A short critical history of architecture

Preface

The special object of this book, as implied in the title, “A Short Critical History of Architecture,” is to give a concise history of the development of archi¬ tectural forms and styles in such a manner as to render it not a mere statement of facts in chronological order, but a critical commentary on the merits and weaknesses of the various styles and buildings described and illus¬ trated, thus inviting the reader to consider what are the influences, and what the treatment of design, which go to produce good or bad architecture, on the principle that the history of an art should at the same time be a lesson in the art.

If it be thought that, for a short history, a dispropor¬ tionate space has been given to the period between the decline of Classic architecture and the development of Gothic, the reason is this : that the period between Roman architecture and Gothic was one of uncertainty and experiment, leading to so many diversities in archi¬ tectural forms that it seemed impossible, in less space, to give any such idea of them as even a short history ought to afford, when we consider that in them we trace the gradual evolution of the basis of the great Mediaeval style. When that style was once completely formed, architecture settled down again into generally pervading and accepted principles of design and con¬ struction, and it can be illustrated by buildings which, though differing in detail, are all typical of the central style.

vii

PREFACE viii

As far as possible accurate scales have been affixed to all plans and elevations ; owing, however, to the fact that often two or three authorities are in conflict over the question of scale, it is not always possible to guarantee absolute correctness, although considerable pains have been taken to secure it. Where in some instances a plan is given without a scale, it is because no scale was given in the source whence it was taken, nor has it been possible to ascertain it in any other way ; some publications (French especially) are very defective in this respect. Much as the author would have liked all the plans in the book reduced to one uniform scale, the extreme differences in the size of the buildings render this method impossible ; some of the plans would have been so large as to be quite beyond the size of the page, while others would have been so small as to be quite unintelligible.

The author would like to point out that he has, of set purpose, restricted his illustrations in a large measure to well-known buildings, as these are better for illus¬ trating the main stream of architectural development than curious or exceptional examples. It is not easy to compress within so small a compass the illustrations of the whole range of architectural history, and it would doubtless be possible to vary the selection to almost any extent, but the author claims that, taken as a whole, the illustrations give a good idea of the main characteristics of the architecture of each period. He strikes the balance between the photograph and the plan, elevation and section, both methods of representation being in¬ dispensable, and each a complement to the other.

The method of the book and the considerations which have governed the mind of the author in writing may be found .set forth more fully in the Introduction which follows. The principle of classification adopted is somewhat novel, but may claim the merit of being founded mainly on a constructional basis, and the

PREFACE

IX author has tried to deal rather fully with periods which have not hitherto received their due meed of attention in concise architectural text-books, but which are of importance as connecting links between the periods of fully developed styles. Considerations of space, how¬ ever, have rendered it necessary to keep to what may be called the central stream of architectural develop¬ ment, omitting Norway and Sweden, Denmark and Russia — countries the historic architecture of which has been characterised by local peculiarities which have had no effect on the main development of the art, which is the real subject of this book. China and Japan, of course, are even more decisively outside of this field of view ; and the remains of the ancient civilisation of Mexico are of archaeological rather than architectural interest.

x\s far as possible the date of every building illus¬ trated has been given with the title, either precisely (where it is known) or approximately. Where a date is given with a (?) after it, it may be considered that the date is probable, but cannot be certainly ascertained.

The Glossary of terms connected with architecture is, of course, not intended as anything more than an explanation of words used in this book, though a few not so used have been added ; the object being not merely to give definitions but to introduce some brief critical observations which could not conveniently have been interpolated in the general text.

Those who know their Browning will perhaps re¬ cognise, in the system of running commentary in the head-lines of the pages, a hint taken from the second edition of Sordello.

London, September 1912.

NOTE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I AM indebted for friendly assistance in many directions, especially as regards the collection of the illustrations. I have tried as far as possible to give acknowledgment wherever it was due, but if it should be found that reference to anyone who is responsible for an illustration has inadvertently been omitted, I hope that this mention may be accepted, for it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain in every case the source of a large number of illustrations, the arrangement of which has extended over a considerable period of time.

