Fiske Kimbal - A History of Architecture PDF

HISTORY
ARCHITECTURE
OF
HARPER'S FINE ARTS SERIES
Edited by
GEORGE HENRY CHASE, Ph.D.
JOHN E. HUDSON PROFESSOR OF ARCHAEOLOGY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
A new
series embodying the latest results of archaeology and critical
study of the Fine Arts in themselves and in their relation to the evolution
of civilization. These books are prepared with reference to class use

in
the higher institutions of learning, and they also provide authoritative,
comprehensive, and interesting histories for the general reader. Each
volume will contain an

unusual number of carefully selected illustrations.
A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
BY FISKB KIMBALL, M. Arch., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Architecture, University of Michigan
and
GEORGE HAROLD EDGELL, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Fine Arts. Harvard University
In Preparation
A HISTORY OF SCULPTURE
BY PROF. GEORGE HENRY CHASE
and
PROF. CHANDLER RATHFON POST
Harvard University
A HISTORY OF PAINTING
BY PROF. ARTHUR POPE
Harvard University
HARPER " BROTHERS, NEW YORK
[ESTABLISHED 1817]
HARPER S FINE ARTS SERIES
A HISTORY OF
ARCHITECTURE
BY
FISKE KIMBALL, M.ARCH., PH.D.

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ARCHITECTURE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
AND
GEORGE HAROLD EDGELL, PH.D.

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF FINE ARTS HARVARD UNIVERSITY
ILLUSTRATED
HARPER y BROTHERS PUBLISHERS

NEW YORK AND LONDON
Decimal Classification, 720.9
Copyright, 1918. by Harper " Brothers
Printed in the United States of America
Published March. 1918

AftftiMdvrt "
Ufbin Planning
Library
"00
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION xvii
AUTHORS' PREFACE xxi
I. THE ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE I
II. PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURE 8
III. PRECLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE u
IV. GREEK ARCHITECTURE 49
V. ROMAN ARCHITECTURE 103
VI. EARLY CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE 159
VII. BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE 183
VIII. ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE 217
IX. GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE 275
X. RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 344
XI. POST-RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 401
XII. MODERN ARCHITECTURE 460

XIII. AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE 524
XIV. EASTERN ARCHITECTURE 572
GLOSSARY 589
INDEX 605
ILLUSTRATIONS
FIG. PAGE
1. STONEHENGE. (RESTORED BY HARTMANN) 9

2. GIZEH. THE PYRAMIDS OF KHAFRE AND KHUFU (RESTORED
BY HOLSCHER) 14
3. BENI HASAN. PORTICO OF A TOMB 17
4. DER-EL-BAHRI. MORTUARY TEMPLE OF HATSHEPSUT. STORED

(RE-
BY BRUNET) 18
5. KARNAK. PLAN OF PRINCIPAL TEMPLES. (BAEDEKER) .

19
.
6. KARNAK. CENTRAL AISLES OF THE HYPOSTYLE HALL OF THE
GREAT TEMPLE OF AMON. MODEL IN THE METROPOLITAN
MUSEUM 20
7. DUR-SHARRUKIN (KHORSABAD). THE PALACE OF SARGON
(RESTORED BY PLACE) 27
8. DUR-SHARRUKIN. THE PALACE OF SARGON. PLAN. (PLACE) 28
9. BABYLON. PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF NINMAH. (AFTER

KOLDEWEY) 31
10. PERSEPOLIS. PLAN OF THE PALACE PLATFORM 34
it. PERSEPOLIS. TOMB OF DARIUS, NAKSH-I-RUSTAM. (JACKSON) 35

12. KNOSSOS. PLAN OF A PART OF THE PALACE. (EVANS) .
38
13. TIRYNS. PLAN OF THE ACROPOLIS. (RODENWALDT) 40
...
14. MYCEN/E. GATE OF LIONS 41

15. MYCENAE. PORTAL OF THE "TREASURY OF ATREUS."
(RESTORED BY SPIERS) 43
16. ATHENS. THE PARTHENON, FROM THE NORTHWEST 53
...
17. ATHENS. THE PARTHENON. (RESTORED TO ITS CONDITION
IN ROMAN TIMES. MODEL IN METROPOLITAN MUSEUM) 53

.
1 8. ATHENS. THE ERECHTHEUM, FROM THE WEST 54

19. THE GREEK DORIC ORDER 59
20. THE GREEK DORIC ORDER, WITH A RETRANSLATION INTO
WOOD. (AFTER DURM) -

61
. .
21. PROFILES OF GREEK DORIC CAPITALS, ARRANGED IN LOGICAL

CHRONO-
ORDER 63
22. IONIC ENTABLATURE, RETRANSLATED INTO WOOD. (AFTER
DURM) 66
23. MAGNESIA. TEMPLE OF ARTEMIS. DETAILS. (HUMANN) .

67
24. EPIDAURUS. CORINTHIAN CAPITAL OF THE THOLOS ...
68
25. ATHENS. MONUMENT OF LYSICRATES 69

26. AKRAGAS. TEMPLE OF OLYMPIAN ZEUS. (RESTORED BY E. H.
TRYSELL, AFTER KOLDEWEY) 70
27. GREEK AND ROMAN MOLDINGS. (REYNAUD) 7?

..,.,.
viii ILLUSTRATIONS
FIG. PAGE
28. P.ESTUM. THE GREAT TEMPLE, SO-CALLED "TEMPLE OF

NEPTUNE." (CHIPIEZ) 75
29. VARIETIES OF THE GREEK TEMPLE PLAN 77
30. ATHENS. PLAN OF THE ACROPOLIS. (KAUPERT) ....
81
31. MAGNESIA. THE AGORA AND SURROUNDING BUILDINGS.
(HUMANN) 88
32. EPHESUS. THEATER DURING THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD.
(RESTORED BY FIECHTER) 90
"
33. PRIENE. HOUSE XXXIII." (WIEGAND) 93
34. DELOS. HOUSE OF THE TRIDENT. (P. PARIS) 94
35. DELPHI. TEMPLE AND PRECINCT OF APOLLO. (RESTORED BY
R. H. SMYTHE) 96
36. PRIENE. BIRD'S-EYE VIEW. (RESTORED BY ZIPPELIUS) . . 97
37. AN ETRUSCAN TEMPLE. (RESTORED BY HULSEN) ....
106
38. PERUGIA. "ARCH OF AUGUSTUS" 108
39. TIVOLI. "TEMPLE OF VESTA" . ... .
no
40. ROME. THE COLOSSEUM ,

m
41. N!MES. "THE MAISON CARREE" 116

42. ROME. INTERIOR OF THE PANTHEON (RESTORED BY ISA-
BELLE), SHOWING THE CONDITION AFTER THE RESTORATION
OF SEVERUS 117
43. ROME. THE FORUM ROMANUM 119
44. ROME. THE FORUM ROMANUM AND THE FORA OF THE PERORS.
EM-
PLAN. (RESTORED BY GROMORT) . . . . .
121
45. ROME. BASILICA OF MAXENTIUS, OR CONSTANTINE. STORED

(RE-
BY D'ESPOUY) 123
46. SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
ROMAN THEATER. (FIECHTER) 125

47. OSTIA. THE THEATER. (RESTORED BY ANDRE) ....
126
48. ROME. THERMAE OF CARACALLA. PLAN. (RESTORED BY
BLOUET) 129
49. ROME. THERMAE OF DIOCLETIAN. TEPIDARIUM. (RESTORED
BY PAULIN) 130
50. N!MES. THE "PONT DU GARD" 132
51. THE ARCH OF TITUS 134
52. TRIER. PORTA NIGRA 135
53. ROME. MAUSOLEUM OF HADRIAN. (RESTORED BY VAUD-
REMER) 136
54. POMPEII. HOUSE OF PANSA. PLAN 138
55. TIVOLI. VILLA OF HADRIAN. PLAN. (RESTORED BY G. S.
KOYL) 140
56. ROME. PALACES OF THE CAESARS. PLAN. (RESTORED BY
DEGLANE) 141
57. SPALATO. PALACE OF DIOCLETIAN. (RESTORED BY HEBRARD) 142
58. ROME. CORINTHIAN CAPITAL AND ENTABLATURE FROM THE
TEMPLE OF CASTOR AND POLLUX. (RESTORED CAST IN
THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM) 145

59. DEVELOPMENT IN THE RELATIONS OF ARCH AND COLUMN IN
ROMAN ARCHITECTURE 147

ILLUSTRATIONS ix
FIG. PAGE
60. ROMAN CELLULAR VAULT. (Cnoisv) 151

61. ROMAN LAMINATED VAULT. (CHOISY) 151
62. MOUSMIEH. PRiETORIUM. (DE VOGUE) 153
63. PLANS OF EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCHES 160
64. ELEVATIONS OF EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCHES 162
65. ROME. SAN CLEMENTE. PLAN SHOWING THE ATRIUM . . 164
66. ROME. SAINT PAUL'S OUTSIDE-THE- WALLS. INTERIOR SEEN
FROM THE ENTRANCE 167
67. ROME. SAN LORENZO FUORI-LE-MURA. EXTERIOR . . . 167
68. ROME. SAN LORENZO FUORI-LE-MURA. INTERIOR . . . 169
69. RAVENNA. SANT' APOLLINARE Nuovo. INTERIOR .... 169
70. ROME. SAN STEFANO ROTONDO. INTERIOR 170
71. ROME. SANTA COSTANZA. SECTION SHOWING THE TION
CONSTRUC-
171
72. TOURMANIN. THE BASILICA RESTORED 172
73. KALAT-SEMAN. THE BASILICA OF SAINT SIMEON STYLITES 173
74. BERLIN MUSEUM. THE FRIEZE FROM MSCHATTA. (STRYZ-
GOWSKI) . . . . " , 175
75. RAVENNA. THE MAUSOLEUM OF GALLA PLACIDIA. DRAWING
OF THE EXTERIOR 178
76. RAVENNA. SAN VITALE. EXAMPLES OF BYZANTINE CAPITALS 185
77. CONSTANTINOPLE. SAINTS SERGIUS AND BACCHUS. PLAN . . 187
78. CONSTANTINOPLE. SAINT IRENE. PLAN 188
79. PLANS OF BYZANTINE CHURCHES 189
80. SECTIONS OF BYZANTINE CHURCHES 190
81. CONSTANTINOPLE. HAGIA SOPHIA. EXTERIOR 191
82. CONSTANTINOPLE. HAGIA SOPHIA. INTERIOR LOOKING ARD
TOW-
THE APSE 192
83. ROME. THE VATICAN. MANUSCRIPT ILLUMINATION SHOWING
THE INTERIOR OF THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY APOSTLES AT
CONSTANTINOPLE. (DIEHL) 194

84. CONSTANTINOPLE. THE HOLY APOSTLES. PLAN, RESTORED 195
85. AIX-LA-CHAPELLE. CHARLEMAGNE'S CHAPEL. INTERIOR . . 196
86. CONSTANTINOPLE. THE KILISSEDJAMI. VIEW FROM THE EAST.
(EBERSOLT) 199
87. STIRIS -(PHOCIS). MONASTERY OF SAINT LUKE. VIEW FROM
THE EAST SHOWING THE Two CHURCHES. (SCHULTZ AND
BARNSLEY) 200
88. VENICE. SAINT MARK. PLAN 201
89. VENICE. SAINT MARK. VIEW FROM THE PIAZZA ....

202
90. VENICE. SAINT MARK. INTERIOR LOOKING TOWARD THE APSE 203
91. AKTHAMAR (LAKE VAN). THE CHURCH SEEN FROM THE
SOUTHEAST. (LYNCH) 204

92. MANASSIA (SERBIA). (POKRYCHKIN) 206
93. CONSTANTINOPLE. PLAN OF THE SACRED PALACE, RESTORED.

(EBERSOLT) 209
94. HAYDRA. THE FORTIFICATIONS, RESTORED. (DIEHL) . . .
211
95. PLAN OF SAINT GALL. REDRAWN FROM THE NINTH CENTURY

MANUSCRIPT. (PORTER) 222
x ILLUSTRATIONS
FIG. PAGE
96. LORSCH. ONE BAY OF THE BASILICAN GATE 223

97. EARL'S BARTON. THE TOWER 224
98. SANTA MARIA DE NARANCO. PLAN 225
99. PLANS OF ROMANESQUE CHURCHES 227
100. ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS OF ROMANESQUE CHURCHES . . 229
101. MILAN. SANT' AMBROGIO. DRAWING OF ONE BAY, SHOWING
VAULT RIBS AND SUPPORTS. (MOORE) 230
102. MILAN. SANT' AMBROGIO. INTERIOR LOOKING TOWARD THE
APSE 231
103. MILAN. SANT' AMBROGIO. EXTERIOR 232
104. VERONA. SAN ZENO. GENERAL VIEW 233
105. PISA. THE CATHEDRAL AND LEANING TOWER, SEEN FROM
THE SOUTHWEST 235

106. PISA. CATHEDRAL. PLAN 236
107. PISA. CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR LOOKING ARD
TOW-
THE APSE 237
108. CEFALU. CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE WEST END .... 239
109. MONREALE. CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR LOOKING
TOWARD THE APSE 240
no. MONREALE. CATHEDRAL. SYSTEM OF THE NAVE AND THE
EXTERIOR OF THE CHOIR 241

in. COLOGNE. SAINT MARY OF THE CAPITOL. PLAN .... 242
112. PAULINZELLE. PLAN 242
113. SYSTEMS OF GERMAN ROMANESQUE CHURCHES 243
114. DRUBECK. DRAWING OF ONE BAY, SHOWING THE SYSTEM 244
115. SPEYER. PLAN 245
116. SYSTEMS OF RHENISH ROMANESQUE CATHEDRALS .... 246
ri7. SPEYER. CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR LOOKING
TOWARD THE APSE 247
1 1 8. MAINZ. CATHEDRAL. VIEW FROM THE NORTH 248
119. ARLES. SAINT TROPHIME. THE MAIN PORTAL 248
120. CLERMONT-FERRAND. NOTRE DAME DU PORT. TRANSVERSE
SECTION, SHOWING HALF-BARREL VAULT OVER THE AISLE 249
121. CLERMONT-FERRAND. NOTRE DAME DU PORT. VIEW OF
THE EAST END 250

122. TOULOUSE. SAINT SERNIN. THE INTERIOR SEEN FROM THE
WEST 251
123. PERIGUEUX. SAINT FRONT. GENERAL VIEW FROM THE
SOUTHEAST 252
124. POITIERS. NOTRE DAME LA GRANDE. VIEW OF THE WEST
END 253
125. VEZELAY. CHURCH OF THE MADELEINE. THE INTERIOR
SEEN FROM THE VESTIBULE 254
126. ROMANESQUE ORNAMENT 255
127. JUMIEGES. ABBEY CHURCH. THE SYSTEM 256
128. CAEN. THE ABBEY CHURCHES. SYSTEM OF THE INTERIORS 257
129. CAEN. SAINT ETIENNE. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR LOOKING
TOWARD THE APSE 258
130. IFFLEY. PARISH CHURCH. VIEW OF THE WEST END . . . 259
ILLUSTRATIONS xi
FIO. PAGE
131. DURHAM. CATHEDRAL. PLAN 260

132. DURHAM. CATHEDRAL. GENERAL VIEW FROM THE SOUTHEAST 261
133. BEAUVAIS. SAINT ETIENNE. DRAWING OF ONE OF THE
AISLE VAULTS AND ITS SUPPORTS. (MOORE) ....
262
134. MORIENVAL. PARISH CHURCH. VIEW OF THE NORTH AISLE 263
135. COMPOSTELA. SANTIAGO. PLAN 264
136. LEON. SAN ISIDORO. PLAN AND SYSTEM 265
137. AVILA. GENERAL VIEW OF THE FORTIFICATIONS .... 269
138. COMPARATIVE PLANS OF GOTHIC CATHEDRALS IN FRANCE,
GERMANY, ITALY AND ENGLAND 276
139. PLANS OF GOTHIC BUILDINGS 278
140. SECTIONS ABD SYSTEMS OF GOTHIC BUILDINGS 280
141. AMIENS. WEST FRONT OF THE CATHEDRAL 281
142. AMIENS. THE CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR, ING

LOOK-
INTO THE APSE 283
143. EXAMPLES OF MEDIEVAL VAULTS 286
144. REIMS. THE CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE VAULTS AFTER

THE FIRST BOMBARDMENT IN 1914, SHOWING THE LEVEL
CROWNS OF DEVELOPED GOTHIC VAULTS 287
145. GOTHIC VAULTING CONOID, SHOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF
THE THRUSTS AND THEIR ABUTMENT. (MOORE) . . .

288
146. SAINT LEU D'ESSERENT. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR, SHOWING

THE VAULTS AND, THROUGH THE WINDOWS, THE FLYING
BUTTRESSES 289
147. ARRANGEMENT OF MONUMENTS AND DETAILS TO ILLUSTRATE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUTTRESS AND THE MENT
DEVELOP-
OF THE FACADE 290
148. PARIS. THE SAINTE CHAPELLE. TRANSVERSE CUT ... 291
149. PLANS OF THE EAST ENDS OF FIVE GOTHIC CHURCHES, IL-
LUSTRATING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHEVET .... 292
150. PLANS ILLUSTRATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GOTHIC PILR 293
151. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WINDOW OPENING. EXAMPLES
OF PLATE AND BAR TRACERY . 294
152. CHARTRES. THE SOUTHERN SPIRE 296
153. SENLIS. THE SPIRE 297
154. REIMS. THE CATHEDRAL VIEWED FROM THE NORTH BEFORE
THE BOMBARDMENT OF 1914 300

155. CHARTRES. CATHEDRAL. PLAN 301
156. SALISBURY. THE CATHEDRAL, SEEN FROM THE NORTHEAST 302
157. SALISBURY. INTERIOR OF THE CATHEDRAL, LOOKING TOWARD
THE EAST END 303
158. LINCOLN. THE CATHEDRAL. THE ANGEL CHOIR .... 304
159. YORK. THE SYSTEM OF THE CHOIR 305
160. LONDON. WESTMINSTER ABBEY. HENRY VII. 's CHAPEL . . 306
161. GLOUCESTER. THE CATHEDRAL. INTERIOR OF THE CLOISTERS 307
162. ROUEN. SAINT OUEN. SYSTEM 308
163. ABBEVILLE. SAINT VULFRAM. THE WEST PORTALS . . . 309
164. ROUEN. SAINT MACLOU. VIEW OF THE WEST FRONT AND
SPIRE 31"
xii ILLUSTRATIONS
PIG. PAGE
165. BAMBERG. CATHEDRAL. PLAN AND SYSTEM 311

1 66. MUNSTER. CATHEDRAL. SYSTEM 312
167. FREIBURG. THE MINSTER, SEEN FROM THE SOUTHEAST . . 313
1 68. FREIBURG. THE MINSTER. SYSTEM 314
169. MARBURG. SAINT ELIZABETH. THE INTERIOR, LOOKING
TOWARD THE APSE 315
170. SYSTEMS OF HALLENKIRCHEN 316
171. TOLEDO. CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR, LOOKING
TOWARD THE APSE 317
172. SEVILLE. THE CATHEDRAL AND GIRALDA TOWER, SEEN
FROM THE SOUTHWEST 318
173. ASSISI. SAN FRANCESCO. PLAN 319
174. FLORENCE. THE CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR,
LOOKING TOWARD THE APSE 320
175. ORVIETO. THE CATHEDRAL FRONT, SEEN FROM THE WEST
SOUTH-
321
176. MILAN. EXTERIOR OF THE CATHEDRAL 322
177. AlGUES-MORTES. GENERAL VlEW OF THE ClTY AND CATIONS
FORTIFI-
324
178. CARCASSONNE. LA CITE. VIEW OF THE FORTIFICATIONS . 325
179. COUCY. GENERAL VIEW OF THE CASTLE GROUNDS, SHOWING
THE DONJON BEFORE ITS DESTRUCTION IN 1917 . . . 326
1 80. A MEDIEVAL TOWN HOUSE. (VIOLLET-LE-DUC) .... 327
181. THE COUNTRY DWELLING OF A MEDIEVAL PEASANT. (VIOL-
LET-LE-DUC)
328
182. SAINT MEDARD-EN-JALLE. SKETCH OF THE MANOR. LET-LE-DUC)
(VIOL-
329
183. YPRES. THE CLOTH HALL AS IT APPEARED BEFORE THE
BOMBARDMENT OF 1914 330

184. BOURGES. MAISON DE JACQUES CCEUR 331
185. FLORENCE. THE PALAZZO VECCHIO 332
1 86. SIENA. THE PALAZZO PUBBLICO 333
187. VENICE. THE PALAZZO DUCALE 334
1 88. CAHORS. THE PONT VALENTRE 336
189. FLORENCE. CATHEDRAL FROM THE SOUTHEAST 347
190. FLORENCE. INTERIOR OF SAN LORENZO 348
igi. FLORENCE. PAZZI CHAPEL 349
192. FLORENCE. PALAZZO MEDICI-RICCARDI 350
193. FLORENCE. PALAZZO RUCELLAI 351
194. MANTUA. SANT' ANDREA. INTERIOR 352
195. THE CERTOSA NEAR PAVIA. FACADE 353
196. VENICE. PALAZZO VENDRAMINI 354
197. ROME. LOGGIA OF THE CHURCH OF SAN MARCO .... 355
198. ROME. "TEMPIETTO" AT SAN PIETRO IN MONTORIO . .
356
199. ROME. SAINT PETER'S. INTERIOR 357
200. ROME. PALACE OF RAPHAEL. (RESTORED BY HOFFMANN) . 358
201. ROME. LOGGIA OF THE VILLA MADAMA. INTERIOR . . . 359
202. ROME. PALAZZO DELL' AQUILA. (RESTORED BY GEYMULLER) 360
203. ROME. MASSIMI PALACES. PLAN 362
ILLUSTRATIONS xiii
FIG, PAGE
204. FLORENCE. MEDICI CHAPEL AT SAN LORENZO 363

205. VENICE. PALAZZO GRIMANI 364
206. VENICE. LIBRARY OF SAINT MARK 365
207. THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENAISSANCE CHURCHES OF CENTRAL
TYPE "
367
208. ROME. PALAZZO FARNESE 369
209. ROME. PALAZZO FARNESE. PLAN 371
210. EARLY RENAISSANCE DETAILS. (AFTER GROMORT) . . . 373
211. "HIGH RENAISSANCE" DETAILS. (AFTER GROMORT) . . . 375
212. BLOIS. COURT OF THE CHATEAU, SHOWING WINGS OF
Louis XIII (AT BACK) AND FRANCIS I. (AT LEFT) . 381

213. PARIS. COURT OF THE LOUVRE.(ORIGINAL TIONS
CONSTRUC-
OF LESCOT AND GOUJON) 383
214. PARIS. THE TUILERIES. (DE L'ORME'S PLAN) 385
215. PARIS. DETAIL FROM THE TUILERIES. (PLANAT) . . ,
387
216. SEVILLE. TOWN HALL 388
217. GRANADA. PALACE OF CHARLES V. COURT 389
218. HEIDELBERG. WING OF OTTO HEINRICH IN THE CASTLE 390
219. NORNBERG. PELLER HOUSE 391
220. MONT ACUTE HOUSE. (GOTCH) 393
221. HATFIELD HOUSE 394
222. ROME. PLAN OF SAINT PETER'S AND THE VATICAN. (GROMORT) 404
223. ROME. SAINT PETER'S DOME FROM THE EAST 405
224. ROME. THE CAPITOL 406
225. VICENZA. THE BASILICA 407
226. VICENZA. VILLA ROTONDA 408
227. MILAN. PALAZZO MARINO. COURT 410
228. VENICE. SANTA MARIA DELLA SALUTE 413
229. ROME. SAN CARLO A' CATINARI. CHAPEL OF SANTA CECILIA.
(Ricci) 415
230. BAGNAIA. VILLA LANTE. PLAN. (TRIGGS) 417
231. THE ESCURIAL. PLAN 420
232. THE ESCURIAL 421
233. SEVILLE. ALTAR OF THE CHURCH OF EL SALVADOR. BERT)
(SCHU-
422
234. BLOIS. WING OF GASTON D'ORLEANS 425
235. PARIS. COLONNADE OF THE LOUVRE 427
236. VERSAILLES. THE PALACE FROM THE PLACE D'ARMES . . .
428
237. VERSAILLES. PLAN OF THE PRINCIPAL FLOOR OF THE PALACE.
(GROMORT) 429
238. VERSAILLES. THE GALERIE DES GLACES 431
239. PARIS. PLACE DE LA CONCORDE 432
240. VERSAILLES. PETIT TRIANON 433
241. PARIS. PORTE ST. DENIS. PRINCIPAL FRONT .... 437
242. VERSAILLES. DETAIL OF THE APARTMENTS OF Louis XV. 437
243. LONDON. THE BANQUETING HALL, WHITEHALL 439
244. LONDON. SAINT PAUL'S CATHEDRAL. PLAN 440
245. LONDON. SAINT PAUL'S CATHEDRAL 441
246. BLENHEIM PALACE FROM THE FORE-COURT 443
xiv ILLUSTRATIONS
FIG. PAGE
247. PRIOR PARK NEAR BATH 445

248. CLIFFORD CHAMBERS 446
249. LONDON. SAINT MARY-LE-BOW 449
250. DRESDEN. CENTRAL PAVILION OF THE ZWINGER .... 450
251. DRESDEN. FRAUENKIRCHE 451
252. PARIS. CHURCH OF SAINTE GENEVIEVE. (THE PANTHEON) 465
253. BERLIN. BRANDENBURG GATE 466
254. PARIS. ARC DE TRIOMPHE DE L'^TOILE 467
255. KEDLESTON. THE DOMED SALOON 468
256. LONDON. THE BANK OF ENGLAND, LOTHBURY ANGLE.
(RICHARDSON) 468
257. EDINBURGH. THE HIGH SCHOOL. (RICHARDSON) .... 470
258. BERLIN. ROYAL THEATER 470
259. LONDON. OLD NEWGATE PRISON. (RICHARDSON) .... 473
260. LIVERPOOL. SAINT GEORGE'S HALL. (RICHARDSON) . . . 475
261. EATON HALL, BEFORE ALTERATION IN 1870. (EASTLAKE) . 479
262. LONDON. HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT 481
263. PARIS. SAINTE CLOTILDE 485
264. DRESDEN. OLD COURT THEATER. (SEMPER) 489
265. LONDON. NEW ZEALAND CHAMBERS. (MUTHESIUS) . . . 491
266. LONDON. WESTMINSTER CATHEDRAL 492
267. FLETE LODGE, NEAR HOBLETON. (MUTHESIUS) .... 493
268. HOARCROSS. CHURCH OF THE HOLY ANGELS 494
269. PARIS. BIBLIOTHEQUE SAINTE GENEVIEVE 495
270. PARIS. OPERA HOUSE 496
271. PARIS. CHURCH OF THE SACRED HEART, MONTMARTRE . . 497
272. BRUSSELS. PALAIS DE JUSTICE 497
273. ROME. MONUMENT TO VICTOR EMMANUEL II 499
274. PARIS. READING-ROOM OF THE BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALS . 502
275. PARIS. OPERA HOUSE. PLAN 508
276. PARIS. GRAND BAZAR DE LA RUE DE RENNES. (LA CON-
STRUCTION
MODERNE) 510
277. BERLIN. WERTHEIM STORE. FAC.ADE TO THE LEIPZIGER
PLATZ. (MODERNE BAUFORMEN) 510
278. GARE DU QUAI D'ORSAY. INTERIOR. (LE GENIE CIVIL) 511
279. BROADLEYS ON LAKE WINDERMERE. (MUTHESIUS) . . . 513
280. VIENNA. STATION OF THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY. (Lux) 514
281. BERLIN. TURBINE FACTORY OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY (AEG). (HOEBER) 516
282. PALENQUE. SKETCH PLAN OF THE PALACE AND TEMPLES.
(HOLMES) 525
283. TRANSVERSE SECTION OF A TYPICAL MAYA BUILDING.
(HOLMES) 526
284. MEXICO CITY. CATHEDRAL 528
285. SANTA BARBARA. MISSION AND FOUNTAIN 530
286. NEW ORLEANS. THE CABILDO 531
287. IPSWICH. WHIPPLE HOUSE 535
288. WESTOVER, VIRGINIA 537
289. NEW YORK. SAINT PAUL'S CHAPEL 539
ILLUSTRATIONS xv
FIG. PAGE
NEWPORT. REDWOOD LIBRARY

290. 540
291.
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA CAPITOL. ORIGINAL MODEL
. . .
541
292. BOSTON. STATE HOUSE 543
293. NEW YORK. CITY HALL

544
294. PHILADELPHIA. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. (CUSTOM

HOUSE) 545
WASHINGTON. UNITED STATES CAPITOL

295. 547
296. SALEM. FIERCE-NICHOLS HOUSE 548
297. WASHINGTON. WHITE HOUSE. (HOBAN'S ORIGINAL DESIGN) 549
298. NEW YORK. TRINITY CHURCH 551
299.
BOSTON. TRINITY CHURCH, AS ORIGINALLY BUILT. (VAN
RENSSELAER) 553
300. BOSTON. PUBLIC LIBRARY 554
301. ROCKVILLE. GARDEN OF

"MAXWELL COURT" 555
302. CHICAGO EXPOSITION. COURT OF HONOR 557
ASHMONT. CHURCH OF ALL SAINTS 559

303. .........
304.
BUFFALO. GUARANTY (PRUDENTIAL) BUILDING 561
....
305. NEW YORK. WOOLWORTH BUILDING 562
306. CHICAGO EXPOSITION. TRANSPORTATION BUILDING. DETAIL 563
307. OAK PARK. CHURCH OF THE UNITY 564
308. CTESIPHON. ROYAL PALACE. (DIEULAFOY) 573
CORDOVA. INTERIOR OF MOSQUE 575

309.
CAIRO. MOSQUE OF AMRU. PLAN 576

310.
GRANADA. THE ALHAMBRA. COURT OF LIONS 577

311. ....
AGRA. THE TAJ MAHAL 578

312. .
KHAJURAHO. TEMPLE OF VISHNU 581

313.
JAVA. THE CHANDI MENDOOT. (SCHELTEMA) 582

314.
ANGKOR WAT. SOUTHWEST ANGLE OF THE PORTICOES 583

315. . .
316. PEKIN. THE TEMPLE OF HEAVEN 584
Uji. THE PHENIX-HALL. (CRAM) 585

317.
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION
Harper's Fine Arts Series is intended to provide for the

student and the general reader concise but authoritative
histories of architecture, sculpture, and painting. During
the last twenty years the study of the monuments of the past
has been pursued with constantly increasing thoroughness by
a great number of well-trained scholars. Hundreds of books
and articles devoted to individual artists, to single ments

monu-
or groups of monuments, or to special periods have peared,

ap-
which have greatly modified the generalizations and
theories of a generation or even a decade ago. The spade of
the excavator has added new and important ments

monu-
many
to those already known, and brought to light new
evidence on disputed points. Most of the older books,

hand-
"
therefore, are out of date" in many respects, and some
of those more recently published repeat traditional statements
which have, in many cases, been proved incorrect. It has
been the endeavor of the writers of this series to consider all

the results of modern investigation and to summarize them
as clearly as possible. The need for such summaries of the
results of research seems to be better met by single volumes

than by more elaborate treatises, which can have no sating
compen-
gain in authoritativeness unless they are the work of
many collaborators.
In every case of conflicting theories the writers have tried,

after weighing all the evidence, to present the view which
seems to them most probable, and then to give, in selected
bibliographies, the titles of books which will be found helpful

for further study. They have not attempted to discuss a
large number of monuments of any given period, but have
chosen rather to emphasize important and characteristic

works and to show their relation to the whole development.
In some cases, also, they have emphasized certain aspects of
xviii EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION
their subjectsat the expense of others. The development of

American art has been discussed at rather greater length than
has been customary in similar books, since it seems to the
writers that American art merits fuller treatment than it has
usually received at the hands of critics and historians. As
the books are intended for Occidental
readers,Eastern art, in
spiteof its historical importance and intrinsic value, is treated
in a single chapter. Throughout, the endeavor has been to
consider the art of the past in the lightof the present, to try
to show how modern art is related to that which has pre-
ceded
it.
In the arrangement of the material the use of the books by
classes has been constantlykept in mind, and headings for
sections or paragraphs have been freelyintroduced throughout
the three volumes.
One other principlethe writers have constantly kept before
them. The office of the historian is to trace development, to
show how the art of any period grew out of that of earlier
times and in turn conditioned that of later days. Too many
of the older histories written
uphold a particular
were to
system of aesthetics or to glorifya particularphase of artistic

development, frequently in a particularcountry. Many of
these books are valuable as expressionsof the judgment of a
critic or as records of the taste of an age. But for the ginner
be-
and the general reader
they are often confusing.
They place him at an unfair disadvantage and tend to warp
his judgment. Discussions of aesthetic principlesand state-ments

of the consensus of critical opinion may properly find
place in an elementary book, but expressionsof purely personal
judgments and theories which have not been generally
accepted should be eliminated so far as possible. The aim of
the writers of this series has been to point out the qualities in
the works of any period which have appealed most stronglyto
the creators of those works and to endeavor to emphasize
what has enduring value. It is hoped that the resulting
"objectivity"of the books will add materiallyto their usefulness.
The problem of illustration is always difficult. In recent
years, histories of art and similar books have exhibited two
opposite tendencies, the one toward a large number of illus-

XIX
trations on a small scale, the other toward few tions,

illustra-
very
but those of large size. The former system has the
advantage of bringing before the reader most of the buildings
or statues or paintings mentioned in the text, the latter that
of showing more clearly the details of individual works. In
this matter the writers have tried, with the co-operation of
the publishers, to steer a

middle providing a siderable
con-
course,
number of full-page illustrations for especially portant

im-
monuments and a
much larger number of small cuts
for others. They hope that they have hit a "golden

upon
mean."
GEORGE H. CHASE.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY,
1917.
AUTHORS' PREFACE
During the last twenty years the origins of architecture
have been pushed back another millennium, and its later velopment
de-
has been enriched by wholly new chapters. Minute

research on a multitude of special points has modified or thrown
over-
generalizations of the nineteenth century which are
still too often repeated. Scholars have been forced, for
instance, to abandon the suppositions that Assyria and

Etruria made any advance over Egypt and Greece in the use
of the arch, that the proportions of the Greek orders evolved
uniformly in a given direction, that the characteristic feature
of Roman architecture was an inconsistent application of the
orders to arched constructions. Similar instances from
mediaeval and modern architecture could be cited, where new
agreements have been reached on questions of fact.
Equally important have been the changes of attitude on
many questions of interpretation. The part of spiritual fluences

in-
and spontaneous creation in the formation of styles

is now emphasized, to balance the one-sided affirmation, by
nineteenth-century writers, of the influence of material
environment. The raison d'etre of many forms is sought in
a purely formal expressiveness, rather than in a supposed

structural necessity. The idea of an analogy between the
history of styles and the growth and inevitable decay of ganic

or-
life is now generally abandoned, and it is understood
that the material must not be forced into conformity with
any other misleading analogy. Most important of all, it ?"

recognized that in the history of art, as in other branches of
history, subjective criticism must give way to the impartial

study of development "
in which historical influence is the
criterion of importance. Freed from dogmatic appraisal,

Roman architecture, Renaissance and baroque architecture,
and, especially, modern architecture, can receive the exposi-
xxii AUTHORS' PREFACE
tion to which their influence and their diffusion entitle therri.

The modern
historian,like Chesterton's modern poet, gives
his subjectsnot halters and halos, but voices.
In the apportionment of space in this book there is a parture
de-
from the tendency of older works to discuss ancient
stylesat great length and pass over developments with
recent
few words. Here it has been thought better to give progres-
sively
greater emphasis and space as modern times are proached
ap-
No date is suggested as marking a supposed
death of traditional art; on the contrary, the development
is followed the present day, in a belief in unending creative
to
vitality. Thus it is hoped that the professional architect and

others already familiar with the subject may still find new
matter of interest to them.

In accordance with the
usage of most recent writers,the
term Renaissance architecture is confined
buildingsof the to
Renaissance in its more restricted sense (to about 1550 or
1600), and is not extended to cover the later developments
of classical forms. The need of a generaldesignationfor all
of the works of the followingperiod, whether academic or
free in character, is a strong one. German and Italian

scholars have
attempted to include them all by an extension
of the term baroque architecture,but such an extension is
a departure from the originalsense of baroque and a tion
viola-
both of French and of English usage. In consequence
the authors have ventured propose a to
new term which is
self-explanatory
: post-Renaissancearchitecture.
The attempt has been made to present each styleas a thing
of growth and change, rather than as a formula based on the
monuments of some supposed apogee, with respect to which
the later forms have too often been treated as corrupt.
The general development of the style is first sketched
with little descriptionof individual monuments, and these are
then illustrated and discussed more at length in sections
devoted development of singleforms and types.

to the
A chronologicaloutline is added to each chapter, with a
bibliographical note, including references to more extended
guides to the literature of the subject.
The illustrations have been selected,in conformity with
recent tendencies both in architecture and in archaeology,to
AUTHORS' PREFACE xxiii
show not merely isolated details and monuments, but the
ensemble. Those which are not from photographs are produced,

re-
far possible, from the original

so as sources, as
noted in the list of illustrations. To the owners of

rights
copy-
who have courteously permitted the use of their terial

ma-
the authors extend cordial thanks; also to Messrs.
B. T. Batsford, Ltd., G. P. Putnam's Sons, Doubleday, Page

" Co., and the Macmillan Co., for permission to reproduce
other material. Messrs. Cram and Ferguson, Charles A.
Platt, and Frank Lloyd Wright, as

well as
the American
Academy at Rome and the Metropolitan Museum, have
kindly furnished photographs which would otherwise not have
been obtainable. Certain plates which could not be

duced
repro-
directly have been drawn by Mr. M. B. Gulick and
Mr. A. P. Evans, Jr.
The portion of the book which deals with the Middle Ages
(Chapters VI to IX) has been written by Mr. Edgell; the
portion which deals with ancient and modern times, together

with the chapters on
Eastern architecture, by Mr. Kimball.
F. K.
G. H. E.
A
HISTORY
OF
ARCHITECTURE
A HISTORY
OF ARCHITECTURE
CHAPTER I
THE ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE
From the beginning of its history architecture has had a
threefold problem or aim: to build structures at once modious,

com-
strong, and satisfying to the artistic sense. Each
of the phases of the problem offers its own possibilities and
difficulties, rooted in natural conditions and universal human
traits, and thus to a certain degree constant. As an duction

intro-
to the study of the varied historical solutions of
the problem of architecture these constant factors deserve a
brief discussion.
The primary, compelling need, which brought and still
brings the majority of buildings into existence, is of course the
need of inclosed space sheltered from the weather. A roofed
area, surrounded by walls, requires also certain other elements
for practical usefulness " doors, windows, chimneys. In all
but the simplest buildings there must be interior partitions,

separating rooms intended for various uses, and accommodated
to these uses in their sizes and relationships. When these
rooms are numerous, or occupy several stories, the provision of
light and of intercommunication becomes complicated. To
secure good light throughout the interior, the masses of
building must be kept relatively thin or the rooms must be
grouped about interior courts of greater or less area. In
primitive buildings there may be no strict division of the

2 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
functions of different rooms and courts, and it may be neces-

sary
to pass through a number intended for one use to reach
one intended for other uses. In more advanced construction

the functions become and
specialized, a distinct class of ele-
ments
of communication is created. Corridors and stair-
halls provide means of circulation which do not disturb
the privacy of individual apartments. The provisions for
the reception of strangers and for the carrying on of the
service of the establishment are then also separated from the
privateportionsof the building.
Like these gradations in complexity of function, there are
also gradations in geometrical organization,which affect
convenience as well as appearance. The elements of the
plan rooms"
and courts may be of quite irregularshape, "
juxtaposed without attention to their mutual relationships

or to the resultinggeneral outline. Elsewhere they may be
made predominantly rectangular,the outline may be brought
to some regular geometrical form, and communications tween
be-
the elements may be provided at points on their
several axes. A further degree of organizationmay result
from the carrying through of a general axis of symmetry
common to the principalelements of the building,or possibly
from the establishingof two or more important axes, usually
at rightangles. In the most highly developed buildings there
may be a multitude of minor axes, related to these main axes
and forming with them a complex but orderlysystem. Such

schemes permit a clear oversight of the
components of the
whole, and a mental grasp of the arrangement, without which
it might prove only a confused labyrinth.
Essential even to mere provisionof inclosed space, as well
as to resistance against the various forces
disintegration, of
is a sufficient measure of strength. In the simplest of all
forms of construction, a solid wall, the only tendency is for
weight above to compress or crush the material below or to
force it out at the sides. remedy is to increase
The the face
sur-
over which a given pressure acts by thickening the wall

until safetyis amply attained. With foundations, where the
soil is compressible,it is equally essential that the pressure
shall everywhere have the same relation to the bearing power
of the soil,otherwise unequal settlements and cracks will
THE ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE 3
result. As in any wall or pierthe stones at the bottom have

manifestlymore weight to sustain than those above, there is
a logicalsatisfaction and often a real necessityfor making a
wall thicker at the bottom than at the top, either by occasional
increases or by a constant slope. Ordinarily the margin of
safetyallowed is so great that the mere weight of the material
itself,except in very high walls, does not actually necessitate
a slope,and other considerations,practicalor artistic, may
render it undesirable. Thus it is more usual to find vertical
surfaces with increases of thickness only where concentrated
weights, such as those of floors,must be upheld. Another
occasion increasingthe thickness
for occurs when a material
of greater compressive strength rests upon a weaker material,
as when a story of cut stone rests on a basement of rubble or
a foundation wall upon ordinary soil. These conditions are
frequently responsiblefor the existence and the forms of

horizontal moldings string courses or belt courses
"
as they
are called at the level of floors or at the junctionof different
"
materials and at the base.

Instead of a wall there may
continuous be a series of isolated
supports "
circular columns or piers of other forms. With
columns even more than with walls it is usual to find an
increase of diameter toward the base or a "diminution" toward

the top. Here, also, it is common to find transitional bers,
mem-
the capitalsupporting the load above, the base spread-

ing
the weight on the substructure.
Where spanned, either in a wall or be-
openings are to be
tween
isolated supports, new problems arise. In a beam or
lintel supported only at its ends the action of gravity pro-

duces
not only the usual crushing tendency upon those tions
por-
which bear on its supports, and which must be made
large enough to resist this,but also produces a tendency to
shear the beam pointwhere the support ceases
across justat the
and a tendency to bend and finally to break it in mid-span.
Against both these tendencies, stone, with its crystalline or
granular structure, offers a resistance very feeble relatively

to its weight. The tendency to break increases much more
rapidlythan the distance spanned, and the difficulty and cost

of getting larger blocks likewise increases beyond all proportion.
Thus stone lintels can be used but rarelyfor span-
ning intervals of more than ten feet, and a clear span of

twenty-four feet is the extreme instance. The lightnessand
fibrous nature of wood, the contrary, make
on it well fitted to
span long distances,provided the weight above be not too

great. Iron and steel have in modern times made possible
beams of immensely greater strength and span at relatively
small cost.
When masonry is to be used to bridge wide openings,or in
any case when only small stones or brick are at command, some
form of arch must be employed, and a new element of dis-

integratio
horizontal thrust, appears. A rudimentary
form of arch is the corbeled arch, built up in horizontal
courses, each
projecting somewhat in front of the course
below, finallymeeting over the center of the opening. The
true arch differs from this in having radiatingjoints,being
composed, in principle,of wedge-shaped blocks called vous-
soirs. It may be semicircular,elliptical, or pointed of tall "
or squat proportions. The weight of the crown of the arch

tends to push the two sides apart with a force which is rela-
tively
greater in broad, low arches than in tall,narrow ones.
The sides requireto be abutted by masses of earth or masonry,

to be brought into equilibriumby the counter thrust of other
arches, or, failingthese methods, to be connected by a tie-
rod. In a continuous arcade, or series of arches restingon
piers or columns, the thrusts neutralize each other and produce
merely vertical pressure on all the intermediate supports.
A massive abutment is thus needed only at the ends, and the
interveningpiersmay be more slender.
Covering the spaces inclosed by the walls are the roofs,
which take on a multitude of forms influenced by the climate,
the materials, and the shapes below. Only in a rainless
climate can roofs be perfectlyflat and jointspenetrate them
without any overlapping protection. Under all other con-
ditions
there must be a slope of greater or less degree to

carry off the water from rain or melting snow. If there is a
'
continuous impervious covering like clay, tar, or soldered
metal, the slope may be almost imperceptible,and the roof
may still form a terrace, reasonably flat. If the covering
material is of small, overlapping pieces like shingles,slate,
or tiles,the roof,to insure the shedding of water, must have a
THE ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE 5'
pronounced inclination. Where there is deep fall of

a snow
it is necessary either to make the roofs strong enough to port

sup-
a great weight or steep enough to throw off the snow
before it accumulates dangerously. To assume merely that

southern climates demand flatter roofs and northern ones
steeper roofs is obviously too inaccurate a generalization.

The climate, in most cases, is a less important factor than the
covering material. The form of the roof may also be fluenced
in-
by the shape of the areas to be covered or, versely,
con-
the form of roof

adopted may once
govern the ar-
rangement
of the plan. A pitched or sloping roof requires

relatively narrow and uniform buildingsif the ridge is not to
rise wastefullyhigh and the form is not to become over-
complex. A terraced roof permits the masses of building to

be of any shape and size. In either case there are practical
as well as artistic reasons for a specialtreatment where roof
and wall meet With a terraced roof there is need of a
parapet, breast-high; with a sloping roof there is need of a

projectingcornice, to support a gutter or to keep the drip
from the eaves clear of the walls.
The support of the roof and its form on the interior raise
further questions. If the width is small, beams may span
directlyfrom wall to wall, or two sets of inclined rafters,
restingon the walls, may meet at the ridge. With greater
widths there must either be intermediate supports, or trusses
of wood or metal members so framed and braced as to be self-
supporting over a wide span; or else,instead of either,there
must be vaults of arched masonry. Vaults have the advantage
of resistingfire,but they have horizontal thrusts which quire
re-
suitable abutment. Vaults of continuous hemispherical

or semi-cylindrical
form " domes or barrel vaults " necessitate
a continuous abutment
by thick walls. Vaults composed of
intersectingsurfaces or resting on arches, however, may
have their thrusts concentrated at a few points,where they
may be met by walls or projectingbuttresses which are more
efficiently disposed. Sometimes there is but a singlecovering
to the building: a roof construction of beams and trusses
appears on the interior,or vaults show their forms directly
on the exterior. More often, however, greater freedom is
desired to adapt exterior and interior coverings to their dif-
ferent functions. Thus ceilings

may be introduced below the
roof beams, or independent roofs constructed above the
vaults.
Along with the desire for
strength and practicalusefulness
goes often a conscious strivingfor artistic effect. Even in the
most utilitarian buildings,indeed, there must always be a
certain measure of choice in the selection of materials or of
forms. Thus there
inevitablysome is
expression of prefer-
ences
which are, consciously or unconsciously,artistic. It
is the sum of such expressions, partly of conscious preference,
partly of traditional usage, partly of natural conditions and
practicalnecessity, which constitutes the artisticcharacter of a
structure.
The artistic ideas which expressed are of many
may be thus
different sorts. The adaptation of the buildingto its practical
functions, the purpose and relationships of its various parts,
may be made clear. The specificcharacter religious, civic, "
military,commemorative may be emphasized. The "

nature
of the environment may be mirrored in picturesquenessor
formalityof design. The size or "scale" of the building may
be unmistakably declared through features the size of which
bears a necessary relation to the materials used or to the
human figure. The treatment of the materials themselves
may be such bring out all their characteristic possibilities

as to
of color,texture, or veining. The principlesof the structural
system may be revealed and the raison d'etre of every detail
made evident. Finally there are the ideas of pure form,
expressed in the mere sizes, shapes, colors, and light and
shade. This domain of pure form is the one which tecture
archi-
painting and sculpture. In architecture,
shares with
however, the forms are not representative, but abstract and
geometrical,and there is,besides, one possibility which none
of the other arts possesses. It is that of creating forms of

interior space, within which the observer stands. In all these
architectural expressions and in their mutual relationships
there may be a greater or a less degree of consistency,har-
mony,
and interest. Certain expressions are even incom-
patible
with others, and each fusion of expressionsin a single
buildinginvolves the sacrifice of many others, and is a unique
creation.
THE ELEMENTvS OP ARCHITECTURE 7
At a given period or in a given region, however, many of
the elements remain constant. The use of certain materials
or constructive systems may be imposed by the geologic

formation, by climatic conditions, or by the isolation of the
inhabitants. Even if there are few restrictions of this sort,

there will be the force of custom, perpetuating a thousand
peculiarities and methods of varied origin. Often there will
be also the influence of older and of neighboring civilizations,

steadily exercised in definite directions. Thus it comes about
that, in the expression of their artistic instincts, the men of
one time and one place have a common vocabulary of forms
and tend to speak a common architectural language, in the
same way that they tend to employ a common spoken guage.

lan-
It is these architectural languages, varying in

every
country and province and in every generation, which we mean
when we speak of the historic styles of architecture.
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Works dealing with the elements and theory of architecture
A popular work in English is J. Belcher's Essentials in Architecture,

1907. Others addressed to a more professional audience are J. B.
Robinson's Architectural Composition, 1908, and J. V. Van Pelt's
Essentials of Composition, 26. ed., 191,3. Systematic and tal

fundamen-
discussions occur in J. Guadet's Elements et theorie de V architecture,

4 vols., 3d ed., 1909, and L. Cloquet's Traite d' architecture, 5 vols.,
1898-1901. The Handbuch der Architektur contains similar material:
pt. I, vol. 2, Die Bauformenlehre by J. Buhlman, 2d ed., 1901;

and pt. IV, vol. i, Architektonische Komposition by H. Wagner and
others, 3d ed., 1904.
2
CHAPTER II
PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURE
Prom the origins of mankind in the mists of the preglacial

period down to the beginnings of recorded history there was
a gradual development lasting over great periods of time.
The steps in the development were much the same among ferent
dif-
peoples, although their degrees of advancement at a
given time varied greatly. Men passed through successive
ages in which stone, bronze, and iron were used for tools and
weapons, and in which corresponding advances were made

in other branches of culture. The Egyptians and the peoples
of Mesopotamia had already completed this development
while the inhabitants of central Europe were still in the stone
age, and Europeans in their turn have found the American
Indians and other peoples still ignorant of bronze and iron.
It is thus in central Europe that we are best able to trace the
changes which, in more favored regions, took place at a much
earlier time, and which in less favored regions are still complete.
in-
The stone age. During the earlier stone age, the lithic
paleo-
period, when instruments were still crudely chipped,
men lived by hunting and fishing. They dwelt in caves or
dugouts, or in tents of poles and hides. In the later stone
age, or neolithic period, when they had learned to polish

stone implements, to raise cattle, and till the soil, new methods
of housing were added. Huts were built of poles and reeds
plastered with clay, with thatched roofs. Sometimes the
floors of these were raised above the ground on piles, for
protection against hostile attack, as well as against animals
and vermin. Sometimes the huts were even built on piles

over the water. In the Swiss and Italian lakes there were
whole villages of these pile dwellings, the remains of which

PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURE
show the rudimentary beginnings of carpentry. The dwell-

ings
were already surpassed in importance at this time, how-
ever,
by sepulchers of the dead and religiousmonuments.
These were of -stone, usually not composed of many small
pieces,but "megalithic" of enormous blocks which "
singly
sufficed for a wall or roof. Tomb chambers were made of a
pair of such blocks with a covering slab "
constitutingwhat
'ESfjgfvaj
"^fffm
FIG. I "
STONEHENGE. (RESTORED BY HARTMANN)
are called dolmens. Sometimes these were buried beneath

a mound of earth, or were preceded by a covered corridor.
Other monuments, which may well have had
religious a
significance, are the menhirs, or singlestanding pillars,and

the cromlechs, or circles of stones. A menhir in Brittany had
the extreme height of seventy feet. The most famous of the
cromlechs is at Stonehenge near Salisburyin England (Fig.i).
It had two concentric circles of tall standing stones, with
lintels resting on them, minor circles of smaller stones just
inside of each, and a great "altar stone" within.
The ages of bronze and iron. With the discovery of the art
of working metals began the bronze age, which made possible
more advanced works of carpentry and masonry. This oc-
io A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
curred in central Europe about 2000 B.C. Following villages

of improved pile dwellings on land, such as the terramare
of Italy with their walls and moats, came huts once more
resting on the ground. These were at first circular or oval,

but they gradually assumed a rectangular shape. The
conical or domical roofs of the earliest huts were later placed,
re-
in northern climates, by a pitch roof with a tudinal

longi-
ridge. The introduction of iron, which took place
in central Europe about the seventh century B.C., made but
little change in the manner of building. Architecture there
remained essentiallyprimitive until it was influenced by off-
shoots
of the highly developed styleswhich grew up about the
eastern Mediterranean. To study their rise will be the
object of the following chapter.
A
comprehensive and authoritative work on prehistoricarchitect-
ure
is lacking. Monographs on individual sites and monuments
abound, too numerous to be listed here. Reference must be made

to certain general works covering the
prehistoric period, such as
Sir John Lubbock's Prehistoric Times, yth ed., 1913; M. Hoernes's

Primitive Man, English translation, 1900 (Temple Primers); and
Urgeschichte der Kultur, 3 vols., 1912 (Sammlung Goschen); or to
works which cover limited regions. Hoernes's Urgeschichte der
bildenden Kunst, 2d ed., 1915, and E. A. Parkyn's Prehistoric Art,
1915, unfortunately do not include architecture. For the develop-
ment
in prehistoric Europe, principally dealt with in this chapter,
see, above all, J. Dechelette's Manuel d'archeologieprehistorique,

celtiqueet romaine, 2 vols., 1908 ff.(primarily devoted to France,
but with some references to other countries and full bibliographical
notes), and S. Miiller's Urgeschichte Europas: Grundzuge einer pra-
historischen Archaologie,translated from the Danish, 1905; French
translation: L 'Europe prehistorique, 1907. For England consult
R. Munro's Prehistoric Britain, 1914 (Home University Library),
T. R. Holmes 's Ancient Britain, 1907, or B. C. A. Windle's Remains
of the Prehistoric Age in England, 1904. On the pile dwellings see

R. Munro's The Lake Dwellings of Europe, 1890.
CHAPTER III
PRECLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE
EGYPT
The first notable development of architecture was reached
in the fertile valley of the Nile. At the beginning of the
third millennium before Christ, when the earliest of the great

Egyptian royal tombs were building under a strong ized
central-
rule, the valley of the Tigris and the Euphrates seems
not yet to have possessed any monuments comparable to
them in workmanship or magnitude, The Great Pyramid,

built by Khufu as his own burial-place in the years following
2800 B.C., is not only the most considerable of all architectural
works in bulk, but one of the most perfect in execution.
Although over seven hundred and fifty feet on a side, it was
laid out with such accuracy that Petrie reports its gencies
diver-
from exactness in equality ofsides, in squareness, and
in level, no greater than his own probable error in measuring
it with the most modern surveying instruments.
General characteristics. The course of excavations has vealed

re-
a variety in Egyptian art, during its three thousand
years of active life, quite different from the uniformity which
was at first supposed to exist, yet it is possible to summarize
certain enduring characteristics of its architecture. This
was largely conditioned by religious beliefs, which demanded
the utmost grandeur and permanence for tombs and temples,

the residences of the dead and of the gods, in contrast with the
light and relatively temporary houses which sufficed for even
the greatest of the living. Such permanence was sought by

the almost exclusive employment of fine stone, which the
cliffs of the Nile Valley furnished in abundance, and by the
adoption, as the dominant constructive types, of the simple

mass, and of the column and the lintel. The arch, occasion-
ally
used from the earliest times, was confined to substructures
where it had ample abutment and was little in view. The
architectural members, moreover, were generally of great
size and massiveness, although sometimes of extreme ment
refine-
and in certain cases even of delicacy. Traditional ments
ele-
of
composition in plan recurred in many types of
buildings. These were the open court, often surrounded by a
continuous interior colonnade or peristyle,and the rectangular
room opening on its broader front, with its ceilingsupported
by columns. With the flat roofs which the rainless climate
permitted, rooms could be
juxtaposed without any other
restraint than the necessityof light. Partly as a consequence
of religious beliefs,partly doubtless from natural preference,
the architectural members were usuallycovered with sculpture
in relief, everywhere blazing with harmonious color. tecture
Archi-
formed an equal union with sculpture and painting.
The rich flora of the Nile, especially the lotus and the papyrus,
furnished the principalmotives of ornament, and even gested
sug-
the form of structural members.
Development. The architecture
Egypt, from its earliest
of
traces to the Christian era, shows a continuityof character
never destroyed and scarcelyinterruptedby any foreign influence.
The early Semitic invasion from Asia by which the
structure of the Egyptian language is explained must have
taken place long before our remotest knowledge. The varied
development of Egyptian art was essentiallya native one,
resultingfrom the interaction and successive supremacy of a
number of local schools, raised to prominence by the political
importance of their centers.
Thinite period. The earliest of these schools to attain a
general predominence was that of This, a city about two-
thirds of the way from the Delta to the First Cataract. This
became the capitalof Menes, who first succeeded in bringing
under one rule the earlier kingdoms of the north and the
south about 3400 B.C. His successors of the First and
Second Dynasties, so-called, lived here for perhaps four
hundred years. The slightremains of architecture preserved
from this period indicate a primitive condition. Sun-dried
brick wa.s the principalmaterial, although stone masonry and
PRECLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE 13
even the arch were soon introduced. The

rudimentary forms
of the tomb and of the temple displaya similarity to the form
of the house which persists fundamentally even in later times
and indicates a common derivation from the simple dwellings
of the people.
Memphite period,or "Old Kingdom" With the transference
of the seat of government to Memphis, a littlesouth of modern
Cairo, began the first of the great floweringsof Egyptian art.

Under the kings of the Third Dynasty the royal tombs gradually
took the form of pyramids, and with the first king of the
Fourth Dynasty, Khufu, came the culmination of Memphite
architecture in the Great Pyramid at Gizeh (Fig.2). The
buildings of this king and his immediate successors of the
"Old Kingdom" set a standard of size and workmanship
never afterward equaled. The architectural forms, though
simple,were of the greatest refinement. The colonnade was
employed in the courts and the halls of temples, and the

characteristic and beautiful "papyrus" or "lotus bud" column
first made its appearance. After a gradual decline Memphis
lost its importance with the close of the Sixth Dynasty. A
period of relative barrenness ensued, from which emerged
about 2160 B.C. the powerful monarchs of the eleventh and
later dynasties whose reigns constitute the "Middle dom."
King-
Their seat was Thebes, again in Upper Egypt, a little
south of This.
Thebanperiod: "Middle Kingdom" and "Empire." With
them began the long supremacy of Theban art, which domi-
nated
the development of Egyptian architecture,directlyor
indirectly, to the end of its historyunder the Romans. The
invasion of the Asiatic "Hyksos" who overran the country
caused an interim from about 1675 to 1575, but the empire
which followed picked up the thread almost at the point
where the Middle Kingdom had dropped it. Though the
buildingsprevious to the invasion have been mostly swept
away by subsequent rulers, they apparently furnished the
prototypes of the temple and other buildingsin their later
form. On the expulsion of the invaders followed the age of
greatest splendor,under the monarchs of the Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Dynasties,whose monuments, reaching from the
Fourth Cataract to the Euphrates,furnish the usual idea of
Egyptian architecture. In the three hundred and fiftyyears

following 1500 B.C. were built the great temples of Der-el-
Bahri, of Abu Simbel, and of Medinet Habu, the delicate
shrines of Elephantine,the superb halls and courts of Karnak
and Luxor, the tombs of the valleys behind Thebes "
half,
perhaps,of all that Egyptian architecture.
has been saved of
Columnar architecture was magnifiedto a scale seldom equaled.
Columns sixty to seventy feet high in a few instances, with
lintels of a clear span of twenty-four feet, were among the
structural triumphs of this relativelybrief period of world
empire and artistic magnificence. At its close the artistic
impulse had spent itself. The buildings of Ramses III.,
last of the great imperialPharaohs, already show heaviness of
design and carelessness of execution. Under the kaleidoscopic
usurping dynastiesthat shortlyfollowed Tanite, Libyan, and "
Nubian "
only an isolated monarch now and then had power
to attempt a revival of the splendors of the imperial ar-
chitecture
Saite period. In the midst of decadence, however,

political
a new artistic fermentation was beginning. After the pulsion
ex-
of Assyrian conquerors, about 660 B.C., under the rulers

of Sais in the Delta, art sprang again into vigorous activity
such as it had not known for five hundred years. Although
the policyof these astute monarchs was everywhere to restore
the Theban culture, even to revert to the style of the Old
Kingdom, the of their artists was
originality not to be denied,
and new and beautiful modifications resulted. Persian
domination followed, and the architecture of the period suf-
fered
almost complete destruction; but we can trace its
innovations in the elaborate and diverse columns of the tem-
ples
built by the Ptolemies and the Romans.
Ptolemaic and Roman periods. It was the character pressed
im-
upon it by the Saite builders that Egyptian architect-
ure
retained
tillit finallysuccumbed before the advent of
Christianity. Greeks and Romans alike brought their own
national forms, but these were unable to effect any stantial
sub-
change outside of the cities of the Delta. The native
architecture adopted by the conquerors
was themselves, at
least for the temples of the traditional religion. Under the
prestige of Alexandria, Egyptian dispositions,clothed in
16 A HISTORY OP ARCHITECTURE
Greek detail,spread beyond the boundaries of Egypt. The

peristylarcourt and hall, the and
clerestory, other teristic
charac-
elements, became henceforth international.
The tombs. Throughout thislong history the most portant
im-
monuments were the tombs and the temples. Egyptian
religiousbeliefs demanded shelter and sustenance for the
dead as well as for the living. Hence, in the tomb, elaborate
precautionswere taken for the preservationof the body, and
for the nourishingof the "ka," or vital force,now dissociated
from it. The forms of the tomb varied in different districts,
though they tended in every period to take the form customary
in the region which was dominant politically.In Lower
Egypt the preferencewas for masonry structures erected on
the plain; in Upper Egypt, for chambers and passages
excavated in the rock of the valley walls. The masonry
tombs were alike in presenting on the exterior a simplemass
rectangularin plan and almost unbroken by openings; they
differed in geometricalform and in interior arrangement.
Mastabas. The form of most frequent occurrence in the
Old Kingdom was the one employed for the Memphite nobles,
the so-called "mastaba." It was a low, flat-topped mass,
varying in size with the importance of the occupant, and hav-
ing
its faces sloped back at an angle of about seventy-five
degrees. The solid bulk of the mastaba contained at first
merely the filled-up shaft to the tomb chamber below, and a

small chapel for offerings. Later the upper chambers were
multiplied for ceremonial and for the storage of provisions

and household utensils.
Pyramids. From the beginning of the Memphite dynasties
the kings adopted distinctive forms which approached the
pyramid. The first king of the Third Dynasty, Zoser, built
his tomb at Sakkara in seven great receding steps; its last
king, Snefru, erected one at Medum in three steps, another
at Dahshur in true pyramidal shape, fixingthe type for the
rest of the period. The most strikinggroup of the pyramids
is that of the Fourth-Dynasty necropolisat Gizeh. Here
stands the familiar group of three built by Khufu, Khafre,
and Menkure the Cheops, Chephren, and
"
Mycerinus of
classical writers. Around them are the smaller pyramids of
royalty and serried lines of mastabas built by the nobles. In
the pyramids, as in the mastabas, the interior arrangements

differ. They are alike in having the tomb chamber rately
elabo-
safeguardedby graniteportcullises and misleadingpas-
sages.
These, however, uniformly failed to protect the bodies
against despoilers, often only a few generations later. The

pyramids were preceded by massive chapels for services and
offeringsand approached by causeways of stone leading up
FIG. 3 "
BENI HASAN. PORTICO OF A TOMB
from the By size and by the very simplicityof

river. their
form these greatest of Egyptian monuments make an rivaled
un-
impression of grandeur and power.

Rock-cut tombs. Under the Theban monarchs of the
Middle Kingdom the existing local types of Middle and
Upper Egypt were developed the pyramid-mastaba, a mas-
"
taba with a small pyramid on top; and the tomb cut in the
western cliffs (Fig. 3). Under the Empire this last type,
adopted by the kings, became by far the most employed.
Every wealthy Theban family had its concealed vault, pre-
ceded
by a small rock-cut chapel. To protect their bodies,
the Pharaohs carried passages, gradually descending and
interruptedby small chambers, for hundreds of feet into the
cliffs. Their funerary chapels, however, became separated
from the tombs themselves. They were erected on the plain
before the cliffs frontingthe river,and in time became parable
com-
to the temples of the gods on the oppositebank.

i8 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
The first of such chapels,built by Queen Hatshepsut in the

years from 1500 to 1480, is one of the most originaland most
refined of all Egyptian monuments (Fig. 4). It lies in the
valley known as Der-el-Bahri, and rises in three great colon-
naded
terraces to the sanctuaries cut in the rock. The
architectural forms are of the simplest "
square or sixteen-
FIG. 4 "
DER-EL-BAHRI. MORTUARY TEMPLE OF HATSHEPSUT.
(RESTORED BY BRUNET)
sided columns in long ranks "

but the proportionsare so just,
the effect so pure, as to suggest Greece in the days of Pericles.
The temples. In the form reached
finally under the Rames-
sid Pharaohs of the Nineteenth and Twentieth
Dynasties,
the mortuary temples closely resembled temples of the
the
gods, likewise the
product of a long evolution. The gods,
like the dead, required shelter and food. They were housed
with solidityand splendor,and served by the provision of
meat and drink and diversion, all presented with increasing
ceremonial. As it was the Pharaoh who provided the revenue
for all this,so it was he who in theory made the presentation.
It was made, in fact, by the priests, his representatives, the
people participatingonly when, on feast-days,the offering

GREAT TEMTUE OF AMMON
was distributed in the temple court after being presented to

the god. Though many of the elements of the temple seem
to have been in use from the time of the Old Kingdom, and,
already in the Middle
Kingdom to have assumed somewhat
their final relations,it is only the temples of the Empire and
later times that are sufficiently preserved to give a visual idea
of the whole.
Imperial temples. At the great national center of Amon-
worship at Karnak in Thebes (Fig.5) there are many temples,
the product of long growth. Several of the relativelysmaller
FIG. 6 "
KARNAK. CENTRAL AISLES OF THE HYPOSTYLE HALL OF THE

GREAT TEMPLE OF AMON. MODEL IN THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM
ones well display

similarities,
as the
also the minor sities,
diver-
found in the temples of the Theban period. Each con-
sists
essentially of a small sanctuary at the back, flanked by

cells for the minor divinities of the religioustriad,by chapels
and store chambers, and preceded by a colonnaded hall,the
so-called "hypostyle hall" (Fig. 6) which turned its broad
side to a square court surrounded by columns. The facade
was composed of a great doorway between two tall rangular
quad-
towers, their faces slopingback from the ular,
perpendic-
together constitutinga "pylon." Before the pylon
stood obelisks,colossal statues of the king or the divinity,

and wooden carrying long streamers; before these,
masts
again,were often long avenues of approach, lined with sculp-

tured
rams or sphinxes. As one passed inward from the sun-
lit
court, through halls successivelysmaller and lower, the

lightdiminished till the sanctuary was in almost total dark-
ness,
admirably calculated to heighten the effect of religious
mystery and awe.
Specialtypes. At the most important temples, such as those

of Amon at Karnak and Luxor, successive monarchs vied in
multiplyingthe elements. They built new and largerhypostyle
halls and courts in front of the earlier pylons, until in the
great temple at Karnak, under the Ptolemies, a seventh
pylon was under construction. In a similar way at Philae,
their favorite shrine,the Ptolemies and the Roman monarchs
built many and
courts, pavilions, the accessory buildingsde-
manded
by the late religious
cults. Here the of
irregularity
the island site forced
departures from the usual formality,
but, as elsewhere in Egypt in such cases, ingeniousadaptation
produced a composition of the greatest charm. An effect
stillfurther removed from the heaviness and solemnityusually
associated with Egyptian architecture is found in the smallest
temples. One of these, built by Amenhotep III. at Elephan- tine,

now is
destroyed, especially famous for beauty of pro-
portion
and dignified
grace.
Dwellings. The Theban palace is still too little known for
cafe generalization.The Pharaohs seem to have preferred
not to live in dwellingspreviouslyoccupied,and the practice
of abandoning old palaces for new ones, hastilyimprovised,
led to the employment of a construction which has left but
few remains. The villa of Amenhotep III. at Thebes has a
rectangularouter wall inclosinga labyrinth of small courts,
columned rooms, and dark cells,all built of sun-dried brick,
plasteredand richlypainted. Wall paintingselsewhere show
the houses of the wealthy, surrounded by shaded gardens.
The quarters of the poorer classes were closelybuilt in blocks,
often on a regular plan. Their houses, reduced to lowest
terms, comprised a small, square court, along the back of
which lay a rectangularroom with the entrance on its broad
side.
The column: origins. Interest in the details of Egyptian

architecture centers in the development of the column, which
the Egyptians were the first to employ, and which they
treated with great mechanical skill and artistic taste. In the
Fourth Dynasty we find square monolithic piers,without
division or ornament of any kind "
the system of support and
lintel at its lowest terms. The
Temple of the so-called
Sphinx, a waiting-hallat the foot of the causeway leading to
the pyramid of Khafre, thus constructed, is effective by its
proportions and by the perfectionof its workmanship. By
the Fifth Dynasty we find the first circular columns, of
types common throughout later Egyptian architecture.
The motives of their designs were taken from the palm and
from the papyrus or the lotus,palm leaves being carved upright
about the top of the shaft,bending gracefully under the
weight of the abacus, or the shaft itself being made in the
form of several lotus or papyrus stems bound together,the
buds swelling at the top to form the capital.
Later forms. Under the Middle Kingdom the most lar
popu-
form was a column abstractlygeometrical polygonal in "
plan, or with concave vertical flutings. In either case it was

crowned by a simple square abacus. Such columns, as at
Beni Hasan and later Der-el-Bahri,have a rough resemblance
to the Doric columns of Greece, which, however, seem to
have been derived independently. Under the Empire all
these types were still employed, the papyrus or lotus-bud
form leading in popularity,but a new type given the
was
place of honor in the tall central aisles of the hypostyle halls

(Fig.6). This was the column with a capitallike an inverted
bell,imitative of the flower of the lotus. A capitalwith heads
of the
cow-goddess, Hathor, was used in her shrines, and
piers fronted by standing colossi were frequent, especially
under the great Ramessids. The Saite and Ptolemaic tects
archi-
elaborated the capitals,especiallythe bell capital,by
applying to the smooth surfaces motives drawn from native
flora "
leaves, flowers,buds, in gracefullyordered profusion.
They even employed different varieties in the same colonnade,
though always in pairs,placed at equal distances on either
side of the axis. No attempt was made to develop a separate
system of forms to accompany each type of column. The
same type of cornice is found with all, a quarter-hollow,or

cavetto, making transition from the vertical members to the
horizontal projectingline of the roof.
The peristyle.Although many Egyptian halls were divided
sub-
by ranges of columns extending the full depth of
the room, an equally characteristic arrangement was that
of an interior peristyle, or continuous surrounding file of
columns. This arrangement, which was preferredin the
case of open colonnaded typicallyoriental dis-
courts, is position
a
being found also in Mesopotamia and out

through-
the East. Owing perhaps to the guarded nature of
Egyptian life and Egyptian cults, a similar surrounding
peristylewas rare on the exterior. A single instance was
the littletemple of Elephantine.
The arch. The arch form was used sometimes in tombs
and notably in the sanctuaries of the temple of Seti I. at
Abydos, but in all such important works it was merely a
corbeled arch, cut out of projecting stones in horizontal

courses. True arches abound in subterranean tomb chambers
from the time of the Third Dynasty, apparently as early as
any in Mesopotamia. The store chambers of theRamesseum,
the mortuary temple of Rameses II. at Thebes, present an
extensive series of parallelbarrel vaults restingon lightin-
termedi
walls. For use in the superstructure, however,
the true arch seems to have been thought too insecure.
The clerestory.A device first invented by the Egyptians,
destined to play an important r61e in later architecture,is the
clerestory, introduced under the Empire. To lightthe wide
hypostyle halls,unprovided with windows at the outside,
the roof was raised over the three central aisles,admitting
lightthrough grated openings over the lower roofs at the
sides (Fig.6).
Methods of construction. The Egyptian roofs were flat,as
the rainless climate permitted. Those of the temples were
constructed of slabs of stone resting directlyon the lintels,
dispensingwith all wood. The compact soil rendered deep
foundations unnecessary. Piers and columns, originally
monolithic, were perforce,in the largest examples, built up
like towers with rough filling, often none too solid. The
masonry graduallylost the precisionof the earliest monu-
ments in the vast and hasty erections of the later Empire, but
the constructive methods remained
nearly constant.
Decoration. The elements of decorative expressionlikewise
remained substantiallythe same in different periods. They
were based on natural forms, like the lotus and palm, or on
conventional geometric lines,such as the spiral. The god's
house, conceived as the world, had its walls painted with conventional
landscapes, its ceilingspangled with stars. The

legends of the gods and the exploitsof the kings filled every
available space, proclaiming in no modest way the glories
of the builders,of the restorers, and of usurping monarchs who
wished to shine by reflected light.
The architect. During the whole of Egyptian history the
architect was a man of importance, as might be expected when
building formed so large a part of the monarch's activity.
Inscriptionsin tombs of the Fifth Dynasty show that in two
cases, at least,the functions of prime minister, chief judge,
and royal architect were combined. The mortuary tion
inscrip-
of the prime minister of Thothmes III.,in recountinghis
duties, includes personal inspectionof monuments under con-
struction.
Whoever the real designerswere, they were far

from being mere slaves of tradition,and some of them, like
Sen-Mut, the architect of Der-el-Bahri, showed themselves
men of the highest genius.
It is to its strength and dignity,above all,that Egyptian
architecture owes its effect. Less structural than sculptural
in many of its forms, it nevertheless has breadth and mental
monu-
quality. At its best pure and subtle,it is seldom lack-

ing
in magnificence or even in some touch of sublimity,which
is universallyrecognizedin its major creations.
MESOPOTAMIA
TheTigrisand the Euphrates supported a civilization perhaps

even more ancient than that of Egypt. It is impossible
to date the most primitivemonuments of either country ac- curately
enough to decide priorityof origins. In the forma-

tion
of a developed style and the execution of monuments of
the first magnitude, however, the peoples of the Mesopo-
tamian valley lagged many centuries behind the Egyptians.
Natural conditions and modes of construction. The natural

conditions were in many respects less favorable than in
Egypt. The absence of any good native building-stoneor
abundance of wood left sun-dried mud brick the best ma-
terial
available in
large quantities. Torrential rains and
frequent floods rendered constructions relativelyimperma-
nent,
even though the walls were faced with burnt brick and
the buildingswere raised on huge platforms. In Babylonia
in early times stone was almost impossible to secure. Even
in Assyria the difficulty of bringingit from the mountains was
so great as to prevent its being used ordinarily even for lintels.

Wood, itself hard to obtain, had to be used for columns and
for ceilingbeams, to support the thick roofs of clay. With
the materials available, the
only device which could have
furnished a permanent covering of voids with great weight
above was the arch. Its principlewas known in Mesopo-
tamia
from the earliest times, and was employed frequently
in subterranean vaults, in gateways and doors, where there
was no lack of abutment. Whether spanned by wooden
beams or by barrel vaults, the rooms were given by prefer-
ence
a long, rectangular form. Tradition dictated, as in
Egypt, that the entrance to such rooms should be on the
longer side; in other words, the rooms were broad and low,
shal-
rather than narrow and deep. Terraced roofs mitted
per-
the rooms to be massed in any convenient rangement,
ar-
without complicating the disposal of water.

rain-
Thus, as in Egypt, great aggregations of rooms
and courts, rather than isolated blocks, were the rule. The
ornamentation of buildings,
like the construction,had to be
largelyof clay.
Prevailingtypes. As with most early peoples,the temples
were of great importance. A rather gloomy view of a future
life,on the other hand, gave no encouragement to the build-
ing
of elaborate tombs. The palaces of the Assyrian kings
were more massive in construction than those of Egypt, as
befitted the greater relative importance of the life on earth.
Constant exposure to invasion gave military architecture a
development for which there was no occasion in Egypt.
Development. In the historyof Mesopotamian architecture
four principalperiodsof activitymay be distinguished,sue-
cessivelyin Chaldea, in the "Old Babylonian" kingdom, in

Assyria,and in reincarnated Babylon.
Origins. The earliest Mesopotamian culture seems to have
developed near the mouths of in

the rivers, Chaldea, spreading
over the lower half of the valley to embrace what later be-
came
Babylonia. The struggle between the primitive city
states lasted much longer in this region than in Egypt, and
unification was postponed till a full millennium after Menes
had brought about the union of the Two Lands of the Nile.
A difference of language in the cuneiform scripthas lent color
to ancient tradition of a native Sumerian population,grad-
ually
giving way before an invading Semitic people which
borrowed its civilization and its arts. The two existed side
by side in the formative period and possiblymay be but two
branches of a singlestem.
Chaldea. Remains at the Sumerian center of Lagash, the
modern Tello, include a building of the king Ur-Nina "
the
oldest structure yet found in Mesopotamia which can be dated
"
built
perhaps 3000 years before Christ. There is also a
fragment of the staged tower built by Gudea about 2450 B.C.
incorporated in a later palace. The early Semitic religious
center was at Nippur, where the ruins of the temple precinct
include superposed remains of several staged towers, dating
from the very earliest times. The general similarity of these
buildingsto the later buildingsof Assyria and Babylon establishes
the essential continuity of Mesopotamian tecture.

archi-
Old Babylonian Kingdom. Although as early as 2650 B.C.
the Semitic kings of Agade had extended their rule to the

Mediterranean, the internal consolidation of Babylonia itself
was accomplished till about 2100, under the great king
not
Khammurabi of Babylon. His city,hitherto relativelyun-important,
now became the center of a powerful state, the so-

called Old Babylonian Kingdom. Plans of dwelling-houses
from this period show already the characteristic Babylonian
scheme of a square court with the principalroom along its
southern side. The streets and blocks then established mained
re-
unchanged throughout the history of the city. The

kingdom flourished till about 1750 B.C., when it was run
over-
by Kassite invaders.
Assyriansupremacy. The leadershipnext fell to Assyria,

the northern half of the valley,which had been colonized by
the Semites of the south about 2000, and which now began
an independent career. The Asiatic conquests of Thothmes
III. and his great successors in the fifteenth and fourteenth
centuries brought both Assyria and Babylon in contact with
Egypt, to which their kings sent gifts. By noo Assyria was
strong enough to ejectthe Kassites from the south and for a
FIG. /
"
DUR-SHARRUKIN (KHORSABAD) THE PALACE OF SARGON.
(RESTORED BY PLACE)
brief period to rule over a united country. After interrup-

tion an
of two centuries
again assumed she her aggressivepolicy,
and under a series of strong kings had conquered all western
Asia by 700. The capital, firstat Ashur, was later more ally
usu-
at Calah, though royal residences were often maintained

in both places and in Nineveh as well. Sargon II., who
ruled from 722 to 705, founded for his capitala new city,
Dur-Sharrukin, the modern Khorsabad. His successor, nacherib,
Sen-
raised Nineveh the primacy, which it retained to
to
the downfall of the Empire. He was driven to destroy re-
bellious
Babylon, which, however, was restored by his son,

Esarhaddon. Under Esarhaddon even Egypt was brought
beneath Assyrian yoke for a brief period. The culmination
the
followed in the peacefuldays of Ashurbanipal (668-626). His
palace at Nineveh, inferior only to that of Sennacherib, was
FIG. 8 "
DUR-SHARRUKIN. THE PALACE OF SARGON. PLAN. (PLACE)
adorned with bas-reliefs of remarkable animation and alness.

natur-
Dur-Sharrukin. The best preserved of all Mesopotamian

monuments, the one which gives the most vivid idea of Assy-
rian architecture in its maturity, is the palace of Sargon at
Dur-Sharrukin, the modern Khorsabad (Figs.7 and 8). The
city,of which integralpart, formed a rectanglea little

it was an
over a mile on each side,inclosed by a wall one hundred and
fiftyfeet wide and sixtyfeet high, with battlements, towers,

and outworks. Like most Mesopotamian structures, it had
its corners toward the points of the compass, contrary to the
practicein Egypt, where the sides faced the cardinal points.
The palace of Sargon. The palace itself,on a huge plat-
form
in the middle of the northwest wall, covered an area
of twenty-fiveacres. The platform was faced with massive

blocks of limestone, here accessible,and limestone was also
used as a plinth for the crude brick walls. A ramp and a
monumental staircase led up from the city,through arched

and towered gateways, to two great courts, about which the
main divisions of the palace were grouped. The state ments
apart-
in the center, and the khan, or service,division at the
eastern corner, can certainty. The walls
be identified with
were very thick, one story high, and at right angles. The
rooms were relativelysmall and dark, opening through one
another to minor courts, irregularlyplaced. Although the
plan was very complex, and its chief quarters were kept
separated, it lacked any highly organized system of munications
com-
and any extended symmetry or expressionof the

internal arrangements.
The temples. On the platform with the palace stood
same
a second block of buildings, a group of temples, in close asso-

ciation
with the ziggurat, or lofty staged tower, "the link of

heaven and earth," which was the most strikingfeature of
Mesopotamian religious groups. In the temple block are three
distinct suites, dedicated evidently to different divinities,
each suite consistingessentially of a square court, a broad
vestibule, and a long hall with a cell at the end, apparently
the sanctuary proper. In these suites trie household of the god
was established, here sacrifices were offered, and here the
most valuable of the kings were
votive offerings deposited.
The ziggurat. The specialresidence of the god himself and
his consort was the chamber which crowned the ziggurat,
"the house of the mountain." At Dur-Sharrukin the tower
which supportedthis was formed of a singlecontinuous ramp,

square in plan, risinglike a screw with seven turns. The

walls were enameled successivelywhite, black, purple, blue,
vermilion, silver,and gold,symbolizing the heavenly bodies.
The mass was one hundred and forty feet square at the base
and rose twenty feet at each turn. Some Assyrian ziggurats
seem to have had three or five stages; sometimes each of
these was a level terrace connected with the others by stairs.
The plans were now square, now rectangular.
New Babylonian Kingdom. Within twenty years of the
death of Ashurbanipal his empire had succumbed to the
Medes. Babylon, which had assisted them, was left in-
depende
and entered
splendid renaissance. In the
on a
reign of her great king, Nebuchadnezzar, especially,from

604 to 561, were built the magnificentwalls, the temples, the
palaces, the so-called "Hanging Gardens" which excited the
admiration of Herodotus and other travelers,and the great
ziggurat. The wealth of the Babylonian kings enabled them
to burn brick and to bring stone from a distance, yet the
fundamental constructive system remained unchanged. The
palace plans show a somewhat more than
regular disposition
those of Assyria,with recurring suites of similar form for the
living-apartmentsand by corridors. The
access facilitated
temples, which are square or nearly square in plan, have a
central court, with the sanctuary and its vestibule lying
usuallyalong the southern side (Fig.9), much as in the plan
of the Babylonian dwelling. The zigguratof Babylon, like
the one at Nippur, stands in a vast walled inclosure,preceded
by minor courts. In the palace of the citadel is a
massive substructure with two series of parallel rooms, which
retain unmistakable traces of having been vaulted in brick.
The excavators have sought to recognize in this unfamiliar
arrangement the foundation of the Hanging Gardens, which
would accordingly have obtained their sobriquet through
astonishment at a method of support so novel to its observers.
The revival of Babylonian glory was brief. In 538 the city
fell before the all-conqueringPersian, Cyrus, and the premacy
su-
of its native art came to a close.

Roofs and vaulting. Throughout ancient times, as now, the
normal method of roofing in Mesopotamia was by wooden
beams supporting a mat of reeds, and then a thick bed of
clay graded with slightinclination to permit water to run

a
off. Inscriptionstell of the bringingof beams of cedar, pine,

and oak from Amanus and Lebanon to form the ceilingsof
temples and palaces. The earliest investigatorsmade the
unwarranted sumption
as-
that
barrel vaults were
employed in most
of the rooms of the
Assyrian palaces,
an inference from
their generally
elongated shape
and thick walls,and
from the absence of
any vestigeof ceil-

ing beams. A
famous bas - relief
at Nineveh, further-
more,
shows houses
covered externally
with egg-shaped
domes, similar to
those of the Sassa-
nian buildings of
Persia many turies
cen-
later. mains
Re-
of at least
one such dome have
been found which is
thought to date
from Sumerian FIG. 9 "
BABYLON. PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF
NINMAH. (AFTER KOLDEWEY)
times. It is now
generallyadmitted,
however, that singlevaulted rooms
even in Mesopotamian
buildingswere exceptional, and that the group of free-standing
vaults in the palace at Babylon is,as far as we know, unique
in the country. On the other hand, vaulted drains below-
ground abound in both Assyrian and Babylonian times.
These, which are sometimes semicircular,
sometimes pointed
in section, are remarkable in being built in successive rings,

which are not vertical,but inclined. By means of this in-
clinati
the builders were enabled to carry their vault along
over the void, without any necessityfor wooden false-work or
centering. Each course adhered to the preceding one and

was supported by it. It was merely necessary to have a wall
or arch to start against.
Columns. Columns were used but sparingly,as supports
for light,isolated structures, and in porticos along the sides of
a court. They were, for the most part, apparently, of wood,
painted or covered with metal plates. Some fragments of
stone columns have been found in Assyria with carved capitals
and bases, usually of cushion form. A relief from Nineveh
shows a small columned shrine having capitalswith two pairs
of scrolls or volutes, one above another. These are very
similar to those of the later Ionic capitalof the Greeks, and
doubtless exercised an influence on it.
Ornament. Winged bulls of stone carved in high relief
were used to decorate the jambs of arched gateways and .the
bases of towers. Friezes in low relief representinghistorical
subjects or hunting scenes ornamented the state apartments
of the palaces. Brick enameled in colors was also a favorite
mode of surface decoration. At Dur-Sharrukin broad bands
were placed around the
Babylon a frieze of stalk-
ing
arches; at
lions followed the processionalstreet and representations

of columns lined the walls of the palace.
The assumption of all credit for Mesopotamian buildings
by the monarch has kept in obscurity the men who built
them. Their work is indeed less individual than official in
character. By the very repetitionof the great rectangular
masses with their endless towers and battlements it gives a
powerful expressionof the size and grandeur of the Oriental
monarchies.
PERSIA
The architecture of the Persians, who next succeeded to

the domination of western Asia under Cyrus and other
Achaemenian kings, borrowed certain forms from the con-
quered
regions Mesopotamia, Ionia, and Egypt. Never-

"
theless,
it retained a largenative element, suggestive of a.
primitive columnar architecture of wood. Similar reminis-

cences
of wooden construction can be traced in Ionia and pecially
es-
in Lycia, but it seems less probable that the Persian

forms were merely imitative of these than that all were
descended from a more or less common type, the product of

similar conditions. Wood and stone were both obtainable
on the plateau of Iran, as on the coast of Asia Minor; wood
was naturallyused in early days, stone after the growth of
wealth and power. In Persia the entablatures and roof
framing remained of wood throughout the Achaemenian period,
making possiblethe unusual slenderness and the wide spacing
of the columns. As in Assyria and early Greece, the roof it-
self
was a thick mass of clay,terraced, with very slightin-
a clinati
Though the Persians drew some decorative forms
from other countries,their chief source for them Assyria.
was
The winged bulls and bas-reliefs are but clumsily imitated;

and even the
polychrome friezes of enameled brick from Susa,
the masterpieces of Persian art, are relativelycrude beside
their prototypes at Babylon.
Development. The development of Achaemenian
.
art follows
the dramatic historyof the dynasty. It appeared suddenly
with Cyrus about 550 B.C., absorbing Mesopotamaan and
Ionian elements as he conquered those countries,and Egyptian
motives after the conquests of Cambyses. It disappeared as
suddenly before Greek civilization on the collapseof the vast
empire in its struggle with Alexander.
Types of buildings. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religionof
Persia, had no images and required neither true temples nor
sepulchers. The Achaemenian kings, however, did not ob- serve
the custom of exposing their bodies after death, as pre-
scribed
by the Avesta, and their monumental tombs are
among the chief remains of Persian architecture. Still more
important palaces,which reflect the proud absolutism

are the
of the Great King.
Palaces. The Persian palacesat Pasargadae and Persepolis
stood on great platforms like those of Assyria. Here these
were built of stone and served at once to givemilitarysecurity
and monumental setting(Fig.10). At Persepolis a vast double
staircase leads up from the plain, givingaccess to the platform
through a tall columnar porch flanked with winged bulls.
/ f"
I
-" -nr-
35
On low platformsrestingon the largerone stand three palaces,

those of Darius,Xerxes, and Artaxerxes III. They are similar
in general arrangement, with a large,square, columned hall,
preceded by a deep portico and surrounded by minor rooms.
Audience-halls. Independent of the palaces are the nificent
mag-
audience-halls of Darius and of Xerxes, each cover-
Copyright, by Macmillan " Co.
FIG. II "
PERSEPOLIS. TOMB OF DARIUS, NAKSH-I-RUSTAM. (JACKSON)
ing more than an acre. Indispositionthey reproduce the

central feature of the palaces,but on a greater scale. The
hall of Darius has ten columns each way, inclosed by massive
36 A
walls. A
porticoeight columns wide and two deep is flanked
by colossal winged bulls. The hall of Xerxes has but six
columns each way in the central portion, but has porticos
the full width of this on three sides. With its columns thirty
feet apart and almost seventy feet high, this building takes
rank with the greatest columnar buildingsof Egypt and of
Greece.
Tombs. The earliest
royal tomb, supposed to be that of
Cyrus a small gable-roofedcella mounted
"
on seven great
steps is obviously imitative of Ionian architecture.
"
Those
of later monarchs seem to have been inspiredby the rock-cut
tombs of Egypt. They are found in the cliff at the back of
the palace platform at Persepolis, and near by in the rock now
known as Naksh-i-Rustam (Fig. n). All are substantially
similar,with a porticoof four engaged columns carved about
the door, a great bas-relief above, and a blank space of equal
size below. Their chief interest lies in their representation of
the Persian entablature of wood. With its architrave of three
superposed bands, its projecting beam-ends above, this is
clearlyrelated in its originto the forms of the Ionic entablature
in Greece.
Religiousbuildings. Though the ancient Persians had no
true temples, their sacred fire needed a small inclosed shrine
where it could be kept continuallyburning, and altars in the
open air where it could be occasionallykindled for sacrifice.

These may be recognized,perhaps, in the small square towers
with blank windows, still preserved near Pasargadae and
Persepolis, and in the altars of uncertain date at the rock of
Naksh-i-Rustam and elsewhere.
Columns. The Persian columns were slender,and crowned
with a peculiarcapitalin which the heads and forequarters
of two bulls are united back to back in the direction of the
architrave. Beneath these in some examples were placed
multiplied pairs of volutes on end, and then bells,upright
and inverted, in incoherent sequence. Thus the capital
became long out of all usual proportionto the shaft below.
In its problems of the column and lintel Persian architecture
was related to the classic architecture of Greece, which was
roughly contemporary with it,and which carried its solutions

much further in technical and
facility refinement.
37
THE AEGEAN
The direct forerunners of the classic races of Greece, in

civilization and in architecture, were the earlyinhabitants of
the islands and coasts of the Êgean, whom the later tribes
with their iron swords deprived of their birthright. Con-
trary
to earlier belief,it now seems clear that civilization
developed almost simultaneouslyall about the eastern ranean,
Mediter-
and remains have been found in Crete and Asia Minor
contemporary with the earliest monuments of Egypt, though
less advanced in artistic character.
Development. Two principalperiods may be recognized
which show considerable differences in their types of archi-
tecture.
earlier,during which
The Crete, in close touch
with Egypt and Syria, was the leader, has been called the
Minoan period, from the legendary sea king, Minos. The
later period,the so-called Mycenaean, was that in which the
inhabitants of the mainland cities,Mycenae, Tiryns, Argos,
and others probably the Achaeans of the Homeric
"
poems "
continued the culture of Crete after overthrowing its political

supremacy. The long development of Minoan art, following
the introduction of bronze about 3000 B.C., was cut off with
the destruction of Knossos about 1400. Costumes sewed and
fitted,plumbing scarcelyrivaled again tillthe last half of the
nineteenth century, are evidences of a surprisinglyluxurious
civilization. Its continuation on the mainland, somewhat
less refined in life and art, lasted tillthe dark ages following
the Dorian invasion, about noo.
Types. patriarchalmonarchies
In the of the time the
palaces were naturallythe chief buildings. In Crete, where
dominion rested on sea power, these were quite unfortified;
at Mycenae, Tiryns, and Troy they were walled* stronglyand
ingeniously against land attacks. Religious ceremonies do
not seem to have required any highly specializedconstruc-
tions.
Interment was the ordinary funeral custom, but
certain tombs excavated in the hillsides were given a monu-
mental
character. Building materials and climate placed

little restriction on the choice of forms ; the column and lintel
and the corbeled arch employed exclusively.
were
Oriental and European elements. Besides many peculiarna-

tive elements, among which the entrance-porticoopening on

two adjacent sides is one of the most striking,Cretan
architecture shows a number of features of Oriental character.
FIG. 12 "
KNOSSOS. PLAN OF A PART OF THE PALACE. (EVANS)
These include the flat roof,with the complex juxtaposition of

rooms which it permits,and the court surrounded by a con-
39
tinuous peristyle.The architectural of the main-

dispositions land,
on the other hand, show signs of a European origin;
they can be traced without a break from the primitivehut com-
mon
to northern races. The isolated positionof the prin-

cipal
rooms, with entrances only on one end, suggests that
they were covered with gable roofs. The court, instead of
forming a homogeneous ensemble, was a resultant of the
surrounding units,with walls or porticosindependent of one
another. Although the dispositions in the two regions thus
differ markedly, the decorative forms are largelythe same,
borrowed by the mainland, with the minor arts, from Crete.
Crete. The palace at Knossos, the greatest of the Cretan
centers (a portion of which is shown in Fig. 12), is in very
truth a "labyrinth" which might well have given rise to the
classic legend. About a long rectangular paved court are
grouped rooms and tortuous passages in the greatest con-fusion.
On the eastern side they were superposed in two

stories,at least,the lower ones taking what lightthey have
from narrow light -wells. The functions of many of the parts
are stilluncertain, but they seem never to have been logically
grouped. The more important rooms were preceded by the

characteristic corner-wise porticosalready mentioned. The
great staircase running through three stories, with its ramping
colonnade, is a notable feature. Another is the "theatral
area," a paved space with banks of steps on two adjoining
sides,evidentlyintended for spectators. One of these is also
found at the similar palace of Phaistos, which has its own
features of special interest,among them the monumental
flightof sixteen broad steps before the main entrance. At
Gournia a whole city was unearthed, with simple houses of
stone and baked brick, narrow, winding streets, and a small
central palace and altar.
The mainland. The
citadel-palacesat Mycenae, Tiryns
(Fig.13),and other cities of later importance are irregularin
plan, like the fortified summits which they crown, but they
show certain recurring elements of similar form. Chief of
these was the megaron, or men's hall,a square room with a
hearth in the center and a vestibule and colonnaded portico

in front,opening on the main court. Access to this court, as
to the forecourt which might precede it,was obtained through
3
monumental gateways propylaea. Each of these had a door

or
which was protected,inside and out, by small porticosbetween

flankingwalls, or antae.
Walls, openings,and vaults. The walls were sometimes of
the finest cut stone, sometimes of sun-dried brick. Stone was
FIG. 13 "
TIRYNS. PLAN OF THE ACROPOLIS. (RODENWALDf)
used for fortress and and for the base, at least,

retaining-walls,
of the walls of dwellings. In the palace at Tiryns sun-dried
brick bonded with wooden beams seems to have been used
for the superstructure. The fortress walls were sometimes
built of irregularblocks,the huge size of which gained them the
name of Cyclopean. Sometimes they were of dressed stone, with
either polygonal or rectangularblocks, as the natural cleavage
of the stone suggested. Though they often used them, the
Mycenaean builders were evidently doubtful of the strength
of large stone lintels,and, not knowing the true arch, they
were led to give an unparalleleddevelopment to the corbeled
arch and vault, built of flat stones projectingover one another
till they finallymet. The lintel of the "Gate of Lions" at
Mycenae, for instance,is relieved of any considerable weight by

a (Fig.14). Corbeled vaults were

corbeled arch used over the
narrow galleriesin the walls of Tiryns and they were the
favorite means of covering the chambers of important tombs.
At Isopata in Crete the chambers are rectangular, and the
FIG. 14 "
MYCENAE. GATE OF LIONS
two long sides curve together above to form the vault. The
superiorstrengthof a circular form was realized,and in some
of the later tombs of Mycenae and Orchomenos there are
"beehive" vaults nearly fiftyfeet in diameter.

Column and lintel. The columns and architraves,both in
Crete and elsewhere, were of wood, and have for the most
part disappeared. The of the

"Treasury of Atreus"
columns
show that stone was sometimes employed as well as wood;
and that, in addition to cylindrical columns and columns of
the usual type, largerat the base than at the top, there were
also columns larger at the top than at the base. These

contradict the structural tendency, yet
enlargement is so the
slightthat they do not lack grace and piquancy. The stone
capitalspreserved have a square abacus supported by a
circular cushion or torus, sometimes with a quarter-hollow
beneath. The stone entablatures are evidently imitative of
wooden construction,for the ends of round beams are sented
repre-
above the architrave. With mud-brick walls, wood
was apparently used for facing the openings, as well as the
ends of walls, or antae.
Decoration. The fundamental elements of decoration were
the spiral,the chevron, and the

rosette, employed in bands
or friezes. Another characteristic type of frieze was one
consistingof pairs of palmetto ornaments back to back with

a rectangular space between. In the triangular space above
the lintel of the "Gate of Lions"
sculpturedrelief repre-
was a
senting
a column, or altar, flanked by two lions (Fig. 14).
Similar reliefs are thought to have occupied the corresponding
spaces in other gateways and doorways, such as that of the

" "
Treasury of Atreus (Fig.15).
Relation to Doric architecture. Many of the Mycenasan
forms recur in the architecture of historic Greece, especially
in the buildingsof the Doric style, which was developed by the
conquerors of the Peloponnesus. The plan of the propylaea
is the same; the plan of the temple preserves the form of the
Mycenaean megaron, with its arrangement of columns in antis.
The Doric capital,the antae, the high wall base of upright
stones, all show reminiscences of the earlier forms which dicate
in-
imitation, if not actual continuity. As in so
close
many instances,the arts of the conquered took captive the

conquerors, though new vigor and new needs modified ing
exist-
types and produced new ones. ure
architect-
The prehistoric
of the Êgean is not, however, to be considered merely as
a barbarous stage in the development of Greek classic archi-
tecture.
It was itself complete, adapted to the needs of
contemporary civilization,with its structural and decorative
systems thoroughly established. If it was surpassed in ex-
pressivenes
and organizationby architecture of the classic

period,it was not the less superiorto the clumsy experiments
of the dark ages which intervened.
'
"
"
"
"
"
.
:
'
"
"
:it
,
:'y
:" .,"
FIG. 15 "
MYCEN^;. PORTAL OF THE "TREASURY OF ATREUS."

(RESTORED uv SPIERS)
The styleswhich had their seats in the Levant

preclassical
and western Asia developed in three main currents largely
native and independent of one another. In their continuous
life of two or three thousand years and more, it is a few brief
periods to which we owe the vast proportion of enduring
monuments. The Fourth
Eighteenth Dynasties in and
Egypt, the Assyrian culmination and the Babylonian renais-
sance,
the palace-buildingperiods of Knossos and Mycenas,
are some of the moments for which long centuries of political
upheaval and artistic groping had prepared. In the first
millennium before Christ their influence focussed on Greece,
where was evolved a style destined to stamp indeliblythe
later architecture of Europe.
PERIODS OF EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE

Centers
I. Prehistoric period,to 3400 B.C.1
II. Thinite period,3400-2980. Dynasties I.-I I. This
III. Old Kingdom, about 2980-2475. Dynasties
III.-VI.
Memphis
The pyramids "
Khufu, Khafre, Men-

kure.
First transitional period "
decline of the dom.
king-
DynastiesVII. -X.
IV. Middle Kingdom, about 2160-1788. Dynas-
ties
XI.-XII. Thebes
Early halls at Karnak. Tombs at Beni Fayum
Hasan. Pyramids at Lisht.
Second transitional period Hyksos "

invasion.
V. Empire,about 1 580-1090. DynastiesXVIII.-

XX.
Formative period,to Thothmes III. and
Hatshepsut (1501-1447).
Mortuary temple at Der-el-Bahri.
' ' "
Thebes
Processional Hall at Karnak .
Central period, culminating under

Amenhotep III. (1411-1375).
Court and Hypostyle Hall at Luxor.
Temple at Elephantine.
1 In the earlier periods,where there is still some uncertainty, the dating follows the
" "
Berlin system, the one most widely accepted.
PERIODS OF EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE" Continued
Centers
Revolution under Ikhnaton (Amenhotep
\ El
J
Amarna
iv.) (1375-1358).
Restoration Dynasty XIX.
under Seti
I.,Ramses II. (1313-1225).
Great Hall at Karnak. Temple at
Abu-Simbel. Thebes
Ramessid period. Dynasty XX. Ramses
III. (about 1198-1167).
Mortuary temple at Medinet-Habu.
Third transitional period. Decadence
under Libyan and Nubian perors.
em-
Assyrian conquest and

supremcy, about 670-660.
VI. Renaissance,about 663-525. Dynasty XXVI.
Psamthik. Fourth transitional period. Sais
Persian conquest.
VII. Graeco-Roman period,after 332 B.C.
Ptolemaic period,to 30 B.C.
Temples at Denderah, Edfou, and
Alexandria
Phite.
Roman imperialdomination, to 395 A.D.
Later buildingsat Philae.
PERIODS OF MESOPOTAMIAN AND PERSIAN

ARCHITECTURE
I. Prehistoric period,to about 3000 B.C. Lagash (Tello)

II. Primitive period development
" and
struggleof city states in lonia,
Baby-
about 3000-1900. Sumerian: Lagash
Palace of Gudea at Lagash, Semitic: Agade, Nippur
about 2450.
Ziggurats at Nippur.
HI. Old Babylonian Kingdom, about 2100-1750.
Khammurabi.
Main lines of Mesopotamian ure
architect-
established. Babylon
Kassite domination in Babylonia, about
1750-1100,
PERIODS OF MESOPOTAMIAN AND PERSIAN

ARCHITECTURE" Continued
Centers
IV. Rise of Assyria,about 1650-1100, culminat-
ing
in first conquest of Babylonia.
Ashur
Assyria overrun by Aramean nomads, about
1050-900.
V. Assyrian Empire, about 885-607.

Conquest of western Asia completed by
700.
Palace of Sargon at Dur-Sharrukin,
722-705.
Destruction rebuildingof Babylon.
and
Conquest of Lower Egypt. Sennacherib, Nineveh
Esarhaddon.
Palaces at Nineveh.
Culmination under Ashurbanipal,668-
626.
Palaces at Nineveh.
Destruction of Nineveh
by Medes and
Babylonians, about 607.
VI. New Babylonian Kingdom, about 607-538.
Nebuchadnezzar II.
Babylon
Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus, King of sia,
Per-
538.
VII. Persian Empire, about 550-330. Achaeme-
nian Dynasty.
Period of Ionian and Mesopotamian fluence.
in-
Cyrus.
Tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae. Persepolis
Period of Mesopotamian and Egyptian
influence. Darius,Xerxes.
Palaces and tombs at Persepolis.
Conquest of Persia by Alexander.
PERIODS OF AEGEAN ARCHITECTURE
I. Prehistoric period, Stone Age, to about

3000 B.C.
II. Early Minoan, about 3000-2200. Beginnings

of Bronze. .
Crete
Second or burnt cityon site of Troy.
PERIODS OF ^GEAN ARCHITECTURE" Continued
Centers
Middle MinoanI.,about 2200-2000.
Earlier palacesat Knossos and Phaistos.
Middle Minoan II.,about 2000-1850.
First culmination, ending with first de-struction
of Knossos.
Middle Minoan III.,about
1850-1600.
Later palace at Knossos built. Crete
Late Minoan I. and II.,about 1600-1400.
Later palace at Phaistos built,palace at
Knossos remodeled. Rise of
Mycenae, Tiryns, and other
mainland cities. Fall of Knos-
sos,
about 1400.
III. Mycenaean period,about 1400-1100.

Megaron-palaces at Mycenae, Tiryns,
Troy (sixth,or Homeric, city),
Greek
etc.
mainland
Dorian invasion of Peloponnesus. Ionian
settlement of Asia Minor. tion
Transi-
to iron.
Of G. Perrot and C. Chipiez'smonumental Histoire de I'art dans

I'antiquite, the first six volumes, 1882-1894, deal with preclassical
architecture (English translation by W. Armstrong, 1883-1894).
Though superseded in many particulars, these volumes are still
valuable, especially for their* graphic restorations in perspective.
The history of excavations is summarized in H. V. Hilprecht's
Excavations in Bible Lands, 1903, which covers Egypt as well as
Mesopotamia and Palestine. A specialstudy of the columnar
building,based on the latest researches,is G. Leroux's Les origines
del'ediftcehypostyleen Grece, en Orient et chez les Romains, 1913.
Egypt. The only general work in English wholly devoted to
Egyptian architecture is E. Bell's The Architecture of Ancient Egypt:

a historical outline" 1915. Another authoritative account pears
ap-
in G.
Maspero's Egypt, 1912, arranged chronologically,
Art in
and including concise bibliographies of the individual periods and
monuments. The same author's Manual of Egyptian Archccology,
translated by A. B. Edwards, 6th ed., 1913, treats architecture
systematically,by types of monuments. J.Capart'sL'art egyptien,
2 vols., 1909-1911,
is an excellent collection of illustrations, panied
accom-
by bibliographical references. For the monuments in their
historical setting see J. H. Breasted's A History of Egypt, 26. ed.,

for a topographical treatment see the guides of Baedeker,
1909;
or Cook, as well as A. E. P. Weigail's A Guide to the

1914, 1911,
Antiquities of Upper Egypt, 1910.

A special study of constructive
methods is A. Choisy's L'art de bdtir chez les egyptiens, 1904.
Mesopotamia. The most recent general treatment is in P. S. P.
Handcock's Mesopotamian Archeology, 1912,

which also gives a brief
history of the excavations. An earlier handbook, including also
neighboring countries, is E. Babelon's Manual of Oriental Antiquities,

translated by B. T. A. Evetts, new ed., 1906. The section of Hil-
precht's work already cited which deals with Mesopotamia, cially

espe-
with the monuments of1 Nippur, has been reprinted as The
Excavations in Assyria and Babylonia, 1904.

For the complementary
work at Babylon see R. Koldewey's The Excavations at Babylon, 1914,
translated by A. S. Johns, 1915. For the cultural background see
M. Jastrow's The Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria, 1915.
Persia.- Babelon's Manual is supplanted by A. V. W. Jackson's

Persia Past and Present, 1906.
The Mgean. H. R. Hall's sEgean Archeology, 1915, gives a prehensive
com-
view. Among the many special studies devoted to
Cretan monuments, R. M. Burrows' The Discoveries in Crete, 1907
(reprinted with addenda, 1908), may

be named as a scholarly mary,
sum-
to its date; J. Baikie's The Sea Kings of Crete, 1910, as a good

popular exposition. C. Tsountas and J. I. Manatt's The Mycencean
Age, 2nd ed., 1916, is the standard work on its period. For a mary
sum-
of the excavations aside from Crete see C. Schuchhardt's
Schliemann's Excavations, translated by E. Sellers, 1891, and H. C.
Tolman and G. C. Scoggin's Mycencean Troy, 1903.

CHAPTER IV
GREEK ARCHITECTURE
The Greek architects devoted themselves above all to the
problems of the column and lintel, creating forms which no
later Western people has ever wholly forgotten. The open-

air life which the climate invited, the simplicity of Greek
ideals, made no demands for the covering of large spaces

which the lintel could not meet, and the arch remained fined
con-
to minor uses. Respect for tradition kept the essential
form of certain types relatively constant, and gave tunity

oppor-
for study of the more delicate problems of expression.
Two separate systems of columnar forms, the Doric and the
Ionic, were perfected in long development by the two cipal

prin-
branches of the Greek race. When these forms came
to be common property, their details were not mingled, but
kept distinct, as recognized "orders." A third order, the
Corinthian, was a relatively late artistic creation.
Natural conditions and materials. In Greece there was
less external compulsion in the formation of the architectural
style than there was in Egypt or Babylonia, where climatic
conditions were extreme and the choice of building materials
was restricted. Neither drought nor floods were customary;

wood and stone were both available. Natural conditions
still made themselves felt, of course, but in a more subtle
way. The proportions of the structural members were fluenced

in-
by the strength and fineness of the stone available.
In the West, and on the Greek mainland in early days, it was
a coarse, porous limestone. In Ionia it was marble, tively

rela-
fine-grained and strong. At Athens marble came into
general use in the fifth century. Even in early days, ever,

how-
the materials everywhere left a wide freedom in the
choice of forms.
Personalityand ideals of Greek architects. It is in Greece

that the personality of individual architects firstbecomes clear,
in spiteof the limitations laid on them by tradition. They
knew and discussed what they were about, as the titles of a
long series of technical writings attest. Their underlying
theory was a formal one, which hoped to have exhausted the
significance of beauty in the phrase "unity in variety." The
favorite instance of beauty was musical harmony with its
physicallaws. This found its closest analogy, among all the
arts, in architecture. It is not surprising, therefore,that the
quality sought among all others was symmetry, in a broad
sense. The Roman writer,Vitruvius, who drew his material
from Greek sources, defines symmetry as "the proper ment
agree-
of the same members of a work, and the proportional
correspondence of the several parts to the form of the whole
object." The Greeks kept units for different purposes tinct,
dis-
and could impress on each a homogeneous form, sym-
metrical
also in the modern restricted sense of having corre-
sponding
halves. They studied proportions to secure not

only a general harmony in the relative massiveness or slen-
derness of all the parts, but also a mathematical relation tween
be-
their dimensions an "
equality of ratios,or a common

dividing module. The applicationof these unifying principles
however, was not mechanical. Subtle modifications
were introduced for the purpose of securinga still higher de-
gree
of organization,and sometimes for the sheer avoidance
of too uniformity.
monotonous
Development. The development of the architecture of

Greece was from uncertaintyto extreme refinement, and then
to a less restrained magnificence. The elements of the early
monuments were gradually co-ordinated and harmonized,
until the central moment was reached in Periclean Athens
in the fifth century B.C. Then ensued a diffusion of energy
in elaboration and variation of the accepted themes, a search

for novel motives, accompanied by the solution of the new
problems created by wealth and luxury.

Periods. The chief races of historic Greece first appear
about noo B.C., on the ruins of the older ^gean civilization.
The archaic or formative period of their characteristic styles
began roughly with the beginning of the Olympic games, in
GREEK ARCHITECTURE 51
776, the first expressionof national unity. It closed with the

final repulseof the Persian and Carthaginian attacks in 480-
479, which left the Greeks conscious of their powers and
stimulated the production of their maturer works of art.
The period of native development extended roughly till the
Macedonian conquest of Greece and Asia, 338-323. The
splendid expansion known as Hellenistic art, in which the
Greek inheritance was modified by Asiatic influences,con-
tinued
until the Roman conquest, in the second century B.C.,
gave a new direction to Greek energies.

Relation of Doric and Ionic architecture. Doric architecture
and Ionic were at first distinct styles,and their subsequent
interminglingshould not obscure their separate origin and
different fortunes. At the opening of the historic period the
Dorians occupied the Peloponnesus and central Greece, hav-
ing
repressedcertain of the earlier tribes and forced others to
an eastward migration. The lonians occupied Attica, the
central islands of the Êgean, and the coast of Asia Minor
opposite, called specificallyIonia; the ôlians the Asiatic
coast to the north. It was in Ionia and the ôlian towns,
under the influence of Asiatic models, that the style called
Ionic had its rise,and to this territoryand the neighboring
islands it remained almost confined until late in the fifth
century. All the rest of Hellas, includingAttica,meanwhile,
was engaged in developing another style,called by contrast
the Doric, which had its roots in the national inheritance
from native civilization. The Ionic might have been called
provincialhad not Ionia then stood in the lead in civilization,
wealth, and art. She held firmly to her own style,so that
but a singleDoric temple is to be found on Asiatic soil. It
was not until after the Athenian naval confederacy brought
the two shores into more intimate relations that Ionic forms
began to penetrate continental Greece to any considerable
extent or to be influenced
by those of Doric architecture.
Archaic period,776-479. The leaders in artistic productive-
ness
during the formative period in Greece were the Ionian
cities of Asia Minor and the newly founded colonies,mostly
Dorian, of southern Italyand Sicily. Their lands were more
fertile,their inhabitants more enterprising, than those of
Greece itself, so that they early attained a wealth and culture
quite beyond the general simplicityof the mainland cities.

Among the more important centers in Ionia may be mentioned
Ephesus and Samos, with their gigantic early temples; in
the west, Selinus,Akragas, Syracuse,Tarentum, and Paestum.
On the mainland Athens alone, under the wise rule of Pisis-
tratus, gave brief promise of taking rank with these. Aside
from buildingsof practicalutilitysuch as fortifications and
fountain houses, almost the only public monuments were the
temples. Singly,or impressivelygrouped on the acropolis
or in a sacred inclosure,they dominated the modest houses
of the city. In harmony with the materials available,the
Ionic forms were delicate,slender, and graceful, the Doric
generally heavy "
both with full and sweeping curves in the
capital. adjustment of various details was
The still subject
to great uncertainty,especially in the Doric order, with its
unconquered difficulties and its local varieties in colonies
under Achaean or Êolian influence. Only in the last years
of the sixth century was a final solution approached.
Central period: fifthcentury. The awakening of national
consciousness after the Persian wars, and the fiftyyears of
comparative peace that followed, inaugurated what has
usually been considered the great period of Greek art. The
rebuildingof the ruined monuments of northern and central
Greece stimulated a rapid development to maturity during
the fifth century. Ionia, to be sure, was slow in recovering,
and built little;but elsewhere throughout Hellas there was
the greatest activity. Though the western colonies retained

their prosperity,the mainland now rapidly took the lead in
art and culture. The spoilsof victory contributed to the
development of the great national sanctuaries,such as Delphi,
Olympia, and Delos, with their temples, their propylaea,and
their treasuries (Fig. 35). The evolution of the drama now
first added the theater to the architectural problems. The

forms of the Doric order assumed their normal relations,
which imposed themselves wherever the style was used.
Athens Pericles,461-430. At
under the Athens, where
destruction had been most complete and the subsequent
victory most fruitful,a happy combination of circumstances
produced buildings of unique refinement. At preciselythe
moment when naval supremacy and Asiatic conquests were
FIG. 1 6 "
ATHENS. THE PARTHENON, FROM THE NORTHWEST
FIG. 17 "
ATHENS. THE PARTHENON. (RESTORED TO ITS CONDITION IN
ROMAN TIMES. MODEL IN METROPOLITAN MUSEUM)

placingAthens in close touch with the rich art of her Ionian

kinsmen, all of her sanctuaries were to be rebuilt. The
marble of Mount Pentelicus,now first appreciated,furnished
a worthy medium, permitting more slender forms. Ionic
fervor infused the statelyforms of Doric architecture with a
new spiritof grace. The Ionic forms themselves were even
employed, although radicallymodified by Doric traditions.

The full advantage of the moment would not have been seized
FIG. 18 "
ATHENS. THE ERECHTHEUM, FROM THE WEST
had not the Athenian democracy been dominated by a man
of the insightof Pericles. His diversion of the Delian treasure
to the adornment of Athens won for him the denunciation of

contemporaries,but made his citythe admiration of the world.
The Parthenon (Figs.16 and 17),the Propylaeaof the Acropo-
lis,
the temple of Athena Nike",and the Erechtheum (Fig 18),
show the extreme refinement which Greek art maintained for
a few years before seeking other less subtle expressions.
The collaboration of Phidias and his school gave a noble and
appropriate sculptured decoration. At the Piraeus, where
Pericles had almost a free hand, he brought the whole city
into architectural composition, according to a rectangular

street plan made by Hippodamus of Miletus.
Central period:fourth century. The fourth century found
the mainland exhausted by civil war, which continued with
brief intervals till the Macedonian conquest, and gave little
encouragement tobuilding. At defeated Athens, especially,

means were lacking for anything but practicalimmediate
needs. It was from Athens, however, with her daring innovations,
her wonderful monuments of the preceding period,
that the other cities took their inspiration.Sparta and
Thebes, which the turn of events successivelybrought to
power, gave signs of entering on the patronage of art, although
time did not permit them to accomplish much. The new
cities of the Peloponnesus, Mantinea, Megalopolis, and

Messene, are typicalof the period. In the west, the Cartha- ginian
destruction of Greek cities in Sicilyin 409-406 was lowed
fol-
by a long paralysis,during which the palace of the

tyrant Dionysius at Syracuse was almost the only important
production. With the civic revival there toward the end of
the fourth century some temple-buildingonce more began.
It was in the cities of Asia Minor, though they were again
partly under Persian rule, that the greatest and most acteristic
char-
monuments of the time were erected. The building
re-
of the temples,many of which had lain in ruins for

more than a hundred years, was commenced on a scale that
overshadowed everything in the mother country. The Ionic
temples at Ephesus and Priene were completed by the time
of Alexander's invasion, 334; the temple at Didyma, near
Miletus, the greatest of all,was begun immediately after.
For half-independentrulers of Caria, Greek artists laid
the
out the city of Halicarnassus, and built there the colossal
tomb of Mausolus which has given its name permanently
to funerary architecture.
Types of buildingsin the central period. The temple still

retained first place in importance, though not in the same
degree as formerly. In Greece as well as in Asia, at the
national religiouscenters, notably Olympia and Delos, important
monuments were added, and Epidaurus took rank
with these through a group of new buildingsdesigned by the
sculptor Polyclitus the younger. In Asia the early native
forms of the Ionic order were matured and developed. In

Greece, the Doric, Athenian in proportion,remained most
usual on the exterior. The atticized Ionic and the Corinthian
were now used also,in interiors,
and, above all,in the beautiful
circular temples which became
popular. In the west the
traditional Doric was still used exclusively, with but little
modification. Greater independence appears in the new
types, responding to new requirements. Every cityand every

great sanctuary now aspired to have its theater in stone, a
new monumental problem typical of rising standards of
luxury and convenience. By the time of Alexander the
stadion also was lined with stone. At Megalopolis a great
covered assembly-hall was built by the Arcadians, with
terraced seats for six thousand men. On the other hand,
architecture entered the service of individuals, wealthy
citizens vying with the princes of the monarchical states in
the erection of elaborate houses and tombs.
Hellenistic period. The years 334 to 323 witnessed der's
Alexan-
brilliant conquests, which opened the east to Greek fluence
in-
not without a certain reaction on the art of Greece
itself. Outer circumstances were never more favorable to
art than in the new empires of his successors, where all was
to be created, yet where every means was at hand. The new

capitals,Alexandria, Antioch, and, later, Pergamon, became
the centers though Rhodes
of artistic activity, and the Ionian
cities pressedthem closely. In Greece itself the great heritage
of earlier monuments and the prevailingfinancial exhaustion
were unfavorable to building. The aspect of Athens, Delphi,
and Olympia, for instance, remained practicallyunchanged.
Only in regionsnow first raised to importance, such as Êtolia
and Epirus, were many considerable monuments erected.
In Sicilyofficial art had its last after-glowunder the later
tyrants of Syracuse.
Changes in problems. Everywhere architecture had to cern
con-
itself with problems in the design of whole cities. It fol-

lowed
the precedents earlier set by Hippodamus in the wide-
spread
adoption of a rectangular plan. Traffic and hygiene
were considered, as well as appearance. At Alexandria the
two chief streets had a 'breadth of over a hundred feet, with
sswers and water-mains beneath. The city took on some of
the many aspects of a modern metropolis,with its museum

and library,its great park, its vast harbor with the mole, and
the great lighthousecalled the Pharos. The embellishment of
these cities gave opportunitieswhich the architects employed
in strivingto outdo all previous works in
splendor and mag-
nificence.
The execution of the great temples at Miletus and
Magnesia, the giganticaltars of Pergamon and of Syracuse,
the Serapeion at Alexandria within its vast colonnaded court,
all fell in this period. Still more characteristic were the
sumptuous palaces of the rulers and even of private citizens,

the public buildingsof every kind, council-houses,and gymnasia.
Philanthropy sometimes gave architecture a new tion,
direc-
as when parks and gymnasia were established to keep
some benefactor of the city in grateful remembrance, the

tomb or a commemorative monument being a central but
subordinate feature. The market-placeswere surrounded by
porticosand the chief streets even were lined with nades.
colon-
Changes in detail. Amid all this lavishness something was
inevitablylost. The extreme refinements of form, the subtle

curves, were succeeded by a richer ornament and a bolder
membering. The result was technicallymore facile,more
easilyappreciated,and by these very qualitiesit was fitted
to the needs of a sophisticated and complex civilization. The
Ionic order, changed by return influences from Athens into
its final shape, was now the.favorite;the Corinthian order
became more and more common. As the interchange of
ideas increased, the form of the column was no longer de-
pendent
on racial tradition. Instead there grew up a ciple
prin-
by which the traditional forms, though kept distinct,
were objects of free choice according to appropriatenessof
character. The arch and the barrel vault were used oftener
and with greater boldness, but never without irreproachable
abutment by solid masses of masonry or earth. It was at
this time, above all, that theoretical writings multiplied,
and mathematical formulation made the Greek system
imitable in the barbarian world. Beyond the borders even
of Hellenistic Greece, Parthia imitated her clumsilyand Rome

became her most faithful pupil.
Gr"co-Roman period. Under the domination of the Ro-
man Empire, the architecture of old Greek lands never wholly

lost its individuality,although Roman emperors and con-
noisseurs
delighted to adorn Athens with new monuments.

