewish: the temples have been mentioned above. The palace of Solomon. The rock-cut
monolithic tomb of Siloam. So-called tombs of Absalom and Zechariah, structural; probably
of Herod’s time or later. Rock-cut Tombs of the Kings; of the Prophets, etc. City gates
(Herodian or early Christian period).

6. 1 Kings vi.-vii.; 2 Chronicles iii.-iv.

CHAPTER VI.

GREEK ARCHITECTURE.

Books Recommended: As before, Reber. Also, Anderson and Spiers, Architecture of Greece
and Rome. Baumeister, Denkmäler der Klassischen Alterthums. Bötticher, Tektonik der
Hellenen. Chipiez, Histoire critique des ordres grecs. Curtius, Adler and Treu, Die
Ausgrabungen zu Olympia. Durm, Antike Baukunst (in Handbuch d. Arch.). Frazer, Pausanias’
Description of Greece. Hitorff, L’architecture polychrome chez les Grecs. Michaelis, Der
Parthenon. Penrose, An Investigation, etc., of Athenian Architecture. Perrot and Chipiez,
History of Art in Primitive Greece; La Grèce de l’Epopée; La Grèce archaïque. Stuart and
Revett, Antiquities of Athens. Tarbell, History of Greek Art. Texier, L’Asie Mineure. Wilkins,
Antiquities of Magna Græcia.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. Greek art marks the beginning of
European civilization. The Hellenic race gathered up influences and
suggestions from both Asia and Africa and fused them with others, whose
sources are unknown, into an art intensely national and original, which was
to influence the arts of many races and nations long centuries after the decay
of the Hellenic states. The Greek mind, compared with the Egyptian or
Assyrian, was more highly intellectual, more logical, more symmetrical, and
above all more inquiring and analytic. Living nowhere remote from the sea,
the Greeks became sailors, merchants, and colonizers. The Ionian kinsmen
of the European Greeks, speaking a dialect of the same language, populated
the coasts of Asia Minor and many of the islands, so that through them the
Greeks were open to the influences of the Assyrian, Phœnician, Persian, and
Lycian civilizations. In Cyprus they encountered Egyptian influences, and
finally, under Psammetichus, they established in Egypt itself the Greek city
of Naukratis. They were thus by geographical situation, by character, and by
circumstances, peculiarly fitted to receive, develop, and transmit the
mingled influences of the East and the South.
PREHISTORIC MONUMENTS. 7 Authentic Greek history begins with
the first Olympiad, 776 b.c. The earliest monuments of that historic

architecture which developed into the
masterpieces of the Periclean and
Alexandrian ages, date from the middle of
the following century. But there are a
number of older buildings, belonging
presumably to the so-called Heroic Age,
which, though seemingly unconnected with
the later historic development of Greek
architecture, are still worthy of note. They
are the work of a people somewhat
advanced in civilization, probably the
Pelasgi, who preceded the Dorians on FIG. 22.—LION GATE AT MYCENÆ.
Greek soil, and consist mainly of
fortifications, walls, gates, and tombs, the most important of which are at
Mycenæ and Tiryns. At the latter place is a well-defined acropolis, with
massive walls in which are passages covered by stones successively
overhanging or corbelled until they meet. The masonry is of huge stones
piled without cement. At Mycenæ the city wall is pierced by the remarkable
Lion Gate (Fig. 22), consisting of two jambs and a huge lintel, over which
the weight is relieved by a triangular opening. This is filled with a
sculptured group, now much defaced, representing two rampant lions
flanking a singular column which tapers downward. This symbolic group
has relations with Hittite and Phrygian sculptures, and with the symbolism
of the worship of Rhea Cybele. The masonry of the wall is carefully dressed
but not regularly coursed. Other primitive walls and gates showing openings
and embryonic arches of various forms, are found widely scattered, at
Samos and Delos, at Phigaleia, Thoricus, Argos and many other points. The
very earliest are hardly more than random
piles of rough stone. Those which may fairly
claim notice for their artistic masonry are of
a later date and of two kinds: the coursed,
and the polygonal or Cyclopean, so called
FIG. 23.—POLYGONAL MASONRY. from the tradition that they were built by the
Cyclopes. These Cyclopean walls were
composed of large, irregular polygonal blocks carefully fitted together and
dressed to a fairly smooth face (Fig. 23). Both kinds were used

contemporaneously, though in the course of time the regular coursed
masonry finally superseded the polygonal.

FIG. 24.—THOLOS OF ATREUS. PLAN AND SECTION.

THOLOS OF ATREUS. All these structures present, however, only the
rudiments of architectural art. The so-called Tholos (or Treasury) of Atreus,
at Mycenæ, on the other hand, shows the germs of truly artistic design (Fig.
24). It is in reality a tomb, and is one of a large class of prehistoric tombs
found in almost every part of the globe, consisting of a circular stone-walled
and stone-roofed chamber buried under a tumulus of earth. This one is a
beehive-shaped construction of horizontal courses of masonry, with a stone-
walled passage, the dromos, leading to the entrance door. Though internally
of domical form, its construction with horizontal beds in the masonry proves
that the idea of the true dome with the beds of each course pitched at an
angle always normal to the curve of the vault, was not yet grasped. A small
sepulchral chamber opens from the great one, by a door with the customary
relieving triangle over it.
Traces of a metal lining have been found on the inner
surface of the dome and on the jambs of the entrance door.
This entrance is the most artistic and elaborate part of the
edifice (Fig. 25). The main opening is enclosed in a three-
banded frame, and was once flanked by columns which, as
shown by fragments still existing and by marks on either
side the door, tapered downward as in the sculptured
column over the Lion Gate. Shafts, bases, and capitals
were covered with zig-zag bands or chevrons of fine
FIG. 25.—
spirals. This well-studied decoration, the banded jambs,

and the curiously inverted columns (of which several other THOLOS OF
examples exist in or near Mycenæ), all point to a fairly ATREUS.
developed art, derived partly from Egyptian and partly DOORWAY.
from Asiatic sources. That Egyptian influences had
affected this early art is further proved by a fragment of carved and painted
ornament on a ceiling in Orchomenos, imitating with remarkable closeness
certain ceiling decorations in Egyptian tombs.
HISTORIC MONUMENTS; THE ORDERS. It was the Dorians and
Ionians who developed the architecture of classic Greece. This fact is
perpetuated in the traditional names, Doric and Ionic, given to the two
systems of columnar design which formed the most striking feature of that
architecture. While in Egypt the column was used almost exclusively as an
internal support and decoration, in Greece it was chiefly employed to
produce an imposing exterior effect. It was the most important element in
the temple architecture of the Greeks, and an almost indispensable
adornment of their gateways, public squares, and temple enclosures. To the
column the two races named above gave each a special and radically distinct
development, and it was not until the Periclean age that the two forms came
to be used in conjunction, even by the mixed Doric-Ionic people of Attica.
Each of the two types had its own special shaft, capital, entablature,
mouldings, and ornaments, although considerable variation was allowed in
the proportions and minor details. The general type, however, remained
substantially unchanged from first to last. The earliest examples known to us
of either order show it complete in all its parts, its later development being
restricted to the refining and perfecting of its proportions and details. The
probable origin of these orders will be separately considered later on.
THE DORIC. The column of the Doric order (Figs. 26, 27) consists of a
tapering shaft rising directly from the stylobate or platform and surmounted
by a capital of great simplicity and beauty. The shaft is fluted with sixteen to
twenty shallow channellings of segmental or elliptical section, meeting in
sharp edges or arrises. The capital is made up of a circular cushion or
echinus adorned with fine grooves called annulæ, and a plain square abacus
or cap Upon this rests a plain architrave or epistyle, with a narrow fillet, the
tænia, running along its upper edge. The frieze above it is divided into
square panels, called the metopes, separated by vertical triglyphs having

each two vertical grooves and chamfered
edges. There is a triglyph over each column
and one over each intercolumniation, or two
in rare instances where the columns are
widely spaced. The cornice consists of a
broadly projecting corona resting on a bed-
mould of one or two simple mouldings. Its
under surface, called the soffit, is adorned
with mutules, square, flat projections having
each eighteen guttæ depending from its under
side. Two or three small mouldings run along
the upper edge of the corona, which has in
addition, over each slope of the gable,
FIG. 26.—GREEK DORIC ORDER.
a gutter-moulding or cymatium. The cornices
A, Crepidoma, or stylobate;
b, Column; c, Architrave; d,
along the horizontal edges of the roof have instead
Tænia; e, Frieze; f, of the cymatium a row of antefixæ, ornaments of
Horizontal cornice; g, Raking terra-cotta or marble placed opposite the foot of
cornice; h, Tympanum of
pediment; k, Metope.
each tile-ridge of the roofing. The enclosed
triangular field of the gable, called the tympanum,
was in the larger monuments adorned with sculptured groups resting on the
shelf formed by the horizontal cornice below. Carved ornaments called
acroteria commonly embellished the three angles of the gable or pediment.
POLYCHROMY. It has been fully proved, after a century of debate, that all
this elaborate system of parts, severe and dignified in their simplicity of
form, received a rich decoration of color. While the precise shades and tones
employed cannot be predicated with certainty, it is well established that the
triglyphs were painted blue and the metopes red, and that all the mouldings
were decorated with leaf-ornaments, “eggs-and-darts,” and frets, in red,
green, blue, and gold. The walls and columns were also colored, probably
with pale tints of yellow or buff, to reduce the glare of the fresh marble or
the whiteness of the fine stucco with which the surfaces of masonry of
coarser stone were primed. In the clear Greek atmosphere and outlined
against the brilliant sky, the Greek temple must have presented an aspect of
rich, sparkling gayety.

ORIGIN OF THE ORDER. It is generally
believed that the details of the Doric frieze
and cornice were reminiscences of a
primitive wood construction. The triglyph
suggests the chamfered ends of cross-beams
made up of three planks each; the mutules,
the sheathing of the eaves; and the guttæ,
the heads of the spikes or trenails by which
the sheathing was secured. It is known that
in early astylar temples the metopes were
left open like the spaces between the ends
of ceiling-rafters. In the earlier peripteral FIG. 27.—DORIC ORDER OF THE
temples, as at Selinus, the triglyph-frieze is PARTHENON.
retained around the cella-wall under the
ceiling of the colonnade, where it has no functional significance, as a
survival from times antedating the adoption of the colonnade, when the
tradition of a wooden roof-construction showing externally had not yet been
forgotten.
A similar wooden origin for the Doric column has been advocated by some,
who point to the assertion of Pausanias that in the Doric Heraion at Olympia
the original wooden columns had with one exception been replaced by stone
columns as fast as they decayed. (See p. 62.) This, however, only proves that
wooden columns were sometimes used in early buildings, not that the Doric
column was derived from them. Others would derive it from the Egyptian
columns of Beni Hassan (p. 12), which it certainly resembles. But they do
not explain how the Greeks could have been familiar with the Beni Hassan
column long before the opening of Egypt to them under Psammetichus; nor
why, granting them some knowledge of Egyptian architecture, they should
have passed over the splendors of Karnak and Luxor to copy these
inconspicuous tombs perched high up on the cliffs of the Nile. It would
seem that the Greeks invented this form independently, developing it in
buildings which have perished; unless, indeed, they brought the idea with
them from their primitive Aryan home in Asia.
THE IONIC ORDER was characterized by greater slenderness of
proportion and elegance of detail than the Doric, and depended more on

carving than on color for the decoration of its members (Fig. 28). It was
adopted in the fifth century b.c. by the people of Attica, and used both for
civic and religious buildings, sometimes alone and sometimes in
conjunction with the Doric. The column was from eight to ten diameters in
height, against four and one-third to seven for the Doric. It stood on a base
which was usually composed of two tori (see p. 25 for definition) separated
by a scotia (a concave moulding of semicircular or semi-elliptical profile),
and was sometimes provided also with a square flat base-block, the plinth.
There was much variety in the proportions and details of these mouldings,
which were often enriched by flutings or carved guilloches. The tall shaft
bore twenty-four deep narrow flutings separated by narrow fillets. The
capital was the most peculiar feature of the order. It consisted of a bead or
astragal and echinus, over which was a horizontal band ending on either
side in a scroll or volute, the sides of which presented the aspect shown in
Fig. 29. A thin moulded abacus was interposed between this member and the
architrave.
The Ionic capital was marked by two awkward features
which all its richness could not conceal. One was the
protrusion of the echinus beyond the face of the band
above it, the other was the disparity between the side
and front views of the capital, especially noticeable at
the corners of a colonnade. To obviate this, various
contrivances were tried, none wholly successful.
Ordinarily the two adjacent exterior sides of the corner
capital were treated alike, the scrolls at their meeting
being bent out at an angle of 45°, while the two inner FIG. 28.—GREEK
faces simply intersected, cutting each other in halves. IONIC ORDER.
(MILETUS.)
The entablature comprised an architrave of two or
three flat bands crowned by fine mouldings; an uninterrupted frieze,
frequently sculptured in relief; and a simple cornice of great beauty. In
addition to the ordinary bed-mouldings there was in most examples a row of
narrow blocks or dentils under the corona, which was itself crowned by a
high cymatium of extremely graceful profile, carved with the rich
“honeysuckle” (anthemion) ornament. All the mouldings were carved with
the “egg-and-dart,” heart-leaf and anthemion ornaments, so designed as to

recall by their outline the profile of the moulding itself. The details of this
order were treated with much more freedom and variety than those of the
Doric. The pediments of Ionic buildings were rarely or never adorned with
groups of sculpture. The volutes and echinus of the capital, the fluting of the
shaft, the use of a moulded circular base, and in the cornice the high corona
and cymatium, these were constant elements in every Ionic order, but all
other details varied widely in the different examples.
ORIGIN OF THE IONIC ORDER. The origin of
the Ionic order has given rise to almost as much
controversy as that of the Doric. Its different
elements were apparently derived from various
sources. The Lycian tombs may have contributed
the denticular cornice and perhaps also the general
form of the column and capital. In the Persian
architecture of the sixth century b.c., the high
FIG. 29.—SIDE VIEW OF
moulded base, the narrow flutings of the shaft, the
IONIC CAPITAL.
carved bead-moulding and the use of scrolls in the
capital are characteristic features, which may have been borrowed by the
Ionians during the same century, unless, indeed, they were themselves the
work of Ionic or Lycian workmen in Persian employ. The banded architrave
and the use of the volute in the decoration of stele-caps (from στηλη = a
memorial stone or column standing isolated and upright), furniture, and
minor structures are common features in Assyrian, Lycian, and other Asiatic
architecture of early date. The volute or scroll itself as an independent
decorative motive may have originated in successive variations of Egyptian
lotus-patterns. 8 But the combination of these diverse elements and their
development into the final form of the order was the work of the Ionian
Greeks, and it was in the Ionian provinces of Asia Minor that the most
splendid examples of its use are to be found (Halicarnassus, Miletus, Priene,
Ephesus), while the most graceful and perfect are those of Doric-Ionic
Attica.
THE CORINTHIAN ORDER. This was a late outgrowth of the Ionic
rather than a new order, and up to the time of the Roman conquest was only
used for monuments of small size (see Fig. 38). Its entablature in pure Greek
examples was identical with the Ionic; the shaft and base were only slightly

changed in proportion and detail. The capital,
however, was a new departure, based probably on
metallic embellishments of altars, pedestals, etc., of
Ionic style. It consisted in the best examples of a
high bell-shaped core surrounded by one or two
rows of acanthus leaves, above which were pairs of
branching scrolls meeting at the corners in spiral
volutes. These served to support the angles of a
moulded abacus with concave sides (Fig. 30). One
example, from the Tower of the Winds (the
clepsydra of Andronicus Cyrrhestes) at Athens, has
only smooth pointed palm-leaves and no scrolls
above a single row of acanthus leaves. Indeed, the
variety and disparity among the different examples
prove that we have here only the first steps toward
the evolution of an independent order, which it was
FIG. 30.—GREEK reserved for the Romans to fully develop.
CORINTHIAN ORDER.
GREEK TEMPLES; THE TYPE. With the
(From the monument
orders as their chief decorative element the Greeks
of Lysicrates.) built up a splendid architecture of religious and
secular monuments. Their noblest works were temples, which they designed
with the utmost simplicity of general scheme, but carried out with a mastery
of proportion and detail which has never been surpassed. Of moderate size
in most cases, they were intended primarily to enshrine the simulacrum of
the deity, and not, like Christian churches, to accommodate great throngs of
worshippers. Nor were they, on the other hand, sanctuaries designed, like
those of Egypt, to exclude all but a privileged few from secret rites
performed only by the priests and king. The statue of the deity was
enshrined in a chamber, the naos (see plan, Fig. 31), often of considerable
size, and accessible to the public through a columnar porch the pronaos.
A smaller chamber, the opisthodomus, was sometimes added in the rear of
the main sanctuary, to serve as a treasury or depository for votive offerings.
Together these formed a windowless structure called the cella, beyond
which was the rear porch, the posticum or epinaos. This whole structure was
in the larger temples surrounded by a colonnade, the peristyle, which formed

the most splendid feature of Greek architecture. The external aisle on either
side of the cella was called the pteroma. A single gabled roof covered the
entire building.
The Greek colonnade was thus an exterior feature,
surrounding the solid cella-wall instead of being
enclosed by it as in Egypt. The temple was a
public, not a royal monument; and its builders
aimed, not as in Egypt at size and overwhelming
sombre majesty, but rather at sunny beauty and the
highest perfection of proportion, execution, and
detail (Fig. 34).
There were of course many variations of the FIG. 31.—TYPES OF
general type just described. Each of these has GREEK TEMPLE PLANS.
received a special name, which is given below with a, In Antis; b, Prostyle; c,
Amphiprostyle; d, Peripteral
explanations and is illustrated in Fig. 31. (The Parthenon); N, Naos; O,
In antis; with a porch having two or more columns Opisthodomus; S, Statue.

enclosed between the projecting side-walls of the Larger View of plan d
cella.
Prostylar (or prostyle); with a columnar porch in front and no peristyle.
Amphiprostylar (or -style); with columnar porches at both ends but no
peristyle.
Peripteral; surrounded by columns.
Pseudoperipteral; with false or engaged columns built into the walls of the
cella, leaving no pteroma.
Dipteral; with double lateral ranges of columns (see Fig. 39).
Pseudodipteral; with a single row of columns on each side, whose distance
from the wall is equal to two intercolumniations of the front.
Tetrastyle, hexastyle, octastyle, decastyle, etc.; with four, six, eight, or ten
columns in the end rows.
CONSTRUCTION. All the temples known to us are of stone, though it is
evident from allusions in the ancient writers that wood was sometimes used

in early times. (See p. 62.) The finest temples, especially those of Attica,
Olympia, and Asia Minor, were of marble. In Magna Græcia, at Assos, and
in other places where marble was wanting, limestone, sandstone, or lava was
employed and finished with a thin, fine stucco. The roof was almost
invariably of wood and gabled, forming at the ends pediments decorated in
most cases with sculpture. The disappearance of these inflammable and
perishable roofs has given rise to endless speculations as to the lighting of
the cellas, which in all known ruins, except one at Agrigentum, are destitute
of windows. It has been conjectured that light was admitted through
openings in the roof, and even that the central part of the cella was wholly
open to the sky. Such an arrangement is termed hypæthral, from an
expression used in a description by Vitruvius; 9 but this description
corresponds to no known structure, and the weight of opinion now inclines
against the use of the hypæthral opening, except possibly in one or two of
the largest temples, in which a part of the cella in front of the statue may
have been thus left open. But even this partial hypæthros is not substantiated
by direct evidence. It hardly seems probable that the magnificent
chryselephantine statues of such temples were ever thus left exposed to the
extremes of the climate, which are often severe even in Greece. In the model
of the Parthenon designed by Ch. Chipiez for the Metropolitan Museum in
New York, a small clerestory opening through the roof admits a moderate
amount of light to the cella; but this ingenious device rests on no positive
evidence (see Frontispiece). It seems on the whole most probable that the
cella was lighted entirely by artificial illumination; but the controversy in its
present state is and must be wholly speculative.
The wooden roof was covered with tiles of terra-cotta or marble. It was
probably ceiled and panelled on the under side, and richly decorated with
color and gold. The pteroma had under the exterior roof a ceiling of stone or
marble, deeply panelled between transverse architraves.
The naos and opisthodomus being in the larger temples too wide to be
spanned by single beams, were furnished with interior columns to afford
intermediate support. To avoid the extremes of too great massiveness and
excessive slenderness in these columns, they were built in two stages, and
advantage was taken of this arrangement, in some cases, at least, to
introduce lateral galleries into the naos.

SCULPTURE AND CARVING. All the
architectural membering was treated with
the greatest refinement of design and
execution, and the aid of sculpture, both in
relief and in the round, was invoked to give
splendor and significance to the monument.
The statue of the deity was the focus of
internal interest, while externally, groups of
statues representing the Olympian deities or
the mythical exploits of gods, demigods,
and heroes, adorned the gables. Relief
carvings in the friezes and metopes
commemorated the favorite national myths.
In these sculptures we have the finest
known adaptations of pure sculpture—i.e.,
sculpture treated as such and complete in
itself—to an architectural framework. The
noblest examples of this decorative FIG. 32.—CARVED ANTHEMION
sculpture are those of the Parthenon, ORNAMENT. ATHENS.
consisting of figures in the full round from
the pediments, groups in high relief from the metopes, and the beautiful
frieze of the Panathenaic procession from the cella-wall under the pteroma
ceiling. The greater part of these splendid works are now in the British
Museum, whither they were removed by Lord Elgin in 1801. From
Olympia, Ægina, and Phigaleia, other master-works of the same kind have
been transferred to the museums of Europe. In the Doric style there was
little carving other than the sculpture, the ornament being mainly
polychromatic. Greek Ionic and Corinthian monuments, however, as well as
minor works such as steles, altars, etc., were richly adorned with carved
mouldings and friezes, festoons, acroteria, and other embellishments
executed with the chisel. The anthemion ornament, a form related to the
Egyptian lotus and Assyrian palmette, most frequently figures in these. It
was made into designs of wonderful vigor and beauty (Fig. 32).
DETAIL AND EXECUTION. In the handling and cutting of stone the
Greeks displayed a surpassing skill and delicacy. While ordinarily they were

content to use stones of moderate size, they never hesitated at any
dimension necessary for proper effect or solid construction. The lower
drums of the Parthenon peristyle are 6 feet 6½ inches in diameter, and 2 feet
10 inches high, cut from single blocks of Pentelic marble. The architraves of
the Propylæa at Athens are each made up of two lintels placed side by side,
the longest 17 feet 7 inches long, 3 feet 10 inches high, and 2 feet 4 inches
thick. In the colossal temples of Asia Minor, where the taste for the vast and
grandiose was more pronounced, blocks of much greater size were used.
These enormous stones were cut and fitted with the most scrupulous
exactness. The walls of all important structures were built in regular courses
throughout, every stone carefully bedded with extremely close joints. The
masonry was usually laid up without cement and clamped with metal; there
is no filling in with rubble and concrete between mere facings of cut stone,
as in most modern work. When the only available stone was of coarse
texture it was finished with a coating of fine stucco, in which sharp edges
and minute detail could be worked.
The details were, in the best period, executed with the most extraordinary
refinement and care. The profiles of capitals and mouldings, the carved
ornament, the arrises of the flutings, were cut with marvellous precision and
delicacy. It has been rightly said that the Greeks “built like Titans and
finished like jewellers.” But this perfect finish was never petty nor wasted
on unworthy or vulgar design. The just relation of scale between the
building and all its parts was admirably maintained; the ornament was
distributed with rare judgment, and the vigor of its design saved it from all
appearance of triviality.
The sensitive taste of the Greeks led them into other refinements than those
of mere mechanical perfection. In the Parthenon especially, but also in lesser
degree in other temples, the seemingly straight lines of the building were all
slightly curved, and the vertical faces inclined. This was done to correct the
monotony and stiffness of absolutely straight lines and right angles, and
certain optical illusions which their acute observation had detected. The long
horizontal lines of the stylobate and cornice were made convex upward;
a similar convexity in the horizontal corona of the pediment counteracted
the seeming concavity otherwise resulting from its meeting with the
multiplied inclined lines of the raking cornice. The columns were almost

imperceptibly inclined toward the cella, and the corner intercolumniations
made a trifle narrower than the rest; while the vertical lines of the arrises of
the flutings were made convex outward with a curve of the utmost beauty
and delicacy. By these and other like refinements there was imparted to the
monument an elasticity and vigor of aspect, an elusive and surprising beauty
impossible to describe and not to be explained by the mere composition and
general proportions, yet manifest to every cultivated eye. 10

7. For enlargement on this topic see Appendix A.
8. As contended by W. H. Goodyear in his Grammar of the Lotus.
9. Lib. III., Cap. I.
10. These refinements, first noticed by Allason in 1814, and later confirmed by Cockerell
and Haller as to the columns, were published to the world in 1838 by Hoffer, verified by
Penrose in 1846, and further developed by the investigations of Ziller and later observers.

CHAPTER VII.

GREEK ARCHITECTURE—Continued.

Books Recommended: Same as for Chapter VI. Also, Bacon and Clarke, Investigations at
Assos. Espouy, Fragments d’architecture antique. Harrison and Verrall, Mythology and
Monuments of Ancient Athens. Hitorff et Zanth, Recueil des Monuments de Ségeste et
Sélinonte. Magne, Le Parthénon. Koldewey and Puchstein, Die griechischen Tempel in
Unteritalien und Sicilien. Waldstein, The Argive Heræum.

HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT. The history of Greek architecture,
subsequent to the Heroic or Primitive Age, may be divided into periods as
follows:
The Archaic; from 650 to 500 b.c.
The Transitional; from 500 to 460 b.c., or to the revival of prosperity after
the Persian wars.
The Periclean; from 460 to 400 b.c.
The Florid or Alexandrian; from 400 to 300 b.c.
The Decadent; 300 to 100 b.c.
The Roman; 100 b.c. to 200 a.d.
These dates are, of course, somewhat arbitrary; it is impossible to set exact
bounds to style-periods, which must inevitably overlap at certain points, but
the dates, as given above, will assist in distinguishing the successive phases
of the history.
ARCHAIC PERIOD. The archaic period is characterized by the exclusive
use of the Doric order, which appears in the earliest monuments complete in
all its parts, but heavy in its proportions and coarse in its execution. The
oldest known temples of this period are the Apollo Temple at Corinth (650
b.c.?), and the Northern Temple on the acropolis at Selinus in Sicily (cir.

610–590 b.c.). They are both of a coarse limestone covered with stucco. The
columns are low and massive (4⅓ to 4⅔ diameters in height), widely
spaced, and carry a very high entablature. The triglyphs still appear around
the cella wall under the pteroma ceiling, an illogical detail destined to
disappear in later buildings. Other temples at Selinus date from the middle
or latter part of the sixth century; they have higher columns and finer
profiles than those just mentioned. The great Temple of Zeus at Selinus was
the earliest of five colossal Greek temples of very nearly identical
dimensions; it measured 360 feet by 167 feet in plan, but was never
completed. During the second half of the sixth century important Doric
temples were built at Pæstum in South Italy, and Agrigentum in Sicily; the
somewhat primitive temple at Assos in Asia Minor, with uncouth carvings of
centaurs and monsters on its architrave, belongs to this same period. The
Temple of Zeus at Agrigentum (Fig. 33) is another singular and
exceptional design, and was the second of the five colossal temples
mentioned above. The pteroma was entirely enclosed by walls with engaged
columns showing externally, and was of extraordinary width. The walls of
the narrow cella were interrupted by heavy piers supporting atlantes, or
applied statues under the ceiling. There seem to have been windows
between these figures, but it is not clear whence they borrowed their light,
unless it was admitted by the omission of the metopes between the external
triglyphs.
THE TRANSITION. During the transitional
period there was a marked improvement in the
proportions, detail, and workmanship of the
temples. The cella was made broader, the
columns more slender, the entablature lighter.
The triglyphs disappeared from the cella wall,
and sculpture of a higher order enhanced the FIG. 33.—TEMPLE OF ZEUS.
architectural effect. The profiles of the AGRIGENTUM.
mouldings and especially of the capitals
became more subtle and refined in their curves, while the development of
the Ionic order in important monuments in Asia Minor was preparing the
way for the splendors of the Periclean age. Three temples especially deserve
notice: the Athena Temple on the island of Ægina, the Temple of Zeus at

Olympia, and the so-called Theseum—perhaps a temple of Heracles—in
Athens. They belong to the period 470–450 b.c.; they are all hexastyle and
peripteral, and without triglyphs on the cella wall. Of the three the second in
the list is interesting as the scene of those rites which preceded and
accompanied the Panhellenic Olympian games, and as the central feature of
the Altis, the most complete temple-group and enclosure among all Greek
remains. It was built of a coarse conglomerate, finished with fine stucco,
and embellished with sculpture by the greatest masters of the time. The
adjacent Heraion (temple of Hera) was a highly venerated and ancient
shrine, originally built with wooden columns which, according to Pausanias,
were replaced one by one, as they decayed, by stone columns. The truth of
this statement is attested by the discovery of a singular variety of capitals
among its ruins, corresponding to the various periods at which they were
added. The Theseum is the most perfectly preserved of all Greek temples,
and in the refinement of its forms is only surpassed by those of the Periclean
age.

FIG. 34.—RUINS OF THE PARTHENON.

THE PERICLEAN AGE. The Persian wars may be taken as the dividing
line between the Transition period and the Periclean age. The élan of
national enthusiasm that followed the expulsion of the invader, and the glory

and wealth which accrued to Athens as the champion of all Hellas, resulted
in a splendid reconstruction of the Attic monuments as well as a revival of
building activity in Asia Minor. By the wise administration of Pericles and
by the genius of Ictinus, Phidias, and other artists of surpassing skill, the
Acropolis at Athens was crowned with a group of buildings and statues
absolutely unrivalled. Chief among them was the Parthenon, the shrine of
Athena Parthenos, which the critics of all schools have agreed in
considering the most faultless in design and execution of all buildings
erected by man (Figs. 31, 34, and Frontispiece). It was an octastyle
peripteral temple, with seventeen columns on the side, and measured 220 by
100 feet on the top of the stylobate. It was the work of Ictinus and
Callicrates, built to enshrine the noble statue of the goddess by Phidias,
a standing chryselephantine figure forty feet high. It was the masterpiece of
Greek architecture not only by reason of its refinements of detail, but also
on account of the beauty of its sculptural adornments. The frieze about the
cella wall under the pteroma ceiling, representing in low relief with masterly
skill the Panathenaic procession; the sculptured groups in the metopes, and
the superb assemblages of Olympic and symbolic figures of colossal size in
the pediments, added their majesty to the perfection of the architecture. Here
also the horizontal curvatures and other
refinements are found in their highest
development. Northward from it, upon the
Acropolis, stood the Erechtheum, an
excellent example of the Attic-Ionic style
(Figs. 35, 36). Its singular irregularities of
plan and level, and the variety of its detail,
exhibit in a striking way the Greek
FIG. 35.—PLAN OF ERECHTHEUM.
indifference to mere formal symmetry when
confronted by practical considerations. The motive in this case was the
desire to include in one design several existing and venerated shrines to
Attic deities and heroes—Athena Polias, Poseidon, Pandrosus, Erechtheus,
Boutes, etc. Begun by unknown architects in 479 b.c., and not completed
until 408 b.c., it remains in its ruin still one of the most interesting and
attractive of ancient buildings. Its two colonnades of differing design, its
beautiful north doorway, and the unique and noble caryatid porch or balcony
on the south side are unsurpassed in delicate beauty combined with vigor of

design. 11 A smaller monument of the
Ionic order, the amphiprostyle temple
to Nike Apteros—the Wingless
Victory—stands on a projecting spur
of the Acropolis to the southwest. It
measures only 27 feet by 18 feet in
plan; the cella is nearly square; the
columns are sturdier than those of the
Erechtheum, and the execution of the
monument is admirable. It was the first FIG. 36.—WEST END OF ERECHTHEUM,
RESTORED.
completed of the extant buildings of
the group of the Acropolis and dates from 466 b.c.
In the Propylæa (Fig. 37), the monumental
gateway to the Acropolis, the Doric and
Ionic orders appear to have been combined
for the first time (437 to 432 b.c.). It was
the master work of Mnesicles. The front
and rear façades were Doric hexastyles;
adjoining the front porch were two
projecting lateral wings employing a
smaller Doric order. The central
passageway led between two rows of Ionic
columns to the rear porch, entered by five FIG. 37.—PROPYLÆA AT ATHENS.
doorways and crowned, like the front, with PLAN.
a pediment. The whole was executed with
the same splendor and perfection as the other buildings of the Acropolis, and
was a worthy gateway to the group of noble monuments which crowned that
citadel of the Attic capital. The two orders were also combined in the temple
of Apollo Epicurius at Phigalæa (Bassæ). This temple was erected in 430
b.c. by Ictinus, who used the Ionic order internally to decorate a row of
projecting piers instead of free-standing columns in the naos, in which there
was also a single Corinthian column of rather archaic design, which may
have been used as a support for a statue or votive offering.
ALEXANDRIAN AGE. A period of reaction followed the splendid
architectural activity of the Periclean age. A succession of disastrous wars—

the Sicilian, Peloponnesian, and Corinthian—drained the energies and
destroyed the peace of European Greece for seventy-five years, robbing
Athens of her supremacy and inflicting wounds from which she never
recovered. In the latter part of the fourth century, however, the triumph of
the Macedonian empire over all the Mediterranean lands inaugurated a new
era of architectural magnificence, especially in Asia Minor. The keynote of
the art of this time was splendor, as that of the preceding age was artistic
perfection. The Corinthian order came into use, as though the Ionic were not
rich enough for the sumptuous taste of the time, and capitals and bases of
novel and elaborate design embellished the Ionic temples of Asia Minor. In
the temple of Apollo Didymæus at Miletus, the plinths of the bases were
made octagonal and panelled with rich scroll-carvings; and the piers which
buttressed the interior faces of the cella-walls were given capitals of singular
but elegant form, midway between the Ionic and Corinthian types. This
temple belongs to the list of colossal edifices already referred to; its
dimensions were 366 by 163 feet, making it the largest of them all. The
famous Artemisium (temple of Artemis or Diana) measured 342 by 163
feet. Several of the columns of the latter were enriched with sculptured
figures encircling the lower drums of the colossal shafts. The most lavish
expenditure was bestowed upon small
structures, shrines, and sarcophagi. The graceful
monument still visible in Athens, erected by the
choragus Lysicrates in token of his victory in
the choral competitions, belongs to this period
(330 b.c.). It is circular, with a slightly domical
imbricated roof, and is decorated with elegant
engaged Corinthian columns (Fig. 38). In the
Imperial Museum at Constantinople are several
sarcophagi of this period found at Sidon, but
executed by Greek artists, and of exceptional
beauty. They are in the form of temples or
shrines; the finest of them, supposed by some to
have been made for Alexander’s favorite FIG. 38.—CHORAGIC
general Perdiccas, and by others for the Persian MONUMENT OF LYSICRATES.
satrap who figures prominently on its sculptured (Restored model, N.Y.)
reliefs, is the most sumptuous work of the kind

in existence. The exquisite polychromy of its beautiful reliefs and the
perfection of its rich details of cornice, pediment, tiling, and crestings, make
it an exceedingly interesting and instructive example of the minor
architecture of the period.
THE DECADENCE. After the decline of Alexandrian magnificence Greek
art never recovered its ancient glory, but the flame was not suddenly
extinguished. While in Greece proper the works of the second and third
centuries b.c., are for the most part weak and lifeless, like the Stoa of
Attalus (175 b.c.) and the Tower of the Winds (the Clepsydra of
Andronicus Cyrrhestes, 100 b.c.) at Athens or the Portico of Philip in Delos,
there were still a few worthy works built in Asia Minor. The splendid Altar
erected at Pergamon by Eumenes II. (circ. 180 b.c.) in the Ionic order,
combined sculpture of extraordinary vigor with imposing architecture in
masterly fashion. At Aizanoi an Ionic Temple to Zeus, by some attributed
to the Roman period, but showing rather the character of good late Greek
work, deserves mention for its elegant details, and especially for its frieze-
decoration of acanthus leaves and scrolls resembling those of a Corinthian
capital.
ROMAN PERIOD. During this period, i.e.,
throughout the second and first centuries b.c.,
the Roman dominion was spreading over Greek
territory, and the structures erected subsequent
to the conquest partake of the Roman character
and mingle Roman conceptions with Greek
details and vice versâ. The temple of the FIG. 39.—TEMPLE OF

Olympian Zeus at Athens (Fig. 39), a mighty OLYMPIAN ZEUS. ATHENS.

dipteral Corinthian edifice measuring 354 by Larger View
171 feet, standing on a vast terrace or temenos
surrounded by a buttressed wall, was begun by Antiochus Epiphanes (170
b.c.) on the site of an earlier unfinished Doric temple of the time of
Pisistratus, and carried out under the direction of the Roman architect,
Cossutius. It was not, however, finally completed until the time of Hadrian,
130 a.d. Meanwhile Sulla had despoiled it of several columns 12 which he
carried to Rome (86 b.c.), to use in the rebuilding of the temple of Jupiter on
the Capitol, where they undoubtedly served as models in the development of

the Roman Corinthian order. The columns were 57 feet high, with capitals
of the most perfect Corinthian type; fifteen are now standing, and one lies
prostrate near by. To the Roman period also belong the Agora Gate (circ. 35
b.c.), the Arch of Hadrian (117 a.d.), the Odeon of Regilla or of Herodes
Atticus (143 a.d.), at Athens, and many temples and tombs, theatres, arches,
etc., in the Greek provinces.
SECULAR MONUMENTS; PROPYLÆA. The stately gateway by which
the Acropolis was entered has already been described. It was the noblest and
most perfect of a class of buildings whose prototype is found in the
monumental columnar porches of the palace-group at Persepolis. The
Greeks never used the arch in these structures, nor did they attach to them
the same importance as did most of the other nations of antiquity. The Altis
of Olympia, the national shrine of Hellenism, appears to have had no central
gateway of imposing size, but a number of insignificant entrances disposed
at random. The Propylæa of Sunium, Priene and Eleusis are the most
conspicuous, after those of the Athenian Acropolis. Of these the Ionic
gateway at Priene is the finest, although the later of the two at Eleusis is
interesting for its anta-capitals. (Anta = a flat pilaster decorating the end of a
wing-wall and treated with a base and capital usually differing from those of
the adjacent columns.) These are of Corinthian type, adorned with winged
horses, scrolls, and anthemions of an exuberant richness of design,
characteristic of this late period.
COLONNADES, STOÆ. These were built to connect public monuments
(as the Dionysiac theatre and Odeon at Athens); or along the sides of great
public squares, as at Assos and Olympia (the so-called Echo Hall); or as
independent open public halls, as the Stoa Diple at Thoricus. They afforded
shelter from sun and rain, places for promenading, meetings with friends,
public gatherings, and similar purposes. They were rarely of great size, and
most of them are of rather late date, though the archaic structure at Pæstum,
known as the Basilica, was probably in reality an open hall of this kind.
THEATRES, ODEONS. These were invariably cut out of the rocky
hillsides, though in a few cases (Mantinæa, Myra, Antiphellus) a part of the
seats were sustained by a built-up substructure and walls to eke out the
deficiency of the hill-slope under them. The front of the excavation was

enclosed by a stage and a set scene or
background, built up so as to leave
somewhat over a semicircle for the
orchestra or space enclosed by the lower
tier of seats (Fig. 40). An altar to
Dionysus (Bacchus) was the essential
feature in the foreground of the orchestra,
where the Dionysiac choral dance was
performed. The seats formed successive
steps of stone or marble sweeping around FIG. 40.—PLAN OF GREEK THEATRE.
the sloping excavation, with carved o, Orchestra; l, Logeion; p,
marble thrones for the priests, archons, and Paraskenai; s, s, Stoa.

other dignitaries. The only architectural Larger View
decoration of the theatre was that of the set
scene or skene, which with its wing-walls (paraskenai) enclosing the stage
(logeion) was a permanent structure of stone or marble adorned with doors,
cornices, pilasters, etc. This has perished in nearly every case; but at
Aspendus, in Asia Minor, there is one still fairly well preserved, with a rich
architectural decoration on its inner face. The extreme diameter of the
theatres varied greatly; thus at Aizanoi it is 187 feet, and at Syracuse 495
feet. The theatre of Dionysus at Athens (finished 325 b.c.) could
accommodate thirty thousand spectators.
The odeon differed from the theatre principally in being smaller and entirely
covered in by a wooden roof. The Odeon of Regilla, built by Herodes
Atticus in Athens (143 a.d.), is a well-preserved specimen of this class, but
all traces of its cedar ceiling and of its intermediate supports have
disappeared.
BUILDINGS FOR ATHLETIC CONTESTS. These comprised stadia and
hippodromes for races, and gymnasia and palæstræ for individual exercise,
bathing, and amusement. The stadia and hippodromes were oblong
enclosures surrounded by tiers of seats and without conspicuous
architectural features. The palæstra or gymnasium—for the terms are not
clearly distinguished—was a combination of courts, chambers, tanks
(piscinæ) for bathers and exedræ or semicircular recesses provided with tiers
of seats for spectators and auditors, destined not merely for the exercises of

athletes preparing for the stadium, but also for the instruction and diversion
of the public by recitations, lectures, and discussions. It was the prototype of
the Roman thermæ, but less imposing, more simple in plan and adornment.
Every Greek city had one or more of them, but they have almost wholly
disappeared, and the brief description by Vitruvius and scanty remains at
Alexandria Troas and Ephesus furnish almost the only information we
possess regarding their form and arrangement.
TOMBS. These are not numerous, and the most important are found in Asia
Minor. The greatest of these is the famed Mausoleum at Halicarnassus in
Caria, the monument erected to the king Mausolus by his widow Artemisia
(354 b.c.; Fig. 41). It was designed by Satyrus and Pythius in the Ionic style,
and comprised a podium or base 50 feet high and measuring 80 feet by 100
feet, in which was the sepulchre. Upon this base stood a cella surrounded by
thirty-six Ionic columns; and crowned by a pyramidal roof, on the peak of
which was a colossal marble quadriga at a height of 130 feet. It was
superbly decorated by Scopas and other great sculptors with statues, marble
lions, and a magnificent frieze. The British Museum possesses fragments of
this most imposing monument. At Xanthus the Nereid Monument, so
called from its sculptured figures of Nereides, was a somewhat similar
design on a smaller scale, with sixteen Ionic columns. At Mylassa was
another tomb with an open Corinthian colonnade supporting a roof formed
in a stepped pyramid. Some of the later rock-cut tombs of Lycia at Myra and
Antiphellus may also be counted as Hellenic works.

