A Text-Book of the History of Architecture Part 4

+GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.+ Greek art marks the beginning of European civilization. The h.e.l.lenic race gathered up influences and suggestions from both Asia and Africa and fused them with others, whose sources are unknown, into an art intensely national and original, which was to influence the arts of many races and nations long centuries after the decay of the h.e.l.lenic states. The Greek mind, compared with the Egyptian or a.s.syrian, was more highly intellectual, more logical, more symmetrical, and above all more inquiring and a.n.a.lytic. Living nowhere remote from the sea, the Greeks became sailors, merchants, and colonizers. The Ionian kinsmen of the European Greeks, speaking a dialect of the same language, populated the coasts of Asia Minor and many of the islands, so that through them the Greeks were open to the influences of the a.s.syrian, Phnician, Persian, and Lycian civilizations. In Cyprus they encountered Egyptian influences, and finally, under Psammetichus, they established in Egypt itself the Greek city of Naukratis. They were thus by geographical situation, by character, and by circ.u.mstances, peculiarly fitted to receive, develop, and transmit the mingled influences of the East and the South.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 22.--LION GATE AT MYCENae.]

+PREHISTORIC MONUMENTS.+[7] Authentic Greek history begins with the first Olympiad, 776 B.C. The earliest monuments of that historic architecture which developed into the masterpieces of the Periclean and Alexandrian ages, date from the middle of the following century. But there are a number of older buildings, belonging presumably to the so-called Heroic Age, which, though seemingly unconnected with the later historic development of Greek architecture, are still worthy of note.

They are the work of a people somewhat advanced in civilization, probably the Pelasgi, who preceded the Dorians on Greek soil, and consist mainly of fortifications, walls, gates, and tombs, the most important of which are at +Mycenae+ and +Tiryns+. At the latter place is a well-defined acropolis, with ma.s.sive walls in which are pa.s.sages covered by stones successively overhanging or corbelled until they meet.

The masonry is of huge stones piled without cement. At Mycenae the city wall is pierced by the remarkable +Lion Gate+ (Fig. 22), consisting of two jambs and a huge lintel, over which the weight is relieved by a triangular opening. This is filled with a sculptured group, now much defaced, representing two rampant lions flanking a singular column which tapers downward. This symbolic group has relations with Hitt.i.te and Phrygian sculptures, and with the symbolism of the wors.h.i.+p of Rhea Cybele. The masonry of the wall is carefully dressed but not regularly coursed. Other primitive walls and gates showing openings and embryonic arches of various forms, are found widely scattered, at Samos and Delos, at Phigaleia, Thoricus, Argos and many other points. The very earliest are hardly more than random piles of rough stone. Those which may fairly claim notice for their artistic masonry are of a later date and of two kinds: the coursed, and the polygonal or Cyclopean, so called from the tradition that they were built by the Cyclopes. These Cyclopean walls were composed of large, irregular polygonal blocks carefully fitted together and dressed to a fairly smooth face (Fig. 23). Both kinds were used contemporaneously, though in the course of time the regular coursed masonry finally superseded the polygonal.

[Footnote 7: For enlargement on this topic see Appendix A.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 23.--POLYGONAL MASONRY.]

+THOLOS OF ATREUS.+ All these structures present, however, only the rudiments of architectural art. The so-called +Tholos+ (or Treasury) of +Atreus+, at Mycenae, on the other hand, shows the germs of truly artistic design (Fig. 24). It is in reality a tomb, and is one of a large cla.s.s of prehistoric tombs found in almost every part of the globe, consisting of a circular stone-walled and stone-roofed chamber buried under a tumulus of earth. This one is a beehive-shaped construction of horizontal courses of masonry, with a stone-walled pa.s.sage, the _dromos_, leading to the entrance door. Though internally of domical form, its construction with horizontal beds in the masonry proves that the idea of the true dome with the beds of each course pitched at an angle always normal to the curve of the vault, was not yet grasped. A small sepulchral chamber opens from the great one, by a door with the customary relieving triangle over it.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 24.--THOLOS OF ATREUS. PLAN AND SECTION.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 25.--THOLOS OF ATREUS. DOORWAY.]

