A Text-Book of the History of Architecture Part 11

The +Alcazars+ at Seville and Malaga, which have been restored in recent years, present to-day a fairly correct counterpart of the castle-palaces of the thirteenth century. They display the same general conceptions and decorative features as the Alhambra, which they antedate. The +Giralda+ at Seville is, on the other hand, unique. It is a lofty rectangular tower, its exterior panelled and covered with a species of quarry-ornament in relief; it terminated originally in two or three diminis.h.i.+ng stages or lanterns, which were replaced in the sixteenth century by the present Renaissance belfry.

The +Alhambra+ is universally considered to be the masterpiece of Hispano-Moresque art, partly no doubt on account of its excellent preservation. It is most interesting as an example of the splendid citadel-palaces built by the Moorish conquerors, as well as for its gorgeous color-decoration of minute quarry-ornament stamped or moulded in the wet plaster wherever the walls are not wainscoted with tiles. It was begun in 1248 by Mohammed-ben-Al-Hamar, enlarged in 1279 by his successor, and again in 1306, when its mosque was built. Its plan (Fig.

84) shows two large courts and a smaller one next the mosque, with three great square chambers and many of minor importance. Light arcades surround the Court of the Lions with its fountain, and adorn the ends of the other chief court; and the stalact.i.te pendentive, rare in Moorish work, appears in the "Hall of Amba.s.sadors" and some other parts of the edifice. But its chief glory is its ornamentation, less durable, less architectural than that of the Cairene buildings, but making up for this in delicacy and richness. Minute vine-patterns and Arabic inscriptions are interwoven with waving intersecting lines, forming a net-like framework, to all of which deep red, blue, black, and gold give an indescribable richness of effect.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 84.--PLAN OF THE ALHAMBRA.

A, _Hall of Amba.s.sadors_; a, _Mosque_; b, _Court of Mosque_; c, _Sala della Barca_; _d, d_, _Baths_; e, _Hall of the Two Sisters_; _f, f, f_, _Hall of the Tribunal_; g, _Hall of the Abencerrages_.]

The Moors also overran Sicily in the eighth century, but while their architecture there profoundly influenced that of the Christians who recovered Sicily in 1090, and copied the style of the conquered Moslems, there is too little of the original Moorish architecture remaining to claim mention here.

+Sa.s.sANIAN.+ The Sa.s.sanian empire, which during the four centuries from 226 to 641 A.D. had withstood Rome and extended its own sway almost to India, left on Persian soil a number of interesting monuments which powerfully influenced the Mohammedan style of that region. The Sa.s.sanian buildings appear to have been princ.i.p.ally palaces, and were all vaulted.

With their long barrel-vaulted halls, combined with square domical chambers, as in Firouz-Abad and Serbistan, they exhibit reminiscences of antique a.s.syrian tradition. The ancient Persian use of columns was almost entirely abandoned, but doors and windows were still treated with the banded frames and cavetto-cornices of Persepolis and Susa. The Sa.s.sanians employed with these exterior details others derived perhaps from Syrian and Byzantine sources. A sort of engaged b.u.t.tress-column and blind arches repeated somewhat aimlessly over a whole facade were characteristic features; still more so the huge arches, elliptical or horse-shoe shaped, which formed the entrances to these palaces, as in the Tak-Kesra at Ctesiphon. Ornamental details of a debased Roman type appear, mingled with more gracefully flowing leaf-patterns resembling early Christian Syrian carving. The last great monument of this style was the palace at Mas.h.i.+ta in Moab, begun by the last Chosroes (627), but never finished, an imposing and richly ornamented structure about 500 170 feet, occupying the centre of a great court.

+PERSIAN-MOSLEM ARCHITECTURE.+ These Sa.s.sanian palaces must have strongly influenced Persian architecture after the Arab conquest in 641.

For although the architecture of the first six centuries after that date suffered almost absolute extinction at the hands of the Mongols under Genghis Khan, the traces of Sa.s.sanian influence are still perceptible in the monuments that rose in the following centuries. The dome and vault, the colossal portal-arches, and the use of brick and tile are evidences of this influence, bearing no resemblance to Byzantine or Arabic types.