FIG. 41.—MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS.
(As restored by the author.)

DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. This never attained great importance in
Greece, and our knowledge of the typical Greek house is principally derived
from literary sources. Very few remains of Greek houses have been found
sufficiently well preserved to permit of restoring even the plan. It is
probable that they resembled in general arrangement the houses of Pompeii
(see p. 107); but that they were generally insignificant in size and
decoration. The exterior walls were pierced only by the entrance doors, all
light being derived from one or more interior courts. In the Macedonian
epoch there must have been greater display and luxury in domestic
architecture, but no remains have come down to us of sufficient importance
or completeness to warrant further discussion.

MONUMENTS. In addition to those already mentioned in the text the following should be
enumerated:
Prehistoric Period. In the Islands about Santorin, remains of houses antedating 1500 b.c.; at
Tiryns the Acropolis, walls, and miscellaneous ruins; the like also at Mycenæ, besides various
tombs; walls and gates at Samos, Thoricus, Menidi, Athens, etc.
Archaic Period. Doric Temples at Metapontium (by Durm assigned to 610 b.c.), Selinus,
Agrigentum, Pæstum; at Athens the first Parthenon; in Asia Minor the primitive Ionic
Artemisium at Ephesus and the Heraion at Samos, the latter the oldest of colossal Greek
temples.
Transitional Period. At Agrigentum, temples of Concord, Castor and Pollux, Demeter,
Æsculapius, all circ. 480 b.c.; temples at Selinus and Segesta.
Periclean Period. In Athens the Ionic temple on the Illissus, destroyed during the present
century; on Cape Sunium the temple of Athena, 430 b.c., partly standing; at Nemea, the temple
of Zeus; at Tegea, the temple of Athena Elea (400? b.c.); at Rhamnus, the temples of Themis
and of Nemesis; at Argos, two temples, stoa, and other buildings; all these were Doric.
Alexandrian Period. The temple of Dionysus at Teos; temple of Artemis Leucophryne at
Magnesia, both about 330 b.c. and of the Ionic order.
Decadence and Roman Period. At Athens the Stoa of Eumenes, circ. 170 b.c.; the monument
of Philopappus on the Museum hill, 110 a.d.; the Gymnasium of Hadrian, 114 to 137 a.d.; the
last two of the Corinthian order.
Theatres. Besides those already mentioned there are important remains of theatres at
Epidaurus, Argos, Segesta, Iassus (400? b.c.), Delos, Sicyon, and Thoricus; at Aizanoi, Myra,
Telmissus, and Patara, besides many others of less importance scattered through the Hellenic
world. At Taormina are extensive ruins of a large Greek theatre rebuilt in the Roman period.

11. See Appendix, p. 427.
12. L. Bevier, in Papers of the American Classical School at Athens (vol. i., pp. 195, 196),
contends that these were columns left from the old Doric temple. This is untenable, for Sulla
would certainly not have taken the trouble to carry away archaic Doric columns, with such
splendid Corinthian columns before him.

CHAPTER VIII.

ROMAN ARCHITECTURE.

Books Recommended: As before, Anderson and Spiers, Baumeister, Reber. Choisy, L’Art de
bâtir chez les Romains. Desgodetz, Rome in her Ancient Grandeur. Durm, Die Baukunst der
Etrusker; Die Baukunst der Romer. Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Modern Discovery;
New Tales of Old Rome; Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome. De Martha, Archéologie
étrusque et romaine. Middleton, Ancient Rome in 1888.

LAND AND PEOPLE. The geographical position of Italy conferred upon
her special and obvious advantages for taking up and carrying northward
and westward the arts of civilization. A scarcity of good harbors was the
only drawback amid the blessings of a glorious climate, fertile soil, varied
scenery, and rich material resources. From a remote antiquity Dorian
colonists had occupied the southern portion and the island of Sicily,
enriching them with splendid monuments of Doric art; and Phœnician
commerce had brought thither the products of Oriental art and industry. The
foundation of Rome in 753 b.c. established the nucleus about which the
sundry populations of Italy were to crystallize into the Roman nation, under
the dominating influence of the Latin element. Later on, the absorption of
the conquered Etruscans added to this composite people a race of builders
and engineers, as yet rude and uncouth in their art, but destined to become a
powerful factor in developing the new architecture that was to spring from
the contact of the practical Romans with the noble art of the Greek centres.
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS. While the Greeks bequeathed to
posterity the most perfect models of form in literary and plastic art, it was
reserved for the Romans to work out the applications of these to every-day
material life. The Romans were above all things a practical people. Their
consummate skill as organizers is manifest in the marvellous administrative
institutions of their government, under which they united the most distant
and diverse nationalities. Seemingly deficient in culture, they were yet able

to recast the forms of Greek architecture in new moulds, and to evolve
therefrom a mighty architecture adapted to wholly novel conditions. They
brought engineering into the service of architecture, which they fitted to the
varied requirements of government, public amusement, private luxury, and
the common comfort. They covered the antique world with arches and
amphitheatres, with villas, baths, basilicas, and temples, all bearing the
unmistakable impress of Rome, though wrought by artists and artisans of
divers races. Only an extraordinary genius for organization could have
accomplished such results.
The architects of Rome marvellously extended the range of their art, and
gave it a flexibility by which it accommodated itself to the widest variety of
materials and conditions. They made the arch and vault the basis of their
system of design, employing them on a scale previously undreamed of, and
in combinations of surpassing richness and majesty. They systematized their
methods of construction so that soldiers and barbarians could execute the
rough mass of their buildings, and formulated the designing of the
decorative details so that artisans of moderate skill could execute them with
good effect. They carried the principle of repetition of motives to its utmost
limit, and sought to counteract any resulting monotony by the scale and
splendor of the design. Above all they developed planning into a fine art,
displaying their genius in a wonderful variety of combinations and in an
unfailing sense of the demands of constructive propriety, practical
convenience, and artistic effect. Where Egyptian or Greek architecture
shows one type of plan, the Roman shows a score.
GREEK INFLUENCE. Previous to the closing years of the Republic the
Romans had no art but the Etruscan. The few buildings of importance they
possessed were of Etruscan design and workmanship, excepting a small
number built by Greek hands. It was not until the Empire that Roman
architecture took on a truly national form. True Roman architecture is
essentially imperial. The change from the primitive Etruscan style to the
splendors of the imperial age was due to the conquest of the Greek states.
Not only did the Greek campaigns enrich Rome with an unprecedented
wealth of artistic spoils; they also brought into Italy hosts of Greek artists,
and filled the minds of the campaigners with the ambition to realize in their
own dominions the marble colonnades, the temples, theatres, and propylæa

of the Greek cities they had pillaged. The Greek orders were adopted,
altered, and applied to arcaded designs as well as to peristyles and other
open colonnades. The marriage of the column and arch gave birth to a
system of forms as characteristic of Roman architecture as the Doric or Ionic
colonnade is of the Greek.
THE ROMAN ORDERS. To meet the demands of
Roman taste the Etruscan column was retained with its
simple entablature; the Doric and Ionic were adopted in
a modified form; the Corinthian was developed into a
complete and independent order, and the Composite
was added to the list. A regular system of proportions
for all these five orders was gradually evolved, and the
mouldings were profiled with arcs of circles instead of
the subtler Greek curves. In the building of many-
storied structures the orders were superposed, the more
slender over the sturdier, in an orderly and graded
succession. The immense extent and number of the
Roman buildings, the coarse materials often used, the
relative scarcity of highly trained artisans, and above
all, the necessity of making a given amount of artistic
design serve for the largest possible amount of
architecture, combined to direct the designing of detail
FIG. 42.—ROMAN
into uniform channels. Thus in time was established a
DORIC ORDER.
sort of canon of proportions, which was reduced to
(THEATRE OF
rules by Vitruvius, and revived in much more detailed
MARCELLUS).
and precise form by Vignola in the sixteenth century.
In each of the orders, including the Doric, the column was given a base one
half of a diameter in height (the unit of measurement being the diameter of
the lower part of the shaft, the crassitudo of Vitruvius). The shaft was made
to contract about one-sixth in diameter toward the capital, under which it
was terminated by an astragal or collar of small mouldings; at the base it
ended in a slight flare and fillet called the cincture. The entablature was in
all cases given not far from one quarter the height of the whole column. The
Tuscan order was a rudimentary or Etruscan Doric with a column seven
diameters high and a simple entablature without triglyphs, mutules, or

dentils. But few examples of its use are
known. The Doric (Fig. 42) retained the
triglyphs and metopes, the mutules and guttæ
of the Greek; but the column was made eight
diameters high, the shaft was smooth or had
deep flutings separated by narrow fillets, and
was usually provided with a simple moulded
base on a square plinth. Mutules were used
only over the triglyphs, and were even
replaced in some cases by dentils; the corona
was made lighter than the Greek, and a
cymatium replaced the antefixæ on the lateral
cornices. The Ionic underwent fewer changes,
and these principally in the smaller mouldings
and details of the capital. The column was
FIG. 43.—ROMAN IONIC ORDER. nine diameters high (Fig. 43). The
Corinthian was made into an independent
order by the designing of a special base of small tori and scotiæ, and by
sumptuously carved modillions or brackets enriching the cornice and
supporting the corona above a denticulated bed-mould (Fig. 44). Though the
first designers of the modillion were probably Greeks, it must, nevertheless,
be taken as really a Roman device, worthily completing the essentially
Roman Corinthian order. The Composite was formed by combining into one
capital portions of the Ionic and Corinthian, and giving to it a simplified
form of the Corinthian cornice. The Corinthian order remained, however, the
favorite order of Roman architecture.
USE OF THE ORDERS. The Romans introduced many innovations in the
general use and treatment of the orders. Monolithic shafts were preferred to
those built up of superposed drums. The fluting was omitted on these, and
when hard and semi-precious stone like porphyry or verd-antique was the
material, it was highly polished to bring out its color. These polished
monoliths were often of great size, and they were used in almost incredible
numbers.
Another radical departure from Greek usage was the mounting of columns
on pedestals to secure greater height without increasing the size of the

column and its entablature. The Greek anta
was developed into the Roman pilaster or
flattened wall-column, and every free
column, or range of columns perpendicular
to the façade, had its corresponding pilaster
to support the wall-end of the architrave.
But the most radical innovation was the
general use of engaged columns as wall-
decorations or buttresses. The engaged
column projected from the wall by more
than half its diameter, and was built up with
the wall as a part of its substance (Fig. 45).
The entablature was in many cases
advanced only over the columns, between
which it was set back almost to the plane of
the wall. This practice is open to the
obvious criticism that it makes the column
appear superfluous by depriving it of its
function of supporting the continuous FIG. 44.—CORINTHIAN ORDER
entablature. The objection has less weight (TEMPLE OF CASTOR AND
when the projecting entablature over the POLLUX).
column serves as a pedestal for a statue or
similar object, which restores to the column its function as a support (see the
Arch of Constantine, Fig. 63).
ARCADES. The orders, though probably at first used only as free supports
in porticos and colonnades, were early applied as decorations to arcaded
structures. This practice became general with the multiplication of many-
storied arcades like those of the amphitheatres, the engaged columns being
set between the arches as buttresses, supporting entablatures which marked
the divisions into stories (Fig. 45). This combination has been assailed as a
false and illogical device, but the criticism proceeds from a too narrow
conception of architectural propriety. It is defensible upon both artistic and
logical grounds; for it not only furnishes a most desirable play of light and
shade and a pleasing contrast of rectangular and curved lines, but by
emphasizing the constructive divisions and elements of the building and the

vertical support of the piers, it also contributes
to the expressiveness and vigor of the design.
VAULTING. The Romans substituted vaulting
in brick, concrete, or masonry for wooden
ceilings wherever possible, both in public and
private edifices. The Etruscans were the first
vault-builders, and the Cloaca Maxima, the
great sewer of Republican Rome (about 500
b.c.) still remains as a monument of their
engineering skill. Probably not only Etruscan
engineers (whose traditions were perhaps
derived from Asiatic sources in the remote
past), but Asiatic builders also from conquered
eastern provinces, were engaged together in the
development of the wonderful system of
vaulted construction to which Roman FIG. 45.—ROMAN ARCADE
architecture so largely owed its grandeur. Three WITH ENGAGED COLUMNS
types of vault were commonly used: the barrel- (From the Colosseum.)
vault, the groined or four-part vault, and the
dome.
The barrel vault (Fig. 46) was generally semi-
cylindrical in section, and was used to cover
corridors and oblong halls, like the temple-cellas, or
was bent around a curve, as in amphitheatre
passages.
The groined vault is
formed by the intersection
FIG. 46.—BARREL VAULT.
of two barrel-vaults (Fig.
47). When several compartments of groined
vaulting are placed together over an oblong plan,
a double advantage is secured. Lateral windows
can be carried up to the full height of the vaulting
instead of being stopped below its springing; and
FIG. 47.—GROINED VAULT.
the weight and thrust of the vaulting are
g, g, Groins. concentrated upon a number of isolated points

instead of being exerted along the whole extent of the side walls, as with the
barrel-vault. The Romans saw that it was sufficient to dispose the masonry at
these points in masses at right angles to the length of the hall, to best resist
the lateral thrust of the vault. This appears clearly in the plan of the Basilica
of Constantine (Fig. 58).
The dome was in almost all Roman examples supported on a circular wall
built up from the ground, as in the Pantheon (Fig. 54). The pendentive dome,
sustained by four or eight arches over a square or octagonal plan, is not
found in true Roman buildings.
The Romans made of the vault something more than a mere constructive
device. It became in their hands an element of interior effect at least equally
important with the arch and column. No style of architecture has ever
evolved nobler forms of ceiling than the groined vault and the dome.
Moreover, the use of vaulting made possible effects of unencumbered
spaciousness and amplitude which could never be compassed by any
combination of piers and columns. It also assured to the Roman monuments
a duration and a freedom from danger of destruction by fire impossible with
any wooden-roofed architecture, however noble its form or careful its
execution.
CONSTRUCTION. The constructive methods of the Romans varied with
the conditions and resources of different provinces, but were everywhere
dominated by the same practical spirit. Their vaulted architecture demanded
for the support of its enormous weights and for resistance to its disruptive
thrusts, piers and buttresses of great mass. To construct these wholly of cut
stone appeared preposterous and wasteful to the Roman. Italy abounds in
clay, lime, and a volcanic product, pozzolana (from Puteoli or Pozzuoli,
where it has always been obtained in large quantities), which makes an
admirable hydraulic cement. With these materials it was possible to employ
unskilled labor for the great bulk of this massive masonry, and to erect with
the greatest rapidity and in the most economical manner those stupendous
piles which, even in their ruin, excite the admiration of every beholder.
STONE, CONCRETE, AND BRICK MASONRY. For buildings of an
externally decorative character such as temples, arches of triumph, and
amphitheatres, as well as in all places where brick and concrete were not

easily obtained, stone was employed. The walls were
built by laying up the inner and outer faces in ashlar or
cut stone, and filling in the intermediate space with
rubble (random masonry of uncut stone) laid up in
cement, or with concrete of broken stone and cement
dumped into the space in successive layers. The cement
converted the whole into a conglomerate closely united FIG. 48.—ROMAN
with the face-masonry. In Syria and Egypt the local WALL MASONRY.
preference for stones of enormous size was gratified, a, Brickwork; b, Tufa
and even surpassed, as in Herod’s terrace-walls for the ashlar; r, Opus
temple at Jerusalem (p. 41), and in the splendid reticulatum; i, Opus
incertum.
structures of Palmyra and Baalbec. In Italy, however,
stones of moderate size were preferred, and when blocks of unusual
dimensions occur, they are in many cases marked with false joints, dividing
them into apparently smaller blocks, lest they should dwarf the building by
their large scale. The general use in the Augustan period of marble for a
decorative lining or wainscot in interiors led in time to the objectionable
practice of coating buildings of concrete with an apparel of sham marble
masonry, by carving false joints upon an external veneer of thin slabs of that
material. Ordinary concrete walls were frequently faced with small blocks of
tufa, called, according to the manner of its application, opus reticulatum,
opus incertum, opus spicatum, etc. (Fig. 48). In most cases, however, the
facing was of carefully executed brickwork, covered sometimes by a coating
of stucco. The bricks were large, measuring from one to two feet square
where used for quoins or arches, but triangular where they served only as
facings. Bricks were also used in the construction of skeleton ribs for
concrete vaults of large span.
VAULTING. Here, as in the wall-masonry, economy and common sense
devised methods extremely simple for accomplishing vast designs. While
the smaller vaults were, so to speak, cast in concrete upon moulds made of
rough boards, the enormous weight of the larger vaults precluded their being
supported, while drying or “setting,” upon timber centrings built up from the
ground. Accordingly, a skeleton of light ribs was first built on wooden
centrings, and these ribs, when firmly “set,” became themselves supports for
intermediate centrings on which to cast the concrete fillings between the

ribs. The whole vault, once hardened, formed really a monolithic curved
lintel, exerting no thrust whatever, so that the extraordinary precautions
against lateral disruption practised by the Romans were, in fact, in many
cases quite superfluous.
DECORATION. The temple of Castor and Pollux in the Forum (long
miscalled the temple of Jupiter Stator), is a typical example of Roman
architectural decoration, in which richness was preferred to the subtler
refinements of design (see Fig. 44). The splendid figure-sculpture which
adorned the Greek monuments would have been inappropriate on the
theatres and thermæ of Rome or the provinces, even had there been the taste
or the skill to produce it. Conventional carved ornament was substituted in
its place, and developed into a splendid system of highly decorative forms.
Two principal elements appear in this decoration—the acanthus-leaf, as the
basis of a whole series of wonderfully varied motives; and symbolism,
represented principally by what are technically termed grotesques—
incongruous combinations of natural forms, as when an infant’s body
terminates in a bunch of foliage (Fig. 49). Only to a limited extent do we
find true sculpture employed as decoration, and that mainly for triumphal
arches or memorial columns.

FIG. 49—ROMAN CARVED ORNAMENT.
(Lateran Museum.)

The architectural mouldings were nearly always carved, the Greek water-
leaf and egg-and-dart forming the basis of most of the enrichments; but these
were greatly elaborated and treated with more minute detail than the Greek

prototypes. Friezes and bands were commonly ornamented with the foliated
scroll or rinceau (a convenient French term for which we have no
equivalent). This motive was as characteristic of Roman art as the anthemion
was of the Greek. It consists of a continuous stem throwing out alternately
on either side branches which curl into spirals and are richly adorned with
rosettes, acanthus-leaves, scrolls, tendrils, and blossoms. In the best
examples the detail was modelled with great care and minuteness, and the
motive itself was treated with extraordinary variety and fertility of invention.
A derived and enriched form of the anthemion was sometimes used for
bands and friezes; and grotesques, dolphins, griffins, infant genii, wreaths,
festoons, ribbons, eagles, and masks are also common features in Roman
relief carving.
The Romans made great use of panelling and of
moulded plaster in their interior decoration,
especially for ceilings. The panelling of domes and
vaults was usually roughly shaped in their first
construction and finished afterward in stucco with
rich moulding and rosettes. The panels were not
always square or rectangular, as in Greek ceilings,
but of various geometric forms in pleasing
combinations (Fig. 50). In works of a small scale
the panels and decorations were wrought in relief in
a heavy coating of plaster applied to the finished
structure, and these stucco reliefs are among the
most refined and charming products of Roman art. FIG. 50.—ROMAN
(Baths of Titus; Baths at Pompeii; Palace of the CEILING PANELS.
Cæsars and tombs at Rome.) (a, From Palmyra; b,
COLOR DECORATION. Plaster was also used as Basilica of
a ground for painting, executed in distemper or by Constantine.)
the encaustic process, wax liquefied by a hot iron being the medium for
applying the color in the latter case. Pompeii and Herculaneum furnish
countless examples of brilliant wall-painting in which strong primary colors
form the ground, and a semi-naturalistic, semi-fantastic representation of
figures, architecture and landscape is mingled with festoons, vines, and
purely conventional ornament. Mosaic was also employed to decorate floors

and wall-spaces, and sometimes for ceilings. 13 The later imperial baths and
palaces were especially rich in mosaic of the kind called opus Grecanicum,
executed with numberless minute cubes of stone or glass, as in the Baths of
Caracalla and the Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli.
To the walls of monumental interiors, such as temples, basilicas, and
thermæ, splendor of color was given by veneering them with thin slabs of
rare and richly colored marble. No limit seems to have been placed upon the
costliness or amount of these precious materials. Byzantine architecture
borrowed from this practice its system of interior color decoration.

13. See Van Dyke’s History of Paintings, p. 33.

CHAPTER IX.

ROMAN ARCHITECTURE—Continued.

Books Recommended: Same as for Chapter VIII. Also, Guhl and Kohner, Life of the Ancient
Greeks and Romans. Adams, Ruins of the Palace of Spalato. Burn, Rome and the Campagna.
Cameron, Roman Baths. Mau, tr. by Kelcey, Pompeii, its Life and Art. Mazois, Ruines de
Pompeii. Von Presuhn, Die neueste Ausgrabungen zu Pompeii. Wood, Ruins of Palmyra and
Baalbec.

THE ETRUSCAN STYLE. Although the first Greek architects were
employed in Rome as early as 493 b.c., the architecture of the Republic was
practically Etruscan until nearly 100 b.c. Its monuments, consisting mainly
of city walls, tombs, and temples, are all marked by a general uncouthness of
detail, denoting a lack of artistic refinement, but they display considerable
constructive skill. In the Etruscan walls we meet with both polygonal and
regularly coursed masonry; in both kinds the true arch appears as the almost
universal form for gates and openings. A famous example is the Augustan
Gate at Perugia, a late work rebuilt about 40 b.c., but thoroughly Etruscan in
style. At Volaterræ (Volterra) is another arched gate, and in Perugia
fragments of still another appear built into the modern walls.
The Etruscans built both structural and excavated tombs; they consisted in
general of a single chamber with a slightly arched or gabled roof, supported
in the larger tombs on heavy square piers. The interiors were covered with
pictures; externally there was little ornament except about the gable and
doorway. The latter had a stepped or moulded frame with curious crossettes
or ears projecting laterally at the top. The gable recalled the wooden roofs of
Etruscan temples, but was coarse in detail, especially in its mouldings.
Sepulchral monuments of other types are also met with, such as cippi or
memorial pillars, sometimes in groups of five on a single pedestal (tomb at
Albano).

Among the temples of Etruscan style that of Jupiter Capitolinus on the
Capitol at Rome, destroyed by fire in 80 b.c., was the chief. Three narrow
chambers side by side formed a cella nearly square in plan, preceded by a
hexastyle porch of huge Doric, or rather Tuscan, columns arranged in three
aisles, widely spaced and carrying ponderous wooden architraves. The roof
was of wood; the cymatium and ornaments, as well as the statues in the
pediment, were of terra-cotta, painted and gilded. The details in general
showed acquaintance with Greek models, which appeared in debased and
awkward imitations of triglyphs, cornices, antefixæ, etc.
GREEK STYLE. The victories of Marcellus at
Syracuse, 212 b.c., Fabius Maximus at Tarentum (209
b.c.), Flaminius (196 b.c.), Mummius (146 b.c.), Sulla
(86 b.c.), and others in the various Greek provinces,
steadily increased the vogue of Greek architecture and
the number of Greek artists in Rome. The temples of
the last two centuries b.c., and some of earlier date,
though still Etruscan in plan, were in many cases
strongly Greek in the character of their details. A few
have remained to our time in tolerable preservation.
The temple of Fortuna Virilis (really of Fors Fortuna),
of the second century (?) b.c., is a tetrastyle prostyle
pseudoperipteral temple with a high podium or base,
a typical Etruscan cella, and a deep porch, now walled FIG. 51.—TEMPLE
up, but thoroughly Greek in the elegant details of its FORTUNA VIRILIS.
Ionic order (Fig. 51). Two circular temples, both called PLAN.
erroneously Temples of Vesta, one at Rome near the
Cloaca Maxima, the other at Tivoli, belong among the monuments of Greek
style. The first was probably dedicated to Hercules, the second probably to
the Sibyls; the latter being much the better preserved of the two. Both were
surrounded by peristyles of eighteen Corinthian columns, and probably
covered by domical roofs with gilded bronze tiles. The Corinthian order
appears here complete with its modillion cornice, but the crispness of the
detail and the fineness of the execution are Greek and not Roman. These
temples date from about 72 b.c., though the one at Rome was probably
rebuilt in the first century a.d. (Fig. 52).

IMPERIAL ARCHITECTURE;
AUGUSTAN AGE. Even in the temples of
Greek style Roman conceptions of plan and
composition are dominant. The Greek architect
was not free to reproduce textually Greek
designs or details, however strongly he might
impress with the Greek character whatever he
touched. The demands of imperial splendor and
the building of great edifices of varied form and
complex structure, like the thermæ and
amphitheatres, called for new adaptations and
combinations of planning and engineering. The
reign of Augustus (27 b.c.-14 a.d.) inaugurated
the imperial epoch, but many works erected
before and after his reign properly belong to the
Augustan age by right of style. In general, we
find in the works of this period the happiest
combination of Greek refinement with Roman
FIG. 52.—CIRCULAR TEMPLE. splendor. It was in this period that Rome first
TIVOLI. assumed the aspect of an opulent and splendid
metropolis, though the way had been prepared
for this by the regularization and adornment of the Roman Forum and the
erection of many temples, basilicas, fora, arches, and theatres during the
generation preceding the accession of Augustus. His reign saw the inception
or completion of the portico of Octavia, the Augustan forum, the Septa Julia,
the first Pantheon, the adjoining Thermæ of Agrippa, the theatre of
Marcellus, the first of the imperial palaces on the Palatine, and a long list of
temples, including those of the Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux), of Mars Ultor,
of Jupiter Tonans on the Capitol, and others in the provinces; besides
colonnades, statues, arches, and other embellishments almost without
number.
LATER IMPERIAL WORKS. With the successors of Augustus splendor
increased to almost fabulous limits, as, for instance, in the vast extent and
the prodigality of ivory and gold in the famous Golden House of Nero. After
the great fire in Rome, presumably kindled by the agents of this emperor,

a more regular and monumental system of street-planning and building was
introduced, and the first municipal building-law was decreed by him. To the
reign of Vespasian (68–79 a.d.) we owe the rebuilding in Roman style and
with the Corinthian order of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, the Baths of
Titus, and the beginning of the Flavian amphitheatre or Colosseum. The two
last-named edifices both stood on the site of Nero’s Golden House, of which
the greater part was demolished to make way for them. During the last years
of the first century the arch of Titus was erected, the Colosseum finished,
amphitheatres built at Verona, Pola, Reggio, Tusculum, Nîmes (France),
Constantine (Algiers), Pompeii and Herculanum (these last two cities and
Stabiæ rebuilt after the earthquake of 63 a.d.), and arches, bridges, and
temples erected all over the Roman world.
The first part of the second century was distinguished by the splendid
architectural achievements of the reign of Hadrian (117–138 a.d.) in Rome
and the provinces, especially Athens. Nearly all his works were marked by
great dignity of conception as well as beauty of detail. During the latter part
of the century a very interesting series of buildings were erected in the
Hauran (Syria), in which Greek and Arab workmen under Roman direction
produced examples of vigorous stone architecture of a mingled Roman and
Syrian character.
The most-remarkable thermæ of Rome belong to the third century—those of
Caracalla (211–217 a.d.) and of Diocletian (284–305 a.d.)—their ruins to-
day ranking among the most imposing remains of antiquity. In Syria the
temples of the Sun at Baalbec and Palmyra (273 a.d., under Aurelian), and
the great palace of Diocletian at Spalato, in Dalmatia (300 a.d.), are still the
wonder of the few travellers who reach those distant spots.
While during the third and fourth centuries there was a marked decline in
purity and refinement of detail, many of the later works of the period display
a remarkable freedom and originality in conception. But these works are
really not Roman, they are foreign, that is, provincial products; and the
transfer of the capital to Byzantium revealed the increasing degree in which
Rome was coming to look to the East for her strength and her art.

FIG. 53.—TEMPLE OF VENUS AND ROME. PLAN.

TEMPLES. The Romans built both rectangular and circular temples, and
there was much variety in their treatment. In the rectangular temples a high
podium, or basement, was substituted for the Greek stepped stylobate, and
the prostyle plan was more common than the peripteral. The cella was
relatively short and wide, the front porch inordinately deep, and frequently
divided by longitudinal rows of columns into three aisles. In most cases the
exterior of the cella in prostyle temples was decorated by engaged columns.
A barrel vault gave the interior an aspect of spaciousness impossible with
the Greek system of a wooden ceiling supported on double ranges of
columns. In the place of these, free or engaged columns along the side-walls
received the ribs of the vaulting. Between these ribs the ceiling was richly
panelled, or coffered and sumptuously gilded. The temples of Fortuna
Virilis and of Faustina at Rome (the latter built 141 a.d., and its ruins
incorporated into the modern church of S. Lorenzo in Miranda), and the
beautiful and admirably preserved Maison Carrée, at Nîmes (France)

(4 a.d.) are examples of this type. The temple of Concord, of which only the
podium remains, and the small temple of Julius (both of these in the Forum)
illustrate another form of prostyle temple in which the porch was on a long
side of the cella. Some of the larger temples were peripteral. The temple of
the Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux) in the Forum, was one of the most
magnificent of these, certainly the richest in detail (Fig. 44). Very
remarkable was the double temple of Venus and Rome, east of the Forum,
designed by the Emperor Hadrian about 130 a.d. (Fig. 53). It was a vast
pseudodipteral edifice containing two cellas in one structure, their statue-
niches or apses meeting back to back in the centre. The temple stood in the
midst of an imposing columnar peribolus entered by magnificent gateways.
Other important temples have already been mentioned on p. 91.
Besides the two circular temples already described, the temple of Vesta,
adjoining the House of the Vestals, at the east end of the Forum should be
mentioned. At Baalbec is a circular temple whose entablature curves inward
between the widely-spaced columns until it touches the cella in the middle
of each intercolumniation. It illustrates the caprices of design which
sometimes resulted from the disregard of tradition and the striving after
originality (273 a.d.).
THE PANTHEON. The noblest of all circular temples
of Rome and of the world was the Pantheon. It was
built by Hadrian, 117–138 a.d., on the site of the earlier
rectangular temple of the same name erected by
Agrippa. It measures 142 feet in diameter internally;
the wall is 20 feet thick and supports a hemispherical
dome rising to a height of 140 feet (Figs. 54, 55). Light
is admitted solely through a round opening 28 feet in
diameter at the top of the dome, the simplest and most
impressive method of illumination conceivable. The
rain and snow that enter produce no appreciable effect
upon the temperature of the vast hall. There is a single FIG. 54.—PLAN OF
entrance, with noble bronze doors, admitting directly to THE PANTHEON.
the interior, around which seven niches, alternately
rectangular and semicircular in plan and fronted by Corinthian columns,
lighten, without weakening, the mass of the encircling wall. This wall was

originally incrusted with rich marbles, and the great dome, adorned with
deep coffering in rectangular panels, was decorated with rosettes and
mouldings in gilt stucco. The dome appears to have been composed of
numerous arches and ribs, filled in and finally coated with concrete. A recent
examination of a denuded portion of its inner surface has convinced the
writer that the interior panelling was executed after, and not during, its
construction, by hewing the panels out of the mass of brick and concrete,
without regard to the form and position of the origin skeleton of ribs.
The exterior (Fig. 56) was less
successful than the interior. The gabled
porch of twelve superb granite columns
50 feet high, three-aisled in plan after
the Etruscan mode, and covered
originally by a ceiling of bronze, was a
rebuilding with the materials and on the
plan of the original pronaos of the
Pantheon of Agrippa. The circular wall
behind it is faced with fine brickwork,
and displays, like the dome, many
curious arrangements of discharging
arches, reminiscences of traditional
constructive precautions here wholly
FIG. 55.—INTERIOR OF THE PANTHEON. useless and fictitious because only
skin-deep. A revetment of marble
below and plaster above once concealed this brick facing. The portico, in
spite of its too steep gable (once filled with a “gigantomachia” in gilt
bronze) and its somewhat awkward association with a round building, is
nevertheless a noble work, its capitals in Pentelic marble ranking among the
finest known examples of the Roman Corinthian. Taken as a whole, the
Pantheon is one of the great masterpieces of the world’s architecture.

FIG. 56.—EXTERIOR OF THE PANTHEON.
(From model in Metropolitan Museum, New York.)

FORA AND BASILICAS. The fora were the places for general public
assemblage. The chief of those in Rome, the Forum Magnum, or Forum
Romanum, was at first merely an irregular vacant space, about and in
which, as the focus of the civic life, temples, halls, colonnades, and statues
gradually accumulated. These chance aggregations the systematic Roman
mind reduced in time to orderly and monumental form; successive emperors
extended them and added new fora at enormous cost and with great splendor
of architecture. Those of Julius, Augustus, Vespasian, and Nerva (or
Domitian), adjoining the Roman Forum, were magnificent enclosures
surrounded by high walls and single or double colonnades. Each contained a
temple or basilica, besides gateways, memorial columns or arches, and
countless statues. The Forum of Trajan surpassed all the rest; it covered an
area of thirty-five thousand square yards, and included, besides the main
area, entered through a triumphal arch, the Basilica Ulpia, the temple of
Trajan, and his colossal Doric column of Victory. Both in size and beauty it
ranked as the chief architectural glory of the city (Fig. 57). The six fora
together contained thirteen temples, three basilicas, eight triumphal arches,
a mile of porticos, and a number of other public edifices. 14 Besides these,
a net-work of colonnades covered large tracts of the city, affording sheltered
communication in every direction, and here and there expanding into
squares or gardens surrounded by peristyles.

FIG. 57.—FORUM AND BASILICA OF TRAJAN.
Larger View

The public business of Rome, both judicial and
commercial, was largely transacted in the basilicas,
large buildings consisting usually of a wide and lofty
central nave flanked by lower side-aisles, and
terminating at one or both ends in an apse or
semicircular recess called the tribune, in which were
the seats for the magistrates. The side-aisles were
separated from the nave by columns supporting a FIG. 58.—BASILICA
clearstory wall, pierced by windows above the roofs of OF CONSTANTINE.
the side-aisles. In some cases the latter were two stories PLAN.
high, with galleries; in others the central space was
open to the sky, as at Pompeii, suggesting the derivation of the basilica from
the open square surrounded by colonnades, or from the forum itself, with
which we find it usually associated. The most important basilicas in Rome
were the Sempronian, the Æmilian (about 54 b.c.), the Julian in the Forum
Magnum (51 b.c.), and the Ulpian in the Forum of Trajan (113 a.d.). The
last two were probably open basilicas, only the side-aisles being roofed. The
Ulpian (Fig. 57) was the most magnificent of all, and in conjunction with the

Forum of Trajan formed one of the most imposing of those monumental
aggregations of columnar architecture which contributed so largely to the
splendor of the Roman capital.

FIG. 59.—BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. RUINS.