Traces of a metal lining have been found on the inner surface of the dome and on the jambs of the entrance door. This entrance is the most artistic and elaborate part of the edifice (Fig. 25). The main opening is enclosed in a three-banded frame, and was once flanked by columns which, as shown by fragments still existing and by marks on either side the door, tapered downward as in the sculptured column over the Lion Gate. Shafts, bases, and capitals were covered with zig-zag bands or chevrons of fine spirals. This well-studied decoration, the banded jambs, and the curiously inverted columns (of which several other examples exist in or near Mycenae), all point to a fairly developed art, derived partly from Egyptian and partly from Asiatic sources. That Egyptian influences had affected this early art is further proved by a fragment of carved and painted ornament on a ceiling in Orchomenos, imitating with remarkable closeness certain ceiling decorations in Egyptian tombs.

+HISTORIC MONUMENTS; THE ORDERS.+ It was the Dorians and Ionians who developed the architecture of cla.s.sic Greece. This fact is perpetuated in the traditional names, Doric and Ionic, given to the two systems of columnar design which formed the most striking feature of that architecture. While in Egypt the column was used almost exclusively as an internal support and decoration, in Greece it was chiefly employed to produce an imposing exterior effect. It was the most important element in the temple architecture of the Greeks, and an almost indispensable adornment of their gateways, public squares, and temple enclosures. To the column the two races named above gave each a special and radically distinct development, and it was not until the Periclean age that the two forms came to be used in conjunction, even by the mixed Doric-Ionic people of Attica. Each of the two types had its own special shaft, capital, entablature, mouldings, and ornaments, although considerable variation was allowed in the proportions and minor details. The general type, however, remained substantially unchanged from first to last. The earliest examples known to us of either order show it complete in all its parts, its later development being restricted to the refining and perfecting of its proportions and details. The probable origin of these orders will be separately considered later on.

+THE DORIC.+ The column of the Doric order (Figs. 26, 27) consists of a tapering shaft rising directly from the stylobate or platform and surmounted by a capital of great simplicity and beauty. The shaft is fluted with sixteen to twenty shallow channellings of segmental or elliptical section, meeting in sharp edges or _arrises_. The capital is made up of a circular cus.h.i.+on or _echinus_ adorned with fine grooves called _annulae_, and a plain square _abacus_ or cap Upon this rests a plain architrave or _epistyle_, with a narrow fillet, the _taenia_, running along its upper edge. The frieze above it is divided into square panels, called the _metopes_, separated by vertical _triglyphs_ having each two vertical grooves and chamfered edges. There is a triglyph over each column and one over each intercolumniation, or two in rare instances where the columns are widely s.p.a.ced. The cornice consists of a broadly projecting _corona_ resting on a _bed-mould_ of one or two simple mouldings. Its under surface, called the _soffit_, is adorned with _mutules_, square, flat projections having each eighteen _guttae_ depending from its under side. Two or three small mouldings run along the upper edge of the corona, which has in addition, over each slope of the gable, a gutter-moulding or _cymatium_. The cornices along the horizontal edges of the roof have instead of the cymatium a row of _antefixae_, ornaments of terra-cotta or marble placed opposite the foot of each tile-ridge of the roofing. The enclosed triangular field of the gable, called the _tympanum_, was in the larger monuments adorned with sculptured groups resting on the shelf formed by the horizontal cornice below. Carved ornaments called _acroteria_ commonly embellished the three angles of the gable or pediment.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 26.--GREEK DORIC ORDER.

A, _Crepidoma, or stylobate_; b, _Column_; c, _Architrave_; d, _Taenia_; e, _Frieze_; f, _Horizontal cornice_; g, _Raking cornice_; h, _Tympanum of pediment_; k, _Metope_.]

