ttYZAYHNE AND ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE T.G.JACKSON m m % 9fa 8 McMASTER UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9005 0211 5227 1 V '' f J Title 816403.pdf Creator Jackson, Thomas Graham,Sir,1835-1924. Type text Publisher Cambridge [Eng.] University Press, Date 1915. Language eng Description Subject Architecture, Gothic. S^J^ Irvo , MtM^Bttv Into*raitg ffitbrarg tytenentsh bg Yv^.ru,o^:^.^)Wi:&, LH3J BYZANTINE AND ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME I CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS C. F. CLAY, Manager LONDON : FETTER LANE, E.C. 4 BOMBAY } CALCUTTA V MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd. MADRAS j CHICAGO . THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS TOKYO : MARUZEN.KABUSHIKI-KAISHA ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BYZANTINE AND ROMANESQUE ARCHITECTURE by Sir THOMAS GRAHAM JACKSON, Bart., R.A. Hon. D.C.L. Oxford, Hon. LL.D. Cambridge Hon. Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford Associi de l'Acadimie Royale de Belgique Nunquam vera species ab utilitate dividitur. QuiNTIL. Or. Inst. VIII. 3 SECOND EDITION Cambridge : at the University Press 1920 IN MEMORIAM A. M. J. First Edition, 19 13 Second Edition, 1920 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION SEVERAL years ago, when I used to take pupils, they came to my house occasionally for an informal talk about our art, illustrated by reference to books and sketches, and for their use I gathered together rough materials for a history of Post-Roman Architecture. It seemed to me that these might be of service to others also if put into a literary form, so far. at all events as time permitted me to carry the scheme, which is not likely to go beyond the present volumes. While thus engaged I was asked to give a course of lectures to the Royal Institution and afterwards to the University ofCambridge, for which I chose the Byzantine and Romanesque period. These lectures, expanded, form the foundation of this book, which will I trust help those who are interested in Architecture, whether pro fessionally or not, to appreciate a chapter in Art which yields to none in importance, and is inferior to none in attractiveness. The buildings I have chosen for description and illustration are, so far as it was possible, those I have visited and studied myself. In cases where I have not seen a building to which I refer I have generally said so. Information derived at second-hand is only of second-rate importance. VI PREFACE It has not been possible to avoid photography entirely in the illustrations, but I have employed it as little as I could. I am indebted to my son Basil H. Jackson for some drawings which are marked with his initials ; the rest of the illustrations which are not otherwise acknow ledged are from my own sketches, some of which, being made more than 50 years ago, have an accidental value as showing buildings that have since been altered or renovated. I am indebted to the Society of Antiquaries for the plan of Silchester (Fig. 113) from Archaeologia ; to Signor Gaetano Nave, the architect engaged at Ravenna, for much useful information, and many facilities for examining the buildings, and for the plan of S. Vitale (Fig. 37); to my friend Mr Phene" Spiers, F.S.A., for the loan of several photographs of S. Mark's and for the plans of that church and S. Front; to Mr Keyser, F.S.A., for Plates CLVIII, CLIX, CLX from his Norman tympana and lintels; to the Clarendon Press for the plan of Parenzo (Fig. 38) from my book on Dalmatia ; to the Rev. R. M. Serjeantson for permission to copy his plan of S. Peter's, Northampton (Fig. 136); to the Editor of the Building News for Plate XLIX ; and to Mr Raffles Davidson for leave to reproduce his beautiful drawing of Tewkesbury (Fig. 135). Finally my thanks are due to the University Press for the trouble they have taken in producing the book handsomely. T. G. J. Eagle House, Wimbledon. October, 191 2. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION IN the seven years that have passed since the first edition of this book was published many things have happened to the buildings and places of which it treats. Constantinople, indeed, still belongs to the Turks, who have once more escaped the ejection which seemed inevit able, and they are likely to remain there so long as the world cannot agree whom to put in their place. But their European territory, like that of the Byzantine Empire when they finally attacked it, extends only a short way beyond the city walls. Salonica is once more in Christian hands, and the ancient churches are restored to their original rite. Un happily the finest of them, S. Demetrius with its wealth of sculpture, mosaic, and marble, has perished in the flames. I have been promised particulars of interesting discoveries that the ruin has brought to light,—of a crypt with remains of older buildings below ground decorated with painting or mosaic, —but the promise has not hitherto been redeemed. S. Sophia is once more the Cathedral of the Greek rite, and has been covered with decorative painting, not altogether to its advantage if one may judge from photographs. It does not appear that any other of the old churches have suffered by the fire which swept through the heart of the city and destroyed S. Demetrius. Ravenna has been bombed, and if it is true that the west end of S. Apollinare Nuovo has been thrown down it is to be feared that some of the earlier and better mosaics of Theodoric's time must have perished. I have no certain information as to this. The hostile bombs that fell at Venice do not seem to have touched any of the most important buildings, though a good deal of mischief has been done ; and we have yet J. A. b Vlll PREFACE to learn what has happened in Friuli, where it is recorded that Cividale, among other places has fared badly. Nearer home, the Romanesque buildings of France lay beyond the scene of warfare ; and our own have happily escaped. During this period Professor Van Millingen's excel lent book on the churches ofConstantinople has appeared, of which I have been glad to make use and I have to thank Messrs Macmillan for leave to reproduce some of the plans it contains. We have unhappily to deplore the death of its accomplished author. I have also been much indebted to M. Antoniades' great work "Ei«f>pacrt.s rrjs 'Ayias Sottas which I had not previously seen. I may also mention the work of MM. Ebersolt and Thiers (Paris 1 91 3) on Les Eglises de Constantinople, describing and illustrating thirteen of the Byzantine churches in that city. With regard to Sign. Rivoira's contention that the Pulvino was not a Byzantine invention, but originated in Italy, and probably at Ravenna, I have reconsidered what I wrote, after seeing Buonamici's drawings of the Ursian basilica which he destroyed. They certainly show pulvini with a cross on them over the colonnades, and though the exact date of Ursus is disputed, they would in any case be older than those at Salonica and any that we know of elsewhere in the Eastern Empire. So far as this goes Sign. Rivoira's contention seems justified. There are a few additional illustrations in this edition, and Plate VI is this time reproduced in colour. I have to thank the University Press for their care in producing this edition, in spite of many commercial diffi culties, the legacy of the late hideous war. T. G. JACKSON. Eagle House, Wimbledon. Sept. 23, 1920. CONTENTS OF VOLUME I CHAP. PAGE Preface to First Edition . . Preface to Second Edition . . List of Illustrations . ... Introduction I Roman architecture vn x xviii II Decay of Roman architecture. Foundation of Constanti nople. The Basilican plan 13 III Greek element in the new style. Asiatic influences. Syrian architecture. The Byzantine dome. Abandonment of the Classic Orders. Avoidance of figure sculpture . 26 IV The Greek church and ritual. Marble and Mosaic. The Pulvino. Varieties of Capital . ... 44 V Constantinople. The walls and Porta Aurea. The churches at Salonica . . 54 VI S. Sophia, Constantinople ... 82 VII Justinian's other churches 106 VIII Iconoclasm . . . . . 114 IX Later Byzantine architecture .121 X Italo-Byzantine architecture. The first or pre-Gothic period 145 XI Italo-Byzantine architecture. The second or Gothic period 161 XII Italo-Byzantine architecture. The third period under the Exarchate ... . . 172 XIII Rome . . 186 XIV The Lombards. Architectural bathos and revival. Rupture between Rome and Constantinople ... 210 XV Venice .... . . . 229 XVI Pisa. Florence. Lucca . .... 242 XVII Lombardy . . . . . 260 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Vol. & page Plate Cut Aix-La-Chapelle Original plan II. 2 63 Interior II. 2 LXXXII Present plan ... II. 4 64 Andernach Exterior (from a photograph) II. 20 xcm Carving on doorway II. 24 73 Angouleme Plan II. 40 77 Capital II. 47 79 Exterior (from a photograph) II. 56 cm Arles Sarcophagus in the Museum II. 3° XCIV S. Trophime. Tower and cloister ... II. 66 CIV Do. Portal (from a photograph) ... II. 67 cv Do. Cloister, exterior view II. 72 CVII Do. Do., interior view ... II. 73 CVIII AUTUN Bay of nave of Cathedral II. 109 96 Porch and west door of do. n. m 97 S. Jean, interior II. H3 98 Avignon Cupola (from Viollet-le-Duc) II. 64 87 Barfreston Head of doorway (from a photograph) II. 246 CLX Barnack West Tower ... II. 192 CXXXVI Pierced stone window ... II. 192 120 Bath Tympanum of Roman Temple II. 178 CXXXIII Bedford Capital of door at S. Peter's II. 245 143 Bergamo Apse and central cupola... I. 250 LXVIII Boppard Carving on doorway II. 26 74 Borgo S. Donnino Interior of nave I. 270 62 Exterior of apse I. 269 LXXIX Lion at doorway I. 272 LXXX Bradford-on-Avon Plan II. 195 122 Exterior (from a photograph) II. 195 CXXXVIII Interior ( do. ) II. 196 CXXXIX Angels ( do. ) II. 197 CXL Brioude Exterior of east end II. 130 CXVI Caen Abbaye aux Hommes. The Towers II. 153 CXXVII Abbaye aux Dames. Bay of Choir ... II. '57 112 S. Michel de Vaucelles ... II. 158 CXXVIII Cahors Plan II. 40 77 L131 Uf 1LLU51KA1R;iNb XI Vol.& page Plate Cut Cambridge Tower arch, S. Bene't's Church (from a photograph) II. 194 cxxxvn CANTERBURY Plan of the Saxon Cathedral (Willis) II. 211 127 Plan of Lanfranc's and later buildings II. 212 128 The South Eastern Transept & Tower II. 212 CXLI The Crypt II. 213 CXLII Capital in do. II. 248 146 S. Pancras. Plan II. 177 114 CASTOR Tower II. 238 CLVI Capitals II. 243 140 Chaqqa Construction of the Palace I. 30 4 CHRISTCHURCH PRIORY Interior (from a photograph) ... II. 234 CLII The Norman turret "• 235 CLIII ClVRAY West front ... II. 48 CI Clermont-Ferrand Notre Dame du Port. Plan II. 132 104 Do. Exterior of east end II. 131 cxvn Do. South doorway II. 134 cxvm Do. Sections II. 128 103 Cologne S. Columba. Tower II. 9 LXXXIV S. Maria in Capitolio. Apse II. 19 XCII Do. do. Plan II. 19 71 Como S. Fedele. Apse I. 273 LXXXI Constantinople Gul Djami Mosque. Plan I. 123 28 Do. Apses ... I. 127 3° Kahriyeh Djami, Church of the Chora. Plan I. 131 32 Do. Exterior (from a photograph) ... I- U4 XX Mosque of Mahomet II ... I. 143 XXV Phanar, Houses at the ... I. 14: XXIV S. John. The Studion. Plan 1. 68 15 Do. The Narthex I. 68 X S. Irene. Plan and section 1. 107 26 Do. View in aisle 1. 108 XVI Do. Exterior view 1. 94 XII S. Saviour, Pantepoptes ... 1. 129 31 S. Saviour, Pantocrator. Plan 1. 125 29 Do. Narthex ... 1. 124 XVII Do. Apse window 1. 126 XVIII SS. Sergius and Bacchus. Plan 1. 78 19 Do. Interior 1. 80 XI Do. Architrave of entablature I- 79 20 Do. Capital in upper storey 1. 80 21 S. Sophia. Plan I. 82 22 Do. Section I. 89 -3 Do. Exterior (from a photograph) ... 1. 94 XII Do. Plan of buttress ... 1. 