Chapter VI: Pointed Italian Gothic (2)

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.

Footnote 31:

‘The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh by W. M. Flinders Petrie. Lond.
1883.

Footnote 32:

On the north side the paving is carried under the lowest course.

Footnote 33:

Except the spires of Cologne Cathedral.

Footnote 34:

They are situated in latitude 30° N.

Footnote 35:

‘Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh,’ p. 199.

Footnote 36:

Mr. Petrie says, p. 117: “All the chambers of this pyramid are
entirely hewn in the rock.”

Footnote 37:

‘Medum,’ by M. Flinders Petrie. D. Nutt, London, 1892.

Footnote 38:

Diodorus, i. 51.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 42:

The roof slabs are gone, but the lower portions of the slits are still
uninjured.

Footnote 43:

The plan and particulars relating to this temple are taken from Mr. W.
M. Petrie’s work before referred to.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 45:

Lepsius, ‘Denkmaler,’ Abt. ii. pls. 115, 116.

Footnote 46:

Syncellus, p. 69; Euseb. Chron. p. 98.

Footnote 47:

‘Hawara, Biahmun, and Arsinoe’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1889.

Footnote 48:

‘Kahun, Garob, and Hawara,’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1890.

Footnote 49:

‘Illahun, Kahun, and Gurob,’ by W. M. Flinders Petrie, 1891.

Footnote 50:

_Ibid._

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 53:

‘Revue Archæologique,’ vol. iii., 1861, p. 97, and v., 1862, p. 297.

Footnote 54:

518 years: ‘Josephus contra Apion.,’ I. 26.

Footnote 55:

Layard, ‘Nineveh and Babylon,’ 281.

Footnote 56:

Tacitus, Ann. II. 60.

Footnote 57:

‘Revue Archéologique,’ vol. x. 1864, p. 170, and vol. xiii. 1866, p.
73.

Footnote 58:

Now in Sir John Soane’s Museum, in Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields.

Footnote 59:

‘Egyptian Archæology,’ by G. Maspero, translated from the French by
Amelia B. Edwards. London, 1887.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 61:

Herodotus. iii. 24. Diodorus, ii. 15.

Footnote 62:

Woodcuts 982 and 1091 in the first edition of this History.

Footnote 63:

Published in the ‘Rheinischer Museum’ vol. viii. p. 252, et seq.

Footnote 64:

‘Josephus contra Apion,’ i. 14.

Footnote 65:

If the Greeks traded to Naucratis as early as the 1st Olympiad.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 68:

Loftus, ‘Chaldæa and Babylonia,’ p. 167.

Footnote 69:

Journal R. A. S., vol. xv. p. 260, et seq.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 71:

Flandin and Coste, ‘Voyage en Perse,’ vol. iv. pl. 221.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 74:

Strabo, xvi. p. 738.

Footnote 75:

There is a slight discrepancy in the measures owing to the absence of
fractions in the calculation.

Footnote 76:

Loftus, ‘Chaldæa and Babylonia,’ p. 188.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 78:

Published in 1862, in the ‘Athenæum’ journal, No. 1812.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 81:

These particulars are all borrowed from M. Place’s great work, ‘Ninive
et l’Assyrie,’ folio. Paris, 1865.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 87:

See Rawlinson, ‘Ancient Monarchies,’ vol. i. p. 398.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 89:

Texier shows columns on the fourth side.

Footnote 90:

Mr. Weld Blundell in 1892 found a column with fluted base and Doric
capital, but it did not apparently belong to the palace.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 100:

Wilkinson’s ‘Egypt and Thebes,’ pp. 81 and 126.

Footnote 101:

‘Manners and Customs of the Egyptians,’ vol. iii. p. 263.

Footnote 102:

1 Kings vii. 1-12. Josephus, B. J. viii. 5.

Footnote 103:

Josephus, Ant. viii. 5. § 2.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 105:

‘Speaker’s Commentary on the Bible,’ vol. ii. p. 520; note on verse
15, chap. vii. 1 Kings.

Footnote 106:

For a restoration of this screen see ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’
Appendix i., p. 270.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 108:

2 Chronicles xx. 5.

Footnote 109:

Hecateus of Abdera, in ‘Müller’s Fragments,’ ii. 394.

Footnote 110:

Josephus, Ant. xi. 4, § 2.

Footnote 111:

Josephus, B. J. v. 5, § 4.

Footnote 112:

Dawkins and Wood, ‘The Ruins of Palmyra,’ Lond. 1753.

Footnote 113:

Texier, ‘Arménie et la Perse,’ vol. i. pl. 62 and 68.

Footnote 114:

Texier, ‘Asie Mineure,’ pl. 10 to 21.

Footnote 115:

Herodotus, i. 93.

Footnote 116:

Lydischen Königsgräber, I. F. M. Olfers, Berlin, 1859.

Footnote 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?

Footnote 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.

Footnote 119:

Fergusson’s ‘History of Indian and Eastern Architecture.’ John Murray,
London 1876, page 108 et seq.

Footnote 120:

This tomb is considered by M. Renan (Mission de Phœnicie, Paris 1864)
to be of Phœnician origin, who remarks generally on their work:
“Phœnician 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 Phœnicians,
which is partly cut out of the rock and partially built in large
blocks of masonry.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 122:

Josephus, Ant. xvi. 7, § 1.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 124:

For details of this see Bötticher, ‘Baumkultus der Hellenen.’ Berlin,
1856.