These monuments frequently suffered from the burning of their wooden
roofs. It was Constantine who completed the first vaulted and fireproof
basilica, begun by his predecessor and rival, Maxentius, on the site of the
former Temple of Peace (Figs. 58, 59). Its design reproduced on a grand
scale the plan of the tepidarium-halls of the thermæ, the side-recesses of
which were converted into a continuous side-aisle by piercing arches
through the buttress-walls that separated them. Above the imposing vaults of
these recesses and under the cross-vaults of the nave were windows
admitting abundant light. A narthex, or porch, preceded the hall at one end;
there were also a side entrance from the Via Sacra, and an apse or tribune for
the magistrates opposite each of these entrances. The dimensions of the main
hall (325 × 85 feet), the height of its vault (117 feet), and the splendor of its
columns and incrustations excited universal admiration, and exercised a
powerful influence on later architecture.
THERMÆ. The leisure of the Roman people was largely spent in the great
baths, or thermæ, which took the place substantially of the modern club. The

establishments erected by the emperors for
this purpose were vast and complex
congeries of large and small halls, courts,
and chambers, combined with a masterly
comprehension of artistic propriety and
effect in the sequence of oblong, square,
oval, and circular apartments, and in the
relation of the greater to the lesser masses.
They were a combination of the Greek
palæstra with the Roman balnea, and united FIG. 60.—THERMÆ OF

in one harmonious design great public CARACALLA. PLAN OF CENTRAL

swimming-baths, private baths for BLOCK.

individuals and families, places for A, Caldarium, or Hot Bath; B,
Intermediate Chamber; C, Tepidarium,
gymnastic exercises and games, courts, or Warm Bath; D, Frigidarium, or Cold
peristyles, gardens, halls for literary Bath; E, Peristyles; a, Gymnastic
entertainments, lounging-rooms, and all the Rooms; b, Dressing Rooms; c, Cooling
Rooms; d, Small Courts; e, Entrances;
complex accommodation required for the v, Vestibules.
service of the whole establishment. They
Larger View
were built with apparent disregard of cost,
and adorned with splendid extravagance. The earliest were the Baths of
Agrippa (27 b.c.) behind the Pantheon; next may be mentioned those of
Titus, built on the substructions of Nero’s Golden House. The remains of the
Thermæ of Caracalla (211 a.d.) form the most extensive mass of ruins in
Rome, and clearly display the admirable planning of this and similar
establishments. A gigantic block of buildings containing the three great halls
for cold, warm, and hot baths, stood in the centre of a vast enclosure
surrounded by private baths, exedræ, and halls for lecture-audiences and
other gatherings. The enclosure was adorned with statues, flower-gardens,
and places for out-door games. The Baths of Diocletian (302 a.d.)
embodied this arrangement on a still more extensive scale; they could
accommodate 3,500 bathers at once, and their ruins cover a broad territory
near the railway terminus of the modern city. The church of S. Maria degli
Angeli was formed by Michael Angelo out of the tepidarium of these baths
—a colossal hall 340 × 87 feet, and 90 feet high. The original vaulting and
columns are still intact, and the whole interior most imposing, in spite of
later stucco disfigurements. The circular laconicum (sweat-room) serves as

the porch to the present church. It was in the building of these great halls
that Roman architecture reached its most original and characteristic
expression. Wholly unrelated to any foreign model, they represent
distinctively Roman ideals, both as to plan and construction.
PLACES OF AMUSEMENT.
The earliest Roman theatres
differed from the Greek in having
a nearly semicircular plan, and in
being built up from the level
ground, not excavated in a hillside
(Fig. 61). The first theatre was of
wood, built by Mummius 145 b.c.,
and it was not until ninety years
FIG. 61.—ROMAN THEATRE. (HERCULANUM.)
later that stone was first
(From model.)
substituted for the more perishable
material, in the theatre of Pompey. The Theatre of Marcellus (23–13 b.c.) is
in part still extant, and later theatres in Pompeii, Orange (France), and in the
Asiatic provinces are in excellent preservation. The orchestra was not, as in
the Greek theatre, reserved for the choral dance, but was given up to
spectators of rank; the stage was adorned with a permanent architectural
background of columns and arches, and sometimes roofed with wood, and
an arcade or colonnade surrounded the upper tier of seats. The amphitheatre
was a still more distinctively Roman edifice. It was elliptical in plan,
surrounding an elliptical arena, and built up with continuous encircling tiers
of seats. The earliest stone amphitheatre was erected by Statilius Taurus in
the time of Augustus. It was practically identical in design with the later and
much larger Flavian amphitheatre, commonly known as the Colosseum,
begun by Vespasian and completed 82 a.d. (Fig. 62). This immense structure
measured 607 × 506 feet in plan and was 180 feet high; it could
accommodate eighty-seven thousand spectators. Engaged columns of the
Tuscan, Ionic, and Corinthian orders decorated three stories of the exterior;
the fourth was a nearly unbroken wall with slender Corinthian pilasters.
Solidly constructed of travertine, concrete, and tufa, the Colosseum, with its
imposing but monotonous exterior, almost sublime by its scale and
seemingly endless repetition, but lacking in refinement or originality of

detail and dedicated to bloody and cruel sports, was a characteristic product
of the Roman character and civilization. At Verona, Pola, Capua, and many
cities in the foreign provinces there are well-preserved remains of similar
structures.

FIG. 62.—COLOSSEUM. HALF PLAN.

Closely related to the amphitheatre were the circus and the stadium. The
Circus Maximus between the Palatine and Aventine hills was the oldest of
those in Rome. That erected by Caligula and Nero on the site afterward
partly occupied by St. Peter’s, was more splendid, and is said to have been
capable of accommodating over three hundred thousand spectators after its
enlargement in the fourth century. The long, narrow race-course was divided
into two nearly equal parts by a low parapet, the spina, on which were the
goals (metæ) and many small decorative structures and columns. One end of
the circus, as of the stadium also, was semicircular; the other was segmental
in the circus, square in the stadium; a colonnade or arcade ran along the top
of the building, and the entrances and exits were adorned with monumental
arches.
TRIUMPHAL ARCHES AND COLUMNS. Rome and the provincial
cities abounded in monuments commemorative of victory, usually single or
triple arches with engaged columns and rich sculptural adornments, or single
colossal columns supporting statues. The arches were characteristic products
of Roman design, and some of them deserve high praise for the excellence
of their proportions and the elegance of their details. There were in Rome in
the second century a.d., thirty-eight of these monuments. The Arch of Titus

(71–82 a.d.) is the simplest and most perfect
of those still extant in Rome; the arch of
Septimius Severus in the Forum (203 a.d.)
and that of Constantine (330 a.d.) near the
Colosseum, are more sumptuous but less
pure in detail. The last-named was in part
enriched with sculptures taken from the
earlier arch of Trajan. The statues of Dacian
captives on the attic (attic = a species of
subordinate story added above the main
cornice) of this arch were a fortunate FIG. 63.—ARCH OF
addition, furnishing a raison-d’être for the CONSTANTINE.
columns and broken entablatures on which (From model in Metropolitan
they rest. Memorial columns of colossal Museum, New York.)
size were erected by several emperors, both
in Rome and abroad. Those of Trajan and of Marcus Aurelius are still
standing in Rome in perfect preservation. The first was 140 feet high
including the pedestal and the statue which surmounted it; its capital marked
the height of the ridge levelled by the emperor for the forum on which the
column stands. Its most striking peculiarity is the spiral band of reliefs
winding around the shaft from bottom to top and representing the Dacian
campaigns of Trajan. The other column is of similar design and dimensions,
but greatly inferior to the first in execution. Both are really towers, with
interior stair-cases leading to the top.
TOMBS. The Romans developed no special and national type of tomb, and
few of their sepulchral monuments were of large dimensions. The most
important in Rome were the pyramid of Caius Cestius (late first century
b.c.), and the circular tombs of Cecilia Metella (60 b.c.), Augustus (14 a.d.)
and Hadrian, now the Castle of S. Angelo (138 a.d.). The latter was
composed of a huge cone of marble supported on a cylindrical structure 230
feet in diameter standing on a square podium 300 feet long and wide. The
cone probably once terminated in the gilt bronze pine-cone now in the
Giardino della Pigna of the Vatican. In the Mausoleum of Augustus a mound
of earth planted with trees crowned a similar circular base of marble on a
podium 220 feet square, now buried.

The smaller tombs varied greatly in size and form. Some were vaulted
chambers, with graceful internal painted decorations of figures and vine
patterns combined with low-relief enrichments in stucco. Others were
designed in the form of altars or sarcophagi, as at Pompeii; while others
again resembled ædiculæ, little temples, shrines, or small towers in several
stories of arches and columns, as at St. Rémy (France).
PALACES AND DWELLINGS. Into their dwellings the Romans carried
all their love of ostentation and personal luxury. They anticipated in many
details the comforts of modern civilization in their furniture, their plumbing
and heating, and their utensils. Their houses may be divided into four
classes: the palace, the villa, the domus or ordinary house, and the insula or
many-storied tenement built in compact blocks. The first three alone concern
us, and will be taken up in the above order.
The imperial palaces on the Palatine Hill comprised a wide range in style
and variety of buildings, beginning with the first simple house of Augustus
(26 b.c.), burnt and rebuilt 3 a.d. Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero added to the
Augustan group; Domitian rebuilt a second time and enlarged the palace of
Augustus, and Septimius Severus remodelled the whole group, adding to it
his own extraordinary seven-storied palace, the Septizonium. The ruins of
these successive buildings have been carefully excavated, and reveal a
remarkable combination of dwelling-rooms, courts, temples, libraries,
basilicas, baths, gardens, peristyles, fountains, terraces, and covered
passages. These were adorned with a profusion of precious marbles,
mosaics, columns, and statues. Parts of the demolished palace of Nero were
incorporated in the substructions of the Baths of Titus. The beautiful
arabesques and plaster reliefs which adorned them were the inspiration of
much of the fresco and stucco decoration of the Italian Renaissance. At
Spalato, in Dalmatia, are the extensive ruins of the great Palace of
Diocletian, which was laid out on the plan of a Roman camp, with two
intersecting avenues (Fig. 64). It comprised a temple, mausoleum, basilica,
and other structures besides those portions devoted to the purposes of a royal
residence.

FIG. 64.—PALACE OF DIOCLETIAN. SPALATO.

The villa was in reality a country palace, arranged with special reference to
the prevailing winds, exposure to the sun and shade, and the enjoyment of a
wide prospect. Baths, temples, exedræ, theatres, tennis-courts, sun-rooms,
and shaded porticoes were connected with the house proper, which was built
around two or three interior courts or peristyles. Statues, fountains, and
colossal vases of marble adorned the grounds, which were laid out in
terraces and treated with all the fantastic arts of the Roman landscape-
gardener. The most elaborate and extensive villa was that of Hadrian, at
Tibur (Tivoli); its ruins, covering hundreds of acres, form one of the most
interesting spots to visit in the neighborhood of Rome.
There are few remains in Rome of the domus or private house. Two,
however, have left remarkably interesting ruins—the Atrium Vestæ, or
House of the Vestal Virgins, east of the Forum, a well-planned and extensive
house surrounding a cloister or court; and the House of Livia, so-called, on
the Palatine Hill, the walls and decorations of which are excellently
preserved. The typical Roman house in a provincial town is best illustrated
by the ruins of Pompeii and Herculanum, which, buried by an eruption of
Vesuvius in 79 a.d., have been partially excavated since 1721. The
Pompeiian house (Fig. 65) consisted of several courts or atria, some of
which were surrounded by colonnades and called peristyles. The front

portion was reserved for shops, or presented
to the street a wall unbroken save by the
entrance; all the rooms and chambers
opened upon the interior courts, from which
alone they borrowed their light. In the
brilliant climate of southern Italy windows
were little needed, as sufficient light was
admitted by the door, closed only by
portières for the most part; especially as the
family life was passed mainly in the shaded
courts, to which fountains, parterres of
shrubbery, statues, and other adornments
lent their inviting charm. The general plan
of these houses seems to have been of
Greek origin, as well as the system of
decoration used on the walls. These, when
not wainscoted with marble, were covered
with fantastic, but often artistic, painted
decorations, in which an imaginary FIG. 65.—HOUSE OF PANSA,
architecture as of metal, a fantastic and POMPEII.
arbitrary perspective, illusory pictures, and s, Shops; v, Vestibule; f, Family Rooms;
highly finished figures were the chief k, Kitchen; l, Lavarium; P, P, P,
elements. These were executed in brilliant Peristyles.
colors with excellent effect. The houses were
lightly built, with wooden ceilings and roofs instead of vaulting, and usually
with but one story on account of the danger from earthquakes. That the
workmanship and decoration were in the capital often superior to what was
to be found in a provincial town like Pompeii, is evidenced by beautiful
wall-paintings and reliefs discovered in Rome in 1879 and now preserved in
the Museo delle Terme. More or less fragmentary remains of Roman houses
have been found in almost every corner of the Roman empire, but nowhere
exhibiting as completely as in Pompeii the typical Roman arrangement.
WORKS OF UTILITY. A word should be said about Roman engineering
works, which in many cases were designed with an artistic sense of
proportion and form which raises them into the domain of genuine art. Such

were especially the bridges, in which a remarkable effect of monumental
grandeur was often produced by the form and proportions of the arches and
piers, and an appropriate use of rough and dressed masonry, as in the Pons
Ælius (Ponte S. Angelo), the great bridge at Alcantara (Spain), and the Pont
du Gard, in southern France. The aqueducts are impressive rather by their
length, scale, and simplicity, than by any special refinements of design,
except where their arches are treated with some architectural decoration to
form gates, as in the Porta Maggiore, at Rome.

MONUMENTS: (Those which have no important extant remains are given in italics.)
Temples: Jupiter Capitolinus, 600 b.c.; Ceres, Liber, and Libera, 494 b.c. (ruins of later
rebuilding in S. Maria in Cosmedin); first T. of Concord (rebuilt in Augustan age), 254 b.c.;
first marble temple in portico of Metellus, by a Greek, Hermodorus, 143 b.c.; temples of
Fortune at Præneste and at Rome, and of “Vesta” at Rome, 83–78 b.c.; of “Vesta” at Tivoli,
and of Hercules at Cori, 72 b.c.; first Pantheon, 27 b.c. In Augustan Age temples of Apollo,
Concord rebuilt, Dioscuri, Julius, Jupiter Stator, Jupiter Tonans, Mars Ultor, Minerva (at
Rome and Assisi), Maison Carrée at Nîmes, Saturn; at Puteoli, Pola, etc. T. of Peace; T. Jupiter
Capitolinus, rebuilt 70 a.d.; temple at Brescia. Temple of Vespasian, 96 a.d.; also of Minerva
in Forum of Nerva; of Trajan, 117 a.d.; second Pantheon; T. of Venus and Rome at Rome, and
of Jupiter Olympius at Athens, 135–138 a.d.; Faustina, 141 a.d.; many in Syria; temples of
Sun at Rome, Baalbec, and Palmyra, cir. 273 a.d.; of Romulus, 305 a.d. (porch S. Cosmo and
Damiano). Places of Assembly: Fora—Roman, Julian, 46 b.c.; Augustan, 40–42 b.c.; of
Peace, 75 a.d.; Nerva, 97 a.d.; Trajan (by Apollodorus of Damascus, 117 a.d.) Basilicas:
Sempronian, Æmilian, 1st century b.c.; Julian, 51 b.c.; Septa Julia, 26 b.c.; the Curia, later
rebuilt by Diocletian, 300 a.d. (now Church of S. Adriano); at Fano, 20 a.d. (?); Forum and
Basilica at Pompeii, 60 a.d.; of Trajan; of Constantine, 310–324 a.d. Theatres (th.) and
Amphitheatres (amp.): th. Pompey, 55 b.c.; of Balbus and of Marcellus, 13 b.c.; th. and amp.
at Pompeii and Herculanum; Colosseum at Rome, 78–82 a.d.; th. at Orange and in Asia Minor;
amp. at Albano, Constantine, Nîmes, Petra, Pola, Reggio, Trevi, Tusculum, Verona, etc.; amp.
Castrense at Rome, 96 a.d. Circuses and stadia at Rome. Thermæ: of Agrippa, 27 b.c.; of
Nero; of Titus, 78 a.d. Domitian, 90 a.d.; Caracalla, 211 a.d.; Diocletian, 305 a.d.;
Constantine, 320 a.d.; “Minerva Medica,” 3d or 4th century a.d. Arches: of Stertinius, 196
b.c.; Scipio, 190 b.c.; Augustus, 30 b.c.; Titus, 71–82 a.d.; Trajan, 117 a.d.; Severus, 203 a.d.;
Constantine, 320 a.d.; of Drusus, Dolabella, Silversmiths, 204 a.d.; Janus Quadrifrons, 320
a.d. (?); all at Rome. Others at Benevento, Ancona, Rimini in Italy; also at Athens, and at
Reims and St. Chamas in France. Columns of Trajan, Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius at Rome,
others at Constantinople, Alexandria, etc. Tombs: along Via Appia and Via Latina, at Rome;
Via Sacra at Pompeii; tower-tombs at St. Rémy in France; rock-cut at Petra; at Rome, of Caius
Cestius and Cecilia Metella, 1st century b.c.; of Augustus, 14 a.d.; Hadrian, 138 a.d. Palaces
and Private Houses: On Palatine, of Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Domitian, Septimius Severus,
Elagabalus; Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli; palaces of Diocletian at Spalato and of Constantine at
Constantinople. House of Livia on Palatine (Augustan period); of Vestals, rebuilt by Hadrian,
cir. 120 a.d. Houses at Pompeii and Herculanum, cir. 60–79 a.d.; Villas of Gordianus (“Tor’
de’ Schiavi,” 240 a.d.), and of Sallust at Rome and of Pliny at Laurentium.

14. Lanciani: Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries, p. 89.

CHAPTER X.

EARLY CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE.

Books Recommended: Bunsen, Die Basiliken christlichen Roms. Butler, Architecture and
other Arts in Northern Central Syria. Corroyer, L’architecture romane. Cummings, A History
of Architecture in Italy. Essenwein (Handbuch d. Architektur), Ausgänge der klassischen
Baukunst. Gutensohn u. Knapp, Denkmäler der christlichen Religion. Hübsch, Monuments de
l’architecture chrétienne. Lanciani, Pagan and Christian Rome. Mothes, Die Basilikenform bei
den Christen, etc. Okely, Development of Christian Architecture in Italy. Von Quast, Die
altchristlichen Bauwerke zu Ravenna. De Rossi, Roma Sotterranea. De Vogüé, Syrie Centrale;
Églises de la Terre Sainte.

INTRODUCTORY. The official recognition of Christianity in the year 328
by Constantine simply legalized an institution which had been for three
centuries gathering momentum for its final conquest of the antique world.
The new religion rapidly enlisted in its service for a common purpose and
under a common impulse races as wide apart in blood and culture as those
which had built up the art of imperial Rome. It was Christianity which
reduced to civilization in the West the Germanic hordes that had overthrown
Rome, bringing their fresh and hitherto untamed vigor to the task of
recreating architecture out of the decaying fragments of classic art. So in the
East its life-giving influence awoke the slumbering Greek art-instinct to new
triumphs in the arts of building, less refined and perfect indeed, but not less
sublime than those of the Periclean age. Long before the Constantinian edict,
the Christians in the Eastern provinces had enjoyed substantial freedom of
worship. Meeting often in the private basilicas of wealthy converts, and
finding these, and still more the great public basilicas, suited to the
requirements of their worship, they early began to build in imitation of these
edifices. There are many remains of these early churches in northern Africa
and central Syria.
EARLY CHRISTIAN ART IN ROME. This was at first wholly sepulchral,
developing in the catacombs the symbols of the new faith. Once liberated,

however, Christianity appropriated bodily for its public rites the basilica-
type and the general substance of Roman architecture. Shafts and capitals,
architraves and rich linings of veined marble, even the pagan Bacchic
symbolism of the vine, it adapted to new uses in its own service. Constantine
led the way in architecture, endowing Bethlehem and Jerusalem with
splendid churches, and his new capital on the Bosphorus with the first of the
three historic basilicas dedicated to the Holy Wisdom (Hagia Sophia). One
of the greatest of innovators, he seems to have had a special predilection for
circular buildings, and the tombs and baptisteries which he erected in this
form, especially that for his sister Constantia in Rome (known as Santa
Costanza, Fig. 66), furnished the prototype for numberless Italian
baptisteries in later ages.
The Christian basilica (see Figs. 67, 68) generally
comprised a broad and lofty nave, separated by rows of
columns from the single or double side-aisles. The
aisles had usually about half the width and height of the
nave, and like it were covered with wooden roofs and
ceilings. Above the columns which flanked the nave
rose the lofty clearstory wall, pierced with windows
above the side-aisle roofs and supporting the immense
trusses of the roof of the nave. The timbering of the FIG. 66.—STA.
latter was sometimes bare, sometimes concealed by a COSTANZA, ROME.
richly panelled ceiling, carved, gilded, and painted. At
the further end of the nave was the sanctuary or apse, with the seats for the
clergy on a raised platform, the bema, in front of which was the altar.
Transepts sometimes expanded to right and left before the altar, under which
was the confessio or shrine of the titular saint or martyr.
An atrium or forecourt surrounded by a covered arcade preceded the basilica
proper, the arcade at the front of the church forming a porch or narthex,
which, however, in some cases existed without the atrium. The exterior was
extremely plain; the interior, on the contrary, was resplendent with
incrustations of veined marble and with sumptuous decorations in glass
mosaic (called opus Grecanicum) on a blue or golden ground. Especially
rich were the half-dome of the apse and the wall-space surrounding its arch
and called the triumphal arch; next in decorative importance came the broad

band of wall beneath the clearstory windows. Upon these surfaces the
mosaic-workers wrought with minute cubes of colored glass pictures and
symbols almost imperishable, in which the glow of color and a certain
decorative grandeur of effect in the composition went far to atone for the
uncouth drawing. With growing wealth and an increasingly elaborate ritual,
the furniture and equipments of the church assumed greater architectural
importance. A large rectangular space was retained for the choir in front of
the bema, and enclosed by a breast-high parapet of marble, richly inlaid. On
either side were the pulpits or ambones for the Gospel and Epistle. A lofty
canopy was built over the altar, the baldaquin, supported on four marble
columns. A few basilicas were built with side-aisles, in two stories, as in
S. Lorenzo and Sta. Agnese. Adjoining the basilica in the earlier examples
were the baptistery and the tomb of the saint, circular or polygonal buildings
usually; but in later times these were replaced by the font or baptismal
chapel in the church and the confessio under the altar.
Of the two Constantinian basilicas in Rome,
the one dedicated to St. Peter was
demolished in the fifteenth century; that of
St. John Lateran has been so disfigured by
modern alterations as to be unrecognizable.
The former of the two adjoined the site of
the martyrdom of St. Peter in the circus of FIG. 67.—PLAN OF THE BASILICA
Caligula and Nero; it was five-aisled, 380 OF ST. PAUL.
feet in length by 212 feet in width. The nave
was 80 feet wide and 100 feet high, and the disproportionately high
clearstory wall rested on horizontal architraves carried by columns. The
impressive dimensions and simple plan of this structure gave it a majesty
worthy of its rank as the first church of Christendom. St. Paul beyond the
Walls (S. Paolo fuori le mura), built in 386 by Theodosius, resembled St.
Peter’s closely in plan (Figs. 67, 68). Destroyed by fire in 1821, it has been
rebuilt with almost its pristine splendor, and is, next to the modern St.
Peter’s and the Pantheon, the most impressive place of worship in Rome.
Santa Maria Maggiore, 15 though smaller in size, is more interesting
because it so largely retains its original aspect, its Renaissance ceiling
happily harmonizing with its simple antique lines. Ionic columns support

architraves to carry the clearstory, as in St. Peter’s. In most other examples,
St. Paul’s included, arches turned from column to column perform this
function. The first known case of such use of classic columns as arch-bearers
was in the palace of Diocletian at Spalato; it also appears in Syrian buildings
of the third and fourth centuries a.d.
The basilica remained the model for
ecclesiastical architecture in Rome, without
noticeable change either of plan or detail, until
the time of the Renaissance. All the earlier
examples employed columns and capitals taken
from ancient ruins, often incongruous and ill-
matched in size and order. San Clemente
(1084) has retained almost intact its early
aspect, its choir-enclosure, baldaquin, and
ambones having been well preserved or
carefully restored. Other important basilicas are
mentioned in the list of monuments on pages
118, 119.
RAVENNA. The fifth and sixth centuries
endowed Ravenna with a number of notable
buildings which, with the exception of the FIG. 68.—ST. PAUL BEYOND
cathedral, demolished in the last century, have THE WALLS. INTERIOR.
been preserved to our day. Subdued by the
Byzantine emperor Justinian in 537, Ravenna became the meeting-ground
for Early Christian and Byzantine traditions and the basilican and circular
plans are both represented. The two churches dedicated to St. Apollinaris,
S. Apollinare Nuovo (520) in the city, and S. Apollinare in Classe (538)
three miles distant from the city, in what was formerly the port, are
especially interesting for their fine mosaics, and for the impost-blocks
interposed above the capitals of their columns to receive the springing of the
pier-arches. These blocks appear to be somewhat crude modifications of the
fragmentary architraves or entablatures employed in classic Roman
architecture to receive the springing of vaults sustained by columns, and
became common in Byzantine structures (Fig. 73). The use of external
arcading to give some slight adornment to the walls of the second of the

above-named churches, and the round bell-towers of brick which adjoined
both of them, were first steps toward the development of the “wall-veil” or
arcaded decoration, and of the campaniles, which in later centuries became
so characteristic of north Italian churches (see Chapter XIII.). In Rome the
campaniles which accompany many of the mediæval basilicas are square
and pierced with many windows.
The basilican form of church became general in Italy, a large proportion of
whose churches continued to be built with wooden roofs and with but slight
deviations from the original type, long after the appearance of the Gothic
style. The chief departures from early precedent were in the exterior, which
was embellished with marble incrustations as in S. Miniato (Florence); or
with successive stories of wall-arcades, as in many churches in Pisa and
Lucca (see Fig. 90); until finally the introduction of clustered piers, pointed
arches, and vaulting, gradually transformed the basilican into the Italian
Romanesque and Gothic styles.
SYRIA AND THE EAST. In Syria, particularly the central portion, the
Christian architecture of the 3d to 8th centuries produced a number of very
interesting monuments. The churches built by Constantine in Syria—the
Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem (nominally built by his mother), of the
Ascension at Jerusalem, the magnificent octagonal church on the site of the
Temple, and finally the somewhat similar church at Antioch—were the most
notable Christian monuments in Syria. The first three on the list, still extant
in part at least, have been so altered by later additions and restorations that
their original forms are only approximately known from early descriptions.
They were all of large size, and the octagonal church on the Temple platform
was of exceptional magnificence. 16 The columns and a part of the marble
incrustations of the early design are still visible in the “Mosque of Omar,”
but most of the old work is concealed by the decoration of tiles applied by
the Moslems, and the whole interior aspect altered by the wood-and-plaster
dome with which they replaced the simpler roof of the original.
Christian architecture in Syria soon, however, diverged from Roman
traditions. The abundance of hard stone, the total lack of clay or brick, the
remoteness from Rome, led to a peculiar independence and originality in the
forms and details of the ecclesiastical as well as of the domestic architecture
of central Syria. These innovations upon Roman models resulted in the

development of distinct types which, but for
the arrest of progress by the Mohammedan
conquest in the seventh century, would
doubtless have inaugurated a new and
independent style of architecture. Piers of
masonry came to replace the classic
column, as at Tafkha (third or fourth
century), Rouheiha and Kalb Louzeh (fifth
century? Fig. 69); the ceilings in the smaller
churches were often formed with stone
FIG. 69.—CHURCH AT KALB
slabs; the apse was at first confined within
LOUZEH.
the main rectangle of the plan, and was
sometimes square. The exterior assumed a
striking and picturesque variety of forms by means of turrets, porches, and
gables. Singularly enough, vaulting hardly appears at all, though the arch is
used with fine effect. Conventional and monastic groups of buildings appear
early in Syria, and that of St. Simeon Stylites at Kelat Seman is an
impressive and interesting monument. Four three-aisled wings form the arms
of a cross, meeting in a central octagonal open court, in the midst of which
stood the column of the saint. The eastern arm of the cross forms a complete
basilica of itself, and the whole cross measures 330 × 300 feet. Chapels,
cloisters, and cells adjoin the main edifice.
Circular and polygonal plans appear in a number of
Syrian examples of the early sixth century. Their
most striking feature is the inscribing of the circle
or polygon in a square which forms the exterior
outline, and the use of four niches to fill out the
corners. This occurs at Kelat Seman in a small
double church, perhaps the tomb and chapel of a
martyr; in the cathedral at Bozrah (Fig. 70), and in
the small domical church of St. George at Ezra.
These were probably the prototypes of many
Byzantine churches like St. Sergius at
FIG. 70.—CATHEDRAL AT
Constantinople, and San Vitale at Ravenna
BOZRAH.
(Fig. 74), though the exact dates of the Syrian

churches are not known. The one at Ezra is the only one of the three which
has a dome, the others having been roofed with wood.
The interesting domestic architecture of this period is preserved in whole
towns and villages in the Hauran, which, deserted at the Arab conquest, have
never been reoccupied and remain almost intact but for the decay of their
wooden roofs. They are marked by dignity and simplicity of design, and by
the same picturesque massing of gables and roofs and porches which has
already been remarked of the churches. The arches are broad, the columns
rather heavy, the mouldings few and simple, and the scanty carving vigorous
and effective, often strongly Byzantine in type.
Elsewhere in the Eastern world are many early churches of which even the
enumeration would exceed the limits of this work. Salonica counts a number
of basilicas and several domical churches. The church of St. George, now a
mosque, is of early date and thoroughly Roman in plan and section, of the
same class with the Pantheon and the tomb of Helena, in both of which a
massive circular wall is lightened by eight niches. At Angora (Ancyra),
Hierapolis, Pergamus, and other points in Asia Minor; in Egypt, Nubia, and
Algiers, are many examples of both circular and basilican edifices of the
early centuries of Christianity. In Constantinople there remains but a single
representative of the basilican type, the church of St. John Studius, now the
Emir Akhor mosque.

MONUMENTS: Rome: 4th century: St. Peter’s, Sta. Costanza, 330?; Sta. Pudentiana, 335
(rebuilt 1598); tomb of St. Helena; Baptistery of Constantine; St. Paul’s beyond the Walls, 386;
St. John Lateran (wholly remodelled in modern times). 5th century: Baptistery of St. John
Lateran; Sta. Sabina, 425; Sta. Maria Maggiore, 432; S. Pietro in Vincoli, 442 (greatly altered
in modern times). 6th century: S. Lorenzo, 580 (the older portion in two stories); SS. Cosmo e
Damiano. 7th century: Sta. Agnese, 625; S. Giorgio in Velabro, 682. 8th century: Sta. Maria in
Cosmedin; S. Crisogono. 9th century: S. Nereo ed Achilleo; Sta. Prassede; Sta. Maria in
Dominica. 12th and 13th centuries: S. Clemente, 1118; Sta. Maria in Trastevere; S. Lorenzo
(nave); Sta. Maria in Ara Coeli. Ravenna: Baptistery of S. John, 400 (?); S. Francesco;
S. Giovanni Evangelista, 425; Sta. Agata, 430; S. Giovanni Battista, 439; tomb of Galla
Placidia, 450; S. Apollinare Nuovo, 500–520; S. Apollinare in Classe, 538; St. Victor; Sta.
Maria in Cosmedin (the Arian Baptistery); tomb of Theodoric (Sta. Maria della Rotonda,
a decagonal two-storied mausoleum, with a low dome cut from a single stone 36 feet in
diameter), 530–540. Italy in General: basilica at Parenzo, 6th century; cathedral and Sta.
Fosca at Torcello, 640–700; at Naples Sta. Restituta, 7th century; others, mostly of 10th-13th
centuries, at Murano near Venice, at Florence (S. Miniato), Spoleto, Toscanella, etc.;
baptisteries at Asti, Florence, Nocera dei Pagani, and other places. In Syria and The East:
basilicas of the Nativity at Bethlehem, of the Sepulchre and of the Ascension at Jerusalem; also

polygonal church on Temple platform; these all of 4th century. Basilicas at Bakouzah, Hass,
Kelat Seman, Kalb Louzeh, Rouheiha, Tourmanin, etc.; circular churches, tombs, and
baptisteries at Bozrah, Ezra, Hass, Kelat Seman, Rouheiha, etc.; all these 4th-8th centuries.
Churches at Constantinople (Holy Wisdom, St. John Studius, etc.), Hierapolis, Pergamus, and
Thessalonica (St. Demetrius, “Eski Djuma”); in Egypt and Nubia (Djemla, Announa, Ibreem,
Siout, etc.); at Orléansville in Algeria. (For churches, etc., of 8th-10th centuries in the West,
see Chapter XIII.)

15. Hereafter the abbreviation S. M. will be generally used instead of the name Santa Maria.
16. Fergusson (History of Architecture, vol. ii., pp. 408, 432) contends that this was the real
Constantinian church of the Holy Sepulchre, and that the one called to-day by that name was
erected by the Crusaders in the twelfth century. The more general view is that the latter was
originally built by Constantine as the Church of the Sepulchre, though subsequently much
altered, and that the octagonal edifice was also his work, but erected under some other
name. Whether this church was later incorporated in the “Mosque of Omar,” or merely
furnished some of the materials for its construction, is not quite clear.

CHAPTER XI.

BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE.

Books Recommended: As before, Essenwein, Hübsch, Von Quast. Also, Bayet, L’Art Byzantin.
Choisy, L’Art de bâtir chez les Byzantins. Lethaby and Swainson, Sancta Sophia. Ongania, La
Basilica di San Marco. Pulgher, Anciennes Églises Byzantines de Constantinople. Salzenberg,
Altchristliche Baudenkmäle von Constantinopel. Texier and Pullan, Byzantine Architecture.

ORIGIN AND CHARACTER. The decline and fall of Rome arrested the
development of the basilican style in the West, as did the Arab conquest later
in Syria. It was otherwise in the new Eastern capital founded by Constantine
in the ancient Byzantium, which was rising in power and wealth while Rome
lay in ruins. Situated at the strategic point of the natural highway of
commerce between East and West, salubrious and enchantingly beautiful in
its surroundings, the new capital grew rapidly from provincial insignificance
to metropolitan importance. Its founder had embellished it with an
extraordinary wealth of buildings, in which, owing to the scarcity of trained
architects, quantity and cost doubtless outran quality. But at least the
tameness of blindly followed precedent was avoided, and this departure
from traditional tenets contributed undoubtedly to the originality of
Byzantine architecture. A large part of the artisans employed in building
were then, as now, from Asia Minor and the Ægean Islands, Greek in race if
not in name. An Oriental taste for brilliant and harmonious color and for
minute decoration spread over broad surfaces must have been stimulated by
trade with the Far East and by constant contact with Oriental peoples,
costumes, and arts. An Asiatic origin may also be assigned to the methods of
vaulting employed, far more varied than the Roman, not only in form but
also in materials and processes. From Roman architecture, however, the
Byzantines borrowed the fundamental notion of their structural art; that,
namely, of distributing the weights and strains of their vaulted structures
upon isolated and massive points of support, strengthened by deep

buttresses, internal or external, as the case might be. Roman, likewise, was
the use of polished monolithic columns, and the incrustation of the piers and
walls with panels of variegated marble, as well as the decoration of plastered
surfaces by fresco and mosaic, and the use of opus sectile and opus
Alexandrinum for the production of sumptuous marble pavements. In the
first of these processes the color-figures of the pattern are formed each of a
single piece of marble cut to the shape required; in the second the pattern is
compounded of minute squares, triangles, and curved pieces of uniform size.
Under these combined influences the artists of Constantinople wrought out
new problems in construction and decoration, giving to all that they touched
a new and striking character.
There is no absolute line of demarcation, chronological, geographical, or
structural, between Early Christian and Byzantine architecture. But the
former was especially characterized by the basilica with three or five aisles,
and the use of wooden roofs even in its circular edifices; the vault and dome,
though not unknown, being exceedingly rare. Byzantine architecture, on the
other hand, rarely produced the simple three-aisled or five-aisled basilica,
and nearly all its monuments were vaulted. The dome was especially
frequent, and Byzantine architecture achieved its highest triumphs in the use
of the pendentive, as the triangular spherical surfaces are called, by the aid
of which a dome can be supported on the summits of four arches spanning
the four sides of a square, as explained later. There is as little uniformity in
the plans of Byzantine buildings as in the forms of the vaulting. A few types
of church-plan, however, predominated locally in one or another centre; but
the controlling feature of the style was the dome and the constructive system
with which it was associated. The dome, it is true, had long been used by the
Romans, but always on a circular plan, as in the Pantheon. It is also a fact
that pendentives have been found in Syria and Asia Minor older than the
oldest Byzantine examples. But the special feature characterizing the
Byzantine dome on pendentives was its almost exclusive association with
plans having piers and columns or aisles, with the dome as the central and
dominant feature of the complex design (see plans, Figs. 74, 75, 78).
Another strictly Byzantine practice was the piercing of the lower portion of
the dome with windows forming a circle or crown, and the final
development of this feature into a high drum.

CONSTRUCTION. Still another divergence from Roman methods was in
the substitution of brick and stone masonry for concrete. Brick was used for
the mass as well as the facing of walls and piers, and for the vaulting in
many buildings mainly built of stone. Stone was used either alone or in
combination with brick, the latter appearing in bands of four or five courses
at intervals of three or four feet. In later work a regular alternation of the two
materials, course for course, was not uncommon. In piers intended to
support unusually heavy loads the stone was very carefully cut and fitted,
and sometimes tied and clamped with iron.
Vaults were built sometimes of brick, sometimes of cut stone; in a few cases
even of earthenware jars fitting into each other, and laid up in a continuous
contracting spiral from the base to the crown of a dome, as in San Vitale at
Ravenna. Ingenious processes for building vaults without centrings were
made use of—processes inherited from the drain-builders of ancient Assyria,
and still in vogue in Armenia, Persia, and Asia Minor. The groined vault was
common, but always approximated the form of a dome, by a longitudinal
convexity upward in the intersecting vaults. The aisles of Hagia Sophia 17
display a remarkable variety of forms in the vaulting.
DOMES. The dome, as we have seen, early
became the most characteristic feature of
Byzantine architecture; and especially the
dome on pendentives. If a hemisphere be
cut by five planes, four perpendicular to its
base and bounding a square inscribed
therein, and the fifth plane parallel to the
base and tangent to the semicircular
intersections made by the first four, there
will remain of the original surface only four
triangular spaces bounded by arcs of circles.
These are called pendentives (Fig. 71 a). FIG. 71.—DIAGRAM OF
When these are built up of masonry, each PENDENTIVES.
course forms a species of arch, by virtue of
its convexity. At the crown of the four arches on which they rest, these
courses meet and form a complete circle, perfectly stable and capable of
sustaining any superstructure that does not by excessive weight disrupt the

whole fabric by overthrowing the four arches which support it. Upon these
pendentives, then, a new dome may be started of any desired curvature, or
even a cylindrical drum to support a still loftier dome, as in the later
churches (Fig. 71 b). This method of covering a square is simpler than the
groined vault, having no sharp edges or intersections; it is at least as
effective architecturally, by reason of its greater height in the centre; and is
equally applicable to successive bays of an oblong, cruciform, and even
columnar building. In the great cisterns at Constantinople vast areas are
covered by rows of small domes supported on ranges of columns.
The earlier domes were commonly pierced with windows at the base, this
apparent weakening of the vault being compensated for by strongly
buttressing the piers between the windows, as in Hagia Sophia. Here forty
windows form a crown of light at the spring of the dome, producing an
effect almost as striking as that of the simple oculus of the Pantheon, and
celebrated by ancient writers in the most extravagant terms. In later and
smaller churches a high drum was introduced beneath the dome, in order to
secure, by means of longer windows, more light than could be obtained by
merely piercing the diminutive domes.
Buttressing was well understood by the Byzantines, whose plans were
skilfully devised to provide internal abutments, which were often continued
above the roofs of the side-aisles to prop the main vaults, precisely as was
done by the Romans in their thermæ and similar halls. But the Byzantines,
while adhering less strictly than the Romans to traditional forms and
processes, and displaying much more ready contrivance and special
adaptation of means to ends, never worked out this pregnant structural
principle to its logical conclusion as did the Gothic architects of Western
Europe a few centuries later.
DECORATION. The exteriors of Byzantine buildings (except in some of
the small churches of late date) were generally bare and lacking in beauty.
The interiors, on the contrary, were richly decorated, color playing a much
larger part than carving in the designs. Painting was resorted to only in the
smaller buildings, the more durable and splendid medium of mosaic being
usually preferred. This was, as a rule, confined to the vaults and to those
portions of the wall-surfaces embraced by the vaults above their springing.
The colors were brilliant, the background being usually of gold, though

sometimes of blue or a delicate green. Biblical scenes, symbolic and
allegorical figures and groups of saints adorned the larger areas, particularly
the half-dome of the apse, as in the basilicas. The smaller vaults, the soffits
of arches, borders of pictures, and other minor surfaces, received a more
conventional decoration of crosses, monograms, and set patterns.
The walls throughout were sheathed with
slabs of rare marble in panels so disposed
that the veining should produce
symmetrical figures. The panels were
framed in billet-mouldings, derived
perhaps from classic dentils; the billets or
projections on one side the moulding
coming opposite the spaces on the other.
This seems to have been a purely
Byzantine feature.
CARVED DETAILS. Internally the
different stories were marked by
horizontal bands and cornices of white or
FIG. 72.—SPANDRIL. HAGIA SOPHIA.
inlaid marble richly carved. The arch-
soffits, the archivolts or bands around the arches, and the spandrils between
them were covered with minute and intricate incised carving. The motives
used, though based on the acanthus and anthemion, were given a wholly new
aspect. The relief was low and flat, the leaves sharp and crowded, and the
effect rich and lacelike, rather than vigorous. It was, however, well adapted
to the covering of large areas where general effect was more important than
detail. Even the capitals were treated in the same spirit. The impost-block
was almost universal, except where its use was rendered unnecessary by
giving to the capital itself the massive pyramidal form required to receive
properly the spring of the arch or vault. In such cases (more frequent in
Constantinople than elsewhere) the surface of the capital was simply
covered with incised carving of foliage, basketwork, monograms, etc.;
rudimentary volutes in a few cases recalling classic traditions (Figs. 72, 73).
The mouldings were weak and poorly executed, and the vigorous profiles of
classic cornices were only remotely suggested by the characterless
aggregations of mouldings which took their place.

