  1. The first volume was published in 1865; the second in 1867. 2. ‘MÉmoire sur les Fouilles exÉcutÉs au Madras’en,’ Constantine, 1873. 3. ‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos de EspaÑa.’ Folio. Madrid, 1860, et seqq. 4. Parcerisa, ‘Recuerdos y Bellezas de EspaÑa.’ Folio. Madrid. 5. ‘Gothic Architecture in Spain,’ by G. E. Street. Murray. 1865. 6. ‘DenkmÄler der Kunst des Mittelalters in Unter Italien,’ by H. W. Schulz. Dresden, 1860. Quarto. Atlas, folio. 7. ‘Syrie Centrale,’ by Count M. De VogÜÉ. Paris. 8. ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ by Chev. Texier. London, 1864. 9. ‘Mission to the Court of Ava in 1855,’ by Colonel Yule. 4to. London, 1858. 10. ‘Travels in Siam and Cambodia,’ by Henri Mouhot. London: John Murray. 1864. 11. The number of illustrations in the chapters of the Handbook comprised in this first volume of the History was 441. They now stand at 536 (1874); and in the second volume the ratio of increase will probably be even greater. 12. It may be suggested that the glory of a French clerestory filled with stained glass made up for all these defects, and it may be true that it did so; but in that case the architecture was sacrificed to the sister art of painting, and is not the less bad in itself because it enabled that art to display its charms with so much brilliancy. 13. The numbers in the table must be taken only as approximative, except 2, 4, 6, and 7, which are borrowed from Gwilt’s ‘Public Buildings of London.’ 14. The Isis-headed or Typhonian capitals cannot be quoted as an exception to this rule: they are affixes, and never appear to be doing the work of the pillar. 15. See woodcuts further on. 16. Max MÜller, who is the facile princeps of the linguistic school in this country—in an inaugural lecture which he delivered when, it was understood, he was appointed to a chair in the Strasburg University—gave up all that has hitherto been contended for by his followers. He admitted that language, though an invaluable aid, did not suffice for the purposes of the investigation, and that the results obtained by its means were not always to be depended upon. 17. The term “Persistent Varieties” has recently been introduced, instead of “race,” in ethnological nomenclature, and, if scientific accuracy is aimed at, is no doubt an improvement. It is an advantage to have a term which does not even in appearance prejudge any of the questions between the monogenists and polygenists, and leaves undecided all the questions how the variations of mankind arose. But it sounds pedantic; and “race” may be understood as meaning the same thing. 18. The whole of this subject has been carefully gone into by the Author in a work entitled ‘Rude Stone Monuments’ published in 1872, to which the reader is referred. 19. All round the shores of the Mediterranean are found the traces of an art which has hitherto been a stumbling-block to antiquarians. Egyptian cartouches and ornaments in Assyria, which are not Egyptian; sarcophagi at Tyre, of Egyptian form, but with Phoenician inscriptions, and made for Tyrian kings; Greek ornaments in Syria, which are not Greek; Roman frescoes or ornaments, and architectural details at Carthage, and all over Northern Africa, which however are not Roman. In short, a copying art something like our own, imitating everything, understanding nothing. I am indebted to my friend Mr. Franks for the suggestion that all this art may be Phoenician, in other words, Semitic, and I believe he is right. 20. Had there been no Pelasgi in Greece, there probably would have been no Architecture of the Grecian period. 21. The derivation of the two words Heathen and Pagan seems to indicate the relative importance of these two terms very much in the degree it is here wished to express. Heathen is generally understood to be derived from ?????, a nation or people; and Pagan from Pagus, Pagani, a village, or villagers. Both are used here not as terms of reproach, but as indicative of their being non-Christian, which is what it is wished to express, and was the original intention of the term. 22. ‘Rude Stone Monuments,’ 1 vol. 8vo. Murray, 1872. 23. The above scheme of Egyptian Chronology was published by me in the ‘True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ in 1849; and the data on which it was based were detailed in the Appendix to that work. As there seems to be nothing in the subsequent researches or discoveries which at all invalidates the reasoning on which the table was founded, it is here reproduced in an abridged form as originally set forth. 24. Syncellus, Chron. p. 98, ed. Dindorff, Bonn, 1829. 25. ‘Josephus contra Apion,’ i. 14, 16 and 26. 26. Vyse, ‘Operations on the Pyramids at Gizeh in 1837,’ vol. i. p. 297, et seq. 27. At Wady Meghara, in the Sinaitic peninsula, a king of the 4th dynasty is represented as slaying an Asiatic enemy. It is the only sign of strife which has yet been discovered belonging to this ancient kingdom. Lepsius, Abt. ii. pl. 39. 28. By a singular coincidence, China has been suffering from a Hyksos domination of Tartar conquerors, precisely as Egypt did after the period of the Pyramid builders, and, strange to say, for about the same period—five centuries. Had the Taepings been successful, we should have witnessed in China the exact counterpart of what took place in Egypt when the 1st native kings of the 18th dynasty expelled the hated race. 29. Col. H. Vyse, ‘Operations carried on the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837.’ Lond. 1840-43. 30. This will be best understood by looking at the section (Woodcut 7), in which it will be seen that the so-called coping or casing-stones were not simply triangular blocks, filling up the angles formed by the receding steps, and which might have been easily displaced, but stones from 7 to 10 feet in depth, which could not have been supported unless the work had been commenced at the bottom. On the other hand, it is difficult to understand how the casing-stones for the upper portion could have been raised up the sloping portion completed. It is probable, therefore, that the casing was commenced at the angles and was carried up in vertical planes, thus leaving a causeway of steps in the middle of each face, which diminished in width as the work proceeded; this causeway, a few feet wide only, on each face being then encased from the top downwards after the apex blocks had been laid.—Ed. 31. ‘The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh by W. M. Flinders Petrie. Lond. 1883. 32. On the north side the paving is carried under the lowest course. 33. Except the spires of Cologne Cathedral. 34. They are situated in latitude 30° N. 35. ‘Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh,’ p. 199. 36. Mr. Petrie says, p. 117: “All the chambers of this pyramid are entirely hewn in the rock.” 37. ‘Medum,’ by M. Flinders Petrie. D. Nutt, London, 1892. 38. Diodorus, i. 51. 39. M. Mariette’s discoveries in these tombs were only in progress at the time of his death: but his manuscript notes and drawings of the hieroglyphics and figures have since been published in facsimile under the title of ‘Les Mastabas de l’Ancienne Empire’ Paris 1889. They are, however, incomplete; some of the plates referred to could not be found, and M. Maspero, who edited the work, has unfortunately given no preface of his own, which might have rendered them more intelligible. At present no sufficient data exist to enable others to realise and verify the extraordinary revelation it presents to us. It is 2000 years older, and infinitely more varied and vivid, than the Assyrian pictures which recently excited so much interest. 40. The false door is a niche in the side of the mastaba, the back of which is carved in imitation of a wooden door. 41. Lucian, ‘De Syria Dea,’ ed. Reetzin, tom. iii. p. 451, alludes to the fact of the old temples of the Egyptians having no images. 42. The roof slabs are gone, but the lower portions of the slits are still uninjured. 43. The plan and particulars relating to this temple are taken from Mr. W. M. Petrie’s work before referred to. 44. The tablet discovered at Gizeh, in which Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid, is recorded to have made some repairs to the Sphinx, is stated by Mr. Petrie to be a forgery of the 20th dynasty, and his reasons are given in section 118 of his work. 45. Lepsius, ‘Denkmaler,’ Abt. ii. pls. 115, 116. 46. Syncellus, p. 69; Euseb. Chron. p. 98. 47. ‘Hawara, Biahmun, and Arsinoe’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1889. 48. ‘Kahun, Garob, and Hawara,’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1890. 49. ‘Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob,’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1891. 50. Ibid. 51. The researches of Mr. Petrie at Kahun have shown that originally this form of column was in wood, which would account for the base on which, in Egyptian work, it is always placed. 52. In a tomb of the 4th dynasty found at Sakkara is a wall decoration in which the lotus column is used in a frieze, examples of it being carved in low relief to separate the figures in a procession (see plate 10, ‘Voyage dans la Haute Égypte,’ by F. A. F. Mariette. Cairo, 1878). The polygonal or Proto-Doric column has also been found as a hieroglyph in an inscription of the 4th dynasty. This carries back the date of the two columns to a period some twelve centuries prior to the example at Beni-Hasan. 53. ‘Revue ArchÆologique,’ vol. iii., 1861, p. 97, and v., 1862, p. 297. 54. 518 years: ‘Josephus contra Apion.,’ I. 26. 55. Layard, ‘Nineveh and Babylon,’ 281. 56. Tacitus, Ann. II. 60. 57. ‘Revue ArchÉologique,’ vol. x. 1864, p. 170, and vol. xiii. 1866, p. 73. 58. Now in Sir John Soane’s Museum, in Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields. 59. ‘Egyptian ArchÆology,’ by G. Maspero, translated from the French by Amelia B. Edwards. London, 1887. 60. The information regarding these temples is principally derived from Hoskins’s ‘Travels in Ethiopia,’ which is the best and most accurate work yet published on the subject. 61. Herodotus. iii. 24. Diodorus, ii. 15. 62. Woodcuts 982 and 1091 in the first edition of this History. 63. Published in the ‘Rheinischer Museum’ vol. viii. p. 252, et seq. 64. ‘Josephus contra Apion,’ i. 14. 65. If the Greeks traded to Naucratis as early as the 1st Olympiad. 66. When the ‘Handbook of Architecture’ was published in 1855, there existed no data from which these affinities could be traced. It is to the explorations of Sir Henry Rawlinson and Messrs. Taylor and Loftus that we owe what we now know on the subject; but even that is only an instalment. 67. The chronology here given is based on the various papers communicated by Sir Henry Rawlinson to the ‘Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society,’ vol. x. et seq., and to the ‘AthenÆum’ journal. The whole has been abstracted and condensed in his brother’s ‘Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient world;’ from which work the tables here given are taken in an abridged form. 68. Loftus, ‘ChaldÆa and Babylonia,’ p. 167. 69. Journal R. A. S., vol. xv. p. 260, et seq. 70. Journal R. A. S., vol. xviii. p. i, et seq., Sir H. Rawlinson’s paper, from which all the information here given regarding the Birs is obtained. 71. Flandin and Coste, ‘Voyage en Perse,’ vol. iv. pl. 221. 72. I have ventured to restore the roof of the cella with a sikra (ziggur or ziggurah, according to Rawlinson’s ‘Five Ancient Monarchies,’ vol. I, p. 395, et passim), from finding similar roofs at Susa, Bagdad, Keffeli, &c. They are certainly indigenous, and borrowed from some older type, whether exactly what is represented here is not clear, it must be confessed. It is offered as a suggestion, the reason for which will be given when we come to speak of Buddhist or Saracenic architecture. 73. Rich gives its dimensions: On the north, 600 feet; south, 657; east, 546; and west, 408. But it is so ruinous that only an average guess can be made at its original dimensions. [Mr. George Smith, in the ‘AthenÆum’ of February 1876, wrote a letter giving an account of a tablet of the Temple of Belus at Babylon he had deciphered, which constitutes the only description found giving the dimensions thereof. The bottom stage was 300 feet square and 110 feet high, the second, with raking sides, 260 feet square and 60 feet high, the third 200 feet square and 20 feet high, the fourth, fifth, and sixth each 20 feet high and 170, 140, and 110 feet respectively. The top stage, which was the sanctuary, was 80 × 70 feet and 50 feet high, the whole height being thus 300 feet, the same as the width of the base. Mr. W. R. Lethaby, in his work on ‘Architecture, Mysticism, and Myth,’ gives as a frontispiece a restoration according to these dimensions, the appearance of which is more impressive and probably approaches more closely to the actual proportions of a ziggurat than any previously published, excepting that at Khorsabad, with which in general proportion it coincides.—Ed.] 74. Strabo, xvi. p. 738. 75. There is a slight discrepancy in the measures owing to the absence of fractions in the calculation. 76. Loftus, ‘ChaldÆa and Babylonia,’ p. 188. 77. This chapter and that next following may be regarded as, in all essential respects an abridgment or condensation of the information contained in a work published by the author in 1851, entitled, ‘The Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored,’ the only real difference being that the more perfect decipherment of the inscriptions since that work was published has caused some of the palaces and buildings to be ascribed to different kings and dynasties from those to whom they were then assigned, and proved their dates to be more modern than was suspected, for the oldest at least. The order of their succession, however, remains the same, and so consequently do all the architectural inferences drawn from it. Those readers who may desire further information on the subject are referred to the work alluded to. 78. Published in 1862, in the ‘AthenÆum’ journal, No. 1812. 79. This plan, with all the particulars here mentioned, are taken from Layard’s work, which is the only authority on the subject, so that it is not necessary to refer to him on every point. The plan is reduced to the usual scale of 100 ft. to 1 inch, for easy comparison with the dimensions of all the other edifices quoted throughout this work. 80. The whole of the information regarding Khorsabad is taken from M. Botta’s great work on the subject, and its continuation, ‘Ninive et l’Assyrie,’ by M. Victor Place. 81. These particulars are all borrowed from M. Place’s great work, ‘Ninive et l’Assyrie,’ folio. Paris, 1865. 