92 24 xn LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Constantinople Construction Deerhurst Dijon Durham Earl's Barton Elstow Ely Cathedral Ezra Florence Giggleswick Glastonbury Gloucester Impost Issoire Kencott Laach S.Sophia. Plan of piers of dome ... Do. Interior (from a photograph) ... Do. Colonnades (from a photograph) Do. Gallery at west end S. Theodore the Tiro. Plan Do. Front ... Tekfur-Serai (from a photograph) ... Do. Mosaics Walls. The Porta Aurea Do. Capital of do. Of vaults with and without centering Of domes on pendentives Do. do. Plan Interior S. Benigne. Plan and section (from Viollet-le-Duc) View ofCathedral from the river (from a photograph) Interior of North Transept The nave, triforium and clerestory (from a photograph ) . . . Interior of Galilee Plan of columns in Galilee Arabesques on monument of Acca, now in Cathedral Library Tower Do. West door Interior Bay of North Transept ... Prior's door (from a photograph) Capital in North Transept Plan Section S. Miniato al Monte. Plan Do. Interior (from a photograph) ... Baptistery. Plan and section The dome in construction (from a photograph) S. Mary's Chapel (from a photograph) Bay of nave ... With returned entablatures Plan Norman tympanum Plan of the Abbey Church Exterior (from a photograph) Vol.&page Plate Cut I. 97 25 '• 95 XIII I. 98 XIV 1. 99 xv 1. 123 27 1. 127 XIX 1. 141 XXIII 1. 141 35 1. 54 IV i- 55 V 1. 36 8 l 39 10 1. 40 I 11. 189 118 11. 188 117 II. 120 II. 223 CXLVI II. 225 131 II. 226 CXLVII II. 227 CXLVIII II. 227 132 II. 198 123 II. 191 CXXXV II. 191 119 II. 230 CL II. 219 CXLIV II. 252 CLXIV II. 244 141 I- 33 6 I- 33 7 I. 246 55 I. 246 LXVH I. 248 56 I. 40 I II. 237 CLV II. 231 CLI I- 23 3 II. 134 105 II. 249 147 II. 17 70 II. 17 XC LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xiu Vol. & page Plate Cut Laach Atrium cloister .. II. 18 XCI Lazaritsa West front (from a photograph) I. 140 HXllb Le Mans Do. ( do. ) .. II. 160 CXXIX Capitals in nave .. 11. 161 cxxx Le Puy Interior of nave of Cathedral .. n. 44 XCVIII Campanile do. .. II. 142 CXXIII Capital in Transept .. II. 140 107 Do. in Cloister .. II. 140 108 Cloister (in colour) .. II. 138 cxx South Porch .. II. 140 CXXI Do., Capitals .. II. 141 CXXII S. Michel de l'Aiguille. Doorway .. II. 143 CXXIV Do. Interior .. II. 144 cxxv Do. Capital... .. 11. 144 I 10 Do. do. ... .. 11. 144 II 1 Do. View of the rock and Chap cl (drawing by B. H. J.) .. II. 142 109 Lesnovo East end (from a photograph) .. 1. 139 xxn a Loches Exterior (from a photograph) .. II. 46 XCIX LORSCH Exterior of the Chapel ... .. 11. 8 LXXXIII Capital of do., lower storey .. 11. 6 65 Do. do., upper do. ... 11. 7 66 Cornice ... 11. 7 67 Lucca Cathedral. Exterior of apse 1. 251 LXIX Do. Capital of apse .. 1. 251 57 Do. Scroll on column of facade ... 1.255 58 Do. Inlaid work of facade 1. 252 LXX S. Giusto. Lintel of doorway (from a photograph) 1. 256 LXXIII S. Michele. Exterior (from a phot0- graph) .. 1. 254 LXXI S. Pietro Somaldi. Facade (from a photograph) .. 1. 255 LXXII Ludlow Castle Capital from the round chapel .. II. 245 142 Lyons Abbey of Ainde. Exterior II. 117 100 Do. Capitals in Chapel of S. Blandii1a 11. 118 101 Mainz Exterior of Cathedral (from a phot0- graph) .. 11. 15 LXXXVIII Carving in do. .. 11. 16 69 Bay of nave and western end .. 11. 16 LXXXIX Malmesbury Sculpture in south porch .. 11. 251 CLXIII Mantes Scroll on west doorway ... .. 11. 264 148 Milan S. Ambrogio. Plan 1. 262 59 Do. Atrium... 1. 262 LXXV Do. Interior .. 1. 263 LXXVI Do. Sculptured capital... 1. 265 59A Do. do. 1. 265 60 Do. do. .. 1. 266 61 XIV LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Milan S. Satiro. Tower Moissac Porch (from a photograph) Cloister Monkwearmouth Tower West door ... Montmajeur Chapel of S. Croix. Plan and section Do. Elevation (from Viollet-le-Duc) MURANO Exterior of apse NJmes Wall of the Arena Northampton S. Peter's. Plan Do. Tower ... Do. Capital... Do. Detail of tower arch Do. East end Norwich Cathedral. Nave aisle ... Oxford S. Michael's Tower Parenzo Plan Interior of apse (in colour) Pavia S. Michele. Doorway (from a photo graph) Perigueux S. Front. Plan Do. Interior Bird's eye view of Domes S. Front. Exterior Peterborough Cushion capitals Pisa Duomo. Plan Do. Interior (from a photograph) ... Do. Exterior ( do. ) ... Baptistery. Scroll on column of doorway Pittington Interior of nave Capital in nave Poitiers Notre Dame la Grande. Exterior ... Do. Capital... Temple de S. Jean. Plan Do. Exterior S. Porchaire. Capitals S. Hilaire. Interior Pola Panel with cross, &c. Pontigny Capital Ravenna BaptisteryofCathedral. Interior (from a photograph) Do. Mosaics of dome (from do.) Galla Placidia. Her Mausoleum. Exterior (from a photograph) Do. Interior (from do.)... ... Ivory throne (from do.) ... Vol. &page Plate I. 268 LXXVIII Cut 11. 86 cxi 11. 87 CXII 11. 185 115 11. 186 116 11. 76 88 11. 77 89 I. 235 LXIV I. 7 I II. 237 136 II. 239 CLVII II. 241 139 II. 238 137 II. 240 13s II. 222 CXLV II. 193 121 I. 182 38 I. 182 XL I. 266 LXXVII n. 35 75 11. 36 XCV 11. 37 xcv a 11. 38 76 n. 230 134 1. 243 54 I. 242 LXV I. 243 LXVI I. 257 LXXIV II. 228 CXLIX II. 229 133 II. 47 C 11. 47 80 "• 53 8: 11. 55 83 11. 59 85 U. 43 xcvn 1. 218 47 II. 107 95 i. 148 XXVI i. 149 XXVII 1. 152 XXVIII I- 153 XXIX 1. 160 XXX LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS XV Vol.&page Plate Cut Ravenna S. Apollinare Nuovo. Interior (from a photograph) I. 161 XXXI Do. Mosaic (from do.) I. 166 XXXII S. Apollinare in Classe.' Interior (from do.) I. 1 80 XXXIX S. Giovanni Evang. Capital 1. 154 36 S. Vitale. Plan 1. 175 37 Do. Exterior (from a photograph) ... 1. 172 XXXIV Do. Capitals (from do.) I- 173 XXXV Do. Interior (in colour) 1. 176 XXXVI Do. Mosaic. Justinian (from a photograph) 1. 178 XXXVII Do. Mosaic. Theodora (from do.)... 1. 179 XXXVIII Theodoric, his tomb. La Rotonda (from a photograph) ... 1. 167 XXXIII Reculver Plan 11. 201 124 Riez Baptistery. Plan 11. 79 90 Rochester Bay of nave ... 11. 236 CLIV West doorway (from a photograph)... 11. 250 CLXII Rome S. Clemente Plan 1. 199 45 Do. Monogram 1. 200 46 Do. Interior (from a photograph) ... 1. 200 L S. Costanza. Plan 1. 190 40 Do. Interior 1. 190 XLIV Do. Mosaic (from a photograph) ... 1. 191 XLV Do. do. do. 1. 192 XLVI S. Francesca Romana. Tower 1. 209 L1V S. Giorgio in Velabro. Interior (from a photograph) 1. 202 LII SS. Giovanni e Paolo. Apse 1. 201 LI Do. Tower ... 1. 208 LI II S. Giovanni Laterano. Cloister (draw ing by B. H. J.) 1. 188 XLII Do. Pozzo in do. 1. 189 XLIII S. Lorenzo fuori le Mura. Plan 1. 194 42 Do. Interior (from a photograph) ... L 193 XLVII Do. Cloister 1. 194 XLVIII S. Maria in Cosmedin. Plan 1. 197 4-! S. Maria Maggiore. Interior (from an engraving) 1. 195 XLIX S. Paolo fuori le Mura. Plan I. 188 39 Do. Interior (from a lithograph) ... 1. 186 XLI S. Peter's. Plan of Constantine's Church 1. 19 z S. Sabina. Columns of nave 1. 196 43 Do. Panel with cross, &c. 1. 218 47 XVI LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Rome S. Stefano Rotondo. Plan S. Andrew's Tower of S. Rule (from a photograph) S. Aventin Exterior S. Bertrand de Comminges Cloister ■ S.David's Capital in nave S. DENIS Front (from a photograph) S. Evremond The Abbey ... S. GEORGES DE BOSCHERVILLE Chapter House doorway (from a photograph) ... S. Gilles Part of the Portal S. JUNIEN Interior Shrine of S. Junien West front ... S.Leonard Plan of Baptistery S. Lorenzo in Pasenatico Pierced window-slab S. NECTAIRE Exterior Interior S. Savin Interior SALONICA Eski Djouma. Plan Do. Triplet in narthex (in colour) ... Do. Interior of nave Do. Exterior S. Demetrius. Plan Do. Exterior of apse ... Do. Blown-leaf Capital Do. Interior Do. Eagle Capital Do. Marble lining (in colour) Do. Soffits of arches ... S. Elias. Plan Do. Exterior S. George. Plan and section S. Sophia. Plan Do. Exterior The Holy Apostles (Souk-Su-Djami). Plan Do. Exterior SlLCHESTER Plan of basilica (from Archaeologia) SOLIGNAC Interior Spalato The Porta Ferrea Speyer The Crypt (from a photograph) Stamford S. Leonard's Priory. Facade Stow Longa Norman door-head (from a photograph) Tewkesbury West front (drawing by R. Davison)... Torcello Duomoplan... Toscank.lla S.Pietro. Interior (from a photograph) Do. Eaves arcading rol.&page Plate Cut I. 192 41 II. 190 CXXXIV II. 86 92 II. 85 ex II. 246 144 II. 163 CXXXII II. 162 CXXXI II. 152 CXXVI II. 70 CVI II. 42 XCVI II. 48 81 11. 58 84 II. 60 86 II. 192 120 II. 136 106 «• 135 CXIX II. 49 CII I- 47 II I. 56 VI I- 57 VII I- 59 12 1. 61 13 1. 48 II 1. 49 III 1. 60 Vila 1. 61 VIII 1. 64 IX 1. 63 14 1. 136 33 1- T35 XXI 1. 70 16 1. 72 17 1. 74 18 1. 138 34 1. 138 XXII 11. 175 113 11. 41 78 I- 3i 5 11. 14 LXXXVII 11. 253 CLXV n. 243 CLIX n. 232 135 I. 236 52 1. 216 LV 1. 219 48 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS XVll Toscanella Toulouse Tournai S. Pietro. Exterior of apse Do. West front (from a photograph) Do. The Rose window (from do.) Do. Panel with cross, &c. S. Maria Maggiore. Interior (from a photograph) Do. West front (from do.) Do. Details of doorway Do. Pulpit S. Sernin. Plan Do. Exterior (from a photograph) .. Interior of nave Tromps and Squinches Valence Interior of nave Venice Vezelay Vienne Westminster Winchester Wordwell Worms S. Mark's. Plan Do. Interior (from a photograph) .. Do. Capitals ( do. ) .. Do. Exterior ( do. ) .. Venetian dentil moulding Interior (from Viollet-le-Duc) Narthex and west door ... Chapter House console ... Do. do. vestibule Tower of S. Pierre Plan of the Confessor's Church Chapel of the Pyx (from Gleanings &c.) Plans of the Norman and present Cathedral ... Interior of North transept Plan of crypts Capital, 2 views Do. Norman door-head(from a photograph) Plan Interior Western Towers Vol. I. I. I. I. &page 217 220 221 218 II. 207 Plate LVI LVII LVIII Cut 223 224 83 S4 23 3S H5 231 232 233 234 23S 101 104 105 105 116 206 215 218 219 248 247 242 12 13 12 LIX LX CIX I.XI LXII l.XIII CXIII ex iv cxv CXLIII CLX] CLVIII LXXXVI lxxxv 49 50 91 72 9 99 51 53 93 94 125 126 129 130 145 68 INTRODUCTION ANEW book at the present day about by-gone Architecture seems to need an apology. One is met at the outset by the question of the proper relation of art to archaeology and archaeology to art. For at some times architecture seems to have found in archae ology its best friend and at others its worst enemy. The art of past ages lies of course within the domain of archaeology, but the attempt sometimes made to raise archaeology into the domain of art is fraught with danger and ends in disaster. In the equipment of the historian archaeology now fills a most important place. History is no longer studied in the old-fashioned way as a mere chronicle of events ; these are the dry bones of the subject which must be clothed with the living flesh of the actors. The historic study of art helps to make the past live again for us, and among the remains of our ancestors' handiwork none appeals to us more than their architectural monuments. These silent witnesses of the events that fill our annals bring back the past as nothing else can. To handle the work our forefathers have wrought, to climb the stairs or worship under the vaults they have raised, to pace the streets between buildings on which their eyes have rested seems to make us personally acquainted with them. Even their writings fail to bring them so near. INTRODUCTION xix But it need hardly be said that architecture has far other claims on us than those of historical association. The literary and historical view is the accidental one. As distinct from mere building, the primary function of architecture, like that of the other arts, is to please by exciting and satisfying certain aesthetic emotions. Archi tecture of the past no less than that of today must be judged on aesthetic grounds, and into this aspect of it history does not enter: beauty is for all time and sufficient in itself. For this reason with many professional architects archaeology and the study of ancient buildings has fallen into disrepute. It is blamed as the parent of that mechanical imitation of by-gone styles which used to be considered the only safe path for an architect to tread. The rigid formulas of the neo-classic school were ridi culed by the neo-Goth, but he in his turn promptly put himself into fetters of his own forging. We were taught to analyse old work " as a German grammarian classes the powers of a preposition ; and under this absolute irrefragable authority we are to begin to work, admitting not so much as an alteration in the depth of a cavetto, or the breadth of a fillet1." And on this principle the new school worked during the greater part of the last century, producing a vast output of work imitating more or less