I have to record my cordial thanks to Mr R. Phene Spiers for permitting me to reproduce some of his water-colours of Egyptian and Assyrian buildings, and also for some illustrations from “Architecture, East and West,” and “The Architecture of Greece and Rome.” Mr F. Hamilton Jackson has kindly lent the drawings of Figs. 231, 232, 238, 247, and 250, interesting Dalmatian subjects from “The Shores of the Adriatic.” I am grateful to Mr A. E. Henderson for Figs. 186 and 203, repro¬ duced from two of his fine drawings of Byzantine architecture. Fig. 184 is also prepared from his work, while Fig. 181 is from drawings by ^Ir J. B. Fulton.

I must record my indebtedness in many quarters for per¬ mission to make use of photographs. iMr H. W. Bennett of Ilford has supplied the photographs of Figs. 400, 401, 405, and 426, of English Cathedrals; Mr G. E. Druce, Fig. 148, of Timgad ; Messrs Frith & Co. of Reigate, Figs. 402, 409, and 567 ; the Hellenic Society, from their collection of classical photographs. Figs. 63, 68, 73, 74, 78, and 96; and the K. Messbild-Anstalt, Berlin, the photographs of German work, from which Figs. 267-9, 271, 272, 274, 432, 435, and 436 are reproduced. Mr C. F. Nunneley has supplied the photograph which forms Fig. 318, of Gloucester Cathedral ; and the Photochrom Co. have permitted the reproduction of Figs. 396, 397, 409, 538, 558, 560, and 563, of English Cathedrals and public buildings ; while Mr W. H. Ward has lent me Figs. 488 and 496, with some subjects from his collection of French Renais¬ sance photographs.

NOTE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT

XI

I have to thank various authors and publishers for allowing the inclusion of subjects from their copyright works. Particu¬ lars of these are as follows : — Monsieur Ch. Beranger of Paris, k'igs. 182, 183, 233-7, 257, 258, 263, 265, 266, and the headpiece to Chapter III., from De Vogue's great monograph “La Syrie Centrale”; Messrs Chapman & Hall, Figs. 46, 47, 170, and 172, from Perrot & Chipiez’s “Art in Ancient Persia”; Monsieur Ch. Eggiman of Paris, the view of the Parthenon, which forms the frontispiece, from M. Collignon’s “ Le Par¬ thenon”; the Egypt Exploration Fund, and Mr Somers Clarke, Figs. 23 and 24 from “ Deir-el-Bahari ” ; Herr Julius Hoffmann of Stuttgart, Figs. 516, 519, and 522 from “ Baukunst der Re¬ naissance in Deutschland ” ; Monsieur Ch. Massin of Paris, Figs. 1 19 and 153 from D’Espouy’s “ Fragments d’Architecture Antique”; Mr A. N. Prentice, Fig. 529 from “Renaissance Architecture and Ornament in Spain ” ; and Mr J. Cromar Watt, Figs. 1 13 and 128 and the headpiece to Chapter IL, from “ Greek and Pompeian Decorative Work.” Lastly, I have to thank my publisher for several subjects from his large books on English Architecture.

Acknowledgment is due to the authorities of the British Museum for permission to photograph Egyptian and Greek subjects, and to the Board of Education for examples from their collection of photographs in the Victoria and Albert Museum.

I cannot conclude without also expressing my indebtedness to the publisher for the trouble he has taken over the production of the book, and more especially to Mr Harry Batsford for his untiring assistance to me in the arduous labour of collecting and selecting illustrations.

H. H. S.

•i

Introduction

PAGE

Architecture, a Continuous Development — The Thrall of Disconnected Styles — Architecture as Symbolism —

The Melting Pot - . i

Chapter I. ARCHITECTURE BEFORE THE GREAT GREEK PERIOD

Early Egyptian Dynasties — The Pyramids — The Mastaba —Tombs— The Egyptian Plan — Egyptian Temples — Constructional Details — Egyptian Ornament — Assyrian Architecture— Palace at Khorsabad— Assyrian Ornament — The Persian Era — Persian Tombs, Halls, and Palaces— Dome Pyramids— Persian Rock-cut Tombs . 12