FIG. 73.—CAPITAL WITH IMPOST BLOCK, S. VITALE.

PLANS. The remains of Byzantine architecture are
almost exclusively of churches and baptisteries, but
the plans of these are exceedingly varied. The first
radical departure from the basilica-type seems to
have been the adoption of circular or polygonal
plans, such as had usually served only for tombs
and baptisteries. The Baptistery of St. John at
Ravenna (early fifth century) is classed by many
authorities as a Byzantine monument. In the early
years of the sixth century the adoption of this
model had become quite general, and with it the FIG. 74.—ST. SERGIUS,
development of domical design began to advance. CONSTANTINOPLE.
The church of St. Sergius at Constantinople (Fig.
74), originally joined to a short basilica dedicated to St. Bacchus (afterward
destroyed by the Turks), as in the double church at Kelat Seman, was built
about 520; that of San Vitale at Ravenna was begun a few years later; both
are domical churches on an octagonal plan, with an exterior aisle.
Semicircular niches—four in St. Sergius and eight in San Vitale—projecting
into the aisle, enlarge somewhat the area of the central space and give
variety to the internal effect. The origin of this characteristic feature may be

traced to the eight niches of the Pantheon, through such intermediate
examples as the temple of Minerva Medica at Rome. The true pendentive
does not appear in these two churches.
Timidly employed up to that time in small
structures, it received a remarkable
development in the magnificent church of
Hagia Sophia, built by Anthemius of
Tralles and Isodorus of Miletus, under
Justinian, 532–538 a.d. In the plan of this
marvellous edifice (Fig. 75) the dome rests
upon four mighty arches bounding a square,
into two of which open the half-domes of
semicircular apses. These apses are
penetrated and extended each by two
FIG. 75.—PLAN OF HAGIA SOPHIA. smaller niches and a central arch, and the
whole vast nave, measuring over 200 × 100 feet, is flanked by enormously
wide aisles connecting at the front with a majestic narthex. Huge transverse
buttresses, as in the Basilica of Constantine (with whose structural design
this building shows striking affinities), divide the aisles each into three
sections. The plan suggests that of St. Sergius cut in two, with a lofty dome
on pendentives over a square plan inserted between the halves. Thus was
secured a noble and unobstructed hall of unrivalled proportions and great
beauty, covered by a combination of half-domes increasing in span and
height as they lead up successively to the stupendous central vault, which
rises 180 feet into the air and fitly crowns the whole. The imposing effect of
this low-curved but loftily-poised dome, resting as it does upon a crown of
windows, and so disposed that its summit is visible from every point of the
nave (as may be easily seen from an examination of the section, Fig. 76), is
not surpassed in any interior ever erected.

FIG. 76.—SECTION OF HAGIA SOPHIA.

The two lateral arches under the dome are filled by clearstory walls pierced
by twelve windows, and resting on arcades in two stories carried by
magnificent columns taken from ancient ruins. These separate the nave from
the side-aisles, which are in two stories forming galleries, and are vaulted
with a remarkable variety of groined vaults. All the masses are disposed with
studied reference to the resistance required by the many and complex thrusts
exerted by the dome and other vaults. That the earthquakes of one thousand
three hundred and fifty years have not destroyed the church is the best
evidence of the sufficiency of these precautions.

FIG. 77.—INTERIOR OF HAGIA SOPHIA, CONSTANTINOPLE.

Not less remarkable than the noble planning and construction of this church
was the treatment of scale and decoration in its interior design. It was as
conspicuously the masterpiece of Byzantine architecture as the Parthenon
was of the classic Greek. With little external beauty, it is internally one of
the most perfectly composed and beautifully decorated halls of worship ever
erected. Instead of the simplicity of the Pantheon it displays the complexity
of an organism of admirably related parts. The division of the interior height
into two stories below the spring of the four arches, reduces the component
parts of the design to moderate dimensions, so that the scale of the whole is
more easily grasped and its vast size emphasized by the contrast. The walls
are incrusted with precious marbles up to the spring of the vaulting; the
capitals, spandrils, and soffits are richly and minutely carved with incised
ornament, and all the vaults covered with splendid mosaics. Dimmed by the
lapse of centuries and disfigured by the vandalism of the Moslems, this
noble interior, by the harmony of its coloring and its impressive grandeur, is
one of the masterpieces of all time (Fig. 77).
LATER CHURCHES. After the sixth century no monuments were built at
all rivalling in scale the creations of the former period. The later churches
were, with few exceptions, relatively small and trivial. Neither the plan nor
the general aspect of Hagia Sophia seems to have been imitated in these later
works. The crown of dome-windows was replaced by a cylindrical drum
under the dome, which was usually of insignificant size. The exterior was
treated more decoratively than before, by means of bands and incrustations
of colored marble, or alternations of stone and brick; and internally mosaic
continued to be executed with great skill and of great beauty until the tenth
century, when the art rapidly declined. These later churches, of which a
number were spared by the Turks, are, therefore, generally pleasing and
elegant rather than striking or imposing.
FOREIGN MONUMENTS. The influence of Byzantine art was wide-
spread, both in Europe and Asia. The leading city of civilization through the
Dark Ages, Constantinople influenced Italy through her political and
commercial relations with Ravenna, Genoa, and Venice. The church of St.
Mark in the latter city was one result of this influence (Figs. 78, 79). Begun
in 1063 to replace an earlier church destroyed by fire, it received through
several centuries additions not always Byzantine in character. Yet it was

mainly the work of Byzantine builders, who copied
most probably the church of the Apostles at
Constantinople, built by Justinian. The picturesque
but wholly unstructural use of columns in the
entrance porches, the upper parts of the façade, the
wooden cupolas over the five domes, and the
pointed arches in the narthex, are deviations from
Byzantine traditions dating in part from the later
Middle Ages Nothing could well be conceived
more irrational, from a structural point of view,
than the accumulation of columns in the entrance-
arches; but the total effect is so picturesque and so FIG. 78.—PLAN OF ST.
rich in color, that its architectural defects are easily MARK’S, VENICE.
overlooked. The external veneering of white and
colored marble occurs rarely in the East, but became a favorite practice in
Venice, where it continued in use for five hundred years. The interior of St.
Mark’s, in some respects better preserved than that of Hagia Sophia, is
especially fine in color, though not equal in scale and grandeur to the latter
church. With its five domes it has less unity of effect than Hagia Sophia, but
more of the charm of picturesqueness, and its less brilliant and simpler
lighting enhances the impressiveness of its more modest dimensions.

FIG. 79.—INTERIOR OF ST. MARK’S.

In Russia and Greece the Byzantine style has continued to be the official
style of the Greek Church. The Russian monuments are for the most part of a
somewhat fantastic aspect, the Muscovite taste having introduced many
innovations in the form of bulbous domes and other eccentric details. In
Greece there are few large churches, and some of the most interesting, like
the Cathedral at Athens, are almost toy-like in their diminutiveness. On Mt.
Athos (Hagion Oros) is an ancient monastery which still retains its
Byzantine character and traditions. In Armenia (as at Ani, Etchmiadzin, etc.)
are also interesting examples of late Armeno-Byzantine architecture,
showing applications to exterior carved detail of elaborate interlaced
ornament looking like a re-echo of Celtic MSS. illumination, itself, no
doubt, originating in Byzantine traditions. But the greatest and most prolific
offspring of Byzantine architecture appeared after the fall of Constantinople
(1453) in the new mosque-architecture of the victorious Turks.

MONUMENTS. Constantinople: St. Sergius, 520; Hagia Sophia, 532–538; Holy Apostles
by Justinian (demolished); Holy Peace (St. Irene) originally by Constantine, rebuilt by
Justinian, and again in 8th century by Leo the Isaurian; Hagia Theotokos, 12th century (?);
Monétes Choras (“Kahiré Djami”), 10th century; Pantokrator; “Fetiyeh Djami.” Cisterns,

especially the “Bin Bir Direk” (1,001 columns) and “Yere Batan Serai;” palaces, few vestiges
except the great hall of the Blachernæ palace. Salonica: Churches—of Divine Wisdom (“Aya
Sofia”) St. Bardias, St. Elias. Ravenna: San Vitale, 527–540. Venice: St. Mark’s, 977–1071;
“Fondaco dei Turchi,” now Civic Museum, 12th century. Other churches at Athens and Mt.
Athos; at Misitra, Myra, Ancyra, Ephesus, etc.; in Armenia at Ani, Dighour, Etchmiadzin,
Kouthais, Pitzounda, Usunlar, etc.; tombs at Ani, Varzhahan, etc.; in Russia at Kieff (St. Basil,
Cathedral), Kostroma, Moscow (Assumption, St. Basil, Vasili Blaghennoi, etc.), Novgorod,
Tchernigoff; at Kurtea Darghish in Wallachia, and many other places.

17. “St. Sophia,” the common name of this church, is a misnomer. It was not dedicated to a
saint at all, but to the Divine Wisdom (Hagia Sophia), which name the Turks have retained
in the softened form “Aya Sofia.”

CHAPTER XII.

SASSANIAN AND MOHAMMEDAN ARCHITECTURE.

(ARABIAN, MORESQUE, PERSIAN, INDIAN, AND TURKISH.)

Books Recommended: Bourgoin, Les Arts Arabes. Coste, Monuments du Caire; Monuments
modernes de la Perse. Cunningham, Archæological Survey of India. Fergusson, Indian and
Eastern Architecture. De Forest, Indian Architecture and Ornament. Flandin et Coste, Voyage
en Perse. Franz-Pasha, Die Baukunst des Islam. Gayet, L’Art Arabe; L’Art Persan. Girault de
Prangey, Essai sur l’architecture des Arabes en Espagne, etc. Goury and Jones, The Alhambra.
Jacob, Jeypore Portfolio of Architectural Details. Le Bon, La civilisation des Arabes; Les
monuments de l’Inde. Owen Jones, Grammar of Ornament. Parvillée, L’Architecture
Ottomane. Prisse d’Avennes, L’Art Arabe. Texier, Description de l’Arménie, la Perse, etc.

GENERAL SURVEY. While the Byzantine Empire was at its zenith, the
new faith of Islam was conquering Western Asia and the Mediterranean
lands with a fiery rapidity, which is one of the marvels of history. The new
architectural styles which grew up in the wake of these conquests, though
differing widely in conception and detail in the several countries, were yet
marked by common characteristics which set them quite apart from the
contemporary Christian styles. The predominance of decorative over
structural considerations, a predilection for minute surface-ornament, the
absence of pictures and sculpture, are found alike in Arabic, Persian,
Turkish, and Indian buildings, though in varying degree. These new styles,
however, were almost entirely the handiwork of artisans belonging to the
conquered races, and many traces of Byzantine, and even after the Crusades,
of Norman and Gothic design, are recognizable in Moslem architecture. But
the Orientalism of the conquerors and their common faith, tinged with the
poetry and philosophic mysticism of the Arab, stamped these works of
Copts, Syrians, and Greeks with an unmistakable character of their own,
neither Byzantine nor Early Christian.

ARABIC ARCHITECTURE. In the building of mosques and tombs,
especially at Cairo, this architecture reached a remarkable degree of
decorative elegance, and sometimes of dignity. It developed slowly, the
Arabs not being at the outset a race of builders. The early monuments of
Syria and Egypt were insignificant, and the sacred Kaabah at Mecca and the
mosque at Medina hardly deserve to be called architectural monuments at
all. The most important early works were the mosques of ’Amrou at Cairo
(642, rebuilt and enlarged early in the eighth century), of El Aksah on the
Temple platform at Jerusalem (691, by Abd-el-Melek), and of El Walid at
Damascus (705–732, recently seriously injured by fire). All these were
simple one-storied structures, with flat wooden roofs carried on parallel
ranges of columns supporting pointed arches, the arcades either closing one
side of a square court, or surrounding it completely. The long perspectives of
the aisles and the minute decoration of the archivolts and ceilings alone gave
them architectural character. The beautiful Dome of the Rock (Kubbet-es-
Sakhrah, miscalled the Mosque of Omar) on the Temple platform at
Jerusalem is either a remodelled Constantinian edifice, or in large part
composed of the materials of one (see p. 116).
The splendid mosque of Ibn Touloun (876–885) was built on the same plan
as that of Amrou, but with cantoned piers instead of columns and a
corresponding increase in variety of perspective and richness of effect. With
the incoming of the Fatimite dynasty, however, and the foundation of the
present city of Cairo (971), vaulting began to take the place of wooden
ceilings, and then appeared the germs of those extraordinary applications of
geometry to decorative design which were henceforth to be the most striking
feature of Arabic ornament. Under the Ayûb dynasty, which began with
Salâh-ed-din (Saladin) in 1172, these elements, of which the great Barkouk
mosque (1149) is the most imposing early example, developed slowly in the
domical tombs of the Karafah at Cairo, and prepared the way for the
increasing richness and splendor of a long series of mosques, among which
those of Kalaoun (1284–1318), Sultan Hassan (1356), El Mu’ayyad
(1415), and Kaîd Bey (1463), were the most conspicuous examples (Fig.
80). They mark, indeed, successive advances in complexity of planning,
ingenuity of construction, and elegance of decoration. Together they
constitute an epoch in Arabic architecture, which coincides closely with the

development of Gothic vaulted architecture in Europe, both in the stages and
the duration of its advances.

FIG. 80.—MOSQUE OF SULTAN HASSAN, CAIRO: SANCTUARY.
a, Mihrâb, b, Mimber.

The mosques of these three centuries are, like the mediæval monasteries,
impressive aggregations of buildings of various sorts about a central court of
ablutions. The tomb of the founder, residences for the imams, or priests,
schools (madrassah), and hospitals (mâristân) rival in importance the
prayer-chamber. This last is, however, the real focus of interest and splendor;
in some cases, as in Sultan Hassan, it is a simple barrel-vaulted chamber
open to the court; in others an oblong arcaded hall with many small domes;
or again, a square hall covered with a high pointed dome on pendentives of
intricately beautiful stalactite-work (see below). The ceremonial
requirements of the mosque were simple. The-court must have its fountain
of ablutions in the centre. The prayer-hall, or mosque proper, must have its

mihrâb, or niche, to indicate the kibleh, the direction of Mecca; and its
mimber, or high, slender pulpit for the reading of the Kôran. These were the
only absolutely indispensable features of a mosque, but as early as the ninth
century the minaret was added, from which the call to prayer could be
sounded over the city by the mueddin. Not until the Ayubite period, however,
did it begin to assume those forms of varied and picturesque grace which
lend to Cairo so much of its architectural charm.
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. While Arabic architecture, in Syria and
Egypt alike, possesses more decorative than constructive originality, the
beautiful forms of its domes, pendentives, and minarets, the simple majesty
of the great pointed barrel-vaults of the Hassan mosque and similar
monuments, and the graceful lines of the universally used pointed arch,
prove the Coptic builders and their later Arabic successors to have been
architects of great ability. The Arabic domes, as seen both in the mosques
and in the remarkable group of tombs commonly called “tombs of the
Khalîfs,” are peculiar not only in their pointed outlines and their rich
external decoration of interlaced geometric motives, but still more in the
external and internal treatment of the pendentives, exquisitely decorated
with stalactite ornament. This ornament, derived, no doubt, from a
combination of minute corbels with rows of small niches, and presumably of
Persian origin, was finally developed into a system of extraordinary
intricacy, applicable alike to the topping of a niche or panel, as in the great
doorways of the mosques, and to the bracketing out of minaret galleries
(Figs. 81, 82). Its applications show a bewildering variety of forms and an
extraordinary aptitude for intricate geometrical design.
DECORATION. Geometry, indeed, vied with the love of color in its hold
on the Arabic taste. Ceiling-beams were carved into highly ornamental
forms before receiving their rich color-decoration of red, green, blue, and
gold. The doors and the mimber were framed in geometric patterns with
slender intersecting bars forming complicated star-panelling. The voussoirs
of arches were cut into curious interlocking forms; doorways and niches
were covered with stalactite corbelling, and pavements and wall-
incrustations, whether of marble or tiling, combined brilliancy and harmony
of color with the perplexing beauty of interlaced star-and-polygon patterns
of marvellous intricacy. Stained glass added to the interior color-effect, the

patterns being perforated in plaster,
with a bit of colored glass set into each
perforation—a device not very
durable, perhaps, but singularly
decorative.
OTHER WORKS. Few of the
mediæval Arabic palaces have
remained to our time. That they were
adorned with a splendid prodigality
appears from contemporary accounts.
This splendor was internal rather than
external; the palace, like all the larger
and richer dwellings in the East,
surrounded one or more courts, and
presented externally an almost
unbroken wall. The fountain in the FIG. 81.—MOSQUE OF KAÎD BEY, CAIRO.
chief court, the diwân (a great, vaulted
reception-chamber opening upon the court and raised slightly above it), the
dâr, or men’s court, rigidly separated from the hareem for the women, were
and are universal elements in these great dwellings. The more common city-
houses show as their most striking features successively corbelled-out
stories and broad wooden eaves, with lattice-screens covering single
windows, or almost a whole façade, composed of turned work
(mashrabiyya), in designs of great beauty.
The fountains, gates, and minor works of the Arabs display the same beauty
in decoration and color, the same general forms and details which
characterize the larger works, but it is impossible here to particularize
further with regard to them.
MORESQUE. Elsewhere in Northern Africa the Arabs produced no such
important works as in Egypt, nor is the architecture of the other Moslem
states so well preserved or so well known. Constructive design would appear
to have been there even more completely subordinated to decoration; tiling
and plaster-relief took the place of more architectural elements and
materials, while horseshoe and cusped arches were substituted for the
simpler and more architectural pointed arch (Fig. 82). The courts of palaces

and public buildings were surrounded
by ranges of horseshoe arches on
slender columns; these last being
provided with capitals of a form rarely
seen in Cairo. Towers were built of
much more massive design than the
Cairo minarets, usually with a square,
almost solid shaft and a more open
lantern at the top, sometimes in
several diminishing stories.
HISPANO-MORESQUE. The most
splendid phase of this branch of
Arabic architecture is found not in
Africa but in Spain, which was
overrun in 710–713 by the Moors,
who established there the independent
Khalifate of Cordova. This was later
split up into petty kingdoms, of which
the most important were Granada,
Seville, Toledo, and Valencia. This
dismemberment of the Khalifate led
in time to the loss of these cities, FIG. 82.—MOORISH DETAIL, ALHAMBRA.
which were one by one recovered by Showing stalactite and perforated
the Christians during the fourteenth and work, Moorish cusped arch, Hispano-
fifteenth centuries; the capture of Granada, Moresque capitals, and decorative
in 1492, finally destroying the Moorish rule. inscriptions.
The dominion of the Moors in Spain was marked by a high civilization and
an extraordinary activity in building. The style they introduced became the
national style in the regions they occupied, and even after the expulsion of
the Moors was used in buildings erected by Christians and by Jews. The
“House of Pilate,” at Seville, is an example of this, and the general use of the
Moorish style in Jewish synagogues, down to our own day, both in Spain
and abroad, originated in the erection of synagogues for the Jews in Spain by
Moorish artisans and in Moorish style, both during and after the period of
Moslem supremacy.

Besides innumerable mosques, castles, bridges, aqueducts, gates, and
fountains, the Moors erected several monuments of remarkable size and
magnificence. Specially worthy of notice among them are the Great Mosque
at Cordova, the Alcazars of Seville and Malaga, the Giralda at Seville, and
the Alhambra at Granada.
The Mosque at Cordova, begun in 786 by
‘Abd-er-Rahman, enlarged in 876, and
again by El Mansour in 976, is a vast
arcaded hall 375 feet × 420 feet in extent,
but only 30 feet high (Fig. 83). The rich
wooden ceiling rests upon seventeen rows
of thirty to thirty-three columns each, and
two intersecting rows of piers, all carrying
horseshoe arches in two superposed ranges,
a large portion of those about the sanctuary
being cusped, the others plain, except for
the alternation of color in the voussoirs. The
mihrâb niche is particularly rich in its
minutely carved incrustations and mosaics,
and a dome ingeniously formed by
intersecting ribs covers the sanctuary before
it. This form of dome occurs frequently in FIG. 83.—INTERIOR OF THE
Spain. GREAT MOSQUE AT CORDOVA.
The Alcazars at Seville and Malaga, which
have been restored in recent years, present to-day a fairly correct counterpart
of the castle-palaces of the thirteenth century. They display the same general
conceptions and decorative features as the Alhambra, which they antedate.
The Giralda at Seville is, on the other hand, unique. It is a lofty rectangular
tower, its exterior panelled and covered with a species of quarry-ornament in
relief; it terminated originally in two or three diminishing stages or lanterns,
which were replaced in the sixteenth century by the present Renaissance
belfry.
The Alhambra is universally considered to be the masterpiece of Hispano-
Moresque art, partly no doubt on account of its excellent preservation. It is
most interesting as an example of the splendid citadel-palaces built by the

Moorish conquerors, as well as for its gorgeous color-decoration of minute
quarry-ornament stamped or moulded in the wet plaster wherever the walls
are not wainscoted with tiles. It was begun in 1248 by Mohammed-ben-Al-
Hamar, enlarged in 1279 by his successor, and again in 1306, when its
mosque was built. Its plan (Fig. 84) shows two large courts and a smaller
one next the mosque, with three great square chambers and many of minor
importance. Light arcades surround the Court of the Lions with its fountain,
and adorn the ends of the other chief court; and the stalactite pendentive,
rare in Moorish work, appears in the “Hall of Ambassadors” and some other
parts of the edifice. But its chief glory is its ornamentation, less durable, less
architectural than that of the Cairene buildings, but making up for this in
delicacy and richness. Minute vine-patterns and Arabic inscriptions are
interwoven with waving intersecting lines, forming a net-like framework, to
all of which deep red, blue, black, and gold give an indescribable richness of
effect.
The Moors also overran Sicily in the
eighth century, but while their
architecture there profoundly influenced
that of the Christians who recovered
Sicily in 1090, and copied the style of
the conquered Moslems, there is too
little of the original Moorish
architecture remaining to claim mention
here.
SASSANIAN. The Sassanian empire,
which during the four centuries from FIG. 84.—PLAN OF THE ALHAMBRA.
226 to 641 a.d. had withstood Rome A, Hall of Ambassadors; a, Mosque; b,
and extended its own sway almost to Court of Mosque; c, Sala della Barca; d, d,
Baths; e, Hall of the Two Sisters; f, f, f, Hall
India, left on Persian soil a number of of the Tribunal; g, Hall of the Abencerrages.
interesting monuments which
Larger View
powerfully influenced the
Mohammedan style of that region. The Sassanian buildings appear to have
been principally palaces, and were all vaulted. With their long barrel-vaulted
halls, combined with square domical chambers, as in Firouz-Abad and
Serbistan, they exhibit reminiscences of antique Assyrian tradition. The

ancient Persian use of columns was almost entirely abandoned, but doors
and windows were still treated with the banded frames and cavetto-cornices
of Persepolis and Susa. The Sassanians employed with these exterior details
others derived perhaps from Syrian and Byzantine sources. A sort of
engaged buttress-column and blind arches repeated somewhat aimlessly over
a whole façade were characteristic features; still more so the huge arches,
elliptical or horse-shoe shaped, which formed the entrances to these palaces,
as in the Tâk-Kesra at Ctesiphon. Ornamental details of a debased Roman
type appear, mingled with more gracefully flowing leaf-patterns resembling
early Christian Syrian carving. The last great monument of this style was the
palace at Mashita in Moab, begun by the last Chosroes (627), but never
finished, an imposing and richly ornamented structure about 500 × 170 feet,
occupying the centre of a great court.
PERSIAN-MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE. These Sassanian palaces must
have strongly influenced Persian architecture after the Arab conquest in 641.
For although the architecture of the first six centuries after that date suffered
almost absolute extinction at the hands of the Mongols under Genghis Khan,
the traces of Sassanian influence are still perceptible in the monuments that
rose in the following centuries. The dome and vault, the colossal portal-
arches, and the use of brick and tile are evidences of this influence, bearing
no resemblance to Byzantine or Arabic types. The Moslem monuments of
Persia, so far as their dates can be ascertained, are all subsequent to 1200,
unless tradition is correct in assigning to the time of Haroun Ar Rashid (786)
certain curious tombs near Bagdad with singular pyramidal roofs. The ruined
mosque at Tabriz (1300), and the beautiful domical Tomb at Sultaniyeh
(1313) belong to the Mogul period. They show all the essential features of
the later architecture of the Sufis (1499–1694), during whose dynastic period
were built the still more splendid and more celebrated Meidan or square, the
great mosque of Mesjid Shah, the Bazaar and the College or Medress of
Hussein Shah, all at Ispahan, and many other important monuments at
Ispahan, Bagdad, and Teheran. In these structures four elements especially
claim attention; the pointed bulbous dome, the round minaret, the portal-arch
rising above the adjacent portions of the building, and the use of enamelled
terra-cotta tiles as an external decoration. To these may be added the ogee
arch (ogee = double-reversed curve), as an occasional feature. The vaulting

is most ingenious and beautiful, and its forms, whether executed in brick or
in plaster, are sufficiently varied without resort to the perplexing
complications of stalactite work. In Persian decoration the most striking
qualities are the harmony of blended color, broken up into minute patterns
and more subdued in tone than in the Hispano-Moresque, and the preference
of flowing lines and floral ornament to the geometric puzzles of Arabic
design. Persian architecture influenced both Turkish and Indo-Moslem art,
which owe to it a large part of their decorative charm.
INDO-MOSLEM. The Mohammedan architecture of India is so distinct
from all the native Indian styles and so related to the art of Persia, if not to
that of the Arabs, that it properly belongs here rather than in the later chapter
on Oriental styles. It was in the eleventh century that the states of India first
began to fall before Mohammedan invaders, but not until the end of the
fifteenth century that the great Mogul dynasty was established in Hindostan
as the dominant power. During the intervening period local schools of
Moslem architecture were developing in the Pathan country of Northern
India (1193–1554), in Jaunpore and Gujerat (1396–1572), in Scinde, where
Persian influence predominated; in Kalburgah and Bidar (1347–1426).
These schools differed considerably in spirit and detail; but under the
Moguls (1494–1706) there was less diversity, and to this dynasty we owe
many of the most magnificent mosques and tombs of India, among which
those of Bijapur retain a marked and distinct style of their own.
The Mohammedan monuments of India are
characterized by a grandeur and amplitude
of disposition, a symmetry and monumental
dignity of design which distinguishes them
widely from the picturesque but sometimes
trivial buildings of the Arabs and Moors.
Less dependent on color than the Moorish
or Persian structures, they are usually built
of marble, or of marble and sandstone,
giving them an air of permanence and
solidity wanting in other Moslem styles
except the Turkish. The dome, the round FIG. 85.—TOMB OF MAHMUD,
minaret, the pointed arch, and the colossal BIJAPUR. SECTION.

portal-arch, are universal, as in Persia, and enamelled tiles are also used, but
chiefly for interior decoration. Externally the more dignified if less
resplendent decoration of surface carving is used, in patterns of minute and
graceful scrolls, leaf forms, and Arabic inscriptions covering large surfaces.
The Arabic stalactite pendentive star-panelling and geometrical interlace are
rarely if ever seen. The dome on the square plan is almost universal, but
neither the Byzantine nor the Arabic pendentive is used, striking and original
combinations of vaulting surfaces, of corner squinches, of corbelling and
ribs, being used in its place. Many of the Pathan domes and arches at Delhi,
Ajmir, Ahmedabad, Shepree, etc., are built in horizontal or corbelled courses
supported on slender columns, and exert no thrust at all, so that they are
vaults only in form, like the dome of the Tholos of Atreus (Fig. 24). The
most imposing and original of all Indian domes are those of the Jumma
Musjid and of the Tomb of Mahmud, both at Bijapur, the latter 137 feet in
span (Fig. 85). These two monuments, indeed, with the Mogul Taj Mahal at
Agra, not only deserve the first rank among Indian monuments, but in
constructive science combined with noble proportions and exquisite beauty
are hardly, if at all, surpassed by the greatest triumphs of western art. The
Indo-Moslem architects, moreover, especially those of the Mogul period,
excelled in providing artistic settings for their monuments. Immense
platforms, superb courts, imposing flights of steps, noble gateways, minarets
to mark the angles of enclosures, and landscape gardening of a high order,
enhance greatly the effect of the great mosques, tombs, and palaces of Agra,
Delhi, Futtehpore Sikhri, Allahabad, Secundra, etc.
The most notable monuments of the Moguls are the Mosque of Akbar
(1556–1605) at Futtehpore Sikhri, the tomb of that sultan at Secundra, and
his palace at Allahabad; the Pearl Mosque at Agra and the Jumma Musjid
at Delhi, one of the largest and noblest of Indian mosques, both built by
Shah Jehan about 1650; his immense but now ruined palace in the same city;
and finally the unrivalled mausoleum, the Taj Mahal at Agra, built during
his lifetime as a festal hall, to serve as his tomb after death (Fig. 86). This
last is the pearl of Indian architecture, though it is said to have been
designed by a European architect, French or Italian. It is a white marble
structure 185 feet square, centred in a court 313 feet square, forming a
platform 18 feet high. The corners of this court are marked by elegant

minarets, and the whole is dominated by the exquisite white marble dome,
58 feet in diameter, 80 feet high, internally rising over four domical corner
chapels, and covered externally by a lofty marble bulb-dome on a high
drum. The rich materials, beautiful execution, and exquisite inlaying of this
mausoleum are worthy of its majestic design. On the whole, in the
architecture of the Moguls in Bijapur, Agra, and Delhi, Mohammedan
architecture reaches its highest expression in the totality and balance of its
qualities of construction, composition, detail, ornament, and settings. The
later monuments show the decline of the style, and though often rich and
imposing, are lacking in refinement and originality.

FIG. 86.—TAJ MAHAL, AGRA.

TURKISH. The Ottoman Turks, who began their conquering career under
Osman I. in Bithynia in 1299, had for a century been occupying the fairest
portions of the Byzantine empire when, in 1453, they became masters of
Constantinople. Hagia Sophia was at once occupied as their chief mosque,
and such of the other churches as were spared, were divided between the
victors and the vanquished. The conqueror, Mehmet II., at the same time set
about the building of a new mosque, entrusting the design to a Byzantine,
Christodoulos, whom he directed to reproduce, with some modifications, the

design of the “Great Church”—Hagia Sophia. The type thus officially
adopted has ever since remained the controlling model of Turkish mosque
design, so far, at least, as general plan and constructive principles are
concerned. Thus the conquering Turks, educated by a century of study and
imitation of Byzantine models in Brusa, Nicomedia, Smyrna, Adrianople,
and other cities earlier subjugated, did what the Byzantines had, during nine
centuries, failed to do. The noble idea first expressed by Anthemius and
Isidorus in the Church of Hagia Sophia had remained undeveloped,
unimitated by later architects. It was the Turk who first seized upon its
possibilities, and developed therefrom a style of architecture less sumptuous
in color and decoration than the sister styles of Persia, Cairo, or India, but of
great nobility and dignity, notwithstanding. The low-curved dome with its
crown of buttressed windows, the plain spherical pendentives, the great
apses at each end, covered by half-domes and penetrated by smaller niches,
the four massive piers with their projecting buttress-masses extending across
the broad lateral aisles, the narthex and the arcaded atrium in front—all
these appear in the great Turkish mosques of Constantinople. In the
Conqueror’s mosque, however, two apses with half-domes replace the lateral
galleries and clearstory of Hagia Sophia, making a perfectly quadripartite
plan, destitute of the emphasis and significance of a plan drawn on one main
axis (Fig. 87). The same treatment occurs in the mosque of Ahmed I., the
Ahmediyeh (1608; Fig. 88), and the Yeni Djami (“New Mosque”) at the
port (1665). In the mosque of Osman III. (1755) the reverse change was
effected; the mosque has no great apses, four clearstories filling the four
arches under the dome, as also in several of the later and smaller mosques.
The greatest and noblest of the Turkish mosques, the Suleimaniyeh, built in
1553 by Soliman the Magnificent, returned to the Byzantine combination of
two half-domes with two clearstories (Fig. 89).

FIG. 87.—MOSQUE OF MEHMET II., CONSTANTINOPLE. PLAN.
(The dimensions figured in metres.)

In none of these monuments is there the internal magnificence of marble and
mosaic of the Byzantine churches. These are only in a measure replaced by
Persian tile-wainscoting and stained-glass windows of the Arabic type. The
division into stories and the treatment of scale are less well managed than in
the Hagia Sophia; on the other hand, the proportion of height to width is
generally admirable. The exterior treatment is unique and effective, far
superior to the Byzantine practice. The massing of domes and half-domes
and roofs is more artistically arranged; and while there is little of that minute
carved detail found in Egypt and India, the composition of the lateral
arcades, the simple but impressive domical peristyles of the courts, and the
graceful forms of the pointed arches, with alternating voussoirs of white and
black marble, are artistic in a high degree. The minarets are, however,
inferior to those of Indian, Persian, and Arabic art, though graceful in their
proportions.

FIG. 88.—EXTERIOR AHMEDIYEH MOSQUE.

Nearly all the great mosques are accompanied by the domical tombs
(turbeh) of their imperial founders. Some of these are of noble size and great
beauty of proportion and decoration. The Tomb of Roxelana (Khourrem),
the favorite wife of Soliman the Magnificent (1553), is the most beautiful of
all, and perhaps the most perfect gem of Turkish architecture, with its
elegant arcade surrounding the octagonal domical mausoleum-chamber. The
monumental fountains of Constantinople also deserve mention. Of these,
the one erected by Ahmet III. (1710), near Hagia Sophia, is the most
beautiful. They usually consist of a rectangular marble reservoir with
pagoda-like roof and broad eaves, the four faces of the fountain adorned
each with a niche and basin, and covered with relief carving and gilded
inscriptions.

FIG. 89.—INTERIOR OF SULEIMANIYEH,
CONSTANTINOPLE.

PALACES. In this department the Turks have done little of importance. The
buildings in the Seraglio gardens are low and insignificant. The Tchinli
Kiosque, now the Imperial Museum, is however, a simple but graceful two-
storied edifice, consisting of four vaulted chambers in the angles of a fine
cruciform hall, with domes treated like those of Bijapur on a small scale; the
tiling and the veranda in front are particularly elegant; the design suggests
Persian handiwork. The later palaces, designed by Armenians, are
picturesque white marble and stucco buildings on the water’s edge; they
possess richly decorated halls, but the details are of a debased European
rococo style, quite unworthy of an Oriental monarch.

MONUMENTS. Arabian: “Mosque of Omar,” or Dome of the Rock, 638; El Aksah, by
’Abd-el-Melek, 691, both at Jerusalem; Mosque ’Amrou at Cairo, 642; mosques at Cyrene,
665; great mosque of El Walîd, Damascus, 705–717. Bagdad built, 755. Great mosque at
Kairouân, 737. At Cairo, Ibn Touloun, 876; Gama-El-Azhar, 971; Barkouk, 1149; “Tombs of
Khalîfs” (Karafah), 1250–1400; Moristan Kalaoun, 1284; Medresseh Sultan Hassan, 1356; El
Azhar enlarged; El Mûayed, 1415; Kaïd Bey, 1463; Sinan Pacha, 1468; “Tombs of
Mamelukes,” 16th century. Also palaces, baths, fountains, mosques, and tombs. Moresque:
Mosque at Saragossa, 713; mosque and arsenal at Tunis, 742; great mosque at Cordova, 786,
876, 975; sanctuary, 14th century. Mosques, baths, etc., at Cordova, Tarragona, Segovia,
Toledo, 960–980; mosque of Sobeiha at Cordova, 981. Palaces and mosques at Fez; great
mosque at Seville, 1172. Extensive building in Morocco close of 12th century. Giralda at
Seville, 1160; Alcazars in Malaga and Seville, 1225–1300; Alhambra and Generalife at
Granada, 1248, 1279, 1306; also mosques, baths, etc. Yussuf builds palace at Malaga, 1348;
palaces at Granada. Persian: Tombs near Bagdad, 786 (?); mosque at Tabriz, 1300; tomb of
Khodabendeh at Sultaniyeh, 1313; Meidan Shah (square) and Mesjid Shah (mosque) at
Ispahan, 17th century; Medresseh (school) of Sultan Hussein, 18th century; palaces of Chehil
Soutoun (forty columns) and Aineh Khaneh (Palace of Mirrors). Baths, tombs, bazaars, etc., at
Cashan, Koum, Kasmin, etc. Aminabad Caravanserai between Shiraz and Ispahan; bazaar at
Ispahan.
Indian: Mosque and “Kutub Minar” (tower) cir. 1200; Tomb of Altumsh, 1236; mosque at
Ajmir, 1211–1236; tomb at Old Delhi; Adina Mosque, Maldah, 1358. Mosques Jumma Musjid
and Lal Durwaza at Jaunpore, first half of 15th century. Mosque and bazaar, Kalburgah, 1435
(?). Mosques at Ahmedabad and Sirkedj, middle 15th century. Mosque Jumma Musjid and
Tomb of Mahmûd, Bijapur, cir. 1550. Tomb of Humayûn, Delhi; of Mohammed Ghaus,
Gwalior; mosque at Futtehpore Sikhri; palace at Allahabad; tomb of Akbar at Secundra, all by
Akbar, 1556–1605. Palace and Jumma Musjid at Delhi; Muti Musjid (Pearl mosque) and Taj
Mahal at Agra, by Shah Jehan, 1628–1658.
Turkish: Tomb of Osman, Brusa, 1326; Green Mosque (Yeshil Djami) Brusa, cir. 1350.
Mosque at Isnik (Nicæa), 1376. Mehmediyeh (mosque Mehmet II.) Constantinople, 1453;
mosque at Eyoub; Tchinli Kiosque, by Mehmet II., 1450–60; mosque Bayazid, 1500; Selim I.,
1520; Suleimaniyeh, by Sinan, 1553; Ahmediyeh by Ahmet I., 1608; Yeni Djami, 1665; Nouri
Osman, by Osman III., 1755; mosque Mohammed Ali in Cairo, 1824. Mosque at Adrianople.
Khans, cloistered courts for public business and commercial lodgers, various dates, 16th and
17th centuries (Validé Khan, Vizir Khan), vaulted bazaars, fountains, Seraskierat Tower, all at
Constantinople.

CHAPTER XIII.

EARLY MEDIÆVAL ARCHITECTURE

IN ITALY AND FRANCE.

Books Recommended: Cattaneo, L’Architecture en Italie. Chapuy, Le moyen age monumental.
Corroyer, Architecture romane. Cummings, A History of Architecture in Italy. Enlart, Manuel
d’archéologie française. Hübsch, Monuments de l’architecture chrétienne. Knight, Churches
of Northern Italy. Lenoir, Architecture monastique. Osten, Bauwerke in der Lombardei.
Quicherat, Mélanges d’histoire et d’archéologie. Reber, History of Mediæval Architecture.
Révoil, Architecture romane du midi de la France. Rohault de Fleury, Monuments de Pise.
Sharpe, Churches of Charente. De Verneilh, L’Architecture byzantine en France. Viollet-le-
Duc, Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française (especially in Vol. I., Architecture
religieuse); Discourses on Architecture.