The transformations which continued to take place in Greece
and Asia Minor were rather nativedevelopments, copied and
domesticated at Rome, than importations from the capital.
A thousand years after the age of Pericles we shall see that
Greek genius, rejuvenated by fresh influences from the
Orient, had still vitality
to produce a new architecture on the
shores of the Bosphorus, after Rome itself had fallen in
decay.
Forms of detail. In Greek architecture great attention
was directed to the form of individual details,to those of
the columnar systems, above all,and knowledge of these and
their relations is
correspondingly necessary for intelligent
study of buildings.
Doric forms. The Doric forms show a fixityin their main
lines that is not less surprisingthan the incrediblypainful
experimentation by which the precise canonical relations were
finallyevolved (Fig.19). The constant elements which tinguish
dis-
with its cushion or echinus,
the style are the capital,
its heavy, square projecting abacus; the frieze,interposed
between cornice and architrave, with its alternation of cessed
re-
metopes and fluted triglyphs;and the muiules or
hanging plates on the under side of the cornice. The shaft

of the column tapered from bottom to top, diminishing a
fifth to a third of its lower diameter, usually with a slight
curve swelling,called the entasis. The line of the shaft
or
was emphasized by vertical flutings,normally twenty in

number during the central period,meeting on a sharp edge
or arris. Until after the Periclean age the column remained
comparatively stout, ranging in height between four and six
times its lower diameter. Such a massive support could rest
directlyon a platform without seeming to need a transition,

and a separate molded base was, in fact,added only in a very
few exceptionalcases. A common base, or stylobate,was
always furnished, however, by raisingany Doric portico at
least one step above its surroundings.
Formal relationships in the Doric order. Critics have been
unanimous in recognizing in the mature Doric system an
FIG. IQ "
THE GREEK DORIC ORDER
organic whole of the most expressivecharacter. Its ciple

prin-
consists,above all,in the masterly balance of the vertical
and the horizontal tendencies established by the columns
and the entablature, and in the management of the transition
between them. The vertical "movement" of the fluted
column is arrested, and the horizontal movement of the
entablature is foreshadowed, by the horizontal abacus.
This is itself prepared for by the spreading echinus with its
encirclingbands at the base, and by the incision creatinga
neck below. The vertical lines of the columns are again taken
up by the triglyphs,less stronglyemphasized, but twice as
numerous; once more arrested by their little cap, and finally

echoed in the low mutules, doubled to form almost a tinuous
con-
line,in which the transition is completed. Even the

guttcB or "drops" beneath the triglyphs and mutules "
thought to be descendants of pins in primitivewooden ing

fram-
" have equally their function in the stone entablature.
They are ultimate mediating elements between horizontal
and vertical.
Structural expressionsin the Doric order. Coupled with all
these purely spatialrelationships are equally subtle sions
expres-
of structural functions. The echinus seems to give
to act as a series of posts bearing
elastic support ; the triglyphs
the cornice, with the metopes as filling-plates between. In
many cases, to be sure, such members fulfilled these functions
only in appearance. The

projectionof the capitalwas lieved
re-
of any actual load by a slightlyraised surface over

the shaft. Triglyphs and metopes, instead of being articulate,
were often cut on a singleblock. It was the visual emphasis
on structure which was valued.
The problem of the angle. The inherent difficulty
of the
mature Greek Doric appeared when it was used in a
system
colonnade turning at rightangles,such as the temple peristyle
which was its principalapplication. Since the thickness of
the column and the architrave was greater than the width of
the triglyph,some adjustment was necessary to bring the
triglyphat the corner of the frieze,where it was felt to be

needed both as a structural expression and as a musical
cadence. The problem was variously solved: by widening
the metopes near the corner; by spacingthe triglyphsequally
Doric Entablature
from the Parthenon
Doric Entablature
Retranslated into wood construction
FIG. 2O "
THE GREEi: DORIC ORDER, WITH A RETRANSLATION INTO
WOOD. (AFTER DURM)
from one corner of the frieze to

abandoning the other and
exactitude of axial relation of columns and triglyphs
; by con-
tracting
the spacing of the corner columns; and by various

combinations of these methods. The adjustments sary
neces-
were so complex it may well have been from this

that
cause that noted architects of the fourth century, familiar
with the Athenian solutions,but preferring
a simplerarrange-
ment,
stigmatizedthe Doric styleas unfit for the buildingof
temples.
Doric origins. The originof many forms has been sought
in a wooden construction which was superseded by the one of
stone. Elements apparently imitative of the ends of wooden
beams occur in the entablature (Fig. 20). The complete
absence of any fragments of entablature among the ruins of
certain monuments leads to the conclusion that entablatures
of wood, sometimes incased in terra-cotta, were indeed casionally
oc-
preserved throughout the classical period. Classic

writers mention also wooden columns in some buildings,
notably the temple of Hera at Olympia. Here the testimony
is 'confirmed by the remains, which show columns of every
period in the same building,presumably inserted one by one
as the wooden columns decayed. Columns of wood, however,
can scarcelyhave suggested the form of the massive Doric
column. The wooden supports which it replaced must have
been of some different proportionsand detail,now uncertain.
For the capital,at least,Mycenaean forms furnished the prototype
(cf.Figs. 15 and 21), as they did for the plan of the
temple and its early mode of construction. Only certain
minor motives of ornament can have been derived from
outside of Greece, and these were forms like the fret, or
meander, current in most primitive art, which the Greeks
may well have invented independently.
Doric development. The substitution of stone for wood and
terra-cotta did not at once produce the consistent normal
arrangement which has already been described. A long de-
velopmen
preceded the central moment, and continued after
this moment was past. This development proceeded steadily
toward higher organizationin such technical matters as the
jointingof the stones, such problems as those presented by
the corner triglyph,the profiling the membering
of the capital,
63
of the entablature, and the carryingthrough of a module or
common divisor of the dimensions; but it left great local

freedom in the choice of proportions. Such matters as the
ratio of diameter to height in the column, of diameter to inter-
columination, of lower diameter to upper diameter, which

were formerly thought to have evolved uniformly in the
direction of increasingslenderness,openness, and vertically,
are now seen to vary far more according to local traditions
which remained relativelystable, influenced in part by the
building material available. The idea of a universal trend
in matters of proportion was. one arisingfrom the greater
number of earlymonuments preserved from regionsand cities
where heavy proportionsprevailed, and from the number and
prominence of later monuments from regionslike Attica, with
their slender columns of marble. The later temples of the
west, however, kept the massiveness of their columns along
with their coarser material; those of the east likewise show
no positivetendency.
Archaic period. During the archaic period the capital
retained the wide and bulging echinus of its Mycenaean
ancestor, as well as the hollow beneath (Fig. 21). The
architrave was narrow, flush with the upper face of the
T of Demeter at Paeatum T at Êgina Parthenon T at Nemea

Drawn with upper diameters equal
FIG. 21 "
PROFILES OF GREEK DORIC CAPITALS, ARRANGED IN LOGICAL
CHRONO-
ORDER
column or even set back from it; the triglyphswere broad,

with the result that corner triglyphscould still be nearly on
the axes of the columns. The resultingmetopes, however,
were scanty, so that the mutules over them had often to be
less broad than those over the
triglyphs. Little attention
was paid to the ordering of the stone joints,which were,
to be sure, covered by the of
coating stucco always used with
the porous limestone then employed. The search for a

module began certainlyby the middle of the period,although
it was still tentative. Architects hesitated between the
lower diameter and the mean diameter of the columns for its
unit, and employed an independent system for the frieze.
Central period. With the central period the hollow of the
capitaldisappeared and the echinus took on a steeper, hyper- bolic
profileof the utmost subtlety. The architrave lost the
narrowness reminiscent of wooden origins,but, in widening,
made the problem of a corner triglypha serious one. In the
solution adopted, a contraction in the spacing of the columns
at corners became universal. The entablature took on its
normal form, and the stone-jointing,
exposed when marble was
used, became
regular,bearing an organic the relation to
architectural forms. A single module based on the mean

diameter of the column seems to have been appliedthroughout
the columnar system, includingthe entablature.
Late period. The forms thus fullyestablished in the fifth
century suffered but little subsequent change. Except in the
west, to be sure, the Doric stylewas almost abandoned by the
middle of the fourth century. It is perhaps due to influence
from Ionic forms that a late Doric example on the mainland,
in the temple at Nemea, shows such slender proportions "
the height of the column six and one-half times its lower
diameter. Late capitalsgenerally lack the subtlety of line
of the mature form; their echinus is either almost straight
or rounded into a quadrant.
Ionic forms. The characteristic features of the Ionic
columnar system, the enduring elements of contrast with the
Doric, are especially the volute capital,the molded base, and
the cornice, with its blocks or dentils. Unlike the Doric
capital, the Ionic projectson two sides only, in the direction
of the architrave. A pair of spiralscrolls or volutes forms a
seemingly resilient intermediate between shaft and load. In
the more customary form which became universal, these
volutes were united across the top by a band, resting on a
circle of leaves which later took the form of an echinus rated

deco-
with "egg and dart." The abacus consisted only of a
narrow molded band. The slender shaft of the Ionic column

always received an individual base. Among many forms,
the most widely adopted in later times was the Attic base "
two convex moldings or toruses, with a hollow or scotia between.

The shaft itself ranged from seven and one-half to
ten lower diameters in height,with a slightentasis,and with
twenty-four flutes,normally separated by small, flat fillets.
The architrave was divided into three faces, each projecting
slightlyover the one below. The typical cornice was tinguish
dis-
by a row of small projectingblocks,which took the
name of dentils from their suggestion of teeth. When a
frieze was introduced between architrave and cornice it had

no subdivision into isolated panels like the metopes, and was
usuallydecorated with a continuous band of sculpture.

Formal in the Ionic
relationships order. The Ionic system,
especiallyin the examples without frieze,presents a har-
monizatio
a
of horizontals and verticals analogous to that of the

Doric order, though not carried into such fine detail. The
dentils correspond both to triglyphsand mutules, and serve
the artisticfunctions of both. The capitalis in some respects
even better fitted than the Doric for the task of carrying a
transverse lintel,for its projectionsare limited to the sides
where support appears to be needed. The difference between
its faces creates a however, when a corner
difficulty, is to be
turned "
difficulty
a no less real than that created in the Doric
order by the triglyphs. The usual solution adopted was to
placepairsof scrolls on the two adjacent exterior faces,making

the corner on which they met project diagonally,and
lettingthe rear faces intersect in the interior angle.
Ionic origins. The Ionic structural forms seem to have
followed wooden prototypes stillmore closelythan the Doric,
even in the column and the capital(Fig.22). The columns
are relatively very slender; their capitalssuggest the saddle-
piecestillfound in heavy wooden framing. Indeed the oldest
capitalsshow a simple block, rounded at the lower corners,
with scrolls merely painted on the faces. The beam-ends in
the entablature are unmistakable. The decorative forms,
among which the scrolls of the capitalare the most worthy,
note-
can originsin the interior of Asia.

be traced to
Ionic development. The Ionic development, like the Doric,
was less a change of proportionsin a definite direction than a
change of character. The exuberance of the early examples
was transformed into sleekness,coherence, and elegance,

simultaneouslywith the taking up of Doric elements. The
volutes of the early capitalwere widely projecting,leaving
the echinus below exposed for its full circumference; later
they were drawn in and reduced in relative importance.
The frieze was first introduced into the entablature by the
Athenian architects of the time of Pericles,as a result partly
of their desire for richer sculptureddecoration,partly of their
Ionic entablature translated tnio wood conslruction
FIG. 22 "
IONIC ENTABLATURE, RETRANSLATED INTO WOOD. (AFTER
DURM)
Doric training. With a appreciationof structural expres-

fine sions
as well as of they suppressedthe dentils
artistic suitability
when they used the frieze,since these would have no longer
come opposite the ceilingbeams, and would have seemed to
crush the delicate figure sculpture employed. Later tects
archi-
were not so scrupulous,and Hermogenes, who trans-
planted
the Athenian innovations in the third century,

to Asia
used heavy dentils over a frieze of small figures (Fig. 23).
The final harmonization was reached in the great temple at
Didyma, where the frieze was brought into scale with the
dentils by a repeating decoration of large Medusa-heads

with garlands festooned between.
Corinthian forms. The Corinthian forms did not compose
in Greece a system completelydistinct. They were essentially
independent inventions,by which one or another of the
traditional Doric
or Ionic forms
could be replaced,
and which their
common tendency
to richness fitted
for use in bination.
com-
Earliest
and most acteristic
char-
was the
capital,consisting
essentiallyof an
inverted bell,sur-
rounded
by rows of
acanthus leaves,
with pairsof scrolls
or volutes ing
support-
the corners of
the abacus. The
example from
Epidaurus (Fig.
24)shows the type
which later came
be-
normal, with
two rows of
eight
leaves each,placed FIG. 23 MAGNESIA.
"
TEMPLE OF ARTEMIS.
DETAILS. (HUMANN)
alternately, exe-cuted
with a sharp-
ness
and delicacyin which Greek carving is seen at its best.
Further elements which, through association, contributed to
the development of a new order, were the curved frieze,and
the cornice with supporting brackets "
consoles,or modillions,
as they are called. The ripenedproduct of this development
had a harmonious luxuriance and an adaptabilityto varied
uses which gave it the advantage over the Doric and Ionic
forms. Here there was neither problem the of a corner
triglyph nor that of an angle capital.

Formal relationships in the Corinthian order. As in the
Ionic examples in which a plainfrieze reinforced the tendency
of the architrave, vertical and horizontal lines were strongly
opposed rather than blended, but the capital,by its bell and
FIG. 24 "
EPIDAURUS. CORINTHIAN CAPITAL OF THE THOLOS
silhouette, carried the line of the shaft over into the tablature
en-
in a way which was none the less adequate.

Corinthian development. The name Corinthian comes from
Vitruvius, who relates the famous myth of the invention of
the capitalby Callimachus
Corinth, on a suggestionfrom
at
acanthus leaves growing about a basket, with tendrils curling

beneath a tile laid over it. As a matter of fact,the earliest
example preserved is the
singlecapitalemployed by Iktinos
at Bassae,about 420, inspiredvery possiblyby the later loti-
form capitalof the Egyptians, with whom the Athenians were
in close touch in the middle of the fifth century. At Bassae

the Corinthian column is simply a variant employed side by
side with the Ionic,under the same entablature of Attic-Ionic
form. At Epidaurus and elsewhere, in the fourth century,

it was often employed independentlyfor an interior colonnade,
and in 334 it was used on an exterior for the first time we
know, in the delicate Monument Lysicrates' in Athens

of
(Fig. 25). The earliest building still preserved in which
Corinthian ordonnance was employed throughout on large
scale is again at
Athens, the gi-gantic
temple of
Zeus, carried up
in the second tury
cen-
B.C. on the
foundations laid
long before by
Pisistratus. As
the work was
done at the
charge of the
Seleucid peror,
em-
Antiochus
IV., it may well
be questioned
whether the lost
monuments of
Antioch may not
have afforded still
earlier examples
of a monumental
FIG. 25 "
ATHENS. MONUMENT OF LYSICRATES

use of Corinthian
forms. These
reached their greatest vogue and highest development under
such Hellenistic sovereignsand their successors the Romans.
Figure supports. In figuresof men
exceptionalcases or of
women were used as supports Atlantes or caryatids,as they
"
are called "

with rich and gracefulresults. This was notably
so in the "Porch of the Maidens" of the Erechtheum at
Athens (Fig. 18).
Size and proportionof members of the columnar orders.
The size of members in all the orders varied greatly without
much affectingtheir form. Examples of all three occur in
which the columns are over fiftyfeet in height, as well as
others in which they are less than fifteen. The distance from
axis to axis of the columns ranged from five feet two inches
in the temple of Athena Nike to twenty-one feet nine inches
in the temple of Apollo at Selinus. The relation between
height and spacing was for the most part an arbitraryand
FIG. 26 "
AKRAGAS. TEMPLE OF OLYMPIAN ZEUS. (RESTORED BY E. H.
TRYSELL, AFTER KOLDEWEY)
formal one, rather than a variable one determined by the

ultimate bearing power of the materials. In temples, the
spacing of Doric columns was in general about one-half their
height, that of Ionic columns about one-third their height.
If structural considerations had been dominant the length
of the lintels would have remained more nearly fixed,and the
ratios would have tended to vary inverselyas the height of
the columns. The proportionsof architraves are likewise not
strictlydependent on any statical law,though marble archi-
traves,
and late architraves generally,are relativelysomewhat
thinner than the early ones of coarse limestone. Doric
architraves of the mature period,whether of stone or marble,
have a height of about one-third of their length; Ionic archi-
traves of the Hellenistic period,about one-quarter. Among

the other factors involved there would seem thus to have been
an increasingstructural boldness. The varietyin the tions
propor-
of constructive forms of different orders, the identity
of proportionsin the same order at different scales,are dication
in-
however, of a wide margin of safety,a habitual
generosityof strength.
Walls. Aside fromemployment of the column with its
the
rich apparatus, Greek buildings were simplealmost to bareness.
The Greeks ordinarilyapplied no relief ornament to walls,
but gained their effect by the regular jointingof finelycoursed
rnasonry. Smooth-faced blocks were used for the best work;

but in heavy walls blocks dressed only at the edges, or with
the jointsemphasized by marginal draftings, were employed,
a practiceincreasingas time went on. In cases where a wall
and a colonnade were fused, with the columns attached or
engaged to the wall, as in the west fagade of the Erechtheum

(Fig.1 8) or the "Temple of the Giants" at Akragas (Fig.26),
this was usually due to exceptional causes, which balanced
over-
the Greek tendency toward simplicityof structural

expression. Where the end of a wall had to support an
architrave it was treated as a specialmember, the anta, with
its own capitaland base, differing from those of the column.
Moldings. The base and the crown of the wall,the transi-
tion
between horizontal and vertical,were emphasized and
rendered less abrupt by specialmembers, ranging from a
simple vertical plinthor fascia to an elaborate suite of carved
moldings. These moldings (Fig. 27), of which we have
already seen examples in the Doric echinus and the Ionic base,
are among the most enduring of Greek creations. Based
on the simple and universal forms of the convex, concave,
and reverse curves, they attained distinction by subtle variety
of contour, never followingan obvious circular arc, and by
judicious selection for the different functions of crowning,
support, and footing. A characteristic instance is the employment
of the reverse curve, or cyma. The cyma recta,

in which the thinportion projects,was
concave ordinarily
used only as a free
crowning feature; whereas the curve in
its other position,
the cyma reversa, was used when strength
was required. For the base of the wall in Doric buildings, a
4
high course of stones standing vertically, with a projecting

plinth below, was used; in Ionic buildings,molded bases
analogous to those of the antae, having as their most frequent
constituents a torus or a reversed cyma, and a plinth. For
the support of projectingbeams or cornices the Doric builders
used a characteristic
hooked beak-molding,
the Ionic builders the
ovolo "
like the
echinus in profile "
or
the cyma reversa.
Richer combinations
show a studied flow
and contrast of line,
punctuated by narrow
flat fillets or half-

round beads.
Ornament. sis
Empha-
on the structural
CYMA REC"
anatomy was also
gainedby carvingand
C jgyggj_,; painting. These were
usually confined to
TORU5 restricted in
fields,
as
the Doric and Ionic

friezes,contrasting
with the of
simplicity
the wall surfaces.
FASCIA
Moldings themselves
FIG. 27 "
GREEK AND ROMAN MOLDINGS. were thus enriched by

(REYNAUD) painting in the Doric
order, by carving,re-
inforced
by color,in the Ionic marble. The greatest judg-

ment
was exercised in the selection of motives of mentation
orna-
to accentuate rather than disguisethe form of

surface to which
they were applied. Thus the fret,with its
severe rectangularity, was reserved for flat bands. Curved
moldings were decorated with motives having lines which
were parallelor perpendicularto elements of the surface, or
which repeated its profile the egg and dart for the ovolo, a
"
heart-shapedleaf for the cyma reversa " thus harmonizing

from every point of view.
Doors. Doors and windows always square-headed were
when used monumentally in mature Greek times. They had

their jambs sometimes vertical,but frequentlyinclined some-
what
inward, a device recognizedby Hellenistic architects as

increasingthe apparent height. Important openings were phasized
em-
by a casing of bronze, or by projectingmoldings

similar to those of an Ionic architrave. These were carried
not merely across top, but down the sides
the as well,or even,
in the case of windows, completely around. The ear, duced
pro-
by making the lintel projectbeyond jambs, the
a was
characteristic instance of Greek structural emphasis.

Arches and vaults. In less highly finished constructions,
such as town walls and substructures,corbelled arches and,
later,true arches were often used. The oldest arched ways
gate-
preserved,in Acarnania, do not date before the fifth
century. In the fourth century the barrel vault was used for
certain subterranean tomb chambers. In the second tury,
cen-
among a number of vaults at Pergamon, occurs an
arched bridge of the bold span of twenty-seven feet. Thus

the arch, which was scarcelyan element of Greek architecture
in its first prime, was handled in Hellenistic times with
steadilyincreasingtechnical mastery.
Ceilings, roofs,gables, acroteria. The roofs of Greek ings
build-
were of tile,supported by wooden beams, which usually
rested on intermediate walls or columns. A knowledge of
the truss is not proved. In most cases the beams must have
remained visible from below, though in some examples wooden
ceilings with panels or coffers are possible. Where marble was
at command its strengthmade stone ceilings over the temple
porticostechnicallypossible. In the north porch of the
Erechtheum there are marble beams twenty feet in length.
The gable roof, traditional from Mycenaean days, was usual;
hip-roofs, with four slopes, were rare. The gables formed angular
tri-
pediments, with the cornice carried up the slope,and
its members, except the crowning cyma, or gutter, running
across horizontally also. The pediments were often filledwith
sculpturein relief or in the round, and the corners of the gable
were accentuated by sculpturedornaments called acroteria.
Larger elements of composition. In the larger elements of

composition Greek architecture showed the same conservatism
as in the details. At the basis of the chief national forms lay
the megaron, which remained the essential element of the
Greek house after the Dorian invasion, as it had been in
Mycenaean times. The long,narrow hall,either with a single
nave or divided by longitudinalranges of columns into two
or three aisles,remained the most characteristic element of
Greek plans, capable of varied applications. It was ployed
em-
for the temple, for the stoa, the most typical of

Greek secular buildings,and commonly for any buildings
which might be required for extraordinarypurposes, such as
the Athenian arsenal at the Piraeus. During the periods of
native development the model was scarcelyabandoned except
under compulsion, in cases when it would have had vantages
disad-
too serious to be overlooked. Such cases occurred
when large company
a were to assist at a spectacle,as in cer-
tain
halls of mysteries,the theater,and the odeion, the forms

of which were suggested directlyby the practicalrequire-ments.
The exterior peristyle, a continuous enveloping colon-
nade
first adopted in the temples (Fig.28), was the most
striking element of exterior effect,finding later applications
in tombs and monuments. The peristylarcourt and the
square hall with an interior peristyle essentially Oriental "
motives "
became acclimated in Greece in Hellenistic times.
Types of build-ings.As the first people of democratic
institutions, intellectual freedom, and athletic life, the
Greeks first met and solved the architectural problems which
these involve, creating the council-house, the theater, the
stadium, and other persistent European types. Private
life was relativelysubordinate and domestic architecture
was simple. Sepulchral monuments, in the best Greek
time, were modest works of sculpture. All the resources
of the state during its prime were lavished on the public

buildings, above all, on the temples, the centers of civic
life. Rising perhaps on the very site of a Mycenaean palace,
the temple, open to every citizen, symbolized the new
social order with
its rich consequences for art.
Religiousbuildings. The forms of the religiousbuildings
'
were in part conditioned by the nature of the Greek cults,

in part by traditions of primitive origin. In the worship

of the chief gods, such as Zeus, Apollo, Athena, and Artemis,
the principal ceremony was a sacrifice performed, not in a
closed room, but on a great altar in the open air. A tuary
sanc-
of
relativelysmall size sufficed for the house of the
god,
giving shelter to an image and to the more perishable or
FIG. 28 "
PÊSTUM. THE GREAT TEMPLE, SO-CALLED "TEMPLE OF
NEPTUNE." (CHIPIEZ)
more valuable offerings. Though always open toalmost

the people, it was not intended for the assemblage of devo-
tees.
In the worship of certain infernal gods the ceremonies
were performed behind closed doors, but in most of these
mystery-cults the number of the initiated was small.
The temple: essential elements. Under these stances
circum-
there was usually no difficulty in adopting the form
of the house, the deep and narrow rectangular megaron, as
the fundamental element of the temple namely, the cella

"
or naos (Fig. 29 [i]). This was normally either undivided

or divided into a central nave and narrow side aisles.
Usually the cella
preceded by a vestibule or pronaos,
was
with columns in antis (Fig. 29 [3],[6],etc.); less often it

had a closed vestibule (Fig. 29 [i],[2],[5])or none at all.
The temple: normal form. Though this simple form alone
sufficed for temples of minor importance, the type which
became normal (Fig. 28) was elaborated by the addition
of two other elements. The opisthodomos (Fig. 29 [6],[8])
"
"
an addition at the rear corresponding to the pronaos, but
ordinarilynot communicating with the cella was obviously "
introduced in the interest of formal balance. The peristyle,

a colonnade completely surrounding the ensemble so far
described (Fig. 29 [s]-[8]), had no practicalfunction ficiently
suf-
important to account for its origin. The origin
should perhaps be sought in an open canopy supported by
columns, like that over the early Christian altar. This may
well have sufficed at first to
image, and then shelter the
have been magnified to cover an inclosingcell. Certain it
is that in the temples of Doric style,in which the arrange-
ment
seems to have originated,the peristylehad an almost
accidental connection with the cella. Although in front it
had generally one column to correspond to each of the sup-
ports
behind, these columns stood in no exact relationship
of position either to the walls or to the columns of the
pronaos.
temple: other features. Other elements
The occasionally
appeared in the temple, not limited to any specialregion
or period. There might be an inner room of specialsanc-
tity,
the adyton,housing the image and opening toward the

cella (Fig. 29 [i],[2],[5]). A room similarlyplaced, but
opening to the rear, was introduced in several temples,
notably the Parthenon, to serve as a treasury under the pro-
tection
of the god. Intermediate between the simple cella
and the peristylartemple were the prostyle temple, with
columns running across the front, and the amphiprostyle
form, where they were repeated at the rear as well. These
were sometimes used as the best substitute for the peristylar

arrangement when a rich effect was desired in a narrow
space, as in the precinct of Athena Nike on the Acropolis

at Athens (Fig. 29 [4]).
The outer wall or colonnade of the temple was supported
on a massive substructure, in the form of steps, three being
the most common number (Fig. 28). These steps, propor-
tioned
to the size of the temple, were often too high to be
climbed, and this necessitated
specialflightof practicable a
steps or a ramp opposite the entrance (Fig. 26). Cella

and peristyletogether were covered by a simple gable roof,
the gables or pediments serving as appropriate fields for
sculptured decoration (Fig. 17). The temple was usually
lighted only through its great door at the east, although a
few Ionic temples, like the Erechtheum, certainly had
windows as well (Fig. 18). Some others are known to have
been "hypagthral," or without a roof over the cella, but
this is now thought to have been due to incompleteness or
to difficulties in the construction.
temple: size, proportions. In frontage few temples
The
exceeded eighty to one hundred feet,although a half-dozen
giants form a class by themselves with dimensions nearly
equal, about one hundred and sixty by three hundred and
fiftyfeet. Some peristylartemples are as narrow as forty-
five or even thirty-fivefeet, while the temples without a
peristyle, like the temple of Athena Nike, are sometimes

but twenty feet or less. The normal "hexastyle" Doric
fagade, of six columns, itself showed the most surprising
elasticity;the Metroon with a width of thirty-four feet,
and the temple of Zeus, with ninety-one feet, stand side by
side at Olympia a disregard for relations of scale which
"
was very characteristic of Greek architecture. Beyond one

hundred feet the number of columns had to be
multiplied,
reaching eight in the Parthenon and in the great temple of
Selinus, and ten in the Ionic temple of Apollo at Didyma.
Even the smaller late Ionic temples have eight columns on
the front on account of the width of their outer corridors.

The length of the peristylar temples varied from a little
more than twice the width to a little less than three times,
no chronological tendency being traceable in .this tion.
propor-
The ratio between the number of columns on the
flank and on the front also varied according to no general

law, though such high ratios as 6 : 17 and 6 : 16 occur only
in the oldest Doric temples, and the low ratio of 6 : n
only in the most recent. The height of the temple fagade

usually ranged about half its width more for the temples "
with six columns, and less for those with more than six "
more in any case for the Ionic than for the Doric.
Development of the temple: archaic period. In the early
stages of the development of the temple there was much
local variety,not only in the columnar system, but in the
general arrangement. In Greece proper the oldest temples
of which the plans can be studied the Heraion at Olympia "
from before 700 B.C., the temple at Corinth from before 600
"
already show the opisthodomos and the triple division

of the interior,as well as the contraction of the corners of
the Doric peristyle. In other parts of Hellas, however,
many less sophisticatedforms occur even at a much later
time, which may well primitive stage of
represent a more
development adhered to through provincial conservatism.
Early temples in Ionic regions frequently lacked the

peristyle,which seems to have been developed in the
mother country after the Ionian emigration, and to have
been carried over afterward into Asia. Such great ments
monu-
as the archaic Artemision at Ephesus and the temple

of Hera at Samos, both built in the sixth century, show the
elaboration which
peristylesoon received on
the Ionic soil.
In the colonies of the West, though they were founded later,
the single-ended cella prevailed till the fifth century, and
the problems of the peristyle were solved somewhat clumsily.
A sharp difference in the diameter and in the spacing of the
columns of the front and of the flank, sometimes found in the
mother country, was during the archaic period;
here the rule
and the normal solution with sides and front spaced alike,
and a contraction at the corners due to the triglyphs,does
not come in until its close. In several outlying regions
temples occur with the cella divided into two aisles by a
singleline of columns (Fig. 29 [2],[7]) obviously a more "
primitivedevice to support the ridge over a wide span than

the division by two lines (Fig. 29 [6],[8])which commended
itself to more expert constructors as leaving an axial place
So A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
for the image. This latter arrangement appears very rarely

in the West, most of the cellas there being undivided.
Local traditions in temple design. An extreme instance of
adherence to local traditions can be seen at Selinus,the post
out-
of Greece in western
Sicily. Here were two primitive
closed megarons, each with its adyton; and no less than
seven peristylartemples in which the adyton is preserved,
in three of them even after they had otherwise become pletely
com-
assimilated to the normal type. Two of the seven

retained the closed vestibule as well, and all of the four
archaic ones had an elaboration of the entrance front,
either by a second transverse line of columns or by a
prostyle development of the cella, which has few examples
elsewhere. Partly as a result of this multiplication of
features, the temples were all beyond the average tion
propor-
in length. Excepting one of the megaron-cellas which
had a single division, only the gigantic temple of Apollo
had interior colonnades.
Temples of the central period. The fifth century saw the
victory of the normal Doric arrangement for all peristylar
temples. A pronaos and an opisthodomos in antis, a cella
undivided or with three aisles,were everywhere adopted.
The plans of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, the great
temple at Paestum in southern Italy,and the little temple at
Êgina off the coast of Attica, all three-aisled,are distin- guishable
only by minor details. The same holds even
more strongly for the temples with a singlenave, such as

the later temples at Akragas and the so-called Theseum at
Athens. The great temple at Paestum is well enough preserved
to permit a reconstruction of substantially all its
parts (Fig. 28). The interior colonnades, as in other contemporary
temples, were made by superposing two ranges

of small columns. The lower range was united merely
with an architrave, and the columns of the upper range tinued
con-
the taper of those below.

Athens. The Athenian architects of the second half of
the century began a series of unexampled innovations
which, after raisingthe Doric temple to its greatest richness,
ultimately set the Ionic in its place. With Pericles as the
leader of the democracy, and the great sculptor Phidias in
FIG. 30 " ATHENS. PLAN OF THE ACROPOLIS. (KAUPERT)
(i) Theater of Dionysus '
(19) Temple of Athena Nike f39) Old Temple of Athena
(9) Stoa of Eumenes (20) Propylaea (40) Erechtheum
(10) Odeion of Herodes Atticus (28) Parthenon
the r61e of minister of public works, the most

a cosmopolitan
city in Greece infused new life into the temple form just
as it was stiffeninginto a formula. The elements duced
intro-
were not from Ionia only. They include features
directly reminiscent of Egypt the fruit perhaps of the
"
Athenian expedition to Egypt in 454 as well as others

"
essentiallynew.
The Parthenon. The Parthenon (Figs.16 and 17),which
superseded a more conventional temple projected before
the Persian wars, was designed by Iktinos and Kallikrates,
and erected between 447 and 432. It had an exceptionally
wide (Fig.30 [28])to give space for the colossal statue
cella
of Athena by Phidias. The interior colonnades of the cella
were turned across behind the image, making the first
peristylarhall in Greece. In the rear chamber the super-
posed
Doric ranges were replaced by Ionic columns, the
greater relative height of which enabled a single support
to reach the roof without too great diameter. On the terior
ex-
the Doric order was retained, with prostyleporticoes

of six columns for pronaos and opisthodomos, and a peri-
style
of eight by seventeen columns. The use of marble
made possible a ceilingof coffered stone, instead of wood,
over the vestibules and outer corridors, and a richness of
sculptured decoration hitherto unknown.
Architectural refinements. A subtle upward curvature of
the stylobate,early employed in the Heraion at Olympia
and the temple at Corinth, was used in the Parthenon and
in the smaller temple known as the Theseum, as part of
an elaborate series of modifications in the horizontal and
vertical members. The lines of the entablature were also
curved upward in the center, as well as inward in plan.
The columns were inclined backward toward the walls of
the cella, those at the corner sloping diagonally. The
walls themselves inclined,in sympathy with the pyramidal
effect of the whole. The corner columns were, moreover,
slightlythicker than 'the others, giving a definite end to

the colonnade. although very slight,
All these variations "
like the entasis sufficed to recognize in the most

" delicate
way every possibilityof finer organization, and to give

the work of art something of the character of a livingthing.
Temple of Athena Nike. In the later temples of the

Acropolis the Doric order was abandoned completely for
the Ionic, which had newly become familiar. The first
of these was the little temple of Athena Nike, the so-
called "Temple of the Wingless Victory," built about
435 by Kallikrates on the southwest bastion. It has a
shallow cella withprostyle porticoes of four columns at

each end (Fig. 30 [19]). Although it is the smallest of
all Greek temples, its magnificent situation, its harmony
of proportion with the substructure, its perfection of detail,
enable it to hold its own worthily with its great
neighbors.
The Erechtheum. Another Ionic temple, dedicated to
Athena and Erechtheus (Fig. 18), was built at intervals
from 435 to 404 to take the place of the old temple north
of the Parthenon. It was irregularin plan, corresponding
to the variety of cults which it sheltered and the unevenness
of the ground on which it stood (Fig. 30 [40]). It had a
cella with a prostyle portico of six columns on the east,
minor porches to north and south, and a wall with engaged
columns on the west. In the famous Porch of the Maidens
to the south, the sculptured supports show a masterly
adaptation to their architectural functions. The six
figures,four in front, stand all with their backs to the
building. They rest easilyon one foot, with the supporting
leg, always the one on the outside, enveloped in vertical
folds of drapery which serve the same artistic function as
the flutes of a column. In the North Porch is the richest

of all Ionic capitals,having a double spiral,and a carved
necking of honeysuckle, or anthemion. The superb north
doorway with its molded architrave enriched by carved
rosettes is another strikingfeature. The columns of the
north and west rise from levels different from the features
of the east and south. The north portico,moreover, jects
pro-
beyond the corner of the cella, and includes a door to
the sacred inclosure west of the
building. Although the
junctions show some lack of facility,
the very attempt to
combine a variety of forms in a building for complex uses
was a novelty. The features evolved in the course of the
attempt, such as the portico or porch used independently
of the main facade, became favorite devices in the sub-

sequent
development of architecture.
The temple at Basses. Beyond the borders of Attica,
Iktinos was employed about 420 to design the temple of
Apollo at Bassas in the Arcadian mountains. It surpassed
even the buildings of his native city in the novelty of its

arrangements. Not only were both the Doric and the
Ionic orders used, but for the first time that we know the
rich Corinthian appeared as a third. The Ionic order was
used for the interior of the cella, with columns the full
height of the room, as it had been used in the treasury of the
Parthenon. A change from free-standing columns to en-
gaged
columns in the interior was also begun, by attaching

the columns to the wall by short cross walls. The Ionic
capitalsthemselves are unlike any previouslyseen in Greece.
They have volutes on all three exposed faces,permitting the
colonnade to be turned across the cella without requiring
a special corner capital. The nearest prototypes for the
form of their volutes are in certain Egyptian scrolls. Egyp-
tian
models may also have suggested the singleCorinthian
capital,which crowns a column at the end of the cella
under the same entablature with the Ionic columns.
Sculptured decoration in Athenian temple design. The
fifth-centuryAthenian temples also set new precedents in
richness of sculptural features and in modes of introducing
them. Hitherto decoration by figuresculpture had scarcely
been employed, in Doric temples, except in the triangular
fields of the two pediments, and in the series of metopes on
the ends. The characteristic mode of decoration for Ionic
buildings had been by continuous bands or friezes of
figures,running around the external wall of the cella or
its substructure. Now, in the design of the Parthenon, all

the metopes of the external Doric order were filled with
sculpture, and a continuous Ionic frieze was added around
the cella
just below the ceilingof the peristyle. In the
Ionic temple of Athena Nike with its prostyle arrangement,
whereby cella and portico were united by a single cornice,
Kallikrates did not confine the sculptured frieze to the
cella, but carried it along above the architraves of the two
porticoes. This first use of a sculptured frieze in the en-
tablature of the Ionic order, immediately followed by a
similar use in the Erechtheum and in the interior of the

temple at Bassae, soon influenced all current
practice.
Fourth-centurytemples. The revolutionarydesigns of the
Athenian architects did not produce an instant or complete
reformation in the temple elsewhere. The temples of the
West remained little affected by them. At Segesta, and
in the great temple at Paestum, built soon after 430, curva-
tures
and inclinations analogous to those of the Parthenon

occur, but the Ionic order found no favor, even for teriors.
in-
In continental Greece the universal adoption of
marble resulted in the use of stone ceilingsfor the peristyle,
and of
general proportions similar to those of the Attic
buildings. The sculptor Skopas, in the temple of Athena
Alea at Tegea, followed the lead of Iktinos by employing
both the Ionic and the Corinthian columns as well as the
Doric. The principal use of these, however, was in the
new circular temples, or tholoi at Epidaurus, Olympia,
"
and
Delphi.
Late temples in Ionia. The great temples of the Ionian
renaissance naturally reverted to the early national types
represented by the temple of Hera at Samos and the Arte-
mision at Ephesus. With eight and sometimes ten columns
on the front,they had two rows along the sides or else a
width of corridor which would have sufficed for two (Fig.29
[8]). The columns were aligned with the antae both on front
and sides,making possiblea regularityin the ceilingbeams
which had never been attained in Doric temples. The
curvature of the stylobate was taken over from Doric
buildings in the Ionic temples of Priene and Pergamon;
the use of half columns of Corinthian order for the interior
of the cella adopted in the temple of Apollo at Didyma.
was
An element increasinglyused was the podium or pedestal

for the whole structure, with base and crowning moldings,
which tended to take the place of the stylobate.
Mystery temples. The hall-temples of cults which included

initiation into certain mysterieswere multipliedchieflyduring
the late period,though a few examples have come down from
a much earlier time. For some of these, the conventional
megaron-cella sufficed,either undivided or with longitudinal
colonnades as at Samothrace.
peristylecould also beThe
appropriated to mystic uses by the building of screen walls
between the columns for a part of the height,as in one of the
temples at Selinus. From this it was but a step to the
arrangement of the Olympieum at Akragas, in which these
screens were carried the full height,and the cella thus extended
to the outer engaged colonnade (Fig.26). The huge size of
this temple and the consequent desire for an intermediate
support, furnished by colossal figures between the male
columns, may have been responsible for this complete closingof
the peristyle. For the great hall of mysteries at Eleusis,the
traditional temple scheme was already abandoned in the time
of Pisistratus for one which gave a greater capacity and a
view of the ceremonies from all sides. A square room divided
by seven rows of columns in each direction,with tiers of seats
about the walls, served to house a largenumber of spectators,
though the forest of columns left most of them but scant
glimpses of the central space.
Altars. The sacrificial altars before
great temples, at the
first of relativelysmall size,became, in Hellenistic times,
monumental constructions, surpassing the temples them-
selves
in area and magnificence. In essence they comprised
a platform for the sacrificants and a raised hearth above this
for the burning of the offering. Especiallynoteworthy were
the altars at Parion, over six hundred feet on a side, at Syra-

cuse,
almost the same distance in length,and at Pergamon,
with a sculptured podium and a U-shaped Ionic colonnade
surrounding the platform of sacrifice.
Treasuries. In the pan-Hellenic religious centers the
temple cellas could not hold a tithe of the offeringsshowered
upon the gods, and the practiceearly grew up of erecting
individual treasuries in which the giftsof each citymight be
deposited. These took the form of small temples, usually
with two columns in antis, although occasionallyprostyle.
Each bore the stylistic impress of its city and of its time of
origin. Ranged on their terrace at Olympia, or picturesquely
disposed along the winding sacred way at Delphi (Fig.35),
they were among the most interestingfeatures of the national
sanctuaries.
Temple enclosures,propyl"a. Monumental gateways, or
propylaea,with porticoesinside and out, gave access to the

temple inclosures, and stoas for the shelter of pilgrms ran
along the inner face of the walls. A fusion of these elements,

unprecedented in its unified attempted bycomplexity, was
Mnesicles in the propylaea of the Athenian acropolis (437-
432). Though religious conservatism prevented the complete
realization of his design, the part still standing shows its
monumental qualities (Fig. 30 [20]). The greater temple
precincts,often with many temples and altars,with groves
of olive and ilex,with a forest of statues and ex-votos, formed
ensembles grandioseeffect (Fig.35).
of
Civil buildings. Specialbuildings for civil purposes were
evolved relativelylate in Greece, where assemblage in the
open air was feasible,and where the temples served many

civic functions. The most universal of the forms employed
was the stoa, a long narrow hall like the megaron or the
temple cella,but, unlike the cella,having an open colonnade
in place of one of the side walls. In the varied uses of the stoa
as shelter,market, and exchange, subdivision by a single
range of columns did not present the same artistic and practical
disadvantagesas in the temple, and it remained the most usual
interior arrangement. Stoas with a tripledivision,or in two
stories, however, were not uncommon. Doric columns
carryingstone architraves usuallyformed the outer colonnade ;
Ionic columns taller and less closelyspaced supported the
wooden beams of the roof. In two-storied stoas the Ionic
order was placed above the Doric, each having its full
entablature.
Agorae. The agora, market-place,originally
or serving po-
litical
functions also,was an open place of no fixed form, dered
bor-
on one or more sides by stoas. It was frequentlyplaced
in the angle of two principalstreets, which passed through it
along the sides. The several stoas were thus at first inde-
pendent.
Only in later days, in Ionia, was a closed area of
regularplan with continuous surrounding colonnades adopted,
following the Oriental type of a peristylar court. The agoras
at Megalopolis,at Priene (Fig.36),and at Magnesia (Fig.31)
show successive steps in this process of higher organization.
Frequent adjuncts to the agora were shops at the back of the
porticoes,and a temple or fountain in the central space;
near it were the bouleuterion or council-house and the other

civicbuildings. Often subsidiary markets for the sale - of
specialclasses of goods supplemented the principalagora.
Council-houses. The bouleuterion, like so many other
Greek buildings,was in origin a megaron. In the one at
Olympia the older portion even conserved the primitiveform

of house, with an apsidal end and a single longitudinal
colonnade. Later examples, such as the Phokikon at Daulis,
were like the mature cella in having two rows of columns.

Banks of seats were added between them and the lateral
walls. problem was
The essentiallysimilar to that of the
mystery temples and led ultimately,as in them, to abandon-
ment
of a longitudinalscheme and adoption of a concentric
arrangement of seats facinga speaker'splatform. At Priene,
in the second or third century B.C., the seats paralleledthree
walls and the roof was carried by an interior peristyle a "
solution unified and technicallysatisfactory.At Miletus the

seats were made semicircular, on the model of a theater,
though the building itself was rectangular and the interior
supports bore no relation to the seatingplan. A monumental
court and propylaea were added. None of these buildings
accommodated more than a few hundred at most. A special
problem was presented by the hall of the Arcadians at
Megalopolis where several thousand were to be housed. The

architect adopted a series of concentric colonnades and seats
about three sides,but avoided obstructingthe view as badly
as in the hall of mysteries at Eleusis by placing the columns
in lines radiatingfrom the central point. The roof was of
course of wood, and the solution, though practicallysatis-
factory,
was neither permanent nor monumental.
Theaters. The Greek theater was a natural growth, corre-
sponding
to the growth of the drama from the primitivecult

of Dionysus. The choral songs and dances from which the
drama took its departure preserved their place in the later
development, and were responsiblefor the importance of
the originalelement of the theater " the orchestra, or circle
of the dance, in the center of which stood the altar. The
other ultimate elements were the scats risingin concave tiers,
the skene, opposite them, containing the dressing-rooms for
the and
participants, the proskenion,a platform before the
go A HISTORY OP ARCHITECTURE
skene, on which certain of the actors, or all of them, made their

appearance. An early stage of development may be surmised
in which a convenient hillside served for the auditorium, at
first without any architectural features, later with seats of
wood. In thefifth century, coincident with the dramatic
reforms of Êschylus, the skene was introduced. In the
time of Sophocles it still remained of wood with walls of
painted canvas. Before long,however, monumental materials
were substituted, and the elements were elaborated into the
theater of the fourth century, which remained much the same
FIG. 32 "
EPHESUS. THEATER DURING THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD.
(RESTORED BY FIECHTER)
in Hellenistic
days. Even then the components were but
loosely juxtaposed, not welded into a single unit. Greek
modes of design were too naive to seek the union of parts
having forms and functions so distinct.
A typical Hellenistic theater. The theater at Ephesus
(Fig.32) shows the form which became customary in the later
Hellenistic period. The orchestra was still laid out so as to
include a complete circle,although the circle itself was no
longermarked with a curbing,as in earlier examples. Around

it were the stone seats, occupying somewhat more than a
semicircle,and restingdirectlyon the hillside. They were

divided concentrically at half their height by a passage, as
well as radiallyby flights of steps, and were stopped at the

sides by oblique walls. Between these and the buildingsof
the stage were passages for the entrance of the spectators and
for the chorus when it
supposed to come
was from a distance.
Tangent to the orchestra, opposite the auditorium, was the
proskenion,about ten feet high, with small engaged columns,
three doors for the entrance and exit of the chorus, and the
remaining openings closed by wooden panels. The skene
itself was a long narrow building,two stories high, with a
series of large openings in the side toward the proskenion,
three of them containing doors. The large openings, which
in earlier days had framed somewhat naturalistic stage settings,
were now given a more conventional filling of slender columns,
the ancestors of the grouped decorative columns of the Roman
stage backgrounds (cf.Fig. 47).
Variety in theater designs. In other examples there was
abundant variety. The site available did not always permit
the auditorium to be regularly geometrical as at Ephesus;
it was frequentlyirregularin its outer boundary and sometimes
in the layout of the seats themselves. The conformation

of the ground often permitted subordinate entrances to the
intermediate circular passage. Seats of honor might be

provided about the orchestra,like the beautiful marble thrones
of the theater of Dionysus at Athens. A stoa in which people
could seek shelter, or promenade, might also be added where
some-
in the neighborhood of the skene.

Size of theaters. In accommodation these open-airtheaters
far exceeded the theaters of modern times. At Athens there
was room for 30,000 spectators, at Megalopolis for 44,000.
Those in the rear rows were also much farther from the
actors, but, in compensation, saw them from a lower angle
than those in our upper galleries.The diameter of the
auditorium ranged from two hundred to five hundred feet.
Odeions. Related to the theater both in purpose and in
the step-likearrangement of the auditorium was the odeion,
a covered buildingfor musical and oratorical contests. The
first of the sort was the one built by Pericles in Athens. It
seems to have had a conical roof, with interior supports. In
Graeco-Roman times buildings for such purposes became

customary in cities of any considerable size. The smaller
ones were rectangular, with curving stepped seats like a
modern lecture or recital hall ; the largerones were essentially

covered Roman theaters,the most famous
being the odeion
built by Herodes Atticus against the Acropolis at Athens in
the second century after Christ (Fig.30 [10]).
Stadions. The athleticism of the Greeks did not fail to create
its share of their monumental architecture. For foot-races
the stadion was evolved, taking its name from the Greek
furlong. It was laid out where the topography favored, with
seats sometimes in a singlebank, but preferably in two long
parallel banks close together, connected by a semicircle.
Where necessary the seats were built up either by
artificially,
walls or by mounds of
earth, as at Olympia. Seats of stone
or marble were a late addition, at Athens not until Roman
times. The capacity varied from twelve thousand to fifty
thousand. Hippodromes were also laid out on a similar plan
but with a wide turn. Means scarcely sufficed for executing
these in monumental materials during Greek times. The
division in the center of the course remained a simple bank
of earth, the startingbarriers of wood.
Other buildings. The gymnasium and the palaestra
athletic
served for general exercise and preparationfor the great games.
Originally,and in strictness,the palaestrawas the place for
boxing wrestling,but the two terms are often used inter-
and changeably
In primitivedays a simple inclosure sufficed;
later a stoa was added along one side; then others,backed by
rooms. The arrangement was simplifiedin Hellenistic times
by the substitution of a homogeneous colonnaded court, as at
Olympia and Epidaurus. The side of the court facing the

south was usually doubled in depth. The surrounding rooms
furnished places for instruction, or for the assemblage of

friends for readings or conversation. In one of them was the
bath, with a simple tank or trough. Separate bathing
establishments were not frequent or extensive until late
Hellenistic times, when a luxurious elaboration ensued which
furnished the prototypes for the great Roman therms.
Domestic the megaron
architecture; house. The privatehouse
remained of secondary importance until well into the central
period, as a result of the almost exclusivelypoliticaland

public life of the men. It seems normally to have included a
modest hall,the descendant of the megaron, and a court closed

toward the street, besides minor rooms. The houses of Priene
in the fourth century still show an ever-recurringtype of
megaron-house, with a porticoin antis before the hall,dominat-
ing
the court as in Mycenaean times (Fig.33). The entrance
T R E t
FIG. 33 "
PRIENE. "HOUSE xxxn". (WIEGAND)
from the street was side,opening into a narrow

at one corridor
continued along the side of the court by a colonnade. Most
of the rooms, however, could only be reached by passing
through the open court.
The house with
peristylar court.
a In the third century this
type began to be superseded by one in which the court had a
continuous peristyle, the Oriental arrangement. The megaron-
hall was given up for a broad hall lying along one side,as is
seen especiallyat Delos (Fig.34). The peristylewas the
characteristic central feature of the kingly residences of the
Hellenistic period like those of the Acropolis at Pergamon.
All these dwellingsalike turned a simple wall to the exterior,
with few windows or none, and rarelya porticoover the door.
A second story over some portionswas not uncommon. Wall
painting is first mentioned in the time of Alcibiades, who is

said to have confined a painterin his house until he decorated
the walls. Later it became usual for the decoration of the
interior,as at Pompeii in the Graeco-Roman period.
Funerary architecture. Interment of the dead was the usual
custom in Greece, although incineration was not unknown.
The burial was for the most part in cemeteries on the plain
outside the city gates. Democratic feelingdemanded plicity
sim-
in the marking of the grave, so that, except for those
FIG. 34 "
DELOS. HOUSE OF THE TRIDENT. (P. PARIS)
of a few traditional heroes, the most elaborate monuments are
to be found outside of Greece proper, in the late period when

foreignersappreciated and employed Greek architects. At
Athens an unpretentiousslab, or stele,was the favorite type,
carved with honeysuckle or acanthus ornament, and often
decorated with symbolic sculpturedreliefs. Toward the end
of the fourth century the stone sarcophagus,already used in
the Orient, appeared in Greece. The most famous examples
are those of the group for the Hellenized rulers of Sidon, in
which the details of the house or temple are imitated, as a
setting for relief
sculpture. The temple form was also
employed at a largerscale for actual sepulchralchambers or
chapels to the memory of a hero. These multiplied,from the

end of the fifth century, in Asia Minor, culminating about 350

in the gigantic monument of the Carian King Mausolus.
This had a peristylar cella supported on a loftypodium, or
basement, and crowned by a pyramid of twenty-four steps
bearing a quadriga, or four-horse chariot. Pliny gives the
total height as one hundred and forty feet and the perimeter
as four hundred and forty. Speciallyfamous was the richness
of its sculptureddecoration,with no less than three friezes in
relief, besides many free standing figures. The arrangement
of a peristyleon a podium, made notable by this building,
became a typicalform for later monuments.
Commemorative monuments. Similar forms were used in
commemorative monuments, as in the monument of Lysicrates
at Athens, erected in 335~334(Fig. 25). Here a circular super-
structure
was placed for the first time over a
square base.
The larger votive offeringsat the national sanctuaries braced
em-
monuments of a variety of forms. A column was
often used as the support for a figure,and monumental settings

were created for groups of statues in hemicycles or exedrcB.
All these are seen in rich array Delphi (Fig.35).
at
Ensembles. The pan-Hellenic centers such as Delphi

(Fig.35), Olympia, and Delos included not merely religious
buildings. Like the cities,they show Greek architecture in
its ensemble. At Delphi the theater and the stadion were
adjuncts of the sacred inclosure of Apollo; at Olympia a vast
complex of athletic buildingsgrew up, with a council-house for
the officials, lodgings for distinguishedguests, fountains,
stoas, and later even private residences. Delos was a port
as well as a sanctuary, and had, besides its'temples,its warehouses,
commercial clubs, and exchanges. On such ancient

and sanctified ground above
"
all at a site like Delphi,which
owed its choice to a mountain fissure no "
great formality of
arrangement could be expected. Great skill was shown,
however, in adapting new buildingsto the irregulardisposition
of the old, and there was a responsiveness to the topography
which resulted in great picturesqueness.
The cities. The same qualitiesdistinguishthe older cities,
where the sites were chosen for militarystrength,and changes
were made difficult by inherited restrictions. These cities
were the work of time; their plans were the image of their
history. Although their domestic quarters remained poorly

and closelybuilt,the centers of civic life were enriched until
they rivaled or surpassed the national places of pilgrimage.
This was true above all at Athens, where the Acropolisgave
an unrivaled settingto a group of superb works, rich in
Citadel Theater
Temple of Athena Upper Gymnasium
Agora
Lower Gymnasium Stadium
FIG. 36 "
PRIENE. BIRD'S-EYE VIEW. (RESTORED BY ZIPPELIUS)
material, unique in perfectionof workmanship subtlety and

of form. approach wasThe rising from the west, the rock
steeply on the other sides, with the theaters clingingto its
southern flank (Fig.30). In classic times a winding road led
up, past the bastion of Athena Nike",to the Propylasa. Passing

its porticoesand its central wall with the five huge gates, one
came out on the summit of the rock, before the colossal statue
of Athena right was
Promachos. the Parthenon; to
To the
the left,differentlyturned to the light,the Erechtheum "
and richness servingas mutual foils. Winding

their simplicity
between them was the processionalroadway, decked with

hundreds of statues and of the highestartistic
offerings merit.
Town planning. The later cities show the influence of the
Greek tendency to rationalize all things,to reduce them to
universal and geometricaltypes. After the success of Hippo-
damus with the regular plan of the Piraeus,he was employed
at Thurii and Rhodes. Rectangular plans, at least for the
principal streets, were adopted in most Hellenistic cities.
Sometimes there were two main intersectingarteries,some-
times
several in each direction. No general rectangular

outline of the whole cityseems to have been sought. Though
Aristotle notes that Hippodamus made provision for the
proper grouping of dwelling-houses,it seems that this
consideration remained subordinate, in Greek cities,to the
spectacular grouping of public buildings. In the application
of thenewly discovered formulas the architects were not
always scrupulous in regarding topographical conditions.

At Priene (Fig.36) the rectangular street plan was forcibly
imposed on a steep hillside site,where the transverse streets
became veritable stairways. Well preserved and conscien-
tiously
excavated, however, it gives us our best evidence of
the aspect of a late Greek city,distantlysuggestingthe lost
magnificence of Antioch and Alexandria.
Like the Greek city-state, Greek architecture rested on the
synthesisof a few elements only. Animated first by a simple
adaptation to nature, later by self-confident reason, it sought
and attained supreme clarityof expressionwithin the restricted
field which modest needs had suggested,
PERIODS OF GREEK ARCHITECTURE
MagnaGrada and
^ an
Sicily
I. PRIMITIVE PERIOD, about 1100-776 B.C.
II. ARCHAIC PERIOD, about 776-479 B.C.
Temple of Hera at Predominance of Ionia,

Olympia, eighth to c. 550.
century. Temple of Hera at

Earliest peristylar Temple at Corinth, Samos, c. 600.
temple at Seli- before 600. Older temple of Ar- temis
nus, c. 575. Athens under Pisisira- at Ephe-

tus. sus, c. 560.
Magna Gratia and

Greece proper Ionia and Asia
Sicily
II. ARCHAIC PERIOD, 776-479 B.C. "
Continued
"Basilica" at Pass- Temple of Olympian Persian conquest of lo-

turn, c. 560. Zeus begun, c. nia, 546.
530.
Predominance ofwestern Earlier Hall of teries
Mys-
colonies,c. 550-480. at Eleusis.
Great temple of Earlier temple of
Apollo at nus,
Seli- Apollo at phi,
Del-
begun after c. 530-514.
540.
Canonical temples at Persian wars, ing
awaken-
Selinus, c. 500- of continental
480. Greece, 400-470.
Carthaginian war, 480. Older Parthenon at
Athens, c. 490-
480.
Temple of Aphaia at
JEgina, c. 490-
480.
in. CENTRAL PERIOD, about 479-330 B.C.
Prosperity in Sicily, National Unity, c. 470-

480-465. 460.
Temple of Olympian Embellishment of Olym-
Zeus at Akra- pia, Delphi, and
gas, after 480. Delos.
Temple of Apollo at Temple of Zeus at
Selinus pleted.
com- Olympia, c. 468-
56.
Civil war and war with Trophy of Plataea at
Steels,465-444. Delphi.
Athenian supremacy,
age of Pericles,c.
461-430.
The Parthenon, 447-
432.
Renewed prosperity in The Propylaea, 437-
Sicily,c. 444-400. 432.
Great temple at Paes- Temple of Athena
tum, c. 430. Nike\ c. 435.
Temple at Segesta,c. "Theseum," c. 430.
430-420. Later Hall of teries
Mys-
Temple of Concord at Eleusis.
at Akragas. Laying out of the
Piraeus.
too A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Magna Gratia and Q

Sicily
in. CENTRAL PERIOD, about 479-330 B.C. " Continued
Peloponnesian war; po-

litical
downfall of
Athens, 431-404.
The Erechtheum, c.
435-404.
Spread of Athenian fluence.
in-
Fall of western Sicilybe-

fore Temple of Apollo at
Carthage,409- Bassae, c. 420.

406. Temple of Athena Ionian renaissance,
Alea at Tegea, c. from c. 350.
39"- Mausoleum at Hali-
Temple, tholos, and carnassus, after
theater at Epi- 353-
daurus, c. 350. Later temple of Ar-
temis
Rebuilding of Man- at Ephe-
tinea;buildingof sus, 356-334-
Megalopolis and Temple of Athena at
Messene, 370 ff. Priene, dedicat-
ed
Temple of Castor and Macedonian conquest of 334.
Pollux at Ak- Greece, 357~338. Conquest of the Persian
ragas, after 338. Philippeionat Olym- Empire by Alex-ander,
pia, c. 336. 334-330-
IV. HELLENISTIC PERIOD, about 330-146 B.C.
A dministration of Ly- Spread of Greek in-

fluence.
curgus at Athens,
338-322. Alexandria founded,
Theater lined with 332.
stone.
Stadion built,c. 330.
Arsenal of Philon, c. Antioch founded, 301.
330- Ephesus refounded,
Altar of Hieron at Portico of Philon, 290.
Syracuse, 276- Eleusis, 311. Pergamon, flourished
215- Adornment of Athens by esp. 241-138.

Roman conquest of Mag- Asiatic rulers. Palace of Eumenes,
na Grcecia by 272, Temple of Olympian I97-I59-
of Sicily by 241. Zeus rebegun, Altar of Zeus, c. 1 80.
Temple of Asklepios 174. Council-house at ene,
Pri-
at Akragas, before Stoa of Attalos, be-
tween c. 200.
210. I 59 and Bouleuterion at tus,

Mile-
Temple "B" at Seli- 138. between 175
Destruction of Corinth and 164.
by the Romans, 146.
Magna Grtzcia and "
Greece proper Ionia and Asia

Sicily
v. GR^CO-ROMAN PERIOD, after about 146 B.C.
Corinthian- Doric Roman provinceof Asia

temple at Paestum, organized,133 B.C.
second century ''Tower of the
B.C. Winds" at ens,
Ath-
first tury
cen-
B.C.
Adornment of Athens
by Roman emperors
and citizens.
Arch of Hadrian, c.
135 A.D.
Buildings of Herodes
Atticus: Seats
of Stadion, c.
140 A.D., Odeion,

c. 160.
Exedra of Herodes
at Olympia, 156
A.D.
W. J. Anderson and R. P. Spiers's The Architecture of Greece and

Rome, 2d ed., 1907, gives a consecutive historical account; A. Mar-
quand's Greek Architecture, 1909, a technical analysis. More tailed
de-
and authoritative, with full bibliographicalreferences, is
J. Dunn's Baukunst der Gricchcn,3d ed.,1910 (Ilandbuch dcr Archi-
tectur, pt. II, vol. i). Perrot and Chipiez's Histoire de I'art dans
Vanliquite,vol. 8, 1903, which includes the archaic architecture of
Greece, with illuminatingrestorations. R. Koldewey and O. Puch-
stein's Die griechischen Tcmpel wn Unteritalien und Sicilien, 2 vols.,
1899, remains the final authority for the temples of the West. H.
d'Espouy's Monuments antiques, vol. i, 1910, and Fragments d'archi-
tecture
antique, vol. i, 1896, pis.1-25, vol. 2, 1905, pis.1-30, contain
a choice of the superbly presented restorations of Greek architecture
made by pensionersof the French Academy at Rome, ensembles and
details,respectively.Many of these drawings, however, involve a
largemeasure of conjecture and embody architectural theories now
abandoned. F. Noack's Die Baukunst des Altertums,1910, includes
very fine photographs of the Greek monuments, with brief text
embodying the results of the latest researches. A topographical
102
treatment is Pausanias's Description of Greece, translated with a mentary

com-
by J. G. Frazer, 6 vols.. 1898, reprinted Detailed

1913.
lists of works covering individual sites and regions are given in
K. Sittl's Archaologie der Kunst, 1895 (Handbuch der klassischen
Alter tums-Wissenschaft, vol. 6). Among studies of special topics
be noted W. H. Goodyear 's Greek Refinements, G. Le-

may 1912;
roux's Les origines de I' edifice hypostyle Grece, etc., B. C.

en 1913;
Rider's The Greek House: Its History and Development, 1916; and
E. .R. Fiechter's Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken
Theaters, On the planning of cities, see

F. Haverfield's
1914.
Ancient Town Planning, chapters and

1913, 3 4.
CHAPTER V
ROMAN ARCHITECTURE
Between Greek architecture and Roman architecture there
is no such sharp distinction as between the various preclassical

styles, which developed for the most part independently in
regions relatively little in contact with one another. From the
very beginning of Greek civilization Italy fell within the sphere

of its influence, which was too potent to permit another
independent beginning. The character of the Italian peoples,

moreover, especially that of the Romans, who became
dominant, was not such as to promise much initiative in the
field of the arts. It was primarily political,war-like, common-
sense, practical "

better adapted to receive than to create in
matters aesthetic, though capable of remarkable developments

in the science of planning and construction. At first Spartanly
ascetic, the Romans became, as conquerors of the world, rich

and luxurious, superposing on the admirable organization of
their material life a culture derived from Greece and from
the Orient.
Relation to Greek forms. As they came in direct contact with
the Greeks, by the conquest first of Southern Italy and
Sicily, then of Greece and western Asia, the Romans realized

the superior advancement of Greek architecture, as of Greek
literature and sculpture, and sought to adapt its forms to
their own monuments. In this adaptation the original

structural significance tended to be lost, as in the later and
more sophisticated days of Greece itself. Columns and tablatures

en-
were used as decorative adjuncts to a wall or to
an arch, where they had no structural functions, but where
they served both to give visible expression to the classical

cultivation of their builders and to make a majestic and
rhythmical subdivision of surface. First accepting the forms

A HISTORY OP ARCHITECTURE
of the columnar orders they

as found them in Hellenistic
Greece, the Romans proceeded to enrich them still further in
ornamentation and in scale. The arch received a formal
accentuation with moldings, to harmonize with the other
members of the system.
Importance of types of buildings. Among the Romans, ever,
how-
it was not so much the individual forms of detail which
were significant
as the many functional types developed in
response to the varied needs of their
complex civiliza-
tion, more
and in accordance with a logical analysisof its problems.

First came an extraordinaryexpansion of engineeringworks,
civil and military roads, bridges,drains,aqueducts,harbor-
"
works, fortifications frankly adapted to their utilitarian

"
functions, yet artistically satisfactory in expressionof struct-

ure,
in broad handling of materials, in proportion. In the
train of an active political and commercial life came more
extended and magnificent solutions of the problems of the

assembly-placeand the market the forum and the basilica.
"
For military and monarchical glorification the monumental

types already employed by the Greeks were seized on and
magnified, and a new type, the commemorative arch, was
added to them. To provide an architectural setting for
favorite amusements comedy, gladiatorial "
combats, races "
the Greek form of auditorium received diverse applications in

theaters, amphitheaters, circuses,often built regardlessof
expense, whether the topography favored or no. To minister
to increasing wealth, domestic architecture abandoned its
earlyrepublicanausterityfor an Oriental luxury and splendor,
culminating in the palaces and villas of the emperors. Their
counterpart for the masses lay in the public bathing-estab-
lishments
or thermae, in which every form of refreshment and
recreation was made accessible to thousands.
Construction. In construction the Romans adapted their
methods with great ingenuity and skill to operations on a
largescale andproblem of placinggreat numbers
to the under
cover from the weather. Taking up the arch and vault in a
condition still rudimentary and cumbersome, they followed
out its form through the elementary geometric possibilities
and combinations, at the same time freeingthemselves from
bondage to the difficultiesof cut-stone work. Building in
concrete enabled them to extend their undertakings and to
deploy upon the surfaces of walls rich materials which could

never have been obtained in sufficient quantity for structive
con-
uses. permitted them to vault great spans

It also
without interior supports, securing a new range of interior
spatialeffects,specifically Roman.
Planning. In disposingthe numerous units which manifold
requirements called into being,the Romans progressed from a
naive irregularity,like that of the early Greeks, through pro-
gressively
higher degrees of organization. Ultimately they
far surpassed in this respect the Hellenistic Greeks who were
their teachers. The functions of different rooms were
specialized, their sequence carefullyconsidered both from the

practical standpoint and from the standpoint of spatial
diversityand climax. Not content with establishingformal
symmetry on a singleaxis, the architects introduced transverse
axes and a variety of minor axial lines parallelto both

the major ones, producing a highly complex unity of subordinated
parts, with the greatest variety of effect. They accomplished
this not merely on level ground, but also on the

most irregularsites,making a merit of difficult topographic
conditions or artfullyconcealing the irregularities which re-sulted
from them.
Universality.Roman architecture became, like the Roman
Empire, something universal. Race and climate were not
greatly determining, for these were diverse, yet the official

art, in spiteof minor differences conditioned by local traditions
and building materials, was surprisingly uniform. Itself
largelyadopted from the Greeks, it was imposed on other subject
peoples,and practisedby artists of many racial stocks,
who themselves contributed to its general development.
Forms much the same were repeated,without sense of incon-
gruity,
in the sands of Africa, fhe foothills of the Alps, the
forests of Germany. In this, as in so many other points,
Roman architecture was like modern architecture "
material
and imagination in
urbane, frequentlylackingin delicacyand
detail,while preoccupied with largerquestions of planning,
construction, and mass.
Periods of development. In thedevelopment of Roman chitecture

ar-
three periodsmay be distinguished,

in which, side
io6 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
by side with native developments, Greek influence made itself

felt in three different ways. Until about 300 B.C. the Romans
shared with the Etruscans a diluted Hellenism mingled with
Italic elements. From then till near the end of therepublic,
about two hundred and fiftyyears, they were absorbing from
the western Greek colonies and from Greece itself the grammar
FIG. 37 "
AN ETRUSCAN TEMPLE. (RESTORED BY HULSEN)
of the orders, and strugglingwith the new problem of the

arch. From the establishment of the empire to its fall they
drew more and more on the Orientalized Hellenism of Asia,
while making their own most important contributions.
Earliest monuments to 300 B.C. The character of the earliest
monuments of Rome must be deduced from
principally temporary
con-
Etruscan works, which are known traditionallyto

have furnished their prototypes. The principaltypes are
fortification walls with polygonal or ashlar masonry, ing

accord-
to the material available; gates, drains,and bridges,with
simplearches between generous abutments, as in contemporary

Greece; temples with columnar porticoesand lintels of wood
(Fig.37) ; houses and tombs of a varietyof native forms.
The house. The most individual and most influential of
these types was the dwelling, the ancestor of the Roman
house of classic times. After the seventh century there are
but few vestigesof houses of a northern character, similar to

the primitive forerunners of the megaron in Greece. The
characteristic form was one distinct from these, seemingly of
Oriental origin "
the house with an atrium, having a central
opening in the roof
(cf.Fig. 54 [A]). The temple,on the other
hand, was stronglyinfluenced from Greece in at least two of
its three forms. The first of these, the circular temple, has
evident traditional relations with the circular hut, although it
later received a peristylein the manner of Greek examples.
The second form, with a singlerectangularcella,reproduced
the typicalGreek arrangement with few changes: the portico
in front was made deeper and the colonnade was frequently
omitted from the sides and always from the rear. The third
form, with three parallel cellas (Fig.37),may be looked on less
as a new creation than an adaptation of the Greek scheme to
the exigenciesof a new cult. To constitute it,it sufficed to
place prostylecellas side by side, and to give their porticoes
somewhat more depth.
Arched construction. The arches and vaulted drains, such
as the gateways Perugia (Fig.38),and the Cloaca Maxima
at
in Rome "
formerly thought to descend from the legendary

Roman kings and to antedate Greek examples of the arch "
are now placed in the fourth century at earliest. They repre-

sent
no constructive advance on the Greek arches, but show
an effort to
give architectural expressionto the functions of
the parts by a decorative emphasis on the keystone and
springingstones, or by projectingmembers below the spring-
ing
and around the voussoirs the impost and label molding. "
Columnar system. The architectural forms of the columnar

system reflected those of Greece, all three orders findingcrude
counterparts. Most important was the derivative of the
Doric, which had always remained dominant in western
Greece. It recurs in both of its later Greek forms: with the
of
profile the echinus reduced to a straightline and with it
rounded into
quadrant ; a without a base and with a molded
base simplifiedfrom the Ionic order. It was the latter of
these two forms, with rounded echinus
bases, which came and
to be regarded as specifically
Tuscan, though Vitruvius, writ-
ing
in the time of Augustus, recognized that it was but a
varietyof the Doric. The triglyphfrieze was sometimes cop-
FIG. 38 "
PERUGIA. "ARCH OF AUGUSTUS"
ied, though usually the order

more had no frieze. Instead
there were widely projectingeaves formed by the wooden
beams and rafters,which, like the architraves themselves, were
often cased in richly decorated terra-cotta plates (Fig. 37).

A steep gable imitated the pediment, sometimes with figure
sculpture.
Republican developments,to about 50 B.C. Greek influence.
In the later and more powerful days of the republic,con-
structive
and formal
developments went on simultaneously.
In the first aqueduct, built by Appius Claudius in 312 B.C.,
in the bridge of ^mih'us the
Tiber, 179-142
across B.C., a
series of arches was built side by side,their thrusts balancing
on the supportingpiers. The revival of this principle,

applied
long before in the store-chambers of the Ramesseum at
Thebes and in the great substructure at Babylon, was to
prove of uncommon fruitfulness in later Roman architecture.

Meanwhile Greek monuments were becoming directly ac-
cessible
to the Romans. Magna Grascia was conquered by

272 B.C., Sicilyby 241; Greece was taken under Roman
protectorate in 196; Asia Minor became a province in 133.

The spoilsof Syracuse in 212, of Tarentum in 209, of conti-
nental
Greece in 196 and 167, and above all in 146, after the
destruction of Corinth, opened the eyes of the Romans to the
riches of Hellenic art and awakened a desire for imitation.
Greek captives,and other Greek artists attracted by wealth
and opportunity,furnished the requisiteknowledge and skill.
By the middle of the second century B.C. most of the tects
archi-
active in Rome were Greeks.
Forms of detail. Their influence soon made itself visible
in more authentic forms of detail and
sophisticated in a more
applicationof the orders generally. As early as 250 B.C.

Greek details,individuallycorrect, and effective in spite of
their uncanonical combinations, appear in the sarcophagus of
Scipio Barbatus. By the first century B.C. the use of con-
ventional
detail was universal, the forms of the orders were
naturalized, so that conformity with Greek standards need

no longer be taken as their criterion. The membering, as
exemplifiedin the Tabularium in Rome, in the so-called temple
of Fortuna Virilis, the circular temples of Rome and of
Tivoli (Fig.39),all from the first century B.C., may be ined
exam-
for characteristics Roman.

specifically peculiarities The
lie first in the freedom of combination of parts, the original
significanceof which was now long forgotten. There is, to
be sure, always the canonical subdivision of the entablature
into architrave, frieze,
and
cornice,even the Ionic order having
uniformly a frieze. In general, the triglyphsare confined to
the Doric order and its derivatives,though in certain cases
they occur with the Ionic capitaland even the Corinthian.
Less strikingforms, such as dentils,however, were transposed
at will. If arbitrary canons were violated, reasonable tinction
dis-
were not ignored,and the wealth of detailed forms
liberated from inherited prescriptions
was appliedwith un-
no A HISTORY OF ARCHITFCTURE
failingrespect for appropriatenessto positionand expressive

functions.
Applicationsof the orders. A more characteristic feature
lay in the freedom with which the columnar system as a whole
was combined with the wall. The forms of the free-standing
columns of the temple porticowere repeated along the walls
FIG. 39 "
TIVOLI. "TEMPLE OF VESTA"
of the cella,to give the effect of a full peristyle(seeFig.41).

A similar unstructural use of the columnar forms had not
been unknown even in the Greece of the fifth century and had
since become frequent. Its adoption as the normal treatment
of the temple, the outcome of a wish to secure a columnar

effect in spite of the breadth of the Roman cella,was a wide
extension of its use.
The "Roman arch order." A still further extension lay in

the use of columns on a wall with arches, or rather on the
piersof a continuous arcade, usually in several stories,a scheme
which became so common as to receive a specialname, the
Roman arch order. The Tabularium, the archive buildingof
ROMAN ARCHITECTURE in
the Capitol (78 B.C.),furnishes the first dated example. This

scheme, which was later to find its most noted exemplification
in the Colosseum (Figs.40, 59) consisted of the application,
to the piersof the arcade and to the horizontal bands opposite
the floors,of the columns and entablatures of a Greek stoa
with superposed orders. The mere superpositionof ranges of
FIG. 40 "
ROME. THE COLOSSEUM
arches was itself almost if not quite as novel as the use of

orders with them. It is
reallybetter justified to look on the
arrangement as the strengtheningof a Greek stoa to support
vaulting, thickening the supports and building up arches
between the columns a process
"
similar to that by which the
first engaged columns in Greece were produced. The neces-sity
for greater strength lay in the desire to span the passage

behind the facade by a more permanent means than the
wooden ceilingsand roofs of the Greeks, usually by a barrel
vault, which sprang from above the crowns of the external
arches across to the inner wall. This was indeed a notable step
in construction, for the outward thrust had no such peachable
unim-
abutment as had the subterranean vaults of the
Orient or the ends of the arcades in
aqueducts and bridges.
The experiment succeeded, nevertheless; the resistance of the
heavy outer wall proved more than sufficient. From the
purely formal standpoint the arch order was equally success-

ful,
in spite of certain difficulties. The longitudinal vaults,

being semicircular, rose perforce even higher than the top of
the entablature in front of them, but this was overcome by
the insertion of an attic with pedestals between the stories.
The calm and dignifiedrepetitionof horizontals and verticals,
mastering and co-ordinating the freer lines of the arches, the

consistent molded treatment of entablature, impost, and
pedestal, combine to form a system of powerful effect, in- dependen
of the character of the individual details or of the
contradiction of the structural expressions of lintel and arch.
Domestic architecture. The private houses, which from the
fourth century were built wall to wall in close blocks, followed
the Etruscan model in having a central atrium with ing
surround-
rooms. At the rear was a small garden. Later a more
elaborate portion, built about a court with a colonnade,

inner
the so-called peristylium,was added under Greek influence
(Fig. 54 [C]). By the second century B.C. this composite type

was the model for the ordinary dwellings of the well-to-do;
from early in the first century the wealthy began to elaborate
them into veritable palaces, with marble columns and ments.
pave-
On the other hand, the pressure of metropolitan life
now forced the erection of tenements for the poor, in three
or four stories.
Other types. Throughout period the principal monu-
this mental
type remained the temple. Civil buildings, in Italy

as in Greece, were late in developing. Political assembly and
commercial intercourse alike took place at first in the open
air. The senate, to be sure, which in the beginning met out
of doors or in some temple, was housed at an early date in a

specialbuilding,the Curia, which seems to have followed the
scheme of the temple cella. By about 200 B.C. began the
construction of basilicas,exchanges for the merchants, which
became the seat of tribunals and gradually accumulated other
uses. The first of which we know was built by Cato the Cen-
sor,in 184 B.C., and others quickly followed. Regarding the

originalform of these and, indeed, of all the basilicas of Rome
priorto the days of Caesar,we have no certain knowledge.
Grouping: town planning. The grouping of publicbuildings,
such as the temples and basilicas which fronted the forum,
the principalopen space of the irregularand
city,was an
accidental one, like that of the great sanctuaries of early

Greece. Only in a town Hellenistic,
essentially like Pompeii,
was there a more uniform treatment such as that of the Ionian
agoras, resultingfrom the inclosingof the forum, shortlybe-
fore
100 B.C., by columnar porticoesforming a long rectangle.
Although the city of Rome, with its unexpected growth, con-
formed
to no regularplan, many towns showed in their general

layout common characteristics derived
principlecon-
secrated from a
in Italyfrom the earliest times, division by two axes

which crossed at right angles. Parallel to the principal
streets which marked these axes were minor streets delimiting
the house blocks; in one of the angles was frequently the
forum, as at Pompeii.
Imperial architecture,c. 50 B.C. to 350 A.D. Development.
The transformation of Roman architecture to its imperial
scale and splendorbegan with the buildingsof Pompey and of

JuliusCaesar,in the middle of the first century B.C. Pompey
erected in 55 the earliest stone theater,built up from the plain
on an arched substructure ; Caesar did not content himself with
adding a new basilica to the
forum, and providing better
quarters for the senate and other assemblies, but initiated
the custom of
adding an entirelynew forum, beyond the time-
honored prevented any enlargement of the old
buildingswhich
Forum Romanum. The buildingsand rebuildingsof Augus- tus
were so numerous as to justifyhis boast that he found
Rome of brick and left it of marble. Most noteworthy, per-
haps,
was the forum which bears his name (Fig.44 [C]),with
its octastyleCorinthian temple of Mars. Agrippa, his ablest
minister,gave great attention to the aqueducts, and built the
first of the great thermae. In Augustus's reign also the
architect Vitruvius compiled, largelyfrom Greek sources, his
compendium of rules and maxims, designed to assist in the diffusion
of correct principles.Under Nero the destruction of
crowded quarters by fire gave opportunity for rebuilding them
ii4 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
on a regular plan, with better materials, lower houses, and

wider streets. With the Flavian emperors, 69-96 A.D., the
tendencies toward regal luxury of accommodations and toward
elaboration of detail reached theirheight. Their palace on
the Palatine hill with its magnificent vaulted halls, their
temples and fora, in the entablatures of which there was'
scarcelya member left undecorated, the "Composite" capital,
in which elements of the Ionic and Corinthian were combined,
attest their strivingfor enrichment of form. Under Trajan,
Hadrian, and the Antonines, while the magnitude of structive
con-
undertakings increased still further, there was a
reaction in favor of Hellenic forms. In the giganticForum of

Trajan (Fig. 44 [F]) itself composed on " Oriental principles "
the great basilica dispenseswith the vaulted arcades of earlier

works, and employs a purely Greek system of column and
lintel. The temples of the time bear entablatures in which
the multiplicity of ornament is much reduced in some "
cases
even to the point of austerity.

Constructive advances. At the time, however, Roman
same
constructive science was proceeding with rapid stride,con-

quering
successivelythe difficulties of vaulting semicircular

apses,circular rooms, and rectangular rooms requiringlateral
openings. In the Pantheon of
Hadrian, the halls of the
imperial thermae of Trajan, Caracalla, and Diocletian, these
elements attained vast size and monumental effects hitherto
unattainable. In the thermas also Roman architecture
achieved some of its greatest triumphs of logicalplanning at a
great scale. The laying out of new towns gave opportunity
to extend its principles,
as in Hellenistic Asia, to the whole city.
Prevalent types. The temples no longer appeared as the
sole or even as the chief monuments. In spite of vast size
and costlymaterials they had become secondary in importance,
as an expressionof the national life,which was administrative,
commercial, pleasure-loving, and egoistic. Besides luxurious
palaces and temples for self-deification,
the emperors erected
triumphal columns and arches, mausolea surpassing the
originalat Halicarnassus in size and magnificence, and in- dulged
the populace with buildings for their favorite amuse-
ments.
Late imperial architecture. In the later monuments a new

logicgraduallyshows itself in the relations of arch and column,

coincident with a fresh wave of Oriental influences sweeping
over construction and detail alike. In the Pantheon and the
thermae the arches are not framed in by entablatures and
columns, but frankly on them; in the second century
rest
monuments of Syria and the palace of Diocletian on the
Adriatic,at the beginning of the fourth century, further steps
are taken in the elimination of the entablature and the bringing
down of the arch directlyon the head of the column (Fig.58).
Thus at the very end of its development Roman architecture
attained, by the abandonment of its formal canons, the
solution of the difficulties of expressionwhich confronted it,
laying the foundation for the development of the Middle
Ages. "
Artistic centers. Throughout this long historythe center of

artistic activity had remained the city of Rome, which
focussed the influences of Greece and the Orient. In the last
days of the empire the balance of power inclined more and
more to the east, and Constantine, 306-337, the seat of
under
administration was removed thither,to Byzantium or Con-
stantinopl
on the shores of the Bosphorus. The wealth and
population of Rome rapidly fell away. The adoption of
Christianityas the state religionin 330 caused the temples to
fall gradually into disuse, and temples and public buildings
alike were plundered for materials to build the great Christian
basilicas,the only important fresh undertakings of the time.
With the sack of Rome by the Goths in 410 and the Vandals
in 455 the last vestigesof its imperial power were broken,
and the abdication of Romulus Augustulus on demand of the
barbarian chieftain Odoacer in 476 marked the end even of the
nominal existence of the Roman Empire in the west.
Character of important types. Whereas in Greece it is the
development of the forms of detail,to which the Greeks gave
the most scrupulous attention,which is of primary importance,
in Rome it is rather the development of the great functional
types which demands an intensive study.
Temples. In Rome the temple was no more intended than
in Greece for congregationalworship, and the great size to
which it ultimatelygrew was rather the result of a desire for
imposing effect. The ritual,influenced by that of the Greeks,
n6 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
left considerable libertyin form and orientation,though the

image was preferablyat the east. In matters of disposition
the development was toward a steadilycloser approximation
to the Greek scheme with a continuous exterior peristyle.
The Etruscan temples had never a colonnade at the rear, the
Roman cellas,as early as republican times, were provided
with a decorative of
disguise engaged columns on the rear as
well as on the sides,and this was retained in early imperial
FIG. 41 "
NIMES. "THE MAISON CARREE"
times. The best preserved and most famous example is the

so-called Maison Carree at Nimes in southern France (Fig.41),
a hexastyletemple of rich Corinthian order, which shows that
the Romans were not behind the Greeks in mastery of propor-
tions
and subtlety of form. The delicate curvatures of line
and surface which relieved the regularityand varied the
play
of light and shade in Greek monuments recur in its plan.
Other temples, like that of Mars in the Forum of Augustus,
perpetuate a type already found in Etruscan times, and
approaching the peristylararrangement more nearly having
"
a free-standingcolonnade along the sides as well as the front,

but not across the rear.' The tendency was more and more
toward a complete peristyle, stillin use in half-Greek Pompeii
FIG. 42 ROME. (RESTORED
"
INTERIOR OF THE PANTHEON BY ISABELl.E),
SHOWING THE CONDITION AFTER THE RESTORATION OF 3EVERUS
n8 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
in the second century B.C. before the establishment of the

Roman colony there, and appearing in Rome with the temple
completed by Augustus in the Forum of Caesar. One of the
most notable examples was the double temple of Venus and
Rome built by Hadrian near the Forum. It had fronts of
ten columns, and a cella with two chambers back to back,
which were for the first time vaulted with barrel vaults. A
magnificent decoration of half columns and statued niches
along the interior walls is the lineal descendant of the interior
colonnades of the
early Greek cellas,through the temple at
Bassas and the temple of Apollo at Didyma. A few temples,
though rectangular,varied from the traditional arrangement
in having the porticobuilt against the long side,but this was
only from specialexigencies. Both stylobate and podium
were used as substructures; the roof remained steadily a
gabled one, fronted by a pediment. In a few instances only,
were temples left roofless.
Circular temples. A class of considerable importance was
that of the round temples. The two well-known republican
examples, in Rome and Tivoli (Fig.39), do not differ greatly
from similar buildings in Greece. Both are of the Corinthian
order, with unvaulted cellas. The first Pantheon in Rome,
built by Agrippa, must have been similar in principle, though
on a far larger scale. The Pantheon which stands to-day,
rebuilt by Hadrian (120-124A.D.)and restored under Severus
(202 A. D.),shows, on the contrary, an applicationof the new
Roman constructive methods (Fig.42). A singlehemispher-
ical
dome spans the circular interior of over one hundred and
forty feet diameter, its crown at just an
equal height above
the pavement. Light comes through a singleeye at the top,
through which rain may fall without causing any incon-
venience,
thanks to the area and volume of the interior. The
massive piercedby eight niches, alternatelysquare
walls are
and semicircular, originallyarched across, with screens of

Corinthian columns; the vault is deeply recessed with coffers
diminishing as they ascend, and once decorated with bronze
rosettes. A rich veneer of marble slabs over the constructive
brickwork of the walls complements the unrivaled abstract
unity of the generalform.
Temple Enclosures. Although many earlytemples in Rome,
i2o A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
and their successors on the directlyon the

same sites,stood
borders of the Forum, it was preferredin later days to follow
the practiceof Hellenistic Greece and place the temple in a
colonnaded inclosure, serving both to give shelter to the
worshippers who watched the sacrifice and to heighten the
architectural effect. At Pompeii, in the precinctof Apollo,
this arrangement was a legacy from the Greek days of the
town; in Rome it came in, with the peripteraltemple, in the
Forum of Caesar, which was at the same time a temple
inclosure (Fig.44 [B]). Later architects were not contented
with the simple rectangularplan. In the Forum of Augustus
they introduced great segmental exedras to
right and left;
in the temple of Jupiter at Baalbek in Syria they added a
second, hexagonal court in front of the principalone.

Size oftemples. In size the temples varied as much as those
of Greece, and within much the same limits. No Greek

temple,however, rivaled the one at Baalbek in the complexity
and extent of its accessories,with which it covered in all a
space a thousand by four hundred feet.

Fora. The forum served at first for all forms of trade as
well as for assembly, and

political this remained true in the
smaller towns. In the cities,and especiallyin Rome, the
volume of trade forced the institution of subordinate fora for
various classes of goods,leavingthe forum civilefor the bankers
and for general business intercourse. About it were grouped
the principalpublic buildings(Fig.43). Thamugadi (Tim-
gad), a colony planted by Trajan in Africa, shows the form
which might be selected for the forum in imperialtimes, in a
case where all was planned from the beginning a square "
court surrounded by an unbroken peristyle. In Rome, the

supplementary fora civilia built by the emperors culminated
in that of Trajan, designed by Apollodorus of Damascus,
which included a vast complex of buildingsfor varied uses
(Fig.44 [F]). It followed in disposition, as has been recog-
nized,
the Egyptian temple scheme. First came a broad court,
the forum proper, surrounded on three sides by a colonnade,
on the flanks of which were enormous exedras bordered with
shops. Across the further side of the court, like the hypostyle
hall of the Egyptian temple, lay a basilica of unequaled
extent ; beyond it,like the Egyptian sanctuary, was the temple
""""" "
"
^
^;//4/^-%
..-"SV/^ /" 7
L^ ,ae
FIG. 44 "
ROME. THE FORUM ROMANUM AND THE FORA OF THE
EMPKRORS. PLAN. (RESTORED BY GROMORT)
(A) Forum Romanum (G) Area ("apitolina (5) Basilica of Maxcntiiu
(B) Forum of Julius Caesar (M) Comitiutn (Constantino)
(O Forum of AiiKur.tun (1) Tabularium (6) Temple of Venus Gfnetrix
(D) Forum of Vrapasian (2) Curia (7) Temple of Mars the
(E) Forum Transitorium (j) Basilica Julia Avenger
(F) Forum of Trajan (4) Basilica /Emilia (8) Basilica Ulpia
of Trajan, surrounded by a second, oblong inclosure. Even

the pylon and the obelisk had their counterparts in the mental
monu-
arch which gave access to the first court and the

triumphal column which stood at the entrance to the second.
There was a variety and technical dexterity of planning
which the Egyptian prototypes had lacked.
Adjunctsof the forum. As adjunctsto the Forum Romanum,
which remained the political center, were the Curia or senate
house, the Comitium for the meeting of the assembly, and the
Rostrum from which orators addressed the populace. This
platform, which stood at the end of the principalspace toward
the Capitol, was richly decorated with sculptured parapets
and small commemorative columns, as well as with the ships'
prows which gave it its name. On the pavement of the forum

itself was a forest of statues, and such triumphal arches and
columns as could find place, making, with the facades of
temples and basilicas,
an effect as rich as those of the national
sanctuaries of Greece.
Basilicas. The basilicas,which served the varied sities
neces-
of intercourse under cover, were not uniform in plan,

but were in general buildingsof spacious interior,with umnar
col-
supports, not narrow and open on one side like a
galleryor stoa, but broad and inclosed,like a hall. In Greece

there were already a few buildings which fall under this
definition,though they were not designatedby the same name.
They belonged both to the Greek type of plan, a deep hall

with longitudinal colonnades, and an apse opposite the
entrance, and to the Oriental type, a broad hall with an
interior peristyle. In Rome the existingmonuments also

include examples of both types, to neither of which can a
chronologicalprioritybe assigned. The Oriental type counted

among its representatives two of the most conspicuous build-
ings,
the Basilica Juliain the Forum Romanum and the Basil-
ica
Ulpia in the Forum of Trajan (seeFig.44 [3]and [8]).The
Basilica Julia turned its long,principalfagade to the Forum
and was lined on the rear by a range of shops. Between was
an oblong hall surrounded by two concentric vaulted corri-

dors
in two stories,of an ordonnance similar to that of the
Tabularium. The impossibility of securing sufficient lightin
the central hall through the lateral openings gives rise to the
assumption that its ceilingwas raised

clerestorywith on a
windows above the flat roofs of the aisles,as in the Egyptian

temples and in certain late Greek buildings which show
Egyptian influence. The buildingwas exceptionalin having
such an open treatment of the exterior,arisingpartly,doubt-
less,
from a desire for a rich effect suitable to its conspicuous
position. Similar in its general plan to the Basilica Juliawas
the Basilica Ulpia,in spiteof its having columns and lintels in-
stead
of piersand an arch order. The central space, although
over eighty feet in span, was doubtless covered by a wooden
FIG. 45 "
ROME. BASILICA OF MAXENTIUS, OR CONSTANTINE. (RESTORED
BY D'ESPOUY)
roof. A unique addition was that of the great apses at

either end. The Basilica Emilia, which forms a pendant to
the Basilica Juliaby its positionin the Forum, and owes its
existingform to much the same time, seems to show the con-
trary
plan of a narrow and deep hall,turning its flank to the

Forum, and
having its galleries
along two sides only. The
same varietycould be traced through the provincialexamples.
The basilica ofMaxentius. Unique in its structure among the
basilicas was one in the Sacred Way begun by Maxentius and

completed by Constant ine (Figs.44 [5]and 45). A vault was
substituted for the wooden roof over the nave, the vaulting
system being taken over almost intact from its earliest repre-
sentatives,
the great halls of the baths in which we shall
study it. There are but three bays in a length of nearly two
hundred feet,and the clear span of the nave is over seventy-
five feet. In spiteof the considerable modifications necessary
in the form of the
points of support and of the clerestory,the
essential scheme of the basilica is recognizable. It belonged
originally to the Greek type, with aisles along two sides only,
the entrance on one of the narrow ends, and an apse opposite.
As completed by Constantine it had a second entrance in
the center of the broad side toward the
Forum, and a second
apse opposite this,producing a hybrid plan. In the adoption
of the fire-proofand permanent methods of coveringwhich had
been developed in other classes of buildings the Basilica of
Maxentius marks a notable progress, propheticin many ways
of the development of the Christian basilica into the mediaeval
vaulted church.
Theaters. The preconditions of the development of the
Roman theater, in its differences from the Greek theater, are
to be found in the native Italic drama and the method of its
presentationin earlyRome. As the audience at first stood on
level ground during the performance, the stage had to be of a
moderate height. As there was no chorus there was no
necessity for an open space or orchestra before the stage.

The first inclosed theaters were of wood, doubtless rectangular,
with parallelto the stage and soon arranged in ascend-
seats ing
tiers (Fig.46). Stage and auditorium were easilybrought
into architectural unity and under a single roof. No great
change in principlewas involved in the substitution, within the
rectangular building,of segmental or circular seats, as seen
in the small theater at Pompeii, built soon after 80 B.C., under
the influence of the existing Hellenistic theater close by.
As the dimensions increased,an awning or velarium had to be
substituted for a wooden roof,but the walls of the building re-
mained
equal height,and the one at

of the of the stage,
rear
the sc"naz frons,decorated with columns in imitation of the

background of the Greek stage, had to be treated in two or
three stories. This was the state of the Roman theater

when, just before the end of the republic,a singlebuilding
established the final form.
Stone theaters in Rome. The theater of Pompey, the first
stone theater in Rome, built in 55 B.C., is stated to have lowed
fol-
the model of the theater at Mitylene. The features de-
rived
from this prototype, however, can have been merely
FIG. 46 "
SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

ROMAN THEATER. (FIECHTER)
(B) Stage (S) Senatorial seats (C) Cavea (P) Passages (T) Tribunalia
the generalidea of the building,with a vast colonnaded court

for promenading, and, especially,the dominating circular form
of the auditorium. With this came the orchestra, which,
however, was reduced as much as possible,to a semicircle.
The Roman element retained was the close structural union
of the auditorium with
the stage, the walls of which doubtless
rose to the full height of the seats. A necessary prerequisite
for the execution of the auditorium plain,was in stone, on a
the development of the Roman technique of vaulting,by

which the seats were supported far above the ground, and by
which radial openings were left for passages and stairs to
the upper ranges. For the fagade the scheme of the Tabula-
rium, with arches and columnar decoration,was adopted, as
later in the Colosseum (Fig.40). Thus whereas in Greece
orchestra and circle of seats were the primitiveejements and
the stage with its accessory buildingswas a later development,

in Rome the stage was the original component, and the
orchestra and circular auditorium were additions taken over
from Greece. The of the

synthesis,as exemplifiedin
product
the three great theaters of the cityof Rome those of Pompey, "
Marcellus, and Balbus or in the theater at Ostia (Fig.47),

"
was a creation which had its own merits,not only in adaptation
FIG. 47 "
OSTIA. THE THEATER. (RESTORED BY ANDRE)
to the requirements of the Roman drama, but in unity of

design and splendor of external and internal effect.
Theaters in the provinces. In the provincesthe same scheme
was repeated,although less ample means usually resulted in
the use of convenient hillsides to support at least a part of the
auditorium, as at Verona, and at Orange in France. In most
of the eastern examples the looseness of connection in plan
persistedin spiteof the adoption of a high stage background.
At Aspendos in Asia Minor, however, the interior shows the
full Roman type, with one of the richest developments of the
sconce frons. In contrast to most Augustan and later western

stage backgrounds, which show an ever greater elaboration of
three great niches enframing the doors, this shows the dency
ten-
of the east multiply openings and
to columnar visions
subdi-
while retainingthe flat wall surface. In both cases the
scana jrons was no longer a resultant, a means, but an end in
itself,resulting only remotely from suggestions from the
drama, treated rather in accordance with the general decora-
tive
conceptionsof imperialarchitecture.
Amphitheaters. Among the Romans the drama was ary
second-
to the more exciting amusement of gladiatorialcom- bats,
introduced from Campania in the third century and

held at first in the forum or the circus. In the provision of
specialarchitectural arrangements for such contests Rome was
also behind Campania, for in Pompeii an elliptical arena with
stepped seats was begun soon after 80 B.C., whereas in Rome it
was not until 58 B.C. that two theater auditoria of wood, facing
each other, were built to form the first amphitheater of the
city. The games of Caesar were still celebrated within
wooden stands, and it was not until the time of Augustus,
29 B.C., that Rome had its amphitheater in stone. Although
in Pompeii, however, the arena was largely excavated in the
earth, and the rear seats were supported on solid masonry,
in Rome the amphitheater was built up from the plain like
the theaters, with a richlyarcaded exterior.
The Colosseum. The Flavian amphitheater, known as the
Colosseum, which succeeded that of Augustus in the years
70-82 A.D., shows this arrangement in its final and most
splendidform (Fig.40). About

elliptical
arena rosethethree
successive tiers of seats separated by high parapets, and
crowned, very probably,by an encirclingcolonnade. On the
exterior were, first,three stories of open arcades decorated
with the arch order, Doric, Ionic,and Corinthian. A fourth-
story wall, perhaps originallyof wood, was treated with

Corinthian pilasters.Corbels near the top carried wooden
masts which probably supported the immense velarium, and
formed the necessary visual crown for the uniformly repeated
orders below. The regular spacing of the tiers,diminishing
rhythmically in perspective,and the unbroken sweep of the
cornices about such a vast surface, gave an unequaled majesty
and dignity,which the
justified identification of the Colosseum
with the power of Rome itself. the triumphwas
Structurally
no less remarkable. The elliptical

plan required every one of
the radial passages and every foot of the concentric vaults to
differ from its neighbors,yet much was executed in stone, curately
ac-
cut to the most difficult

geometricalshapes. In the
third arcade, where practicalnecessities prevented the ing
carry-
of a concentric barrelVault above the arches of the facade,
as had been done in the previousstories,
the vault was dropped
to the same level as the arches
penetrated by continua-
tions and
of them. The resultingform, the groined vault, here
appearing for the first time in Italy,had general advantages
which were soon manifest, in that it required for its support,
not a continuous massive abutment, but isolated piers on
which the thrusts were concentrated. After the form of the
amphitheater in the capital,others were erected in the Italian

and provincial cities,notable remains existingat Verona,
Nimes, Aries, and many other places. These had seats for
twenty to twenty-fivethousand spectators, while the greatest,

in Rome and Campania, had a capacity of twice that number.
Circuses. Mightier stillwere the circuses for chariot-racing,
the oldest of Roman amusements, first held in the valley
between the Palatine and the Aventine hills,where in the
course of years was built the Circus Maximus, with seats
ultimatelyfor two hundred thousand spectators. The course
was long and narrow, with a sharp turn like that of the Greek
stadion, to the seating arrangements of which those of the
circus also conformed. Down the center of the course was the
barrier, or spina, separating the stretches, adorned with
obelisks and
monuments; at the end opposite the turn were
the starting arrangements, with individual cells for each

chariot, in a segment focussing on the first corner. The
exterior was on a system like that of the theaters and theaters.
amphi-
Baths and thernuz. The Roman bathing establishments
progressedfrom the simplestutilitarian structures to luxurious
facilities not only for bathing

offering
institutions, and physical
exercise,but for the social intercourse of a modern cafe or
club. Examples from the laterdays of the republic at
Pompeii show, at a small scale, the typical complement of

rooms and their arrangement. A court, or palaestra,for ercise
ex-
was accompanied by a series of rooms in which dif-

ferent temperatures were maintained: the frigidarium,the

tepidarium,the caldarium. The frigidariumcontained the
cold plunge bath, the caldarium the hot baths, the tepidarium
served to lessen the shock in passingfrom one to the other and
ifHT
i r-
h"
r
r LTJ:
ci .idin
/-
"
-.
.
FIG. 48 "
ROME. THERMS OF CARACALLA. PLAN. (RESTORED BY BLOUET)

(A) Entrance (E, E) Apodyteria (I) Frigidarium
(B. B) Porticoes (F, F) Peristyles (L, L) Halls (or exercise
(C, C) Private baths? (G) Tepidarium (M) Stadium
(D, D) Vestibules (H) Caldarium (N) Reservoirs and aqueduct
also might contain basins for those who found the cold bath
too severe. A dressing-room the apodyterium and a steam
"
"
bath "
the laconicum "
were further desirable features. In
baths intended for both men and women two suites of these
rooms provided,their caldaria abutting near the furnace,
were
with the other rooms successivelymore distant from it.

The thermcB of Caracalla, 217 A.D. In the thermae of im-
i3o A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
penal times, initiated by Agrippa, all these features were

magnified to enormous scale and combined with those of the
Greek gymnasium. The bathing establishments proper were
surrounded by vast inclosures with shaded walks, exedras,and

areas for various games. Among the dozen thermae in which
successive emperors tried to outdo -one another, those of
Caracalla distinguishedboth by their fair preservation
are
and by the logicand the formal interest of their plan (Fig.48).

The three principalelements, each unique, were placed on the
FIG. 49 "
ROME. THERMS OF DIOCLETIAN. TEPIDARIUM. (RESTORED

BY PAULIN)
main axis in an ascending series,the frigidariumwith flat

ceilingor open to the sky, the tepidarium with groined vaults,
the caldarium with a dome and niches like those of the theon.
Pan-
To left and
rightwere vestibules and dressing-rooms,
with two great peristylarpalsestrassurrounded by minor
rooms, still of large size. The tepidarium, as the room of
medium temperature, was seized on as the key to the circula-
tion
of people, and its axis was taken as the principaltrans-
verse
line of the plan, prolonged through the peristyles and
their exedrae. Separate access to the courts was provided from
both front and side, and the rooms of the rear were opened
freelyto the gardens by means of colonnades. The gardens
themselves had their axes emphasizedby the stands opposite
the projectingcaldarium, and by subordinate exedrse. The

varietyof form of the units and the rich interplayof the axes
have been an inspiration for the complex and elaborate plans
of modern t'.mes.
tepidarium. Most fruitful for later developments was
The
the typicalform of the tepidarium,repeated in the baths of
Diocletian (Fig.49) for the caldarium as well. Its length was
divided into three bays marked by enormous columns, each
with a fragment of entablature which served as impost for
the groined vaults. These had the form of a longitudinal
cylinder intersected by three transverse cylinders,spaced a
short distance apart and projectingslightly beyond the inter-
sections.
The square mass of masonry between the diago-
nally
descending groins rested on the entablatures of the columns.
The entire outward thrust of the vaults,concentrated
on these points,was sustained by the deep transverse walls
behind them, which were carried up as visible buttresses high
above the roofs of the
neighboring rooms. These struck in
at the height of the spring of the vaults, leaving the semi-
circular
spaces beneath the crown free for great clerestory

windows in each bay and at the ends. The spaces between the
buttress walls were filled with barrel-vaulted niches, across
which were carried screens of smaller
relatively columns which
emphasized the great scale of the main order. As in the
Pantheon the vaults were richlycoffered,the walls incrusted
with marble.
Aqueducts. Bridges. The aqueducts which furnished the
water supply necessary for the baths and for the general use
of a Roman citywere for the most part not on a pressure sys-
tem,
but were carried into the city at a high level after being
brought with a gradual fall from elevated sources. For a city
in the midst of a plain,like the metropolis,this necessitated
the support of a great length of the water channel at a con-
siderable
height above the ground. The uniform ranges of

arches on tall piers,by which this necessitywas met, show
construction in stone or concrete devoid of every extraneous
ornament, yet impressiveby the ruggedness of the material
and the straightforwardness with which constructive methods
are confessed. Where the aqueduct had to be carried across
a deep valleythere was an added interest due to the varied size

of the arches which franklytook advantage of the best footing.

The most famous instance is the Pont du Gard at Nimes
(Fig. 50),where there are three ranges of arches one above
another, the whole a sixth of a mile long and over a hundred
and fiftyfeet above the stream in the valley. Of the heavy
voussoired arches of stone in the two lower ranges, the pair
over the river are distinguishedby a visiblygreater width than
the others,those next the slopesby a correspondingreduction.
"
FIG. 50 "
NIMES. THE PONT DU CARD"
The imposts are placed freelyat whatever heights the spans

demanded. The upper range of uniform smaller arches leads
up to the quiet cadence of the sky-line,like Doric triglyphs

intermediate between columns and cornice. Much the same
problems as in the aqueducts recur in the highway bridges,

and the same division of types recurs. The bridgesover wide
rivers with low banks series of arches, some-
have a uniform times
with the piers lightened by minor arches supporting

the roadway, as in the Pons Mulvius at Rome; those over
deep ravines have a singlearch or several of sharply graded
size,as at Narni. The ends of the principalpier might be
decorated with a monumental arch or a small shrine.
Monuments: the trophy. The desire of the

column; the
Romans for military glorification
early caused them to
appropriate the Greek votive column for monumental use.
To commemorate a naval victory,Duilius,in 260 B.C., erected

a column decorated with the prows of captured ships,a rostral
column, as it was called. The greatest of the columnar
monuments were those of
Trajan and of Marcus Aurelius and
Faustina, each consistingof a marble Doric shaft on a square
sculpturedpedestal. They carried, at a height of over one
hundred feet, gilded statues of their founders, and were

decorated with continuous spiral reliefs celebrating their
campaigns. From the Greeks also came the custom of erecting
on the battlefield a trophy of victory,composed of armor and
weapons, or imitated from them in stone. The possibility

of a further monumental development of the trophy lay in its
pedestal,which was elaborated to an even greater extent than
in the Hellenistic examples. In the trophy of Augustus, near
Monaco, a circular peristylein two stories on a tall square
basement, and with a steep conical roof, supports the trophy
proper at a great height.
The arch. A more characteristically native monumental
type was the commemorative or "triumphal" arch, originally
of temporary character and perishablematerials, erected to
welcome a returning victor as he passed through Rome in
triumphal procession. In the imperial period such arches,

made permanent in stone, were used for various tive
commemora-
purposes, in all parts of the empire. The earliest

examples, from the time of Augustus, show the arch framed,
as in the Tabularium and the theaters,by two columns and
an entablature, perhaps with pediment. In anya case there
was a pedestalor attic above, servingas a support for statues.
Soon a second column was added on either side of the original
pair,inclosinga rectangularfield " the classic instance being
the Arch of Titus in Rome (Fig. 51). The columnar
apparatus, here franklydecorative,is handled with the greatest
mastery of form. Emphasis is given the central opening by
the projecting architrave, uniting the inner columns and
castinga deep shadow over the relief sculpturein the triangular
spandrelsbelow. The silhouette is enriched by the breaking
of the entablature about the corner columns, while they are
united with their simplepedestalwhich quiets

neighborsby the
the variety above and rests firmly on the earth. As the
necessary completion above, one must imagine the quadriga,

a bronze chariot with four horses and sculpturedfigures. A
further development of the monumental arch was the widening
of the side bays and the insertion of subordinate arches in
them, as in the Arch of Domitian, near the Colosseum, later
appropriatedby Constantine. Here pedestaland entablature
FIG. 51 "
THE ARCH OF TITUS
break about columns, and the unity depends on the

all four
rhythmical symmetry of the arches. Later, and in the
provinces, the designers of arches sought to exhaust the
of combination
possibilities 'of the arch and column.
Gates. The motives of the triumphal arch were also carried
over to the city gates, which had often in the
days of the
Roman peace rather a symbolicalthan a militarysignificance.
Even a gate which retained its fortified character, like the
Porta Nigra in Trier- on the German frontier,was given a
monumental expression by columnar adornment (Fig. 52).
ROMAN ARCHITECTURE
The main openings and the windows of towers and galleries

are enframed as in the Colosseum, but with greater sternness
and sobriety.
Grave monuments. The same instinct that created the
commemorative columns and arches shows itselfin the grave
FIG. 52 "
TRIER. PORTA NIGRA
monuments, which in imperialtimes took on a magnificence

even greater than in Hellenistic Greece. Both burial and
incineration practised,and richly decorated urns
were and
sarcophagi were employed. These were but secondary in
many cases, however, to large constructions containingthe
tomb chamber, and taking the most varied forms. Patrons
and artists drew their suggestionsfrom the tombs of every
people with whom the Romans had come in contact the "
Asiatic and Etruscan tumulus, the Egyptian pyramid, the

Greek peristylarmonument and exedra, the temple, both
6
1 36 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
rectangular and circular. All appeared in rich array

these
lining the streets which led across the Campagna from
the gates of the city. Only in special cases, such as
those of the emperors, was interment within the walls
permitted.
The tumulus type. It was the tumulus, the primitivemound
of earth, girtat the base by a circular wall of stone, which
FIG. 53 "
ROME. MAUSOLEUM OF HADRIAN. (RESTORED BY VAUDREMER)
was selected by Augustus for his mausoleum, erected on the
Campus Martius in 28-26 B.C. In this and other Roman

examples, however, the cylindrical
substructure is developed
into the
principalmember, and itself raised on a massive square
pedestal after the manner of the Hellenistic circular ments.
monu-
The mausoleum Augustus

of had a marble drum of
three hundred feet diameter, bearing a cone of earth planted
with cypress trees and crowned with a colossal statue of the
emperor. Even more splendidwas the mausoleum of Hadrian

(Fig.53), which still subsists in the Castle of Sant' Angelo.
Its wall was decorated with order,its

an cone was of marble
steps surmounted by a quadriga.
The temple type. In the erection of tombs of temple form
the rectangular type was less employed than the circular.
The most elaborate was the mausoleum of Diocletian in his
palace Spalato, about 300 A.D., the domed
at interior richly
membered with superposed columns, the octagonal exterior
with a peristyleand a projectingportico. As in other tombs
of this class,the cella was used for memorial services,the
sarcophagus was deposited in a second chamber below. A
notable step was taken in the tomb of Constantia, the daughter
of Constantine the Great, who died in 354. The wall on
which the dome rests is broken

through, instead and of the
arched niches there are deep arches supported on pairs of
columns united in the thickness of the wall by an entablature.
The central space is surrounded by a continuous aisle,the
clerestory of the basilica is carried over into a circular building,
creatingnew spatialeffects of which Christian architecture
was to make great use (Fig.71).
Domestic architecture. The Roman town house may best
be studied Pompeii, where the debris of the eruption of
at
Vesuvius, 79 A.D., has preserved almost intact a great number

of dwellings of every class,ranging over a period of three
hundred years. The type of plan was already essentially
fixed in the second century B.C., and varied less with time than
with the means of the owner and the exigenciesof the site.
The poorer folk,many of whom in Rome were crowded in high
tenements, here lived over their shops along the street, or had
a small atrium and a couple of rooms of their own. The
middle class had still to content themselves withthe ments
arrange-
which served for the best in the earlier days of the
republic an atrium
" and surrounding rooms with a small
walled garden at the rear. The entrance was by a narrow
passage between shops. The atrium

rented was a large
oblong room with a roof slopinginward to a central opening,
generallyof the Tuscan type, supported on beams from wall

to wall. Primitivelythis had been the principalliving-room,
containingthe hearth, the smoke of which escaped through a
small opening in the roof. With the transition to urban
conditions the size of the opening was increased to lightthe
surrounding rooms, with the result that more sheltered living-

rooms had
provided. To left and
to be right of the atrium
were small sleeping-rooms, cubiculce,
opening from it. Behind
these, forming lateral extensions of the atrium, were two
alcoves or ales,put to various uses, survivals perhaps of the
day when the house stood
isolated,and light could be
introduced from the sides.
\ At the rear was the tablinum,
the reception-room, used
also in smaller houses as a
family living-room. A
second story, with minor
rooms, was sometimes added.
Larger houses. In the
houses of a wealthier class
not only was the atrium larged,
en-
but the entire paratus

ap-
of a Hellenistic
house on the Delian model,
with peristyle,exedras, and
triclinium, or dining-room
with three couches, was
added to the rear. Four

columns were often added
at the corners of the atrium
opening,creatingthe tetra-
styletype of which Vitruvius
speaks, or even more than
four, making the room like
a Greek court, as appears
FIG. 54 "
POMPEII. HOUSE OF PANSA. in the name, Corinthian
PLAN atrium, then applied to it.
Atrium (C) Peristyle
{A)
B) Impluvium (D) (Ecus
The family came more to
leave the originalatrium to

clients and visitors,and to withdraw to the rooms ing
surround-
the which
peristyle, were supplemented perhaps by a
second atrium, beside the first,about which the domestic
apartments were grouped. The most elaborate houses filled

an entire block, with a more extensive garden behind the
peristyle. Such a one, showinghigh development of the

a
Pompeian house in differentiation of functions and guarding

of privacy,is the so-called House of Pansa (Fig.54).
Decoration of houses. To the exterior the houses turned a
blank, plastered wall, with few small windows, perhaps a
richer door frame. The interior walls, on the other hand,

where they could not be ofcostlymarbles, were richlypainted,
at first in imitation of these, later with mythological scenes,
in a setting of attenuated architectural forms which were
suggested in the first instance by the architectural decorations

of the stage.
Villas. In more intimate relation to the landscape were the
villas on the outskirts of the city,with terraced courtyards,
gardens,and Others, less formal, served as retreats
orchards.
in the country or by the seaside. The larger villas went far
beyond the satisfaction of practicalneeds, with luxurious
provision for dining, bathing, exercise, and amusement.
Especiallywas this true of the imperial villas,of which the
villa of Hadrian at Tivoli gives the best idea (Fig. 55). It
included, besides the livingquarters and festal suites,reproduc-
tions
of the most famous buildingsof Greece and of the Orient,
capriciouslystrewn over a picturesque topography. There'
were two theaters,libraries,
a stadium, thermae, a so-called
academy, and a long canal, bordered by porticoes and
terminated by a great niche, in imitation of Canopus, a suburb
of Alexandria. The imitations seem to have been less literal
than suggestive,however, as all was executed in Roman
technique of brick and concrete and designed with a facility
in the combination of vaults and the composition of plans
which is purely Roman.
The palacesof the C"sars.
palaces of the emperors The in
Rome, established on the Palatine Hill (Fig.56), owe less to
the Roman house than to the palaces of eastern capitalssuch
as Alexandria, Antioch, and Pergamon. Begun by Augustus,
they were extended by Tiberius and many later emperors,
especiallyDomitian, who built the great series of state apart-
ments
in the center. Caligulasought to connect the Palatine
with the Capitol by a bridge,to secure easier access to the
temple of Jupiter Capitolinus; Nero united the imperial

gardens on the Esquilinewith the Palatine by building in the
intervening valley, where the Colosseum later stood, his

Golden House with its luxurious park. Though these sions
exten-
were not permanent, the Palatine itselfwas covered with
magnificentbuildings,includingseveral temples. The state
FIG. 56 "
ROME. PALACES OF THE CAESARS. PLAN. (RESTORED BY
DEGLANE)
apartments formed an oblong block fronted with a long

colonnade toward the central area. In the center of the fagade
was the audience-room, having a barrel vault a hundred feet
in span, the walls richlyadorned with columns and niches.
To right and left the basilica
imperial tribunal,the
were or
lararium or private chapel. Behind this suite lay a square

peristyle,at the rear opening into supplementary
a triclinium,
rooms. The private apartments of the emperor occupied

another block centering on a court ; beyond them was the so-
called Stadium, an inclosed garden surrounded by porticoes
and dominated by a great vaulted exedra.
The palace of Diocletian at S potato. A very different
arrangement is that of the Palace of Diocletian (Fig.57) at
Spalato in Dalmatia, on the shores of the Adriatic, to which

the emperor retired in 305 on layingdown his authority. The
""'
r' '
J^-
FIG. 57 "
SPALATO. PALACE OF DIOCLETIAN. (RESTORED BY HEBRARD)
securityof the empire was no longercertain,the palacefollowed

the lines of
fortified camp.
a It forms a rectangular walled
inclosure quartered by two colonnaded streets at right angles,
with gates and towers at the middle points of the landward
sides. Along the seaward face runs a long colonnade behind
which are the imperial apartments, also reached from a
monumental vestibule at the head

longitudinalstreet. of the
Next them, frontingeach other in balancing inclosures which
filled the remainder of this half of the palace,are a temple,
serving as the imperial chapel, and the mausoleum for the
emperor. Beyond the transverse streets are quarters for
service and for the guards; around the outer walls are store-
chambers, reached from a passage which makes the circuit.

In the forms of detail eastern influeiice is seen, and the develop-
ments
of late Roman architecture in new relations of arch and
column appear most clearly(Fig.59).
Ensembles, town planning. The Romans of imperialtimes
were not satisfied even with the extended and complex
symmetry which they had given to individual units such as
the palaces,thermae, and fora, but sought to organize their

relations to one another and to give the whole citya coherent
plan. Rome as a whole was too vast and too consecrated
for this, but in certain
portions a unification was effected.
Thus a splendidfacade, ingeniously planned, was built before
the irregularbuildingsof the Palatine, to give them a sym-
metrical
aspect from the Circus Maximus. More fundamental
was the consistent treatment of the island in the Tiber, to
suggest a vast galley,with prow and stern. Its

buildings
were disposed about a series of connected courts, artfully
devised to mask the actual of
irregularity the plan. On a far
greater scale were the harbor works and warehouses of Ostia,
at the mouth of the Tiber, of which
hexagonal Port of the
Trajan surrounded by uniform buildings was the most
systematic. Newly founded towns, especiallythose of a
semi -militarycharacter like Augusta Praetoria (Aosta),in the
foothills of the Alps, and Thamugadi (Timgad) in Africa were
laid out in rectangularform bisected by the principalstreets
with others parallel to them. They marked a formal progress
over Hellenistic towns in the regularityof their outline as well
as of their minor subdivisions.
Individual forms. Although the individual forms of Roman
architecture fall behind their combinations in
interest,as
behind the forms of the Greeks in originality,
they were
by no means slavish imitations. In many instances a
further formal
development took place, in others, new
structural functions produced new or modified expressions.

For purely utilitarian purposes, post, lintel,and arch were
used without ornament in

simple and as a manner as
effective as the primitive system of the waiting-hallof the

pyramid of Khafre in Egypt. In Roman Africa and Syria
are many instances of square monolithic piers with square
lintels, repeatedperhaps in several stories,which, like the
arches of the aqueducts, have no other treatment than the

constructive membering.
Walls, doors,windows. The problems of a richer expression
for the wall and for the post and lintel had already been solved
in an exemplary way by the Greeks, whose solutions were too
accessible and too authoritative
ignored. In these
to be
features the innovations of the Romans were relativelyminor.
They made more frequentemployment of grooved or rusticated
joints,of cap and base moldings, followingthe Hellenistic
tendencies. The of their moldings were
profiles less studied
and subtle, conforming more closelyto arcs of circles than to
elliptical arcs and other conic sections. Doors and windows
followed late Greek examples in having a molded architrave
of stone. A frieze and cornice were often added, sometimes
elaborated by the addition of curved brackets or consoles, or
of a pediment. For windows and niches an even richer treat-
ment
was devised, the tabernacle of two free standing columns

with an entablature and pediment triangularor segmental
" "
best seen in the interior of the Pantheon (Fig.42).