+POLYCHROMY.+ It has been fully proved, after a century of debate, that all this elaborate system of parts, severe and dignified in their simplicity of form, received a rich decoration of color. While the precise shades and tones employed cannot be predicated with certainty, it is well established that the triglyphs were painted blue and the metopes red, and that all the mouldings were decorated with leaf-ornaments, "eggs-and-darts," and frets, in red, green, blue, and gold. The walls and columns were also colored, probably with pale tints of yellow or buff, to reduce the glare of the fresh marble or the whiteness of the fine stucco with which the surfaces of masonry of coa.r.s.er stone were primed. In the clear Greek atmosphere and outlined against the brilliant sky, the Greek temple must have presented an aspect of rich, sparkling gayety.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 27.--DORIC ORDER OF THE PARTHENON.]

+ORIGIN OF THE ORDER.+ It is generally believed that the details of the Doric frieze and cornice were reminiscences of a primitive wood construction. The triglyph suggests the chamfered ends of cross-beams made up of three planks each; the mutules, the sheathing of the eaves; and the guttae, the heads of the spikes or trenails by which the sheathing was secured. It is known that in early astylar temples the metopes were left open like the s.p.a.ces between the ends of ceiling-rafters. In the earlier peripteral temples, as at Selinus, the triglyph-frieze is retained around the cella-wall under the ceiling of the colonnade, where it has no functional significance, as a survival from times antedating the adoption of the colonnade, when the tradition of a wooden roof-construction showing externally had not yet been forgotten.

A similar wooden origin for the Doric column has been advocated by some, who point to the a.s.sertion of Pausanias that in the Doric Heraion at Olympia the original wooden columns had with one exception been replaced by stone columns as fast as they decayed. (See p. 62.) This, however, only proves that wooden columns were sometimes used in early buildings, not that the Doric column was derived from them. Others would derive it from the Egyptian columns of Beni Ha.s.san (p. 12), which it certainly resembles. But they do not explain how the Greeks could have been familiar with the Beni Ha.s.san column long before the opening of Egypt to them under Psammetichus; nor why, granting them some knowledge of Egyptian architecture, they should have pa.s.sed over the splendors of Karnak and Luxor to copy these inconspicuous tombs perched high up on the cliffs of the Nile. It would seem that the Greeks invented this form independently, developing it in buildings which have perished; unless, indeed, they brought the idea with them from their primitive Aryan home in Asia.

+THE IONIC ORDER+ was characterized by greater slenderness of proportion and elegance of detail than the Doric, and depended more on carving than on color for the decoration of its members (Fig. 28). It was adopted in the fifth century B.C. by the people of Attica, and used both for civic and religious buildings, sometimes alone and sometimes in conjunction with the Doric. The column was from eight to ten diameters in height, against four and one-third to seven for the Doric. It stood on a base which was usually composed of two tori (see p. 25 for definition) separated by a _scotia_ (a concave moulding of semicircular or semi-elliptical profile), and was sometimes provided also with a square flat base-block, the _plinth_. There was much variety in the proportions and details of these mouldings, which were often enriched by flutings or carved guilloches. The tall shaft bore twenty-four deep narrow flutings separated by narrow fillets. The capital was the most peculiar feature of the order. It consisted of a bead or _astragal_ and echinus, over which was a horizontal band ending on either side in a scroll or volute, the sides of which presented the aspect shown in Fig. 29. A thin moulded abacus was interposed between this member and the architrave.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 28.--GREEK IONIC ORDER. (MILETUS.)]

The Ionic capital was marked by two awkward features which all its richness could not conceal. One was the protrusion of the echinus beyond the face of the band above it, the other was the disparity between the side and front views of the capital, especially noticeable at the corners of a colonnade. To obviate this, various contrivances were tried, none wholly successful. Ordinarily the two adjacent exterior sides of the corner capital were treated alike, the scrolls at their meeting being bent out at an angle of 45, while the two inner faces simply intersected, cutting each other in halves.