Chapter II. GREECE AND ROME; THE GREAT COLUMNAR STYLES

Greek Architecture— The Three Greek Styles— The Doric Order — The Parthenon — Other Doric Temples — Columnar Arrangements — The Propylaea— The Ionic Order — The Erechtheion — Other Ionic Temples — The Ionic Order in Asia — The Corinthian Order — Temple of Jupiter Olympius — The Greek Theatre — The Acropolis at Athens — Greek Ornament^ Roman Archi¬ tecture — Etruscan Buildings and their Influence —

The Five Roman Orders — The Colosseum — Roman Constructional Forms — The Pantheon — Roman

Temples —The Basilica — Roman Thermae — Theatres — Triumphal Arches — Domestic Architecture — Roman Ornament — Circular Temples — The Forum Romanum - 78

xiii

XIV

CONTENTS

Chapter III. DOOMED STYLES AND THE BYZANTINE TYPE

PAGE

The Early Examples of Domes — Byzantine Ornament — Example at Ravenna and Ezra — Hagia Sophia — Byzantine Capitals — The Lantern — Examples of By¬ zantine Architecture — St Mark, Venice, Churches of Southern France — St Front, Perigueux- - - 179

Chapter IV. FROM ROMANESQUE TO GOTHIC

The Basilicas — Byzantine and Latin Influences — The Coptic Churches — Evolution of the Apse, Transept, Choir, Buttress — Vaulting — Foreshadowings of Gothic — Romanesque Architecture in Germany— Italy —France— England . 220

Chapter V. THE SARACENIC INTERLUDE

Spain — Romanesque Details.

The Evolution of the Mosque— Typical Saracenic Examples — Development of the Plan of the Mosque — Vaulting — Horse-shoe Arch — Examples of Towers — Moorish Style— The Alhambra— Indo-Sar.acenic Style— Persian Influence— Saracenic Ornament - 322

Chapter VI. THE GOTHIC PERIOD

Development of Vaulting and Buttresses — Early Gothic Architecture in France and England— The Later Gothic — Decorated and Perpendicular Styles in England — The French “Flamboyant” Style — The Elaboration of Vaulting — Variety of Design in English Cathedrals — The English Parish Churches — Timber Roofs — Gothic Ornament — Gothic Architec¬ ture in Germany— Belgium— Italy— Spain and Portugal - - . 359

CONTENTS

XV

Chapter VII. FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO MODERN TIMES

PAGE

Architecture of the Renaissance in Italy— France —Germany— Spain and Portugal— The Early Renaissance in England— The Later Renais SANCE IN England— English Domestic Architec¬ ture— Inigo Jones and Wren— The Rococo Style — Nineteenth Century Greek Revival — Gothic Revival — Modern European Examples — Ameri¬ can Architecture - - - - - - - 443

A Glossary of Architectural Terms - - - 547

Index to Text and Illustrations - - - 567

CHRONOLOGICAL CHART OF the Comparative Dates of Buildings Appended to each Chapter

ERRATA ET CORRIGENDA.

Page 17, title of Fig. 4 : for “4400 B.C.” read “4000 B.C.”

Page 26, title of Fig. 4 : for “ 3000 B.C.” read “ 2500 ? B.C.”

Page 27, line 31 : for “ 1750 B.C.” read'''' 1570 B.C.” : next line^ for " 12^0 years” read " goo years” (to coincide with the previous alteration). “2500” seems a more probable date for Beni-hasan, and the other figures must follow suit.

Page 212, line 19 ; for “of the ninth century” read “ founded in the ninth century.”

Page 213, title of Fig. 206 ; supply a “?” after “ninth century.” It seems doubtful whether these capitals belong to the original church or not.

Page 201, lines 8-9; transfer '''' {Y\g. \go)” to foil o%v the taords “ St Mark’s, Venice.”

Page 330, title of illustration : for " Ihn, Touloun ” read " Um- Touloun.”

Page 351, title of illustration : for “ Bijapoor” read “ Bijapur.”

Page 466, line 1 1 : for “ Alesso ” read “ Alessi.”

Under the Temple Portico.

From a Drawing by the Author,

A SHORT CRITICAL HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE

INTRODUCTION.