well, or more or less badly, the architecture of the Middle Ages, and in a few cases it must be confessed rivalling if not surpassing the model in every respect but that of originality. But if there is one lesson more than another which archaeology teaches us it is this : that art to be worth anything must be modern, and express its own age and ' Ruskin, Seven Lamps ofArchitecture, p. 190, ed. 1849. xx INTRODUCTION no other. It has always been so in the past, and it must be so in the future. Imitation, necessary at first, has done its useful work, and the blind worship of precedent is now only capable of doing harm. Archaeology, as Fergusson said long ago, is not art, and a too narrow study of the past may very well stifle the art of the present and future. There is however a danger of going too far in the opposite direction. To shun slavish imitation is one thing, to reject the lessons of experience is another. Among the peccant humourswhich retard the advancement of learning Bacon places " the extreme affecting of two extremities ; the one antiquity, the other novelty ; wherein it seemeth the children of time do take after the nature and malice of the father. For as he devoureth his children, so one of them seeketh to devour and suppress the other ; while antiquity envieth there should be new additions, and novelty cannot be content to add but must deface. Surely the advice of the prophet is the true direction in this matter ; ' state super vias antiquas, et videte quaenam sit via recta et bona, et ambulate in ea.' Stand ye in the old ways, and see which is the good way, and walk therein. Antiquity deserveth that reverence that men should make a stand thereupon, and discover what is the best way ; but when the discovery is well taken then to make progression1." The modern artist therefore still lies under the necessity of studying the art of the past. To shut our eyes to it, as some younger ardent spirits would have us do, would mean the extinction of all tradition, and with it of art itself. For all art, and all science, is based on inherited knowledge, and every step onward is made 1 Bacon, Advancement ofLearning, Book I. INTRODUCTION xxi from the last vantage won by those who have gone before us and shown the way. Indeed oblivion of the past is impossible. It is said Constable wished he could forget that he had ever seen a picture. If he had had his wish he would not have been Constable. Consciously or unconsciously we form our views from our experience ; and our ideas are inevitably shaped in a greater or less measure by what has been done already. But while an architect must take archaeology to some extent into his service he must beware lest it become his master. He must study the art of the past neither as a subject of historical research, nor as a matter for imitation, but in order to learn its principles, taking it as his tutor rather than his model. It will therefore be the object of the following pages not merely to describe but to try and explain the de velopment of architecture from style to style since the decline of classic art in the 3rd and 4th centuries of our era, down to the dawn of Gothic architecture, by con necting its constructive details and outward features with those social reasons which served to mould them into the forms we know, From this point of view it is important to compare the rate of progress of the new art in different countries . to mark not only the main current of the movement, but the irregular and unequal advances by which it pushed its way in each instance. For though the general set of the movement was all in one direction it advanced much faster in some places than in others, and in each country it took a distinctive national character. For this purpose the comparative and parallel tables of examples at the end of the book will I hope be found useful. It is important too to observe the continuity of xxii INTRODUCTION architectural history; how one style gave birth to another; for no new style was ever invented, but always grew out of an older one ; how this progression from style to style was always unintentional and unconscious : and how revival after depression always began by the attempt to revive an older art, with the result that when art did revive it was always something new, for no dead art was ever made to live again, or ever will be. These, it seems to me, are the lessons to be learned from considering the by-gone styles of architecture with regard to their bearing on what we have to do in our own day. CHAPTER I ROMAN ARCHITECTURE The Byzantine and Romanesque styles of architecture are the phases into which the art passed from the decay of the styles of ancient Rome : and in order to understand them it is necessary to understand first the character of that art from which they sprang. In the eyes and judgment of the great masters of the Renaissance in the 15th and 16th centuries Roman archi tecture was the perfection of human art, and fixed the standard which it was their ambition to reach with that of their own time. At the present day, when the supre macy of Grecian art is insisted upon, Roman art has fallen somewhat into disrepute, and most writers think it proper to treat it apologetically. We are told it is coarse and unrefined. It is the art, Fergusson says, of an Aryan people planted in the midst of other races more artistic than themselves, from whom they were content to borrow what they could not originate ; for from the Aryans, according to him, no original art can come. But if the art of Rome is founded on the art of those more artistic races to which Fergusson refers, and among which the ruling race was established, it had a special direction given to it by Roman genius which made it into an original style, demanding to be judged by a different standard from its predecessors. Properly re garded, Roman architecture stands in no need of apology, J. A. I 2 ROMAN ARCHITECTURE [ch. i and the depreciation with which it has lately been viewed is unjust. That it wants the subtle refinement which the Greek bestowed on his temples and the few public build ings of which we know anything may be granted, but the Roman had to apply his style to an infinite variety of subjects which never presented themselves to the Greek imagination. The Greek had but his own small state with its few temples to think of, and could afford to lavish on them infinite pains, and to treat them with consum mate delicacy ; but the Roman needed a style that would serve for the great public and private buildings—baths, theatres, basilicas, forums, and aqueducts—with which he filled the capital and enriched the provinces of a vast empire. To have demanded for every building in the Roman world the refinements of the Parthenon would have been ridiculous, had it not been impossible. The true principles of art required a totally different treatment, and by the way in which Roman architecture conformed to the novel requirements of an altered state of Society it satisfied those principles and established its claim to be considered a noble style. If to some its utilitarian element may appear to degrade it to a lower level than that of Greece, to others this loss may seem more than compensated by its greater elasticity and power of adaptation to circumstance. Although, therefore, there is no doubt that Roman architecture was to a large extent borrowed from the neighbouring peoples in the Peninsula, it possessed certain qualities that made it something new, some thing different from the art either of Greece or Etruria —some principle of life and energy that enabled it to meet the ever increasing and ever novel demands of a new order of Society. And it is in these qualities that ch. i] ROMAN ARCHITECTURE 3 we recognize the influence of the Roman mind. The outward forms might be adopted from elsewhere, but the practical temper of the governing race bent them to new uses, and moulded them into new developments to suit the new conditions of a world-wide empire. It may be admitted that the full-blooded Roman was rarely, if ever, himself an artist. Sprung as he was from a colony of outlaws, refugees, and adventurers, involved in perpetual strife with his neighbours, first of all for existence, afterwards from the passionate love ofdominion that carried him to the Empire of the world, the true Roman had indeed little time to cultivate the finer arts of peace. He was content to leave them to the subject races, and to borrow from them what was necessary for his own use. That he should put his hand to actual artistic work was not to be expected : in his eyes it was a mechanical pursuit, to be left to his inferiors. But this contempt for the artist was not peculiar to the Roman. It was felt no less in Greece, even in the days when art itself was most esteemed and reached its highest achieve ments. Plutarch tells us how Philip asked his sonAlexander whether he was not ashamed to singf so well. No well- born youth, he continues, would be inspired by the statue of Olympian Zeus to desire to be a Phidias, or by that of Hera at Argos to be a Polyclitus1. These prejudices sur vived to the days of Lord Chesterfield, and to some extent survive still. Readers of / miei ricordi will remember the consternation of the family of the Marquis DAzeglio when his son announced his intention of being a painter. To the Roman of the ruling caste the arts of the conquered races were valuable as ornaments of the 1 Plutarch, Life ofPericles. "Many times when we are pleased with the work we slight and set little by the workman or artist himself." 4 ROMAN ARCHITECTURE [ch. i triumph of the conqueror. /To have engaged in them personally would have been a degradation, and it seems to have been the fashion to speak of them contemptuously and pretend not to understand them1. Cicero, though himself a man of taste, and a collector of works of art, thinks it proper when addressing a jury of Roman Senators to assume an air of indulgent pity for the art- loving Greek2. " It is strange," he says, " what delight the Greeks take in those things which we despise. Our forefathers readily let them keep all they pleased, that they might be well adorned and flourishing under our empire ; while to the subject and tributary races they left these things which seem to us trifles as an amuse ment and solace in their servitude." He affects to be himself a poor judge of matters of the kind8 ; he pretends he has only learned the names of Praxiteles and Myron while hunting up evidence in Sicily for the prosecution of Verres ; and he has to be prompted before he can remember that of Polyclitus4. This, which in Cicero was mere stage-play, was evidently in his opinion the attitude of his hearers towards the arts. The greatness of Rome rested on far different grounds. The stern idea of Roman destiny breathes in the splendid words of prophecy which Virgil puts into the mouth of the legendary founder of the race. War and empire were to be the arts of Rome, and she might leave it to others to„outshine her in sculpture, rhetoric, and science6. It was then from her Etruscan neighbours on one side, and the great and flourishing cities of Magna Graecia i The histrionic performances of Nero, in which noble youths were forced to join, gave the bitterest blow to Roman dignity. 2 Cicero, In Verrem, Act. n. Lib. iv. Cap. 6o. 3 Nos qui rudes harum rerum sumus. In Verr n ii ?c i Ibid. II. iv. Cap. 2. 3. ' J>" 6 Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera, &c, &c. ^En. VI. 848. ch. i] ROMAN ARCHITECTURE 5 on the other in the main that the architecture and sister — n, arts of Rome took their origin. ) Pliny1 says the early temples of Rome were all Tuscan. The"' advent of plastic art he traces to DemaratusThe Corinthian refugee who founded the family of Tarquin, and brought with him the artists Eucheir and Eugrammos,—him of the deft hand, and him of the cunning pencil. The myth points evidently to the influence of the older civilization of Etruria, and the splendour of the great Greek cities of the South, which were populous and powerful states when Rome was an obscure nest of robbers on the Palatine. Greek architects appear frequently in later times. Cyrus, a Greek, was employed by Cicero in building or altering his villa2, and Diphilus, about whom he writes to his brother Quintus, seems from his name to have been Greek also. Vitruvius gives the Greek terms for his principles of architecture, Apollodorus who fell a victim to the jealousy of Hadrian was a Syrian Greek, and Trajan writes to Pliny the younger in Asia, that he need not send to Rome for architects, but would easily get one in Greece, whence Rome itself was con stantly supplied with them*. Horace's recommendation of Greek models to the Poets might have been addressed as well to the Artists4. But, as we have said, if the Roman of the old Latin stock was rarely if ever an architect himself, it was his influence that gave to the architecture of the Roman world that special practical and utilitarian character which distinguishes it from all preceding styles, and in which 1 Plin. Nat. Hist. xxxi. 12. 2 Cic. adAtticum, XVIII. ; ad Quintum Fratrem, ill. 1. 3 Trajan to Pliny, Lett. xlix. 4 vos exemplaria Graeca nocturna versate manu, versate diurna. Ars Poet. 6 ROMAN ARCHITECTURE [ch. i consists its chief merit./ For his temples the Greek or Etruscan type sufficed, and survived with certain modifi cations to the last ; but for the various requirements of a larger civic life, a vast and ever growing population, and a more complex state of society something very different was wanted, something less costly in labour and material, less rigid in detail, and admitting of ample liberty in plan and construction. The solution was found in the art of Etruria and not in that of Greece ; in the frank adoption of the arch, not only as an element in construction, but also as an element of design ; and this was the greatest innovation in architecture since the days of the Pharaohs. Not of course that the use of the arch was a new discovery. It had always been understood from the earliest times. To ask when it was invented is like asking the same of the wedge, the lever, or the wheel. It must have been found out by the earliest people that began to put stones or bricks together into a wall. Accident, if nothing else, would have suggested it. Arches of construction, and arched vaulting in brick or stone are found in the tombs and pyramids of Egypt as far back as four thousand years before Christ. The granaries of Rameses 1 1 at Thebes are vaulted in brick, and arched drains and vaults occur in the substructure of the palaces of Nineveh. But though the arch had long been employed as a useful expedient in construction it is the glory of Roman architecture to have raised it into the region of art. Without it the theatres, amphi theatres, aqueducts, baths, basilicas, and bridges of the Roman world would have been impossible. It is to the practical" turn of the Roman mind that we must credit its adoption, while on the other hand it is probably due to CH. i] ROMAN ARCHITECTURE the versatility of the artists, mostly Greek or Greco- Roman, to whom the direction had been given by their Roman masters, that we must attribute the development - l TXVMTg^ Fig. i. of what originated in mere considerations of utility into a consistent and novel style of architecture. / It has been objected to the Roman architects that 8 ROMAN ARCHITECTURE [ch. i whereas, except in porticos of temples where Greek tra dition survived, they rejected the principles of trabeate construction, they nevertheless continued to use its forms. In such buildings as the Theatre of Marcellus, and all the amphitheatres known to us from Nimes in the west to Pola in the east (Fig. i), the real construction is by arches, but yet the architectural effect depends largely on the columns and entablatures in which the arches are, as it were, framed. It is contended that to apply the con structional forms of a trabeated style to an arcuated fabric as a mere surface decoration is a sham ; and as such it stands self-condemned in the eyes of the Gothic Purist and worshipper of absolute truth. There is an element of justice in the accusation : things should be what they seem, and it must be admitted that columns and entablatures were invented for a different purpose from that to which they are applied in the Colosseum. It is also quite true that ornament rises in value in proportion as it illustrates and emphasizes the construction ; and the converse is also true that ornament is indefensible when it falsifies or conceals it. But to the latter charge, at all events, the Roman architect need not plead guilty : his wall decoration by columns and entablatures deceives nobody : no one would take them for the main supports of the building. Columns separated by seven or eight times the width of their diameter, of which a fourth part is lost in the wall to which they are attached, make no pretence to carry a serviceable lintel ; and entablatures tailed and bonded into the main wall are obviously only string courses, to divide the storeys, and give perspective lines to the composition. It does not do to apply the canon of utility too rigidly ch. i] ROMAN ARCHITECTURE 9 to every decorative feature in architecture. The objection which is raised against Roman architecture on Ruskinite principles might with equal force be taken to much that we admire in Gothic. The blank arcading of the fronts of Salisbury, Wells, or Lincoln, or that in the aisles of Westminster or Winchester is quite as devoid of any constructional purpose as the orders which divide and surmount the arches of the arenas at Nlmes or Aries. It may be said that the pediments over Inigo Jones's windows at Whitehall are absurd because a pediment is properly the gable end of a roof: but they are not more indefensible than the steep gablets that surmount so gracefully the clerestory windows at Amiens which have no constructional meaning whatever. /The Gothic spire itself is an extravagance if we look merely to its original function as a covering to the tower. While on the one hand we should try to make decoration as significant as we can, it is clear that if the test of utility is pedantically enforced there will be an end of architecture altogether. / The adoption of the arch as a leading element in construction opened the way at once to fresh forms of design. The principles of trabeated architecture, naturally adapted to construction of wood, when applied to stone, which has no tensile strength, required narrow inter- columniations such as could be spanned by stone lintels short enough not to snap under their load. The arch removed this difficulty ; wide spaces could now be spanned without intermediate support. The arch was followed by the vault, which is only the arch prolonged sideways, and by the dome which is the arch rotated on its axis. Economy led to the use of brick and concrete, which made possible the vast Baths of Caracalla, the Pantheon, the Palatine, and the Basilica of Maxentius, works such as the world io ROMAN ARCHITECTURE [ch. i had never seen before, which still amaze us by their scale and solidity. These simple constructions of rudematerials invited decoration in colour, which was given at first by painting and afterwards by linings of coloured materials and mosaic./ And as under the later Republic and the Empire luxury and extravagance superseded more and more the plainer life of older times, Roman taste, less alive to the delicacies of art, ran riot in ornament, a sure sign of weaker artistic sensibility. Coloured marbles by their splendour and costliness lent themselves admirably to that display of wealth and power which the Roman loved. Pliny1 complains that the Alps, intended by nature to fence in countries and direct the course of rivers, which Hannibal and the Cimbri had crossed to the astonishment of the Romans of old, were now being quarried and carted away that their degenerate successors might sleep within walls of parti-coloured stones ; a kind of adornment which displaced the older and more artistic decoration by painting2. The passion for splendour and ostentation appears also in the profuse enrichment of the entablature by ornaments of a conventional kind. The Greeks, except where they touched them with colour, kept the mouldings of their cornices and architraves plain, and reserved themselves for the^more perfect decoration of the frieze by fine sculpture. <> But the Romans often enriched every moulding with egg and dart, bead and reel, and leaf ornaments, confusing the severity of the outline, and disturbing the breadth of light and shade. / The result is a certain gorgeousness of effect, purchased too dearly 1 Plin. Nat. Hist, xxxvi. I. 2 Et Hercules non fuisset picturae honos ullus, non modo tantus, in aliqua marmorum auctoritate. Ibid, xxxvi. 6. ch. i] ROMAN ARCHITECTURE n at the cost of simplicity. But one must admit the admirable technical execution of these ornaments and their skilful adaptation for due effect in position ; and in this we may I think detect the touch of the true artist, while in the dictation of extravagance in amount of decoration we may read the vulgarity and insolence of wealth in his master. We need not shut our eyes against these defects, but they are not enough to obscure the merits of an archi tectural style which has given us perhaps the grandest, and some of the most beautiful buildings in the world. Above all we must recognize its admirable suitability to thepuTposes it had to fulfil ; and also its elasticity and power of adaptation to novel requirements, in which quality it surpassed Greek architecture as much as it was itself surpassed by the styles that succeeded it. It was this quality that fitted it to become the parent of all the styles of modern Europe, and it is out of Roman archi tecture that they have all arisen. For practical purposes, apart from archaeology, it is the only ancient style with which the modern architect need trouble himself. The styles of Egypt, Assyria, Persia, India, and China, ad mirable as they are in their several ways, are alien to our temperament, and have no direct bearing on our modern use. They illustrate indeed, so far as they are good, that dependence of design on sound construction which is the very soul of all good architecture wherever and whenever we find it. But the circumstances amid which they arose and by which they were shaped are so different from our own that they teach us no other lesson, and for the practical architect they are dead. It takes some courage to say the same of the styles of ancient Greece : but supreme as we admit Hellenic art to be, especially in 12 ROMAN ARCHITECTURE ("ch. i sculpture, it has limitations, and for the British architect at all events it is as dead as Assyrian. The attempt of Sir John Soane and others to revive it in the 19th century under an English sky resulted in the most frigid and desperately dull work of modern times. It is with the architecture of Rome that we first begin to feel at home, because in it we find the seeds of all subsequent archi tectural growth during the dark and middle ages, the period of the Renaissance, and down even to our own day. CHAPTER II DECAY OF ROMAN ARCHITECTURE. FOUNDATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE. THE BASILICAN PLAN The extent of Roman architecture was limited only Roman by th1n^of~thlr Empire itself. Wherever the Roman ^co-" carried his arms he took with him"tKe"arfs"and civilization e*'£nfive with the of the capital. In every part, from Britain in the north Empire to the shores of Africa in the south, and the sands of Baalbec and Palmyra in the east, Roman architecture is to be found, varying no doubt in degrees of scale and execution but bearing everywhere the impress of the ' same character ; and it was from the examples that adorned each country that their several native styles arose in later times, however widely they differed among themselves in their development. There is a certain likeness to •the life of man in the history of all great schools of art. From crude beginnings they struggle through a vigorous youth, full of promise and unrealized yearnings to a period of what is, within their own limits, perfection. Beyond that they cannot go, and it is followed, not perhaps at once, but in the end none the less surely by a period of decline which sooner or later brings about dissolution, and makes way for something different. They are like an author who has written himself out, or a teacher who has said all that there is in him to say, and for whom the time has come to stand aside and be silent. 14 THE NEW ROME [ch. ii Decay of The art of Rome furnishes no exception to this rule. art From the time of Augustus and the early Caesars it steadily declined in purity though still retaining many fine qualities. The sculpture ofTrajan and the Antonines was becoming dry and inexpressive, though it had still about it a fair classic grace. But by the time of Diocletian and Constantine it had become gross and barbarous. On Constantine's arch at Rome, besides figure subjects of his own time, are some parts of an older arch of Trajan, and the contrast between the two kinds is remarkable. "What sculpture raised To Trajan's glory, following triumphs stole, And mixed with Gothic forms, the chisel's shame, On that triumphal arch the forms of Greece1." By the middle of the 4th century after Christ, Roman classic architecture, as Vitruvius would have understood it, may be considered to have sunk into decay and come to an end. It is from the decay of older styles that new styles of art have their beginning, and Roman architecture at its death left behind it a successor ready to take its place, and better adapted to the altered conditions of the time. Removal As the frontiers of the Empire became more and more Capital threatened by surrounding nations the later emperors moved the seats of government nearer to the scene of danger. Rome was no longer the centre of empire, and was deserted for Nicomedia and Milan. In 324 Con stantine founded a new Rome on the shores of the Bosphorus, and was rarely seen in the old capital of the world afterwards. Sir T° these new caPitals a" the architectural resources founded of the Empire were directed, and especially to the last : 1 Thomson's Liberty, in. 509. ch. ii] THE NEW ROME 15 but we read that in the " decline of the arts the skill as well as the numbers of the emperor's architects bore a very unequal proportion to the greatness of his designs1." Schools were founded, and professors appointed to instruct ingenuous youths in the principles of architecture ; but schools of art are not formed in a hurry, nor could the impatience of the emperor endure delay. Byzantium seems to have possessed already some fine buildings of Greek architecture : the baths of Zeuxippus Were pre served and decorated afresh ; but for new buildings the emperor had to depend on such artists as were forth coming. Nevertheless, in less than 10 years New Rome was ready to be dedicated by a solemn festival, though many of the structures with which it was furnished bore signs ofhaste, and even threatened ruin. Among other works in this new capital, which was Constan- destined to bear his name, we read that Constantine built churches two churches, dedicated respectively to Peace— Irene— ttantinopie and to the Apostles2. For the Empire had now become Christian, and with the new creed came the demand for suitable places of worship. The temples of the older faith were sometimes, as the Pagan creeds declined, con verted into churches, but their small interior cella was ill-suited to the Christian congregation, and the basilica suggested a better type for the accommodation of large bodies of worshippers. The first church of S. Sophia at Constantinople which, according to Socrates, was built by the Emperor Constantius and consecrated in the tenth year of his reign by the patriarch Eudoxius3, is reported 1 Gibbon, cap. xvn. 2 Kni iv Tairr; tji 7rdX« Sio pev olKoSofirjo-as eKKXrjtrias filav itravofiacrtv Eiprjvrjv, iripav 8e tt)v tu>v 'hvocrTokaiv eVuivvit-ov . Soc. Hist. Eeel. C. 45. 3 Ibid. cc. 93 and 160. i6 THE BASILICA [ch. ii basilica to have been of the basilican type (vabs S/>o^i/co's) with a wooden roof. The The basilica, oroa ySacriXeios, introduced to Rome from Greece under the later Republic, was a public building consisting of a long central court sometimes but not always covered, between colonnaded porticos, serving like the Royal Exchange in London for gatherings of merchants on business. Adjoining it, or actually as at Pompeii at one end, was the tribunal of the Praetor where he sat with the Judices to try cases, separated by cancelli or railings from the body of the hall. Frequently this tribunal was an apse with a hemicycle of seats for the magistrate and others concerned. WThether many basilicas were actually used as churches is doubtful. Texier and Pullan say that though many temples are known to have been turned into churches, the Licinian basilica at Rome is the only law-court known to have been used for Christian worship1. One writer points out that basilicas would have been wanted for their original purposes just as much after the establishment of Chris tianity as before2. But however this may be it is clear that the basilican form recommended itself as convenient to the Christian architects so soon as they were free to build without fear of persecution3. 1 Texier and Pullan {Byzantine Architecture, p. 12). It is suggested this is a mistake for the Basilica Sieinini, or S. Maria Maggiore. Rushforth in English Historical Review, July, 1913. v. Gibbon, ch. xxv., note. 2 History ofEnglish Church Architecture by G. G. Scott, Jun., 1881. 3 Though the term basilican is misleading if taken to imply too close a connexion between one kind of church and the Roman basilica, its use is convenient to describe a certain class of Byzantine and Romanesque buildings, the vaos SpofiiKos, for which another general term is wanting, and it will be so used in what follows. It should be observed however that the old writers use the word "Basilica" for any form of church : Agnellus calls the octagonal church of S. Vitale at Ravenna a basilica, and Eginhardt calls ch. iiJ THE BASILICA 17 There had, of course, been Christian churches before Earliest 1 r ,-. . ™, r Christian the time 01 Constantine. 1 he number of believers must churches soon have outgrown the accommodation of one or two rooms in a private house, which had sufficed at first. When milder counsels in their rulers prevailed the Christians crept forth from the holes and caves, the catacombs and rock hewn oratories, to which they had been driven for the celebration of their rites, and built themselves churches above ground. Edicts from time to time swept these buildings away when the imperial temper veered round towards persecution. Some of them seem to have been on a splendid scale. The church at Nicomedia which was destroyed under the edict of Dio cletian is said to have towered above the imperial palace and to have provoked the envy and jealousy of the Gentiles1. Eusebius describing the church at Tyre re built by Constantine after the destruction of its predecessor under the same edict mentions that the new church followed, though in a more splendid fashion, the form of the older building. This form was what we call basilican : a nave con- Basilican sisting of a long parallelogram, ending in an apse ; p ans divided from an aisle on each side by rows of columns carrying either lintels or arches, above which was a clerestory, with windows that looked over the aisle roofs. The roofs were of wood, except that of the apse, which was a semi-dome of brick or stone. In front of the church was generally a court or atrium surrounded by a cloister the round church at Aix-la-Chapelle by that name. As used by them the word has no reference to the form of the Roman Basilica—" Basilicae prius vocabantur regum habitacula ; nunc autem ideo basilicae divina templa nominantur, quia ibi Regi omnium Deo cultus et sacrificia offeruntur." Isid. Orig. V. (7th century), cited Milman. 1 Lactantius, cited by Gibbon, ch. XVI. J. A. 2 18 THE BASILICA [ch. n such as we see at S. Ambrogio in Milan, S. Clemente in Rome and Parenzo in I stria. The altar was placed on the chord of the apse, and round the hemicycle of the apse behind it were seats for the presbyters with the bishop's throne in the middle, as may still be seen at Torcello, Aquileja, Parenzo and Grado. The altar and its apse were at the west end of the church, and the main entrance at the east, so that the ministering priest stood behind the altar looking eastward and facing the congregation, as he still does at Parenzo and at S. Peter's and several other churches in Rome and as he did in the original cathedral of Canterbury. Simple This seems to have been the type of all Constantine's churches, and among them that of S. Peter's at Rome basilica (Fig. 2), where however the plan was complicated by the addition of an outer or second aisle on each side, and by a transept at the end next the apse, such as we may see in the church of S. Paolo fuori le Mura. The construction of these churches was light and simple, requiring very little architectural skill, challenging no constructional problems, and dispensing entirely with the vault and the dome which had played so important a part in the later Roman architecture. The very materials themselves were often taken ready-made from Pagan buildings, and columns and capitals were stolen without scruple from older structures. The Roman world was sacked by Constantine for the adornment of his new capital. s. Peter's S. Peter's was the first Christian church built in Rome at Rome 1 /— r 1 • by Constantine after his conversion. It stood on the Vatican near the Circus of Nero, the reputed scene of the Apostle's martyrdom. This, the oldest and largest of the Roman basilican churches, has disappeared to make way for the greatest church in Christendom, but THE BASILICA 19 STLTEKS Fig. 2. 20 S. PETERS, ROME [ch. ii we know what it was like from drawings made before its destruction. From them we learn that even at the beginning of the 4th century, when the fiery trial of the last persecution was only just abated, the Church had already begun to rival the outworn creeds in the magnifi cence of her ritual and ecclesiastical system. The simple The choir republicanism and equality of the primitive congregation had yielded to the growth of a hierarchy, which demanded the separation of clergy and laity. At first the tribune in the apse, then the dais in front of it on which the altar , stood was railed off by cancelli or railings; in other words a chancel was formed ; and later a choir was enclosed within the nave by a low wall within which the clergy were seated and on each side were ambones or pulpits whence the gospel and epistle were read. The nave At S. Peter's the five aisled body of the church was 380 ft. long by 212 ft. wide, the central nave having a span of 80 ft. TheWestern transept extended one way to two round Mausolea placed on the axis of Nero's circus, supposed at one time to be the tombs of the Apostles, The apse and now those of the Theodosian Emperors. The apse was 58 ft. wide by 35 deep, and the altar was surmounted by a ciborium or baldacchino. The seat of the chief Pontiff like that of the Praetor was in the centre of the tribune, and the chief clergy, the embryo Cardinals, sat like the Roman judices to his right and left in a semicircle. In a The crypt below were the tombs of Roman bishops. At the atrium _ - . *■ east end of the church the entrance was preceded by a splendid atrium or cloistered court measuring 265 ft. by 122, in front of which was a portico with two towers. The principal or triumphal arch divided the nave from The the Western transept. Before the steps of the bema or sanctuary sanctuary stood twelve ancient columns of Parian marble, atrium ch. ii] S. PETER'S, ROME. SPALATO 21 spirally twisted and adorned with vine leaves, fabled to have belonged to Solomon's Temple1, A low wall between them enclosed the presbytery, and on them rested beams or entablatures supporting images, candelabra, and other ornaments. The side walls in the nave below the clerestory Mural windows were adorned with pictures either painted or ecorat,or in mosaic, but the exterior of the church was of simple brickwork, plain and not plastered. Such was the type of Constantine's churches, and it is strange to think that S. Peter's was built only 16 years later than his final victory at the Milvian bridge, which is commemorated by a triumphal arch, showing indeed in its sculpture the degradation of Roman art, but never theless designed in the orthodox classical style of the triumphal arches of his predecessors. It was natural that the churches of the new religion, Paiaceat making demands of a novel kind on the architect, should pa at0 break more decidedly with the old classic rules than civil structures. But there too change had already set in before the time of Constantine. When Diocletian re solved on abdicating the imperial diadem, which he had been the first to wear, he prepared for himself a splendid retreat in Dalmatia, the country where he had been born, and where his parents, if not he himself, had been slaves. His villa near Salona sufficed in the middle ages to contain the whole city of Spalato, of which its mighty walls formed the defence against Slavs and Tartars ; and it still remains the most perfect example that the Romans have left us of their domestic architecture on the grandest scale. Hither Diocletian came in 303 ; here he planted the 1 These probably suggested to Raffaelle the twisted columns in his cartoon of the Beautiful Gate of the Temple. New details in archi 22 SPALATO [ch. ii famous cabbages, the cultivation of which he preferred to the cares of empire; and here he died in 313. In the details of this building we can see the begin nings of many changes which resulted in the subsequent tecmre forms of Byzantine and Romanesque art. There are entablatures of two members only, the frieze being omitted : the cornices are diminished till they are not much more than the Gothic string course : the whole entablature of architrave frieze and cornice springs into an arch over the central intercolumniation of the vestibule ; miniature arcading on colonnettes makes its appearance as a wall decoration over the Porta Aurea, anticipating that on the fronts at Pisa; new sections are given to mouldings, and new ornaments such as zigzags are seen for the first time, which afterwards played so large a part in Norman architecture. Liberation But the most important novelty in the work at Spalato fromln- 1S the way in wriich the arches of the great peristyle are made to spring directly from the capitals of the pillars without the intervention of an entablature. According to Greek tradition the column and the entablature were inseparable, and could not be combined with arches. In purely engineering works, aqueducts and bridges, the- orders were left out altogether, and the arches sprang from simple piers. And when they had to be used together, as in the Colosseum or the Theatre of Mar- cellus the arches were kept clear of the orders which preserved the appearance of trabeation above them (Fig. 1, supra). The arches did the work and the orders supplied the ornament. This did not answer when, as sometimes happened, the arch had to be raised above the entablature; and in that case by a rather absurd extravagance of logic a fragment of the entablature tablature ch. ii] SPALATO 23 corresponding to the diameter of the column was placed upon it with all the mouldings and members returned round the sides, as at the Baths of Antonine and those of Diocletian at Rome, and the arch was made to spring from the top of this fragment which formed a sort of pedestal above the capital (Fig. 3). The only instance M.Choisy can quote of arches springing directly from columns before the age of the later Empire is an unimportant one at Pompeii1. " The first placing of the arcade on columns," he says, in monumental construction, "occurs at Spalatro, and dates from the time of Diocletian2." The step thus taken in dispensing with the incon venient and unnecessary entablature opened the way for all subsequent arched design, and was one of the greatest ever taken in the history of our art. From the arcades of Diocletian's peristyle at Spalato naturally followed all those of the Romanesque, Byzantine, and Gothic styles. It marked the last stage in the liberation of architecture from the fetters of strict classic rule. Henceforth it was free to develop itself on new lines, adapting itself to the altered conditions of the Roman world, and the require ments of the new religion. The rectangular basilican type prevailed at first in all parts of the newly Christianized empire, as the proper ecclesiastical plan. It is found in Palestine, in Syria, in Entabla ture re turned as impost Fig- 3- Effect of the change at Spalato Prevalence of basilican plan 1 Choisy, Hist. d'Arehit. vol. 1. p. 514. 2 Ibid. voL 11. p. 5. 24 THE BASILICAN PLAN [ch. ii Prevalence Africa, as well as in the central provinces. Constantine's churches are all of that form. His five-aisled basilica at Bethlehem still remains, though that he built at Jerusalem at or near the Holy Sepulchre has disappeared. The great church of S. Paolo fuori le Mura at Rome has been burned and rebuilt, but it preserves the original basilican form, with the addition of a transept at the upper end like that in old S. Peter's. Rome is full of early churches conforming to the same plan. It was adopted for all the churches at Ravenna, when the seat of government was shifted thither, and prevailed until the fall of the Western Empire. And although modified in a hundred ways by circumstance it still forms the basis of ordinary church planning in our own day and in our own country. In a few instances the old tradition of trabeation survived, and the colonnades of Constantine's church at Bethlehem, and those of S. Maria Maggiore, and S. Maria in Trastevere at Rome carry horizontal lintels instead of arches. Constantine's church of S. Peter did the same in the central nave, though the outer colon nades carried arches. But these were the exceptions. In nearly every case the liberty first won at Spalato was not forgotten, and the colonnades carry arches from capital to capital. T° th'S °laSS of buildings we will return later. It tureun- continued for some centuries with but little variety. progressive Designed) ag has been sajd ^^ jn ^ g^^ way, without challenging any difficulties of construction, no fresh expedients were called for, no new problems of statics presented themselves to be solved, and therefore no suggestions from his work occurred to the architect to force new methods on his attention. His walls were of the ch. ii] THE BASILICAN PLAN 25 rudest brickwork, and the exterior hardly deserved to be Use of old called architecture at all. Ancient monuments, especially materials the deserted temples of the older faiths, furnished him with an endless supply of ready-made columns and capitals. Old marbles could be sliced up for wall linings and pavements, and made the labour of quarrying un necessary. The timber roofs of both nave and aisles had no thrust and could be carried by thin walls, and the only feature that required any skill beyond ordinary bricklaying was the semi-dome of the apse, which after all was not a very serious affair. It was therefore an unprogressive style, and the Basilican basilican churches of the 10th and nth centuries differ stationary but little, except in details of ornamentation, from those of the 4th. It was a disastrous period in the history of Italy. The unsettled state of society which followed the tide of barbarian inroad and conquest, the fall of the Western Empire, and the establishment of foreign rulers were obviously unfavourable to any artistic growth, and we must look to the comparatively settled and better ordered lands of the Eastern Empire for the first signs of any fresh departure in architecture. CHAPTER III GREEK ELEMENT IN THE NEW STYLE. ASIATIC INFLUENCES. SYRIAN ARCHITECTURE. THE BYZANTINE DOME. ABANDONMENT OF THE ORDERS. AVOIDANCE OF FIGURE SCULPTURE Division The final partition of the Empire between the sons of Theodosius only set the seal on that division between Greek and Latin which had long existed in reality. Throughout the whole of the eastern part of the Empire of the Caesars, both in Europe and Asia, Greek culture and the Greek tongue had always prevailed. In Palestine, in the times of the Apostles, Greek seems to have been spoken side by side with the vernacular Aramaic, and the earliest Christian literature was composed in that language. The coast cities of Asia Minor were Greek, and their influence had spread among the barbarians of Constanti- the interior. The new Rome on the shores of the Greek^ity Bosphorus was in fact a Greek city, and Greek was the official language of the first great council of the Church in the neighbouring city of Nicaea. Constantine indeed was more at home in Latin, though he could muster Greek enough to address the assembled Fathers in that language1 : but his nephew, the Emperor Julian, was more thoroughly Hellenic, and had only a competent knowledge of the Latin tongue2. eWqvituv tc tJ tpavrj on jir/Sf ravrris apaOas dXe. Euseb., cited So crates, XX. 2 Aderat Latine quoque disserenti sufficiens sermo. Ammianus, cited Gibbon, ch. xix. ch. m] BYZANTINE CHRISTIANITY 27 It was in the Greek half of the Empire that Chris- Greater tianity triumphed more completely during the 4th century, of Chrfs- The penal laws against paganism, by which the Christian 'IiTeLT Church, when it gained the upper hand, turned the weapon of persecution against its old oppressors, were enforced with difficulty, or not at all, in Italy, where the Roman senate still observed the ancient rites, and listened un moved, and even replied to the arguments with which Theodosius exhorted them to embrace the new and better faith1. On the other hand, Constantinople had never been a pagan city, and its churches were enriched with the spoils, and the actual materials of countless pagan temples that had been ransacked and ruined to embellish them. In vain were appeals made for their preservation as monuments of national greatness and art, and fruitless were the edicts of emperors against their destruction. It is fortunate indeed that many of them were turned into churches, and to that happy circum stance it is that we owe the survival among others of the temples at Athens and those at Nimes and Vienne in Gaul. At the time of the division of the Empire then towards the end of the 4th century the Greek half had broken more decidedly with the past than the Latin, and new principles of social and religious life invited new methods of architecture to suit them. There was less disturbance also from without, for the Eastern Empire remained unshaken when the Western fell before the barbarian, and this comparative peace and security favoured the growth and development of the arts. Another influence, Asiatic fertile in suggestions of new modes of construction and 1 Zosimus, cited Dill, Roman Society in the last century of the Western Empire, p. 37. 28 SYRIAN ARCHITECTURE [ch. hi Asiatic design, was exerted by the eastern provinces of the m uence j7mpjre) an(j especially Syria. For though the capital was a Greek city on the European side of the Bosphorus, the bulk of the Empire was Asiatic ; and though Greek culture had long before permeated the Asiatic provinces, it was in its turn subject to Oriental influence, and the Byzantine school, mainly Greek, was largely affected by the traditional arts of the East. Syria Syria had been the seat of the Greek kingdom of the Seleucidae, and under the Romans Antioch, the ancient capital, became the third city of the Empire. Under their firmer rule the interior districts, which had till then been swept by the restless nomad hordes of the desert, became settled and civilized. Numerous towns sprang up on all sides, adorned with temples, theatres, aqueducts, and triumphal arches. The style of their architecture was " Greek, modified by certain local influences, by the traditions of older arts or by the nature of the materials employed1." ewes of The district known as the Haouran between the Jj"a desert and the mountains of the Mediterranean littoral, togetherwith its continuation northwards towards Aleppo, is full of ancient remains. M. de Vogue counted more than ioo cities within a space of from 30 to 40 leagues. The buildings date from the 4th to the 7th century; they were all abandoned at the same time, at the Mussulman conquest, and have remained as they were left ever since, many of them in so perfect a state that they can hardly be called ruins. Where not damaged by earthquakes, says M. de Vogue, they want nothing but their roofs to present the appearance of a Syrian town in the 7th century. 1 Le Comte de Vogud, Syrie Centrale, 1865-1877. ch. in] SYRIAN ARCHITECTURE 29 The peculiarities of the district suggested fresh prin- Syrian a ciples of design. The Haouran grows no timber, and stonestyle the only available material is stone—a hard and stubborn basalt. Driven by necessity the builders learned to make everything of stone, not only walls but actually doors, windows, shutters, and roofs. This involved new systems of construction ; the arch played a principal part, and large halls were covered with slabs laid across between parallel arches. When the span was too great for slabs the builders resorted to cupolas. This mode of construction depended of course on stability of abutment, and the building resolved itself into a framework of arches, slabs, and buttresses, while the intervening walls became mere curtains, thus anticipating in a manner, as M. de Vogue remarks, the principle of Gothic construc tion1 by equilibrium of forces. A very typical example of this mode of construction chaqqa is afforded by the palace at Chaqqa (Fig. 4) which dates from a time when the Empire was still Pagan3. It consists of several halls, of which the largest measures 130 ft. by 36 ft., and is spanned by eight arches of solid stone on the back of which walls are carried up level with the crown of the arch. Across the intervals between these walls, varying from 6 to 10 ft., are laid slabs of stone forming a flat ceiling and roof in one. On the top of the walls corbel courses are laid in order to diminish the bearing of these roofing slabs. The thrust of the arches is encountered partly by bringing the springing forward on interior piers, and partly by exterior buttresses, perhaps the earliest instance of their use. The whole of the masonry is put together without mortar. 1 Op. cit. p. 7. 2 De Vogue", p. 47 and Plates vm, ix, X, 3Q SYRIAN ARCHITECTURE [ch. iii In other examples the roofing of slabs, instead of being flat as at Chaqqa, is laid with a pitch on a gabled wall resting on the cross arches. CHAQQA, after JDeVogue. Fig. 4. The entrance doorway of the great hall that has been just described is square, with a complete entablature for CH. Ill] SPALATO its head and a round arch above, the lunette between the two being left open as a window. Additional height is given to this arch by making it a horseshoe instead of stilting it in the western way. It is remarkable that some of these features of Syrian Syria and architecture occur in Diocletian's palace at Spalato. There pa ' too in the peristyle of the larger temple we have slabs of MMi^^ L-iS* s4s4 4 wmm^^^m^ if. -;--m_^to Fig- 5- stone laid across from the entablature of the colonnade to the central cella. There also in the two remaining gateways, the Porta Aurea, and the Porta Ferrea, the square opening has a straight lintel surmounted by an open lunette within a round arch (Fig. 5). There also over the smaller temple is a semicircular vault, roof and ceiling in one, formed of huge slabs between the two end walls. At Spalato also, both in the crypto porticus and 32 SYRIAN ARCHITECTURE [ch. iii Greek in the vestibule, the entablature rises into an arch from aTspXto column to column as it does at Baalbec. From these instances of resemblance it has been conjectured that the palace of Spalato was built by Syro-Greeks, probably from Antioch1. That it was built by Greeks, may be assumed with tolerable certainty, but it is not necessary to suppose they came from Syria. Roofing with slabs was not confined to the East, though the scarcity of timber made it a convenient method both in Syria and Dalmatia. It is found in many countries and both in Roman and mediaeval times. There is a well-known example of it in the vault of the graceful temple of Diana at Nimes, and there are corridors covered with flat slabs in the Roman buildings in that town and also at Aries. The interesting cathedral of Sebenico in Dalmatiawas roofed by Giorgio Orsini in the 1 5th century in a similar manner, with slabs of stone carried on cross ribs of the same material, and on small scale there are instances of this construction in England. influence In these peculiarities of Syrian architecture we have an admirable instance of the influence of local circum- style stances on architectural style. The scarcity of wood drove the architect to adopt such modes of construction as admitted of the use of stone instead. His earlier churches were basilican, and for the nave he was unable to dispense with the use of timber, but the aisles were roofed with stone as at Souaideh, and partly at Quen- naouit2. The basilican plan was in some cases aban- The dome doned, the later churches were domed, and in them the use of timber was entirely avoided. The church in these 1 Strzygowski, Orient oder Rom. I am indebted to Mr Phene" Spiers for this reference. 2 De Vogue", 1. pp. 60, 61, Plates xix, xx. ch. in] SYRIAN ARCHITECTURE 33 EZRA X *D Feet s> 6a Fig. 6. J. A. id $_ Fig. 7 34 SYRIAN ARCHITECTURE [ch. iii cases became square, with a projecting apse for the sanctuary. The angles of the square were filled inter nally with exedrae or semicircular niches which brought it into an octagon. Within that was a smaller octagon of eight piers on which the cupola rested, surrounded by an aisle between the inner and outer octagons. A very Church perfect example of this is the church at Ezra (Figs. 6, 7), of which M. de Vogue gives a plan and sections1. The surrounding aisle is covered by slabs, and the prolonga tion forming the sanctuary and ending with an apse has the cross arches and slab covering of the palace at Chaqqa. This most interesting church, which is still perfect and in use, is dated by an inscription a.d. 515 The ovoid form of the dome is remarkable, and was probably adopted as easier to construct without centering, which, on account of the scarcity of wood, had to be dispensed with as much as possible. Thewhole is constructed ofwrought stone put together without mortar. Eastern The dome probably took its origin in the East, dome though M. Choisy says that cupolas are to be seen in the Egyptian paintings2. They appear in Assyrian bas- reliefs, sometimes hemispherical and sometimes stilted, and are found in the buildings of the Sassanian rulers of Persia in the 4th and 5th centuries of the Christian era at Serbistan and Firouzabad3. It was of course long before the latter date that the dome found its way to Italy. The great baths of the 1 De Vogue" I. p. 61, Plate XXI. The Cathedral at Bosra, which he also illustrates, was similar in plan but of double the dimensions and the dome seems to have fallen in soon after it was built. A smaller basilican church was then formed in the interior. 2 Choisy, Hist. d'Archit. I. 124. 3 R. Phene" Spiers, Architecture East and West, p. 60, &c. ch. in] DOMES AND VAULTS 35 early Empire had domed halls, and the mightiest dome of all time is that of the Pantheon of Rome. Domes of a The certain kind exist in the primeval buildings of Greece, in foTe""1 the building known as the Treasury of Atreus and others. But the construction of all these differed widely from that of the domes we are now about to consider. The subterranean Treasury of Atreus at Mycenae is Mycenae formed by horizontal courses of stone gradually projected ome inwards on a curved line ; in fact by a system of corbelling, consisting of a series of horizontal rings, each smaller than the one below, and coming together in a point at the top. Each ring has the strength of an arch laterally, to resist the pressure of the incumbent earth, but there is no arch construction vertically, and therefore this is not a true dome. The great Roman domes on the other hand may be Concrete said to be moulded rather than constructed, for they are made of concrete, and are solid monolithic masses, with little or no thrust. To construct these of course centering was necessary, and in the East, the true home of the dome, timber for centering was not generally available, and some mode had to be found for doing without it. The same difficulty applied to the construction of vaults vaults in treeless countries, and led to various expedients, centering The ordinary way of building a vault is to lay the bricks or stones in horizontal courses with their beds radiating from a centre (Fig. 8 a). This of course involves a centering of timber on the back of which the arch stones are laid, and without this support an arch so constructed could not stand till it was joined and keyed together at the crown. The problem was to find some way of keeping the bricks or stones from falling during construc tion if there were no centering. It was solved in early 36 DOMES AND VAULTS [ch. in Vaults without centering Sassanian vaults times both in Egypt and Assyria in a very curious manner (Fig. 8 b), by laying the courses of bricks vertically instead of horizontally, so that the vault con sisted of a series of rings or arches side by side, of which the joints and not the beds radiated from the centre. More than this, the rings were not exactly vertical, but inclined backwards, so that each partly rested on the one behind it. Each brick therefore as it was placed and bedded in clay against the hinder ring had adhesion enough to stick in its place till the new ring was finished Fig. 8. and so by being keyed became secure. It is in this way that the granaries of Rameses II at Thebes are con structed, and also the galleries at Khorsabad. The same method is adopted in the Palace of Ctesiphon, built by Chosroes II about a.d. 550, where the enormous barrel vault of the central hall, with a span of 86 ft. and a height of 105, is constructed of brickwork laid in this fashion, but in this case set in excellent mortar1. It should be added that this method requires an end wall . , \ fP',el\°p\ cit P" 77- The lower part of the arch for about halfway up is laid with homontal courses, and the section of the vault is elliptical, with the long diameter upwards, which of course reduced the inclination of the courses and made them less likely to fall before the ring was keyed ch. iii] DOMES AND VAULTS 37 from which to start. I have observed the same method of vaulting in the remains of the Carian portico of a.d. 587, in the harbour walls of Constantinople, and in the Yedi-Kuleh built after the Moslem conquest. It has been already explained that the ovoid form of Domecon- the dome at Ezra and the vault at Ctesiphon made it possible to lay bricks without centering for at all events centen"s the greater part of the height ; the bed being less in clined to the horizon than it would have been in a semicircular arch, and the bricks therefore being less liable to slip. The same plan of inclining the beds at a less angle to the horizon than the radius of the dome or vault allowed the construction of hemispherical domes and semicircular vaults without centering or with very little. To construct a dome a central post was fixed upright with two arms or trammels capable of moving in every direction as radii, one for the soffit or intrados and one for the extrados or back of the shell. Every stone or brick was set to this radius, but with its bed to a slighter inclination, so that the adhesion of the mortar and the comparatively gentle slope of the bed was sufficient to keep it in its place till the course was completed. I think it probable a small centering must have been necessary for closing the crown where the beds would be too steeply inclined for the bricks to stay without support, but it would be very small, resting on the part already gathered over. By using interlocking bricks I have myself built a dome in this way without centering1, and it is said that interlocking courses occur in the Eastern domes, to form a chain annihilating the thrust. 1 In this case at Giggleswick in Yorkshire (Plate I) no centering was used even near the crown, for when the beds towards the top became very steep the bricks were held back by clips of iron to the course below them till the ring was completed, when the irons were taken away. 38 DOMES AND VAULTS [ch. Ill Domes over a square plan Domes on squinches Domes on corbelling But the greatest achievement of the Eastern and By zantine dome-builders, was to place a hemispherical dome over a square chamber. The Roman domes, of which the Pantheon is the greatest example, were placed over round buildings, so that the junction of the two presented no geo metrical difficulties. But a circle inscribed in a square only touches it at four points and the problem was how to fill the four triangular spaces left at the corners in such a way as to carry the dome be tween those points, or in other words how to bring the square plan to a circle. M. Choisy says that the first instance of a dome on a base not round is to be found in Persia, where the corners are filled by what he calls "tromps," that is conical squinches (Fig. 9) which brought the square to an octagon1. This is the way adopted at Serbistan and Firouzabad, and still followed in that country. On the octagon it was not difficult to place a circular dome, which would be constructed without centering in the manner already described. In Syria another method was adopted. Large flat stones were laid across the angles, bringing the square to an octagon, and other stones across the angles of the octagon bringing the plan to 16 sides, which might if necessary be again divided so as to approach to a circular plan very closely. 1 Choisy, Histid' Archil. I. 125. ch. iii] DOMES AND VAULTS 39 A far more scientific and beautiful way was by the The sph< pendentive spherical pendentive, the discovery of which, or at all events its use on a serious scale, constitutes the triumph of Byzantine architecture. It is arrived at in this manner. ABCD (Fig. 10) is the square and the inscribed circle E FJ t - Ve j \ A^^ ^^ B Fig. 10. the dome to be placed over it. Imagine a larger dome FGHI circumscribed about the square. Then if the four segments ABG, BCH and the other two are cut off vertically on the lines AB, BC, etc. we get the imperfect dome shown by Fig. 10, No. 2. This is in fact the vault over the crossing of the cruciform mausoleum of Galla Placidia at Ravenna, and occurs in many parts of S. Sophia. 4o DOMES AND VAULTS [ch. in The These are not real domes on pendentives, though some pfndenL writers speak of them as if they were, but only imperfect domes. To form the real dome on pendentives it is necessary to slice off the top of this imperfect dome on a plane level with the crown of the four side arches (Fig. 10, No. 3), and from the circular ring thus formed to spring the dome. The four spherical triangles on which the dome rests, —relics of the imaginary dome FGHI,—are the pendentives, the strength of which lies in their being arched in two directions both horizontally and vertically, and they are supported by being wedged in between the four arches of the square (Fig. 10, No. 4). Plate I shows such a dome in actual process of construction at the period when the ring is just formed, as in Fig. 10, No. 3. its first Although there may have been tentative approaches to ancTat this method of construction before, the first real appearance . sop ia ^ >t on & grancj scale was in Justinian's great church of S. Sophia, the Holy Wisdom, at Constantinople, which was begun in a.d. 532 ; and the credit of it is fairly due to his architects from the Greek Ionian cities of Asia Minor, Anthemius of Tralles, and Isidorus of Miletus. TheSyrian In Syria, however, they never arrived at this method, and the junction of square and circle was managed in the simpler way already described, which sufficed formoderate domes, but would have been inapplicable on a large scale. And indeed the cupola does not play a very large part in Syrian churches, which never quite abandoned the basilican plan. There are many interesting peculiarities about these Syrian buildings, which show that a fresh departure was being made in architecture. Above all The it should be noted that the classic orders have dis orders appeared. There is no pretence of decoration with the columns and entablatures of the Colosseum. Columns Plate I THE DOME IN CONSTRUCTION ch. iii] SYRIAN ARCHITECTURE 41 and piers are used abundantly, but they are all working members of the construction. Here and there, as at Qualb-Louzet, colonnettes are used for exterior decora tion1, but they are exceptional, and on a miniature scale like those over the Porta Aurea at Spalato, or the blank arcadings of Gothic architecture, and they are perhaps the least attractive of the examples of Syrian architecture illustrated by M. de Vogiie\ The church at Tourmanin which dates from the Church 6th century, and that at Qualb-Louzet2, have dumpy manuT towers at the west end which stand in front of the main building with a porch between them. It is curious that the same feature occurs twice in Dalmatia, in the 13th century cathedral at Traii, and in that at Cattaro, also at the cathedral of Cefalu in Sicily, and was originally adopted at Chartres. I may mention another instance Syria and of correspondence in design between Syria and Dalmatia which is afforded by the remarkable cornices over Syrian doorways, enriched with elaborate sculpture, which find a parallel on a humble scale in Byzantine doorways at Ragusa and Nona3 that are very unlike doorways elsewhere. It is remarkable that among all the illustrations of Absence sculptured ornament given in M. de Vogue's admirable sculpture volumes there is scarcely any representation of animal in Syna life and none of human. This avoidance of figure sculp ture runs through all Byzantine work from the earliest 1 De Vogue", vol. 1 1. Plate cxxiv. 2 De Vogue", Qualb-Louzet, vol. II. Plates cxxm-cxxix. Tourmanin, vol. II. Plates CXXXII-CXXXV. This church unfortunately no longer exists. A note in M. Diehl's Manuel a" Art Byzantin tells us that it has been demolished to build a military post and a village. 3 v. De Vogue", vol. I. Plates xxxi, xlv, lxii, lxviii, and my Dalmatia, the Quarnero, and Islria, Plate I, Fig. 2 and chap. XX. Fig. 62. Civil ar chitecture in Syria Vitality of Syrian work Influence of Syria on Western art 42 SYRIAN ARCHITECTURE [ch. hi time, long before the iconoclastic movement took place. The representation of the human figure was reserved for mural decoration in painting and mosaic. Syria is rich not only in churches but also in civil and domestic buildings, all dating from a time before the Saracen conquest in the 7th century when the province was deserted by the old inhabitants. Many of these remain in almost perfect preservation, and they are valuable as among the very few surviving examples of domestic work in the Byzantine period. They are largely columnar, with open loggias and porticos, and are remarkable for the same extensive use of stone and lack of timber as the churches. M. de Vogue observes that " while in the West the sentiment of art was expiring little by little under the barbarian rule, in the East, at least in Syria, there existed an intelligent school which maintained good traditions, and rejuvenated them by happy innovations." This remark may be extended to all Byzantine archi tecture, of which the Syrian school should be regarded as a part. Though inspired by Greek traditions it adopted and carried forward on new lines the Roman system of arched construction, and advanced it to the develop ment of forms and principles, both of construction and decoration, that were entirely novel, and resulted in revolutionizing architecture. In estimating the influence on Byzantine architecture of the school of Syrian art about which we have been speaking, one must remember the special circumstances under which it arose. The same difficulties of material did not present themselves in other countries of the Empire, and therefore many of the more marked pe culiarities of the Syrian style did not travel westwards, ch. iii] SYRIAN ARCHITECTURE 43 there being no occasion for them. We may, however, recognize an Oriental influence in the gradual adoption in Constantinople and the nearer provinces of the domed church, on a plan more or less square, in preference to the older basilican type ; and this influence may be traced back through Asia Minor to the older Greek kingdom of the Seleucidae, which was in its turn affected by the neighbouring schools of Persia and the East. It was also perhaps the Syrian schools and those of Asia Minor that set the example of frank abandonment of the strict classic orders. Constantine no doubt brought with him from Rome and Italy to his new capital the traditions of Vitruvius, or those that we associate with that name. His own triumphal arch at Rome is in the same classical style as those of his predecessors Titus and Severus. But if he began to build the new Rome in the style of the old, it is certain that the fashion did not last for long : the earliest buildings of the eastern part of the Empire which have come down to us are very far removed from classic example ; and in shaping those differences which distinguish them from the arts of Rome the influence of oriental art certainly played a not inconsiderable part. Whatever influence, however, the East had on the Syrian development of Byzantine architecture, it must be re- through membered that itwas all filtered through a Greek medium, medium and that the prevalent character of the style was Hellenic as distinct from Roman. Therein it differs from the styles of Europe further west, in which, though Byzantine influence may be traced to a very considerable extent, the general character is distinctly Romanesque. CHAPTER IV THE GREEK CHURCH AND RITUAL. MARBLE AND MOSAIC. THE PULVINO. VARIETIES OF CAPITAL The church architecture of the eastern part of the Roman Empire reflects the internal changes that had taken place in the religion itself. With the establish ment of Christianity as the State creed came inevitably Growth the taste for greater splendour of ritual. With the of ritual intent;on 0f making the passage from paganism more easy the heathen festivals were continued under a new Christian attribution, and the temples themselves with their sumptuous adornment were often converted into Re-dedica- churches, and re-dedicated with allusion to the old temples Divinity. Thus the Parthenon at Athens, the shrine of Pallas Athene, the wise goddess, became the church of the dyia So^ia, the Holy Wisdom: the temple of Theseus, the slayer of the Minotaur, was dedicated afresh to S. George, the vanquisher of the dragon: the temple of the Magna Mater at Ancyra became the church of the ©eoTo/cos, the Mother of God1. The Pantheon at Rome,—Temple of all the Gods,—was re-consecrated to the Virgin Mary and all Saints and Martyrs, so that " where assemblies of dsemons used to be gathered there 1 Cedrenus cited Texier, p. 42. It has been remarked that "the land which introduced the mother of the Gods to the Roman world also gave the name f?foi-riKor (mother of God) to the church." Glover, Conflict ofReligions in the Early Roman Empire, p. 21. ch.iv] GREEK CHURCH AND RITUAL 45 the memory of all saints and of God's Elect should be revered1." As with the buildings, so with the ritual. The services of the Church, now dominant, imitated and vied in splendour with the pagan ceremonies ; and in propor tion as greater importance was attached to the Church offices the dignity of the clergy was magnified, and elevated them into a hierarchy. The older religion of The new Rome can hardly be said to have had a clergy. The ierarc y Pontifices, with the Emperor at their head and the Caesars in their ranks, were after all laymen. But the eastern cults, that with their more emotional and spiritual influences had largely superseded the older Latin worship, possessed a sacerdotal caste, and cere monies and sacraments, so like those of the Church that Tertullian2 and other early Apologists thought they were invented by the devil to parody the Christian rites. A recent writer observes that " the Christians readily recognized the parallel between their rites and those of the heathen, but no one seems to have perceived the real connexion between them. Quite naively they suggest the exact opposite : it was the daemons who foresaw what