The Doric order. The Doric
order, whether in its Greek or
its Tuscan form, v/as littleused in imperialtimes, except in the

lower stories of buildingswith superposed orders, where its
relative massiveness preference. An occasional
stillgave it the
example shows the echinus of the capitalornamented with
egg and dart and the other members multipliedand enriched.

The difficultiescreated by the corner triglyphwere overcome
in imperial times by placing it on the axis of the column in

spite of its leaving a fragment of metope beyond, thus
sacrificing functional expressionto formal regularity. In the
amphitheaters, with their continuous unbroken sweep, this
problem did not arise.
The Ionic order. The Ionic order followed the precedents
of Hermogenes in having always a frieze,and a capitalwith
relativelysmall volutes and a low connecting band, which in
Roman examples finally lost all its curvature. The Attic base
was preferred. The angular capitaloriginated by Iktinos,
with volutes on all four sides projecting diagonally,was
frequently employed where the colonnade had corners to
turn.
The Corinthian order. The Corinthian order was the one
ROMAN ARCHITECTURE
which comported best with the love of magnificence which

the imperial Romans shared with the Hellenistic monarchs,
and was used exclusivelyin the later
almost monuments.
The scheme of capitalgenerallypreferred was that of the

example from Epidaurus,
with two alternating
rows of eightleaves each,
but the spiritof the ex-
ecution
was bolder, the

leafage more luxuriant.
Each building still fur-
nished
a problem for it-
self
and showed its own
designof capital.Among
the many superb ex-
amples,
that of the
temple of Castor and
Pollux in the Forum
Romanum givenmay be
as representative(Fig.
58). A second common
type was that of the
Temple of Vesta at
Tivoli, with the upper

leaves close down on the
lower, and with a
crinkled, parsley -like

serration. A variant of
the Corinthian was the
so-called Composite FIG. 58 "
ROME. CORINTHIAN CAPITAL
AND ENTABLATURE FROM THE TEMPLE
capital in which the OF CASTOR AND POLLUX. (RESTORED
echinus and diagonal CAST IN THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM)
scrolls of an angular
Ionic capitalwere placed above the rows of leaves,as in the
Arch of Titus. This attempt to secure stillgreater richness in-
volved
sacrifice of the organicconnection
a of scrollsand leaf-
age
in the original. In the Corinthian entablature the dentils
became secondary to great brackets or modillions,sometimes
treated as molded
blocks,sometimes as scrolls decorated with
as in the Temple
leafage, of Castor and Pollux. In the temples
at Baalbek there are consoles in the frieze as well. Entablature

and capital alike took part in the stylistic
developments of
the imperialperiod the passionfor decoration of the Flavians,
"
the puristicreaction under Hadrian and the Antonines. The

temple of Antoninus and Faustina, 141 A.D., has neither
modillions nor dentils.
Pilasters. The Roman counterpart of the anta was the
pilaster,
which, instead of
being studiouslydistinguishedfrom
the column in width of side and profile of capital, was imitated
directlyfrom it. Late Hellenistic and republican buildings
show the pilaster used not only to respond to the columns of a
temple portico but to form a similar termination at the rear
corners of the cella,and to continue the rhythm of the spacing

between in the same manner that engaged columns were used.
Pilasters were used also,instead of engaged columns, in various
buildingsof the empire where lack of means or a desire for less
accentuation suggested the substitution.

arch.
i.The. In the formal elaboration of the arch and its
combination with the column the Romans had new problems,
the solution of which, as we have seen, occupied the whole
course of their history. After the simple treatment of can
republi-
times in which a projectingmolded course of stone was
added at the outside of the voussoirs,the voussoirs themselves

were molded to form an archivolt,a ring having a section
like that of the columnar architrave. In a similar way the
impost was given a form like a capitalor bed molding, with
members suited to the function of support, and the keystone
was often treated as a console. The enframement of the arch
by column and lintel,although characteristic of the central
period of Roman art, was not the final scheme. In the
Pantheon the entablature itself was used as the impost of an
arch; at Palmyra it was spanning the

bent into an archivolt
wide central opening of
a portico. In the thermae a fragment
of entablature served to lengthen the column and give a larger

bearing for the springingof a vault; in Syria and at Spalato
this fragment was reduced to a mere molded stilt-block,and
finallyomitted altogether, so that the arches came down
directlyon the heads of the columns (Fig.59). The column
thus gradually attained a relation with the arch as structural
as its originalrelation with the lintel.
ROMAN ARCHITECTURE
Wall
membering. The relation of the columnar form to
wall membering proceeded in the opposite direction from the
common the contradiction
starting-point; of expressionswas
reconciled by removing every structural suggestion and
leaving the decoration undisguised. In the arch of Domitian
(Constantine) and in the Forum Transitorium, begun by
Colosseum Pa.n1hepn Thermo? Spalato Spalato Spaloto

noinan arch order Cen1r"vl niche of Caracal/a. Cenlral arch Porla ajjrea Slreel a
cTOAJ). C.125AJ). C.M5A.D. c.MOAD
FIG. 59 "
DEVELOPMENT IN THE RELATIONS OF ARCH AND COLUMN IN
ROMAN ARCHITECTURE
Domitian, the columns, instead of being engaged againstthe

wall, stand free in front of it,supporting merely an end of
entablature and an attic or a statue over it. In the free
composition of the stage backgrounds this tendency went still
further; the whole apparatus of colonnettes and tabernacles
was obviously a application. Tabernacle
mere decorative
work of this sort came more and more to supersede,for the
enrichment of facades, the treatment with engaged columns
of the full height of the wall. In the north gate at Spalato,
finally, the niches and colonnettes are no longer carried down
to the ground, but are supportedmerely on projectingbrackets
or corbels. Meanwhile other forces had been at work. The
fondness for Greek art in the second century led to the omission
of any columnar subdivision of the wall in certain cases. The
temple of Antoninus and Faustina, although prostyle,has
pilastersonly at the corners of the cella. The use of brick and
concrete, plastered over with stucco, in vast constructions

such as the thermae and the Villa of Hadrian, encouraged the

limitation of membering to the openings,where columns and
pilasters fulfilled their originalfunctions. The tendency was
thus, by various paths, toward frankness of constructive expression,
in spiteof conditions far more complex than those in

which the Greeks had achieved their earlystructural purism.
Elements of plan and space. For elements of plan and space
the Romans drew both on Greece and on the Orient ; they later
made important contributions of their own. The temple
cella and the basilica with longitudinal colonnades, the
exterior peristyle, were of Greek origin;the peristylar hall and
court, the clerestory, of Oriental origin. On the other hand,
the forms suggestedby vault construction,the apse, the circle,
or polygon, with abutting niches, the groin-vaulted rectangle
with side compartments, were Roman in development. In
one or two cases a dome was placed over a square room, in the
form of a circumscribed hemisphere intersected by the planes
of the four walls in the manner later familiar in the Byzantine
domical vaults. The forms of vaults were ordinarilykept
rigidlygeometrical,and, in consequence, they often determined
the precise proportions of the rooms below. Thus with
groined vaults, in which cylindrical surfaces were employed,
the line of intersection fell in a plane only when the two
cylinderswere of equal diameter. As a result the Romans
employed them by preferenceonly over square bays. The
vaults first made possiblea plastichandling of interior space,
in which wall and ceilingblend in coherent unity,and adjacent
elements open freelyinto one another. It was characteristic
of the Romans to emphasize strongly the predominance of
the central element of a group, the surrounding units being
rather shallow bays than long arms, having themselves but
minor subdivisions. A favorite treatment was with niches
alternately
square and semicircular in plan.
Architectural treatment of vaults. The vaulted interior
involved new problems in detail and exterior treatment as
well as in construction. The vault, like the

arch, usually
received an impost which was either a full entablature,
supported by an order which enriched the wall below, or else
a stringcourse composed somewhat on the lines of a cornice.
The vaulting surfaces themselves were generally unbroken by
any projecting ribs, having merely a recessed pattern of

coffers (Fig. 42). Externally, barrel vaults were generally
covered by gable roofs. Groined vaults at large scale, as in
the tepidaria,had lateral gables over each bay, intersecting
the main longitudinalroof and producing valleys by which
the rain was dischargedover each pier. The tendency was
increasingly to rest the tiles of the roofs directly
on the massive
shell of the vaults, fashioned in inclined planesto receive them.
In the case largedomes, like that of the Pantheon, the curved
of
form was retained on the exterior,the upper portion being a
saucer-like zone girded by several monumental steps, which
carried the visual support to the high exterior wall.
Construction in brick and concrete. For the vast takings
under-
capital,and in other parts of the empire where
at the
stone was not rendered by natural conditions the inevitable
building material, methods of construction were developed
which lent themselves admirably to the scale of operations
and to the character of the labor supply. A building of the
extent of the thermae of Caracalla could not be erected wholly
by skilled craftsmen as, relatively, the Parthenon had been,
nor could it be built wholly of marble. The methods used in
the mass of the construction had to be adapted to large forces
of slaves and unskilled men, directed by trained superin-
tendents.
These conditions were happily fulfilled by the
employment of brick,with mortar often so thick as to produce
practicallya concrete, or of concrete in which the cement
itself was the essential element, binding an aggregate of loose
and small materials into a monolith. The volcanic pozzolana
furnished a cement which left nothing to be desired in strength
and quickness of setting.
Wall construction. The Roman bricks were very large,
usually square, about a foot on a side, but often triangular,
to secure a better bond between face and backing. In some
walls the bricks were left to form the final exterior surface, but
more usually they were covered with a coating of stucco or
a veneer of marble slabs. Walls of concrete were constructed

by depositingor pouring mixture, in a semi-liquidstate,
the
into temporary forms built of wood, which were devised so
that as much as possibleof the lumber could be used repeatedly.

They were usuallyfaced with brick or stone fragments in
ISO A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
some form, and then generallycoated or veneered in the same
manner as brick walls. The facing received special

kinds of
names according to the pattern produced on the surface "
opus reticulatum for small squares of stone standing on their

corners diagonal lines, opus spicatum for kernel-shaped
in
fragments in herringbone pattern while the general name of "
opus incertum was reserved for a treatment with fragments

of no regularform. Bonding courses of brick were often laid
at intervals to tie the facingsfirmly to the body of the wall,
and angles were sometimes reinforced with brick or stone in
the form of quoins, or blocks of alternatinglength toothed
into the mass.
Vault construction. In the construction of vaults the use
of small materials in thick mortar presents constructive

advantages greater even than in the construction of walls, for
it obviates greater difficulties in the individual shaping of the
elements. A vault of concrete alone, however, lacks any
arching action until it has set, and bears with its full weight
on the temporary wooden form or centering,which has to be
correspondingly cumbersome and wasteful. The Romans
worked to avoid this
by constructing first,over lightcentering,
a framework of brick arches,with projections or cells to secure
a good bond with the concrete, a great part of the weight of
which was thus removed from the wooden supports (Fig.60).
In groined vaults of this sort ribs of brick reinforced the chief
constructive lines; in domes they followed principallythe
elements of the surface. Once the concrete had thoroughly
hardened, of course, such ribs of brick had fulfilled their
purpose and no longer served any specialstructural function,
being merged in the mass of the vault. Coffers were even cut
through them without affectingstability.A second principle

was sometimes followed which did not demand even an
unbroken centering,but requiredmerely a light

surface in the
form of slats spaced openly. Over these was laid a layer of
flat tiles, touching each other only at their edges yet strongly
cemented; over these another and perhaps another, forming
a skin of no great thickness but of surprisingstrength (Fig.61).
This supported the concrete placed upon it until it had
hardened, and formed a permanent interior facing to the
.
vault.
ROMAN ARCHITECTURE
Ornament. In their enrichment of moldings and surfaces

the Romans followed, as in so many other matters, the
tendencies initiated by the Asiatic Greeks. The moldings,
like those of the Greek Ionic order,were carved in marble with
decorative forms suggested by their profiles.The egg and
dart and other familiar forms recur, made fuller and rounder
in harmony with the moldings themselves, and more luxuriant
FIG. 60 "
ROMAN CELLULAR VAULT. FIG. 6l "
ROMAN LAMINATED
(CHOISY) VAULT. (CHOISY)
in accordance with Roman taste. In place of the painted

polychromy of the Greeks came a polychromy of richly
colored marbles, especiallyin interiors,which was more
sumptuous and had the advantage of permanence. Shafts of

columns, pavements and walls, exhibited variegated and
preciousmaterials employed not only with mastery of pattern
and color, but with discriminatingavoidance of structural
pretense. Dark and richlyveined shafts were left unfluted to
exhibit the beauty of their material. POT the veneering of
brick or concrete walls marble blocks were sawn thin to make
the most of limited material,and large slabs were appliedwith
a freedom jointingand an absence of bond that gave no
of
false suggestionof ashlar masonry.
Local variety.Although the official art of the capitalwas
diffused through the empire in much the same way as the
official Latin tongue, this did not preclude the existence of
provincialvarieties or dialects,or the maintenance in the more
civilized East of a Greek tradition which held its own with
Roman developments.
The West. Provence. Germany. In the West it was less
any survival of pre-existingstylesthan the influence of the

available materials which resulted inspecialcharacteristics
in certain and these
localities, were naturallyrather in matters
of construction than in matters of form. Thus in Provence,
the Rhone valleyregion in the south of France, an abundance
of fine limestone and an absence of clay gave rise to many
technical expedients. In the lower arcade of the amphitheater
at Aries of long
a flat ceiling slabs is substituted for the usual
concentric barrel vault; in the upper arcade radial barrel
vaults are supported on stone beams spanning the corridor.
The barrel vaults, in this and other instances, do not have
their stones bonded
togetherlengthwise,but are made up of
independent rings of voussoirs side by side, which could be
erected one by one on a movable centeringused over and over.
In the so-called Baths of Diana at Nimes the ringsare not kept
in a singlecylindrical surface,but the alternate ones rest on
those between, and could thus be laid on them afterward

without any centering of their own. In Germany the more
severe climate led to a greater degree of inclosure and the

adoption of devices for artificial heating. The thermae and
the palace of Constantine at Trier are lacking in colonnaded
openings to the exterior,and have double outer walls with
exceptionalfacilities for circulating warm air in the cavities.
Although late constructive developments in general were
tending to requiremassive outer walls as a support for vaults,
it is not fanciful to suppose in these instances an influence from
climate also.
The East. Syria. The East had itself furnished the
originalsfor many Roman forms and types, and continued to
contribute to them during the imperialperiod. On the other

hand certain arrangements of Roman origin,like the closed
theater with its union of seats and stage, found their way
eastward. Besides buildingspurely Greek, like many of the
temples, and purely Roman, like the Odeion of Herodes
Atticus in Athens, every degree of mixture appears, as in the
Greek theaters to which Roman stages were added. In
Egypt the ancient native art still persisted for religious

buildings,
as in Hellenistic days. A hotbed of eastern ments
develop-
was Syria,in touch with the interior of Asia where a
new artistic fermentation was beginning. Of the citieswhich

FIG. 62" MOUSMIEH. PR^TORIUM. (DE VOGUE)
reflected Hellenistic architecture, Palmyra, the flourishing

caravan station of the oasis in the Syrian desert, still gives a
vivid picture. The principal streets are lined from end to

end with tall Corinthian columns, forming porticoes on either
side with richly profiled arches at the intersections and
termini. The details of the
temples there and at Baalbek
show the new spirit that, coming from the Orient and
spreading westward, broke through the classical canons.
At Palmyra the entablature springs as an arch over the
wide central opening of the portico; at Baalbek the carv-
ing
loses the projection and play of surface always char-

acteristic
of Greek and Graeco-Roman ornament and tends
to be incised below the plane of the
surrounding sur-
face
"
the
background plane disappears. In other Syrian
buildings, especially in the woodless Hauran district, the
departures from the
style of the capital are still more
marked. The prastorium or guard house - at Mousmieh
(Fig. 62) has vaults resting on columns with only a block,

instead of a classic entablature, above them; the basilica
at Chaqqua is roofed entirely with stone slabs resting on
arches as devoid of extraneous adornment and as freely
adapted to their constructive functions as those of the
bridges and aqueducts.

Infiueticeof Roman architecture. The wide diffusion of
Roman architecture, its magnificent associations, and its

in meeting
flexibility new and complex problems makes it
easy to understand the wide influence which it exercised, both

on the peoples who
immediately succeeded to the Roman
possessions and on those who sought, many centuries later,

to revive Roman culture. Under the Byzantine rulers of
the East the empire still lived on, and its architecture
had a direct continuance, though its forms were rapidly
modified by forces already at work there. In the West
the Christian monuments of the last emperors furnished
the point of departure for the architecture of the Teutonic
invaders, the indebtedness of which to Rome is well gested

sug-
by the name Romanesque.
PERIODS OF ROMAN ARCHITECTURE
All buildingsare in the city of Rome unless otherwise stated.
I. Early republicanperiod,to about 300 B.C. Etruscan influence-

First temple of Jupiter Capitolinus,dedication ascribed to
510 B.C.
Sack of Rome by the Gauls, 390 B.C.
"Wall of Servius."
Cloaca Maxima. Fourth centurv B.C.?
"Arch of
Augustus" Perugia. at
Aqueduct of Appius Claudius, 312 B.C.
II. Later republican period, about 300 B.C. to 50 B.C. Greek

influence.
Conquest of Magna Graecia by 272, Sicilyby 241; destruction
of Corinth, 146; Province of Asia organized, 133 B.C.
Rostral column of Duilius,260 B.C.
Basilica of Cato the Censor, 184 B.C.
Bridge of ^milius, 179-142 B.C.
Pons Mulvius, rebuilt no B.C.
Porticoes of Forum at Pompeii, before 100 B.C.
Temple of Hercules at Cori, soon after 100 B.C.

Basilica at Pompeii, before 80 B.C.
Small theater at Pompeii, 80 B.C.
Amphitheater at Pompeii, after 80 B.C.
Tabularium, 78 B.C.
Temple of "Fortuna Virilis." 1 Toward middle of the first
Circular temple at Tivoli. century B.C.
First amphitheater in Rome (of wood), 58 B.C.
Theater of Pompey, 55 B.C.
III. Imperial period, about 50 B.C. to 350 A.D. Oriental influence.
Basilica Julia and Forum of Julius,dedicated (unfinished)
46 B.C.
Amphitheater of Statilius Taurus, 30-29 B.C.
Augustus, 27 B.C.-I4 A.D.
Mausoleum of
Augustus, 28-26 B.C.
"Baths of Diana," Mimes, 25 B.C.
Theater of Marcellus, dedicated n B.C.
Forum of Augustus and Temple of Mars the Avenger,
dedicated 2 B.C.
"Maison Carrie," Nimes, 4 A.D.
Thermae of Agrippa.
Pont du Card, Nimes.
Nero, 54-68 A.D.
Burning of Rome, 64 A.D.
"Golden House" of
Nero, 64 /.
Flavian emperors (Vespasian, Titus, Domitian), 69-96 A.D.
Greatest richness of detail.
Colosseum, 70-82 A.D.

Destruction of Pompeii and Herculaneum, 79 A.D.
Temple of Vespasian, 80 A.D.
Arch of Titus, dedicated 81 A.D.
Palace of the Flavians on the Palatine.
Arch of Domitian.
Forum Transitorium, completed by Nerva, 98 A.D.
"Good emperors."
Nerva, 96-98 A.D.
Trajan, 98-117 A.D.
Thamugadi (Timgad) founded 100 A.D.
Forum of Trajan and Basilica Ulpia, dedicated 113 A.D.
Column of Trajan, 113-117 A.D.
Thermas of Trajan.
Port of Trajan at Ostia.
Hadrian, 117-138 A.D. Return to Hellenism in details.
Pantheon, 120-124 A.D., modified 202 A.D.
Mausoleum of Hadrian.
Villa of Hadrian at Tivoli.
Temple of Venus and Rome.
Temple of Castor and Pollux.
Antoninus Pius, 138-61 A.D.
Temple of Antoninus and Faustina, 141 A.D.

Buildings of Herodes Atticus in Greece, c. 140-160 A.D.
Principalgroup at Baalbek.
Marcus Aurelius,161-80 A.D.
Column of Marcus Aurelius.

Septimius Severus, 193-211 A.D.
Arch of Severus.
Caracalla,211-17 A-D-
Thermae of Caracalla.
Gallienus,260-68 A.D.
Porta Nigra, Trier,c. 260.

Aurelian, 270-75 A.D.
Wall of Aurelian.
Diocletian,284-305 A.D.
Thermae of Diocletian.
Palace of Diocletian at Spalato.
Maxentius, 306-312 A.D.
Basilica of Maxentius (Constantine).

Constantine, 306-337 A.D.
Arch of Domitianrebuilt,312 A.D.

Christianitymade the state religion, 330 A.D.
Capital removed to Constantinople (Byzantium).

Tomb of Constantia (died 354 A.D.).
The most authoritative general account of Roman architecture

is J. Durm's Baukunst der Etrusker und
Romer, 2d ed., 1905 (Hand-
buck der Architektur,pt. II, vol. i),which also suppliesreferences to
discussions of individual questions and monuments. Anderson and
Spiers 's Architecture of Greece and Rome, 26. ed., 1907, and F.
Noack's Baukunst des Altertums, 1910, are richlyillustrated, both
arranged primarilyby classes of buildings. General works containing
measured drawings of Roman buildings are A. Desgodetz's Les
edifices antiquesde Rome, first published 1682 and several times re- issued;
G. L. Taylor and E. Cresy's The Architectural Antiquitiesof

Rome, 2 vols.,1821-22; Restaurations des monuments antiques,8 vols.,
1877-90; H. d'Espouy's Fragments d'architecture antique, 2 vols.,
1896-1905; Monuments antiques,vols. 2 and 3, 1910-12.
Among studies of specialtypes or problems may be mentioned
G. Leroux's Les originesde V edifice hypostyle,1913 (forthe basilicas);
E. R. Fiechter's Die baugeschichtliche Entwicklung des antiken Thea-
ters,
1914; A. Choisy's L'art de bdtir chez les Romains, 1873 (for
constructive methods); P. Gusman's L'art decoratif de Rome, 1908;
F. Haverfield's Ancient Town Planning, 1913. A. Mau's Pompeii,
translated by F. W. Kelsey, 2d ed.,1902, is especially important for
Roman domestic architecture and interior decoration.
The unique importance of the city of Rome and the wide graphical
geo-
distribution of Roman architecture makes
topographical
works of specialimportance. Detailed listsof those published down
to its date are contained in K. Sittl's Archdologieder Kunst, 1895
(Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft, vol. 6). Recent
works covering the city of Rome are H. Jordan and Chr. Htilsen's
Topographic der Stadt Rom, 2 vols. in 4, 1871-1907 (the most thoritative
au-
work for the sections covered by the latest volume);

and S. B. Platner's Topography and Monuments of Ancient Rome,
2d ed., 1911. The panorama published by J. Buhlmann and
H. Wagner, Das alte Rom, 1892, givesa graphicidea of the cityin the
time of Constantine. For the other principalregions see A. L.
Frothingham's Roman Cities in Italy and Dalmatia, T. A.

1910;
Cook's Old Provence, 2 vols., 1905;

Lancoronski's Stadte Pamphyliens
und Pisidiens, 2 vols., 1890-92; H. C. Butler's Architecture in Northern
Central Syria and the Djebel-Hauran, A. Graham's Roman

1903;
Africa, 1902;
and S. GselTs Les monuments antiques de VAlgerie,
2 vols., 1901.
Of the Roman treatises on

architecture preserved from antiquity
the most useful editions in English are

Vitruvius's Ten Books on
Architecture, translated by M. H. Morgan, and Frontinus's

1914;
Two Books the Water Supply of the City of Rome, translated, with
on
explanatory chapters, by C. Herschel, 1899.

CHAPTER VI
EARLY CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE
The point of view.

medieval As we approach the study of
early Christian architecture, and indeed of all medieval
architecture,we must note at the outset a change in the point
of view of the designer and builder which strongly impresses

the finished work. Medieval architecture, compared with
earlier and later styles,represents the spontaneous expression
of the artistic ideals of a community rather than the genius
of an individual or a number of architects. This does not mean
that the individual lost all importance, but that his importance
varied more, and was never so great as in earlier and later
periods. Moreover ecclesiastical architecture is of strongly
predominant importance. Again, this does not mean that
medieval secular architecture may be neglected,for at certain
times and in certain placesit rival* contemporary ecclesiastical
architecture in interest,but on the whole the main interest of
medieval architecture is in the ecclesiastical work, and the
student is justified in devoting the major part of his time to
the study of the churchly rather than the secular buildings of
the Middle Ages.
Classification.Early Christian and Byzantine architecture.
The earliest of what are generally classed as the medieval
stylesare the early Christian and the Byzantine, the former
perhaps slightly antedating the latter. Historians have
tended to make a sharp division between the two, and to treat
them as distinct and independent movements. The early
Christian, frequently also called the Christian-Roman, is
regarded as the typical style of the early Christian Church;
the Byzantine is considered a very different organic style,
forming a link between classic architecture and the flexible
vaulted styles of the Romanesque period. This classification,
5. Stefeno Rptondo 5. Pietro in
ViacoH - Rpme
FIG. 63 "
PLANS OF EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCHES
EARLY CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE 161
to obtain superficial
aclearness,often engenders a profounder
confusion. On account of it one is apt to forget that early
Byzantine is ipso facto early Christian architecture,that its
roots go back as far as those of the architecture of Christian
Rome and indeed coincide with them, in short that the two
stylesare roughly contemporary, frequentlyinteracting, and
reallysomewhat variegatedmanifestations of the same artistic

movement. These facts understood, however, the separate
classification of the two styles will be found useful. Taken
togetherthe two might be called the medieval architecture of
Rome and the East.
Lack in the early Christian style.
of self-consciousness The
absence of self-consciousness in medieval architecture was
never more marked than in the early Christian style. No art
was ever a more direct result of environment and need.

During the period of gestation,so speak, of Christian art to
the Roman Empire was hastening toward disintegration.In
other words, classical authoritywas weakening. At the same
time the old Latin stock was being transformed by fresh blood
from the East and West into a race barbaric, perhaps, but
susceptibleto new ideas and ideals. From the West came
energy ; from the East thought. By far the most significant

importation from the East was Christianityitself. At home
in the East, at Rome it was at first only one of the weaker
Eastern sects. The beginnings of its art, therefore,like the
beginnings of its ritual,are wrapped in a bafflingobscurity.
To conquer, it had to strugglefiercely, and it learned to be not
only ruthless but infinitely adaptable. These characteristics,
impressed upon the early religion, became marked in the
architecture,and never more so than after 330 when the Chris-
tian
religionemerged triumphant. In the East, however, as
one might expect, the struggle was less violent,and the archi-
tecture
was therefore at once more spontaneous and more
suited for subsequent development.

Weakening of classical authority. From the very beginning,
both in East and West, the weakening of classical authority
was of the highest importance. The Romans, in combining
the trabeated architecture of Greece with the
arch, had used
both elements accordingto consciouslyformulated, if varying,
canons. With the decline of the empire these canons became
IhH
"Tg^sa
first ignored,then forgotten. The result was decadence from

the Roman point of view, but possibilityof infinite develop-
ment
from the Christian. One of the first results was the free
combination of the and the
arch, anticipatedin late
column
Roman imperialwork. Set rules once removed, these elements
could not only be subjected to many combinations, for example
the springing of an arch direct from a capitalwithout the
intervening entablature, but could also be varied in scale,
shape, and manner of use. From this the invention of new
forms was a logicalstep, and flexibility,the keynote of medieval
architecture,was obtained. The inevitability of this tendency
in Christian architecture is proved by the same tendency in
late classical work.
Basilican and central types. The way being paved by
classical buildingof this sort, Christianitysoon evolved a new
architecture adapted to its needs and incidentallyexpressive
of its ideals. In general the buildingsthus produced may be
divided into two classes, according to whether they were
designed with reference to a longitudinalor a central vertical
axis. The former we may call the basilican,the latter the
central type. The basilica,with its long lines centeringatten-
tion
on the apsidal end of the church, the altar,the pulpits,

the bishop'schair, and the chancel reserved for the clergy,is
perfectlyadapted for the ordinary ritual of the Christian
church. Every detail of such a building, invented or
borrowed, is a direct result of the needs of the service. ing

Receiv-
its first development in Rome, the basilican ideal persisted
in the West, and it is significant that from the liturgical point
of view the finished Gothic cathedral is but a vastly
complicated and organized ramification of the basilican type.
The central type received its greatest development in the
East. In plan it might be circular,polygonal,or in the form
of a cross with equal arms. Buildings of such character
concentrated attention on the central vertical axis and were
best adapted for tombs, baptistries,

and inclosures of sacred
spots. Although not so well suited for the needs of the
Christian basilicari,
liturgy as the
this type was frequently
designed with only a liturgical purpose in view, and at times,
especiallyin the East, the two types were combined in a man-

ner
which makes classification difficult. Thus the domed

basilicas of Anatolia partake of elements of both schemes,

and Hagia Sophia at Constantinopleitself might be classified
under both heads.
Material and construction. In material and construction
the Western buildingswere the lighter. Brick was the usual
material in Rome, and vaulting was confined to the apse.
Nave and aisles were wooden-roofed. In the East vaulting
was the rule, and the use of heavy cut stone, brick, and terra
cotta was common, though the timber roof often appears as
well. The Eastern buildingswere more pretentiouson the

exterior than the Roman. The drab brick and the plain
walls of the latter made the exteriors unobtrusive if not actually
unsightly. The interiors,on the other hand, were lavishly
decorated.
Conservatism possibilities and
of development. The Roman
type of buildingcrystallized early,and givesthe impressionof
a finished product. The Eastern type, perpetuallychanging,
FIG. 65 "
ROME. SAN CLEMENTE. PLAN SHOWING THE ATRIUM
on the whole represents a step in the development to thing

some-
new. From the style the Byzantine could

Eastern
develop. The Western, though offeringsuggestionsof un-
limited
value to the Romanesque and Gothic styles,

remained
for centuries self-sufficient.
The Christian-Roman basilica. Turning to concrete ples,
exam-
let us examine first the buildingsin Rome. The ideal

Christian-Roman basilica is easy to describe. In plan
it was oblong rectangle,divided into three or five aisles,
an
and provided at the end with a semicircular apse. In the

finished examples, such as old Saint Peter's and Saint Paul's
Outside-the-Walls, a rudimentary transept, or bema, slightly

salient at the sides,was introduced between the rectangular
buildingand the apse, giving the plan a form
approximating
that of the Latin cross. In front of the buildingwas a covered
vestibule,or "narthex," and before that a peristylar"atrium,"
open to the sky, with a font in the center. The atrium, an ample
ex-
of which may be seen at San Clemente (Fig.65),was for

penitentsand the unbaptized, and it gave at the same time a
dignifiedseclusion to the church. Penitents might also enter
the narthex. The rear of the nave was reserved for the cate-
chumens,
or neophytes, while the faithful generallytook their

placesin the side aisles. The apse, bema, and often the upper
nave were reserved for the
officiatingclergy. space was This
inclosed by a railing, the "chancel," which frequentlyran far
down into the nave. At the very back of the apse, facingthe
congregation and on the longitudinalaxis, was the bishop's
chair, or cathedra. Before it,usuallyat the intersection of the
apse and the bema, was the altar of marble, covered with a
simple marble canopy, the ciborium. Flanking the chancel

were two pulpits,or ambones, from which the gospels were
read and the sermons preached. The common material for
all this church furniture was marble, inlaid with mosaic, which
has given the suggestivename
been of opus Alexandrtnum.
Occasionallytwo rooms, the diaconicon and the prothesis,were
placed on either side of the apse.

Elevation. In elevation the nave of the basilica was much
higher than the side aisles,permitting a broad clerestory
through which light was admitted by windows, fitted with
wooden grilles,thin, perforated,marble screens, or even oiled
cloth. The aisles were covered with slantingroofs, usually
hidden from the floor by flat ceilings.The triangularspace
thus obtained between the aisle ceiling and roof constituted the
"triforium." At times the triforia were sufficientlyroomy to
permit the superimpositionof galleries on the aisles,

and these
were reserved for the catechumens or for the segregationof
women (gynacaa). The clerestorywalls were carried on
columns, generallyantique,which separatedthe nave from the
aisles. Sometimes the system was trabeated; sometimes, as
in old Saint Peter's,the columns bore archivolts on which the

walls were set. Nave and bema were covered with gableroofs,
reinforced with trusses, and generally,

though frequentlyat a
period later than the originalbuilding,hidden from the floor

by richlycoffered and gildedceilings.The semicircular apse
alone was vaulted.
Decoration. Ample compensation for the dull exterior of
the basilica was made by the gorgeous
polychromatic decora-
tion
of the interior. The pavement consisted of marble flags
and tesserae, in divers brilliant colors and ingeniouslycompli-
cated
geometric designs. The columns were of precious
marbles, fluted or unfluted,varying even in scale accordingto
whether or not the builders could steal,for the greater glory of
God, a homogeneous set from some pagan building. In like
manner the capitalsvaried, frequently not even fittingthe
columns that bore them, and the entablature above was often
composed of unrelated pilfered classical fragments. That such
an apparently accidental hodge-podge should form an
extremely harmonious and decorative whole testifies strongly

to the underlyinggood taste of the Christian builder. Finally
the wall spaces, and especiallythe concave surfaces of the
apsidal semi-domes, were covered with glass mosaic, gold-
backed and flashingwith brilliant color. Sacred personages,
especiallythe Saviour, were thus portrayed, and eventually
whole cycles of biblical history were taught by means of
pictured mosaic. This mosaic, like the opus Alexandrinum,
was in originessentially Eastern.
Origin of the Christian-Roman basilica. The originof the
Christian basilica is somewhat obscure. Superficiallythe
type seems to have sprung into completed being with the reign
of Constantine, but this merely proves that the preliminary
steps in its development have been lost. The most obvious

theory of the creation,dating back to Leon Battista Alberti,is
that the Christian architects merely took over and copied the
ancient Roman classical basilica. The ancient civil basilicas,
however "
were of two sorts,one Eastern in originand the other
Western, or Hellenic. The plan of the latter strongly suggests
the Christian basilica,and it is reasonable to suppose that the
later buildingwas derived from the Greek civil basilica of the
classic times. The
building seems to have
Christian been
modified in detail,however, by the imitation of some of the
forms of the Roman house, wherein the early Christians were
FIG. 66 "
ROME. SAINT PAUL'S OUTSIDE-THE-WALLS. INTERIOR SEEN

FROM THE ENTRANCE
FIG. 67 "
ROME. SAN LORENZO FUORI-LE-MURA. EXTERIOR

1 68 A HISTORY OP ARCHITECTURE
wont worship, and by the invention

to of new forms for better
fulfilment of liturgical
needs.
Variations. Within the fixed limits of the type thus set
there was room for considerable individual deviation. Indeed
no two of the many basilicas in Rome are preciselythe same.
Some, like old Saint Peter's (Fig.63),had five aisles;others,

like Santa Maria
Maggiore, had but three. At times, as in
Santa Maria Maggiore, the architrave appears; at times the
archivolt takes its place,as in Saint Paul's Outside-the- Walls
(Figs.64 and 66). In general as time went on the archivolt
more and more took the place of the architrave. In many
of the smaller buildings,like the eighth century church
of Santa Maria in Cosmedin, the bema was omitted. other
An-
remarkable deviation appears in the same building,
where the colonnade is broken and piers are inserted at
regular intervals. Occasionallythe side aisles were finished

with smaller salient apses suggesting Syriac or Egyptian
influence. Such an arrangement appears in San Pietro in
Vincoli (Fig.63). Galleries above the aisles,more typical
of the Orient than the Occident, are to be found in San-
t'Agnese fuori-le-mura (Fig.64).
Orientation of the Christian
interesting,if church. An
freakish,variation occurs in San Lorenzo fuori-le-mura (Figs.
63, 67, and 68). Here two churches, an earlyone and a later,
oriented in opposite directions and juxtaposed apse to apse,
have been joined into a singlebuilding. In early times,
especiallyin buildings constructed under the influence of
Constant ine (Saint Peter's, Saint Paul's, the Lateran, San
Lorenzo), the facade and not the apse was placed to face the
east. Soon, however, the orientation was fixed with the apse
to face the east, and this scheme was followed whenever
possiblethroughout the Middle Ages.
The Christian-Roman basilica in Italyoutside of Rome. The
Christian-Roman basilica is best studied at Rome, but is
found throughout the
empire frequently alongside of, and
contemporaneous with, buildingsof a different style. Only
in Rome, however, did it show so completely the conservatism
which is one of its most marked characteristics. In Ravenna,
for example, we find- the sixth century church of Sant' Apolli-
nare Nuovo (Fig. 69) basilican
essentially in form, yet so
FIG. 68 "
ROME. SAN LORENZO FUORI-LE-MAURA. INTERIOR
FIG. 69 "
RAVENNA. SANT* APOLLINARE NUOVO. INTERIOR
Byzantine in detail that the work might be classified under

either head.
The Roman buildingof the central type. In Rome buildings
of the central type, though they are to be found, never attained
anything like the importance of the basilicas. The most
characteristic example of the type in Rome is the church of
San Stefano Rotondo (Figs.63, 64, and 70). This structure,
FIG. 7O "
ROME. SAN STEFANO ROTONDO. INTERIOR
consecrated in 468, had

originally the form of two concentric
aisles inclosinga cylinderraised above them to form a story.
clere-
The whole was wooden-roofed, and in cross-section
would have preciselythe appearance of a basilica. Designed
as a church, the ineptitudeof this -form of buildingfrom the
ritualistic point of view is eloquentlyvoiced by its centuries
of almost complete disuse. That buildings of the central
type, vaulted throughout,were constructed in Rome is proved
by the church of Santa Costanza (Fig.71). Outside of Rome
the buildingsof the central type are generallyso obviously
Oriental in inspirationthat they are best discussed under

the diffusion of Eastern influence.
The East. Geographicaldivisions.
study of Eastern The
architecture offers a very different problem. In the nearer
Orient one finds no conservative,well-developedstyleawaiting
definition. Generally speaking,the early Christian architect-
ure
of Rome was static,that of the East dynamic. In the
East architecture was in a state of flux,or rather progression, a
stylechanging almost as one seeks to fix its type. Moreover,
FIG. 71 "
ROME. SANTA COSTANZA. SECTION SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION
local variations were and

striking, the first step toward ness
clear-
involves a subdivision of the East into three distinct
regions;Anatolia, Syria,and Egypt. The first, in the north,
correspondsto Asia Minor, and its artistic center was Ephesus.
The second, farther south and including Palestine, was
guided artistically by Antioch. Alexandria controlled the
third. A fourth broad division might be made of northern
Africa, not so important historically, yet affording many
examples of early Christian art.
The Syrian basilica. Beginning with Syria, let us first
consider the basilica. Here, besides examples very like the
Roman buildings,other structures appear, absolutelynew in
the history of art. Only within comparativelyrecent times

has attention been directed to Antioch and the so-called
"dead cities" of receding civilization has left
Syria, where
as impressiveas any
ruins,and often well-preservedbuildings,
to be found in Pompeii. In the typicalSyrian basilica the
atrium was abandoned and a covered porch, flanked by two
monumental towers, was substituted for the narthex. A
unique fagade,very suggestiveof later medieval architecture,
FIG. 72 "
TOURMANIN. THE BASILICA RESTORED
was thus obtained. In the generallythree-aisled,

interior, the
Greek colonnade gave way to great piers,bearing an arcade,
sometimes double and wide of span,
giving an impression of
great space. Between the clerestorywindows corbels often
bore colonnettes which ran up to receive the transverse beams
of the timber roof and gave the structure something of the
feelingof logicalarticulation so commonly associated with the

organicRomanesque and Gothic styles. There were generally
three apses at the east end, usuallyround, though occasionally
square, in plan, and at times horseshoe-shaped.

Examples. Good
examples of Syrian basilicas may be seen
at Ruweiha, at Mchabbak, and at Tourmanin (Fig. 72).
Perhaps the finest example of the Syrian fagade is that of
Tourmanin, and the most complete, and probably the best
singleexample of Syrian architecture,is the church of Khalb-
Louzeh (Fig.63). In the Hauran, on account of the scarcity
of wood, an even more remarkable development took place,
FIG. 73 "
KALAT-SEMAN. THE BASILICA OF SAINT SIMEON STYLITES
and one finds buildingsconstructed entirelyof monumental

cut stone. Transverse arches were thrown across the naves,
and thesesupported roofs of stone flagslaid parallelto the main
axis of the building.The timber roof then entirely disappeared.
The originality of these buildingsreallyindicates a reversion
of the Orient to its native genius.
Buildingsof the central type in Syria. The buildingsof the
central type in Syria were equally important. Constantine
himself set the style with the famous church of the Holy
Sepulchre,crowned with a dome supported on an interior
colonnade, and surrounded by a circular aisle carrying a

galleryabove it. Two buildingsof capitalimportance in the
history of architecture are the churches of Ezra and Bosra
(Figs.63 and 64) in Syria. The former is in plan an octagon
inscribed in a square. The octagon drum is covered by an
egg-shaped dome, the transition from the drum to the dome

being made by squinches. A salient apse, semicircular within
and three-sided without, appears at the east end. The system
of Bosra is even more ingenious. The plan is that of a circle
inscribed within a square. The great central dome was
carried on eight pillars,and,(to neutralize its thrust,was rounded

sur-
by an annular barrel vault, fortified by four circular

semi-
exedras at the anglesof the square. Three apses were
placed at the east end. Perhaps the most perfect of the

Syrian buildings of the central type was the monastery of
Saint Simeon Stylites(Fig.73). Round an octagonalcourt,
in the center of which was the column of the famous ascetic,
four great three-aisled basilicas were placed to form a gigantic
Greek cross. The eastern arm, finished with three apses, was
the church proper; the others were reserved for pilgrims.
The extraordinary fertility of invention in these buildings
shows the beginning of an attempt to produce a satisfactory
ecclesiastical buildingof the central type. The architects of
Byzantium were to be preoccupied largelywith this problem.
Syrian decoration. The Mschatta frieze.Not less significant

was the decoration of the Syrian building. We have seen at
Spalato,imported from Syria,the modification and free use

of classic detail to embellish the exterior of an edifice. The
same procedure was maintained with infinite variations in
Syria proper. Moreover, the Syrians evolved a new scheme
of sculptured decoration, superbly shown in the frieze from
Mschatta (Fig.74) now in the Berlin museum, wherein classic
and Oriental motives are combined in the richest of patterns
and crisplycut Polychromatic decoration, too,
in low relief.
was common in Syria. In short, the region showed, at an
early date, new developments in architecture which unques-
tionably
aided in paving the way for the Byzantine style,and
perhaps even for the remote Romanesque of Europe.
Early Christian architecture of Egypt. In plan and construction
the buildings of Egypt show far less ingenuity than

FIG. 74 " BERLIN MUSEUM. THE FRIEZE FROM MSCHATTA. (STRYZ-
GOWSKl)
those of
Syria. An interesting class of Egyptian monuments
is marked by the use of an immense trefoil-shaped sanctuary,
divided from the three-aisled nave by a wide transept. The
trefoil sanctuary, however, may well be an importation from
Syria. One Alexandrian invention, the cistern with its cover
supported on columns, was caused by local needs and destined
to exert a strong influence in Constantinople. The special
importance of Egypt lay in the decorative schemes evolved
there. For centuries Alexandria had been the center of a
school of decoration.
livelypictorial To this was added in the
early Christian centuries brilliant work in glass mosaic and
inlaid marble. Thus equipped, Egypt was able to dower both
Byzantium and Italy with the rich polychromatic interior
decoration which became the vogue practicallythroughout
Christendom.
The basilica in Anatolia. In Anatolia the architects proved
themselves structurallythe most inventive of all. The trolling
con-
citywas Ephesus, but the sites where the architecture
may be studied are very perhaps being

numerous, the best
Bin-bir-Kilisse (the thousand and one churches),in the plain
of Konieh in southeastern Anatolia. Here the majority of
the basilicas recall the buildingsof Syria. They are generally
three-aisled with a singlestrongly salient apse, either circular
or polygonal. At the entrance to the nave is a porch flanked
by two towers. All this might be Syrian,but the Anatolian
strikes his specialnote by vaultinghis structure, and numbers
of these buildingshave heavy barrel vaults over nave and
aisles. An excellent example of this type of buildingmay be
seen at Daouleh. Side by side with these vaulted structures,
however, may be seen the Graeco-Roman type, with atrium,
brick walls, and timber roof.
central type in Anatolia.
The Anatolia, too, abounded in
buildingsof the central type. We have an interestingdescrip-
tion
of a Martyrium, written in the fourth century by Gregory
of Nysa. The monument was to be cruciform,the arms of the
cross bound at their intersection by semicircular niches, and
a conical dome was to cover the crossing. The use of the
conical dome suggests the influence of Persia, and indeed
the most element
significant in Anatolian architecture is the
Persian. The Syrian conical-domed buildings, like the
churches of Ezra and Bosra, may have been

copied from
Anatolia or themselves inspired direct from Persia. Many
variations of Gregory's scheme may be seen to-day,especially
at Bin-bir-Kilisse.
The Anatolian domed basilica. the
Historically most esting
inter-
of the types evolved in Anatolia, however, is what has
been called the domed basilica. The first step in its develop-
ment
was made
by placing a square bay before the apse to
enlarge the presbyterium, and adding galleriesabove the aisles
for the faithful. To give a lightereffect to buildingsof such
large dimensions, without weakening the barrel vaults by

piercingthem with windows, the architects hit on the scheme
of breaking the barrel vault with a dome, and thus the domed
basilica,destined to exercise an enormous influence on later
architecture,came being. A perfectexample of the type
into
may be seen at Kodja-Kalessi (Fig.63), where the dome cupies

oc-
two bays of the nave. The same type, constructed

in brick, occurs in Saint Clement's at Ancyra. In both the
dome is carried on squinches. On the other hand, at Saint
Nicholas of Myra, and at Dehr-Ahsy in Syria,we find domed
basilicas with the domes carried on pendentives.
The problem of the dome. Many and ingenious were the
solutions of the problem of the dome in Anatolia. Materials
were varied,and bricks and terra-cotta, adopted from neighboring
Persia,were used to reduce the thrusts of heavy domes. To
make the transition from the square or polygon below to the
round dome above, the architects adopted many methods.
Squinches were commonest, sometimes merely of flat stones
laid across the angles of the square, reducing it to a polygon,
and then other stones laid across the angles of the polygon,
making them stillmore obtuse, until in successive courses the
mass was coaxed into the roughly circular form necessary to
receive the base of the dome. Sometimes arches were thrown
across the angles of the polygon, and again, when
square or
the dimensions were small, singleblocks at the

sufficiently
angles were hollowed out in pendentive form.
The pendentive. By far the most important solution of the
problem, however, was the true pendentive. In mathematical
terms a pendentive is a segment of a hollow hemisphere, the
diameter of which is equal to the diagonal of the square to be
covered. In non-technical language, however, the member

is not so easy to describe. Imagine a square to be covered by
a dome of such dimensions that its edge would touch the
square only at the four corners. Obviously the dome would
project beyond the four sides of the square. Imagine all
portionsof the dome projectingbeyond the sides of the square
to be shaved off vertically, and the result would be a penden-
tive dome, or, technically, a continuous dome on pendentives.
FIG. 75 "
RAVENNA. THE MAUSOLEUM OF GALLA PLACIDIA. DRAWING
OF THE EXTERIOR
Imagine then the top of the pendentive dome to be sliced off

horizontallyat a point just above the crowns of the lateral
arches caused by the vertical cuts. The result would be four
sphericaltrianglesor pendentives,segments of a sphere,the
diameter of which would equal the diameter of the square
below. On these a true dome could be placed,producing a
dome on pendentives (Fig.64).

The originof the pendentive. The pendentive was destined
to become one of the most marked characteristics of Byzantine
architecture. Though its originis open to dispute,it must

have been the logicaloutgrowth of the Persian vaults of light
material without centering. The strong probabilityis that
the architects of Anatolia, in close contact with the Orient,
independently created this most important member.
Diffusionof Oriental influencein the West. Buildings at
Ravenna. Through the influence of commerce and monas-
and sixth centuries were

ticism the fourth, fifth, marked by a
widespread diffusion of Oriental influence in the West. though

Al-
it appears, as we have noted, in the fourth century
palace of Diocletian in Spalato,and again later in Rome in the
decorations of the basilicas,and especiallyin the buildings
of the central type, its full force in Italyis best judged in the
architecture of Ravenna. Here two buildings of the mid-
fifth century, the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia (Figs.63 and
75) and the so-called Baptistry of the Orthodox, attest the
almost complete domination of Oriental inspirationin this
Western city. The former, now the church of Santi Nazzaro e
Celso, is Greek cruciform in plan, the crossingbeing covered
with a continuous dome on pendentives, ingeniously con-
structed
of hollow terra-cotta amphorae inserted one within

another. The material alone establishes the influence of the
Orient, especiallyof Persia. The exterior is
plain,the brick
walls being lightenedsomewhat by blind arcades. Externally
the dome appears as a square. The interior shows a plete
com-
incrustation of preciousglass mosaic in the Alexandrian

manner. The Baptistry of the Orthodox (San Giovanni in
Fonte) is a polygonal structure, with a dome constructed like
that of the tomb of Galla Placidia.
Mingling of early Christian and Byzantine elements. though
Al-
in point of time such works fall within the early
Christian period,to classifythem merely as early Christian
would produce a deep misconception of their architectural
significance.Already they anticipateso many elements of
the Byzantine style that they might as justlybe called By- zantine
This does not mean that they were importations
from Constantinople. On the contrary, they were Italian
products of the same Eastern influences that were already at
work in Constantinople to produce the Byzantine style.
Conclusion. Early Christian architecture may, therefore,
be regarded from two points of view. From one it is a self-

sufficient style,amply providing the early Church with ings
build-
beautiful in themselves and even finer in their complete
fulfilment of the needs for which they were designed. garded
Re-
from this
point of view, the Christian-Roman basilica is
the supreme product of early Christian architecture. From
the other and broader point of view, the earlyChristian style
is a link in the great architectural chain, connecting the weak-
ening
classic art with the vigorous new style of Byzantium.
Especiallythe buildingsof Eastern Christianity, experimental,
lawless in their disregard of classic tradition,at times even
crude though always full of promise, herald in no uncertain
tone the advent of the art so soon to appear in Constantinople.
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF EARLY CHRISTIAN
MONUMENTS
It must be noted that it is often

impossibleto date medieval monuments
exactly, and
we must frequently be satisfied with the half
century or century in which a building was erected. A singledate,
without qualification, refers to the beginning of the portion of a
building referred to in the text. In general it is always well to
remember that an error in dating a medieval monument is apt to
give the monument greater antiquitythan it deserves.
ITALY
Rome, Old Saint Peter's. "

Consecrated 326.
Rome, Santa Costanza. "
Built 323-337; rebuilt 1256.
Rome, Saint Paul's Outside-the-Walls. "
Founded 386, but rebuilt
1823.
Rome, Santa Maria Maggiore. "
Rebuilt 432"440.
Rome, San Pietro in Vincoli. Founded ca. 450.
"
Ravenna, Mausoleum of Galla Placidia. Ca. 450. "
Ravenna, Baptistry of the Orthodox. Mid-fifth century. "
Rome, San Stefano Rotondo. 468-483. "
Ravenna, Sant' Apollinare Nuovo. Soon after 500. "
Rome, San Lorenzo Fuori le Mura. Rebuilt

-
578; remodeled
-
"
1216-27.
Rome, Sant' Agnese, Fuori -le-Mura. "
Rebuilt 625-638.
Rome, San Clemente. "
Rebuilt 1108.
THE EAST
Jerusalem Church of the Holy Sepulchre. "
312-337.
Ruweiha. "
Fourth century.
Kodja-Kalessi. "
Fourth possibly fifth century.
or
Mschatta Frieze. "
Possiblyfourth,possiblysixth century.
Mchabbak." Fifth century.
Daouleh. Fifth century (?).
"
Saint Simeon Stylites. End of fifth century. "
Ancyra, Saint Clement. Fifth century (?). "
Myra, Saint Nicholas. "

Fifth century (?).
Bosra. "
512.
Ezra." 515.
Tourmanin. "
Sixth century.
Khalb-Louzeh. "
Sixth century.
A. Michel's Histoire de vol.

I'art, i, pt. i, 1905, contains valuable
articles by Andre Perate and Camille Enlart summarizing early
Christian art, including architecture. H. Marucchi's Basiliqueset
eglises de Rome, 1002, is an authoritative work, forming vol. 3 of the
author's series, Elements d'archeologiechrelienne. A. Venturi's
Storia dcll'arle italiana,vols. i and 2, 1901 and 1902, contain an
account of early Christian architecture in Italy. G. T. Rivoira's
Le originidella archittetura lombarda, vol. i, 1901, is an exhaustive
study of the originsof Italian medieval architecture by an eminent
scholar,who believes that these origins, whether they involve early
Christian or Byzantine architecture,are Occidental rather than
Oriental. G. Leroux's Les originesde V edifice hypostyleen Grece, en
Orient,et chez les Remains, 1913, is a scholarlywork, important for the
lightit throws on the origin of the Christian-Roman basilica. W.
Lowrie's Monuments of the Early Church, 1906, is a skilfully arranged
hand-book of early Christian art, with architecture soundly treated.
A. L. Frothingham's Monuments of Christian Rome, 1908, is another
hand-book with good summaries of the histories of the monuments.
M. de Vogue's Syrie cenlrale, 1865-77, a monumental and ground-
breaking
piece of scholarship,now somewhat out of date, is the
most important of the author's many publications dealing with
early Christian architecture and other arts in Syria. By H. C.
Butler are two works Architecture and Other Arts, 1903, and Ancient
"
Architecture in Syria, 1907. The former is the publicationof an

American expeditionto Syria in 1899; the latter is the second divi-
1
sion of the "Publications of the Princeton Expedition to Syria, in
1904-1905." Both works present masses

of new
material in the
most elaborate and are worthy successors of the publications of

way,
de Vogue. J. Stryzgowski's Orient oder Rom, 1901, Kleinasien, zpoj,
and Byzantinische Denkmaler are publications, the last a

series of lications,
pub-
by an original scholar of encyclopedic information. Though
the works deal more

with Byzantine than early Christian ments,
monu-
they are important for both, especially on account of the
author's thesis, successfully defended, that the creative impulse in
early Christian and Byzantine art came

from the Orient. C.
Diehl's Manuel d'art byzantin, is a highly authoritative sis

synthe-
1910,
of the history of Byzantine art, with a valuable discussion of the
early Christian architecture of the East as an

introduction. O.
Wulff's Altchristliche Kunst, 1914 (Handbuch der Kuntwissenschaft),

ch. Die altchristliche Baukunst, is the most recent of all,
4, summary
with exhaustive references to the latest discussions of individual
points.
CHAPTER VII
BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE
Origins. Byzantine architecture came, like the Wise Men,

out East, the roles of the Magi being played by the
of the
three great cities: Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus. From the
first of the three came the polychromy which remained a char-
acteristic
of thestylefrom beginning to end. The second plied
sup-
the Byzantine ideal of sculptured decoration,flat,crisply
cut relief and an all-over covering of the surface. The third,
most important of all,gave the structural elements which the
Byzantine architects fused, systematized, and developed for

ten centuries.
Centralization. Although the stylewas diffused over a vast
area, from Armenia to France and from Russia to Africa, the

nerve center remained practicallyalways at Constantinople.
To this centralization are due the main characteristics and
general homogeneity of the style. Byzantium took the ideas
of the Orient, handled them with the lavish means and broad
conceptions of Rome, and welded them with a refinement
literallyneo- Attic. The result was a new art, but, like the
Roman, distinctlyimperial one.
a Architecturallyas well as
politically, Constantine supplanted imperial Rome by im-
perial
Constantinople.
Ecclesiastical and secular work. Byzantine architecture was
primarily ecclesiastical, but this generalization must often be
qualified. During the reigns of important emperors, such as
Constantine (323-337),Justinian(527-565),and Basil I. (867-
887), civil architecture played an extremely important part.
The churches exercised a greater influence on other stylesthan
civil buildings,and were often preserved when the civil build-
ings
were destroyed, but this fact should not blind us to the
importance of the non-ecclesiastical work.
Lack -consciousness
of self of the style. Whether lay or clesiastica
ec-
however, Byzantine architecture was on the

whole unselfconscious. Lavish as the decoration might be
in church palace, the important consideration was
or always a
satisfactorysolving of structural needs, and this became the
real, if unconscious, canon of Byzantine esthetic theory.
Moreover, the style tended to be corporate rather than individual
though not to nearly so complete an extent as the
medieval stylesof western Europe. Especiallyin the earlier
period individuals were apt to dominate the works, but later
craftsmen and obscure architects were given very free rein,
and even in the earliest times the individual appears as the
voice of the civilization rather than its teacher.
Conservatism and
development. Byzantine art has generally
been considered rigidlyconservative. It was, in truth, con-
servative,
yet only in so far as conservatism was not sistent

incon-
with development. Nothing could be more mistaken
than the too common conception of the Byzantine style as one
which crystallizedin the sixth century and continued as a
chain of monotonousrepetitionsuntil the fifteenth. The art

was always conscious of and taught by its past, but it never
slavishlycopied its past, and development was none the less
steady for being slow.
Materials. The materials used in Byzantine architecture
were very varied. Brick and mortar were commonest and
most expressive of the ideals of the style. By means of
light, porous material the architect got his most striking
effects,and mortar joints were frequently increased to the
width of the bricks bonded. Concrete was used for cores,
but the rigid concrete vaults of the Romans disappeared.
Cut stone was used freely,but nearly always as an adjunct
to other material. A homogeneous use of ashlar was tically
prac-
unknown in
Byzantine architecture outside of tain
cer-
restricted regions, notably Greece and Armenia. For
purposes of decoration the Byzantine architects used mosaic

and marble, the latter sometimes carved in flat,tapestry-
like sometimes
relief, applied as a veneer. In the later style
decoration in brick became common, and wall surfaces were
enriched with an infinityof patterns in brick, or brick nating

alter-
with cut stone. The absence of formulated esthetic
BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE 185
criteria gave full play to the invention and good taste of

the designers.
Structure. The
originalityand fertility of the Byzantine
architect never shows more happily than in the solving of
problems of structure. The style was essentiallya vaulted
one, and the most important form of vault was the dome.
Wood being scarce, the problem of centeringwas serious,and
the architects,taking their cues from Anatolia and Persia,
soon learned to construct important vaults without centering.
FIG. 76 RAVENNA. SAN VITALE. EXAMPLES OF BYZANTINE CAPITALS
To that endthey developed the lightest and most durable ma-

terials,
bound by thick, adhesive mortar joints. Then by

completing the vaults in successive,concentric,self-sustaining
rings,by slantingbrick courses so as to requirelittle or no port
sup-
from below, and by the invention of ingeniousdevices for
the definition of vault surfaces during the process of construc-
tion,
the architects succeeded almost entirelyin eliminating
the necessityfor centering. Moreover, the stabilityof the
finished structure was further insured by an equilibrium of
thrusts. Domes and vaults were grouped compactly and
logically, their thrusts opposing one another, and the thrusts
of a great central dome were neutralized and carried off by a
number of subordinate domes grouped round it. The style

thus had, especiallyin the later period,a large measure
of that structural logic which one associates with Gothic

architecture.
Supports. The same logicwas shown admirably in the use
of supports. The use of squinches for the support of domes

was inherited from the East and continued with variations
throughout the entire development of the style. Far more
important in the history of architecture was the use of the
pendentive. To the Byzantines belongs the credit of recognizing
the full possibilities of the pendentive, and the use of
these members as a support for a superimposed dome was augurat
in-
in Byzantium (Fig.64).
Capitals. Moreover, the logic of the architects was not

confined solelyto the immediate supports of the dome. The
capitals,which carried the weight of the vault, were of an
entirelynew and logicaldesign. Unlike the Roman ture
entabla-
with its merely crushingweight, the mass which the By-zantine
capitalhad to carry was heterogeneous and exercised
a variety of thrusts in many directions. To meet this mass
the architects first designed a sturdier Corinthian capital,
with a wider abacus. Next they added a heavy thrust block,
like an inverted, truncated pyramid, to make the transition
from the capitalto the mass above. Capitals of this sort
may be seen in the Eski-djouma in Salonica. The idea of the
impost came from Syria,where the use of such members was
current in the fifth century, the Syrians in turn having prob-

ably
received it from Persia. A further step was taken in
San Vitale at Ravenna (Fig.76),when the Corinthian acter
char-
of the
capitalwas almost abandoned, and it
shaped
was
like a richly ornamented impost block. Finally,at Hagia

Sophia at Salonica, the form appears on which all Byzantine
capitalswere based, an impost block, carried on a broad, thin

abacus, whence the load is transmitted to a high, convex bell,
broad at the top and slender at the base where it meets the
slender shaft. The form thus invented combines elements of
the three Greek classic forms, and is both apt and beautiful.
It was, moreover, flexible,and capable of infinite variety,
from the stern simplicityof the rudimentary capitalsin the
cistern of Bin-bir-direk to the rich profusionof the melon, bird
and basket, and wind-blown acanthus capitalsof the fully

developed style.
Types of ecclesiastical buildings. Since the Byzantine ecclesiastical
buildings surpass all other sorts in importance,

we must devote most of our study to them. The types
created were diverse. In the earlier period the type developed
from the domed basilica of
Anatolia was the favorite,
the most famous
example
being Hagia Sophia at
Constantinople. In the
so called second
-
golden
age, in the ninth, tenth,
and eleventh centuries,
the Greek-cross plan be-
came
the fashion, although
both types existed in both
periods. Sometimes the
plan was that of a Greek
cross inscribed within a
square, the cross marked

in the actual buildingonly
by the clerestory. At
other times a true Greek
cross was designed on plan.
In the beginning the so- IbMlr,
called triconch or "three-
shell" trefoil FIG. 77 CONSTANTINOPLE. SAINTS
plan,with
"
a
SERGIUS AND BACCHUS. PLAN
division of the apsidal
end, popular,and this
was
type persisted, with modifications,throughout the history of

the style. The true basilican plan, though not wholly for-
gotten,
was never popular. Circular and polygonal buildings

were also designed, but by far the most popular form of build-
ing
of the central type was the Greek cross.
Churches Hagia Sophia of Constantinople. Al-

earlier than though
Hagia Sophia may be regarded almost as the proclama-
tion
of Byzantine architecture,it was preceded by a number of
buildings outside of as well as within Constantinople that

heralded the approaching style. We have already noted
Ravennate buildings which might well be called Byzantine.

Similarly the Stoudion basilica, built in Constantinople in
463, although it conforms to the Hellenistic type and retains
the post and and
lintel system, is Byzantine in spirit, the
purely Byzantine church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus in
Constantinople (Fig. 77) slightlyantedates Hagia Sophia.
This buildingrecalls the churches
of Ezra and Bosra (Figs.63 and
64) in Asia Minor, but is more
skilfully planned and executed.
Saint Irene,Constantinople.In
532 Justiniancaused the building

of another church, Saint Irene,in
Constantinople (Fig. 78), which
brings us still nearer the full-
fledged Byzantine style. The
architect of Saint Irene was ably
prob-
inspiredby the church of
Hagia Sophia at Salonica,a build-
ing
which probably antedates
somewhat its great namesake in
Constantinople. Both Saint
Irene and Hagia Sophia at
Salonica are variants of the
Anatolian - domed basilica. In
Saint Irene the domes are abutted
4 "
t by barrel vaults grouped about
FIG. 78 "
CONSTANTINOPLE. them in the
shape of a cross, and it
IRENE. PLAN
SAINT seems possiblethat we have here
the germ of the Greek-cross form.
Hagia Sophia. All these buildings appear insignificant,
however, beside the "Great Church," the church of the
Divine Wisdom, Hagia Sophia at Constantinople. This build-
ing
embodies more fully than any other the
full-fledged
Byzantine styleof the first golden age. Justinianbegan it in
532, to replacea Constant inian church of the same name which
had been destroyed in the Nika sedition. Anthemius of
Tralles and Isidorus of Miletus were the architects,both of
Anatolian origin. The church completed in five years and
was
dedicated with the most impressive ceremonies and amid

DjAMi CONSTANTINOPLE: MANASSIA
SAN ViTALL TlAVENNA
UTTLEMLTnOPOUS
Arntws
XtWCHVBCH or BASIL I
HAGIA SOPHIA CoN5TANTiNOPLt
tTSCHMlADZIN
MX LA CHAPLLLt
FIG. 79 "
PLANS OF BYZANTINE CHURCHES
general thanksgiving December 27, 537, by Justinian. In

558 the central dome but
fell, a nephew of Anthemius rebuilt it
accordingto a somewhat less ambitious design,and the church
was reconsecrated by the Emperor in 562.
Plan and construction. In plan (Fig. 79) Hagia Sophia
occupies a great square which, excluding the apse and the
narthex, measures about 250 by 240 feet. A double narthex,
and
galleries, an atrium precede the nave. In the center is
FIG. 8l "
CONSTANTINOPLE. HAGIA SOPHIA. EXTERIOR
reared a great dome pendentives, 107

on feet in diameter,
carried on four huge piers,25 feet square, and abutted east and
west by two half-domes of the same diameter as the central
dome (Fig. 80). These mark the longitudinalaxis of the
building. Abutment to the north and south is suppliedby
four tremendous buttresses of marble-faced rubble. The half-
domes are in turn abutted at the
springingby paired smaller
half-domes, and thus, partlyby opposing thrust to thrust and
partlyby carryingoff the thrust of the great dome in descend-
ing
stages to the outer wall and the ground, the whole struct-
ure
is admirablystabilized. At the east end a salient apse,
polygonal on the exterior,opens into the eastern half-dome.

Right and left of the central dome and its half -domes are
aisles,groin-
vaulted, and surmounted by galleries which are
covered with domical vaults. At present four minarets of an
incongruous Turkish design stand free at the four corners of

the building.
Exterior. Although the apex of the dome is 180 feet above
the pavement, the external appearance of the building is
FIG. 82 "
CONSTANTINOPLE. HAGIA SOPHIA. INTERIOR LOOKING

TOWARD THE APSE
squat (Fig.81). The Byzantine architect of the first golden

age fullyappreciatedthe difficultyof properlyabutting a lofty
dome, and seldom sought to make the dome a strikingfeature
externally. The dome of Hagia Sophia,less than a semicircle
in cross-section,
is in height from springingto crown but 47
feet. Theeffect,however, is none
external the less fine,
combining monumentality with compactness and a strong
feelingfor the esthetic value of sturdy,frankly safe struction.
con-
Interior. The interior,on the other hand, gives a strong

impression of height (Fig.82). The ring of small openings
piercingthe base of the dome lightensthe whole structure,
so that the dome appears almost miraculouslysuspended over
the great central void. Moreover, the columns of various
proportionsin ground story and galleries give a much-needed
scale,which permits the eye easilyto grasp the monumental
proportionsof the building.
A domed basilica. Although Hagia Sophia is roughly square,
it is not properlyof the central type, but is planned with refer-
ence
to a longitudinalaxis, and therefore fulfils the liturgical
ideal of the early Christian basilica. It may be regarded as
the supreme Byzantine development of the Anatolian domed
basilica.
Decoration. The decoration of Hagia Sophia, true to the
ideals of the first golden age, is drab on the exterior,but
brilliant on the interior. The exterior is now painted in
horizontalblack bands, but in the originaldesign there was no
attempt at enliveningthe wall surfaces with colors or even

patterns in the material used. The interior, on the other
hand, was gorgeously decorated with veneered marbles and
glass mosaic. The marble, sawn thin, was highly polished
and skilfully placed so that reversed patterns from the veining
of a singleblock were juxtaposed. Above the ground story
the interior was crusted with gold-backed,glassmosaic, now
unfortunatelywhitewashed by the Turks. The capitalsand
some of the surfaces were decorated with crispcarving in flat
relief, suggestingthe art of Syria. Occasionallythe interstices
of the carving were filledwith black marble, further accenting
the alreadysharp impressionof lightand shade.
The Holy Apostles, Constantinople.Although Hagia Sophia
was the greatest and most typicalbuildingof the first golden
age, many other buildingswere constructed during this period,
some of them of the greatest importance historically.The
most significantbuilding after Hagia Sophia was another
work of Anthemius and Isidorus, the church of the Holy
Apostlesin Constantinople (Figs.83 and 84),destroyedby the
Turks to make way for the mosque of Mohammed II. This
building, known to us by descriptionsand a manuscript
illumination (Fig.83),was in the form of a Greek cross obtained
by the intersection of two basilican naves, vaulted and aisled

(Fig. 84). Over the crossing was a dome
pierced with
windows, and over each arm another dome, probably blind.
The type thus suggested was never received with much favor
in the first golden age, but it unquestionablyformed the basis
for numerous
churches which
were erected in
later Byzantine
architecture.
Saint Mark's in
Venice is but a velopmen
de-
of the
lost church of the
Holy Apostles.
tinian'
Building ojJus-
age outside
of Constantinople.
The important
architecture of
Justinian's time
was not, however,
confined to Con-
stantinopl
or
even to the East.

At Parenzo in
IstriaBishop Eu-
phrasiusraised an
FIG. 83 "
ROME. THE VATICAN. MANUSCRIPT

ILLUMINATION SHOWING THE INTERIOR OF THE
important church
CHURCH OF THE HOLY APOSTLES AT TINOPLE.
CONSTAN- in the beginning
(DIEHL) of the sixth tury,
cen-
basilican in
form, but Byzantine in spiritand decoration.
Italyplayed a
still more important role in this period, and the buildings
at Ravenna scarcelyyield in beauty and creative genius to
those of Constantinople.
Buildings at Ravenna. Two buildings in Ravenna, the
churches of Sant' Apollinare in Classe and Sant' Apollinare
Nuovo (Fig.69), are of basilican plan and Byzantine detail
and decoration, The latter was commenced under Theodoric
BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE
(493-526),but was decorated by Byzantine workmen. The

former was consecrated in 549. By far the most important
Ravennate church of the period, however, was San Vitale
(Figs.79 and 80),begun between 526 and 534 and finished in
547, a buildingshowing great originality and destined to exer-
cise
strong influence on subsequent architecture. It is in the

form of an octagon crowned with a dome on a drum, carried
by eight stout pillars.
These pillars are bound
one to another by an
ingenious system of
exedrae similar to those
of Saints Sergius and
B acchus .
To dimi nish
the thrust, the dome
is constructed as in the
tomb of Gal la Placidia,
of long terra cotta
amphorae, fitted one?
into another. Each
pier is bound to the
external wall by an
each salient FIG. 84 CONSTANTINOPLE. THE HOLY

arch, and
"
APOSTLES. PLAN, RESTORED

angle is strengthened
with a pier buttress.
Later architecture of the firstgolden age. The death of
Justiniandid not interruptthe architectural activitywhich
his reign initiated. The art continued to show both vitality
and originality.At Constantinople the mosque of Kalender-
hane-djami, probably once the Diaconessa, built by the
Emperor Maurice, dates at the latest from the seventh century,
and shows a reversion to the domedbasilican type. From the
same period comes the ancient church

now of Saint Andrew "
the mosque of Hodja-Moustapha-pasha with a great central "
dome, abutted like Hagia Sophia'sby half domes.

Development in Armenia. Outside of Constantinople the
art flourished in this period,and especially showed originality
in Armenia. The cathedral of Etschmiadzin (Fig.79), with
its Greek cross inscribed in a square and the four arms
terminated by salient apses, certainlyinfluenced the tenth

century churches of Mount Athos, and appears to be imitated

in the ninth century French church of Germigny-les-Pres. In
its present form Etschmiadzin dates from the seventh century.
The seventh century architecture of Armenia showed so much
vitality
that there is little doubt that it stronglyinfluenced
FIG. 85 "
AIX-LA-CHAPELLE. CHARLEMAGNE'S CHAPEL. INTERIOR
Constantinople itself,as well as Byzantine architecture side

out-
of the central city.
The Iconoclastic controversy. Diffusion of the Byzantine
stylein Europe. In
726 the development of Byzantine art
was impeded, though not arrested,by the beginning of the
Iconoclastic controversy. Though Leo the Isaurian's decree
was directed against images, all the arts were affected,and

architecture in Constantinoplewent through a period of semi-
stagnationwhich was not relieved until Theodora's restoration
of image worship in 842, and not reallyremoved until the
accession of the Macedonian dynasty in 867. Nothing better
illustrates the vitalityof Byzantine architecture than its
diffusion in this dark period. The very throttling of the art
at home tended to spread it abroad, and what nople
Constanti-
lost the Occident of the Carolingian Renaissance gained.
From the very beginning of the ninth century dates Charle- magne's
fine chapel at Aix-la-Chapelle (Figs.79, 80, and 85),a
direct imitation of San Vitale. Somewhat later Germigny-
les-Pres was planned on lines suggested,as we have seen, by
the Armenian architecture of the seventh century. Byzantine
architecture was, therefore,not arrested,but merely tempo- rarily
ceased to center in Constantinople.
The second golden age. With the accession of the Mace- donian
dynasty Constantinopleresumed her sway, and there
began what is generallyknown as the second golden age of
Byzantine art. Prosperity came once more to the empire,
power to the rulinghouse. Fresh Oriental influence vivified

the art, and architects sought inspiration in the monuments of
the past. Inspiration was, however, far removed from
imitation. The architecture of the second golden age differs
widely from that of the first,and ably demonstrates the
dynamic power of the 'art.
Changes in plan. In the second golden age the basilican
plan entirelydisappeared. The octagon went with it,and the
triconch type occurred only in a radicallymodified form.
Even the domed basilican type became very rare, although the
ninth century church of Saint Theodosius (now the Gul-
djami) at Constantinopleshows it.
The Greek cross plan of the second golden age. By far the
favorite plan was the Greek cross, but this differed essentially
from the earlier Greek cross as seen in the mausoleum of Galla
Placidia and the church of the Holy Apostles. In the older
form the arms of the cross appear in the contours of the plan,
and subordinate domes
placed on each arm
are cross. of the
In the latter,
the re-entrant anglesare filled on plan,the ground
story plan being square and the cross appearing only in the
upper stories. The arms of the cross are covered with barrel
vaults, and the subordinate domes are placed in the angles
between the arms. The plan is thus a Greek cross inscribed
within a square, with a central dome and four domes, often
hidden, at the angles. The thrusts of the subordinate domes
and barrel vaults tend to neutralize one another, and all
oppose the thrusts of the central dome. Thus the whole
system is so logicaland
organic that one is reminded of the
organic systems of Romanesque architecture. The germ of
the typicalGreek cross buildingof the second golden age is to
be found, therefore,not in the classic example of the Greek
cross of the first golden age, the church of the Holy Apostles,
but in the domed basilica,and especiallyin such a buildingas
Saint Irene Constantinople (Fig.78).
at
Changes in expression. Along with this change in plan there
came a change in architectural expression. The vertical line
was accented. The height of the buildingbecame greater in
proportionto its breadth. Domes were constantlyraised upon
drums, and became strikingfeatures externally. The logical
spiritof the construction was reflected in the lines of the
exterior. Thus a curved vault in the interior was represented
on the exterior not by a gable,but by a curved line. As the
construction became more daring the scale decreased, and the
buildings of the second golden age were, in general,much
smaller than those of the first. Finally,the whole exterior
was regarded as suitable for decoration, polychromy was
appliedto it,and the texture of the wall received especialcare.
Bricks of various shapes and colors were used and ingenious
patterns devised, so that the exterior of a twelfth century
Byzantine church bears but slightresemblance to that of one
of the sixth.
La Nea. (Fig. 79),the "new church" of Basil I.
La Nea
(d.886),was to the second golden age what Hagia Sophia was
to the first. Unfortunately it has been destroyed, but we
know its plan from descriptions.It was in the form of a
Greek cross, with a central dome and four smaller domes set
in the angles between the arms of the cross. Unquestionably
this building set the type for the majority of the churches
that followed.
Evolution of the type. The evolution of the type can be
traced in extant monuments. It appears in a rudimentary

form in a church at Skripou in Bceotia,dated 874, which lacks
subordinate domes, and is heavy in construction,but which
shows the Greek plan with barrel-vaulted arms.
cross It may
be seen fully developed in the Kilisse-djami(formerlythe
FIG. 86 "
CONSTANTINOPLE. THE KILISSEDJAMI. VIEW FROM THE EAST.
(EBERSOLT)
Theotokos) in Constantinople(Figs.79 and 86),dating from

the first half of the tenth century. Here appear both barrel-
vaulted arms and angle domes. The exterior lines are
harmoniouslycurved, and the surfaces finelytreated in alter-

nate
bands of brick and ashlar.
Examples. The Greek cross within a square continued the
favorite church plan throughout and
the Macedonian
Comnenian dynasties. One sees it in the small church of
Saint Luke at Stiris in Phocis (Figs.84 and 87),dating from
the second half of the eleventh century, and later, in the
epoch of the Comnenes, it appears finelydeveloped in the triple
church of the Pantocrator, built about 1124 in Constantinople
by Irene, empress of John Comnenus. Of the three buildings

which form this work two, those on the north and south, are
perfectexamples of the classic plan of the second golden age.
The central church has but two domes.
Variations. It must be
supposed, however,
not that the
favorite type was slavishlycopied everywhere in the later
period. The commonest variation was the omission of the
FIG. 87 "
STIRIS (PHOCIS), MONASTERY OF SAINT LUKE. VIEW FROM
THE EAST SHOWING THE TWO CHURCHES. (SCHULTZ AND BARNSLEY)
four subordinate domes, and some of the most beautiful

Byzantine churches are of this form. The finelycomposed
Nea Moni at Nauplia is of this type, as well as the better
known churches of Saint Theodore and the Little Metropolis
(Figs. 79 and 80) at Athens. All of these date from the
twelfth century.
The squinch group. Another variation in the churches of
this period might be called the squinch group. In these the
dome is broader in diameter and is carried on a sixteen-sided
drum, and the proportions are squatter than in the other
churches of the period. To this genre belong the monastery
BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE 2OI
of Saint Luke at Stiris (Fig.87), the Nea Moni of Chios, and

the fine church at Daphni, near Athens.
Churches at Athos. The churches of Athos and the vicinity,
with their semicircular apses terminating the lateral arms of
the cross, form another group. One, the catholicon of Lavra,
deserves specialmention. It is a three-aisled building,the
FIG. 88 "
VENICE. SAINT MARK. PLAN
three-fold division being indicated on the exterior by arcades,

and it thus appears to combine the types of the Greek cross
and the domed basilican churches.

Saint Mark's, Venice. By far the most important example
of a variation from the favorite plan of the second golden age
occurs in the famous church of Saint Mark in Venice (Fig.
88),begun in 1063. This building is a frank reversion to the
plan of Anthemius' church of the Holy Apostles at Constanti-
nople.
The plan is that of a Greek cross defined on the ground
story, with a dome on pendentives in the center and a
smaller dome on pendentives over each arm of the cross. A

galleriednarthex embraces three sides of the western arm of

the cross. The great pierswhich carry the dome are pierced
to give greater space in the ground story, and are connected
by galleries,the width of the piers,carried on marble columns.
Light is admitted through rings of openings round the bases
FIG. 89 "
VENICE. SAINT MARK. VIEW FROM THE PIAZZA
of the domes, which are less than semicircular. On the

exterior (Fig.89) the domes are masked by false domes of
wood, lead covered, which strikingfeature of the church
form a
as seen from the Piazza. Within (Fig.90),the decoration is

extremely rich,veneered marbles and preciousmosaics being
used as freelyas in Hagia Sophia at Constantinople. The
exterior, with its clustered marble columns, polychrome
marble veneer, and flashing mosaic, is as lavishlydecorated as
the interior. The buildingas it stands is by no means geneous.
homo-
There are many Gothic details in the facade, and
some of the mosaics date from the Renaissance and even
from modern times.

Byzantine influencein Aquitaine. Saint Mark's, or its
prototypes, appears strongly to have influenced Occidental

architecture. In France the twelfth century church of Saint
Front at Pe"rigueux(Fig.99) repeats almost verbatim the plan
FIG. 90 "
VENICE. SAINT MARK. INTERIOR LOOKING TOWARD THE APSE
of Saint Mark's, though then arthex and all the polychrome

decoration within and without are omitted. Many other
buildingsof Aquitaine were similarlyconstructed, so that the
architecture of that regionmight be classified alike under the
headings of Byzantine and French Romanesque.
Georgia and Armenia. Among the most originalbuildings
of the second golden age are those of Georgia and Armenia.

Some are very early in date, for example the church of .
Pitzounda on the Black Sea, probably of the tenth century,

and that of Akthamar on Lake Van (Fig.91), surely of the
tenth. In these
buildings the
Greek cross form
was used most
freely, though
older forms such
as the domed
basilica and the
three shell type
survived. In
other respects,
however, these
buildings showed
striking original-
ity.
The central
dome, raised on a
lofty,ashlar-built,
many-sided drum,
became almost a
tower. On the
exterior it often
appeared, as at
Akthamar, as a
sharply pointed
cone. The apse
often ceased to be
FIG. 91 "
AKTHAMAR (LAKE VAN). THE CHURCH

SEEN FROM THE SOUTHEAST. (LYNCH) salient, and came
be-
but a angular
tri-
cut in the thickness of the wall. The use of brick at
times and
disappearedentirely, the buildingswere constructed
of homogeneous cut stone, even the roof tiles being of this
material. The exteriors,in a manner hitherto unknown in
Byzantine architecture, were decorated with crisp cut relief,
suggesting the earlier art of Syria. So great was the origi-
nality
of this Georgian and Armenian architecture that of late
a theory has been advanced, not without that
plausibility,
from this region came the creative genius which controlled

all the Byzantine architecture of the secondgolden age.
The "Byzantine Renaissance." Byzantium's brilliant pros-
perity
under the Macedonian and Comnene dynasties and the
second golden age came to an end in 1204, when the disgraceful
fourth crusade was diverted to Constantinople and the city
sank into ruins. Not even this great disaster,however, could
utterly crush the Byzantine spiritor the vitalityof Byzantine
art. Culture rose again on the ashes of the city and in the
later thirteenth,the fourteenth,and theearly fifteenth centu-
ries
came the
period known as the "Byzantine Renaissance."
Constantinople,however, was weak. Her scientists and men
of letters were eminent, but she lacked money for architect-

ural
enterprises. Thus we find the more important buildings
of the last Byzantine period outside of Constantinople, in
Greece, in the Balkan states, in Asia Minor. Divergences
occur in these buildings, caused by local taste and material,
but the style still has strong unity. Moreover, the art
continued to develop and never sank to mere repetitionof
earlier works.
Plans. The Greek cross plan continued to be, on the whole,
the favorite. At the same time
frequent reversionthere was a
to the old domed basilican type. Especially at Trebizond,

in such churches as Hagia Sophia and the Chrysokephalos,
the western arm of the cross was lengthened,aisles were added,
and the longitudinalaxis of the building emphasized. At
Athos a development suggesting the ancient Syrian three-
shell plan occurred.
Elevations. In elevation the churches
period of this last
showed strikingchanges. The vertical line was unsparingly
accented. Frequently, as at Manassia in Serbia (Figs. 79
and 92), the ground story was made very high, and sub-
divided
by thin vertical engaged columns suggesting narrow
pilasterstrips. The drum became startlingly elongated,and
the dome, for safety'ssake, made smaller. In some Serbian
buildings, for example Ravanitsa (Fig.80),Manassia (Fig. 92),
and the church of the ArchangelsnearUskub. the dome is almost
invisible and the drum has the appearance of a slender tower.
In other cases the drum is lowered, the diameter of the dome
widened, and the whole surmounted with a cone. The massy
appearance of this form, as at Hagia Sophia at Trebizond,

makes it stilla striking almost donjon-like
" "
feature of the
exterior.
Decoration. Decoration as well underwent a change.
Mosaic, being very costly,was less freelyused, and the cheaper
medium of fresco
came into great
vogue. Some of
the frescoes, for
example those at
Mistra (thePerib-
leptos)bear com-
parison
,
with those
of contemporary
Italy. On the ex-
terior
polychrome
marble was almost
completely doned,
aban-
to give
place to the richest
decoration in mul-
ticolored
and terned
pat-
brick that
the style ever vented.
in-
At times
even glazed tiles
were intermingled
with the brick,
and the exterior
of such a church
FIG. 92 "
MANASSIA (SERBIA). (POKRYCHKIN) as Saint Basil's at

Arta is a brilliant
example of the beautiful effects which the later Byzantine
artist could get by the refined color and texture of his
surfaces.
Inspiration. Of late years several theories have been
advanced to explainthe inspiration of this extraordinary last
burst of activityin Byzantine art. By far the most plausible
is that western Europe at last paid off a part of its heavy debt,
and returned to Byzantium something in the way of in-
spiration. The prevalence of the three-aisled building in

Byzantium, the almost Gothic emphasis on the vertical line,
the resort to fresco such as was common in
Italy,all support
a theory suggested by the close political
and cultural ties
which bound fourteenth and fifteenth century Constantinople
to western Europe. On the other hand it is as reasonable to
suppose that the creative genius and vitalitywhich Byzantine

art showed in its first two great periods also produced the
third, and remained at work down to the fateful year of 1453,
when the weakened city, abandoned by Christian Europe,
surrendered to the Turk.
Secularbuilding. The early palace. Albeit the historical
importance of Byzantine architecture lies primarily in the
ecclesiastical buildings,the style also showed great originality
and activity in its secular works. The buildingof great palaces
accompanied the building of great churches. Constantine
set the example by raisinga magnificent palace in the new
city,of which now there is no trace, but which must have

followed the generallines laid down by Diocletian at Spalato.
We know the appearance of an early Byzantine palace from
the mosaic in Sant' ApollinareNuovo at Ravenna, representing
the palace of Theodoric, now destroyed. This mosaic
shows us a long,arcaded structure composed of a central porch
with a gable and two wings. The wings are two-storied,
with square windows in the second story arcade. Apparently
exigenciesof space suppressed the Syrian court, and the
colonnade opened directlyon the street.
Secular building in Justinian'stime. Shortly afterward,
the reignof Justinian produced a great burst of secular building
in Constantinople. At this time the Senate was built, all in
white marble, the baths of Zeuxippus were splendidlydecorated
in marble polychrome, the baths of Arcadius were restored,
and aqueducts were raised which rivaled those of the
Roman Campagna.
The cistern. The need for storingwater produced a unique
type of civil building in Constantinople: the cistern. The
earliest was apparently the Cisterna Maxima, constructed
under the forum in 407. As the size of these cisterns increased
they became really important monuments of architecture,
daring in plan and delicate in detail. The cistern called
Pulcheria, built in 421, had a surface of over 1000 square

metres and the vault was carried on thirtygranitecolumns.
In less than a century, however, the ambitions of the architects
produced such tremendous works as the cistern of Bin-bir-
direk (the thousand and one columns) with a surface of over
3500 square metres. The idea of these colossal works came
from Alexandria, but their development in Constantinoplewas

absolutelyunprecedented. They prove the engineeringgenius
of the Byzantines to have been no whit inferior to that of the
Romans.
Palaces
of the second golden age. In the second golden age
the activityin secular building was as great as in the first.
Basil I. ushered in the age by building a new palace, the
Cenourgion, to the splendor of which many writers have
testified. To this he added many buildings,the Pentacou-
bouclon, the so-called Pavilion of the Eagle, the treasury,and
others. Later Nicephoras Phocas raised the Boucoleon on
the shore of the Sea of Marmora. Starting with a small

buildingalready on the site,this Emperor produced a palace
at once lavish in its appointments and donjon-like in its
strength. Each generation added something to the Sacred
Palace or other imperial residences. In the twelfth century
the Sacred Palace was somewhat neglected,and the Comnenes
built the Blachernae, a palace at the end of the Golden Horn.
Enthusiastic accounts of crusaders attest the beauty of this
building,and in the graceful architectural fragment which
the Turks call the Tekfour-Serai we probably have an extant
part of the original. This ruin shows a refined pattern and

surface texture in brick and ashlar similar to that of the
churches of this period.
The Sacred Palace. Much has been written about the
appearance of the Sacred Palace (Fig.93), yet archeologists

are still disputing as to its plan. Indeed the term "Sacred
Palace," indicatingas it does
singlebuilding,is confusing.
a
The work was a conglomeration of buildings, lay and ecclesi-

astical,
heterogeneous in plan, dimensions, and date, covering
a total area, roughly triangularin shape, of over 400,000
square yards. One side was bounded by the Sea of Marmora,

and one by the Hippodrome, a giganticstructure 1400 feet
in length, easily capable of holding 80,000 persons. The
third side faced the city,but was protected from the poorer
quarters by terraces and gardens. Within were churches,
fora, schools,council chambers, gardens, and even a private
FIG. 93 " CONSTANTINOPLE. PLAN OF THE SACRED PALACE, RESTORED.
(EBERSOLT)
hippodrome. The general effect must, therefore,have been

bewilderinglycomplicated,and not wholly unlike that of the
Kremlin to-day. Both to the complication of the plan and
the unbelievable richness of the decoration numerous descrip-
tions of visitors testify. The complexity of the plan served

to exaggerate the tremendousness of the site. Recognizing
this the emperors were wont to have
visitingambassadors
led through hall and court, where luxury succeeded luxury
and richness surpassed richness, until they finallyreached
the royal presence in the Chrysotriclinium,an octagonal
domed hall, decorated, if accounts of eye-witnessescan be
believed, in gold, enamel, and precious stones beyond the
wildest dreams of the Thousand and One Nights.
Later palace building. After the sack of the city in 1204
the Sacred Palace never recovered its pristinesplendor.
Palace buildingreceived a fatal set-back. At the same time
numerous Prankish chateaux sprang up in Byzantine territory
and influenced Byzantine civil architecture. The latest
Byzantine palacespartake,therefore,more of the fortification
than of the palace proper.
Fortifications. It must not be supposed, however, that
warlike architecture had been neglected in the earlier periods
of the Byzantine style. The willingness of the Byzantine
architect to suppress, for reasons of defense, the graceful in
favor of the strong is well proved by the great enceinte of
Constantinople,much of which dates back to the reign of
Theodosius II. (408-450). Africa especiallyretains monuments
of early Byzantine military architecture which were,

in their day, absolutelyimpregnable. Of such a type are
the citadels of Lemsa in Tunisia, and of Haidra (Fig.94). In
the second golden age the still extant works of Manuel
Comnenus at Constantinopleshow the same power of military
design at home.
The ensemble. In the period of Constantine and Justinian
the general appearance of Constantinople must have been,
aside from topographicalvariations,not unlike that of Rome.
The Roman constructive sense and broad grasp of the tials
essen-
ofcityplanning were inherited by the Byzantines. In

the later period, however, the city must have assumed an
appearance of inchoate complexity. Within the inclosure of

the Sacred Palace, building after buildingwas added, until
all semblance of a synthetic plan was lost. Without, the
same lack of a logical scheme prevailedand, except for differ-
ences
in architectural detail and material, the Constantinople
of Basil II.must have looked much like the Stamboul of to-day.

Streets had become irregular,
narrowhouses and
crowded,
and the broad planning of classical antiquityhad given way
to the apparently thoughtless and illogical grouping of houses
characteristicof so much of the buildingof the Middle Ages.
The dwellings of the rich. No examples of the less palatial
Byzantine habitations remain, but illuminated manuscripts
FIG. 94 "
HAIDRA. THE FORTIFICATIONS, RESTORED. (DIEHL)
give us some idea of the appearance of the houses of the

wealthy. They were apparently not unlike those stillto be
found in the "dead cities" of Syria. The houses were of two
or three stories,the facades ornamented with
porticoes.
From the ninth to the twelfth century open loggiasdecorated
the upper stories and towers or lateral pavilionsoften flanked
the main building. Balconies projectedover the street, and
the roofs were sometimes steep,sometimes terraced,and times
some-
ornamented with small domes. Windows were square,

with small squares of glass set in grilles.The prevailing
materials were brick and marble. The facades were generally
of combined brick and marble, and the floors of one or the
other material. The outer doors were of nail-studded iron;
the inner of wood, carved, paneled and inset with plaques.

The better dwellings were, therefore, both luxurious an:l
graceful.
poorer quarters. If,however, the public buildingsand
The
habitations of the rich were splendid,the dwellings of the
poor were of the meanest,and the parts of the cityused by the
common citizens ill built,vilelyplanned, and worse kept. If
we believe contemporary
may accounts, such as that of Eudes
de Deuil, who visited the cityin 1147, in the common quarters
the housetops often met above the streets, and the streets
themselves were indescribablyfilthy,at times even barred
by pools of mud in which men and beasts were drowned.
The odors were noisome, and the
unlighted at night,
streets
so that from sundown to sunup they were wholly given over to

thieves,cutthroats, and yammering scavenger dogs like those
which infest Constantinopleto-day. If the reader could, by
some strained flightof fancy,imagine a combination of present
day Stamboul, the Campo Marzo region in Rome, and the

Tatar cityin Pekin, he would probably have a not inaccurate
idea of the ensemble of twelfth century Constantinople.
The influence ofByzantinearchitecture. No discussion of the
Byzantine stylewould be complete without a word about the
powerful influence which the art exerted on contemporaneous
and subsequent architecture. At times, as in Aix-la-Chapelle
(Figs.79, 80 and 85) and Germigny-les-Pres, as in Saint Front
de Perigueux (Fig.99) and many of the churches of Norman

Sicily,. this influence showed itself as little more than imita-
tion.
A subtler influence is recorded in the acceptance by the
West of the unformulated principles which underlay both the
forms- of detail and the constructive scheme of the Byzantine
building. The Byzantine architect,rejectingall singleforms
of the classic capital, evolved by a gradual combination of all
the elements of the classic capitala new form suited to new
needs. The Gothic capital is but a refinement of the
Byzantine,or rather a further development along the lines laid
down by the Byzantine. The Romanesque and Gothic
development of the vault,too, was made possibleby the flexible
treatment of the vault inauguratedby the Byzantines. Even
the basic Gothic principle, the stabilizing of a complex vaulted
system by means of an equilibrium of opposingthrusts, finds
its antecedent, as we have seen, in the Byzantine architecture

of the second golden age.
Influence on later styles. Moreover, Byzantine influence on
other styleswas not confined to the contemporary Middle
Ages. We shall see that Renaissance and modern architecture
are largely indebted to Byzantium. In Balkans, in
the
southern Russia, and in Greece, where the stylewas native,
the recurrence to it has been constant, and such a buildingas
the New Metropolis at Athens, though a debased imitation of
older work, has the merit of being a wholly natural reversion
to a native art. Finally,even Saracenic architecture must
acknowledge a great debt to Byzantine.

Significanceof Byzantine architecture. The importance of
Byzantine architecture is, therefore, threefold. It may be
regarded as an important link between the Roman and
Romanesque styles, as a source of inspiration in contemporary
and subsequent architecture,and finallyas a powerful and
self-sufficient art in itself. On the whole, writers have tended
to emphasize the first two
pointsof view at the expense of the
third. The result has been a stressing of the architecture of
the first golden age before the development of the great
medieval stylesof western Europe, and a neglectof the equally
important Byzantine architecture which postdates the Icono- clastic
controversy. The dynamic quality of the art has

largelybeen overlooked, and the styleinvested with a false
conservatism which recent writers on Byzantine architecture
are only beginning to dispel. It is well, therefore,especially
in a generalhistoryof architecture,to emphasize the fact that
the Byzantine stylewas not only an architecture of transition,
but especially an independent,self-sufficient art which showed
ever new vitalityfrom the age of the first Constantino in the
fourth century to that of the last in the fifteenth,and, in a
sense, shows it even to-day.
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF MONUMENTS
Early Period,to the Accession of Justinian in 527
Palace
Constantinople, of Constantine. "
323-337.
Constantinople, Senate. "
323-337.
Cisterna
Constantinople, Maxima. "
407.
2i4 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Constantinople,Cisterna Pulcheria. 421. "
Constantinople, W alls of Theodosius. First half of fifth century. "
Constantinople, Eski-djouma. First half of fifth century.

"
Constantinople, Stoudion basilica. 463. "
Ravenna, Sant' Apollinarein Classe. Begun before 526. "
Ravenna, Palace of Theodoric. Begun before 526. "
First Golden Age, Inauguratedby Justinian,527"726

Constantinople,
Bin-bir-direk cistern. "
528.
Ravenna, San Vitale. 526 or 534-547.
"
Salonica,Hagia Sophia. C. 530. "
Constantinople,Saint Irene. "
532.
Constantinople,Hagia Sophia 532-562. "
Cathedral of Parenzo
(Dalmatia). 540. "
Constantinople,Holy Apostles. 536^546. "
Ravenna, Sant' Apollinare Nuovo. 549. "
Saints
Constantinople, Sergius and Bacchus. " First half of sixth
century.
Constantinople,Baths of Zeuxippus. First half of sixth century. "
Lemsa (Africa),Fortifications. Sixth century. "
Haidra (Africa),Fortifications. Sixth century. "
Saint Gregory, near Etschmiadzin (Armenia). 640-666. "
Constantinople,Kalender-hane-djami(the Diaconessa of Emperor

Maurice?). Seventh century.
"
Constantinople, Hodja moustapha pasha (Saint Andrew's).

- -
"
Seventh century.
Cathedral of Etschmiadzin (Armenia). "
Begun in fifth,restored
in seventh century.
Age of Iconodasm, 726"842

Charlemagne's Chapel. 796-804.
Aix-la-Chapelle, "
Germigny-les-Pres(France). Ninth century. "
Second Golden Age, Inauguratedby Basil /.,867-1204

Constantinople,"La Nea" (Basil I.)."Before 886.
Cenourgion (BasilI.). Before 886.
Constantinople, "
Constantinople,Pentacoubouclon (Basil I.). Before 886. "
Constantinople,Gul-djami (Saint Theodosius). Second " half of

ninth century.
Skripou (Bceotia). 874. "
Constantinople,Boucolcon (Nicephorus Phocas, Emperor). 963- "
969.
Akthamar, Lake (Armenia). Tenth
Van "
century.
Pitzounda (Armenia). Tenth century.?
"
Lavra, Catholicon. End of tenth or beginningof eleventh

"
century.
Stiris (Phocis),Great Church of Saint Luke. Beginning of eleventh "
century.
Chios, Nea Moni. Mid-eleventh
"
century.
Venice, Saint Mark's. Begun 1063. "
Stiris (Phocis),Theotokos (Small Church of Saint Luke). " Second

half of eleventh century.
Constantinople,Kilisse-djami. Second "
half of eleventh century.
Daphni. End of eleventh century.
"
Perigueux (France), Saint Front." 1120.

Constantinople,Pantocrator. n 24. "
Nauplia, Nea Moni. 1144. "
Athens, Saint Theodore. Mid-twelfth century. "
Athens, Little Metropolis. Mid-twelfth century. "
Constantinople,Palace of the Blachernae (Manuel Comnenus). "
Soonafter 1143.
Constantinople, Walls of Manuel Comnenus. "
Soon after 1143.
Byzantine Renaissance,mid-thirteenth century "
1453
Arta, Saint Basil. Thirteenth century.

"
Trebizond, Hagia Sophia. Thirteenth century. "
Trebizond, Chrysokephalos. Thirteenth century. "
Ravanitsa (Serbia). 1381. "
Uskub (Serbia),Church of the Archangels. Fourteenth "
century.
Mistra, Peribleptos. End of the fourteenth
"
century.
Manassia (Serbia). 1407. "
A. Michel's Histoiredel'art,1905, vol. i, pt. i, contains a brilliant

summary of the history of Byzantine art, by Gabriel Millet. C.
Texier and R. P. Pullan's Byzantine Architecture, 1864, is a monu-
mental
work, now out of date, with excellent text and superb litho- graphic
platesof a wide range of Byzantine monuments and details.
A. Choisy'sL'art de bdtir chez les Byzantins,1883, is an old but authoritative
work, well illustrated and especially important for tine

Byzan-
construction. J. Stryzgowski'sKleinasien, 1003, and Byzanti-
nische Denkmaler are important recent publicationsof research,
already noted, emphasizing the Eastern origin of Byzantine art.
C. Diehl's Manuel d'art byzantin,1910, an authoritative, scholarly,
up-to-date handbook, embodies the results of ancient and modern
research in the Byzantine field. T. G. Jackson's Byzantine and
Romanesque Architecture,1913, is.an up-to-date,scholarly,and
HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
2i6 A
Bayet's
readable work, liberally illustrated. Charles
^r
and c
188* is handbook of Byzantine art, of great range
a
out
ofdate.
G. T. Rivoira's Le origini delta arcMeUura lojn-
though
S 1901-07, already noted, is even more important for Byzantine
A. Venturi's Storia dell' arte ttahana,
than for early Christian art.
Italian
and well-illustrated volume on
vol 2 1902, is a scholarly
Irtfrom centuries, publishing much original
the sixth to the eleventh
taly. K
for Byzantine architecture m
material and important .
Chough out
^France
deVerneihl's L' architecture byzant^ne ^85^ ntine
able the churches of Byza
discusses in an way
of date, Bau-
in central France. W. $alzenberg's Altchnsthche
character
tnMrvon Konstantinopel vom *" ". Jahrhundert, x 8 54, is
an
out-of-date but authoritative and interesting work.
A^
scholarly,
van
Churches in Constantinople 1912, is a

Millingen's Byzantine
reaSe, and well-illustrated volume on the churches o* tinople;
Constan-
Constantinople 899, an
the same
author's Byzantine
the ot
^ Uon
monuments of city
interestine work on the Byzantine
stanTnople
L de Beylie's ^habitation byzantine, 1902,
with a
5^" in I9o3!
is
aymonumental
"^^fg^^
Lethaby and H. bwamso
dwelling. W. R.
the Bvzantine
on
^1894,exhaustive
Tan Sophfa
to an
monograph on the most important
f the
earlier
Byzantine period, is here mentioned on ac-
buildings in the inclosure. It is the last but perhaps not

the^
A. Grosvenor's Constant^nople 1900 *
the subject. E.
word on
Tpopular
and readable book on the city, with ^^^f^ff The Walls oj
monuments. G. Barkers
mterestine accounts of the
and weU
X9-, ,
is an interesting history
Bur ^
Bury
^descnp^ Amstory oj
illustrated of the defenses of the city. J. .
B. s A^mstory
will be
a
Z Roman Empire,
mre, ^ a history of the empire
historical 1
need to the proper
useful for those who acquire
ground for a study of Byzantine art.

CHAPTER VIII
ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE
Definition. A discussion of Romanesque architecture

inevitablybegins with a definition of the term Romanesque.
The name, though an accepted one, and apt when understood,
is nevertheless confusing to the beginner. Comprehension
comes most quickly when we compare Romanesque ure
architect-
to the Romance languages. After the break-up of the
Roman Empire there ensued a period of cultural confusion.
From this confusion homogeneous nationalities slowlyemerged.
Based on Latin civilization,quickened by northern energy,
modified and differentiated one from another by conditions
of race and geography, nations arose. These nations possessed
each a speech also based upon Latin yet differingfrom the
speech of other nations similarlybased. Thus the Romance
languages, reminiscent of Rome, yet individual and national

in character, came into being. Preciselythe same phenomena
appear in architecture, based upon Roman as a point of
departure, but differingfrom it,each school being individual
and expressive of the peculiar genius of the race which duced
pro-
it,yet all bound by a common root and thus included
in a common classification: Romanesque.
Date. This much understood, new difficultiesbegin. From
the break-up of Roman civilization in the fifth century to the
clearlydefined rise of the nations about 1000 there occurred
a formative period in which chaos was more frequent than

order, yet in this period language was spoken and written,
buildings erected. At times, as during the reign of Charle- magne
(the Carolingian Renaissance), civilization in this

period was even brilliant. Should one call the speech of this
period Romance; its architecture Romanesque? In very

general classifications all west-European architecture,outside

of mere Byzantine imitation,roughly from 500 to 1 1 50, is called
Romanesque. The field may then be subdivided, the period
of later development from 1000 to 1150 placed by itself,and
the earlier architecture classified
Carolingian,Carolingian
as
and Ottonian, or even pre-Romanesque. Once the distinction

is comprehended the danger disappears.
Relation of Romanesque to Gothic. The comprehension and
appreciation of Romanesque architecture has been more
hindered, albeit innocently,by writers on Gothic architecture

than by anything else. One of the most brilliant,Quicherat,
summed up the style in the clever yet misleading definition
that has appeared in every subsequent book on the subject.
According to the French archeologist,Romanesque is an
architecture that, retainingelements of Roman, has ceased to
be Roman, and anticipatingelements of Gothic, is not yet
Gothic. Every phrase of this definition is true, yet its total
is pernicious, as it overlooks the self-sufficiency of the Roman-
esque
styleand relegatesit to the positionof a mere ure
architect-
of transition. Nothing more clearlyshows its weakness
than its over-emphasis of organicRomanesque styles, such as
Lombard, which led up to Gothic, and its utter inapplicability
to some of the most monumental, if inorganic,stylessuch as
the Tuscan.
Organic and inorganicarchitecture. The distinction between
what is called an organicand an inorganicstyleof architecture
may well be made here. An organic architecture is a vaulted

one, the vaults supported by ribs,buttresses, and piers,and
the latter deliberately arranged with sole reference to the needs
of supporting the vault and opposing its thrusts. Such an
architectural system, so often compared to the bony structure

of a living organism, deserves the adjectiveorganic. An
architectural system may, however, be more or less convincingly
organic. The omission of one or more structural ribs in a

vault, the' maladjustment of one or more supports to the
thrusts which they are designed to meet, may mar the organic
feelingof the system but not destroy it. On the other hand
a very splendidbuilding may be completelyinorganic,like the
cathedral of Pisa, which is covered with a timber roof carried
on a simplewall. Romanesque architecture must, therefore,
ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE 219
be studied for itself alone and not as a result of what has gone
before or as an excuse for what is coming after.
National feeling. This pointmust be insisted upon the more
strongly,since so much of the charm of the study of

Romanesque comes from the varietyof the style. The causes
of these variations were, of course, historical and geographical.

In the early period,so often called pre-Romanesque, from 500
to 1000, European architecture showed considerable geneity,
homo-
naturally with the growth of separate nations
but
came a growth of national styles;and within the nations,
often sharply divided into districts which were themselves
regna in regno, there grew up local stylesof great individuality

and charm. Thus Romanesque is,outside of France where
organicGothic developed,perhaps the most distinctly national
of each country'sarchitectural styles.
Ecclesiastical interest. The study of Romanesque is much
simplified by one fact. In no other style,not even Gothic, is
the interest so confined to ecclesiastical architecture. So true
is this that in a brief discussion of medieval architecture,
secular architecture profitablystudied in its Gothic
is most
aspects, leavingthe student free in the Romanesque period to
concentrate on the vastlymore important church and monastic
buildings.
Corporatequality. The style was not only a natural and
religious expression, it was an expressionof the common ideals
of the whole people. In other words it was distinctly
corporate. A magisteroperariusdirected the works, but great
freedom was allowed his swarms of assisting craftsmen. The
result was variation and inequalityof workmanship, but for
that very reason a freshness lamentably lackingin many an
otherwise impeccable modern work.

Architectural refinement. This freshness, which seems to
invest Romanesque, and indeed all medieval buildings,may
come partlyas well from the assymmetricalqualityof the work.
Whether or not the variations in plan,in the heightsof columns
and of arches and the like,which may be observed in practi-
cally
allmedieval buildings, is the result of inaccurate measure-
ments,
settlingof members, or deliberate design after the

manner of Greek architectural refinements, the result is a
livingquality,a sense of movement and picturesquenessthat

banishes all monotony and keeps the building vitally

interesting when more painstakingand elaborate works seem
dry as dust.
General characteristics. Though the plans of Romanesque
churches widely diverse (Fig.99),all are
are a development of
the arrangement with specialreference to liturgical
needs
embodied in the Christian-Roman basilica. In general,
buildings of the central type were confined tobaptistries
and tombs, and when churches of this type occur, they
represent Byzantine influence. The round arch, as opposed
to the Gothic pointed arch, is a general characteristic
of Romanesque, though many examples of pointed arches
occur in the
style.
Although
Classification. many classifications of esque
Roman-
have been offered,the main divisions of the movement
at the period of its great development in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries are fairlyclear. Italyhad a styleof her own,
subdivided roughly into the northern, central,and southern.
Germany, too, had an individual style,on the whole semi-

organic in the Rhine Valley and inorganicelsewhere. France
offers the most complicated problem of classification,
with no
less than six main subdivisions in her Romanesque art. In the
south we find a distinct Provencal style,highly classic in
feeling. Farther north we find the Auvergnat, most precocious
of the French schools, which may be classified with that of
Languedoc, the artistic center of the latter being at Toulouse.
In Aquitaine another school grew up, showing marked tine
Byzan-
affiliations,although some modern writers have urged an
autochthonous growth for the Aquitanian churches. Still
another subdivision may be made of Burgundyj with its
emphasis on monastic architecture. In the north two highly
organic styles developed, the most precocious being the
Norman, the most finished that of the district around Paris
called the He de France.
England afforded a very homogeneous
type of Romanesque, which may be regarded as
an offshoot of Norman, and Spain had an individual style
largelyimported from Languedoc, though influenced,especially
in the south, by Eastern architecture.
Carolingianarchitecture. A closer examination of the style
in its various manifestations must begin of course with the
art which we have called Carolingianor pre-Romanesque, or
which might perhaps better be called by a more neutral and

less descriptiveterm the "
art of the dark ages. This art,
though occasionally it takes on something of a national aspect,
as in the Saxon architecture of England, was European rather
than national. Moreover, some of the most important
monuments of the style,like Charlemagne's chapel at Aix-la-
Chapelle (Figs.79 and 85) or the church of Germigny-les-Pres,
we may pass over lightly,since they only emphasize how
closelyat times Byzantine architecture was copied.
New developments. There was, on the other hand, much
buildingin the periodwhich strikes a new note. The basilican
plan was not merely used, it was developed. Apses were often
added at the west end, free-standingtowers or turrets were
included, and often the bema was exaggerated to produce

the T form of plan so common in German architecture of the
Carolingianepoch (Salvatorskapelle, Frankfort). With the
accumulation of relics,the need for more altar space led to a
of chapels,in
multiplication the form of absidioles. Sometimes
these radiated from the rounded east end of the church (Saint
Martin, Tours), sometimes they were place in the
given a
T-shaped bema. With the elaboration of the liturgy,

ceremonial demanded an ambulatory for processionsround the
apsidalend, and this important member was included. The
diaconicon and prothesisof the early Christian basilica soon
became the sacristy and vestry of the later works.
Saint Gall. By far the most illuminatingexample of
Carolingian architecture is the ninth century monastery of
Saint Gall (Switzerland)known to us by a manuscript plan
(Fig. 95). This drawing shows the main characteristics of
the projectedmonastic church and the subordinate buildings
about it. The church itself is of the modified basilican plan,
with three aisles, an eastern and a western apse, two flanking
western towers, an exaggerated bema, ambulatory about the
eastern apse, and flankingvestry and secretary's room. The
complicated plan of Saint Gall is useful,too, in emphasizing
the importance of the monastery and, indeed, the strengthof
the monastic system in this period. The church is but the
most prominent building among a host of others. About it
are packed separate structures, shops,baths, kitchens,stables,
hospitals,servants' and guests'quarters,vegetableand flower

gardens, in fact everything which could contribute to make
the monastery a self-sustaining
self-sufficient, community.
Existingmonuments. We are not, however, confined to

plans for our knowledge of the architecture of the dark ages.
Many extant monuments, though usually damaged and
marred by alteration,remain to show us what the original

work was like. In France at Beauvais the so-called Basse-
ceuvre is one of the best known examples of the architecture
of the dark ages, though the buildingis so severe in design,
with plain walls and timber roof, that it aids little in the
its
study of Carolingian buildings. Perhaps the most highly
developed type of Carolingian
church is that of Montier-en-
Der (Upper Marne), where a
large proportion of the tenth
century building is preserved
for the student. Among the
many German examples of this
art perhaps the one most
worth emphasizing is Lorsch
(Rhine Valley, near Worms,
Fig. 96). Here the facade of
the basilican gate is preserved
in its original
form.
Carolingian decoration.
These fragments show us other
innovations and contributions
made to architecture by this
style,the most strikingbeing
the triangulardecoration, an
easilyrecognizedcharacteristic
of the architecture all over
Europe Windows were framed

.
in triangles, gable-like trian-

gular FIG. 96 "
LORSCH. ONE BAY OF

THE BASILICAN GATE
decoration applied in re-
lief
to the walls,and the walls

themselves composed of lozenges,sometimes vari-hued, with
the emphasis on triangularform. The important billet mold
appeared for the first time, and the window design of two
lights,separated by a column and embraced by an arch, is
reiterated and handed on to Romanesque and Gothic. This
form may well have originatedin the campanili of Carolingian
Italy.
Pre-Romanesque architecture of England. On account of
geographicalconditions,the pre-Romanesque architecture of
England shows an individualistictendency. Such monuments

as Earl's Barton (Fig.97) are not to be confused with temporary
con-
continental monuments, though they were founded

on Roman traditions,modified by barbarian ideas. Towers
were frequent,the angles re-enforced by the very characteristic
Saxon long-and-shortwork,
of stone slabs embedded ternate
al-
horizontallyand
vertically.Walls were also
decorated with strongly
salient stripsof stone, some
placed verticallyand running
from the ground to the sum-
mit,
some banded tally

horizon-
round the building.
Openings were divided by
clumsy wall shafts, almost
barrel-shaped and strongly
suggesting wooden forms.
The masonry handling in
the Saxon buildingswas tremely
ex-
rude, but the style

was sturdy and might well
have developed into one of
great beauty had its evolu-
IIG. 97" EARL'S BARTON. THE TOWER tion not been arrested by
the Norman conquest.
Pre-Romanesque architecture ofSpain. Geography affected
the Carolingianarchitecture of Spain as well. The peninsula,
like the island of Sicily, was always a battle-groundbetween
races and civilizations, and a bridge over which Oriental
influence entered Europe. The Spanish architecture of the
dark ages, like that of the north, developed the basilican
plan, but showed decidedly individualistic tendencies in
arrangement of detail and especially in decoration. Barbaric
elements came with the Visigothicoccupation,and to them
were soon added a decided Oriental influence, especiallyin
decoration. Sassanian ideas crossed the straits of Gibraltar
as easilyas Tarik himself. As a result we find horseshoe
arches, fluted scallop
shells,and other details which give the
architecture a semi-exotic character. Extant monuments are
abundant. Among the interestingmay

most be named the
church of Santullano (Oviedo), San Miguel de Linio (near
Oviedo), and Santa Maria de Naranco (Fig. 98), near San
Miguel.
activityabout 1000
Architectural A.D. Although undue
importance has been given to the effect on buildingof the safe
FIG. 98 "
SANTA MARIA DE NARANCO. PLAN
passage of the year 1000, when so many people,relyingon a
passage in the Apocalypse, believed the end of the world was

at hand, the date is,in round numbers, a good one for the
beginning of Romanesque architecture proper. Building
received an extraordinaryimpetus about that time. The fact
may be accounted
for in many by the growth
ways, but chiefly
of the individual nations and the economic prosperitywhich
their comparatively orderly governments insured.
Priority. In this later Romanesque, Italy,Germany, and
France each claims priorityfor its own style,and the contro-
versy
is complicatedby the fact that almost all the monuments
have suffered from repair, restoration,addition,and alteration
more or less complete. The majority cannot be dated by
documents and the minority which can may have suffered
from a subsequent,undated alteration. In general Brutail's
rule is excellent: a documented building cannot be earlier
than the date of its document, but may be, and generallyis,
later. The critic must proceed with extreme caution, checking

documentary against internal evidence, and vice versa,
avoiding as far as possiblethe mistakes which come from conceived
pre-
ideas, and above all steelinghimself against the
appeals of patriotic
a bias.
Lombard Romanesque. On weighing the evidence, the
oldest theory seems not only the most convenient but the
most plausible, and we may assume the priorityof Lombard
Romanesque and begin our discussion with that style. This
givesthe credit of creative genius to Italy,but insists upon the
necessityof Germanic (Lombard) blood to quicken this genius.
Opponents of the theory call attention to the fact that Lombard
architecture as designed in the eleventh century is highly
organic,that the stylesoon lost this organicquality,that the
movement died prematurely,and that Italian architecture has
always been distinguishedfrom northern by its fondness for
inorganic forms, but all these phenomena may be explained
by the weakening of the Lombard stock and the commercial
decline of Lombardy coincident with the struggle between
the empire and the papacy.
Characteristics. The ribbed vault. What then were the main
characteristics of this architecture? Since it was organic it
was, of course, vaulted, the favorite form being the domical
groin vault. This form we have seen developed in Byzantine
architecture,as in the vaults over the aisles of Hagia Sophia,
from the heavy concrete vaults of the Romans. To the simple
groin vault the Lombard architecture added strongly salient
ribs,reinforcingthe groin angles and binding the vault sides.
They thus created a set of six ribs in all: two
longitudinalor
wall ribs; two transverse which crossed the nave at right
angles to the long axis of the building; and two diagonal or

groin ribs,which met in the center of the vault and divided
it into four cells. The advantage of these ribs can hardly be
exaggerated. They could be built separately and act as
centeringfor the construction of the web. They were pendent
inde-
of the latter,which rested largelyupon them, and
thus the web could be thinned and the vault shell made much
lighter. They concentrated the vault thrusts at, or near, the
springingof the ribs,where the architects contrived to meet
them with salient pier buttresses,and they divided the whole
MONF.EALE MORJENVAU
MAINZ
FIG. 99 "
PLANS OF ROMANESQUE CHURCHES

vault of building into separate compartments

a or bays, so
that a crack or fault in one bay was not liable to spread to
another.
Compound supports. Such a modified vault demanded a
modified support. An aggregate of ribs of different sizes,

springing in different directions, could be gathered only
clumsily on a round column or a square pier. A compound
pierwas needed and produced. In Sant' Ambrogio at Milan
(Fig.101),for example, we find a pier compounded with an
engaged pilasteron the nave side to bear the transverse rib,
flanked by two engaged shafts to carry the diagonalribs. On
the northern and southern faces an engaged pilastercarries
the longitudinal rib, and againstit an engaged column bears
the arches of the ground story archivolt. On the aisle side
an engaged pilaster and shaft carry respectively the transverse
and diagonal ribs of the aisle vaults. The capitalsof these
shafts face in the direction in which the ribs spring,hence the
capitals of the shafts which carry the diagonalsare set obliquely
to the main axis of the building. In short, logicappears in
every member, and structural logic,a term we shall often be

forced to use, is emphasized.
The alternate system. The same structural logicinspired
another characteristic of Lombard architecture,destined to
have far-reachinginfluence on later styles: the alternate
system. On plan the naves were roughly twice the width of
the aisles. It occurred logicallyto the architects that by
having two bays in the aisles to balance one in the nave they
could make their vaults square (Sant' Ambrogio, Fig. 99).
This necessitated,however, an intermediate pier to carry the
ribs of the aisle vaults where their springing did not meet
those of the nave vaults. Obviously this intermediate pier
did not need the complicatedform or the robustness of the main
piers,hence smaller and simpler piers alternated between
largerand more complicated ones, and the alternate system
of vaults and pierswas created. This system was used with
great success in Romanesque and Gothic architecture when two

bays of the aisle balanced one bay of the nave.
The pilaster strip. A new structural system required new
members, therefore the pilasterstrip,whether against a pier
to receive a member of the vaulting system, or appearing on
the exterior as a buttress, received unprecedented develop-

ment.
Decoration. fundamentally organicqualityof

Aside from the
the Lombard building,which is its most important character-
istic,
the style developed a very originaldecorative scheme.
Corbels were used unsparingly. Arched corbel tables were
run under the eaves and followingthe rake of the pitchedgable

roofs. Decoration was attained by means of arcades, some-
,
times open, but more often blind.
Doors were enriched with
porches,
covered with gables supportedby
columns, which were themselves
carried on the backs of ured
sculpt-
lions. Sculpture, times
some-
of a very rude sort, times

some-
with
Byzantine refinement,
played a unimportant part,
not
but it was chieflyconfined to
portals,lintels,capitals,and the
like. On the exterior color was
generallyeschewed. For tive

decora-
effect on the exterior the
builders relied on architectural
detail,carving, and tion
differentia-
of textures in the ment
arrange-
of fairly monochromatic
material. Mosaic and marble
Copyright by Macmillan " Co.
veneer were excluded from the
FIG. IOI "
MILAN. SANT AM- " .