The entablature comprised an architrave of two or three flat bands crowned by fine mouldings; an uninterrupted frieze, frequently sculptured in relief; and a simple cornice of great beauty. In addition to the ordinary bed-mouldings there was in most examples a row of narrow blocks or _dentils_ under the corona, which was itself crowned by a high cymatium of extremely graceful profile, carved with the rich "honeysuckle" (_anthemion_) ornament. All the mouldings were carved with the "egg-and-dart," heart-leaf and anthemion ornaments, so designed as to recall by their outline the profile of the moulding itself. The details of this order were treated with much more freedom and variety than those of the Doric. The pediments of Ionic buildings were rarely or never adorned with groups of sculpture. The volutes and echinus of the capital, the fluting of the shaft, the use of a moulded circular base, and in the cornice the high corona and cymatium, these were constant elements in every Ionic order, but all other details varied widely in the different examples.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 29.--SIDE VIEW OF IONIC CAPITAL.]

+ORIGIN OF THE IONIC ORDER.+ The origin of the Ionic order has given rise to almost as much controversy as that of the Doric. Its different elements were apparently derived from various sources. The Lycian tombs may have contributed the denticular cornice and perhaps also the general form of the column and capital. In the Persian architecture of the sixth century B.C., the high moulded base, the narrow flutings of the shaft, the carved bead-moulding and the use of scrolls in the capital are characteristic features, which may have been borrowed by the Ionians during the same century, unless, indeed, they were themselves the work of Ionic or Lycian workmen in Persian employ. The banded architrave and the use of the volute in the decoration of stele-caps (from st??? = a memorial stone or column standing isolated and upright), furniture, and minor structures are common features in a.s.syrian, Lycian, and other Asiatic architecture of early date. The volute or scroll itself as an independent decorative motive may have originated in successive variations of Egyptian lotus-patterns.[8] But the combination of these diverse elements and their development into the final form of the order was the work of the Ionian Greeks, and it was in the Ionian provinces of Asia Minor that the most splendid examples of its use are to be found (Halicarna.s.sus, Miletus, Priene, Ephesus), while the most graceful and perfect are those of Doric-Ionic Attica.

[Footnote 8: As contended by W. H. Goodyear in his _Grammar of the Lotus_.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 30.--GREEK CORINTHIAN ORDER.

(From the monument of Lysicrates.)]

+THE CORINTHIAN ORDER.+ This was a late outgrowth of the Ionic rather than a new order, and up to the time of the Roman conquest was only used for monuments of small size (see Fig. 38). Its entablature in pure Greek examples was identical with the Ionic; the shaft and base were only slightly changed in proportion and detail. The capital, however, was a new departure, based probably on metallic embellishments of altars, pedestals, etc., of Ionic style. It consisted in the best examples of a high bell-shaped core surrounded by one or two rows of acanthus leaves, above which were pairs of branching scrolls meeting at the corners in spiral volutes. These served to support the angles of a moulded abacus with concave sides (Fig. 30). One example, from the Tower of the Winds (the clepsydra of Andronicus Cyrrhestes) at Athens, has only smooth pointed palm-leaves and no scrolls above a single row of acanthus leaves. Indeed, the variety and disparity among the different examples prove that we have here only the first steps toward the evolution of an independent order, which it was reserved for the Romans to fully develop.

+GREEK TEMPLES; THE TYPE.+ With the orders as their chief decorative element the Greeks built up a splendid architecture of religious and secular monuments. Their n.o.blest works were temples, which they designed with the utmost simplicity of general scheme, but carried out with a mastery of proportion and detail which has never been surpa.s.sed. Of moderate size in most cases, they were intended primarily to enshrine the simulacrum of the deity, and not, like Christian churches, to accommodate great throngs of wors.h.i.+ppers. Nor were they, on the other hand, sanctuaries designed, like those of Egypt, to exclude all but a privileged few from secret rites performed only by the priests and king.