The Moslem monuments of Persia, so far as their dates can be ascertained, are all subsequent to 1200, unless tradition is correct in a.s.signing to the time of Haroun Ar Ras.h.i.+d (786) certain curious tombs near Bagdad with singular pyramidal roofs. The ruined mosque at Tabriz (1300), and the beautiful domical +Tomb+ at +Sultaniyeh+ (1313) belong to the Mogul period. They show all the essential features of the later architecture of the Sufis (1499-1694), during whose dynastic period were built the still more splendid and more celebrated +Meidan+ or square, the great mosque of Mesjid Shah, the Bazaar and the College or Medress of Hussein Shah, all at Ispahan, and many other important monuments at Ispahan, Bagdad, and Teheran. In these structures four elements especially claim attention; the pointed bulbous dome, the round minaret, the portal-arch rising above the adjacent portions of the building, and the use of enamelled terra-cotta tiles as an external decoration. To these may be added the ogee arch (_ogee_ = double-reversed curve), as an occasional feature. The vaulting is most ingenious and beautiful, and its forms, whether executed in brick or in plaster, are sufficiently varied without resort to the perplexing complications of stalact.i.te work. In Persian decoration the most striking qualities are the harmony of blended color, broken up into minute patterns and more subdued in tone than in the Hispano-Moresque, and the preference of flowing lines and floral ornament to the geometric puzzles of Arabic design. Persian architecture influenced both Turkish and Indo-Moslem art, which owe to it a large part of their decorative charm.

+INDO-MOSLEM.+ The Mohammedan architecture of India is so distinct from all the native Indian styles and so related to the art of Persia, if not to that of the Arabs, that it properly belongs here rather than in the later chapter on Oriental styles. It was in the eleventh century that the states of India first began to fall before Mohammedan invaders, but not until the end of the fifteenth century that the great Mogul dynasty was established in Hindostan as the dominant power. During the intervening period local schools of Moslem architecture were developing in the Pathan country of Northern India (1193-1554), in Jaunpore and Gujerat (1396-1572), in Scinde, where Persian influence predominated; in Kalburgah and Bidar (1347-1426). These schools differed considerably in spirit and detail; but under the Moguls (1494-1706) there was less diversity, and to this dynasty we owe many of the most magnificent mosques and tombs of India, among which those of Bij.a.pur retain a marked and distinct style of their own.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 85.--TOMB OF MAHMUD, BIj.a.pUR. SECTION.]

The Mohammedan monuments of India are characterized by a grandeur and amplitude of disposition, a symmetry and monumental dignity of design which distinguishes them widely from the picturesque but sometimes trivial buildings of the Arabs and Moors. Less dependent on color than the Moorish or Persian structures, they are usually built of marble, or of marble and sandstone, giving them an air of permanence and solidity wanting in other Moslem styles except the Turkish. The dome, the round minaret, the pointed arch, and the colossal portal-arch, are universal, as in Persia, and enamelled tiles are also used, but chiefly for interior decoration. Externally the more dignified if less resplendent decoration of surface carving is used, in patterns of minute and graceful scrolls, leaf forms, and Arabic inscriptions covering large surfaces. The Arabic stalact.i.te pendentive star-panelling and geometrical interlace are rarely if ever seen. The dome on the square plan is almost universal, but neither the Byzantine nor the Arabic pendentive is used, striking and original combinations of vaulting surfaces, of corner squinches, of corbelling and ribs, being used in its place. Many of the Pathan domes and arches at Delhi, Ajmir, Ahmedabad, Shepree, etc., are built in horizontal or corbelled courses supported on slender columns, and exert no thrust at all, so that they are vaults only in form, like the dome of the Tholos of Atreus (Fig. 24). The most imposing and original of all Indian domes are those of the +Jumma Musjid+ and of the +Tomb of Mahmud+, both at Bij.a.pur, the latter 137 feet in span (Fig. 85). These two monuments, indeed, with the Mogul Taj Mahal at Agra, not only deserve the first rank among Indian monuments, but in constructive science combined with n.o.ble proportions and exquisite beauty are hardly, if at all, surpa.s.sed by the greatest triumphs of western art. The Indo-Moslem architects, moreover, especially those of the Mogul period, excelled in providing artistic settings for their monuments. Immense platforms, superb courts, imposing flights of steps, n.o.ble gateways, minarets to mark the angles of enclosures, and landscape gardening of a high order, enhance greatly the effect of the great mosques, tombs, and palaces of Agra, Delhi, Futtehpore Sikhri, Allahabad, Secundra, etc.