, ,.
BROGCO.
,
mtenors, but these were enlivened

DRAWING OF ONE
BAY SHOWING VAULT RIBS AND with painting,now almost wholly

SUPPORTS. (MOORE) whkh must" ifl^ original"
gonG)
have been
garish. Further enlivenment of the interior was
obtained by rich church furniture, sometimes of carved
marble, or backed with ivory, sometimes of exquisitely
modeled stucco, and at times even incrusted with silver,
gold,and enamel.
San? Ambrogio at Milan. Turning to the monuments
which exhibit the style,we find the best known and most
perfectexample in Milan in the church of Sant' Ambrogio
(Figs.99, 100, 101, 102, and 103). This buildinghas of late
years figured largelyin archeologicaldispute. It, and the

neighboring and equallytypicalSan Michele of Pavia, were
long considered to date from the mid-eleventh century,

but modern archeology tends to date the vaults of Sant'
FIG. I O2 "
MILAN. SANT AMBROGIO. INTERIOR LOOKING TOWARD
THE APSE
Ambrogio from the second quarter of the twelfth. They

would thus be antedated by Romanesque monuments of
Normandy. The point is not as important as at first appears,

for the form of the vaults would have been determined by the
time the first tier of stones in the pierswas placed. The piers
themselves reveal this. Moreover, such finished monuments
could spring spontaneously into being,but would imply
not
a long development of experimental building before them,

and modern research has revealed a number of examples of
ribbed vaults of the eleventh century in Lombardy, some
of them even constructed in the second quarter of the
century.
9
Plan and plan (Fig. 99) Sant' Ambrogio is

elevation. In
basilican,with three groinvaulted bays in the nave, a crossing
with an octagonal lantern, and a short choir of half a bay.
Two bays in the aisles correspond to one in the nave. The
eastern termination has a great semicircular apse, flanked by
two smaller apses of the same shape, on the axis of the aisles.
FIG. IO3 "
MILAN. SANT AMBROGIO. EXTERIOR
This form, typicallyCarolingian,surely belongs to the ninth

century building. There is no clerestory,the space being
occupied by a large triforium gallery, the vaults of which
receive the thrusts of the nave vaults and transmit them to
the salient pier buttresses attached to the walls. The nave
vaults (Fig. 100), very domical, have a full complement of
transverse longitudinaland diagonal ribs. The aisle vaults
are groined without diagonalribs. The facade shows an open
narthex, with an open galleryabove it. The first story is
divided from the second by a horizontal string-course, with an
arched corbel table, and a similar corbel table follows the

rake of the gable. Pilaster stripsto the first story, and
engaged shafts to the roof, divide the facade verticallyinto
five sections. The octagonal lantern is decorated with two
open and
galleries, attached to the church
campanile is a square
reinforced at the anglesby pilaster divided horizontally
strips,
by string-courses with corbel tables,and verticallyby engaged
FIG. 104 "
VERONA. SAN ZENO. GENERAL VIEW
columns. The church has an atrium with vaulted portico

which prevents a distant view of the facade.
Architecture outside of Milan. The farther removed it was
from Milan the less organic Lombard architecture tended to

become. San Michele of Pavia, to be sure, exhibits an
organic feelingfullythe equal of Sant' Ambrogio. Perhaps

the most originalchurch after these two was Sant' Abondio at
Como, which affords one of the most pleasingand monumental
designs of the style. This building has a fivefold vertical
division of the fagade,correspondingto the five aisles of the
interior,a well-proportioned and fine twin campanili

clerestory,
symmetrically arranged. It is,however, unvaulted.
The Maestri Comacini. One might expect monumental
architecture at Como and, indeed, throughout Lombardy, on
account of the Maestri Comacini, a famous band of workmen
first mentioned by the King Rotari (636-652),the
Lombard
name of which suggests an origin on a little island, "Isola
"
Comacina, in Lake Como. The importance of this myste-
rious
band has probably been exaggerated,but there seems
little doubt that it was largelyinfluential both in the creation
and in the spreading abroad of the Lombard style.
Reversion to inorganic type. Throughout northern Italy
the Lombard style held sway, stretching west into Piedmont
and east into Emilia and the Veneto. In later monuments,
however, as well as in those distant from Milan, there was a
reversion to an inorganictype. At the same time the works

tended to become more monumental, more showy. Parma
cathedral (1117),with its
lofty if inept vaults bound with
tie-rods,its broad facade, its soaringcampanile,has, at least,
a superficial impressivenessthat is denied the more organic
but less obtrusive Sant' Ambrogio. SimilarlyModena crated
(conse-
1184), on account of well-proportioned facade and
profuse sculpture,is more monumental in effect than the
Milanese building.
San Zeno, Verona. Perhaps the most pleasing and the
least organic of all Lombard Romanesque buildings is San
Zeno at Verona (consecrated 1138, Fig. 104). This church
has probably the most satisfactory proportionsof any building
of its class. Its portal is ennobled by a gabled porch of the
type popular in this style,and quite probably invented in
Verona. The exterior is further enhanced by a free-standing
campanile, decorated with vertical pilasterstripsand horizontal
strips of alternating red and white marble. The
interior with its great height and raised crypt is impressive,
but the inorganicquality of the building is revealed by its
timber roof, trussed after the manner of the frame of a ship,
and still retaining faint traces of its original painted
decorations.
Tuscan Romanesque. Farther south we next come to the
architecture of central Italy which, for convenience, we may
call Tuscan, though it overstepped the limits of what is now
the Tuscan province. The student will at once be struck with

the inorganic quality of the style. The plans are chiefly
basilican,and the architects strongly preferredthe timber roof
to a vaulted structure. At the same time the
buildings were
often extremely monumental in size and strikingin decoration.
In lieu of organic originality the Tuscan Romanesque offered
a gorgeousness in strikingcontrast to the comparatively drab
appearance of the art of the north.
Decoration, general character. This effect was obtained
principallyby polished marble panels, and a pro-
means of fusion
of arcades, blind and open, appliedto the exterior. The
exterior of such a buildingas the cathedral of Pisa is covered
:^-^m-~m-.:~lt~m"::-""~-H
:
"":' X X ':"-:y " ""'
'"
.;X;""t-^X ::"- " .

*: *
FIG. 106 "

PISA. CATHEDRAL. PLAN
with arcades, and the material used is colored marble

applied
in panels,squares, lozenges, and all manner of pure design,
so brilliant in color as literally to be dazzling (Fig. 105).
Interiors were generally basilican,the walls enlivened with
horizontal stripsof lightand dark. Domes over the crossing
were common, but nave vaults rare. At times one feels a
certain amount of Lombard influence in central Italy,as at

Toscanella and Montefiascone, but in general the style id

very individual.
The group at Pisa. The cathedral. The best point of
departure for a study of Tuscan Romanesque monuments is,
of course, the cathedral group at Pisa (Figs.100, 105, 106, and
FIG. IO7 "
PISA. CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR LOOKING

TOWARD THE APSE
107), where the cathedral, the leaning tower and baptistry

offer the most resplendent examples of the style. The
cathedral is five aisled basilican (Figs. 100 and 106). Its
exterior arcades vary slightlyin height and spacing,looking
almost though they were
as drawn and constructed free-hand.
The building is wooden-roofed, but over the crossing is an
egg-shaped dome curiouslysmall for so large a nave. The
wide transepts, afford a strikingfeature. The effect of the
exterior (Fig.105) is one of rich color and interesting design.
The interior (Fig.107),however, is decorated with the typical
bands of lightand dark marble, the contrasts being so strong

as to shock the eye rather than pleaseit.
The Lean-ing Tower. The same decorative system, open
arcades with colored marble veneer, is applied in concentric
ringsto the campanile (Fig.105). Though there is stilldispute
as to whether the lean of this famous monument is caused by
settlingof the foundation or was included in the originalde-
sign,
the latter explanationseems the better attested,and there
is little doubt that the builders chose to make one of Italy's
most beautiful towers into architecture's most famous freak.
The Baptistry. The baptistryis not so important for our
study as the other two monuments of the group, since it

belongs partly to the Gothic
peculiarshape of
period. The
the roof is caused by a unique system of doming, the building
being first covered with a cone of masonry, exertingslight
thrust, and then the superficial effect of a dome attained by
springinga segment of an annular vault over the aisle,from
the cornice,or upper string-course,to a point about two-thirds
the way the masonry
up cone.
Buildings at Florence. Florence affords a local variation

of the style,the best
example being the church of San Miniato
al Monte. This buildingfollows the general scheme of decora-
tion
of the style,with a variant in the emphasis on the square
in pure design. It also emphasizes another element noticeable
in Tuscan Romanesque: the imitation of classical form.
Some of the columns and follow
pilasters the Corinthian order
so closelythat they pilferedfragments of
look almost like
ancient structures, and we can understand why the term
"proto-Renaissance" has been applied to the age which produced
such works. In another Florentine building,in the
same style,the baptistryof San Giovanni, this classic feeling
is still stronger, and has led some authorities even to consider
the reconstruction of about 1 200 less important than is gener-
ally
supposed, and to argue that the present structure dates
back to the late classical period. The ingenious doming of
the building,with its double shell and stiffeningbarrel vaults
between the ribs, influenced Brunelleschi in his design for
the dome of the cathedral of Florence.
South Italian Romanesque. Finally,in the third subdivision
of Italian Romanesque, that of southern Italyand Sicily, or
of the Two Sicilies,

as the regionis generallycalled,geography
plays an important part. Since the beginning of Medi-
terranean
history this region has been fought over by flicting
con-
Here
barbarian, Greek, Phoenician, Roman,
races.
Goth, Byzantine, Italian, Moslem, and Norman battled,

prevailed,succumbed, and disappeared. The result was a
FIG. 1 08 "
CEFALU. CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE WEST END
lawless and confused

society, and an art that combined
Oriental and Occidental ideas. Although a hybrid,it actually
succeeded in blending harmoniously the ideals of a half-
dozen races, and we may find in a singlebuildingLombard
corbel tables, Norman interlacingarches, classic capitals,
Byzantine mosaics, and Saracenic domes. If one's idea of
Italian Romanesque is confused, it is a correct one.
The style in Sicily. In generalthe admixture of stylesshows
more clearlyin Sicilythan in southern Italy. At Cefalu
(Fig. 1 08), for example, we find the Norman flankingtowers
embracing the facade, the Norman interlacing

arches, and the
Moslem dome. One need not, however, leave Palermo, and
its suburb, Monreale, to study Sicilian Romanesque in its
most typical form. The cathedral, to be sure, is almost
wholly spoiledby baroque alteration,but in the Cappella
Palatina in the royal palace south Italian Romanesque appears
in its most harmonious blend. The plan of this chapel is
FIG. IO9 "

MONREALE. CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR LOOKING
TOWARD THE APSE
its pavement is of marble

basilican, inlay,and its walls are
covered with precious Byzantine mosaics. The modified

Corinthian columns which divide the nave from the aisles
are low, the archivolts which they support are lofty with
pointed arches, here surelyof Saracenic origin. The interior,
completely incrusted with marble and mosaic, gives an
impressionof unsparing richness.
Monreale. Probably the finest example of the style,how-
ever,
is the cathedral of Monreale (Figs.99, 109, and no),
some five miles Palermo, founded in 1176. This church

from
is of Latin cross plan and wooden roofed. The pavement is
marble, the dadoes are marble veneered, and the upper walls are
incrusted with mosaic. The arches of the main archivolts
are much stilted and pointed. The exterior shows Norman
FIG. IIO " MONREALE. CATHEDRAL. SYSTEM OF THE NAVE AND THE
EXTERIOR OF THE CHOIR
facade towers interlacing,Saracenic decoration and

and
construction. Adjoining the church is a cloister,
with a portico
carried on a series of paired columns richly carved in shaft
and capital,and adorned with glass and marble mosaic.
Such cloisters form specially charming features in many south
Italian Romanesque churches, though they are to be found
elsewhere in Romanesque work.
German Romanesque. Romanesque The

of Germany is,
on the whole, much more homogeneous than Italian,and the
most distinctly national of the country'sstyles. The Roman-
esque
stylethere was exceedinglyprolific, and lingeredlonger
FIG. Ill "

COLOGNE. SAINT MARY OF THE CAPITOL. PLAN
than in any other

unity and strength may
country. beIts
explained by the unity and politicalpower of Germany
beginning in 919 with the reign of Henry the Fowler and
lastingthrough the period of the Ottos and the later Henrys.
FIG. 112 "
PAULINZELLE. PLAN
In studying it we seek
distinguishthe Germanic
must to
elements from those which represent importation from out-

side.
The former came from a development of the native
Carolingianstyle;the latter appear in the increasingtendency

to use an organicLombard structural system, and in a certain
amount of Byzantine imitation. The last was not nearly so
common in the later Romanesque as in the Carolingianepoch,
though certain buildings,especiallythose at Cologne, with
I 1 ?
Paulinzelle Saint Michael, Hildesheim
FIG. 113 "

SYSTEMS OF GERMAN ROMANESQUE CHURCHES
their apse-liketransepts recallingthe triconch churches of

Syria and Egypt, seem surelyto represent Oriental influences.
General characteristics. The most strikingand typically
German characteristic of the style is its complexity and
picturesqueness, acquired by a multiplication of architectural
members. Apses were placed at the west as well as the east.
Lanterns not only covered the crossing,but were placed at
the west end of the building. Towers, and especially turrets,
at both ends were common. These elements, as we have seen,
are of Carolingianderivation. Even the churches which seem
to reflect most
clearlyOriental influence develop the complexi-
ties
of Carolingian prototypes, which were themselves
influenced by the East. Thus the Holy Apostles at Cologne
is but a development of Saint

Mary of the Capitol (Fig.in),
and combines Germanic complexity with the main dispositions
of an Oriental plan. The earliest German Romanesque
buildingsare generallybasilican
and tended to retain the timber
roof; the later partiallyor
are
even completelyorganic. Gen-

erally,
however, the organism

of a church is marred by the
omission of one or more ural
struct-
members. This organic
quality,appearing late as it
does, may be explained as an
imitation of Lombard work.

In general the more organic as
well as the more monumental
churches are to be found in the
valley of the Rhine.
Basilican churches. Turning
first to the basilican churches
we find them all alike in this
-7 lH.tr. lack of organic feeling,but dif-
fering
widely in the disposition
FIG. 114 "
DRUBECK. DRAWING OF of detail. Thus the Collegiate
ONE BAY, SHOWING THE SYSTEM
Church of Paulinzelle (Figs.
112 and 113) shows a blind
triforium and a uniform system of massive columns ing
divid-
the nave from the aisles. The
Collegiateof Gernrode
has a triforium gallery,reduced clerestorywindows, and an
alternation of a column with a square pierin the ground story
arcade. Further varietyis offered by Saint Michael, Hildes-
heim (Figs.99 and 113), which reverts to the blind triforium,
but places two columns between the square piersin the main
arcade. At Driibeck (Fig.114) we note the simpler alterna-
tion
of single column and pier,but the arches from pier to"
column are embraced by great blind arches of double width
and height which spring from pier to pier. Variation is,
therefore,almost infinite in these churches, but all are alike in
the heaviness of their systems, the massiveness of their walls,
and in their simple wooden roofs supported on trussed timbers.
The organic architecture of the Rhine. As a foil to these

basilican churches one may turn to the great vaulted churches
of the Rhine
Valley: Speyer, Worms, and Mainz. These
combine most happily the Lombard vaulted system with
German picturesqueness. Speyer (Figs. 100, 115, 116, and
117) has an organic vaulted system, complete but for the
missingdiagonalribs. It has a lantern over the crossing,
two
square towers at the east end, two more at the west, a western
transept and a western lantern. Despite its complexity the
FIG. 115 "
SPEYER. PLAN
building is compactly arranged and monumental in effect.

Worms (Fig.116) shows as great complexity as Speyer, and
moreover has a full complement of ribs. Both exhibit the
alternate system, the intermediate piers on the nave side
having engaged shafts which support an archivolt embracing
the clerestory windows. Later than either of the preceding,
and perhaps most imposing of all,is the cathedral of Mainz
(Figs.99, 116, and 118). Here the arches are freelypointed,
and complexityis carried to the extreme, the church having its
full complement of turrets, western lantern, western apse,
and the like. The western apse adds picturesqueness, but
mars the design of the t'agade, as the flankingdoors are mere
insignificant inlets for worshippers as compared to the wel- coming
portalsof French churches.
Summary of German Romanesque. To understand German
Romanesque, therefore, one must above all keep in mind the
two divisions of elements: those developed from the Caro-
lingian, and those which are imported; the latter may be sub-
divided
roughly into Byzantine and Lombard. At times all
three may combine in a singlebuilding,as in the church of the
Holy Apostles at Cologne, where we find a semi-organic
system, native picturesqueness,and a three shell east end
which suggests Syria, but by keeping the main divisions in
mind we may analyze and
comprehend the host of
Romanesque monuments
which Germany offers.
Approach to the study of
French Romanesque. As we
approach the discussion of
French Romanesque, clear-ness
suggests that we begin
with the southern stylesand
work toward the northern.
This will,at times, falsify
chronology, but the pro-
vincial
stylesof France are
so nearly contemporaneous
that the fault is not a ous
seri-
one, and the advantages
of examining the southern
stylesfirst are great. The
southern and central styles
have one important mon
com-
characteristic: lection FIG.

predi- 117 "
SPEYER. CATHEDRAL. VIEW
for the barrel vault OF THE INTERIOR LOOKING TOWARD
THE APSE
and consequentlyinorganic
feeling.
Provence. One may characterize Provencal Romanesque
as the most classic of all Romanesque styles. It was evitable
in-
in a district which stillpreservesPont-du-Gard, the
the Baths of Diana at Nimes, the amphitheater at Aries, the
triumphal arch at Orange, and countless other monuments of
Roman antiquity,that architects should be influenced strongly
by the examples constantlybefore their eyes. The result was
not only a predilectionfor the barrel vault, especiallythe
barrel vault supported on transverse semicircular arches, as
"VI 11;
'
m "t m m *
FIG. Il8 "
MAIN7. CATHEDRAL. VIEW FROM TfiE NORTH
FIG. IIQ "
ARLES. SAINT TROPHIME. THE MAIN PORTAL

in the Baths of Diana, but also for detail strongly classical

in feeling.
Monuments. An examination of the monuments emphasizes
this fact. The facade of Saint Trophime at Aries (Fig. 119)
has capitalswhich are almost true Corinthian and a suggestion
of entablature modified, that is not debased, classic Roman.
The interior is barrel vaulted, with transverse arches, but the
barrel vault pointed in
is cross section. Saint Gilles (Gard)
boasts a fagade similar to Saint
Trophime, but more elaborate.
Here even the masonry recalls classic
Rome, and the main portalis flanked
by channeled pilastersof almost
deceptivelyclassic character. Some
of the Corinthian columns, too, need
only a delicate entasis to appear
stolen from a classic edifice. These
are well-known examples, and the
more obscure reiterate the same
effects. The word "Romanesque"

in its literal sense applies more
aptly to the Provencal style than
to any other.
Auvergne. Farther north and
west a somewhat develop-
ment different
was taking place Auvergne .
In
we find the same predilectionfor
barrel vaults, but new dispositions
in plan. The Auvergnat churches,
as one would expect in the earliest
of the French
Romanesque styles, TRANSVERSE SECTION, snow-
have a Carolingian affiliation and ING HALF BARREL VAULT -
OVER THE AISLE

something of the picturesqueness
of the Romanesque of the Rhine.
Apses are provided with ambulatories and radiatingabsidioles,
and absidioles are often added to the eastern walls of the
transepts. At the same time the barrel vault is treated

with more freedom. The nave is usually covered with a
barrel vault, but the aisles are often provided with but
half -barrel vaults which thrust inward and counteract
the thrust of the vault of the nave (seeFig. 120). An in-

evitabl
result of this arrangement was inadequate lighting.
Light was admitted through the ground story windows,
and through windows in the triforium gallerybeneath the half-
barrel vaults, but by the time it had filtered into the nave it
was much weakened, and most Auvergnat churches give one
the sensation of a black
cloud overhanging the nave,
an effect which, if not ful,
cheer-
is at least impressive.
The individual members and
general construction of the
Auvergnat church, according
with its early date, are erally
gen-
very massive, another
fact which again makes the
churches impressive, if some-
times
ungraceful. The terior

ex-
is lightened by the
absidioles,stepped lanterns,
arcades,and generalmultipli-
cation
of members, which give
the building picturesque-
ness.
FIG. 121 "
CLERMONT-FERRAND. NOTRE Monuments. The best

DAME DU PORT. VIEW OF THE EAST END
known and
historically
most
interestingof Auvergnat
churches is Notre Dame du Port at Clermont-Ferrand (Figs.
120 and
121). It is a heavy, barrel-vaulted,ill-lighted but
impressivechurch, with a multiplication of absidioles and the
general picturesquenesswhich well typifiesthe style. Other
monuments, as illuminatingif less famous, are numerous.
Among them we must mention Saint Saturnin, and Orcival
(Puy-de-D6me).
Languedoc. Closelyallied to the styleof Auvergne is that
which we may call,for want of a better name, the school of
Languedoc, though the district involved embraces a vast
territoryfrom Auvergne to the Pyrenees. The styles of

Auvergne and Languedoc have often with reason been classi-
fied
together,but the latter tends to a more monumental
scale,and greater delicacy in singlemembers and sculptured
detail. The prominent example of this styleis,of course,
most
Saint Sernin at Toulouse (Figs. 100 and 122), a five aisled,

barrel-vaulted structure with a loftyand very graceful lantern
over the crossing. The building is on so elaborate a scale, and
exhibits so great delicacy of material and detail,that one does

not at first identifyit as a
close relative of the buildings
of neighboring Auvergne, yet
such it is. The architectural
sculptures alone of Lan-
guedoc would differentiate
the buildings of that district
from those of Auvergne.
Aquitaine. Byzantine
character of the building.
North of Languedoc and
west of
Auvergne we find a
very vigorous and distinct
school flourishing in Aqui-
taine.
The Aquitanian
buildings have generallybeen
characterized as the most
Byzantine of French manesque

Ro-
churches. Saint FIG. 122 "
TOULOUSE. SAINT SERNIN.
THE INTERIOR SEEN FROM THE WEST

Front P6rigueux (Figs.99
at
and 123)has repeatedly been
called a direct copy of Saint Mark's at Venice, and the ous
numer-
other churches of the with

district, their domes on penden-
tives unique in French Romanesque, have been said to be
so
inspiredby Saint Front. To this theory a reaction has lately

set in. Saint Front postdates many of the buildings in the
neighborhood with the same characteristics,and there are great
differences between the so-called Byzantine details of these
buildings and the details of the real Byzantine buildings
whence they are supposed to be derived. These facts have led
certain scholars to conclude that the domed churches of
Aquitaine owe no Byzantium than the Romanesque
more to
of the rest of France, but convincing as these arguments at

firstseem, they can be overthrown by the juxtapositionof the
plans of Saint Mark's and Saint Front (Figs.88 and 99).

We note the salient Greek cross, the barrel vaults, the central
dome on pendentives,and the four subordinate domes on the
arms of the cross. Such similarities are not coincidences.
Probably Saint Front is not a copy of SaintMark's; surely,
however, the two are inspiredby a Byzantine original,
quite
FIG. 123 "
PERIGUEUX. SAINT FRONT. GENERAL VIEW FROM THE

SOUTHEAST
possiblythe church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople.

Certainlyit is correct to classify the Romanesque of Aquitaine
as most Byzantine in character.
Originality of Aquitanian architecture. Not all the churches
of Aquitaine,however, have the Greek cross plan or even the
domes on pendentives which mark the styleas Byzantine in
character. In the cathedral of Angouleme, for example (Fig.
99),the dome vaults are arranged in the form of a Latin cross,
and at Notre Dame la Grande at Poitiers (Fig.124) the dome
on pendentives is abandoned in favor of the barrel vault.

The churches of the region are, nevertheless,bound into one
styleby the system cone-shaped turrets

of decoration, curious
with scale-like tiles,bossy masonry, and a unique inter-
mingling
of architectural and figuresculpture as ornament
over portalsand windows.
Burgundy. We may conclude our examination of southern
and central French Romanesque with a brief review of the
Burgundian style.
As might be ex-
pected
from graphical
geo-
erations,
consid-
this style
is the most ganic
or-
of the south-
ern-central
group,
and therefore
makes a good
transition to the
study of the art
of Normandy and
the He de France.
The tics
characteris-
worthy
most
of emphasis are its
accent on tic
monas-
architecture,
its increasingly
organicqualityin-volving
frequent
use of the groin FIG. 124 "
POITIERS. NOTRE DAME LA GRANDE.
VIEW OF THE WEST END
vault, its original-
ity in the hand-
ling
of the barrel vault, and its vigorous,racy sculptured
decorations,especially
as applied in the vestibule or narthex,
a feature which received unprecedented development at the
hands of the
Burgundian architects.
Cluny. The abbey of Cluny (Figs. 99 and 100) was,
perhaps, the most typical Burgundian church. It was
founded in 1089, destroyed in 1125, and rebuilt in 1130.
Unfortunatelyit was razed during the French
Revolution, but
we know it by drawings and descriptions.It was five-aisled,
the,nave covered with a barrel vault and the aisles with groin
vaults. Its transepts were double, those to the east smaller
than those to the west, giving the plan the archiepiscopal-
cross form so common in English Gothic buildings. Round
the ambulatory were five absidioles,and others were added
on the eastern faces of the transepts. The nave was preceded
by an elaborate narthex of five bays. There was a lantern
FIG. 125 "
VEZELAY. CHURCH OF THE MADELEINE. THE INTERIOR SEEN

FROM THE VESTIBULE
over the crossing,

towers over the transepts, and towers were
placed at the west end. The impression of the buildingmust

have been not unlike that of a Rhenish church of the period,
and, indeed, a connection between the two has often been
urged.
Extant Burgundian monuments. Burgundy possesses, ever,
how-
many extant monuments in which the style may be
judged. The cathedral of Autun, for example, exhibits an
elaboratelyornamented narthex, and a nave in the form of a
pointed barrel vault. An ingeniousvariant in the treatment
of the barrel vault may be seen at Saint Philibert at Tournus.
The gravest fault of the longitudinal barrel vault over a nave

is its tendency to suppress, usually entirely,the window

openings in the clerestory.In Saint Philibert this difficulty
is avoided by roofingthe nave with a series of sections of barrel
vaults, placed at rightangles to the long axis of the building.
These sections mutually abut one another, and their wall
arches leave ample room for clerestoryopenings, but the
esthetic effect of the series of transverse arches is unhappy,
and the experiment was not copied in other buildings.
Veêlay. The best known and the most interestinghis-

torically
of the Burgundian buildingsis the abbey church of
FIG. 126 "
ROMANESQUE ORNAMENT
Vczelay (Fig.125). Here we find the Burgundian narthex,

with its richlysculptured decoration, but the barrel vault
disappears entirely,even the great bays of the nave being
covered with groin vaults. The groins lack ribs,so that the
system is only partiallyorganic,but despitethe lack we feel
an increase in organic interest which signalsthe approach of
the northern styles.
Northern French Romanesque. Normandy. As we have
seen, northern French Romanesque falls naturally into two
divisions,the Norman and that of the He de France. We
shall begin with the former. The most marked characteristics
of fullydeveloped Norman Romanesque are its strong sense
of structural logicand its inventiveness. No stylewhich we
have examined, except the Lombard, has been marked so
strongly by the former, and it seems clear that Lombard

architecture exercised a strong influence on the Romanesque
of Normandy. Those who urge an autochthonous growth for
the Norman stylerun counter to what we know of Norman

history. Lanfranc, for example, one of the most famous of
Lombards, established himself successively at Bee, Caen, and
Avranches, and, after the Conquest, became archbishop of

Canterbury. He was followed in the same places by Anselm
of Aosta, afterward canonized.
Unquestionably such men as these
carried Lombard influence into
Normandy, though this fact
should not blind us to the cocity
pre-
and inventiveness of the
Norman style.
Normanoriginality.Ribbed
vaulting, the alternate system,
compound piers, are features com-
mon
both to Lombard and man.

Nor-
To the latter, however,
belongs the credit of
inventinga
new vault form, specially
adapted
to the alternate system. In the
nave of the
Abbaye-aux-Hommes
(Saint Etienne) at Caen (Figs.99,
128, and 130),it occurred to the
builders to throw an intermediate
transverse rib from the mediate
inter-
pier,dividing the vault
FIG. 127 "
JUMIEGES. ABBEY surface into six cells instead of

CHURCH. THE SYSTEM
four. In this system the crowns
of the lateral cells run obliquely,

instead of at right angles to the long axis of the building.
The vault surfaces are somewhat distorted, but the win-
dow
space was enlarged,and the aptitude of the form to

the alternate system is attested by the number of Gothic
buildingsin which the two are combined (see plan of Paris
cathedral, Fig. 139). Normandy also developed a number of
decorative motives. The billet mold was adopted from
Carolingianarchitecture,and new forms such as the dog-tooth,
zigzag,and interlacing arcade were invented

(Fig.126). The-
techniqueof stone cuttingand stone fitting,
too,was notablyfiner
in Normandy than in contemporary schools of Romanesque,
Jumieges. The earliest important extant example of Nor-

man
Romanesque is the abbey church of Jumieges (Fig.127).
In this
building,now a ruin, we find the alternate system.
Although the church was designed for a timber roof, a com-
pound
engaged shaft runs from the main piers,through the

to the level of the cross
clerestory, beams of the roof. It is
Abbaye-aux-Dames Abbaye-aux-Hommes
FIG. 128 "

CAEN. THE ABBEY CHURCHES. SYSTEM OF THE INTERIORS
probable that we have here a reminiscence of the early

Lombard wooden-roofed church in which the roof was ported,
sup-
at least by
partially, stone arches thrown across the
nave.
Abbaye-aux-Hommes at Caen.
The Sexpartttevaults. At
Caen the so-called Abbaye-aux-Hommes (Figs.99, 128, and
129), built and dedicated to Saint Stephen by William the
Conqueror, gives us the most complete example of the style.

Though the church was founded in the eleventh century, the
vaults are a reconstruction of the first half of the twelfth.

The originalbuildingwas wooden-roofed but had the mediate
inter-
engaged shaft,which occurs in Lombardy, and there
supports only the corbel table of the triforium string. It is
reasonable to suppose that the presence of the intermediate
shaft suggested
the intermediate
rib,and the man
Nor-
invention of
the sexpartite
vault (Figs. 99,
128, and 129) was
the result. In the
Abbaye - aux-
Hommes there
are also numerous
passageways in
the thickness of
the walls, which
give access to the
clerestory dows
win-
and other
parts of the
church, and an
open lantern over
the crossing.
These features
FIG. 129 "
CAEN. SAINT ETIENNE. VIEW OF THE are almost surely

INTERIOR LOOKING TOWARD THE APSE Norman tions.
innova-
The
Abbaye-aux-Dames at Caen. Rudimentary flying but-
tresses.
As a pendant to the Abbaye-aux-Hommes, William's
wife, Matilda, built the church of the Trinity, called the
Abbaye-aux-Dames (Figs.100 and 128). This church, on a
smaller scale than Saint Etienne, is more compactly composed
and more profusely and delicatelyornamented. The tects
archi-
of La Trinite invented one feature of the greatest signifi-
cance.
In the Abbaye-aux-Hommes the builders had tried
to abut the thrust of the nave vaults by a half-barrel vault
over the triforium galleries,a system which we have already
noted Auvergne and

in Languedoc (Notre Dame du Port,
Clermont-Ferrand; Saint Sernin, Toulouse).The thrust of such
a half-barrel vault, being continuous, well meets the con-
tinuous
thrust of the barrel vault of the nave, but the thrusts

of a groin vault, like that of the Abbaye-aux-Hommes, are
not continuous. They are concentrated at the intersection

of the ribs,and the half -barrel
vault is, therefore, useless,
except at and near points
coincidingwith the intersec-
tion
of the ribs. Recognizing
this fact,the builders of the
Abbaye-aux-Dames omitted
all portionsof the half-barrel
vault where itwas not needed
to abut the thrusts of the
nave vault. The result was
a series of arches, hidden

under the lean-to aisle roof,
which carried the thrusts of
the nave vaults over to the
pier buttresses set against
the outer walls of the aisles
(Fig.100). Hidden and mentary
rudi-
as these members
are, they are nevertheless
embryonic flyingbuttresses,
and to Norman Romanesque KG. 130" IFFLEY. PARISH CHURCH.
VIEW OF THE WEST END
belongs the credit of invent-
ing this important feature.
Romanesque architecture of England. English originality.
Before passing on to the architecture of the He de France we
must pause to note the Romanesque architecture of England.
The transition is wholly logical, for, although England and
Normandy are now politically divided,during the later Roman-
esque
period they were one. Naturally the architects of
William the Conqueror created buildings of the same stylein
England a few years after the Conquest as they had in Nor- mandy
a few years before. It must not be supposed, however,
that Norman Romanesque underwent no modifications in
26o A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
England. England often borrowed, but seldom slavishly

copied. Norman Romanesque in England became more
massive, as though the heavy Saxon architecture which it
superseded had influenced it. Sometimes this massiveness

was emphasized by extreme bareness and absence of decora-
tion,
as in Saint John's chapel in the Tower of London; some-times
it,was disguisedby a luxuriant profusionof Norman
FIG. 131 "

DURHAM. CATHEDRAL. PLAN
decorative motives, as in the parishchurch of Iffley(Fig.130).

In generalthe styletended to abandon the structural logic of
Normandy and to revert to wooden roofs. Even in vaulted
Durham (Figs.131 and 132),the finest and most homogeneous
of the Anglo-Norman cathedrals, the alternate system was
used with an illogical, if ingenious,vault system. No trans-
verse
ribs are thrown from the intermediate piers and the
latter have no engaged shafts. Extra diagonals,however,
spring from corbels above the intermediate piers,and the
result is what one might call either two imperfect quadripartite
vaults or a singleseptapartiteone. The transverse
arches of Durham are pointed,a phenomenon quite common
in later Anglo-Norman churches. English Romanesque does,
therefore,show originality, despiteits close relation to Norman.
Romanesque of the lie de France. Returning to France, we
may now take up the most completely organic of all Roman-
esque
styles: that of the He de France. One may think of
it as the most, or the least,finished of styles,according to
whether one thinks of it as completed Romanesque or mentary
rudi-
Gothic. The problem is greatlycomplicated by the
fact that in this region Gothic architecture developed,and the

Romanesque buildings from which it sprang were usually
either altered during the later Gothic period or modified by
the architectural experiments by means of which finished
Gothic was reached. Much that might otherwise come under
the head of Romanesque architecture of the He de France must
be discussed in connection with developing Gothic, and may,
FIG. 132 "
DURHAM. CATHEDRAL. GENERAL VIEW FROM THE SOUTHEAST
therefore, be omitted here. In

general the Romanesque
monuments of the region are not large in scale or strikingin
esthetic effect. To an even greater degree than in the build-
ings
ofLombardy their greatest interest is historical,in the
lightthey shed on future organic styles,and this impression
is greatlyexaggerated by the destruction and alteration of so
many of the finest buildings.

Earlier and later buildings. The of the
earlier buildings'
lie de France were not organic,and inorganicbuildingswere
erected even contemporaneously with those of the budding
Gothic style. Such a church as Vignory, for example, is
timber-roofed,with massive piers,plain walls,and no organic
structure whatever. In the second half of the eleventh
century, however, highly organic styleappeared. The idea

a
of organic vaulting,with logicalpiers,probably came from

Normandy, though the Norman alternate system was not
taken over and does not appear in the He de France till the
Gothic period. Ideas of plan, notably in the ambulatories,
and decoration were borrowed from the south.
Development of the style. The development of the stylewas
one of increasingdelicacyand nicety of adjustment of load to
shaft. At times, as at Saint-Loup-de-Naud, the vaults and
piersare massive and clumsy
in appearance, but always
in
exactinglylogical arrange-
ment.
In finished examples,
as at Saint Remi, Reims, the
shafts are slender,delicately
cut, and delicatelyadjusted
to the load they bear.
Full development. Saint
Remi, however, like most
examples of the style,is not
homogeneous. The fine
Romanesque shafts and piers
carry not Romanesque but
Gothic vaults, which really
emphasize the structural
good taste of the former, so
well do the two harmonize.

In like manner the church
Copyright by Macmillan " Co. of Saint Etienne, Beauvais,
"ne "* the ^LOSt tamOUS
FIG. 133 "
BEAUVAIS. SAINT ETIENNE.
DRAWING OF ONE OF THE AISLE VAULTS Romanesque monuments of

AND ITS SUPPORTS. (FROM MOORE) the ^^ {" finished with
Gothic vaults. The elegance of the Romanesque portions,
however, especiallythe side aisles (Fig.133),shows the vanced
ad-
point which the stylereached in the district.

Morienval. The beginnings of Gothic. One of the best "
known examples of the style is the little church of Morienval

(Fig.99). The nave is covered with an early Gothic vault,
but the north aisle (Fig.134) retains its Romanesque vault,
lackingdiagonal ribs,though the diagonalsare supported by
a pilasterstripin the pier. In the same aisle one may note
a tendency to stiltthe transverse rib in order to raise its crown

nearer the level of the crown of the vault, a tendency which
we might also have noted in the aisle vaults of Saint Etienne
at (Fig. 133). Here we
Beauvais reach a limbo in which
organicRomanesque and the most rudimentary Gothic meet.
If we but walked from the
north aisle of Morienval to
the apsidal ambulatory of
that church we might see a
transverse arch not only
stilted that its crown may
approach the crown of the
vault, but also for the same
reason pointed. With this

observation we should pass,
however, from the consider-
ation
of Romanesque to that
of Gothic architecture.
Spanish Romanesque.
Before bringing to a close
the discussion of the schools
of Romanesque ure,
architect-
a word is necessary
with regard to Spain. In
general Spanish Roman-
esque
represents an impor- FIG. 134" MORIENVAL. PARISH
CHURCH' VIEW OF THE NORTH AISLE
tation of the styles of Au-
vergne and Languedoc.
The most famous Spanish churches, that of Santiago
of the
at Compostela (Fig.135),strikinglyresembles Saint Sernin
of Toulouse. Just as the English modified the Norman, so
the Spanish modified the southern French, and impressed

it with their own nationality. In a temperate climate
roofs became flatter,so that at times the triforium space
was eliminated
practically its openings made
and into win-
dows,
as in the Colegiata of San Isidore at Leon (Fig.
136). Forms speciallycharacteristic of Spain, such as the
Visigothichorseshoe arch, were
so-called used, and above all
sculptured decoration became profuse. Undercutting was
10
deepened, edges sharpened, forms crowded, until the decora-

tion
attained that sparkling character so typicallySpanish.
The common phenomenon, therefore, of Spanish naturaliza-
tion
of immigrant forms never appears more strikinglythan
in the case of Romanesque architecture.
Development ofsinglefeatures. Obviously in an architecture
so heterogeneous as Romanesque it is impossibleto trace a
strictlychronological
development of any
single feature, or
group of features.
Nevertheless, at the
risk of repetition,it
will be well to note
the progress made by

the stylein the devel-
opment
and tion
adapta-
of certain details
or features of churchly
architecture.
Plans. The sion
discus-
of the plan may
be dismissed marily
sum-
with the state-

ment
that the style
offered material for
almost allsubsequent
types of church plans.
The prototype of the
finished French
3"m-
Gothic building,with
FIG. 135 "
COMPOSTELA. SANTIAGO. PLAN
its complicated
chevet, ambulatory,
and radial chapels,is to be found in southern French esque,
Roman-
just as the favorite plan
English archiepiscopal-cross
is to be found in Burgundy.
Vaults. The progress in vault forms was as marked.
Besides innovations and modifications of barrel vault forms,
such pointed barrel vaults and cross barrel vaults, we find
as
Lombardy and Normandy developing the Byzantine domed

vault into the organic,domical groin vault of quadripartite

or sexpartiteform, and handing on to Gothic the ideas neces-
sary
for its future development. Ingenuity and originality

were shown even in the trussed wooden roof,and it was given
new and interesting forms, as at San Zeno in Verona.
Supports. Corresponding to the ribbed vaults, we find the
supports developing,with compound members for a compound
o 5 to 20 n\- oil}* sm.
FIG. 136 "

LEON. SAN ISIDORO. PLAN AND SYSTEM
rib system. We find the Lombard alternate system brought

into accord with the
sexpartitevault, and the shaft capitals
signalingthe direction of the springingof the ribs. Chrono-
logically
we may note a steady refiningof the proportionsof
the supports, suggestingapproaching Gothic, which culminates
in the delicate proportions of the best Romanesque of the
He de France.
Buttresses. The progress of the buttress was no less
remarkable. Lombardy supplied the pilasterstripagainst
the outer wall, used as a buttress,which was the germ of all

future development. This pilaster or pier buttress was
steadily deepened and strengthened. At the same time
numerous solutions of the problem of carrying the thrusts of
the nave vaults to the aisle walls and the buttresses were
made. Lombardy this was

In done by omitting the triforium
and carrying the thrusts of the nave vaults over to the gallery
vaults, and thence to the outer wall. In Auvergne and where
else-
the same problem by barrel vaults and half-
was solved
barrel vaults over a triforium gallery,binding in the great
vault of the nave. Finally,at the Abbaye-aux-Dames, the
continuous half-barrel vault, illogical for the abutment of a
groin vault, was cut into sections, and these sections, or
rudimentary flying buttresses, were placed under the aisle
roofs to neutralize and carry off the concentrated thrusts of
the groin vaults of the nave.
Construction. With the refinement and development of

details went a lighteningof the buildingas a whole. As the
parts became more slender, the whole became less massy.
This development did not proceed equally in all regions,nor
did it even proceed chronologically.There were, as we have
seen, massy, inert buildings in the He de France. The
tendency was, however, to convert the heavy early type into
a lighterone presaging the Gothic building.
Facades. The design of the facade progressednotably in
this period. In spiteof their organic structure, the Lombard
buildings were masked behind illogical and often unsightly
fagades,though some of the later Lombard churches, like San
Zeno, have well-proportionedfacades which reveal the inner
structure of the building. Logical facade composition received
its fullest Romanesque development in Normandy

where, as in the Abbaye-aux-Hommes, the vertical divisions
of the interior are marked on the exterior by pilasters, the
horizontal by rows of windows, the pitched roof revealed by a
gable,and the whole flanked by two monumental towers. All
the germs are here which were developed into the complete
Gothic fagade. At the same time facades which lacked
organic expressiveness and logic,but added other beauties,
were being designed in other stylesof Romanesque. Thus the
Tuscans designed rich polychromatic facades, adorned with
arcades, and the Germans picturesqueones with a profusion

of turrets, apses, and the like.
Lanterns and towers. Meanwhile lavish invention was
devoted to lanterns and to bell towers.

especially In Italythe
latter were constructed at a very early date round and standing.
free-
In the north these turret-like members, even in
Carolingian times, were incorporated with the building.
Eventually the square or angular tower became the favorite,
and infinite variations were played on it. At times the tower
was merely carried up in a series of stepped squares and
topped by a pyramid as at Morienval. Again it was square,
but its pointed roof polygonal, the angles being filled with
little polygonal members, themselves covered with peaked
roofs, as at Beaulieu-les-Loches. A variant of this type
appears at Auxerre, where the square tower is surmounted by
a polygon, and the tapering roof springsfrom that. Some-
times
the round tower, ornamented with blind and open
arcades, is used in France (Uzes); sometimes the round turret
above a square and crowned with a cone appears (Saint Front,
Perigueux). In the most elaborate examples stepped square
is placed on square, stepped polygon on polygon, until as at
Jumieges, the towers produce an aspiringeffect very suggestive
of Gothic.
Openings. In openings we must note a constant elaboration
of the splayingcharacteristic of Carolingianarchitecture. In
the latter a splay to aid in the distribution of lightwas duced
intro-
by means of
simple chamfer.a In later Romanesque
the splay was deepened, and was obtained frequently in
window and door by means of multiple orders. It was thus
given architectural dignity as well as utility. Compound
openings, too, were evolved, sometimes of two lights,some-
times
of two lights embraced by a blind arch, and in variants

of this motive. At the same time portalswere ennobled by
elaborate porches, the finest being those of Lombardy and
Burgundy.
Decoration. New decorative schemes also came into being.
Figure and foliate sculpture was applied to the exterior,at
times haphazardly as in Lombardy, at times with dinary
extraor-
subservience to architectural expression,as in Pro- vence
and Languedoc. In addition, new motives in pure
design,like the Norman zigzag and dog-tooth,were applied

to the exterior and the interior. For the interior new ured
sculpt-
capitalswere invented, some of them modified classic or
Byzantine, some in originalfoliate designs,and many more of
the "storied capital" type in which the purpose was didactic
as well as decorative and the sculpturesrepresentedecclesiasti-
cal,
mythological, and unidentifiable scenes of the greatest
raciness and originality.Polychromy was obtained in the
interiors by means of paint. On the exterior its use varied
with the style. The Tuscan architects got fine exterior
effects by the use of polychromatic marble veneer. Outside
of Tuscany polychromy played a less important part on the
exterior,though fine effects were obtained by the use of several
sorts of stones (Sicily),by patterned brick (Languedoc) and
the like.
Secular architecture. The ensemble. For several reasons we
may omit almost entirelyany consideration of the secular

architecture and the ensemble in the Romanesque period.
In the first place the extant Romanesque secular monuments
are few, and
nearly all altered. In the second place they
except in
differ slightly, applicationof detail, from the
the
much more numerous Gothic buildings of the same type.
This does not mean that there are no monuments by which
we may judge Romanesque secular architecture. One needs
but look at the enceinte of Avila (Castile,Fig. 137) to see
Romanesque secular building, and get an idea of the
appearance of a Romanesque city seen from without. The
impressionwill,however, be very much like that obtained from
a similar town, say Carcassonne (Fig. 178), of the Gothic
period. Single secular monuments, in whole or in part,
notably castles such as the Wart burg at Eisenach, exist
for the archeologist, and show distinctive arrangements
especiallyin the court and court facades, but it seems
more sensible to discuss the whole question of medieval

civil and domestic architecture in connection with the Gothic
period.
The Finally,something should
influenceof Romanesque.
be said about the influence of Romanesque architecture on
subsequent styles. The influence of organic Romanesque on

organicFrench Gothic has, of course, alwaysbeen emphasized,
but other equallysignificant

examples of the influence of this
architecture on later art have been overlooked. Few people,
as they admire the gorgeouslypolychromatic Gothic cathedrals
of Tuscany with their striped interiors,realize that these
buildingsare comparativelyslightmodifications of the Tuscan
Romanesque style. In England the massive Norman con-
FIG. 137 "
AVILA. GENERAL VIEW OF THE FORTIFICATIONS
struction was handed down to the Gothic style,though it was

disguised by what was, after all,but an applique"of pointed
detail. In German Gothic, where it is not mere imitation
of French work, we note the picturesquenessof Rhenish
Romanesque.
Self-sufficiency of the style. Although at the conclusion of
our study we are led inevitablyto assert the influence of
Romanesque on later architecture,we should be at the greatest
pains to avoid the common error of thinkingof the architecture
merely as one of transition. It was a heterogeneous art, and
consequently well able aptly to express the genius of not one
but many races. Nevertheless, whatever its subdivisions,
.
2 7o A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
it was primarilya self-sufficient,

independent style. To gard
re-
it in any other is
light wholly to miss its meaning.
For convenience monuments of a single country are grouped

together,with the
exception of Saint Gall (Switzerland),
which is
placed under Germany. When a date is given exactly and without
it refers to the
qualification, portion of the building beginningof the
referred to in the text. Often round numbers, half centuries or
centuries,are all that are possibleor necessary, and at times, when a
building has been remodeled in the period under discussion, several
dates are given. In generalit will be Well to call to mind again that
an error in dating a monument usually tends to give it greater an-
tiquity
than it deserves.
ITALY
Milan, San Satiro. "
Eighth century.
Como, Sant' Abondio. C. 1035-95. "
Toscanella,San Pietro. 1039"93. "
Pisa, Cathedral. Begun 1063. "
Milan, Sant' Ambrogio. 1098 to mid-twelfth "
century.
Modena. Begun 1099; consecrated 1184.
"
Florence, San Miniato. 1013 and later. "
Parma. "
1117.
Pavia, San Michele. 1127 (?). "
Palermo, Cappella Palatina. Before "
1132.
Verona, San Zeno. Begun 1138. "
Cefalu. "
1145.
Pisa,Baptistry. 1153-78. "
Pisa, Campanile. Begun 1174. "
Monreale. 74789. "
1 1
Florence, Baptistry. " Founded seventh or eighth century; modeled

re-
c. 1 200.
GERMANY
Lorsch (porch). 774. "
(Charlemagne's chapel). 796-804.

Aix-la-Chapelle "
Frankfort, Salvatorskapelle. 852. "
Saint Gall (Switzerland). Ninth century. "
Cologne,Saint Mary of the Capitol. After "

1000. (Founded 700.)
Cologne, the Holy Apostles. "
Eleventh to thirteenth century.
Eisenach, Wartburg. Built 1067; rebuilt 1130-50; remodeled 1190. "
Hildesheim, Saint Michael. Built 1001-33; remodeled 1186. "
Speyer. Founded 1030; "

remodeled twelfth century.
Driibeck. Early twelfth century. "
Gernrode. century; rebuilt twelfth

" Founded ninth century.
Paulinzelle. Twelfth century. "
TTT rr\^ ifji

Worms.
w orms. Twelfth
1 weirtn century
century.
"
Mainz. Begun 978; largely thirteenth century.

"
FRANCE
Beauvais,Basse-CEuvre. Eighth century (?). "
Germigny-les-Pres. 80 1-806 "
Montier-en-Der. "
960-998.
Vignory. "
1050-52.
Jumieges. Begun 1040; " consecrated 1067.
Clermont-Ferrand, Notre Dame du Port. "
Mid-eleventh century.
Toulouse, Saint Sernin. "
Begun 1080; worked on in twelfth and
thirteenth centuries.
Cluny. 1089. "
Poitiers,
Notre Dame la Grande. End eleventh century. "
Tournus, Saint Philibert. Eleventh and twelfth centuries. "
Beaulieu-les-Loches. "
Eleventh and twelfth centuries.
Angouleme. 1 105-28. "
Perigueux, Saint Front. C. 1120. "
Vezelay. Rebuilt 1132. "
Caen, Saint Etienne. Begun 1064; vaults c. 1135. "
Caen, La Trinite. Begun 1062; remodeled c. 1140. "
Reims, Saint Remi. Romanesque parts mo. "
Morienval. Older part c. 1080; later 1122. "
Auxerre, Saint Germain. Tower, early twelfth century. "
Autun. " First half of the twelfth century.

Beauvais, Saint Etienne. " Vaults 1 180, but buildingplanned earlier.
Saint Gilles. "
Late twelfth century.
Saint Saturnin. " Twelfth century.
Uzes. Tower, twelfth century.
"
Aries, Saint Trophime. Nave, first half of the eleventh "
century;
porch second half of the twelfth.
ENGLAND
Earl's Barton. "

Early eleventh century {?).
London, The Tower, Saint John's Chapel. " End of the eleventh
century.
Durham. " C. 1006-1133.

Iffley. Late
" twelfth century.
SPAIN
Santullano. "
Ninth century.
San Miguel de Linio. " Ninth century.
Santa Maria de Naranco. " Late ninth century.
Avila, the Walls. "
1090-99.
Compostela, Santiago. Begun "
1075; finished 1128.
Leon, San Isidorp. End " of the eleventh,beginning of the twelfth

century.
A. Michel's VArt, vol. i, pt. 2, 1905, contains a brilliant

Histoire de
and authoritative summary, by Camille Enlart, of Romanesque
architecture. F. von Reber's History of Medieval Art, 1886, is a
general history, now out-of-date,but still useful, and especially
good on German medieval architecture. E. E. Yiollet-le-Duc's
Dictionnaire raisonne de V architecture, 1884-88, although in dictionary
form, is a history of architecture in many volumes, profuselyillus-
trated,
and representing probably the most monumental piece of
research in the field of medieval archeology. G. Dehio and G. von
Bezold's Kirchliche Baukunst des Abcndlandes, 1892-1901, is a
scholarlyand comprehensive work, with many platesuseful for the
architect and student. J. A. Brutail's Uarcheologie du moyen age,
1900, is a cautious and shrewd study in medieval archeology,tending
to correct the mistakes and of
exaggerations earlier and more mental
monu-
works. A. Marignan's Les methodes du passe dans Varche-

ologiefravqaise,1911, on the other hand, is an iconoclastic book
attacking the so-called orthodox school of medieval archeology in
France. It is interestingas representinga healthy reaction against
dogmatism, but not convincing. J. Quicherat's Melanges d'arche-
ologie, vol. 2, Moyen dge, 1886, is one of the earlier syntheticbooks
on medieval architecture,important at the time of publicationand
not to be neglectedto-day. Anthyme Saint-Paul's Les ecoles romanes
(Annuaire d'archeoloîe francaise,1878) is a similar early work of
research,by one of the most brilliant of the French archeologists.
L. Courajod'sOrigines de I'art romane el gothique,1889, a scholarly
work, is more important for Gothic than for Romanesque art, but
valuable for the study of either. T. G. Jackson's Byzantine and
Rominssque Architecture, 1913, already cited,devotes more space to
Romanesque than to Byzantine architecture. F. M. Simpson's A
History of Architectural Development,vol. 2, Medieval, 1909, presents

a summary of medieval architecture, especially clear in the study of
the development of details. C. H. Moore's The Character and
Development ofGothic Architecture, 1906, is a powerful study in Gothic
architecture,with some treatment of Romanesque in the early
chapters. A. K. Porter's Medieval Architecture, 1909, in two large
volumes, lavishlyillustrated, represents painstakingresearch in the
field. It is important, however, only for organic architecture.
R. Cattaneo's Uarchitettura in Italia dal secolo VI. al mille circa,
1889, is a profound pieceof research in the field of Italian medieval
architecture, especiallyimportant for Lombard Romanesque. F. de
Dartein's L1 architecture lombarde, 1865-82, is an early but profound
study of Lombard Romanesque architecture. G. T. Rivoira's
Le originidella architettura Lombarda, 1901-7, already cited,is of
great importance for the study of Lombard Romanesque. A.
K. Porter's four-volume work, Lombard Architecture, 1917, including
an exhaustive portfolioof splendid illustrations, is the most modern
work on the subject,and by a scholar of universallyrecognized authority.
A. Venturi's Storia delVarte Italiana, vols. 2 and 3, 1902 and

1 904, are subdivisions of an encyclopedic historyof Italian art,already
cited,important for the publicationof new material and profuse
illustrations. E. Bertaux's L'art dans I'ltalie mfridionale, 1904,
presents an exhaustive publicationof research in the field of south
Italian medieval architecture. It was followed in 191 1 by A. Avena's
Monumenti meridionale,covering
deWItalia all the monuments of
the but
district, especially important,both in text and superb illustra-
tions,
for Romanesque architecture. C. A. Cummings's A History
of Architecture in Italy,1901, is a popular,accurate, and well-illus-
trated
work on Italian medieval architecture. There are two volumes,
the firstimportantfor Romanesque architecture.
H. Otte's Geschichte der romanischen Baukunst, 1874, though old,
is an exhaustive and scholarlywork on German Romanesque architecture.
A. von Haupt's Die Baukunst der Germanen von der Volk-
erwanderung bis zu Karl dem Grossen, 1909, is a modern work by a

profound student of the architecture of the" dark ages, using the
term "German" in the broadest discussingthe architect-
ure
sense, and
throughout Europe. R. Adamy's Die frankischeThorhalle zu
Lorsch, 1891, an exhaustive work on a singlemonument, is here
mentioned on account of the lightit throws on the whole move-
ment
of the architecture of the dark B. Ebhardt's Deutsche

ages.
Bur gen, is an illuminatingwork on the German medieval
1901,
castle.
C. Enlart's U architecture religieuseen France, 1902, is an exhaus-
tive
study of French medieval church architecture,really carrying

on the work of Viollet-le-Duc. The same author's U architecture

civile et militaire en France, 1904, is a similar work on medieval
secular architecture. R. de Lasteyrie's U architecture religieusea
Vepoque romane, 1912, is the
up-to-date most and authoritative
work Romanesque
on architecture,devoted principallyto the style
in France. J. Baum's Romanesque Architecture in France, 191 2, pre-
sents
a collection of excellent reproductions of French Romanesque
buildings,with an introduction (translated)by Dr. Julius Baum.
F. de Verneihl's L' architecture byzantine en France, 1851, gives the
old point of view of Aquitanian architecture in a scholarly way.
H. Revoil's L' architecture romane dans le midi de la France, 1873, is
an old but exhaustive work on the Romanesque architecture of south-
ern
France. V. Mortet's Recueil de textes relatif
a I'
'architecture en
France, 1911, presents a collection of

originaldocuments, relatingto
the nth and i2th
century architecture
of France, in an nating
illumi-
way. V. Ruprich-Robert's L' architecture normande, 1884-89,

is a monumental book of research on French and English Norman
Romanesque architecture,lavishlyillustrated.
T. Rickman's An Attempt to Discriminate the StylesofArchitecture in
England, 1881, a work now out of date and more important for
Gothic than for Romanesque architecture, significantas a step in
is
the analysis of English church architecture. Similarly,E. Sharpe's
The Seven Periods of English Architecture,1871, a more elaborate
classification of English medieval architecture,is more important
for Gothic than for Romanesque. G. G. Scott's English Church
Architecture,1881, is a synthetic work by a learned author, devoted
primarily to Gothic architecture,but treatingRomanesque. C. H.
Moore's The Medieval Church Architecture of England, 1912, is a
broad elaboration of the point of view toward English medieval
architecture revealed in the author's Gothic Architecture. It is a
somewhat biased but

up-to-date and scholarly book. F. Bond's
An Introduction to English Church Architecture, 1913, is an exhaustive,
scholarly,and up-to-datework, lavishlyillustrated, on English church
architecture from the eleventh to the sixteenth century. J. D.
Mackenzie's The Castles of England, 1887, an exhaustive,elaborate,
and richlyillustrated volume, is excellent for the study of the English
medieval castle.
V.
Lamperez y Arquiteciura Cristiana Es-
Romea's Historia de la
panola en la Edad Media, 1909, is by far the most originaland exhaus-
tive
work on medieval Spanish architecture. A. G. B. Schayes's
Histoire de I1architecture en Belgique, 1850-60, a work of several
volumes, now out of date, is still the important authority on the
medieval architecture of Flanders.
CHAPTER IX
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE
Origin of the term. The word "Gothic," applied to art,

originatedas a term of opprobrium. From the beginning of
the Renaissance to the romantic revival in the nineteenth
century medieval art was regarded as barbaric. The most
strikingas well as the most numerous monuments of medieval

architecture were those of the pointed style,and these came to
be called "Gothic" as a synonym for "barbaric." It is in

this sense that Moliere speaks of
. . .
Le fade gout des monuments gothiques
Ces monstres odieux des siecles ignorants
Que de la barbaric ont vomis les torrents. . .
.1
Boileau, La Bruyere, Rousseau, attacked Gothic art with a
violence at once bitter and illuminating. By the time taste
changed the word was fixed. Now the oblivion which
generally shrouds the origin of the name is perhaps the best

proof of the vindication of the art.
Priority of France. At the period of its development,
Gothic architecture was generally called "French work"
(opusJrancigenum) and the priorityof France in the style is
thus attested. For this reason some writers have urged that
the style be called not Gothic, but French. Such a change
would be, however, not only impracticalbut misleading. As
a variant of this classification, it has been suggested that the
word Gothic be retained, but that it be applied only to the
1 The rank taste of Gothic monuments,

These odious monsters of the ignorant centuries,
Which the torrents of barbarism spewed forth.
FLOR.ENCE
SALISBURY
FIG. 138 "

COMPARATIVE PLANS OF GOTHIC CATHEDRALS IN FRANCE,
GERMANY, ITALY AND ENGLAND
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE 277
architecture of the lie de France, and that the contemporary

stylesoutside of France be called merely "pointed architect-
ure."
In support of this attitude it has been pointed out
that fundamentally organic architecture was developed in the

He de France, and stylesof other countries
the so-called Gothic
either consisted of imitation of this or of a superficial tion
applica-
of pointed or Gothic detail to buildingswhich were structed
con-
according to Romanesque principles.

Definitionof organic Gothic. There are, however, grave
objectionsto this point of view. Regarded strictly from the
point of view of organicstructure, Gothic is a system of vaults,
supports, and buttresses,the supports being strong enough to
bear the crushingweight of the vaults only, and the stability
of the structure maintained chieflyby an equilibrium of
counterthrusts. Such a system is to be found perfectedonly
in the lie de France or in imitations of the architecture of
that district. Many buildings of the same age, however,
though they lack the complete organism of the French, display
the same characteristics, especiallythe consistent use Of the
pointed arch. In France the systematic use of the pointed
arch became generalfor structural reasons. In other countries
that member was used unstructurally, apparently for esthetic
reasons, but this does not justify the argument, which so often
appears in books, that the use of the pointed arch outside of

the He de France represents but a superficial applicationof
French detail to Romanesque buildingby architects who did
not understand the structural reasons which underlay the use
of this detail in France. As we have seen, the pointed arch
was used in the Romanesque period,and its use for esthetic
purposes in England developed synchronously with its use
for structural reasons in France.
French the great organicGothic,but not the only Gothic style.
Use of the term. We must, therefore,avoid the mistake of
callingGothic architecture solelyFrench, or French Gothic
the only Gothic. Aside from the futilityof tiltingat firmly
established terms, a broader applicationof the term is more
convenient. We may consider Gothic architecture that style,
specially marked by the general use of the pointed arch, which
in all European countries succeeded the Romanesque style,
and flourished until it was in turn superseded by the styleof
S.EU5ABETH AURBTOO
CHATEAU DE COUCY
SEVlLLt
FIG. 139 "
PLANS OF GOTHIC BUILDINGS

the Renaissance. We may then subdivide the field and

examine the characteristics of the art in any one region. In
so doing, however, we must inevitablyemphasize the struct-
ural
superiorityand priorityof the organic architecture of
the He de France.
Esthetic effect
of revealed structure. So true is this of the
Gothic of the lie de France that the chief esthetic effect of
the buildings of that district is felt in the logicalexpression
of the structure. Outside of France this is not true, except
in works clearlyunder French influence.
Lack of self-consciousness. Whether
governed by structural
or esthetic considerations,the Gothic style was developed
inarticulately.Its architects did not seek to formulate, at
least in
writing,the ideas which theirbuildings expressed.
Though the pointed arch almost completely superseded the
round one, there was no audible condemnation of the Roman-
esque
of the past, as the Gothic
art art was later condemned
in the period of the Renaissance.
Socialistic character. This naivete may well have been
caused by the corporate quality of the work, for the Gothic
cathedral, like the expression not of
Romanesque, was the
an architect,or a patron, but of a community. It is signifi-
cant
that, though archeology has often published the names
of the architects,or magistrioperarii,of the great Gothic
cathedrals, these names are almost universallyunfamiliar
and unnoted. The cathedrals of Amiens and Reims are as
well known as those of Florence and Rome, yet people who

would be ashamed not to know about Brunelleschi or Bramante
would look blank at the mention of Robert de Luzarches or
Jean-le-Loup. In a sense Gothic is stronglysocialistic.

art
Ecclesiastical and secular interest. Although the main
interest in the Gothic period is in ecclesiastical building,it is
not so completely so as in the Romanesque period preceding
it. Especiallyin late Gothic times civil and militarybuildings
attained great importance. The scholar must, therefore,
examine not only churches and monasteries, but town and
guild halls,castles,manors, farms, city houses, and even well
heads and gibbets to gain anything like a complete acquaint-
ance
with the style. Moreover it must not be assumed that
the craftsmen employed even on the churches in the Gothic
PAMi
_"tO to go
gy
FLOREVCE
SALISBURY
AMTEMS
FIG. 140" SECTIONS AND SYSTEMS OF GOTHIC BUILDINGS

period were ecclesiastics. Great bands

lay builders, like of
the maestri comacini, traveled from place to place as they
were employed successively on one great buildingafter another.
This fact, and the frequent presence of blasphemous and
obscene carvingsin Gothic churches, has given rise to a theory
that Gothic architecture is essentially a style of lay construc-
tion,
and sents
repre-
a revolt
againstthe ish
monk-
domination of
an earlier age.
The facts do not
bear out such a
theory, nor does

the profoundly
religious expres-
sion
of the ished
fin-
building.
Gradual phasis
em-
on revealed
structure. Though
in France the most
important sion
expres-
of the oped
devel-
cathedral lay
in the tion
self-revela-
of its struct-
ure,
the tion
realiza-
of the esthetic
importance of vealed
re-
structure FIG. 141 "
AMIENS. WEST FRONT OF THE

CATHEDRAL
did not come to
the builders mediately.

im-
In the beginning such essential structural bers
mem-
asflyingbuttresses, which later came to be one of the

most important features externally,were concealed. The
evolution of Gothic from Romanesque may be traced by the
gradual acceptance of revealed structure as the most portant
im-
aid to esthetic effect.
Aspiring quality. The aspiringqualityof the art has often
been noted. The emphasis on the vertical line,the soaring

expressionof the architecture,inevitablysuggest all that was
finest in the religiousideals of the Middle Ages. To see,
however, in the vertical lines and branching ribs of the Gothic
church a reflection of the poetic sylvan setting of primitive
pagan ceremonies is to wander in the realms of pure fancy.

Aside from the source of inspiration, however, the Gothic
architect was very clever at gaining the effects he sought.
Desiringheight,above all,he narrowed his naves and tapered
his piers to exaggerate this effect. The desired impression
of size he got "by including and multiplying small members
admirably adapted to give scale.
Date. In date the Gothic period extended roughly from
1150 to 1550. Certain indications of the approaching style
do, of course, antedate the mid-twelfth century, justas certain
isolated structures in the Flamboyant Gothic style postdate
the mid-sixteenth, but in generalthe four centuries indicated
compass the style.

Homogeneity. Gothic architecture had a national homogeneity
much greater than Romanesque. Though there are
local schools of Gothic in France, they do not differ one from
another so markedly as did the Romanesque, nor are they as
numerous. This preciselywhat historywould lead us

fact is
to expect. In the later Middle Ages nations themselves had
become more homogeneous. Central authority became
stronger, language purer, and individuals more conscious of
their own nationality. In districts where less federal authority
was felt and where national consciousness was less awakened,
as in southwestern France, it is significant
that local schools
of architecture differed especiallyfrom the national style. As
always, we find architecture recording history,and history
impressing architecture.
General development. Before attempting even a tion,
classifica-
it will be well to say a word development of
about the
the styleas a whole. Our point of departure must clearlybe
the transitional architecture of the lie de France. Although
many English writers have called attention to the early use
of the pointed arch in England, the English buildings can,
nevertheless,be regarded as Romanesque and not transitional
Gothic. Subsequent variations of the stylesometimes neglect-
FIG. AMIENS. THE CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF THE INTERIOR, LOOKING
142 "
INTO THE APSE

ed organic structure, but organic structure plays so mental

funda-
a rdle in the art that to the country which developed
it belongs priorityin the style. The late twelfth century and
the early thirteenth saw the transition and development of
the organic Gothic style in the He de France. By 1220 (the
date of the foundation of Amiens cathedral)the stylewas well
understood, and the thirteenth century is the age of early but
fullydeveloped Gothic. Building in this style,with refine-ment
and superficial modification,continued in France through
the fourteenth century, but toward the close of the period a
radical change came over the art. Flamboyant architecture
was developed, having been introduced from England.
Development in England. Origin of continental Flamboyant
architecture. England, as we have seen, used the pointed
arch at an earlyperiod,but the first truly Gothic buildingson
British soil represent French influence. The early style,
called earlyEnglish,or Lancet, coincided with the thirteenth
century. The form of English Gothic, however, soon changed.
The Englishmen in power in the late Middle Ages were scarcely
more than naturalized Frenchmen and inevitablyborrowed
from France. Quite as inevitably,however, they changed
what they borrowed and impressed it with their own genius.
In the fourteenth century, therefore,the English Gothic style
assumed a new expression,and the Decorated stylecame into
being. Toward the end of the century Decorated details
were copied in France, and the fifteenth century Flamboyant
(orflaming) stylewas developed along lines suggestedby the
late Decorated or Curvilinear stylein England. This Flam- boyant
stylespread from France all over the continent, and
is characteristic of fifteenth and sixteenth century architecture
outside England. England, once
of more asserting her
developed in the fifteenth century
originality, the Perpendicu-
lar
style which flourished there until the advent of the
Renaissance.
France.
Classification. With this generaldevelopment in
mind, we may attempt a and number
fuller classification, the
various centers of activityin the
period. France we
Gothic
have put at the head, and in France we must give priority
to the He de France. Normandy nearly kept pace with the
He de France in creative activity,
and Picardy and Artois can
scarce beclassified apart from these two. Together these

districts formed the home of developingorganicGothic. Other
divisions are less important. Burgundy had a styleof its own,
retaining the porches,often the square ends, and other features
reminiscent of Burgundian Romanesque. Another sion
divi-
might be made of Champagne, midway between gundy
Bur-
and the lie de France, though approaching so close to
the latter architecturally that the subdivision is hardly neces-
sary.
A very originalstyle, the so-called Plantagenet,flour-

ished
in southwestern France, and was marked by the use of
aisles the height of the nave, by unusual domed vaults, and
other peculiar features, showing strong English affinities.
Still another styledeveloped in the south, bare in decoration
and characterized by a free use of terra cotta. Further sions
divi-
might be made of
Brittany,architecturally as well as
geographicallyclose to Normandy, and central France, where
flourished a hybrid partaking of the characteristics of many
styles. We must, therefore,note that, though Gothic architecture
had more national homogeneity in France than Ro-manesque
it did vary decidedlyaccording to the district, and
the point must be more insisted upon, since we must trate
concen-
attention on the structurally important architecture of

the north and are in danger of forgettingthe divergencesof
the stylein other parts of the country.
England, Germany, Italy,and Spain. Outside of France
the problem is simpler and the stylevaried with the period
rather than the district. In England, for example, though
the Perpendicularstylediffered widely from the Lancet, each
is found throughout the country during its period. In Ger- many
we find generally an imitation of French work. At
times this imitation slavish,as in the cathedral of
is almost
Cologne; at times it is very free,as in the so-called Hallen-
kirchen. One may, therefore,subdivide the German buildings
into two groups, the one imitative,the other with a strongly
native flavor. In Italy Gothic architecture began as an
importation of the French Cistercian style,but was almost

immediately modified to suit the esthetic demands of the
Italians. Here
geography played some part, as in Tuscany,
where the Tuscan Romanesque so stamped the Gothic art of
the district,but the chief variation was caused by the
individual inspirationand by date. In Spain the

source of
stylewas generallyhomogeneous. In the beginning it was an
importation from Languedoc and Auvergne, soon modified,
especiallyin the south, however, by Moorish detail and
Spanish taste.
Gothic in other countries. In the Low Countries Gothic was
imported from France and

originalityexcept in
shows little
secular architecture. The town halls and guild halls of
Flanders, however, show an originalitywhich givesthe district
real importance. Finally, attention must be called to the
DOMICAL RIBBED VAULT DEVELOPED GOTHIC VAULT
FIG. 143 "

EXAMPLES OF MEDIEVAL VAULTS
important architecture which was built,and much of which

still remains, in the Holy Land, in Cyprus, Rhodes, Crete,
and other islands of the Mediterranean. For these monuments
we have, of course, to thank the crusaders.
Importance of the developmentof details. Unfortunately for
the logicalstudent, one cannot select a number of buildings
which exhibit in chronologicalorder the steps in the develop-ment
of organicGothic architecture. Progress was so rapidand
buildings so seldom homogeneously completed that the advance
of the stylemay best be illustrated by selecting one or
more details from many buildings. One may then arrange

these details to show the steps in the development of organic
Gothic, even though the arrangement be not necessarily
chronological.Archeologistsmay dispute as to the locality
and date of the first singleflyingbuttress,but for us it will be
287
enough recognizethat the singleflyingbuttress, occurring

to
as it does in many buildings,represents a structural step

between the hidden flying buttress and the double one.
With a grasp of the development of the important Gothic
features, we are
then in a position
to reconstruct a
fully developed
organic Gothic
building,or, if we
prefer concrete
examples, to derstand
un-
why the
naves of Amiens
(Figs. 138 and
142)and of Reims
(Fig. 144) have
_
been considered
perfect examples
of the fullydevel-
oped
earlystyle.
The vault. The
most important
single feature of
the Gothic ing
build-
is, of course,
the vault. Indeed
the whole study of
Gothic ure
architect-
hinges upon FIG. 144 "
REIMS. THE CATHEDRAL. VIEW OF

the treatment of THE VAULTS AFTER THE FIRST BOMBARDMENT IN
the 1914, SHOWING THE LEVEL CROWNS OF DEVELOPED

vault and its
GOTHIC VAULTS
abutment. In
connection with
the Romanesque architecture of the He de France we
have seen that architects came to realize that the vault

with level crowns could be made lighterand constructed
more flexibly than the domical vault. To make the
crowns of the vault level it was necessary obviously to
raise the crowns of the transverse and longitudinalarches.
This could beeither by stiltingor by pointing these

done
arches or by doing both. When the pointed arch was
used for the first time transitional Gothic

thus structurally
began. Just where or just when this first occurred it is im-
possible
to say. That the process was slow and experimental
can be proved by many monuments, like the churches of
Creil, Langres, and Morien-
val, where the transverse
arches are not sufficiently
pointed,and are pieced out
by flat walls built above
them, which raise the crowns
of the arches point level,to a
or nearlylevel, with the point

of intersection of the diagonal
ribs or, in other words, the
crown of the vault. Once this
plan was tried and found cessful,
suc-
the advantages of the

level - crowned vault were
realized and the use of this

graceful,essentiallyGothic
form became the rule (Figs.
140, 143, and 144).

The abutment. With the
copyright by Macmiiian " Co.
creation of a loftier
lighter,
FIG. 145" SECTION OF GOTHIC VAULT-
form f ^t came mQre
ING CONOID, SHOWING THE DIREC- .
THE THRUSTS AND THEIR searching study ot its abut-

TIONS OF
ABUTMENTS ment. Even when the den
hid-
flying buttress was used
Romanesque thein Norman
thrusts of the vault were but partiallyconcentrated on
it, and much of the resistance to them was supplied by a

sturdy wall. The Gothic architect was slowlyfeelinghis way
toward a complete elimination of the wall, the place of which
was ultimatelyto be taken by stained glass,and his greatest
problem was the concentration of the vault thrust on the
buttress which was to oppose it.
Stiltingof the longitudinalrib. The solution of the problem
came in the stilting of the longitudinal
ribs. In Romanesque
architecture all ribs sprang from the same level. A horizontal
section of the vault and

its infilling
some feet above the
springing,at a point where the ribs had had a chance to
spread, would be square. The whole mass exerted a thrust
outward, however, so that a buttress to oppose it had to have
a face as broad as one side of the square, or as the distance

from one diagonal
at the given level
to the other at the
same level. By
the of
stilting the
longitudinal rib
all this was
changed. While
the diagonal ribs
began to spread
at the main post
im-
the two itudinals
long-
ran up
vertically some
distance before
springing, thus
pinching in the
vault on the wall
side. A cross-
section of the
vault and its in-
filling,
or vaulting
conoid as we may FIG. 146 "
SAINT LEU D ESSERENT. VIEW OF THE
call it,at a point INTERIOR, SHOWING THE VAULTS AND, THROUGH

THE WINDOWS, THE FLYING BUTTRESSES
some distance
above the main
impost, would be not triangular,one
square, but
angle
of the conoid touching the wall (Fig. 145). The oblique
thrusts of the diagonal ribs thus met and pushed out at right
angles to the long axis of the buildingin the direction of the
thrust of the transverse rib, and all these thrusts were centrated
con-
on a narrow surface againstwhich the narrow face

of opposing buttress
an could be placed. The stiltingof
the longitudinalrib thus accomplished what the architect
most desired a perfect concentration
"
of the vault thrusts
against a narrow surface. Such a form involved awarping of

the vault web, and its surface now took on the peculiar,plow-
share
form, difficult if not impossibleto describe cally,
geometri-
but which the builders soon learned to construct with
remarkable skill (Figs.142 and 146).
Flying buttresses. While the vault with its concentrated
thrusts was being evolved, architects were no less busy in
5-AMBRoGio "GEKMEII DE FLY 5 GERMAIN DES Pnts REIMS
FIG. 147" ARRANGEMENT OF MONUMENTS AND DETAILS TO ILLUSTRATE THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUTTRESS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FACADE
developing buttress forms to stabilize it. The hidden flying

buttress,designed to carry the thrust over the aisle roofs to
pier buttresses on the outer wall, was to hand in Norman
Romanesque, and though this type was wofullyinadequate,it
was adopted in a modified and refined form in the transitional
church of Saint Germer-de-Fly. Obviously such buttresses
touched the wall at a point too low properlyto meet the thrusts
of the nave vault, and the architects soon raised them above
the aisle roof,as at Saint Germain-des-Pres, Paris,where they
appear on the exterior

genuine flyingbuttresses.
as A virtue
was then made of necessity,and the flyingbuttresses were
soon one of the most expressive as well as struct-

esthetically urally
important features of the building.
Their development. Structural logic ruled their develop-
ment.
Architects,knowing that the chief points of thrust of
an arch or vault were at the
springing and at the haunch,
soon abandoned thesinglebut-
tress,
with its single arch, and
composed a double one, with an
arch to oppose the thrust of the

vault at the springing and other
an-
for that at the haunch.

When the buttresses sprang
over singleaisle this form was
a
adequate; when the aisles were

double the first pair of arches
came to an end between the
inner and outer aisles,where a
pier was placed,and two more
arches, repeating the first two,

carried the thrusts to the outer
wall. The former system may
be seen in the nave of Amiens,
the latter in the apsidal end of
Reims (Fig. 147). When there
were aisles,as in the Sainte
no
Chapelle in Paris, the pier but-

tress
FIG. 148 "
PARIS. THE SAINTE

was adequate and was tained
re- CHAPELLE. TRANSVERSE CUT
(Figs.139 and 148).

Their form and decoration. At the same time the forms of
the buttresses were refined. Their regularpitch was lished,
-estab-
and they were made to carry, by means of covered
channels, the water which gathered on the nave roofs. At the
extremity of the buttresses this water was thrown clear of
the face of the wall from the mouths of widely projecting
gargoyles,grotesquely carved. The backs of the buttresses
were decorated with crockets, and the tops of the great pier-
buttresses,to which the arches sprang, were weighted with
pinnacles. The outer side of these great piers was given

many which
set-offs, tended to resist the weather and carry
off the vault thrusts more easilyto the ground.
The apse. After one has grasped the development of the
vault and the abutment, that of other features
is easy to
understand. A singleprincipleholds for all: the fulfilment
FIG. 149 "

PLANS OF THE EAST ENDS OF FIVE GOTHIC CHURCHES, TRATING
ILLUS-
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHEVET
of structural needs and the

recognitionof the esthetic value
of such a fulfilment frankly revealed. Let us examine, for
example, the development of the apse. Nothing is more
characteristically Gothic than the tremendously complicated
chevet or east end of the French Gothic building,yet it was
attained simply and logically (Fig.149). The primitiveform
of apse, as we have seen it in early Christian times, was a
semicircular wall covered with a half-dome. At the period

of the earliest transitional Gothic, the form of the half -dome
was changed and the vault
given cells resembling the gores of
a melon, which were carried on ribs in harmony with the other
vaults. Such a form, though not necessarilythe oldest
example, appears at Saint Martin-des-Champs, Paris. The
process then became one merely of deepening the cells,or
raising their crowns, until eventually they reached the level
of the intersection of their ribs. An intermediate stage may
be seen at Saint Germer-de-Fly, a fullydeveloped example at
Amiens..
Arrangement of the apsidalribs. At firstthe intersection of

the apsidalribs came at a point touching the last transverse
rib of the choir, as at Saint Germer. This gave the ribs the
dangerous appearance of all thrustingagainst the last trans-
verse
arch of the choir. The defect was remedied in many
ways, but most at Amiens,

successfully where the apse was
made more than semicircular,and two ribs sprang obliquely

from the last choir imposts to meet the apsidalribs at their
intersection. All the ribs were then radii of a circle (Fig.149).
The ambulatory and apsidal chapels. Meanwhile the
ambulatory and apsidalchapels developed apace. The vaults
of the former, being not rectangularbut trapezoidal, offered
some since the diagonal ribs would
difficulty, not meet at the
center of the vault. This was remedied by breaking these
PARIS o1h PIER PARIS 71h PIER AMIENS BEAUVALS
FIG. 150 "

PLANS ILLUSTRATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GOTHIC PIER
ribs at the intersection and thus forcingthem to meet at the

vault center. A similar arrangement sufficed for the ribs of
the irregularly shaped apsidalchapels(Fig.149).
The pier. The common sense of the Gothic architect and
his willingness even to compromise never show more clearly
than in the treatment of the piers. The most logicalarrange-
ment
was to give each member in the vault a place in the
compound pier,and carry all to the ground. Such a cluster
of supports, however, took up much floor space and obstructed
the view of the worshipper. Accordingly the builder first
grouped all his shafts at the
ground story impost,and gave
his main pier a semicircular form. Feeling,however, that
more support was needed, he firstadded (at the sixth pier of
the nave of Paris)a singleengaged shaft on the nave side to
carry the weight of the nave ribs to the ground. At the

seventh pierof the same buildinghe added three more engaged
shafts on the three remaining sides of the round pier,and the
fullydeveloped Gothic form was created and needed only

refinement (Fig.150). The old Romanesque system of each
rib being represented to the ground in the pier recurred,
60)5 SONS AMIENS
FIG. 151 "

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WINDOW OPENING. EXAMPLES OF
PLATE AND BAR TRACERY
however, in French Flamboyant Gothic and in English

Perpendicular.
The opening. Plate tracery. The Gothic system of construc-
tion
inevitablytoward the suppression of the wall.

tended
With the perfectconcentration of thrust, the function of the
wall became one merely of excluding the weather, and this
could be done as adequately by glass as by stone. Moreover
the northern builder desired glass,as the southern fresco, for
and didactic
story-telling purposes. The result was an almost
complete substitution of stained glassfor stone wall, and the

building became as it were a vaulted glasscage. The unit for
thedevelopment of the opening was the window of two lights,
separated by a column and embraced by an arch. In
Romanesque, and in
Byzantine, architecture the stone
even
tympanum above the lightshad been pierced with a third

opening. In earlyGothic these openingsreceived complicated
geometric forms, and plate tracery, a tracery consistingof
openings in geometric design pierced in a thin plateof stone,
was the result.
Bar tracery. While the architecture was still developing,
however, architects graduallydiscovered that a more cated
compli-
and beautiful tracery could be designed if the system
of merely piercinga stone tympanum were abandoned, and
a new tracery of thin stone bars, ingeniouslyinterlocking
on
the principleof the arch, were substituted. The substitution

of bar for platetracery became general in the later transitional
period,and remained constant in Gothic architecture. The
stone bars, or mullions,were cut very thinlyand delicately,
and
were merely an enframement for the glass. The bits of glass,
in the thirteenth century scarcelyever more than six inches
long, were joined by leads which at once bound them and
suppliedmost of the drawing in the design. The whole was
then set in the tracery. The swiftness with which

bar tracery
was accepted is proved in the cathedral of Paris by the juxta-
position
of windows with plateand bar tracery in bays differing
in
only slightly date. Good examples of platetracery may be
seen at Soissons, and of bar tracery at Amiens and later
buildings(Fig.151).
Wheel and rose windows. Bar tracery also made possible
the enormous wheel or rose windows which commonly occurred
in the west end of the churches of the He de France. At first
the designs for these were severely geometric, but later,
especiallyin the Flamboyant period,the lines were freer and
bewilderinglycomplicated. Chartres and Reims afford good
examples of the early wheel window; the later rose may be
seen at Amiens (Fig. 141) and elsewhere. As the style
developed, the passion of the builders for lightness caused
them to fill even the triforium with glass. This space,
generallyblind on account of the lean-to roof over the aisle,
ii
was opened by covering the aisle with

gable instead of a a
lean-to. In fourteenth century buildings,as at Troyes, the

triforium is,therefore, lightedlike the clerestory.
The facade. The development of the design of the west
front kept pace with that of the other elements of the building.
Logic demanded a preservation of the
tripartitedivision of the facade,both hori-
zontally
and vertically, to indicate the in-
terior
division of the nave and aisles and
the three stories. Development was in the
direction of refinement and expressiveness.
The splayingof the openings was deepened,
and porches with a deep splay and covered
with canopies were placed in front of
portals. Openings were enlarged until
they took up practically all the space tween
be-
the buttresses which marked the
vertical division building. In time,
of the
as at Reims and later buildings, the bases
of these buttresses were lost in the splay-
ing
of the porches,and the gables in the
porch roofs were increased in size and im-portance
until they became strikingarchi-
tectural
features. Flankingwestern towers
increased in size, and were bound by a
stone gallery,open, which revealed the
gable roof of the nave. To understand
the development of the west front, one
needs but examine the fronts of the Abbaye-
aux-Hommes Caen,
at of the cathedrals
of
Senlis,Paris,Amiens, and Reims in that
order. Add a later work, like the west
FIG. 152 CHARTRES. front of Abbeville, as an example of the
THE SOUTHERN SPIRE
Flamboyant development, and the progres-
sion
will be self-revealed (Fig.147).
The spire. The spiredeveloped in like manner. esque
Roman-
architecture had shown many complicated forms of
spires. The Gothic development was merely toward the
substitution of the pointed arch, with its vertical accent, for
the round one, and in generaltoward a more skilful suppression
of all horizontal lines which might hamper the eye from being
led upward (Fig.152). In some of the most perfectexamples,
as at Senlis (Fig.153),the transition between the square tower
and the octagonal spireis made with great subtlety, the angles
being filled with miniature towers and spires, and the vertical
lines of these re-echoed and carried up by gables set against
the faces of the slopingoctagonalspireabove. Although the
spirechanged in detail,and in later works we find extreme
delicacy and openwork
treatment, the ideal and the
general tendency remained
the same. In addition to
the western towers and
spires,tower -like lanterns
were often
placed over the
crossing,though this detail
is much more characteristic
of England than of France.
In France the
crossingwas
more often marked by a
slender flecheof stone, or of
wood and lead.
Capitalsand their decora-
tion.
The development of
other details in the building
harmonized with that of
FIG. 153 SENLIS. THE SPIRE
those which we have studied. "
New loads demanded new
and
capitals, forms were based essentially
developed, on Byzan-
tine
types, but none the less original. The capitalwas given
greater height,greater slenderness below, and greater breadth
above. It was decorated with foliate and animal sculpture,
more generallythe former, carefullystudied from nature. In
the earlywork, unfolding,bud-like forms were preferred, and we
find the young water-cress or unfoldingfern carryingthe four
angles of the abacus. As the styleprogressed the sculpture

became more naturalistic and less expressivefunctionally.
Still later the forms became brittle,
suggestiveof the withered
leaf, but at all times the carving was crisp and delicate.
Estheticallythe foliate work gave infinite life and vitalityto
a style which might otherwise have been but logically

satisfactory.
The use of sculpture. The didactic as well as the esthetic
value of sculpture was fullyrecognizedand, as a result,carving
was profuse all over the building. It is not mere rhetoric
to say that the Gothic cathedral summed up all the learning,
all the science,of the Middle Ages. The decorative purpose
of the sculpture was, however, never lost. With all the
freedom and naturalism of singledetails the whole, whether
on porch, gallery,or roof, was designed with strict reference
to esthetic effect. At times all didactic purpose appears to
have been lost,and we find sculptures,like the grotesques and

gargoyles,which are the result of a free play of the carver's
fancy and joy of creation. These works give the impression
of a building always peopled. On account of them the Gothic
cathedral is never empty, never dead.
Moldings. As one would expect, such a completely new
system of architecture exhibited a completely new system of
moldings. Since he was not bound by precedent, the
architect studied and conventionalized nature, and created
moldings which gave the most masterly effects of lightand
shade. The general system was that of the inclosure of convex
curves within concave ones, and the resultant profilesremind

one of vegetable forms such as fruits in a pod, or buds in a
calix. molding appeared, of course, on the

Sculpture and
exterior as well as on the interior. Parapets were evolved, to
serve the crowning function of the classic cornice,and pinnacles
were applied to many parts of the building,especiallythe
buttress piers. The latter were decorated with bud-like forms
called crockets,and were topped with ornate finials.
Polychromy and stained glass. Polychromy played a much
more important part than is generallyrecognized in Gothic
architecture. Of course, the most gorgeous polychromatic
effects were obtained by a complete infilling of window space
with rich stained glass. An infinityof subjects was sented,
repre-
but representationwas always subordinated to pure
design. Some of the most masterly of the world's designsin
color may stillbe seen in the interior of Chartres. The color,
sometimes flaming,sometimes hushed, played vividlyupon the
religious
imagination. How much is lost with the destruction
of stained glassmaygauged by comparing the interior of

be
Chartres, where the glass is largely preserved, with that of
Amiens. Although the latter is probably the more perfect
buildingarchitecturally, its effect,as the cold lightstreams in
from the white glass of the windows, is vastly less impressive
than that of Chartres. The rich polychromy of the stained
glass was fortified by painting the stone members of the
interior. Almost all traces of the original paintingof medieval
interiors is lost,and modern attempts to restore it,as in the
Sainte Chapelle at Paris, have generally been gaudy and
displeasing.
Fourteenth century Gothic -in France. By the end of the
thirteenth century, with the raising of such structures as
Amiens an,d Reims (Figs.141, 142, and 154),Gothic architect-

ure
in France attained a full development. The architecture
of the succeeding century may be sketched summarily. The
fourteenth century in France was a period of refinement rather
than of
change. Vaults and ribs became lighter, foliate
sculptureunfolded and further accented the vertical tendency,
and tracery became so frail that long bars were made lithic
mono-
for
safety'ssake. In some churches, as at Chartres
(Fig. 155), the chapel of the Virgin at the end of the
chevet took on especial importance and became almost
a separate little church. In general, however, the plan
of the buildings remained the same, and no decided change
occurred until the fifteenth century. Before we examine
the later art, we must take up the Gothic architecture of
England.
English Gothic. General characteristics. Gothic architect-
ure
in England may be subdivided into three styles,corre-
sponding
to the thirteenth,fourteenth,and fifteenth centuries.

Before we examine individuallyany one of these, how-
ever,
it will be well to note certain main characteristics of
the art as a whole. These will show how widely divergent,
even at an early period,English Gothic was from French.
First and foremost one must notice a difference in structural
principle. Organic Gothic, in the sense that we have studied
it in France, was not developed in England. There is,for
example, hardly a fullydeveloped flyingbuttress system on
the island. To the end the Englishmen depended on Roman-
esque sturdiness for structural

safety,and this inevitablygave
a different expression to the building.
The plan. In the plan the English building was long, or
rather appears to be long on account of its narrowness (Fig.
157). Though Salisbury and Amiens are approximately the
same in length,the former appears much longer. The English
building was given boldly projecting transepts, and the
transepts were generally doubled, the shorter east of the
longer,giving the church the archiepiscopal-cross form which
FIG. 155 CHARTRES. CATHEDRAL. PLAN
we have met Burgundian Romanesque.

in The east end of
the English church was almost invariably square, and this,
like the archiepiscopalcross, seems surely to represent a
Cistercian influence. The same phenomenon may be observed
earlier in English Romanesque, as at Durham. In elevation
the English building was much lower than the French (Fig.
140), though the same narrowness which increased the im-
pression
of length increased the impression of height. The
English works abounded in towers, and a very strikingfeature

was early made of a great square stone lantern above the
crossing.
The vaultingsystem. Facades. The Englishvaultingsystem,
except in a few early instances,was more complicated,if less or-
ganic,
than the French. Ribs soon came to be used even more
for decorative than for structural purposes and applied from

the point of view of pure design. Facades became decorative
screens, revealingthe arrangement behind

hiding rather than
them. extremely effective,these facades
Though sometimes
suffered as entrances, and portals shrank to comparatively
tiny openings,mere of ingressrather than portals.

possibilities
Although occasionallythe facades were adorned with sculpt-
ures,
as at Wells, in general sculpture played a far less
FIG. 156 "
SALISBURY. THE CATHEDRAL, SEEN FROM THE NORTHEAST
important part in England than in France. Even in the

interiors sculpture was scant, and the result was a certain
bareness and less vitalitythan in French work.
The site. To make for this the
English buildingwas, on
up
account of its complicated plan, extremely picturesque,and
was almost invariablyplaced on a fine site,which was cared
for at the time the buildingwas erected and has been cared for
ever since. Whether or not this may be accounted for by the
fact that so many of the English churches were of monastic
foundation is unimportant. To any one who has seen the finest
buildingsof France masked by the unsightlystructures which
are permitted to crowd about them, the beautiful placing of
the Englishbuildingswill come as a great relief.
Early English style. French influence. We may now

The
take up the various stylesof English Gothic. As we have
seen, in the beginning French importationplays an important

part, though at times it is,so to speak, once removed. Thus
even the dependence of English Gothic on EnglishRomanesque
is ultimately a dependence on Norman Romanesque. In
other cases, as at Canterbury, the influence is much more
FIG. 157 "
SALISBURY. INTERIOR OF THE CATHEDRAL, LOOKING TOWARD

THE EAST END
concrete. Here William of

Sens, a Frenchman as his name
reveals,was called to build the church, and on his death an
Englishman, taught by him, took up the work. The building
of Lincoln was ordered by Bishop Hugh, a Frenchman, and the
architect Geoffrey de Noyers, whose name
was proves his
extraction,even though he may have been born in England.
In short we may say that in originthe Early English styleis
a combination of French and Anglo-Norman influences.
Character of Early English architecture. The most striking
characteristic of the style is its simplicity. Sculpture is
scant, decoration restrained,and the effect of the building
depends on fine proportionand severe dignity. The openings
3o4 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
are generallyhigh and lancet-shaped,and are so

narrow, or
characteristic that the style is frequently called the Lancet

style. The construction is very sturdy. Frequently shafts
were not brought down even to the main impost. The
massiveness of the round pierswas frequentlydisguised, how-
ever,
by clusters of shafts, engaged or free, about them.
These shafts were often
made of the dark Purbeck
marble which was the light
de-
of theEnglish builder.
The Early English style
may be studied in the more
important parts of Canter-

bury,
Lincoln, and Wells,
and in other monuments.
Salisbury,however, which
was begun in 1220, the year
of the foundation of Amiens,
and was finished
practically
by 1258, is the most geneous
homo-
building in the style
(Figs.138, 140, 156,and 157).
The Decorated style. By
the end of the thirteenth
FIG. 158 "
LINCOLN. THE CATHEDRAL
THE ANGEL CHOIR
century the severityof the
Early English style was
abandoned and the orated

Dec-
style,sometimes called the Geometric, and, in its
later aspect, the Curvilinear,took its place. It was marked
by a profusion of ornament. Ribs were multiplied,and
liernes and tiercerons,or intermediate ribs,were run from rib
to rib, or from impost. Arches received many
rib to orders,
and were enriched with complicated moldings. Above all,
openingswere enlargedand fitted with elaborate tracery design.
This tracery, profuse as it was, at first followed severe metric
geo-
patterns, but later it grew more riotous,and eccentric
curves were introduced. In time the wavy-lined tracery
became the rule, and interlaced arcades with ogee curves
became common. The general effect was richer and less

orderly than that of the Early English style. There are no
305
homogeneous Decorated cathedrals, but large portions of

buildings,like the famous angel choir of Lincoln (Fig. 158),
the nave of Lincoln, and the choir (Fig.159) and west front
of York Minster, exhibit the style.
The Perpendicularstyle. Despite its richness the Decorated
style was destined to be driven out in the fifteenth century by
the Perpendicular,the last,and in some
respects the most of the English

original,
styles. In this styleunsparing emphasis
was laid on the vertical line. Ribs were
brought direct to the pavement.

'Open-
ings
were tremendously enlarged, and
filled with tracery composed of vertical
bars, which ran from top to bottom,
joined at intervals by shorter horizontal
members. The effect was to emphasize
not only the perpendicularbut the rect-
angle.
Rectangular panelling became

general, and walls and vault surfaces
were given an all-over pattern of similar
design.
Vaults and supports. Vaults received
the most complicated treatment in the
historyof Gothic. Liernes and tiercerons
were multiplied until it became almost
impossible to distinguishthe functional
ribs from the decorative. Indeed there
scarcely were ribs, for the
functional
vaults were practicallyhomogeneous,
with an applique of decorative ribs. At "IV
the same time the "fan vault" (Fig.161)

was developed the most famous vault
"
FIG. 159 "

YORK. THE
form of the style. The is both SYSTEM OF THE CHOIR

name
descriptiveand misleading. In a fan

vault the ribs radiate fanwise from the main impost. The
vaulting conoid is, however, nearly circular, so the ribs

branch to follow roughly the lines of an inverted concave
cone. The effect from below is very like that of the branch-
ing
foliageof a tree, and the form is one of the most tiful

beau-
in English Gothic. With the complication of the ribs
came further ramifications. Keystones, for example, were
designed as large pendent stones, safe, since monolithic.

Openwork, too, in the members of vault and support, be-
came
common.
Arches. Arches were given new forms. They were flattened,

struck from several centers and sometimes came to a flattened
point like a depressed ogee.
The flattened, so-called
"Tudor" arch became a
great favorite at a later

date. At the same time
the square east ends were
finished with tremendous

windows, filled with Perpen-
dicular
tracery.
Examples. Examples of
the Perpendicularstyle are
more numerous than those
of the Decorated. One of
the best is Henry VI I.'s
chapel, Westminster (Fig.
1 60), and an equally fine
and consistent specimen is
Saint George's chapel,
Windsor. Perhaps the fin-
est
of all is
Gloucester,
where transept, choir, and t
FIG. 1 6O LONDON. WESTMINSTER cloisters in
"
(Fig. 161) are

ABBEY. HENRY VII. 's CHAPEL
the Perpendicular
style. The last named
offer some of the most perfectspecimens of the fan vault in
England.
Flamboyant Gothic. The style in France. Turning to France
we may now study the Flamboyant style. No new tive
construc-
principleis here involved, the style being one merely of
a new arbitrarydecorative system, the basis of which is an
oppositionof curve to counter-curve. All the germs of French
Flamboyant are to be found in English Curvilinear. French,
vaults became complicated. Liernes and tiercerons were introduced,
although the tendency was to joinrib to rib,rather than--/
rib to impost. Above all,the lines were wavy and the ogee arch
common. The in
pointed arch, especially the interlaced arcade,
had an alternate concave and convex profile. Openwork,
whether in
porch gable,spire,or abutment, became common,
and extraordinary lace-like effects were obtained. The
expressionwas one of delicacy rather than strength,and a
certain nervous restlessness is added. The flattened arch
FIG. l6l "

GLOUCESTER. THE CATHEDRAL. INTERIOR OF THE CLOISTERS
became very common. Local differences broke down, and

the same Flamboyant style was applied in all localities of
France. It was a unified France which saw the elements of
the styleand accepted them from England.
Examples. The first clearlyFlamboyant buildingin France
is the chapel of Saint John in Amiens cathedral,built from 1337
to 1375. Thence the style spread abroad, good examples
being the cathedrals of Quimper, Nantes, and Chambe'ry,
Saint Ouen at Rouen (Fig. 162), and the church of Saint
Vulfram, AbbeVille (Fig.163). These are all of the fifteenth
century, but the stylecontinued vigorous until long into the
sixteenth. Saint Maclou at Rouen (Fig. 164), one of the
finest of French Flamboyant buildings, was not completed until
1541, the Flamboyant south transept of Beauvais

and dates
from 1548. The dates of these later buildingsare especially
since they coincide with what
interesting, is generally con-
sidered
the Renaissance in France.

German Gothic. Originaland imitative
qualities.When we approach the ject
sub-
of German Gothic we find that ferent
dif-
conditions
produced different re-
sults.
The Germans accepted Gothic

with reluctance. They already had a
vigorous,highly originalstyle in their
Romanesque, which expressedtheir national
genius. The Gothic movement in

Germany was, therefore,a late one, and
the period of transition,when Gothic
was being accepted, was long. Ger-
many
generally owed her Gothic to
France, and we are even indebted to a
German for thephrase "opus franci-

genum" as a of Gothic.
description This
does not mean, however, that the man
Ger-
styledoes not show originality, and
frequentlydiffer widely from the French.
For purposes of classification,as already
suggested,one may divide the German
Gothic buildingsinto two classes, original
and imitative,according to the degree
of originality in the work.
Early monuments. As one would ex-pect,
the early German Gothic buildings

showed a high degree of originality.
ul ' i t 1 They represent a reminiscence of Ger- man
Romanesque with a free applica-
FIG. 162 "
ROUEN. SAINT tion of French Gothic detail. Such a

OUEN. SYSTEM
(Fig. 165), for
cathedral as Bamberg
example, shows a clear compromise between
two architectural styles,the Gothic character showing
only in the consistentlypointed vaults and arches and in the
moldings. Nor is Bamberg an isolated example. Many
other churches of approximately the same date, among them
the cathedrals of Naumburg and Munster (Fig.166),exhibit

the compromise between
same French Gothic and German
Romanesque, though they differ in detail,as German esque
Roman-
buildingsdiffer one from another. As time went on
the tendency to
imitate French
forms became
more marked.
Imitative works.
By far the best
known of the so-
called imitative
monuments are
copies, more or
less free, of the

churches of north-
ern
France. What
has often been
called the first
purely Gothic
church of many
Ger-
was built
between 1227 and
1243, at Treves,
in fairly faithful
imitation of the
church of Saint
Yved at Braisne. FIG. 163 "
ABBEVILLE. SAINT VULFRAM.
The minsters of WEST PORTALS
Strasburg and
Freiburg (Figs. 167 and 168) soon followed it, the latter
largelydependent on the former, but both harking back to
the abbey of Saint Denis as a prototype, though in neither
building do we meet mere copyism. Perhaps the most

imitative of all the German cathedrals is Cologne (Fig.138),
reproducing the system of Amiens with great fidelityand
possibly even begun by a Frenchman. This cathedral has,
however, more homogeneity than Amiens, and divergesfrom
it in many minor details.
The Hallenkirchen. Probably the least imitative and most
3io A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
native Gothic churches of Germany were the Hallenkirchen,

or hall churches. These were three-aisled buildings,with
domical vaults, the aisle being as high as those of the
vaults
nave, and the buildingthus having the appearance of a great

hall. It is probable that they were originallyinspiredby the
churches of much the same sort characteristic of southwestern
France. However this may
be, the Hallenkirchen were
developed in
Germany and
increased in popularityfrom
the earlyGothic through the
Flamboyant period,and be-came
the most istically
character-
German of all the
Gothic types. The first
frankly Gothic example
seems to have been the
church of Saint Elizabeth at
Marburg (Figs.139, 169, and

170),erected between 1235
and 1283. Here, as though
to emphasize the native Ger-
man
qualityof the type, the
plan is made three shelled,
with a polygonal apse the
FIG. 164 "
ROUEN. SAINT MACLOU. breadth of the aisleless choir,

VIEW OF THE WEST FRONT AND SPIRE
and transepts of the same
size with polygonal ends.

This type was later
extensivelyfollowed, as in the Wiesen-
kirche at Soest, and the church of Saint George at Nordlingen
(Fig.170),and on account of its simplicityit found particular
favor in districts where brick was the chief building material.
Fourteenth century Gothic in
Germany. In the fourteenth
century Gothic art, so reluctantly accepted in Germany,
expanded prodigiously.Fourteenth century German Gothic
did not, however, show great originality.The period was one
of expansion rather than progress. As in France, progress was

and forms at times became
in the direction of lightness, almost
emaciated. Sculpture aped the prevailing French mode,
exaggerating the French grimace, and foliate carving flung
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE
off all restraint. On the other hand the plans were kept
simple and the Hallenkirche was a great favorite. Among the
most originalmonuments of the period may be mentioned the
cathedral of Ulm, built in 1377. As types of the fourteenth
century Hallenkirchen we may mention the church of the
01 " 5 * S
FIG. 165 "
BAM BERG. CATHEDRAL. PLAN AND SYSTEM
Holy Cross at Gmiind, and that of Saint Lawrence at

Nurnberg.
Fifteenthcentury Gothic in Germany. The fifteenth century
Gothic of Germany, except for the importationof some boyant
Flam-
French details,developed from that of the fourteenth.
The stylewas in largemeasure independent,and was able to
influence even Italyand France. In generalth" art was a culmi-
nation
of the lightnessaimed at in the fourteenth century.
Columns were simplifiedto the point of nudity^forms thinned,

but combinations of members became extraordinarily
complex.
Thus without direct imitation the style approached the
character of English Perpendicular Gothic, Vaults, for
example, were often merely barrel vaults interpenetrated
at
312
rightanglesby other barrel vaults of less height,and the inner

surfaces of both covered with a network of decorative ribs. At
the same time a decorative lozenge-likepaneling
system of
was developed which bears the closest
analogy to the English
Perpendicular paneling. The Hallenkirche, always popular,
now received its greatest development. At the same time
the technique of the builders and carvers became very skilful,
and they were generally
regarded in other tries
coun-
as the equals if not

the superiors of the
French.
The fifteenth
century
Hallenkirche. As amples
ex-
of the Hallenkirche
in the fifteenth century
one may cite the five-
aisled Liebfrauenkirche of
Mulhausen, the cathedral
1 1
of Munich, and many
others. Even where the
clerestory is preserved,
however, the fifteenth
century building appears
scarcelyless distinctively
German, and one would
never mistake the vaults
FIG. I66-MUNSTER. CATHEDRAL. SYSTEM
of gaints peter and paul
at Gorlitz (1423-97)
or those of the church of Saint Mary at Halle (1535-54),
with their thinned members and lozenge decoration, for any-'
thing but German.
Spanish Gothic The history of the Gothic in Spain is
analogous to trut of the style in other countries outside of
France. There occurred the same importation of French
detail,the sane modification of the art according to local
needs, climate, and national taste. In the beginning the
importation from France and especiallyfrom Auvergne and
Languedoc was very marked, but soon inspiration
came from
all over France.
General characteristics.
Many specialcharacteristics, how-
ever,
differentiated the Spanish church from its French model,
and gave it originality.Exigencies of climate as well as the
abundance of classical monuments suggested a flatteningof
roofs and an accentingof the horizontal. Large window space
was not needed in a sunny climate, and often the clerestory
almost disappeared. The triforium was frequentlysuppressed,
as suggested by the almost
flat aisle roofs. With the
accent on the horizontal
line and the contraction of
openings, came inevitably
broad wall surfaces,which
increased the classic feeling
of the edifice. There is a
diminishingof Gothic lessness

rest-
and an increase of
classic repose in the Spanish
work. Decoration, on the
other hand, took on a char-
acteristically Spanish
sparkle. Undercutting was
deep, edges crisp,contrast
strong, and broad contrasts
arranged between profusely

decorated and wholly bare
surfaces. Carving became FIG. 167 FREIBURG. THE MINSTER,
"
SEEN FROM THE SOUTHEAST

especiallyexuberant during
the Flamboyant period,and
a steadily increasingSaracenic influence tended to exaggerate
the already exotic qualityof the forms.
The interior. The interior of the Spanish church was
generally dark and roomy. Piers were widely spaced and

massy, vaults lower than in France. Peculiarities of the
Spanish buildingswere the capillamayor and the coro. The
former was the apsidalchapel, bounded by: the ambulatory,
almost completely screened from the rest of the church. The
latter was an equally screened choir, arranged west of the
crossing. These features tended to break up "the. interior and
render its size more difficult to appreciate(Fi^.^'Vii).
Twelfth cvntury Spanish Gothic. As one might expect, the

twelfth century Spanish buildingsare somewhat chaotic. In
Catalonia, for example, the abbeys of Poblet and Santa Creus
were founded by monks from near Narbonne, and show the
influence of the architecture of Langue-
doc. On the other hand, the Cistercian
churches of Alcobaza (Portugal) and
Las Huelgas, near Burgos, displaythe
stronglydomical vaults and nave and
aisles of equal height which western
south-
France gave alike to them and
to Germany.
Thirteenth century Spanish Gothic.
In the thirteenth century inspiration
came from northern France, and Span-
ish
architecture,without losingits own
identity,rivaled French. The best

known and finest works of the period
are the cathedrals of Burgos, Toledo
(Fig.171),and Leon. The inspiration
for the first two came from Bourges;
that of the last from buildings farther
north in the lie de France and pagne.
Cham-
Burgos and Toledo resemble
each other closely. The former was
founded in 1226, the latter somewhat

later, and the same architects may
well have worked upon both. Leon
cathedral is more eclectic than Burgos
or Toledo, though it shows the ence
influ-
of Chartres more than that of
any other single French building. It

FIG. 168 "
F R E I B U R G
does not suggest any dry eclecticism,
THE MINSTERS SYSTEM
however, but rather has the taneity
spon-
of its great French prototypes,
and seems to spring,as they do, from fine models only
slightlyearlier in date.
Fourteenth Spanish Gothic.
century In the fourteenth
century Gothic of Spain there appeared the same tendencies
as in France, although refinement never went so far in the
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE
former country as in the latter. The influence of northern

France weakened somewhat, and we find such works as the
cathedral of Gerona, begun in 1316, inspiredonce more by the
architecture of southern France.
Fifteenthcentury Spanish Gothic. The prosperityof Spain
during the fifteenth century favored architectural develop-
ment.
As in Ger-
many, we feel
much originality
in the later work.
This is attained by
an emphasis on
the which
qualities
we have called
characteristically
Spanish. Flat
roofs became more
common, carving
more sparkling,
buildings more
spacious. The
octagonal lantern
came to be a very
prominent feature,
as at Barcelona
and Valencia.
The openwork
detail of French
Flamboyant was FIG. 169 "
MARBURG. SAINT ELIZABETH. THE
INTERIOR, LOOKING TOWARD THE APSE

speciallysuited to
Spanish taste, and
was very characteristic of late Spanish Gothic. The best
known examples are the openwork spiresof Burgos, begun in
1442, imitated not from a French work but a German one, the
cathedral of Cologne. The most ambitious church of fifteenth
century Spain,the cathedral of Seville (Figs.139, 140, and 172),
was in 1401.
begun Here the warm climate of Andalusia and
the Moorish influence of a country long under Moslem tion
domina-
exaggerated the typicallySpanish characteristics of the
architecture. Roofs are never so flat,-piersnever so widely
spaced, interiors never so gloomy, as at Seville. The detail

has a speciallyMoorish eccentricity.Indeed the Spaniards
combined Moorish and Christian detail so skilfullythat
buildings like the famous Sevillan Giralda (Fig.172) present
I i.1 i ? .
r
"
rut
Marburg, Saint Elizabeth Nordlingen, Saint George
FIG. I7O "
SYSTEMS OF HALLENKIRCHEN
a harmonious whole actually constructed in several

when
different and seemingly antagonisticperiods.
Origin of the Gothic stylein Italy. In no country were the
fundamentals of the Gothic structural systems as completely
disregardedas in Italy,nevertheless the style attained there
a strong positionand produced monuments of great charm.
It was, however, purely adventitious. Italy was the home
of classical Roman architecture. It received Romanesque
readily,but gave it so strong a flavor of classic art that the
style,as we have seen, has often been called that of the proto-
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE
Renaissance. Italy had always been prone to classic

revivals,and in the Romanesque period showed signsof being
ready for the greatest of them all the Renaissance when " "
the peninsulawas overwhelmed by the wave of Gothic fashion,

and for two centuries the pointed style was supreme. It
was, however, an imported,

foreign fashion, just as
fashion in dress at the same
time was imported from

Paris. It arrived in almost
complete purity, at the
hands principally of the
Cistercians,who settled at
Fossano va in Latium (1187),
and thence spread to Casa-
mari near Rome (1217),
San
Galgano in Tuscany (soon
after 1217),and other sites.
These monks built Cistercian
Gothic churches of an early
but monumental sort, and
roused the Italian taste for
the pointed style, but Italian
taste promptly modified the
styleimported.
General character of Italian
Gothic. The Italian tects
archi-
had little sense of
logicalstructure, and thus FIG. 171 "
TOLEDO. CATHEDRAL.
which VIEW OF THE INTERIOR, LOOKING

produced buildings
TOWARD THE APSE
included meager buttress
systems, tied vaults, and
lacked all that the French considered most important
in the Gothic style. Along with this lack of structural
sense went a disguised but recognizable classical feeling.
Classicaldetail gave way, but classical arrangements and
emphasis were retained. The horizontal line, as in Spain,
was emphasized. Intercolumniations were broadened, with
a consequent loss of scale. Wall spaces were broad, openings
small, and interiors gave an impressionof roominess which
frequently went over into bareness. Climate, as well as
classical reminiscence, played a large rdle in these changes.

Sinceopenings were small and wall spaces broad, stained glass
was neglected. Its place was taken by mosaic, and especially
by fresco,or painting in water color on wet plaster,which
began as a cheap substitute for mosaic. The timber roof was
FIG. 172 "
SEVILLE. THE CATHEDRAL AND GIRALDA TOWER, SEEN FROM
THE SOUTHWEST
often substituted for the vault. Facades became gorgeous

screens, richlydecorated in carved marble and glass mosaic,
behind which the church often
vainly to attempt to seemed
conceal itself. The Italian Gothic stylevaried geographically,
being simpler in the north, and emphasizing polychromy in
central Italy. It also varied chronologically.We find very
simple buildings in the early Cistercian period, and very
ramified ones when Flamboyant Gothic came into vogue.
Early Gothic architecture in Italy. Perhaps the best example
of the early Cistercian buildingin Italy is the church of San
Martino, near Viterbo, built in the mid-thirteenth century.
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE
About the same time the church of Saint Francis was built
at (Fig. 173), and the Italian modification
Assisi of French
structure began. In proportion and general external effect
this buildingmight be Romanesque. In the second half of
the century many Gothic buildingswere raised, the most
interestingof which is the cathedral of Siena. Here one sees
FIG. 173 "
ASSISI. SAN FRANCESCO. PLAN
a good example of the Italian screen-like

fagade,decorated in
carved marble and polychromy, and the stripedmarble interior
characteristic of Tuscan architecture. Many minor churches
were constructed in imitation of the cathedral buildings. In
the north an architecture with more organic feeling was
developed at Bologna, where the church of Saint Francis
(1236-40) shows a real buttress system. In the south
Cistercian ideas mingling with architectural ideas from
were
the Latin Orient, and, as always in southern Italy,the result

was an interestingarchitectural hybrid.
Fourteenth century Italian Gothic. Fourteenth century
Gothic in Italy,as elsewhere, developed chieflyfrom the local
architecture of the preceding century. In Florence we find
the cathedral (1296-1367)exaggerating the Italian trend
toward wide intercolumniations,bare interiors,and the
Tuscan violent polychromy applied to the fagade (Figs.

138, 140, 174, and
189). The triforium was omitted, the
clerestoryreduced, and the openings greatly diminished in
size. The plan was given a trefoil shape which reveals Ger-
manic
influence (compare Figs, in and 138). The free
standing clock tower, Giotto's "Lily Campanile," is one of
the most graceful
examples of the
Italian polychro-
matic
pointed
style. In Umbria
the cathedral of
Orvieto (Fig.
175),dating from
the end of the
thirteenth and
the beginning of
the fourteenth
century, shows an
imitation of Siena.
The wooden roof
was frankly used
here, however,
and the contrast
of interior stripes
is less violent
than in Srena.
The body of the
church is trusive,
unob-
FIG. 174 "
FLORENCE. THE CATHEDRAL. VIEW the facade

OF THE INTERIOR, LOOKING TOWARD THE APSE
one of the most
gorgeous and
least spoiled by modern restoration. The combination of
the two is marred by inevitable incongruity. In the north
important Gothic work was done in Venice, in the church of
Saints John and Paul, and in other towns. At
the very end of
the century the gracefulCarthusian abbey begun, of Pavia was
which
with its triconch ending,lanterns,and exterior galleries,
reveal the influence of Germany once more.
Fifteenthcentury Italian Gothic. This influence becomes

most important in the fifteenth

Important secularcentury.
architecture in Flamboyant Italyis seen in many buildings,
but the ecclesiastical architecture of the period is best summed
up in the cathedral of Milan (Fig.176). In this work Italian,

French, and German influences mingle. The Italian lofty
ground story and wide intercolumniation were retained.
The triforium disappeared and the clerestorywas reduced.
Windows were kept small and tie-rods were used to hold in
the vaults. The ship
workman-
is German, the boyant
Flam-
detail French, modi-
fied
by Germans. On the
exterior the vertical line was
unsparinglyemphasized, as
in English Perpendicular,
though the detail is Ger-
man
in character. Pitched
roofs were abandoned in
favor of flat ones, but the
consequent horizontal lines
were disguisedby a multi-
tude
of pinnacles. The
material was fine marble
throughout,and the ing
carv-
was so delicate and

profuse in figurework, pin-
nacle,FIG. 175 "
ORVIETO. THE CATHEDRAL
and detail that FRONT, SEEN FROM THE SOUTHWEST

a very
lace-like effect was obtained.
Long before the completion of Milan cathedral the sance
Renais-
was in full sway in Florence, and it is to the credit of
the Milanese that they finished a structure so harmoniously
at so late a date.
Gothic architecture of the Latin Orient and elsewhere. There
are many subdivisions of the Gothic stylewhich we have had
time merely to mention in connection with our classification,
and the discussion of which we shall have to omit. It will
be well, however, at least to call attention to the fact that
Gothic architecture of real interest was produced in Austria,
Scandinavia, Switzerland, and elsewhere. The regret is
keen
especially that we have thus summarily to dismiss the
Gothic architecture of the Latin Orient. The crusaders

carried their builders with them, set up Western civilization
in the nearer East, and the result was a series of imposing
Gothic monuments, ecclesiastical and secular, in Palestine and
Syria and in the Mediterranean islands. Even when the tide
of conquest turned and the Occidental invaders were being
FIG. 176 "

MILAN. EXTERIOR OF THE CATHEDRAL
driven out, they carried their

building operations,as at
on
Gaza, until the last days of their occupation. The turning

of this tide meant, however, that Gothic buildingswere to be
rare in Palestine and on the mainland, and frequent and more
complete on the islands where the Occidentals held longer
sway.
Secular architecture. As always in the Middle Ages, ecclesi-
astical
architecture is more important than secular in the
Gothic period,but this very fact has caused writers to over-
emphasize
medieval ecclesiatical art at the expense of secular.