The statue of the deity was enshrined in a chamber, the _naos_ (see plan, Fig. 31), often of considerable size, and accessible to the public through a columnar porch the _p.r.o.naos_. A smaller chamber, the _opisthodomus_, was sometimes added in the rear of the main sanctuary, to serve as a treasury or depository for votive offerings. Together these formed a windowless structure called the _cella_, beyond which was the rear porch, the _postic.u.m_ or _epinaos_. This whole structure was in the larger temples surrounded by a colonnade, the _peristyle_, which formed the most splendid feature of Greek architecture. The external aisle on either side of the cella was called the _pteroma_. A single gabled roof covered the entire building.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 31.--TYPES OF GREEK TEMPLE PLANS.

a, _In Antis_; b, _Prostyle_; c, _Amphiprostyle_; d, _Peripteral_ (_The Parthenon_); N, _Naos_; O, _Opisthodomus_; S, _Statue_.]

The Greek colonnade was thus an exterior feature, surrounding the solid cella-wall instead of being enclosed by it as in Egypt. The temple was a public, not a royal monument; and its builders aimed, not as in Egypt at size and overwhelming sombre majesty, but rather at sunny beauty and the highest perfection of proportion, execution, and detail (Fig. 34).

There were of course many variations of the general type just described.

Each of these has received a special name, which is given below with explanations and is ill.u.s.trated in Fig. 31.

_In antis_; with a porch having two or more columns enclosed between the projecting side-walls of the cella.

_Prostylar_ (or prostyle); with a columnar porch in front and no peristyle.

_Amphiprostylar_ (or -style); with columnar porches at both ends but no peristyle.

_Peripteral_; surrounded by columns.

_Pseudoperipteral_; with false or engaged columns built into the walls of the cella, leaving no pteroma.

_Dipteral_; with double lateral ranges of columns (see Fig. 39).

_Pseudodipteral_; with a single row of columns on each side, whose distance from the wall is equal to two intercolumniations of the front.

_Tetrastyle_, _hexastyle_, _octastyle_, _decastyle_, etc.; with four, six, eight, or ten columns in the end rows.

+CONSTRUCTION.+ All the temples known to us are of stone, though it is evident from allusions in the ancient writers that wood was sometimes used in early times. (See p. 62.) The finest temples, especially those of Attica, Olympia, and Asia Minor, were of marble. In Magna Graecia, at a.s.sos, and in other places where marble was wanting, limestone, sandstone, or lava was employed and finished with a thin, fine stucco.

The roof was almost invariably of wood and gabled, forming at the ends pediments decorated in most cases with sculpture. The disappearance of these inflammable and perishable roofs has given rise to endless speculations as to the lighting of the cellas, which in all known ruins, except one at Agrigentum, are dest.i.tute of windows. It has been conjectured that light was admitted through openings in the roof, and even that the central part of the cella was wholly open to the sky. Such an arrangement is termed _hypaethral_, from an expression used in a description by Vitruvius;[9] but this description corresponds to no known structure, and the weight of opinion now inclines against the use of the hypaethral opening, except possibly in one or two of the largest temples, in which a part of the cella in front of the statue may have been thus left open. But even this partial _hypaethros_ is not substantiated by direct evidence. It hardly seems probable that the magnificent chryselephantine statues of such temples were ever thus left exposed to the extremes of the climate, which are often severe even in Greece. In the model of the Parthenon designed by Ch. Chipiez for the Metropolitan Museum in New York, a small clerestory opening through the roof admits a moderate amount of light to the cella; but this ingenious device rests on no positive evidence (see Frontispiece). It seems on the whole most probable that the cella was lighted entirely by artificial illumination; but the controversy in its present state is and must be wholly speculative.

[Footnote 9: Lib. III., Cap. I.]

The wooden roof was covered with tiles of terra-cotta or marble. It was probably ceiled and panelled on the under side, and richly decorated with color and gold. The pteroma had under the exterior roof a ceiling of stone or marble, deeply panelled between transverse architraves.