EARLY MEDIÆVAL EUROPE. The fall of the Western Empire in 476
a.d. marked the beginning of a new era in architecture outside of the
Byzantine Empire. The so-called Dark Ages which followed this event
constituted the formative period of the new Western civilization, during
which the Celtic and Germanic races were being Christianized and subjected
to the authority and to the educative influences of the Church. Under these
conditions a new architecture was developed, founded upon the traditions of
the early Christian builders, modified in different regions by Roman or
Byzantine influences. For Rome recovered early her antique prestige, and
Roman monuments covering the soil of Southern Europe, were a constant
object lesson to the builders of that time. To this new architecture of the
West, which in the tenth and eleventh centuries first began to achieve worthy
and monumental results, the generic name of Romanesque has been
commonly given, in spite of the great diversity of its manifestations in
different countries.
CHARACTER OF THE ARCHITECTURE. Romanesque architecture
was pre-eminently ecclesiastical. Civilization and culture emanated from the

Church, and her requirements and discipline gave form to the builder’s art.
But the basilican style, which had so well served her purposes in the earlier
centuries and on classic soil, was ill-suited to the new conditions. Corinthian
columns, marble incrustations, and splendid mosaics were not to be had for
the asking in the forests of Gaul or Germany, nor could the Lombards and
Ostrogoths in Italy or their descendants reproduce them. The basilican style
was complete in itself, possessing no seeds of further growth. The priests
and monks of Italy and Western Europe sought to rear with unskilled labor
churches of stone in which the general dispositions of the basilica should
reappear in simpler, more massive dress, and, as far as possible, in a
fireproof construction with vaults of stone. This problem underlies all the
varied phases of Romanesque architecture; its final solution was not,
however, reached until the Gothic period, to which the Romanesque forms
the transition and stepping-stone.

FIG. 90.—INTERIOR OF SAN AMBROGIO, MILAN.

MEDIÆVAL ITALY. Italy in the Dark Ages stood midway between the
civilization of the Eastern Empire and the semi-barbarism of the West.
Rome, Ravenna, and Venice early became centres of culture and maintained
continuous commercial relations with the East. Architecture did not lack
either the inspiration or the means for advancing on new lines. But its
advance was by no means the same everywhere. The unifying influence of
the church was counterbalanced by the provincialism and the local
diversities of the various Italian states, resulting in a wide variety of styles.

These, however, may be broadly grouped in four divisions: the Lombard,
the Tuscan-Romanesque, the Italo-Byzantine, and the unchanged
Basilican or Early Christian, which last, as was shown in Chapter X.,
continued to be practised in Rome throughout the Middle Ages.
LOMBARD STYLE. Owing to the general rebuilding of
ancient churches under the more settled social conditions of
the eleventh and twelfth centuries, little remains to us of the
architecture of the three preceding centuries in Italy, except
the Roman basilicas and a few baptisteries and circular
churches, already mentioned in Chapter X. The so-called
Lombard monuments belong mainly to the eleventh and
twelfth centuries. They are found not only in Lombardy, but
also in Venetia and the Æmilia. Milan, Pavia, Piacenza,
Bologna, and Verona were important centres of development
of this style. The churches were nearly
all vaulted, but the plans were
basilican, with such variations as
resulted from efforts to meet the
exigencies of vaulted construction.
The nave was narrowed, and instead of
rows of columns carrying a thin
clearstory wall, a few massive piers of
masonry, connected by broad pier-
arches, supported the heavy ribs of the
groined vaulting, as in S. Ambrogio,
Milan (Fig. 90). To resist the thrust of
the main vault, the clearstory was
sometimes suppressed, the side aisle
carried up in two stories forming
FIG. 91.—WEST FRONT AND CAMPANILE
galleries, and rows of chapels added at
OF CATHEDRAL, PIACENZA.
the sides, their partitions forming
buttresses. The piers were often of
clustered section, the better to receive the various arches and ribs they
supported. The vaulting was in square divisions or vaulting-bays, each
embracing two pier-arches which met upon an intermediate pier lighter than

the others. Thus the whole aspect of the interior was revolutionized. The
lightness, spaciousness, and decorative elegance of the basilicas were here
exchanged for a sombre and massive dignity severe in its plainness. The
Choir was sometimes raised a few feet above the nave, to allow of a crypt
and confessio beneath, reached by broad flights of steps from the nave. Sta.
Maria della Pieve at Arezzo (9th-11th century), S. Michele at Pavia (late
11th century), the Cathedral of Piacenza (1122), S. Ambrogio at Milan
(12th century), and S. Zeno at Verona (1139) are notable monuments of this
style.
LOMBARD EXTERIORS. The few architectural embellishments
employed on the simple exteriors of the Lombard churches were usually
effective and well composed. Slender columnettes or long pilasters, blind
arcades, and open arcaded galleries under the eaves gave light and shade to
these exteriors. The façades were mere frontispieces with a single broad
gable, the three aisles of the church being merely suggested by flat or round
pilasters dividing the front (Fig 91). Gabled porches, with columns resting
on the backs of lions or monsters, adorned the doorways. The carving was
often of a fierce and grotesque character. Detached bell-towers or
campaniles adjoined many of these churches; square and simple in mass, but
with well-distributed openings and well-proportioned belfries (Piacenza
S. Zeno at Verona, etc.). 18
THE TUSCAN ROMANESQUE. The churches of this style (sometimes
called the Pisan) were less vigorous but more elegant and artistic in design
than the Lombard. They were basilicas in plan, with timber ceilings and high
clearstories on columnar arcades. In their decoration, both internal and
external, they betray the influence of Byzantine traditions, especially in the
use of white and colored marble in alternating bands or in panelled
veneering. Still more striking is the external decorative application of wall-
arcades, sometimes occupying the whole height of the wall and carried on
flat pilasters, sometimes in superposed stages of small arches on slender
columns standing free of the wall. In general the decorative element
prevailed over the constructive in the design of these picturesquely beautiful
churches, some of which are of noble size. The Duomo (cathedral) of Pisa,
built 1063–1118, is the finest monument of the style (Figs. 92, 93). It is 312
feet long and 118 wide, with long transepts and an elliptical dome of later

date over the crossing (the intersection of nave and transepts). Its richly
arcaded front and banded flanks strikingly exemplify the illogical and
unconstructive but highly decorative methods of the Tuscan Romanesque
builders. The circular Baptistery (1153), with its lofty domical central hall
surrounded by an aisle, an imposing development of the type established by
Constantine (p. 111), and the famous Leaning Tower (1174), both designed
with external arcading, combine with the Duomo to form the most
remarkable group of ecclesiastical buildings in Italy, if not in Europe
(Fig. 92).

FIG. 92.—BAPTISTERY, CATHEDRAL, AND LEANING TOWER, PISA.

The same style appears in more flamboyant shape in some of the churches of
Lucca. The cathedral S. Martino (1060; façade, 1204; nave altered in
fourteenth century) is the finest and largest of these; S. Michele (façade,
1288) and S. Frediano (twelfth century) have the most elaborately decorated
façades. The same principles of design appear in the cathedral and several
other churches in Pistoia and Prato; but these belong, for the most part, to the
Gothic period.

FIG. 93.—INTERIOR OF PISA CATHEDRAL.

FLORENCE. The church of S. Miniato, in the suburbs of Florence, is a
beautiful example of a modification of the Pisan style. It is in plan a basilica
with two piers interrupting the colonnade on each side of the nave and
supporting powerful transverse arches. The interior is embellished with
bands and patterns in black and white, and the woodwork of the open-timber
roof is elegantly decorated with fine patterns in red, green, blue, and gold—
a treatment common in early mediæval churches, as at Messina, Orvieto, etc.
The exterior is adorned with wall-arches of classic design and with panelled
veneering in white and dark marble, instead of the horizontal bands of the
Pisan churches. This system of external decoration, a blending of Pisan and
Italo-Byzantine methods, became the established practice in Florence,
lasting through the whole Gothic period. The Baptistery of Florence,
originally the cathedral, an imposing polygonal domical edifice of the tenth
century, presents externally one of the most admirable examples of this
practice. Its marble veneering in black and white, with pilasters and arches
of excellent design, is attributed by Vasari to Arnolfo di Cambio, but is by
many considered to be much older, although restored by that architect in
1294.
Suggestions of the Pisan arcade system are found in widely scattered
examples in the east and south of Italy, mingled with features of Lombard
and Byzantine design. In Apulia, as at Bari, Caserta Vecchia (1100), Molfetta

(1192), and in Sicily, the Byzantine influence is conspicuous in the use of
domes and in many of the decorative details. Particularly is this the case at
Palermo and Monreale, where the churches erected after the Norman
conquest—some of them domical, some basilican—show a strange but
picturesque and beautiful mixture of Romanesque, Byzantine, and Arabic
forms. The Cathedral of Monreale and the churches of the Eremiti and La
Martorana at Palermo are the most important.
The Italo-Byzantine style has already found mention in the latter part of
Chapter XI. Venice and Ravenna were its chief centres; while the influence,
both of the parent style and of its Italian offshoot was, as we have just
shown, very widespread.
WESTERN ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE. In Western Europe the
unrest and lawlessness which attended the unsettled relations of society
under the feudal system long retarded the establishment of that social order
without which architectural progress is impossible. With the eleventh
century there began, however, a great activity in building, principally among
the monasteries, which represented all that there was of culture and stability
amid the prevailing disorder. Undisturbed by war, the only abodes of
peaceful labor, learning, and piety, they had become rich and powerful, both
in men and land. Probably the more or less general apprehension of the
supposed impending end of the world in the year 1000 contributed to this
result by driving unquiet consciences to seek refuge in the monasteries, or to
endow them richly.
The monastic builders, with little technical training, but with plenty of
willing hands, sought out new architectural paths to meet their special needs.
Remote from classic and Byzantine models, and mainly dependent on their
own resources, they often failed to realize the intended results. But skill
came with experience, and with advancing civilization and a surer mastery
of construction came a finer taste and greater elegance of design. Meanwhile
military architecture developed a new science of building, and covered
Europe with imposing castles, admirably constructed and often artistic in
design as far as military exigencies would permit.
CHARACTER OF THE STYLE. The Romanesque architecture of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries in Western Europe (sometimes called the

Round-Arched Gothic) was thus predominantly though not exclusively
monastic. This gave it a certain unity of character in spite of national and
local variations. The problem which the wealthy orders set themselves was,
like that of the Lombard church-builders in Italy, to adapt the basilica plan to
the exigencies of vaulted construction. Massive walls, round arches stepped
or recessed to lighten their appearance, heavy mouldings richly carved,
clustered piers and jamb-shafts, capitals either of the cushion type or
imitated from the Corinthian, and strong and effective carving—all these are
features alike of French, German, English, and Spanish Romanesque
architecture.
THE FRENCH ROMANESQUE. Though
monasticism produced remarkable results in
France, architecture there did not wholly depend
upon the monasteries. Southern Gaul (Provence)
was full of classic remains and classic traditions
while at the same time it maintained close trade
relations with Venice and the East. 19 The church
of St. Front at Perigueux, built in 1120,
reproduced the plan of St. Mark’s with singular
fidelity, but without its rich decoration, and with
pointed instead of round arches (Figs. 94, 95).
The domical cathedral of Cahors (1050–1100),
an obvious imitation of S. Irene at
Constantinople, and the later and more Gothic FIG. 94.—PLAN OF ST. FRONT.
Cathedral of Angoulême display a notable
advance in architectural skill outside of the monasteries. Among the abbeys,
Fontevrault (1101–1119) closely resembles Angoulême, but surpasses it in
the elegance of its choir and chapels. In these and a number of other domical
churches of the same Franco-Byzantine type in Aquitania, the substitution of
the Latin cross in the plan for the Greek cross used in St. Front, evinces the
Gallic tendency to work out to their logical end new ideas or new
applications of old ones. These striking variations on Byzantine themes
might have developed into an independent local style but for the
overwhelming tide of Gothic influence which later poured in from the North.

FIG. 95.—INTERIOR OF ST. FRONT, PERIGUEUX.

Meanwhile, farther south (at Arles, Avignon, etc.), classic models strongly
influenced the details, if not the plans, of an interesting series of churches
remarkable especially for their porches rich with figure sculpture and for
their elaborately carved details. The classic archivolt, the Corinthian capital,
the Roman forms of enriched mouldings, are evident at a glance in the
porches of Notre Dame des Doms at Avignon, of the church of St. Gilles,
and of St. Trophime at Arles.
DEVELOPMENT OF VAULTING. It was in Central
France, and mainly along the Loire, that the systematic
development of vaulted church architecture began. Naves
covered with barrel-vaults appear in a number of large
churches built during the eleventh and twelfth centuries,
with apsidal and transeptal chapels and aisles carried
around the apse, as in St. Etienne, Nevers, Notre Dame du
Port at Clermont-Ferrand (Fig. 96), and St. Paul at Issoire.
The thrust of these ponderous vaults was clumsily resisted
by half-barrel vaults over the side-aisles, transmitting the FIG. 96.—PLAN
strain to massive side-walls (Fig. 97), or by high side-aisles OF NOTRE
with transverse barrel or groined vaults over each bay. In

either case the clearstory was suppressed—a fact which DAME DU PORT,
mattered little in the sunny southern provinces. In the more CLERMONT.
cloudy North, in Normandy, Picardy, and the Royal
Domain, the nave-vault was raised higher to admit of clearstory windows,
and its section was in some cases made like a pointed arch, to diminish its
thrust, as at Autun. But these eleventh-century vaults nearly all fell in, and
had to be reconstructed on new principles. In this work the Clunisians seem
to have led the way, as at Cluny (1089) and Vézelay (1100). In the latter
church, one of the finest and most interesting French edifices of the twelfth
century, a groined vault replaced the barrel-vault, though the oblong plan of
the vaulting-bays, due to the nave being wider than the pier-arches, led to
somewhat awkward twisted surfaces in the vaulting. But even here the vaults
had insufficient lateral buttressing, and began to crack and settle; so that in
the great ante-chapel, built thirty years later, the side-aisles were made in
two stories, the better to resist the thrust, and the groined vaults themselves
were constructed of pointed section. These seem to be the earliest pointed
groined vaults in France. It was not till the second half of that century,
however (1150–1200), that the flying buttress was combined with such
vaults, so as to permit of high clearstories for the better lighting of the nave;
and the problem of satisfactorily vaulting an oblong space with a groined
vault was not solved until the following century.

FIG. 97.—SECTION OF NOTRE DAME DU PORT, CLERMONT.

ONE-AISLED CHURCHES. In the Franco-Byzantine churches already
described (p. 164) this difficulty of the oblong vaulting-bay did not occur,

owing to the absence of side-aisles and pier-arches. Following this
conception of church-planning, a number of interesting parish churches and
a few cathedrals were built in various parts of France in which side-recesses
or chapels took the place of side-aisles. The partitions separating them
served as abutments for the groined or barrel-vaults of the nave. The
cathedrals of Autun (1150) and Langres (1160), and in the fourteenth
century that of Alby, employed this arrangement, common in many earlier
Provençal churches which have disappeared.
SIX-PART VAULTING. In the Royal
Domain great architectural activity does not
appear to have begun until the beginning of
the Gothic period in the middle of the
twelfth century. But in Normandy, and
especially at Caen and Mont St. Michel,
there were produced, between 1046 and
1120, some remarkable churches, in which a
high clearstory was secured in conjunction
with a vaulted nave, by the use of “six-part”
vaulting (Fig. 98). This was an awkward FIG. 98.—A SIX-PART RIBBED
expedient, by which a square vaulting-bay VAULT, SHOWING TWO
was divided into six parts by the groins and COMPARTMENTS WITH THE
by a middle transverse rib, necessitating two FILLINGS COMPLETE.
narrow skew vaults meeting at the centre. a, a, Transverse ribs (doubleaux); b, b,
This unsatisfactory device was retained for Wall-ribs (formerets); c, c, Groin-ribs
(diagonaux).
over a century, and was common in early (All the ribs are semicircles.)
Gothic churches both in France and Great
Britain. It made it possible to resist the thrust by high side-aisles, and yet to
open windows above these under the cross-vaults. The abbey churches of St.
Etienne (the Abbaye aux Hommes) and Ste. Trinité (Abbaye aux Dames),
at Caen, built in the time of William the Conqueror, were among the most
magnificent churches of their time, both in size and in the excellence and
ingenuity of their construction. The great abbey church of Mont St. Michel
(much altered in later times) should also be mentioned here. At the same
time these and other Norman churches showed a great advance in their
internal composition. A well-developed triforium or subordinate gallery was

introduced between the pier-arches and clearstory, and all the structural
membering of the edifice was better proportioned and more logically
expressed than in most contemporary work.
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. The details of French Romanesque
architecture varied considerably in the several provinces, according as
classic, Byzantine, or local influences prevailed. Except in a few of the
Aquitanian churches, the round arch was universal. The walls were heavy
and built of rubble between facings of stones of moderate size dressed with
the axe. Windows and doors were widely splayed to diminish the obstruction
of the massive walls, and were treated with jamb-shafts and recessed arches.
These were usually formed with large cylindrical mouldings, richly carved
with leaf ornaments, zigzags, billets, and grotesques. Figure-sculpture was
more generally used in the South than in the North. The interior piers were
sometimes cylindrical, but more often clustered, and where square bays of
four-part or six-part vaulting were employed, the piers were alternately
lighter and heavier. Each shaft had its independent capital either of the block
type or of a form resembling somewhat that of the Corinthian order. During
the eleventh century it became customary to carry up to the main vaulting
one or more shafts of the compound pier to support the vaulting ribs. Thus
the division of the nave into bays was accentuated, while at the same time
the horizontal three-fold division of the height by a well-defined triforium
between the pier-arches and clearstory began to be likewise emphasized.
VAULTING. The vaulting was also divided into bays by transverse ribs, and
where it was groined the groins themselves began in the twelfth century to
be marked by groin-ribs. These were constructed independently of the
vaulting, and the four or six compartments of each vaulting-bay were then
built in, the ribs serving, in part at least, to support the centrings for this
purpose. This far-reaching principle, already applied by the Romans in their
concrete vaults (see p. 84), appears as a re-discovery, or rather an
independent invention, of the builders of Normandy at the close of the
eleventh century. The flying buttress was a later invention; in the round-
arched buildings of the eleventh and twelfth centuries the buttressing was
mainly internal, and was incomplete and timid in its arrangement.
EXTERIORS. The exteriors were on this account plain and flat. The
windows were small, the mouldings simple, and towers were rarely

combined with the body of the church until after the beginning of the twelfth
century. Then they appeared as mere belfries of moderate height, with
pyramidal roofs and effectively arranged openings, the germs of the noble
Gothic spires of later times. Externally the western porches and portals were
the most important features of the design, producing an imposing effect by
their massive arches, clustered piers, richly carved mouldings, and deep
shadows.
CLOISTERS, ETC. Mention should be made of the other monastic
buildings which were grouped around the abbey churches of this period.
These comprised refectories, chapter-halls, cloistered courts surrounded by
the conventual cells, and a large number of accessory structures for kitchens,
infirmaries, stores, etc. The whole formed an elaborate and complex
aggregation of connected buildings, often of great size and beauty, especially
the refectories and cloisters. Most of these conventual buildings have
disappeared, many of them having been demolished during the Gothic
period to make way for more elegant structures in the new style. There
remain, however, a number of fine cloistered courts in their original form,
especially in Southern France. Among the most remarkable of these are
those of Moissac, Elne, and Montmajour.

MONUMENTS. Italy. (For basilicas and domical churches of 6th-12th centuries see pp. 118,
119.)—Before 11th century: Sta. Maria at Toscanella, altered 1206; S. Donato, Zara; chapel at
Friuli; baptistery at Boella. 11th century: S. Giovanni, Viterbo; Sta. Maria della Pieve, Arezzo;
S. Antonio, Piacenza, 1014; Eremiti, 1132, and La Martorana, 1143, both at Palermo; Duomo
at Bari, 1027 (much altered); Duomo and baptistery, Novara, 1030; Duomo at Parma, begun
1058; Duomo at Pisa, 1063–1118; S. Miniato, Florence, 1063–12th century; S. Michele at
Pavia and Duomo at Modena, late 11th century.—12th century: in Calabria and Apulia,
cathedrals of Trani, 1100; Caserta, Vecchia, 1100–1153; Molfetta, 1162; Benevento; churches
S. Giovanni at Brindisi, S. Niccolo at Bari, 1139. In Sicily, Duomo at Monreale, 1174–1189. In
Northern Italy, S. Tomaso in Limine, Bergamo, 1100 (?); Sta. Giulia, Brescia; S. Lorenzo,
Milan, rebuilt 1119; Duomo at Piacenza, 1122; S. Zeno at Verona, 1139; S. Ambrogio, Milan,
1140, vaulted in 13th century; baptistery at Pisa, 1153–1278; Leaning Tower, Pisa, 1174.—
14th century: S. Michele, Lucca, 1188; S. Giovanni and S. Frediano, Lucca. In Dalmatia,
cathedral at Zara, 1192–1204. Many castles and early town-halls, as at Bari, Brescia, Lucca,
etc.
France: Previous to 11th century: St. Germiny-des-Prés, 806, Chapel of the Trinity, St.
Honorat-des-Lérins; Ste. Croix de Montmajour.—11th century: Cérisy-la-Forêt and abbey
church of Mont St. Michel, 1020 (the latter altered in 12th and 16th centuries); Vignory; St.
Genou; porch of St. Bénoit-sur-Loire, 1030; St. Sépulchre at Neuvy, 1045; Ste. Trinité
(Abbaye aux Dames) at Caen, 1046, vaulted 1140; St. Etienne (Abbaye aux Hommes) at Caen,
same date; St. Front at Perigueux, 1120; Ste. Croix at Quimperlé, 1081; cathedral, Cahors,

1050–1110; abbey churches of Cluny (demolished) and Vézelay, 1089–1100; circular church
of Rieux-Mérinville, church of St. Savin in Auvergne, the churches of St. Paul at Issoire and
Notre-Dame-du-Port at Clermont, St. Hilaire and Notre-Dame-la-Grande at Poitiers; also St.
Sernin (Saturnin) at Toulouse, all at close of 11th and beginning of 12th century.—12th
century: Domical churches of Aquitania and vicinity; Solignac and Fontévrault, 1120; St.
Etienne (Périgueux), St. Avit-Sénieur; Angoulême, Souillac, Broussac, etc., early 12th century;
St. Trophime at Arles, 1110, cloisters later; church of Vaison; abbeys and cloisters at
Montmajour, Tarascon, Moissac (with fragments of a 10th-century cloister built into present
arcades); St. Paul-du-Mausolée; Puy-en-Vélay, with fine church. Many other abbeys, parish
churches, and a few cathedrals in Central and Northern France especially.

18. See Appendix B.
19. See Viollet-le-Duc, Dictionnaire raisonné, article Architecture, vol. i., pp. 66 et seq.;
also de Verneilh, L’Architecture byzantine en France.

CHAPTER XIV.

EARLY MEDIÆVAL ARCHITECTURE.—Continued.

IN GERMANY, GREAT BRITAIN, AND SPAIN.

Books Recommended: As before, Hübsch and Reber. Bond, Gothic Architecture in England.
Also Brandon, Analysis of Gothic Architecture. Boisserée, Nieder Rhein. Ditchfield, The
Cathedrals of England. Hasak, Die romanische und die gotische Baukunst (in Handbuch d.
Arch.). Lübke, Die Mittelalterliche Kunst in Westfalen. Möller, Denkmäler der deutschen
Baukunst. Puttrich, Baukunst des Mittelalters in Sachsen. Rickman, An Attempt to
Discriminate the Styles of Architecture. Scott, English Church Architecture. Van Rensselaer,
English Cathedrals.

MEDIÆVAL GERMANY. Architecture developed less rapidly and
symmetrically in Germany than in France, notwithstanding the strong
centralized government of the empire. The early churches were of wood, and
the substitution of stone for wood proceeded slowly. During the Carolingian
epoch (800–919), however, a few important buildings were erected,
embodying Byzantine and classic traditions. Among these the most notable
was the Minster or palatine chapel of Charlemagne at Aix-la-Chapelle, an
obvious imitation of San Vitale at Ravenna. It consisted of an octagonal
domed hall surrounded by a vaulted aisle in two stories, but without the eight
niches of the Ravenna plan. It was preceded by a porch flanked by turrets.
The Byzantine type thus introduced was repeated in later churches, as in the
Nuns’ Choir at Essen (947) and at Ottmarsheim (1050). In the great
monastery at Fulda a basilica with transepts and with an apsidal choir at
either end was built in 803. These choirs were raised above the level of the
nave, to admit of crypts beneath them, as in many Lombard churches;
a practice which, with the reduplication of the choir and apse just mentioned,
became very common in German Romanesque architecture.
EARLY CHURCHES. It was in Saxony that this architecture first entered
upon a truly national development. The early churches of this province and

of Hildesheim (where architecture flourished under the favor of the bishops,
as elsewhere under the royal influence) were of basilican plan and destitute
of vaulting, except in the crypts. They were built with massive piers,
sometimes rectangular, sometimes clustered, the two kinds often alternating
in the same nave. Short columns were, however, sometimes used instead of
piers, either alone, as at Paulinzelle and Limburg-on-the-Hardt (1024–39), or
alternating with piers, as at Hecklingen, Gernrode (958–1050), and St.
Godehard at Hildesheim (1133). A triple eastern apse, with apsidal chapels
projecting eastward from the transepts, were common elements in the plans,
and a second apse, choir, and crypt at the west end were not infrequent.
Externally the most striking feature was the association of two, four, or even
six square or circular towers with the mass of the church, and the elevation
of square or polygonal turrets or cupolas over the crossing. These adjuncts
gave a very picturesque aspect to edifices otherwise somewhat wanting in
artistic interest.
RHENISH CHURCHES. It was in the Rhine provinces that
vaulting was first applied to the naves of German churches,
nearly a half century after its general adoption in France.
Cologne possesses an interesting trio of churches in which the
Byzantine dome on squinches or on pendentives, with three
apses or niches opening into the central area, was associated
with a long three aisled nave (St. Mary-in-the-Capitol, begun
in 9th century; Great St. Martin’s, 1150–70; Apostles’
Church, 1160–99: the naves vaulted later). The double chapel
at Schwarz-Rheindorf, near Bonn (1151), also has the
crossing covered by a dome on pendentives.
FIG. 99.—
The vaulting of the nave itself was developed in another series
PLAN OF
of edifices of imposing size, the cathedrals of Mayence
MINSTER AT
(1036), Spires (Speyer), and Worms, and the Abbey of
WORMS.
Laach, all built in the 11th century and vaulted early in the
12th. In the first three the main vaulting is in square bays, each covering two
bays of the nave, the piers of which are alternately lighter and heavier (Figs.
99, 100). At Laach the vaulting-bays are oblong, both in nave and aisles.
There was no triforium gallery, and stability was secured only by excessive

thickness in the piers and clearstory walls, and by
bringing down the main vault as near to the side-
aisle roofs as possible.
RHENISH EXTERIORS. These great churches,
together with those of Bonn and Limburg-on-the-
Lahn and the cathedral of Treves (Trier, 1047), are
interesting, not only by their size and dignity of
plan and the somewhat rude massiveness of their
construction, but even more so by the
picturesqueness of their external design (Fig. 101).
Especially successful is the massing of the large
and small turrets with the lofty nave-roof and with
the apses at one or both ends. The systematic use of
arcading to decorate the exterior walls, and the
introduction of open arcaded dwarf galleries under
the cornices of the apses, gables, and dome-turrets,
gave to these Rhenish churches an external beauty
FIG. 100.—ONE BAY OF hardly equalled in other contemporary edifices.
CATHEDRAL AT SPIRES. This method of exterior design, and the system of
vaulting in square bays over double bays of the nave, were probably derived
from the Lombard churches of Northern Italy, with which the Hohenstauffen
emperors had many political relations.
The Italian influence is also encountered in a number of circular churches of
early date, as at Fulda (9th-11th century), Drügelte, Bonn (baptistery,
demolished), and in façades like that at Rosheim, which is a copy in little of
San Zeno at Verona.
Elsewhere in Germany architecture was in a backward state, especially in the
southern provinces. Outside of Saxony, Franconia, and the Rhine provinces,
very few works of importance were erected until the thirteenth century.
SECULAR ARCHITECTURE. Little remains to us of the secular
architecture of this period in Germany, if we except the great feudal castles,
especially those of the Rhine, which were, after all, rather works of military
engineering than of architectural art. The palace of Charlemagne at Aix (the
chapel of which was mentioned on p. 172) is known to have been a vast and

splendid group of buildings, partly, at least
of marble; but hardly a vestige of it remains.
Of the extensive Palace of Henry III. at
Goslar there remain well-defined ruins of
an imposing hall of assembly in two aisles
with triple-arched windows. At Brunswick
the east wing of the Burg Dankwargerode
displays, in spite of modern alterations, the
arrangement of the chapel, great hall, two
fortified towers, and part of the residence of
Henry the Lion. The Wartburg palace
(Ludwig III., cir. 1150) is more generally
known—a rectangular hall in three stories,
with windows effectively grouped to form
arcades; while at Gelnhausen and
Münzenberg are ruins of somewhat similar
buildings. A few of the Romanesque FIG. 101.—EAST END OF CHURCH
monasteries of Germany have left partial OF THE APOSTLES, COLOGNE.
remains, as at Maulbronn, which was
almost entirely rebuilt in the Gothic period, and isolated buildings in
Cologne and elsewhere. There remain also in Cologne a number of
Romanesque private houses with coupled windows and stepped gables.
GREAT BRITAIN. Previous to the Norman conquest (1066) there was in
the British Isles little or no architecture worthy of mention. The few extant
remains of Saxon and Celtic buildings reveal a singular poverty of ideas and
want of technical skill. These scanty remains are mostly of towers (those in
Ireland nearly all round and tapering, with conical tops, their use and date
being the subjects of much controversy) and crypts. The tower of Earl’s
Barton is the most important and best preserved of those in England. With
the Norman conquest, however, began an extraordinary activity in the
building of churches and abbeys. William the Conqueror himself founded a
number of these, and his Norman ecclesiastics endeavored to surpass on
British soil the contemporary churches of Normandy. The new churches
differed somewhat from their French prototypes; they were narrower and
lower, but much longer, especially as to the choir and transepts. The

cathedrals of Durham (1096–1133) and Norwich
(same date) are important examples (Fig. 102).
They also differed from the French churches in two
important particulars externally; a huge tower rose
usually over the crossing, and the western portals
were small and insignificant. Lateral entrances near
the west end were given greater importance and
called Galilees. At Durham a Galilee chapel (not
shown in the plan), takes the place of a porch at the
west end, like the ante-churches of St. Benoît-sur-
Loire and Vézelay.
THE NORMAN STYLE. The Anglo-Norman
builders employed the same general features as the
Romanesque builders of Normandy, but with more
of picturesqueness and less of refinement and
technical elegance. Heavy walls, recessed arches,
round mouldings, cubic cushion-caps, clustered
piers, and in doorways a jamb-shaft for each FIG. 102.—PLAN OF
stepping of the arch were common to both styles. DURHAM CATHEDRAL.
But in England the Corinthian form of capital is
rare, its place being taken by simpler forms.
NORMAN INTERIORS. The interior design of the larger churches of this
period shows a close general analogy to contemporaneous French Norman
churches, as appears by comparing the nave of Waltham or Peterboro’ with
that of Cérisy-la-Forêt, in Normandy. Although the massiveness of the
Anglo-Norman piers and walls plainly suggests the intention of vaulting the
nave, this intention seems never to have been carried out except in small
churches and crypts. All the existing abbeys and cathedrals of this period had
wooden ceilings or were, like Durham, Norwich, and Gloucester, vaulted at
a later date. Completed as they were with wooden nave-roofs, the clearstory
was, without danger, made quite lofty and furnished with windows of
considerable size. These were placed near the outside of the thick wall, and a
passage was left between them and a triple arch on the inner face of the wall
—a device imitated from the abbeys at Caen. The vaulted side-aisles were
low, with disproportionately wide pier-arches, above which was a high

triforium gallery under the side-roofs. Thus a nearly equal
height was assigned to each of the three stories of the bay,
disregarding that subordination of minor to major parts
which gives interest to an architectural composition. The
piers were quite often round, as at Gloucester, Hereford,
and Bristol. Sometimes round piers alternated with
clustered piers, as at Durham and Waltham; and in some
cases clustered piers alone were employed, as at Peterboro’
and in the transepts of Winchester (Fig. 103).
FAÇADES AND
DOORWAYS. All the details
were of the simplest character,
except in the doorways. These
were richly adorned with
clustered jamb-shafts and
elaborately carved mouldings,
but there was little variety in
FIG. 103.—ONE the details of this carving. The
BAY OF zigzag was the most common
TRANSEPT, feature, though birds’ heads
WINCHESTER with the beaks pointing toward
CATHEDRAL. the centre of the arch were not
uncommon. In the smaller
churches (Fig. 104) the doorways were better FIG. 104.—FRONT OF IFFLEY
proportioned to the whole façade than in the CHURCH.
larger ones, in which they appear as relatively
insignificant features. Very few examples remain of important Norman
façades in their original form, nearly all of these having been altered after
the round arch was displaced by the pointed arch in the latter part of the
twelfth century. Iffley church (Fig. 104) is a good example of the style.
SPAIN. During the Romanesque period a large part of Spain was under
Moorish dominion. The capture of Toledo, in 1062, by the Christians, began
the gradual emancipation of the country from Moslem rule, and in the
northern provinces a number of important churches were erected under the
influence of French Romanesque models. The use of domical pendentives

(as in the Panteon of S. Isidoro, at Leon, and in the cimborio or dome over
the choir at the intersection of nave and transepts in old Salamanca
cathedral) was probably derived from the domical churches of Aquitania and
Anjou. Elsewhere the northern Romanesque type prevailed under various
modifications, with long nave and transepts, a short choir, and a complete
chevet with apsidal chapels. The church of St. Iago at Compostella (1078) is
the finest example of this class. These churches nearly all had groined
vaulting over the side-aisles and barrel-vaults over the nave, the constructive
system being substantially that of the churches of Auvergne and the Loire
Valley (p. 165). They differed, however, in the treatment of the crossing of
nave and transepts, over which was usually erected a dome or cupola or
pendentives or squinches, covered externally by an imposing square lantern
or tower, as in the Old Cathedral at Salamanca, already mentioned (1120–
78) and the Collegiate Church at Toro. Occasional exceptions to these
types are met with, as in the basilican wooden-roofed church of S. Millan at
Segovia; in S. Isidoro at Leon, with chapels and a later-added square eastern
end, and the circular church of the Templars at Segovia.
The architectural details of these Spanish churches did not differ radically
from contemporary French work. As in France and England, the doorways
were the most ornate parts of the design, the mouldings being carved with
extreme richness and the jambs frequently adorned with statues, as in
S. Vincente at Avila. There was no such logical and reasoned-out system of
external design as in France, and there is consequently greater variety in the
façades. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the architecture of this
period is its apparent exemption from the influence of the Moorish
monuments which abounded on every hand. This may be explained by the
hatred which was felt by the Christians for the Moslems and all their works.

MONUMENTS. Germany: Previous to 11th century: Circular churches of Holy Cross at
Münster, and of Fulda; palace chapel of Charlemagne at Aix-la-Chapelle, 804; St. Stephen,
Mayence, 990; primitive nave and crypt of St. Gereon, Cologne, 10th century; Lorsch.—11th
century: Churches of Gernrode, Goslar, and Merseburg in Saxony; cathedral of Bremen; first
restoration of cathedral of Treves (Trier), 1010, west front, 1047; Limburg-on-Hardt, 1024; St.
Willibrod, Echternach, 1031; east end of Mayence Cathedral, 1036; Church of Apostles and
nave St. Mary-in-Capitol at Cologne, 1036; cathedral of Spires (Speyer) begun 1040;
Cathedral Hildesheim, 1061; St. Joseph, Bamberg, 1073; Abbey of Laach, 1093–1156; round
churches of Bonn, Drügelte, Nimeguen; cathedrals of Paderborn and Minden.—12th century:
Churches of Klus, Paulinzelle, Hamersleben, 1100–1110; Johannisberg, 1130; St. Godehard.

Hildesheim, 1133; Worms, the Minster, 1118–83; Jerichau, 1144–60; Schwarz-Rheindorf,
1151; St. Michael, Hildesheim, 1162; Cathedral Brunswick, 1172–94; Lubeck, 1172; also
churches of Gaudersheim, Würzburg, St. Matthew at Treves, Limburg-on-Lahn, Sinzig, St.
Castor at Coblentz, Diesdorf, Rosheim; round churches of Ottmarsheim and Rippen
(Denmark); cathedral of Basle, cathedral and cloister of Zurich (Switzerland).
England: Previous to 11th century: Scanty vestiges of Saxon church architecture, as tower of
Earl’s Barton, round towers and small chapels in Ireland.—11th century: Crypt of Canterbury
Cathedral, 1070; chapel St. John in Tower of London, 1070; Winchester Cathedral, 1076–93
(nave and choir rebuilt later); Gloucester Cathedral nave, 1089–1100 (vaulted later); Rochester
Cathedral nave, west front cloisters, and chapter-house, 1090–1130; Carlisle Cathedral nave,
transepts, 1093–1130; Durham Cathedral, 1095–1133, vaulted 1233; Galilee and chapter-
house, 1133–53; Norwich Cathedral, 1096, largely rebuilt 1118–93; Hereford Cathedral, nave
and choir, 1099–1115.—12th century: Ely Cathedral, nave, 1107–33; St. Alban’s Abbey, 1116;
Peterboro’ Cathedral, 1117–45; Waltham Abbey, early 12th century; Church of Holy Sepulchre,
Cambridge, 1130–35; Worcester Cathedral chapter-house, 1140 (?); Oxford Cathedral (Christ
Church), 1150–80; Bristol Cathedral chapter-house (square), 1155; Canterbury Cathedral, choir
of present structure by William of Sens, 1175; Chichester Cathedral, 1180–1204; Romsey
Abbey, late 12th century; St. Cross Hospital near Winchester, 1190 (?). Many more or less
important parish churches in various parts of England.
Spain. For principal monuments of 9th-12th centuries, see text, latter part of this chapter.

CHAPTER XV.

GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE.

Books Recommended: Adamy, Architektonik des gotischen Stils. Corroyer, L’Architecture
gothique. Enlart, Manuel d’archéologie française. Hasak, Einzelheiten des Kirchenbaues (in
Hdbuch d. Arch.). Moore, Development and Character of Gothic Architecture. Parker,
Introduction to Gothic Architecture. Scott, Mediæval Architecture. Viollet-le-Duc, Discourses
on Architecture; Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française.

INTRODUCTORY. The architectural styles which were developed in
Western Europe during the period extending from about 1150 to 1450 or
1500, received in an unscientific age the wholly erroneous and inept name of
Gothic. This name has, however, become so fixed in common usage that it is
hardly possible to substitute for it any more scientific designation. In reality
the architecture to which it is applied was nothing more than the sequel and
outgrowth of the Romanesque, which we have already studied. Its
fundamental principles were the same; it was concerned with the same
problems. These it took up where the Romanesque builders left them, and
worked out their solution under new conditions, until it had developed out of
the simple and massive models of the early twelfth century the splendid
cathedrals of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in England, France,
Germany, the Low Countries and Spain.
THE CHURCH AND ARCHITECTURE. The twelfth century was an era
of transition in society, as in architecture. The ideas of Church and State
were becoming more clearly defined in the common mind. In the conflict
between feudalism and royalty the monarchy was steadily gaining ground.
The problem of human right was beginning to present itself alongside of the
problem of human might. The relations between the crown, the feudal
barons, the pope, bishops, and abbots, differed widely in France, Germany,
England, and other countries. The struggle among them for supremacy
presented itself, therefore, in varied aspects; but the general outcome was

essentially the same. The church began to appear as something behind and
above abbots, bishops, kings, and barons. The supremacy of the papal
authority gained increasing recognition, and the episcopacy began to
overshadow the monastic institutions; the bishops appearing generally, but
especially in France, as the champions of popular rights. The prerogatives of
the crown became more firmly established, and thus the Church and the
State emerged from the social confusion as the two institutions divinely
appointed for the government of men.

FIG. 105.—CONSTRUCTIVE SYSTEM OF GOTHIC CHURCH,
ILLUSTRATING PRINCIPLES OF ISOLATED SUPPORTS AND BUTTRESSING.