At times the secular monuments rival the ecclesiastical in
importance. In every
period,of course, the character of the
detail of the secular
buildingscorresponded to that of the
ecclesiastical buildings. Quite as obviously the progression
from early to late date was one from comparative simplicity
to greater complication. Different sorts of secular works
received greater emphasis according to the period. In the
Romanesque and early Gothic periodsinterest centers almost
entirelyon buildings, publicor private,of a militarycharacter.
In the later periods,especially in the latest Flamboyant, when
civic order was the rule and the individual felt himself secure,
lay monuments largely lost their militarycharacter, and .
one
finds greatest development of the medieval

the town and
fortified palace of the petty noble
guild hall, and the slightly
or merchant
prince. The powerful nobles continued to build
well-nighimpregnable castles until the centralization of power

in the king forbade such monuments. We shall be able to
give only the main characteristics of each type of secular
monument, with the mention of a few distinctive examples,
and point out roughly the periodsin which each type attained
its greatest importance.
The fortified
town. The most imposing secular monuments,
and of course among the earliest,
are the fortified towns. The
fortifications of a town were so composed with a view to defense
that the whole became a unit, and it is not fanciful to think of
the town as a singlemonument. principlewas that of
The
surrounding the town with walls, especiallystrong wherever
the town was unprotected by natural defenses such as cliffs
or rivers, and of fortifying angles of the walls by salient towers
which provided for enfiladingfire on besiegersattacking the
curtain wall between the towers. We have already noted
such a system at Avila, in the Romanesque period, and
variations were infinite. Secondary walls of defense were
built outside the stronger inner walls. Beyond the outer walls
moats were dug, and frequentlyfilled with water. Access to
the space between the inner and outer walls was provided by
drawbridges, ramps, and tripleor quadruple gates, covered
with stone galleries,pierced with openings, through which
missiles might be dropped on the heads of invaders. Once an
entrance had been forced within the outer wall, the invader
found himself in a cul-de-sac,
exposed to the fire of the inner
defenders until such time he could

piercethe vastly stronger
as
inner fortifications. If at last he succeeded in winning the

inner works he might take the town, but had yet to besiegethe
citadel,a strong fortress placed in the strongest positionin
the town, into which the defendingmilitaryretreated.
Aigues-Mortes and Carcassonne. Examples of fortified
towns are to be found in most European countries,though the
FIG. 177 "
AIGUES-MORTES. GENERAL VIEW OF THE CITY AND FICATIONS

FORTI-
finest and most complete are in France. Here

examples
two
far surpass the others: the towns of Aigues-Mortes and
Carcassonne. The former (Fig. 177), founded in 1246 by
Saint Louis, presents fortifications in the form of a rectangle
roughly 600 by yards,with twenty well-preservedtowers,
150
some square and some round. The moat has disappeared,
but the machicolations and inner galleriesfor defensive fire
may stillbe studied, as well as the defenses of the ten gates.
The monotonous regularityof the plan shows that the pictu-
resque
irregularityof most medieval secular building was the
result of the architect's adapting himself to eccentricities in
site or warping his buildingto take militaryadvantage of such

eccentricities. Where the site is a plain,architectural irregu-
larities
disappear. For an example picturesque and
of the
irregulartown site,the Cite of Carcassonne (Fig. 178) will
serve our need. Here the fortifications date in part to the
Visigothicperiod in fifth century

the and were frequently
reconstructed up to the four-
teenth
century. They were
restored
skilfully in the mid-
nineteenth century by
Viollet-le-Duc. The site was
by loftyand inacces-
nature sible,
and man exaggerated
this inaccessibilityto a pict-
uresque degree. No one

part of the fortification re-
peats any other part.
Ramp, curtain-wall,turret,
and cul-de-sac all conform
so skilfullyto the natural
advantages of the terrain
that human handiwork pears
ap-
part of bed-rock, or
bed-rock part of the human

structure. The outer ceinte
en-
is more than 1600
yards in circumference, and FIG. 178 "
CARCASSONNE. LA CITE.
VIEW OF THE FORTIFICATIONS

the',
inner more than 1200.
The walls are fortified by

fiftyround towers and the whole dominated by the citadel.
The major portion of the work dates from the late twelfth
and the thirteenth centuries. The whole affords the most
imposing,and in some respects the most secular

interesting,
monument of the Gothic period which has come down to us.
The castle. The chief characteristics of the castle coincide

with those of the fortified town. In the fully developed
examples one finds the outer and
walls, the towers inner
the
fortifying wall angles,the moats, machicolations, corbelled
and
galleries, ramps, such as the towns afforded. Even the
town citadel is reflected in the donjon. This, however, was
placed either at the least accessible part of the site or at the

weakest, the idea in the latter case being further to strengthen
the weakest part. Not all castles have this completeness. In
the Romanesque periodcastles were simplerthan in the Gothic,
and even before the Romanesque period there were castle-
FIG. 179 "

COUCY. GENERAL VIEW OF THE CASTLE GROUNDS, SHOWING
THE DONJON BEFORE ITS DESTRUCTION IN 1917
like defenses, mounds protected by earthworks, ditches,and

palisades. These mounds and ditches often became part of the
system of defenses of castles subsequently raised upon the
sites. Some castles lacked donjons ; some retained the square
keep in preferenceto the round. In the earlier castles the
systems of defense were single; later they became concentric.
.
Diversitywas great, but fundamental characteristics were the

same.
Examples of Gothic castles. Coucy. Many countries exhibit

important and well-preservedexamples of the medieval cas-
tle.
In England there are many, both of the Norman and

of later periods,among which we may emphasize the castle
of Harlech, one of the most stupendous fortresses of the Middle

Ages. The medieval builders learned much of fortress
building in the crusades, and the Latin Orient contains
some of the most impressive remains of militaryarchitect-
ure.
As so frequently in medieval architecture, France
offers perhaps the finest monuments of all,especially good
examples being the castles
of Pierrefonds and Coucy
(Figs.139 and 179). Pierre
fonds has been restored by
Viollet-le-Duc, and, though
in a sense a false document,
presents a most vivid struction,
recon-
on the part of a
profound medievalist, of a
Gothic castle. The more
impressiveCoucy, up blown
by Mazarin, is in ruins. Its
donjon, 210 feet in height,
with walls in some places 34
feet thick,stillstands.1 Such
a building,before the days
of gunpowder, was literally
impregnable,and Coucy was
never taken. To understand
the I8""
spiritwhich dominated FIG- A MEDIEVAL TOWN HOUSE.
the medieval castle,and the

consequent architectural pression
ex-
it attained,one
which needs but read the motto of
the Sieurs de Coucy: "Roi ne suys, ne prince,ne due, ne
comte aussi; je suys le Sire de Coucy."1
So superbly insolent a motto was justified
by the lordship
of such a building.
Later castles. As time went on the nobles lightened the
appearance of their
dwellingsand sacrificed somewhat, though
never to a dangerous extent, the defensive character of the
1It is
reported (April,1917) that the retreatingGermans have razed
completely this famous monument.
2 1
am not king, nor prince,nor duke, nor even count; I am the Lord
of Coucy.
12
work. For castle of Jean-de-Berry at Mehun-

instance the
sur-Yevre, built in 1386 and known to us by an illumina-
tion,
succeeded in combining late Gothic delicacy with
adequate defense. Defense was, however, still the underly-
ing
idea.
The town house. The need of defense lay like a shadow
athwart all civil architecture. The town house (Fig.180)was
arranged for defense,
not against
soldiers but against
roisterers and
ruffians. The trance
en-
was raised
well above the
street and the
stairs arranged
along the flank of
the wall. Before
reaching the plat-
form
on which the
door opened, the
way was blocked

by an open grille,
through which a
pike could be
FIG. l8l "
THE COUNTRY DWELLING OF A EVAL

MEDI-
thrust to repelun-
desirables.
PEASANT. (VIOLLET-LE-DUC)
In the
town house gencies
exi-
of space caused the upper story to expand, and,
carried on beams or corbels,to overhang the street in the
manner already noted in medieval Constantinople. This
scheme was followed whether the house were of stone or
of wood.
The
peasant'shouse. The country peasant's house (Fig.
181) commonly had the same raised doorway, flankingstair-
way,
and platform for defense as the city house. There was
generally.no connection between the upper story and the

ground story, the latter being used for the animals. The walls
and gable ends were often of monumental cut stone; the roofs
usually steeplypitched and thatched. Such peasant houses
had all the charm of picturesqueness,

honesty, and directness
in architectural
fulfilling needs.
The fortified
manor. Of more ambitious dimensions and
defenses were the country fortified manors. These were
generally square, with turrets at the corners, reaching to the

ground or carried on corbels. The manor was surrounded by
a moat, and the approach to the small gate made by means of
a draw. Within was an open court. Such a type of dwelling
may be seen at Saint Medard-
en-Jalle (Fig. 182), near

Landes, and at Camarsac
(Gironde).
Municipal and corporation
halls. Especially in the later
Middle Ages the municipal
and corporation halls at-tained
great importance.
The Hotel de Ville of France
and Flanders, the Palazzo
Pubblico of Italy, the
Rathaus of Germany, ceived
re-
monumental ment.
treat-
Of the same sort were
the guild halls, semi -

munistic
com-
in character,which 182
FIG. "
SAINT MEDARD-EN-JALLE.
were common in free towns SKETCH OF THE MANOR. (VIOLLET-
all but LE-DUC)
over Europe, ally
especi-
in Flanders. The hall
survived or fell with the town, and was not intended to
resist assault if the town were taken, consequentlyplans were
more regular,esthetic considerations were more emphasized.
The buildingslacked frowning character
the works, of fortified
were more delicate,more profusely ornamented, and better
mirrored the contemporary style. This is especiallytrue in
the buildingsof late date, and the finest belong to the Flam- boyant
period.
The town and guildhalls of Flanders. The town halls were
generallyof fairlyregular plan. The lower story was usually
the record office. In Flanders a beffroi, or clock tower, with a
bell for summoning the citizens, was a common adjunct. The

buildingswere usuallytwo or more stories in height,with the

central portion carried up as a tower which started square and
became octagonal. Roofs were very steep, and generally
supplied with picturesque dormers. Among the fine Flemish
halls we may mention those of Ghent (1481),Brussels (1401-
FIG. 183
"
YPRES. THE CLOTH HALL AS IT APPEARED BEFORE THE BARDMENT
BOM-
OF 1914
55), and Louvain. The trade and guild halls of Flanders

usually differed only in interior arrangement from the town
hall,and were frequentlytaken over at a later date, and used
as town halls. The finest of all the Belgian trade halls was the
so-called Cloth Hall of Ypres (Fig. 183), dating from the
thirteenth century, but almost wholly destroyed by shell
fire in 1914.
Halls and of France.
mansions In France we find the same
types of monuments, especially important in the Flamboyant
period. These buildingswere erected as town halls, as trade
halls,or often merely as privateresidences of the very wealthy
bourgeois. The private mansion usually lacked the beffroi

of the town hall,otherwise the buildingswere similar. The
main unit was bay of two or more
the stories. Tiers of
windows were divided by buttresses with Flamboyant detail,
the Flamboyant arch, with delicate and eccentric curves,
being used throughout. The favorite form of window was the

transom or cross window, the lightbeing divided by an upright
mullion in the center, and a cross-bar of stone one-
FIG. 184 "

BOURGES. MAISON DE JACQUES COEUR
third of the distance Each

from
'the top. window was thus a
rhythmic reproduction of the one below. Roofs were very

steeplypitched, and provided with
repeated dormers which
the motifs of the windows below
perpendicularly them. In the
courtyard the ground story arcade was usually open. Plan
and skyline were broken by pavilions,and by elaborate
chimneys. The whole effect was delicate, orderly, yet
picturesque. Good examples of this Flamboyant French
secular architecture may be seen at Paris in the H6tel Cluny,
at Rouen in the Palais de Justice,and at Bourges in the

Maison de Jacques Cceur (Fig.184).
Domestic architecture in England. In England, as in France,
domestic architecture followed civil architecture in detail. At
first the mansions were built around a court, but the entrance
side of the square came to be omitted, and irregularities
were
soon introduced. The trend was toward picturesqueness,

irregu-
FIG. 185 "
FLORENCE. THE PALAZZO VECCHIO
larity, and small scale,so that the Tudor houses give a greater
impressionof intimacy than any works on the continent. The
Middle Ages thus prepared the way for later English domestic
work, and such a building as Compton Wynyates, though
medieval in detail,is Renaissance in spirit.
Secular architecture in Italy. Municipal individuality.In
Italy,as in Flanders and France, there was little difference
architecturally between the town hall,the ducal palace,and
the private residence of the wealthy citizen,and the same
building often combined two or more functions. Differ-
ences came from date, and above all from geography.

Nothing more clearly shows independence and self- the
of the Italian medieval civic spirit
sufficiency than the way in
which each cityarrogated to itself a peculiartype of secular
architecture,a fact which held true when towns were near
together and in constant communication. In certain general

ways all Italian medieval
mansions resembled one other.
an-
They were usually

regular in plan, built round
a court, and
provided with
a campanile incorporatedor
free standing. Divergence

occurred principallyin the
arrangements of details in a
bay, in the treatment of de-

tail,
and in the general ex-
pression
of the building.
Domestic architecture of
Florence and Siena. In Flor-
ence,
as we may seeby the
Palazzo Vecchio (Fig. 185)
or the Bargello,the appear-
ance
of the buildingwas bidding.
for-
There was no vision
di- FIG. 1 86 "
SIENA. THE PALAZZO
of the exterior into PUBBLICO
bays, and the stone used

was dark and roughly rusticated. The characteristic window
had two separated by a mullion and embraced
lights, by a
pointed arch, the intrados and extrados of which were not centric
con-
but wider apart at the crown than at the springing. On

the other hand, the Palazzo Pubblico of Siena (Fig.186) shows
that the Sienese architect,like the Sienese painter,sought
more graceful and less forbidding forms. The material
received a finer finish,and the use of brick was common. The
campanile was made more slender and loftier. The window
form was a design of three lancet-like with very pointed
lights,
arches and delicate cusps, embraced by a singlehighly pointed
arch with concentric intrados and extrados. Each town thus
sought a native of window
form, especially opening,for its
own, and is always found except where

originality one citywas
able to force its ideas upon another.
Secular buildingsof Venice. The most famous, and in many
ways the most charming and originalItalian secular buildings
of the Middle Ages were those of Venice. These, like so much
secular work, attained greatest heightsduring the Flamboyant
period,and the secular buildingswere new in general expres-
FIG. 187 "

VENICE. THE PALAZZO DUCALE
sion as well as detail. Ground story arcades were almost

invariablyleft open, and, as the eye ascended, the building
became less broken, so that the effect reduplicateby
was to
the reflection of the canals the most complicated parts of the
architecture. Rich but harmonious polychromy was used to
fortifycrispcarving. Sometimes exteriors were veneered with
polishedmarble, sometimes terra cotta, or smaller stones in
two colors giving the impression of terra cotta, were used.
The most sinuous and gracefulof ogee curves was used for
openings and arches, the curves counterpoisedby delicate

cusps, givingthe actual opening a pointed trefoil form. Such
arches were commonly interlaced,and the consequent quatre-
foils between them were cusped and given round or slender
pointed form. Roofs, like all Italian palace roofs,were kept
flat. In lieu of cornices the roof
edges were decorated with
conventionalized spiny battlements, of colored stone or even
wood, which added the

piquancy of the effect. In a sense
to
all the Venetian medieval palaces were offshoots of the
Palazzo Ducale (Fig.187). This most monumental of secular
buildingsin Venice set the fashion which was followed with
delicate variation and refinement in many other buildings, and
from Venice the stylespread over the Venetian contado.
Other Gothic monuments. Though we must here bring to a
close our discussion of medieval secular architecture,it is
necessary point out the existence of numerous
to monuments
of medieval art, usuallywholly forgotten,which aid in a comprehension
of the style. Bridges,such as that at Avignon or

the Pont Valentre (Fig.188) at Cahors, are often reallygreat
monuments of Gothic architecture,combining the needs of
defense with logical construction and fine proportions.
Similarlymuch can be learned from boundary monuments,
lanternes des marts (monuments to signalizethe presence of
a cemetery), well heads, dove-cotes, and even latrines. In
short the mass of material is enormous, and a little explored
field is open to the student of medieval secular architecture.
The medieval ensemble. and
Picturesqueness its cause. As
one would expect, the ensemble in medieval times is note-
worthy
for its irregularityand
picturesqueness. Buildings
as a group were not planned in an orderlyway, except in the
case of buildingsfor defense, when everything gave way to
a definite scheme. Even here, as we have seen, the result was
generallyasymmetrical, except where the terrain was lutely

abso-
without variety. The picturesquenessof the medieval
ensemble was not, however, the result of mere haphazard
grouping. It came principallyfrom a logicalconformity to
the peculiaritiesof the site,and is allied to the structural logic
which produced the Gothic cathedral. For example, if a
Gothic architect were designinga bridge he would not design
a symmetricalone with an even rise and fall,and force his
workmen to place it across a river of any sort of bottom. He

would consider firstthe river bottom, discover the positionof
the channel, and then design the bridge with the arch of
longest span over the channel. If this were toward one
bank, as it frequently was, the result was asymmetry and

but picturesquenesscreated
picturesqueness, and governed by
FIG. 1 88 "
CAHORS. THE PONT VALENTRE
structural good picturesquenessof the ensemble

sense. The
was similarlygoverned. Those who regard the medieval town
plan as merely haphazard have as their ideal a construction
which, by means of leveling,grading,and difficult engineering,
oftentimes destroysthe local flavor of the site in order to pre-
pare
for an artificialgrouping. The medieval architect,from
whatever motive, preferred to harmonize buildings to site
rather than vice versa, and as a result the medieval ensemble
more frequentlylooks as though it belonged properly to the
country than the ensemble at an earlier or a later date.

The influenceof Gothic structural principles. The fluence

in-
of Gothic architecture on later styleswas of many
sorts. The subtlest,and perhaps the most important,was the
influence of Gothic structural
principles.These, once learned,
could never wholly be forgotten. Even at a period when
Gothic itself was despised,Gothic structural designs lived,
were freelyapplied,and, it must be confessed, were often
wofully misunderstood. Even the Gothic details,moldings,
carvingand the like,left their impresson later detail,especially
in the early Renaissance.
Influenceof Flamboyant Gothic in France. Turning to more
concrete examples of Gothic influence,the importance of the
Flamboyant stylein the history of architecture has never
properly been emphasized. Outside of Italy, where the
Renaissance was a natural classical revival, Flamboyant
Gothic determined the most significant expression of later
architecture. In the early Renaissance the system was but
one of a superficialapplicationof imported Italian Renaissance
detail to a structure fundamentally and in significant motifs
Flamboyant Gothic. One need only compare the Hdtel
Cluny with the Chateau de Chenonceau to prove this. Even
much later,when the Renaissance in France became more
formal, essentials Flamboyant Gothic remained.

of If we
analyze,say the formal portionsof the Louvre, and ask our- selves
what gives the building its peculiarlyFrench flavor

despiteits classic detail,we shall be forced to reply the steep
roofs,the dormers, the broken skyline,the pavilions. All of
these are of native medieval French origin, and withstood the
assaults of Italian classicism.
Influenceoffifteenth century Gothic elsewhere. What is true
in France is true elsewhere. The PerpendicularTudor house
determined the form of the Early English Renaissance ing.
dwell-
The picturesqueness,the irregularity, the small scale
which we associate with English domestic architecture,is of
medieval origin, and the modern Englishman reverts to it as his
national style.In Germany and the Low Countries the stepped
gables and picturesquenessof medieval architecture were but
overlaid with classical detail. In Spain the Plateresquestyle
was the freest warping of classic detail to make it fit the lines
of Flamboyant Spanish Gothic. Flamboyant Gothic was,
therefore,one of the most influential of the world's styles,

and
its power is by no means spent.
FRANCE AND FLANDERS
Morienval. "
Earlierparts c. 1080; later c. 1120.
Saint Germer de Fly. 1130-60. "
Paris,Saint Martin des Champs. "
c. 1136.
Creil. "
c. 1140.
Senlis. "
c. 1155-91.
Paris,Saint Germain des Pres. " Dedicated 1163; some parts siderably
con-
earlier.
Paris,Cathedral. 1163-1235. "
Avignon, Pont Saint Benezet. 1177-85. "
Langres. Twelfth century. "
Carcassonne, Fortifications. -Chiefly late twelfth "

and thirteenth
centuries.
Soissons." Choir finished 1212; rest mid-thirteenth century; spire
c. 1160.
Chartres. "
-Facade c. 1145; rest chiefly1194-1260; earlier spire c.
1250; later spire 1507-14.
Reims. "
1 2 1 1-90.
Amiens. "
1 2 20-88.
Coucy. Early thirteenth century.
"
Aigues-Mortes. Town founded 1246; fortifications begun 1^72.

"
Paris, Sainte Chapelle. Dedicated 1248. "
Saint Medard-en-Jalle. First half of the thirteenth century. "
Ypres, Cloth Hall." Thirteenth century.

Camarsac. Late thirteenth or early fourteenth
"
century.
Rouen, Saint Ouen. 1318-39 and later. "
Amiens Cathedral, Chapel of Saint John. 1373-75. "
Mehun sur Yevre, Castle of Jean de Berry. 1386. "
Pierrefonds. "
c. 1390.
Cahors, Pont Valentre. Fourteenth century. "
Brussels,Hotel de Ville. 1401-55. "
Louvain, Hotel de Ville. 1448-59. "
Abbeville,Saint Vulfram. Begun 1480. "
Ghent, Hotel de Ville. 1481. "
Paris,Hotel Cluny. 1490. "
Quimper. Chiefly fifteenth century.

"
Nantes. "
Chieflyfifteenth century.
Chambery. Chiefly fifteenth century. "
Bourges, Maison de Jacques Cceur. End of the fifteenth century. "
Rouen, Saint Maclou. Finished 1541. "
Beauvais Cathedral, Flamboyant transept. 1548. "
Troyes. Sixteenth century.

"
ENGLAND
Canterbury. Begun "
1175.
Lincoln. Early English Work.
" "
1185-1200.
Salisbury. 1220-58. "
Wells. "
Dedicated 1239.
Lincoln Cathedral, Angel Choir. 1255-80 "
York, choir and west front. 1261-1324. "
Harlech Castle. "
c. 1300.
Gloucester. "
transepts and choir 1331-37; cloisters 1351-1412.

Windsor, Saint George's Chapel. 1481-1537. "
London, Westminster Abbey, Henry VII. 's Chapel. "
1500-12.
Compton Wynyates. "
1520.
GERMANY
Bamberg. "
1185-1274.
Miinster. "
1225-61.
Marburg, Saint Elizabeth. 1235-83. "
Naumburg. Nave before 1249; choir 1250-1330. "
Cologne. Begun 1248; choir consecrated 1322; much

"
work modern.
Strasburg. 1250-75; facade 1275-1318. "
Freiburg. Nave 1260; choir 1354. "
Treves. "
Remodeled thirteenth century.
Soest,Wiesenkirche. Founded 1314. "
Ulm. Begun 1377; finished sixteenth century.

"
Gmund, The Holy Cross. Fourteenth century. "
Mulhausen, Liebfrauenkirche. "

Fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
Nurnberg, Saint Lawrence. "
Begun end of the thirteenth century;

nave 1403-45; choir 1445-72.
Gorlitz,Saints Peter and Paul. 1423-97. "
Nordlingen, Saint George. 1427-1505. "
Munich, Frauenkirche. 1468-88. "
Halle, Saint Mary. 1535-54. "
ITALY
Fossanova .
"
1187.
Casamari. "
1217.
San Galgano. "
c. 1220.
Assisi,Saint Francis. 1228-53. "
Venice, Santi Giovanni e Paolo. "

Begun 1234.
Bologna, Saint Francis. "
1236-40.
Siena. "
c. 1245-84.
Viterbo, San Martino. "
Mid-thirteenth century.
Florence,Bargello. Begun 1255. "
Siena, Palazzo Pubblico. 1289-1309. "
Florence,Cathedral. 1296-1367. "
Orvieto. "
End of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth
centuries.
Florence,Giotto's Campanile. Designed 1334-36. "
Venice, Palazzo Ducale. Founded 814; outer walls rebuilt "
1340;
west facade early fifteenth century.
Milan. "
Founded
1386; finished sixteenth century.
Pa via,Abbey Church. Begun 1396; finished in the Renaissance. "
SPAIN AND PORTUGAL
Alcobaza (Portugal). 1148-1222. "
Santa Creus. "
1157.
Seville,Giralda. 1184-96; remodeled "
1568.
Las Huelgas.en Burgos. 1187-1214. "
Poblet. "
Second half of the twelfth century.
Burgos. "
Founded 1226.
Toledo. "
c. 1236.
Barcelona. "
1 298-1420.
Leon. "
c. 1300.
Gerona. "
1316.
Seville. "
Begun 1401.
Burgos Cathedral,spires. Begun "
1442.
In A. Michel's Histoire de I'Art, vol. 2, pts. i and 2, and vol. 3,

pt. i, 1906-07, are excellent and authoritative accounts of the de-
velopmen
of Gothic architecture,and of the character of the art
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and the Flamboyant period.
The bibliographiesare especiallyvaluable. E. E. Viollet-le-Duc's
Dictionnaire architecture, raisonnS
1884-88, already quoted, cov-
ers de V
much more than Gothic,but, in dictionary
form, is one of the most
monumental piecesof research in Gothic. As an originalsource
Villard de Honnecourt's Album, 1906, and earlier editions (writtenin
the thirteenth century),is the most and important.
interesting K.
Schnaase's Geschichte der bildenden Kunst, 1866-76, presents two umes

vol-
on medieval
architecture, out of date but important. One of the
most illuminatingand best illustrated generalworks, G. Dehio and
G. von Bezold's Kirchliche Baukunst des Abendlandes, 1884-99, has
already been quoted. SimilarlyB. and B. F. Fletcher's History of
Architecture, 1905, has been quoted, and is specially useful for English
Gothic. F. von Reber's HistoryofMedieval Art, 1886, covers the whole
field but emphasizes German architecture. F. M. Simpson'sHistoryof
Architectural Development, vol. 2, 1909, is useful for the study of details
of structure. C. H. Moore's Gothic Architecture, 1906, is one of the
most important and profound works on the subject,tending,however,
to over-emphasize structural logic,and cursory and unsympathetic
in the treatment of the art outside of thirteenth-century
France.
A. K. Porter's Medieval
Architecture, 1912, already cited,treats the
subjectfranklyfrom the structural

point of view and is a monumental
and up-to-date piece of scholarship. J. Quicherat's Melanges
d'archeologie, vol. 2, Moyen-dge, 1886, is one of the most important
earlystudies of the Romanesque and Gothic styles. It was followed
by L. Courajod's Originesde I'art roman et gothique,1889, a shrewd
though ont-of-date analysis of the originof the styles. Both works

emphasize the art in France. L. Gonse's L'art gothique,1890, is a
monumental volume covering all Gothic art, but speciallyuseful
for the study of French Gothic. J. A. Brutails' L'archeologiedu
moyen-dge, 1900, has already been quoted as a clever study of the
methods of medieval archaeology,as well as A. Marignan's Les
methodes du passe dans I'archeologiefranâise,
1911, the most extreme
though somewhat discredited work on the subject.

E. Corroyer'sArchitecture gothique,1891, is an out-of-date but
compact and interestinglittle volume on Gothic architecture in
France and Flanders. The best modern histories of medieval, and
Gothic, architecture
especially in France are C. Enlart's Architecture
religieuseen France, 1902, and Architecture civile et militaire en
France, 1903, encyclopedic works of research which are worthy
successors to the of
publications Viollet-le-Duc. For the thirteenth
century E. Male's L'art religieuxen

siecle, France
1902, is au XIII.
fine.
especially The Abbe Bosseboeuf's
Plantagcnet, L' Architecture
1897, affords an interestingstudy of a speciallysignificantlocal

variety of the style. G. H. West's Gothic Architecture in England
and France, 1911, is a small but well-arranged
and fair-minded study
of-the architecture in both countries.
Although wofullyout of date,J. Britton's The Cathedral Antiquities
of Great Britain, 1836, is a five-volume work of real value for the
study of English Gothic. E. Sharpe's The Seven Periods of English
Architecture,1871, and T. Rickman's An Attempt to Discriminate the
Stylesof Architecture in England, 1881, cited under

Romanesque, are
immensely more important works of research in the stylesof English
Gothic. G. G. Scott's English Church Architecture, 1881, despiteits
date,is a valuable work on the English style. E. S. Prior's A History
of Gothic Art in England, 1900, is a valuable and modern synthetic
work. R. and J.A. Brandon's An AnalysisofGothic Architecture, 1903,
is a profuselyillustrated work, especially useful for the study of detail.
F. Bond's Gothic Architecture in England, 1905, is one of the most
scholarlyof the modern books on the style,and it was succeeded by
the author's English Church Architecture, 1913, the most modern and
probably the most valuable work to-day on English medieval architecture.
C. H. Moore's Medieval Church Architecture of England,
1912, is an important book by the great Gothic scholar amplifyingand
modifying somewhat the author's views on English Gothic expressed
in earlier publications. G. H. Polley " Co.'s English Gothic Archi- tecture
and Ornament, 1897, presents a valuable collection of plates
for the study of the style. G. T. Clark's Medieval Military Archi- tecture
in Great Britain,1884, though out of date,is a scholarlywork
in a specialfield. Bell's Cathedral Series will be found useful as
presentinga long series of monographs on singlebuildings.
W. Lubke's Geschichte der deutschen Kunst, 1880, is a monumental
work, out of date but authoritative in the treatment of German
Gothic. H. Otte's Handbuch der kirchlichen Kunst-Archdologiedes
deutschen Mittelalters, 1883, though very general and old-fashioned,
is still useful for the student. H. Bergner's Kirchliche Kunstal-
tertumer in Deutschland, 1905, is an encyclopedic and modern work
covering the German field of ecclesiastical architecture. Btirger-

liche Kunstaltertumer in Deutschland, 1906, by the same author,
discusses the secular art. C. Schaefer and O. Stiehl's Die muster -
Kirchbauten
giltigen Deutschland,1901, is a superbly
des Mittelalters in
illustrated folio. An equally valuable folio is H. Hartung's Motive
der mittelalterlichen Baukunst in Deutschland, 1904. B. Ebhardt's
Deutsche Burgen, 1901, already cited, is useful for the study of
castellan architecture.
C. E. Street's Gothic Architecture in
Spain, 1865, is one of the first
great works of research in Spanish Gothic. V. Lamperez y Romea's
ArquitecturaCristiana en la Edad Media, 1909, alreadycited as the
most valuable work on Spanish medieval architecture,is as authori-
tative
on Gothic as on the earlier styles.
C. E. Boito's A.rchittetura
del media evo in Italia,1880, is an ancient
and limited but stilluseful work on the Italian medieval field. C. C.
Cumming's History of Architecture in Italy,1901, treats the Gothic
A
architecture in as popular and able a way as the earlier styles.
C. Enlart's Originesfranqaises de I'architecture gothiqueen Italic,
1894,
GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE
343
is still the most important and illuminating book on

the origins of
Italian Gothic. G. E. Street's Brick and Marble in the Middle Ages,
1874, is an interesting volume on

the medieval architecture of Italy,
with some
discussion of the northern styles. G. R. de Fleury's
La Toscane au 1873, is a superbly illustrated folio work on

moyen age,
medieval Tuscan architecture. C. E. Norton's Church Building in
the Middle Ages, itself work of art account of the author's

1902, a on
style, presents an interesting description of the building of the
cathedrals of Venice, Siena, and Florence. E. Bertaux's L'art dans
V Italic meridionale, covers

the monuments of southern Italy
1904,
in an interesting and scholarly way.
A. G. B. Schayes's Histoire de V architecture Belgique, 1850-60,

en
already quoted, is of great value for the study of Gothic architecture
in Flanders. C. Enlart's L'art gothique en Chypre, 1899, is a scholarly
work illuminating as a study of the Gothic architecture built in the
East by the crusaders.

CHAPTER X
RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE
The architecture of the period of the Renaissance was,

in a greater measure than any other art, veritablya rebirth
of the forms of classical
antiquity. This involved, however,
neither a sharp interruptionof the developments of the Middle
Ages nor a negation of originality and modernity. Most of the
forces which tended to bring about the new era in Europe were
already at work in the later Middle Ages and were thus not
primarily results of the revival of classical learning. The
decay of the medieval church and empire, the decline of the
feudal system and the rise of nationalities and languages, were
movements which
appeared everywhere in the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries, along with a more human and a more
naturalistic view of life. The growing tendency nowadays to

regard Dante, Giotto, and the sculptorsPisani as true men of
the Middle Ages essentially "
at one with the poets of Provence,
the painters of Burgundy, and the carvers of the portals at
Reims emphasizes the continuity of the Renaissance
" with
medievalism. In many of these men there mingled with the
Christian and northern tendencies other tendencies which
were pagan and steady undercurrent
classical,forming a
throughout the Middle Ages. It needed merely a change in

the relative strength of these tendencies to bring the classical
current to the surface. By the early years of the fifteenth
century this change was accomplished in Italy,and art and
literature alike were profoundly influenced. The humanists,
who tried to reconstitute a free and natural life by the aid of
Greek and Roman
literature, had their counterparts in
Brunelleschi,Donatello, and Masaccio, who enriched the arts
not only by observation of nature but by study of the works
of ancient Rome.
RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 345
and original
traditional,
Retrospective, elements. In architect-
ure
there resulted an imitation of the Roman vocabulary of
architecturalforms, employed in part for the translation of
ideas fundamentally medieval, in part for the expression of
ideas essentiallynovel. Medieval dispositionsclothed in
details of the classic orders,medieval craftsmanshipexercised
in the applicationand variation of classical motives of ment,
orna-
are characteristic of much Renaissance work, especially

work that is earlyor removed from the center oforigin. Even
more characteristic,
however, are the new conceptions in the
composition of space and in the
modeling of surface, which
are embodied both in some of the earliest productions and in
many mature ones. These conceptions,although likewise

realized in forms inspiredby antiquity,were themselves quite
modern. Even the forms of detail, supposedly classical,
differed inevitablyin a hundred respects from those which
furnished their ideals. The uses to which buildingsand forms
necessarily correspond were likewise different in many respects
from those of preceding periods. The relative importance of
the various types of buildings was radicallychanged, the
church, though stillof great importance, being rivaled by the
luxurious private dwellingsof merchant princes,churchmen,
and nobles. Thus, in spite of retrospectiveand traditional
"
elements, it was the novel elements which predominated in

the new architectural synthesis.
Contrasts with medieval architecture. Compared with the
medieval architecture which preceded it,Renaissance tecture
archi-
was less concerned with problems of structure and
more with those
of pure form. As in the case of Roman
architecture, the forms of detail were sometimes used as
trophiesof classical culture, with relative indifference to their

structural functions.
original The forms were not merely ends
in themselves, however, but means for a rhythmical subdi-
vision
of space, more complex and more varied than either
ancient or medieval times had known. A further contrast
between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, though one
which has often been exaggerated,lay in the relation of the

designer to his work. The architect,in the ancient and in
the modern sense, reappeared. We now realize that in both
the Middle Ages and the Renaissance the generaldesign was
controlled by a singlemind, and that in both periods there

were sculptured details of which the design was left to the
initiative of individual sculptors. Unlike the medieval master-
builder, however, the Renaissance architect did not himself

work on the scaffold,whereas he did dictate, in a greater
measure than his predecessors,the form of many uniform
details.
Centers and diffusion. The center of the new movement was
Italy,where the forces everywhere at work had their effect

earlier than in countries less richlyendowed with the heritage
of antiquity. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
Florence was the intellectual capitalof the peninsula,as well
as of the greatest commercial
one powers in Europe. It was
in Florence that the Renaissance in architecture had its birth,

and it was the Florentine school which dominated the style
down to the year 1500. With the beginning of the sixteenth
century papal Rome, now fully recovered from the exile of
the popes and the schism of the church, assumed the leader-
ship
which it retained to the end of the Renaissance period.
By the same time the new architectural forms had been
adopted, with characteristic local modifications, throughout
Italy, and had begun to penetrate France, Germany, and
Spain. In these countries and in England, where the introduc-
tion
came still later,it was many years before the transition
from medieval forms was effected. Thus the phases of
Renaissance architecture in different lands do not coincide in
time, and, outside of Italy,forms of later origin sometimes
mingle with those of truly Renaissance character. Both for
these reasons, and because of strongly marked national
differences,the several countries may best be considered
successively.
Italy. The soil in Italy was particularlyfavorable for a
revival of the forms of classic architecture. The remains of

ancient buildingsexisted on every hand, in far greater com-
pleteness
than they do to-day. They still served,as they had

in the time of
Constantine, as sources from which not only
stone and lime but also columns, entablatures, and archivolts
could be obtained made.
Partly for these reasons,
ready
partly because of racial inheritance,the feelingfor classical
architecture had never wholly died out in Italy,and Gothic
forms had been employed only with radical modifications which

brought them nearer to the
spirit. All this was classic
especiallytrue in Florence, which prided itself on direct de-
scent
from Etruria and Rome. The buildingsof the eleventh
and twelfth centuries the Baptistry, San Miniato
"
are so "
classical in their
details as to have
been described
as "proto-
Renaissance."
Even during the
Gothic period " "
in the cathedral
and the Loggia
dei Lanzi "
there was a geness

lar-
of scale
and of interior
space which is
more classic
than medieval.
The round arch
and other sical
clas-
details and
forms of ment
orna-
still per-
sisted.
The earlyRe-
naissance.
Bru-
nelleschi'sdome. FIG. 189 "
FLORENCE. CATHEDRAL FROM THE
SOUTHEAST
It involved no
break with
Florentine medieval traditions when Filippo Brunelleschi
(1379-1446) made his proposal, in 1406, to vault the
central octagon of the cathedral of Florence, which the
builders had
long feared to attempt. Although he had
astonished his contemporaries by studying and drawing the
ancient buildingsof Rome, there was littlein his solution which
was not medieval in inspiration,
except the boldness of span
which he had observed in the Pantheon. His direct prototype
was the dome oft he baptistry of Florence, also octagonal,

with intermediate ribs on each face and arches spanning
between them. He proposed a dome in two shells with
segmental arches in each of the eightfaces, and ribs with iron
anchors supporting the inner shell. By giving a steep curve
to the dome he
was enabled to
construct it, as
Byzantine vaults
had been structed,
con-
without
centering. The
whole was raised
on a high drum
with circular
windows, and
surmounted by a
lantern " ures

feat-
in selves
them-
not new,
but carried out
on a larger scale
and with what
some-
more cal
classi-
details (Fig.
189).
Brunelleschi's
other works. The
first true monu-
FIG. IQO " FLORENCE. INTERIOR" OF SAN LORENZO mentS of the Re-
naissance were
the other works which Brunelleschi undertook while the

dome was progressing. In beginning, with
these from the
no period of transition or hesitancy,appeared the classical
forms of columns, pilasters, entablatures, all very clearly
understood, though used with a freedom like that of late
Roman architecture. In front of the Spedale degliInnocenti,
the foundlinghospital, he constructed in 1421 a porticowith
circular archivolts descending on the heads of Corinthian
columns. The end bays are enframed by pilastersin the
manner of the Roman arch order,and the windows of the upper
story, in the axis of each bay, have architraves and pediments

of classical form. In the church of San Lorenzo (begun about
FIG. 191. "

FLORENCE. PAZZI CHAPEL
1425) Brunelleschi reverted to the type of the early Christian

basilica,using a wealth of classical detail (Fig.190). The aisle
walls and chapelopenings are treated with an arch order; the
nave arches descend on fragments of entablature which spond
re-
to the entablature in the aisle. The aisles are covered

with domical vaults and the crossingwith a dome on penden-

tives. The Pazzi chapel at the church of Santa Croce, like
the sacristyof San Lorenzo (both from about 1429), has a
membering of the wall by pilasters
and entablatures (Fig.191).
They carry pendentives and a dome, which, however, is
constructed
like the apse
vaults of a
Gothic church.
In the portico
before the
chapel pears
reap-
for the
first time the
colonnade with
a horizontal
entablature.
Another of
Brunelleschi's
designs,Santa
Maria degli
Angeli (1434),
is the first
building of
modern tecture
archi-
to low
fol-
the mode
of composition
about a central
vertical axis,so
FIG. 192 "
FLORENCE. PALAZZO MEDICI-RICCARDI

common in late
Roman and
early medieval times (Fig.207). It initiates the long series
of experiments in the combination of different forms of in-
terior
space, free from practicalor liturgical restrictions.

Palace designs. Brunelleschi's palace designsare relatively
less except in their strict balance
classical, and the vertical
alignment of their windows. His Palazzo Pitti has a range
of vast rusticated arches reminiscent of the Roman aqueducts.
The typicalpalace of the time is the Palazzo Medici (now
Palazzo Riccardi) by Michelozzo, begun in 1444 (Fig. 192).
Its unbroken rusticated wall with windows of paired arches
resting on colonnettes are features of medieval derivation,
whereas the emphasis laid on the horizontal divisions and the
details of the
colonnettes and
the cornice are
inspired by tiquity.
an-
Albert*. A
more strictly
classical t e n -
dency was duced

intro-
by Leon
Battista Alberti
(1404-72), a
gifted Floren-
tine
humanist,
long in exile. In
his paganization
of the church of
San Francesco
at Rimini (1447)
he adopted, for
the flank,a sive
mas-
range of
classic piers and
arches, for the
"^
'
FIG. 193 "
FLORENCE. PALAZZO RUCELLAI
.
motive of a
Roman umphal
tri-
arch with
engaged columns and a broken lature.
entab-
He also projected, as a termination for the build-
ing,
a circular domed room of the proportions of the
Pantheon, a form which he later emphasized in the church
of the Annunziata in Florence (1451). For the facade of the
Palazzo Rucellai in Florence (1451-55) he imitated for the
first time the superposed engaged orders of the Tabularium
and the Roman amphitheaters (Fig. 193). Pilasters and
entablatures were applied to the typicalrusticated wall with
grouped windows. The main cornice was still strongly

emphasized in relation to those between the stories. Another
time-honored scheme which Alberti revived was the Greek-
cross plan, with four
equal arms, in the church of San Sebas-
tiano at Mantua (1459). In Sant' Andrea at Mantua, begun in
1472, he again made use of the triumphal arch motive, not
only in the porch, but also on the interior walls of the nave,
FIG. 194 "
MANTUA. SANT ANDREA. INTERIOR
where a rhythmic alternation of broad arched chapels and

narrow bays bordered by pilasters
was introduced (Fig.194).
For the first time in a Renaissance church the nave itself was
vaulted in a classical manner, with an unbroken coffered
barrel vault. First in modern times also were Alberti's
writingson architecture,which have fundamentally influenced
both theory and practiceeven to the present day.
Other Florentines. The followers of Brunelleschi and Alberti
in Florence "
Simone Pollaiuolo,called Cronaca, Giuliano
del
da San Gallo and his brother Antonio, with many others "
employed the new classical forms expertly,but without tributing

con-
many elements which were new. They were
occupied rather with making new combinations with the

elements already created. Thus in the octagonal sacristyof
Santo Spirito in Florence, by Giuliano da San Gallo and
FIG. 195 "

THE CERTOSA NEAR PAVIA.. FACADE
Cronaca (1489-96),a rhythmical grouping is introduced in a

buildingof the centrallybalanced type, by an alternation of
niches and shallow recesses. Giuliano created the first of
the monumental country villas,the Villa Poggio at Cajano
(1485), with a great barrel-vaulted hall which was then a
novel feature in domestic architecture. On the exterior this

came toexpressionthrough a pedimented portico imitating
the classic temple front,though not projectingbefore the plane
of the wall. In Cronaca's church of San Francesco al Monte
in Florence (1487) the tendency to rhythmical grouping led
to an alternation of triangularand segmental pediments in
the enframements of the clerestory
windows.
Other schools. Lombardy. Outside of Tuscany, except for

isolated works of the Florentine school, the new forms were
only adopted graduallyafter the lapseof some time, and then

often for their more superficial decorative qualities.In north
Italy,smallness of scale, freedom in modifying the forms and
proportionsof the orders, and richness of sculptured orna-
FIG. 196 "
VENICE. PALAZZO VENDRAMINI
mentation are the outstandingfeatures. In Lombardy, where

the Florentine details first found a wide application,they
remained for the most part, throughout the fifteenth century,
a mere clothingfor medieval
dispositions.In the facade of
the Certosa at Pavia, begun probably in 1493, the details are
of a lavishness and multiplicity elsewhere unequaled, smother-
ing
the architectonic outlines (Fig.195). About 1490 began
a change, under the leadershipof Donate Bramante (1444-
1514). Inspired by the works of Brunelleschi and Alberti,
he took up the main thread of development. In the sacristy
of Santa Maria near San Satire in Milan and other churches

he made important contributions to the problem of buildings
composed about a central axis. At Abbiate
(1497) Grasso
he prefixedto the church a great arched porch, recallingan
ancient exedra. It was supported on pilasterswhich here,
for the first time,
were coupled or
grouped in pairs.
Venice. Venice
scarcely took up
the new forms fore
be-
1470, when
the family of
architects called
Lombardi began
their work there.
In general their
work is a tion
transla-
of the local
Byzantine and
Gothic motives
into pseudo-classic
forms, carried out
with rich marble

incrustation. The
Palazzo Vendra-
mmi'(i48i) is per-
haps
its best repre-
sentative (Fig.
196). As in the FIG. 197 "
ROME. LOGGIA OF THE CHURCH OF
Palazzo Ruccllai, SAN MARCO
the facade is dec-

orated
with
superposed orders; but here engaged columns,
restingon pedestalsin the lower stories, are elements of closer
similarity to ancient examples. On the other hand the arches
are subdivided by tracery, which is essentially medieval in
spite of its classic details. As usual in Venice, the retention
of a threefold subdivision of the width results in a plicated
com-
rhythmical grouping of the supports.

Rome. Rome first experienced an artistic revival during
Copyright by the American Architect and Building News Co.
FIG. 198" ROME. "TEMPIETTO" AT SAN PIETRO IN MONTORIO

the papacy of the humanist, Nicholas V. (1447-55). He began

a rebuilding of the Vatican and proposed to replace the
crumbling basilica of Saint Peter by a new edifice. The monu-
ments
which followed, such as the Palazzo Venezia and the

vestibule of the church of San Marco (Fig.197),although they
retain medieval elements, include also the most literal repro-
ductions
of the antique yet attempted. Their superposed
FIG. 199 "
ROME. SAINT PETER S. INTERIOR
porticoes in the Roman arch order successfullyimitate

Roman examples in their proportionsas well as in their break-
ing
of the entablatures and pedestalsat each engaged column.
In the Palazzo Cancelleria (1486-95),where the system of the
Palazzo Rucellai,with its slighter relief,
was followed,elements
of novelty were introduced. A continuous alternation of wide
and narrow spaces between the pilasters the "rhythmical "
bay" which Albert! had employed in an interior "

was ployed
em-
fagade,and terminal masses

on the of slightprojection,
"end pavilions,"appear for the first time.
The "High Renaissance." Bramante. The second, mature
period of the Renaissance, the "High Renaissance" as it is
sometimes termed, began at Rome with
the papacy of Julius
II. (1503-13) and Leo X. (1513-21). Their lavish court and
FIG. 200 "

ROME. PALACE OF RAPHAEL. (RESTORED BY HOFFMANN)
great undertakings attracted city the finest talent of to the

all Italy,including Bramante, Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci,
and Michelangelo. Bramante was the moving spiritin the
creation of the new Roman school of architecture,as Brunelles-
chi had been of the Florentine school. In his first attested
designin Rome, the shrine at the place of Saint Peter's dom,
martyr-
Bramante outvied all his predecessorsin classical ardor,
by adopting the scheme of a Roman circular temple with
its peristyle(Fig. 198). This "Tempietto," at the
so-called
church of San Pietro in Montorio, is surmounted by a dome on
a tall drum, and was intended to be surrounded by a circular
colonnaded court.
Bramante' s later works. Bramante was soon intrusted with
the two most ambitious schemes of Julius,the extension of the
Vatican and the rebuildingof Saint Peter's,so long proposed.

To unite the Vatican with the Belvedere he designed a court
almost a thousand feet inlength,surrounded by superposed
gallerieswith the rhythmical triumphal-arch motive, and
terminated by a vast semicircular niche like those of the
Roman thermae
(Fig.222). The
rise of the
ground within
the court was
given a novel
treatment by
high terrace
walls and balus-
traded flights
of
steps. In the
new Saint ter's
Pe-
Bramante
thought less of
meeting tradi-
tional
liturgical
requirements
than of creating
a monument to
the glory of
God, the found-
er, and the
church. For
this purpose he
FIG. 2OI" ROME. LOGGIA OF THE VILLA MADAMA.
chose his favor-
ite
INTERIOR
form of the
centrallycomposed building, magnifiedand elaborated. He
proposed, in the words of his own metaphor, to raise the
Pantheon above the vaults of the Basilica of Maxentius (Fig.
199). His studies for the buildinginvolved new solutions of
a great number of current problems, and were a school for the
whole younger generationof architects. Toward the end of
his life he also gave new suggestionsfor palace design in the
projected building for the papal courts of justice, with its
giganticrusticated blocks in the ground story.
'3
Raphael and Peruzzi. The principalfollowers of Bramante,

although stronglyinfluenced,likewise made new contributions
to the general development. Raphael (1483-1520), Bra-
mante's nephew and protege, embodied some of Bramante's
FIG. 2O2 "

ROME. PALAZZO DELL1 AQUILA. (RESTORED BY GEYMULLER)
ideas for Saint Peter's in the littleChigichapel at the church of

Santa Maria del Popolo. His own palace (Fig.200),executed
with Bramante's aid, had the ground story treated as a heavy
rusticated basement, and the principalstory the piano nobile
"
"
emphasized by coupled engaged columns. On Bramante's
death in 1514 Raphael succeeded to the architectural dictator-
ship.
In executing the loggiasof the Court of San Damaso at
the Vatican, he revived the stuccoed decorations of the Roman

interiors,then recently discovered. Thus arose the graceful
compositions of leafage,figures,and small medallions imitated
by his pupils at the Villa Madama (Fig. 201) and elsewhere.

In the Palazzo dell' Aquila similar decorations were applied to
a facade, in which there was also a rich alternation of niches
and pedimented (Fig. 202). The large engaged
tabernacles
column, there restricted to the shop fronts of the basement
story, disappears entirelyin Raphael's design for the Palazzo
Pandolfini in Florence. With its tabernacles relieved against
a stuccoed wall having angle quoins, this was the model for
many later Roman palaces. The Villa Madama, begun from

Raphael's designs and left unfinished, had for the first time an
intimate architectural connection between house and gardens.
This was achieved not only by elaborate axial relationships,
but by terraces, stairs,and niches recalling the Villa of Hadrian
at Tivoli. Peruzzi, who outlived the youthful Raphael by
sixteen years, continued the development in the direction of
greater freedom in plan and in facade. The Villa Farnesina,

which seems probably to be his design, has end pavilions
suggested by those of the Cancelleria,but projectingtwo bays,
so as to inclose a U-shaped court. His plan for the two
palaces for the Massimi in Rome (1529), on an irregularsite,

shows a remarkable facilityin the adaptation of classical
elements (Fig.203). In one the facade is curved to follow the
line of the street, and a multitude of consoles in the enframe-
ment of windows and doors begin to relieve the strictlygeo-
metrical
lines of earlier architectural forms. All these
tendencies find their strongest expression in Michelangelo,
and doubtless depend, in large measure, on his earliest archi-
tectural
designs,which had been for the facade of San Lorenzo

in Florence (1514) and for the Medici chapel there (1521-29,
Fig. 204). These, however, with his other buildings, form
the point of departure of the following phase of style,the
baroque, and thus must be discussed later.

Other schools. Venetia. The architects of the High Renais-
sance
in the rest of Italy took their inspirationfrom Rome, as
those of the early Renaissance had from Florence. The
grammar of classical forms was everywhere understood,

now
and thus local differences are less marked, but characteristic

schools nevertheless existed. Most notable of these was that
of Venetia, headed by two otherdisciplesof Bramante,
Sanmicheli (1484-1559) and Sansovino (1486-1570). These
men followed the more robust use of the orders in the work of
FIG. 2O3 " ROME. MASSIMI PALACES. PLAN

Bramante and Raphael. Thus in Sanmicheli's Palazzo Pom-

pei in Verona (1530) and Sansovino's Palazzo Cornaro della
Ca' Grande in Venice (1530), we have a reminiscence of
Raphael's own palace. Sanmicheli initiated a long series of
designs of a still more rugged character by his notable city
gates for Verona (1533ff.),with rusticated columns which
FIG. 204 "

FLORENCE. MEDICI CHAPEL AT SAN LORENZO
are the embodiment military strength. In the Palazzo

of
Grimani at Venice (Fig.205) he restudied the scheme of the
earlier Palazzo Vcndramini, eliminating the medieval vivals
sur-
and endowing all the forms with a truly classical spirit.

Sansovino took the Tabularium of the Capitol in Rome as
his model for the Library of Saint Mark (Fig.206),which gives

the effect of an open arcade in two stories. The employment
of subordinate engaged columns to support the impostsof the
upper story, and the wealth of ornamental sculpture, are

features of this extreme yet characteristic product of the
Renaissance.
Types of buildings. Churches. The longitudinal
type. As
strands in the general tendency in matters of style ran the
individual developments of singletypes of buildings,which
FIG. 205 "
VENICE. PALAZZO GRIMANI
offer some further

points of importance. The churches here
fall into two groups, those composed about a longitudinal
axis and those composed about a central axis. It was the
former of these groups which representedthe continuance of
medieval tradition and thus offered less of novelty. Brunelles-
chi contributed it by reviving the basilican scheme
to of
Constantino's day, with a flat ceilingin the nave and the
addition of domical vaults over the aisle bays. Although in
San Lorenzo (1425) the T-shaped plan of the first basilicas

was adhered to, in Santo Spirito(1435) the full Latin cross
of the Middle Ages was adopted, with square ends to the arms
and the aisles carried completely around them. A vaulting
of the nave with a barrel vault, then considered the most
FIG. 2O6 "

VENICE. LIBRARY OF SAINT MARK
classical,
was possibleonly with suppressionof the aisles. A
membering of the nave walls and a richer spatialeffect was
furnished in such cases by lateral chapels. This was the case
in Brunelleschi's church of the Badia at Fiesole,completed in
1463, where the chapels were all alike,and in Alberti's Sant'

Andrea at Mantua, which initiated the rhythmical system of
piers. In San Salvatore in Venice (1506) this rhythmical
scheme was applied to a three-aisled church by the employ-
ment
of the vaulting scheme of Saint Mark's. Already in these
churches appeared the characteristic tendency of the later

long-naved churches. This was toward a development of
the crossing, choir,and transepts on the lines of a buildingof
central type with equal arms.
Basilican facades. The facades of the basilican churches
also presented a problem. Those of the earliest architects
remained in crude brickwork awaiting some ambitious com-
pletion.
Alberti was the one who established the general

type: an order or superposed orders, with the doors and
windowis in the intervals. Usually there was apediment and
often tlêre
were great volutes oppositethe aisle roofs,uniting
the aisles with the clerestory. In some cases an arcaded
porticowas prefixed,with the inevitable Roman arch order.
Churches of the central type. The church composed on a
central axis was perhaps the most characteristic problem of
the Italian Renaissance (Fig.207). The solutions were based
either on a central octagon with an octagonal dome or cloister
vault, or on a square central space with a dome on pendentives.
In the first example "
Brunelleschi's Santa Maria degliAngeli
(1434) "
the eight subordinate spaces are of equal importance.
They themselves have minor elements in the form of niches,
which are connected by unimportant doors. Similar in their
co-ordination of the subordinate spaces are the churches of
Greek cross type, beginning with Alberti's San Sebastiano
(1459) .and finding their ultimate expressionin churches by
the elder San Gallo. Beginning with the sacristies by San
Gallo and by Bramante, however, there is usually an tion
alterna-
in the subordinate spaces, which tend to become more
elaborate,but in generalhave no connection with one another

except through the central space. An intermediate between
the square and octagonal schemes was created by Bramante's
cutting off the corners below the pendentives in thecrossing
of Saint Peter's. His further innovations were anticipated
somewhat in manuscript studies of Leonardo da Vinci, where
he attempted to canvass systematicallyall possiblecombina-
tions
of domes and subordinate spaces. Here Leonardo
progressed to centrally composed buildings of the second
degree,that is,to groups in which the subordinate spaces are
themselves composed of minor features about a central axis.

It was a stillmore elaborate composition of this sort which
ROME STPETB"
BRAMANTE" FIRST
STUDY
CHURCHES OF
THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENAISSANCE
FIG 207"
CENTRAL TYPE
Bramante undertook in Saint Peter's. Between the four arms
of a great Greek he
placed four smaller Greek crosses
cross
opening into the arms of the largerone, and having themselves

a minor zone of niches. Although a means of circulation
about the central space was incidentally provided, it was not
in an aisle of co-ordinated bays, but involved periodicemer-gence
into the arms of the great cross. The varietyof spatial

effects was thus greatly increased,while each portion of the
church retained a strong individual unity.
Palaces. The characteristic problem of the Renaissance in
domestic architecture was the town palace of the merchant
prince,the petty tyrant, or the dignitaryof the church. Such a
buildinghad to rise in several stories on a limited site,bounded
by one or more streets and usually by party walls,and had to
offer securityagainstthe turbulent factions of the city. Like
its predecessorsof the medieval towns, it had thus to open
about a court, and to be closed on the exterior. In the typical
plan the court was rectangular, with surrounding arcades
which gave a covered communication at least between the
rooms ground story. In general,no one of the rooms
of the
greatlysurpassed the others in size and importance,although
toward the end of the period there was a tendency to introduce
a principalhall or gallery. The facade even then took no

cognizance of the internal divisions but retained a uniform
spacing of the axes. All these qualitiesare summarized in the
largestof the Roman palaces,the Palazzo Farnese by Antonio
da San Gallo the younger (c.1520-80). Without embodying
any radical innovations, it had a wide influence in the diffusion
of the type (Figs.208, 209). It stands free on all sides,with
passages to the court at the center of each face, the principal
one having a barrel vault with colonnaded aisles. The square
court itself has the scheme of the Colosseum in three stories,
Doric, Ionic,and Corinthian, the two lower ones with the arch
order, the upper one with pilasters and pedimented windows.
On the facade the scheme of Raphael's Palazzo Pandolfini was
adopted, but with an additional story and a strong emphasis

on the central axis. In the Roman palacesfrom the time of
Bramante the stories of minor importance began to secure
recognitionin the facade. A low uppermost story for the
servants was given small windows beneath the entablature
of the upper order, as in the Cancelleria,or in the frieze of

the main cornice, as in the Farnesina. In stories of which
the full height was needed only for certain largerrooms, it
became customary to halve the height for the smaller rooms,
securingover them a half story or mezzanine. The windows
of such mezzanines, which first appear, much subordinated,
FIG. 208 "

ROME. PALAZZO FARNESE
in the palaces of Raphael, tended to attain increasinginde-

pendence.
In Venice, as we have seen, the inherited palace
type was an exception to the rule which prevailedelsewhere.
Instead of a monumental court there large principal
was a
room in the center of the front, extending deep into the

building. At the sides were minor suites,and the threefold
division characteristically
was expressed on the facade.
Villas. The increasingsecurityof the country permitted,
even in the earlydays of the Renaissance, the erection of villas
outside the city walls. The earliest of these, near Florence,
the Villa Carregi by Michelozzo, is stillsomewhat irregular
in plan, but has

projectingloggiaswhich are suggestiveof
later developments in the union of house and garden. Such
projections, however, were relatively
infrequent. The house
tended to remain a unity by itself,as at Cajano, and the
gardens were laid out without much reference to the axis of
the building. Only at the end of the period, in the Villa
Madama, does the architectural scheme tend to assert itself
also in the garden, in the manner so characteristic of the later,
baroque villas.
PMic buildings. Some further important types were the
municipal palaces and the public hospitals. An open loggia
on the exterior,as in Brunelleschi's Spedale degli Innocenti,
was the symbol that such buildingsbelonged to the public. An
early Renaissance example outside of Florence is the Loggia
del Consiglioat Verona, attributed to Fra Giocondo (1476).
It has arches descending on small columns, and an upper
story of typical north Italian richness of detail. In the
Palazzo Comunale at Brescia a similar scheme is realized with
more classical forms, the arch order with
projecting half-
columns below, a second story with pilasters and tabernacle-
like window enframements. The series really includes the
libraryin Venice (Fig.206), where the upper story is also
arcaded. A final solution,in which open loggiasin two stories
completely surround the building "
Palladio's "Basilica" at
Vicenza (Fig.225) "
stands at the threshold of the following
period (1549)-
f
Town planning. planning of the Renaissance was
The town
limited for the most part to the levelingand straightening of
streets in existing towns, with the sweeping away of booths and
minor constructions which encumbered the surroundings of
churches and publicbuildings. Open squares before important
new buildings,which would permit an appreciationof their
symmetry, were early desired, but were obtained in few
instances. Where a square was bordered by porticoesthese
were kept distinct,and were not continuous as they had been
in Hellenistic and late Roman times. The buildingsthem-
selves
formed the unities,and not the square. In the rare
cases where new towns or quarters were to be laid out,

regularityand symmetry were preferred. The civic group
at Pienza (1460-63) is the most notable of the schemes which
came to execution. Here the episcopalpalace and the palace

of the Piccolomini balance on either side of the cathedral
which
piazza., has its sides converging toward the spectator,
as in some of the most famous of the baroque squares.
Individual forms. The forms of Renaissance architecture
(Figs.210, 211), although inspiredby those of Rome, were
no more literal
imitations of them
than the Roman
forms themselves
had been tions
imita-
of Greek
forms. Partlybe-
cause
of medieval
survivals, partly
because of inade-
quate
knowledge
of antiquity,
partly even in
criticism of the
antique,the archi-
tects
of the naissance
Re-
modified
the classical forms
so they are
that
unmistakably
theirs. In simpler
buildings, to be
sure, there was
sometimes ly
scarce-
a detail which
would betray the
dependence of the
FIG. 209 ROME. PALAZZO FARNESE. PLAN
period on Rome.
"
The facade of the

Palazzo Pitti might seem suggested merely by material and
function. In later and richer buildingsthere is still always
some nuance, even aside from the fresh combinations, in which
is visible the originalityof the Renaissance.
Walls. The continuous wall received much characteristic
treatment both in the early and in the High Renaissance.

During the earlyphase the usual method was that of rustica-
tion
"
an artistic modification of the medieval practice of
leaving the stones quarry-faced, with merely the joints
dressed. In the Palazzo Pitti there is a gradation in the
projectionof the stones in successive stories,the lower ones
reaching in extreme cases projectionof

a over two feet. In
the Palazzo Medici (Riccardi)there is a more pronounced
gradation,with rough blocks in the lower story, rectangular
grooving, like that of some Roman examples, in the mediate
inter-
story, and smooth ashlar in the upper story (Fig.
192) "
a system considerably imitated in later Florentine

structures. The
buildingsmentioned have courses of irregu-
lar
height and stones of differing lengths. Not until toward
1500, in the Cancelleria and other buildingsof the time, was
a perfectlyuniform system of jointingadopted. Meanwhile
another system of exterior wall treatment had been gaining
ground, the use of stucco for the main surface,as it had been
used from the beginning in interiors. Against this stuccoed
surface was contrasted the stonework about the openings,and,
later,tiers of rusticated blocks or quoins at the angles of the
building. In the Palazzo Pandolfini and the Palazzo Farnese
angle quoins were made of alternatinglengths,bonding into
the wall. In late works of Raphael and his school the stucco
itselfwas modeled into festoons and medallions, stillsubordi-
nate,
however, to the window enframements.
Moldings. As in Roman architecture, the foot and the
crown of the wall, as well as minor divisions,were marked by
horizontal moldings. The machicolated and battlemented
cornices of the Middle Ages gave place to cornices with a bed
molding, corona, and cyma on Corinthian lines (Fig.211).
Between the stories likewise made
carried string-courses,
were
up of classical elements. As time went on there was an
increasingapproximation to the full memberingôfthe orders.

Thus, whereas the Palazzo Medici has a cornice only, the
Palazzo Strozzi (1489-1507) has also a frieze,and many later
buildings,even without columns or pilasters,have a full
entablature of
classic type. In the same way it became
customary to employ in the arch order, in tabernacle windows,
and elsewhere,a pedestalwith its own cap and base moldings,
FIG. 210 "
EARLY RENAISSANCE DETAILS. (AFTER GROMORT)
I. Cornice of the Palazzo
Medici (Riccardi), Florence. 3. Cornice of the Palazzo
Strozzi, Florence. 3. Faience medallion by Delia Robbia. 4. Flagstaff bracket from
Palazzo del Magninco, Siena. 5, 6. Capitals from the porch of the Cathedral at Spoleto.
7. Lantern from the Palazzo Strozzi, Florence. 8. Capital and entablature from a tomb
in the Badia, Florence. 9. Window from the Palazzo Strozzi,Florence, 10. Cornice of
the Palazzo Pitti, Florence.
like those in the upper stories of the Colosseum. The profiles

of individual moldings increase in delicacyof line and truth
to antique principlesuntil in the works of Raphael and
Peruzzi there is a refinement suggestiveof Greek models.
Openings. The openings at first were predominantly
arched. Medieval traditions preserved a strong influence in
the retention of a ring of deep voussoirs, the sinking of the
profile in the wall, and the persistence of a central colonnette
with tracery-like arches (Fig.210). In walls of stucco and
in interiors, however, the projectingclassical architrave early
asserted and
itself, rectangular and circular-headed windows
without subdivisions made their appearance. A more rate
elabo-
treatment, which was destined to become normal, was the
enframement of openings by an order, often with a pediment.
This had been revived during the Middle Ages in the baptistry
of Florence and was employed by Brunelleschi in the doors of
the sacristyof San Lorenzo. For its use about a window or
niche, the tabernacles of the interior of the Pantheon, with

their common pedestal,gave the model followed in the Palazzo
Pandolfini and others of its type (Fig.211). The use of ears
on an architrave began with Raphael, and consoles to support

the cornice in doors and windows came with Michelangelo
and Peruzzi.
The orders. The men of the Renaissance distinguished
five orders, elaborating the vague suggestionsof Vitruvius
regardingan Etruscan or "Tuscan" and a composite order.
The favorite order of the earlyRenaissance was the Corinthian.
The smaller capitalsin this order, although more classical
than those of the Middle
Ages, were still greatly modified
in comparison with ancient examples. Especiallyfrequent
was a capital with but a singlerow of leaves, often with
dolphins or other fantastic substitutes for the volutes. In a
series of such capitals each one was often individually designed,
as in medieval composition (Fig.210). With Alberti came a
wider use of the other orders, due to their superpositionas in

the amphitheaters, although the strict sequence of Doric,
Ionic, and Corinthian was not always followed. From the
time of Bramante the Doric order obtained the preference, and
the forms of all the orders became more strictlyclassical.
There was also a tendency to increase the scale of the orders
and to subsume more than a singlestory in the height of one

order. In the interior of churches the use of a singleorder
reachingto the springof the vaults was alegacyfrom medieval
churches with their vaulting shafts. It persistedwhen, in
Bramante's studies for Saint Peter's,he introduced subordi-
JJUUUIJUUUUUUUVIJI
FIG. 211 " "HIGH RENAISSANCE" DETAILS. (AFTER GROMORT)

1. Cornice ot the Palazzo Farnese, Rome.
2. Window of the Palazzo Pandolfini. Florence.
3. Corner of the Library of Saint Mark, Venice.
nate superposed ordeTs,and it appeared on the exterior as well.

In civil architecture,also,the employment of a singleinclusive
order was approached, although during the Renaissance
proper there was scarcelymore than a mezzanine combined
with the principalstory. At the other extreme from the
employment from these "colossal" orders was the use of
miniature columns to carry the coping of a parapet (Fig.210).
In the villa at Cajano and later buildings,however, these
colonnettes replaced by the vase-like forms known
were as
balusters (cf.Fig. 211), creations of the Renaissance, which

have ever since retained their importance.
and column.
Arch, lintel, The architects of the Renaissance
rarelymade use of the free horizontal
except in loggias
lintel,
where there was no vaulting or superincumbent wall. They
preferredat first to springarches from column to column, later
to enframe the arch by an order with pilasters or engaged
columns. In this they reversed the sequence of development
in Roman architecture. In the last years of the period,
however, the desire for richness led them to substitute an
entablature for the impost in the arch order and place a minor
column below it. Thus was devised the so-called "Palladian
motive" of a central arch restingon the entablatures of lateral
square-headed bays, which first appeared in the Pazzi Chapel
and found its definitive use in Palladio's Basilica at Vicenza
(Fig. 225).
Wall membering. In the use of columnar forms for the
membering of a wall, the tendency of development was in the
same direction as in Roman architecture. Whereas, beginning
with Alberti, a subdivision by pilasters and entablatures was
usual, after 1500 there was a reversion to wall surfaces without

other orders than those of the window enframements. In
Bramante's palaces the order is omitted in the
ground story,
which once more has merely a frank rustication;and in the
Pandolfmi and many later palaces the effect is dependent
entirelyon tabernacle-work, as it had been in the late Roman
stage backgrounds. In High Renaissance palaces, to be sure,
the engaged column was often substituted for the pilaster, but
this was followed by the use of columns standingquite free of
the wall and thus clearlybetraying their decorative character.
The scheme of the arch of Domitian (Constantine)was thus
repeated in a playful manner in Sansovino's Logetta in

Venice (1540).
Proportions. With the revival of classical forms came a
revival of classical proportions,and still more of the classical

system of proportions. Alberti and others inculcated the
use of integralratios,and the modular system of Vitruvius
for determining the members of the orders. However much
the architects of the period felt free to depart from such
mathematical proportionsin actual practice,there can be no
question that they gave great attention to geometrical
similarityin the designing of masses and openings. There
results in many works a musical harmony of forms like that of
Periclean architecture.
Ornament. The love of ornament, both in sculpture and in
color,which was characteristic of Italythroughout the Middle
Ages, persistedin the Renaissance. Classical models were
here taken up even readilythan for the larger forms of

more
architecture. Garlands, rosettes, arabesques,candelabra, and

acanthus foliagewere carved with a knowledge and freedom
which showed them to have become true possessionsof the
Renaissance artist (Fig. 210). Notwithstanding their own
abilities as sculptorsand ornamentalists, the early Florentine
architects kept the carved detail strictly subordinate to the
architectural forms. In Lombardy this was less often the
case. There even the pilasteritself was paneled to receive
an arabesque. In Rome under Bramante the abstract archi-
tectural
forms tended to supersedefloral ornament altogether.
The Tempietto of Bramante shows not a leaf on the exterior.
Under Raphael and Michelangelo, on the other hand, decorative
features once more reasserted themselves in the facade
(Fig.202), and in the loggiasof the Villa Madama and of the
Vatican they reached perhaps their highest development
(Fig.201).
Spatialforms. The same preoccupation with proportions
which appeared in the study of facades showed itself in the
determination of the forms of interior space. Except in
churches, rectangular shapes were almost the only ones ployed.
em-
Simple integralratios were recommended for the

relations of the length and height of rooms to their width. In
general each element formed a unit completely independent,
without any spatial connection with others. The stairs,

which might have furnished such a connection, were either
based on the spiralstairs of the Middle Ages or were in narrow
runs inclosed between walls.

Vaults. The technical difficulties of vaulting, after the
vast experienceof the Middle Ages, troubled the men of the
Renaissance but little. They were free to choose those forms,
whether classical or medieval, which comported best with their
feelingfor composition of space.
the The one most preferred
was the dome. Except in the attempts of Alberti to imitate
Roman examples, this was usually employed over a square
plan " either as one of a series of domical vaults supported on
cross-arches or as a dome on pendentives at the central point

of a plan. From the time of Bramante's studies for Saint
Peter's his solution of the problem of a dome on pendentives "
with an enlargement of the central by short diagonal

space
faces below the pendentives was "
widely adopted. The barrel

vault, which frequentlyappeared over the arms of cross-plans
and elsewhere, was likewise seldom given its unbroken tinuity
con-
but was banded with cross-arches at each bay after the

medieval fashion. Penetrations of the vaulting surface,which
might given lightdirectlyin the vault, were
have as rare as
in Roman architecture. The groined vault, too, was little

favored, appearing almost solelyin the interior arcades of
courts, where it was necessary to have a concentrated thrust
which might be met by iron rods at each bay. On the other
hand the cloister vault, a square or octagonal dome, was widely
used, as well as the apse, which might be either semicircular
or semi-octagonal. A rich combination of vault forms with
supporting members perfectlyadapted to them occurs in the
loggia of the Villa Madama (Fig.201),in which appears also
a characteristic decoration of arabesques in stucco.
External treatment of the dome. The only one of the vaults
which rose above the roofs, and thus required an external
expression, was the central dome, usuallyon pendentives. In
the cathedral of Florence this already dominated the exterior
in a way which set the model for all the great domes of the
period. In minor buildingslike the Pazzi chapel the dome
might still spring directlyfrom the pendentives and be in-
closed
in a conical roof, but in more important examples a
drum unfailingly
was introduced, lightingthe space below and
raisingthe dome into prominence. The curve of the dome was
then shown on the exterior. Bramante, in his Tempietto,

treated the drum with panels inclosingwindows
pilaster-like
and niches alternately.For Saint Peter's he placed around
the drum a full exterior peristyle.This rose above the center
of the curve, and was surmounted by a pedestaland steps, so
that the dome has the saucer-effect of the Pantheon and other
Roman examples. This form, however, remained without
imitators,for the tendency was rather to increase both the
steepness of the curve and the height of the drum. Thus the
model made by San Gallo for the dome of Saint Peter's had
its base encircled by a Roman arch order in two receding
stories,and was crowned with a vast lantern which gave the
whole mass an almost conical aspect.
Roofs. The roofs in
relatively Italy had
little importance
in the composition of individual buildings,being either low
in pitch or else quite flat and bordered with balustrades. In
the general effect of town and landscape,however, their red
tiles made a strikingcontrast with the prevailingwhiteness
of the walls.
General character of Renaissance forms. Through the spatial
forms of the Renaissance, the massing, the forms of detail,
runs a consistent character, which might be expressed as the
internal unity of each element and the unchangeableness of its
impression on the observer. The isolation of each spatial
element by bounding arches, the preferencefor self-centered
domical forms and for centrallycomposed buildings, the self-
sufficiency of each story and each bay, the unbroken enframe-
ment of openings and gables,the lack of projectingmasses
which might make transition between a building and its
surroundings,and render its effect changeable with changing
points of view all these are
" manifestations of a definite
feelingregardingform, which distinguishes the Italian Renais-
sance
from both preceding and followingperiods.
France. The country outside of Italy which was earliest
and most deeply affected by the Renaissance was France.
The Latin element in the population was here predominant,
and Latin culture was reassimilated with such readiness as to
find a new home. The centralized power of the crown gave
opportunity for undertakings on a scale unrivaled elsewhere

outside of Rome, and for the callingfrom Italyof artists of the
first class. At the same time it determined the character of
the predominant architectural type, the chateau of the king
or the court noble.
Development. Transitional period,1495-15/5. It was the
claims of the French kings to Italian territory, leading to a
series of invasions by Charles VIII., Louis XII., and Francis I.,
which revealed to them the splendor and luxury of Italian art,
and led to the successful establishment of Renaissance forms
in France. The process was a gradual one, occupying a period
of twenty years from the return of Charles VIII. in 1495.
During this time the predominant character of the buildings
remained Gothic, but Renaissance details mingled with the
Gothic forms inincreasing proportions. An
ever early
instance of such a mixture is the wing built by Louis XII. in
the chateau of Blois (1503, Fig. 212). Here the classical
influence appears in little else but the ellipticalform of the
arches and the delicate arabesque panels which decorate the
piers. At the chateau of Gaillon pilastersand entablatures
imitate the arch order and other classical features.
Early Renaissance, 1515-45. Francis I. With the reign
of Francis I. (1515-47) coincides the early Renaissance, in
which, although the structure and dispositionof buildings
were stillfundamentally Gothic, they were completely clothed
in a garb of pseudo-classical forms. The irregularplans,
round towers, and high, steep roofs with dormers persisted,
but the stories were treated with superposed orders of delicate
pilasters and entablatures,the main cornices were emphasized
with an aggregation of Italian elements. The center of
activityremained in the royal residences of the Loire valley.
The earliest phase of the styleis well illustrated in the wing of
Francis I. at Blois (1515-19),with the magnificentspiralstair- way
in classical masquerade (Fig. 212). At the chateau of
Chambord, constructed in 1526-44, the detail was similar,
but the plan was for the first time rigidly
symmetrical. In the
chateau of (1531-40), likwise symmetrical, square
Ecouen
towers or angle pavilionstook the place of round ones, and the
Chateau Madrid near Paris was lent a truly Italian air by its
gracefulexterior arcades restingon columns like those of a
Florentine court. Owing to the conquest of Milan by Francis

and to his patronage of north Italian it
'artists, was the
influence of Lombardy which predominated in the detail. The
paneled pilastersand florid ornament of the Loire chateaux

are the descendants of those at San Satiro and the Certosa
(Fig.195).
The High Renaissance, 1545-70. Henry II. In the last
years of Francis and the followingreign of Henry II. came a
FIG. 212 "
BLOIS. COURT OF THE CHATEAU, SHOWING WINGS OF

LOUIS xii (AT BACK) AND FRANCIS i (AT LEFT)
change, due to the assimilation of the styleand to the influence

of the Roman school of Bramante. The Italian masters now
brought to France represented tradition Serlio the this "
pupilof Peruzzi, Primaticcio the pupil'ofa disciple

of Raphael.
For the first time, also,Frenchmen assumed the r61e of archi-
tect
in the modern sense. Jean Goujon, Pierre Lescot,
Philibert de l'Orme, Jacques Androuet du Cerceau, and Jean
Bullant were not mere master builders. Most, if not all,of
them had been in Italy and had studied the designs of the
Roman masters; some of them held high court appointments.
Their buildingsshow a mastery of the grammar of classical
3$2 A HISTORY OP ARCHITECTURE
forms and anabilityto use them freelyto secure new effects

which were characteristically national. These depended
partly on differing climatic conditions, which required lower
rooms, larger windows, and tall chimney stacks, and partly
on tradition,which still caused the retention of projecting
pavilionswith high individual roofs.
First designs. The earliest work to show the characteristics
of the High Renaissance is the Hotel de Ville in Paris,begun
from a model by Domenico of Cortona (calledBoccador) in
1531. The motive was suggested by Raphael's Palazzo dell'
Aquila, with a Roman arch order below and niches between
the windows of the main story. By 1535 a Frenchman himself
had caught the spiritof classicism,as Goujon showed in his
tomb for Louis de Brez" at Rouen. At Ancy-le-France
(1538-46) Primaticcio regularizedthe' scheme of the French
chateau, not only in the strictly rectangular plan but in the
uniform intercolumniations of the exterior and the rhythmical
bay treatment of the court. At the same time De l'Orme, in
Saint Maur-les-Fosses, introduced the rusticated orders of
Sanmicheli. At Bournazel in the south, about 1545, the
neighboring classical monuments stimulated a treatment of
the triumphal arch motive with engaged columns, which was
truly classical in its monumentality. The most characteristic

design of all was that for the rebuildingof the Louvre in Paris,
the work of Lescot and Goujon (Fig.213). Here there was
the subtlest mingling of French and Italian traditions. The
lower stories with
"
their superposed orders, their pedestals
and pedimented windows recall Bramante
"
and Raphael.
The projectingmotives which mark the end bays and the
center suggest those of the Cancelleria,as well as the French
tower-pavilions. The profilingrivals that of
delicacy of
Peruzzi. The great size of the windows, the pediments which
terminate the attic,are of northern origin, while the emphasis
which results from the use of both pilastersand engaged
columns is a novel contribution by Lescot.
Later developments. Still more advanced developments,
parallel with contemporary movements in Italy,were the later
designsof Primaticcio,Bullant, De l'Orme, and Du Cerceau.
In the chateau of Monceaux the Italian master employed for
the first time in France "
in the same year that Michelangelo
FIG. 213 "
PARIS. COURT OF THE LOUVRE. (ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTIONS
OF LESCOT AND GOUJON)

designed his palaces on the Capitol (1547) the "colossal "
order" risingthrough two stories to the main cornice. A

similar use of free standing columns occurs in the monumental
frontispiece erected by Bullant at Ecouen (about 1564) and
elsewhere. Domed chapels were built by De l'Orme at Anet
(1548) and by Primaticcio at Saint Denis (1559^.)- Finally

came the vast symmetrical plans grouped about a multitude
of courts, designed by de 1'Orme for the Tuileries (1564, Fig.
214),and by Du Cerceau for Charleval (1572),which surpassed
anything projectedin Italy.
Types of buildings. Chateaux. The Renaissance chateau
developed, as its name implies,from-the fortified castle of
the Middle Ages. Although no longer planned to withstand
a siege,it was stillmade secure againstmarauders by a moat
and gate-house,and preserved the arrangement about a court
and at least a reminiscence of the earlier fortified towers at
the angles. The staircases,at first spirallike those of the
Middle Ages, were later arranged in
straightflights.Access
to individual rooms could usually be obtained only by passing
through others,for even the open air circulation provided by
the arcades of an Italian courtyard was usually absent. A
principalhall or gallery for functions of state was provided,
often monumental in its size and treatment, like the gallery
of Henry II. at Fontainebleau. A forecourt outside the moat
accommodated the service functions.
City hotels. Although at this time the court still resided
mostly in the country, town houses of some pretensionswere
built by officials and wealthy merchants. These, such as the
Hdtel d'Assezat at Toulouse, were unlike the Italian town
houses which faced directlyon the street. They followed the
largermedieval houses of France in court which
facing on a
was separated from the street by a screen wall with an arched
carriageentrance.
Churches. During the early Renaissance church architect-
ure
remained fundamentally Gothic, with a mere substitution
of classical details,poorly understood. Saint Eustache in
Paris, a typicalexample, still has a plan like that of Notre
Dame, with groined vaults and flyingbuttresses. Many of
these buildingsare not the less effective from their combina-
tion
of supposedly incongruous elements, The same character
100
10 "jo 10 20 y" 40 50
-"METRES
FIG. 214" PARIS. THE TUILERIES. (DE L'ORME's PLAN)

in
persists most churches of the High Renaissance, but the
few designed by the court architects show the new spirit.
Thus the facade of Saint Nizier at Lyons (1542) has a great
niche with massive half-columns, and the Mausoleum Chapel
at Anet (1566) is classical both in its simple rectangular plan
and its front with pilastersand attic. De rOrme's chapel
in the park of Villers-Cotterets had a circular dome with three
semicircular chapels and a free-standing
pedimented portico "
the earliest in France, more advanced in classical character

than most Italian designs. His Palace Chapel for Anet had
again a circular central space, but with the arms of a Greek
cross. For the Mausoleum of the Valois at Saint Denis,
Primaticcio adopted a plan like that of Brunelleschi's Santa
Maria degliAngeli,with six niched chapels and a galleryabout
a central dome. The architectural membering here, both
inside and out, was of the richest and purest classical forms,
and buildingranks among
the the most important of all the
centrallycomposed buildings of the Renaissance.
Details. In France where the climate scarcely permitted
the open loggiasof Italy,the free-standing column with either
lintel orarch was very rare. So too, during the Renaissance,
was the simple wall, for columns and entablatures were
indispensableelements of decoration. The membering of the

wall, perhaps in combination with rustication,was the major
problem of the time among questionsof detail. In the solu-
tion
of it,alternation in some form was the favorite device.
The earlier chateaux, treated with had
pilasters, windows over
one another in one bay, then blank panels in the next bay.
Later the true rhythmical bay scheme in all its variants was
adopted. The rusticated column introduced by De rOrme

was exalted by him into a sixth order, which he called the
"French order" (Fig. 215). Unlike most of the Italian
examples, some of the French ones areof the greatest delicacy
of carved enrichment. In the early Renaissance the Corin-
thian
order had preferencewhich it enjoyed in Italy;
the same
later no one order was speciallyfavored. The low ceilings

usual in France, with the prevailing secular character of
French architecture,gave little opportunity for a development
of vaulting. The flat ceilings
were treated as in Italy with
elaborate coffering.A striking feature of contrast with Italian
architecture was the high roof with its dormers, gables,and
chimneys. The dormer was treated firstwith pilasters
bearing
pinnacles,and with elaborate gables and finials;later it was
given merely the form of a pedimented window. The balus-
trade
above the cornice gave place to an ornamental cresting.
A common feature making transition be-
tween
the wall and the roof was a row of
pediments which crowned repeating mo-
tives
below, as in the Louvre. Such ments

ele-
were sufficient by themselves to
endow French
buildings, no matter how
classical in their ordonnance, with
strictly
a characteristically national aspect.
Spain. In Spain,as in France and other
countries outside of Italy,there was a
mingling of Italian forms with those already

existingin the native medieval archi-
tecture.
however, the medieval
Here,
styleitself included a large admixture of
Moorish forms. Moriscoes, until their ex-
pulsion
in 1610, remained prominent

among artificers,
and thus had their fluence
in-
on the Renaissance forms as well.
Thus arose the Plateresqueor silversmith's
style,so called from the intricate and cate
deli-
ornament abounding in it. This,
which correspondswith the early Renais-
sance,
extended from about 1500 to 1560.
A notable example is the Town Hall at FIG. 215 "
PARIS. TAIL
DE-
Seville (Fig.216),built in 1527-32. Here FROM THE TUI-

LERIES. (PLANAT)
there is an applicationof engaged orders
in two stories which in its main lines is
thoroughly grammatical, but which has columns,
pilasters,
window enframements, and panels alike covered with the
richest arabesques and candelabra-like forms. Even more
characteristic in its mode of composition is the doorway of the

Universityat Salamanca. Here the ornament is massed in a
great panel above the opening, which contrasts with the

broad neighboring surfaces of unbroken masonry. Other
notable features of the styleare open arcaded loggiaswhich
often terminate facade, as in the Casa de Monterey at

a
Salamanca (1530), and the courts or patios surrounded by

galleries which are found in all important buildings. Forms
like those of the High Renaissance in Italy first appeared in
the palace begun for Charles V. in the Alhambra (1527),by
Pedro Machuca. This buildingis square in plan with a circular
FIG. 2l6 "

SEVILLE. TOWN HALL
colonnaded court having superposed orders, Doric and Ionic

(Fig.217). In purity and classical qualitythe buildingholds
its own with contemporary monuments of Italy. From this
time occasional buildings continued the stricter classical
tendency, the most famous examples of which reallybelong to
the succeeding period.
Germany and the Low Countries. In Germany the multitude
of small states resulted in great varietyin the degree to which
Renaissance principleswere assimilated,and in the stage of
advancement in different regions. The Belvedere built at
Prague about 1536 shows a full exterior peristylewith arches
descending on columns, all of Florentine aspect. Such designs
were but isolated exceptions,however. In most buildings

the Italian strongly modified, and the medieval
forms were
element was much more persistentthan in France. The
wing built by the Elector Otto Heinrich (1556-59) in the

castle at Heidelberg shows a combination of elements derived
FIG. 2*7 "
GRANADA. PALACE OF CHARLES V. COURT
from Bramante and his school with other elements from

Lombardy (Fig.218). Three superposed orders,the two lower
ones with pilasters,
recall the Cancelleria,but every second
support is replacedby a corbel and a statued niche like those
introduced by Raphael. In the lower story the pilasters are
rusticated,in the followingstory they have arabesque panels.

The window enframements with their candelabra mullions
recall the Certosa at Pavia. A similar character prevailed
in most buildingsof the later sixteenth century, which began
to be influenced by the baroque movement in Italy. The
baroque spirit,
as we shall see, was indeed akin to that of the
German Renaissance craftsmen, as their ready assimilation
of the forms of herms, "cartouches," and broken pediments
reveals. The wing at Heidelberg built by Friedrich IV.
(1601-07),where such features appear, shows at first glance
FIG. 2l8 "

HEIDELBERG. WING OF OTTO HEINRICH IN THE
CASTLE
but little difference from its predecessor. The Peller house

at Nurnberg (1625) shows the continued vitalityof the
Renaissance as applied to one of the most common problems
in Germany, the dwelling of the wealthy town merchant
(Fig. 219). Its superposed orders, enframing the windows,
run up continuously into the great stepped and ornamented
gable,which still proclaims a descent from the Middle Ages.
In Flanders and Holland, except for the more frequent use of
RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 39i
brick, the general character of the work is similar to that

of Germany.
England. Development. The latest of the great Western
nations to feel the effects of the Renaissance in architecture
was England, isolated and always conservative. Italian
sculptors
were employed by Wolsey and Henry VIII., and their
FIG. 219 "
NURNBERG. PELLER HOUSE
influence made itself felt,as at Hampton Court (1515-40),

in the carved
details of many buildings which remained
Gothic.
essentially Meanwhile the spiritof classical metry
sym-
was appearing in the plans, and shortly before the
accession of Elizabeth in 1558 the forms of the orders began
to be imitated and applied to the fagades of buildings. The
Italians had meanwhile graduallydeparted,but Flemings and
Germans began to take their places,and at least one English-
14
392
man, John Shute, went to Italyto study architecture (1550).

His First and Chief Grounds of Architecture (1563) was based
on Vitruvius and gave diagrams of the orders. Sir Thomas
Gresham secured from Flanders the design of the Royal
Exchange (1567-70),which had a court of Florentine aspect,
with arches restingon columns below, pilastersand statued
niches above. In Longleat House (1567-80) the whole ex-terior,
in three stories, was treated with superposed orders of

grammatical form and proportions,and many porches and
doorways from less elaborate houses of just this period show
that the classical forms were well understood. It is this
phase of style,lastingbut a very few years, which really
corresponds to the High Renaissance in Italy and France.
The tide of baroque ornament which was already inundating
the Continent swept over England also before either the
medieval or the Renaissance currents had spent their force.
The architectural books of De Vries (1559-77) and other
Flemings and Germans "
full of the new and bizarre tions
combina-
of classical elements, scrolls,cartouches, and "strap-
work," imitatingcut leather "
were widely followed.

Types. While in its details the architecture of Elizabeth
and James I. thus passed from medieval to post-Renaissance,
in its practicalproblems and types it forms unmistakably a
unit, governed by the life of the Renaissance itself the pe-riod "
of Spenser, Shakespeare, and Raleigh. Although the

monarchy was powerful enough to insure peace, the landed
aristocracyremained of great wealth and importance. The
country houses of nobles and gentlemen, often on a vast scale,
were the principalcreations of the period. These men were
less interested in religious than in mundane things,so that new

churches were few and they remained almost purely Gothic.
The house. The Elizabethan and Jacobean houses were
developed from the medieval fortifiedmanors by making them

more symmetrical and more open, and by ornamenting or over-
laying
certain portions with classical details. The basic

arrangement was a square court, on one side of which, opposite
the gate-house,was the great hall,where master and servants
ate and mingled. At one end of the hall was the entrance
passage or "screens," at the other the dais for the high table,
with its fireplace and bay window. Beyond, in either direc-
tion, were the kitchens and the private apartments, respec-

tively,
along the sides of the court were
and lodgingsreached
only by passing through those intervening or through the
open air. In the second story, approached by the principal
staircase near the dais,was the long gallery, a luxurious feature
first introduced at
Hampton Court.
This often tained
at-
a length of
over two hundred
feet,with a width
of but sixteen to
twenty - five. In
the earlier amples
ex-
there was
no attempt to
secure formal
C O " T
symmetry either O
in plan or in eleva-
tion.
At Sutton
Place (1523-25)
the court was
made for the first

time rigidlysym-
metrical,
and this
later became the
rule also for the
external facades,
so far they could
as
be appreciated in
any single view.
The gate - house FIG. 22O "
MONTACUTE HOUSE. (GOTCH)
I. Hall. 2. Drawing-room. 3. Large dining-room. 4. Small
and "screens" dining-room. 5.%Smoke-room. 6. Pantry. 7. Kitchen. 8. Ser-
vants
Hall. 9. Porch. 10. Garden house.
were centered on
the main axis,the bay window of the dais was repeated on

the other side of the court. At Montacute (1580) and many
later houses, the lodgings inclosingthe court were omitted
and the house was opened freelyin all directions. With the
porch and with projectionson the garden side the plan thus
became E or H-shaped (Fig. 220). Medieval elements re-
mained important in the aspect as well as in the plan, for a

multitude of high roofs, gables, dormers, turrets, chimney
stacks,and bay windows diversified the skylinesand the wall
surfaces. Even at Longleat, the most classical of all the
houses, the mullioned bays stilltell more powerfullythan the
FIG. 221" HATFIELD HOUSE
engaged orders. In others which were more typical,like

Hatfield House (1611, Fig. 221), the elements are almost
purely medieval, and what has transformed the whole into
something new and characteristic is only the classical spirit
of symmetry and order.
PERIODS OF RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE
IJALY
Centers
I. Early Renaissance, c. 1420-1500.
Florentine school.
Filippo Brunelleschi,1379-1446.
Spedale degliInnocenti,1421. Florence
San Lorenzo, begun about 1425.
Pazzi Chapel and Sacristyof San Lorenzo,
c. 1429.
ITALY "
(Continued)
Centers
Santa MariadegliAngeli, 1434.
Santo Spirito,1435.
Palazzo Pitti,c. 1440 (?).
Michelozzo di Bartolornmeo, 1396-1472.
Palazzo Medici (Riccardi),begun 1444.
Leon Battista Alberti,1404-72.
San Francesco at Rimini, 1447.
SS. Annunziata at Florence,1451.
Palazzo Rucellai at Florence, 1451-55.

San Sebastiano at Mantua, 1459.
Sant' Andrea at Mantua, 1472.
Giuliano da San Gallo, 1445-1516.
Villa Poggio at Cajano, 1485.
Sacristy of Santo Spirito at Florence
(with Cronaca), 1489-96.
Palazzo Strozzi at Florence (with others),
1489-1507.
Simone del Pollajuolo (calledII Cronaca),
1457-1508.
San Francesco al Monte at Florence,1487.
Antonio da San Gallo the elder, i46i(?)-
Florence
1534-
San Biagio at Montepulciano, 1518-37.
Luciano da Laurana, d. c. 1482.
Ducal Palace at Urbino, 1468-82.
Venetian school.
Pietro Lombardo, c. 1435-1512.
Palazzo Vendramini, 1481.
Santa Maria dei Miracoli,1481-87.
Lombard school.
Fra Giocondo, c. 1433-1515.
(?)Loggiadel Consiglioat Verona, begun
1476.
Giovanni Antonio Amadeo, 1 44 7- 1 5 2 2 .
Facade of the Certosa at Pavia (with

others),begun 1493.
Donate B ramante ,
1 444- 1514.
Sacristyof Santa Maria near San Satiro,
Milan, 1489-98.
Choir of Santa Maria delle Grazie,Milan,
1492-99.
Santa Maria at Abbiate Grasso, 1497.
ITALY "
(Continued)
Centers
Rome.
Palazzo Venezia and Church of San
Florence.
Marco, 1455-66.
Palazzo Cancelleria,1486-95.
II. "High Renaissance," c. 1500-40.
Roman school.
Donato Bramante (1444-1514),from 1499.
Cloister of Santa Maria della Pace,
1504.
Tempietto at San Pietro in Montorio,
1500-02.
Court of the Belvedere at the Vatican,
begun 1506.
Saint Peter's,begun 1506.
Palazzo Caprini,
Raphael, 1483-1520.
Saint Peter's,1514-20.
Loggias of the Court of San Damaso at
the Vatican.
Palazzo dell' Aquila.
Villa Madama, begun 1520.
Palazzo Pandolfini in Florence, begun
c. 1520.
Rome
Baldassare Peruzzi,1481-1536.
Villa Farnesina in Rome, 1509-11.'
Palazzo Albergati in Bologna, 1522.
Palazzi Massimi at Rome, 1531.
Antonio da San Gallo the younger, 1482-
1546.
Palazzo Farnese in Rome, c. 1520-80.
Venetian school.
Michele Sanmicheli,1484-1559.
Gates of Verona, 1533 Jff.
Palazzo Pompei at Verona, 1530.
Palazzo Grimani at Venice, completed
1539-
Jacopo Sansovino, 1486-1570.
Palazzo Cornaro della Ca' Grande at
Venice, 1530.
Library of Saint Mark's at Venice, 1536.
Logetta of the Campanile at Venice,
1540.
FRANCE
Centers
I. Transitional period,c. 1495-1515.
Invasions of
Italy by Charles VIII., 1494-
95, and by Louis XII., 1499-1504.
Wing of Louis XII. at Blois,1503.
Chateau of Gaillon,1497-1510.
II. Early Renaissance,c. 1515-45 (FrancisI.,1515-
47). Loire valley
Wing of Francis I. at Blois,1515-19.
Chateau of Chambord, 1526-44.
Chateau of Ecouen, 1531-40.
Chateau Madrid near Paris,1528-0. 1565.
Saint Pierre at Caen, 1518-45.
Saint Eustache
.
at Paris,begun 1532.
III. "High Renaissance,"c. 1545-70.
Domenico of Cortona (Boccador), d. 1549.
Hotel de Ville at Paris,begun 1531.
Jean Goujon, d. between 1564 and 1568.
Tomb of Louis de Breze at Rouen, 1535.
Pierre Lescot, 1510 (?)~78.
Court of the Louvre (with Goujon),
1546-76.
Francesco Primaticcio,1490-1570.
Chateau of Ancy-le-France, 1538-46.
Chateau of Monceaux -en-Brie,1547-55.
Paris
Tomb of the Valois at Saint Denis, 1559 jff.
Philibert de 1'Orme, b. between 1510 and
1515; d. 1570.
Chateau of Saint
Maur-les-Fosses,c. 1545.
Chateau d'Anet, 1548-54.
Tuileries at Paris,begun 1564.
Jean Bullant,c. 1525 (?)~78.
Chateau d'Ecouen, porticoes,c. 1564.
Jacques Androuet du Cerceau, b. c. 1510;
d. after 1584.
Chateau of Verneuil,1565^".
Chateau of Charleval, 1572-74.
SPAIN
"
1. Early Renaissance, Plateresque,"c. 1480-1530.
Enrique de Egas, c. 1455-1534.
Portal of the Hospitalof Santa Cruz, before 1514.
Portal of the Universityin Salamanca, 1515-30,
SPAIN "
(Continued)
Alonso de
Covarrubias, c. 1488-1564.
Archiepiscopal palace in Alcala de Henares, 1534.
North facade of the Alcazar in Toledo, 1537.
Palacio Monterey in Salamanca.
Town Hall in Seville,1546-64.
II. High Renaissance, c. 1530-70.
Diego de Siloe,c. 1500-63.
Cathedral of Granada, 1528 Jf.
Pedro Machuca.
Palace of Charles V. in Granada, 1526-33.
GERMANY
I. Early Renaissance, c. 1520-50.

Belvedere Prague, 1534 jf.
at
Palace at Landshut, 1536-43.
Portal of the Castle at Brieg, 1552.
II. High Renaissance, c. 1550-1600.
Otto Heinrichsbau at Heidelberg,1556-63.
Portico of the Rathaus in Cologne, 1569-71.
Rathaus in Lubeck, 1570 Jf.
Rathaus in Rothenburg-ob-der-Tauber, 1572 Jff.
Friedrichsbau at Heidelberg,1601-07. ] With baroque feat-
Peller House in Nurnberg, 1605. I ures.
ENGLAND
Henry VIII. , 1509-47. Isolated examples of Italian ornament.

Hampton Court, 1515-40.
Palace of Nonesuch, c. 1537-50.
Screen in King's College Chapel, Cambridge, 1532-36.
Elizabeth,1558-1603.
Burghley House, dormers, 1556 jf.
Royal Exchange in London, 1566-70.
Longleat, T 567-80.
Kirby Hall, 1570-1640.
Montacute House, 1580-1610.
Wollaton, 1580-88.
James I.,1603-25.
Bramshill,1605. \
Hatfield House, 1611. f
Audley End, 1616. ( With baroque features.

BlicklingHall, 1619-20.7
Renaissance architecture in general. Aside from series of which

the individual volumes are listed below there may be mentioned pecially
es-
P. Franld's Die
Entwicklungsphasen der
Baukunst, neueren
1914 (a study of development), and C. H. Moore's Character of

Renaissance Architecture, 1905 (an unsympathetic estimate).
Italy. The most recent and authoritative works are almost clusively
ex-
in foreign languages. Scholarly general works are H.

Willich's Baukunst der Renaissance in Italien,1914 (Handbuch der
Kunstwissenschaft}, J. Burckhardt's Geschichte der Renaissance in
Italien (Geschichte d er neueren Baukunst}, 5th ed., 1912 (both with
emphasis on development), and J. Durm's Baukuni't der Renaissance
in Italien (Handbuch der Architektur}, 2d ed., 1914 (with emphasis
on technical analysis) A competent brief sketch of the development
.
is P. Frankl's Die Renaissance-Architektur in Italien,vol. i, 1912
(Aus Natur und Geisteswelt} W. J. Anderson's .

The Architecture
of the Renaissance in Italy,4th ed., 1909, and G. Gromort's Histoire
abrege de I1architecture de la renaissance en Italie,1913, are richly
illustrated works, which, however, repeat many statements now
generally considered erroneous. Among numerous monumental lustrate

il-
folios covering specialregions may be mentioned: P.
Letarouilly's Edificesde Rome moderne, 3 vols.,1868-74, the engrav-
ings
of which are supplemented by photographs in H. St rack's
Baudenkmdler Roms des XV. -XIX. Jahrhunderts,1891; C. Stegmann
and H. von Geymuller's Architektur der Renaissance in Toscana,
ii vols., 1885-1908; and R. Reinhardt, Raschdorff, and others'
Palast- Architektur von Ober-Italien und Toscana vom XV. bis XVII.
Jahrhundert, 5 vols.,1886-1911. H.
Kuppd- Strack's Central-und
kirchen der Renaissance in Italien,2 vols.,1882; W. Limburger's
Die Gebdude von Florenz,1910, and B. Patzak's Die Renaissance-und
Barock-Villa in Italien,vols. 2 and 3, 1908-12, are careful monographs.
France. The fundamental works are W. Lubke's Geschichte der
Renaissance Frankreich, 2d ed., 1885 (Geschichte der neueren
in
Baukunst}, and H. von Geymuller's Die Baukunst der Renaissance
in Frankreich (Handbuch der Architektur}, 2 vols.,1898-1901. W. H.
Ward's The Architecture of the Renaissance in France, 2 vols.,1911,
embodies Geymuller's researches in English, with numerous trations.
illus-
R. Blomfield's History of French Architecture, 1498-1661,
2 vols.,1911, suffers from failure to employ the discussions in Ger- man.
C. T. Mathew's The Renaissance under the Valois, 1893, is
stillvaluable for its fine illustrations. Among the many collections
of measured drawings may be mentioned those of Berty, Rouyer
and Darcel, Daly, and Sauvageot. Large photographs are provided
466 A HiS TORY OF ARCHITECTURE
by C. Martin's La Renaissance
France, 2 vols.,1910-12,
en and the
relevant section of C. Gurlitt's Die Baukunst Frankreichs,4 vols.,
1896-1900. The chateaux are treated specifically in two works by
Victor (lithographs),
Petit in H. Saint Saveur's Chateaux de France
(photographs), and, for the smaller buildings, in L. C. Newhall's

The Minor Chateaux and Manor Houses of France of the X V. and X VI.
Century, 1914. Urban dwellings are covered by P. Vitry'sHotels

et maisons de la renaissance franqaise, 2 vols.,1911-12. The field
of biography is particularlyrich, in the works of Berty (1860),
Destailleur (1863),Lance (1872), Bauchal (1887), and Vachon (1910).
Spain and Portugal. A. Byne and M. Stapley'sSpanish ure
Architect-
of the Sixteenth Century, 1917, chieflydevoted to the Plateresque,
may be supplemented by the sketch prefixedto O. Schubert's Geschich-

te der Barock in Spanien, 1908. Further illustration is furnished by
M. Junghandel's Die Baukunst Spaniens,3 vols.,1889-98; C. Uhde's
Baudenkmdler in Spanien und Portugal,2 vols., 1892; and A. Haupt's
Die Baukunst der Renaissance in Portugal, 2 vols.,1890-95. The
Monumentos arquitectonicos de Espana, 1859-81, is a vast series pub-
lished
at the expense of the state.
Germany. The two fundamental accounts are W. Liibke's Ge-
schichte der Renaissance in Deutschland (Geschichte
der neueren kunst),
Bau-
26. ed., 2 vols.,1882, and G. von Bezold's Die Baukunst der
Renaissance in
Deutschland,Holland, Belgien und Ddnemark (Hand-
buck der Architektur) 2d ed., 1908. Monumental
,
folios of trations
illus-
are A. Ortwein and A. Scheffer's Deutsche Renaissance, 9
vols.,1871-88; K. E. O. Fritsch's Denkmaler deutscher Renaissance,
4 vols.,1891; and A. Lambert and E. Stahl's Motive der deutschen
Architektur des XVI., XVII., und XVIII. Jahrhunderts, vol. i,
1890. A work
in briefer compass J. Hoffman's is
Baukunst und
dekorative Skulptur der Renaissance in Deutschland,1909.
England. For the Renaissance proper the principalaccount is
J. A. Gotch's Early Renaissance Architecture in England, 2d ed.,
1914. R. Blomfield's History of Renaissance Architecture in Eng-
land,
1500-1800, 2 vols.,1897, includes a briefer discussion of the
period in question. An abridged edition in one volume was issued
in 1904. Large photographs are furnished by Gotch's Architecture
of the Renaissance in England, 2 vols.,1894; C. Uhde's Baudenkmdler
in Gross Britanien,2 vols.,1894; and T. Garner and A. Stratton's
The Domestic Architecture of England During the Tudor Period,
3 vols.,1908-11. Other discussions of the domestic architecture of
the Renaissance in England occur in Gotch's The Growth of the
English House, 1909, and H. Muthesius's Das englische Haus,
vol. i, 1904. The Renaissance garden is covered by H. I. Triggs's
Formal Gardens of England and Scotland,1902.
CHAPTER XI
POST-RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE
By the middle of the sixteenth century the spiritual

forces
of the Renaissance in Italy were exhausted, and new forces
began to determine the cultural development. Men no longer
dreamed of a literal resurrection of pagan Rome, but were
confronted by the revival of militant Christianityin the
Reformation and the counter-Reformation. With the growth
of centralized states came absolutism on the part of the
monarchs, elaboration of their courts, and the final establish-
ment
of domestic securityand of modern city and country
life.
Architectural changes. Simultaneously with the beginning
of these cultural changes,architecture also underwent changes
which were not less fundamental. Classic forms, indeed,
still remained elements of the design, and conformity to
classical canons stillremained the ideal in somequarters. The
feelingas to what constitutes a classical character, however,
was changed, the elements became materials which could be
recombined or played with freely,and emphasis was ferred
trans-
to other qualities than purity of detail and geometrical

simplicity. First among these qualitieswas a heightened
unity in the composition of singlebuildings, and extension of
the scope of the composition to include their surroundings,or
even whole quarters or whole towns. There was a correspond-
ing
decrease in the isolationand self-sufficiency of individual
parts of a composition: the subdivisions of interior space
tended to melt away; the lines of cornices and string-courses
were interrupted,or architraves,pediments, and orders were
broken by rustic blocks. Facades no longer conformed to a
singleplane,but had a boldness of reliefwhich resulted in an

aspect varying with every movement of the observer. Practi-
cal requirements became more specializedand the forms of

rooms began to be differentiated so as to stand in an organic
relation with their functions.
Academic and baroque tendencies. Sharing these qualities,
which give the fundamental unity to the styleof the time, are
buildingsof two diverse tendencies, opposed to each other in
their relations to classical architecture. On one hand was the
academic tendency, which perpetuated the strivingof the
Renaissance for accurate reproduction of classical features
and for the establishment of mathematical canons of pro-
portion.
On the other hand was baroque the so-called
tendency, which was to disregard classical dispositionsand
theoretic rules alike, and to use the forms of the orders as
elements of a plasticmodeling of masses. Such tendencies

to strictness and to freedom within styleoffered nothing new
a
in principle, having been indeed always present in greater or

less measure. Only the sharpness of their antithesis was
hitherto unusual, and even this did not prevent a great variety
of compromises both in individual buildingsand in the work
of national schools.
An inclusive term. English the designation
In baroque has
always been appliedonly to the works of the freer tendency,
and not, as in German and Italian,to all the works of the
period. The other works, considered as stillbelonging to the
Renaissance, have thus too often been separated from those
which were not only contemporary with them, but shared
with them most of their fundamental
qualities.It has here
been thought better to preserve the historical unity of the
period,and to adopt a name for it post-Renaissance which " "
expresses merely its chronologicalposition and its artistic

patrimony.
Centers and diffusion. As in the Renaissance, the new
movements first acquiredform and momentum in Italy. In
northern lands, where the Renaissance itself was associated
with the Reformation, they scarcelyappeared until the time
of the wars of religion. Unlike the Renaissance, however, they
produced results elsewhere equal in importance to those in
Italy. Spain, France, and England had meanwhile become
highly centralized nations, which successivelyattained world
power, while Italy and Germany remained torn by internal
POST-RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 403
struggles. During the central years of the period France

dominated European politicsand European culture,and it was
thus the French version of contemporary ideas which, in
later years, had the greatest influence.
Italy. Academic origins. The germs of both academic and
baroque tendencies existed in Italy well within the Renais-
sance
period. The forerunners of academicism were Alberti
and the early editors and commentators of Vitruvius. All
these were concerned largelywith the fixingof normal forms
and proportionsfor individual architectural members. After
1500 the editions and translations of Vitruvius multiplied
rapidly,and belief in the infallible authority of the Roman
writer increased to a fantastic extent best seen in passages in
the writingsof Serlio,appearing 1537-75. to The rules were
be followed even when they were in conflict with the teachings
of ancient monuments. By 1542 the adherents of formal
theory were sufficiently numerous and self-conscious to found
a Vitruvian academy in Rome.
Baroque origins. Michelangelo. Against this academic tendency
there arose a powerful champion in Michelangelo.
He boldly proclaimed his ambition "to burst the toils and
chains" which architecture had suffered to be laid upon itself
and his intention to hold himself bound by no rule ancient
or modern. Already, in his designs for the fagade of San
Lorenzo (1514) and for the interior of the Medici chapel in
Florence (1521-34,Fig. 204),he had shown a new freedom.
In one it was the richer relief of free-standingcolumns and
sculpture, here used for the first time as decorative forms in a
Renaissance facade. In the other it was the unconventional
use of classical details in the of
filling the main architectural
framework. Entablatures broken, architraves and friezes
were
omitted at will,proportionswere modified, and a multitude

of consoles were introduced. Within the tabernacles above
the doors the inner enframement penetrates even the zontal
hori-
cornice and rises into the tympanum of the
pediment.
In the sarcophagi of the Medici chapel Michelangelo even
gave suggestionfor breaking the upper
a cyma of a pediment,
which he and others soon proceeded to do. Similar liberties
of detail appear in another of his designs at this period,not
completed after his death the vestibule of the Laurentian
"
"t*--
I n
'
Siar
Mjpcpr
^sdL.'^'mv % ."""'.
"tiP^r^fef'
LW"8" **""--"-,"
.
H----::I::I^
FIG. 222 "
ROME. PLAN OF SAINT PETER'S AND THE VATICAN. (GROMORT)

A. Basilica of Saint Peter D. Court of San Damaso (with the
B. Piazza of Saint Peter Loggias of Raphael)
C. Court of the Belvedere E. Villa Pia
Libraryin Florence. An even more strikinginnovation here

was theplacingof the stairs,free on all sides,in the center of a
room which rose through two stories.
Michelangelo'slater work. Saint Peter's. The second and
more important period of Michelangelo's architectural work
began on the death of Antonio da San Gallo (1546),when he
succeeded to the direction of Saint Peter's and the papal build-
FIG. 223 "
ROME. SAINT PETER S DOME FROM THE EAST
ings generally. Healready seventy-one years of age, yet

was
he survived and continued to develop for eighteen years

more. In Saint Peter's (Fig.222) he reverted to the centrally
composed scheme of Bramante which had been modified as a
result of liturgical considerations He omitted the outer
aisles and chapels hitherto proposed and restored the single

colossal order on the exterior. For the domes proposed by
Bramante and San Gallo he substituted one of his own design,
embodying many novel features (Fig.223). It followed the
dome of Brunelleschi in having more than a single shell and in
having a system of deep ribs with lighterfilling.Michel-

angelo,
however, took advantage of the multiplicity
of shells
to give the exterior of the dome a steeper pitch than the in-
terior,
and he gave the ribsvisible expressionboth inside
a
and but. Instead of a continuous exterior peristylehe placed

around the drum a series of buttress-like masses, one at
FIG. 224. ROME. THE CAPITOL
each rib. The result was a dome of new and more soaring
aspect, which has remained an almost universal model for the
followingcenturies.
The Capitol. Of scarcelyless influence was Michelangelo's
work on the CapitolineHill in Rome (begun 1546). Here on
the saddle between the two summits he created a monumental
group hitherto unrivaled in its unity (Fig.224). Taking a
suggestion,perhaps, from the square at Pienza, he made the

sides of his square diverge toward the Palazzo del Senatore
which formed the background for a rich display of ancient
sculpture. To right and left were palaces identical with
each other, harmonious with the principalone, yet subordi-

nated
to it in heightand scale. In
these,for the first time in a
secular building of the Renaissance, the fagade was conceived
as a whole in the manner of a Roman building,with podium,
columns, and entablature. The stories are not individual
units superposed on one another, but are created by the divi-
sion
of the largerunity. The horizontal subdivisions are in-
FIG. 225 "

VICENZA. THE BASILICA
terruptedby the continuous vertical lines of the great pilasters.

Another notable feature of the whole composition is the
emphasis on the central given by features of greater size
axes
and relief,or by progressiveincrease in size. The great

double stair of the Palazzo del Senatore which contributes so
much to this
emphasis was itself novel and influential.
Establishment of the tendencies. Palladia. In the younger
generation which surrounded and succeeded Michelangelo
the dual tendencies of theday became firmly established.
Although the free or baroque tendency had the greater fol-
lowing,
the stricter or academic tendency did not yielduntil
its greatest master had created models which later had wide
influence. This master was Andrea Palladio of Vicenza
(1518-80). He had in his youth given to the Roman remains
the most intensive study far
attempted. His earliest
so
building,the Palazzo della Ragione, or Basilica,at Vicenza

(Fig. 225), although continuing certain traditions of the
FIG. 226 "
VICENZA. VILLA ROTONDA
Renaissance, closelyapproximates a basilica of Roman times.

There is no doubt that he chose this as his model precisely
because of the
identityin the uses of the buildings. In his
subsequent designs there can be traced the influence of
Michelangelo as well as of the antique. In some palaces he
employed the colossal order, in others, where he stillretained
an order for each story, he omitted the pedestalbetween and
allowed the lines of the balustrade to be interruptedby the
columns. In either case he frequentlyadded an upper story,
treated as an attic like those of the Roman triumphal arches.
He carried the interruptionof the architectural lines even
farther than Michelangelo, permitting the windows of the

upper story to penetrate into the main entablature, and
breaking the entablature each
bay of the great order.
at
While he thus reduced the independence of individual mem-

bers,
he tended to decrease the isolation of the whole building.

Instead of emphasizing the corner of the building he often
weakened the expressionthere, making the work not a mi-
crocosm,
like the Renaissance palaces, but a fragment of the
cosmos. Something of the same character appears in Palla-
dio's designs for churches and villas. In the villas,for instance,
he treated the service buildingssurrounding the house
as wide-flungcolonnaded wings which unite house and landscape.
In both churches and villas Palladio made an attempt
to imitate the ancient pedimented temple front. The Villa
Almerigo or "Villa Rotonda" near Vicenza has even standing
free-
porticoeswith a front of six columns (Fig. 226).
This villa,composed about a central axis,with a domed central
salon, served as a prototype for many others in northern lands.
Palladia's writings. Palladio's influence was exercised
chieflythrough his Four Books on Architecture (1570). In
these he not only gave a codification of the orders which was
widely adopted, but furnished the first considerable body of

measured drawings of ancient buildings,and instituted a new
custom by publishingengravings of his own works.
Vignola, Vasari, Alessi. Other men who aided in the es-
tablishmen
and diffusion of the new tendencies were Vignola,

Vasari, and Alessi, all disciplesof Michelangelo. Vignola,
who measured ancient fragments in the interest of the Vitru-
vian academy, and who published perhaps the most fluenti
in-
canon of the orders, showed in his buildingsgreat
freedom of invention. At Caprarola (1547) he took a sug-
gestion
from new methods of fortification to build a five-
sided castle, with a circular court. In the Villa di Papa
Giulio (1550) he made a rich use of semicircular forms, and
in the church of Sant' Andrea he
employed an ellipticaldome.
Vasari, best known for his biographiesof artists,also created
in his buildingsmany new spatialeffects. His court of the
Uffizi in Florence, built to house the -officialsof the ducal ministra
ad-
was opened freelyat one end, and partiallyat
the other, in contrast to the inclosed courts of earlier palaces.
4io A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Alessi began the creation of modern Genoa

by his palaceswith
their arcaded courts and their elaborate stairways. His
Palazzo Marino in Milan (Fig. 227), with its lavish use of
panels,masks, garlands,and consoles to organize and enliven
the wall surfaces,had the widest influence on Renaissance
architecture north of the Alps. In the works of these three
FIG. 227 "
MILAN. PALAZZO MARINO. COURT
men rustication commenced to attack the orders and the

window enframements. It broke
through the shafts and
architraves,which appeared only at the capitalsand bases,
in the corners, or between the blocks. Sculptured figures,or
herms with a sculptured bust and tapering shaft, began to
replace pilastersand enframements, although geometrical
forms and classical dispositions stilldominated.
Baroque supremacy. The years from 1580 to 1730 in Italy
were years of undisputed supremacy for the baroque. ings

Build-
in which classical forms were followed did indeed
strictly
appear occasionally, even among the works of the great mas-
ters
of the free tendency, but they were exceptional. In

general the greatest libertywas assumed in planning and in
mcmbering. This liberty, which has so often been conceived
as mere capriceor license,resultingin a dissolution or degenera-
tion
of Renaissance forms, may better be looked on as a
positive,constructive process. It was an effort',

thoroughly
conscious of its aims and studious
of its means, to follow to
extreme consequences the search for those qualities of molten
unity and varietyof aspect which were ideals of the period as
a whole. In this striving,geometricalcomplexity took the
place of simplicity,
ever-varyingdiagonal views resulted from
curvatures in plan, ever- varying silhouettes resulted from
curves andprojectionsin elevation. The substitution of
swelling, leather-like cartouches for simple shields and panels,
the appearance of twisted columns, the overflowingof archi-
tectural
lines by sculpture,or the substitution of sculptural
forms for the architectural frames themselves, the use of
richlyveined and colored marbles and of gildingare but several
manifestations of a tendency. The aim of the
consistent
academists was never to surprise;the aim and the achieve-
ment
of the baroque masters was to surprisecontinually.
Delia Porta, Maderna. Among the first constructions to
feel the new spiritwere those of the villa gardens,where long
before the end of the sixteenth century the architecture lost
its formality in a riot of sculpture,artificialrock-work, and
broken silhouettes. penetrationof similar motives into
The
monumental architecture soon followed. In the fagade of the
church of the Gesu in Rome, designedby Delia Porta (c.1573),
there are pediments one within another on the same ture.
entabla-
In the terminal fountain of the Acqua Paola, not- withstandin
its severe classical models, the outline is boldly

animated by consoles and finials. The facade of Saint Peter's
added by Maderna (1606-26) has a graduated increase of re-lief
toward the center and a complexity of rhythm in the setting

out and subdivision of its bays which defies any casual analysis.
Its skylinedissolves in balustrades, statuary, and cartouches.

Bernini, Borromini. The many-sided artistwho dominated
the later years of the baroque movement was Gian Lorenzo

Bernini (1598-1680). Equally distinguishedin sculptureand
in architecture, he broadened the scope of architectural pression
ex-
to a range hitherto unknown. The canopy over the

altar of Saint Peter's (1624-33) with its twisted and floriated
columns, its crown of consoles and its bronze hangings (Fig.
199),is at the oppositepole from his colonnades of the square
in front (1656-63),unrelieved in their Doric simplicity. A
common qu'alityis present, however, in the conception of
every part as a fragment, requiringthe others to complete it.

No part by itself is symmetrical. The twisted columns turn
in opposite directions,one half-ellipseof the colonnades mands
de-
the other (Fig.222). Rarely are opposite sides of a
motive in a singleplane or parallel. The colonnades converge
toward the square of Saint Peter's,the faces of the Palazzo
Ludovisi (Montecitorio) recede equally on each side, the
lines of the Regia of the Vatican
Scala converge toward a
singlevanishing-point. Similar devices appear also in the

work of Bernini's contemporary, Francesco Borromini. His
fagade for Sant' Agnese in the Piazza Navona at Rome
(1645-50) has all its lines curved in plan; his plan for Sant'
Ivo (1660) is a combination of trianglesand arcs which tinually
con-
presents something unexpected.

The baroque supremacy outside of Rome. Although Rome
itself was the center of the baroque movement, other Italian
cities were quick to feel its influence. The extent to which it
was welcomed varied greatlywith the local traditions or lack
of traditions. Thus in Piedmont, in Genoa, and in the south,
where the school of Bramante had never become firmly es-
tablished,
the baroque was unrestrained. In Turin especially

the works of Guarino Guarini, such as the Palazzo Carignano
(1680) with its double reverse curve in facade, went to tremes.
ex-
In Florence, on the other hand, the baroque scarcely

obtained foothold, and in Venice the tradition of Sansovino
a
restricted it to a few examples. The most notable of these,

the church of Santa Maria della Salute (1631-82) by Lon-
ghena, by positionat the head of the Grand Canal, has,
its
however, a high importance in the aspect of the city(Fig.228).
Eight-sided,with its central dome buttressed by great scrolls
carryingstatues, and with a second largedome over its choir,
it has captivatedsuccessive generationsof artists by its ever-

changing perspectives.
Compromise: Juvara, Galilei,Vanvitelli. In the eighteenth
century the academic tendency in Italy was strengthened by
return influences from France and from England. A touch
of this appears in the work of FilippoJuvara (1685-1735),
FIG. 228 "
VENICE. SANTA MARIA DELLA SALUTE
whose buildingsin Turin include the great domed church of the

Superga (1706-20). Another of the leading Italian architects
of the eighteenthcentury was Alessandro Galilei (1691-1737),
who had worked in England under Vanbrugh and represented
the same compromise between academic and baroque ten-
dencies.
His fagade for the church of the Lateran in Rome is
strict in its use of classical elements and in its geometrical
regularity, but has a free skylineand complicated grouping.
4U A HISTORY OP ARCHITECTURE
The splendor of Versailles under tempted Italian

Louis XIV.
princesto imitation. The most notable of the resulting try
coun-
palaces is that of Caserta near Naples by Luigi Vanvi-

telli, begun in 1 7 5 2 The plan of buildingand gardens embodies
.
French elements, the membering of the long facades is dryly

Palladian. The cyclethrough freedom back to strictness was
soon to be completed.
Types of buildings. Churches. The Counter Reformation

was a period of feverish buildingof churches, and of a return
to a more liturgical conceptionin their design. The longitudinal
type of plan was once more preferred,as in the Middle
Ages. Naves were added to some Renaissance churches of
central type as ultimately to Saint Peter's itself (Fig.222).
The crossingof nave and transept tended to lose its inde-
pendence.
In new designsthe central type was rarelyadopted
except for votive churches like the Superga and the Salute.
In the Salute the radial chapels were no longer isolated,
but united to form a single encircling aisle, the first of its kind
since Byzantine days. Throughout the churches the self-
centered domical vaults gave place to groined vaults with
their centrifugal tendency, barrel vaults were interruptedby
penetrations,galleries t ended to unite the bays at the aisles
and even to projectinto the nave. A broad nave and shallow
transepts gave space for a congregationcorrespondingto the
increased importance of the sermon. The whole plan tended
increasinglyto conform to a singlerectangle, usually subdivided,
to be sure, but into parts having no strong unity of
their own. The facades, too, were treated as units, with
little preciserelation to the subdivision of the interior. The
Renaissance scheme of using superposed orders in the center
with consoles to make transition from the lower order at the
sides was adhered to in many cases. Even more istic,
character-
however, employment of a single order the
was the
full height of the nave, masking the unequal heights of nave
and aisles. The bell tower was no longerdesignedas a separate
unit, but was combined with the facade and repeated on
either side as in northern church fronts. In the treatment of
facades and stillmore of interiors there was often a lavishness
of figuresculpture and of painting which was mundane and
theatrical,perhaps, but remarkably facile and decorative
(Fig.229). The who

Jesuits, led in the reactionaryreligious
movement, adhered to florid Italian models in their churches
in other countries,and thus gave the baroque an international
character as the
"Jesuitstyle."
Palaces. In the town palaces the principalinnovations of
the post-Renaissanceperiod lay in planning. Vestibule,
FIG. 229 "
ROME. SAN CARLO A CATINARI. CHAPEL OF SANTA CECILIA'

(RICCl)
court, and stairs were longer isolated,but combined

no in a
suite which gave unity to the entire building. Genoese
examples, like the University (1623),are the most notable.
Many palaces,such as that of the Barberini in Rome, have
more than a singlefile of rooms in a block and a multitude of
stairwayswhich permit independent access and privacy. The
stereotypedplan with a singlecentral court was no longer
followed exclusively,and the courts were no longer always
inclosed,but opened on one side toward either street or
garden. This was the case, for

instance,with the court of
the Palazzo Pitti in Florence,executed by Ammanati in 1526.
Villas. The characteristic creation of the periodin domestic
architecture was the villa,in which house and garden were now
inextricably c ombined. Usually on hillside and

sites, with an
abundant supply of water, the villas included a series of

terraces, steps, pools, and fountains, all highly organized in
accordance with a unified axial system. The house or casino
might either at the top or at the bottom
be of the slope,or
even part way between; there might be a level parterre of
flowers,or terraces only, as
ground the permitted. A char-
acteristic
example of artful varietywithin modest dimensions
is the Villa Lante near Viterbo, designed by Vignola (begun
1566, Fig. 230). Here a parterre with a central fountain and
basins occupies the lower third of the length. To left and
right of the first ascent stand the two casinos which provide
the livingquarters,and above rise terraces of differing widths
and heights,connected on the main axis by features in which
steps and falling water are ingeniouslyintermingled. Ramps

and stairs offer numerous alternative means of ascent and
descent. The Villa Pia in the gardens of the Vatican, with its
oval court and curved ramps, is another such unexampled
background living(Fig.222 E).
for the art of
Fountains. Fountains occurred not only in. the villas but
everywhere in the cities,multipliedand diversified as never
before. For large volumes of water or small, for high pressures
or low alike, treatments were found which gave the water
itself the chief place in the design,however rich and free the
architecture or sculpture.
Theaters. A novel problem in modern times was to give
an architectural treatment to the theater. The classical
precedents suggested to Palladio, for his Teatro Olimpico in
Vicenza (1580),a close imitation of the interior of a Roman
theater, with cavea, encirclingcolonnade at the rear, and
architectural sccetue frons. An addition quite in the spiritof
the time was that of constructed architectural perspectives
visible through openings of the stage. The theater at Parma
(1618) has a deeper auditorium and a singlewide opening to
a stage for movable scenery. Equally significantis the
replacing of the rear colonnade by arcades in two stories.
4i8 A HISTORY OP ARCHITECTURE
From these grew in the eighteenth century the tiers of indi-

vidual
loges which still form the characteristic treatment
of the Italian theater interior. No attempt to secure an
exterior expressionwas yet made.