In the attempts which have been made, from time to time, to compress into a small book the history of so vast a subject as architecture, it has been too much the custom to divide it up into chapters dealing each with a special style, or with the architecture of a special country. This method, however convenient to the author, in simplifying the marshalling of his subject, is apt to produce a false impression on the reader. It confirms him in the idea which seems to be popularly entertained, that architecture is an art which can be regarded as divided up into distinctly marked styles, the character¬ istics of each of which can be considered and tabulated separately, both in regard to territory and time.

To regard the subject in this way is to have a radically erroneous conception of the whole phenomenon of architectural development. No doubt, if one were to make a comparison between two typical buildings belonging to times and countries far apart — say between the Parthenon and Amiens Cathedral — any one whose attention was called to them for the first time would naturally conclude that buildings differing so remarkably in plan, detail, and structure, could have no relation to each other, and that they represent different types and categories of human production. Yet even in such an extreme case the fact is (as every student of architectural history knows) that the details of Amiens may be traced i

EVERY DETAIL HAS ITS PRECEDENT CAUSE ;

down in a regular succession from Athens. Still, were all Greek and French buildings as distinct and as typical as those two, we should be quite justified in making separate chapters of them.

But to look at the subject in that light is to ignore all the influences which have brought about the develop¬ ment or the decay of a style. There is not a building in the world on which the historian can put his finger and say — Here such a style of architecture began. It is for this reason that more space has been given than is usually given, in such a short and condensed history as this, to those debateable periods of architectural history which present no complete and consistent style — which are periods of experiment in design and con¬ struction ; for it is in these phases of its history that we see architectural style, as it were, in the making. Every building that ever existed of which the design is of architectural importance, owes its form and its details, more or less, to something less complete which has preceded it. All we can say when we have found the earliest example of a special architectural feature, is that this is the earliest example we know ; what has preceded it and perished we know not. We only know that something must have preceded it ; that in archi¬ tecture ex nihilo nihil fit ; that we have not got at the history of any detail until we have hunted it down to the naked stone set up as an altar or a monument ; to the bare hut of four walls and a roof, to shelter a half-savage inhabitant who, in Browning’s words —

“ dreams, and shapes His dream into a doorpost ; just escapes The mystery of hinges

or perhaps to the natural forms of vegetation made use of in its construction.

And as with relations in time, so with relations in space. In no country, unless perhaps we may say in the earliest period of Egyptian history known to us, is the architecture without connection, more or less, with the architecture of some other country, either influencing it or influenced by it.

BUT CAN THESE DRY BONES LIVE? YES, IF

Of course, in a complete history of Architecture, on a large scale, such as Fergusson attempted with so remarkable a measure of success, division into Books and into national periods is almost inevitable ; the' subject is so vast, the detail so multifarious, and the cross-references (as we may call them) in style so com¬ plicated, that only on such a principle of subdivision could the superabundance of matter be marshalled into literary form. In this case each subdivision becomes itself a separate history. But in a more condensed and comprehensive view of architectural history, in which the attention may be fixed rather on general characteristics than on minutiae of detail, I think it is possible to regard architecture, and to present its development, not as a collection of national styles, but as a great world-wide art in which the human race has endeavoured to realise in material form its aspirations after abstract sublimity, and to give beauty and expression to structures which would otherwise be of merely utilitarian interest.

And it seems to me that not only has this method of treating architectural history the advantage of avoiding that conventional cutting up of architecture into chapters of national styles, which has been already deprecated, but it may also have (if the writer can succeed in fulfilling his design) the further advantage of admitting of a more poetical and idealised treatment of the subject than can be achieved on the more usual method referred to. “ Can these dry bones live ? ” is the question one is tempted to put in finding architectural history treated as a mere collection of facts and dates ; that at such a date, B.C. or A.D., such a form of arch or of moulding came into use, and a building in which it occurs can be (approxi¬ mately) dated accordingly. Surely it is at least as important to try to realise not merely exactly when, but why, it came into use ; to understand the mental instinct which underlies the outward symbol. For, if we come to think of it, all architecture — all at least that is worth the name — is one vast symbolism. Symbolism controlled by and expressive of structure, might be the definition of architecture in the higher sense. And in this sense