Under these influences ecclesiastical architecture advanced with rapid
strides. No longer hampered by monastic restrictions, it called into its
service the laity, whose guilds of masons and builders carried from one
diocese to another their constantly increasing stores of constructive
knowledge. By a wise division of labor, each man wrought only such parts
as he was specially trained to undertake. The master-builder—bishop, abbot,
or mason—seems to have planned only the general arrangement and scheme
of the building, leaving the precise form of each detail to be determined as
the work advanced, according to the skill and fancy of the artisan to whom it
was intrusted. Thus was produced that remarkable variety in unity of the
Gothic cathedrals; thus, also, those singular irregularities and makeshifts,
those discrepancies and alterations in the design, which are found in every

great work of mediæval architecture. Gothic architecture was constantly
changing, attacking new problems or devising new solutions of old ones. In
this character of constant flux and development it contrasts strongly with the
classic styles, in which the scheme and the principles were easily fixed and
remained substantially unchanged for centuries.
STRUCTURAL PRINCIPLES. The pointed arch, so
commonly regarded as the most characteristic feature
of the Gothic styles, was merely an incidental feature of
their development. What really distinguished them
most strikingly was the systematic application of two
principles which the Roman and Byzantine builders
had recognized and applied, but which seem to have
been afterward forgotten until they were revived by the
later Romanesque architects. The first of these was the
concentration of strains upon isolated points of
support, made possible by the substitution of groined
for barrel vaults. This led to a corresponding
concentration of the masses of masonry at these points;
the building was constructed as if upon legs (Fig. 105).
The wall became a mere filling-in between the piers or
buttresses, and in time was, indeed, practically FIG. 106.—PLAN OF
suppressed, immense windows filled with stained glass SAINTE CHAPELLE,
taking its place. This is well illustrated in the Sainte PARIS, SHOWING
Chapelle at Paris, built 1242–47 (Figs. 106, 122). In SUPPRESSION OF
this remarkable edifice, a series of groined vaults SIDE-WALLS.
spring from slender shafts built against deep buttresses
which receive and resist all the thrusts. The wall-spaces between them are
wholly occupied by superb windows filled with stone tracery and stained
glass. It would be impossible to combine the materials used more
scientifically or effectively. The cathedrals of Gerona (Spain) and of Alby
(France; Fig. 123) illustrate the same principle, though in them the buttresses
are internal and serve to separate the flanking chapels.
The second distinctive principle of Gothic architecture was that of balanced
thrusts. In Roman buildings the thrust of the vaulting was resisted wholly by
the inertia of mass in the abutments. In Gothic architecture thrusts were as

far as possible resisted by counter-thrusts, and
the final resultant pressure was transmitted by
flying half-arches across the intervening
portions of the structure to external buttresses
placed at convenient points. This combination
of flying half-arches and buttresses is called the
flying-buttress (Fig. 107). It reached its highest
development in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries in the cathedrals of central and
northern France.
RIBBED VAULTING. These two principles
formed the structural basis of the Gothic styles.
Their application led to the introduction of two
other elements, second only to them in
importance, ribbed vaulting and the pointed
FIG. 107.—EARLY GOTHIC
arch.
FLYING BUTTRESS.
The first of these resulted
from the effort to overcome certain practical difficulties
encountered in the building of large groined vaults. As
ordinarily constructed, a groined vault like that in
Fig. 47, must be built as one structure, upon wooden
centrings supporting its whole extent. The Romanesque
architects conceived the idea of constructing an
independent skeleton of ribs. Two of these were built
FIG. 108.—RIBBED
against the wall (wall-ribs), two across the nave
VAULT, ENGLISH
(transverse ribs); and two others were made to coincide
TYPE, WITH
with the groins (Figs. 98, 108). The groin-ribs,
DIVIDED GROIN-
intersecting at the centre of the vault, divided each bay
RIBS AND RIDGE-
into four triangular portions, or compartments, each of
RIBS.
which was really an independent vault which could be
separately constructed upon light centrings supported by the groin-ribs
themselves. This principle, though identical in essence with the Roman
system of brick skeleton-ribs for concrete vaults, was, in application and
detail, superior to it, both from the scientific and artistic point of view. The
ribs, richly moulded, became, in the hands of the Gothic architects,

important decorative features. In practice the builder gave to each set of ribs
independently the curvature he desired. The vaulting-surfaces were then
easily twisted or warped so as to fit the various ribs, which, being already in
place, served as guides for their construction.
THE POINTED ARCH was adopted to
remedy the difficulties encountered in the
construction of oblong vaults. It is obvious that
where a narrow semi-cylindrical vault intersects
a wide one, it produces either what are called
penetrations, as at a (Fig. 109), or intersections
like that at b, both of which are awkward in
aspect and hard to construct. If, however, one or
both vaults be given a pointed section, the
narrow vault may be made as high as the wide
one. It is then possible, with but little warping FIG. 109.—PENETRATIONS
of the vaulting surfaces, to make them intersect AND INTERSECTIONS OF
in groins c, which are vertical plane curves VAULTS.
instead of wavy loops like a and b.
a, a, Penetrations by small semi-
The Gothic architects availed themselves to the circular vaults sprung from same
level. b, Intersection by small
full of these two devices. They built their groin- semi-circular vault sprung from
ribs of semi-circular or pointed form, but the higher level; groins form wavy
wall-ribs and the transverse ribs were, without lines. c, Intersection by narrow
pointed vault sprung from same
exception, pointed arches of such curvature as level; groins are plane curves.
would bring the apex of each nearly or quite to
the level of the groin intersection. The pointed arch, thus introduced as the
most convenient form for the vaulting-ribs, was soon applied to other parts
of the structure. This was a necessity with the windows and pier-arches,
which would not otherwise fit well the wall-spaces under the wall-ribs of the
nave and aisle vaulting.
TRACERY AND GLASS. With the growth in the size of the windows and
the progressive suppression of the lateral walls of vaulted structures, stained
glass came more and more generally into use. Its introduction not only
resulted in a notable heightening and enriching of the colors and scheme of
the interior decoration, but reacted on the architecture, intensifying the very
causes which led to its introduction. It stimulated the increase in the size of

windows, and the suppression of the walls, and
contributed greatly to the development of tracery.
This latter feature was an absolute necessity for the
support of the glass. Its evolution can be traced
(Figs, 110, 111, 112) from the simple coupling of
twin windows under a single hood-mould, or
discharging arch, to the florid net-work of the
fifteenth century. In its earlier forms it consisted
merely of decorative openings, circles, and
quatrefoils, pierced through slabs of stone (plate-
tracery), filling the window-heads over coupled
windows. Later attention was bestowed upon the FIG. 110.—PLATE
form of the stonework, which was made lighter and TRACERY, CHARLTON-
richly moulded (bar-tracery), rather than upon that ON-OXMORE.
of the openings (Fig. 111). Then the circular and
geometric patterns employed were abandoned for more flowing and
capricious designs (Flamboyant tracery, Fig. 112) or (in England) for more
rigid and rectangular arrangements (Perpendicular, Fig. 134). It will be
shown later that the periods and styles of Gothic architecture are more easily
identified by the tracery than by any other feature.
CHURCH PLANS. The original basilica-plan underwent radical
modifications during the 12th-15th centuries. These resulted in part from the
changes in construction which have been described, and in part from altered
ecclesiastical conditions and requirements. Gothic church architecture was
based on cathedral design; and the requirements of the cathedral differed in
many respects from those of the monastic churches of the preceding period.

FIG. 111.—BAR TRACERY, ST. MICHAEL’S, WARFIELD.

The most important alterations in the plan were in the choir and transepts.
The choir was greatly lengthened, the transepts often shortened. The choir
was provided with two and often four side-aisles, and one or both of these
was commonly carried entirely around the apsidal termination of the choir,
forming a single or double ambulatory. This combination of choir, apse, and
ambulatory was called, in French churches, the chevet.
Another advance upon Romanesque models was the multiplication of
chapels—a natural consequence of the more popular character of the
cathedral as compared with the abbey. Frequently lateral chapels were built
at each bay of the side-aisles, filling up the space between the deep
buttresses, flanking the nave as well as the choir. They were also carried
around the chevet in most of the French cathedrals (Paris, Bourges, Reims,
Amiens, Beauvais, and many others); in many of those in Germany
(Magdeburg, Cologne, Frauenkirche at Treves), Spain (Toledo, Leon,
Barcelona, Segovia, etc.), and Belgium (Tournay, Antwerp). In England the
choir had more commonly a square eastward termination. Secondary
transepts occur frequently, and these peculiarities, together with the
narrowness and great length of most of the plans, make of the English
cathedrals a class by themselves.

FIG. 112.—ROSE WINDOW, CHURCH OF ST. OUEN, ROUEN.

PROPORTIONS AND COMPOSITION. Along with these modifications
of the basilican plan should be noticed a great increase in the height and
slenderness of all parts of the structure. The lofty clearstory, the arcaded
triforium-passage or gallery beneath it, the high pointed pier-arches, the
multiplication of slender clustered shafts, and the reduction in the area of the
piers, gave to the Gothic churches an interior aspect wholly different from
that of the simpler, lower, and more massive Romanesque edifices. The
perspective effects of the plans thus modified, especially of the complex
choir and chevet with their lateral and radial chapels, were remarkably
enriched and varied.
The exterior was even more radically transformed by these changes, and by
the addition of towers and spires to the fronts, and sometimes to the transepts
and to their intersection with the nave. The deep buttresses, terminating in
pinnacles, the rich traceries of the great lateral windows, the triple portals
profusely sculptured, rose-windows of great size under the front and transept
gables, combined to produce effects of marvellously varied light and
shadow, and of complex and elaborate structural beauty, totally unlike the
broad simplicity of the Romanesque exteriors.
DECORATIVE DETAIL. The mediæval designers aimed to enrich every
constructive feature with the most effective play of lights and shades, and to
embody in the decorative detail the greatest possible amount of allegory and
symbolism, and sometimes of humor besides. The deep jambs and soffits of

doors and pier-arches were moulded with a
rich succession of hollow and convex
members, and adorned with carvings of
saints, apostles, martyrs, and angels. Virtues
and vices, allegories of reward and
punishment, and an extraordinary world of
monstrous and grotesque beasts, devils, and
goblins filled the capitals and door-arches,
peeped over tower-parapets, or leered and
grinned from gargoyles and corbels.
Another source of decorative detail was the
application of tracery like that of the
windows to wall-panelling, to balustrades,
to open-work gables, to spires, to choir-
screens, and other features, especially in the
late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
(cathedrals of York, Rouen, Cologne; Henry
VII.’s Chapel, Westminster). And finally in
the carving of capitals and the
ornamentation of mouldings the artists of
the thirteenth century and their successors
FIG. 113.—FLAMBOYANT DETAIL
abandoned completely the classic models
FROM PULPIT IN STRASBURG
and traditions which still survived in the
CATHEDRAL.
early twelfth century. The later monastic
builders began to look directly to nature for suggestions of decorative form.
The lay builders who sculptured the capitals and crockets and finials of the
early Gothic cathedrals adopted and followed to its finality this principle of
recourse to nature, especially to plant life. At first the budding shoots of
early spring were freely imitated or skilfully conventionalized, as being by
their thick and vigorous forms the best adapted for translation into stone
(Fig. 114). During the thirteenth century the more advanced stages of plant
growth, and leaves more complex and detailed, furnished the models for the
carver, who displayed his skill in a closer and more literal imitation of their
minute veinings and indentations (Fig. 115). This artistic adaptation of
natural forms to architectural decoration degenerated later into a minutely
realistic copying of natural foliage, in which cleverness of execution took the

place of original invention. The spirit of
display is characteristic of all late Gothic
work. Slenderness, minuteness of detail,
extreme complexity and intricacy of
design, an unrestrained profusion of
decoration covering every surface, a lack
of largeness and vigor in the conceptions,
are conspicuous traits of Gothic design in
FIG. 114.—EARLY GOTHIC CARVING. the fifteenth century, alike in France,
England, Germany, Spain, and the Low
Countries. Having worked out to their conclusion the structural principles
bequeathed to them by the preceding centuries, the authors of these later
works seemed to have devoted themselves to the elaboration of mere
decorative detail, and in technical finish surpassed all that had gone before
(Fig. 113).

FIG. 115.—CARVING, DECORATED PERIOD, FROM SOUTHWELL MINSTER.

CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARIZED. In the light of the preceding
explanations Gothic architecture may be defined as that system of structural
design and decoration which grew up out of the effort to combine, in one
harmonious and organic conception, the basilican plan with a complete and
systematic construction of groined vaulting. Its development was controlled
throughout by considerations of stability and structural propriety, but in the
application of these considerations the artistic spirit was allowed full scope

for its exercise. Refinement, good taste, and great fertility of imagination
characterize the details and ornaments of Gothic structures. While the
Greeks in harmonizing the requirements of utility and beauty in architecture
approached the problem from the æsthetic side, the Gothic architects did the
same from the structural side. Their admirably reasoned structures express as
perfectly the idea of vastness, mystery, and complexity as do the Greek
temples that of simplicity and monumental repose.
The excellence of Gothic architecture lay not so much in its individual
details as in its perfect adaptation to the purposes for which it was developed
—its triumphs were achieved in the building of cathedrals and large
churches. In the domain of civil and domestic architecture it produced
nothing comparable with its ecclesiastical edifices, because it was the
requirements of the cathedral and not of the palace, town-hall, or dwelling,
that gave it its form and character.
PERIODS. The history of Gothic architecture is commonly divided into
three periods, which are most readily distinguished by the character of the
window-tracery. These periods were not by any means synchronous in the
different countries; but the order of sequence was everywhere the same.
They are here given, with a summary of the characteristics of each.
Early Pointed Period. [Early French; Early English or Lancet Period in
England; Early German, etc.] Simple groined vaults; general simplicity and
vigor of design and detail; conventionalized foliage of small plants; plate
tracery, and narrow windows coupled under pointed arch with circular foiled
openings in the window-head. (In France, 1160 to 1275.)
Middle Pointed Period. [Rayonnant in France; Decorated or Geometric in
England.] Vaults more perfect; in England multiple ribs and liernes; greater
slenderness and loftiness of proportions; decoration much richer, less
vigorous; more naturalistic carving of mature foliage; walls nearly
suppressed, windows of great size, bar tracery with slender moulded or
columnar mullions and geometric combinations (circles and cusps) in
window-heads, circular (rose) windows. (In France, 1275 to 1375.)
Florid Gothic Period. [Flamboyant in France; Perpendicular in England.]
Vaults of varied and richly decorated design; fan-vaulting and pendants in
England, vault-ribs curved into fanciful patterns in Germany and Spain;

profuse and minute decoration and cleverness of technical execution
substituted for dignity of design; highly realistic carving and sculpture,
flowing or flamboyant tracery in France; perpendicular bars with horizontal
transoms and four-centred arches in England; “branch-tracery” in Germany.
(In France, 1375 to 1525.)

CHAPTER XVI.

GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN FRANCE.

Books Recommended: As before, Adamy, Corroyer, Enlart, Hasak, Moore, Reber, Viollet-le-
Duc. 20 Also Chapuy, Le moyen age monumental. Chateau, Histoire et caractères de
l’architecture française. Davies, Architectural Studies in France. Ferree, The Chronology of
the Cathedral Churches of France. Johnson, Early French Architecture. King, The Study book
of Mediæval Architecture and Art. Lassus and Viollet-le-Duc, Notre Dame de Paris. Nesfield,
Specimens of Mediæval Architecture. Pettit, Architectural Studies in France.

CATHEDRAL-BUILDING IN FRANCE. In the development of the
principles outlined in the foregoing chapter the church-builders of France led
the way. They surpassed all their contemporaries in readiness of invention, in
quickness and directness of reasoning, and in artistic refinement. These
qualities were especially manifested in the extraordinary architectural
activity which marked the second half of the twelfth century and the first
half of the thirteenth. This was the great age of cathedral-building in France.
The adhesion of the bishops to the royal cause, and their position in popular
estimation as the champions of justice and human rights, led to the rapid
advance of the episcopacy in power and influence. The cathedral, as the
throne-church of the bishop, became a truly popular institution. New
cathedrals were founded on every side, especially in the Royal Domain and
the adjoining provinces of Normandy, Burgundy, and Champagne, and their
construction was warmly seconded by the people, the communes, and the
municipalities. “Nothing to-day,” says Viollet-le-Duc, 21 “unless it be the
commercial movement which has covered Europe with railway lines, can
give an idea of the zeal with which the urban populations set about building
cathedrals; . . . a necessity at the end of the twelfth century because it was an
energetic protest against feudalism.” The collapse of the unscientific
Romanesque vaulting of some of the earlier cathedrals and the destruction
by fire of others stimulated this movement by the necessity for their
immediate rebuilding. The entire reconstruction of the cathedrals of Bayeux,

Bayonne, Cambray, Evreux, Laon, Lisieux, Le Mans, Noyon, Poitiers,
Senlis, Soissons, and Troyes was begun between 1130 and 1200. 22 The
cathedrals of Bourges, Chartres, Paris, and Tours, and the abbey of St. Denis,
all of the first importance, were begun during the same period, and during
the next quarter-century those of Amiens, Auxerre, Rouen, Reims, Séez, and
many others. After 1250 the movement slackened and finally ceased. Few
important cathedrals were erected during the latter half of the thirteenth
century, the chief among them being at Beauvais (actively begun 1247),
Clermont, Coutances, Limoges, Narbonne, and Rodez. During this period,
and through the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, French architecture was
concerned rather with the completion and remodelling of existing cathedrals
than the founding of new ones. There were, however, many important parish
churches and civil or domestic edifices erected within this period.
STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT: VAULTING. By the middle of the
twelfth century the use of barrel-vaulting over the nave had been generally
abandoned and groined vaulting with its isolated points of support and
resistance had taken its place. The timid experiments of the Clunisian
architects at Vézelay in the use of the pointed arch and vault-ribs also led, in
the second half of the twelfth century, to far-reaching results. The builders of
the great Abbey Church of St. Denis, near Paris, begun in 1140 by the
Abbot Suger, appear to have been the first to develop these tentative devices
into a system. In the original choir of this noble church all the arches, alike
of the vault-ribs (except the groin-ribs, which were semi-circles) and of the
openings, were pointed and the vaults were throughout constructed with
cross-ribs, wall-ribs, and groin-ribs. Of this early work only the chapels
remain. In other contemporary monuments, as for instance in the cathedral
of Sens, the adoption of these devices was only partial and hesitating.
NOTRE DAME AT PARIS. The next great step in advance was taken in
the cathedral of Notre Dame 23 at Paris (Figs. 116, 117, 125). This was
begun, under Maurice de Sully in 1163, on the site of the twin cathedrals of
Ste. Marie and St. Étienne, and the choir was, as usual, the first portion
erected. By 1196 the choir, transepts, and one or two bays of the nave were
substantially finished. The completeness, harmony, and vigor of conception
of this remarkable church contrast strikingly with the makeshifts and
hesitancy displayed in many contemporary monuments in other provinces.

The difficult vaulting over the radiating bays of the double
ambulatory was here treated with great elegance. By
doubling the number of supports in the exterior circuit of
each aisle (Fig. 116) each trapezoidal bay of the vaulting
was divided into three easily managed triangular
compartments. Circular shafts were used between the
central and side aisles. The side aisles were doubled and
those next the centre were built in two stories, providing
ample galleries behind a very open triforium. The nave was
unusually lofty and covered with six-part vaults of
admirable execution. The vault-ribs were vigorously
moulded and each made to spring from a distinct vaulting-
shaft, of which three rested upon the cap of each of the
massive piers below (Fig. 117). The Cathedral of
Bourges, begun 1190, closely resembled that of Paris in
plan. Both were designed to accommodate vast throngs in
FIG. 116.—PLAN
their exceptionally broad central aisles and double side
OF NOTRE
aisles, but Bourges has no side-aisle galleries, though the
DAME, PARIS.
inner aisles are much loftier than the outer ones. Though
later in date the vaulting of Bourges is inferior to that of Notre Dame,
especially in the treatment of the trapezoidal bays of the ambulatory.

FIG. 117.—INTERIOR OF NOTRE DAME, PARIS.

The masterly examples set by the vault-builders of St. Denis and Notre
Dame were not at once generally followed. Noyon, Senlis, and Soissons,
contemporary with these, are far less completely Gothic in style. At Le
Mans the groined vaulting which in 1158 was substituted for the original
barrel-vault of the cathedral is of very primitive design, singularly heavy and
awkward, although nearly contemporary with that of Notre Dame (Fig. 118).

FIG. 118.—LE MANS CATHEDRAL. NAVE.

DOMICAL GROINED VAULTING. The builders of the South and West,
influenced by Aquitanian models, adhered to the square plan and domical
form of vaulting-bay, even after they had begun to employ groin-ribs. The
latter, as at first used by them in imitation of Northern examples, had no
organic function in the vault, which was still built like a dome. About 1145–
1160 the cathedral of St. Maurice at Angers was vaulted with square, groin-
ribbed vaults, domical in form but not in construction. The joints no longer
described horizontal circles as in a dome, but oblique lines perpendicular to
the groins and meeting in zigzag lines at the ridge (Fig. 119). This method
became common in the West and was afterward generally adopted by the
English architects. The Cathedrals of Poitiers (1162) and Laval (La Trinité,
1180–1185) are examples of this system, which at Le Mans met with the
Northern system and produced in the cathedral the awkward compromise
described above.

THIRTEENTH-CENTURY VAULTING.
Early in the thirteenth century the church-
builders of Northern France abandoned the
use of square vaulting-bays and six-part
vaults. By the adoption of groin-ribs and the
pointed arch, the building of vaults in
oblong bays was greatly simplified. Each
bay of the nave could now be covered with
its own vaulting-bay, thus doing away with
all necessity for alternately light and heavy
piers. It is not quite certain when and where FIG. 119.—GROINED VAULT WITH
this system was first adopted for the ZIG-ZAG RIDGE-JOINTS.
complete vaulting of a church. It is, a shows a small section of filling with
courses parallel to the ridge, for
however, probable that the Cathedral of comparison with the other
Chartres, begun in 1194 and completed compartments.
before 1240, deserves this distinction,
although it is possible that the vaults of Soissons and Noyon may slightly
antedate it. Troyes (1170–1267), Rouen (1202–1220), Reims (1212–1242),
Auxerre (1215–1234, nave fourteenth century), Amiens (1220–1288), and
nearly all the great churches and chapels begun after 1200, employ the fully
developed oblong vault.
BUTTRESSING. Meanwhile the increasing height of the clearstories and
the use of double aisles compelled the bestowal of especial attention upon
the buttressing. The nave and choir of Chartres, the choirs of Notre Dame,
Bourges, Rouen, and Reims, the chevet and later the choir of St. Denis,
afford early examples of the flying-buttress (Fig. 107). These were at first
simple and of moderate height. Single half-arches spanned the side aisles; in
Notre Dame they crossed the double aisles in a single leap. Later the
buttresses were given greater stability by the added weight of lofty
pinnacles. An intermediate range of buttresses and pinnacles was built over
the intermediate piers where double aisles flanked the nave and choir, thus
dividing the single flying arch into two arches. At the same time a careful
observation of statical defects in the earlier examples led to the introduction
of subordinate arches and of other devices to stiffen and to beautify the

whole system. At Reims and Amiens these features received their highest
development, though later examples are frequently much more ornate.
INTERIOR DESIGN. The progressive change outlined in
the last chapter, by which the wall was practically
suppressed, the windows correspondingly enlarged, and
every part of the structure made loftier and more slender,
resulted in the evolution of a system of interior design well
represented by the nave of Amiens. The second story or
gallery over the side aisle disappeared, but the aisle itself
was very high. The triforium was no longer a gallery, but a
richly arcaded passage in the thickness of the wall,
corresponding to the roofing-space over the aisle, and
generally treated like a lower stage of the clearstory. Nearly
the whole space above it was occupied in each bay by the
vast clearstory window filled with simple but effective
geometric tracery over slender mullions. The side aisles
were lighted by windows which, like those in the
clearstory, occupied nearly the whole available wall-space
under the vaulting. The piers and shafts were all clustered FIG. 120.—ONE
and remarkably slender. The whole construction of this BAY, ABBEY OF
vast edifice, which covers nearly eighty thousand square ST. DENIS.
feet, is a marvel of lightness, of scientific combinations,
and of fine execution. Its great vault rises to a height of one hundred and
forty feet. The nave of St. Denis, though less lofty, resembles it closely in
style (Fig. 120). Earlier cathedrals show less of the harmony of proportion,
the perfect working out of the relation of all parts of the composition of each
bay, so conspicuous in the Amiens type, which was followed in most of the
later churches.
WINDOWS: TRACERY. The clearstory windows of Noyon, Soissons,
Sens, and the choir of Vézelay (1200) were simple arched openings arranged
singly, in pairs, or in threes. In the cathedral of Chartres (1194–1220) they
consist of two arched windows with a circle above them, forming a sort of
plate tracery under a single arch. In the chapel windows of the choir at
Reims (1215) the tracery of mullions and circles was moulded inside and
out, and the intermediate triangular spaces all pierced and glazed. Rose

windows were early used in front and transept façades. During the thirteenth
and fourteenth centuries they were made of vast size and great lightness of
tracery, as in the transepts of Notre Dame (1257) and the west front of
Amiens (1288). From the design of these windows is derived the name
Rayonnant, often applied to the French Gothic style of the period 1275–
1375.
THE SAINTE CHAPELLE. In this
beautiful royal chapel at Paris, built 1242–
47, Gothic design was admirably
exemplified in the noble windows 15 by 50
feet in size, which perhaps furnished the
models for those of Amiens and St. Denis.
Each was divided by slender mullions into
four lancet-like lights gathered under the
rich tracery of the window-head. They were
filled with stained glass of the most brilliant
but harmonious hues. They occupy the
whole available wall-space, so that the
ribbed vault internally seems almost to rest
on walls of glass, so slender are the visible
supports and so effaced by the glow of color
in the windows. Certainly lightness of
construction and the suppression of the
wall-masonry could hardly be carried FIG. 121.—THE STE. CHAPELLE,
further than here (Fig. 121). Among other PARIS.
chapels of the same type are those in the
palace of St. Germain-en-Laye (1240), and a later example in the château of
Vincennes, begun by Charles VI., but not finished till 1525.
PLANS. The most radical change from the primitive basilican type was, as
already explained in the last chapter, the continuation of the side aisles
around the apse to form a chevet; and later, the addition of chapels between
the external buttresses. Radiating chapels, usually semi-octagons or semi-
decagons in plan, early appeared as additions to the chevet (Fig. 122). These
may have originated in the apsidal chapels of Romanesque churches in
Auvergne and the South, as at Issoire, Clermont-Ferrand, Le Puy, and

Toulouse. They generally superseded the transept-
chapels of earlier churches, and added greatly to the
beauty of the interior perspective, especially when the
encircling aisles of the chevet were doubled. Notre
Dame, as at first erected, had a double ambulatory, but
no chapels. Bourges has only five very small
semicircular chapels. Chartres (choir 1220) and Le
Mans, as reconstructed about the same date, have
double ambulatories and radial chapels. After 1220 the
second ambulatory no longer appears. Noyon,
Soissons, Reims, Amiens, Troyes, and Beauvais, Tours,
Bayeux, and Coutances, Clermont, Limoges, and
Narbonne all have the single ambulatory and radiating
chevet-chapels. The Lady-chapel in the axis of the
church was often made longer and more important than
the other chapels, as at Amiens, Le Mans, Rouen, FIG. 122.—PLAN OF
Bayeux, and Coutances. Chapels also flanked the choir AMIENS
in most of the cathedrals named above, and Notre CATHEDRAL.
Dame and Tours also have side chapels to the nave. The
only cathedrals with complete double side aisles alike to nave, choir, and
chevet, were Notre Dame and Bourges. It is somewhat singular that the
German cathedral of Cologne is the only one in which all these various
characteristic French features were united in one design (see Fig. 140).
Local considerations had full sway in France, in
spite of the tendency toward unity of type. Thus
Dol, Laon, and Poitiers have square eastward
terminations; Châlons has no ambulatory; Bourges
no transept. In Notre Dame the transept was almost
suppressed. At Soissons one transept, at Noyon both, had semicircular ends.
Alby, a late cathedral of brick, founded in 1280, but mostly built during the
fourteenth century, has neither side aisles nor transepts, its wide nave being
flanked by chapels separated by internal buttresses (Fig. 123).
SCALE. The French cathedrals were nearly all of imposing dimensions.
Noyon, one of the smallest, is 333 feet long; Sens measures 354. Laon,
Bourges, Troyes, Notre Dame, Le Mans, Rouen, and Chartres vary from 396

to 437 feet in extreme length; Reims measures 483,
and Amiens, the longest of all, 521 feet. Notre Dame is
124 feet wide across the five aisles of the nave;
Bourges, somewhat wider. The central aisles of these
two cathedrals, and of Laon, Amiens, and Beauvais,
have a span of not far from 40 feet from centre to
centre of the piers; while the ridge of the vaulting,
which in Notre Dame is 108 feet above the pavement,
and in Bourges 125, reaches in Amiens a height of 140
FIG. 123.—PLAN OF
feet, and of nearly 160 in Beauvais. This emphasis of
CATHEDRAL OF ALBY.
the height, from 3 to 3½ times the clear width of the
nave or choir, is one of the most striking features of the French cathedrals. It
produces an impressive effect, but tends to dwarf the great width of the
central aisle.

FIG. 124.—WEST FRONT OF NOTRE DAME, PARIS.

EXTERIOR DESIGN. Here, as in the interior, every feature had its
constructive raison d’être, and the total effect was determined by the

fundamental structural scheme. This was especially true of the lateral
elevations, in which the pinnacled buttresses, the flying arches, and the
traceried windows of the side aisle and clearstory, repeated uniformly at each
bay, were the principal elements of the design. The transept façades and
main front allowed greater scope for invention and fancy, but even here the
interior membering gave the key to the composition. Strong buttresses
marked the division of the aisles and resisted the thrust of the terminal pier
arches, and rose windows filled the greater part of the wall space under the
end of the lofty vaulting. The whole structure was crowned by a steep-
pitched roof of wood, covered with lead, copper, or tiles, to protect the vault
from damage by snow and moisture. This roof occasioned the steep gables
which crowned the transept and main façades. The main front was frequently
adorned, above the triple portal, with a gallery of niches or tabernacles filled
with statues of kings. Different types of composition are represented by
Chartres, Notre Dame, Amiens, Reims, and Rouen, of which Notre Dame
(Fig. 124) and Reims are perhaps the finest. Notre Dame is especially
remarkable for its stately simplicity and the even balancing of horizontal and
vertical elements.

FIG. 125.—WEST FRONT OF ST. MACLOU, ROUEN.

PORCHES. In most French church façades the porches were the most
striking features, with their deep shadows and sculptured arches. The
Romanesque porches were usually limited in depth to the thickness of the
front wall. The Gothic builders secured increased depth by projecting the
portals out beyond the wall, and crowned them with elaborate gables. The
vast central door was divided in two by a pier adorned with a niche and
statue. Over this the tympanum of the arch was carved with scriptural reliefs;
the jambs and arches were profusely adorned with figures of saints, apostles,
martyrs, and angels, under elaborate canopies. The porches of Laon,
Bourges, Amiens, and Reims are especially deep and majestic in effect, the
last-named (built 1380) being the richest of all. Some of the transept façades
also had imposing portals. Those of Chartres (1210–1245) rank among the
finest works of Gothic decorative architecture, the south porch in some
respects surpassing that of the north transept. The portals of the fifteenth and
early sixteenth centuries were remarkable for the extraordinary richness and
minuteness of their tracery and sculpture, as at Abbeville, Alençon, the
cathedral and St. Maclou at Rouen (Fig. 125), Tours, Troyes, Vendôme, etc.
TOWERS AND SPIRES. The emphasizing of vertical elements reached its
fullest expression in the towers and spires of the churches. What had been at
first merely a lofty belfry roof was rapidly developed into the spire, rising
three hundred feet or more into the air. This development had already made
progress in the Romanesque period, and the south spire of Chartres is a
notable example of late twelfth-century steeple design. The transition from
the square tower to the slender octagonal pyramid was skilfully effected by
means of corner pinnacles and dormers. During and after the thirteenth
century the development was almost wholly in the direction of richness and
complexity of detail, not of radical constructive modification. The northern
spire of Chartres (1515) and the spires of Bordeaux, Coutances, Senlis, and
the Flamboyant church of St. Maclou at Rouen, illustrate this development.
In Normandy central spires were common, rising over the crossing of nave
and transepts. In some cases the designers of cathedrals contemplated a
group of towers; this is evident at Chartres, Coutances, and Reims. This
intention was, however, never realized; it demanded resources beyond even
the enthusiasm of the thirteenth century. Only in rare instances were the
spires of any of the towers completed, and the majority of the French towers

have square terminations, with low-pitched wooden roofs, generally
invisible from below. In general, French towers are marked by their strong
buttresses, solid lower stories, twin windows in each side of the belfry
proper—these windows being usually of great size—and a skilful
management of the transition to an octagonal plan for the belfry or the spire.
CARVING AND SCULPTURE. The general superiority of French Gothic
work was fully maintained in its decorative details. Especially fine is the
figure sculpture, which in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries attained
true nobility of expression, combined with great truthfulness and delicacy of
execution. Some of its finest productions are found in the great doorway
jambs of the west portals of the cathedrals, and in the ranks of throned and
adoring angels which adorned their deep arches. These reach their highest
beauty in the portals of Reims (1380). The tabernacles or carved niches in
which such statues were set were important elements in the decoration of the
exteriors of churches.

FIG. 126.—FRENCH GOTHIC CAPITALS.

a, From Sainte Chapelle, Paris, 13th century. b, 14th-century capital from transept of Notre
Dame, Paris. c, 15th-century capital from north spire of Chartres.

Foliage forms were used for nearly all the minor carved ornaments, though
grotesque and human figures sometimes took their place. The gargoyles
through which the roof-water was discharged clear of the building, were
almost always composed in the form of hideous monsters; and symbolic
beasts, like the oxen in the towers of Laon, or monsters like those which peer
from the tower balustrades of Notre Dame, were employed with some
mystical significance in various parts of the building. But the capitals

corbels, crockets, and finials were mostly composed of floral or foliage
forms. Those of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were for the most part
simple in mass, and crisp and vigorous in design, imitating the strong shoots
of early spring. The capitals were tall and slender, concave in profile, with
heavy square or octagonal abaci. With the close of the thirteenth century this
simple and forcible style of detail disappeared. The carving became more
realistic; the leaves, larger and more mature, were treated as if applied to the
capital or moulding, not as if they grew out of it. The execution and detail
were finer and more delicate, in harmony with the increasing slenderness
and lightness of the architecture (Fig. 126 a, b). Tracery forms now began
to be profusely applied to all manner of surfaces, and open-work gables,
wholly unnecessary from the structural point of view, but highly effective as
decorations, adorned the portals and crowned the windows.
LATE GOTHIC MONUMENTS. So far our attention has been mainly
occupied with the masterpieces erected previous to 1250. Among the
cathedrals, relatively few in number, whose construction is referable to the
second half of the century, that of Beauvais stands first in importance.
Designed on a colossal scale, its foundations were laid in 1225, but it was
never completed, and the portion built—the choir and chapels—belonged
really to the second half of the century, having been completed in 1270. But
the collapse in 1284 of the central tower and vaulting of this incomplete
cathedral, owing to the excessive loftiness and slenderness of its supports,
compelled its entire reconstruction, the number of the piers being doubled
and the span of the pier arches correspondingly reduced. As thus rebuilt, the
cathedral aisle was 47 feet wide from centre to centre of opposite piers, and
163 feet high to the top of the vault. Transepts were added after 1500.
Limoges and Narbonne, begun in 1272 on a large scale (though not equal in
size to Beauvais), were likewise never completed. Both had choirs of
admirable plan, with well-designed chevet-chapels. Many other cathedrals
begun during this period were completed only after long delays, as, for
instance, Meaux, Rodez (1277), Toulouse (1272), and Alby (1282), finished
in the sixteenth century, and Clermont (1248), completed under Napoleon
III. But between 1260 or 1275 and 1350, work was actively prosecuted on
many still incomplete cathedrals. The choirs of Beauvais (rebuilding),

Limoges, and Narbonne were finished after 1330; and towers, transept-
façades, portals, and chapels added to many others of earlier date.
The style of this period is sometimes designated as Rayonnant, from the
characteristic wheel tracery of the rose-windows, and the prevalence of
circular forms in the lateral arched windows, of the late thirteenth and early
fourteenth centuries. The great rose windows in the transepts of Notre Dame,
dating from 1257, are typical examples of the style. Those of Rouen
cathedral belong to the same category, though of later date. The façade of
Amiens, completed by 1288, is one of the finest works of this style, of which
an early example is the elaborate parish church of St. Urbain at Troyes.
THE FLAMBOYANT STYLE. The geometric treatment of the tracery and
the minute and profuse decoration of this period gradually merged into the
fantastic and unrestrained extravagances of the Flamboyant style, which
prevailed until the advent of the Renaissance—say 1525. The continuous
logical development of forms ceased, and in its place caprice and display
controlled the arts of design. The finest monument of this long period is the
fifteenth-century nave and central tower of the church of St. Ouen at Rouen,
a parish church of the first rank, begun in 1318, but not finished until 1515.
The tracery of the lateral windows is still chiefly geometric, but the western
rose window (Fig. 112) and the magnificent central tower or lantern, exhibit
in their tracery the florid decoration and wavy, flame-like lines of this style.
Slenderness of supports and the suppression of horizontal lines are here
carried to an extreme; and the church, in spite of its great elegance of detail,
lacks the vital interest and charm of the earlier Gothic churches. The
cathedral of Alençon and the church of St. Maclou at Rouen, have portals
with unusually elaborate detail of tracery and carving; while the façade of
Rouen cathedral (1509) surpasses all other examples in the lace-like
minuteness of its open-work and its profusion of ornament. The churches of
St. Jacques at Dieppe, and of St. Wulfrand at Abbeville, the façades of
Tours and Troyes, are among the masterpieces of the style. The upper part of
the façade of Reims (1380–1428) belongs to the transition from the
Rayonnant to the Flamboyant. While some works of this period are
conspicuous for the richness of their ornamentation, others are noticeably
bare and poor in design, like St. Merri and St. Séverin in Paris.

SECULAR AND MONASTIC ARCHITECTURE. The building of
cathedrals did not absorb all the architectural activity of the French during
the Gothic period, nor did it by any means put an end to monastic building.
While there are few Gothic cloisters to equal the Romanesque cloisters of
Puy-en-Vélay, Montmajour, Elne, and Moissac, many of the abbeys either
rebuilt their churches in the Gothic style after 1150, or extended and
remodelled their conventual buildings. The cloisters of Fontfroide, Chaise-
Dieu, and the Mont St. Michel rival those of Romanesque times, while many
new refectories and chapels were built in the same style with the cathedrals.
The most complete of these Gothic monastic establishments, that of the
Mont St. Michel in Normandy, presented a remarkable aggregation of
buildings clustering around the steep isolated rock on which stands the
abbey church. This was built in the eleventh century, and the choir and
chapels remodelled in the sixteenth. The great refectory and dormitory, the
cloisters, lodgings, and chapels, built in several vaulted stories against the
cliffs, are admirable examples of the vigorous pointed-arch design of the
early thirteenth century.
Hospitals like that of St. Jean at Angers (late twelfth century), or those of
Chartres, Ourscamps, Tonnerre, and Beaune, illustrate how skilfully the
French could modify and adapt the details of their architecture to the special
requirements of civil architecture. Great numbers of charitable institutions
were built in the middle ages—asylums, hospitals, refuges, and the like—but
very few of those in France are now extant. Town halls were built in the
fifteenth century in some places where a certain amount of popular
independence had been secured. The florid fifteenth-century Palais de
Justice at Rouen (1499–1508) is an example of another branch of secular
Gothic architecture. In all these monuments the adaptation of means to ends
is admirable. Wooden ceilings and roofs replaced stone, wherever required
by great width of span or economy of construction. There was little
sculpture; the wall-spaces were not suppressed in favor of stained glass and
tracery; while the roofs were usually emphasized and adorned with elaborate
crestings and finials in lead or terra-cotta.
DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. These same principles controlled the
designing of houses, farm buildings, barns, granaries, and the like. The
common closely-built French city house of the twelfth and thirteenth century

is illustrated by many extant examples at Cluny, Provins, and other towns.
A shop opening on the street by a large arch, a narrow stairway, and two or
three stories of rooms lighted by clustered, pointed-arched windows,
constituted the common type. The street front was usually gabled and the
roof steep. In the fourteenth or fifteenth century half-timbered construction
began to supersede stone for town houses, as it permitted of encroaching
upon the street by projecting the upper stories. Many of the half-timbered
houses of the fifteenth century were of elaborate design. The heavy oaken
uprights were carved with slender colonnettes; the horizontal sills, bracketed
out over the street, were richly moulded; picturesque dormers broke the sky-
line, and the masonry filling between the beams was frequently faced with
enamelled tiles.