Town planning. An ultimate extension of baroque prin-
ciples
was the inclusion of the whole cityin a singleural
architect-
composition. Efforts of the sort had mostly to remain
in the ideal stage, like the Citia Ideale of Bartolomeo
Ammanati (1511-92) whose Ponte Santa Trinita in Florence
inaugurated a new lightnessand grace in bridge building.
Less fantastic than the cities on paper, but still ambitious,
were the corrections undertaken in
existingcities, above all in
Rome. These, which had been begun in a small way by Julius
II.,were continued on a vast scale by his successors. They
included the Piazza of Saint Peter's and the Piazza del Popolo,
both begun by Bernini about 1656, the Spanish Steps,and the
port of Ripetta on the Tiber. In all these there appear the
grandiose unity and variety of form so characteristic of the
period.
Individual forms. The governing conception of the post-
Renaissance period in Italywas that each individual element
was but a fragment, and that a high degree of unity in the
parts was damaging to the unity of the whole. This concep-
tion
was essentially in conflict with the antique conception
of unity, which did not preclude parts sufficient unto selves.
them-
It thus came about that the structural expressiveness
of many forms had to yield to the imperative demand for
dismemberment and coalescence. Thus as in Roman tecture,
archi-
by comparison with Greek, purity of detail was
rendered less important by the mode of composition.
Walls. The period in Italywas distinguishedby a wide use
of stucco, not only for wall surfaces,as in the Renaissance,
but for all the members of openings and orders. This
extension of its use resulted in the firstinstances from economy,
but it was turned to advantage in the execution of luxuriant
modeled decoration. Rustication was rarelyused except in
quoins or about the openings. In interiors the incrustation
of walls with marble veneering was revived, inlaid patterns
giving a strikingcontrast.
Openings. In the enframement of the openings few Italian
designers followed the practice of Palladio in retaininga

simple rectangular architrave, perhaps with a frieze and
cornice. Even Palladio himself multipliedears and consoles
and employed a bulging or pulvinated frieze. His contemporaries
were already elaborating enframements with

rusticated architraves, broken pediments, and herms or
figuresculpture,which soon became the rule.

Columns and wall membering. The general relations of
column, arch, and wall remained much the same as in the
"
Renaissance period,except for the frequentuse of a "colossal
engaged order. Free-standing colonnades with horizontal
lintels appear but seldom, although notably in the Piazza, of
Saint Peter's. Columns bearing arches remained in favor for
courtyards,but the supports were now usually grouped in
pairs,a motive especially favored by Alessi. In the membering
of facades the tendency toward grouping the members, which
had begun with the coupled columns of Bramante, was carried
much further. The pilasterwas reinforced by slightbreaks
in the wall at either side, or groups of shafts and pilasters
were composed, like the grouped piers of the Middle Ages.
In interiors these once more gave individual support to the
various members of a vault, on exteriors they served, with
the correspondingbreaks in entablatures and balustrades, to
enliven the silhouette.
Stairs. A
specialproduction of the period was the monu-mental
stairway,either inside a buildingor outside. angelo's

Michel-
stairwaysat the Laurentian Library and at the Capitol
gave the suggestion,which was quickly taken up in many
different ways. Thus, in the Villa d'Este at Tivoli (about
1550),the two arms of a symmetrical stairway are bent into
semicircles;at the Villa di Papa Giulio, into quadrants.
Then followed the stairs with two arms side by side,and with
three arms winding up against the walls of a rectangular
room as in the Palazzo Barberini (about 1630). Further
possibilities lay in a symmetrical doubling of these schemes,
first,attempted in the cloister of San Giorgio Maggiore in
Venice by .Longhena (1 644) In the Genoese
.
palacesthe stairs
through several stories were brought into a singlecomposition
by the breaking through of all surrounding walls, and the
carryingof the upper flights on bridge-like vaults.
Spain. Academic architecture. The conquest of the Indies

made Spain, by the middle of the sixteenth century, the
greatest power in Europe. PhilipII. gave expressionto this
FIG. 231 "
THE ESCURIAL. PLAN
power by the buildingof the Escurial (1563-84),comprising

a votive church and mausoleum, monastery, and palace,with
every needful dependency for the service of both church and
state (Figs.231, 232). Its buildinglay chieflyin the hands of
Juan de Herrera (1530-97),whose work, severely academic

in its forms, established the post-Renaissance tendencies in
Spain. In the Patio of the Evangelists,to be sure, he employed
the Roman arch order with equal bays and unbroken

entablatures, but elsewhere the membering abounds in the
FIG. 232 "

THE ESCURIAL
complex grouping of supports, the breaking of horizontal

members, the unitingof interior spaces by penetratingvaults,
and the multiplicationof aspects in perspectiveby the com-
bination
of dome and towers.

"Baroque supremacy. Herrera's sobriety was soon seded
super-
by baroque freedom, which ultimately in the hands of
Joje" Churriguera (1650-1723) became the boldest license.
The national traditions of the Plateresquewere reflected in
" "
the Churrigueresque style, which paid less attention to the
creation of new forms of plan and space than to the luxuriant

elaboration of detail. It reached
development its fullest in
the great portals and altar-pieces, such as the high altar of
the church of El Salvador in Seville (Fig.233).
Reaction. The accession of the Bourbons in 1714, which
marked the end of Spanish domination in politics,
brought
also a subordination
of Spanish cies
tenden-
in art. The
palaces of the new
rulers at La Gran ja
and Madrid imitated
not only the world-
liness of Versailles
but its architectural
formalism. The
baroque tendency,
which comported so
well with national
sympathies, sisted
per-
nevertheless,
now creating novel
forms of interior
space, and still fill-

ing
the framework of
the orders with an
exuberance of ment.
orna-
France. In France
there came first a
FIG. SEVILLE. ALTAR OF THE

brief period of
233 "
CHURCH
OF EL SALVADOR. (SCHUBERT) baroque supremacy.
This was of tively
rela-
short duration, however; a compromise was soon
reached, and the ultimate

victory of the academic dency
ten-
came! earlier than in Italy and was more complete.
Even during the years of compromise the academic dency
ten-
predominated, although in the later of them the

freer tendency once more asserted itself vigorously,in the
phase known as the rococo. The conventional subdivision
of the period in France into phases designatedby the names

of the kings conforms tolerablywell with this development,
although the duration of the phases by no means corresponds
exactly to that of the reigns. In general the baroque supremacy
may be identified with the styleof Henry IV. and

Louis XIII. ; the compromise, in its earlier and stricter form,
with the styleof Louis XIV., in its later and freer form, with
that of Louis XV.; the ultimate victory of the academic,
with the styleof Louis XVI.
Establishment of academic and baroque tendencies. Already
in the later work of native masters of the High Renaissance,
as we have seen, there were signs of the appearance of post-
Renaissance tendencies. On one hand De 1'Orme and Bullant
had written treatises discussingthe proper form and tions
propor-
of classical members. On the other hand De 1'Orme
and Du Cerceau
had employed at the Tuileries and at Charle-
val many of the forms of the school of Michelangelo,such as the
herm, the rusticated architrave,and the broken pediment.
Baroque supremacy. Henry IV. With
resumption of the
buildingunder Henry IV. after the religiouswars (about 1600),
the strict classical forms had everywhere yielded to those of
the triumphant baroque of the day in Italy. It was rarely,
however, that baroque principles governed the whole composi-
tion.
In the typicalbuildingsof the time of Henry IV., only
the details of the baroque were applied to the simplest
rectangular masses. A combination of brick and stone came
in through the close affiliation with Protestant Holland.

Examples of these characteristics
Henry IV. 's additions
are
to Fontainebleau, as well as his buildings about the Place

Royale and the Place Dauphine in Paris. All these have a
simple treatment of rusticated quoins at the corners and at
the openings,with occasional use of consoles,rusticated archi-
traves,
and broken pediments at small scale. The internal
decoration went much further toward Italian freedom. In the
treatment of doors and chimneys, enframements were doubled,
members broken and interwoven, consoles and cartouches
multiplied. Other
developments which recall contemporary
Italian movements lay in planning. At Saint Germain,
Du Perac built for Henry a series of vast terraces and steps
recallingthose of the Villa d'Este. For the improvement
of Paris, which henceforth became the focus of national life,

the king laid out the two great squares already mentioned.
They were surroundedby buildings of unified design the "
first of a long series of similar enterprises in town planning.

Louis XIII. Under Louis XIII. (1610-43) the baroque
influence still preponderated, although to a degree which
gradually decreased. A more frequentuse was again made of
the orders,and the baroque elements were confined within the
fields marked out by them. The leading architect of the
earlier years of the reign was Salomon de Brosse (d. 1626).
For Catherine de' Medici he built the Luxembourg Palace
(1616-20),which she wished to resemble the Pitti Palace in
Florence. The drawings which she secured from Italy did
indeed have their influence, for there were many pointsof simi-
larity
between the work of De Brosse and that of Ammanati.
The open court, the superposed rusticated orders, the
rusticated arches, flat and semicircular,as well as the rigidity
of the architectural framework, all reappeared. The general
grouping and the broken silhouette of the palace, with its
many pavilionsand high roofs,were, of course, wholly French.
In De Brosse's facade for the Gothic church of Saint Gervais
he also showed the influence of the freer Italian tendency as
exemplifiedin the Gesu, which furnished the model for most

later French church facades. The conservative French
tendencies wererepresentedby the earlier designsof Jacques
Lemercier (1585-1654). His enlargement of the court of the
Louvre (1624-30) was on the system established by Lescot,
with the addition of a few baroque elements; his vast symmetrical
chateau of Richelieu depended solely, for its wall
treatment, on rusticated enframements with a filling of stucco.
Reaction. In the later years of the reign of Louis XIII.
there was already a strengtheningof the academic tendency
which resulted in compromise. That this should have been so
at the very moment when the baroque in Italywas receiving
its greatest development was due to several causes. Among
these perhaps the strongest was the growing tendency of
France toward absolutism and organizationin every field "
the monarchy, the church, the arts in general. An instance

was the founding of the French Academy (1635),having for
its object "to give certain rules to our language and to render
it pure." Similar in its direction was the fundamental French

belief in "reason" and "good sense," more sympathetic with
the logicof the Italian academists than with the emotional
libertyof the baroque masters. The renewed imitation of
classical models in the drama, beginning with Corneille about
1635, coincides with. the return to the stricter following of
classical forms in architecture. The Frenchmen who went to
Rome no longerstudied contemporary architecture so much as
FIG. 234 "

BLOIS. WING OF GASTON D'ORLEANS
the work of the High Renaissance masters, with whom they

shared a direct interest in Roman buildings. The academic
writings of the Italians were diligentlyread and compared.
Fre*art de Chambray, who had been sent to Rome in 1640,
published the first complete translation of Palladio (1650),
and also a parallelof the canons of ten of the principal theorists.
Compromise. FrancoisMansart. StyleofLouis XIV. The
leader in the return to academic purity in architectural prac-
tice
was Francois Mansart (1598-1666). His wing for Gaston
d' Orleans in the chateau of Blois (1635-40)depends for its
effect almost solelyon the proportionsand the sober member-

ing of the superposed orders (Fig. 234). Except for an
increase in the height of the entrance pavilionand for the
singlecartouche in the center, all the architectural lines,even
those of the roofs,carry through without interruption. Rusti-
cation
and dormers are alike absent, and baroque influence
appears only in the decorative carving. Mansart's purism

in the use of the orders persistedin his work at the church of
the Val-de-Grace in Paris (begun 1645),although the general
scheme is that of the baroque churches of Italy,and baroque
consoles occur both in the facade and in the dome. forth,
Hence-
throughout the reign of Louis XIV., the compromise
between academic and baroque tendencies prevailedon much
the same terms. On the exterior,and even in the larger
membering of the interior, the academic framework dominated
the design; baroque forms were confined to the decoration.
Le Vau. A step beyond Mansart in the direction of
pronounced post-Renaissancecharacter was taken by Louis
Le Vau (1612-70) who was the court architect after the death
of Lemercier. Whereas Mansart used always an order to
each story, Le Vau rarely failed to introduce a "colossal
order," risingfrom a low plinth to the main cornice. This
was, indeed, no new thing in French architecture,but it was
a feature which had fallen into disuse during the baroque
supremacy. Le Vau employed it in the chateau of Vaux-le-

Vicomte, in the south facade of the Louvre (1664),and in the
College des Quatre Nations (1660-68). In all these cases,
however, only one or more pavilionshave the largeorder and
the rest of the building is treated with superposed orders or
no order at all.
The Louvre. Perrault. For the
principal front of the
Louvre it was felt that something grander was necessary.
After the rejectionof many designs by native architects,it
was finallydecided to summon Bernini from Rome. His
design,produced in 1665, involved the destruction of much of
the existingbuilding. It proposed the rebuildingof the court
with a singlegiganticorder risingfrom the ground, and the
treatment of the exterior with an order of equally large scale,
raised on a rusticated basement. The execution of this
scheme was soon abandoned as impossibly extravagant, and
a new design was prepared by Claude Perrault, a savant who

had turned profitedby the
his attention to architecture. He
lesson Bernini had given in unity of design and largenessof
scale,but adapted his facade better to the existingwork and
gave it a more uniform membering and proportions (Fig.
235). Like Bernini he placed a large Corinthian order, in-
PIG. 235 "
PARIS. COLONNADE OF THE LOUVRE
eluding the two upper stories,over a basement the height of

the ground story, and used a flat roof behind a balustrade.
Unlike Bernini, however, and indeed for the first time in
modern architecture,he did not merely decorate the wall with
an engaged order, but employed a free standing colonnade in
front of it,like that of a peristylartemple. He followed De
Brosse and Mansart in employing coupled columns, but gave
them larger scale and more Roman detail. He also gave a
new impress to the five-partscheme for long fagades. This

had grown up in France from the medieval castle with its
corner towers and central gate-house,and had so far served
pre-
a medieval massing. Perrault treated it with but
slightprojectionto all the and

pavilions, with a pediment over
the central one "
a formula which has remained usual to

this day.
The academies. predominance of principlesof law and
The
order based upon the antique was fortified by the formation
in 167 1 of the Academy of Architecture,to complete the system
of organizationbegun in literature by the founding of the
Academie Fran$aise. A further reinforcement of classical
FIG. 236 "
VERSAILLES. THE PALACE FROM THE PLACE D'ARMES
influence came through the establishment on a regularfooting
of the custom of sending promising artists to complete their

studies in Rome. Thus arose the French Academy in Rome,
chartered in 1677.
Versailles. J. H. Mansart. From the commencement of
his personal administration in 1661, Louis XIV. began the
development of the chateau built for his father at Versailles,
for which he had a specialpreference. Ultimately he made it
his permanent residence and the seat of his government. The
originalchateau, a simple structure of brick and stone, had to
be many times enlarged, although it retained much of its
originalaspect toward the fore-court,and inevitablyhad an
influence on the scale of the later work (Fig. 236). The
extensions, begun by Le Vau, were completed by Jules
Hardouin Mansart, a great-nephew of Francois. The system
of membering finallyadopted for the long unbroken facades
ri
**,,--'***
SE0H
"
IJ
'
" - " - 5 * * "-^-""*l" tf""At"vf1-"V^~'~^l1|

"H^TTp'^tTflJII Liilill^ltlli
"
!
jlI i'l
"M^? I I i j_I'll'11 "
''fel'I^rSt^^^Htj
P^li'l |
"i( il;lI
"
". " 4
:
^
i^HffisPilraiiif
"PELl',liiHiiiTtllHiii!llll"ul i J
isL^ljT^*^--********^*****^-"
*^v~ " u "
toward the rusticated basement, an order,

garden was that of a
and an 'atticwith balustrade. The interest of the building,

however, lies less in the architectural treatment of the exterior
than in the plan, with its multiplicity
of functions (Fig.237).
The problem was to provide quarters not only for the king and
the princes of the blood, but also for the entire court, with
offices for the ministers, provisions for service, immense
stables,a chapel,and ultimatelya theater. In addition there
were, on one side,the garden and park, on the other side,the

town, newly founded both alike symmetrical on
"
the main
axis of the palace. Never before, even at the Escurial, had
there been a singlecomposition on such a vast scale. The

interior decoration was of a corresponding richness. Here,
more than on the exterior,appeared the baroque elements
which stillcharacterized contemporary architecture. Thus in
the of the long Galerie des Glaces, decorated
ceiling by Charles
Le Brun (Fig.238),there was an abundance of broken ments,
pedi-
consoles, and free sculpture. In extent and luxurious-
ness alike,Versailles established an ideal which every prince
in Europe soon dreamed
realizing. of
Outbreak of the
free tendency. Louis XV. Rococo. The
extreme formality imposed on life and art by Louis XIV.
provoked a new outbreak of the free tendency under his
successor. It took many suggestionsfrom the late Italian
baroque of Borromini and his followers,which had hitherto
been little favored in France. The earliest and most nounced
pro-
manifestations of the movement occur in interior
decoration. Curves were multiplied both in plan and in
elevation; architectural lines were broken and were flowed
over-
by sculpture. The pompous apparatus of column and

entablature was banished from interiors,and replaced by a
more delicate and intimate
panels,cartouches,
treatment with
and floriated scrolls (Fig.242). The prevalenceof shell-work
or rocaille led to the designationrococo, appliedlooselyto all
the work of free tendencies which resulted from the new
movement. Efforts were not wanting to remodel external

architecture on similar lines. In many of the designs of
J. A. Meissonier (1693-1750) vertical and horizontal members
are alike abandoned in favor of flowing reverse curves. In
France, however, this extreme was not reached in the exterior
of any buildingactuallyexecuted. The orders were retained

on the facade, with only a slightlygreater libertyof detail.
The spirit of freedom showed itself on the exterior mainly by
an increased use of curved and angular elements of plan, and
by an exuberance of ornament within the bays and above the
cornice. All these characteristics are specially well exemplified
FIG. 238 "
VERSAILLES. THE GALERIE DBS GLACES
in the notable group of

buildingserected for Stanislas,Duke of
Lorraine, at Nancy (1750-57).
Academic victory. Louis XVI. Contemporary with the
later years of the rococo and well within the reignof Louis XV.
there was a new reaction againstthe extravagance of the free
tendency, associated with the name of his successor. The
design of Servadony for the fagade of Saint Sulpicein Paris
(1732-45)showed in its two lower stories of columns and arches
a classical strictness and majesty unusual at the time, and a
similar character appeared in the H6tel Dieu by Soufflot at
Lyons (1737). In the work of JacquesAnges Gabriel, falling
in the years 1752 to i77o,thetendency won a complete victory,
and the academic system received its ultimate development.

Gabriel's designs for the Place de la Concorde (Fig. 239),
for the Ecole Militaire in Paris,the Palace at Compiegne, the
Theater at Versailles,and the Petit Trianon (Fig.240) form
a body of work unrivaled for the purity of academic detail
and ornament. In most of them he followed the scheme
consecrated by Perrault "
an order embracing two stories
FIG. 239 "
PARIS. PLACE DE LA CONCORDE
above a high basement. In the handling of the order itself,

in some cases, he secured Perrault's touch of Romanmagnifi-
cence.
Often he restricted the order to the principalpavilion,
and left the remaining walls unbroken except by the slender
and elegant window enframements. Before the accession
of Louis XVI. even the interiors of buildingshad lost their
luxuriant freedom. At the same time there began a change
in character, both within and without, due to the literal
imitation of classical motives, which brought rococo and
academic movements alike to an end.
Types of buildings. Chateaux. The close of the religious
wars once more made it safe to live in the country, and mitted
per-
a new and freer development of the chateau. From this
time until Louis XIV. made constant residence at court a

the
necessity, nobilitybuilt many chateaux which correspond
to the countless manor houses of England. While some of
the larger of these retained the inclosed court, the tendency
was to omit the block on the fourth side and to shorten the
arms, so that in many of the smaller examples only the main
FIG. 24O "

VERSAILLES. PETIT TRIANON
block was left. On the other hand the main block itself was
made thicker, with a double file of rooms, so that it was no
longer necessary toprivate apartments. The main

traverse
staircase,which in Frangois Mansart's designs still occupied

the center, was pushed to one side in favor of a monumental
vestibule. The functions of rooms became increasingly
specialized. The salon or reception-room now made its
appearance, and was accorded the place of honor in the center,
facingthe gardens. From the time of Le Vau it was given an
elliptical form, projectingso that it commanded a view to the
sides as well. The regime established by Louis XIV. affected

chateaux in two oppositeways. On Versailles,

one hand, at
it magnified the chateau into the modern
palace. On the
other hand it produced in the neighborhood of the palace a
number of small but elegant chateaux serving as retreats for
recreation or privacy, like the casinos of the Italian villas.
Marly, the Grand Trianon, and the Petit Trianon (Fig.240)
are examples showing the increasingdesire for intimacy,which
ultimatelyresulted in the rustic hamlet of Marie Antoinette.
Gardens. The gardens themselves were given a new and
magnificent treatment. This was inaugurated by Andre le
Ndtre at Vaux and developed by him at Versailles and the
other royal residences. It involved a general increase in
scale, the introduction of canals, basins, cascades, and tains
foun-
of great size,and an extension of the garden scheme over
all the neighboring countryside by means of a system of

radiatingand intersecting allees. The reaction from splendor
apparent in the buildingof the Trianon had later its expression
in the gardens. The informal or landscapegarden of England
was adopted, as a more fittingmilieu for the playfulphases
of court life.
Hotels. The development of Paris into a national olis
metrop-
gave an impetus to the development of the city resi-
dence
or hotel, which often rivaled a chateau in the extent
of its court and
gardens. The ambitious examples, largeand
small alike,preserved the fore-court and screen toward the
street, with the living-roomsin a block facing the garden at
the rear. The same internal changes in the direction of
greater convenience took place in the hotel as in the chateau.
Great ingenuity was exercised in making separate provision
for all the varied functions of the establishment, often on
limited irregularsites. Stables and service quarters were

and
provided with subsidiary courts of their own, where the
dimensions at all permitted. The minor houses on narrow lots
were also given the architectural expressionin classic forms
which has governed the aspect of cities to this day. Some- times
whole ranges of houses were treated uniformly as the
surrounding walls of a monumental square; at other times
there was but a single facade, usually of three bays. In
either case the favorite division of height,a basement story
with two others above, correspondingto an order,was adopted.
As land values rose, apartment houses in four and more stories

were built, conforming to the same architectural scheme, but
with mezzanines and attics.
Churches. The church in France
during the seventeenth
and eighteenthcenturies was less significant than either the
state or society,yet a certain number of notable religious
buildings were undertaken. The parish churches had the
basilican plan,as well as the fagade in two stories with consoles
or twin towers, characteristic of contemporary basilican
churches in Italy. The more important churches of the time
were those which either had avotive character,like the Val-de-
Grace (begun 1645),or were chapelsattached to an institution,
like the churches (1635-53),the College des
of the Sorbonne
Quatre Nations (1660-68), and the H6pital des Invalides
(1692-1704). They were free from liturgical
thus relatively
restrictions and could fulfil their monumental functions
through the adoption of a dome. All four of these just
mentioned have the high drum and external silhouette in-
augurat
by Saint Peter's. The Sorbonne and the Val-de-
Grace, both of which have basilican naves, have two-storied
facades like those of the basilican churches. In the new
chapel of the Invalides this scheme was retained even though
the church was a composition of purely central type, without
aisles or galleries.Only at the College des Quatre Nations

was the singleorder employed. The plans of all these domed
churches offer interesting examples of the tendencies of post-
Renaissance days toward the multiplying of interrelations
between the parts, rather than the preservingof their individual
unity. At Versailles there were specialreasons why
a dome could not be introduced. The palace chapel had to
yieldthe axial positionto the state bedroom of the king,and
thus could not receive a development which would injuretoo
much the symmetry of the whole group. The solution adopted
by Mansart, a basilican plan, with galleries treated as tall
colonnades above the low arcaded aisles,was novel in church
design,yet quitein accordance with the general formulae of
the period.
Ensembles. Planning. The design of vast unified sembles,
en-
which had begun in French architecture with De

rOrme, was even more characteristic of the post-Renaissance
period. The great chateaux like Versailles and the Louvre

were not the only examples. The Hdpital des Invalides in
Paris, which furnished accommodation for six thousand abled
dis-
soldiers,and the Ecole Militaire,also on an enormous
scale,were symmetrical compositionsabout a series of courts.
The systems of subordinated axes reached
high degree of
a
organization,as in the vast Roman ensembles. An equal

skill was shown in the handling of diagonal axes, and in the
union of elements in irregular
plans by means of circular and
features.
elliptical
Town planning. The creation of squares surrounded by
private buildingsof uniform design,begun by Henry IV., was
continued under his successors. His Place Royale and Place
Dauphine were both rectangularin plan. A project of his
which was never realized,however " the Place de France "
involved a semicircular space at the entrance to the

city,with
avenues radiatingto every quarter. A similar conceptionwas
embodied by Louis XIV. in the circular Place des Victoires
(1684-86). The Place Louis le Grand or Place Vendome was
a rectangle diversified by the cuttingoff of the corners nally,

diago-
and ornamented by engaged columns and pediments at
the axial points. The Place Louis XV., or Place de la Con- corde,
was conceived, like these last two, primarilyas a setting
for a monument. Its buildings occupy only one side,but with
their free standing colonnades like those of the Louvre they
have a richness unapproached in the other examples. In the
provincialtowns squares and quais were also treated as unified
compositions; at Nancy even a whole series of squares was
brought into one design,comparable in extent and complexity

to the greatest of the Roman fora. Thus was expressed the
fondness of the time for order and subordination, as well a?
for the absorptionof individual unities in a largerunity.

Construction. Except for the period of Henry IV., when
Dutch influence caused the adoption of brick even in some
regions where stone was more easilyobtainable, stone was
used almost exclusivelyin monumental constructions. The
softness and fine texture of the French limestone permitted
carving almost as free and delicate as if in marble. Marble
itself was used but seldom, and then only as a preciousadorn- ment,
for instance, in the shafts which distinguishthe central
blocks at Versailles and Trianon. The ease of working the

stone, as geometricalskill of the French builders,
well as the
resulted in the use of cut stone for vaulting to an extent where
no-
else approached. The science of stone-cutting or

stereotemy was thus developed to the highestpoint.
Details. The conception of generalunity in exterior treat-
ment
was not often pushed, as in Italy,to the destruction of

the unity of singledetails such as the enframements of doors
FIG. 241 "
PARIS. PORTE SAINT FIG. 242 "
VERSAILLES. TAIL
DE-
DENIS. PRINCIPAL FRONT OF THE APARTMENTS

OK LOUIS XV.
and windows. After the brief period of baroque supremacy

such details followed classical or Palladian models with but
little modification, and equaled them in harmony of propor-
tion
and profiling.The spiritof the time appeared, never-
theless,
in the fondness for the use of ears and consoles,and

for the coupling and grouping of supports. It appeared also
in the frequent use of transitional members. Thus in the
facade of the Petit Trianon (Fig. 240) a subordinate break
was introduced on either side of the main projectingportico,
and similar though minute
a break was made in the architraves
of the side windows. The same rationalistic sentiment which
found interruptedpediments repugnant sometimes demanded
the omission of the orders altogetherwhere the column would
not fulfilits originalfunction as an isolated support. An

example is the Porte Saint Denis in Paris (Fig.241),in which
the Roman scheme of triumphal arch was expurgated by
substitutingfor the columns large taperingpanels decorated
with sculptured trophies. This distinctively national
tendency, which gradually gained strength during the
eighteenth century, was one which bore much fruit in the
followingperiod.
Interiors. In interiors the unity of design between wall
treatment and furniture was a novel and strikingfeature.
During the prevalenceof the rococo, indeed, interior unity was
carried to the extreme the shape of the room,
"
the motives of
its paneling and the lines of the furnishingsbeing all based
on similar curves, which precluded any individual self-suffi-
ciency
in the parts (Fig.242). Under Louis XV. and Louis
XVI. the desire for intimacy led to a reduction in the size and
height of the rooms, in which elegance was sought rather
than splendor.
England: baroque supremacy. Jacobean architecture. The
first of the post-Renaissanceforms to reach England were the
baroque cartouches and strap-work from Germany, which, as
we have seen, were lavished on buildingsstill fundamentally
Gothic in their disposition (Fig.218). The reignof James I.
(1603-25) thus constitutes a period of baroque supremacy,
analogous to that of Henry IV. in France. As in France, also,
this baroque predominance was brief,and was soon succeeded
by a compromise in which academic elements predominated.
Introduction of academic forms. Inigo Jones. The introduction
of academic forms into England was essentially the
work of one man, Inigo Jones (1573-1652). His architectural
career began after a journey to Italyin 1613 and 1614 in which
he visited Rome and Vicenza, studied the writingsof Palladio
and others, and became acquainted with Maderna and the
other foremost contemporary architects of Rome. He was
thus subjected both to the academic influence and to the

baroque, and both affected his work. The resultingcom-
promise,
however, was not, as in France, one based on the

forms already in use in the country, but one based directlyon
the forms current in Italy. Thus England was endowed, as

early as 1620, with buildingsmore advanced in point of style
POST-RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 43 9
than those of any other country than Italyitself. The most

noted of Jones'sdesignswas for the palaceat Whitehall (1619),
a vast composition resembling De rOrme's for the Tuileries.
The only portion executed, the Banqueting Hall (Fig.243),
had a characteristic Palladian facade with orders in two stories,
a flat balustraded roof and an entablature broken about the
FIG. 243 "

LONDON. THE BANQUETING HALL, WHITEHALL
supports. Jones's free-standing Tuscan portico of Saint

Paul's, Covent Garden, his "Queen's House" at Greenwich,
as well as his giganticporticofor the old Cathedral of Saint

Paul, represent his academic side. His
design for King
Charles's block at Greenwich Hospital,however, closelyfollows
Maderna's fagade of Saint Peter's,and the gate at York Stairs,
with other minor works and interior designs,shows pronounced
baroque characteristics.
Sir ChristopherWren. Until after the Civil Wars Jones's
work remained almost isolated. With the Restoration,
however, began the activityof ChristopherWren (1632-1723),
a distinguishedmathematician, whose chief trainingin tecture
archi-
was derived from books and from a visit to Paris in
1665, the very year of Bernini's triumphant receptionthere.
It was natural that in him,

Inigo Jones, academic and
as in
baroque influence should mingle, the baroque element being
even stronger than in his predecessor. In certain designs,to
be sure, such as the Library of Trinity College,Cambridge,
with its reminiscence of the Library of Samt Mark, he re-
mained
strictly academic; and in the Monument in London,

commemorating the great fire of 1666, he anticipatedlater
classical movements by an imitation of the column of Trajan.
FIG. 244 "
LONDON. SAINT PAUL S CATHEDRAL. PLAN
In his towers and spires,however, in his fondness for the

combination of brick and stone, and above all in the luxuriant
detail of his he shows
interiors, the influence of contemporary
Italy and the Low Countries.
Saint Paul's. Wren's most important commission was the
rebuildingof Saint Paul's, 1668-1710. His first design for it
was a great octagonal domed church with an encirclingaisle,
like Santa Maria della Salute in Venice, but with even greater
multiplicityof connections and varietyof spatialeffect. This
proved too radical for the clergy,as Bramante's and Michel-
angelo's
central schemes for Saint Peter's had proved, and a
longitudinalscheme had to be substituted (Fig. 244). The
dome, however, remained a dominant feature, includingthe
whole width of both nave and aisles as in the cathedral of
By courtesy of London Stereoscopic and Photograph Co.
HG. 245" LONDON. SAINT PAUL'S CATHEDRAL

Florence. Its external form in the earlier projectsseems to

have been derived from San Gallo's model for Saint Peter's,
but in its final form (Fig. 245) it was influenced rather by
Bramante's designs. Like Bramante's Tempietto at San Pietro
in Montorio, it has a peristyle of free-standing
columns with
a balustrade, a paneled drum, and flat ribs on the dome
proper. The vastly larger scale of Saint Paul's gives the
compositiona new majesty. For the fagade Wren adopted the
two-storied scheme of most of the Italian churches of the time,
with twin towers similar in composition to those of Sant'
Agnese at Rome and other baroque examples. The super-
posed
porticoesof coupled columns in the center, however,
had more of the academic dignity of Palladio and Perrault.
The basilican arrangement of the interior,with the flying
buttresses made necessary by the clerestory,Wren felt it
necessary to mask by carryinghis second story order around

the exterior. The interior dome also fell far below the
exterior one, which was formed of timber framework over a
cone of brick supporting the lantern. Thus frankness of

construction was sacrificed gain the complete libertyof
to
design which the post-Renaissanceartist demanded for both

interior and exterior. ^
Vanbrugh. The dual tendencies of the period appear in
heightened contrast in the work of Sir John Vanbrugh, who
took up architecture thirty-five,
at after a brilliant success as
a writer of comedies. In his vast designsfor Castle Howard,

Blenheim Palace (Fig.246), and other houses of the aristoc-
racy,
he carried to the limit the scale of orders and rooms, the
picturesque composition of masses, and the support of the
main mass by subordinate colonnades and dependencies.
Baroque features abound in the treatment of the cupolas and
the skylinegenerally,whereas the porticoesand colonnades
are often of strictly classical ordonnance. A classical portico
of this sort, without any combinations with baroque elements,
appears in the Clarendon Press building at Oxford, designed

by Vanbrugh and his pupilNicholas Hawksmoor about 1 7 10.
' ' ' '
Academic supremacy. The Palladian style. The influence
of the universities,indeed, was squarely on the side of the
classical and academic, and the same was true of the noble
amateurs for whose schoolingthe "grand tour" to Italy had
become indispensable. The most influential of these was

Lord Burlington (1695-1753) who purchased Palladio's draw-
ings
in Vicenza, issued an edition of his writingsin 1715-16,
and of his restorations of ancient buildingsin 1730. He also
assisted the architects of Palladian tendencies Colin bell,
Camp- "
William Kent, and others by commissions and by help-

"
no. 246 "

BLENHEIM PALACE FROM THE FORE-COURT
ing in the of
publication their
designs. Burlington House in
London by Campbell, 1716-17, shows direct following of
Palladio's designs. The favorite of these was his Villa
Rotonda, which was reproduced both by Campbell and by
Burlington himself. For the assembly rooms at York,
Burlington adopted an imitation of Palladio's "Egyptian
Hall," surrounded by colonnades in two stories. The free-standing
porticoas used by Palladio became the rule for the
great houses of the nobility(Fig. 247) and for churches as
well. Henceforth throughout the century in England academic
purity of detail was carried to the point of banishing all
decorative sculpture from the facades, which depended for
their effect solelyon abstract composition and proportion.

Thus England anticipatedby a generationor more the victory
of academism and the advent of classicism in other countries,
and was in a positionto exercise on them a powerful return
influence.
Domestic architecture. The great houses. The sance
post-Renais-
period after the Restoration was the heyday of the
English landed aristocracy,and it was natural that the
characteristic type of the period should have been the great
country house. The royal palaces scarcelysurpassed many
other seats in size and splendor and may well be considered
with them. In the development considerations of form took
first place,and the interior was arranged as well as possible
without disturbingthe facades. The first buildingof the new
order was the Queen's House at Greenwich, designed in 1617.
It was a solid rectangularblock, with a central colonnaded
loggiaover a high basement, and with a flat roof and balustrade
"
a revolutionary contrast to the typicalJacobean house,

its tall wings, bays, and gables. In his designsfor Whitehall,
Jones employed superposed orders; in those for the later
buildingsat Greenwich, a colossal order and attic. In Somer- set
House, as executed, he adopted pilasters running through
two stories, over an arcaded basement. The plans made
certain advances in the direction of convenience and privacy"
the files of rooms were doubled in many of the blocks, and
corridors were often added. Palladio's scheme of dependencies
on either side of the fore-court,connected with the house by
colonnades, was adopted. Of the Italian formulae for
also
facades introduced by Jones, the favorite was the one which
had the added prestigeof its adoption in the Louvre the tall "
order over a basement story. This was used by Wren at
Hampton Court (1689-1700), and was reverted to (after

Vanbrugh's preference for the colossal order) by the later
Palladians. In the largerhouses of Vanbrugh, there was a
modification of the block-like mass of the main house by wings

providinglong suites of state apartments toward the gardens,
on the model of those at Versailles. At Blenheim, indeed,
thesewings were along the sides of the
also turned forward
house; and the kitchens and stables were pushed stillfarther
forward, and grouped about independent courts on either
side of a second fore-court like the Cour Royale at Versailles.

Unlike Versailles,however, Vanbrugh's houses had an emphasis
on the central and terminal masses which makes them much
more lively in silhouette (Fig. 246). With the return to
Palladianism came the adoption of the great free-standing
pedimented portico,often of six Corinthian columns, as at
FIG. 247 "
PRIOR PARK NEAR BATH
Prior Park near Bath, built in 1734 (Fig. 247). In other

Palladian the arrangement
houses was still more schematic "
even symmetrical on both axes sometimes with "

four outlying
blocks, as at Holkham. The service quarters were now
provided for in the basement story,less frankly confessed but

more convenient in their relation to the living-rooms.
Smaller houses. Besides the multitude of great houses with
their weight of academic apparatus, there was an even greater
number of unpretentious houses in many of which no orders
at all were used. Even those attributed to Jones and Wren are
merely straightforwardcompositions of wall and openings "
of stone, of brick, or of brick and stone "

sometimes with
classical architraves, but sometimes without even these.
Leaded and mullioned windows were abandoned for painted
wooden sashes, and classical detail was restricted to the
pilastereddoorway and main cornice. In the simplerexamples
there might even be nothing specificallyclassical except the
generalregularityand symmetry, as, for instance,in Clifford
FIG. 248 "

CLIFFORD CHAMBERS
Chambers (Fig.248),where the "vernacular" styleis seen in

a typically cultivated and luxuriant natural setting.
Gardens. The earlier gardens of the periodin England were
under foreign influence "
successivelyItalian,with terraces,
statues, and fountains; Dutch, with yews clippedin fantastic
shapes; and French, with the long allees and canals of Le
Notre. In the early years of the eighteenth century, under
the leadershipof writers like Shaftesbury,Addison, and Pope,
began the modern appreciationof natural landscape,and in
its wake came the creation of the informal landscapegarden "
a new type, specifically English. The great formal gardens

were graduallyremodeled until the houses stood immediately
in naturalesquegrounds,where every stratagem was employed

to create pleasingvistas and a constant varietyof character.
A multitude of minor decorative structures, among which
playful reproductionsof classical temples began to appear,
served still further to diversifyand enliven the grounds.
Parish churches. Church buildingwas uncommon in Eng-
land
during the post-Renaissanceperiod,except in London.
There the vast growth of the city and the havoc wrought by
the great fire of 1666 made many new structures necessary.
They presented a problem, which even the established church
in England shared with the Protestants of France and many:
Ger-
to build in Renaissance forms a church primarily
adapted for preaching. In
example,the first of the church
Saint Paul's, Covent Garden (1631),Jones came nearer the
Palladian ideal of a reproduction of the classic temple than
had Palladio himself. It proved an isolated exotic. Wren
solved the problem by the adoption of broad and compact
plans, little encumbered by columns, yet of the greatest
variety and ingenuity of forms. A basilican arrangement
with a barrel-vaulted nave, as in Saint Bride's, is not common
un-
in them, and a dome supported on columns and

diagonal arches occasionallyfound, as at Saint Stephen's,
is
Walbrook. Galleries were frequently added to increase the
seatingcapacity. On the exterior Wren usuallyretained the
bell tower and subordinated the architectural treatment of the
rest of the church development of its upper portion.
to the rich
He sought to retain the expressiveeffect of the Gothic spireby
facile combinations of classical elements in decreasingstages.
The first and most influential of these steepleswas that of
Saint Mary-le-Bow (Fig.249),which has the transition from
the square belfrystage masked by angle finials, and the further
reduction in diameter accomplishedby a range of consoles.
The later development of the type took place through the
elimination of Gothic or baroque elements in the steepleand
through the addition of a porticoand other classical members
to the body of the edifice. All these changes best appear in
the churches of James Gibbs, whose church of Saint Mary-le-
Strand has a treatment of the exterior by superposed orders
based on that of Saint Paul's. His design for Saint Martin-
in-the-Fields' has a hexastyleCorinthian porticoand a steeple
in which the transition from square to octagonal is even more
subtly accomplished than in those of Wren. It became the

prototype of many others.
Town planning. The unified
planning of many buildings,
so characteristic of the period,began in England
Inigo with
Jones's design for Covent Garden a square surrounded by
"
open arcades, which are treated as the basement for pilasters

running through two stories above. For the rebuilding of
London after the great fire of 1666, Wren prepared a plan
based on the radiatingprinciplealready adopted in France,
but the multitude of private interests affected prevented its
execution. Unified streets and squares, however, continued
to be built by the great landed whose
proprietors, system of
ground rent favored this method. The ultimate scope of
such is best
enterprises seen outside of London, at Bath, where
the architect John Wood created not only squares, but also
"circuses" and "crescents" with coherent academic facades
treated with pilasters or superposed columns.
Details. The period of compromise between academic and
baroque tendencies in England was generallymarked by strict
followingof the forms and proportionsof the orders themselves,
but by considerable license in the other details,especially in
interiors. Thus, although twisted columns, for example,
appear in but few instances (as in the porch of Saint Mary's
Church, Oxford, attributed to Inigo Jones),broken and scroll
pediments, architraves with rusticated key-blocks,and free
combinations of consoles often occur. In the interiors by
Wjcen, such features are combined with the most lavish and
exuberant carving,the work of Grinling Gibbons, a spiritual
descendant of Bernini and the Italian decorators. In all this
work appears the characteristic post-Renaissancefeelingfor
interdependence,transition,and fusion of the parts in an
indissoluble whole. With the Palladian movement in the

eighteenth century, however, came a tendency to abandon
this mode of composition, even to expurgate the works of
Palladio himself,who had followed it so far as academic forms
permitted. Thus the use of pavilions, the breaking of cornices
at engaged columns, the use of ears and consoles,and of string-
courses
interrupted by pilasterswas gradually abandoned.
Unbroken cornices and self-sufficient doors and windows
By courtesy of London Stereoscopic and Photograph Co.
FIG. 249 "

LONDON. SAINT MARY-LE-BOW
tended to rule in buildingsthemselves standing proudly self-

sufficient, with little transition to their environment.
Academism thus here first gave place to the new classicism
which was destined to succeed it.
Germany. Baroque architecture: 1580-1730. In Ger-
c. many,
after the introduction of baroque forms from Italy,
about 1580, the
main-
tained
baroque spirit
a complete
ascendancy. At
first it was the fluence
in-
of Alessi and
of north Italywhich
dominated, and
which, united with
survivals of evalism,
medi-
produced
such cally
characteristi-
German ings
build-
as the Fried-
richsbau at berg
Heidel-
(1601-07),and
the Rathaus at
Augsburg (1614-
20). The Thirty
Years' War (1618-
48) with its unpar-
alleled
devastation,
however, brought
all building in Ger-
many
FIG. 250 "
DRESDEN. CENTRAL PAVILION OF to a still,
stand-
THE ZWINGER
and destroyed
architectural tion
tradi-
itself. Meanwhile, in the south, the
princes Catholic
had summoned to their aid the Jesuits of Italy, bring-
ing
with them Italian architects and their maturer baroque.
Thus in 1606 Vincenzo Scamozzi, a discipleof Palladio,
prepared a plan for the cathedral of Salzburg, which was
executed in 1614-34, with forms reminiscent of II Gesu in

Rome. Italian architects built at Prague the Waldstein
Palace (1623-29) with its great garden loggia of arches on

coupled columns; and later,in Munich, the Theatine Church
(1663-75)with its two-story facade, its tall dome and Western
towers with multiplied consoles. An independent German
version of the baroque did not flourish until after 1700, when
a group of masters arose
who showed facilityin

a
this medium of expression

scarcely equaled even in
Italy. Andreas Schlxiter
imbued the royal palace in
Berlin with the exuberant
decorative spirit of his
sculptures,Matthaus Pop-
pelmann attained in the
Z winger at Dresden (1711-
22) the ultimate fusion of
all the elements through the
incompletenessand mutual
dependence of every one
(Fig. 250). Georg Bahr

brought to a brilliant culmi-
nation
the development of
the Protestant auditorium-
church by his Frauenkirche
at Dresden (Fig.251),with
its rotunda and storied terior
in-
its unique
galleries,
and successful transition
from mass to dome. In
FIG. 251 "
DRESDEN. FRAUENKIRCHE
Vienna, Johann Fischer von
Erlach,the pioneerhistorian
of architecture,showed a more eclectic spirit "
as in the ment
employ-
of a classical portico,and of imitations of the column of
Trajan, as elements in his church of San Carlo Borromeo "
but in generalbaroque conceptionsdominate wholly.

Rococo. French influence:c. 1730-70. From about 1730,
this native growth was submerged, thanks to the ing
overpower-
prestigeof France, by an influx of French architects and
French influence. These men were adepts in the free rococo
decorations of Louis XV. and, unlike their fellow extremists

who remained in France, were not restrained by academic
tradition from carryingover their curvilinear styleto exteriors.
On the contrary the prevailingnative baroque encouraged
them to indulge their tendencies in gracefulchateaux like the
Amalienburg by Frangois de Cuvillies,which have no counterpart
outside of Germany.
Rise of academism. English influence. Frederick the
Great (1740-86) turned not only to France but to England,
which in the later eighteenth century began to set the mode
even for France itself. The Royal Opera House in Berlin
(1743) has a pedimented Corinthian porticoof six columns,
severe classical niches, and almost complete absence of
sculpture. The final victory of this academic tendency,
presaging that of classicism itself,appears in the decorative
towers of the Gendarmenmarkt in Berlin (1780^.) by Karl von
Gontard, in which are mingled reminiscences of the tall domes
of Wren and Soufflot.
PERIODS OF POST-RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE
ITALY
I. Establishment of academic and baroque tendencies,c. 1540-80.

Michelangelo Buonarroti, 1475-1564.
Studies for the fagade of San Lorenzo at Florence, 1514^".
New Sacristy of San Lorenzo (Medici Chapel), 1521-34.
Laurentian Library at Florence, 1524-71.
Saint Peter's at Rome, 1546-64.
Palaces and square of the Capitol at Rome, 1 546 f.
Santa Maria degli Angeli at Rome, 1559.
Porta Pia at Rome, 1559.
Andrea Palladio,1518-80.
Basilica at Vicenza, 1549.
Palazzo Valmarana at Vicenza, begun 1556.
San Giorgio Maggiore at Venice, 1565.
II Redentore at Venice, 1577.
Villa Almerigo (VillaRotonda) near Vicenza, 1570-89.
Teatro Olimpico at Vicenza, 1580-84.
Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola, 1507-73.
Palace at Caprarola,1547.
Villa di Papa Giulio at Rome, 1550.
Sant' Andrea at Rome, 1550.

Villa Lante near Viterbo,begun 1566.
II Gesu Rome, 1568.
at
Giorgio Vasari, 1511-74.

Court of the Uffizi in Florence, 1560-80.
Galeazzo Alessi ,1512-72.
Palazzo Sauli at Genoa, c. 1550.
Santa Maria di
Carignano at Genoa, begun c. 1552.
Palazzo Marino at Milan, 1568.
Bartolomeo Ammanati, 1511-92.
Ponte Santa Trinita at Florence, 1567-70.
II. Baroque supremacy, c. 1580-1730.
Giacomo della Porta, 1541-1604.

Design for facade of II Gesu at Rome, c. 1573.
Domenico Fontana, 1543-1607.
Acqua Paolina, 1585-90.
Carlo Maderna, 1556-1639.
Facade of Saint Peter's at Rome, 1606-26.
Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini, 1598-1680.
Baldachino of Saint Peter's at Rome, 1624-33.
Colonnades of Saint Peter's,1656-63.
Scala Regia in the Vatican, 1663-66.
Palazzo Ludovisi (Montecitorio),
1642-1700.
Francesco Borromini, 1599-1667. "
Remodeling of Palazzo Spada at Rome, 1632.

San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane, 1640.
Sant' Agnese at Rome, 1645-50.
Guarino Guarini, 1624-83.
Palazzo Carignano at Turin, 1680.
Baldassare Longhena, 1604-82.
Santa Maria della Salute, 1631-82.
III. Compromise, 1730-80.
c.
FilippoJuvara, 1685-1735.
The Supcrga near Turin, 1706-20.
Palazzo Madama at Turin, 1718.
Alessandro Galilei (1691-1737).
Facade the Church of the Lateran, 1734.
LuigiVanvitelli,1700-73.
Palace at Caserta, 1752 jf.
SPAIN
I. Academic architecture,c. 1570-1610.

Juan de Herrera, c. 1530-97.
The Escurial,1563-81.
Cathedral in
Valladolid,1585 Jf.
Exchange in Seville,1584-98.
II. Baroque supremacy, c. 1610-1750.
Juan Gomez de Mora, d. 1647.
Jesuitcollegeand church in Salamanca, 1614 (-1750).
Jose Churriguera, 1650-1723.
Catafalque for Queen Maria Luisa, 1689.
Town Hall of Salamanca.
Pedro Ribera.
Facade of the HospicioProvincial in
Madrid, 1772 (-1799).
Ventura
Rodriquez, 1717-85.
San Marcos in Madrid, 1749-53.
San Francisco el Grande in Madrid, 1761.
III. Reaction, c. 1730.
Filippo Juvara and Giovanni Battista Sacchetti,d. 1766.
Royal Palace at La Granja, 1721-23.
Royal Palace at Madrid, 1734^".
Pedro Caro, d. 1732.
Palace at Aranjuez,1727 (-78).
FRANCE
I. .
Baroque supremacy,1590-1635.
c.
Henry IV., 1589-1601.

Etienne du Perac, c. 1540-1601.
Palace and Gardens Saint
Germain, 1594.
at
Claude Chastillon,1547-1616.
Place Royale at Paris, 1604.
Louis XIII., 1610-43.
Salomon de Brosse, b. between 1552 and 1562, d. 1626.
Luxembourg Palace, 1616-20.
Fagade for Saint Gervais in Paris,1616-21.
Jacques Lemercier, 1585-1654.
Enlargement of the Court of the Louvre, 1624-30.
Chateau de Richelieu,1627-37.
Church of the Sor bonne, 1635-53.
II. Compromise, c. 1635-1745.
Stricter phase, c. 1635-1715.
Francois Mansart, 1598-1666.
Wing of Gaston d'Orleans at Blois,1635-40.
Chateau of Maisons near Paris, 1642-51.
Church of the Val-de-Grace in Paris,begun 1645.
Louis XIV., 1643-1715.
Louis le
Vau, 1612-70.
Chateau of Vaux-le-Vicomte,c. 1656-60.
College des Quatre Nations at Paris,1660-68.
Continuation of the Louvre, 1664-70.
Remodeling of Versailles (Cour de Marbre), 1665-70.
Claude Perrault,1613-88.
Colonnade of the Louvre, 1665.
Jules Hardouin Mansart, 1646-1708.
Second remodeling of Versailles,1678-88; chapel,
1699-1710.
Dome of the Invalides at Paris,1692-1704.
Francois Blondel, 1618-86.
Porte Saint Denis at Paris,1672.
Freer phase, rococo, 1715-45. c.
Louis XV., 1715-74.

J. Aubert, d. 1741.
Stables at Chantilly,1710-35.
Hotel Biron at Paris,1728.
Girardini,dates uncertain.
Palais Bourbon at Paris,1722.
Germain Boffrand, 1667-1754.
Hotel d'Amelot at Paris.
Emmanuel Here de
Corny, 1705-63.
New quarter at Nancy, 1750-57.
III. Academic victory,1745-80.
Louis XVI., 1774-92.
Jean Nicholas Servadony, b. 1695 or 1696, d. 1766.
Facade of Saint Sulpicein Paris,1732-45.
Jacques Germain Soufflot,1709-80.
Facade of the Hotel Dieu at Lyons, 1737.
Saint Genevicve (the Pantheon) at Paris,1757-90 (see
Chapter XII).
Jacques Anges Gabriel,1698-82.
Ecole Militaire in Paris,1652^.
Palace at Compiegne, 1652-72.
Theater, etc., at Versailles, 1753-70.
Petit Trianon, 1762-68.
Palaces of the Place de la Concorde in Paris,1762-70.
Jacques Denis Antoine, 1733-1801.
The Mint in Paris,1771-75.
ENGLAND
I. Baroque supremacy, c. 1600-20.

(See English Renaissance architecture,under Tames I.)
16
II. Compromise, c. 1620-1720.

Inigo Jones, 1573-1652.
Queen's House in Greenwich, 1617-35.
Whitehall Palace in London, 1619-22.
Square and church of Saint Paul, Covent Garden, 1631.
Portico of old Saint Paul's Cathedral in London, 1633 jf.
King Charles's Block at Greenwich, 1637.
Somerset House in London, 1636-38.
Wilton House, 1647.
Sir Christopher Wren, 1632-1723.
Sheldonian Theater at Oxford, 1663-68.
Plan for the rebuildingof London, 1666.
Saint Paul's Cathedral in London, 1668-1710.
The Monument in London, 1671.
Temple Bar in London, 1671.
City churches in London, 1670-1711.
Saint Stephen's,Walbrook, 1672-79.
Saint Mary-le-Bow, 1680.
Saint Bride's,1680-1702.
Buildings at Greenwich, 1676-1716.
Library of Trinity College,Cambridge, 1678.
Hampton Court, 1689-1703.
William Talman, fl.1670-1700.
Chatsworth, 1681.
Sir John Vanbrugh, 1666-1726.
Castle Howard, 1702-14.
Blenheim Palace, 1705-24.
Nicholas Hawksmoor, 1661-1736.
Clarendon Press at Oxford (with Vanbrugh), c. 1710.
III. Academic supremacy, c. 1720-70.
Richard Boyle, Earl of Burlington, 1695-1753.
General Wade's house in Bath, 1723.
Villa at Chiswick, 1729.
Assembly rooms at York, 1730-36.
Colin Campbell, c. 1729.
Burlington House in London, 1717.
Wanstead, 1720.
Mereworth Castle,1723.
James Gibbs, 1628-1754.
Saint Martin-in-the-Fields' in London, 1721-26.
Radcliffe Library at Oxford, 1737-47.
William Kent, 1684-1748.
Holkham, 1734.
Horse Guards in London, begun 1742.
John Wood, c. 1704-54.

Prior Park Bath, 1734.
near
The Circus Bath, 1754$.

at
George Dance the elder,1698-1768.

Mansion House in London, 1739-53.
James Paine, 1725-89.
Worksop Manor House, 1763.
Sir William Chambers, 1726-96.
Rebuilding of Somerset House in London, 1776-90.
GERMANY
I. Baroque architecture, c. 1580-1730.

Michaelskirche in Munich, 1583-97.
Friedrichsbau at Heidelberg, 1601-07.
Elias Holl, 1573-1646.

Rathaus in Augsburg, 1614-20.
Vincenzo Scamozzi.
Design for the Cathedral of Salzburg, 1606, executed
1614-34.
Antonio and Pietro Spezza.
Loggia of the Palace at Prague, 1629.
Waldstein
Enrico Zuccali,1643-1724.
Theatine Church in Munich, 1663-75.
Andreas Schliiter, 1622-1714.
Royal Palace in Berlin,1699 ff.
Johann Bernard Fischer von Erlach, 1650-1723.,
Palace of Prince Eugene at Vienna, 1703.
Church of San Carlo Borromeo in Vienna, 1716-37.
Matthaus Daniel Poppelmann, 1662-1736.
Zwinger in Dresden, 1711-22.
Georg Bahr, 1666-1738.
Frauenkirche in Dresden, 1726-40.
Balthasar Neumann, 1687-1753.
Schloss Bruchsal, 1722-43 (partlyrococo).
II. Rococo, c. 1730-70.
Francois de Cuvillies the elder,1698-1768.
Amalienburg near Munich, 1734-39.
Pierre de la Gue"piere.
Schloss Monrepos near Ludwigsburg, 1760-67.
Schloss Solitude near Stuttgart,1763-67.
Georg von Knobelsdorff, 1699-1753.
Neues Schloss at Chariot tenburg, 1740-42.
Sanssouci,begun 1745.
III. Rise of academism, c. 1740-80.

Georg von Knobelsdorff,1699-1753.
Royal Opera House at Berlin,1743.
Karl von Gontard, 1738-1802.
Communs at Potsdam, 1765-69.
Towers in the Gendarmenmarkt in Berlin,1780.
General works covering the periodare G. Ebe's Die sance,

Spat-Renais-
2 vols.,1886; C. Gurlitt's Geschichte des
Barockstiles, des Rococo
una des Klassizismus (Geschichteder neueren Baukunst}, 3 vols.,
1887-89, of which the individual volumes are listed below, and
P. FrankPs Die Entwicklungsphasen der neueren Baukunst, 1914.
Further illustrations are provided by R. Dohme's Barock- und Rococo-
Architektur, 3 vols.,1892. Books dealing with but One of the complementary
tendencies of the times are P. Klopfer's Von Palladia bis

Schinkel: cine Charakteristik der Baukunst des Klassizismus (Geschichte
der neueren Baukunst}, 1911, and M. S. Briggs'sBaroque Architecture,
1914. Discussions of the relation of the tendencies are H. Wolfflin's
Renaissance und
Barock, 1888, 2d ed., 1907; A. Schmarzow's
Barock und Rokoko, 1897, and K. Escher's Barock und Klassizismus,
1910.
Italy. Gurlitt's volume, Geschichte des Barockstiles in Italien,
1887, is still the principalhistorical account, which may be supple-
mented
by the Italian sections of the other generalworks, and by the
photographs reproduced in C. Ricci's Baroque Architecture and Sculpt-
ure
in Italy,1912. Specially concerned with Rome are A. Riegl's
Die Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom, 1908, and Escher's Barock
und Klassizismus. For the villas and gardens see M. L. Gothein's
Geschichte der Gartenkunst,2 vols.,1914, Chapter VII; H. I. Triggs's
The Art of Garden Design in Italy,1906, and G. Lowell's Smaller
Italian Villas and Farmhouses, 1916.
France. The work of Ward on Renaissance architecture and (to
a less degree)the works of Geymuller and Blomfield cover the post-
Renaissance period as well. Two works by H. Lemonnier, L'art
franqaisau temps de Richelieu et de Mazarin, 1893, and L'art franqais
au temps de Louis XIV., 1911, include architecture with the other arts.
Topographical works with large photographic reproductions include
those of L. Deshairs on Bordeaux, Dijon, and Aix, and those of R. le
Nail and C. Gurlitt on Lyons. F. Contet's Les vieux hotels de Paris,
10 vols.,1908-14, partially
covers Paris in a similar way, while each
of the great royalpalaceshas several works devoted especiallyto it.
Three works by P. Planat: Le style Louis XIV., Le style Louis V.,

and Le style Louis XVI., 1907, give similar plates for the periods
indicated by their titles. Garden architecture is treated in M.
Fouquier's De I'art des jardins du XVe au XXe siecle, 1911, and in

H. Stein's Les jardins de France. The general biographical works
covering French architects are supplemented by E. F. Dilke's French
Architects and Sculptors of the XVIII. Century, 1900.
England. The principal work is R. Blomfield's History of Renais-

sance
Architecture in England, 1500-1800, 2 vols., 1897, of which the
major part is devoted to the period after 1615. It includes a full
bibliography of contemporary and modern works. A series of

large
photographs and measured drawings is furnished by J. Belcher
and M. E. Macartney's Later Renaissance Architecture in England,
2 vols., 1897-1901. Domestic architecture is specially treated in
M. E. Macartney's English Houses and Gardens in the ijth and i8th
Centuries, 1908; H. Field and M. Bunney's English tecture

Archi- Domestic
of the XVII. and XVIII. Centuries, 1905 (smaller buildings);

T. V. Sadlier and P. L. Dickinson's Georgian Mansions in Ireland,
1915; M. A. Green's The Eighteenth Century Architecture of Bath,
1904; and A. E. Richardson and C. L. Gill's London Houses from
1660-1820. For individual biography see E. B. Chancellor's The
Lives of the British Architects, 1909.
Spain. O. Schubert's Geschichte des Barock in Spanien {Geschichte
der neueren Baukunst), 1908, is the authoritative discussion. Further
illustrations are furnished by the works of Uhde, Junghandel, and
others listed under the Renaissance in Spain.
Germany. Ample illustration is furnished by Dohme's work,
mentioned above: by Lambert and Stahl's Motive der dcutschen tektur,
Archi-
vol. 2, 1892; P. Schmoll and G. Staehelin's Barockbauten in
Deutschland, 1904; O. Aufleger's Suddeutsche Architektur . . .

im
XVIII. Jahrhundert, 2 vols., 1891-95; and, in more convenient
compass, in H. Popp's Architektur der Barock und Rokokozeit in

Deutschland und der Schweiz, 1914. P. Schumann's Barock und
Rokoko, 1885, is specially devoted to Dresden. J. Braun's Die
Kirchenbauten der deutschen Jesuiten, 2 vols., 1908-10, covers a
notable series of churches. C. Gurlitt's Historische Stadtcbilder,

ii vols., 1901-09, is largely devoted to German cities important in
this period.
CHAPTER XII
MODERN ARCHITECTURE
The mid-eighteenth century witnessed the beginnings of a

series of changes, political and cultural,scarcelyless important
than those of the fifteenth century. Although many of these
movements were extensions or logicalconsequences of those
of the Renaissance, their importance and approximately
simultaneous appearance justify the idea that they constitute
the beginning of a new era, specifically modern. The freedom
of inquiry applied in the Renaissance to letters and art, and
in the Reformation to religion, was now applied to history,
politics, and science. A multitude of individual tendencies
combined to initiate the age of archeologicaldiscovery and
historical research, of revolution and democracy, of natural
science and invention, of capitalism and colonial empire.
These were destined to affect not only the stylistic aspect of
architecture,but equally the nature of the prevailingtypes of
buildingsand methods of construction, as well as the extent
to which these were diffused over the world.
General characteristics.
Although the kaleidoscopicinter-play
of forces makes it difficult to generalizeregarding the
architectural characteristics of the period,they may be con-
ceived
broadly as the result of a synthesis of retrospective

and progressive tendencies, which exist side by side, not
unlike the academic and baroque tendencies in the previous
period. In matters of form and detail it is the newly won
historical understanding of previous styleswhich has been
chieflyinfluential, resultingin a series of attempted revivals
followed by a season of eclecticism. In matters of plan
and construction,however, the growth of material civilization
and the development of new forms of government and merce
com-
have produced a multitude of novel types of buildings

MODERN ARCHITECTURE 461
as well as changes in the form and importance of

constant
the old types, making every supposed revival unconsciously
a new creation. Finally there has begun a conscious move-
ment
to give the new functional types and structural systems

an expressionthat shall also be novel and entirelycharac-
teristic.
Complexity of development. It thus comes about that,

within a century and a half of
development in coherent
practicalmatters, there is a series of subordinate phases
distinguishedby very different forms of detail. Although a
greater or less number of these phases might be distinguished,
the principalones may be considered as four, corresponding
generallyto |iêrfl.ry and cultural phases : classicism,lomajig .
ticism, egjeg^gjsjn (alloutgrowths chieflyof the historical

nttitnH"), a*1^ funrf*rm?1'SF1 (primarilyan outgrowth of
natural science). As each of these phases, like the academic
and baroque movements, varies in character and duration in
different countries, it becomes even more difficult to preserve
a chronologicaland
strictly local order during the discussion
of the most modern architecture than
duringit is the cussion
dis-
of the architecture immediately preceding. In view
of the fundamentally international character of the tectural
archi-
tendencies, and their uniform order of predominance
in all countries, it is more fruitful to consider the individual
movements in their general sequence rather than individual
countries one by one. The continuity of development in
any given individual type, and the simultaneous existence and
interplayof movements in any given country, scarcelyless
characteristic,may be indicated by the way.
Classicism: study of classical monuments. The first of the
modern movements to affect architectural forms was the
flood of archeological discoveryand publicationin the middle
of the eighteenth century. Hitherto the fund of knowledge
concerning ancient buildings,aside from the details of the
orders, was surprisinglysmall. Writers and engravers, in
general,had been chieflyconcerned with the construction of
academic theories, or the representationof the buildingsof
their own day both supposedly based on the antique, but
"
reallydeparting from it with the greatest freedom. Palladio,

to be sure, had published rationalized restorations of the
Roman temples as early as 1570, and in 1682 Desgodetz had

issued his far more accurate drawings of the monuments of
the city of Rome. These were but isolated forerunners,how-
ever,
of the multitude of works which now commenced to
appear, many of them

illustratingbuildings hitherto unre-
garded
or entirely unknown. In 1730 Lord Burlington

brought out many of Palladio's drawings of Roman buildings
which had lain a century and a half in manuscript. In 174^,
the engraver Piranesi_issued his first rrt^g-g the commence-
mentôfa coiossaT"series"o!îews
ot ancient ruins and ments,
frag-
which placed before the
public the great wealth of
Roman architecture in Italy,and, with their strikingartistic
qualities,powerfully stimulated the vogue of the antique.
In the fifties there began to appear illustrated works dealing
with Herculaneum, and later with Pompeii, the buried Cam-
panian cities which exhibited Roman art in a way so much
more livelyand intimate than the ruined and despoiledmonu- ments
of the capital. The knowledge of Roman architecture

was further enriched by the study and publicationof the
temples at Palmyra and Baalbek by ffiood and Dawkins
(1753 and 1757) and of the palace at Spalato by Robert Adam
and Clerisseau (1764) buildings differingwidely in com-
"
position
and deta'il from the conventional conceptionsof the

academic theorists. Scarcely later came the revelation of
Greek monuments, hitherto known only by the vague counts
ac-
of a few travelers. In 1750 and 1751 Cochin and

Soufflot_weredrawing and measuring at Paestum ; Stuart and
.Revett were at Athens. A few years later publicationsre-
garding
these and other sites began to pour forth. Leroy's

Athens appeared in
1758, the first volume of Stuart and
Revett's Antiquitiesof Athens in 1762, Major's Pcestum in
1768, Chandler's Ionia in 1769, with a stream of successors
of the same character reaching well into the nineteenth

century. At the same Caylus and Winckel-
time the Comte de
mann were laying the foundations of archeology and of the
history of art, Winckelmann assertingfor the first time the
superiorityof Greek architecture and sculptureover those of
the Romans.
Reaction againstthe baroque and against academic formula.
The increasingappreciationof antiquitywas coincident with
independent tendencies, already visible in contemporary

architecture. The rationalistic advocacy of the primitive
orders by Laugier in 1752, the appeal for a "noble simplicity
and quietgrandeur" which Winckelmann made in 1755, were
based rather antithesis to contemporary

on art than on a real
knowledge of the art of the ancients. The reaction from the
extreme crescendo of the baroque had already begun, even in
Italy,in such works as the Superga and the facade of the
Lateran. In France the manner of Servadony prevailedover
the rococo, while in England the reversion from Wren and
Vanbrugh to strict Palladianism was universal. It was felt
that, in the striving for animation, picturesqueness,and
originality, dignity and earnestness had been lost. It was
these sober qualities, which so many were seeking,that were
now found superlatively exemplifiedin certain of the works of
antiquity.
Characteristics and development of classicism. The result
was that the current of practicewas turned toward the closer
imitation of classical forms, and ultimatelyeven of classical
dispositions and ensembles. Architects approached the
antique directly,and not through Palladio or Vitruvius.
Hitherto the orders had been used principally in the decoration
of wall surfaces ; columns and pilasters had been freelygrouped
and often placed above a high basement. The temple por-
tico,
except in England, where the example of Palladio was
directlyfollowed, had been used very rarely or not at all.

Now, on the other hand, it became almost essential,its
columns closelyand equally spaced, risingdirectlyfrom the
ground. The membering of walls was renounced in favor of
the simplestjointingor rustication. Forms like those of the
rectangular temple and the Pantheon, determined for the
most part in advance, had now to be employed to meet not
only the traditional problems of the church, the school, and

the dwelling,but also a multitude of new problems in the
legislativeand other governmental buildings, the banks,
exchanges, and commercial structures, the museums and
theaters, assembly and concert halls,the prisonsand institu-tions
which great political, economic, and social changes were
bringing into being. Academic conservatism, especiallyin
France, however, hindered the literal imitation of ancient
precedent,just in proportionas it differed from the currently

accepted canons. Thus, although the Roman and the Greek
tendencies ran side by side almost from the beginning, the
Roman remained predominant until shortly before 1820.
Even then, when Greek forms surpassed the Roman in
popular favor, important monuments of Roman character
still continued to be built.
Roman supremacy. The
beginningsin France. The sical
clas-
reform of architecture began coincidentlyin France and
England about 1760. T*LS^jnteGenevieve. in Paris (1759-90),
Soufflot thought to imitate the portico and dome of the
Pantheon in Rome (Fig.252). For the first time in France
there is a free-standing porticoof the full height of the facade,
its Corinthian columns no less than sixty-two feet high.
This soon had its successors in such buildings as the Grajid
gatre at TWdf^v (1777-80),
by Victor Louis, with its lossal
co-
portico of twelve columns, and in the urban dwellingsof

Roman cast. The characteristic features of these houses, a
peristylarcour d'honneur with a triumphal arch at the grille,

a temple porticoat the door, and a saucer dome over the
circular projectingsalon toward the garden, are well com-
bined
in the Hotel de Salm (1782-86),now the Palace of the
Legion of Honor. The interiors lost the flowing lines of the

rococo and turned to the delicate,simple paneling and refined
imitation of antique motives which mark the style of Louis
XVI.
The beginningsin England. In England Robert Adam and
his brothers (1760 jj.},although they created no building of
such monumental qualityas Sainte Genevieve in Paris,gave a
powerful stimulus to the employment of more strictlyRoman
forms, especiallyfor the treatment of interiors. Free-standing
columns, coffered vaults and domes, statued niches and bas-
reliefs marked the principalrooms even of privatedwellings
(Fig. 255), while a delicate surface decoration of vases,
griffins, and garlands in stucco, with Wedgwood medallions
and slender furniture designed in harmony, lent the rest an
air of unusual distinction. Although Piranesi and others had
anticipatedmany of these features or assisted the brothers
Adam with them, it was the skill of the Adams which first
welded them into a coherent style. Almost simultaneously
465
came the first work inspiredby Greek models, in a few designs

by Stuart and by Revett. These for the most part, however,
were composed on traditional Palladian
lines,the details of the
orders, the employment of anise and anthemia, the purity of
decoration, being the principalinnovations. This refinement
FIG. 252 "
PARIS. CHURCH OF SAINTE GENEVIEVE. (THE PANTHEON)
and severity,with a preferencefor the heavier orders, grad-

ually
permeated the academic styleof building,which still
long continued.
i
Literal imitation of classical models. Monuments. while,
Mean-
however, a more strict imitation of classical examples
was beginning,extending not merely to individual details and
elements, but to whole monuments. This appeared first in
the sentimental landscape gardens, which were
or decorated
with miniature classic temples and ruins. Stuart enriched the
repertoirewith the Monument of Lysicratesand other Athen-
ian
types. Ledoux, in his octroi gates and stations for
Paris (1780-88), made liberal use of classical motives " the
triumphal column, the exterior peristyle,the circular temple "
even using the Greek Doric column without a base. Lang-

hans took the Propylaeaat Athens as his model for the Brand-
enburg
Gate in Berlin (i788-0 iL although he used a more
Roman type of column and introduced other notable changes
which resulted in an originalcreation (Fig.253). The French
FIG. 253 "
BERLIN. BRANDENBURG GATE
Republic and its successors, with their studied imitation of

Rome, naturally reproduced its monuments also; and Na-poleon
outdid all others with the column of the Place Vendome
(1805-10),modeled on that of Trajan, the Arc du Carrousel
(1806),modeled on the Arch of Domitian ("Constantine"),and
finallythe colossal ^rc-tlc1'ELuilu by Gbalgrin (Fig.254). In
contrast to most of its predecessorsthis showed great freedom
in the renderingof the antique motive, with a puristic tendency
very characteristic of French architects of the revival period.
Other literal imitations. Even in buildings intended for
practical use, the literal followingof classical prototypes began,
on the initiative of rulers and statesmen. Catharine II.

commissioned Clerisseau in 1780 to design her a dwelling
which should be strictlyRoman. For his Temple of Glory,
now the church of the Madeleine, Napoleon insisted on the

selection of the designby Vignon (1807),a peristylar Corinthian
temple with its interior treatment suggested by the halls of
the thermae. The design of the Bourse (1808-27)also included
an external peristyle, but its great breadth did not permit a
pediment. In all these works Roman forms were employed,
FIG. 254 "
PARIS. ARC DE TRIOMPHE DE L ETOILE
although in the interiors of the Empire style developed by "
Percier and Fontaine on the lines of the Adams and Louis

XVI. "
Greek decorative elements were abundant, and even
Egyptian forms became popular as a result of Napoleon's

Eastern campaign.
The Greek
supremacy. The Greek supremacy began after
the Napoleonic wars, with important works first in England
but later in Germany.
especially Again, as in the case of
the Roman revival, the use of Greek orders and larger ele-
ments
preceded the bodily imitation of the
temple. Among
British buildingsthe high school at Edinburgh (1825-29),by
z"z~
w o
c"
gg
us s
z y
" 2
Thomas Hamilton, is especiallynoteworthy, no less for its

plastichandling of Greek forms in the wings and terraces than
for its reproduction of the portico of the Theseum in the
central feature (Fig.257). In Germany a great personality,
Friedrich Schinkel, succeeded in combining classical spirit

with modern requirements in a series of works of which the
_Royal Theater in Berlin (1818-21) is perhaps the most
notable (.Fig. 258^ Later, under the patronage of Ludwig I.
of Bavaria, Leo von Klenze carried stillfurther the imitation
of classical ensembles, culminatingin the Walhalla at Regens-
burg (1830-42),a reproductionof the Parthenon, raised on a
mighty* Lei i auud bCTbstructure. The idea of such reproduc-

tion
a
had long captivateddesigners:Gilly had proposed it as

early as 1797 for a memorial to Frederick the Great; the
National Monument in Edinburgh had been begun in accord-
ance
with it in 1829.
Reaction from literal classicism. With these buildings,
most
of them, to be sure, commemorative monuments without
exacting practicalfunctions, the high tide of classicism was
reached, and a reflux set in toward more rationalistic use of

classical forms. The
temple porticowas abandoned, and the
Greek suggestionappeared only in the fondness for the Doric
order, the delicacy of the projections,the elegance of the
profiles.In France, where the Roman tendency was strongest
and the academic resistance to actual copying was most
tenacious, this last phase of the classical movement was the

firstin which Greek influence was reallymuch felt,and it thus
received the name of neo-grec. By other tendencies which
they incorporate,however, as well as by their date, the ne"o-
grec buildingsbelong, in spiteof the name applied to them,
less with the revivalist movement than with the following
phases of eclecticism and functionalism.
Types of buildingsduring the classical movement: trative.
adminis-
Counter to the extreme formal tendency of classicism
"
to assimilate all buildingsto a singleclassical type there "
had constantlybeen the utilitarian tendency to differentiate

types of buildingsmore and more in accordance with their
increasinglyspecializedfunctions. This had already begun
under the old regime,but it was powerfullystimulated by the
Revolution, which detached many governmental functions
FIG. 257 "
EDINBURGH. THE HIGH SCHOOL. (RICHARDSON)
FIG. 258 "

BERLIN,
j
ROYAL THEATER
from the palace,and threw theaters and museums open to all.

The earliest of modern administrative buildings,distinct from
the palace, were developed in Great Britain, where the miralty,
Ad-
Somerset House, and a number of other buildings
fall quitewithin the period of academic supremacy. Even in
France, however, specialized
governmental functions had also
commenced to find monumental
expression,in the Mint (1771-
75) and in the rebuildingof the Palace of Justiceafter 1776.
All of these buildings,however, are essentially on the scheme
of the palace, as their multitude of small rooms permits ; and
even the latest of them have merely a Doric solidityand
earnestness to suggest this specificcharacter. A more nounced
pro-
suggestionof governmental functions was first given
in the grandiose facade of the Four Courts in Dublin, with its
commanding portico and classical dome, built by James
Gandon in 1784-96.
buildings. Such
Legislative expression for govern-
a newmental
functions was soon found also in legislativebuildings,
where one or more largedeliberative halls forced the adoption
of a great scale. The Parliament House at. Duhk'n had led
the way as early as 1730^39, with an arcaded portico and a
domed hall suggested by~the Pantheon, but carried out with
Palladian forms. The .seats were arranged in a semicircle
in one-half the octagonalroom. For the
meeting of the States-
General at Versailles in 1789, an impressive basilican room
with Doric columns was improvised within an indifferent
building. Here at first the throne was at one end, the seats
along the other three sides; but when the body was structed
recon-
as the National Assembly the chair was moved to
the center of a long side and the seats arranged in a double

horseshoe. The hall with semicircular form, on the lines of a
Roman theater, was afterward developed in the deliberative

halls of the Palais Bourbon in Paris, 1795-1833, and was
widely followed on the Continent. For the unicameral

legislativebuildinga powerful external expressionwas found
in the Corinthian portico of twelve columns prefixedto the
Palais Bourbon in 1807.
Prisons. Related to political
movements was the agitation
for the reform of methods ofpunishment, first by the substitu-
tion
of imprisonment for the death penalty in many cases,
and later by the improvement of the prisonswhich this new
order had caused to multiply. Characteristic of the first phase

was Newgate Prison in London (1770-82),designed by George
Dance, which, with Its vast rusticated walls and narrow ways,
door-
was the very embodiment of force (Fig. 259). Hu-
manity,
sanitation,or reformation of the prisoners,however,
had little consideration until well into the nineteenth century,
and the form of prisonwhich then resulted was very different.
Ideas of correction
through solitary confinement or disciplined
labor ultimatelycaused, about 1835, the universal adoption of
individual cells and of
highly organized system of separate
a
workrooms and yards for various classes of prisoners.

Banks, exchanges,and commercial structures. Other novel
structures were called into being by the commercial and
capitalistic developments of the age, and proved to find con- genial
garb in the prevailingclassical mode. The monumental

porticoplaced before the bank or exchange suggestedthe power
of finance or the stabilityof credit, while the blank walls
which classical purism had made its own exactly met the
necessities of vast docks and warehouses. In the rebuilding
of the first and greatest of the modern financial institutions,
the Bank of England (1788-1835), Sir John Soane had to
design a^wmdowless exterior, with a of great halls

multitude
and light courts. Although the general external treatment
with columns and blank windows is less frank than some other
solutions of similar problems, certain features, like the Loth-
bury Angle (Fig.256) or the Lothbury Courtyard, are masterpieces
of free composition with classical forms, while the

interiors are full of dignity. The Bourse in Paris and the
Royal Exchange in London (1840-44), with their colossal
porticoes,continued the monumental tradition. The tarian
utili-
side of commerce had its most notable embodiment in
the Halle an pl^ ip Pprig (.TyK^ a circular,domed market-
hall, destituteTof extraneous adornment, but effective by its
very simplicityand adaptation to purpose.

Theaters. Not less novel were the theaters, museums, and
concert-halls,which responded to the growth of democracy
as well as to the development of music and of archeology.
Such features had hitherto usuallybeen adjuncts of the palace;
now they became detached, and subjectsfor special treat-
_
ment. The first of the independent theaters to receive a
monumental exterior had been the Roval Opera in Tiffin

(1741-42),for which ^rciat had
Frejderic1" +]if_ insisted on an
English Palladian form. The Grand Theatre at Bordeaux

(i777-80 j, witn its still more classical treatment, was followed
in the Odeon in (1700-1802)
ffaris and in many others,especial-
ly
in France and England. All these were cubical masses, into
FIG. 259" LONDON. OLD NEWGATE PRISON. (RICHARDSON)
which stage, auditorium, foyer, and vestibule were fitted.

A more varied form made its appearance in Schinkel's Royal
Theater in Berlin (1818-21),with which a concert-room, room,
ball-
and refreshment-rooms had also to be incorporated
(Fig.258). Wings containing these adjuncts were added to
the main mass, which dominates them by its high-gabled
clerestory,its monumental steps, and its Ionic portico,all
treated with Hellenic forms of slightrelief and with severely
classical ornaments. The ultimate classical solution of the
theater problem in Germany was a different one, for which,
not the temple portico,but the ancient theater itself served as a
model. In this scheme the circular end of the

auditorium,
with its surrounding corridor, formed the facade, clearlyin-
dicating
the nature of the building,but involvingconsiderable
sacrifices in the vestibules, foyers, and stairs which had

become such
prominent features of the modern theater. The
most notable example, the old Court Theater in Dresden
(1838-41),shows the persistence of this type even when strict
classical forms were not employed (Fig. 264).
Museums and concert-halls. In giving the museum an depende
in-
form Germany led the way, even in the eighteenth
century. In the early nineteenth it created two notable
monuments, the Glyptothek in Munich by Von Klenze
(1816-30) and the Old Museum in Berlin by Schinkel (1824-
28). These were both severe compositions in the Greek
Ionic order, which was used also in the British Museum
(1825-47),designed by Sir Charles Barry. For the problem
of the concert-hall,Schinkel had given a solution of the
greatest elegance in connection with the theater in Berlin.
An auditorium for popular concerts
vast is the principal
feature of Saint George'sHall in Liverpool(1838-54) which includes
also a smaller recital-nail; two court-rooms, and public
offices. The exterior by the gifted and youthful Elmes
"
"
with its two vast Corinthian porticoes,its commanding attic,

its magnificent terraces and approaches, is justly famous as
among the most monumental of all modern structures (Fig.

260).
Other types. Churches. For the problems already consecrated
by time the church, the college,

"
the house, or palace "
classicism did not achieve new solutions of the same tance.

impor-
This was partly because the satisfactory s olutions ready
al-
attained in the previous period tended to be followed,
partly because the problems themselves were becoming

secondary to the new ones of the age, and partly because
other forces tended before long to take these very problems
entirelyout of the hands of the classical architects. In the
church, as elsewhere, the imitation of classical models was
attempted, both the rectangular-templetype and the Pantheon

type being followed. One of the most notable of the re-
vivalist
churches was Saint Pancras in London, in which tHe

beautiful details of the rErec^tneTim^veTe^mitated the North "
Porch for the entrance portico,the Porch of the Maidens for

the sacristies,with the Athenian Tower of the Winds, twice
repeated, for the steeple. Chalgrin, in the church of Saint
Philippe du Roule in Paris, was inspired by the Christian-

Roman basilica,initiating
a notable series. Others, however,
followed the established academic types, with a tall central
dome or two western towers, merely adopting a more classical
portico and details.
Domestic architecture. Few palaces were built during the
period which classicism shared with revolution. Even poleon
Na-
contented himself with
remodeling the interiors of
three among the many palaces left by the old regime. The
FIG. 26O "

LIVERPOOL. SAINT GEORGE'S HALL. (RICHARDSON)
great country mansions henceforth likewise multiplied less

rapidly,although magnificent town houses continued to be
built. Like the hdtels under Louis XVI., already described,
all these usually a porticoof Roman
had or Greek detail,and
often a circular salon suggested by the Pantheon. The less
ambitious town houses, solidlybuilt up in blocks, had usually
a most restrained treatment, depending on the proportionsof
stories and openings alone. Often the town-planning tradi-
tions
of the previous period were continued by the unified
design of the houses in whole streets and squares, as in the
Adelphi and Regent's Quadrant in London, or the Rue de
Rivoli in Paris. Colonnades or arcades were now sometimes
adopted in the lower story, to shelter the foot passengers and

to increase the effect of Roman
magnificence. In the minor
European country houses, a type most frequent in England,
there was some attempt, about 1820, to imitate the temple,
although not without breaking its unity by projectionsor
wings. All these types of domestic architecture, however,
as well as the classical types of churches, were graduallyswept
away by the rise of romanticism, which for a time even bade
fair to prevailin modern architecture as a whole.
Romanticism: cultural changes. Romanticism in architect-
ure,
like classicism, had its precursors
companions in and
cultural and literarymovements. Their origins in some
cases were quite as earlyas those of the neo-classical tendency.
The modern appreciationof landscape and the idea of the
landscape garden had begun early in the eighteenth century.
Sentimentalism came in toward the middle
of the century with
Richardson and
Gray, and on the Continent, in the sixties,
with
Rousseau, who also transplanted and quickened the cult of
nature. At the same time England and Germany awakened
to an appreciation of their northern, national heritage,the
mythology and legend, the history and art of the Middle
Ages. The importance of the Goths for the cultural development
of Europe was affirmed in the dialoguesof The Investi-
gator
in 1755; the principleof nationalism in history,litera-
ture,
and art was announced by Herder and his friends in
Von deutscher Art und Kunst in 1773. The ideas thus planted,
im-
however, did not bear their full fruit,even in litera-
ture,
until the beginning of the nineteenth century, with
Wordsworth and Coleridge,Byron and Scott, with the Ger-
man
romanticists who influenced Madame de Stael, and,
through her, made way for Hugo and the French of the
thirties. With all these men the emotion and enthusiasm of
the individual,rather than the following of academic rules,
were proclaimed as the springsof artistic success. The emo-
tional
upheaval was naturally accompanied by a revival of

religiousfaith,which found its expressionboth in the glori-
fication
of traditional Christianityby Chateaubriand and in
the preaching of a personaland naturalistic belief by Schleier-
macher.
The medieval revival in architecture. Picturesquenessand
naturalness, nationalityand religion, all seemed embodied,

not in classic architecture, but in Gothic, then a synonym for
the art of the Middle Ages. A revival of medieval architecture
in northern lands thus grew out of racial and contemporary
conditions, as the renaissance of classic architecture had
developed in the Italy of the fifteenth century. Moreover,
just as classic architecture had never quite died out in Italy
during the Middle Ages, but had lingeredto provide a con- genial
soil for the revival,so Gothic architecture had never
quiteceased to be practised, in
especially England. Traditional
survivals of Gothic had continued in country churches and in
the Oxford collegesuntil the time of the Restoration, and the
reconstruction and repairof buildingsin the old stylewent on
under Sir Christopher Wren and even in the middle of the
eighteenth century. At the same time a historical interest
in the heritage of medieval monuments was evidenced by
antiquarian works such as the Monasti on Anglicanum (1655-
73) and publicationsdealing with individual towns and
cathedrals. Neither the books nor the buildings show any
very accurate knowledge of medieval forms of detail or principles
of construction, yet they furnished a livingstock on
which the romantic idea could be grafted. It thus came
about that England, where the romantic movement in litera-

ture
was earliest and strongest, was also essentially the home of
romanticism in architecture.
Origins. Pseudo-Chinese and Gothic designs. The earliest
purely voluntary departuresfrom classical architecture in the
eighteenth century had scarcelythe serious motives of later
efforts,being suggested rather by search for novelty and
modishness, in the sportive,trivial structures which the taste
of the time demanded for garden shelters and the assemblage
of intimate parties. The reports .of Eastern travelers had
aroused enthusiasm for things Chinese, and as early as 1740
designs for porticoesand pavilionssupposedly Chinese were
being executed siderby side with miniature classic temples,
both in France and England. By 1750 others supposedly
Gothic appeared in England, as similar to the pseudo-Chinese
in their fantastic flourishes as they were dissimilar to their
prototypes, still so imperfectly understood. In the land-
scape
gardens which were already universal in England, such
buildingsnow began to acquire a sentimental significance, aS
expressing to the beholder different moods which the scenes

were designed to evoke. The Gothic, symbolizing the ideals
of rusticityand unworldliness which were then fashionable,
rapidlygained ground.
The Gothic revival in England. First phase,c. 1760-1830.
The castellated style. The first to extend the imitation of
Gothic to a building of more important type was Horace
Walpole, in the remodeling of his villa, Strawberry Hill
(1753-76). He was inspiredby the same enthusiastic admira-
tion
of the Middle Ages which appears in his pioneerhistorical
romance The Castle of Otranto (1764), and he hoped to
give a model of pure Gothic in contrast to the ignorant per- versions
which were in vogue. With this idea he imitated
porches and battlements, doors, ceilings,
and chimney-pieces
from old work, but with complete unconsciousness of their
inconsistency in periodsof origin, and even with utter disregard
' '
for the originalpurposes of the designs. The resulting castel-
lated
style,"as it was called, was widely adopted in country
seats, on many of which such well-known academic architects
as George Dance and Sir William Chambers were employed.
At the same time the first churches with similar forms were
undertaken.
influence. In the last quarter of the eighteenth
Ecclesiastical
century new forces furthered the movement, while giving it
a more ecclesiastical cast. A new generation of antiquaries
poured forth works on the medieval churches, at once more
numerous and more adequately illustrated than those of a
century earlier. Attention was attracted to the repairof the

structures themselves, and restorations were attempted,
although with insufficient knowledge and often with disastrous
results. James Wyatt, the chief of the restorers, had also a
great vogue as an architect of domestic buildings. Ecclesi-

astical
names were often given to these, and the details of their
windows, buttresses, and towers were derived rather from
churches than from the old manorial halls. Fonthill Abbey
(1796-1814),the extravagant creation of the romancer William
Beckford, was the most (1803-
famous of these; Eaton Hall
14) was another noteworthy example (Fig. 261). Although
feelingin England at this time was stillat a low ebb,
religious
and new churches were few, an increasingnumber of these

followed style,as it was then understood.
the Gothic
Literal imitation of medieval models. A great improvement
in grammatical accuracy of detail,as well as an appreciation
of chronological consistencyof style,followed the publication,
in 1819 and 1820, of Rickman's Attempt to Discriminate the
Stylesof English Architecture,and of Pugin and Willson's
FIG. 26l "
EATON HALL BEFORE ALTERATION IN 1870. (EASTLAKE)
Specimens of Gothic Architecture. These books, which

provided for the first time a tolerable historical account of the
development of the style,and accurate geometricaldrawings
of its examples, opened an era of literal copying of whole
features,conscientiously culled from this or that period,most
frequentlythe later Perpendicular. The inclusion of drawings
of domestic work helped bring about an abandonment of the
ecclesiastical forms previouslyadopted for dwellings,in favor
of a domestic treatment dependent on the grouping of masses,
gables, and chimneys the so-called "baronial
"
style." In
planning, which was stilldominated unconsciously by classical
ideals,a strict symmetry was preserved; while in construction

and decoration lack of means and of sympathetic craftsmen
prevented a reproduction of the spiritof the rich medieval
work chosen for imitation.
phase,1830-70. Pugin. The second
Second and far more
important phase of the revival opened with the work of

Augustus Welby Pugin, a son of the elder Pugin. He displayed
at once a freedom and fertility
of invention with Gothic forms
which had hitherto been unknown, and a zeal for their clusive
ex-
adoption which had the force of religiousfanaticism.

In his designs,1830-52, he sought and attained a medieval
picturesquenessof plan and mass; in his studios he trained
carvers and metal-workers to execute the details of his facile
designs; in his writingshe preached the revival of Christian
architecture, as he called it,for civil as well as for religious
and domestic buildings. At the same time began the revival
of ritual in the Anglican church, and the study of church
architecture in relation to ritual arrangements. As a result
of all this, Gothic became the accepted style not only for
country residences but for churches, which recovered alike
their medieval functions and their medieval form. tects,
Archi-
many of whom henceforth devoted themselves ly
exclusive-
to Gothic, began to design,within the accepted English
Gothic modes, with greater confidence in themselves.
The Houses
of Parliament. Simultaneously with the first
of Pugin's publications (1836), the cause of medievalism
achieved a triumph in the retention of the Gothic stylein the
rebuildingof the palace at Westminster the new Houses of "
Parliament, executed between 1840 and 1860 (Fig.262). The

architect,Sir Charles Barry, was a man experiencedin design
with classical as well as with Gothic forms, and the building
was currentlydescribed as having Tudor details on a classic
body. The emphasis in massing, however, is by no means of a
classical type, for it is laid not on the essential components of

the plan, the two chambers, but on towers which mark the
royal entrance and support the clock. Notable qualitiesof
the design are the practicalsolution of extremely complex
problems in plan, including accommodation to portions of
the old structure stillremaining,and the picturesqueemploy-

ment
of the magnificent river site. The employment of
medieval forms in a national monument of such importance,

of course, gave the revival another great impetus.
Ruskin. An
impulse of different sort, yet equally or more
powerful,was given meanwhile by the writingsof John Ruskin.
In his Seven Lamps of Architecture (1849) and his Stones of
Venice (1851)he urged a return to the methods as well as the
forms of the Middle Ages, and this not simply on grounds of

religionor of ritual,
but even of morality. The emancipation
FIG. 262 "

LONDON. HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT
of the individual craftsmen from the modern industrial system

was to be at once an end in itselfand a means to the attainment
of true beauty in architecture. This proclaimed to lie
was
not in abstract such

qualities, as proportion,but in honesty
of materials and of structure, and in evidence of human
devotion and thought, appearing above all in the sculptured
and painted details. Such an animation of detail and color
he found especiallyin the marble capitalsand polychrome
walls and mosaics of Italy,to which his admirers soon turned
for inspiration. It was at the moment when architects were
wearying of the restrictions of antiquariannational precedent,
and seeking a greater liberty of invention. Thus many who
were impatient with Ruskin's principlestook advantage of

this or that individual suggestion.
Victorian Gothic. The result of all these forces was the so-
called Victorian Gothic, distinguishedby of great elaboration

detail,polychromy of materials,including marble, brick, and
encaustic tiles,
and a leaningtoward Italian forms of "surface
Gothic" rather than the northern "linear Gothic." Among
the leading exponents style were of the
Scott Sir Gilbert
(1811-78) and his pupil George Edmund Street (1824-81),
who in long and active careers ran through a number of its
phases; and William Butterfield (1814-1900) who strove to
create a novel development with a variety of Gothic and
modern elements. Scott and others of the group even tended
ex-
their
practicebeyond the bounds of England by success-
ful
competitionagainstContinental architects of all schools.

"
The battle of the styles." By 1855 the adherents of Gothic
were strong enough to challenge the supremacy of classic
architecture in secular buildingsgenerally. To the growing
conviction that each style was exclusivelyappropriate to
certain uses "
the Gothic to churches, colleges,and rural
architecture,the classic to public buildingsand urban ings
dwell-
they opposed the traditional belief that
"
singlestyle
a
must prevail,and maintained that the Gothic was superiorfor

all purposes. Thus the "battle of the styles,"which had
enkindled over the Houses of Parliament, continued to be
fought in a wider field,and with a zeal unknown outside of
England. The Gothicists were not without their successes,
for although Lord Palmerston forced Scott to substitute
finally
a classical scheme for his accepted Gothic design for the
Foreign Office (1858-73), victories scon followed in the
Manchester Assize Courts (1859-64) and Town Hall (1868-
69), both by Alfred Waterhouse. In the sixties the influence
of Viollet-le-Duc and of French Gothic, with its greater
structural logic,
gave the movement a fresh element of strength
as well as fresh material. With the adoption of Street's
design for the national Law Courts in 1868, the adherents of
Gothic felt their vindicated.
building proved,
cause The
however, to mark the end of their supremacy. By the time
of its completion, 1884, it met little but condemnation, and
the conclusion was outspoken that Gothic was unfit for public
buildings. The fundamental cause lay less in certain defects

in the building than in the gradual change of public taste.
The belated enthusiasm of the revivalists could no longer
withstand the eclecticism which elsewhere prevailedso widely,
\ /and which had steadilygained strengtheven in England.
|Y Romanticism in Germany; Gothic and Romanesque. On the
Continent the medieval revival was most vital in Germany,
where, as in England, it was associated with a nationalistic
movement. Goethe's youthful panegyric on the cathedral
of Strasburg (1773)long remained alone,however, and it was
not until after the Wars of Liberation that the brothers
Boisseree awakened a general interest in the artistic ments
monu-
of the German past. Pseudo-Gothic buildings had

appeared as accessories to the landscape gardens on English
models since their introduction about 1770, but the Gothic
style was not seriouslyconsidered for important buildings
before the time of Schinkel, who made a Gothic project for
the cathedral of Berlinin 1819. Of his two projectsfor the
Werderkirche (1825),
the Gothic and not the classical one was
chosen. The exterior,as expected, was

was to be Gothic
rather in detail than
spiritand in constructive
principle. The
interior was conceived with an in
insight advance of the day.
Henceforth the stylewas frequentlyemployed, with steadily
increasing knowledge, in the building of churches, and
occasionallyin other buildings,although it never became
universal,and even as the medium of romantic expressionhad
to share honors with the still more national Romanesque.
The strongest supporter of the Romanesque was Friedrich
von Gartner in Munich (1792-1847), whose buildings,however,
show a large measure of Italian influence. The most
notable modern Gothic lands, which may
church in German
still be considered an outgrowth of the revival,is the Votive
Church in Vienna, built by Ferstel in 1853-79, on the scheme
of a cathedral with western towers and spires.
Romanticism in France. In France before the romantic
outburst of the thirties the strengthof classical architecture
was so great that, although the "hamlets" of Trianon and
Chantilly initiated,as early as 1775, garden architecture on
English models in a stylesupposedly Gothic, the mode long
remained without serious adoption. Meanwhile, however,
the Musee des Monuments Frangais,collected by Alexandra

Lenoir from the churches and chateaux destroyed by the
Revolution, was revealingto the French the gloriesof their
own medieval art; and the Histoire de I'art of Seroux d'Agin-
court (1811-23), the first general work devoted to the arts
of the MiddleAges, registereda new appreciationof them.
By 1825 such a work as the chapel at Les Herbiers in Vendee
could be constructed, with tolerable knowledge of the details
of French Gothic, although stillwith rigidclassical symmetry.
A more popular appreciationwas stimulated by Victor Hugo's
Notre-Dame de Paris in 1831, and a more scientific under-
standing
was created
by the archeologistsDe Caumont and
Lassus, and above all by the architect Viollet-le-Duc (1814-
79), who developed, in the years following 1840, a wide
activityas a restorer of medieval buildingsand as a writer on
the art of the Middle Ages. In his great Dictionnaire de
V architecture fran$aise du XI. au XVI. siecle (1854-68) he
emphasized the idea that the principles of Gothic architecture
were essentially structural,and thus his influence tended to
make current designs in the stylemore logicaland organic.
By Louis Napoleon's appointment of Viollet-le-Duc to a
professorship at theEcole des Beaux- Arts the Gothic movement
received an officialsanction in the very citadel of the academic
forces,but the oppositionwas strong that even
so the Emperor
was forced to abandon his attempt. On the whole, few new
buildingsresulted from the Gothic movement, and these were
almost exclusivelychurches. The most strikingof them is
Sainte Clotilde in Paris (Fig.263), built in 1846-59 by the
architects Gau and Ballu, with twin spires and fourteenth
century detail. This church, however, is relativelyfrigid
compared with some examples from the last days of the
movement, after 1860.
Influenceof the romantic movement on the development of
types of buildings. The types of buildings to which the
romantic movement contributed were almost exclusively those
having direct precedentsin the Middle Ages such as churches, "
schools, town halls,and dwellings. Even in these types the

development was largelya formal one, the dispositions ing
remain-
close to those of medieval times, as the national character
of the precedents and of the
the relative stability problems
permitted. It was, indeed, precisely the superiority of

medieval dispositionsin fulfilling
the needs of modern life
which the Gothicists maintained as one of their chief theses.
Their innovations respectingplan and structure were thus,
for the most part, novel only in relation to the classical forms
which had immediately
preceded them ,
since
medieval dispositions
and modes of construc-
tion
were generally fol-

lowed
as well as medieval
forms of detail. So in
the church Catholic,and
even beyond it,the long
aisled naves and chancels
of the Middle Ages planted
sup-
the domes and
halls of the Renaissance
and of Protestantism.
Other types were enced
influ-
in certain lands
only. In England the
flexible scheme of the
Tudor or Elizabethan
manor, with its freedom
in the fenestration and
in the treatment of vice
ser-
quarters, replaced
the strict symmetry of
the Palladian house. FIG. 263 "
PARIS. SAINTE CLOTILDE
The old residential col-

leges
of Oxford and Cambridge were followed in the further
development of these institutions and of the English board-
ing
schools. In Germany the late Gothic town halls and
guild halls of the country and of Flanders were taken as
models for new constructions devoted to similar uses.
Eclecticism: conditions and ideals. Long before the force

of the romantic movement had spent itself,it had become
but one of many forces influential in architectural style,
united only as emanations of a general eclecticism. This
freedom of selection from a number of styleswas justas surely

grounded in the conditions of the time as the uniform adherence
to a singlestyle had been in some earlier times. A choice
between two styles,to be sure, had often been offered to
architects before, as when Gothic art was introduced into
Italy in the thirteenth century or Renaissance art into the
north in the sixteenth. The mere alternative of neo-classic
or revived Gothic was thus of itself nothing new in kind ; the
novelty was that the

struggle between them did not end, as it
had always done before,in the triumph of either one, but that
both continued, subdivided further,and received the addition
of still others. The reason lay in the growth of historical
knowledge, one of the most characteristic creations of
modernity, which, for the first time, made the forms of many
stylesthoroughly familiar to a singlegeneration. This had
already contributed largelyto the growth of classicism and
romanticism, and to their increasingdifferentiation into Greek
and Roman phases, Gothic and Romanesque phases, with
further alternatives offered by subordinate chronologicaland
local varieties constitutingin themselves a field for the
"
exercise of a certain measure of eclecticism. To these the

historical spiritnow added other stylesunconnected with the
neo-classic and romantic programs, and soon created among
designers the conscious principle of complete freedom of
choice between the various historical styles. This expressed
itself first in the sheer desire to create a collection of historical
imitations; it passed to the adoption of a given style on
grounds of personalpreferenceor supposed appropriatenessto
the problem in hand, later sometimes to the combination of
elements from a number of stylesand the creation of a hybrid
which might serve as a personalmedium of expression.
Originsof eclecticism in architecture. The beginningsof this .
wider knowledge and wider eclecticism themselves can be

found quiteearlyin the eighteenthcentury, when the Viennese
architect,J. B. Fischer von Erlach, published his pioneer
Enlw urffeiner historischen Architektur,1721, includingillustra-
tions,
systematicallyarranged, of pre-classical, Eastern, and
Greek buildings, as then understood, besides those of Rome and
of contemporary France and Germany. The eighteenth-
century gardens at Kew and elsewhere contained imitations
of Moorish pavilionsand Turkish mosques, as well as their

Greek, Roman, Gothic, and Chinese structures. Such exotic
models were obviously unsuited for
adoption, any wide
however, and the same was true of the Egyptian motives
made popular by Napoleon's Eastern campaigns.
The ''Italian style." Serious productions outside the
classicaland romantic movements resulted firstfrom the study
of the Italian styles of the Renaissance. Appreciation of
these was a by-product of the Italian sojourn which formed
part of the traditional education for clients as well as for
architects. classicistsappreciatedfirst the buildingsof
The
the High Renaissance, at once most classicaland most in view
in the tourist centers, Rome and Venice. Percier and Fontaine,
in two works devoted to the Roman palaces(1798) and villas
(1809),were among the earliest to call attention to the style
and to make drawings available for imitation. The cists,
romanti-
a littlelater,
extended their admiration from the medieval
buildings of Italy to those of the earliest Renaissance in
Florence. Fruits of
appreciationswere
these as usual a
decade or two in appearing in current practice. By 1820,

however, the old Opera House in Paris was built in the style
of the Basilica at Vicenza, and numerous other buildings
recalled the arch orders or columnless facades of the Italian
palaces. Germany took the lead in 1825-30, with buildings
by Klenze and Gartner in Munich the Pinakothek with its
"
pilastered arches,the Konigsbau, the Ministry of War, and the

Royal Library,with their novel suggestionof the Pitti Palace
and other Florentine designs. In England the Italian manner
came in with Barry, who adopted it as the most suitable ex-
pression
for the London clubs, of which his Travelers' Club,

1829-31, initiated long series.
a
Later developments. With the advent of the "Italian"

style,as it was called,the field was open for imitations and
inspirationsof the greatest variety. The material was
furnished not only by individual observation but by a multitude

of specialpublications concerning monuments of the
most diverse styles. In practice a general tendency to
follow more and more recent styles,like the baroque, aca-
demic,
and rococo, may perhaps be discerned following the "
repetition of historyalready begun by the successive imita-

17
tion of classic,Gothic, and Renaissance; but the development
is neither a universal nor a regular one. It thus becomes
necessary to sketch the trend of subsequent developments in

each singly,rather than to seek to follow this or that
country
stylisticthread, often confusedly interwoven with others even
in the work of an individual architect. Although manifesta-
tions
of the eclectic movement appear in all countries, there
are marked differences in its strength. Germany, whose
scholars took the lead in historical study of architecture,gave
itselffreely to experiment with varied historic modes of
expression, whereas England, torn by its furious struggle
between classicism and romanticism, came late to a really
eclectic standpoint, and France, more than the others, re-
mained
true to the classical tradition. In proportion to the

adoption of eclectic practice there appeared another general
phenomenon which may be noted here once for all. This was
the increasinggulf between the few designs of trained tects
archi-
and the great mass of buildings erected by men who
were no longer sustained by a traditional knowledge of any
one or even two sets' of forms, and who could not adequately
master others even if they would.
Germany: Munich. In Germany, eclecticism dominated
architectural practice from 1825 to 1890. Within this time
falls the phenomenal growth of German cities,which thus
bear deeply the impress of the movement. The first of them
to receive it was Munich, essentiallythe creation of Ludwig I.
(1825-48), under whose personal inspiration Klenze and
Gartner turned now to Greece, now to Italy,now to the Mid-
dle
Ages. Ludwig's successor, Maximilian II. (1848-64),gave
his eclecticism a different form, wishing to create a new style
by a combination of elements from the older ones. The task
fell to the architect Burklein, whose buildings are effective in
their balanced yet picturesque composition and in their
rhythmical subdivision into bays, but suffer so much from their

poverty of execution as to have discredited the attempt.
Dresden and Vienna. A man of powerful personality,
Gottfried Semper (1804-79), had meanwhile turned the scale
in favor of the Italian Renaissance by his buildingsin Dresden,
especially the Court Theater (1838-41, Fig. 264). Semper
was also one of the creators of modern Vienna, in the vast
MODERN ARCHITECTURE 4*9
buildings
of magnificent Ringstrasse on the lines of the
the
fortifications removed in 1858-60. A beginning had been
made in Ferstel's Votive Church and in the Opera House
built by Van der Null and Siccardsburgin 1861-69, with forms
reminiscent of the French Renaissance under Francis I,
Semper, in his designsfor the extension of the Imperial Palace,

with the Court Theater (1871-89) and the Museums of Art
and of Natural History (1870-89), continued to draw his
FIG. 264 "
DRESDEN. OLD COURT THEATER. (SEMPER)
suggestion from the Italian styles,but now with a strong

leaning toward the grandioseeffects of the baroque. Among
the later buildingsof the Ringstrasseare the Rathaus (1873-
83),built by Friedrich Schmidt with German Gothic forms,
the University and the Palace of Justice,with a mixture of
French and Italian Renaissance forms, and the Houses of
Parliament (1874-83) with the forms of neo-Hellenism.
Berlin, Leipzig,and Strasburg. With the founding of the
German Empire began a period of predominance for Berlin,
distinguishedespeciallyby the building for the Reichstag
(1882-94) by Wallot, and of the cathedral (1888-95) by
Raschdorff. The architectural forms adopted as a basis,
sometimes academic, sometimes Renaissance, were as a rule

greatlymodified by the influence of the baroque, and showed
the study of German even more than of Italian examples.
This style,backed by the influence of the court, has remained
in favor for governmental buildings in spiteof the efforts of
the modernists. One of its principalcontemporary adherents
is Ludwig Hoffmann, who achieved success with the Imperial
Supreme Courts in Leipzig (1884-95) and still retains the
leadershipof the conservatives. A third monumental creation
of the new German Empire is the imposing group of buildings
erected in Strasburg about 1890, in academic and baroque
forms. For religiousbuildings the medieval styles have
continued to be generallypreferred, while for town halls late
Gothic or German Renaissance forms have been frequently
employed.
Eclecticism in England. In England eclecticism remained
for a long time less the result of conscious tolerance than the
unintentional product of warring factions, each of which
insisted on the universal superiorityof its chosen style. The
classical side was chieflymaintained, after 1840, by adherents
of a somewhat free rendering of antique or Italian motives,
allied to the French neo-grec. Their principalrepresentatives
were Cockerell, best known for his restrained designs for
branches of the Bank of England, and Pennethorne, whose
University of London (1869),originallydesigned in Gothic
forms, retains a vertical movement in its rich Venetian garb.
Although Victorian Gothic also had its wide of
variety prototypes,
final acceptance of the principleof general libertyof
choice scarcely came before 1870. The style which then
obtained the preferencewas no one of those previouslyfavored,
but the so-called "Queen Anne." This took its suggestion
from the vernacular,half -classic English domestic architecture
of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries,but
sought a free adaptation to practicalrequirements and left
considerable liberty to the personality of the individual
architect. Such individualitywas also exercised in certain
experiments with other styles, while the Gothic, on the whole,
remained the rule for churches, as it remains in England even
to the present day.
"Queen Anne" and "Free Classic." The creators of the
Queen Anne were Eden Nesfield, in his lodges at Regent's

Park (1864) and Kew (1866),and Norman Shaw in his office
building,New Zealand Chambers (1873, Fig. 265). These
buildingshad the frank expressionof a variety of materials
which the Gothic school had initiated,forms recallingthe
Dutch character which reigned in the English architecture of
William and Anne, and an individuality of combination which
was modern. The union was timely,and buildingsin the same
generalmanner multiplied.They included not only residences,
to which the founders of the styleand many others devoted
themselves with results of uncommon
livableness, but also more ambitious

buildingssuch as banks and theaters,
in which its residential origin and
smallness of scale rendered it less
monumental picturesque. A
than
higher degree of monumentality be-
gan
to be sought during the nineties
through the reintroduction of Palla-

dian elements. Thus was produced
' ' "
the so - called Free Classic "
a
speciesof baroque in which individual

liberty continued to hold a large
place which
" has dominated the
public and urban architecture of
England until very recently. Among
its adherents may be mentioned John
Belcher,whose Institute of Chartered
Accountants, 1895, was the manifesto
of the school, and Sir Aston Webb.
Within the last five years a tendency
has been visible to return to more
FIG. 265 "
LONDON. NEW
strictlyacademic forms, encouraged ZEALAND CHAMBE'RS.
by the teaching of the Ecole des (MUTHESIUS)
Beaux-Arts and the reversion to clas-
sical
architecture in America. The facade of the Royal mobile
Auto-
Club (191 1 ),modeled on the buildingsof the Place de la
Concorde, is one of the earliest and most strikinginstances.
Other styles. Beside this main tide of eclecticism in England
has run a continuance of the medieval tradition now no longer "
regarded as a counter-current "

in the
building of country
houses and churches. Here Sedding, Bodley, Pearson, and
others have worked within a chosen range of historic national
forms, scrupulouslyrespectinghonesty of materials and work-
manship.
They have contrived to givetheir designsa personal
impress and at the same time to come nearer the spiritof the
old masters than had
their predecessors
whose imitations were
more literal (Fig.267).

The simple country
parish churches pecially
es-
they have en-

dowed
with a tional
devo-
character and a
to the
suitability land-
scape which had

hitherto escaped
modern architecture
(Fig. 268). As the
Anglican church has

appropriated the
medieval architecture
of England, the
Roman church there
has turned to other
styles. Thus, since
266
FIG. "
LONDON. WESTMINSTER CATHEDRAL

1895, in the cathedral
Westminster, J. F. of
Bentley has employed forms predominantlyByzantine,securing
an interior of vast
spatialeffect and deeply religious character
(Fig.266). The various dissentingsects have continued their
traditions by followingmainly the current classical or baroque
styles. Until recentlyit was not wholly unusual to find more
exotic stylesessayed in secular architecture as well as in re-
ligious.
Thus Alfred Waterhouse employed a personalvariety

of Romanesque in his monumental Museum of Natural History
at South Kensington, and Aston Webb and IngressBell made
use of a modified French Renaissance in the Law Courts at
Birmingham. Of late years, however, eclecticism in England

has become personal,and the individualists are to be found

less
rather among those who abjure all historic forms.
Eclecticism in France. Secular buildings. In France, where
congruity with a taste developed on classical architecture is
the criterion of every experiment in other styles,eclecticism
FIG. 267 "

FLETE LODGE, NEAR HOBLETON. (MUTHESIUS)
was relativelya matter of nuances, except in churches and

country villas. The Italian manner of the thirties was
followed by a mingling of Italian and Greek influences in the

so-called ne"o-grec.Labrouste, Due, and Duban, the first
pensioners of the French Academy to study the temples of
Paestum and other Greek monuments, were the leaders of the
movement in France. It found expression in Duban's
Bramantesque work at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts (1832-62)
and Labrouste's refined facade
Library of the
Gene- of Sainte
vieve (1843-50, Fig. 269), where Greek delicacy of profiling
was employed in a facade reminiscent of the Tuscan palaces.
The contemporary interest in things romantic and national
led to a revival of the styleof the French Renaissance, stimu-
lated especiallyby the enlargement of the Hdtel de Ville in

Paris (1836-54) and its rebuildingafter the Commune. Under
the Second Empire a powerful impulse toward the baroque,
which so well expressed a luxurious society,was given by a
genius of the first order, Charles Garnier. In the Paris

Opera (1861-74, Fig. 270) he took suggestionsfrom the late
Venetian forms, in the Casino at Monte Carlo, from the
FIG. 268 "
HOARCROSS. CHURCH OF THE HOLY ANGELS
Roman baroque, employed with a technical facilityand a
orofusion of detail which were his own. In the widened

conception of the classic which still dominated French tecture
archi-
on its formal side, the influence of Garnier has
long
continued to be felt. Thus the Musee Galliera by Ginain,
the Petit Palais des Beaux- Arts by Girault (1900),in the main
perpetuate his traditions.
Churches. In the
buildingof churches the identification of
Christianitywith the Middle Ages led to wider departures
from the classic than in secular buildings,
even where romanti-
cism did not dictate the

adoption of Gothic. The Romanesque
was chosen as a compromise even before 1840, and after that
date churches in that stylemultipliedin the metropolis as
well as in the provinces. The variant which came to be
preferredwas one reminiscent of the buildingsof Angouleme

and Aquitaine, with their suggestion of Byzantine forms.
The most conspicuous example is the great church of the
FIG. 269 "
PARIS. BIBLIOTHEQUE SAINTE GENEVIEVE
Sacred Heart at Montmartre by Abadie and

Daumet, begun
in 1873 (Fig.271). Its elevated site,loftydomes, and ing
gleam-
whiteness make it a strikingobject in the panorama of
Paris. In other churches of the latter half of the century,
.such as Saint Augustin and Renaissance
Sainte Trinite", forms
have reasserted themselves, although rarely without being
tinged by Byzantine or other medieval influences. Finally
in the commemorative chapel for the victims of the Charity
Bazaar fire,Guilbert has expressed the devotions of the
fashionable world in the facile modern baroque.
Domestic architecture. Domestic architecture has also had
its experiments with Gothic and other styles,but, so far as
urban dwellings are concerned, has tended to revert to the

French urban architecture par excellence,
that of the eighteenth
century, which still responds almost completely to needs

which have changed but little. The small country villa or
cottage, however, has

presented a problem relatively new to
the French, which they have tried,with less success, to solve
by picturesquedesignssuggestedby English or Swiss examples.
FIG. 27O PARIS. OPERA HOUSE
Other European countries. Belgium. Italy. In other Euro-

pean
countries there are certain buildingswhich must not be
overlooked, the products of national movements of
importance.
Thus in Belgium the prosperityexperiencedunder Leopold II.
(1865-1909)resulted in a sumptuous rebuildingof Brussels.
The most notable of the new constructions was the huge
Palais deJustice (1866-83),by Poelaert. Here an eclectic
modification of classic forms by an admixture of elements
suggestingthe Orient has produced effects of the most monu-mental
character (Fig. 272). Italy,on its achievingliberty

and unity in 1861, entered a periodof development which had
also its consequences in the arts. The monument to Victor
Emmanuel II. in Rome by Count Giuseppe Sacconi, begun in
1884 and dedicated in 1911, designed to symbolize the

was
triumph of Italian nationality.Rivalingthe work of Poelaert

in vastness, it also shows his influence in the forms of detail,
at once classic and novel (Fig.273). The two buildingsare
the most notable examples of the younger phase of eclecticism,
which, not content to adopt historical stylesin their integrity,
has wished to make new synthesesof historical elements.
Contributions of the eclectic movement to the developmentof
types of buildings. The specific contributions of the eclectic

movement to the development of types of buildings were
necessarily formal, and, to a largedegree,second-hand. Thus
the movement in generalplaced the seal of its approval on the
types already created by the classical movement for govern-

ment
buildings,banks, exchanges,and theaters, on the types
created by the romantic movement for churches, town halls,
and rural dwellings. In such buildingsthe changes introduced
by eclecticism were relativelyslight, such as the tingeingof
classicism by Palladian or baroque forms, or the replacingof
Gothic forms by those of the northern Renaissance. For
certain types, to be sure, these, eclectic molds have become
very firmly established. The French town hall has become

almost uniformly an adaptation of national Renaissance forms
as found in the old Hotel de Ville of Paris. Administrative
buildingsfor government departments, which have multiplied
during the period all over the world, have acquired an international
physiognomy of Renaissance or post-Renaissance
motives. Many types but newly created, such as modern
universities,public libraries,baths and welfare institutes,
railway stations and hotels, received their first treatment in
these preferredstylesof eclecticism,and have tended to retain
the impress. In one young and notable group, the museums
of historyand art, a peculiarappropriatenesshas been felt in
employing forms characteristic of the age or regionfrom which
objects exhibited come, and the same tendency has manifested
itself in the national and local buildings at international
expositions. In buildings,the exteriors of which are clothed
in one or another garb of historic form, the plans often show,
of course, the most novel adaptationto purelymodern ments.
require-
The strivingto make this adaptation and to bring it
to expression in the massing and subdivision of the exteriors
is,however, reallyopposed to the underlyingideas of eclecti-

cism
and may best be considered as manifestations of the
movement toward functionalism.
Functionalism. Fundamentally different in direction from
the eclectic movement, which forms part of the historical
tendency of modern times, there has developed in architecture
another movement, which is part of the tendency toward
FIG. 273 "
ROME. MONUMENT TO VICTOR EMMANUEL II.
natural science. It is at biologicalconcept of

one with the
the adaptationof form to function and environment. tion
Adapta-
in both these respects conforms to the philosophical cept
con-
of function the dependence of a variable trait on other

"
variables. The conscious endeavors in modern architecture

to make the forms correspond to their
of individual members
structural duties,to make the aspect of buildingscharacteristic
of their use and purpose, to make the styleof the time expres-
sive
of the distinguishingelements in contemporary and
national culture, may thus be inclusively designated by the
name functionalism.
SOD A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Early structural purism. In its narrower meaning, as a
strivingfor truth and frankness ofexpressionin structure, the

functionalist tendency has been present in many earlier styles,
like the Greek and Gothic. It is thus not incompatiblewith
the modern use of historic forms. Such a structural purism
indeed has been, as we have seen, a notable characteristic of
French architecture since the seventeenth century "
a rule of
"
"reason and "good sense." It manifested itselfin the restric-
tion
of the column by Soufflot and Chalgrin its original
to
function as an isolated support, in rationalization of the
Roman triumphal arch at the Porte Saint Denis and the Arc
de 1'Etoile. The same tendency appeared
partisans among the
of Gothic architecture, who
superiorityfor theirclaimed a
style in functional expressiveness. The writings of Pugin,

indeed, state the structural theory in completeness: "There
should be no features about a buildingwhich are not necessary
for convenience, construction,or propriety,"and "All orna-
ment
should consist of enrichment of the essential construction

of the building." The conclusion
by Pugin, however, drawn
was that Gothic forms should be employed, and this was the
burden also of the earlyrationalistic writingsof Viollet-le-Duc.
Likewise content with an inspirationfrom historical forms
were Gottfried Semper and William Morris, although their
writingswere contributingpowerfullyto the idea of a purely
modern style based on considerations of material and
technique.
The theories of environment and evolution. Reaction against
historical tendencies. For the development of such a modern
style a broader cultural foundation had gradually been in

process of creation since the later days of the eighteenth
century. Herder and Madame de Stael enunciated the

principleof national individualityand organic evolution in
literature ; Hegel generalizedthe doctrine into a philosophy of
history and art; Schnaase made concrete applicationof it
in his Geschichte der bildenden Kunste (1843-64), where he
traced for the first time the relation of the art of different
countries to environment, race, and beliefs. Taine gave the
idea its ultimate formulation and a wide popularity. Parallel
with all this there came recognitionof the importance of
evolution and environment in the natural world, culminating
in the theories of Darwin, and also the application

biological
of the principleof nationalities in political affairs,in the
unification of Italy and Germany. The reaction against
historical tendencies of all sorts showed itself likewise in
creative art, in the radicalism of Nietzsche, Zola, Ibsen, and
Tolstoi in
literature,of Millet, Manet, and Chavannes in
painting,of Meunier and Rodin in sculpture, and Wagner
in music.
Modern material civilization. At the same time came the
marvelous material development of the nineteenth century,
depending on utilitarianism
applied and has science, which
changed with ever increasingrapidity the existing social
conditions,the prevailingtypes of buildings,the materials,
and the structural systems. Everything has contributed to
the concentration of population in cities,which, especially
in America and in Germany, have had the most fabulous and
sudden growth. While the middle class has multipliedand
reached a degree of comfort hitherto unknown, there has
developed on the aristocracyof wealth and on the
one hand an
other an organized proletariat.Capitalism has brought with

it vast factories,stores, and office buildings,steam transport
has created railroad and dock buildings,palatialhotels for
travelers,and great international expositions. Sanitation and
altered social theories have revolutionized the building of
schools, hospitals,asylums, and prisons,as well as the housing
of the working classes. Philanthropy has endowed free
libraries,settlements, and welfare institutions of all sorts.
Economic pressure has led to a strivingfor the most efficient

employment of space, time, and technical resources. The
generous excessstrengthcharacteristic of most earlier styles

of
has become often impractical.The employment of iron and
steel has brought new in the spanning of openings
possibilities
and interior space, and a new statical theory,which has fun-
damentally
altered esthetic principlesas well. Other new
materials have multiplieddaily,while cheap transportation

has made them available everywhere and tended to break
down local peculiarities.

Characteristics of functionalismin architecture. Since the
middle of the nineteenth century all these forces have produced
a body of architecture which, in spiteof its variety,has a
fundamental unity in its

strivingfor functional expression.
Sometimes the attempt has been to give to new materials like
steel or glass,or new systems of construction like reinforced
concrete, a form suggested by their own properties. Some-
times
the effort has been to express on the exterior of buildings
the function of each of their component elements, and to
endow each building as a whole with a specific
character in
FIG. 274 "

PARIS. READING-ROOM OF THE BIBLIOTHEQUE NATIONALS
conformity with its purpose. More recentlythere has been

a tendency not to remain satisfied unless all the forms em-ployed,
even in the solution of time-honored problems,owe as

little as possibleto the historic styles, and thus are peculiarly
and emphatically modern.
Development offunctionalism. Expression of structure. At
the outset of the development of functionalist architecture its
principleswere broadly stated, but the applicationmade of
them was relativelylimited. With the conviction that the
historic styles of architecture were outgrowths of contemporary
conditions of race, climate, religion, and society,there had
arisen a belief that imitation of those stylesin modern build-
MODERN ARCHITECTURE 503*
ings was inappropriate, and that a wholly new stylemust be
developed, suggested by modern conditions and modern
problems. This was the later gospel of Viollet-le-Duc in his
Entretiens sur V architecture (1863-72),and of Fergusson in
his History of Architecture (1865-67). The scientific and
utilitarian tendency of the day, however, made the criterion
of styleprimarilya matter of structural system, and the hope
of the advocates of modernity of stylethus lay in the effort to
find suitable expressionfor new methods of construction.
Construction in iron. The novel constructive material of
the day was, of course, iron,whether cast or wrought, which
had been coming into use for utilitarian constructions since
the early years of the century. The dome of the Halle au
Ble in Paris had been reconstructed in iron in 1811, the Menai

Suspension Bridge, with its unprecedented span, had been
built in 1819-26. Although the elaborate mathematical
calculations of strength in the new material tended to draw
with-
such constructions from the architect's domain, efforts
were lacking on the part of architects,even
not before the
theoretical writings just mentioned, to employ iron in a
manner at once frank and artistically satisfactory.The most
notable instances of this were the great reading-rooms of the
Library of Sainte Genevieve (1843-50) and of the Biblio-
theque Nationale (1855-61, Fig. 274) where Labrouste
employed iron columns, very slender and widely spaced, supporting
spherical vaults of metal plates. In these buildings
the facades were of masonry, with no exterior expressionof
the iron work. In the great market buildingsknown as the
Halles Centrales, by Ballu (1851-59),the exterior also displayed
its construction of iron columns covered with zinc.
It arid, yet in harmony with the practicalcharacter of
was
the buildings. Of metal alone, and only made possibleby

metal, have been the more recent suspension,arch, and canti-
lever
bridges,with their enormous spans, as well as the
giganticEiffel Tower in Paris (1889),which, like many of the
bridges, combines grace with absolutely frank confession
of structure.
Glass and iron. For inclosed buildingswider possibilities/
were secured by the glass as
use of a between
filling the
supports. Structures of glassand iron had early been intro-

duced for the cultivation of plants,and a similar structure was
suggested by the horticulturist Paxton for the international

expositionat London in 1851. There resulted a sort of vast
conservatory, which was made permanent in the Crystal
Palace Sydenham, 1852-53, and was
at widely influential in
stimulatingconstruction in glass and iron or steel. In some
later buildingsthe roof only was of glass,as at the Palais de
1'Industrie for the Paris Expositionof 1855 and a multitude of
later museum buildings,consistingin effect of vast covered
courts. In other buildingsthe roof was largelysolid,the walls
almost entirely of glass,as in the buildingsof the Paris Exposi-
tion
of 1878. There has been a general tendency, owing to
excess of sunlight, heat and cold, to recede from the extreme
areas of glassat first employed, but in urban shop fronts where
light and exhibition space are naturally the great desidera-
ta,
the glass has been kept at a maximum. A notably suc-
cessful
solution of such a problem with visible structural steel

work is the Grand Bazar de la rue de Rennes, in Paris (Fig.
276).
Stone and iron. Experiments to devise novel structural
systems with materials long in use, or with a combination of

old and new materials, have also not been wanting. In the
Vestibule de Harley (1857-68) at the Palais de Justice in
Paris,J. L. Due employed a system of ribbed stone vaulting
which was neither Gothic nor classical,but resulted from an
independent analysis of his structural problem. Viollet-le-

Duc himself made designsshowing the frank employment of
iron in connection with walls and of masonry vaults
and tile,
which were a good deal followed,although mainly in utilitarian
constructions.
Ferro-concrete. A applicationof steel has been in
further
connection with concrete. The employment of Portland
cement as a buildingmaterial, which rapidlyincreased in the
later years of the nineteenth century, gave to concrete a much
greater compressivestrength. During the same time inventors

were attempting to strengthen the concrete still further by
buildingin a network of iron rods. This composite construc-
tion,
popularizedby the Frenchman Joseph Monier after 1868,

has received the names ferro-concrete, armored concrete, or
reinforced concrete. Its merit consists in that it.employssteel

and concrete in such a way that each material contributes the

elements of
strength for which it is best fitted the concrete, "
compressive strength and indifference to fire,the steel,tensile

strength and resistance to shearing. Theoretical study and
practical experiencehave kept pace in the designand construc-
tion
of piers, girders,floor slabs,and arches of the new material,
which combines the possibility of wide spans with cheapness
and security. The method of execution is the pouring of the
freshly mixed, semi-liquidconcrete in temporary forms of
wood or metal, within which have first been placed the rein-forcing
bars, in the positionwhere tensile or shearingstresses
may occur. The temporary forms constitute one of the
greatest items of expense, and, since they cannot be eliminated,
current experiments are now directed to the devisingof forms
which may be used and
Owing to the fact that the
over over.
steel reinforcement of each member is already incorporated

in a protectingmass of concrete, and owing to the difficulty of
castingthin walls of the material,there is less temptation with
ferro-concrete than with other fireproof systems to disguisethe
essential members of the framework with enveloping walls.
Aside from this frank articulation of structure, a variety of
characteristic decorative treatments has been devised,such as
the embedding of tile patterns in the surface of the concrete,

and the creation of grooves by blocks nailed inside the forms.
for utilitarian buildings,some
Thus, especially highly interest-
ing
results have already been attained both in light and in
massive construction.
Other materials. Independent of the novel structural
systems, and earlier than the latest developments just
described, came a revival of certain neglected materials,
especiallybrick and terra cotta. Philip Webb initiated the
movement by using brick in William Morris's "Red House"
at. Bexley Heath (1859). In the architecture of England and
America during the followingperiod it has received a variety
of interesting treatments through the use of different bonds,
the varying of the width, depth, and color of the mortar
joints, and the employment of a varietyof colors and patterns.
Terra cotta, hitherto used mainly for friezes and ornamental
detail,became available,as a result of improved methods of
manufacture, for whole buildings,the Museum of Natural
History at South Kensington (1868-80)being a notableearly

example. The ultimately reached
possibilities "
impervious
white structural terra cotta, besides a wide range of permanent
colors " -with the
advantages of cheapness, resistance to fire,
and ease of reproducing ornament have given the material
"
an ever increasing popularity. Efforts to give it also a

characteristic expression,through frank recognition of its
differences from stone masonry, have produced many ing
interest-
results.
Expression oj use and character. Deeply rooted, like the
strivingfor structural expression,has been the attempt to
secure expression for the use and character of buildings.
Goethe had praised the expressionof character as the highest
merit in architecture; the Italian critic Milizia,with Ruskin
and Viollet-le-Duc, had applied this principlespecifically to
the expressionof the central and
determining condi-
purpose tions
of the building in hand. The eclectics alreadyrecognized
the principlein part when they chose for different types of
buildings the several historic styles which seemed most
appropriate to their general purposes. The pioneers of

structural functionalism inevitably gave to many types of
structures, especiallythose with exacting utilitarian require-
ments,
an impress which was characteristic of their uses. The
desire for expressionof function has gone much farther,how-
ever,
influencingthe plan and massing as well. It has become
the object of architects not merely to make the interior ele-
ments
adapted to their purpose in extent, in height,and in
relation to one another, but also to emphasize the existence
of each of these elements on the exterior and to indicate their
nature relationships
and in such a way that the purpose and
arrangement of the buildingmight be unmistakable. For the
functionalist movement the practicaldevelopment and the
formal development of types of buildingshave thus become
logicallyinseparable.
Contributions of the functionalist movement to the development
of types. Theaters. With the multiplication and specializa-

tion
of requirements and types ot buildings, it becomes possible
im-
even to mention all those of importance. It must
suffice to discuss one or two which are representativeof the
transformations which have taken place in types already
existingand of the creation

wholly new ofones. The ater
the-
is a type which, already highly developed during the
*
classical movement, has retained its importance and gone

under-
characteristic modifications. The first of these was in
external expression. Semper felt that the stage, with its
fundamental importance and immense extent, should no
longer be kept under a singleroof with the auditorium, but

deserved independent recognition, which the growing practical
necessity for great height has made permanent. In the
Paris Opera (1861-74) Gamier carried still further the idea
of characterization,emphasizing on the exterior the form of
the auditorium as well, so that foyer,auditorium; and stage
form an ascending series,while the stage entrance, dressing-
rooms, and administrative offices are all given a frank and
suitable expression(Figs.270 and 275).
Inner modification of the theater. The internal elements, the
auditorium and the stage, have likewise been modified, espe-
cially
in those theaters unconnected with court functions and
not intended for the production of operas of a conventional
sort. Democratic conditions have here tended to do away
with the tiers of privatelogesgrouped in a horseshoe, and to
make the house more nearly fan-shaped,so as to give all as
favorable a view as possibleof the stage. A similar ment

arrange-
has been introduced, for somewhat different reasons, in
the theaters speciallybuilt for performance of the music-
dramas of Richard Wagner at Bayreuth and Munich. In
these, as in an ancient theater, the seats rise in a singleslope.
The technical apparatus of the stage, where traditional ments
arrange-
had retained their hold until the last quarter of the
nineteenth century, was suddenly transformed by the tution
substi-
of metal for wood and of electric motive power for
manual strength. The revolving stage has made possiblea
hitherto unhoped for rapidityin the change of scenes, while
electric lightinghas opened the way for a thousand new optical
effects.
Railway stations. Railway stations had their originonly
in the thirties;they at once assumed, of necessity,the two
fundamental forms which stillexist "
terminal stations and
way stations. For botli,if they were of sufficient
importance,
a singletrain-shed spanning tracks and platforms was soon
FIG. 275 "
PARIS. OPERA HOUSE. PLAN
adopted, and, with the multiplicationof tracks and the

employment of iron trusses, spans of over two hundred feet
were reached early in the fifties. The part of the station
containingthe waiting-rooms and offices gave opportunities
for monumental treatment which architects were quick to
realize,as in the classic hall of Euston Station in London,

built by Hardwick in 1847. In the Gare de 1'Est in Paris
(1847-52) a great gable containing a singlearched window
expressedon the facade the form of the train-shed behind, and
a similar motive received magnificent treatment on a larger
scale in the Gare du Nord (1862-64). At terminal stations
with the main buildingat the head of the tracks the two sides
have generallybeen used in Europe for arrival and departure,
respectively, with specialized conveniences for passengers of
a number of different classes. In way stations,and in terminal
stations where space has not permitted the main building to
be at the end, a depressionor elevation of the tracks has made
possibledirect access to all the platforms. Where steam is the
motive power the smokiness of the inclusive train-sheds has
led increasingly
to the substitution of low individual "umbrella-
sheds" with long narrow slots close above the stacks. Where
electric power has been adopted, on the other hand, there has
been a reversion to the more monumental singlehall, as in
the Gare du quai d'Orsay, Paris, opened in 1901 (Fig.278).
In the givingof expressiveform to such practical
requirements,
often far from the traditional domain of architecture,lie a
great number of the

problems presented by the multiplicity
of modern types of buildings.
Expression of modernity and nationality.Although the
endeavor to find appropriateexpression for new types and
new systems of construction has inevitablygiven a modernity
of character to much current architecture,the forms of detail
in traditional materials have long continued to be drawn from
historical precedent, and many conventional types have
retained a historical imprint whether classical,
"
medieval,
or Renaissance. The broad principleenunciated by Semper,
"The solution of modern problems must be freelydeveloped
from the premises given by modernity," has not yet been
pushed, any more than it was by its author, to its ultimate
conclusions. During the last decade of the nineteenth
MODERN ARCHITECTURE
century, however, the conviction has deepened that, as Otto

Wagner has expressed it, "Modern art must yieldus modern
ideas, forms created by us, which represent our abilities,
our
acts, and our preferences."

In forms based on material and structure. Within the ment
move-
there are two diverse tendencies,having otherwise little
FIG. 278 "

GARE DU QUAI D'ORSAY. INTERIOR. (LE GENIE CIVIL)
in common. One, representedby Wagner and his followers

in Germany, by Sullivan in America, and by the spiritual
descendants of Morris and Viollet-le-Duc in England and
France, holds to the belief that "The modern architecture of
our time seeks to derive form and motives from purpose, struction,
con-
and materials. If it is to
give clear expressionto
feelingsit must also be as simple as possible. Such
'
our
simpleforms are to be carefully weighed againstone another, so

as to secure beautiful proportions,on which almost solely
the effect of our architectural works depends." In the works
of these men only the traditional emphasis on base and

cornice is retained. The enframement of windows and the
demarcation of individual stories is generally avoided, and
the forms of detail at the bases and crowns of the piers,
at the
doors and cornices, are individual ones suggested by the

natural propertiesand technical treatment of the materials.
In plasticforms to which construction is subservient. The
other modernist school holds quite a different view. Its
fundamental theory,stated by L. A. Boileau as earlyas 1889,
is that, "instead without
of constructingfirst, preoccupation
with the final appearance, promising oneself to utilize the
ingeniousnessof the construction as the decoration,one should

relegate the ingenuitiesof structure to a positionamong the
secondary means, unworthy of appearing in the completed
work." This school attributes to a material a degree of artis-
tic
value in
proportion as it is more plastic,more susceptible
of receiving the impress of the personal sentiment of the
artist. To this branch of modernism belonged the early
phase known specifically as Van nouveau, in which curved
lines suggested by plant forms played so great a r61e. To it
belong also the current works of Van de Velde and
others,
who treat their forms almost like flesh,with cartilage-like
formations at the points of junction. These might be scribed
de-
as baroque without the classical elements. At the
Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris, although classical forms are
retained, much sympathy prevailsfor the scenic theory of this

school of modernists, with which, indeed, most modern classic
architecture has reallymuch in common. Thus at the Paris
Exposition of 1900 the bizarre masking of the structural forms,
which at earlier French had
expositions themselves been taken
as the basis for decorative treatment, was less a retrograde
movement, from the modernist standpoint,than the triumph
of a different phase of modernism.
Besides the consistent followers of these two systems there
is,as always, a multitude practitionerswhose of
convictions
are a mixture of elements not wholly concordant, and who
are united only in the rebellion againsthistorical forms.
Development of modernist forms. The origins. England.
The forerunners of modern individual treatment in architect-
ure
were the disciplesof Morris in England, who in 1888
MODERN ARCHITECTURE
instituted the Arts and Crafts Exhibition for the display of

works of handicrafts and interior decoration in forms created
by their own makers. The first attempts to make use of
originalforms on the exterior of buildingswere made almost
simultaneously in 1892 and 1893 by C. Harrison Townsend
in London, Paul Hankar and Victor Horta in Brussels, and
FIG. 279 "
BROADLEYS ON LAKE WINDERMERE (MUTHESIUS)
Louis Sullivan in
Chicago. Townsend took his departure
from the Romanesque forms of the American, Richardson,
and transformed them by novel treatment of the projections,
by fertile originalornament, and by a rich use of color. In
England the new departure has proved too radical for popular
taste, in spiteof the preparationmade by the craft guilds,and
few architects have pursued its ideals. The chief of them,
C.'F. A. Voysey, however, has had much success in his chosen
field of the dwelling (Fig.279),in which he has adhered most
strictlyto the idea of economy, yet has secured interesting

effects by his employment of rough cast, woodwork painted,
in broad but
unhackneyed colors,and individual designs for
hangings, furniture,and hardware.
Belgium and France. The Belgians introduced somewhat
fantastic combinations of curved lines,and experimented at
the same time with steel work in connection with brick,
concrete, mosaic, and colored glass. They gave the first
impulse in both France and Germany, although Englishmodels
KETTEN
! BRUCKENl
; GASSE i
Copyright by Delphin-Verlag
FIG. 28O "
VIENNA. STATION OF THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY. (LUX)
were followed in rural domestic architecture and independent

creations soon outweighed all external contributions. The
Belgian influence made its way to France about 1896 under
the name of I'art nouveau. First felt in the minor arts, it
soon invaded architecture in the
lightand gracefulstructures
of glassand steel designed since 1898 by Hector Guimard to
serve as entrances to the Paris underground "the Metro." "
After the first enthusiasm for the new forms, however, few
buildingsin France have shown so pronounced a break with
tradition. The new leaven appears mainly in a greater
freedom within the academic which

styleitself, France, with
its Latin elements and its faithfulness to classical tradition
during the nineteenth century, regards, not without some
reason, as a national style of its own.
Germany: Vienna. It is in
Germany that the movement
has taken deep root, so that, in spiteof its foreignorigins, it is
already regarded by artists,if not by the government, as an
expressionof the Teutonic spirit in rebellion againstthe Latin
domination of classic architecture. The pioneer has been
Otto Wagner in Vienna, whose inauguraladdress as professor
at the Academy in 1894 was a declaration of independence
from the historical styles. His stations for the Metropolitan
Railway (1894-97) were frankly developed from purpose, environment,
and modern materials, with little ornament, and

that freelyinvented (Fig.280). The formation of the Viennese
"Secession" in 1897, for which
Wagner's pupil, Joseph
Olbrich, designed an exhibition
building of novel type and
fresh decorative conception,inaugurated an analogous ten-
dency
in painting and in handicraft, which gave the archi-

tectural
movement much support. Joseph Hoffman, another
pupil, founded in 1903 the "Viennese Workshops" on the
lines of Morris's establishment, and has had wide influence in
domestic architecture and interior decoration. Although
Wagner achieved in the Postal Savings Bank (1905) a notable
expressionof steel construction and marble veneering,official
conservatism has prevented the execution of other monumental
projectsof the first order, and the buildingsin Vienna which
are most advanced in functionalist tendencies have hitherto
been dueprivateinitiative.
to
North Germany. The same has been generally true in

North Germany, where the first strikingsuccess of the move-
ment
was in the Wertheim department store in Berlin, built

by Alfred Messel at intervals from 1896 to 1904 (Fig.277).
Although historic forms at first baroque, later Gothic
"
here "
furnished the suggestions, all have been so transformed that

the impressionis predominantly modern. Active official en-
couragement
was. first given the movement by Grand Duke

Ernst Ludwig of Hesse-Darmstadt, who called Olbrich, Peter
Behrens,.and others to Darmstadt, and gave them a free hand.
Their of domestic
initial exposition architecture and handi-
Si6 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
craft in i beginning of a widespread reform in these

go i was the
fields,largelyon English lines,but less affected by medieval-
ism
and saturated with new decorative conceptions. Free
from historic suggestion,and thus pronounced in its modernity,
is the expressionof the nature of the factoryfound

in 1909 by Behrens in his turbine factory for the General
Copyright by G. M tiller" E. Rentsch
FIG. 28l "
BERLIN. TURBINE FACTORY OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC PANY

COM-
(AEG). (HOEBER)
Electric Company (AEG) in Berlin (Fig. 281). The single

vast hall has its great areas of glass confined between angular
masses of concrete, and the forms of its trusses and steel
columns expressed with unusual
are frankness and skill.
With the great majority of professionalarchitects in Germany
now participatingin the modernist movement, only the per-
sonal
intervention of the Emperor in the case of public works
has prevented it from prevailingthere almost universally.
At the moment of cessation of architectural activity in
Europe due to the great war, two contrary tendencies were
strugglingfor mastery in matters of style. One emphasizes

the elements of continuitywith the past, the other the ments
ele-
of novelty in modern civilization. In the Germanic
emphasis on novel elements which
countries it is the radical
has secured the advantage, in France and England it is the
conservative emphasis on continuity which on the whole
retains the supremacy. In view of the currentlyintensified
nationalism, it is natural to expect that these national ferences
dif-
will be cultivated and perpetuated at least for a time.
The underlying elements of internationalism existingin the
community of practicalproblems, materials, and structural
systems, and the essentiallyinternational character of both
the conservative and the radical movement, however, would
seem to indicate that this particularismwill be relatively
temporary. the present conservative or the present
Whether
radical tendency may ultimatelybe victorious,we may be sure
that change in architectural style is bound to be constant,
and that architecture will remain a livingart, not less sive

expres-
of the complicated texture of modern life than it has been
of the life of earlier and simpler periods.
PERIODS OF MODERN ARCHITECTURE
FRANCE
I. Classicism,c. 1780-1830.
Jacques Germain Soufflot,1709-80.
Sainte Genevieve (the Pantheon) at Paris, 1757-90.
Victor Louis, 1736-1802.
Grand Theatre at Bordeaux, 1777-80.
Colonnades of the Palais Royal in Paris,1781-86.
Charles Nicholas Ledoux, 1736-1806.
Gates of Paris,1780-88.
Pierre Rousseau, b. 1750, d. after 1791.
H6tel de Salm (Palace of the Legion of Honor) in Paris,
1782-86.
Jean Francois The"rese Chalgrin, 1730-1811.
Saint Philippedu Roule in Paris,1760-84.
Arc de 1'Etoile, 1806-36.
Barthe'lemyVignon, 1762-1829.
Madeleine at Paris, 1807-42.
Si8 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Alexandra Brongniart, 1739-1813.

Bourse in
Paris, 1808-27.
Charles Percier,1764-1838, and Pierre Fontaine, 1762-
1853-
Arc du Carrousel in Paris, 1806.
Chapelle Expiatoire in Paris,1815-26.
II. Romanticism, c. 1830-65.
Chapel of Les Her biers in Vendee, 1825.
Francois Christian Gau, 1790-1854.
Sainte Clotilde in Paris,1846-59 (with Theodore Ballu,
1817-85).
Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc,
1814-79.
Restoration and fleche of Notre Dame in Paris,1857^.
III. Eclecticism,c. 1820-1900.
Italian phase.
Old Opera House in Paris,1820.
Neo-grec phase.
Jacques Felix Duban, 1797-1870.
Ecole des Beaux- Arts, 1832-62.
Theodore Labrouste, 1799-1875.
BibliothequeSainte Genevieve in Paris,1843-50.
Joseph Louis Due, 1802-79.
Completion of the Palais de Justiceat Paris,1857-68.
French Renaissance
phase.
Jean Baptiste Leseur, 1794-1883.
Enlargement of the Hotel de Ville at Paris, 1836-54.
Baroque phase.
Charles Garnier,1825-98.
Opera House in Paris,1861-74.
Casino at Monte Carlo.
Paul Ginain, 1825-98.
Musee Galliera in Paris,1878-88.
Charles Girault,1851-.
Petit Palais des Beaux -Arts in Paris,1900.
Byzantine phase.
Paul Abadie, 1812-84.
Church of the Sacred Heart, Paris, i873~date.
IV. Functionalism,c. i85o-date.
Theodore Labrouste, 1799-1875.
Reading-rooms of the Bibliotheque Sainte Genevieve,
1843-50, and BibliothequeNationale, 1855-61.
Joseph Louis Due, 1802-79.
Vestibule de Harley in the Palais de Justice at Paris,
1857-68.
Victor Baltard, 1805-74.

Halles Centrales in Paris, 1852-59.
Buildings of the Paris Expositions of 1878 and 1889.
Alexandra Eiffel,1832-.
Eiffel Tower at the Paris Exposition of 1889.
Hector Guimard, 1867-.
Stations of the Paris Underground Railway ("Metro"),
1898 /.
Auguste Ferret,1874-, and Gustave Perret,1876-.
Theatre des Champs Elysees, 1912.
ENGLAND
Roman phase.
Robert Adam, 1728-92, and James Adam, d. 1794.
Screen for the Admiralty in London, 1760.
Remodeling of Kedleston, 1761-65.
Record Office in Edinburgh, 1771.
The Adelphi in London, 1772.
UniversityBuildings in Edinburgh, 1778^.
Sir John Soane, 1753-1837.
Bank of England in London, 1788-1835.
Harvey Lonsdale Elmes, 1814-47.
Saint George'sHall in Liverpool,1814-54.
Greek phase.
James Stuart, 1713-88.
Chapel at Greenwich Hospital.
Thomas Harrison, b. 1744.
"The Castle" at Chester, 1793-1820.
Thomas Hamilton, 1785-1858.

High School at Edinburgh, 1825-29.
Sir Robert Smirke.
British Museum in
London, 1825-47.
First phase, c. 1760-1830.
Strawberry Hill, 1753-76.
Fonthill Abbey, 1796-1814.
EatonHall, 1803-14.
Second phase, c. 1830-70.
Augustus Wei by Pugin, 1813-52.
18 Church of Saint Augustine,Ramsgate, 1842.
Sir Charles Barry, 1795-1860.

Houses of Parliament in London, 1840-60.
Sir Gilbert Scott, 1811-78.
Church of Saint Giles in Camberwell, 1842-44.
William Butterfield,1814-1900.
All Saints',Margaret Street,in London, 1849.
George Edmund Street,1824-81.
Law Courts in London, 1868-84.
Alfred Waterhouse, 1830-1905.
Assize Courts in Manchester, 1859-64.
Museum of Natural History in London, 1868-80.
III. Eclecticism,c. i83o-date.
Italian and neo-grec phase.
Sir Charles Barry, 1795-1860.
Travelers' Club in London, 1829-31.
Charles Robert Cockerell,1788-1863.
Taylor and Randolph Buildings,Oxford, 1840-45.
Branch Bank of England, Liverpool,1845.
Sir James Pennethorne, 1801-71.
University of London, 1866-70.
Queen Anne phase.
Eden Nesfield,1835-88.
Lodges at Regent's Park, 1864, and Kew, 1866.
R. Norman Shaw, 1831-1912.
New Zealand Chambers in London, 1873.
IV. Functionalism, c. 1850 to date.
Sir Joseph Paxton, 1803-65.
Crystal Palace in London, 1851.
C. Harrison Townsend.
BishopsgateInstitute in
London, 1893-94.
HornimanMuseum in London, 1900-01.
C. F. A. Voysey, 1857-.
GERMANY
Roman phase, c. 1770-90.
Abbey Church at Saint Blasien, 1770-80.
Deutschhauskirche in Nurnberg, 1785.
Greek phase, c. 1790-1840.
Karl GottfriedLanghans, 1733-1808.
Brandenburg Gate in Berlin,1788-91.
Friedrich Gilly, 1771-1800.

Proposed memorial for Frederick the Great in Berlin,
1797.
Karl Friedrich Schinkel, 1781-1841.
Royal Theater in Berlin, 1818-21.
Old Museum in Berlin, 1824-28.
Leo von Klenze, 1784-1864.
Glyptothek in Munich, 1816-30.
Walhalla at Regensburg, 1830-42.

Karl Friedrich Schinkel, 1781-1841.
Gothic project for the Cathedral of Berlin, 1819.
Werderkirche in Berlin, 1825.
Friedrich von Gartner, 1792-1847.
III. Eclecticism,c. 1830-1900.
Italian Renaissance phase.
Leo von Klenze, 1784-1864.
Pinakothek in Munich, 1826-33.
Konigsbau in Munich, 1826-35.
Friedrich von Gartner, 1792-1847.
Royal Library in Munich, 1832-43.
Gottfried Semper, 1804-79.
Old Court Theater in Dresden, 1838-41.
Gothic and northern Renaissance phase.
Heinrich Ferstel,1828-83.
von
Votive Churchin Vienna, 1853-79.

Friedrich von Schmidt, 1825-91.
Rathaus in Vienna, 1873-83.
Baroque phase.
Gottfried Semper, 1804-79.
Extension of the Imperial Palace in Vienna, 1870 Jff.
Court Theater in Vienna, 1871-89.
Paul Wallot, 1841-1912.
Reichstag Building in Berlin, 1882-94.
Ludwig Hoffmann, 1852-.
Imperial Supreme Courts at Leipzig, 1884-95.
IV. Functionalism, c. i8so-date.
Otto Wagner, 1841-.
Stations of the Stadtbahn in Vienna, 1894-97.
Postal Savings Bank in Vienna, 1905.
Alfred Messel, 1853-1909.
Wertheim store in Berlin, 1896-1907.
Joseph Olbrich, 1867-1908.

Secession galleryin Vienna, 1897.
Tietz store in Dusseldorf. 1906-08.
Peter Behrens, 1868.
House in Darmstadt, 1901.
Turbine factory in Berlin,1909.
The two final volumes

Joseph'sGeschichte der Baukunst, 1902,
of D.
bear the title Geschichte der Baukunst des XIX. Jahrhunderts,and
constitute the only historical work devoted to modern architecture as
a whole. One may also consult the modern section of K. O. Hart-
mann's Die Baukunst in ihrer
Entwicklung .
bis zur Gegenwart,
. .
vol. 3, 1911. Both of these are naturallyfullest on work in Germany.

L. Magne's L1 architecture franqaisdu siecle, 1889, covers France to
its date. For the development of specialtypes, in general,or in
singlecountries,see A. G. Meyer's Eisenbauten: ihre Geschichte und
JEsthetik, 1907; H. Muthesius's Das englische Haus, 3 vols.,1904-05,
and his Die neuere kirchliche Baukunst in England, 1906.
Classicism. P. Klopfer'sVon Palladia bis Schinkel (Geschichte der
neueren Baukunst}, 1911, gives a general survey of the movement,

with accounts of the development of individual types of buildings.
L.Hautecceur's Rome et la renaissance de Vantiquite a la fin du XV I lie
siecle,1912, which discusses the genesis of the movement, and its

beginnings in France, may be supplemented by F. Benoit's Uart
franqaissous la revolution et I'empire,1897. A. E. Richardson's
Monumental Classic Architecture in Great Britain and Ireland During
the XVIII. and XIX. Centuries,1914, covers the periodin England;
and P. Mebes's Um 1800. Architektur und Handwerk .
2 vols.,
.
.,
1908, gives a partialsurvey of the work in Germany.

Romanticism. The history of the romantic movement in archi-
tecture
has received special treatment only in the case of England,
in C. L. Eastlake's History of the Gothic Revival,1972; in H. Muthe- sius's
Die neuere kirchliche Baukunst, Das englischeHaus, vol. i,
1904, and Die englischeBaukunst der Gegenwart, 1900, vol. i. The
earlytransplantationof the movement to the Continent best appears,
although incidentally, in M. L. Gothein's Geschichte der Gartenkunst,
1914, vol. 2, chap. 15. For its later progress there one must turn to
the general histories of Hartmann and Joseph.

Eclecticism. Two works devoted to illustrations of German ings
build-
phase are H. Licht's Architektur Deutschlands
of this der Neu- . . .
zeit,2 vols.,1882, and H. Ruckwardt's Faqaden und Details moder-

MODERN ARCHITECTURE
523
Bauten, 1892. A similar work for England is Muthesius's Die

tier
englische Baukunst der Gegenwart, 2 vols., 1800, supplemented by
his other works listed above. For France one consult the
may
works of Cesar Daly or

R. Selfridge's Modern French Architecture,
1899, collection of photographs of buildings from the period, largely

a
domestic.
Functionalism. The theories of "character" and structure veloped

de-
by Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc, and others are discussed, although
rather unsympathetically, in G. Scott's The Architecture of manism,

Hu-
Some of the applications made in practice in

1914. appear
F. Billerey's paper,
Modern French Architecture, in the Journal of
the Royal Institute of British Architects, 3d series, vol.

1912-13, 20,
The influence of iron in architecture is most fully

pp. 317-45.
discussed in A. G. Meyer's Eisenbauten: ihre Geschichte und JEsthetik,
The pioneer works of "modernist" character in England and

1907.
Belgium are
described in Muthesius's Die englische Baukunst der
Gegenwart and in H. Fierens-Gervaert's Nouveaux essais sur

I'art con-
temporain, The manifesto of the movement in Germany was

1903.
Otto Wagner's Moderne Baukunst, translated by N. C. Ricker, 1901.
Its later development there be traced in Karl Scheffler's Moderne

may
Baukunst, 2d ed., 1908, and in the biographies of Wagner, by J. A.
Lux, and of Peter Behrens, by F. Hoeber, For the work

1914, 1913.
in America see
the note to Chapter XIII.
CHAPTER XIII
AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE
Pre-colonial architecture. Yucatan. Long before European

explorers and colonists crossed the Atlantic there flourished in
America civilizations which, although still ignorant of iron
or even of bronze, had a highly developed architecture. The
first,and in some respects the greatest, of these was that of
the Maya, whose center was in modern Yucatan. They
flourished in
early the centuries era, of
and the Christian
their great buildingswere in ruins long before the arrival of the
Spanish conquerors. Their colossal structures at Palenque
(Fig.282), Chichen Itza, and elsewhere reveal an abilityto
transport and work stones of great size,to employ the column
and the corbeled vault, and to devise symmetrical plans of
some complexity. Religiousstructures came first in impor-
tance;
even the royal palaces were secondary. A character-
istic
feature was the raisingof all buildingsof importance on
great substructures, often with sloping faces or in the form

of a stepped pyramid. A broad and steep staircase on the
principalface led to the upper platform. Here stood the
building proper, of massive rubble-concrete faced with stone
(Fig.283). The arrangement of the plan was conditioned by
the use of the corbeled vault to cover all interior spaces.
This resulted in narrow rooms which could be extended definite
in-
length,but which had to be multipliedone behind
in
the other to secure greater depth. Openings to the exterior
or between the chambers were spanned with lintels of wood
or stone, or by smaller corbeled arches. On the exterior a
belt course marked the line of the impost within, and the
space opposite the tall vault was often treated as a broad

frieze with relief decoration. A unique feature was the "roof
comb," a long pierced wall risingalong the center of the ter-
AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE 525
raced roof. Most of the principalbuildings were temples,

although monasteries and palaces on a large scale were also
erected.
Mexico.Successive invading tribes,less civilized than the
Maya, fell heir to their art, and diffused their own versions of
FIG. 282 "
PAI.ENQUE. SKETCH PLAN OF THE PALACE AND TEMPLES.
(HOLMES)
it throughout Mexico. The buildingsof the Toltec and later

the Aztec were on an equal scale with those of the older civiliza-
tion,
but show less refinement and constructive skill. The
terrace and pyramid substructures,the relief decoration, the
general types of plan with long,narrow rooms, were retained.

Often buildingor rooms
the were grouped around quadrangles
and courts. In general the corbeled vault was abandoned,
and the terrace roofs of concrete were supported by wooden
FIG. 283 "
TRANSVERSE SECTION OF A TYPICAL MAYA BUILDING.

(HOLMES)
The upper part of the pyramid
is shown with the stairway at the left. a. Lower wall-zone
pierced by a plain doorway,b. Doorway showing squared and dressed stones of jamb.
c. Wooden lintels cut in length,
midway d. Doorway connecting front with back chamber
and showing position of cord holders, e. Inner face of arch dressed with the slope. /. Ceil- ing,
or cap-stones of arch. g. Lower line of molding, a survival of the archaic cornice.
h. Decorated entablature zone. i. Upper moldings and coping. j, k. False front with
decorations, (occasionally added). /. Roof -crest with decorations, (occasionally added).
beams. The varied character of the materials available sulted

re-
in many local differences in construction. At Mitla,

for instance, large stones could be had for columns and lintels;
in some other placesstone could scarcelybe found suitable for
facing,and mud brick or adobe had to be used, decorated with

stucco and color. These
developments came native
to an end
with the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniardsbeginningin 1 5 1 9 .
Peru. In Peru the Spaniards, on their conquest of the

Inca empire in 1532, found another well-developedstyle of
architecture, with an independent development of many
centuries. and
Palaces, fortresses, cities rivaled one another
in importance. Polygonal walls of vast blocks, risingin many
terraces, guarded the pass of the Andes at Ollentaitambo.
Houses and palaceswere built around courts, sometimes with
a second story receding from the first and supported on
corbeled vaults. Windows and niches with inclined jambs
were notable features.
Colonial architecture. With thecoming of the European
colonists to the New World a problem new and unique in
modern times was created for architecture;civilized men had
to face conditions which were absolutelyprimitive and to
struggleagainst odds for the attainment of traditional ideals
of building. As a result there was everywhere a pioneer stage,
in which the settlers seized the first means at hand "
adobe,
logs,or even turf "
and built
simply as would serve primary
as
needs of shelter and worship. Later they sought to replace

such modes of buildingby those of their mother country, but
these were inevitablymodified to a greater or less degree by
differences in the materials available,and in economic and
social conditions. The duration of the pioneer period itself
varied greatlywith the character and support of the colonists,
and with the resources and climate of the country.
Spanish colonial architecture.
In the con-
quered Development.
empires of Mexico and Peru, where wealth and a
large civilized native population already existed,the Spanish

were soon able to establish their own architecture,and even to
erect monuments rivalingthose of the mother country in size
and number. Desire to implant the Catholic faith gave
prominence from the very beginning to churches. The ear-
liest
ones, including doubtless the small church erected in

1524 on the foundations of the great Aztec temple in Mexico
City, showed reminiscences of the Plateresque and even of
Gothic and Moorish details. Such
buildingswere soon placed
re-
by more elaborate structures, designed either by the

court architects in Spain or by others of scarcelyless ability

who emigrated to the New World. Thus, for the cathedral
of Mexico, two successive Spain, in
designs were sent from
1573 and 1615, the second by Juan Gomez

de Mora (Fig.284).
The cathedral at Lima (1573) and many other buildingswere
designed on the spot by Francisco Becerra, a discipleof
Herrera. The successive transformations of style in Spain
FIG. 284 "
MEXICO CITY. CATHEDRAL, WITH SACRISTY (RIGHT)
were faithfullyreflected in the Spanish colonies,usuallya few

years later,with baroque tendencies naturallypredominating.
In 1749, when Lorenzo Rodriguez began the great sacristyof
the cathedral of Mexico, he employed a most luxuriant gregatio
ag-
of baroque details for the facades (Fig.284). By
1797, however, when the towers of the cathedral were added,
the academic reaction was supreme ; and the work of the last
of the great colonial architects, Francisco Eduardo Tres-
guerras (1745-1833), shows a handling of academic elements

reminiscent of that of Chalgrin.
Types of buildings. The dominant type of church was the

basilican,as in the cathedral of Mexico "
a solid rectangle with

a barrel-vaulted nave and transepts, having penetrationsat
each bay, domed compartments in the aisles,and chapels be-
tween
the buttresses. Twin western towers, as here, were
frequent elsewhere, and a dome over the crossing was a
general feature. Domed churches of central type were also

not wanting. A specialdevelopment of the central type
occurs in the sacristyof the cathedral of Mexico, the Sagrario
Metropolitano. This consists of a Greek cross inscribed in a
square, with an octagonal dome over the crossing,barrel-
vaulted arms, and minor domes in the angles of the cross.
Secular and domestic buildingsfollowed those of the mother
country in being composed about an arcaded court or patio.
Florida. The outpost of Spain in North America, Saint
Augustine,founded in 1565, was not without structures of some
architectural pretensions,although these were of relatively
utilitarian character. The old fort,with its rusticated tions,
bas-
and the molded and paneled posts of the city gate still
stand, as well as a simple house or two with whitewashed
walls and wooden balconies.
New Mexico. In the remote interior of New Mexico tecture
archi-
was still
primitive. Here the native popula-
more tion
was sparse and relatively poor, so that little tempted the
Spaniards to the region except missionary zeal. The first
mission church, at San Juan de los Caballeros, was built in
1598, and the country was well covered by 1630. These
buildingswere merely cubical structures of adobe, or mud
brick,perhaps with a simplebelfry,built by the natives under
supervisionof the Franciscan fathers. Even the cathedral
of Saint Francis at Santa Fe" (1713-14) differed from these
chieflyby its largerscale. Its doorway and its twin western
towers were alike destitute of classical details,and ornament
was reserved for the altar, a distant reminiscence of the
lavish examples of Spain and Mexico.
California. In Alta California colonization was not tempted
at-
until 1 769, when Padre Junipero Serra established at
San Diego the first of the series of missions which ended in
1823 with San Francisco Solano, north of San Francisco Bay.
The first chapels of brush and the wooden frames for bells
were soon replacedby adobe structures of a singlenave, with

roofs of poles covered with clay or reeds. As the missions
nourished and the number of Indian converts who worked
under the direction of the fathers increased,largerand more
imposing buildingsreplaced these. Thus at Santa Barbara

the first chapel,dedicated in 1787, was enlarged in 1788, built
re-
in 1793 and again in 1815-20, when the present church,
FIG. 285 "
SANTA BARBARA. MISSION AND FOUNTAIN
the largestand best constructed in the province,was built

(Fig.285). In it the baroque survivals which appear in the
crude facades of the earlier churches are superseded by an
attempt at classical elegance the low pediment with the six
"
engaged Ionic columns. Singleor twin towers, piercedbelfry

walls, as at San Gabriel, long arcaded corridors or cloisters,
as at San Juan Capistrano, are characteristic features of the
California buildings,which are otherwise dependent for their
effect on the broad surfaces and massive buttresses of their
walls.
French and Spanish colonial architecture in Canada and
Louisiana. The French pioneers in North America were in
general hunters and traders rather than settlers,and they built
correspondingly little. At Quebec, which was founded in
1608, a considerable town gradually developed, however,
with churches, monastic and buildings,and palaces

collegiate
for the intendant and the archbishop. These had for the
most part the simple wall surfaces and detail of the period
of Louis XIII. although in the
,
more elaborate interiors there
was the rich pilastertreatment of the followingreign. New
Orleans was not founded until 1718. The typical house
Copyright, American Architect and Building News Co.
FIG. 286 "

NEW ORLEANS. THE CABILDO
there was one by roofed verandas with lightsup-

surrounded ports,
sometimes in a singlestory, sometimes in two stories.
The cession of Louisiana to Spain in 1764, almost simultaneous
with the loss of Canada to England, made the later architect-
ure
of these French colonies fall under foreign domination.
Thus in New Orleans after the great fire of 1788 the buildings
about the Place d'Armes were rebuilt on a coherent plan, in
the contemporary style of Spain. The Cabildo or city hall
(1795,Fig. 286) had two stories of open arcades, with the
arch order and a pediment, all originally of quite a classical
aspect.
Dutch colonial architecture in New Netherlands. 1624-64.
The Dutch, who founded Albany in 1624 and settled on Man-

hattan
Island in 1626, naturallytended to follow the mode of
buildingof their mother country, stillfull of medieval reminis-
cences.
Although the majority of buildingslong remained of
wood, thatched with reeds, a few houses of stone were soon
built, and later bricks frequentlyused.

were In these ma-
sonry
structures the stepped gable toward the street, so com-

mon
in Holland, was adopted, as well as the tile roof. The

most conspicuousbuilding,the "Stadt-Huis" erected for the "
city tavern in 1642 and converted into a city hall in 1653 "
conformed to this type. It had vertical banks of small

segmental-headed windows in
pairs, and a simple open
cupola to contain the bell. Although architecture had thus
made little progress before the English conquest of 1664, there
were the seeds of an independent growth which developed
later under English rule.
Architecture in the English colonies. Seventeenth century.
The English colonies in America were at first widely separated,
as well as very different in their character and purposes, so
that there was much diversityof architecture even in those

where the settlers were mainly of English birth. Certain
general characteristics hold for all,however, among them the
medieval
essentially nature of all the buildingsof the teenth
seven-
century. This could scarcely have been otherwise,

in view of the fundamental medievalism of most buildingin
England during the century, outside of London and of court
circles. England had been the last country to adopt Renais-
sance
forms of detail, and was much later still in adopting
classical types of plan and mass. Throughout the seventeenth
century in England the country churches built were Gothic,
and the rural cottages and minor country seats were medieval
in all but a few applied details and a tendency to symmetry.
Even in London, we may recall,the first classical church was
not built until 1630, and it had no imitators until after 1666.
Small wonder, then, if the colonists,themselves largelyfrom
the rural districts,erected buildingswhich, strippedof almost
every structurallyindispensable,revealed their

detail not
basic medievalism. A corollaryof this,and of the relatively
primitivestate of society,was the general absence of profes-
sional
architects and the dependence of the craftsmen builders
on tradition in matters of styleand workmanship. Another

generaltrait in the seventeenth century was the almost uni-
versal
prevalence of wood as a building material, even in
regionswhere the later monuments which are preserved are
of masonry. In contrast with England the new continent was
denselyforested,so that in clearingland for cultivation timber
was felled ready to hand. The immediate introduction of saw-
mills
in populous centers made plank stillless expensive than

otherwise, so that for years, and even to this day, brick and
stone have stood at a disadvantage in cost far greater than
anywhere in Europe.
Virginiaand the South. Virginiahad at the start the back-ing
of a powerful trading company and the advantage of a
unique staple crop, tobacco, which soon became enormously
valuablefor export. With the outbreak of the civil war in
England, the colony, with Maryland, became a refuge for the
royalists,
many of them possessingsome means. less
Neverthe-
architectural progress was very slow. From the founding
of Jamestown in 1607 the home authorities made constant
efforts to establish require buildings of brick.

towns and
The absolute necessity of a plantation system, however,
forced the inhabitants to scatter along the navigable rivers
and made mechanics of any kind scarce. Framed houses
only began about 1620 and were stilluncommon in 1 63 2 .
Clay
and some brick makers there were, yet the first house wholly
of brick does not seem to have been built until 1638. The
typical Virginia house of the seventeenth century was a
rectangularframed buildingof very moderate size,devoid of
any architectural ornaments, and with a great chimney of

brick at each end. The buttress-like form of these chimneys,
with the steepness of the roof, proclaimed the medieval basis
of the design. This is even more pronounced in the oldest of
the Virginiachurches stillremaining,Saint Luke's, Smithfield,
which includes some bricks of 1631, although it is very ful
doubt-
if the whole fabric built
early. With its pointed
was so
and mullioned windows this is unmistakably an Englishparish

church of the outgoing Gothic, in spite of the quoins of its
tower. In Maryland and Carolina the same generalhistory
was later repeated,bricks of local manufacture being gradu-
ally
adopted by the wealthier planters. Although Carolina
was settled until after 1660, and large houses

not were not
built until near 1700, one or two of them still show the fan-
tastic
curved gables of the Jacobean manors.
New England. In New England buildingsentirely of brick
and stone were especiallyrare, but permanent framed build-
ings
of wood were erected almost immediately after the found-
ing
of Plymouth (1620),Boston (1630),and Hartford (1636),
with no long period of makeshifts. The earliest settlers in-
cluded
carpenters, and, under the conditions of town life
which prevailed, artisans were numerous throughout the
colonial period. They brought with them the medieval lish
Eng-
traditions of framing houses with overhanging upper
stories,and of filling
up the frame, where possible, with brick.
The changeable climate did not favor the exposure of such
half -timber work to the weather, and from the start, in most
instances at least, the exteriors were covered with boards.
clap-
The windows were small leaded casements, tially
essen-
medieval, as were the clustered

chimneys form of the
and the ornamental drops at the corners of the overhangs.
Several different types of plan may be distinguished, each
characteristic of certain localities. In Massachusetts Bay and
the Connecticut colony the usual type was one having two
rooms upstairsand down, with an entry and a great chimney
between, and often with a lean-to added at the back. Later
the lean-to was included from the start, as in the Whipple
house at Ipswich, Massachusetts (Fig. 287), well preserved
and restored. The typical house in Providence Plantation
was one of a singleroom below, with a great chimney at one
end, creatingthe "stone-end house." Occasionally,as in the
Theophilus Eaton house at Hartford, Connecticut, the
Elizabethan U or H plan, with a central "hall," was served.
pre-
In interiors the cavernous fireplaces, the wainscot
sheathing, and the occasional paneling were devoid of any
Renaissance detail. Toward 1700 the framed overhang was
abandoned, but medieval details and methods lingeredwell
into the eighteenth century. The churches or houses"
"meeting-
in New England likewise retained survivals of
medieval forms, but their dispositionwas fundamentally
affected by the extreme Protestantism of the settlers there.
After the passing of the earliest simple cabins they tended
to conform to the prevailingProtestant type of England and

the Continent "
a squarish, hall-like room, with galleries

around three sides and the pulpitagainst the fourth, which
was generallyone of the longer sides. There was no tower;
the belfrywas merely placed astride the ridge at one end or
Courtesy of the White Pine Bureau
FIG. 287 "
IPSWICH. WHIPPLE HOUSE
on a deck in the center when the roof was hipped, as in the

"Old Ship" Meeting House at Hingham, Massachusetts.
Pennsylvania. Philadelphiawas not founded until 1682, so
that colonial architecture in Pennsylvania has mostly the post-
Renaissance detail of the eighteenthcentury. Before leaving
the medieval survivals,however, one must consider the build-
ings
of the German sects of Pennsylvania,although the earliest
of any pretensionswere not built until well after 1700, and
others not until about 1750. The monastic halls of religious
communities like that at Ephrata, with their whitewashed
walls and small windows, their steep roofs and ranges of little
dormers, are unmistakable offshoots of the Middle Ages in

Germany.
colonial
Eighteenth-century architecture. With the teenth
eigh-
century came greater means and comfort, wider use of
permanent materials, and the adoption of classical forms of
detail. The whole seaboardEnglish rule,and
was now under
local diversitywas subjectto uniform English influence. By
this time in England the styleof Jones and Wren was where
every-
established,and the small provincialtowns abounded
with doorways and interior woodwork in which the favorite
post-Renaissancemotives of broken pediments, consoles,and
rich carving were conspicuous. Still more important for the
colonies was the codification of current architecture in books,
great and small,which reproduced both formulas for the orders
and other details and designs for whole buildings. These
were imported very freelyand will be found to have had the
greatest influence on singlebuildingsand on the prevailing
style. In the early part of the century the colonists merely
adopted classical details for the individual features of their
buildings the cornice, the doorway, and perhaps a cupola
" "
without any generalclassical treatment beyond a symmetrical

arrangement. Later the churches and public buildings,and
finallyeven the dwellings,began to assume a monumental
character. During the later years of the colonial regime
there also appeared some tendency toward the Palladian
strictness which had carried the day in England, and had
dominated the later architectural publications. In these
movements, as was also the case in England, cultivated ama-teurs
played the leading r61e, although the builders themselves
were quick to master the teaching of the books and to

assume also the functions of architects.
Houses. The first signsof the transition at the opening of
the eighteenth century were the adoption of less steep roofs,
the substitution of sash windows for the leaded casements,
and tendency to employ a uniform cornice with a hip roof,
the
or a pedimented gable instead of a gable of medieval type.
When cornice and door were given rich detail of modillions "
and of pilasterswith a pediment one had the scheme emplified

ex-
"
about 1730 in Westover, Virginia(Fig.288), and in

the finest houses of that day throughout the colonies. The
ample and symmetrical dependencies seen at Westover were
characteristic of Virginiaand of Maryland and were sometimes

seen at Philadelphia. Frequent use of the curved and the
broken pediment and of rusticated enframements shows that
the baroque element of Wren's work was still current. In a
few instances, beginning about 1735, tall pilasters were applied
FIG. 288 "
WESTOVER, VIRGINIA
to the corner of the house. As these were only associated

with an individual pedestal and a fragment of entablature,
however, they create no general architectonic treatment. The
earliest important house in which a more academic scheme was
attempted was Mount Airy in Virginia (1758), where two
loggias one arched, the other colonnaded

"
were the aîal "
features of a group with balanced outbuildings, taken

apparently from James Gibbs's publisheddesigns. It was not
until 1760 or later that the free-standingportico with a
pediment was applied dwellings,

to and this did not become at
all common until after the Revolution. In a few instances,
notably the Miles Brewton house in Charleston, South Caro-

lina
(c.1765),there were superposed porticoeson the general
scheme of many of Palladio's villa designs,although with
much freedom in proportionsand detail. Strict followingof
Palladian canons in residence work only began with Thomas
Jefferson's design for Monticello in 1771, on the very eve of
the .Revolution. The interior of houses, owing partly to
the prevalenceof wooden paneling,was much richer and often
more coherent in architectural treatment than the exterior.
The subdivision of walls by pilasterswas by no means common,
un-
although more often,as in the Brewton house, each

essential element, such doorway or chimneypiece, was
as a
elaborated individually.Baroque features persisted even

after they had vanished from the exterior.
Churches. The buildings in which the more advanced
tendencies were first manifested were the churches. Old
Saint Philip's,Charleston, consecrated in 1723, had a portico
of four columns in front of its tower, only a few years after the
great London churches with a similar general parti. The

nave of Christ Church, Philadelphia, built 1731-44 under the
direction of Dr. John Kearsley,has an architectonic treatment
of the Roman arch order with pilasters in two stories. Both
of these buildings had the basilican interior treatment of
Saint Bride's and other London churches, which became the
favorite system for the more elaborate colonial examples.
The exterior which
portico, in Saint had
Philip's only the width
of the tower, was enlarged in Saint Michael's, Charleston
(1752-61),and in Saint Paul's Chapel, New York (1764-66,
Fig. 289), to embrace almost the full width of the church.
The steeplesfollowed English examples, among which that of
Saint Martin-in-the-Fields' and other designs reproduced in
Gibbs's published works attracted the most imitators.
Public buildings. The earliest publicbuildingsof any pretensions,
such as the older New York City Hall (c. 1700) and
the old Virginia Capitol at Williamsburg (1702-04),stillbe- trayed
a lingeringmedievalism in their H plans,in spiteof the
round arches or the columns of the connectingloggias. Even
in buildingswhere all medieval character has vanished, like
the old State House (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia
(1732-52),the architectural character remains fundamentally-
domestic, and the public functions

suggested on the
are
exterior only by the greater size of the buildingand its posses-

sion
of a cupola. In the interior of Independence Hall,indeed,
there is a monumental treatment by an arch order with
engaged columns, which was almost unique in the colonial
FIG. 289 "

NEW YORK. SAINT PAUL'S CHAPEL
period. The first attempt at academic design was Faneuil

Hall in Boston (1742),bypainter Smibert, with the arch
the
order in two stories,the lower one forming an open market.
A series of buildingsof unique architectonic character was
designed by Peter Harrison of Newport, Rhode Island,who,

whether or not he had professionaltraining in England,
deserves being the first professional

the distinction of architect
in North America. His Redwood Library in Newport (1748-
50) has a Roman Doric porticoof four columns, united to the
body of the buildingby a singleunbroken entablature (Fig.
290). Originallyonly the small wings flanking the fagade
prevented the buildingfrom conforming entirelyto the temple
FIG. 290 "
NEWPORT. REDWOOD LIBRARY
type, already imitated in the garden temples in England.

The Market at Newport, 1761, represents a more advanced
academic phase than Faneuil Hall, in that it involves an
engaged order running through two stories,over an arched
basement. This was the characteristic motive of the more
ambitious buildingson the eve of the Revolution, such as the

Pennsylvania Hospital, the Exchange in Charleston, and
others. The greater number even of public buildings, ever,
how-
stillretained not only the modest materials, brick and
wood, but also the simple wall surfaces and isolated details
of the earlypart of the century.
Architecture of the national period. Its origins. During the
Revolution (1775-83) building was almost completely sus-
pended.
At its close, although some craftsmen continued

their work in the styleas before,the leaders were inspired

same
by very different ideals. They recognized that the colonial

style,whatever its merits, was provincial, and they sought to
establish an architecture worthy of the new, sovereign,
republicanStates and of the great nation soon welded from
them. In all types of buildingsconnected with political and
social institutions,moreover, the republican and tarian
humani-
ideals of America demanded solutions very different
FIG. 291 "
RICHMOND. VIRGINIA CAPITOL. ORIGINAL MODEL
from those which were traditional in Europe. For ment

govern-
buildings,prisons,asylums, and other types new position
dis-
had to bepioneer in both these
found. The
movements was Thomas Jefferson,whose politicalcareer gave
him an unexampled opportunity for the realization of his
architectural conceptions. He felt that even the forms of
detail should not be borrowed from contemporary European
styles,although they should command the respect of foreign
observers. In this situation he turned to what he felt to be
the unimpeachable authorityof the ancients,in whose republics
the new States were felt to have their closest analogy. In his
design for the Capitol of Virginiaat Richmond (1785, Fig.
291), the first of modern republican government buildings,

he boldly took as his model the Maison Carree at Nimes. The
Ionic order was substituted to save expense, windows were
necessarilypierced in the cella walls, and the interior was

subdivided in conformity with the balance of legislative and
judicialfunctions, if not exactly in accordance with the expression
of the exterior. It is little realized that this design

considerably antedated anything similar abroad. Classical
examples had indeed been imitated in garden temples and
commemorative monuments, but never on such a large scale
and never in a building intended for practicaluse. Even
Gilly'sproposed temple to Frederick the Great (1791) and
Vignon's Napoleonic Temple of Glory (1807)were monuments
simply, and not until the Birmingham Town Hall (1831) was
there anything in Europe reallyanalogous to this first monument
of American national architecture.

Academicism and classicism. Public
buildings. The seed
of a literalclassic revival thus implanted requiredtime to bear
its fruit. Meanwhile many buildings of less advanced
character evidenced none the less the change from colonial
ideas. Engineers,builders,and amateurs, both of native and
of foreignbirth,united to infuse them with largenessof scale
and academic character. James Hoban of Dublin, in his
South Carolina Capitolat Columbia (1786-91), and L'Enfant,
the French military engineer,in his remodeling of Federal
Hall in New York, the first Capitolof the United States (1789),
both employed the favorite academic formula of a columnar
central pavilionover a high basement. William Thornton's
Philadelphia Library (1789), and Samuel Blodget's marble
facade of the Bank of the United States (Girard'sBank) in
Philadelphia(1795),had similar frontispieces risingthe full
height of the building. The competitive drawings for the
Capitol at Washington (1792-93) showed a determined effort
to secure a monumental result. The design of Thornton,
which received first prize,was based on the great Palladian
layoutsof England. More advanced stillwere the competitive
designs of Stephen Hallet, a French architect of the highest
professionaltraining,who was placed in charge of the work.
In his first study he had adopted the scheme, since so popular
in legislative buildings,of a tall central dome with balancing
FIG. 292 "
BOSTON. STATE HOUSE

wings, similar in form to the College des Quatre Nations in

Paris. Various studies,under Jefferson'sinfluence,were
later
based on the peristylar temple, the Pantheon in Paris,and the
motive of the Pantheon in Rome, which remained the accepted
central feature. In these studies,also,Hallet anticipatedthe
foreign instances of halls
legislative of semicircular form.
Charles Bulfinch showed both the classical and the academic
influences, in the Beacon column in Boston (1789),based on
FIG. 293 "
NEW YORK. CITY HALL
Roman examples, and in the Massachusetts State House

(1 795-98),with its tall dome and its colonnade above an arched
basement (Fig.292). Pure French academism of the mid-
eighteenth century appears in the New York City Hall
(1803-12,Fig. 293),designed by the French engineer,Joseph
Mangin, in partnership with John McComb. Here for the
first time in America appears an academic facade with angle
pavilions,with a sophisticatedwall treatment of superposed
orders, of archivolts and rustication. The complete victory
of classicism,even in its Roman phase, did not ensue until
after 1815. It was Jefferson,the initiator of the movement,
who crowned its triumph with the design of the University
of Virginiagroup. long colonnades connecting classical

Here
pavilionsof varied design lead up to the central Rotunda or
library,
based on the Roman Pantheon.
The Greek revival. Latrobe. Long before classicism had
carried the day the Roman revival had been reinforced by a
Greek revival. The introduction of Greek forms, alreadyused
in England and Germany, was due to Benjamin Henry Latrobe,
FIG. 294 "
PHILADELPHIA. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES (CUSTOM HOUSE)
an architect who had the professionaltrainingof both these

countries. He came to America in 1796, and in his first
monumental work, the Bank of
Pennsylvania, 1799, employed
a Greek Ionic order in two hexastyle porticoeswhich gave
access to the domed banking-room. In the conduct of the
work on the national Capitol,with which he was charged from
1803-17, his principalopportunitieslay in the interior,where
he created the great semicircular Hall of Representatives
(now Statuary Hall),with its Corinthian colonnade employing
Greek capitalsof the Lysicratestype. His last design was

for the second Bank of the United
Philadelphia States in
(1819-24),in which encouraged doubtless by the philhellene
"
Nicholas Biddle, later its president he adopted the octastyle "
Doric form of the Parthenon itself (Fig.294). The need for

additional space in the interior, indeed, led to the suppression
of the side colonnades, but even then the buildingapproached
the ultimate Athenian ideal more nearly than any modern
buildingwhich had so far been erected in Europe.
The later classicists. Hellenic influence dominated American
architecture until A
pupil of Latrobe, Robert
nearly 1850.
Mills,rivaled his master in advanced classicism by employing
a Greek Doric column, nearly a hundred feet in height,as the
motive of his Washington Monument in Baltimore (1815),
and an obelisk of five hundred feet in the Washington Monu-
ment
in Washington (1836^.). The temple form was followed
in a series of State capitols,and notably in the one-time
Custom House of New York (1834-41),now the Sub-Treasury
"
another and more literal version of the- Parthenon. The
latest and richest example was the main building of Girard
College in Philadelphia(1833-47),for which Nicholas Biddle
forced the adoption of the temple form, carried out with
the Corinthian order of the Lysicratestype by Thomas U.
Walter. For State capitols,however, the type having a
dome and wings, with the prestigegiven it by the completion
of the national Capitol (1829), found thenceforth more
adherents. Another favorite motive was the long unbroken

colonnade, as used in the original(FifteenthStreet)facade of
the Treasury in Washington by Robert Mills (1836-39),and
in the Merchants' Exchange in New York (now forming the
lower story of the National City Bank), by Isaiah Rogers
(1835-41). A novelty was the great semicircular porticoof
the Merchants' Exchange in Philadelphia,by William Strick-land.
When the Capitol at Washington was enlarged to its
present form (Fig.295) by Walter in 1851-65, he had naturally
to follow the academic-Roman ordonnance of the exterior,
and thus helped to give the later buildings of the classical
movement a less Hellenic stamp. By all these designs,the
States and the nation were endowed with a tradition of
monumental and dignified
government architecture which has
been continued with but slightinterruptionsto the present

day.
Domestic architecture. In domestic architecture after the
Revolution stylewas resumed
the colonial by the craftsmen
with little change, so that a largegroup of buildingsmay well
be described as "post-colonial." An early example is the
Fierce-Nichols house in Salem (c.1790),by Samuel Mclntire.
FIG. 295 "
WASHINGTON. UNITED STATES CAPITOL
The facade differs little from that of the Royall house in

except in the substitution of
Medford, built fiftyyears earlier,
a heavy Doric order in the
pilasters and in the bolder
corner
treatment of the doorway (Fig.296). Classical influence soon

showed itself in two quite different ways. One, which still
involved no break with the past, was the employment of Adam
forms of detail, both in exteriors and interiors. Thus were
developed the attenuation of proportionsand the delicacyof

ornament so characteristic of the later work of Mclntire in
Salem, typical of England in the early nineteenth
New
century, and occasionallyseen elsewhere. The ness
appropriate-
of these forms to execution in the prevailingmaterial,
wood, lent them a specialattraction. The other classical
tendency,which dominated the States farther south, was quite

different in its inspiration and direction. It took its departure
from Palladianism and from French models, and ultimately
sought to assimilate the house also to the ideal form of the
temple. From the start the portico or frontispiece of tall
columns was common, a prominent example being the White
FIG. 296 "
SALEM. FIERCE-NICHOLS HOUSE
House in Washington (1792^., Fig. 297). The tall portico

became especiallypopular in Virginiaand the South through
Jefferson'snumerous designs, in which he sought, where
possible,to give the effect of a singlestory, as in the French
houses of supposedly Roman cast. In remodeling his own
house, Monti cello (1796-1809),he introduced a dome over the
projectingsalon, to secure a stillfurther resemblance to such
buildings as the H6tel de Salm in Paris. The professors'

houses of the University of Virginia,which he designed as
"specimens for the architectural lecturer,"included imitations

of -the prostyletemple, and these were widely copied where

there were no didactic motives. Nicholas Biddle, with his
customary enthusiasm for things Greek, adopted a model of
the Theseum, peristyleand all,for his country seat "Anda-
lusia"
on the Delaware.
England the prostyle Even in New
temple with Greek forms finallycarried the day, while in the
South the peristyle,
with its manifest suitability
to the climate,
was widely adopted. Such magnificentspecimens as Arling-
FIG. 297 "
WASHINGTON. WHITE HOUSE. (HOBAN's ORIGINAL DESIGN)
ton in Virginia,where the ponderous columns of the great

temple of Paestum were imitated, as the Bennett house in
New Bedford, with its
hexastyle Ionic main portico and
tetrastyle wings, as Berry Hill in Virginia,with two octastyle
Greek Doric porticoesand balancingoutbuildingsof the same
order, or as the Hill House in Athens, Georgia, with a Corin-
thian
peristyleeight columns wide in front,show extremes of
classicism which have no parallelabroad. City houses in
blocks showed the same tendencies as houses which stood
isolated. In 1 793 Bulfinch erected for the firsttime in America
a block of unified design,the Franklin Crescent in Boston,
with pavilionsof academic scheme and Adam detail. Some
coherent treatment of the block remained an ideal,although
one seldom realized. The most notable later example was
Colonnade Row in Lafayette Place, New York (1827),which
had Greek Corinthian order
free-standing
a carried throughout
its length. The interiors of the classical houses lost in richness
through the abandoning of paneling,and through the chaste
5so A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
purism which confined all detail to essential structural ments.

ele-
The tall,cool rooms, with their occasional screens of
columns, served now as neutral backgrounds to rich furniture
and hangings.
Churches. Post-colonial buildings,differingbut little from
the more advanced buildingserected before the Revolution,
were also common among the churches of the early republic.
Here also slender proportions came in with Adam detail.
Nevertheless more monumental effects,parallelto those tained
at-
in
public buildings,made their appearance soon after
the opening of the nineteenth century. The fundamental
work was Latrobe's Catholic Cathedral in Baltimore (1805-
21),the first cathedral undertaken in the United States "
where
it was as novel in its size and ritualistic arrangement as in its
classical forms. The plan was a Latin cross, vaulted through-
out,
with a low dome over the crossing,a western portico of
Greek detail,and twin belfries,
Hellenized as best they might
be. In 1816 Latrobe employed the Greek cross form for
Saint John's Episcopal Church Washington. Robert Mills in
developed the auditorium type of octagonal or circular form
in the Monumental Church in Richmond, Virginia (begun
1812),and others. The temple form was only adopted later,
for instance in Saint Paul's Church, Boston (1820),with an
Ionic prostyleporticoof six columns.
Prisons and asylums. With its new departures in all
branches of government, America soon took the lead in the
reform of methods of punishment and of the treatment of the
insane. The New York State Prison, built by Joseph Mangin
in 1796-98, included provisionfor the separationof the sexes
and of classes of criminals, and the Virginia Penitentiary,
built by Latrobe in 1797-1800, was based on the principleof
solitary confinement. Later these ideas were more fully
applied,and embodied in radial plans,by the architect John
Haviland, of English birth. By 1835 the American prisons
were so favorably known that commissions from England,
France, and other European countries came to study them
and to introduce their principles abroad.
The Gothic revival in America. Although Jefferson, with his
underlying vein of romanticism, had proposed imitations of
Gothic models as early as 1771, Latrobe was the first to
execute a Gothic
design,in Sedgeley, a country house near
Philadelphia (1800). For the cathedral in Baltimore he

submitted an alternative scheme which was the first Gothic
church design in America. In 1807 Godefroi, a French
engineerand architect,carried out the chapel of Saint Mary's
Seminary in Baltimore with Gothic forms. Other architects
soon essayed occasional buildingsin Gothic, stillinspiredless
by a conscious prin-
ciple
of eclecticism
than a romantic terest
in-
in the style,of
which neither the
structural principles
nor the decorative
forms were much un-
derstood. A new
period in the Gothic

revival opened by
was
the buildingof Trinity

Church in New York,
by Richard Upjohn
(1839-46, Fig. 298).
Here the design was
carefullystudied from
English examples.
These long remained
the favorite models,
although James Ren- FIG. 298 "
NEW YORK. TRINITY CHURCH
wick in Saint Patrick's

Cathedral, New York (1850-79), adopted the traditional
French scheme with twin western towers. In the sixties
the influence of Ruskin led to the adoption of Italian
Gothic detail,and to a moral fervor in the advocacy of
medievalism which had hitherto been absent in America.
Meanwhile, in the forties, the imitation of temples in
domestic architecture had been attacked as absurd and
impractical,
and cottages and villas of Gothic, Elizabethan,
Swiss, or "Italian" .style
had taken their places,
as more flexible
and convenient, more domestic, and more in harmony with
the landscape. Individual Greek forms, however, had con-
tinued to be employed for the details of other houses, especially

in the towns, and thus both romanticism and classicism were
gradually replaced by an eclecticism which chose for each
building the stylewhich seemed most appropriate to its use
and surroundings.
Eclecticism. In America, where there were so few trained
architects or accessible models, the supplantingof traditional
knowledge of forms by unrestrained eclecticism had even more
disastrous results for the common run of buildingsthan it had

in Europe. The Civil War (1861-65),with the materialism of
the resultingera of economic reconstruction,accentuated the
difficulty, and subjectedgovernment architecture to a mechani-
cal
system. Nevertheless there was no period of years in
which competent and thoughtfulmen did not seek to uphold
the ideals of their art, in buildingswhich worthilyrepresented
contemporary movements in Europe. Most notable of the
earlier men was Richard Morris Hunt (1828-95), the first
American to study at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Paris,who
brought with him to New York in 1855 the rationalistic train-
ing
of the school and a preference for French Renaissance
forms, then dominant under the Second Empire. In the
Lenox Library,New York (1870-77),he followed the tendencies
of Labrouste ; while in the houses for the Vanderbilts in New
"
York and at Biltmore, in the Astor residence,and in "cottages
atNewport, he exploitedevery phase of his favorite style,only
adopting a more classical tendency in the last years of his
life,under the influence of younger men. The older tects
archi-
of English training,meanwhile, were attempting to
establish the supremacy of Victorian Gothic, and in churches,
at least,medieval forms wereemployed as a matter of course.
Richardson and the Romanesque. When Henry Hobson

Richardson, another American of French academic
training,
chose the Romanesque style for his accepted project for
Trinity Church in Boston (1872),he was influenced primarily
by the slightdepth of the site,which was unfavorable to a
Gothic nave. He clothed the broad cruciform naves and

great central tower with a rugged mantle of polychrome sand-
stone
reminiscent of
Auvergne and Salamanca (Fig.299). By
the time the buildingwas completed in 1877, however, he saw
in Romanesque forms a far-reachingadaptability to American
needs, which permit the development of a truly

would
national style. Their simplicityand ruggedness seemed suited
alike to materials readilyavailable,to the general limitation
of funds, and to the relative lack of skilled carvers. In
subsequent buildings,like the Allegheny Court House at
FIG. 299 "
BOSTON. TRINITY CHURCH, AS ORIGINALLY BUILT. (VAN

RENSSELAER)
Pittsburgh(1884),he expressedfreely,
with a personalvocabu-
lary
of Romanesque elements, the ideal character and prac-
tical
conditions of a great number of contemporary types "
the town library,the country railroad station,even the vast

warehouse. Richardson's mannerisms, however, such as the
fondness for towers and for broad low arches, were more
easilyacquired by others than his power of picturesqueyet

logicalcomposition. Thus, after his untimely death in 1886,
his stylewas quickly discredited by imitators,while the abler
architects continued their independent development.
"Queen Anne" and the beginningsof the colonial revival.
Simultaneouslywith the building of Trinity had come the
founding of the Queen Anne movement in England, with its
wide program of frankness

colloquialism, and
and the revela-
tion
of foreignarts and crafts to America through the Centen-
nial
Exposition in 1876. These inspiredmany attempts at
imitation, and some free and originalcreations,such as the
Casino at Newport, built in 1881 by the firm of McKim, Mead,
and White. The attention of these men and some others,
hitherto attracted by the French Renaissance or the Roman-
copyright by the American Architect and Building News Co.
FIG. 3OO "
BOSTON. PUBLIC LIBRARY
esque, was naturallydrawn to the American buildingsof the

seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies which correspond to the
prototypes of the Queen Anne style abroad. Thus began a
direct revival of colonial architecture,in many houses of the
eighties,with a richness of delicate detail on the exterior
very different,to be sure, from the general simplicity

of the
old examples.
The adoptionof Renaissance forms. It was this adaptation
of native Renaissance forms which prepared McKim, Mead,
and White for the
adoption of those of the Italian Renaissance.
These were employed for the first time by one of their
associates,Holden Wells, in the Villard houses in New York
(1885),where the arched windows of the Cancelleria furnished
the motive. The decisive work, however, was the Boston
Public Library (1888-95,Fig. 300), in which McKim, taking
his departurefrom the BibliothequeSainte Genevieve, gave the
555
scheme the warmer and more robust character of Alberti's

San Francesco at Rimini. In the interior each element of the
building was sympathetically studied from Italian

examples
which showed the structural use of classical elements, and
executed with a characteristic treatment of each material and
a harmony of decoration hitherto unknown in America.
HG. 3OI "

ROCKVILLE. GARDEN OF "MAXWELL COURT"
McKim's purism of detail in the

complemented librarywas
by the luxurious elaboration of Renaissance ornament by
White and Wells in the Century Club and Madison Square
Garden in New York (1891). The effect on current practice
was electrical. Almost overnight Romanesque and Queen
Anne gave way to Renaissance forms, which more nearly
approached universal acceptance than those of any stylesince
the Greek revival. There were variants, to be sure,. Fresh
arrivals from the Ecole des Beaux- Arts tended to follow French
1Renaissance and academic architecture rather than Italian.
For domestic
buildingsmany preferredmore literalimitations
of the "Georgian" houses of the colonies in the eighteenth
century. The Italian tendency received a powerful reinforce-
ment,
however, in the work of Charles A. Platt, who duced
intro-
the Italian formal garden into America (Fig.301), and
has steadilywidened the scope of his architectural activity
without departing far from his favorite style. It still counts
many adherents.
Neo-classicism. Chicago Exposition. The crucial test
The
between the partisansof a free and modern interpretation of
motives chiefly medieval and the partisansof a strict following
of some form of classic architecture came in the buildingsof
the Columbian Expositionin Chicago in 1893. The studies of
John W. Root, the originalconsultingarchitect of the exposi-
tion,
were of a free semi-Romanesque character, with some
recognitionof the steel construction and the temporary nature
of the buildings. These conceptions might well have

dominated the ensemble had not the death of Root on the eve
of the undertaking left the group of Eastern architects,headed

by Hunt, to whom he had confided the buildings of the Court
of Honor, free to carry out their own ideas. These were that
the mutual dependencebuildings,and the formal
of their
character of the court, demanded a consistent styleof generally
Roman classical character, with a uniform cornice height
fixed at sixty feet. This did not preclude a treatment of
merely academic cast, with details tingedby Italian or Spanish

influence, so that within the classical scheme there was a
considerable diversityof style. The buildingswhich attracted

the most admiration, however, were those in which the main
cornice was single order of strictlyRoman
reached by a
character namely, the AgriculturalBuilding by McKim,

"
the Fine Arts group and the "Peristyle"toward the lake, both
by Charles B. Attwood (Fig.302). Attwood, in the Fine Arts

Building,followed Besnard's project for the Grand Prix de
Rome, with its central porticowith an attic and a saucer dome
behind; McKim was also greatly influenced by the same
design,although he followed it much less closely. True to the
hopes of their designers,the classical buildings produced a
cumulative effect of harmony and magnificence which was
deeply stamped on the memory of the whole nation.
o
""
hjMr.0
f
u
G
"
H
S"
C "
0 O
Neo-classicism. Later
developments. Although the leading
architects of the exposition had hoped to give a strikingobject-
lesson of the value of classical and academic formulae, they
hardly expected the result which ensued. Whereas, earlier,
there had been one or two isolated experiments with strictly
classical forms, such as the Grant Mausoleum in New York
(1891),the whole public architecture of the country was now
turned into a monumental and classical channel. The first

fruit of the movement was McKim's unified classical design
for Columbia University in New York, with its great domed
library(1895). A fresh impulse came through the restoration
of the Universityof Virginiaby White after the fire of 1901, and
the activityof McKim with D. H. Burnham,
"
Olmsted, and
Saint-Gaudens on the commission
"
for the improvement of
Washington. The character of the early buildings of the
republic thus gave a nationalistic sanction to the classical
tendency, and the style of new government buildings was
henceforth established. Milestones in the progress of the ment
move-
are the Knickerbocker (Columbia)

Company Trust
in New York, with its singlerich Corinthian order including
the whole height of the building, and the Pennsylvania
Terminal Station, with its long Doric facades, and its great
hall,literally copied from the Roman thermae, almost devoid
of practical functions. From the start the orders used
frequently included Greek forms, and these have been employed
increasingly. A notable recent instance is the Lincoln

Memorial in Washington, a peristylar cella in which the old
revivalist enthusiasm for an abstract architectonic ideal has
prevailed over any suggestion of individual character. The
current tendency to employ Adam or Louis XVI. forms in
residences and hotels shows the extension of the movement to
fields where more monumental treatment would be out of place.
This second classical revival in America has littlecontemporary
parallel abroad England, which has itself been
except in
influenced in the matter by developments across the ocean.
While the rest of the world is seeking,in one way or another,
new forms expressiveof the novel elements of modern life,
this insistence on the traditional authorityof the past can be
adequately explained only by the unparalleledheritage of
classical monuments from the formative periodof the nation.
Thus the founders of the

republicmight seem for the moment
to have achieved their aim of establishing classicalarchitecture
as a permanent national style.
Gothic survivals. In spite of the overwhelming victory of
classicalforms, the Gothic tendency has been kept alive,largely
through the enthusiasm and artistry of two men, Ralph Adams
FIG. 303 "

ASHMONT. CHURCH OF ALL SAINTS
Cram and Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, who practisedin

partnership for many years. Their initial success was the
church of All Saints, Ashmont, Massachusetts (1892, Fig.
303),which embodied the same free tendencies as the designs
of Sedding in England. These tendencies have been perpetuated
in Goodhue's later work, such as the chapel and other
buildingsof the MilitaryAcademy at West Point, with their
picturesqueadaptation to the rugged site. Cram has tended
to follow precedentsmore strictly, and to range more widely
"
among the medieval styles,as in his "Early English Calvary

560
Church at Pittsburgh,and the late Byzantine administration

buildingfor the Rice Institute at Houston, Texas. Even in its
last strongholds,ecclesiastical and collegiate architecture,the
Gothic has had to yield ground, especiallyto the colonial
revival. Nevertheless, although both the Protestant sects and
the Roman Catholic church now prefer the stylesunequivo-
cally
associated with their past, the preferenceof the Anglican
episcopate for Gothic forms, and the personal prestigeand
abilityof the Gothic leaders,have stillmaintained the Gothic
tendency.
Functionalist. The strivingfor characteristic expression,
.
which is the principle of functionalism in architecture, appeared

subordinately in America as in Europe in all the movements
" "
of the nineteenth century. Structural purism was a quality

of Latrobe's designs,as it was, more pronouncedly, of those of
the Gothicists. The lessons of Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc were
not forgotten in the early years of the Renaissance revival

and of neo-classicism,when it was felt that the column must
be used only in its originalfunction of an isolated support.
Even in the later years of these movements, when structural
purism has yieldedto the expressionof monumental character,

this very character itself is felt to be but one of a number of
ideals which govern the different phases of architecture "
and
civic,religious, domestic. spiteof eclectic
Moreover, in
inclination so "
strong in America, especiallyin McKim's

work "
to model the exterior of a building on an individual
prototype selected in advance, there has been a steady de- velopmen

of logicalplanning and expressionof plan, under
the leadershipof the Beaux- Arts men. McKim and White
themselves were the pioneersin a characteristic use of materials
which has produced such interesting results as the "Harvard"
and "tapestry" brickwork, the modeled and polychrome terra
cotta, and the local ledge-stonerevival of Philadelphia.
Expressionof structure. A new problem. In the expression
of structure a new problem has been presented by the steel-
frame building. The absence of legal restriction permitted
real estate owners in the crowded districts of New York and
Chicago, about 1889, to increase the number of stories in new
office buildingsby supporting the floors entirelyon iron or
steel columns, leaving the wall with only its own weight to
carry. The development of elevators or lifts made the upper
stories as desirable as the lower ones, and made possible
"skyscrapers" like the World Building in New York, with a
height of three hundred and seventy-fivefeet. Here, however,
the self-supporting walls reached a thickness of nine feet at the
base, and injured the value of the lower stories. It soon
" Copyright by the American Architect and Building News Co.
FIG. 304 "

BUFFALO. (PRUDENTIAL) GUARANTY BUILDING
occurred to the designersthat the wall itself might be supported

on the steel frame at intervals, and be reduced to a mere veneer,
with great resultingeconomy. Thusbuildings of twelve to
twenty stories have become commonplace in every siderable
con-
city,and such extreme heights as that of the Wool-

worth Building in New York (779 feet) have been reached.
The retention of shell of masonry,
a which differentiates these
buildings from the steel and glass shop fronts abroad, was
originallydue to a natural adherence to tradition. It has
been perpetuated for a far more vital reason the extreme "
necessity of rendering such tall buildings secure against fire,

before which exposed proved to twist and bend

steel work
with disastrous results. The only adequate protectionproved
to be that furnished by casing all the structural members in
masonry, preferably
brick or terra cotta,
which had
already been
through fire. Aided by
experience in the great
conflagrationsin Balti-
more
(1904) and San
Francisco (1906), the
technique of such proof
fire-
construction has
developed so that with
the aid of metal interior
trim, wire glass, com-
posite
floors resting on
steel beams, and other
devices, a building can
now be made not only
non -
combustible, but
absolutelyproof against
fire, whether arising
within or sweeping the
surroundings without.
The manifest practical
advantages of the sys-
tem
have led to wide
world-
adoption of many
of its features. Its em-
ployment
in facades,
however, involves a new
and delicate problem of

expression.
The solutions. A
visual indication that
the masonry was no
longer self -
supporting
butdepended on the steel
FIG. 305 "
NEW YORK. WOOL WORTH .
, . ,
frame, was achieved

BUILDING
about 1895 by Louis Sullivan, notably in the Guaranty

(Prudential)Building in Buffalo
(Fig.304). He abandoned
a wall surface of ashlar in favor of a simple casing of the
members of the frame, with glassfillingthe whole of the space
between. The greater weight carried by the vertical members
he recognized by emphasizing the vertical lines. To avoid
any structural suggestion in the casing he used terra cotta
having a delicate surface pattern. The principleof his
designs has been widely fol-
lowed
by architects of tall
buildings, irrespectiveof the
styleemployed, althoughfew
have carried it through with
such logical completeness.
To Cass Gilbert the emphasis
on the vertical lines gested
sug-
the employment of
Gothic forms, which the
eclat of his employment of
them in the Woolworth
Building (Fig. 305) has
popularizedto some extent.
In many very recent ings,
build-
however, a reactionary
tendency,based on the over-
whelming
predominance of
classicism in other depart-
ments
of architecture,has
resulted in a reversion to
plain wall surfaces and plications

ap-
of the orders.
Modernist forms. The
origins. America, with its
freedom from the restraint
of tradition,was also natu-
rally
FIG. 306 "
CHICAGO EXPOSITION.
one of the first tries
coun- TRANSPORTATION BUILDING.
to experiment with DETAIL
novel forms, consciouslypre-

ferred
to those of the past as expressiveof modernity. The
old desire for an "American style" could hot be satisfied
merely by the generaladoption of any group of historic forms,

even if, as in the case of Richardsonian Romanesque, its
adoption was purely an American movement. In Richardson's
work itselfthere was, have
noted, a strong tendency to
as we
modification and originalityof detail,and this tendency was

taken up with specialaptitude by Harvey Ellis,Root, and
FIG. 307 "

OAK PARK. CHURCH OF THE UNITY
others in the Middle West. truly inde-

pendent
The manifesto of a
progressivetendency was the TransportationBuilding

of the Chicago Exposition by Louis Sullivan (1893,Fig. 306),
contemporary with the earliest similar attempts abroad. Here,
side by side with the first monuments of neo-classicism,was
a building in which there were indeed some reminiscences of
Romanesque and Saracenic motives, but in which the essential
effort was to express the modernity and novelty of the type of
building,its materials, and its structural system. The plain

stuccoed wall surfaces,with their unbroken, block-like cornices
enriched by bands originalrelief ornament, the arch

of fertile
and column with novel yet expressiveforms, anticipatedby
many years correspondingtreatments in the German sion."

"Seces-
In spiteof the overpowering influence of the classical
ensemble of the expositionon America at large,this building
made some converts, chieflyin Chicago itself. Through Sulli- van's
pioneerexpressionof the veneered steel frame the movement
had an influence far beyond its own circle of devotees.

Later developments. That participation in the movement did
not involve mere imitation of its leader was early established
by one of Sullivan's pupils,Frank Lloyd Wright. In his
designsfor residences he has employed broad ramified plans,
wide eaves, novel fenestration, and a harmonious use of
abstract motives of ornament, which have a suggestionof the
Japanese. The appropriatenessof these houses to the landscape
of the lakes and the plainshas been widely recognized,
and they have profoundly influenced the architecture of the
Middle West. More ambitious applicationsof similar forms
have not been wanting. In the Midway Gardens in Chicago
Wright has embodied the spirit of gaietyin forms of exuberant
yet delicate fantasy. In his Church of the Unity at Oak Park

(Fig.307), he has evolved a monumental and characteristic
house of worship for disciples of modern rationalism. To the
present time, however, the movement has received more
appreciationabroad than at home.

It remains to be seen whether the wide acceptance and
nationalistic basis of the neo-classical tendency will enable it to
surmount the elements of weakness which aided the downfall
of the earlier classical revival, or whether the international
forces of functionalism will ultimatelycause a wider adoption
of modernist forms.
PERIODS OF ARCHITECTURE IN THE UNITED STATES
I. Colonial period,to 1776 (orlater in Spanish colonies).

Spanish colonies.
Florida (Saint Augustine founded 1565).
Fort San Marco (Fort Marion) at Saint Augustine,
completed 1756.
Cathedral at Saint Augustine,
begun 1793 1887).
(rebuilt
New Mexico (Santa F6 founded 1605).

Cathedral of Saint Francis at Santa Fe",1713-14.
California (San Diego founded 1769).
San Carlos Mission, present church, 1793-97.
San Juan Capistrano Mission,later church,begun 1797.
San Gabriel Mission, present church, begun 1812.
Santa Barbara Mission, present church, 1815-20.
Louisiana (under Spain 1764-1800).
Cathedral at New Orleans, 1792-94.
Cabildo at New Orleans, 1795.
Dutch colonies,1624-64.
"Stadt Huis" at New Amsterdam, 1642 (demolished).
English colonies.
Seventeenth century.
Virginia(Jamestown founded 1607).
Thoroughgood house, Princess Anne Co., c. 1640.
Saint Luke's, Smithfield, after 1631.
Massachusetts (Plymouth founded 1620; Boston, 1630).
Fairbanks house in Dedham, 1636.
Whipple house in Ipswich, c. 1650.
"Old Ship" Meeting House in Hingham, 1681.
Carolina (Charlestonestablished on its present site 1680).
Yeoman's Hall, Goose Creek, c. 1693.
Pennsylvania (Philadelphiafounded 1682).
William Perm (Letitia)house in Philadelphia,1683 (?).
Eighteenth century.
Houses.
Mulberry Castle,South Carolina, 1714.
Westover, Virginia,c. 1730.
Royall house in Medford, Massachusetts,c. 1737.
Mount Airy,Virginia,1758.
Whitehall,Maryland, c. 1760.
Mount Pleasant in Philadelphia,
c. 1761.
Brewton house in
Charleston,c. 1765.
Monticello,Virginia(Thomas Jefferson), begun 1771.
The Woodlands, near Philadelphia,c. 1775 (?).
Churches.
Old Saint Charleston, 1723 (sincerebuilt).
Philip's,
Christ Church, Philadelphia(John Kearsley),1727-44.
Bang's Chapel, Boston (Peter Harrison), 1749-54,
portico 1790.
Saint Michael's,Charleston, 1752-61.
Saint Paul's Chapel, New York (McBean), 1764-66,
steeple1794.
Public buildings.
Old City Hall in New York, 1700 (demolished).
Old Virginia Capitol in Williamsburg, 1702-04
(demolished).
Andrew Hamilton (1676-1741).
Old State House (Independence Hall) in Philadel-
phia,
1732-52.
John Smibert (1684-1751).
Faneuil Hall in Boston, 1742 (sincetwice rebuilt).
Peter Harrison (1716-75).
Redwood Library in Newport, R. I., 1748-50.
Brick Market in Newport, R. I.,1761.
II. National period,1776-date.
Classicism,c. 1785-1850.
Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826.
VirginiaCapitol at Richmond, 1785-98 (remodeled).
Remodeling of Monticello,1796-1808.
Universityof Virginia,1817-26.
Pierre Charles L'Enfant, 1754-1825.
Federal Hall in New York, 1789 (demolished).
Plan of the city of Washington, 1791.
Robert Morris house, Philadelphia,1792-95 (demolished).
Stephen Hallet.
Designs for the Capitolat Washington, 1792-94.
James Hoban, c. 1762-1831.
South Carolina Capitol at Columbia, 1789 (destroyed).
White House in Washington, 1792-1829.
William Thornton, 1761-1828.
PhiladelphiaLibrary, 1789 (demolished).
Designs for the Capitolat Washington, 1793-1802.
Charles Bulfinch,1763-1844.
Beacon column in Boston, 1789.
Massachusetts State House in Boston, 1795-98.
Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, 1818-21.
Completion of the Capitolat Washington, 1818-29.
Samuel Blodget,1759-1814.
Bank of the United States (Girard'sBank) in Phila-
delphia,
1795-97-
Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 1766-1820.
Bank of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia,1799 (demolished).
Works at the Capitol at Washington, 1803-17.
Cathedral in Baltimore, 1805-21.
Exchange, Bank, and Custom House at Baltimore (with
Godefroi),i8i";-2Q(demolished).
(Second) United States Bank at Philadelphia,1819-24.

Joseph Mangin, and John McComb, 1763-1853.
New York City Hall, 1803-12.
Saint John's, Varick Street,New York, 1803-07.
Robert Mills, 1781-1855.
Washington Monument in Baltimore, 1815-29.
East colonnade of the Treasury in Washington, 1836-39.
Washington Monument in Washington, 1836-77.
William Strickland,1787-1854.
Merchants' Exchange in Philadelphia,1832-34.
Tennessee Capitol at Nashville,begun c. 1850.
Ithiel Town.
Former Connecticut Capitol at New Haven, 1829 (demol-
ished).
Custom House (Sub-Treasury)in New York (with A. J.

Davis), 1834-41.
Isaiah Rogers.
Merchants' Exchange (Old Custom House) in New York,
1835-41 (remodeled).
Thomas U. Walter, 1804-88.
Girard College in Philadelphia,1833-47.
Wings and dome of Capitol in Washington, 1851-65.
Romanticism, c. 1800-50.
Benjamin Henry Latrobe, 1766-1820.
Sedgeley near Philadelphia,1800 (demolished).
Gothic project for cathedral in Baltimore, 1805.
Maximilian Godefroi.
Chapel of Saint Mary's Seminary in Baltimore, 1807.
Richard Upjohn, 1802-78.
Trinity Church in New York, 1839-46.
James Ren wick.
Grace Church in New York, 1843-46.
Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York, 1850-79.
Eclecticism,c. i85o-date.
French Renaissance phase.
Richard Morris Hunt, 1828-95.
Residence of W. K. Vanderbilt in New York, 1883.
Lenox
Library in New York, 1870-77 (demolished).
Biltmore, North Carolina.
Romanesque phase.
Henry Hobson Richardson, 1838-86.
Trinity Church in Boston, 1872-77 (west towers with
porch, 1896-98).
Allegheny County buildingsin Pittsburgh, 1884.
Classical phase.
Charles B.Attwood, 1849-95.
Fine Arts Building,Chicago Exposition,
1893.
Charles F. McKim, 1847-1909; William R. Mead, 1846-,
and White, 1853-1906.
Stanford
Casino Newport, 1881.
at
Residence of Henry Villard in New York, 1885.
Boston Public Library, 1888-95.
AgriculturalBuilding, Chicago Exposition,1893.
Columbia UniversityLibrary in New York, 1895.
Pennsylvania Station in New York, completed 1910.
John M. Carrere,1858-1911, and Thomas Hastings, 1860-.
Ponce de Leon Hotel at Saint Augustine, 1887.
New York Public Library,1897-1910.
Cass Gilbert,1859-.
Minnesota State Capitolin Saint Paul, 1898-1906.
Woolworth Building in New York, 1911-13.
Charles A. Platt, 1861-.
Larz Anderson Garden at Brookline.
Leader Building at Cleveland, 1912.
Gothic phase.
Ralph Adams Cram, 1863-; Bertram Grosvenor Good-
hue, 1869-.
All Saints', Ashmont, Massachusetts, 1892.
United States MilitaryAcademy at West Point, 1903.
Saint Thomas's, New York, 1906.
Calvary Church in Pittsburgh, 1907.
Rice Institute in Houston, 1909.
Functionalism,c. i893-date.
Louis Sullivan,1856-.
Transportation Building,Chicago Exposition,1893.
Prudential (Guaranty) Building in Buffalo,c. 1895.
Frank Lloyd Wright.
Larkin Building in Buffalo,1004.
Church of the Unity in Oak Park, Illinois, 1908.
P-re-colonial architecture. A generalview

major part of the
of the
field is afforded by three handbooks by T. A. Joyce: South American
Archceology,1912; Mexican Archceology,1914; and Archeology of
Central America and the West Indies,1916. For North America see
S. D. Peet's Prehistoric America, 5 vols.,1890-1905. Among im-

portant works on specialregionsare W. H. Holmes 's Archaological

Studies among the Ancient Cities
of Mexico, 1895-97, and H. J.
Spinden's Maya Art, 1913. For others consult the bibliographiesin
Joyce's handbooks and, on Mexico, in W. Lehmann's Methods and
Results in Mexican Research,1909.
Colonial architecture: Spanish colonies. S. Baxter's Spanish-
Colonial Architecture in Mexico, 10 vols.,1901, is an elaborate work;
L. LaBeaume and W. B. Papin's The Picturesque'Architecture of
Mexico, 1915, a slighterbook, composed primarily of views. For
California see especiallyP. Elder's The Old Spanish Missions of
California, 1913, and R. Newcomb's The Franciscan Mission ure
Architect-
of Alta California, 1916; for New Mexico, L. B. Prince's Spanish
Mission Churches of New Mexico, 1915.
English colonies. A
popular general survey is afforded by H. D.
Eberlein's Architecture of Colonial America, 1915. General tions
collec-
of drawings and photographs are The Georgian Period,3 vols.,
1898-1902 ; Frank E. Wallis's Old Colonial Architecture and Furniture,

1887, and American Architecture, Decoration, and Furniture, 1896;
G. H. Policy'sThe Architecture, Interiors, and Furniture of the Amer-
ican
Colonies During the XVIII. Century, 1914; and D. Millar's
Measured Drawings of some Colonial and Georgian Houses, 2 vols.,
1916. Among regional works with important texts are N. M. Isham
and A. F. Brown's Early Rhode Island Houses, 1895, and their Early
Connecticut Houses, 1900; H. C. Wise and H. F. Biedleman's Colonial
Architecture .
in Pennsylvania,New
. . Jersey,and Delaware, 1913;
R. A. Lancaster's Historic Virginia Homes and Churches. Regional
works of largephotographs are J. E. Chandler's Colonial Architecture
of Maryland, Pennsylvania,and Virginia,1882; J. M. Corner and E.
Soderholz's Domestic Colonial Architecture in New England, 1891,
Domestic Colonial Architecture in
Maryland and Virginia, 1892;
E. A. Crane and E. Soderholz's Examples of Colonial Architecture in
South Carolina and Georgia, 1898. Regional works of measured
drawings are W. D. Goforth and W. J. McAuley's Old Colonial
Architectural Details in and around Philadelphia,1890; L. L. Howe
and C. Fuller's Details from Old New England Houses, 1913; R. C.
Kingman's New England Georgian Architecture, 1913; J. P. Sims and

C. Willing'sOld PhiladelphiaColonial Details,1914; H. F. Cunning-
ham
and others' Measured Drawings of Georgian Architecture in the
District of Columbia, 1914. Among the works treatinggenerallyof
singleclasses of buildingsare A. Embury's American Churches,1914;
F. R. Vogel's Das amerikanische Haus, 1910; and J. E. Chandler's
The Colonial House, 1916.
National architecture: United States. No adequate general work
has hitherto been attempted. Brief sketches which supplement one
571
another are
those of H. Van Brunt: Development and Prospects of
Architecture in the United States (in N. S. Shaler's United States of
America, 1894, vol. 425-51) and C. F. Bragdon: Architecture

2, pp.
in the United States, in the Architectural Record, vol. 426,

1909, 25, p.
and vol. 26, 38, 84. The development of certain types through
pp.
the successive periods be followed in A History of Public ings

Build-
may
Under the Control of the Treasury Department, in F. R.

1901;
Vogel's Das amerikanische Haus, 1910;

and in J. W. Dow's American
Renaissance: a
Review of Domestic Architecture, 1904.
For the post-
colonial and classical period see

M. Schuyler's The Old Greek Revival,
in the American Architect, vol. 98, vol.

1910-11, pp. 121, 201; 99,
81, 161. This be supplemented by G. Brown's History of the

pp. may
United States Capitol, vol. and the biographies Thomas

i, 1900;
Jefferson, Architect, 1916, by F. Kimball; The Life and Letters of

Charles Bulfinch, 1896, by E. S. Bulfinch, and the Journal of Latrobe,
For the later periods there is little besides the individual
1905.
studies of Richardson by M. G. Van Rensselaer, 1888; of McKim
by A. H. Granger, and of Wright by C. R. Ashbee,

1913; 1911.
CHAPTER XIV
EASTERN ARCHITECTURE
The East is a world

which, as we now realize,long surpassed
Christian Europe in enlightenment, as well as in wealth and
extent. With its great
religions and philosophies, there have
flourished architectural
stylesof corresponding duration and
complexity. In comparison with Western stylesgenerally,
these have been less concerned with problems of structure and
more with abstract problems of repetitionand combination
of forms. A notable characteristic is the degree to which
each Eastern people has held fast to its own artistic traditions
under the most varied politicaland religioussupremacies.
Nevertheless artistic influences have not failed to pass back
and forth between the Eastern peoples,as well as between
the Orient and the Occident, so that there has been everywhere
a varied historical development. Two main currents may be
distinguished,one in the Far East embracing India, China,
and their dependent countries,the other in the Near East,
embracing Persia and the other countries which ultimately
came under
the sway of Mohammedanism.
Development of architecture in the Near Easi. Sassanian art.
In return for its heritagefrom the preclassicalcivilization of
the Levant, Greece endowed the Asiatic empires of Alexander
and his successors with a Hellenistic art, which extended even
beyond their borders. When the Parthian rulers (130 B.C. "
226 A.D.) overran Mesopotamia, they adopted the Greek

columnar system. With the rise of the new Persian empire
under the Sassanian dynasty (227-641 A.D.), however, the tide
of art once more began to flow from East to West. The
subterranean vaults and occasional domes of ancient Mesopo-
tamia
were taken as the basis of a consistently v aulted style.
573
In such instances the

palace at Ctesiphon (Fig.308), with
as
its arched
great elliptically hall and facade of blank arcades,
this achieved new effects both monumental and decorative.
In other cases the dome, supported over a square room by
means of diagonal arches or squinches,was a notable feature.
In its westward expansion this virile art contributed largely,
FIG. 308 "

CTESIPHON. ROYAL PALACE. (DIEULAFOY)
as we have seen, to the formation of the Byzantine systems of

construction and ornament.
Mohammedan development. The
architecture. General
Sassanian empire was brought to an end by the sudden expan-
sion
of Mohammedanism. In a few years from the flight of its
prophet from Mecca (622),his followers,obeying his injunc-

tion
to spread their faith by the sword, conquered Mesopo-
tamia
(637),Egypt (638), Persia (642), northern Africa and
Spain (711). At first Mohammedan architecture in these
regionswas little else than the art of the different conquered
peoples adapted to the worship and the customs of the
conquerors. In Syria,in Egypt, and in Spain the Romano-
Byzantine column and arch were employed for the construction
of buildings such as the mosque of Amru at Cairo (642),or

the great mosques of Damascus and Cordova (785-848). In
Mesopotamia and Persia the domed and vaulted halls of the
Sassanians adopted as prominent features of the designs.
were
Besides the uniformity of the programs, however, a certain

community of artistic character between different regionssoon
developed a character pronouncedly Oriental. This was due
"
in part to the taste and the traditions of the Arabs themselves,

but more largelyto the earlier conquest of the Eastern lands,
the prestigeof these as the seat of the early caliphatesof
Damascus Bagdad, and the vitalityof Eastern art as the
and
generalsource of inspiration in the early Middle Ages. Thus
the lace-like incised carving of Mschatta in Syria,which had
earlier contributed to Byzantine development, now appeared
in the earliest Arab monuments of Africa and Spain. Thus,
too, the pointed arch, common in Persia from the eighth
century, appeared in Syria and Egypt from the beginning of

the ninth. The tall dome of pointed silhouette,and the court
with vaulted halls abutting it also Persian features trated
pene-" "
Egypt in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The
conquest of northern India and its conversion to danism

Mohamme-
opened the way for Persian influence there in the four-
teenth
and fifteenth centuries,while Persia itselfthen borrowed
from India the ogee arch and the bulbous dome. With the
conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks (1453),

finally,
began a new return influence of Byzantine architecture
in their Oriental empire,through the imitation of Hagia Sophia,
which became chief mosque
the of the Turkish caliphs. The
development from the
of the various schools which resulted
mingling of local traditions and distant influences continued
uninterruptedlyuntil the eighteenthand even the nineteenth
century, and has been checked only by internal disorganization

and by the conquests of European powers.
Mosques. The outward observances of the Mohammedan
religionare simple prayer, made facing in the direction of
"
Mecca, and preceded by purifyingablution. For their formal

places of worship, the mosques, the early believers naturally
adopted the peristylarcourt the universal scheme of the"
Levant "the porticoesof which furnished shelter from the

tropicalsun. The mirhab, a small niche in the outer wall,
EASTERN ARCHITECTURE 575
indicated the direction of Mecca, and on this side of the court

the porticoes were deepened and multiplied. This mental
funda-
scheme is seen in the first great mosque built after the
conquest of Egypt, the mosque of Amru at Cairo (Fig.310).
FIG. 309 "

CORDOVA. INTERIOR OF MOSQUE
The tendency was to develop the deeper side of the court into
an inclosed building often of vast "
extent, as at Cordova
(Fig. 309) with aisle after aisle of columns
" and arcades,
carryingwooden beams and a terrace roof. In later western
mosques the aisle leading to the mirhab was widened, and a

specialsanctuary was created in front of it. In Persia a great
domed sanctuary precededby a vast open nave or niche was
576- A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
early adopted, and correspondingfeatures were introduced at
the other cardinal pointsof the court. The Egyptian mosques

based on Persian models, such as the mosque of Sultan
Hassan (1377), have a court so reduced that these features
occupy the greater part of each side,and the scheme becomes
FIG. 310 "
CAIRO. MOSQUE OF AMRU. PLAN
cruciform. On the capture of Constantinople, Hagia Sophia "
with its atrium, its main buildingto the east, its great central
nave, and its eastern perfectlyadapted to
apse "
was found
Mohammedan worship. It was copied almost literallyin the
Mosque of Suleiman at Constantinople (1550). In other

Ottoman mosques the possiblevariants were used, especially
the scheme of a central dome with four abutting half domes,
which the Byzantines themselves had not developed. Among
minor elements of the
mosques, which are yet among their
most strikingfeatures, are the minarets, or slender towers,
with corbeled balconies from which the muezzin gives the
Copyright by H. C. White Co.
FIG. 311 "

GRANADA. THE ALHAMBRA. COURT OF LIONS
call to prayers. These were erected at one or more of the

corners of the
buildings,ingeniouslyincorporated with it.
Their forms varied much in different regions,the Ottoman
form, with a very tall cylindricalshaft ending in a slender
cone, being especiallydaring.
Palaces. The enjoyment of worldly goods and pleasures
was not despisedby Mohammedanism, and the absolute power
FIG. 312 "
AGRA. THE TAJ MAHAL
and vast revenue of the caliphsenabled them to gratifytheir

taste for splendor and luxury by the construction of magnificent
palaces. In these the customs of the Orient demanded a
jealous seclusion from the outer world, and a strict separation

of the men's quarters and reception-rooms from the private
apartments of the women and children, the harem. The
rooms were distributed about one or more courts, the fagades
made as blind as possible,except for loggiasand balconies
high above the
ground and guarded by latticed screens. To
relieve the heat of the climate,the courts were surrounded by
shady porticoesand provided with basins and fountains. A
complex axial system governed the relations of the principal

rooms and the courts. The luxurious
elegance sometimes
attained is well seen in the Alhambra at Granada, built by the
last Mohammedan rulers of Spain, chieflyin the fourteenth

and fifteenth centuries. The Court of Lions (Fig.311), with
its slender columns, its delicate stalactite decoration in stucco,
colored and
gilded,shows Mohammedan architecture in the
final development of one of its local schools, when the elements
of diverse originhad been fused in a characteristic whole.
Tombs. In Egypt, in Persia, and especially in India, the
tombs of great monarchs rival the palacesand mosques. The
Indian type was a domed mausoleum, set in the midst of a
garden. The example is the Taj Mahal

most noted at Agra
(Fig.312), built by Shah Jahan in 1630, in which the central

dome is flanked by four smaller domes, and the principal,
minor, and diagonal axes are marked on the exterior by great
arches expressively and harmoniously proportioned.
Forms of detail. The Mohammedan builders were fronted
con-
by few structural problems for which solutions had

not already beeru found by late Roman, Byzantine, and
Sassanian architecture. At first,like the early Christian
builders, they employed borrowed classical columns and
capitals, supporting impost blocks and stilted arches. Their

early domes rested on squinches. Later their treatment of
fundamental structural elements, such as the arch and the
vault, governed by decorative conceptions. In Spain
was
and Africa arches were given a horseshoe shape or were cusped ;

in Persia, Egypt, and Spain vaults were treated with a
multitude of small squinches resembling stalactites. Stalac-

tite
motives were also used in some although in others
capitals,
modified Corinthian motives were used, much as in the most
expressiveGothic examples. The ornamentation depended
little on effects of boldbut greatlyon effects of line,of
relief,
material, and, above all,of color. The prohibitionagainst
representingman and animals, with the mathematical bent of
the Arabs, resulted in a geometricalornament of interlacing
figures, extraordinarily fertile and intricate. Precious
materials were freelyused; in Persia whole buildingswere
faced with colored and glazed faience in patterns suggested
by rugs and textiles.
Development of architecture in the Far East. Long before the

Christian era, the Chinese and the Aryan population of India
had each adopted the basic constructive elements and the
symbolism of architectural systems, which persistent
religious
conservatism, coupled in China with ancestor- worship, has
preservedto this day. Each employed at the start a structure
of wood, with posts, beams, and brackets the Indian roofs "
being of thatch, the Chinese roofs of curved tile. In China

wooden construction has remained typical; in India there
early developed a stone construction, likewise based on the
beam and bracket, with the similar devices of the corbeled
arch and vault. Characteristic of both countries was the
multiplicationof similar decorative elements, graduated in
size and subtly varied in arrangement, in combinations of
overwhelming decorative effect. As dynasties rose and fell,
as foreign conquerors of less developed culture established
themselves, as religioussystems Brahmanist, Jain, and "
Buddhist in India, or Confucianist, Taoist, and Buddhist in

China "
succeeded or transformed each other, the native
architectural systems were steadilyadapted to the prevailing
programs, without fundamental changes of style. Inner
historical growth there was, indeed, and influence of one
system or another. Mohammedan India adopted the pointed

arch with radiatingjointsfrom Persia,and China modified the
pagoda, in some instances, on suggestionsfrom the Indian
spire or sikhara. In the main, however, these changes and
influences were not bound by creed dynasty, so that shrines
or
of different sects were built simultaneouslyand side by side,

in a style essentiallyone "
not Buddhist, Brahmanist, or
Mohammedan, but Indian or Chinese. The outlyingregions

were dominated by the influence of the great cultural centers.
Thus Java developed in the eighth to the thirteenth centuries
a notable art based on Indian models, and had its own influence
on the art of the Khmers in Cambodia. Japan was inspired
by China, and, undisturbed by invasion, on and carried
preserved tendencies which succumbed in China itself.
India. The basic feature of Indian religious buildingswas
the stupa, a hemisphericaltumulus or dome, which was first
used as a grave monument and thus gained religious associa-
tions.
In the earlyBuddhist chapter-housesat Ajanta (second
and first centuriesB.C.),the stupa served as an altar or

reliquary,standing in the apse-likeend of a hall, with a
colonnade followingthe sides and encirclingthe apse. The
domical form of the stupa was also employed as the crowning
feature of the shrines of Siva, the destructive aspect of the
Brahmanist trinity,while for those of the complementary
FIG. 313 "
KHAJURAHO. TEMPLE OF VISHNU
preservativeaspect, Vishnu, the form adopted was the spire-

like sikhara. These are the principalelements of the great
medieval temples of India, of which the shrine of Vishnu at
Khajuraho (Fig.313) with its vast bud-like sikhara,its vesti-bule
and symbolic porches,its wealth of carved ornament, ic
a typicalexample. When the Mohammedans conquered In-
dia
their art had already absorbed Indian elements, and no
radical change was necessary in methods of construction and
composition. The Siva dome, stripped of its sculptured
symbolism, became the dome of the mosque. The temple
platform was preserved,and the small sikharas which marked
its corners became minarets, as in the Taj Mahal. Thus the

traditions of Indian craftsmanship remained unbroken until
the importation of European ideals by the English.
Java. Java felt the influence of Indian movements at later
dates than India itself,
so that its Buddhist monuments date
FIG. 314 "
JAVA. THE CHANDI MENDOOT. (SCHELTEMA)
from the
eighth to the twelfth centuries, its Brahmanist
shrines mostly from the subsequent period. Both were posed
com-
of the typicalIndian elements. Sometimes the ensemble

was also of Indian character,as there was a pyramidal chapel
with a porch in front, like the Chandi Mendoot (Fig.314).
Sometimes, however, the general arrangement was more
characteristically Javan, depending on the repetition, around

a central monument, of small shrines all
alike,often in great
numbers. This was
the system at the great temple of Boro-
Budur (ninthcentury),where the large central stupa, of bell
shape, was surrounded by smaller bells in three terraces,
themselves supported on a pyramid of six steps with many
hundreds of niche-like shrines.
Cambodia. In Cambodia there arose, under Indian and

Javan influence,the civilization of the Khmers, whose empire
from the ninth to the thirteenth centuries.
flourished especially
Although it borrowed certain forms, such as the Javanese
system of an assemblage of satellite shrines,its developed
architecture was markedly different from anything in India
and Java. As seen in the cityand palaceof Angkor Thorn or
FIG. 315 "

ANGKOR WAT. SOUTHWEST ANGLE OF THE PORTICOES
in the temple of Angkor Wat (Fig.315),the styleinvolved vast

ensembles governed by an elaborate system of rectangularaxes,
with lakes and moats, causeways of approach, tall straight
stairways leading to elaborate gateways flanked by long
porticoes,and a multiplication of sikhara-like towers with rich
pointed silhouettes. The fine limestone freelyavailable was
laid up with exquisiteprecision, without mortar, and carved
with endless sculpturesin relief and in the round, in which
the serpent-headmotive was conspicuous. Especiallycharac-
teristic
was the fine restraint and sense of structural fitness in
20
the piersand capitalsof porticoesand gateways, which accord

with the classical canons of the West as do few other structures
of the Orient.
China. Unlike the West, and even unlike India, China has
steadilyretained wood as a material for monumental ures.
struct-
The singlehall of wood has remained the fundamental
element of even the
largesttemples. As a
result China has ried

car-
construction in
wood to a degree of
elaboration and expres-
siveness
comparable
with that of the great
systems of masonry
construction elsewhere.
The essential scheme
consists columns,of
with arm-like brackets,
supportinga beam sys-tem
and widely hanging
over-
which
hip-roof,
by the mode of its con-
struction
acquiresnat-
urally
a slightupward
curve at the angles.

If the span is great,
FIG. 316 "
PETCIN. THE TEMPLE OF HEAVEN
lines of
one or more
interior supports are

introduced, creating an encirclingaisle or series of aisles,
each with its own roof and section of vertical wall (Fig.
316). A similar produced by buildings in more
effect was
than one story, for each story was shaded by overhanging

eaves. When the stories were multipliedthere was produced
the pagoda, often erected as a feature of a temple, but usually
as a commemorative monument. Pagodas were also built of
stone, in which case the roofs between the stories were reduced
to decorative string-courses,
and sometimes the whole ure
struct-
was given more the character of an Indian sikhara. The
Chinese houses and palaces,of isolated halls grouped in an
inclosure, were accompanied by gardens of a naturalistic

style,with mountains, lakes, and bridges. Note-
miniature worthy
also are the vast works of fortification,the walls and
gates of the cities,and, above all,the Great Wall of China,

twelve hundred miles long, first erected as an earthen rampart
in the third century B.C., and rebuilt in the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries with walls and towers of stone.
Japan. Chinese architecture was brought to Japan by the

Buddhist missionaries of the seventh century. The hall and
pagoda of the period at Horiuji are purely Chinese. Soon,
however, the Japanese were able to make characteristic cations,
modifi-
in the direction of greater discretion and elegance. In
the Fujiwara period (898-1186),these qualities were at their
height,as may be seen in the subtle and delicate Phenix-hall

at Uji with its sanctuary flanked by porticoesand pavilions
(Fig. 317). Later the system of bracketing became more
complex, but carving was stillalmost wholly absent until the

Tokugawa period (1587-1867),when ostentatious exuberance
replacedthe simplicityand dignityof earlier times. Sculpture,
lacquered and gilded,disguisedthe structural members; the
roofs were given fantastic curvatures and loaded with orna-
ment.
Such was the prevailingstylewhen the opening of the
ports to European trade.(i854)brought the flood of Western

artistic ideas, which have: tended, for the moment at least,
to submerge the native art of Japan.
PERIODS OF EASTERN ARCHITECTURE
The Near East.

Sassanian architecture,227-641 A.p.
Palace at Firouzabad.
Palace at Sarvistan.
Palace Ctesiphon.
at
Mohammedan architecture,622 A.D.-date.
Syria and E;^ypt.
Mosque of Amru at Cairo, 642.
Mosque at Damascus, begun 707.

Mosque of Ibn Touloun at Cairo, 878.
Mosque of Sultan Hassan at Cairo, 1356.

Tomb of Kait Bey at Cairo, 1472-76.
Spain.
Great mosque Cordova, begun 770.
at
Alcazar at Seville,1199-1200, restored 1353.

Alhambra at Granada, begun 1230: Gate of Justice, 1337;
Court of Lions, 1354.
Mesopotamia and Persia.
Cathedral mosque at Ispahan, 760-70, remodeled in sixteenth
century.
Tomb of Zobeide at Bagdad, 831.
Imperial Mosque at Ispahan, 1612-28.
India.
Qutb Minar at Delhi, c. 1200.
Buildings at Fathpur-Sikri, 1560-1605.

Taj Mahal at Agra, 1630.
Ottoman Empire.
Mosque of Suleiman at Constantinople, 1550.
Mosque of Sultan Ahmed I. at Constantinople, 1608-15.
Mosque of Mehemet Ali at Cairo, 1815.

The Far East.
Indian architecture.
Cave temples at Karle and Ajanta, second and first centuries
B.C.
Kailasatemple, Ellora,eighth century after Christ.

Temples at Khajuraho, tenth and eleventh centuries.
Javan architecture.
Temple of Boro-Budur, ninth century.
Cambodia, Khmer architecture.
City and palace of Angkor Thorn, ninth century.
Temple of Angkor Wat, twelfth century.
Chinese architecture.
Great Wall, third century B.C., rebuilt in fifteenth and teenth
six-
centuries.
Rock temples of Lungmen, seventh century.
Pagoda of Porcelain at Nankin, 1412-31.
Temple of Heaven, Pekin, eighteenth century, rebuilt in
nineteenth century.
Japanese architecture.
Early temple buildings at Horiuji, beginning of seventh
century.
Phenix-hall Uji, eleventh
at century.
Temple of lyeasu, Nikko, seventeenth century.
The most comprehensive general work on Eastern architecture is
F. Benoit's V architecture: V orient medieval et moderne, 1912,

which
is provided with full bibliographical lists. H. Saladin's volume,

very
L' architecture, 1907,

in the Manuel d'art musulman (vol. i), covers
Mohammedan architecture in more

detail. Works in English ing
cover-
Mohammedan architecture in special regions are S. L. Poole's
The Art of the Saracens in Egypt, 1886; A. F. Calvert's Moorish
Remains in Spain, 1906, and The Alhambra, and E. B. Havell's

1904;
Indian Architecture from the First Mohammedan Invasion to

. . .
the Present Day, The art of the Far East is dealt with generally
1913.
in J. Fergusson's History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, revised
by J. Burgess and R. Phene Spiers, 2 vols., This should be

1910.
supplemented by special works embodying more recent views, such
as
E. B. Havell's The Ancient and Medieval Architecture of India,
O. Munsterberg's Chinesische Kunstgeschichte, 2 vols.,

1915; 1910-12,
and Japanische Kunstgeschichte, vols., J. F. Scheltema's

3 1904-07;
Monumental Java, and R. A. Cram's Impressions of Japanese

1912;
Architecture, 1905.
Abacus. The chief or uppermost member ofcapital.
a
Absidiole. A small, apse-likestructure frequentlyused as a chapel.