The most notable monuments of the Moguls are the +Mosque of Akbar+ (1556-1605) at Futtehpore Sikhri, the tomb of that sultan at Secundra, and his palace at Allahabad; the +Pearl Mosque+ at Agra and the +Jumma Musjid+ at Delhi, one of the largest and n.o.blest of Indian mosques, both built by Shah Jehan about 1650; his immense but now ruined palace in the same city; and finally the unrivalled mausoleum, the +Taj Mahal+ at Agra, built during his lifetime as a festal hall, to serve as his tomb after death (Fig. 86). This last is the pearl of Indian architecture, though it is said to have been designed by a European architect, French or Italian. It is a white marble structure 185 feet square, centred in a court 313 feet square, forming a platform 18 feet high. The corners of this court are marked by elegant minarets, and the whole is dominated by the exquisite white marble dome, 58 feet in diameter, 80 feet high, internally rising over four domical corner chapels, and covered externally by a lofty marble bulb-dome on a high drum. The rich materials, beautiful execution, and exquisite inlaying of this mausoleum are worthy of its majestic design. On the whole, in the architecture of the Moguls in Bij.a.pur, Agra, and Delhi, Mohammedan architecture reaches its highest expression in the totality and balance of its qualities of construction, composition, detail, ornament, and settings. The later monuments show the decline of the style, and though often rich and imposing, are lacking in refinement and originality.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 86.--TAJ MAHAL, AGRA.]

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

The type thus officially adopted has ever since remained the controlling model of Turkish mosque design, so far, at least, as general plan and constructive principles are concerned. Thus the conquering Turks, educated by a century of study and imitation of Byzantine models in Brusa, Nicomedia, Smyrna, Adrianople, and other cities earlier subjugated, did what the Byzantines had, during nine centuries, failed to do. The n.o.ble idea first expressed by Anthemius and Isidorus in the Church of Hagia Sophia had remained undeveloped, unimitated by later architects. It was the Turk who first seized upon its possibilities, and developed therefrom a style of architecture less sumptuous in color and decoration than the sister styles of Persia, Cairo, or India, but of great n.o.bility and dignity, notwithstanding. The low-curved dome with its crown of b.u.t.tressed windows, the plain spherical pendentives, the great apses at each end, covered by half-domes and penetrated by smaller niches, the four ma.s.sive piers with their projecting b.u.t.tress-ma.s.ses extending across the broad lateral aisles, the narthex and the arcaded atrium in front--all these appear in the great Turkish mosques of Constantinople. In the Conqueror's mosque, however, two apses with half-domes replace the lateral galleries and clearstory of Hagia Sophia, making a perfectly quadripart.i.te plan, dest.i.tute of the emphasis and significance of a plan drawn on one main axis (Fig. 87). The same treatment occurs in the mosque of Ahmed I., the +Ahmediyeh+ (1608; Fig.

88), and the +Yeni Djami+ ("New Mosque") at the port (1665). In the mosque of +Osman III.+ (1755) the reverse change was effected; the mosque has no great apses, four clearstories filling the four arches under the dome, as also in several of the later and smaller mosques. The greatest and n.o.blest of the Turkish mosques, the +Suleimaniyeh+, built in 1553 by Soliman the Magnificent, returned to the Byzantine combination of two half-domes with two clearstories (Fig. 89).

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 87.--MOSQUE OF MEHMET II., CONSTANTINOPLE.

PLAN.

(The dimensions figured in metres.)]

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

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 88.--EXTERIOR AHMEDIYEH MOSQUE.]

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

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 89.--INTERIOR OF SULEIMANIYEH, CONSTANTINOPLE.]

+PALACES.+ In this department the Turks have done little of importance.

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

+MONUMENTS.+ ARABIAN: "Mosque of Omar," or Dome of the Rock, 638; El Aksah, by 'Abd-el-Melek, 691, both at Jerusalem; Mosque 'Amrou at Cairo, 642; mosques at Cyrene, 665; great mosque of El Walid, Damascus, 705-717. Bagdad built, 755. Great mosque at Kairouan, 737. At Cairo, Ibn Touloun, 876; Gama-El-Azhar, 971; Barkouk, 1149; "Tombs of Khalifs" (Karafah), 1250-1400; Moristan Kalaoun, 1284; Medresseh Sultan Ha.s.san, 1356; El Azhar enlarged; El Muayed, 1415; Kad Bey, 1463; Sinan Pacha, 1468; "Tombs of Mamelukes,"

16th century. Also palaces, baths, fountains, mosques, and tombs.

MORESQUE: Mosque at Saragossa, 713; mosque and a.r.s.enal at Tunis, 742; great mosque at Cordova, 786, 876, 975; sanctuary, 14th century. Mosques, baths, etc., at Cordova, Tarragona, Segovia, Toledo, 960-980; mosque of Sobeiha at Cordova, 981. Palaces and mosques at Fez; great mosque at Seville, 1172. Extensive building in Morocco close of 12th century. Giralda at Seville, 1160; Alcazars in Malaga and Seville, 1225-1300; Alhambra and Generalife at Granada, 1248, 1279, 1306; also mosques, baths, etc. Yussuf builds palace at Malaga, 1348; palaces at Granada. PERSIAN: Tombs near Bagdad, 786 (?); mosque at Tabriz, 1300; tomb of Khodabendeh at Sultaniyeh, 1313; Meidan Shah (square) and Mesjid Shah (mosque) at Ispahan, 17th century; Medresseh (school) of Sultan Hussein, 18th century; palaces of Chehil Soutoun (forty columns) and Aineh Khaneh (Palace of Mirrors). Baths, tombs, bazaars, etc., at Cashan, Koum, Kasmin, etc. Aminabad Caravanserai between s.h.i.+raz and Ispahan; bazaar at Ispahan.

INDIAN: Mosque and "Kutub Minar" (tower) _cir._ 1200; Tomb of Altumsh, 1236; mosque at Ajmir, 1211-1236; tomb at Old Delhi; Adina Mosque, Maldah, 1358. Mosques Jumma Musjid and Lal Durwaza at Jaunpore, first half of 15th century. Mosque and bazaar, Kalburgah, 1435 (?). Mosques at Ahmedabad and Sirkedj, middle 15th century. Mosque Jumma Musjid and Tomb of Mahmud, Bij.a.pur, _cir._ 1550. Tomb of Humayun, Delhi; of Mohammed Ghaus, Gwalior; mosque at Futtehpore Sikhri; palace at Allahabad; tomb of Akbar at Secundra, all by Akbar, 1556-1605. Palace and Jumma Musjid at Delhi; Muti Musjid (Pearl mosque) and Taj Mahal at Agra, by Shah Jehan, 1628-1658.

TURKISH: Tomb of Osman, Brusa, 1326; Green Mosque (Yes.h.i.+l Djami) Brusa, _cir._ 1350. Mosque at Isnik (Nicaea), 1376. Mehmediyeh (mosque Mehmet II.) Constantinople, 1453; mosque at Eyoub; Tchinli Kiosque, by Mehmet II., 1450-60; mosque Bayazid, 1500; Selim I., 1520; Suleimaniyeh, by Sinan, 1553; Ahmediyeh by Ahmet I., 1608; Yeni Djami, 1665; Nouri Osman, by Osman III., 1755; mosque Mohammed Ali in Cairo, 1824. Mosque at Adrianople. KHANS, cloistered courts for public business and commercial lodgers, various dates, 16th and 17th centuries (Valide Khan, Vizir Khan), vaulted bazaars, fountains, Seraskierat Tower, all at Constantinople.

CHAPTER XIII.

EARLY MEDIaeVAL ARCHITECTURE

IN ITALY AND FRANCE.

BOOKS RECOMMENDED: Cattaneo, _L'Architecture en Italie_. Chapuy, _Le moyen age monumental_. Corroyer, _Architecture romane_.

c.u.mmings, _A History of Architecture in Italy_. Enlart, _Manuel d'archeologie francaise_. Hubsch, _Monuments de l'architecture chretienne_. Knight, _Churches of Northern Italy_. Lenoir, _Architecture monastique_. Osten, _Bauwerke in der Lombardei_.

Quicherat, _Melanges d'histoire et d'archeologie_. Reber, _History of Mediaeval Architecture_. Revoil, _Architecture romane du midi de la France_. Rohault de Fleury, _Monuments de Pise_. Sharpe, _Churches of Charente_. De Verneilh, _L'Architecture byzantine en France_. Viollet-le-Duc, _Dictionnaire raisonne de l'architecture francaise_ (especially in Vol. I., Architecture religieuse); _Discourses on Architecture_.

+EARLY MEDIaeVAL EUROPE.+ The fall of the Western Empire in 476 A.D.

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

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

+MEDIaeVAL ITALY.+ Italy in the Dark Ages stood midway between the civilization of the Eastern Empire and the semi-barbarism of the West.

Rome, Ravenna, and Venice early became centres of culture and maintained continuous commercial relations with the East. Architecture did not lack either the inspiration or the means for advancing on new lines. But its advance was by no means the same everywhere. The unifying influence of the church was counterbalanced by the provincialism and the local diversities of the various Italian states, resulting in a wide variety of styles. These, however, may be broadly grouped in four divisions: the +Lombard+, the +Tuscan-Romanesque+, the +Italo-Byzantine+, and the unchanged +Basilican+ or Early Christian, which last, as was shown in Chapter X., continued to be practised in Rome throughout the Middle Ages.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 90.--INTERIOR OF SAN AMBROGIO, MILAN.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 91.--WEST FRONT AND CAMPANILE OF CATHEDRAL, PIACENZA.]

+LOMBARD STYLE.+ Owing to the general rebuilding of ancient churches under the more settled social conditions of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, little remains to us of the architecture of the three preceding centuries in Italy, except the Roman basilicas and a few baptisteries and circular churches, already mentioned in Chapter X. The so-called Lombard monuments belong mainly to the eleventh and twelfth centuries. They are found not only in Lombardy, but also in Venetia and the aemilia. Milan, Pavia, Piacenza, Bologna, and Verona were important centres of development of this style. The churches were nearly all vaulted, but the plans were basilican, with such variations as resulted from efforts to meet the exigencies of vaulted construction. The nave was narrowed, and instead of rows of columns carrying a thin clearstory wall, a few ma.s.sive piers of masonry, connected by broad pier-arches, supported the heavy ribs of the groined vaulting, as in S. Ambrogio, Milan (Fig. 90). To resist the thrust of the main vault, the clearstory was sometimes suppressed, the side aisle carried up in two stories forming galleries, and rows of chapels added at the sides, their part.i.tions forming b.u.t.tresses. The piers were often of cl.u.s.tered section, the better to receive the various arches and ribs they supported. The vaulting was in square divisions or _vaulting-bays_, each embracing two pier-arches which met upon an intermediate pier lighter than the others. Thus the whole aspect of the interior was revolutionized. The lightness, s.p.a.ciousness, and decorative elegance of the basilicas were here exchanged for a sombre and ma.s.sive dignity severe in its plainness. The Choir was sometimes raised a few feet above the nave, to allow of a crypt and _confessio_ beneath, reached by broad flights of steps from the nave. Sta. Maria della Pieve at Arezzo (9th-11th century), +S. Michele+ at Pavia (late 11th century), the +Cathedral of Piacenza+ (1122), +S. Ambrogio+ at Milan (12th century), and +S. Zeno+ at Verona (1139) are notable monuments of this style.

+LOMBARD EXTERIORS.+ The few architectural embellishments employed on the simple exteriors of the Lombard churches were usually effective and well composed. Slender columnettes or long pilasters, blind arcades, and open arcaded galleries under the eaves gave light and shade to these exteriors. The facades were mere frontispieces with a single broad gable, the three aisles of the church being merely suggested by flat or round pilasters dividing the front (Fig 91). Gabled porches, with columns resting on the backs of lions or monsters, adorned the doorways.

The carving was often of a fierce and grotesque character. Detached bell-towers or _campaniles_ adjoined many of these churches; square and simple in ma.s.s, but with well-distributed openings and well-proportioned belfries (Piacenza S. Zeno at Verona, etc.).[18]

[Footnote 18: See Appendix B.]