FIG. 127.—HOUSE OF JACQUES CŒUR, BOURGES.
(After Viollet-le-Duc.)

The more considerable houses or palaces of royalty, nobles, and wealthy
citizens rivalled, and in time surpassed, the monastic buildings in richness
and splendor. The earlier examples retain the military aspect, with moat and
donjon, as in the Louvre of Charles V., demolished in the sixteenth century.
The finest palaces are of late date, and the type is well represented by the
Ducal Palace at Nancy (1476), the Hotel de Cluny (1485) at Paris, the Hotel
Jacques Cœur at Bourges (Fig. 127), and the east wing of Blois (1498–

1515). These palaces are not only excellently and liberally planned, with
large halls, many staircases, and handsome courts; they are also extremely
picturesque with their square and circular towers, slender turrets, elaborate
dormers, and rich carved detail.

MONUMENTS: (C. = cathedral; A. = abbey; trans. = transept; each edifice is given under the
date of its commencement; subsequent alterations in parentheses.) Between 1130 and 1200:
Vézelay A., ante-chapel, 1130; St. Germer-de-Fly C., 1130–1150 (chapel later); St. Denis A.,
choir, 1140 (choir rebuilt, nave and trans., 1240); Sens C., 1140–68 (W. front, 13th century;
chapels, spire, 14th); Senlis C., 1145–83 (trans., spire, 13th century); Noyon C., 1149–1200
(W. front, vaults, 13th century); St. Germain-des-Prés A., Paris, choir, 1150 (Romanesque
nave); Angers C., 1150 (choir, trans., 1274); Langres, 1150–1200; Laon C., 1150–1200; Le
Mans C., nave, 1150–58 (choir, 1217–54); Soissons C., 1160–70 (choir, 1212; nave chapels,
14th century); Poitiers C., 1162–1204; Notre Dame, Paris, choir, 1163–96 (nave, W. front
finished, 1235; trans. fronts, and chapels, 1257–75); Chartres C., W. end, 1170; rest, mainly
1194–98 (trans. porches, W. rose, 1210–1260; N. spire, 1506); Tours C., 1170 (rebuilt, 1267;
trans., portals, 1375; W. portals, chapels, 15th century; towers finished, 1507–47); Laval C.,
1180–85 (choir, 16th century); Mantes, church Notre Dame, 1180–1200; Bourges C., 1190–95
(E. end, 1210; W. end, 1275); St. Nicholas at Caen, 1190 (vaults, 15th century); Reims, church
St. Rémy, choir, end of 12th century (Romanesque nave); church St. Leu d’Esserent, choir late
12th century (nave, 13th century); Lyons C., choir, end of 12th century (nave, 13th and 14th
centuries); Etampes, church Notre Dame, 12th and 13th centuries.—13th century: Evreux C.,
1202–75 (trans., central tower, 1417; W. front rebuilt, 16th century); Rouen C., 1202–20 (trans.
portals, 1280; W. front, 1507); Nevers, 1211, N. portal, 1280 (chapels, S. portal, 15th century);
Reims C., 1212–42 (W. front, 1380; W. towers, 1420); Bayonne C., 1213 (nave, vaults,
W. portal, 14th century); Troyes C., choir, 1214 (central tower, nave, W. portal, and towers,
15th century); Auxerre C., 1215–34 (nave, W. end, trans., 14th century); Amiens C., 1220–88;
St. Etienne at Chalons-sur-Marne, 1230 (spire, 1520); Séez C., 1230, rebuilt 1260 (remodelled
14th century); Notre Dame de Dijon, 1230; Reims, Lady chapel of Archbishop’s palace, 1230;
Chapel Royal at St. Germain-en-Laye, 1240; Ste. Chapelle at Paris, 1242–47 (W. rose, 15th
century); Coutances C., 1254–74; Beauvais C., 1247–72 (rebuilt 1337–47; trans. portals,
1500–48); Notre Dame de Grace at Clermont, 1248 (finished 1350); Dôl C., 13th century; St.
Martin-des-Champs at Paris, nave 13th century (choir Romanesque); Bordeaux C., 1260;
Narbonne C., 1272–1320; Limoges, 1273 (finished 16th century); St. Urbain, Troyes, 1264;
Rodez C., 1277–1385 (altered, completed 16th century); church St. Quentin, 1280–1300; St.
Benigne at Dijon, 1280–91; Alby C., 1282 (nave, 14th; choir, 15th century; S. portal, 1473–
1500); Meaux C., mainly rebuilt 1284 (W. end much altered 15th, finished 16th century);
Cahors C., rebuilt 1285–93 (W. front, 15th century); Orléans, 1287–1328 (burned, rebuilt
1601–1829).—14th century: St. Bertrand de Comminges, 1304–50; St. Nazaire at
Carcassonne, choir and trans. on Romanesque nave; Montpellier C., 1364; St. Ouen at Rouen,
choir, 1318–39 (trans., 1400–39; nave, 1464–91; W. front, 1515); Royal Chapel at Vincennes,
1385 (?)-1525.—15th and 16th century: St. Nizier at Lyons rebuilt; St. Séverin, St. Merri, St.
Germain l’Auxerrois, all at Paris; Notre Dame de l’Epine at Chalons-sur-Marne; choir of St.
Etienne at Beauvais; Saintes C., rebuilt, 1450; St. Maclou at Rouen (finished 16th century);
church at Brou; St. Wulfrand at Abbeville; abbey of St. Riquier—these three all early 16th
century.—Houses, Castles, and Palaces: Bishop’s palace at Paris, 1160 (demolished); castle

of Coucy, 1220–30; Louvre at Paris (the original château), 1225–1350; Palais de Justice at
Paris, originally the royal residence, 1225–1400; Bishop’s palace at Laon, 1245 (addition to
Romanesque hall); castle Montargis, 13th century; castle Pierrefonds, Bishop’s palace at
Narbonnne, palace of Popes at Avignon—all 14th century; donjon of palace at Poitiers, 1395;
Hôtel des Ambassadeurs at Dijon, 1420; house of Jacques Cœur at Bourges, 1443; Palace,
Dijon, 1467; Ducal palace at Nancy, 1476; Hôtel Cluny at Paris, 1490; castle of Creil, late 15th
century, finished in 16th; E. wing palace of Blois, 1498–1515, for Louis XII.; Palace de Justice
at Rouen, 1499–1508.

20. Consult especially articles Architecture, Cathédrale, Chapelle, Construction,
Église, Maison, Voûte.
21. Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française, vol. ii., pp. 280, 281.
22. See Ferree, Chronology of Cathedral Churches of France.
23. This cathedral will be hereafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, by the name of Notre
Dame. Other cathedrals having the same name will be distinguished by the addition of the
name of the city, as “Notre Dame at Clermont-Ferrand.”

CHAPTER XVII.

GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN GREAT BRITAIN.

Books Recommended: As before, Corroyer, Parker, Reber. Also, Bell’s Series of Handbooks of
English Cathedrals. Billings, The Baronial and Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Scotland. Bond,
Gothic Architecture in England. Brandon, Analysis of Gothic Architecture. Britton, Cathedral
Antiquities of Great Britain. Ditchfield, The Cathedrals of England. Murray, Handbooks of the
English Cathedrals. Parker, Introduction to Gothic Architecture; Glossary of Architectural
Terms; Companion to Glossary, etc. Rickman, An Attempt to Discriminate the Styles of English
Architecture. Sharpe, Architectural Parallels; The Seven Periods of English Architecture. Van
Rensselaer, English Cathedrals. Winkles and Moule, Cathedral Churches of England and
Wales. Willis, Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral; ditto of Winchester Cathedral;
Treatise on Vaults.

GENERAL CHARACTER. Gothic architecture was developed in England
under a strongly established royal power, with an episcopate in no sense
hostile to the abbots or in arms against the barons. Many of the cathedrals
had monastic chapters, and not infrequently abbots were invested with the
episcopal rank.
English Gothic architecture was thus by no means predominantly an
architecture of cathedrals. If architectural activity in England was on this
account less intense and widespread in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
than in France, it was not, on the other hand, so soon exhausted. Fewer new
cathedrals were built, but the progressive rebuilding of those already existing
seems not to have ceased until the middle or end of the fifteenth century.
Architecture in England developed more slowly, but more uniformly than in
France. It contented itself with simpler problems; and if it failed to rival
Amiens in boldness of construction and in lofty majesty, it at least never
perpetrated a folly like Beauvais. In richness of internal decoration,
especially in the mouldings and ribbed vaulting, and in the picturesque
grouping of simple masses externally, the British builders went far toward
atoning for their structural timidity.

EARLY GOTHIC BUILDINGS. The pointed arch
and ribbed vault were importations from France. Early
examples appear in the Cistercian abbeys of Furness
and Kirkstall, and in the Temple Church at London
(1185). But it was in the Choir of Canterbury, as
rebuilt by William of Sens, after the destruction by fire
in 1170 of Anselm’s Norman choir, that these French
Gothic features were first applied in a thoroughgoing
manner. In plan this choir resembled that of the
cathedral of Sens; and its coupled round piers, with
capitals carved with foliage, its pointed arches, its six-
part vaulting, and its chevet, were distinctly French.
The Gothic details thus introduced slowly supplanted
the round arch and other Norman features. For fifty
years the styles were more or less mingled in many FIG. 128.—PLAN OF
buildings, though Lincoln Cathedral, as rebuilt in SALISBURY

1185–1200, retained nothing of the earlier round- CATHEDRAL.
arched style. But the first church to be designed and
built from the foundations in the new style was the cathedral of Salisbury
(1220–1258; Fig. 128). Contemporary with Amiens, it is a homogeneous and
typical example of the Early English style. The predilection for great length
observable in the Anglo-Norman churches (as at Norwich and Durham) still
prevailed, as it continued to do throughout the Gothic period; Salisbury is
480 feet long. The double transepts, the long choir, the square east end, the
relatively low vault (84 feet to the ridge), the narrow grouped windows, all
are thoroughly English. Only the simple four-part vaulting recalls French
models. Westminster Abbey (1245–1269), on the other hand, betrays in a
marked manner the French influence in its internal loftiness (100 feet), its
polygonal chevet and chapels, and its strongly accented exterior flying-
buttresses (Fig. 137).
MIXTURE OF STYLES. Very few English cathedrals are as homogeneous
as the two just mentioned, nearly all having undergone repeated
remodellings in successive periods. Durham, Norwich, and Oxford are
wholly Norman but for their Gothic vaults. Ely, Rochester, Gloucester, and
Hereford have Norman naves and Gothic choirs. Peterborough has an early

Gothic façade and late Gothic retro-choir added to an otherwise completely
Norman structure. Winchester is a Norman church remodelled with early
Perpendicular details. The purely Gothic churches and cathedrals, except
parish churches—in which England is very rich—are not nearly as numerous
in England as in France.
PERIODS. The development of English Gothic architecture followed the
same general sequence as the French, and like it the successive stages were
most conspicuously characterized by the forms of the tracery.
The Early English or Lancet period extended roundly from 1175 or 1180 to
1280, and was marked by simplicity, dignity, and purity of design.
The Decorated or Geometric period covered another century, 1280 to 1380,
and was characterized by its decorative richness and greater lightness of
construction.
The Perpendicular period extended from 1380, or thereabout, well into the
sixteenth century. Its salient features were the use of fan-vaulting, four-
centred arches, and tracery of predominantly vertical and horizontal lines.
The tardy introduction of Renaissance forms finally put an end to the Gothic
style in England, after a long period of mixed and transitional architecture.
VAULTING. The richness and variety of
English vaulting contrast strikingly with the
persistent uniformity of the French. A few of
the early Gothic vaults, as in the aisles of
Peterborough, and later the naves of Durham,
Salisbury, and Gloucester, were simple four-
part, ribbed vaults substantially like the French.
But the English disliked and avoided the twisted
and dome-like surfaces of the French vaults,
preferring horizontal ridges, and, in the filling-
masonry, straight courses meeting at the ridge in
zigzag lines, as in southwest France (see
p. 200). This may be seen in Westminster
Abbey. The idea of ribbed construction was
then seized upon and given a new application. FIG. 129.—RIBBED VAULTING,

By springing a large number of ribs from each

point of support, the vaulting-surfaces were CHOIR OF EXETER
divided into long, narrow, triangles, the filling CATHEDRAL.
of which was comparatively easy (Fig. 129).
The ridge was itself furnished with a straight rib, decorated with carved
rosettes or bosses at each intersection with a vaulting-rib. The naves and
choirs of Lincoln, Lichfield, Exeter, and the nave of Westminster illustrate
this method. The logical corollary of this practice was the introduction of
minor ribs called liernes, connecting the main ribs and forming complex
reticulated and star-shaped patterns. Vaults of this description are among the
most beautiful in England. One of the richest is in the choir of Gloucester
(1337–1377). Less correct constructively is that over the choir of Wells,
while the choir of Ely, the nave of Tewkesbury Abbey (Fig. 130), and all the
vaulting of Winchester as rebuilt by William of Wykeham (1390), illustrate
the same system. Such vaults are called lierne or star vaults.

FIG. 130.—NET OR LIERNE VAULTING, TEWKESBURY ABBEY.

FAN-VAULTING. The next step in the process may be observed in the
vaults of the choir of Oxford Cathedral (Christ Church), of the retro-choir of
Peterborough, of the cloisters of Gloucester, and many other examples. The
diverging ribs being made of uniform curvature, the severeys (the inverted
pyramidal vaulting-masses springing from each support) became a species of
concave conoids, meeting at the ridge in such a way as to leave a series of
flat lozenge-shaped spaces at the summit of the vault (Fig. 136). The ribs
were multiplied indefinitely, and losing thus in individual and structural

importance became a mere decorative pattern of tracery on the severeys. To
conceal the awkward flat lozenges at the ridge, elaborate panelling was
resorted to; or, in some cases, long stone pendents were inserted at those
points—a device highly decorative but wholly unconstructive. At
Cambridge, in King’s College Chapel, at Windsor, in St. George’s Chapel,
and in the Chapel of Henry VII. at Westminster, this sort of vaulting
received its most elaborate development. The fan-vault, as it is called,
illustrates the logical evolution of a decorative element from a structural
starting—point, leading to results far removed from the original conception.
Rich and sumptuous as are these ceilings, they are with all their ornament
less satisfactory than the ribbed vaults of the preceding period.
CHAPTER-HOUSES. One of the most
beautiful forms of ribbed vaulting was
developed in the polygonal halls erected
for the deliberations of the cathedral
chapters of Lincoln (1225), Westminster
(1250), Salisbury (1250), and Wells
(1292), in which the vault-ribs radiated
from a central column to the sides and
angles of the polygon (Fig. 131). If these
vaults were less majestic than domes of
the same diameter, they were far more
decorative and picturesque, while the
chapter-houses themselves were the FIG. 131.—VAULT OF CHAPTER-
most original and striking products of HOUSE, WELLS.
English Gothic art. Every feature was
designed with strict regard for the structural system determined by the
admirable vaulting, and the Sainte Chapelle was not more logical in its
exemplification of Gothic principles. To the four above-mentioned examples
should be added that of York (1280–1330), which differs from them in
having no central column: by some critics it is esteemed the finest of them
all. Its ceiling is a Gothic dome, 57 feet in diameter, but unfortunately
executed in wood. Its geometrical window-tracery and richly canopied stalls
are admirable.

OCTAGON AT ELY. The magnificent Octagon of Ely Cathedral, at the
intersection of the nave and transepts, belongs in the same category with
these polygonal chapter-house vaults. It was built by Alan of Walsingham in
1337, after the fall of the central tower and the destruction of the adjacent
bays of the choir. It occupies the full width of the three aisles, and covers the
ample space thus enclosed with a simple but beautiful groined and ribbed
vault of wood reaching to a central octagonal lantern, which rises much
higher and shows externally as well as internally. Unfortunately, this vault is
of wood, and would require important modifications of detail if carried out
in stone. But it is so noble in general design and total effect, that one
wonders the type was not universally adopted for the crossing in all
cathedrals, until one observes that no cathedral of importance was built after
Walsingham’s time, nor did any other central towers opportunely fall to the
ground.
WINDOWS AND TRACERY. In the Early English
Period (1200–1280 or 1300) the windows were tall and
narrow (lancet windows), and generally grouped by
twos and threes, though sometimes four and even five
are seen together (as the “Five Sisters” in the
N. transept of York). In the nave of Salisbury and the
retro-choir of Ely the side aisles are lighted by coupled
windows and the clearstory by triple windows, the
central one higher than the others—a surviving Norman
practice. Plate-tracery was, as in France, an FIG. 132.—
intermediate step leading to the development of bar- CLOISTERS,
tracery (see Fig. 110). The English followed here the SALISBURY
same reasoning as the French. At first the openings CATHEDRAL
constituted the design, the intervening stonework being (SHOWING UPPER
of secondary importance. Later the forms of the PART OF CHAPTER-
openings were subordinated to the pattern of the stone HOUSE).
framework of bars, arches, circles, and cusps. Bar-
tracery of this description prevailed in England through the greater part of
the Decorated Period (1280–1380), and somewhat resembled the
contemporary French geometric tracery, though more varied and less rigidly
constructive in design. An early example of this tracery occurs in the

cloisters of Salisbury (Fig. 132); others in the clearstories of the choirs of
Lichfield, Lincoln, and Ely, the nave of York, and the chapter-houses
mentioned above, where, indeed, it seems to have received its earliest
development. After the middle of the fourteenth century lines of double
curvature were introduced, producing what is called flowing tracery,
somewhat resembling the French flamboyant, though earlier in date
(Fig. 111). Examples of this style are found in Wells, in the side aisles and
triforium of the choir of Ely, and in the S. transept rose-window of Lincoln.
THE PERPENDICULAR STYLE.
Flowing tracery was, however, a transitional
phase of design, and was soon superseded
by Perpendicular tracery, in which the
mullions were carried through to the top of
the arch and intersected by horizontal
transoms. This formed a very rigid and
mechanically correct system of stone
framing, but lacked the grace and charm of
the two preceding periods. The earliest
examples are seen in the work of Edington
and of Wykeham in the reconstructed
cathedral of Winchester (1360–1394), where
the tracery was thus made to harmonize
with the accentuated and multiplied vertical
lines of the interior design. It was at this late
FIG. 133.—PERPENDICULAR
date that the English seem first to have fully
appropriated the Gothic ideas of emphasized TRACERY, WEST WINDOW OF ST.
GEORGE’S, WINDSOR.
vertical elements and wall surfaces reduced
to a minimum. The development of fan-vaulting had led to the adoption of a
new form of arch, the four-centred or Tudor arch (Fig. 133), to fit under the
depressed apex of the vault. The whole design internally and externally was
thenceforward controlled by the form of the vaulting and of the openings.
The windows were made of enormous size, especially at the east end of the
choir, which was square in nearly all English churches, and in the west
windows over the entrance. These windows had already reached, in the
Decorated Period, an enormous size, as at York; in the Perpendicular Period

the two ends of the church were as nearly as possible converted into walls of
glass. The East Window of Gloucester reaches the prodigious dimensions of
38 by 72 feet. The most complete examples of the Perpendicular tracery and
of the style in general are the three chapels already mentioned (p. 223);
those, namely, of King’s College at Cambridge, of St. George at Windsor,
and of Henry VII. in Westminster Abbey.
CONSTRUCTIVE DESIGN. The most striking peculiarity of English
Gothic design was its studious avoidance of temerity or venturesomeness in
construction. Both the height and width of the nave were kept within very
moderate bounds, and the supports were never reduced to extreme
slenderness. While much impressiveness of effect was undoubtedly lost
thereby, there was some gain in freedom of design, and there was less
obtrusion of constructive elements in the exterior composition. The flying-
buttress became a feature of minor importance where the clearstory was kept
low, as in most English churches. In many cases the flying arches were
hidden under the aisle roofs. The English cathedrals and larger churches are
long and low, depending for effect mainly upon the projecting masses of
their transepts, the imposing square central towers which commonly crown
the crossing, and the grouping of the main structure with chapter-houses,
cloisters, and Lady-chapels.
FRONTS. The sides and east ends were, in most cases, more successful than
the west fronts. In these the English displayed a singular indifference or lack
of creative power. They produced nothing to rival the majestic façades of
Notre Dame, Amiens, or Reims, and their portals are almost ridiculously
small. The front of York Cathedral is the most notable in the list for its size
and elaborate decoration. Those of Lincoln and Peterborough are, however,
more interesting in the picturesqueness and singularity of their composition.
The first-named forms a vast arcaded screen, masking the bases of the two
western towers, and pierced by three huge Norman arches, retained from the
original façade. The west front of Peterborough is likewise a mask or screen,
mainly composed of three colossal recessed arches, whose vast scale
completely dwarfs the little porches which give admittance to the church.
Salisbury has a curiously illogical and ineffective façade. Those of Lichfield
and Wells are, on the other hand, imposing and beautiful designs, the first

with its twin spires and rich arcading (Fig.
134), the second with its unusual wealth of
figure-sculpture, and massive square towers.
CENTRAL TOWERS. These are the most
successful features of English exterior
design. Most of them form lanterns
internally over the crossing, giving to that
point a considerable increase of dignity.
Externally they are usually massive and
lofty square towers, and having been for the
most part completed during the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries they are marked by
great richness and elegance of detail.
Durham, York, Ely, Canterbury, Lincoln,
and Gloucester maybe mentioned as notable
FIG. 134.—WEST FRONT,
examples of such square towers; that of
LICHFIELD CATHEDRAL.
Canterbury is the finest. Two or three have
lofty spires over the lantern. Among these, that of Salisbury is chief, rising
424 feet from the ground, admirably designed in every detail. It was not
completed till the middle of the fourteenth century, but most fortunately
carries out with great felicity the spirit of the earlier style in which it was
begun. Lichfield and Chichester have somewhat similar central spires, but
less happy in proportion and detail than the beautiful Salisbury example.
INTERIOR DESIGN. In the Norman churches the pier-arches, triforium,
and clearstory were practically equal. In the Gothic churches the pier-arches
generally occupy the lower half of the height, the upper half being divided
nearly equally between the triforium and clearstory, as in Lincoln, Lichfield
(nave), Ely (choir). In some cases, however (as at Salisbury, Westminster,
Winchester, choir of Lichfield), the clearstory is magnified at the expense of
the triforium (Fig. 135). Three peculiarities of design sharply distinguish the
English treatment of these features from the French. The first is the
multiplicity of fine mouldings in the pier-arches; the second is the decorative
elaboration of design in the triforium; the third, the variety in the treatment
of the clearstory. In general the English interiors are much more ornate than
the French. Black Purbeck marble is frequently used for the shafts clustered

around the central core of the pier, giving a striking
and somewhat singular effect of contrasted color.
The rich vaulting, the highly decorated triforium,
the moulded pier-arches, and at the end of the vista
the great east window, produce an impression very
different from the more simple and lofty stateliness
of the French cathedrals. The great length and
lowness of the English interiors combine with this
decorative richness to give the impression of repose
and grace, rather than of majesty and power. This
tendency reached its highest expression in the
Perpendicular churches and chapels, in which every
surface was covered with minute panelling.
CARVING. In the Early English Period the details
were carved with a combined delicacy and vigor
deserving of the highest praise. In the capitals and
corbels, crockets and finials, the foliage was crisp
FIG. 135.—ONE BAY OF
and fine, curling into convex masses and seeming CHOIR, LICHFIELD
to spring from the surface which it decorated.
CATHEDRAL.
Mouldings were frequently ornamented with
foliage of this character in the hollows, and another ornament, the dog-tooth
or pyramid, often served the same purpose, introducing repeated points of
light into the shadows of the mouldings. These were fine and complex, deep
hollows alternating with round mouldings (bowtels) sometimes made pear-
shaped in section by a fillet on one side. Cusping—the decoration of an arch
or circle by triangular projections on its inner edge—was introduced during
this period, and became an important decorative resource, especially in
tracery design. In the Decorated Period the foliage was less crisp; sea-weed
and oak-leaves, closely and confusedly bunched, were used in the capitals,
while crockets were larger, double-curved, with leaves swelling into
convexities like oak-galls. Geometrical and flowing tracery were developed,
and the mouldings of the tracery-bars, as of other features, lost somewhat in
vigor and sharpness. The ball-flower or button replaced the dog’s-tooth, and
the hollows were less frequently adorned with foliage.

In the Perpendicular Period nearly all flat surfaces were panelled in designs
resembling the tracery of the windows. The capitals were less important than
those of the preceding periods, and the mouldings weaker and less effective.
The Tudor rose appears as an ornament in square panels and on flat surfaces;
and moulded battlements, which first appeared in Decorated work, now
become a frequent crowning motive in place of a cornice. There is less
originality and variety in the ornament, but a great increase in its amount
(Fig. 136).

FIG. 136.—FAN-VAULTING, HENRY VII.’S CHAPEL, WESTMINSTER ABBEY.

PLANS. English church plans underwent, during the Gothic Period, but
little change from the general types established previous to the thirteenth
century. The Gothic cathedrals and abbeys, like the Norman, were very long
and narrow, with choirs often nearly as long as the nave, and almost
invariably with square eastward terminations. There is no example of double
side aisles and side chapels, and apsidal chapels are very rare. Canterbury
and Westminster (Fig. 137) are the chief exceptions to this, and both show
clearly the French influence. Another striking peculiarity of the English
plans is the frequent occurrence of secondary transepts, adding greatly to the
external picturesqueness. These occur in rudimentary form in Canterbury,
and at Durham the Chapel of the Nine Altars, added 1242–1290 to the
eastern end, forms in reality a secondary transept. This feature is most
perfectly developed in the cathedral of Salisbury (Fig. 128), and appears also
at Lincoln, Worcester, Wells, and a few other examples. The English

cathedral plans are also distinguished by the retention or incorporation of
many conventual features, such as cloisters, libraries, and halls, and by the
grouping of chapter-houses and Lady-chapels with the main edifice. Thus
the English cathedral plans and those of the great abbey churches present a
marked contrast with those of France and the Continent generally. While
Amiens, the greatest of French cathedrals, is 521 feet long, and internally
140 feet high, Ely measures 565 feet in length, and less than 75 feet in
height. Notre Dame is 148 feet wide; the English naves are usually under 80
feet in total width of the three aisles.

FIG. 137.—EASTERN HALF OF WESTMINSTER ABBEY. PLAN.
a, Henry VII.’s chapel.

PARISH CHURCHES. Many of these were of exceptional beauty of
composition and detail. They display the greatest variety of plan, churches
with two equal-gabled naves side by side being not uncommon.
A considerable proportion of them date from the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, and are chiefly interesting for their square, single, west towers and
their carved wooden ceilings (see below). The tower was usually built over

the central western porch; broad and square, with corner buttresses
terminating in pinnacles, it was usually finished without spires. Crenelated
battlements crowned the upper story. When spires were added the transition
from the square tower to the octagonal spire was effected by broaches or
portions of a square pyramid intersecting the base of the spire, or by corner
pinnacles and flying-buttresses.
WOODEN CEILINGS. The English
treated woodwork with consummate
skill. They invented and developed a
variety of forms of roof-truss in which
the proper distribution of the strains was
combined with a highly decorative
treatment of the several parts by carving,
moulding, and arcading. The ceiling
surfaces between the trusses were
handled decoratively, and the oaken
open-timber ceilings of many of the
English churches and civic or academic
halls (Christ Church Hall, Oxford; FIG. 138.—ROOF OF NAVE,
Westminster Hall, London) are such ST. MARY’S, WESTONZOYLAND.
noble and beautiful works as quite to
justify the substitution of wooden for vaulted ceilings (Fig. 138). The
hammer-beam truss was in its way as highly scientific, and æsthetically as
satisfactory, as any feature of French Gothic stone construction. Without the
use of tie-rods to keep the rafters from spreading, it brought the strain of the
roof upon internal brackets low down on the wall, and produced a beautiful
effect by the repetition of its graceful curves in each truss.
CHAPELS AND HALLS. Many of these rival the cathedrals in beauty and
dignity of design. The royal chapels at Windsor and Westminster have
already been mentioned, as well as King’s College Chapel at Cambridge,
and Christ Church Hall at Oxford. To these college halls should be added the
chapel of Merton College at Oxford, and the beautiful chapel of St. Stephen
at Westminster, most unfortunately demolished when the present Parliament
House was erected. The Lady-chapels of Gloucester and Ely, though
connected with the cathedrals, are really independent designs of late date,

and remarkable for the richness of their decoration, their great windows, and
elaborate ribbed vaulting. Some of the halls in mediæval castles and manor-
houses are also worthy of note, especially for their timber ceilings.
MINOR MONUMENTS. The student of Gothic architecture should also
give attention to the choir-screens, tombs, and chantries which embellish
many of the abbeys and cathedrals. The rood-screen at York is a notable
example of the first; the tomb of De Gray in the same cathedral, and tombs
and chantries in Canterbury, Winchester, Westminster Abbey, Ely, St.
Alban’s Abbey, and other churches are deservedly admired. In these the
English love for ornament, for minute carving, and for the contrast of white
and colored marble, found unrestrained expression. To these should be added
the market-crosses of Salisbury and Winchester, and Queen Eleanor’s Cross
at Waltham.
DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE. The mediæval castles of Great Britain
belong to the domain of military engineering rather than of the history of art,
though occasionally presenting to view details of considerable architectural
beauty. The growth of peace and civic order is marked by the erection of
manor-houses, the residences of wealthy landowners. Some of these houses
are of imposing size, and show the application to domestic requirements, of
the late Gothic style which prevailed in the period to which most of them
belong. The windows are square or Tudor-arched, with stone mullions and
transoms of the Perpendicular style, and the walls terminate in merlons or
crenelated parapets, recalling the earlier military structures. The palace of
the bishop or archbishop, adjoining the cathedral, and the residences of the
dean, canons, and clergy, together with the libraries, schools, and gates of the
cathedral enclosure, illustrate other phases of secular Gothic work. Few of
these structures are of striking architectural merit, but they possess a
picturesque charm which is very attractive.
Not many stone houses of the smaller class remain from the Gothic period in
England. But there is hardly an old town that does not retain many of the
half-timbered dwellings of the fifteenth or even fourteenth century, some of
them in excellent preservation. They are for the most part wider and lower
than the French houses of the same class, but are built on the same principle,
and, like them, the woodwork is more or less richly carved.

MONUMENTS: (A. = abbey church; C. = cathedral; r. = ruined; trans. = transept; each
monument is given under the date of the earliest extant Gothic work upon it, with additions of
later periods in parentheses.)
Early English: Kirkstall A., 1152–82, first pointed arches; Canterbury C., choir, 1175–84
(nave, 1378–1411; central tower, 1500); Lincoln C., choir, trans., 1192–1200 (vault, 1250;
nave and E. end, 1260–80); Lichfield C., 1200–50 (W. front, 1275; presbytery, 1325);
Worcester C., choir, 1203–18, nave partly Norman (W. end, 1375–95); Chichester C., 1204–
44 (spire rebuilt 17th century); Fountains A., 1205–46; Salisbury C., 1220–58 (cloister,
chapter-h., 1263–84; spire, 1331); Elgin C., 1224–44; Wells C., 1175–1206 (W. front 1225,
choir later, chapter-h., 1292); Rochester C., 1225–39 (nave Norman); York C., S. trans., 1225;
N. trans., 1260 (nave, chapter-h., 1291–1345; W. window, 1338; central tower, 1389–1407;
E. window, 1407); Southwell Minster, 1233–94 (nave Norman); Ripon C., 1233–94 (central
tower, 1459); Ely C., choir, 1229–54 (nave Norman; octagon and presbytery, 1323–62);
Peterborough C., W. front, 1237 (nave Norman; retro-choir, late 14th century); Netley A.,
1239 (r.); Durham C., “Nine Altars” and E. end choir, 1235–90 (nave, choir, Norman;
W. window, 1341; central tower finished, 1480); Glasgow C., (with remarkable Early English
crypt), 1242–77; Gloucester C., nave vaulted, 1239–42 (nave mainly Norman; choir, 1337–
51; cloisters, 1375–1412; W. end, 1420–37; central tower, 1450–57); Westminster A., 1245–
69; St. Mary’s A., York, 1272–92 (r.).
Decorated: Merton College Chapel, Oxford, 1274–1300; Hereford C., N. trans., chapter-h.,
cloisters, vaulting, 1275–92 (nave, choir, Norman); Exeter C., choir, trans., 1279–91; nave,
1331–50 (E. end remodelled, 1390); Lichfield C., Lady-chapel, 1310; Ely C., Lady-chapel,
1321–49; Melrose A., 1327–99 (nave, 1500; r.); St. Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster, 1349–64
(demolished); Edington church, 1352–61; Carlisle C., E. end and upper parts, 1352–95 (nave
in part and S. trans. Norman; tower finished, 1419); Winchester C., W. end remodelled, 1360–
66 (nave and aisles, 1394–1410; trans., partly Norman); York C., Lady-chapel, 1362–72;
churches of Patrington and Hull, late 14th century.
Perpendicular: Holy Cross Church, Canterbury, 1380; St. Mary’s, Warwick, 1381–91;
Manchester C., 1422; St. Mary’s, Bury St. Edmunds, 1424–33; Beauchamp Chapel, Warwick,
1439; King’s College Chapel, Cambridge, 1440; vaults, 1508–15; St. Mary’s Redcliffe,
Bristol, 1442; Roslyn Chapel, Edinburgh, 1446–90; Gloucester C., Lady-chapel, 1457–98; St.
Mary’s, Stratford-on-Avon, 1465–91; Norwich C., upper part and E. end of choir, 1472–99
(the rest mainly Norman); St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, 1481–1508; choir vaulted, 1507–20;
Bath A., 1500–39; Chapel of Henry VII., Westminster, 1503–20.
Academic and Secular Buildings: Winchester Castle Hall, 1222–35; Merton College
Chapel, Oxford, 1274–1300; Library Merton College, 1354–78; Norborough Hall, 1356;
Windsor Castle, upper ward, 1359–73; Winchester College, 1387–93; Wardour Castle, 1392;
Westminster Hall, rebuilt, 1397–99; St. Mary’s Hall, Coventry, 1401–14; Warkworth Castle,
1440; St. John’s College, All Soul’s College, Oxford, 1437; Eton College, 1441–1522;
Divinity Schools, Oxford, 1445–54; Magdalen College, Oxford, 1475–80, tower, 1500; Christ
Church Hall, Oxford, 1529.

CHAPTER XVIII.

GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN GERMANY, THE
NETHERLANDS, AND SPAIN.

Books Recommended: As before, Corroyer, Reber. Also, Adler, Mittelalterliche Backstein-
Bauwerke des preussischen Staates. Essenwein (Hdbuch. d. Arch.), Die romanische und die
gothische Baukunst; der Wohnbau. Hasak, Die romanische und die gothische Baukunst;
Kirchenbau; Einzelheiten des Kirchenbaues (both in Hdbuch. d. Arch.). Hase and others, Die
mittelalterlichen Baudenkmäler Niedersachsens. Kallenbach, Chronologie der deutschen
mittelalterlichen Baukunst. Lübke, Ecclesiastical Art in Germany during the Middle Ages.
Redtenbacher, Leitfaden zum Studium der mittelalterlichen Baukunst. Street, Gothic
Architecture in Spain. Uhde, Baudenkmäler in Spanien. Ungewitter, Lehrbuch der gothischen
Constructionen. Villa Amil, Hispania Artistica y Monumental.