REGARDED AS STEPS TOWARDS THE EVOLUTION it is a more purely imaginative art than painting or sculpture. These two last-named arts do indeed come more directly home to our human sympathies, since they address our minds through the medium of objects that are familiar to our human senses ; the human figure and the outward aspects of nature. But in this very fact there is an admixture of realism ; since, although mere imitation, in the vulgar sense, is not their object, they are nevertheless unavoidably based on the imitation of concrete objects ; which imitation, so far as it is carried, must be scientifically correct. The arts of music and architecture, on the other hand, deal with nature in the abstract and not in the concrete ; they are meta¬ physical, not physical, in their basis. Music (which has some qualities in common with architecture^! is no doubt the most ethereal and idealised of all the arts, since it deals with proportion and design in that which we cannot even see :

“Is it the moved air or the moving sound That is Life’s self and draws my life from me?”

as Rossetti once asked in a sonnet which he afterwards unfortunately spoiled. And music appeals to our nervous system and to the emotions of which it is capable with a directness and intimacy of relation which no other art can exercise with the same intensity. “ J’ai tant passe par la ”■ — the remark of a lady in regard to a passage in one of Beethoven’s symphonies, might be echoed by many a listener. Architecture, it must be admitted, makes no such direct and emotional appeal to us ; it is, in comparison, calm, severe, and purely intellectual in its interest and its effect. But it has this in common with music, that it is entirely abstract in its conditions. Its forms are referable to no standard in outward forms of nature ; they are referable only to our own mental judgment, by which they stand or fall. They represent the greatest and most important attempt of mankind to make its own creations, independent of any image or likeness afforded by visible nature. Archi¬ tecture, in short as suggested in the lines of the French

OF THE FEW PERFECT STYLES, EACH OF WHICH poet quoted on the title-page, may be said to be “ matter moulded by mind,”

There have been three epochs in the history of archi¬ tecture at which this intellectually moulded symbolism in the treatment of material and construction has reached a higher standard of perfection than at any other periods. In the first of these epochs, that of Greece in the fifth century B.C. — and perhaps at this epoch only — it may be said that the symbolism reached absolute perfection ; there was not a detail that was not con¬ sidered in reference to its function and to its relation to the whole. Everything prior to this period may be regarded as a kind of preparation for the perfection of Greek architecture. The vast temples of the Egyptians, with their pillared halls, may seem in a sense to be much greater and more important erections than the small but highly finished temples of the Greeks ; but there is nevertheless an element of the barbaric about them — a want of the feeling for refined proportion, a clumsiness in the contour of details (excepting in the fine curve of the cavetto moulding which was the almost universal crowning member of the exterior), and an evident worship of mere size for its own sake — a kind of megalomania which has recurred from time to time in the history of all the arts, but which is never the con¬ comitant of the highest intellectual refinement.

The Greek epoch is summed up in one building of exceptional perfection, the Parthenon (see Chapter II.) ; but the clear intellectual perception of motives in design and detail is also illustrated in many buildings of only slightly inferior perfection to the Parthenon. The next epoch of complete and perfect symbolism is represented by one building alone, but that one of the most wonderful buildings in the world — Hagia Sophia at Constantinople ; and there only in regard to the interior (see Chapter III.). The exterior treatment is incomplete and unconsidered in conception ; it represents not so much what was chosen to be done as what had to be done, in the way of counterforts to the dome ; and the architectural treat¬ ment of these is somewhat clumsy and primitive. But

IS THE EXPRESSION OF A STRUCTURAL METHOD the interior architecture represents the perfect and un¬ adulterated expression of domical structure, as it never has been so completely expressed before or since.

The third epoch of complete and consistent symbol¬ ism is that of thirteenth and fourteenth century Gothic. Here, however, there is no one building that we can lay the finger on as representing with special perfection the Gothic symbolism in architecture. Salisbury is one of the nearest to it, but its west front is poor in concep¬ tion and detail. Parts of Lincoln are as perfect, in their way, as Greek work, but its western facade is a patchwork. We have to take the architecture of the best Gothic period as a whole, a conglomeration of fine monuments, each perfect in many or most of its parts ;

Fig. I.

A and B = Lintel ; vertical pressure only.