82. Space will not admit of my entering into all the reasons for this restoration here. If any one wishes for further information on the subject, I must refer him to my ‘Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored,’ published in 1851. Nothing has occurred during the twenty-three years that have elapsed since that work was published that has at all shaken my views of the correctness of the data on which these restorations were based. On the contrary, every subsequent research has served only more and more to convince me of their general correctness, and I cannot now suggest any improvement even in details. [It should be noted that the author’s theory as to the covering over of the Assyrian halls with a flat roof carried on columns has never been accepted by foreign archÆologists, and no trace has ever been found of the foundations which would be required to carry such columns. M. Place, who conducted the excavations at Khorsabad, and Messrs. Perrot & Chipiez, who, among others, have devoted much time and research to the subject, are of opinion that the halls were vaulted. It would be difficult now to determine the possibility of building vaults of thirty feet span in crude or unburnt brick, because we have no means of testing the resistance to crushing which such bricks might afford. The brick voussoirs found by M. Place in the arches of the town gates had been prepared in special moulds, and so completely dried that liquid clay had been used to cement them together. In some of the large halls, far away from the walls, and in some cases in the centre of the rooms, huge blocks of hard clay were found with their lower surface curved and covered with a layer of stucco; these masses were sometimes many metres long, one to two metres wide, nearly a metre thick. According to M. Place they formed part of a barrel vault covering the halls, and their size would account for the immense thickness of the walls constructed to carry them and resist their thrust, as well as for the peculiar shape of the halls; that is, their length as compared with their breadth. The sculptured slabs would seem to have been carved to be seen by a high side-light, which suggests openings of some kind, just above the springing of the vault, and above the flat roof of the smaller halls round.—Ed.] 83. These gateways are extremely interesting to the Biblical student, inasmuch as they are the only examples which enable us to understand the gateways of the Temple at Jerusalem as described by Ezekiel. Their dimensions are nearly the same, but the arrangement of the side chambers and of gates generally are almost identical. These gates had been built 100 years at least before Ezekiel wrote. 84. Layard’s excavations here furnish us with what has not been found or has been overlooked elsewhere, e.g., a ramp or winding staircase leading to the upper storey (‘Nineveh and Babylon,’ 461). As explained above, I believe the tops of the walls, which are equal to the floor space below, formed such a storey. This ramp at Koyunjik would just suffice to lead to them, and goes far to prove the theory. If it was similarly situated at Khorsabad it would be in the part fallen away. 85. [This assumption is speculative, no trace of such dwarf columns having been found; to raise a solid wall thirteen feet thick to carry a gallery seems unlikely.—Ed.] 86. This faÇade, as I read it, is identical with the one I erected at the Crystal Palace as a representation of an Assyrian faÇade, long before this slab was exhumed. 87. See Rawlinson, ‘Ancient Monarchies,’ vol. i. p. 398. 88. It is called tomb by Strabo, lib. xvi., and Diodorus, xvii. 112, 3; temple, Herodotus, i. 181, Arrian, vii. 17, 2, Pliny, vi. 26. 89. Texier shows columns on the fourth side. 90. Mr. Weld Blundell in 1892 found a column with fluted base and Doric capital, but it did not apparently belong to the palace. 91. [It follows from what has already been pointed out in a note respecting the roofs of the Assyrian palaces; if, as is contended by French archÆologists, the great halls were vaulted, Mr. Fergusson’s theory respecting the origin of the Persian columns partly falls to the ground; in that case it would seem more probable that the Persians owed their columnar architecture to prototypes of wooden posts, covered with metal plates, such as are described as existing in the Median palaces of Ecbatana, where Cyrus, the first Persian monarch, passed so many years of his life.—Ed.] 92. The woodcuts in this chapter, except the restorations, are taken from Flandin and Coste’s ‘Voyage en Perse,’ except where the contrary is mentioned. 93. It is curious that neither Ker Porter, nor Texier, nor Flandin and Coste, though measuring this building on the spot, could make out its plan. Yet nothing can well be more certain, once it is pointed out. 94. ‘Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored,’ p. 126. [The prayer platform or talar represented on the tomb of Darius is extremely unlike any constructional feature such as an upper storey, and may have been placed there only to give dignity and importance to the figure of the king: the hall of the Palace of Darius could easily have been lighted by clerestory windows over the roofs of the smaller chambers on each side.—Ed.] 95. It is very strange that this similarity, like the plan of the square halls, should hitherto have escaped observation. Had any one looked at the matter as a whole we should have been spared some restorations which are too absurd even to merit exposure. [The restorations referred to are those in which the columns of the Great Hall and of the porticoes are shown as isolated features standing on the platforms. The authors of these designs would appear to have been misled by Messrs. Flandin and Coste’s plan, in which the drains are shown as if they ran under the line of the wall proposed by Mr. Fergusson, the enclosing wall of the Great Hall. Mr. Weld Blundell’s researches (1891), however, have shown that the main drain really lies under the hall, and between the enclosure wall and the first row of columns, and that the vertical rain-water shafts which were built into the wall communicated direct with this main drain. These shafts, cut in stone, in some cases rise above the level of the platform, which show that they were not intended to carry off the surface water from the platform. Mr. Weld Blundell discovered also the traces of the foundation of walls at the angles where shown by Mr. Fergusson. It would seem that in course of time the platforms have become coated with so hard and uniform a covering as to suggest its being the natural surface; when once broken through, however, the evidences of foundations of various walls are abundant.—Ed.] 96. M. Dieulafoy’s work on the Acropolis of Susa has just (1893) appeared, but, so far as the palace is concerned, his discoveries do not add much to our knowledge. He appears to have arrived at the conclusion that the great hall (which in plan resembles that of the palace of Xerxes—Woodcut 94) was not enclosed on the south side, but was left open to the court in the same way as the great reception halls of the later Parthian and Sassanian kings at Al Hadhr, Firouzabad, and Ctesiphon. 97. It is now generally considered that these two buildings were tombs; the projecting bosses, as shown on woodcut, are in reality sinkings, and were probably decorative only.—Ed. 98. M. Dieulafoy claims to have traced the plan of a temple at Susa which consisted of a sanctuary the roof of which was supported by four columns, with a portico-in-antis in front, and a large open court, measuring about 50 ft. by 40 ft., in the middle of which was placed the fire-altar. The whole building was enclosed with a corridor or passage, with entrances so arranged that no one could see inside the temple from without.—Ed. 99. Mr. Flinders Petrie’s latest excavations at Medum have resulted in the discovery of small brick arches over a passage in the sepulchral pit of Rahotep of the 4th dynasty. 100. Wilkinson’s ‘Egypt and Thebes,’ pp. 81 and 126. 101. ‘Manners and Customs of the Egyptians,’ vol. iii. p. 263. 102. 1 Kings vii. 1-12. Josephus, B. J. viii. 5. 103. Josephus, Ant. viii. 5. § 2. 104. The details of this restoration are given in the ‘Dictionary of the Bible,’ sub voce ‘Temple,’ and repeated in my work entitled ‘The Holy Sepulchre and the Temple at Jerusalem.’ Murray, 1865. 105. ‘Speaker’s Commentary on the Bible,’ vol. ii. p. 520; note on verse 15, chap. vii. 1 Kings. 106. For a restoration of this screen see ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ Appendix i., p. 270. 107. Since the article on the Temple in Smith’s ‘Dictionary of the Bible’ was written, from which most of the woodcuts in this chapter are taken, I have had occasion to go over the subject more than once, and from recent explorations and recently discovered analogies have, I believe, been able to settle, within very narrow limits of doubt, all the outstanding questions with reference to this celebrated building. I have in consequence written and published a monograph of the Temple, but have deemed it more expedient to leave the illustrations here as they are. 108. 2 Chronicles xx. 5. 109. Hecateus of Abdera, in ‘MÜller’s Fragments,’ ii. 394. 110. Josephus, Ant. xi. 4, § 2. 111. Josephus, B. J. v. 5, § 4. 112. Dawkins and Wood, ‘The Ruins of Palmyra,’ Lond. 1753. 113. Texier, ‘ArmÉnie et la Perse,’ vol. i. pl. 62 and 68. 114. Texier, ‘Asie Mineure,’ pl. 10 to 21. 115. Herodotus, i. 93. 116. Lydischen KÖnigsgrÄber, I. F. M. Olfers, Berlin, 1859. 117. “Toward the centre of the monument two large stones were found leaning at an angle the one against the other, and forming a sort of tent, like in Woodcut 124, under which was presently discovered a small statue of Minerva seated on a chariot with four horses, and an urn of metal filled with ashes, charcoal, and burnt bones. This urn, which is now in the possession of the Comte de Choiseul, is enriched in sculpture with a vine branch, from which is suspended bunches of grapes done with exquisite art.”—‘Description of the Plain of Troy,’ translated by Dalzel, Edin. 1791, p. 149. If this is so, this is no doubt the vessel mentioned, ‘Iliad,’ xvi. 221, xxiii. 92; ‘Od.,’ xxiv. 71, and elsewhere. But where is it now? and why has not the fact of its existence been more insisted upon? 118. One of the most interesting facts brought to light in Dr. Schliemann’s excavations is that between the age of the “Ilium Vetus” of Homer, rich in metals and in arts, and the “Ilium Novum” of Strabo, a people ignorant of use of the metals, and using only bone and stone implements, inhabited the mound at Hissarlik which covered both these cities. This discovery is sufficient to upset the once fashionable Danish theory of the three ages—Stone, Bronze, and Iron—but, unfortunately, adds nothing to our knowledge of architecture. These people, whoever they were, built nothing, and must consequently be content to remain in the “longa nocte” of those who neglect the Master Art. 119. Fergusson’s ‘History of Indian and Eastern Architecture.’ John Murray, London 1876, page 108 et seq. 120. This tomb is considered by M. Renan (Mission de Phoenicie, Paris 1864) to be of Phoenician origin, who remarks generally on their work: “Phoenician tombs are generally excavated in the solid rock; their architecture is the carved rock without columns; they obtained all they could out of the solid rock, leaving it as they found it, with more or less attempt to make it graceful; the fact that it was worked before being transported suggests that as it left the quarry so it remained, no sound of hammer or saw being heard during its erection.” There is another tomb at Marathos also attributed to the Phoenicians, which is partly cut out of the rock and partially built in large blocks of masonry. 121. In reality the monument stands exactly over the centre of the rock-cut sepulchre. The section-line must, therefore, be understood to be carried back about 10 feet from the face of the monument. 122. Josephus, Ant. xvi. 7, § 1. 123. Beule’s excavations have proved that the outer gate of the Acropolis was in front, not at the side, as here shown. ‘Acropole d’AthÈnes.’ Paris, vol. i. pl. i. and ii. 124. For details of this see BÖtticher, ‘Baumkultus der Hellenen.’ Berlin, 1856. 125. Pausanias, ix. 38. 126. It appears that on the back of the stones laid in horizontal courses were others of great size piled on the top. 127. The same scroll exists at New Grange in Ireland, in the Island of Gozo near Malta, and generally wherever chambered tumuli are found. 128. A cast of these is to be found in the South Kensington Museum. 129. These antÆ (parastades) or responds were destined in the first case to protect the angles of the wall, and in the second case to support the beams carried by them and the columns between, the sun-dried brick wall being not to be relied on; in the later Greek temples the walls were built in stone and marble, and the parastades became therefore no longer constructional necessities, being retained only as decorative features, of which so many others are found in the style. 130. Pausanias, vi. 19. 131. The dimensions are 94 feet by 45, covering consequently only 4230 feet. 132. This refers only to the columns and antÆ; the lower portion of the walls, 3 feet 6 inches high, were in stone; above this clay bricks were employed in building the walls, and it was to the disintegration of these that we owe the preservation of the Hermes of Praxiteles, which was found embedded in a thick layer of clay. At first it was thought that this clay had been washed down from the neighbouring slopes of the hill of Kronos. 133. M. J. Thacher Clarke, who directed the American expedition in 1881, is now occupied with a monograph on the subject, and a report by him was published in 1882. Boston and London. J. TrÜbner. 134. A proto-Ionic capital of early date was found in 1882 on the summit of Mount Chigri, in the Troad, by Mr. J. Thacher Clarke, and is described in the American Journal of ArchÆology, Baltimore. 1886. Another example ascribed to Phoenician artists was found at Trapeza in Cyprus, and is now in the Louvre; both are of the same type as that which is represented in the ivory carvings from the north-western palace of Nimroud, now in the British Museum, so that the Asiatic origin of the order is thus confirmed. 135. Pausanias, viii. 45. 136. Bohn. 137. [The earliest example in stone at Benihasan is of less diameter than the columns at Kalabscheh, so that it is difficult to draw this distinction; we have already shown also (p. 115 note) that wooden shafts of the twelfth dynasty have been found at Kahun, and this and the existence of the base proves their wooden origin. If therefore the Greek Doric column was derived originally from Egypt, as Mr. Fergusson believed, then its earlier wooden parentage must be accepted. Further evidence on this subject however has been afforded by the discoveries at Olympia, and the references in consequence made to Greek authors; all these show without doubt that the columns of the temple of Hera were originally in wood, and were gradually replaced by stone. The theory that the pillars in Egypt or early Greece were built in brickwork or rubble masonry is not borne out by the discoveries at Tiryns, for the walls of the palace there, in rubble and clay mortar, were of such weak construction that posts of timber were required to carry the epistyle or beam, either isolated as columns or built up against the wall as antÆ. Mr. Fergusson’s theory that a pillar, originally copied from the wooden post, is slenderer at first, and gradually departs from the wood form as the style advances, is borne out by the evidence of the Egypt lotus column; this, as found in the rock-cut tombs of Benihasan, is of very small diameter, and quite unequal to carry the weight of any stone superstructure; whereas afterwards in the temples at Thebes it assumes a proportion nearer that of the earliest Greek Doric example at Corinth.—Ed.] 138. These facts have all been fully elucidated by Mr. Penrose in his beautiful work containing the results of his researches on the Parthenon and other temples of Greece, published by the Dilettanti Society. 139. For measurements we depend on Penrose, ‘Principles of Athenian Architecture,’ &c., fol.; and Cockerell, ‘The Temples of Egina and BassÆ,’ Lond. 1860. The details of the system were first publicly announced by Watkiss Lloyd, in a paper read to the Institute of British Architects in 1859; afterwards in an appendix to Mr. Cockerell’s work, and in several minor publications. 140. The pyramid-building kings of Lower Egypt seem to have had some distinct ideas of a system of definite proportions in architectural building, and to have put it into practice in the pyramid, and possibly elsewhere, but it has not yet been sought for in the other buildings of that age. At times I cannot help suspecting more affinity to have existed between the inhabitants of Lower Egypt and those of Greece than is at first sight apparent. 141. It was called Zoophorus (life or figure bearer). 142. [The reasons which induced the late Mr. Fergusson to suggest an “opaion,” or clerestory, were fully set forth in the ‘True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ in 1849. A paper on the same subject was communicated by him to the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1861, and published in their “Transactions” for that year. Since his death, however, Mr. Penrose’s discovery that the Temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens was really octastyle has thrown a new light on the question of hypÆthral temples; and, as Dr. Dorpfield remarks in his essay on the “HypÆthral Temple” (communicated to the R. I. B. A. on Dec. 19): “The words of Vitruvius have now received quite another interpretation, through the excavation of the Olympieion at Athens, to that which they have had up to the present. The most important proof of the hypÆthral lighting of the temples of antiquity has now turned into a proof against the same;” and he concludes his arguments by stating: “After it has been shown by the excavations that the Olympieion at Athens is the sole example of a great hypÆthral temple mentioned by Vitruvius, we can answer this much-vexed question of the lighting of the temples of antiquity in this way—that a few great dipteral hypÆthral temples existed, but that the Greek and Roman temples had as a rule no light from above, and were only lighted from the door.”—Ed.] 144. Vitruvius, lib. i. ch. 1. 145. Boeckh, Corpus Inscript. GrÆc. No. 109. 146. Attica, xxvi. 147. Historia, viii, 41. 148. Among the many attempts made to restore the interior of this temple, the last and most elaborate is that by the late E. BeulÉ, ‘Acropole d’AthÈnes,’ 1854, vol. ii. pl. ii.; but it is also one of the worst. Indeed it is quite painful to see how the author twists his authorities to meet a preconceived theory. Without going into it, there is one objection which seems fatal to the whole. Like most antiquaries when in difficulties for lighting Greek temples, he takes off the roof and makes the Temple of Pandrosus an open courtyard, in which he plants the olive. This is so opposed to the whole spirit of Greek art as to be inadmissible on general grounds, but in this instance it introduces the further absurdity that the Greeks opened three windows in the west wall of the temple to light this courtyard which was already open to the sky! The mode of lighting a temple by vertical windows is so exceptional that it would not have been introduced here had any other means existed of lighting the interior, and consequently the combination shown by M. BeulÉ seems simply impossible. 149. “Universo Templo longitudo est ccccxxv. pedum, latitudo ccxx. ColumnÆ centum viginti septem a singulis regibus factÆ, lx. pedum altitudine: ex iis xxxvi. cÆlatÆ, una a Scopa.”—H. N. xxxvi. 14. 150. [Mr. Wood places two in the pronaos and two in the posticum, thus reducing the depth of the opisthodomus; beyond the pronaos he places a vestibule and omits the staircases as shown on plan 159. In 1883, Mr. Fergusson returned to the subject again, and published in the Transactions of the Institute (session 1882-83) a revised plan, to which we refer our readers.—Ed.] 151. The finial ornament is triangular in plan, and there are three scrolls on the roof with mortices in them, showing that something must have stood on them to support the projecting angles. Dolphins and various other objects have been suggested. My own conviction is that they were winged genii, most probably in bronze, and gilt like the neckings of the capitals. 152. [Dr. Dorpfield is of opinion that in the Greek theatres of the best period there was no proscenium, or raised stage, and that the actors played their parts in the orchestra on the same level as the chorus. Professor Middleton also points out that in the earliest Greek theatres built in the 5th and 4th centuries B.C. the orchestra was a complete circle, the space being gradually diminished by the bringing forward of the stage.—Ed.] 153. It will not be necessary to enter here into all the details of this restoration. They will be found in a separate work published by me on the subject, to which the reader is referred. [The student should also refer to the restoration suggested by M. Pullan in the work published by him and Sir Charles Newton (‘Discoveries at Halicarnassus, 1862’). In the arrangement and design of the podium it accords better with other examples of Greek tombs than Mr. Fergusson’s. The three columns as shown at the angle of Mr. Fergusson’s peristyle would be quite repugnant to any student of Greek architecture.—Ed.] 154. Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 5. 155. The figures given in the text are all Greek feet: the difference between them and English feet, being only 11/4 per cent., is hardly perceptible in these dimensions, without descending to minute fractions, and disturbing the comparison with Pliny’s text. 156. The circumstance of Asoka, the Buddhist king of India B.C. 250, having formed an alliance with Megas of Cyrene for the succour of his co-religionists in the dominions of the latter, points to such a conclusion even if nothing else did.—‘Journal Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ vii. p. 261; J. R. A. S. xii. p. 223 et seq. 157. Beechy’s ‘Journey to Cyrene,’ p. 444; see also Smith and Porcher, pl. 37. 158. Vitruvius, iv. 7. 159. Dionysius, iv. 61. 160. For more detail, see ‘The True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ p. 446 et. seq. 161. The Etruscan and Roman origin of the circular temple is now known to be erroneous, as remains of large circular temples have been discovered at Epidaurus and Olympia. 162. Even in more modern times I know of no building showing a trace of these forms except the tomb of Theodoric at Ravenna. This, however, is Etruscan both in form and detail, as will be seen farther on. 163. Plin. ‘Hist.’ xxxvi. 13. 164. A diagram is given in ‘The True Principles of Beauty in Art’ p. 459, which shows at least that there is no difficulty in designing a monument in perfect accordance with the text. Whether the latter is to be depended upon or not is another matter. 165. These dimensions, with all those that follow, unless otherwise specified, are taken from Taylor and Cresy’s ‘Architectural Antiquities of Rome,’ London, 1821. They seem more to be depended upon than any others I am acquainted with. 166. These two temples, like almost all the others of Rome, have recently been renamed by the Roman or rather German antiquaries. The Jupiter Tonans is now the Temple of Saturn, and the Jupiter Stator is decreed to have been the Temple of Castor and Pollux. The names by which they are currently known has been adhered to, as the architecture is of more importance here than the archÆology. 167. Laborde, ‘Monumens de la France,’ vol. i. pls. xxix. xxx. p. 68. 168. IMP. CÆS. M. AVRELIVS ANTONINVS PIVS FELIX AVG. TRIB. POTEST V. COS. PROCOS. PANTHEVM VETVSTATE CORRVPTVM CVM OMNI CVLTV RESTITVERVNT. Isabelle, ‘Édifices Circulaires,’ p. 37, pl. xii. 169. When the first edition of this work was written I believed the rotunda to have been added to the portico by Severus; and if this were so it would get over many of the difficulties arising from its size and the character of its brickwork. My personal examination, however, has forced me very unwillingly to give up this hypothesis. It certainly is, however, very astonishing that such a vault should have been attempted at so early an age. [There seems to be some probability that Mr. Fergusson’s first belief was correct, and that the Rotunda was built by Hadrian, bricks with the stamp of his period having been found in the casing and in the bond courses in the solid concrete both of the drum and in the dome. The discovery is due to M. Chedanne, one of the “Grand Prix” students in the Villa Medici, who had selected the subject for his “Envoi de Rome,” and was allowed to superintend certain repairs and restorations which were required in the Pantheon. It would seem that the portico erected by Agrippa preceded a temple with cella of the ordinary form, the pavement of which has been found nearly seven feet below the floor of the present church. From this it follows that when the Rotunda was erected in the first half of the second century, the portico, which is undoubtedly of Agrippa’s time, must have been taken down and rebuilt on to it, and this explains Mr. Fergusson’s reasons for insisting that the portico was built on to the Rotunda. The theory as to the Pantheon forming part of Agrippa’s bath is thus disposed of. Independently of that, however, Prof. Middleton has pointed out that the discoveries made in 1882, by the removal of the block of houses at the back, showed that there was no connection whatever between the two buildings. Traces exist of the original marble lining, and of cornices which were continued round the dome, showing that originally the complete circuit was exposed to view. “Moreover,” Prof. Middleton states, “if further proof were wanting to contradict the theory that the Pantheon was over the Calidarum or Laconicum of the bath, this is supplied by the fact that there is no trace of any hypocaust under the floor, but merely an ancient drain to carry away the rain-water that fell through the opening in the dome. The Pantheon, too, is on the north side of the ThermÆ—a very improbable position for the Laconicum, or hot room, which was usually placed on the sunny side of the buildings.”—Ed.] 170. The bronze plates which were removed by Pope Urban VIII. in 1626 to make cannon, and also for the great Baldachino in St. Peter’s, were taken from the portico; the coffers of the interior of the dome were decorated, according to Prof. Middleton, with mouldings in stucco painted and gilt. 171. This building is commonly called a temple, though it is not known to what deity it was dedicated. My own impression is that it was a tomb, or at least a funereal monument of some sort. 172. Owing to a misreading of Vitruvius’s statement respecting the temple it had always been classed as decastyle. See Mr. Penrose’s researches published in the ‘Transactions of the Royal Institute of British Architects,’ vol. iv. New Series. 1888. 173. See ‘The True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ where the reasons for this arrangement will be found stated at length. [See note on page 272.—Ed.] 174. Canina, in his restoration, shows a flat roof with coffers, so there is probably no exact authority for its form, though it seems to be generally agreed that the centre was not hypÆthral. 175. This basilica is generally represented as having an apse at either end; but there is no authority whatever for this, and general analogy would lead us rather to infer that it was not the case. Prof. Middleton, however, is of opinion that an apse existed at both ends, and shows the same in his restoration of the plan of Trajan’s form.—‘The Remains of Ancient Rome,’ by J. H. Middleton, Fig. 52, vol. ii. 176. One of the pillars of this basilica remained in situ till the year 1614, when it was removed by Carlo Maderno, by order of Paul V., and re-erected in the piazza of St. M. Maggiore, where it now stands as a monumental column, supporting a statue of the Virgin. The column, with its base and capital, is as nearly as may be 60 ft. in height; the whole monument, as it now stands, 140 ft. 177. As it was sunk slightly below the pavement of the peristyle, and drains leading from it were traced by Mr. Ashpitel, it was probably hypÆthral. 178. The theatres of Curio and Scaurus were in timber, except the proscenium of the latter, which was partly decorated with marble and mosaics. The Theatre of Pompey, B.C. 54, was in stone, and parts of it still exist (Prof. Middleton). The Theatre of Marcellus was begun by Julius CÆsar, but not completed till 13 B.C., when it was opened by Augustus. It was subsequently restored after a fire by Vespasian, but the purity and simplicity of the architecture, and the refinement of the details, in comparison with those of the Colosseum, 70-80 A.D., are in favour of the earlier date assigned to it. Prof. Middleton quotes another theatre, that of Cornelius Balbus (13 B.C.), built to the north-west of the Theatre of Marcellus. 179. According to Prof. Middleton the Amphitheatre of Sutrium is of Roman origin, and but little earlier than the Colosseum at Rome. “There is really no evidence,” he says (p. 76), “that amphitheatres were built by the Etruscans; and there can be little doubt that they were purely Roman inventions.” 180. At the Crystal Palace it has always been found necessary to allow 6 sq. ft. to each person. 181. Considerable difference of opinion seems to exist as to the extent of the velaria which sheltered the arena; this was supported by masts fixed outside the upper part of the walls, resting on brackets, 14 ft. below the cornice, which was cut away to allow the mast to fit close against the wall. M. GÉrÔme suggests, in his well-known picture of the Roman gladiators, that the velaria extended over a portion of the arena only. Prof. Middleton states, “The awning did not, as has been sometimes supposed, cover the whole amphitheatre, a thing which would have been practically impossible, owing to the enormous strain of so long a bearing, far beyond what any ropes could bear. It simply sloped down over the spectators in the cavea, leaving the whole central arena uncovered.” In case of rain, however, this might have been inconvenient, and it would not have protected the spectators from the sun, supposing that the performances lasted the whole day. Besides, there is no reason why the masts should have been carried so high above the wall, as shown in the restoration in Prof. Middleton’s book, p. 70. Mr. Alma Tadema is of opinion that the velarium extended over the whole arena, and was suspended on a principle similar to that of a suspension bridge, the ridge, or highest portion lying between the foci of the ellipse. This accounts in a much more satisfactory way for the height of the masts, and would afford facilities for the draining off of the rain on to the top of the gallery round. 182. Maffei, ‘Verona Illustrata,’ vol. vii. p. 84 et seq. 184. These baths have been carefully measured by M. Blouet, who has also published a restoration of them. This is, on the whole, certainly the best account we have of any of these establishments. 185. According to Prof. Middleton this magnificent hall appears to have been what Spartianus calls the cella soliaris, the ceiling of which he says was formed of interlaced bars of gilt bronze. When the excavations in this hall were being made, many tons of fragments of iron girders were found. These were (according to Prof. Aitchison) compound girders, formed of two T bars riveted together, and then cased in bronze. A sort of lattice-work ceiling had been formed with these bronze-cased girders, the panels being probably filled in with concrete made of light pumice-stone, worked with fine stucco reliefs, painted and gilt. Prof. Middleton is of opinion that the central part over the swimming-bath was left open for the admission of light. In the upper part of the walls deep sinkings to receive the ends of the great girders which supported the ceiling are clearly visible. 186. St. George’s Hall at Liverpool is the most exact copy in modern times of a part of these baths. The Hall itself is a reproduction both in scale and design of the central hall of Caracalla’s baths, but improved in detail and design, having five bays instead of only three. With the two courts at each end, it makes up a suite of apartments very similar to those found in the Roman examples. The whole building, however, is less than one-fourth of the size of the central mass of a Roman bath, and therefore gives but little idea of the magnificence of the whole. 187. The left-hand wing of this arch has since been restored by M. Viollet-le-Duc, and the right-hand wing cleared of the square building in front of it. 189. Professor Middleton states: “This building appears to be a nymphÆum, or a part of some baths of about the time of Gallienus (263-268 A.D.).” It was known in the Middle Ages as the “Terme de Gallucio.” The site of the real Temple of Minerva Medica was discovered in 1887 (according to the same authority) between the new Via Macchiavelli and the Via Buonarroti, about 7 ft. below the present ground-level. 191. M. de Saulcy has recently attempted to prove that these tombs are those of the kings of Judah from David downwards. Their architecture is undoubtedly as late as the Christian era, and the cover of the sarcophagus which is now in the Louvre under the title of that of David is probably of the same date as these tombs, or if anything more modern. 192. ‘Voyage dans la Marmarique, la CyrÉnaique, &c.’ Didot, Paris, 1827-29. 193. Though the dates of all these tombs at Cyrene are so uncertain, there seems little doubt that if any one thoroughly versed in the style were to visit the place, he could fix the age of all of them with approximate correctness. The one difficulty is, that a chronometric scale taken from the buildings at Rome, or even in Syria, will not suffice. Local peculiarities must be taken into account and allowed for, and this requires both time and judgment. 194. ‘Le Tombeau de la ChrÉtienne,’ par A. Berbrugger, Alger. 1867, from which the above particulars are taken. 195. It is understood that it too has been explored, but no account of the result has yet reached this country, and such rumours as have reached are too vague to be quoted. Even its dimensions are not known. 196. ‘De Situ Orbis,’ I. vi. p. 38. edit. Leyden, 1748. 197. For plan of same, see Prof. Middleton’s ‘Ancient Rome,’ 1891. 198. By an oversight this difference is not expressed in the woodcut. 200. These are well epitomised by Gibbon, Book xlvi. vol. v. p. 528. 201. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, ix. pl. 9. p. 476. 202. The sixth great Oriental monarchy; or the geography, history and antiquities of Parthia, &c., 1873. 203. These inscriptions were all copied by Consul Taylor, and brought home to this country. I never could learn, however, that they were translated. I feel certain they were never published, and cannot find out what has become of them. 204. These are expedients for filling up the corners of square lower storeys on which it is intended to place a circular superstructure. They somewhat resemble very large brackets or great coves placed in an angle. Examples of them are shown on page 434 when speaking of Byzantine architecture, and others will be found in the chapter on Mahomedan Architecture in India, in vol. iii. 205. These three buildings probably date as near as may be one century from each other, thus—
A bare skeleton, which it will require much time and labour to clothe with flesh and restore to life. 206. ‘The Land of Moab,’ by H. B. Tristram, M. A., &c. Murray, 1873. As all the information respecting the palace is contained in that book, pp. 195 to 215, all the illustrations here used are taken from it, it will not be necessary to refer to it again. For further information on the subject the reader is referred to that work. 207. Rich, ‘Residence in Koordistan,’ ii. 251 et seq. 208. The plan made by Dr. Tristram’s party, which is all we yet have, was only a hurried sketch, and cannot be depended upon for minute details. 209. Flandin and Coste, vol. iv. pls. 214, 215. 210. Texier and Pullan. ‘Byzantine Architecture.’ 4to. 1864. Pl. iv. p. 40 et seq. 211. Ruskin, ‘Stones of Venice,’ vol. ii. pls. 3, 4, and 5. 212. ‘L’art Antique de la Perse,’ by Marcel Dieulafoy. Paris. 213. In the Museum at Pesth are a number of objects of Egyptian art, said to have been found in this quarter. Is it too much to assume the pre-existence of a Phoenician or Egyptian colony here before the Roman times? 214. As a matter of fact, 12th century would be more exact; nearly all the chief problems of pointed arch construction in intersecting vaulting having been worked out before the close of that century. 215. [The domical construction of the vaults of the two great cisterns erected by Constantine, the Binbirderek, or thousand-and-one columns, and the Yeri Batan SeraÏ, both in Constantinople, suggests that there already existed in the East a method of vaulting entirely different from that which obtained in Rome, and which may have been a traditional method handed down even from Assyrian times.—Ed.] 216. ‘Syrie Centrale: Architecture civile et religieuse du Ier au VIIme SiÈcle. Par le Comte Melchior de VogÜÉ.’ 217. ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ by Texier and Pullan. Folio, London, 1864. 218. De VogÜÉ, ‘Églises de la Terre Sainte,’ p. 101. 219. For a careful analytical description of the church, see Professor Willis, ‘Architectural History of the Holy Sepulchre,’ London, 1849. 220. The particulars for these churches are taken from Texier and Pullan’s splendid work on Byzantine architecture published by Day, 1864. 221. Another very small church, that of Moudjeleia, though under 50 ft. square, seems to have adopted the same hypÆthral arrangement. 222. A great deal of very irrelevant matter has been written about these “giant cities of Bashan,” as if their age were a matter of doubt. There is nothing in the Hauran which can by any possibility date before the time of Roman supremacy in the country. The very earliest now existing are probably subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. 223. The constructive dimensions of the porch at Chillambaram (p. 353. History of Indian and Eastern Architecture, 1876.) are very similar to those of this church: both have flat stone roofs, but in the Indian, though a much more modern example, there is no arch. 224. These are all given in colours in Texier and Pullan’s beautiful work on Byzantine architecture, from which all the particulars regarding this church are taken. 225. A wayside retreat or shelter. 226. A restoration of the church from Procopius’s description, ‘De Ædificiis,’ lib. i. ch. iv., will be found in HÜbsch, ‘Altchristliche Baukunst,’ pls. xxxii. and xxxiii. 227. See vol. iii., in chapter on Indian Saracenic Architecture. 228. The Renaissance dome which fits best to the church on which it is placed is that of Sta. Maria at Florence; but, strange to say, it is neither the one originally designed for the place, nor probably at all like it. All the others were erected as designed by the architects who built the churches, and none fit so well. 229. [The apses on each side of central apse are said to be additions to the original structure. The triple apses in Greek churches are found, according to Dr. Freshfield (‘ArchÆologia,’ vol. 44), only in churches erected subsequent to Justin II. In St. Simeon Stylites and St. Sergius at Bosra the side apses have been added afterwards.—Ed.] 230. Strictly speaking, circular with flattened sides, for the pendentive has a longer radius than half the diagonal of the square. 231. The two eastern cupolas have been raised in Arab times, and a cylindrical drum inserted with windows pierced in them to give more light to the interior. 232. There are numerous examples of this class of structure in North Syria, but whether they are memorials or tombs is not known. See ‘Reisen Kleinasien und Nord Syria’ by Karl Humann and Otto Puchstein. 233. [This rule cannot be made a hard and fast one. Procopius states that in the central dome of the Church of the Apostles, Constantinople, “the circular building standing above the arches is pierced with windows, and the spherical dome which over-arches it seems to be suspended in the air.” In the church of St. Sergius at Constantinople the walls of the octagon, which are pierced with windows, are carried up to the vault, and in the church of Sta. Sophia at Thessalonica the windows are pierced in an upright dome cylindrical internally. In all these cases, however, there is a marked distinction between these examples and those of the lofty cylindrical drums which were employed in the 234. They are found in the Mustaphapacha mosque at Constantinople dating from 430 A.D., but rebuilt in the 13th century. 235. [It is now considered that the Church of the Holy Apostles was the original model. This church, rebuilt by Justinian, was pulled down in 1464 A.D. by Mohammad II. to furnish a site for his mosque.—Ed.] 236. [This work has lately been undertaken by Messrs. Barnsley and Schultz, who are preparing their drawings for publication, and hope to follow up the task with a survey of the more important churches in Mount Athos.—Ed.] 237. ‘Die Kunst in den Athos Kirchen,’ Leipzig, 1890. 238. ‘Athos; or, the Mountain of the Monks,’ by Athelstan Riley, M.A., 1887. 239. See the photogravure of the interior of the Catholicon at Dochiariu. 240. ‘Églises Byzantines en GrÈce.’ 241. ‘ExpÉdition scientifique de la MorÉe.’ 242. There would seem however to have been a revival in the 11th century, possibly a reflex of that which was taking place in West Europe. And it was during this period that the churches of St. Luke in Phoeis, the church at DaphnÉ and the churches of St. Nicodemus and St. Theodore in Athens were erected. 243. C. Texier, ‘ArmÉnie et la Perse.’ 2 vols. folio. Paris. 244. Dubois de Montpereux, ‘Voyage autour du Caucase.’ 6 vols. 8vo. Paris, 1839, 1841. 245. Brosset, ‘Voyage ArchÉologique dans la Georgie et l’ArmÉnie.’ St. PÉtersbourg, 1849. 246. D. Grimm, ‘Monuments d’Architecture en Georgie et ArmÉnie.’ St. PÉtersbourg, 1864. 247. Texier gives three dates to this church. In the ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ p. 174, it is said to be of the 7th, and at p. 4, of the 9th century. In the ‘L’ArmÉnie et la Perse,’ at p. 120, the date is given as 1243. My conviction is that the first is correct. 248. Flandin and Coste, ‘Voyage en Perse,’ pls. 214, 215. 249. Texier and Pullan, ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ pp. lix., lx. 250. I am a little doubtful regarding the scales of these two buildings. They are correctly reduced from M. Brosset’s plates. But are these to be depended upon? 251. Even if it should be asserted that this is no proof that the inhabitants of these countries were Buddhists in those days, it seems tolerably certain that they were tree-worshippers, which is very nearly the same thing. Procopius tells us that “even in his day these barbarians worshipped forests and groves, and in their barbarous simplicity placed the trees among their gods.” (‘De Bello Gotico,’ Bonn, 1833, ii. 471.) 252. The principal part of the information regarding these excavations is to be found in the work of Dubois de Montpereux, passim. 253. [See paper by Mr. Wm. Simpson in R. I. B. A. Transactions, vol. vii., 1891.—Ed.] 254. All the plans and information regarding the churches at Kief are obtained from a Russian work devoted to the subject, procured for me on the spot by Mr. Vignoles, C.E. 255. The first bay, as shown on plan (Woodcut No. 382), is the narthex; the five domes come beyond it. 256. The particulars and illustrations of this church are taken from a paper by Heinrich Keissenberger, in the ‘Jahrbuch der K. K. Commission fÜr Enthaltung der Baudenkmale,’ 1860. A model of it, full size, was exhibited at the Paris Exhibition of 1867. 257. [It has been assumed that the Roman basilicas were taken possession of by the early Christians for their own religious services, but as Mr. G. G. Scott points out in his ‘Essay on the History of English Church Architecture,’ “there is no well-authenticated instance of the conversion of any Pagan basilica into a Christian church, whilst there are abundant examples of Pagan temples converted into Christian sanctuaries” (see Texier and Pullan’s ‘Byzantine Architecture,’ pp. 75, 103). Indeed, it is, as Mr. Scott observes, “on the face of it improbable, if we reflect that the conversion of the government to Christianity had no tendency to render the existing basilicas less necessary for legal business, after the peace of the church, than they had been before that event. Christianity, unfortunately, could not abolish the litigious instincts of our nature, and after fifteen centuries of the gospel the legal profession still flourishes.” The buildings which were rendered useless by the official recognition of the new faith were not the basilicas but the temples, the fact being that the class of building known as a basilica (a term never used by either the writers or architects of Byzantine times), with its wide central nave and aisles with galleries over them lighted by clerestory or side windows, and covered with a timber roof, constituted the simplest and most economical building of large size which could be constructed to hold a vast assembly of worshippers; especially as the only features which can be looked upon as having any architectural pretensions, viz., the columns and their capitals, could be taken wholesale from temples and other Roman buildings. The semicircular apse, which alone in the Roman basilica served as a court of law, became the tribune for the bishop and presbyters. Mr. Scott is even inclined to assign an earlier and more independent origin for the basilican form. According to his theory the germ of the Christian basilica was a simple oblong aisleless room divided by a cross arch, beyond which lay an altar detached from the wall. This germ was developed by the addition of side aisles, and sometimes an aisle returned across the entrance, and over these upper aisles were next constructed and transepts added, together with the oratories or chapels in various parts of the building. Mr. Butler, in his work on ‘The Ancient Coptic Churches of Egypt,’ accepts this theory, as the churches of Egypt are rich in evidence that favours it. At the same time, the first great basilica erected by Constantine, viz., the Vatican (St. Peter’s), and the Lateran, (St. John Lateran), are of too great importance to warrant the suggestion that their origin should be sought for in the very small though possibly earlier examples in Egypt or the East.—Ed.] 258. This probably refers to its foundation, for M. Cattaneo, in his work ‘L’architecture en Italie, 1890,’ judging by its ornamental detail, places the church in the second half of the seventh century. 259. ‘AntiquitÉs,’ vol. i. pl. 97. 260. Eodem, vol. iv. pl. 67. 261. Mr. Alfred J. Butler’s work, already referred to, has thrown considerable light on the subject, though, as he was unable to visit any of the Coptic churches up the Nile, we are still left in doubt as to the age of the convent near Siout and other buildings. From comparison of the plans and descriptions given in Denon, Curzon and Pococke of these buildings, with those in Cairo and Old Cairo, Mr. Butler ascribes them to the fourth century, that which in fact is claimed for them as having been founded by Sta. Helena. On this subject he says, p. 365: “Were there no more of evidence besides to determine the truth of this tradition, the plan of the Haikal (the central of the three chapels in a Coptic church) would decide it beyond question. The persistence with which certain churches are ascribed to Sta. Helena by a people utterly ignorant of history and architecture is in itself remarkable, and it is still more remarkable to find that these churches are always marked by a particular form of Haikal. Indeed, so regular is the coincidence, that a deep apsidal haikal with recesses all round it and columns close against the wall may be almost infallibly dated from the age of Sta. Helena.” 262. The older church has been so altered and ruined by the subsequent rebuildings that it is extremely difficult to make out its history. It seems, however, to have been built originally above the site of an old Mithraic temple, which has recently been cleared out, and probably before the time of Gregory the Great. It was apparently rebuilt, or nearly so, by Adrian I., 772, and burnt by Robert Guiscard, 1084. The upper church seems to have been erected by Paschal, 1099-1118. The question is, to what age do the frescoes found on the walls of the older church belong? Some of the heads and single figures may, I fancy, be anterior even to the time of Adrian; but the bulk of the paintings seem certainly to have been added between his age and 1084, and nearer the latter than the former date. If it had not been entirely ruined in 1084 Paschal would not have so completely obliterated it a century afterwards. A considerable quantity of the materials of the old church were used in the new, which tends further to confuse the chronology. 263. Gutensohn and Knapp, ‘Die Basiliken des Christlichen Roms.’ 264. Cicero de Legg., ii. 24; Festus, s. v.; Smith’s ‘Dictionary of Classical Antiquities.’ 265. The dates here given generally refer to the building now existing or known, and not always to the original foundation. [Mr. G. G. Scott, in his work before referred to (p. 506), after giving a full quotation from Eusebius of Constantine’s basilica at Jerusalem, in which he points out that the orientation of primitive times is the reverse of that which has become general in later times, continues his enquiry into the evidence afforded by the numerous early basilicas in Rome itself. Of about fifty churches of early date, in forty of them the sanctuary is placed at the western end, and of the remaining ten (one of which is the great church of St. Paolo fuori le Mura), there are only seven which appear to have retained their original form, and which have an eastward sanctuary. The exact orientation of the sanctuary in each case has been added to the list.—Ed.] 266. ‘Il Vaticano discritto da Pistolesi,’ vol. ii. pls. xxiv. xxv. 267. The new church which superseded this one is described in the History of the Modern Styles of Architecture, vol. i., page 111, woodcut 45. 268. It should be observed that the dosseret is first found in Italy in the Church of St. Stefano Rotondo, built 468-482, and is there of similar design to examples in Thessalonica. 269. ‘L’architecture en Italie du vie au xie siÈcle.’ Venice, 1891. 270. ‘Altchristlichen Kirchen nach Baudenkmalen und alteren Beschreibungen,’ von D. Hubsch. Carlsruhe, 1862. 271. These piers were built in the 12th century, taking the place of the columns of the original Basilican church of the 9th century, and the arches date from the same period (Cattaneo). 272. It is now called S. Martino in Cielo d’Oro, from its having been decided in the twelfth century that the other church in Classe possessed the true body of the saint to which both churches were dedicated. 273. A. F. von Quast, ‘Die Altchristlichen Bauwerke von Ravenna.’ 274. The basilica Pudenziana at Rome has similar arcades externally. 275. The twenty-four marble columns are said to have been brought over from Constantinople, but they were probably obtained from Greek quarries. 276. [The narthex as shown in Woodcut No. 409 is of much later date than the church, and has been partially rebuilt on two or three occasions. It is now (1892) being taken down, and the removal of the central portion has uncovered the triple window which originally lighted the nave.—Ed.] 277. “La basilica di San Marco in Venezia,” by Cattaneo, continued by Boito. Venezia, 1890. 278. Probably owing to its having been utilized to receive the relics of St. Mark, which were temporarily hidden there. 279. This church, built by Justinian, no longer exists, having been pulled down in 1464 by Mohammed II. to make way for his mosque. From the description of it, however, given by Procopius, the plan was similar to that adopted in St. Mark, being that of a Greek Cross with central and four other domes. Procopius speaks of the church being surrounded within by columns placed both above and below, probably referring to galleries similar to those in St. Sophia of Constantinople. In St. Mark’s the columns exist in one storey only, and the main wall is carried up at the back of the aisles to give increased size inside. 280. Originally, according to M. Cattaneo, his was the vestibule to the atrium from the south, but it is now blocked up by an altar. 281. [They are shown in the mosaic of the doorway of St. Alipe, executed at the end of the 13th century, as also the filling in of the great west window.—Ed.] 282. ‘Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,’ by T. G. Jackson, M.A. Oxford, 1887. 283. In support of this statement he points out that twice during Christian times it had been found necessary to raise the floor of the church. The nave floor, which in 1857 was two steps below that of the aisles, was raised in 1881 to the same level; but two feet nine inches below the nave floor before it was raised there existed, according to Prof. Eitelberger, another mosaic pavement, which must have been the floor of the first basilica erected, and which was pulled down by Bishop Euphrasius in 543. This lower pavement extended also under the three chapels of the confessio, which suggests that these are part of the first basilica. 284. The same polygonal form is found in the apses of St. Agatha, St. Apollinare in Classe, St. Apollinare in Nuovo, St. Spirito, and St. Vitale, all in Ravenna, and St. Fosca, Torcello. 285. The apses of two churches, of the 4th and 6th century respectively, in the island of Paros, are similarly fitted with marble seats: in the 6th century church there are eight rows, so that the apse looks like a small amphitheatre. 286. That is on the supposition that the word kirk is derived from the Latin word “circus,” “circular,” as the French term it, “cirque.” My own conviction is that this is certainly the case. The word is only used by the Barbarians as applied to a form of buildings they derived from the Romans. Why the Germans should employ ?????? ?????, when neither the Greeks nor the Latins used that name, is a mystery which those who insist on these very improbable names have as yet failed to explain. 287. The Tholos at Epidaurus seems to be an exception to this rule. 288. Isabelle, ‘Édifices Circulaires,’ plates 26 and 27. 289. M. Cattaneo states that it was built by Pope St. Simplice, 468-482. 290. Above the capitals are impost blocks or dosserets, the earliest known examples of that feature in Italy. 291. [The Vaults over the outer aisle of St. Stefano Rotondo were built with hollow pots, the remains of which can still be traced in the outer walls of the 2nd aisle. Prof. Middleton points out also the existence of rings of earthen pots in the vault of the tomb of Sta. Helena (Woodcut No. 227), and also in the vaults of the Circus of Maxentius, on the Via Appia.—Ed.] 292. In this building they now show a sarcophagus of ancient date, said to be that of Galla Placidia, daughter of Theodosius. She, however, was certainly buried at Ravenna; but it may be of her time, and in these ages it is impossible to distinguish between baptisteries and tombs. 293. Frederick Von Osten, ‘Bauwerke in der Lombardei.’ Darmstadt, 1852. 294. By an oversight of the engraver, the vault of the nave, which ought to be made hexapartite, is drawn as quadripartite. [The nave was so completely restored in the 14th century as to render doubtful the original existence of a vault.—Ed.] 295. Étude de l’Architecture Lombarde,’ par F. de Dartein. Paris, 1878. 296. These are incorrectly shown on woodcut. The central pier is nearly 4 feet wide and carried a transverse rib of the same size and of two orders. 297. Ferrario, ‘Monumenti Sacri e Profani dell’ I. R. Basilica di S. Ambrogio,’ Milan, 1824. 298. “Quid dicamus columnarum junceam proceritatem? Moles illas sublimissimas quasi quibusdam erectis hastilibus contineri substantiÆ qualitate concavis canalibus excavatas vel magis ipsas Æstimes esse transfusas. Ceris judices factum quod metallis durissimis videas expolitum. Marmorum juncturas venas dicas esse genitales, ubi dum falluntur oculi laus probatur crevisse miraculis.” In the above, metallum does not seem to mean metal as we now use the word, but any hard substance dug out of the ground. (Cassiodorus, Variorum, lib. vii. ch. 15.) 299. See vol. i. p. 372. 300. ‘The Land of Moab,’ by Dr. Tristram (Murray, 1873), pp. 376 et seqq. [The small triangular marble panels referred to in Murano are of a very elementary character in their carving, and have scarcely the importance attached to them by Mr. Fergusson. Besides, the same wall decoration in brickwork is found in the apse of St. Fosca, Torcello (c. 1008), where, however, the triangular recesses are simply covered with stucco and painted; being closer to the eye in Murano, they filled the spaces with incised marble slabs: in other words, it seems more probable that the slabs were made for the triangular panels than the converse, which is suggested by Mr. Fergusson.—Ed.] 301. The typical example of this class is the San Giorgio at Venice, though it is not by any means the one most like St. Pietro; many attempts were made before it became so essentially classical as this (see Woodcut No. 39, Vol. I. in the ‘History of Modern Architecture’). 302. From the boldness of the construction, M. Cattaneo is induced to place the erection of the building at the end of the 11th or beginning of the 12th century. 303. The four square towers of San Lorenzo, Milan, and the circular campanile by the side of the cathedral of Ravenna, are the earliest examples known, the latter dating from the commencement of the 5th century. 304. [The tower of St. Satiro at Milan (879 A.D.), is considered by Cattaneo to be the most ancient campanile known in which the wall surface is broken up with flat pilasters or vertical bands in relief, and divided into storeys by horizontal string courses, with ranges of small blind arches below, carried on corbels, and may be regarded as the prototype of the most characteristic Lombard towers.—Ed.] 305. ‘History of Medieval Art,’ by Dr. F. M. Reber, translated by J. T. Clarke. New York, 1887. 306. ‘Dalmatia, the Quarnero and Istria,’ by T. G. Jackson, A.R.A. Oxford, 1887. 307. Schultz, ‘DenkmÄler der Kunst der Mittelalters in Unter-Italien.’ Folio, 1860. 308. The polygonal form given to the apse externally shows the direct influence of Byzantine art. 309. The cornice projects 1 ft. 10 in., and consequently overhangs the base by 13 ft. 310. The present cathedral is only a portion, viz. the transept of a much vaster edifice which was never completed; but the beautiful unfinished south front and portions of the gigantic nave and aisles still exist on the western side of the present cathedral, and the drawings of it are preserved in the archives of the Duomo. 311. [Since this was written the faÇade has been completed to harmonize with the rest, but not in accordance with the original design, if we may judge by the painting in Sta. Maria Novella, which shows side gablets similar to those of the cathedral of Siena.—Ed.] 312. If we may trust Wiebeking, the first two bays of the nave from the front were vaulted in 1588, but the work was suspended till 1647, and completed only in 1659. Yet no difference can be perceived in the details of the design. 313. The plan and section being taken from two different writers, there is a slight discrepancy between the scales. I believe the plan to be the more correct of the two, though I have no means of being quite certain on the point. 314. ‘Dispareri d’Architettura.’ 315. Within the last few years a faÇade has been added to Sta. Croce, but about which the less said the better. It is wretched in design. 316. Similar buildings at Bergamo, Brescia, and Monza are illustrated in Mr. Street’s beautiful work on the architecture of the North of Italy, from which the two last illustrations are borrowed. 317. In the Bodleian in Oxford is a MS. of the 14th century containing a view of the Piazzetta, engraved in Yule’s ‘Marco Polo,’ Introduction, p. xlviii., in which the outer wall of the building is shown resting on the inner wall of the arcade. This would suggest either that in Ziani’s building the upper wall was set back or that some subsequent changes were made in the two parts, of which, however, there is no record. 318. So called from its having been, according to Signor Boni (see Transactions R.I.B.A., vol. iii., new series, 1887), richly decorated with colour and gilding. 319. The same drawing shows that a calle or small street existed on the west, or left-hand side, as well as on the east, and the enriched work carved by Giovanni Bon, stonecutter (the architect of the Porta delle Carta of the Ducal Palace), was to extend along the whole front facing the Grand Canal and ten feet at each end down the two streets. 320. ‘Architecture Moderne de la Sicile,’ fol. Paris, 1826-30. 321. ‘Del Duomo di Monreale e di altre Chiese Siculo-Normane,’ fol. Palermo, 1838. 322. ‘Normans in Sicily,’ 8vo. text, fol. plates, London, 1838. 323. Part I. Bk. III. ch. 2. 324. For a complete description of the same, see ‘The Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem,’ by Prof. Willis, 1849, the publications of the Palestine Exploration Fund, and the ‘Holy Places of Jerusalem,’ by Prof. Hayter Lewis. 325. Eusebius, ‘Vita Constantini,’ lib. iii. ch. xxviii. 326. SÆwulf, ‘Peregrinatio,’ &c. (A.D. 1102-3), p. 83. 327. A section of the church is given in Prof. Willis’s work compiled partly from Bernardino’s work (‘Trattato delle Piante al Imagini de sacri Edifizi di Terra Sancta,’ 1620), corrected by dimension taken by Mr. J. J. Scoles and partly from models in the British Museum and elsewhere. 328. This plan has been worked out from the ordnance survey made in 1864-65 by Sir Ch. Wilson and from Professor Willis’s plan as published in his work. 329. Quaresimus, ‘Elucidatio,’ ii. p. 386. 330. All these are carefully described and delineated by Count de VogÜÉ, in his beautiful work entitled, ‘Les Églises de la Terre Sainte,’ Paris, 1860. 331. A small chart of the same sort has been published by M. de Caumont, 332. ‘AbÉcÉdaire d’Architecture,’ p. 174. 333. The use of this term is a little awkward, at first from its having another meaning in English; it has, however, been long used by English etymologists to distinguish the Romance languages, such as Italian, Spanish, and French, from those of Teutonic origin, and is here used in precisely the same sense as applied to architecture—to those styles derived from the Roman, but one degree more removed from it than the early phase of the Romanesque. 334. There seems to be some doubt about the age of the pointed arches in the mosque of AmrÛ; the earliest authenticated arches of that form are found in the Nilometer in the island of Roda which is fixed by Mr. Lane as 861 A.D., eighteen years older than that of TulÛn.—Ed. 335. For the detail of the argument I must refer the reader to a paper read by me to the Institute of British Architects on June 18th, 1849, and published in the ‘Builder,’ and other papers of the time. See also a paper read in the same place in the following month (July, 1849), by Sir Gardner Wilkinson. 336. The Scotch and Irish Celts seem to have had a conception of this truth, and in both these countries we find some bold attempts at true stone roofs: the influence, however, of the Gothic races overpowered them, and the mixed roof became universal. 337. Laborde, ‘Monuments de la France,’ vol. i. p. 92, plates cxv. and cxvi. 338. [A valuable and well-illustrated work, entitled ‘The Architecture of Provence and the Riviera, Edinburgh, 1888,’ by Mr. David MacGibbon, has since added to our knowledge in this respect. Mr. MacGibbon accepts the date of 12th century for the Church of St. Paul-Trois-ChÂteaux, and attributes its Roman character to ancient work in the provinces.—Ed.] 339. Wood’s ‘Letters of an Architect,’ vol. i. p. 163. 340. These are all illustrated more or less completely by Renouvier, ‘Monuments de Bas Languedoc.’ Montpellier, 1840. 341. M. Verneilh, in his work “Architecture Byzantine en France,” 4to, Paris, 1851, based his arguments chiefly on the supposition that it was copied from St. Mark’s, Venice. The discoveries to which we have already referred (p. 530, vol. I.) prove that the latter was not built till 1063-71, so that it follows that a much later date must be given to St. Front, unless the latter be, like St. Mark’s, a copy of the church of the Apostles at Constantinople. Against this supposition there remains the fact that the churches of St. Mark, Venice, and St. Front, PÉrigueux, are identical in their dimensions if we replace Italian feet by French feet. There is also a record quoted by Mr. Gailhabaud that the original church of St. Front was destroyed by fire in 1120; but the existing church is entirely built in incombustible material, and therefore it would seem to be more probable that a much later date, viz. 1120-1140, must be given to it. It should however be taken into account that St. Front is generally accepted as the prototype of all the domed churches in France, so that if any of its successors could be proved to have an earlier date our argument would fall to the ground. So far as the architectural details of the church are concerned they have more the character of the 12th than of the 11th century, and the introduction of the pointed arch at so early a date seems improbable, except so far as the pointed barrel vault is concerned, the necessity for which was pointed out on page 46. 342. This building is well illustrated in Turner’s ‘Domestic Architecture.’ 343. See a paper on this church by Mr. Street, in 1861, read to the Institute of British Architects. (R. I. B. A. Transactions, 1860-61.) 344. ‘Histoire GÉnÉrale de Bourgogne,’ 4 vols. fol., Dijon, 1739; p. 81. 345. “Style Latin” is the name generally adopted for this style by the French architects. 346. From a paper by Mr. Parker on this subject, read to the Institute of British Architects. 347. This arrangement is known by the name of hexapartite, or sexapartite, because the compartment of the vault having been divided into four by the great diagonal arches crossing one another in the centre (which was the quadripartite arrangement), two of the four quarters were again divided by the arch thrown across from one intermediate pillar to the other, thus making six divisions in all, though no longer all of equal dimensions, as in the quadripartite method. Both these arrangements are shown in plan on Woodcut No. 612. 348. The Church of St. RÉmi at Rheims ought perhaps to be treated as an exception to this assertion: it has, however, been so much altered in more modern times as almost to have lost its original character. It nevertheless retains the outlines of a vast and noble basilica of the early part of the 11th century, presenting considerable points of similarity to those of Burgundy. 349. It is in the vaulting of the choir aisle of St. Denis that we find the earliest example of the new value of the pointed arch rib: four independent ribs rise to the centre of the aisle, it being no longer necessary to place the opposite ribs in the same plane. M. Louis Gonse in his ‘L’Art Gothique,’ however, points out one or two earlier examples such as the churches of Morienval and Bellefontaine, both in the Oise Department; the latter only is dated—1125; but no illustrations of the vault are given. The former is so crude in its design that it is probably earlier, and it is in fact evident from the perfection shown in St. Denis that many previous experiments must have been made, examples of which it would be interesting to trace.—Ed. 350. These generally consisted of strong iron bars, wrought into patterns in accordance with the design painted on the glass. 351. Royal Academy lectures, delivered in 1881, by G. E. Street, R.A., Professor of Architecture. 352. It should be noted that the last bay of the nave and the first bay of the choir are wider than any of the other bays, and this gives an increased dimension to the aisles of north and south transepts, which contributes in no slight degree to the effect of vastness given to this part of the church.—Ed. 353. The height of the old spire is 342 ft. 6 in. with the cross; of the new, 371 ft. 354. The choir of Beauvais is considered to be one of the four wonders of mediÆval France, the others being the south spire of Chartres, the porch of Rheims and the nave of Amiens. 355. ‘Compte Rendu des Travaux de la Commission des Monuments,’ &c.: Rapport prÉsentÉ au PrÉfet de la Gironde, 1848 et seq. 356. A plan of the Sainte Chapelle will be found further on (page 395) when comparing it with St. Stephen’s Chapel, Westminster. 357. Mr. Beresford Hope, in his ‘English Cathedrals of the XIXth Century,’ contends that this church was only commenced in 1419; and also maintains that the west front was completed by an English architect named Patrick in 1429. If this were so, we must abandon all our chronology founded on style. It is all a mistake if the east end is not a century earlier. I am, however, unwilling to go to school again, on the faith of a little pamphlet published by a French curÉ in a remote village. 358. The earlier form is found retained at Noyon, at Paris, and in most of the churches of the 12th century; but in the first years of the 13th it gave place to the second, and was not afterwards revived. 360. The French antiquaries employ this word as if it signified a pointed arch, whence they designate the style itself as ogival. There is no doubt, however, that the word has nothing to do with the form of the arch or the ogee, but is the name of a rib common to the round-arched as well as to the pointed style. 362. This was taken down in 1856 to relieve the piers of the tower which were being crushed owing to their defective construction. After the rebuilding of the piers in 1856-59, a poorly designed Gothic lantern was substituted.—Ed. 363. M. Viollet le Duc’s ‘Dictionnaire d’Architecture’ contains several hundred examples of these minor architectural details of French MediÆval architecture. All are there drawn with skill, and engraved with exquisite taste. They form a wonderful illustration of the exuberance of fancy and fertility of invention of the French architects in those days. The limits of this work do not admit of more than a mere passing allusion to this most fascinating subject. 364. Viollet le Duc, in his ‘Architecture Militaire,’ p. 96, gives a section of the Donjon at Coucy, which, however, by no means explains how the interior was lighted, nor does it accord with what I believe I saw there. 365. A beautiful drawing of this faÇade to a very large scale still exists in the town-hall of the city, as well as a model in stone, from which the intended effect may be seen. 366. A large work was commenced a few years ago on the church at Bois le Duc; but after the first numbers it seems to have been discontinued, and has not been since heard of—in this country at least. [Since this was written a fine work in 8 vols., entitled ‘Documents classÉs de l’art dans les Pays-Bas du xme au xviiime SiÈcle,’ and illustrated with ink photos, has been compiled by M. Van Ysendyck; and although the greater number of the plates represent Renaissance work, some of the finest flamboyant Gothic buildings, both in Belgium and Holland, are there reproduced.—Ed.] 367. See two papers on this subject in ‘Jahrbuch der Central Commission zur Erhaltung der Baudenkmale,’ vol. ii. p. 65, and vol. iii. p. 149. 368. The work of F. Östen on the architecture of Lombardy, and that of Geier and GÖrtz on the style in the Rhine country, combined with the works of BoisserÉe, have already furnished considerable materials for such a history. Both these first-named works were left incomplete, the former from the death of the author, the latter owing to the late troubles of the country. 370. All the particulars regarding this church are taken from HÜbsch, ‘Altchristliche Bauwerke,’ pp. 109, xlix. Dohme ascribes the church to the 11th century, and gives the length as 283 ft. 371. That shown in the woodcut is a suggestion of Dr. HÜbsch. 372. If there are any remains of the monastic buildings at Reichenau it is extremely desirable that they should be examined, in order to see how far they accord with the St. Gall plan. What if it should turn out to be a perfected plan of Reichenau sent after its completion by the abbot Heiton to his friend Gospertus? 373. ‘Histoire de l’Architecture SacrÉe du 4me au 10me SiÈcle dans les ÉvÊchÉs de GenÈve, Lausanne, et Sion,’ 1853. 374. The earliest example is found in the Baptistery at Ravenna, 396 A.D. 375. Kallenbach, (‘Deutsche Baukunst,’) states that it was built by Bishop Garibald, 740-752. It is the chapel on the north side of cloisters of Cathedral (see ‘King’s Study Book,’ vol ii. p. 81). 376. At Aquileja, at the upper end of the Adriatic Gulf, Poppo, the archbishop, between the years 1019-1042, erected a building almost identical with this in every respect between the old basilica and the baptistery, so as to make a double-apse church out of the old Lombard arrangement. The similarity of the two buildings may probably bring down the date of that at Ratisbon to the 10th century. 377. ‘Baukunst des Mittelalters in Sachsen.’ 378. The church was burnt in 937, and is said to have had two choirs (added c. 816 by Abbot Engil), a western transept, and eleven bays to the nave. 379. It is by no means clear that there were not six pillars originally separating the nave from the aisles instead of the four now built into the piers of the Gothic church. 380. Taken from R. Dohme, ‘Geschichte der Deutschen Baukunst.’ Berlin, 1887. 381. MÖller, ‘Deutsche Baukunst,’ vol. i. plate vi. 382. This has been entirely rebuilt, with a modern front.—Ed. 383. For a description of this abbey see a paper read by Mr. Charles Fowler (R. I. B. A. Transactions, 1882-83). 384. [Much has been said with regard to the use of double churches and chapels in Germany. In the cases of the chapels at Eger, Goslar, Nuremberg, Lohra, Landsberg, Freiburg on the Unstrutt, Coburg, Steinfurt, and Vianden, it is apparent, as they were in connection with a castle or palace, that the Emperor (or Prince) with his retinue could enter the upper chapel by a connecting gallery from the palace. But Schwartz Rheindorf is so much larger than any other double church or chapel known, that it would seem probable the object of the upper church was to provide a place of worship for the inhabitants in the case of floods, which in early times must have taken place yearly: admission being obtained through a door on N. side, the sill of which is about 8 ft. from ground, and communicates with a stair-case leading to upper church.—Ed.] 385. The building is as yet practically unedited, notwithstanding its importance in the history of architecture. I have myself examined this edifice, but in too hurried a manner to enable me to supply the deficiency. I speak, therefore, on the subject with diffidence. 386. Taken from Schayes’ ‘Histoire de l’Architecture en Belgique,’ vol. ii. p. 18, taken by him, I believe, from Lassaulx. 387. See paper by Mr. Petit in the ‘ArchÆological Journal,’ vol. xviii. p. 110. 388. BoisserÉe, ‘Nieder Rhein,’ p. 36. 389. There is a slight error in the scale of this plan, the artist in reducing it having used the scale of French instead of English feet. It ought to be 1-16th larger. 390. The best rÉsumÉ of the arguments on this question will be found in the controversy carried on by F. de Verneilh, the Baron de Rosier, and M. BoisserÉe, in Didron’s ‘Annales ArchÉologiques,’ vol. vii. et seq. 391. Within the last few years also the cathedral has been isolated on all sides, so that it has now the appearance of an overgrown monster—Ed. 392. From the ‘Jahrbuch der Central Commission zur Erhaltung der Baudenkmale,’ vol. ii. p. 37. 393. See ‘Mittelalterliche Kunstdenkmale Östereichs,’ vol. i. p. 171. 394. The faÇade designed for the cathedral at Louvain (mentioned p. 196) was identical with this group of spires in arrangement, though on a much larger scale, and infinitely richer in ornament. 395. Mr. Hodder Westropp was, I believe, the first to suggest this identity of the Round Towers with these “Fanals,” or Lanternes des Mortes. It seems to be the most plausible suggestion yet made, though far from meeting the whole difficulty. 396. ‘DenkmÄler der Baukunst in Ermeland.’ Berlin. 397. Mr. Tavenor Perry, in his paper on the ‘MediÆval Architecture in Sweden’ (R.I.B.A. Transactions, vol. vii. new series, 1891), points out that the architecture of the choir is of much earlier date than Étienne de Bonnueill’s advent, that the foundation was laid in 1258, and already in 1273 was well advanced. He takes objection also to the assumed French origin of the plan, which is more like German work. The plan bears some resemblance to the chevet of Westminster Abbey, the lady-chapel of which, pulled down by Henry VII., was commenced in 1220 by Henry III. There are only five chapels, as in Westminster Abbey, and they are of greater width than any French examples. Étienne’s work was probably confined to the three great portals, though Mr. Perry believes that he did much to improve the design, and probably helped to “found a new school of sculptors.”—Ed. 398. ‘The Priory of St. Mary Overie, Southwark.’ F. T. Dollman, London, 1881. 399. These churches are nearly all brick: those of Lund and LinkÖping are in stone. 400. Both in design and purpose this circular part of Trondhjem Cathedral is an exact counterpart of Becket’s Crown at Canterbury. That was erected as a baptistery and burial-place for the archbishops, and seems to have been afterwards incorporated in the cathedral, more Francorum. 401. The octagonal dome on the east end has been lately restored, but not improved.—Ed. 402. The plan and elevation are taken from a description of the church by Steen Friis, published at Copenhagen, 1851. In both cuts the modern additions are omitted. 403. It has lately been well restored (1881).—Ed. 404. Gothland was Christianized by St. Olaf in 1028; the first churches, in wood, were soon burnt down, and the earliest stone examples now known are those of AkebÄch and Ala, which date from 1149. 405. An elevation and section of the church by Mr. Haig is given in the R. I. B. A. Transactions, new series, vol. ii. 406. Two examples are pointed out by Mr. Carpenter (R.I.B.A. Transactions, new series, vol. ii. 1886) as existing in England, viz.: Hannington Church, Northamptonshire, and Caythorpe Church, Lincolnshire. 407. ‘One Year in Sweden,’ Murray, 1862. 408. ‘The Ecclesiology of Gothland and the Churches of Bornholm,’ by Major Alfred Heales, F.S.A., 1889. 409. Two in Zealand—Storehedinge and Biernede; one in Funen—Horne, at Faaborg; one in Jutland—Thorsager; and four in Bornholm—Oester Larsker, Nykers, Ols, and Ny. (Vol. ii. p. 49.) 410. Documentary evidence now establishes the fact that the nave of Waltham Abbey was Harold’s original work, though subsequently enriched by carving. 411. This has been restored, as far as the materials admit, by Professor Willis, in his ‘Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral,’ published in 1845. 412. “Qui ecclesiam in orientali parte majoris ecclesiÆ eidem pene contiguam in honore Beati Johannis BaptistÆ fabricavit; ut et Baptisteria et examinationes Judiciorum, &c.—et Archiepiscoporum corpora in e sepelirentur.”—‘Anglia Sacra,’ vol. ii. p. 75. 413. The internal dimensions of Durham Cathedral are 413·10 feet, exclusive of the Galilee. The nave is 81 feet wide, the choir, 77·2. (Billings.) 414. The proper effect of this part of Ely Cathedral has been seriously marred by the erection of the new reredos. In itself a fair specimen of modern Gothic, it is placed so far from the choir as to lose its proper effect. It is painfully dwarfed by the large plain area in front of it. But worse than this, it cuts up and destroys the most beautiful presbytery in England after the Angel Choir at Lincoln. The architects of Walsingham’s time glazed two compartments of the triforium to throw light upon the principal object in the choir, which was intended to stand two bays farther forward. It would have been well if the 19th-century restorers had taken the hint. 415. The foundations of the Lady Chapel of Henry III. were found a few years ago almost at the extreme east end of Henry VII.’s Chapel, so that it can scarcely be said to have formed part of a circlet. 416. It should be remembered, however, that the first addition, made in 1220, was the original Lady Chapel; when Henry III. determined to rebuild the church and to adopt the plan of the French chevet, the width of the other chapels would seem to have been governed by that of the Lady Chapel. This, however, was 30 ft. wide—much greater than any French chapel. To complete the ring, therefore, he was obliged to carry them further west, so that the five chapels occupy a space equal in comparison to the seven chapels of Amiens, where the width of each is only 25 ft. A comparison of the two chevets will show how ingenious was the English arrangement; and as the vaulting is essentially English in its setting out and in its design, it is only the idea of the plan which was borrowed. On this subject Mr. Street remarks, p. 426 (‘Lectures on English Architecture,’ Memoir of G. E. Street, R.A., by A. E. Street, M.A. 1883), “Here the evidence of the building itself seems to be conclusive that the king had resolved to build a church after the model of the great French churches, but employed an English architect to design it, and he made his plan on lines which are distinct and different from those of any French church.” 417. The roofs here alluded to must not be confounded with the barn-like roofs of remote village churches which modern architects are so fond of copying, but such roofs as that of St. Stephen’s Chapel, and many of those of the Lancastrian era. 418. This, and a considerable number of the woodcuts in this chapter, are borrowed from the plates of the beautiful series of ‘Handbooks of the English Cathedrals,’ published by Mr. Murray. In order to prevent needless repetition, they are marked Cath. Hb. 419. This has already been explained in the chapters on French architecture, especially at pages 114 and 169. 420. In Woodcut No. 822 the right-hand bay is that of the nave generally, the left-hand bay is adapted to the greater width of the aisle of the transept, and is less pleasingly proportioned in consequence. Woodcuts Nos. 822 and 823 are drawn to the scale of 25 feet to 1 inch, or double that usually employed for elevations in this work. 421. It is not necessary to repeat here what was said on the subject in speaking of French tracery, p. 164, to which the reader is referred. 422. This was not so much the case in Paris and Rouen, where the houses were carried up to a much greater height than in other towns.—Ed. 423. A splendid chance of trying the effect of this occurred a few years ago, when it was determined to restore the lantern, as a memorial to Dr. Peacock. In a fit of purism, only the ugly temporary arrangement was made new. It looked venerable before the recent repairs; now that it is quite new again, it is most unpleasing. 424. The towers of Lincoln were surmounted by three spires, removed about 100 years ago. 425. The central octagon of the Parliament Houses is 65 ft. in diameter, and is the best specimen of a modern Gothic dome which has been attempted. 426. A chapel, properly speaking, is a hall designed for worship, without any separation between classes. A church has a chancel for the clergy, a nave for the laity. A cathedral has these and attached chapels and numerous adjuncts which do not properly belong to either of the other two. 427. Few things of its class are more to be regretted than the destruction of this beautiful relic in rebuilding the Parliament Houses. It would have been cheaper to restore it, and infinitely more beautiful when restored than the present gallery which takes its place. It is sad, too, to think that nothing has been done to reproduce its beauties. When the colleges of Exeter at Oxford, or St. John’s, Cambridge, were rebuilding their chapels, it would have been infinitely better to reproduce this exquisite specimen of English art than the models of French chapels which have been adopted. The work on St. Stephen’s Chapel, published for the Woods and Forests by Mr. Mackenzie, is rendered useless by the addition of an upper storey which never existed. 428. The Sainte Chapelle was commenced 1244, and finished 1248. The works of St. Stephen’s were commenced apparently 1292, but were not finished till 1348. 430. Mr. Scott produced a free copy of one of them as the Oxford Martyrs’ Memorial, and Edward Barry another as a restoration of Charing Cross. Both are very beautiful objects, but neither of them exhausts the subject. 431. It is not pretended that this Table is quite correct in all details, but it is sufficiently so to present at a glance, a comparative view of the fourteen principal churches of England, and to show at least their relative dimensions. 432. The illustrations in this chapter being taken from the beautiful work by R. W. Billings, entitled ‘The Baronial and Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Scotland,’ the source of each will not be specified, except when it forms an exception to this rule. Mr. Billings’ work is certainly the most correct and beautiful that has yet appeared on the subject, and if completed with the necessary plans and architectural details, would be unrivalled as a monograph of an architectural province. 433. Britton’s ‘Architectural Antiquities,’ vol. xiv. p. 81. 434. For the drawings and information regarding Bothwell Church, I am indebted to Mr. John Honeyman, jun., architect, of Glasgow. 435. The same class of tracery is found in the Lamberti Kirche at 436. The woodcuts in this chapter are, with one or two exceptions, borrowed from Wilkinson’s ‘Ancient Architecture and Geology of Ireland.’ 437. No buildings with architectural details in them are known prior to 1000 A.D. 438. Seven churches are also found at Scattery and Innis Caltra in Clare, Tory Island, Donegal, Rattoo in Kerry, Inchclorin, Longford, and Arranmore in Galway. 439. The Rev. Professor Stokes, in a paper communicated to the Royal Society of Antiquaries in Ireland, and published in their Journal, 1891, states: “The connexion with Egypt of the Celtic Church of these Western Islands of Britain, as well as of Ireland, cannot now be controverted.” He points out that the object of the ancient monks of the 5th and 6th centuries was “not to draw large assemblies, but to get as far away from them as possible; and assuredly they selected a lonely if not a weird spot when they selected the Skelligs.” The Professor gives a long list of places where specimens of these island monasteries can be found; the best example still existing being that of Incheleraun in Lough Ree, and commonly called Quaker Island, some ten miles above Athlone, where six or seven tiny churches just like those of Clonmacnoise (Woodcut No. 904) or Glendalough (Woodcut No. 902) still perpetuate the name of St. Dermot or St. Diarmaid, the teacher of St. Kieran, and a Celtic saint and doctor who lived just after the days of St. Patrick and St. Bridget. The monastic cells at the Skelligs, which are known as beehive huts, are sometimes square and sometimes circular in plan, in both cases covered with domical roofs of stone laid in horizontal courses similar to the Treasury of Atreus (Woodcut No. 124). In some cases those chambers are so limited in height and width that it is possible neither to stand upright nor lie down in them with ease. These beehive huts are apparently the prototypes of the oratories which, though rectangular in plan, are, like the Oratory of Gallerus (Woodcut No. 917) and St. Kevin’s Kitchen, Glendalough (Woodcut No. 902), covered with roofs of stone all laid in horizontal courses.—Ed. 440. ‘The Ecclesiastical Architecture of Ireland anterior to the Anglo-Norman Invasion.’ Dublin, 1845. 441. See Viollet le Duc, ‘Dictionnaire d’Architecture,’ sub “fanal.” 442. One of the towers in the East that bears most directly on the history of these Irish towers is that discovered by Dr. Tristram near Um Rasas. It is described and figured at page 145 in his work on the ‘Land of Moab;’ but unfortunately the woodcut is taken from the side that does not represent the doorway with the cross over it so like that at Antrim (Woodcut No. 907), and elsewhere. Like most of the Irish examples, it is situated at about 10 ft. from the ground. There is no other opening to the tower, except one on each face at the top. It has also the peculiarity that it stands free but close to a small cell or chapel, as is the case with almost all the Irish towers. The one point in which it differs from the Irish examples is that its plan is square instead of being circular. This does not seem so important as it at first sight may appear, seeing how many circular minarets were afterwards erected in the East, which must have had a model somewhere. Practically, therefore, this Moabite tower may be described, HibernicÈ, as a square Irish round tower. 903. Doorway in Tower at Um Rasas. (From a Photograph.) 443. Compare this with the contemporary tower at Ghazni, in the chapters on Saracenic Architecture in India in vol. iii. 444. Numerous examples of Byzantine interlaced work of all periods will be found in Cattaneo’s work ‘On the Influence of Byzantine Art in Italy from the 5th to the 11th centuries.’ 445. So much of the information regarding Spanish architecture which is contained in the following pages, is derived from Mr. Street’s beautiful work, entitled ‘Gothic Architecture in Spain,’ published in 1865, that it has not been thought necessary to refer specially to that work in the text. With one or two exceptions, all the plans are reduced from those in Mr. Street’s book, and many of the woodcuts are also his. If any one will take the trouble of comparing the very meagre account of Spanish architecture contained in the ‘Handbook,’ with what is said in this work, they will at once perceive my obligations to Mr. Street. His work is a model of its class, and has quite revolutionised our knowledge of the subject. 446. Parcerisa, ‘Recuerdos y Bellezas de EspaÑa,’ Asturias, p. 78. 447. ‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos.’ 448. ‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos.’ 449. Ibid. 450. These external porticoes would be admirably adapted for imitation in the climate of India. 451. The Spanish arrangement has recently been adopted in Westminster Abbey, more by accident than design; with an effect as disastrous as anything in Spain, and apparently as little felt. In monastic churches the choir is always in a gallery above the west doorway. 452. The Church of St. Eustache at Paris was commenced as late as 1532, and, although its plan is almost as Gothic as those of the Spanish examples, the details of the French church are far more essentially Renaissance throughout. 453. The room called Paranimfo in the University of Alcala (see Woodcut No. 89, History of Modern Architecture, vol. i.) is of precisely similar design to this, only carried out with Renaissance instead of Moorish detail. 454. An engraving of this tower is given in Street’s ‘Gothic Architecture in Spain,’ page 225, accompanied with a very complete enumeration of all the examples of the style to be found in Toledo. 455. Another example exists at Palma, in the island of Majorca, in which there are no capitals to the columns, the ribs of 456. These were destroyed by a fire which occurred between thirty and forty years ago. 457. Abulfeda, ed. Reiske, vol. i. p. 32. 458. ‘The History of Jerusalem.’ Besant and Palmer, 1888. 459. ‘The Holy Places of Jerusalem,’ by T. Hayter Lewis, F.S.A. Murray, 1889. 460. ‘Description of Syria,’ by Mukaddasi. Translated and annotated by George le Strange for the Palestine Pilgrims’ Society. London, 1886. 461. Mejr ed-Deen. ‘Fundgruben des Orients.’ 462. Transactions of the Royal Institution of British Architects, 1878-79. 463. Ante, p. 228, vol. i. 464. I state these dimensions very doubtfully, the ground outside the present mosque never having been carefully surveyed by any one competent to restore the original plan. 465. ‘History of Jerusalem,’ translated by the Rev. M. Reynolds, p. 409 et seqq. 466. Translated by Jaubert, tom. i. p. 303. The particulars of the description in the text are taken from M. Girault de Prangey ‘Monuments Arabes,’ compared with M. Coste’s ‘Edifices de Caire.’ 467. It should be noted that all these arcades run in the direction of the Kibleh or Mecca wall, and the same principle is observed at Kerouan, Cordoba, and other mosques built entirely for Mahomedan worship. 468. M. Coste makes all these arches pointed. M. de Prangey states that they are all circular; the truth being that they are partly one, partly the other. 469. Since then the arches have been built up, and it was for a time converted into a hospital. This now (1892) is under the care of the Commissioner for the preservation of ancient monuments, but is too far ruined to be long preserved. 470. See Coste’s ‘Edifices de Caire,’ p. 32, quoting from Makrisi. 471. ‘The Ancient Coptic Churches,’ by A. J. Butler, Oxford, 1884. 472. The marble wall decoration and the mosaics which are found in later mosques are of different design and execution from that found in Byzantine buildings; in fact as Mr. Butler remarks: “this form of art was borrowed by the Muslim builders, or rather was lent by the Coptic architects and builders, whom the Muslims employed for the construction of their mosques.” “Although the Saracens in Syria borrowed the art from Byzantium and used vitreous enamels for the decoration of their mosque walls, as well as for inlaying jewelry and steel armour on a smaller scale, yet the Mahomedans of Egypt never adopted any but the native or Coptic marble mosaic, partly because its unpictorial character suited their taste, and partly because they found, ready made, both art and artists—artists whose names have perished, but whose skill is still recorded in work of unexampled splendour which adorns the great Mosques of Cairo.” 473. The mosque cathedrals of Cordoba and Seville and the contemporary Arabic buildings. Transactions, R.I.B.A., 1882-83. 474. A view of it will be found in vol. ii. ‘History of the Modern Style of Architecture,’ 1891, p. 314. 475. To get it within the page, the scale of the plan is reduced to 200 French, or 212 English ft. to 1 in. 476. When the great national work, entitled ‘Monumentos Arquitectonicos d’EspaÑa,’ is complete, this reproach will be removed, but that certainly will not be the case for ten or twelve years to come, if it ever does attain completion. The scale is too large, and the total want of principle on which it is carried out renders it useless till it is further advanced. Twenty-three numbers are published, but not one important building is complete, and, excepting a plan of Toledo, not one of the larger buildings is even attempted—Cosas d’EspaÑa. The above note was written twenty-five years ago and is true now, except that the twenty-three must be now eighty-nine, where it stopped nine years ago. 477. Alcazar = el-Kasr, “the Castle.” 478. A perfect copy of this court was reproduced by Mr. Owen Jones at the Crystal Palace in 1854. Except being slightly curtailed in plan, every detail and every dimension is identical with the original. 479. Nothing need be said here of La Cuba and La Ziza, and other buildings in Sicily, which, though usually ascribed to the Saracens, are now ascertained to have been built by the Normans after their conquest of the island in the 11th century. They are Saracenic in style, it is true, and were probably erected by Moslem artists, but so were many churches and chapels in Spain, as mentioned above; and I am not aware of any building now extant there which can be safely ascribed to the time when the island was held by the Moslems, or was then erected by them for their own purposes. Till that is ascertained, Sicily of course does not come within the part of our subject which we are now considering. 480. Plate lxxxii. 481. For the plan and section of this mosque I was indebted to the kindness of my friend, the late M. C. Texier, who placed his MS. plans at my disposal for the purpose of being engraved for this work. 482. For the plan of this building I am indebted to the unpublished drawings of the late M. C. Texier. 483. The steps by which the transformation may have been arrived at, passing through the traditional method of constructing vaults in plaster, which is still practised in Persia, were suggested in an article contributed to the Proceedings of the R. I. B. A., 1888, vol. iv., new series. 484. Both the plan and view are taken from Baron Texier’s ‘ArmÉnie et la Perse,’ which gives also several coloured plates of the mosaic decorations, from which their beauty of detail may be judged, though not the effect of the whole. 485. The earliest attempt in this direction that I am acquainted with is the great portal of the palace at Mashita (Woodcut No. 268). 486. Texier, from whose work the illustrations are taken, ascribes the building to another Khodabendah of the Sufi dynasty, A.D. 1577-85. Our knowledge, however, of the style is sufficient to show that the monument must be 200 or 300 years older than that king; and besides, the Sufis, not being Tartars, would not build tombs anywhere, much less in Sultanieh, where they never resided. 487. ‘Travels,’ vol. i. p. 277. 488. Ker Porter’s ‘Travels,’ vol. i. p. 432 et seq. I cannot help suspecting that there is some mistake about these dimensions—they seem excessive. The Piazza of St. Mark’s at Venice, which resembles it more than any other area, is only 560 ft. long, with a mean breadth of about 250 ft. Probably 1500 feet by 500. 489. ‘Views of monuments in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan.’ 25 plates, folio. London, 1844. 490. ‘Incidents of Travel in Central America and Yucatan,’ by J. L. Stephens. 1st and 2nd series, 4 vols. 8vo. Murray, 1841, 1843. 491. The evidence collected by the AbbÉ Brasseur de Bourbourg, ‘Voyage de Tehuantepec,’ seems, if it can be depended upon, to confirm this idea. 492. Ausland, 1845, Nos. 165, 168. 493. D’Eichthal, ‘Revue ArchÆologique,’ vol. x. 1864, p. 188, and following numbers. 494. Sir Stamford Raffles’s ‘History of Java,’ vol. ii. p. 51. 495. ‘Anahuac,’ by Edward B. Tylor, 1861; pp. 188, 194. 496. The plate published by Humboldt, representing one of the bas-reliefs, is so incorrect as to be absolutely worthless. 497. There is a celebrated bas-relief on the back wall of a small temple at Palenque, representing a man offering a child to an emblem very like a Christian cross. It is represented in the first series of the ‘Incidents of Travel,’ vol. ii. p. 344. None of the sculptures have given rise to such various interpretations; but nothing would surprise me less than if it turned out to be a native mode of representing a Christian baptism, and was therefore subsequent to the conquest. 498. Since the first edition of this work was published, a folio work has appeared in Paris, entitled ‘Les Ruines de Palenque,’ illustrated by plates, made under the superintendence of M. de Waldeck, with text by the AbbÉ Brasseur de Bourbourg. The text is certainly not to be trusted. The plates add little to what we learn from Catherwood’s drawings, and I do not feel sure how far that little is to be depended upon. In so far as they go they confirm the idea of the famous cross bas-relief being of Christian origin. 499. It is only fair to state that Mr. Markham (Journal Roy. Geo. Soc., vol. xli. p. 307) denies the Aymara origin of the Tia Huanacu ruins, and ascribes them to the Incas, and consequently disputes the distinction pointed out above. The truth seems to be that, until we get more photographs or detailed drawings, all conclusions regarding Peruvian architecture must be considered as more or less hypothetical. 500. For the principal part of this information I am indebted to Mr. William Bollaert and the photographs of the Messrs. Helsby, of Liverpool, and also to a paper on the Aymara Indians, by Dr. David Forbes, communicated to the Ethnological Society of London in June 1870. Transcriber’s Notes This book often uses inconsistent hyphenation and spelling, particularly with respect to accents. These were left as printed unless the author showed a clear preference for one form. Some presumed printer’s errors have been corrected, including normalizing punctuation. Page number references and entries in the Table of Contents and in the Index were corrected where errors were found. Several instances of area being given in ft. were changed to sq. ft. and feet to square feet. The marker for footnote 483 was missing and so it's placement was assumed. Further corrections are listed below with the original text (top) and the corrected text (bottom). Volume I every pains has been taken every pain has been taken p. xxii progres progress p. 48 cotemporary contemporary p. 50 formula formulÆ p. 77 Sedinag Sedinga Illustration 27. longed ceased long ceased p. 219 Nor is is Nor is it p. 247 ines lines p. 372 Roumeia RoumeÏa p. 372 Nimes NÎmes p. 385 VogÜe VogÜÉ p. 423 neo-Byzantine Neo-Byzantine p. 455 iconicon icon p. 460 orginally originally p. 538 turned the turned to the p. 558 100 ft. to 100 ft. to 1 in. Illustration 451. 467. Illustration 467 (missing number added) next next to p. 596 Volume II Churches Gelnhausen Churches at Gelnhausen p. vi Perigueux PÉrigueux p. v Gloucester Cathderal Gloucester Cathedral p. xi Toraccio Torracio p. 3 content with the knowadge content with the knowledge p. 55 Moyen Âge Moyen-Âge Figure 548 painted plass painted glass p. 70 Le-Puy-en-VÉlay Le-Puy-en-Velay p. 94 diapeared disapeared p. 145 architectual object architectural object p. 171 it canot it cannot p. 196 apparent stabilty apparent stability p. 226 p. 233 its aspidal gallery its apsidal gallery Paul-Trois-Chateaux Paul-Trois-ChÂteaux p. 255 Moyen-Age Moyen-Âge Figure 735 Boisseree BoisserÉe Illustration 746. enthnographic ethnographic p. 302 gables on east face gables on the east face p. 324 Duration of Late Pointed Perpendicular corrected from 108 to 156 p. 337 church inexistence church in existence p. 342 Munster MÜnster Footnote 120 better that better than p. 472 ribs of vault ribs of the vault Footnote 140 It total length Its total length p. 509 the slighest attempt the slightest attempt p. 516 it is dificult to it is difficult to p. 525 enjoyment if the passing hour enjoyment of the passing hour p. 554 east coast of America west coast of America p. 586 buildiugs buildings p. 589 Woodcut No. 1039 Woodcut No. 1029 p. 603 End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of A History of Architecture in all Countries, Volumes 1 and 2, 3rd , by James Fergusson *** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE *** ***** This file should be named 55870-h.htm or 55870-h.zip ***** This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: /5/5/8/7/55870/ Produced by Sonya Schermann, Albert LÁszlÓ and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg-tm License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided that * You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." * You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm works. * You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. * You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact For additional contact information: Dr. Gregory B. Newby Chief Executive and Director gbnewby@pglaf.org Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |
|