EARLY GOTHIC WORKS. The Gothic architecture of Germany is less
interesting to the general student than that of France and England, not only
because its development was less systematic and more provincial, but also
because it produced fewer works of high intrinsic merit. The introduction
into Germany of the pointed style was tardy, and its progress slow.
Romanesque architecture had created imposing types of ecclesiastical
architecture, which the conservative Teutons were slow to abandon. The
result was a half-century of transition and a mingling of Romanesque and
Gothic forms. St. Castor, at Coblentz, built as late as 1208, is wholly
Romanesque. Even when the pointed arch and vault had finally come into
general use, the plan and the constructive system still remained
predominantly Romanesque. The western apse and short sanctuary of the
earlier plans were retained. There was no triforium, the clearstory was
insignificant, and the whole aspect low and massive. The Germans avoided,
at first, as did the English, the constructive audacities and difficulties of the
French Gothic, but showed less of invention and grace than their English
neighbors. When, however, through the influence of foreign models,
especially of the great French cathedrals, and through the employment of

foreign architects, the Gothic styles were at last thoroughly domesticated,
a spirit of ostentation took the place of the earlier conservatism. Technical
cleverness, exaggerated ingenuity of detail, and constructive tours de force
characterize most of the German Gothic work of the late fourteenth and of
the fifteenth century. This is exemplified in the slender mullions of Ulm, the
lofty and complicated spire of Strasburg, and the curious traceries of
churches and houses in Nuremberg.
PERIODS. The periods of German mediæval architecture corresponded in
sequence, though not in date, with the movement elsewhere. The maturing
of the true Gothic styles was preceded by more than a half-century of
transition. Chronologically the periods may be broadly stated as follows:
The Transitional, 1170–1225.
The Early Pointed, 1225–1275.
The Middle or Decorated, 1275–1350.
The Florid, 1350–1530.
These divisions are, however, far less clearly defined than in France and
England. The development of forms was less logical and consequential, and
less uniform in the different provinces, than in those western lands.
CONSTRUCTION. As already remarked, a tenacious hold of Romanesque
methods is observable in many German Gothic monuments. Broad wall-
surfaces with small windows and a general massiveness and lowness of
proportions were long preferred to the more slender and lofty forms of true
Gothic design. Square vaulting-bays were persistently adhered to, covering
two aisle-bays. The six-part system was only rarely resorted to, as at
Schlettstadt, and in St. George at Limburg-on-the-Lahn (Fig. 139). The
ribbed vault was an imported idea, and was never systematically developed.
Under the final dominance of French models in the second half of the
thirteenth century, vaulting in oblong bays became more general,
powerfully influenced by buildings like Freiburg, Cologne, Oppenheim, and
Ratisbon cathedrals. In the fourteenth century the growing taste for
elaboration and rich detail led to the introduction of multiplied decorative
ribs. These, however, did not come into use, as in England, through a
logical development of constructive methods, but purely as decorative

features. The German multiple-ribbed vaulting
is, therefore, less satisfying than the English,
though often elegant. Conspicuous examples of
its application are found in the cathedrals of
Freiburg, Ulm, Prague, and Vienna; in St.
Barbara at Kuttenberg, and many other
important churches. But with all the richness
and complexity of these net-like vaults the
Germans developed nothing like the fan-
vaulting or chapter-house ceilings of England.
SIDE AISLES. The most notable structural
innovation of the Germans was the raising of
the side aisles to the same height as the central
aisle in a number of important churches. They
thus created a distinctly new type, to which
German writers have given the name of hall-
church. The result of this innovation was to FIG. 139.—ONE BAY OF
transform completely the internal perspective CATHEDRAL OF ST. GEORGE,
of the church, as well as its structural LIMBURG.
membering. The clearstory disappeared; the
central aisle no longer dominated the interior; the pier-arches and side-walls
were greatly increased in height, and flying buttresses were no longer
required. The whole design appeared internally more spacious, but lost
greatly in variety and in interest. The cathedral of St. Stephen at Vienna is
the most imposing instance of this treatment, which first appeared in the
church of St. Elizabeth at Marburg (1235–83; Fig. 140). St. Barbara at
Kuttenberg, St. Martin’s at Landshut (1404), and the cathedral of Munich
are others among many examples of this type.
TOWERS AND SPIRES. The same fondness for spires which had been
displayed in the Rhenish Romanesque churches produced in the Gothic
period a number of strikingly beautiful church steeples, in which openwork
tracery was substituted for the solid stone pyramids of earlier examples. The
most remarkable of these spires are those of Freiburg (1300), Strasburg, and
Cologne cathedrals, of the church at Esslingen, St. Martin’s at Landshut,
and the cathedral of Vienna. In these the transition from the simple square

tower below to the octagonal belfry and
spire is generally managed with skill. In the
remarkable tower of the cathedral at Vienna
(1433) the transition is too gradual, so that
the spire seems to start from the ground
and lacks the vigor and accent of a simpler
square lower portion. The over-elaborate
spire of Strasburg (1429, by Junckher of
Cologne; lower parts and façade, 1277–
1365, by Erwin von Steinbach and his
sons) reaches a height of 468 feet; the
spires of Cologne, completed in 1883 from
FIG. 140.—SECTION OF ST. the original fourteenth-century drawings,
ELIZABETH, MARBURG. long lost but recovered by a happy
accident, are 500 feet high. The spires of
Ratisbon and Ulm cathedrals have also been recently completed in the
original style.
DETAILS. German window tracery was best where it most closely
followed French patterns, but it tended always towards the faults of
mechanical stiffness and of technical display in over-slenderness of shafts
and mullions. The windows, especially in the “hall-churches,” were apt to
be too narrow for their height. In the fifteenth century ingenuity of
geometrical combinations took the place of grace of line, and later the
tracery was often tortured into a stone caricature of rustic-work of
interlaced and twisted boughs and twigs, represented with all their bark and
knots (branch-tracery). The execution was far superior to the design. The
carving of foliage in capitals, finials, etc., calls for no special mention for its
originality or its departure from French types.
PLANS. In these there was more variety than in any other part of Europe
except Italy. Some churches, like Naumburg, retained the Romanesque
system of a second western apse and short choir. The Cistercian churches
generally had square east ends, while the polygonal eastern apse without
ambulatory is seen in St. Elizabeth at Marburg, the cathedrals of Ratisbon,
Ulm and Vienna, and many other churches. The introduction of French
ideas in the thirteenth century led to the adoption in a number of cases of

the chevet with a single ambulatory and a series of
radiating apsidal chapels. Magdeburg cathedral
(1208–11) was the first erected on this plan, which
was later followed at Altenburg, Cologne,
Freiburg, Lübeck, Prague and Zwettl, in St.
Francis at Salzburg and some other churches. Side
chapels to nave or choir appear in the cathedrals of
Lübeck, Munich, Oppenheim, Prague and Zwettl.
Cologne Cathedral, by far the largest and most
magnificent of all, is completely French in plan,
uniting in one design the leading characteristics of
the most notable French churches (Fig. 141). It has
complete double aisles in both nave and choir,
three-aisled transepts, radial chevet-chapels and
twin western towers. The ambulatory is, however, FIG. 141.—COLOGNE
single, and there are no lateral chapels. A typical CATHEDRAL. PLAN.
German treatment was the eastward termination of
the church by polygonal chapels, one in the axis of each aisle, the central
one projecting beyond its neighbors. Where there were five aisles, as at
Xanten, the effect was particularly fine. The plan of the curious polygonal
church of Our Lady (Liebfrauenkirche; 1227–43) built on the site of the
ancient circular baptistery at Treves, would seem to have been produced by
doubling such an arrangement on either side of the transverse axis (Fig.
142).
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT. The so-called Golden Portal of
Freiburg in the Erzgebirge is perhaps the first distinctively Gothic work in
Germany, dating from 1190. From that time on, Gothic details appeared
with increasing frequency, especially in the Rhine provinces, as shown in
many transitional structures. Gelnhausen and Aschaffenburg are early
13th-century examples; pointed arches and vaults appear in the Apostles’
and St. Martin’s churches at Cologne; and the great church of St. Peter and
St. Paul at Neuweiler in Alsace has an almost purely Gothic nave of the
same period. The churches of Bamberg, Fritzlar, and Naumburg, and in
Westphalia those of Münster and Osnabrück, are important examples of
the transition. The French influence, especially the Burgundian, appears as

early as 1212 in the cathedral of Magdeburg,
imitating the choir of Soissons, and in the
structural design of the Liebfrauenkirche at Treves
as already mentioned; it reached complete
ascendancy in Alsace at Strasburg (nave 1240–
75), in Baden at Freiburg (nave 1270) and in
Prussia at Cologne (1248–1320). Strasburg
Cathedral is especially remarkable for its façade,
the work of Erwin von Steinbach and his sons
(1277–1346), designed after French models, and
its north spire, built in the fifteenth century.
Cologne Cathedral, begun in 1248 by Gerhard of
FIG. 142.—CHURCH OF
Riel in imitation of the newly completed choir of
OUR LADY, TREVES.
Amiens, was continued by Master Arnold and his
son John, and the choir was consecrated in 1322. The nave and W. front
were built during the first half of the 14th century, though the towers were
not completed till 1883. In spite of its vast size and slow
construction, it is in style the most uniform of all great
Gothic cathedrals, as it is the most lofty (excepting the
choir of Beauvais) and the largest excepting Milan and
Seville. Unfortunately its details, though pure and
correct, are singularly dry and mechanical, while its very
uniformity deprives it of the picturesque and varied
charm which results from a mixture of styles recording
the labors of successive generations. The same criticism
may be raised against the late cathedral of Ulm (choir,
1377–1449; nave, 1477; Fig. 143). The Cologne
influence is observable in the widely separated
cathedrals of Utrecht in the Netherlands, Metz in the W.,
Minden and Halberstadt (begun 1250; mainly built FIG. 143.—PLAN OF
after 1327) in Saxony, and in the S. in the church of St. ULM CATHEDRAL.
Catherine at Oppenheim. To the E. and S., in the
cathedrals of Prague (Bohemia) by Matthew of Arras (1344–52) and
Ratisbon (or Regensburg, 1275) the French influence predominates, at least
in the details and construction. The last-named is one of the most dignified
and beautiful of German Gothic churches—German in plan, French in

execution. The French influence also manifests itself in the details of many
of the peculiarly German churches with aisles of equal height (see p. 240).
More peculiarly German are the brick churches of North Germany, where
stone was almost wholly lacking. In these, flat walls, square towers, and
decoration by colored tiles and bricks are characteristic, as at Brandenburg
(St. Godehard and St. Catherine, 1346–1400), at Prentzlau, Tängermünde,
Königsberg, &c. Lübeck possesses notable monuments of brick architecture
in the churches of St. Mary and St. Catherine, both much alike in plan and
in the flat and barren simplicity of their exteriors. St. Martin’s at Landshut
in the South is also a notable brick church.
LATE GOTHIC. As in France and England, the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries were mainly occupied with the completion of existing churches,
many of which, up to that time, were still without naves. The works of this
period show the exaggerated attenuation of detail already alluded to, though
their richness and elegance sometimes atone for their mechanical character.
The complicated ribbed vaults of this period are among its most striking
features (see p. 239). Spire-building was as general as was the erection of
central square towers in England, during the same period. To this time also
belong the overloaded traceries and minute detail of the St. Sebald and St.
Lorenz churches and of several secular buildings at Nuremberg, the façade
of Chemnitz Cathedral, and similar works. The nave and tower of St.
Stephen at Vienna (1359–1433), the church of Sta. Maria in Gestade in the
same city, and the cathedral of Kaschau in Hungary, are Austrian
masterpieces of late Gothic design.
SECULAR BUILDINGS. Germany possesses a number of important
examples of secular Gothic work, chiefly municipal buildings (gates and
town halls) and castles. The first completely Gothic castle or palace was not
built until 1280, at Marienburg (Prussia), and was completed a century
later. It consists of two courts, the earlier of the two forming a closed square
and containing the chapel and chapter-house of the Order of the German
knights. The later and larger court is less regular, its chief feature being the
Great Hall of the Order, in two aisles. All the vaulting is of the richest
multiple-ribbed type. Other castles are at Marienwerder, Heilsberg (1350) in

E. Prussia, Karlstein in Bohemia (1347), and the Albrechtsburg at Meissen
in Saxony (1471–83).
Among town halls, most of which date from the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries may be mentioned those of Ratisbon (Regensburg), Münster and
Hildesheim, Halberstadt, Brunswick, Lübeck, and Bremen—the last two of
brick. These, and the city gates, such as the Spahlenthor at Basle
(Switzerland) and others at Lübeck and Wismar, are generally very
picturesque edifices. Many fine guildhalls were also built during the last
two centuries of the Gothic style; and dwelling-houses of the same period,
of quaint and effective design, with stepped or traceried gables, lofty roofs,
openwork balconies and corner turrets, are to be found in many cities.
Nuremberg is especially rich in these.
THE NETHERLANDS, as might be expected from their position,
underwent the influences of both France and Germany. During the
thirteenth century, largely through the intimate monastic relations between
Tournay and Noyon, the French influence became paramount in what is
now Belgium, while Holland remained more strongly German in style. Of
the two countries Belgium developed by far the most interesting
architecture. Some of its cathedrals, notably those of Tournay, Antwerp,
Brussels, Malines (Mechlin), Mons and Louvain, rank high among
structures of their class, both in scale and in artistic treatment. The Flemish
town halls and guildhalls merit particular attention for their size and
richness, exemplifying in a worthy manner the wealth, prosperity, and
independence of the weavers and merchants of Antwerp, Ypres, Ghent
(Gand), Louvain, and other cities in the fifteenth century.
CATHEDRALS AND CHURCHES. The earliest purely Gothic edifice in
Belgium was the choir of Ste. Gudule (1225) at Brussels, followed in 1242
by the choir and transepts of Tournay, designed with pointed vaults, side
chapels, and a complete chevet. The transept-ends are round, as at Noyon. It
was surpassed in splendor by the Cathedral of Antwerp (1352–1422),
remarkable for its seven-aisled nave and narrow transepts. It covers some
70,000 square feet, but its great size is not as effective internally as it should
be, owing to the poverty of the details and the lack of finely felt proportion
in the various parts. The late west front (1422–1518) displays the florid

taste of the wealthy Flemish burgher population of that period, but is so rich
and elegant, especially its lofty and slender north spire, that its over-
decoration is pardonable. The cathedral of St. Rombaut at Malines (choir,
1366; nave, 1454–64) is a more satisfactory church, though smaller and
with its western towers incomplete. The cathedral of Louvain belongs to
the same period (1373–1433). St. Wandru at Mons (1450–1528) and St.
Jacques at Liège (1522–58) are interesting parish churches of the first rank,
remarkable especially for the use of color in their internal decoration, for
their late tracery and ribbed vaulting, and for the absence of Renaissance
details at that late period.
TOWN HALLS: GUILDHALLS. These were really the most
characteristic Flemish edifices, and are in most cases the most conspicuous
monuments of their respective cities. The Cloth Hall of Ypres (1304) is the
earliest and most imposing among them; similar halls were built not much
later at Bruges, Louvain, Malines and Ghent. The town halls were mostly
of later date, the earliest being that of Bruges (1377). The town halls of
Brussels with its imposing and graceful tower, of Louvain (1448–63; Fig.
144) and of Oudenärde (early 16th century) are conspicuous monuments
of this class.

FIG. 144.—TOWN HALL, LOUVAIN.

In general, the Gothic architecture of Belgium presents the traits of a
borrowed style, which did not undergo at the hands of its borrowers any
radically novel or fundamental development. The structural design is
usually lacking in vigor and organic significance, but the details are often
graceful and well designed, especially on the exterior. The tendency was
often towards over-elaboration, particularly in the later works.
The Gothic architecture of Holland and of the Scandinavian countries
offers so little that is highly artistic or inspiring in character, that space
cannot well be given in this work, even to an enumeration of its chief
monuments.
SPAIN AND PORTUGAL. The beginnings of Gothic architecture in Spain
followed close on the series of campaigns from 1217 to 1252, which began
the overthrow of the Moorish dominion. With the resulting spirit of
exultation and the wealth accruing from booty, came a rapid development of
architecture, mainly under French influence. Gothic architecture was at this
date, under St. Louis, producing in France some of its noblest works. The
great cathedrals of Toledo and Burgos, begun between 1220 and 1230,

were the earliest purely Gothic churches in Spain. San Vincente at Avila
and the Old Cathedral at Salamanca, of somewhat earlier date, present a
mixture of round- and pointed-arched forms, with the Romanesque
elements predominant. Toledo Cathedral, planned in imitation of Notre
Dame and Bourges, but exceeding them in width, covers 75,000 square feet,
and thus ranks among the largest of European cathedrals. Internally it is
well proportioned and well detailed, recalling the early French
masterworks, but its exterior is less commendable.

FIG. 145.—FAÇADE OF BURGOS CATHEDRAL.

In the contemporary cathedral of Burgos the exterior is at least as
interesting as the interior. The west front, of German design, suggests
Cologne by its twin openwork spires (Fig. 145); while the crossing is
embellished with a sumptuous dome and lantern or cimborio, added as late
as 1567. The chapels at the east end, especially that of the Condestabile
(1487), are ornate to the point of overloading, a fault to which late Spanish
Gothic work is peculiarly prone. Other thirteenth-century cathedrals are
those of Leon (1260), Valencia (1262), and Barcelona (1298), all
exhibiting strongly the French influence in the plan, vaulting, and vertical
proportions. The models of Bourges and Paris with their wide naves, lateral

chapels and semicircular chevets were followed in the cathedral of
Barcelona, in a number of fourteenth-century churches both there and
elsewhere, and in the sixteenth-century cathedral of Segovia. In Sta. Maria
del Pi at Barcelona, in the collegiate church at Manresa, and in the imposing
nave of the Cathedral of Gerona (1416, added to choir of 1312, the latter
by a Southern French architect, Henri de Narbonne), the influence of Alby
in southern France (see p. 206) is discernible. These are one-aisled churches
with internal buttresses separating the lateral chapels. The nave of Gerona is
73 feet wide, or double the average clear width of French or English
cathedral naves. The resulting effect is not commensurate with the actual
dimensions, and shows the inappropriateness of Gothic details for
compositions so Roman in breadth and simplicity.
SEVILLE. The largest single edifice in Spain, and the largest church built
during the Middle Ages in Europe, is the Cathedral of Seville, begun in
1401 on the site of a Moorish mosque. It covers 124,000 square feet,
measuring 415 × 298 feet, and is a simple rectangle comprising five aisles
with lateral chapels. The central aisle is 56 ft. wide and 145 high; the side
aisles and chapels diminish gradually in height, and with the uniform piers
in six rows produce an imposing effect, in spite of the lack of transepts or
chevet. The somewhat similar New Cathedral of Salamanca (1510–1560)
shows the last struggles of the Gothic style against the incoming tide of the
Renaissance.
LATER MONUMENTS. These all partake of the over-decoration which
characterized the fifteenth century throughout Europe. In Spain this
decoration was even less constructive in character, and more purely fanciful
and arbitrary, than in the northern lands; but this very rejection of all
constructive pretense gives it a peculiar charm and goes far to excuse its
extravagance (Fig. 146). Decorative vaulting-ribs were made to describe
geometric patterns of great elegance. Some of the late Gothic vaults by the
very exuberance of imagination shown in their designs, almost disarm
criticism. Instead of suppressing the walls as far as possible, and
emphasizing all the vertical lines, as was done in France and England, the
later Gothic architects of Spain delighted in broad wall-surfaces and
multiplied horizontal lines. Upon these surfaces they lavished carving
without restraint and without any organic relation to the structure of the

building. The arcades of cloisters and interior courts (patios) were formed
with arches of fantastic curves resting on twisted columns; and internal
chapels in the cathedrals were covered with minute carving of exquisite
workmanship, but wholly irrational design. Probably the influence of
Moorish decorative art accounts in part for these extravagances. The eastern
chapels in Burgos cathedral, the votive church of San Juan de los Reyes at
Toledo and many portals of churches, convents and hospitals illustrate these
tendencies.

FIG. 146.—DETAIL, PORTAL S. GREGORIO, VALLADOLID.

PORTUGAL is an almost unknown land architecturally. It seems to have
adopted the Gothic styles very late in its history. Two monuments, however,
are conspicuous, the convent churches of Batalha (1390–1520) and Belem,
both marked by an extreme overloading of carved ornament. The

Mausoleum of King Manoel in the rear of the church at Batalha is,
however, a noble creation, possibly by an English master. It is a polygonal
domed edifice, some 67 feet in diameter, and well designed, though covered
with a too profuse and somewhat mechanical decoration of panels,
pinnacles, and carving.

MONUMENTS: Germany (C = cathedral; A = abbey; tr. = transepts).—13th century:
Transitional churches: Bamberg C.; Naumburg C.; Collegiate Church, Fritzlar; St. George,
Limburg-on-Lahn; St. Castor, Coblentz; Heisterbach A.;—all in early years of 13th century.
St. Gereon, Cologne, choir 1212–27; Liebfrauenkirche, Treves, 1227–44; St. Elizabeth,
Marburg, 1235–83; Sts. Peter and Paul, Neuweiler, 1250; Cologne C., choir 1248–1322 (nave
14th century; towers finished 1883); Strasburg C., 1250–75 (E. end Romanesque; façade
1277–1365; tower 1429–39); Halberstadt C., nave 1250 (choir 1327; completed 1490);
Altenburg C., choir 1255–65 (finished 1379); Wimpfen-im-Thal church 1259–78; St.
Lawrence, Nuremberg, 1260 (choir 1439–77); St. Catherine, Oppenheim, 1262–1317 (choir
1439); Xanten, Collegiate Church, 1263; Freiburg C., 1270 (W. tower 1300; choir 1354);
Toul C., 1272; Meissen C., choir 1274 (nave 1312–42); Ratisbon C., 1275; St. Mary’s,
Lübeck, 1276; Dominican churches at Coblentz, Gebweiler; and in Switzerland at Basle,
Berne, and Zurich.—14th century: Wiesenkirche, Söst, 1313; Osnabrück C., 1318 (choir
1420); St. Mary’s, Prentzlau, 1325; Augsburg C., 1321–1431; Metz C., 1330 rebuilt (choir
1486); St. Stephen’s C., Vienna, 1340 (nave 15th century; tower 1433); Zwette C., 1343;
Prague C., 1344; church at Thann, 1351 (tower finished 16th century); Liebfrauenkirche,
Nuremberg, 1355–61; St. Sebaldus Church, Nuremberg, 1361–77 (nave Romanesque);
Minden C., choir 1361; Ulm C., 1377 (choir 1449; nave vaulted 1471; finished 16th century);
Sta. Barbara, Kuttenberg, 1386 (nave 1483); Erfurt C.; St. Elizabeth, Kaschau; Schlettstadt C.
—15th century: St. Catherine’s, Brandenburg, 1401; Frauenkirche, Esslingen, 1406 (finished
1522); Minster at Berne, 1421; Peter-Paulskirche, Görlitz, 1423–97; St. Mary’s, Stendal,
1447; Frauenkirche, Munich, 1468–88; St. Martin’s, Landshut, 1473.
Secular Monuments. Schloss Marienburg, 1341; Moldau-bridge and tower, Prague, 1344;
Karlsteinburg, 1348–57; Albrechtsburg, Meissen, 1471–83; Nassau House, Nuremberg, 1350;
Council houses (Rathhaüser) at Brunswick, 1393; Cologne, 1407–15; Basle; Breslau; Lübeck;
Münster; Prague; Ulm; City Gates of Basle, Cologne, Ingolstadt, Lucerne.
The Netherlands. Brussels C. (Ste. Gudule), 1226–80; Tournai C., choir 1242 (nave finished
1380); Notre Dame, Bruges, 1239–97; Notre Dame, Tongres, 1240; Utrecht C., 1251; St.
Martin, Ypres, 1254; Notre Dame, Dinant, 1255; church at Dordrecht; church at Aerschot,
1337; Antwerp C., 1352–1411 (W. front 1422–1518); St. Rombaut, Malines, 1355–66 (nave
1456–64); St. Wandru, Mons, 1450–1528; St. Lawrence, Rotterdam, 1472; other 15th century
churches—St. Bavon, Haarlem; St. Catherine, Utrecht; St. Walpurgis, Sutphen; St. Bavon,
Ghent (tower 1461); St. Jaques, Antwerp; St. Pierre, Louvain; St. Jacques, Bruges; churches
at Arnheim, Breda, Delft; St. Jacques, Liège, 1522.—Secular: Cloth-hall, Ypres, 1200–1304;
cloth-hall, Bruges, 1284; town hall, Bruges, 1377; town hall, Brussels, 1401–55; town hall,
Louvain, 1448–63; town hall, Ghent, 1481; town hall, Oudenarde, 1527; Standehuis, Delft,
1528; cloth-halls at Louvain, Ghent, Malines.
Spain.—13th century: Burgos C., 1221 (façade 1442–56; chapels 1487; cimborio 1567);
Toledo C., 1227–90 (chapels 14th and 15th centuries); Tarragona C., 1235; Leon C., 1250

(façade 14th century); Valencia C., 1262 (N. transept 1350–1404; façade 1381–1418);
Avila C., vault and N. portal 1292–1353 (finished 14th century); St. Esteban, Burgos; church
at Las Huelgas.—14th century: Barcelona C., choir 1298–1329 (nave and transepts 1448;
façade 16th century); Gerona C., 1312–46 (nave added 1416); S. M. del Mar, Barcelona,
1328–83; S. M. del Pino, Barcelona, same date; Collegiate Church, Manresa, 1328;
Oviedo C., 1388 (tower very late); Pampluna C., 1397 (mainly 15th century).—15th century:
Seville C., 1403 (finished 16th century; cimborio 1517–67); La Seo, Saragossa (finished
1505); S. Pablo, Burgos, 1415–35; El Parral, Segovia, 1459; Astorga C., 1471; San Juan de
los Reyes, Toledo, 1476; Carthusian church, Miraflores, 1488; San Juan, and La Merced,
Burgos.—16th century: Huesca C., 1515; Salamanca New Cathedral, 1510–60; Segovia C.,
1522; S. Juan de la Puerta, Zamorra.
Secular.—Porta Serraños, Valencia, 1349; Casa Consistorial, Barcelona, 1369–78; Casa de
la Disputacion, same city; Casa de las Lonjas, Valencia, 1482.
Portugal. At Batalha, church and mausoleum of King Manoel, finished 1515; at Belem,
monastery, late Gothic.

CHAPTER XIX.

GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE IN ITALY.

Books Recommended; As before, Corroyer, Reber. Also, Cummings, A History of
Architecture in Italy. De Fleury, La Toscane au moyen âge. Gruner, The Terra Cotta
Architecture of Northern Italy. Mothes, Die Baukunst des Mittelalters in Italien. Norton,
Historical Studies of Church Building in the Middle Ages. Osten, Bauwerke der Lombardei.
Street, Brick and Marble Architecture of Italy. Willis, Remarks on the Architecture of the
Middle Ages, especially of Italy.

GENERAL CHARACTER. The various Romanesque styles which had
grown up in Italy before 1200 lacked that unity of principle out of which
alone a new and homogeneous national style could have been evolved.
Each province practised its own style and methods of building, long after
the Romanesque had given place to the Gothic in Western Europe. The
Italians were better decorators than builders, and cared little for Gothic
structural principles. Mosaic and carving, sumptuous altars and tombs,
veneerings and inlays of colored marble, broad flat surfaces to be covered
with painting and ornament—to secure these they were content to build
crudely, to tie their insufficiently buttressed vaults with unsightly iron tie-
rods, and to make their church façades mere screen-walls, in form wholly
unrelated to the buildings behind them.
When, therefore, under foreign influences pointed arches, tracery, clustered
shafts, crockets and finials came into use, it was merely as an imported
fashion. Even when foreign architects (usually Germans) were employed,
the composition, and in large measure the details, were still Italian and
provincial. The church of St. Francis at Assisi (1228–53, by Jacobus of
Meruan, a German, superseded later by an Italian, Campello), and the
cathedral of Milan (begun 1389, perhaps by Henry of Gmund), are
conspicuous illustrations of this. Rome built basilicas all through the
Middle Ages. Tuscany continued to prefer flat walls veneered with marble

to the broken surfaces and deep buttresses of France and Germany. Venice
developed a Gothic style of façade-design wholly her own (see p. 267).
Nowhere but in Italy could two such utterly diverse structures as the
Certosa at Pavia and the cathedral at Milan have been erected at the same
time.
CLIMATE AND TRADITION. Two further causes militated against the
domestication of Gothic art in Italy. The first was the brilliant atmosphere,
which made the vast traceried windows of Gothic design, and its
suppression of the wall-surfaces, wholly undesirable. Cool, dim interiors,
thick walls, small windows and the exclusion of sunlight, all necessary to
Italian comfort, were incompatible with Gothic ideals and methods. The
second obstacle was the persistence of classic traditions of form, both in
construction and decoration. The spaciousness and breadth of interior
planning which characterized Roman design, and its amplitude of scale in
every feature, seem never to have lost their hold on the Italians. The narrow
lofty aisles, multiplied supports and minute detail of the Gothic style were
repugnant to the classic predilections of the Italian builders. The Roman
acanthus and Corinthian capital were constantly imitated in their Gothic
buildings, and the round arch continued all through the Middle Ages to be
used in conjunction with the pointed arch (Figs. 149, 150).
EARLY BUILDINGS. It is hard to determine how
and by whom Gothic forms were first introduced
into Italy, but it was most probably through the
agency of the monastic orders. Cistercian churches
like that at Chiaravalle near Milan (1208–21), and
most of those erected by the mendicant orders of
the Franciscans (founded 1210) and Dominicans
(1216), were built with ribbed vaults and pointed
arches. The example set by these orders
contributed greatly to the general adoption of the
foreign style. S. Francesco at Assisi, already
mentioned, was the first completely Gothic
Franciscan church, although S. Francesco at
Bologna, begun a few years later, was finished a
little earlier. The Dominican church of SS. FIG. 147.—DUOMO AT

Giovanni e Paolo and the great Franciscan church FLORENCE. PLAN.
of Sta. Maria Gloriosa dei Frari, both at Venice, a, Campanile.
were built a little later. Sta. Maria Novella at
Florence (1278), and Sta. Maria sopra Minerva at Rome (1280), both by
the brothers Sisto and Ristoro, and S. Anastasia at Verona (1261) are the
masterpieces of the Dominican builders. S. Andrea at Vercelli in North
Italy, begun in 1219 under a foreign architect, is an isolated early example
of lay Gothic work. Though somewhat English in its plan, and (unlike most
Italian churches) provided with two western spires in the English manner, it
is in all other respects thoroughly Italian in aspect. The church at Asti,
begun in 1229, suggests German models by its high side walls and narrow
windows.

FIG. 148.—NAVE OF DUOMO AT FLORENCE.

CATHEDRALS. The greatest monuments of Italian Gothic design are the
cathedrals, in which, even more than was the case in France, the highly
developed civic pride of the municipalities expressed itself. Chief among
these half civic, half religious monuments are the cathedrals of Sienna
(begun in 1243), Arezzo (1278), Orvieto (1290), Florence (the Duomo,

Sta. Maria del Fiore, begun 1294 by Arnolfo di Cambio), Lucca
(S. Martino, 1350), Milan (1389–1418), and S. Petronio at Bologna
(1390). They are all of imposing size; Milan is the largest of all Gothic
cathedrals except Seville. S. Petronio was planned to be 600 feet long, the
present structure with its three broad aisles and flanking chapels being
merely the nave of the intended edifice. The Duomo at Florence (Fig. 147)
is 500 feet long and covers 82,000 square feet, while the octagon at the
crossing is 143 feet in diameter. The effect of these colossal dimensions is,
however, as in a number of these large Italian interiors, singularly belittled
by the bareness of the walls, by the great size of the constituent parts of the
composition, and by the lack of architectural subdivisions and multiplied
detail to serve as a scale by which to gauge the scale of the ensemble.
INTERIOR TREATMENT. It was doubtless
intended to cover these large unbroken wall-
surfaces and the vast expanse of the vaults over
naves of extraordinary breadth, with paintings and
color decoration. This would have remedied their
present nakedness and lack of interest, but it was
only in a very few instances carried out. The
double church of S. Francesco at Assisi, decorated
by Cimabue, Giotto, and other early Tuscan
painters, the Arena Chapel at Padua, painted by
Giotto, the Spanish Chapel of S. M. Novella,
Florence, and the east end of S. Croce, Florence,
are illustrations of the splendor of effect possible
by this method of decoration. The bareness of
effect in other, unpainted interiors was emphasized
by the plainness of the vaults destitute of minor
ribs. The transverse ribs were usually broad arches FIG. 149.—ONE BAY,

with flat soffits, and the vaulting was often sprung NAVE OF CATHEDRAL OF
from so low a point as to leave no room for a SAN MARTINO, LUCCA.

triforium. Mere bull’s-eyes often served for
clearstory windows, as in S. Anastasia at Verona, S. Petronio at Bologna,
and the Florentine Duomo. The cathedral of S. Martino at Lucca (Fig. 149)
is one of the most complete and elegant of Italian Gothic interiors, having a

genuine triforium with traceried arches. Even here, however, there are
round arches without mouldings, flat pilasters, broad transverse ribs
recalling Roman arches, and insignificant bull’s-eyes in the clearstory.
The failure to produce adequate
results of scale in the interiors of
the larger Italian churches, has
been already alluded to. It is
strikingly exemplified in the
Duomo at Florence, the nave of
which is 72 feet wide, with four
pier-arches each over 55 feet in
span. The immense vault, in
square bays, starts from the level
of the tops of these arches. The
interior (Fig. 148) is singularly
naked and cold, giving no FIG. 150.—INTERIOR OF SIENNA CATHEDRAL.
conception of its vast
dimensions. The colossal dome is an early work of the Renaissance (see
p. 276). It is not known how Fr. Talenti, who in 1357 enlarged and vaulted
the nave and planned the east end, proposed to cover the great octagon. The
east end is the most effective part of the design both internally and
externally, owing to the relatively moderate scale of the 15 chapels which
surround the apsidal arms of the cross. In S. Petronio at Bologna, begun
1390 by Master Antonio, the scale is better handled. The nave, 300 feet
long, is divided into six bays, each embracing two side chapels. It is 46 feet
wide and 132 feet high, proportions which approximate those of the French
cathedrals, and produce an impression of size somewhat unusual in Italian
churches. Orvieto has internally little that suggests Gothic architecture; like
many Franciscan and Dominican churches it is really a timber-roofed
basilica with a few pointed windows. The mixed Gothic and Romanesque
interior of Sienna Cathedral (Fig. 150), with its round arches and six-sided
dome, unsymmetrically placed over the crossing, is one of the most
impressive creations of Italian mediæval art. Alternate courses of black and
white marble add richness but not repose to the effect of this interior: the
same is true of Orvieto, and of some other churches. The basement

baptistery of S. Giovanni, under the east end of Sienna Cathedral, is much
more purely Gothic in detail.
In these, and indeed in most Italian interiors, the main interest centres less
in the excellence of the composition than in the accessories of pavements,
pulpits, choir-stalls, and sepulchral monuments. In these the decorative
fancy and skill of the Italians found unrestrained exercise, and produced
works of surpassing interest and merit.
EXTERNAL DESIGN. The greatest possible disparity generally exists
between the sides and west fronts of the Italian churches. With few
exceptions the flanks present nothing like the variety of sky-line and of
light and shade customary in northern and western lands. The side walls are
high and flat, plain, or striped with black and white masonry (Sienna,
Orvieto), or veneered with marble (Duomo at Florence) or decorated with
surface-ornament of thin pilasters and arcades (Lucca). The clearstory is
low; the roof low—pitched and hardly visible from below. Color, rather
than structural richness, is generally sought for: Milan Cathedral is almost
the only exception, and goes to the other extreme, with its seemingly
countless buttresses, pinnacles and statues.
The façades, on the other hand, were treated as independent decorative
compositions, and were in many cases remarkably beautiful works, though
having little or no organic relation to the main structure. The most
celebrated are those of Sienna (cathedral begun 1243; façade 1284 by
Giovanni Pisano; Fig. 151) and Orvieto (begun 1290 by Lorenzo Maitani;
façade 1310). Both of these are sumptuous polychromatic compositions in
marble, designed on somewhat similar lines, with three high gables fronting
the three aisles, with deeply recessed portals, pinnacled turrets flanking
nave and aisles, and a central circular window. That of Orvieto is
furthermore embellished with mosaic pictures, and is the more brilliant in
color of the two. The mediæval façades of the Florentine Gothic churches
were never completed; but the elegance of the panelling and of the tracery
with twisted shafts in the flanks of the cathedral, and the florid beauty of its
side doorways (late 14th century) would doubtless if realized with equal
success on the façades, have produced strikingly beautiful results. The
modern façade of the Duomo, by the late De Fabris (1887) is a correct if

not highly imaginative version of the style so applied. The front of Milan
cathedral (soon to be replaced by a new façade), shows a mixture of Gothic
and Renaissance forms. Ferrara Cathedral, although internally
transformed in the last century, retains its fine 13th-century three-gabled
and arcaded screen front; one of the most Gothic in spirit of all Italian
façades. The Cathedral of Genoa presents Gothic windows and deeply
recessed portals in a façade built in black and white bands, like Sienna
cathedral and many churches in Pistoia and Pisa.

FIG. 151.—FAÇADE OF SIENNA CATHEDRAL.

Externally the most important feature was frequently a cupola or dome over
the crossing. That of Sienna has already been mentioned; that of Milan is a
sumptuous many-pinnacled structure terminating in a spire 300 feet high.
The Certosa at Pavia (Fig. 152) and the earlier Carthusian church of
Chiaravalle have internal cupolas or domes covered externally by many-
storied structures ending in a tower dominating the whole edifice. These
two churches, like many others in Lombardy, the Æmilia and Venetia, are
built of brick, moulded terra-cotta being effectively used for the cornices,
string-courses, jambs and ornaments of the exterior. The Certosa at Pavia is
contemporary with the cathedral of Milan, to which it offers a surprising
contrast, both in style and material. It is wholly built of brick and terra-

cotta, and, save for its ribbed vaulting, possesses hardly a single Gothic
feature or detail. Its arches, mouldings, and cloisters suggest both the
Romanesque and the Renaissance styles by their semi-classic character.

FIG. 152.—EXTERIOR OF THE CERTOSA, PAVIA.

PLANS. The wide diversity of local styles in
Italian architecture appears in the plans as
strikingly as in the details In general one notes
a love of spaciousness which expresses itself in
a sometimes disproportionate breadth, and in
the wide spacing of the piers. The polygonal
chevet with its radial chapels is but rarely seen;
S. Lorenzo at Naples, Sta. Maria dei Servi and
S. Francesco at Bologna are among the most
important examples. More frequently the
chapels form a range along the east side of the
transepts, especially in the Franciscan
churches, which otherwise retain many FIG. 153.—PLAN OF CERTOSA
basilican features. A comparison of the plans AT PAVIA.
of S. Andrea at Vercelli, the Duomo at
Florence, the cathedrals of Sienna and Milan, S. Petronio at Bologna and

the Certosa at Pavia (Fig. 153), sufficiently illustrates the variety of Italian
Gothic plan-types.
ORNAMENT. Applied decoration plays a large part in all Italian Gothic
designs. Inlaid and mosaic patterns and panelled veneering in colored
marble are essential features of the exterior decoration of most Italian
churches. Florence offers a fine example of this treatment in the Duomo,
and in its accompanying Campanile or bell-tower, designed by Giotto
(1335), and completed by Gaddi and Talenti. This beautiful tower is an
epitome of Italian Gothic art. Its inlays, mosaics, and veneering are treated
with consummate elegance, and combined with incrusted reliefs of great
beauty. The tracery of this monument and of the side windows of the
adjoining cathedral is lighter and more graceful than is common in Italy. Its
beauty consists, however, less in movement of line than in richness and
elegance of carved and inlaid ornament. In the Or San Michele—
a combined chapel and granary in Florence dating from 1330—the tracery
is far less light and open. In general, except in churches like the Cathedral
of Milan, built under German influences, the tracery in secular monuments
is more successful than in ecclesiastical structures. Venice developed the
designing of tracery to greater perfection in her palaces than any other
Italian city (see below).
MINOR WORKS. Italian Gothic art found freer expression in semi-
decorative works, like tombs, altars and votive chapels, than in more
monumental structures. The fourteenth century was particularly rich in
canopy tombs, mostly in churches, though some were erected in the open
air, like the celebrated Tombs of the Scaligers in Verona (1329–1380).
Many of those in churches in and near Rome, and others in south Italy, are
especially rich in inlay of opus Alexandrinum upon their twisted columns
and panelled sarcophagi. The family of the Cosmati acquired great fame for
work of this kind during the thirteenth century.
The little marble chapel of Sta. Maria della Spina, on the Arno, at Pisa, is
an instance of the successful decorative use of Gothic forms in minor
buildings.
TOWERS. The Italians always preferred the square tower to the spire, and
in most cases treated it as an independent campanile. Following Early

Christian and Romanesque traditions, these
square towers were usually built with plain
sides unbroken by buttresses, and terminated in
a flat roof or a low and inconspicuous cone or
pyramid. The Campanile at Florence already
mentioned is by far the most beautiful of these
designs (Fig. 154). The campaniles of Sienna,
Lucca, and Pistoia are built in alternate white
and black courses, like the adjoining
cathedrals. Verona and Mantua have towers
with octagonal lanterns. In general, these
Gothic towers differ from the earlier
Romanesque models only in the forms of their
openings. Though dignified in their simplicity
and size, and usually well proportioned, they
lack the beauty and interest of the French,
English, and German steeples and towers.
SECULAR MONUMENTS. In their public
halls, open loggias, and domestic architecture
the Italians were able to develop the
application of Gothic forms with greater
freedom than in their church-building, because
unfettered by traditional methods of design.
The early and vigorous growth of municipal FIG. 154.—UPPER PART OF

and popular institutions led, as in the CAMPANILE, FLORENCE.

Netherlands, to the building of two classes of public halls—the town hall
proper or Podestà, and the council hall, variously called Palazzo
Communale, Pubblico, or del Consiglio. The town halls, as the seat of
authority, usually have a severe and fortress-like character; the Palazzo
Vecchio at Florence is the most important example (1298, by Arnolfo di
Cambio; Fig. 155). It is especially remarkable for its tower, which, rising
308 feet in the air, overhangs the street nearly 6 feet, its front wall resting
on the face of the powerfully corbelled cornice of the palace. The court and
most of the interior were remodelled in the sixteenth century. At Sienna is a
somewhat similar structure in brick, the Palazzo Pubblico. At Pistoia the

Podestà and the Communal Palace stand opposite
each other; in both of these the courtyards still retain
their original aspect. At Perugia, Bologna, and
Viterbo are others of some importance; while in
Lombardy, Bergamo, Como, Cremona, Piacenza and
other towns possess smaller halls with open arcades
below, of a more elegant and pleasing aspect. More
successful still are the open loggias or tribunes
erected for the gatherings of public bodies. The
Loggia dei Lanzi at Florence (1376, by Benci di
Cione and Simone di Talenti) is the largest and most
famous of these open vaulted halls, of
which several exist in Florence and
Sienna. Gothic only in their minor
details, they are Romanesque or semi-
classic in their broad round arches and
strong horizontal lines and cornices (Fig.
156).
PALACES AND HOUSES: VENICE. FIG. 155.—UPPER PART OF
The northern cities, especially Pisa, PALAZZO VECCHIO, FLORENCE.
Florence, Sienna, Bologna, and Venice,
are rich in mediæval public and private palaces and dwellings in brick or
marble, in which pointed windows and open arcades are used with excellent
effect. In Bologna and Sienna brick is used, in conjunction with details
executed in moulded terra-cotta, in a highly artistic and effective way.
Viterbo, nearer Rome, also possesses many interesting houses with street
arcades and open stairways or stoops leading to the main entrance.