C = Arch ; outward thrust.

none without a defect somewhere. The mediaeval mind was too restless to seek out and bind itself down to that perfection of detail in a single building which was the ideal of the Greeks.

There is another point in which both the Byzantine and the Gothic achievement seem to differ from that of the Greek. Both the domed architecture of Hagia Sophia and the vaulted architecture of the mediaeval cathedral ov/ed their perfection of expression very largely to the determination to work out a special and difficult form of building construction in a complete manner, and to eliminate whatever did not belong to or assist that form of construction. It is thus a symbolism based on or arising out of the grappling with a construc¬ tive problem. Now it cannot be said that the Greeks

ARRIVED AT BY TENTATIVE EXPERIMENT.

had any constructive problem. They adopted the simplest of all forms of construction — two uprights and a lintel (Fig. i), with no conflicting pressures, no out¬ ward thrust, no constructive problem except to have the lintel strong enough not to sag between its points of support. It is all reducible to that ; for, however there might be details of strains to be considered in the trussed roofs which we presume must have covered their temples, the trussed roof (Fig. 2) as a whole is only, so far as it affects the general structural design, the lintel in another form ; it has no thrust, and does not affect the treatment of an essentially masonic sub¬ structure. The Greek, therefore, may be said to be the one style in which a perfect architectural symbolism

Fig. 2 = The Truss ; opposing strains compounded into a simple vertical pressure.

A = m compression. ] C = in tension.

B = in tension. j -D = in compression.

has been evolved for its own sake, and as an intellectual choice ; not from any controlling necessities of con¬ struction.

Between these epochs of the attainment of a perfect and consistent symbolism, there are long tracts of architectural history, of the greatest interest, in which the symbolism was imperfect and tentative ; in which forms were used not of intellectual choice but in virtue of tradition and habit — -because such forms had been used before, and nothing else occurred to the succeeding generations but to repeat them, with modifications suggested by local conditions and materials. These periods are the melting-pots of architectural style, during which the old elements are gradually fused into

THESE FALL INTO SEVEN MAIN DIVISIONS, the material from which a complete style is to emerge when time and circumstances are ripe. If it be thought paradoxical to regard so large proportion of historical architecture as only the melting-pot in preparation for a new consistent development of style, let the reader turn his thoughts for a moment to general history, and he will find that the same is true of the political as well as of the architectural history of nations. How much of the history of Europe from the Christian era to (say) the twelfth century is anything but a melting-pot period — that “loose, eternal unrest,” as Browning phrased it, before things were clenched, for a time at least, under such a master-hand as that of Charlemagne? What is the whole period of the decline and fall of Rome but one vast melting-pot? And as to English architecture, we are in the melting-pot at this moment — only some of us do not know it.

As a corollary to the foregoing reflections, it appeared to me that the historical development of archi¬ tecture might be treated in a comprehensive m.anner after the following scheme : —

I. Architecture before the great Greek period.

II. Greece and Rome : the great columnar styles.

III. Domed styles and the Byzantine type.

IV. Erom Romanesque to Gothic.

V. The Saracenic interlude.

VI. The Gothic period.

VII. From the Renaissance to modern times.

I have inserted “ The Saracenic interlude,” as a subject to be treated by itself, because it has always seemed to me to be an exceptional chapter in archi¬ tecture, evolved out of exceptional conditions and creed ; less influencing other styles, and less influenced by them, than any other form of architectural development. In calling it an “ interlude,” which may be thought a rather light title, I admit that it is a very large and elaborate one ; but 1 think that is its character. It does not spring out of other styles ; it does not lapse into other styles ; it simply goes out ; for as to its supposed

INFLUENCED BY MATERIAL AND SOCIAL CONDITIONS,

influence on European Gothic (through the Crusades), that is an assumption of which there seems to me to be no proof and little probability.

Regarded in this broad aspect, we shall endeavour to picture to ourselves the simultaneous progress of architectural symbolism during each of the main periods into which the subject has been divided ; to realise how (or how far) one country influences contemporary archi¬ tectural forms in another ; to trace the influence of climate, material, and intellectual and social conditions in modifying, in different countries, forms which have nevertheless an essential similarity in their design or function.