Acanthus. An ornament derived from the conventionalized leaves
of the acanthus plant.
A crater ion. In classic architecture,an ornament placed upon the
corners and the peak of a pediment.
Adobe. Unburnt, sun-dried brick.
Adyton. An inner sanctuary in some Greek temples,housing the
image.
Agora. A Greek public square or market-place.
Aisles. One of the divisions in a building divided longitudinally
by colonnades or lines of piers,
especially one of the side divisions,
often lower than the central division.
Alice. A garden path or avenue, usually bordered by trees.
Alternate system. A term applied to an architectural system wherein
a simpler pier alternates
a more complex one. with
Ambone. A pulpit,especiallythat found in basilican churches.
A mbulatory. A passageway in a building,especially the passageway
around
the apse.
Amphiprostyle. A term applied to a temple having columns across
both front and rear, but not along the sides.

Amphora. A long pot with a narrow neck, usually of terra cotta.
Annular vault. A ring-shaped vault.
Anta (pi.antes). The end of a wall which carries a lintel,treated
with a pilaster-like projection.
Anthemion. The Greek honeysuckle ornament.
Apodyterium. The dressing-room of a Roman bathing-establish-
ment.
A pse. A recess of semicircular or polygonalplan, covered by a semi-

dome or other vault; especiallythe semicircular termination of
the choir of a church.
Aqueduct. A conduit or channel for conducting water, especially
one supported on masonry arches.
Arabesque. An ornament of a capriciousor fanciful character,con-
sisting
of flowers,figures,
foliage, etc.
Arcade. A series of arches restingon piersor columns.

Arch. A structural device to span an opening by means of small
stones or brick. In the "true" arch these are wedge-shaped
blocks, or voussoirs.
"
Arch order." In classic the system of enframingarches
architecture,
by columns and entablatures.
Archiepiscopalcross. A cross with two transverse arms, the longer
one nearer the center.
Architrave. A lintel,usually with horizontal bands or molding?.
Archivolt. A molded band like an architrave, carried around a
curved opening.
Ashlar. Squared and finished building-stone.
Atlas (pi.Atlantes). A male figureused as a support.
Atrium. In Roman architecture, the principalroom in the early
house. In more elaborate buildings,a court partly open to the
sky. In Christian ecclesiology, the open court before the nar-
thex of a basilica.
Attic. A pedestal-like feature or story above the cornice of a building.
Attic base. A molded consistingof two convex
column base moldings,
or toruses, with a hollow, or scotia,between.
Axis. The central line of a symmetrical or other balanced position.
com-
Baluster. An
upright member used to support a railing;usually
urn-shaped or with some other swelling contour.
Bar tracery. Tracery composed of thin bars of stone, joinedtogether
on the principleof the arch.

Barrel vault. A semi-cylindrical vault,or one approaching this shape.
Basilica. In Roman architecture, an oblong covered hall,often sub-
divided
by columns or piers,devoted to the transaction of busi-
ness
and the administration of justice. In Christian architect-
ure,
an early Christian church of similar form, composed with
reference to a longitudinalaxis.
Basilican. Like a basilica in having longitudinalrows of columns,
or a raised clerestory.
Battlement. An indented parapet behind which archers could shelter

themselves.
Bay. Originally an opening between two columns or piers. By
extension one compartment or division of a buildingwhich sists
con-
of several such divisions.

Bed-molding. The molding or suite of moldings supporting a cornice.
Be/roi. In France and Flanders, the civil or communal bell tower
as opposed to the docker of the church. In medieval military
parlance the term is sometimes applied to the movable towers
used in attacking walled fortifications.
GLOSSARY 591
Belt-course. See Sir ing-course.

Bema. rudimentary transept which gave the T-shaped form to
The
the early Christian basilica.
Billet mold. A molding consisting of short, broken, cylindrical
members, arranged with their axes parallel to that of the molding.
Especially common in Norman Romanesque architecture.

Blind arcade. An arcade applied to the face of the wall so that no
actual openingsappear.
Bouleuterinn. The Greek council-house.
Broken pediment. A pediment in which the raking cornice is broken
through.
Buttress. A support against lateral thrust; especially,a member
projectingat right angles to a wall,designed to receive such a
thrust.
Caldarium. The hot -room in a Roman bathing-establishment.
Campanile. A word applied in Italyto a bell tower, engaged or free
standing.
Capillamayor. The the apse
great chapel,nearly filling and ing
block-
the view of the ambulatory, commonly found in Spanish
churches.
Capital. The topmost member of a column, distinguished from the
shaft by distinct architectural treatment.
Cartouche. An ornament of irregularor fantastic form, inclosinga
field sometimes decorated with armorial bearings,etc.
Caryatid. A female figureused as a support.
Casino. A small pleasure-house,especiallyin an Italian villa.
Catacombs. Extensive underground burial passages and vaults.
Cathedra. The bishop's chair in the early Christian church, commonly
placed at the back of the apse on the longitudinalaxis

of the building.
Catholicon. Greek, a bishop's cathedral church.
In
Cavetlo. A molding having the form of a quarter-hollow.
Cella. The essential or principalchamber of a temple.
Centering. A timber framework on which the masonry of an arch
or vault is supported until the key is in place,rendering the whole
self-supporting.
Chamfer. The cutting away of the square edge of an ordinary
architectural member.
Chancel. The portion of a church in the east end, railed,and set
.apart for the clergy.

use of the
Chapel ofthe Virgin. A chapel,dedicated to the use of the Virgin,and
usuallyextendingbeyond the apse on the long axis of the church.
Chevet. A term appliedto the complicatedeast end of the French
cathedral.
Chevron. A
V-shaped, or zigzagornament.
Choir. Primarily the part of the church where the singersare commodated.
ac-
The arm of the cross between the transept and

the apse.
Ciborium. A canopy,
generallyof marble and supported on columns,
over the altar of
an early Christian church. The term is often
applied in Italy,however, to the chiseled receptacle in which
the consecrated wafers are kept.
Circus. In Roman architecture,a course for horse and chariot
races; in England a circular or semicircular open space rounded
sur-
by houses.
Clerestory. A part of a building which rises above the adjacent
roofs,permitting it to be pierced with window openings.
Cloister. A court surrounded by an ambulatory, usually arcaded.
Cloister vault. A square or polygonal dome.
Coffer. A sunk panel or compartment in a ceiling, vault, or soffit.
Collegiate church. A church that has a collegeor chapter, with a
dean, but not a bishop'ssee.
Colonnade. A series or range of columns, usually connected by
lintels.
Colonnettc. A diminutive column.
"
Colossal order." An order running through more than one story of a
building.
Column. A circular supporting member, usually with a base and
capital.
Concrete. An artificial stone composed of an aggregate of broken
stone or other small materials, held together by a binding
material or cement.
Console. A bracket or corbel,usually in the form of a scroll of verse
re-
curvature.
Corbel. A bracket of masonry, from
projecting a wall and used as a
support.
Corbel table. A projectingcourse of masonry carried on corbels,
often connected by arches.
Corbeled arch. An arch built up of horizontal courses, each ing
project-
over the one below.
Cornice. A
projectinghorizontal member which crowns the wall of a
building; any molded projectionof similar form.
Coro. The elaborate choir,at times almost an independent building,
commonly placed to the west of the transept in a Spanish
cathedral.
Coupled. A term applied to columns or pilastersgrouped in pairs.
Cour d'honneur. An entrance court, open on one side.
Court. An inclosed space within a building or connected with it.
GLOSSARY 593
Crocket. A projectingpiece of carving,usually foliate,commonly

used to decorate the edge of a gable or the slopingridgesof a
spirein Gothic architecture.

Cromlech. A type of prehistoricmonument composed of a circle of
stones.
Crossing. The space in a cruciform church at the intersection of

nave and transepts.
Crypt. A story beneath the pavement of a church, commonly used
for the keeping of relics.
Cupola. A dome or lantern.

Curia. The buildingin which the Roman Senate held its delibera-
tions.
Cusp. point of the small arcs or foliations decorating

A the intrados
of an arch, or of tracery.
Cyclopean. A term applied to early masonry of very large blocks,
unhewn or irregular.
Cyma. A molding having a reverse curve in profile. In the cyma
recta the thin concave portion projects; in the cyma reversa,
the convex portion.
Dado. A continuous pedestalor wainscotingaround the base of a wall.
Dentils. Small projectingblocks,suggestingteeth,forming part of
the support of a cornice.
Diaconicon. Originally the place where the deacons kept the vessels
for the church service. A room on the south side of the building
which sacristyof the later church.
became the
Dog-tooth. An
angular, tooth-like molding, commonly found in
Norman Romanesque architecture.
Dolmen. A pair of stone blocks with a coveringslab,used of historic
pre-
monuments.
Dome. A hemisphericalvault; an exterior feature based on such a
vault.
Domed basilica. applied to the form of basilica,
The term especially
in the
East, when one or more bays are covered with a dome.
Donjon. A tower-like structure, usually free standing, the strongest

part of the European medieval castle.
Dormer. A window projectingfrom the slant of a roof.
Drum. The cylindrical
or polygonal vertical wall on which a dome
or cloister vault frequently is placed.
Ear. A projectingcorner of a molded architrave.
Echinus. The convex capital,supportingthe abacus
member of a
and having a parabolicor hyperbolicprofile.

Enceinte. In military architecture,the wall or rampart, usually
with bastions or towers and curtain walls,which surrounds a
fort or city.
5Q4 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Engaged column. A column-like member projectingfrom a wall and

frequentlyactuallya part of the wall masonry.
Entablature. That part of a lintel construction which rests on the
columns and extends upward to the roof or to the beginningof
a story or attic above.
Entasis. A slightswellingin the profileof a column.
Exedra. In classical architecture,an open platform, often circular,
semi-
provided with seats: in Christian architecture an
apse or niche.
Extrados. The external surface of the voussoirs or stones composing
an arch or vault.
Faqade. One of the fronts of a building,especially
the principal
front.
Fascia. A
long flat band or belt,usually forming part of a suite
of moldings, of which it is usually the widest member.
Fan vault. The vault,in English PerpendicularGothic, shaped like
an inverted, concave cone, and suggestingby its spreading ribs
the appearance of an open fan.
Fenestration. The of
disposition windows in a building.
Fillet. A narrow flat member accompanying a molding or suite of
moldings.
Finial. In Gothic
architecture,the bossy, knob-like ornament, of
foliate design,usuallyplaced at the point of a spireor pinnacle.
Fleche. A very loftyand slender spire-like structure, used especially
in France to mark important parts of a building, like the crossing.
Flute. A groove, usually segmental or semicircular in plan.
Flying buttress. A buttress composed of an arch or a series of arches,
which carries the thrust of a vault over the aisle or aisles of a
church to a solid pierbuilt at the outer wall.

Forum. The
market-place of a Roman city.
Foyer. A lobby or saloon for promenade in a theater.
"French order." An order with rusticated, fluted columns.
Fresco. Wall painting,in mineral colors,applied to a plasterwall
while the plasteris stillmoist, and permitted to dry in with the
plaster.
Fret. An ornament of continuous bands or filletsarranged in rect-
angular
forms.
Frieze. A
longitudinalband of extended length,often decorated with
such a band in an entablature,between
sculpture; specifically,
the architrave and cornice.
Frigidarium. The cool-room of a Roman bathing-establishment,
taining
con-
the cold plunge-bath.

Gable. The end of a ridged roof,with the generallytriangular
wall
between its eaves and the apex.
GLOSSARY 595
Gargoyle.A water spout, usuallygrotesquelycarved,designed to

cany water from the gutter and throw it clear of the wall of the
building.
Greek cross. A cross of four equal arms meeting at right angles.
Grille. A
gratingof any sort, but most commonly of iron work or
perforatedstone slabs.
Groin. The edge, or arris,formed by the intersection of two barrel
vaults.
Groin vault. A compound vault, in which two barrel vaults sect,
inter-
forming edges or arrises which groins.
are called
Gutta. A drop; one of a series of pendent generally in
ornaments
the form of a frustum of a cone, but sometimes cylindrical,
tached
at-
to the under side of a mutule or other architectural

feature.
Gynaccea. The galleries,
usually in the triforium,commonly ar-ranged
in basilicas of Eastern character,for the segregationof

women.
Half-limber.A type of construction consistingof a framework of

timber with a of brick
filling or clay.
Hallenkirche. A type of German Gothic church in which the aisles
are high as the nave, eliminatingthe clerestoryand givingthe
as
buildingthe appearance of a great hall.

Herm. A head or bust supported on a quadrangular base corre-
sponding
roughly in mass to the absent body.

Hexastyle. Having six columns across the front.
Hippodrome. In Greek architecture,a place in which horse and
chariot races were run.
Hip-roof. A roof in which the ends as well as the sides are inclined,
so that its diagonal lines or hips.
planes meet in
Hypcethral. Roofless
a term applied to some temple cellas.
"
Hypostyle. Having its ceilingsupported by columns.

Impost. A horizontal member at the springingof an arch or vault.
In antis. A term applied to columns embraced between the ends of
two walls of antae.
Intercolumniation. The space or distance between two columns of a
colonnade.
Interlacingarches. Two series of arches arranged to intersect each
other.
Intrados. The inner face of an arch or vault.
Keystone. The term appliedto the topmost, wedge-shaped stone
or voussoir in an arch, usuallythe last to be placed,which ders
ren-
the whole secure.
Khan. The service quarters of an Oriental dwelling; also an Oriental

inn.
Sg6 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Laconicum. A vapor bath in

bathing-establishment. a Roman
Lantern. A
cupola or tower-like
risingabove a dome or the structure
roof of a building,and having openingsin its faces' by which the
interior is lighted.
Lanterne des marts. An ornamental stone shaft erected in the Middle
Ages to signalizethe presence of a cemetery.
Lararium. A small shrine in a Roman dwellingwhere the Lares, or
household gods, were worshiped.
Latin cross. The commonest form
of cross, in which one arm is siderably
con-
longer than the other three.

Lierne. A small subordinate rib, inserted between two main ribs
of a vault.
Lintel. A horizontal beam spanning an opening.
Loge. Aor box
compartment in the auditorium of a theater.
Loggia. A galleryin a building open on at least one side,on which
side is an arcade or colonnade.
Machicolation. An
opening in the floor of a projectinggalleryfor
the purpose of dropping missiles,etc.
Mastaba. A flat-topped, bench -like Egyptian tomb used by the
nobles of the Old Kingdom.
Mausoleum. A large and elaborate tomb.
Meander. See Fret.
Megalithic. Composed of very large stones.
Megaron. The large hall of an Êgean or Greek dwelling,generally
oblong in shape and sometimes subdivided by one or more tudinal
longi-
ranges of supports.
Menhir. A single standing pillar of stone, used of prehistoric
monuments.
Metope. The space between
triglyphsin a Doric frieze. two
Mezzanine. A story of diminished height introduced between two
higher stories or created by subdividing a high story.

Minaret. In Mohammedan architecture,a slender and loftyturret,
having one or more projectingbalconies.
Mirhab. The niche in a mosque which indicates the direction of Mecca.
ModUlion. A bracket, often carved with spiralscrolls,
serving to
support a cornice.
Module. A unit or common divisor of the dimensions of a building.
Monolithic. Composed of a singlestone.
Mosaic. Decoration
composed of tesserae or cubes of glass or
marble, set in mortar, in geometric or pictorialdesigns.
Mosque. A Mohammedan place of worship.
Mullion. A slender, vertical,intermediate upright, forming part
of a framework, dividing an opening, and commonly helpingto
support the glass.
GLOSSARY 597
Mutule. A projectingblock on the soffit of a Doric cornice.

Naos. The essential or principalchamber of a Greek temple; the
cella.
Narthex. A covered vestibule stories,usually open
of one or more
and colonnaded at the front, placed before a building,and

especiallycommon in the early Christian period.
Nave. That part of a church nearest the entrance, constituting
the long arm in a Latin cross, appropriated to the laity. The
chief central division of the building,the central space between
the colonnades,as opposed to the aisles.
Niche. A recess in a wall, usually semicircular and semicircular-
headed, often used for the receptionof statuary.
Obelisk. A tapering shaft of rectangular plan, generally with a
pyramidal apex.
Octastyle.Having eight columns across the front.
Odeion. In Greek architecture, a covered buildingfor musical and
oratorical contests.
Ogee curve. A double S curve especially

common in Flamboyant
Gothic architecture.
Opisthodomos. An open vestibule at the rear of a temple cella.
Opus alexandrinum. An elaborate geometricalmosaic of marble
slabs and tesserae.
Opus francigenum. "French work," the word first applied by the

Germans to Gothic architecture.
Opus incertum. A Roman method of facing concrete walls with
irregularfragments.
Opus reiiculatum. A Roman method of facingconcrete walls with
small square blocks standing on their corners in diagonal
lines.
Opus spicatum. A Roman method of facing concrete walls with
kernel-shapedfragments laid herring-bone pattern. in
Orchestra. In Greek theaters,the circle of the dance; in modern
theaters,the space for the musicians,or the parquet.
"Order." In classical architecture,a recognizedsystem of forms for
the column and entablature.
"Organic architecture." A vaulted architecture in which the vaults are
supported by ribs,piers,and buttresses arranged with direct
reference to the needs of supportingthe vaults and opposingtheir
thrusts.
Ovolp. A convex in profile.
molding approaching a quarter-circle
Pagoda. In Chinese and Japanese architecture,a sacred tower in
several stories.
Palastra. A buildingor inclosure devoted to wrestling,boxing,and
kindred gymnastic exercises.
SQ8 A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
Palladian motive. A central arch restingon the entablatures of lat-

eral
square-headed bays.
Parapet. A breast wall placed at the edge of a platform, terrace,
balcony, etc.
Parterre. A garden of beds with interveninggravel or turf.
Patio. In Spain or Spanish America, a court in a house, open to the
sky.
Pavilion. A central, flanking,or intermediate subdivision of a
monumental building or facade, accented architecturallyby
projectionor otherwise.
Pedestal. A base or support for a column or building,usuallyhaving
its capitaland base moldings.
own
Pediment. A
low triangulargable bounded by a horizontal cornice
and raking cornices.
Pendentive. An inverted, triangular,concave piece of masonry,
placed upon a pier to support a section of a dome. In
mathematical terms, a segment of a hemisphere the diameter
of which is equal to the diagonal of the square or polygon
to be covered.
Penetration. vaulting,a surface intersectingthe main vaulting
In
surface to permit lateral openings to be raised above the line of
its springing.
Peristyle. A continuous surrounding colonnade, either around the

exterior of a buildingor the interior of a court.
Piano nobile. The principalfloor of an Italian house, above the
ground story.
Pier. A masonry member acting as a support, distinguishedfrom a
column by greater massiveness,by a shape other than circular,
or by being built of coursed masonry.
Pier buttress. A solid pier of masonry built immediatelyadjacent to
a vault to resist its thrust.
Pilaster. A flatrectangular member, projectingslightlyfrom the
face of a wall, and furnished with a capital,base, etc., in the
manner of a column.
Pilaster strip. A slender
engaged pier-likemember in a wall, used
in medieval architecture as a stiffener or rudimentary buttress.
Pillar. A loosely used term denoting an isolated vertical mass of
masonry, used as a support. In architecture, applied to a sup-

port
which is neither a pier nor a column in the strict sense of
those words.
Plate tracery. Tracery composed of openings pierced in a thin
tympanum of stone, as contrasted with bar tracery.
Plinth. A rectangularblock usuallyservingas a base.
Podium. A continuous pedestal.
GLOSSARY 599
Portcullis. A barrier
sliding or gratingto cut off access to a gate or
passage.
Portico. An open porch or vestibule having its roof supported by
columns or piers.
Presbyterium. That part of a church devoted to the clergy,in which
the high altar is placed and which forms the eastern termination
of the choir. It is generally
raised a few steps above the rest of
the church.
Pronaos. A vestibule in front of the cella of a Greek temple.
Propylceum (pi.propylcea). In Greek architecture,an elaborate entrance
gateway with a porticoor porticoes.

Proskenion. In the Greek theater,a wall or series of piers before
the skene,carrying a platform which served as a stage for some
or all of the actors.
Prostyle. A applied to a temple or pavilionhaving columns

term
across the front only.

Prothesis. A chapel or room on the north side of the early Christian
church; the prototype of the vestry.
Puhinated. Swelling or bulging out; a term applied to a frieze of
curved section.
Pylon. A monumental gateway to an Egyptian temple; any gate-
tower of classical design.
Pyramid-mastaba. An Egyptian tomb having the form of a mastaba
with a small pyramid on top.
Quadriga. A chariot drawn by four horses.
Quadripartitevault. A groin vault, generallyribbed, composed of

four cells.
Quoins. Stones or blocks reinforcingthe angle of a building. "
Raking cornice. The slopingmoldings of a pediment.

Ramp. An inclined plane risingfrom a lower to a higherlevel, taking
the place of steps.
"Rhythmical bay." A term appliedto a continuous alternation of

wide and narrow bays.
Rib. A masonry arch, generallysalient from the vault surface and
molded, formingpart of the skeleton structure on which the vault
rests.
Ribbed vault. A vault of masonry with a comparativelythin web
supported by ribs.
Rocaille. The shell-work or scroll ornament characteristic of rococo
decoration.
Roof comb. In Maya architecture, a piercedscreen-wall risingabove
the roof of a building.
Roundel. A circular medallion.
Rubble. Masonry of stones in shape
irregular and size.
Rusticated stone. Stone masonry distinguishedfrom smooth ashlar

by having the joints sunk, and sometimes the surface of the
stone roughlyor bossilyfinished.
Sarcophagus. A stone coffin,
usually ornamented with sculpture.
Saucer-dome. A dome showing on the exterior only the upper zone
of its surface.
Seance from. The front wall of the skene, forming the background
of the stage, usually decorated with columns.
Scale. The effect of size produced by a buildingor its members.
Scotia. A concave molding of circular plan.
"Screens." The passage across one end of the hall in an English
manor house.
Sex partitevault. A
groin vault,usuallyribbed,and provided with a
transverse rib to the crown of the vault,which divides the whole
into six cells.
Shaft. The main, cylindricalmember of a column. An upright
member, tall and comparatively small in horizontal dimensions,
engaged or free standing,and generallyused as a support.
Short and long work. Stones embedded alternatelyhorizontallyand
verticallyin the masonry at a wall angle,used to reinforce the
angle and especiallycommon in early Saxon architecture.

Sikhara. An Indian spire,used in the shrines of Vishnu.
Skene. In the Greek theater, the buildingcontaining the dressing-
rooms, the front of which served as a background for the action.
Soffit. The under side of an architectural member, such as a lintel
or arch.
Spina. The barrier dividing a race-course longitudinallyinto two
tracks.
Spire. A lofty,slender,generallyoctagonal member used to crown
a medieval tower.
Splay. A slopedsurface,which makes an obliqueangle with another,

a largechamfer.
Squinch. A slab or small arch thrown across theangle of a square or

polygon to render its shape more nearly round, to receive the
base of a dome.
Stadion. A racing,six hundred Greek feet in length.
course for foot
Staged lower. A tower built in several recedingplatforms or stages.
Stalactite vaulting. Vaulting composed of small squinches one above
another, giving the appearance of stalactites.
Steeple. A loftystructure attached to a church or other building.
Stele. An upright stone employed as a monument.
Step-pyramid. A pyramidal structure consistingof diminishingter-
races,
forming a series of large steps.

Stereotomy.The science of stone-cutting.
GLOSSARY 601
Stilt. To raise the

point of springing of an arch above the level
of a capitalor impost.
Stilt-block. A block above a capitalserving to support an arch or
vault.
Sloa. In Greek
architecture,a long, narrow hall,usually divided
longitudinallyby columns, and having an open colonnade in
place of one of the side walls.
Strap-work. Ornament consisting of fillets,
or bands, imitating
leather, folded or interlaced.
String-course.A horizontal course of masonry, usually molded,
marking an architectural subdivision of a building.
Stucco. Plaster or cement used as a coating for walls.
Stupa. A hemispherical tumulus or dome characteristic of Indian

architecture.
Stylobate. A continuous plinthor step serving as a common base to
columns, especiallythose of the Greek Doric order.

Tabernacle. A pedimented or canopied niche.
Tablinum. A recess or apartment at the back of the atrium in a
Roman house.
Tepidarium. An apartment in a Roman bathing-establishmentin-
termediat
in temperature between the caldarium and the
frigidarium.
A
Terrace-roof. roof either flat or with barelyperceptibleinclination.
Tessera. Small cubes of marble or glass,used in the composition of
designs in mosaic.
Tholos. In Greek architecture,a circular structure or temple.
Thrust. The outward horizontal force exerted by an arch or
vault.
Tie-rod. A rod, usuallyof iron,set in the masonry of an arch or vault
to resist its outward thrust.
Tierceron. A
secondary or intermediate rib in a vault, springing
from the pier on either side of the diagonal rib.
Torus. A molding of convex profile, approaching a semicircle, used
especially in bases.
Trabeated architecture. Literally,beamed architecture, the term is
applied to the post and lintel or horizontal architectural system,
as opposed to the arched or arcuated system.
Transept. A large division of a church lyingat rightangles to the
long axis of the building. It developed probably from the early
"
Christian bema.
Transom window. A window divided horizontally
by a bar of stone
or iron.
Triclinium. In Roman furnished with
the dining-room,
architecture,
three couches.
Triconch plan. A plan ending in a trefoil or clover-leafed shape,

common in Syria,and later in Carolingian and German tecture.
archi-
Triforium. A blind space between the ceilingand the lean-to roof

over an aisle ; any correspondingdivision below a clerestory.
Tri glyph. A projectingblock in a Doric marked
frieze, by vertical
grooves.
Trophy. A monument or memorial
victory,especiallyone con-
sisting of
of arms and other spoils,or sculpturesrepresentingthem.
Truss. A combination of timbers or ironwork so arranged as to
constitute an unyielding frame for spanning an opening, etc.
Tudor arch. A four-centered,pointed arch, common in English
Tudor architecture.
Tumulus. A sepulchralmound.
Vault cell. A subdivision of a vault, the part defined by adjacent
groins or ribs.
Vault web. The
infilling thin
of masonry composing the main ex- panse
of a rib-vault,supported by ribs.
Velarium. An awning stretched over the seats of a Roman theater or
amphitheater.
Veneer. A thin facing of wood or other material which has or-
namental
qualitiesand overlays the structural material of a

building.
Volute. A spiralscroll.
Voussoir. One of the wedge-shaped stones used in the construction
of an arch or vault.
Wall shaft. A shaft,in the thickness of a wall,dividingan opening
into two or more parts. Characteristic of earlySaxon ure.
architect-
Wheel, or rose, window. The circular window, divided by tracery,

which commonly placed in the west end of a Gothic cathedral.
was
Ziggurat. A Mesopotamian religiousstructure, consistingof a tall

staged tower or stepped pyramid, with ramps givingaccess to
the top.
GENERAL WORKS RELATING TO THE HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE
{Forworks coveringspecialperiodssee the note at the end of each chapter.)
Among comprehensive histories of architecture may

earlier be
mentioned especiallythe following:

F. Kugler'sGeschichte der Baukunsl, 5 vols.,1859-72. Continued
GLOSSARY 603
by J. Burkhardt, W. Liibke, and C. Gurlitt as Geschichte der neuern
Baukunst, vols. in 6, 1887-1911.

4
J. Fergusson's History of Architecture, 2 vols., 1865-67; 2d ed.,
vols., 1873-76; 3d ed., revised by R. P. Spiers and R. Kerr, vols.,

4 5
1891-93.
J. Durm's Handbuch der Architektur, Teil II. Die Bauslile, vols.

7
in 1881 to date.
12,
A. Choisy's Histoire de V architecture, 2 vols., 1899. (A study of the
history of constructive methods.)
For the monuments in their geographical setting see the books

guide-
of Baedeker, Murray, etc For the history of the excavations,
etc., see A. Michaelis's A Century of Arc/uzological Discoveries, 1908.
The best general guide to the literature of the subject is furnished
by the references in historical works such as those just named,
especially the Handbuch der Architektur. Mention also be made

may
of the classified catalogues of special libraries or general libraries
having large collections on architecture, especially those of the
Royal Institute of British Architects, London, with supplement,
1898; the libraries of Manchester and Salford (by H. Guppy and G.
Vine), and the Boston Public Library, 2d ed., 1914.

The
1909;
most complete collection of books on architecture is that of the
Avery Library of Columbia University, New York, of which an
alphabetical catalogue was published in 1895. Similar works for
Continental libraries, fuller on the work of their respective countries,
are E. Vinet's Catalogue de la bibliotheque de I'Ecole de Beaux-Arts,
Paris, ^873; C. v.
Lutzow's Katalog der Bibliothek der Akademie der
bildenden Kiinste in Wien, 1876; Dobbert and Grohmann's Katalog

der Bibliothek der Kgl. Akademie der Kiinste zu Berlin, 1893.
INDEX
Note: The index covers referencesin the text and illustrations,the presence of an
illustration being indicated by a page reference in Italic type. All buildings are listed
alphabetically under the towns and cities where they are located.
Abacus, 58, 60, 64, 67 Alessi, Galeazzo, 409-410, 419

Abadie, Paul, 495 Alexander the Great, 33, 56
Abbeville, 290. 296, 307, 309 Alexandria, 56-57; Pharos, 57; Serapeion,
Abbiate Grasso, 355 57
Abydos, temple of Seti I., 23 A116es, 434, 446
Abutment, in Egyptian architecture, Ji; Altars, 9, 75, 86, 165
in Mesopotamia, 25; in Roman tecture,
archi- Alternate system in Lombard Romanesque,
112; in Romanesque ure,
architect- 228; in Norman Romanesque, 256
265 ff.; in Gothic architecture, 290, Amalienburg, 452
291, 292 Amateurs, 422-423, 536, 542
Academic architecture, in Italy, 402, 403, Ambones, 165
407-410, 413; in Spain, 420-421, 422; Ambulatories, 221, 293
in France, 422, 423, 424-430, 431-432, Amenhotep III., 21
437; in England, 438-444, 448; in Ger-
many, American architecture, 524-571
452; survivals of, 465; revival of, Amiens, cathedral, 276, 280, 281, 283, 284,
487, 490, 491; in America, 536-540, 542- 287, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 299;
545. 555 Saint John's Chapel, 307
Academies, Vitruvian, 403; French. 424; Ammanati, Bartolomeo, 416, 418
of architecture, 428; French, in Rome, Amon, temple at Karnak, 19, 20, 21; tem-ple
428 at Luxor, 21
Acanthus, 67, 68, 94, 377 Amphiprostyle temple, 76
Acarnania, 73 Amphitheaters, 104, 127-128, 144
Achaeans, 37 Anatolia, medieval architecture of, 171,
Achaemenian architecture, 32-36 176-177
Acroteria, 73 Ancy-le-France, chateau, 382
Adam, Robert, 462, 464 Ancyra, St. Clement's, 177
Adam style, in America, 558, 547, 550 Andalusia, Gothic architecture of, 315
Administrative buildings, 469-471, 498, Andalusia, Pennsylvania, 549
546 Anet, Palace chapel, 384, 386; Mausoleum
Adobe, 526, 527, 529, 530 chapel, 386
Adyton, 76, 80 Angkor Thorn, 583
^gean architecture, 37-42 Angkor Wat. 583
/Emilia, temple of Aphaia, 63, 80 Angouleme, 227, 252
yEolians, 51 Anselm, 256
^tolia, 56 Antse, 42, 71, 72, 76
Africa, Roman architecture in, 143; hammedanAnthemion,
Mo- 83
architecture in, 573 Anthemius of Tralles, 188
Agade, 26 Antioch, 56, 69
Agorae, 87 Antiochus IV., 69
Agra, Taj Mahal, 578. 579 Antoninus Pius, 114
Agrigentum, see Akragas Aosta, 143
Aigues-Mortes, 324. 325 Apartment houses, 435
Aix-la-Chapelle. Charlemagne's Chapel, Apodyterium, 129
189, IQO, 196, 197, 212, 221 Apollodorus, 120
Akragas, 52; temples at, 80; temple of Appius Claudius, 108
Zeus, 70, 71, 86 Apse, 148, 292, 293, 294, 378
AJrthamar, 204 Apsidal chapels, 292
Ala. 138 Aqueducts, 104, 108. 131-132
Albany, 532 Aquitaine, Romanesque architecture in,
Alberti. Leon Battista, 351-352, 366, 374, 251 ff.; Byzantine influence in, 202,
376. 377. 378, 403 251
Alcibiades, 94 Arabesques, 377, 380, 387, 389
Alcobaza, 314 Arch, types of, 4; in Egyptian architecture,
6o6 INDEX
12. 23; in Mesopotamia, 25; in Greek Augusta Praetoria, 143

architecture, 57, 73; in Roman tecture,
archi- Augustus, 113, 127, 136, 141
108-109, us,
104, 107, 146, 147; Austria, Gothic architecture in, 321
in early Christianarchitecture, 163; in Autun, 254
Romanesque, 220, 240, 260; in Gothic, Auvergne, Romanesque architecture in,
263, 288; in Renaissance architecture, 249 ff-
376 Auxerre, 267
Arch, commemorative, 104, 122, 133-134; Avila, fortifications,268, 269, 323
imitation of, 351, 352. 438, 464, 466; Axial systems, 2, 105, 416, 436
horseshoe, 264, 579; ogee, 574; pointed, Aztec architecture, 525-526
in Romanesque architecture, 240, 260;
in Gothic architecture, 263, 288; pointed, Baalbek, 145-146, 154, 462
in India, 586; pointed, in Mohammedan Babylon, 26, 27, 30; "Hanging Gardens,"
architecture, 574; triumphal, see Arch, 30
commemorative Babylonian architecture, 26, 30-32
Arch order, in Roman architecture, no- Bagdad, caliphate of, 574
112, 122, 125, 127, 146; in Renaissance Bagnaia, Villa Lante, 416, 417
architecture, 349, 351, 357, 366, 368, 370, Bahr, Georg, 451
372, 376, 379; in America, 538, 539 Balbus, 126 v
Archeology, 460, 461-462 Balconies, in Mohammedan architecture,
Architect, status in Egypt, 24; in potamia,
Meso- 576, 578
32; in Greece, 50; in Rome, Ballu, Theodore, 484, 503
109; in the Renaissance, 345-346 Baltimore, cathedral, 550, 551; St. Mary's,
Architecture, elements of, 1-7 546
551; Washington Monument,
Architrave, Ionic, 65, 73 Balusters, 376
Archivolt, 146 Balustrades, 408
Argos, 37 Bamberg, 308, 311
Aries, amphitheater, 128, 152, 247; St. Banks, 472, 491, 498, 542, 545, 546
TrophJme, 248, 249 Barcelona, 315
Arlington, 549 "Baronial style," 479
Armenia, medieval architecture of, 195 -Jf.,Baroque architecture, xxii, 361, 389, 392; in
203 ff. Italy, 402, 403-407, 410-413; in Spain,
Arris, 58 421-422; in France, 422, 423-424, 437;
Art nouveau, 512,
514 in England, 438, 448; in Germany, 450-
Arta. St. Basil's, 206,
215 451; in America, 528, 536, 537, 53";
Artaxerxes III., 35 revival of, 487, 489, 490, 491, 494,
Artois, Gothic architecture in, 284 495
Arts and Crafts Exhibition, 513 Barry, Sir Charles, 474, 480, 487
Ashmont, All Saint's, 5j"? Base, 3; see also Attic base
Ashur, 27 Basil L, 183, 208
Ashurbanipal, 28, 30 Basement, in Renaissance architecture,
Asia Minor, Greek architecture in, 55-56, 360, 361; in Post-Renaissance ure,
architect-
58, 95; Roman conquest of, 109; see also 426, 427, 434,
430,
432, 444; in
Anatolia; Ionia American architecture,540, 542, 544
Aspendos, theater, 126 Basilican type of building, 163; in the
Assisi, S. Francesco, 319 Renaissance, 348, 364-366; in post-
Assyria, 25, 27-30 Renaissance architecture,435, 442, 447;
Asylums, 501, 550 in modern architecture, 475; in America,
Athens, 50, 52-54, 55, 56, 58; Acropolis, 81, 529, 538
97-98; Antiquities of Athens, 462; Basilicas, Roman, 104, 112, 120, 122, 141,
Erechtheum, 54, 69, 71, 78, 83-84, 85; 148, 154; Byzantine, domed, 163 ff.,177,
imitation of, 474; Little Metropolis, 189, 193
190, 200; Monument of Lysicrates, 69, Bassffi, temple of Apollo, 84, 118
95; imitation of, 465, 546; Odeion of Bath, England, 448
Herodes Atticus, 92, 152; Odeion of Baths, Greek, 92; Roman, 128-129; ern,
mod-
Pericles, 91; Parthenon, 53, 54, 61, 78, 498; see also Therms
82, 84; capitals of, 63; imitation of, 469, "Battle of the styles," 482
546; Propylaea,54, 87; imitation of, 466; Battlements, 29, 478
St. Theodore, 200; stadion, 92; temple Bay windows, 392, 393, 394
of Athena Nike, 54, 70, 77, 78, 83, 84; Bayreuth, Wagner theater, 507
temple of Olympian Zeus, 69; theater Beads, 72
of Dionysus, 91; "Theseum," 80, 82; Beak-molding, 72
imitation of, 469, 549; Tower of the Beaulieu-les-Loches, 267
Winds, imitation of, 474 Beauvais, Basse-CEuvre, 223; cathedral,
Athens, Ga., Hill house, 549 293; south transept, 308; St. Etienne,
Atlantes, 69 229, 262, 263
Atrium, in Roman architecture, 107, 112, Becerra, Francisco, 528
137. 138; in early Christian architecture, Beckford, William, 478
165 Beffroi, in medieval Flanders, 329
Attic base, 63, 144 Behrens, Peter, 515, 516
Attics, 408, 430, 435 Belcher, John, 491
Attwood, C. B., 556 Belgium, modern architecture in, 496, 514
Augsburg, Rathaus, 450 Bell, Ingress, 492
INDEX 607
Bema, 165 Btirklein, 488
Beni Hasan,
tomb, 17, 22 Burlington, Lord, 443, 462
Bentley, J. P., 492 Burnham, D. H., 558
Berlin, Brandenburg Gate, 466; cathedral, Butterfield, William, 482
489; Gothic project, 483; Old Museum, Buttress, in Roman architecture, 131; in
474; Reichstag, 489; Royal Opera, 452, Romanesque architecture, 265 ff.; in
473; Royal Palace, 451; Royal Theater, Gothic architecture, 290, 291, 292
469, 470, 473, 474; towers of the Gen- Byzantium architecture, 183-216; influence
darmenmarkt, 452; turbine factory, 516; of, 213, 250, 574; revival of, 492, 495,
Werderkirche, 483; Wertheim store, 510, 560
SIS "Byzantine Renaissance," 205 ff.
Bernini, G. L., 411-412, 418, 426-427 Byzantine, 115; see also Constantinople
Berry Hill, 549
Bexley Heath, Red House, 505 Caen, Abbaye-aux-Dames (La Trinite),
Biddle, Nicholas, 546, 549 22Q, 257, 258, 266
Billet mold, 255, 256 Caen, Abbaye-aux-Hommes (St. Etienne).
Biltmore, 552 227, 223, 256, 257, 258, 266, ZQO, 296
Bin-bir-Kilisse, 176, 177 Cahors, Pont Valentre, 336
Birmingham, law courts, 492; Town Hall, Cairo, Mosque of Amru, 574, 575, 576;
542 Mosque of Sultan Hassan, 576
Blenheim Palace, 442, 44 3, 444 Calah, 27
Blodget, Samuel, 542 Caldarium, 129, 130
Blois, chateau, 380, 381; Wing of Gaston California, 529-530
d'Orleans, 425 Caligula, 139
Boccador, 382 Callimachus, 68
Bodley, G. P., 492 Camarsac, 329
Boileau, L. A., 512 Cambodia, architecture in, 580, 583
Boisseree, S., 483 Cambridge, colleges, 485; Trinity College
Bologna, St. Francis, 319, 340 Library, 440
Bordeaux, Grand Theatre, 464, 473 Campania, 127
Boro Budur, 382 Campaniform capital,22
Borromini, Francesco, 412 Campanili, 414
Bosra, 760, 162, 174 Campbell, Colin, 443
Boston, 534; Beacon column, 544; Faneuil Canada, French architecture in, 530, 531
Hall, 539; Franklin Crescent, 549; Pub- lic Canals, 434, 446
Library, 554, 555; St. Paul's, 550; Candelabra, 377, 387
State House, 543, 544; Trinity Church, Canopus, 139
552, 553 Canterbury, 303, 304
Bouleuterion, see Council-house Capilla Mayor, 313
Bourges, Maison de Jacques Cceur, 331, 332 Capitals, Doric, 58-60, 62-64. 63; Ionic,
Bournazel, chateau, 382 64-66; Corinthian,
67-69; Byzantine,
Brackets, in Par Eastern architecture, 580, 185, l"6ff.; Romanesque, 268; Gothic,
584, 586 297
Braisne, St. Yved, 309. Caprarola, castle, 409
Bramante, Donato, 354-355. 358-361, 366, Caracalla, 114, 130
374- 375-376, 377. 378, 379 Carcassonne, La Cite, 325
Brescia, Palazzo Communale, 370 Caria, 55
Brick, in Mesopotamia, 25; in Roman Carolina, 533
architecture, 149-150; in post-Renais-
sance Carolingian architecture, 220 ff.; ornament,
architecture, 423, 436, 440, 446; 213
in modern architecture, 482, 505; in Carthaginian wars, 51, 55
America, 532, 533. 54". S6o, 562 Cartouches, 390, 392, 411, 423, 426, 430,
Brick, enameled, 32, 33 438
Brick, sun-dried, in Egypt, 21; in Meso-
potamia,
Caryatids, 69
25; in Êgean Casamari, 317
architecture, 40
Bridges, Greek, 73; Roman, Cascades, 434
104, 108, 131-
132; medieval, 335 ff.; modern, Casements,
503 533
Brittany, Gothic architecture in, 285 Caserta, palace,414
Broadleys, 513 Casinos, 416
Bronze age, 9-10 "Castellated style," 478
Brosse, Salomon de, 424 Castle Howard, 442
Brunelleschi, Filippo, 344, 347-35O, 364- Castles, 325 ff.
365. 366 Catharine II., 466
Brussels, Palais de Justice,496, 407; Town Cathedra, 165
Hall, 330. 338 Cato the Censor, 112-113
Buffalo, Guaranty (Prudential) Building, Caylus, Comte de, 462
561. S63 Cefalft, 239, 240
Bulfinch, Charles, 544. 549 Ceilings, in Greek architecture, 73, 82;
Bullant, Jean, 381, 382. 383, 423 coffered, 386
Bulls, winged, 32. 33. 36 Cella, 76
Burgos. 314. 3iS Centering, 32, 150, 185
Burgundy, Romanesque architecture in, Central type of building, 163; in Rome,
253 ff-: Gothic architecture in, 285 170 ff.; in Syria, 173; in Anatolia, 176;
6o8 INDEX
in the Renaissance, 350, 353, 355, 359, Clifford Chambers, 446

366-368, 386; in post-Renaissance Cloister vault, 378
chitecture,
ar-
405, 409, 414, 435; in Amer-

ica, Cloisters, 530
529 Cluny, 227, 229, 253
Certosa, see Pa via Cochin, C. N., 462
Chaldaea, 26 Cockerell, C. R., 490
Chalgrin, J. P., 466, 474, 500 Coffers, 149, 150
Chambers, Sir William, 478 Cologne, cathedral, 276, 309, 315; Holy
Chambery, 307 Apostles, 243, 247; St. Mary of the
Chambord, chateau, 380 Capitol, 242, 244
Champagne, Gothic architecture in, 285 Colonial architecture, 527-540; revival of.
Chancel, 165 556, 560
554.
Chandi Mendoot, 582 Colossal order, 537,542, 547, 548
Chandler, Richard, 462 Columbia, capitol, 542
Chantilly, hamlet, 483 Columns, 3; Egyptian, 13, 22-23; Meso-
Chapel of the Virgin, in French Gothic, 229 potamian, 32; Persian, 36; Êgean, 41-
Chaqqua, basilica, 154 42; Greek, 49
Charles V. of Spain, 388 Columns, coupled. 419, 427, 442, 451;
355,
Charles VIII. of France. 380 engaged, 71, 357. 361, 376, 539;
103, 355,
Charleston, Exchange, 540; Miles Brewton rostral, 133; rusticated, 363, 386. 401,
house, 538; St. Michael's, 538; St. 410, 424; triumphal, 114, 122, 133, 466,
Philip's, 538 544,546; twisted, 411, 412, 448; see also
Charleval, chateau, 384, 423 Orders
Charlottesville, University of Virginia, 545, Commercial buildings, 472
548-549. 558 Como, S. Abondio, 233
Chartres, cathedral, 292, 295, 296, 298, Compie'gne, palace, 432
299, 3H Composite order, 114, 145, 374
Chateaux, 384, 432-434 Compostela, Santiago, 263, 264
Cheops, 16; see also Khufu Compton Wynyates, 332
Chephren, 16 Concert-halls, 474
Chevet, 292, 293, 294 Concrete, 149, 150, 524, 526; reinforced,
Chicago, Exposition, 556, 557, 564-565; 504-505
Midway Gardens, 565; office buildings, Connecticut, colonial architecture, 534
560 Conservatories, 503-504
Chichen Itza, 524 Consoles, in Greek architecture, 67; in
Chimneypieces, 423, 478, 538; see also Fire-
places Roman architecture, 144, 145-146; in
Renaissance architecture, 361, 374; in
Chimneys, 382, 394/479, 533, 534 post-Renaissance architecture, 403, 410,
China, Great Wall, 586 412, 419, 423. 435, 437, 447, 448; in
Chinese architecture, 584-586; influence of, American architecture, 536
476, 487, 580, 586 Constantia, 137
Chios, Nea Moni, 201 Constantine, 124, 137, 183
Christianity, adoption of, 115 Constantinople, 115, 205, 574, 576; Baths
Christian-Roman, 164-168 of Zeuxis, 207; Bin-bir-Direk cistern,
Churches, in the Middle Ages, 159; Renais-
sance, 186, 208; Blachernae, 208; Cenourgion,
345, 364-368, 384-385; post- 208; Cisterna Maxima, 207; Cisterna
Renaissance, 409, 414-415, 435, 447-448; Pulcheria, 207 ff.; fortifications of Man-
uel
modern, 474-475, 484-485, 490, 492, Comnenus, 210; Gul-djami (St.
494-495; American, colonial, 533, 534- Theodosius), 197; Holy Apostles, 193,
535, 536, 538; American, modern, 550, 194" 195. 197. 201; Hagia Sophia, 187,
SSL 552 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193; imitation
Churriguera, Jose, 421 of, 574, 576; Hodja-Moustapha-pasha
Churrigueresque, 421-422 (St. Andrew's), 195; Kalender-hane-
Ciborium, 165 djami (the Diaconessa?) 195; Kilisse- ,
Circulation, elements of, 2 djami, 189, 199; La Nea ("new church"

Circuses, 104, 128; in town planning, 448 of Basil I.), 189, 198; mosque of Sulei-
man,
Cistercian building,influence in Italy, 285, 576; palace of Constantine, 207;
317 Pantocrator, 199; Pentacoubouclon, 208;
Cisterns, in Alexandria, 176; in Constan-
tinople, SacredPalace, 208, 209; Chrysotriclin-
207 ff. ium, 210; St. Irene, 1 88; SS. Sergius and
Civil War, American, 552 Bacchus, 187, 188; Stoudion basilica,
Clapboards, 534 188; Tekfour-Serai, 209
Classic architecture, 40-158; influence of, Construction, in Egyptian architecture, 23-
154. 161. 344-345, 461-462 24; in Roman architecture, 149-150; in
Classicism, 444, 461-476; in Spanish Byzantine architecture, 185; in Roman-esque
America, 528, 530; in the United States. architecture, 266
541-550 Corbeled arch, 4; in Egypt, 23; in Êgean
Clerestory, in Egyptian architecture, 23; in architecture, 37, 40-41; in Greek tecture,
archi-
Roman architecture, 123, 124, 131, 148; 73; in Mexico, 524; in India,
in medieval architecture, 165 580
Clerisseau, C. L., 462, 466 Cordova, great mosque, 574, 575
Clermont-Ferrand, Notre Dame-du-Port. Corinth, 108; temple, 79, 82
240. 250. 259 Corinthian order, Greek, 49, 56, 57, 67-69,
INDEX 609
84, 85; Roman, 109, 144-146; in the Diocletian, 114, 115, 142
Renaissance, 374, 386 Dog-tooth molding, 256
Cornice, 5; Egyptian, 23; Doric, 58; Dolmens, 9
Ionic, 64-65 Dome, in Assyria, 31; in Roman ure,
architect-
Coro, 313 118, 148; in Anatolia, 163, 177-
Corridors, /)/)/| 179; in Byzantine architecture, 191; in
Cortona, Domenico da, 382 Renaissance architecture, 347-348, 358,
Coucy, 278, 326, 327 366, 378-379; in post-Renaissance period,
Council-house, Greek, 57, 74. 89 405-406, 409, 412, 413. 421, 435, 44"-
Counter-Reformation, 401, 414 442, 447, 451, 452; in modern
ure,
architect-
Cour d'honneur, 464 464, 471, 472, 475, 495; in American
Courts, i; in Egypt, 12, 23; in potamia,
Meso- architecture, 542, 543, 545, 550, 556; in
25; in .(Egean architecture, 38- Spanish colonial architecture, 529; in
39; in Renaissance architecture, 359, Sassanian architecture, 572-573; in
361, 368, 384, 392; in post-Renaissance Mohammedan architecture, 574, 575-
architecture, 415-416, 419, 424, 433, 434, 576, 579
/)/]/! Domestic architecture, Egyptian, 21;
Courts, peristylar, 74, 93; in Egyptian Babylonian, 26; Greek, 74,
92-94;
architecture, 12; in Greek architecture, Etruscan, 107; Roman, 112, 137-143;
74; in Roman architecture, 120, 138; in Byzantine, 211 ff.; Gothic, 328, 333;
Mohammedan architecture, 574, 578 Renaissance, 368-370, 384, 390, 392-394;
Craftsmanship, 481, 512, 532-533, 540-541 post-Renaissance, 415-416, 432-435, 444-
Cram, R. A., 559 446; modern, 475-476, 484-485, 491,
Creil, 288 492, 495; American, colonial, 533, 534,
Crescents, 448, 540 536, 538; post-colonial, 547; classical,
Crete, .^Jgean architecture, 37-42; Gothic 547-55O; modern, 556, 565
architecture, 286 Domitian, 134, 137, 141
Cromlechs, 9 Doors, Greek, 73; Roman, 144
Cronaca, 352-353 Dorians, 37, 51, 74
Ctesiphon, palace, 573 Doric order, Greek, 42, 49, 51, 52, 56,
Cubiculce, 138 58-64, 59. 61, 63, 70, 72, 74, 79-84. 466,
Cupolas, 442. 532, 536, 539 546; Roman, 107-108, 109, 144; in the
Curia, 112 Renaissance, 374
Curvilinear Gothic in England, 284, 304 JT., Dormers, 387, 394, 535
306 Dresden, 488; Court Theater, 474, 488,
Cusping, 579 480; Frauenkirche, 451; Z\*inger, 450,
Cuvillies, Francois de, 452 451
Cyclopean masonry, 40 Drops, 534
Cyma, 71. 72, 73 Driibeck, 244
Cyprus, Gothic architecture in, 286 Drum, 358, 379, 406, 435, 442
Cyrus, 30, 32, 33; tomb of, 36 Duban, J. F,, 493
Dublin, Four Courts, 471; Parliament
Dahshur, pyramid at, 16 House, 471
Dais. 392 Due, J. L., 493, 504
Damascus, caliphate of, 574; Great Mosque, Du Cerceau, J. A., 381, 382, 383, 423
S74 Duilius, 133
Dance, George, 472, 478 Du Perac, Etienne, 423
Daouleh, 176 Durham, 229, 260, 261, 301
Daphni, 201 Dur-Sharrukin, 27, 28; palace of Sargon,
Darius, palace and hall of, 34, 35; tomb 27, 28, 29-30
of, 35 Dutch colonial architecture, 531-532
Darmstadt, Exposition of 1901, 515-516
Daulis, the Phokikon, 89 Earl's Barton, 224
Daumet, Honored 495 Early English style of Gothic, 284. 303^".
Dawkins. 462 Ears, 73, 374. 419, 437. 448
De Caumont, Arcisse de, 484 Eastern architecture, 572-588
Decorated Gothic in England, 284, 304 ff., Eaton Hall, 478, 479
Dehr-Ahsy, 177 Eaves, 108, 565
Delia Porta, Giacomo, 411 Ecclesiastical architecture, importance in
Delorme, see L'Orme medieval art, 159; in Byzantine art, 183;
Delos, 52. 55. 95; House of the Trident. in Romanesque art, 219; in Gothic art,
93. 04 279 ff.
Delphi. 52, 56; circular temple, 85; Echinus, 58, 60. 63-64
precinct of Apollo, 95, 06; monuments, Eclecticism, 460, 461, 485-499; in America,
95; treasuries, 86 552-560
Dentils. 65-67, 145 Ecole des Beaux-Arts, see Paris
Der-el-Bahri, mortuary chapel of Hatshep- Ecpuen, chateau, 380, 384
sut. iH. 22, 24 Edinburgh, high school, 467, 470; National
Desgodetz, Antoine. 462 Monument. 469
Diaconicon. 165, 221 Egg and dart, 64, 72, 144, 151
Didyma, temple of Apollo, 55, 57, 66, 78, 85, Egypt, Assyrian conquest, 15, 28; Persian
118 conquest, 33; Roman architecture in,
Diminution of columns, 3, 58 152; early Christian architecture in, 174-
6io INDEX
176; medieval architecture of, 1*74 ff.' Flanders, Gothic secular architecture in,
Mohammedan architecture in, 573-574, 329 ff.; Renaissance in, 390-391
S75-S76, 579 Flavian emperors, 114, 146
Egyptian architecture. 11-24; influence of, Fleche, in Gothic architecture, 297
82, 84. 467, 487 Florence, 346, 347 ff.,412; Annunziata, 351;
"Egyptian Hall," 443 Badia, tomb, 373; Baptistry, 238, 270,
Eisenach, the Wartburg, 268 348, 374; Bargello, 334, 340; cathedral,
Elephantine, 21, 23 276, 280, 319, 320, 340, 347, 348, 378;
Eleusis, Hall of Mysteries, 86 Giotto's campanile, 320, 340; Laurentian
Elevators, 561 Library, 403-405, 419; Loggia dei Lanzi,
Elizabeth, 391 347; Palazzo Medici-Riccardi, 350, 351,
Elizabethan houses, 392-394, 485, 534 372, 373; Palazzo Pandolfini, 361, 372,
Ellis, Harvey, 564 374, 376, 375; Palazzo Pitti, 350, 371.
Elmes, H. L., 474 372; cornice, 373; court, 416; imitation
Engineering. Roman, 104 of, 424, 487; Palazzo Rucellai, 351, 352;
England, pre-Romanesque architecture in, Palazzo Strozzi, details, 371, 373;
213 ff.; Romanesque architecture in, 259; Palazzo Vecchio, 332, 333; Pazzi Chapel,
Gothic architecture in, 285, 299^".; 340, 378; Ponte Santa Trinita, 418;
medieval domestic
architecture in, 332; S. Francesco al Monte, 353; S. Lorenzo,
Renaissance architecture, 346, 391-394; 348, 349-350, 365; old sacristy, 35O;
post-Renaissance architecture, 402, 438- facade, 316; Medici chapel, 361, 363,
450; Functionalism, 504, 505, 513-515; 403; fagade, 403; Sta. Maria degli
Romanticism, 477-483; classicism in, 464, Angeli, 350, 366, 367; S. Miniato al
465, 467, 469; eclecticism, 486-487, 490- Monte, 238, 270, 347; Sto. Spirito, 365;
493 sacristy, 353, 367; Spedale degli Inno-
English colonial architecture, 532-540 centi, 348-349, 370; Uffizi, 409; Villa
Ensemble, in Greek architecture, 95; in Medicea, 369
Roman architecture, 143; in Byzantine Florida, 529
architecture, 210 ff.; in the Romanesque Flutes, 58, 65
period, 268; in the Gothic period, 335 Flying buttress, in Normandy, 258^".;
Entablature, Doric, 60, 161; Ionic, 65-67, in Gothic architecture, 290, 291, 292;
66 in St. Paul's, London, 442
Entasis, 58 Fontaine, P. L., 467
Ephesus, temple of Artemis, 52, 55, 79, 85; Fontainebleau, 423; Gallery of Henry II.,
theater, go, 91 384
Ephrata, 535 Fonthill Abbey, 478
Epidaurus, 55; gymnasium, 92; Tholos, Fora ciyilia,
120
67, 68, 69, 85, 145 Fore-courts, 384, 434
Epirus, 56 Forms for concrete. 505
Ernst Ludwig of Hesse- Darmstadt, 515 Fortification,see Military architecture
Esarhsddon, 27 Fortified towns, in Romanesque period,
Escurial, 420, 421 268; in Gothic period, 323 ff.
Etruscan architecture, 106-108 Forum, 104
Etschmiadzin, 189, 195, 196 Fossanova, 317
European type of plan, 10, 39; see also Fountains, 416, 434. 446, 578
Greek type of plan Fourth crusade, 203
Exchanges, 472, 498 Foyers, 473, 474. So?
Exedre, 95. 130, 131, 135 France, Roman architecture in, 152;
Expositions, 498, 501 Romanesque architecture in, 247 ff.;
Expression in architecture, 6; of character, Gothic architecture in, 286 ff., 306 ff.;
499, 506-509;
5O2, of culture, 499, 500- Gothic secular architecture in, 33Of.{
501,502,509-516; 563-565; of structure, Renaissance architecture in, 346, 379-387;
279, 281, 500, 502-506, 511-512, 556, post-Renaissance architecture in, 402,
560-563 422, 438; classicism in, 464, 465-467, 469;
Ezra, 174, 181 Romanticism in, 483-484; eclecticism in,
487, 493-494; functio.ialism in, 500, 503,
Facades, development of in Romanesque 504, 507, 514-515
architecture, 266 ff.; in French Gothic, Francis I., 380-381
2QO, 296; in English Gothic, 301 ff. Frankfort, Salvatorsk^pelle, 221
Factories, 501, 516 Freart de Chambray, Roland, 425
Faience, 579 Frederick the Great, 452, 473; proposed
Fan vault in English Gothic, 305 ff. monument to, 469, 542
Far East, architecture in, 580-586 "Free Classic," 491
Fergusson, James, 503 Freiburg, 309, 313, 314
Ferro-concrete, 504-505 French colonial
architecture, 530-531
Ferstel, Heinrich von, 483, 489 "French order," 386
Fiesole, Badia, 365 Fresco, in late Byzantine architecture, 206;
Fillets, 72 in Italian Gothic architecture, 318
Fireplaces, 534; see also Chimneypieces Fret, 62, 72
Fireproof construction, 505, 506; 561-562 Friedrich IV., 390
Fisher von Erlach, J. B., 451, 486 Frieze, Corinthian, 67; Doric, 58, 60-62,
Flamboyant Gothic, 284, 306 ff.; influence 108; Ionic, 65-67, 84-85; pulvinated,
of, 337 419
INDEX 611
Frigidarium, 129, 130 Grave monuments, see Tombs

Functionalism, 461, 499-516; in America, Greece, Êgean architecture in, 37-42;
560-565 Persian wars, 51, 52; Macedonian quest,
con-
51, 55; Roman conquest, 103, 106,
Gable roof, 39, 73, 78 109
Gables, 106, 387, 394, 479, 532, 536 Greek architecture, 49-102; influence of,
Gabriel, J. A., 431-432 58, 103-104, 572
Gaillon, chateau, 380 Greek cross plan, 187, 197, 352, 366, 368,
Galilei, Alessandro, 413 529, 550
Galleries, 368, 384, 393, 414, 447 Greek revival, 464, 467-469, 488, 489; in
Gandon, James, 471 America, 545-547, 549, 558
Gardens, Renaissance, 370; sance,
post-Renais- Greek type of plan, 122, 124, 148
in Italy, 411, 414, 416; in France, Greenwich, King Charles's block, 439;
430, 434; in England, 446-447; in Queen's House, 344, 439
America, 556; Mohammedan, 579; Gregory of Nysa, description of a Martyr-
Chinese, 586 ium, 176
Gargoyles, 291 ff. Gresham, Sir Thomas, 392
Gamier, Charles, 494, 507 Groined vaults, in Roman architecture, 128,
Gartner, Friedrich von, 483, 487, 488 131, 148, 149, 150; in medieval tecture,
archi-
Gate-houses, 384, 392, 393 226; in Renaissance architecture,
Gates, Roman, 134-135 378,414
Gau, F. C., 484 Guarini, Guarino, 412
Gaza, 322 Gudea, building at Lagash, 26
Genoa, baroque architecture in, 412; aces, Guilbert,
pal- A. D., 495
409, university, 415
419; Guild halls, in Gothic Flanders, 329 ff.
Geoffrey de Noyers, 303 Guimard, Hector, 514
Geometric Gothic in England, 304 Guttffi, 59
Georgia, medieval architecture of, 203 ff. Gymnasia, 57, 92
German colonial architecture, 535 Gynacsa, in early Christian architecture,
Germany, Roman architecture in, 105, 151- 165
152; Romanesque architecture in, 242 ff.;
Gothic architecture in, 285, 308 ff.; Hadrian, 114, 118, 136, 146
Renaissance architecture in, 346, 388- Haidra, 210, 211
390; post-Renaissance architecture in, Half-timber, 534

402, 450-452; classicism in, 467, 468; Halicarnassus, 55; Mausoleum, 55, 95
Romanticism in, 483; electicism in, 486, Hall, 534; in English house, 392
487, 488-490; functionalism in, 514-516 Halle, St. Mary, 312
Germigny-les-Pres, 196, 197, 212, 214, 221 Hallenkirchen in German Gothic, 309 ff.
Gerona, 315, 340 Hallet, Stephen, 542-544
Gernrode, 244, 271 Hamilton, Thomas, 469
Ghent, Town Hall, 330, 338 Hampton Court, 391, 393, 444
Gibbons, Grinling, 448 Hankar, Paul, 513, 514
Gibbs, James, 447-448; influenceof 537,538 Hardwick, Philip, 509
Gilly, David, 469 Harem, 578
Ginain, Paul, 494 Harlech, 326
Giocondo, Fra, 370 Harrison, Peter, 539-540
Girault, Charles, 495 Hartford, 534; Eaton House, 534
Girgenti,.
see Akragas Hatfield House, 394
Gizeh, pyramids, n, 13, 14, 16-17; "Tem-
ple Hathor-head columns, 22
of the Sphinx," 22 Hatshepsut, 18
Glass, use of in modern architecture, 502, Hauran, 154
503-504, 561-563 Haviland, John, 550
Gloucester, cathedral, 306, 307, 339 Hawksmoor, Nicholas, 442
Gmund, the Holy Cross, 311, 339 Heidelberg, ch"teau, 389, 300, 450
Godefroi, Maximilian, 551 Hellenistic period, 51, 56-57
Goethe, 483, 506 Henry II., of France, 381, 384
Gontard, Karl von, 452 Henry IV., of France, 423-424, 436
Goodhue. B. G., 559 Henry VIII., of England, 391
Gorlitz, SS. Peter and Paul, 312, 339 Henry the Fowler, 242
Gothic architecture, 262 ff.,275-343; later Herculaneum, 462
opinion of, 275; priority in, 276; sur-
vivals Herder, 476, 500
of, in England, 477; in America, Hermogenes, 66, 144
532-534 Herms, 390, 410, 419, 423
Gothic revival, 477-485; in America, 550- Herrera, Juan de, 421
552, 559-560 Hildesheim, St. Michael, 227, 243, 244, 271
Goths, 115 Hingham, "Old Ship," 535
Goujpn, Jean, 381, 382, 383 Hippodamus, 54-55, 98
Gournia, 39 Hippodromes, 92
"
Government buildings, 469-472, 498, 541, Hip-roofs, 73. 584
542-545. 552. 558 Hoarcross, church, 404
Graeco-Roman period, 57-58, 151, 152 Hoban, James, 542, 549
Granada, Alhambra, 577, 579; palace of Hobleton, Flete Lodge, 403
Charles V., 388, 389 Hoffman, Joseph, 515
6l2 INDEX
Hoffmann, Ludwig, 490 Jesuits, 415, 450

Holkham, 445 JumiSges, 256, 257, 267
Holland. Renaissance in, 390 183,
Holy Land, Gothic architecture in the, Justinian,
Inigo, 438-439.
ones,
191
444. 445, 447, 44"
286, 321 ff. Julius II., 358, 418
Horiuji. 586 Julius Casar, 113, 118, 120, 127
Horta, Victor, 513, 514 Juvara, Filippo, 413
Hotels, 498, 501
Hotels. French Renaissance, 384 Ka, 1 6
House, see Domestic architecture Kalat-Seman, St. Simeon Stylites,160, 173,
Housing, 98, 501 174
Houston. Rice Institute, 560 Kallikrates, 82, 83, 84
Hugh, bishop of Lincoln, 303 Karnak, temples, IQ, 20, 21
Hugo, Victor 484 Kassites, 26, 27
Hunt, R. M., 556 552, Kearsley, John, 538
Hyksos, 13 Kedleston, 468
Hypsethral temples, 78 Kent, William, 443
Hypostyle hall, 20, 22, 23, 120 Kew, buildings at, 486-487, 491
Keystone, 107, 146
Iconoclastic controversy, 196 Khafre, 16
Iffley,259, 260 Khajuraho, Temple of Vishnu, 581
Iktinos, 82, 84, 85, 144 Khalb-Louzeh, 160, 173
lie de France, Romanesque architecture Khammurabi, 26
of, 261 ff.; Gothic architecture of, 284, Khan, 29
Khmer architecture, 580, 583
Impost, 107, 146, 148 Khorsabad; see Dur-Sharrukin
Inca architecture, 527 Khufu, ii, 13, 16
India, Hindu architecture, 580-582; fluence
in- Klenze, Leo von, 469, 474, 487, 488
of, 580, 582; Mohammedan Knossos,
chitecture
ar- 37, 38, 39
in, 574, S79, 581-582 Kodja-Kalessi, 160, 177
Interiors, 430, 432, 438, 439, 440; Empire,
467; colonial, 534, 538, 539; American, Label molding, 107
classical, 549-550 Labrouste, Theodore, 493, 503
Interlacing arcades, 239, 241, 256 Laconicum, 129
Ionia, architecture in, 33, 51-52, 55, 56, Lagash, 26
87 La Granja, palace, 422
lonians, 51 Lake dwellings, 8-9
Ionic angular capital, 144 Lancet style of Gothic, 284, 303 ff.
Ionic base, 72 Landscape gardens, 434, 446-447, 475
lonjccapital, origins of, 32, 65 Lanfranc, 256
Ionic order, Greek, 49, 51, 52, 56, 57, 64-67, Langres, 288, 338
66, 70, 72, 79, 82-85; Roman, 109, 144 Languedoc, Romanesque architecture of,
Ipswich, Whipple house, 534, 335 250 ff.
Irene, Empress, 200 Lanternes des morts, 335
Iron age, 10 Lanterns, in Romanesque architecture. 267;
Iron, use of in modern architecture, 501, in French Gothic. 297; in English Gothic,
503-505, 560; see also Steel 301; in Renaissance architecture, 348
Isidorus of Miletus, 188 Las Huelgas, 314, 340
Isopata, 41 Lassus, J. B. A., 484
"Italian style," 487, 55i' Latin plan, 365, 550
cross
Italy, Greek architecture in, 51, 52; Roman Latrobe, B. H.. 545-546, 550, 560
architecture of, 103-151; Romanesque Lavra, the Catholicon, 201
architecture of. 226 ff.; Gothic ure
architect- Lean-to, 534
of, 285 ff.; medieval secular Le Bran, Charles, 430
architecture of, 332 ff.; Renaissance. Ledpux, C. N., 465
346-379; early Renaissance, 347, 358; Legislative buildings, 471, 480, 541-543,
High Renaissance, 358-364; naissance
post-Re- 545, 546
architecture, 402, 403-419; Leipzig, Imperial courts, 490
modern architecture in, 406-498 Lemercier, Jacques, 424
Lemsa, 210
houses, 392-394, 534 L'Enfant, P. C., 542
Jacobean
ahan,
ames
amestown,
apanese
avan
Shah, 579
I., 438
533
architecture, 580, 386
architecture, 580, 582; influence
580, 583
Lenoir, Alexandra, 484
Le N6tre, Andre, 434
Leo
Leo
X., 358
the Isaurian, 106; cathedral, 314
of, Leon, S. Isidore, 263, 265
Leopold II., 496
Jean-de-Berry, 328 Leroy, J. D., 462
Jean-le-Loup, 279 Lescot, Pierre, 381, 382
Jefferson, Thomas, 538, S4I-S42, 544. 548, Les Herbiers, chapel, 484
550 Le Vau, Louis, 426, 428, 433
Jerusalem, Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Libraries, public, 498, 501, 503, 553, 554-
173 555
INDEX 613
Liernes, in English Gothic, 304^.; in Madrid, palace, 422
Flamboyant Gothic, 306 Maestri Comacini, 234
Lifts, 561 Magister Operarius, 219
Light-wells, 39 Magna Graecia, 109
Lima, cathedral, 528 Magnesia,88; Temple
agora, 87, of
Lincoln, cathedral, 304, 305 Artemis, 57, 67, 77
tecture, Mainz,
Lintels, 3; in Egypt. 15; in Êgean archi- cathedral, 227, 245, 246, 248
40; in Renaissance architecture, Major, Thomas, 462
376, 386 Manassia, 180, 205, 206
Liverpool, St. George's Hall, 474, 475 Manchester, Assize Courts, 482; Town
Locri, temple, 77 Hall, 482
Log-cabins, 527 Mangin, Joseph, 544, 550
Loges, 418, 507 Manors, fortified, 329, 392
Loggias, 361, 370, 387. 444- 4SL 537. Mansart, Francois, 425-426
538 Mansart, Jules Hardouin, 428-430, 435
Loire, chateaux of the, 380-381 Mantinea, 55
Lombardi family.,355 Mantua, S. Andrea, 352; S. Sebastiano,
Lombardy, Romanesque architecture in, 352, 366, 367
226 ff.\ early Renaissance in, 354-355, Marble, in Greek architecture, 49, 54, 70,
377 72, 73, 82; in Roman architecture, 113,
London. Adelphi, 475; Admiralty, 471; 151; in English Gothic, 304; in Renais-
sance
Bank of England, 468, 472; Burlington architecture, 355; in post-Renais-
sance
House, 443; Covent Garden, 448; architecture, 411, 418, 436; in
British Museum, 474; Crystal Palace, Victorian Gothic, 482; in American
504; Euston Station, 509; Expositionof architecture, 542
1851, 504; Foreign Office, 482; great fire, Marble veneering, 118, 131, 149-151, 418
447, 448; Houses of Parliament, 480, Marburg, St. Elizabeth, 278, 310, 315, 316
481 ; Institute of Chartered Accountants, Marcellus, 126
491; Law Courts, 482-483; the Monu-
ment, Marcus Aurelius, 133
440; Museum of Natural History, Marie Antoinette, 434
492, 505-506; Newgate Prison, 472, 473; Markets, 539, 540
New Zealand Chambers, 491; Regent's Marly, 434
Park, lodge, 491; Regent's Quadrant, Martyrium, described by Gregory of
475; Royal Automobile Club, 491; Nysa, 176
Royal Exchange, 392. 472; St. Bride's, Maryland, colonial architecture, 533, 537
447; St. Martin-in-the-Fields', 447-448; Massachusetts, colonial architecture, 534
St. Mary-le-Bow, 447, 440; St. Mary-le- Mastaba, 16
Strand, 447; St. Pancras', 474; St. Paul's, Mausolea, 55, 95, 114
440, 441; St. Paul's (Old), 439; St. Paul's, Mausolus, 95
Covent Garden, 439, 447; St. Stephen's, Maxentius, 123, 124
Walbrook, 447; Somerset House, 444, Maximilian II.. 488
471; the Tower, St. John's Chapel, Maya architecture, 524, 526
260; Travelers' Club, 487; University of Mazarin, 327
London. 490; Westminster Abbey, Mchabbak. 173, 181
Henry VII. 's Chapel. 306; Westminster Meander, 62
Cathedral, 402; Whitehall Palace, 439; Mecca, 573
Wren's plan for, 448; York Stairs, 439 Medes, 30
Long and short work. 224 Medford, Royall house, 547
Longhena, Baldassare, 412, 419 Medici, Catherine de, 424
Longleat. 392, 394 Medieval architecture, 159-343; influence
L'Orme, Philibert de, 381, 382, 383, 386, of. 344-345
423 Medieval revival. 476-485
Lorsch, 223 Medieval survivals, 477, 532 -
534, 536,
Lotus bud column. 13, 22 538
Lotus flower column, 22 Medum, pyramid at, 16
Louis XII.. 380 Meeting-nouses, 534-535
Louis XIII., 423, 424 Megalithic works, 9
Louis XIV., 423. 425-430 Megalopolis, 55; agora, 87; hall of the
Louis XV., 423. 430-431, 438 Arcadians, 56, 89; theater, 91
Louis XVI., 423, 431-432, 438, 464 Megaron, 39, 42, 74, 76, 80, 89, 92-93
Louis. Victor, 464 M6hun-sur-Yevre. 328
Louisiana, 531 Meissonier, J. A., 430
Lou vain. Town Hall. 330 Memphis, 13
Low Countries, Gothic architecture of, 286 Memphite period, 13, 16
Ludwig I., 469, 488 Menai suspension bridge, 503
Lycia. architecture in. 33 Menes, 12
"Lyons, H6tel Dieu. 431; St. Nizier, 386 Menhirs, 9
McComb, John, 544 Menkure, pyramid of, 16
Mclntire, Samuel, 547 Mesopotamia preclassical architecture, 24-
McKim, C. P., 554-555. 556, 558, 560 32; later styles, 572-574
McKim, Mead, and White, 554 Messene, 55
Machuca, Pedro, 388 Metopes, 58, 60, 63, 84
Maderna, Carlo. 411 Mexico City, cathedral, 527, 528
614 INDEX
Mexico, pre-colqnial
architecture, 524-526; Mycenasan period, 37-42
Spanish colonial architecture, 527-529 Mycerinus, 16
Mezzanines, 369, 376, 435 Myra, St. Nicholas, 177
Michelangelo, 358, 374, 377, 403-407, 419 Mystery temples, 74, 75, 85-86
Michelozzo, 351, 360
" "
Middle Kingdom in Egypt, 13, 17, 20, 22 Naksh-i-Rustam, 35, 36
Milan, cathedral, 321, 322; Palazzo Nancy, 431, 436
Marino, 410; S. Ambrogio, 227, 228, Nantes, 307
229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 290; Sta. Maria Naos, 76
della Passione, 367; Sta. Maria near Napoleon, 466-467, 475
San Satiro, 355 Napoleon III., 484
Miletus, bouleuterion, 89; see also Didyma Narni, bridge, 132
Military architecture, Mesopotamian, 25, 29; Narthex, in early Christian architecture,
Mycensean, 37; Roman, 104; Byzantine, 165 t
210; Gothic, 323-328, 329; Chinese, 586 Nationalism, 219, 344, 476, 501, 517
Milizia. Francesco, 506 Naturalism, 476
Mills, Robert, 546, 550 Naumburg, 309
Minarets, 576-578 Nauplia, Nea Mpni, 200
Minoan period, 37-42 Near East, architecture in, 572-579
Mirhab, 574-575 Nebuchadnezzar, 30
Missions, 529-530 Nemea, Doric capital, 63
Mistra, Peribieptos, 206 Neo-classicisrn in America, 556-559, 563
Mitla, 526 Neo-grec, 469, 490, 493
Mitylene, theater, 125 Neolithic period, 8
Mnesicles, 87 Nero, 113, 139, 141
Moat, 384 Nesfield, Eden, 491
Modena, 234 New Bedford, Bennett house, 549
Modern architecture, 460-523 New England, colonial architecture, 534-
Modernism, 499, 502, 505-516, 563-565 535; post-colonial architecture, 547, 549
Modillions, 67, 145 New Mexico, 529
Module, in Greek architecture, 50, 63, 64 New Orleans, 531; Cabildo, 331
Mohammedan architecture, 573-579 Newport, casino, 554; "cottages," 552;
Moldings, Greek, 71, 72; Roman, 144; Market, 540; Redwood Library, 540
Gothic, 298; Renaissance, 372-374 New York, 532; Astor house, 552; Century
Moliere, opinion of Gothic, 275 Club, 555! City Hall, 544; City Hall
Monaco, Trophy of Augustus, 133 (old), 538; Columbia University, 558;
Monasticon Anglicanum, 477 Custom House (Sub-Treasury), 546;
Monceaux, chateau, 382-384 Federal Hall, 542; Grant's Tomb, 558;
Monier, Joseph, 504 Knickerbocker (Columbia) Trust Com-
Monreale, 227, 240, 241 558; Lafayette Place, 549; Lenox
Montacute, 303
Estny,
ibrary, 552; Madison Square Garden,
Monte Carlo, Casino, 494 555; office buildings, 560-563; chants'
Mer-
Monticello, 548 Exchange (National City Bank),
Montier-en-Der, 223 546; Pennsylvania Station. 558; St.
Monuments, commemorative, Greek, 95; Patrick's, 551; St. Paul's Chapel, 538,
Roman, 104, 133 539; Stadt-Huis,
532; State Prison, 550;
Moorish architecture, influence in South Trinity Church, 551; Woolwprth Build-
ing,
Italian and Sicilian Romanesque, 230 ff.; 561, 562, 563; World Building, 561;
in Spanish Gothic, 313 ff.; in Spanish Vanderbilt houses, 552; Villard houses,
architecture, 387, 527 554
Mora, J. G. de, 528 Niches, 131, 148, 359, 361, 452, 464
Morienval, 227, 262, 263, 267, 288 Nicholas V., 357
Moriscoes, 387 Nika sedition, 1 88
Morris, William, 500, 505 Nimes, amphitheater, 128; "Baths of
"
Mosques, 574~S78 Diana," 152, 247; Maison Carree," 116;
Mount Airy, 537 imitation of, 542; Pont du Card, 132,
Mousmieh, Prastorium, 153, 154 247
Mschatta frieze (Berlin Museum), 174, 175, Nineveh, 27, 28
181, 574 Nippur, 26
Miilhausen, Liebfrauenkirche, 312, 339 Nordlingen, St. George, 310, 316
Mullioned windows, 394, 533 Normandy, Romanesque architecture in,
Munich, 483, 487,
488; cathedral, 312, ?-55 ff-. 256; Gothic architecture in, 285
339; Glyptothek, 474; Konigsbau, 487; Nurnberg, Peller house, 390, 391; St.
Ministry of War, 487; Pinakothek, 487; Lawrence, 311
Royal Library, 487; Theatine Church,
451; Wagner theater, 507 Oak Park, Church of the Unity, 565
Munster, 309, 312 Obelisks, 21
Mural painting, 94, 139 Odeions, 74, 91^-92
Museums, 474,498 Odoacer, 115
Mutules, 58, 60, 63 Office buildings, 501
Mycenze, 37; palace, 39; "Gate of Lions," Olbrich, Joseph, 515
40, 41, 42; "Treasury of Atreus," 41- "Old Babylonian kingdom," 26
42, 43 "Old Kingdom" in Egypt, 13, 16, 20
INDEX 615
Ollentaitambo, 527 Palaces, Egyptian, 21; Mesopotamian, 25,
Olmsted, F. L., 558 28, 29, 30; Persian, 33-36, 34; Êgean,
Olympia, 52, 55. 56, 95; bouleuterion, 89; 37, 39-40; Roman, 104; Byzantine,
circular temple, 85; gymnasium, 92; 2O"ff.; Renaissance, 345, 350-352, 355,
Metroon, 78; stadion, 92; temple of 359. 360, 361, 368-369; post-Renaissance,
Hera, 62, 79, 82; temple of Zeus, 77, in Italy, 414, 415-416; in Spain, 420-
78, 80; treasuries, 86 421, 422; in France, 433; in England,
Olympic games, 50 439, 442, 444-445; Mohammedan, 578-
Openings, in Greek
architecture, 73; in 579; Chinese, 585
Roman architecture, 144; in early Palcestras, 92, 130
Christian architecture, 165; ment
develop- Palenque, 524, 525
of, in Romanesque architecture, Paleolithic period, 8
267; in Gothic architecture, 204, 295, 296; Palermo, Cappella Palatina, 240; dral,
cathe-
in Italian domestic architecture, 333 ff.; 240
in Renaissance architecture, 374, 382 Palladian motive, 376
Openwork, in late Gothic architecture, 307; "Palladian style," 442-444, 448-450, 465;
in Spanish Gothic, 315 in America, 536, 538
Opisthodomos, 76, 80 Palladio, Andrea, 370, 408-409, 416, 419,
Opus alexandrinum, 165 443, 461
Opus francigenum, 275, 308 Palm column, 22
Opus incer turn, 150 Palmyra, 146, 154, 462
Opus reticulatum, 150 Paneling, 534. 538
Opus spicalum, 150 Papyrus column, 13, 22
Orange, theater, 126; triumphal arch, 247 Parion, altar, 86
Orchestra, 89, 91, 124, 125, 126 Paris, Arc du Carrousel, 466; Arc de
Orchomenos, 41 1'Etoile, 466, 467, 500; Bazaar de la
Orcival, 250 rue de Rennes, 504, 5/0; Bibliothdque
Orders, 49, 57; in Rome, 104, 107, 109-112; Nationale, 502, 503; Bibliothe'que
in the Renaissance, 374-376, 377 Sainte Genevidve, 493, 495, 503; Bourse,
Orders, colossal, 375-376; in Italy, 405, 467, 472; cathedral, 280, 290, 292,
407, 408, 419; in France, 426, 427,432, 203, 295, 296, 338; Chapelle Com-
434; in England, 439, 442, 444 m"morative, 495; Chateau Madrid, 380;
Orders, superposed, in Roman architecture, College des Quatre Nations, 426, 435;
127; in Renaissance architecture, 351, Ecole des Beaux-Arts, 484, 491, 493, 512;
355. 357, 368, 374, 388, 392; in post- influence, 552, 555, 560; Ecole Mili-
Renaissance architecture, 408, 414, 426 taire, 432, 436; Eiffel Tower, 503; Expo- sition
439, 442, 444, 447, 448; in American of 1855, 504; Exposition of 1878,
architecture, 538 504; Exposition of 1900, 512; Gare
Orders, see also Columns de 1'Est, 509; Gare du Nord, 509;
Organic architecture, definition of, 2i8jf. Gare du quai d'Orsay, 509, 511; Halle
Oriental influence, in Roman architecture, au Ble, 472, 503; Halles Centrales, 503;
106, 115, 143 in western Europe, 179 hotels, 434; Hotel Cluny, 33L 337, 338;
Oriental type of plan, 12, 25, 37-39, 87,93, Hotel de Salm, 464; Hotel de Ville,382,
114, 148 495; Invalides, 435, 436; Louvre, 337,
Orientation of medieval churches, 168 382; colonnade, 426, 427, 428; court,
Orleans, Gaston d', 425 383, 424, 426; south facade, 426; Lux- embourg,
Ornament, Egyptian, 24; Mesopotamian, 425; Madeleine, 467, 542;
32; Persian, 33; .flJgean,42; Greek, 72- Metropolitan Railway stations, 514;
73; Roman, 151; in Christian-Roman Mint, 471; Mus6e Galliera, 494; Mus"e
architecture, 166; in Syrian architecture, des Monuments Francais, 484; octroi
174; in early Byzantine architecture, gates, 465; Od6on, 473; Ope"a, 494, 496,
184; in later Byzantine architecture, 507, 508; Opera (Old), 487; Palais
198, 206; in Carolingian architecture, Bourbon, 471; Palais de I'lndustrie, 504;
223: in Lombard Romanesque, 230; Palais de Justice, 47 1 ; Vestjbulede Har-
in Tuscan Romanesque, 266; in Sicilian ley, 504; Palace of the Legion of Honor,
Romanesque, 240 ff.; in French Gothic, 464; Panth6on, see Sainte Geneviftve;
297 ff-;in Spanish Gothic, 313; sance,
Renais- Petit-Palais, 494; Place Dauphine, 423,
in Mohammedan ure,
architect- Place de la Concorde, 436;
377;
579; in Far Eastern architecture, M6; de
ace
432,
France, 436; Place Royale, 423,
580, 581 436; Place Vend6me, 436; Place des
Orvieto, 320, 321 Victoires,436; Porte St. Denis, 437, 438,
Ostia, 143; theater, 126 500; rue de Rivoli, 475; Sacred Heart,
Otto Hemrich, 389 495. 497! St. Augustin, 495; Ste.
Oval house, 10 Chapelle, 271?, 291, 299, 338; Ste.
Overhang, 534 Clotilde, 484, 485; St. Eustache, 384;
Ovolo, 72 Ste. Genevi^ve, 464, 465; imitation of,
Oxford, Clarendon Press, 442; colleges, 544; St. Germain-des-Pre's, 290, 338;
477. 485; St. Mary's, 448 St. Gervais, 424; St. Martin des Champs,
202, 338; St. Philippe du Roule, 474-
PsDstum, 52, 462, 493; "Basilica," 77; 475; St. Sulpice,431; Ste. Trinite',495;
great temple, 75, 80, 85; imitation of, Sorbonne, chapel, 435; Tuileries, 384, 385,
549; temple of Demeter. capital, 63 387, 423; Val-de-Grace, 426, 435;
Pagodas, 580, 584 Venddme column, 466
21
6i6 INDEX
Parma, 234, 270; theater, 416 architecture, 228; in Gothic architecture,

Parterres, 416 293, 294
Parthia, 57, 572 Pierrefonds, 327, 338
Pasargadae, 33, 36 Pilaster strip, in Lombard Romanesque,
Patio, 529 228
Paulinzelle, 242, 243, 244, 271 Pilasters, in Roman architecture, 127, 146;
Pavia, Certosa, 320, 353, 354; San Michele, paneled, 377
231. 233. 270 Pile dwellings, 8-0, 10
Pavilions, 358, 361, 382, 426, 428, 432, 448, Pioneer architecture, 527
544 Piraeus, 54, 98,; arsenal, 74
Paxton, Sir Joseph, 504 Piranesi, G. B., 462, 464
Pearson, J. L., 492 Pisa, baptistry, 238; cathedral, 229, 235,
Pediments, in Greek architecture, 73, 78, 236, 237, 238; cathedral group, 235, 237;
84; in Roman architecture, 106; in Leaning Tower, 235, 238
Renaissance architecture, 349, 366, 387; Pisistratus, 52, 67, 86
in post-Renaissance architecture, 411; Pittsburgh, Allegheny Court House, 553;
broken, 390, 401, 403, 419, 423, 437, Calvary Church, 558
448. S36 Pitzounda, 204, 214
Pekin, Temple of Heaven, 584 Planning, 2; in Rome, 105; in France,
Pendentive, 177 ff. 384, 435; irregular, 105, 361, 436
" "
Penetrations, 378, 414, 421 Plantagenet Gothic, 285

Pennethorne, Sir James, 490
Plateresque, 387
Pennsylvania, colonial architecture, 535 Platt, C. A., 556
Percier, Charles, 467 Plymouth, 534
Pergamon, 56, 73; Altar of Zeus, 57, 86; Poblet, 314
palace, 93; Ionic temple, 85 Poelaert, Joseph, 496
Pericles, 54, 80 Poggio a Cajano, Villa, 353, 37O, 376
Pe'rigueux, St. Front, 212, 227, 251, 252, Poitiers, Notre Dame la Grande, 252, 253
267 Pollaiuolo, Simone del, 352-353
Peristyle, exterior, in Egyptian ure,
architect-
Polychromy, in Egyptian architecture, 12;
in Mesopotamian architecture, 32; in
23; in Greek architecture, 74, 76,
Greek architecture, 72; in Roman tecture,
archi-
95; in Roman architecture, 107, 116;
151; in early Christian tecture,
archi-
in Renaissance architecture, 358, 379;
166, 176; in Byzantium, 184,
in post-Renaissance architecture, 442;
in modern architecture, 198; in Lombard Romanesque, 230; in
467; in Amer-
ican
Tuscan Romanesque, 236; in French
architecture, 544, 549, 558
Gothic, 298; in Tuscan Gothic, 320
Peristyle, interior, 74. 82, 89, 93, 148; see
also Courts, peristylar Polyclitus, 55
Polygonal masonry, 40, 527
Perislylium 112
,
Pompeii, 113, 116-118, 120, 137-139, 462;
Perpendicular Gothic, 284, 305 ff.,312
amphitheater, ,127; House of Pansa, 138,
Perrault, Claude,
427-428
139; theaters, 124
Persepolis, 33-36; palace, 34; tomb of
Pompey, 113
Darius, 35
Poppelmann, Matthaus, 431
Persia, Mohammedan architecture in, 573-
Portico, in ^gean architecture, 38-40; in
574. 575-576, 579 Greek architecture, 57, 83, 93; in Roman
Persian architecture, Achaemenian period, architecture, 107, iiS; in Renaissance
32-36; Sassanian
period, 572-573 architecture, 386; in modern ure,
architect-
Perspectives, constructed, 412, 416
442, 443, 445, 447, 45?, 463, 464,
Peru, 527, 528 in American
469, 471, 472, 474, 475;
Perugia, "Arch of Augustus," 108
architecture, 538, 540,
537, 542, 545,
Peruzzi, Baldassare, 360-361, 374 also Peristyle,
546, 548, 549, 550; see
Phaistos, 39 exterior
Phidias, 54, 80, 82 Post-colonial architecture, 547, 550
Philadelphia, 535, 537, 560; Bank of
Post-Renaissance architecture, xxii, 401"
Pennsylvania, 545; Bank of the United in America,
459; 536-540, 542-545
States (Custom House), 545, 546; Bank .
Pozzolana, 149
of the United States (Girard's Bank), Prague, Belvedere, 388; Waldstein palace,
542; Centennial Exposition, 554; Christ 450
Church, 538; Girard College, 546; In- dependence
Preclassjcal architecture, 11-47
Hall, 538-539; library, 542; Prehistoric architecture, 8-10
Merchants' Exchange, 546; vania
Pennsyl- Priene, 97; plan, 98; agora, 87; Council-
Hospital, 540; Sedgeley, 551;
03; temple
"
house, 89; House XXXIII,"
State House, 538-539 of Athena, 55, 85
Philae, 21 Primaticcio, Francesco, 381, 382, 383, 385
Philip II., 420 Prior Park, 445
Piano nobile, 360 Prisons, 471-472, 501, 541, 550
Picardy, Gothic architecture in, 284 Pronaos, 76, So
Picturesqueness in medieval architecture, Proportions, in Renaissance architecture,
335 377; in post-Renaissance architecture,
Piedmont, baroque architecture, 412 402, 403, 444
Pienza, Piazza, 370 Propylaea, 39-40, 42, 86-87
Pier, compound, in Lombard Romanesque Proskenion, 89, 91
INDEX 617
Prostyle portico, 76, 82, 83 Roman arch order, see Arch order
Protestantism, 447, 451, 485, 534-535 Roman architecture, 103-158; influence of,
Prothesis, 165, 221 154, 345; revival of, 464-467; in Amer-
ica,
"
Proto-Renaissance," 238 541-542, 544-545
Provence, Roman architecture in, 151-152; Romanesque architecture, 217-274; ity
prior-
Romanesque architecture in, 247 ff. in, 225; influence of, 268 ff.
Providence Plantation, 534 Romanesque revival, in Germany, 483; in
Ptolemaic period, 15, 22 England, 492; in France, 495; in Amer-ica,
Pugin, Augustus, 479 552-553, 556
Pugin, A. W., 480, 500 Romanticism, 461, 476-485
Purbeck marble, 304 Rome, 57, 113-115, 346, 357. 377. 412;
Pylon, 20 Aqueduct of Appius Claudius, 108;
Pyramid-mastaba, 17 "Arch of Constantine," 134, 147; Arch
Pyramids, n, 13, 16-17, 135 of Domitian, 134, 147; Arch of Titus,
133; Basilica JEmilia, 123; Basilica
Quadriga, 134, 137 Julia, 113, 122-123; Basilica of Maxen-
Quais, 436 tius, 123, 124; Basilica Ulpia, 122, 123;
"Queen Anne" style, 490-491; in America, Cancellaria, 357-358, 369, 372; itol,
Cap-
553-554 406, 407, 419; Castle of Sant'
Quimper, 307 Angelo, 136; Circus Maximus, 128; Co-
losseum,
Quoins, 150, 423, 533 ///. 127-128; Column of
Duilius, 133; Column of Marcus Aure-
Radial plans, 434, 436, 448, 550 lius, 133; Column of Trajan, 133; Comi-
Railway stations, 498, 501, 507-508, 553 tium, 122; Curia, 122; Fora of the Em-
perors,
Ramesseum, 23, 109 121 ; Forum of Augustus, 113,
Ramps, 416 120; Forum of Caesar, 113, 118, 120;
Ramses III., 15 Forum Romanum, 113, IIQ, 121, 122;
Raphael, 358, 360-361, 369, 374, 377 Forum of
Trajan, 114, 120-122; Forum
Raschdorff, J. C., 489 Transitorium, 147; fountain of Acqua
Ravanitsa, IQO, 205 Paola, 411; French Academy, 428; II
Ravenna, Sant' Apollinare in Classe, 194; Gesu, 411; Golden House of Nero, 141;
Sant' Apollinare Nuovo, 168, 160, 194; Isola Tiberina, 143; Lateran, 168; facade,
Baptistry of the Orthodox (S. Giovanni 413, 463; Mausoleum of Augustus, 136;
in Fonte), 179; Mausoleum of Galla Mausoleum of Hadrian, 136; monument
Placidia (SS. Nazzaro e Celso), 160, 178, to Victor Emmanuel II., 496, 499;
179, 195. !97i palace of Theodoric, 207; palaces of the Caesars, 139-142,' 141;
S. Vitale, 185, 186, 189, 190, 195, 197 Palatine Hill, 114, 139-141, 143; Palazzo
Refinements, in Greek architecture, 50, 82, dell' Aquila,360, 361; Palazzo Barberini,
85; in Roman architecture, 116; in 415; Palazzo Barberini, stairs, 419;
medieval architecture, 219 ff. Palazzo Cancellaria, 357-358, 369, 372;
Reformation, 401, 402 Palazzo Farnese, 368, 369, 371, 372;
Regensburg, 469 cornice, 375; Palazzi Massimi, 361,
Reims, cathedral, 287, 290, 291, 295, 296, 362; Palazzo Ludovisi
(Montecitorio),
299, 300; St. Remi, 262 412; Palazzo Raffaello, 358, 360;
Renaissance architecture xxii, 344-400; vival
re- Palazzo del Senatore, 406-407; lazzo
Pa-
of, 487-489, 490, 492, 493; in Amer-
ica, Venezia, 357; Pantheon, 114,
552, 554-556 115, 117, 118, 149; impost, 146, 147;
Ren wick, James, 551 tabernacles, 144; imitation of, 351, 359,
Restoration, of Gothic buildings, 478 463. 471, 474, 475, 544, 545; Piazza del
Revett, Nicholas, 462, 465 Popolo, 418; Piazza of Saint Peter, 412,
Revolution, French, 469, 484; American, 540 418, 419; Pons ^milius, 108; Pons
Rhamnus, temple of Themis, 77 Mulvius, Ripetta, 418; rostrum,
132;
Rhine valley, Romanesque architecture of, 122; Sant' Agnese fuori-le-mura, 162,
245 168, 180; Sant' Agnese, Piazza. Navona,
Rhodes. 56; plan of, 98; Gothic ure
architect- 412; S. Andrea, 409; S. Carlo a' Cati-
in, 286 nari, 415; S. Clemente, 163, 164, 180;
Rhythmical bay, 352, 357-358, 365, 386 Sta. Costanza, 137, 170, 177, 180; S.
Ribbed vaults, in Lombard Romanesque Giovanni in Laterano, 168; facade, 413,
and Gothic, 226 ff. 463; S. Ivo. 412; S. Lorenzo fuori-le-
Richardson, H. H., 552-553 mura, 160. 167, 168, i6g, 180; S. Marco,
Richelieu, chateau, 424 355, 357; Sta. Maria in Cosmedin, 168;
Richmond, capitol, $41, 542; Monumental Sta. Maria Maggiore, 168, 180; Sta.
Church, 550; penitentiary, 550 Maria del Popolo, Chigi Chapel, 360;
Rickman, Thomas, 479 St. Paul's Outside-the-Walls, 162, 164,
Rimini, S. Francesco. 351 167, 168, 180; St. Peter's, 357, 359, 360,
Robert de Luzarches, 279 366, 367, 368, 375-376, 378, 379, 404. 405;
Rocaille, 430 baldachino, 412; colonnades, 411; dome,
Rockville, Maxwell Court, SS5 495-496; facade, 411; nave, 414; St.
Rock- work, 411 Peter's (Old), 160, 164, 165, 168, 180;
Rococo, 438; in Germany, 451; in France, S. Pietro in Montorio, "Tempietto,"
422. 430-431, 4-12 356, 358, 377. 379; S. Pietro in Vincoli,
Rodriguez, Lorenzo, 528 160, 168, 180; S. Stefano Rotondo, 160,
Rogers, Isaiah, 546 162, 170, 180; Spanish Steps, 418;
6i8 INDEX
Tabularium, 109, iio-m; temple of San Gallo, Giuliano da, 352-353

Antoninus and Faustina, 146, 147; ple
tem- San Juan Capistrano, 530
of Castor and Pollux, 145; "Temple San Juan de los Caballeros, 529
of Fortuna Virilis,"109; temple of Mars Sanmicheli, Michele, 362-363
the Avenger, 113, 116; temple of Trajan, San Miguel de Linio, 225
122; temple of Venus and Rome, 118; Sansovino, Jacopo, 362-364, 377
"Temple of Vesta," 118; theaters, 126; Santa Barbara, mission, 530
theater of Pompey, 113, 125, 126; Santa Creus, 314
thermae of Caracalla, 129, 130; impost, Santa F6, cathedral, 529
147; thermae of Diocletian, 130; tomb Santa Maria de Naranco, 225
of Constantia, 137; see also Santa Cos- Santullano, 225
tanza; Vatican, 357, 404; Court of the Sarcophagi, 94, 109, 135, 403
Belvedere, 359; Court of San Damaso, Sargon II., 27, 29
loggia, 361, 377; Scala Regia, 412; Sash windows, 446, 536
Villa Farnesina, 361, 369; Villa Madama, Sassanian architecture, 572-573; fluence
in-
359, 361, 370, 377, 378; Villa di Papa of, 573, 574
Giulio,409; stairs, 419; Villa Pia, 404, Saucer dome, 379, 464, 556
416 Sccenie frons, 124, 126-127, 416
Romulus Augustulus, 115 Scamozzi, Vincenzp,450
Roof -comb, 524 Scandinavia, Gothic architecture in, 321
Roofs, 4; in Egypt, 23; in Mesopotamia, Schinkel, K. P., 469, 473, 474, 483
25; in Persia, 33; in Crete, 38; in Schliiter,Andreas, 451
Greece, 39, 73, 78; in Italian sance,
Renais- Schmidt, Friedrich, 489
379; in French Renaissance, 382, Schnaase, Karl, 500
387; in English Renaissance, 394; in Scipio Barbatus, sarcophagus, 109
American architecture, 532, 533, 535, 536; Scotia, 65
in India, 580; in China, 580, 584 Scott, Sir Gilbert, 482
Root, J. W., 556, 564 "Screens," 392, 393
Rose windows, 295 Sculpture, in Egyptian architecture, 11;
Rostra, 122 in Mesopotamian architecture, 32; in
Rouen, cathedral, Tomb of Louis de Greek architecture, 54, 78, 84-85; in
Breze, 382; Palais de Justice, 332; St. early Christian architecture, 174; in
Maclou, 307, 310; St. Ouen, 307, 308 Byzantine architecture, 184; in Lombard
Rough cast, 513 Romanesque, 230; in Aquitanian manesque,
Ro-
Ruskin, John, 481, 506; influence of, 551 253; in Spanish Romanesque,
Rustication, in Roman architecture, 144; 263 ff.; in French Gothic, 298; in
in the Renaissance, 350, 351, 371, 376; English Gothic, 302; in German Gothic,
in post-Renaissance architecture, 401, 310; in Spanish Gothic, 313; in Italian
410, 418, 419, 423, 424, 448 Renaissance architecture, 354, 377; in
Ruweiha, 173 Khmer architecture, 583; in Japanese
architecture, 586
Sacconi, Count Giuseppe, 496 Secession, see Modernism
St. Augustine, 529 "Second Golden Age" of Byzantine art,
St. Denis, 309; mausoleum of the Valois, 197
384, 386 Secular architecture, in Byzantium, 207 ff.;
St. Gall (Switzerland), 221, 222 in the Romanesque period, 268; in the
St.-Gaudens, Augustus, 558 Gothic period, 322 ff.
St. Germain, 423 Sedding, J. D., 492
St. Germer de Fly, 290, 292, 293 Segesta, temple, 85
St. Gilles, 249 Selinus, 52, 80; megaron of Demeter, 77;
St. Leu d'Esserent, 289 temple "C," 77; temple "F," 86; temple
St. Loup-de-Naud, 262 of Apollo, 70, 78, 80
St. Maur-les-Fosses, chateau, 382 Semper, Gottfried, 488-489, 500, 507, 509
St. Medard-en-Jalle, 329 Senlis, 290, 296, 297
St. Saturnin, 250 Sen-Mut, 24
Saite period, 15, 22 Sennacherib, 27, 28
Sakkara, pyramid, 16 Septapartite vaults in Durham cathedral,
Salamanca, Casa de Monterey, 388; 260
university, 387 Serlio, Sebastiano, 381, 403
Salem, Pierce- Nichols house, 547, 548 Seroux d'Agincourt, 484
Salisbury, 276, 280, 301, 302, 303, 304 Serra, Junipero, 529
Salon, 433 Servadony, J. N., 431, 463
Salonica, Eski-djouma, 186; Hagia Sophia, Service quarters, 2, 29, 430, 434, 442, 444,
1 86, 1 88 445, 537, 549
Salzburg, cathedral, 450 Severus, 118
Samos, 52; temple of Hera, 79, 85 Seville, cathedral, 27.?,280, 315, 316, 318;
Samothrace, Kabirion, 86 Giralda Tower, 316, 318- El Salvador,
San Diego, 529 altar, 422; Town Hall, 387, 388
San Francisco
Solano, 529 Seti I.,temple at Abydos, 23
San Gabriel, 530 Sexpartite vaults, 257 ff,
San Galgano, 317 Shaw, Norman, 491
San Gallo, Antonio da, the elder, 352-353, Shell-work, 430
366; the younger, 368, 379, 405 Shop fronts, 504
INDEX 619
Shute, John, 392 Strawberry Hill, 478
Siccardsburg, A. S. von, 489 Street, George Edmund, 482
Sicily,Greek architecture in, 51, 52, 55, 56; Strickland, William, 546
Roman conquest, 109; Romanesque Stuart, James, 462, 464
architecture in, 239 ff. Stucco, in Roman architecture, 147; in
Sidon, sarcophagi from, 94 Renaissancearchitecture, 372, 378; in
Siena, cathedral, 319; Palazzo del Mag- post-Renaissance architecture, 418; in
nifico, flag holder, 373; Palazzo Pub- American architecture, 527; in Moham-
medan
blico, 333, S8o, 581 architecture, 579; see also Rough
Site, adaptation in Greek architecture to, cast
95 ; in medieval architecture, 335 ff. Stupa, 580-581, 582
Siva shrines, 581 Sullivan, Louis, 511, 513, 563, 564-565
Skene, 89-91 "SuROfl Place, 393
Skopas, 85 Switzerland, Gothic architecture in, 321
Skripou, 199 Syracuse, 109
Skyscrapers, 560-563 Syria, Roman architecture in, 115, 143,
Smibert, John, 539 146, 152-154; early Christian architect-
ure
Smithfield, St. Luke's, 533 in, 171-174; Mohammedan tecture,
archi-
Snefru, pyramid of, 16 573-574
Soane, Sir John, 472 Stylobate, 58
Soest, Wiesenkirche, 310 Sumerian architecture, 26
Soissons, 204, 295 Susa, 33
Soufflot, J. G., 431, 462, 500 Symmetry, 50
Spain, pre-Romanesque architecture of, Syracuse, 52, 56; altar of Hieron, 86; palace
224; Romanesque architecture of, 363 ff.; of Dionysius, 55
Gothic architecture of, 285, 312 ff.;
Renaissance architecture in, 346, 387- "T" form in Carolingian architecture, 221
388; post-Renaissance architecture in, Tabernacles, in Roman architecture, 144,
402-403, 420-422; Mohammedan tecture
archi- 147; in Renaissance architecture, 361,
in. 573-574. 579 372, 374, 376
Spalato, palace of Diocletian, 115, 142, 143, Tablinum, 138
179, 462; arches, 146, 147; mausoleum, Taine, Henri, 500
137, 142; Porta Aurea, 147 Tarentum, 52, 109
Spanish colonial architecture, 527-531; Tegea, temple of Athena Alea, 85
Sparta, 55 Tello, see Lagash
Spatial forms, in Roman architecture, 148, Temples, Egyptian, 18-21; Assyrian, 29;
345; in Renaissance architecture, 366- Babylonian, 30, 31; Greek, 52, 75-86,
368, 377-378, 379 74-87; Etruscan. 107; Roman, 112, 114,
Speyer, 220. 246, 247
245, 115-120; imitation of, 409, 447, 463,
Spina, 128 467, 474, 475, 540, 541-542, 544. 546,
Spire,development of, in Gothic architect-
ure, 549, 550; circular,56, 85, 107, 109, 118;
206 ff. imitation of, 358, 466
Spoleto, cathedral, capitals,373 Tepidarium, 129, 130, 131
Squares, 370, 423. 436, 448, 475 Terra-cotta, 62, 108, 505, 560, 562
Squinches, 200 ff.,573, 579 Terramare, 10
Stables, 434, 444 Terraces, 359, 361, 416
Stadions, 56, 74. 92 Thamugadi, 143; forum, 120
Stael, Madame de, 476, 500 Theaters, Greek, 52, 56, 74, 89-91; Roman,
Stage, Greek, 89-90, 91; Roman, 124; 124-127, 125; imitation of, 471, 473-474,
modern, 507 544, 545; post-Renaissance, 416-417;
Stained glass in Gothic architecture, 298 modern, 472-474, 491, 498, 506-507
Stairs, in Assyria. 29; in Persia, 33; in Theatral area, 39
Crete, 39; in Renaissance architecture, Theban period,13, 17, 20
378, 380, 384; in post-Renaissance Thebes (Egypt), 13
architecture, 405, 410, 415. 419. 433; in Thebes (Greece), 55
Maya architecture, 524 Theodoric, 195
Stalactite vaulting, 579 Theodosius II., 210
Stanislas, 431 Theoretical writings, Greek, 50; Roman,
Steel, use of, in modern architecture, 501, 113; Renaissance, 352; post-Renais-
sance,
502, 503-505, 561-562; see also Iron 392, 403, 409, 423, 425, 443;
Steeples, 447-448, 538 modern, 461, 463, 480, 481, 484, 500,
Stele, 94 503. 506, 509-511, 512
Stereotomy, 437 Therma:, 104, 114, 115, 128-131, 148
Stilt-blocks, 146. 579 Thinite period,12-13
Stilting in Gothic architecture, 288 ff. Thirty Years' War, 450
Stiris. great church of St. Luke, 200. 201; This, 12
little church of St. Luke, 190, 199, 200 Tholoi, see Temples, circular
Stoas, 74, 87. 91, 92, in Thornton, William, 542
Stone age, 8-9 Thothmes III., 24, 27
Stonehenge, Q Thurii, 98
Strap-work, 392, 438 Tiberius, 141
Strasburg, cathedral,309, 339, 483; modern Tiercerons, in English Gothic, 304 ff.; in
buildings, 490 Flamboyant Gothic, 306
620 INDEX
Tie-rods, 4. 378 Vandals, 115

Tile, 482, 504, 505, 579 Van de Velde, Henry, 512
Timgad, 143; forum, 120 Van der Null, 489
Tiryns, 37; palace, 39, 40 Vanvitelli, Luigi, 414
Titus, 133 Vasari, Giorgio, 409
Tivoli, "Temple of Vesta," 118; Vaults, 5; Egyptian, 23;
109, 110, Mesopotamian,
capital, 145; Villa d'Este, stairs, 419; 25, 30-32; JEgean, 41; Greek, 57, 73;
of Hadrian, 139, 140, 148
villa, Roman, 104-105, 124, 128, 131, 148-149,
Toledo, 314, 317 150, 151, I-52, 154; in Romanesque
Toltec architecture, 525 architecture, 264^".; in Gothic architect-
ure,
Tombs, Egyptian, 16-18; Persian, 36; 286, 287 /.; in English Gothic,
JEgea.n, 37, 41 ; Greek, 74, 94-95; Roman, 301 ff.; Renaissance, 378; sance,
post-Renais-
I3S-I37; Mohammedan, 579 436; modern, 504; Sassanian, 572-
Torus, 65 573; Mohammedan, 574, 579
Toulouse, Hotel d'Assezat, 384; St. Sernin, Vaux-le-Vicomte, chateau, 426; gardens,
220, 251, 259, 263 434 .
Tourmanin, 772, 173 Velarium, 124
Tournus, St. Philibert, 254, 255, 271 Veneering, marble, 118, 131, 149-151, 418
Tours, St. Martin, 221 Venice, medieval secular building in, 334;
Towers, in Romanesque, 267; in Gothic, early Renaissance in, 355; High Renais-
sance
206 ff.,301; in Renaissance architecture, in, 363-364; baroque architecture
414; in post-Renaissance architecture, in, 412; Logetta, 376-377; Library of
414, 435, 442, 447; in modern architect-
ure, St. Mark, 363-364, 365, 370; details, 375;
475, 480, 503; in American tecture,
archi- Palazzo Cornaro della Ca' Grande,
529, 530, 538, SSL 552, 553 363; Palazzo Ducale, 334, 335, 340;
Town halls, in Gothic Flanders, 329 ff.; Palazzo Grimani, 363,364; Palazzo
modern, 485, 498 Vendramini, S.
Giorgio Mag-
354, 355;
Town planning, Greek, 54-55, 56, 95-98; giore, stairs, 419; SS. John and Paul,
Roman, 113-114; Italian Renaissance, Sta. Maria della Salute, 412, 413,
320;
370-371, 418; post-Renaissance, 423- 414; St. Mark's, 201, 202, S.
203;
424, 448, 475 Salvatore, 365
Townsend, C. H., 513
Verandas, 531
Tracery, plate, 294; bar, 294, 295
Verona, amphitheater, 128; city gates, 363;
Trajan, 114, 120, 122, 133
Treasuries, 86 Loggia del Consiglio, 370; Palazzo
Trebizond, Chrysokephalos, Pompei, 363; Roman theater, 126;

205
S. Zeno, 233, 234, 263
Trebizond, Hagia Sophia, 205, 206
Tresguerras, F. E., 528 Versailles, 428, 429, 430; apartments of
Louis XV., 437; chapel, 435; Galerie
Troves,309, 339
des Glaces, 430, gardens, 434;
Trianon, see Versailles, 483 431;
Triclinium, Grand Trianon, 434; Hall of the States-
138
Trier, Porta Nigra, 134, 1.35; General, 471; hamlet of Marie Antoin-
ette,
buildings of
Constantine, 434, 483; Petit Trianon, 432, 433,
152
Triforium, 434, 437; theater, 432
165
Vestibules, 415, 433
Triglyphs, 58, 60-62, 63, 64; corner, 144
Triumphal arch, see Arch, commemorative Vezelay, 254, 255
Trophies, 133, 438 Vicenza, "Basiliza," 370, 376, 407, 408;

imitation of, 487; Teatro Olimpico, 416;
Troy, 37
Villa Rotonda, 408, 409
Troyes, 204, 296
"Tudor Victorian Gothic, 482; in America, 552
arch," 306
Tudor Victor Emmanuel II., 496
architecture, 480, 485
Vienna, 488-489; Court Theater, 489;
Tumulus, 135, 136-137
Houses of Parliament, 489; Imperial
Turin, Palazzo Carignano, 412; Superga,
Palace, 489; Metropolitan Railway
413, 4U. 463
stations, 514, 515; museums, 489; Opera.
Turkish architecture,574, 576; imitation
489; Palace of Justice, 489; Postal
of, 487
Turrets, Savings Bank, 515; Rathaus, 489; Ring-
394
Tuscan order, 108, 374, strasse, 489; S. Carlo Borromeo, 451;
439 tive
Vo-
Tuscany, architecture "Secession," 515; university, 489;
Romanesque in, 234;
Gothic architecture
Church, 483, 489
in, 319 ff.; early
Renaissance
Viennese Workshops, 515
-in, 347-353
Vignola, G. B. da, 409, 416
Uji, Phenix-Hall, 583, 586 Vignon, Barthelemy, 467
Ulm, 311 Vignory, 261
United States, architecture in, 540-565 Villas, Roman, 139; Renaissance, 353, 361,
Universities, 498 369-370; post-Renaissance, 409, 411,
Upjohn, Richard, 551 416
Ur-Nina, building at Lagash, 26 Villers-Cotterets, chapel, 386
Urns, cinerary, 135 Vinci, Leonardo da, 358, 366
Uskub, Church of the Archangels, 205 Viollet-le-Duc, E. E., 482, 484, 500, 503, 504,
Uzes, 267 506
Virginia, 548; colonial architecture, 533,
Vanbrugh, Sir John, 442, 444 537
INDEX 621'
Vishnu shrines, 581 Williamsburg, capitol, 538

Viterbo, S. Martino, 318 Willson, E. J., 479
Vitruvian academy, 403, 409 Winckelmann, 462, 463
Vitruvius, 50, 68, 108, 113,374,377,392,403 Windows, Greek, 73, 78; Roman, 144; in
Volutes, 32, 36, 64-67, 84, 145, 366 medieval architecture, 165, 267, 294,
Voysey, C. F. A., 513-514 295, 296, 333 ff.; in Renaissance tecture,
archi-
Vries, V. de, 392 374, 382; post-Renaissance, 419,
437
Wagner, Otto, 511, Windsor, St. George's Chapel, 306,

515 339
Wagner, Richard, 501, 507 Wolsey, Cardinal, 391
Wall membering, Greek, 71; Roman, 147- Wood construction, imitation of, in Persia,
148; in Renaissance architecture, 376- in Doric architecture, 60, 62; in
33;
386; post-Renaissance, in Ionic architecture, 65
377. 419;
American architecture, 544 Wood, use of, in America, 532, 533, 534,
Wallot, Paul, 489 540, 547; in Indian architecture, 580;
Wall shafts, in Saxon architecture, 224
in Chinese architecture, 580, 584
Walls, typical form of, 2 Wood, John, 448
Walpole, Horace, 478 Wood, Robert, 462
Walter, Thomas U., 546 Worms, 245, 246
Washington, 558; capitol, 542, 545-546, Wren, Sir Christopher, 439-442, 444, 445,
547; Lincoln Memorial, 558; St. John's, 448, 477

447,
550; White House, 548, 549; Treasury, Wright, F. L., 565
546; Washington Monument, 546 Wyatt, James, 478

Waterhouse, Alfred, 482, 492
Webb, Sir Aston, 492 Xerxes, palace and hall of, 35-36
491, 34,
Webb, Philip, 505
Wedgwood, Josiah, 464 York, assembly rooms, 443; cathedral, 305,

Wells, cathedral, 302, 304 339
Wells, Hplden, 554, 555 Ypres, Cloth Hall, 330, 338
West Point, 559 Yucatan, 524-525
Westover, 536, 537
Wheel windows, 295 Ziggurat, 29-30
White. Stanford, 560 Zigzag molding, 255, 256
William of Sens, Zoroastrianism,
303 33
William the Conqueror, 259 Zoser, pyramid of, 16
THE END
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY, LOS ANGELES
Architecture " Urban PlanningLibrary,825-2747.

This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
JUN 16 1986
JUN 4- 1986
REC'D AUPU
OCT 27 1986
051986
0
REC'D AUPL
PSD 2339 9/77

s
*2Lx-~ ' *
-5 A "
s:
^/ojnvj-jo^
âojnvo-jo-""
UCLA-AUPL
NA200K56h
.Of-fAL iF0% ÔF-CAli

FOf,;^ .
" /
"
"v
'^ 5^ " x
"
"k.
"
CL/":"
A =5 S NA-TS
TT "J
A I r^-^k
^ " vT^)
" -^ A I f^
"d ^ I
I i
.
"
'P I .
-J I I "
ANGEL
5^

Fiske Kimbal - A History of Architecture PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fiske Kimbal - A History of Architecture PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fiske Kimbal - A History of Architecture PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the book based on the introduction?

What is the purpose of the book based on the introduction?

What architectural styles are discussed in the book based on the table of contents?

What architectural styles are discussed in the book based on the table of contents?

HISTORY

GEORGE HENRY CHASE, Ph.D.

JOHN E. HUDSON PROFESSOR OF ARCHAEOLOGY HARVARD UNIVERSITY

of civilization. These books are prepared with reference to class use

the higher institutions of learning, and they also provide authoritative,

comprehensive, and interesting histories for the general reader. Each

volume will contain an

BY FISKB KIMBALL, M. Arch., Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Architecture, University of Michigan

GEORGE HAROLD EDGELL, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor of Fine Arts. Harvard University

BY PROF. GEORGE HENRY CHASE

PROF. CHANDLER RATHFON POST

BY PROF. ARTHUR POPE

HARPER " BROTHERS, NEW YORK

FISKE KIMBALL, M.ARCH., PH.D.

GEORGE HAROLD EDGELL, PH.D.

HARPER y BROTHERS PUBLISHERS

Copyright, 1918. by Harper " Brothers

Printed in the United States of America

Published March. 1918

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION xvii

AUTHORS' PREFACE xxi

I. THE ELEMENTS OF ARCHITECTURE I

II. PREHISTORIC ARCHITECTURE 8

III. PRECLASSICAL ARCHITECTURE u

IV. GREEK ARCHITECTURE 49

V. ROMAN ARCHITECTURE 103

VI. EARLY CHRISTIAN ARCHITECTURE 159

VII. BYZANTINE ARCHITECTURE 183

VIII. ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE 217

IX. GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE 275

X. RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 344

XI. POST-RENAISSANCE ARCHITECTURE 401

XII. MODERN ARCHITECTURE 460

XIV. EASTERN ARCHITECTURE 572

1. STONEHENGE. (RESTORED BY HARTMANN) 9

4. DER-EL-BAHRI. MORTUARY TEMPLE OF HATSHEPSUT. STORED

5. KARNAK. PLAN OF PRINCIPAL TEMPLES. (BAEDEKER) .

6. KARNAK. CENTRAL AISLES OF THE HYPOSTYLE HALL OF THE

GREAT TEMPLE OF AMON. MODEL IN THE METROPOLITAN

7. DUR-SHARRUKIN (KHORSABAD). THE PALACE OF SARGON

9. BABYLON. PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF NINMAH. (AFTER

10. PERSEPOLIS. PLAN OF THE PALACE PLATFORM 34

it. PERSEPOLIS. TOMB OF DARIUS, NAKSH-I-RUSTAM. (JACKSON) 35

14. MYCEN/E. GATE OF LIONS 41

17. ATHENS. THE PARTHENON. (RESTORED TO ITS CONDITION

IN ROMAN TIMES. MODEL IN METROPOLITAN MUSEUM) 53

1 8. ATHENS. THE ERECHTHEUM, FROM THE WEST 54

20. THE GREEK DORIC ORDER, WITH A RETRANSLATION INTO

WOOD. (AFTER DURM) -

21. PROFILES OF GREEK DORIC CAPITALS, ARRANGED IN LOGICAL

23. MAGNESIA. TEMPLE OF ARTEMIS. DETAILS. (HUMANN) .

25. ATHENS. MONUMENT OF LYSICRATES 69

TRYSELL, AFTER KOLDEWEY) 70