Footnote 125:

Pausanias, ix. 38.

Footnote 126:

It appears that on the back of the stones laid in horizontal courses
were others of great size piled on the top.

Footnote 127:

The same scroll exists at New Grange in Ireland, in the Island of Gozo
near Malta, and generally wherever chambered tumuli are found.

Footnote 128:

A cast of these is to be found in the South Kensington Museum.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 130:

Pausanias, vi. 19.

Footnote 131:

The dimensions are 94 feet by 45, covering consequently only 4230
feet.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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 Phœnician 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.

Footnote 135:

Pausanias, viii. 45.

Footnote 136:

Bohn.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 141:

It was called Zoophorus (_life_ or _figure bearer_).

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 143:

See Woodcuts Nos. 22, 24, 27.

Footnote 144:

Vitruvius, lib. i. ch. 1.

Footnote 145:

Boeckh, Corpus Inscript. Græc. No. 109.

Footnote 146:

Attica, xxvi.

Footnote 147:

Historia, viii, 41.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 154:

Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 5.

Footnote 155:

The figures given in the text are all Greek feet: the difference
between them and English feet, being only 1¼ per cent., is hardly
perceptible in these dimensions, without descending to minute
fractions, and disturbing the comparison with Pliny’s text.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 157:

Beechy’s ‘Journey to Cyrene,’ p. 444; see also Smith and Porcher, pl.
37.

Footnote 158:

Vitruvius, iv. 7.

Footnote 159:

Dionysius, iv. 61.

Footnote 160:

For more detail, see ‘The True Principles of Beauty in Art,’ p. 446
et. seq.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 163:

Plin. ‘Hist.’ xxxvi. 13.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 167:

Laborde, ‘Monumens de la France,’ vol. i. pls. xxix. xxx. p. 68.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 180:

At the Crystal Palace it has always been found necessary to allow 6
sq. ft. to each person.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 182:

Maffei, ‘Verona Illustrata,’ vol. vii. p. 84 et seq.

Footnote 183:

See note on p. 321.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 188:

These two buildings are described further on (p. 544) as Christian
edifices.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 190:

See p. 114, and Woodcut 15.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 192:

‘Voyage dans la Marmarique, la Cyrénaique, &c.’ Didot, Paris, 1827-29.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 194:

‘Le Tombeau de la Chrétienne,’ par A. Berbrugger, Alger. 1867, from
which the above particulars are taken.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 196:

‘De Situ Orbis,’ I. vi. p. 38. edit. Leyden, 1748.

Footnote 197:

For plan of same, see Prof. Middleton’s ‘Ancient Rome,’ 1891.

Footnote 198:

By an oversight this difference is not expressed in the woodcut.

Footnote 199:

See p. 323.

Footnote 200:

These are well epitomised by Gibbon, Book xlvi. vol. v. p. 528.

Footnote 201:

Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, ix. pl. 9. p. 476.

Footnote 202:

The sixth great Oriental monarchy; or the geography, history and
antiquities of Parthia, &c., 1873.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 205:

These three buildings probably date as near as may be one century from
each other, thus—

Serbistan A.D. 350
Firouzabad 450
Ctesiphon 550

To which we may now add

Mashita 620

A bare skeleton, which it will require much time and labour to clothe
with flesh and restore to life.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 207:

Rich, ‘Residence in Koordistan,’ ii. 251 et seq.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 209:

Flandin and Coste, vol. iv. pls. 214, 215.

Footnote 210:

Texier and Pullan. ‘Byzantine Architecture.’ 4to. 1864. Pl. iv. p. 40
et seq.

Footnote 211:

Ruskin, ‘Stones of Venice,’ vol. ii. pls. 3, 4, and 5.

Footnote 212:

‘L’art Antique de la Perse,’ by Marcel Dieulafoy. Paris.

Footnote 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 Phœnician or Egyptian colony here before the Roman
times?

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 216:

‘Syrie Centrale: Architecture civile et religieuse du I^{er} au
VII^{me} Siècle. Par le Comte Melchior de Vogüé.’

Footnote 217:

‘Byzantine Architecture,’ by Texier and Pullan. Folio, London, 1864.

Footnote 218:

De Vogüé, ‘Églises de la Terre Sainte,’ p. 101.

Footnote 219:

For a careful analytical description of the church, see Professor
Willis, ‘Architectural History of the Holy Sepulchre,’ London, 1849.

Footnote 220:

The particulars for these churches are taken from Texier and Pullan’s
splendid work on Byzantine architecture published by Day, 1864.

Footnote 221:

Another very small church, that of Moudjeleia, though under 50 ft.
square, seems to have adopted the same hypæthral arrangement.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 225:

A wayside retreat or shelter.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 227:

See vol. iii., in chapter on Indian Saracenic Architecture.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.]

Footnote 230:

Strictly speaking, circular with flattened sides, for the pendentive
has a longer radius than half the diagonal of the square.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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 Neo-Byzantine churches. Mr. Fergusson’s rule, therefore, with
these exceptions, may be taken as absolute.—ED.]

Footnote 234:

They are found in the Mustaphapacha mosque at Constantinople dating
from 430 A.D., but rebuilt in the 13th century.

Footnote 235: