ARCHITECTURE beam speaks its origin. It was the great beam | invention. But by the time of Alexander the placed horizontally on the tops of the columns, Great the three original orders of architecture and destined to receive the covering of the had been brought to perfection. Moral as well entire building. The joists of the ceiling lay as physical causes had contributed to bring upon the architrave, the space in height which the arts to this state. In the period preceding they occupy being called the frieze, the ends of the Peloponnesian war, there was a general the joists in the Doric order bearing the name burst of talent in Greece. It was in this of triglyphs, from their being sculptured with age that the Greeks commenced the rebuilding two whole and two half glyphs or channels. of the temples and edifices that had been deSometimes the ends of them are sculptured into stroyed in the Persian war. This was the epoch consoles, as in the composite order of the of a pure and grand style of architecture, and, Coliseum at Rome. The space between the indeed, of art generally. The sculpture of that triglyphs was for a long period left open, as we period is marked by the same character of find from a passage in the Iphigenia of Euri- purity, sublimity, and grandeur; and the Elgin pides, where Pylades advises Orestes to slip marbles, now possessed by this country, exhibit through the metopes in order to get into the a perfection which has never been approached temple. These intervals were afterwards filled by modern art, and which we scarcely conceive up solid; and in the other orders the whole can be surpassed. It was in this age that the length of the frieze becomes one plain surface. temple of Athena (known by the name of the The inclined rafters of the roof projected be- Parthenon) was erected, a building which disyond the face of the building, which delivered plays, perhaps, the finest model of the Doric the rain free of the walls. The ends of order. these rafters are the origin of mutules and modillions, of which the former appeared in the cornice with their undersides inclined, as in the Parthenon at Athens. The form of the pediment followed from the inclined sides of the roof, which were regulated in respect of their inclination by the nature of the climate. [ROOF.] Here, then, in the skeleton of the hut, may be traced the origin of the different members of architecture, which will be better understood by reference to the subjoined diagram. Figs. 1 and 2 exhibit the parts of a roof in section and elevation: a a are the architraves, or trabes; b b the ridge piece, or columen; c the king post, or columna of a roof; dd the tiebeam, or transtrum; e the strut, or capreolus; ƒ ƒ the rafters, or cantherii; g g g g the purlines, or templa; h h the common rafters, It has been suggested, but with less probability, that the main supports being by degrees placed at greater distances from each other than the strength of the architrave would safely admit, inclined struts were placed from the sides of the columns or supports to the underside of the architrave, to lessen its bearing, and that these gave the first notion of the use of arches in architecture. The subject has been pursued into many more details, on which our limits do not permit us to enter. The Doric order, doubtless the earliest of the orders, remains without testimony which can satisfactorily assure us of the period of its The Ionic order seems, at this period, to have likewise received the finishing touches of that grace and elegance of which it was susceptible. This order seems, in the enervating climate of Asia Minor, to have acquired elegance and finish at the expense of solidity. Whether we are indebted for its invention to the people whose name it bears, or whether its origin is to be traced to Assyria, is of little importance. Upon the relation of Vitruvius no dependence can be placed. At the period, however, of the erection of the temple of Athena Polias at Athens, which was about the time we have referred to, it seems to have been brought to a state of perfection. The capitals of this example are splendid specimens of decorated architecture. By a substitution of acanthus leaves for the olive, laurel, and lotus leaves of the Egyptian capital, Callimachus is said to have invented the Corinthian capital, the feature which distinguishes the Corinthian from the Ionic order. The tale seems an idle one; but though almost threadbare, we cannot omit it, and will give it in the words of the author who has recorded it. 'A Corinthian maiden fell a victim to a violent disorder. After her interment, her nurse, collecting in a basket those articles to which she had shown a partiality when alive, carried them to her tomb, and placed a tile on the basket, for the longer preservation of its contents. The basket was accidentally placed on the root of an acanthus plant, which, pressed by the weight, shot forth, towards spring, its stems and large foliage, and in the course of its growth reached the angles of the tile, and thus formed volutes at the extremities. Callimachus, happening at this time to pass by the tomb, observed the basket, and the delicacy of the foliage which surrounded it. Pleased with the form and novelty of the combination, he constructed, from the hint thus afforded, columns of this species in the country about Corinth, and arranged its proportions, determining their proper measures by perfect rules.' ARCHITECTURE circumstance, tural works; the reader, how- which is here given. The annexed diagram gives a representation | from entirely sinking by the fostering hand of of the as Alexander Severus; but the fall of the western usually found in architec- empire completed its ruin: it is, however, from the reign of Gallienus, whose arch proves to Arehiwhat a state it was reduced, that we must reckon the total extinction of the arts. tecture was indeed most likely to have survived the general wreck, and perhaps was not completely involved in the universal ruin. In an age when no sculptor existed, the baths erected by Diocletian exhibited a grandeur manifest even in their stupendous remains. The palace at Spalatro is another proof of the enormous efforts made by that emperor, and of what the art could then do. About the same time or in the time of Aurelian, were erected the extensive buildings at Balbec and Palmyra: vicious as they are in taste, we are astonished at the vastness of the plans, the boldness of the undertaking, and the funds lavished on their construction. Not many examples of the Corinthian order are extant of so early a date as the age of Alexander. Its delicacy and slenderness render it very susceptible of the ravages of time; and it has been suggested, that the value of the material of which the columns and capitals of this order were made, excited the cupidity of the Romans to remove them. Though architecture, from various causes, was destined to survive the other arts, its protracted existence could not extend beyond the period of the removal of the seat of empire to Byzantium. The endeavours of Constantine to erect his city into a metropolis that should rival Rome, which he spoiled of its treasures, were vain. That which Constantine left behind him in the eternal city and the rest of Italy fell a prey to the fury of the Visigoths. The edifices which they afterwards reconstructed were from fragments of buildings which they had destroyed. The columns which the ruins sup Rome appears to have been indebted to the people of Etruria for its earliest work of any note. It has been supposed that the construction of the immense sewer which drained the city, and in which might be discerned a presage of its future grandeur, is the work of an Etruscan dynasty which existed in Rome in prehistoric times. The genuine architecture of Rome was that of the arch; the Greek forms of their later buildings are simply the result of a fashion for imitation. The patronage of Augustus drew the most skilful Grecian artists to Rome, which now became the capital of the arts. It was under Augustus that Vitruvius wrote his work on architecture, the only ancient text-book on the art that has reached us. Under Agrippa, the son-in-law of Augustus, the Pantheon was raised: one of the most mag-plied were used as piers for arcades. Quatremère nificent examples of Roman grandeur. Amongst other superb structures he introduced baths, and constructed a considerable number of fountains, temples, &c. Under the successors of Augustus, the public buildings of the nation continued to increase; but the art began to degenerate in the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. It could not be expected that it would revive under such a personage as Nero, who deprived the finest statues of their heads to substitute his own He was, however, portrait on their shoulders. a great encourager of buildings on a highly decorated and colossal scale; witness the Domus Aurea, built for him by Severus and Celer. The wisdom and greatness of character of the emperor Trajan were infused into the buildings of his reign. The triumphal arches, but especially his column and forum, incontestably prove the rise of the art under his auspices, at which time his architect, Apollodorus, who raised the column to his memory, was highly patronised. It was not long, however, before the art began again to decline. The arch of Septimius Severus betrays an extraordinary falling off; and it is difficult, in such a short period, namely, since the reign of Marcus Aurelius, to conceive how the art of sculpture, more especially, could have become so debased. The details of what is called the goldsmiths' arch indicate the decay of good taste; its profiles are bad, and the ornaments overloaded. For a short time architecture was prevented de Quincy attributes (Enc. Method.) the use of it 149 ARCHITECTURE buildings, and these contributed to strengthen | Modern Architecture (p. 41), because no other a taste to which the forms of Gothic art had never been congenial. writer has so clearly shown that the earlier period of the Renaissance approached very nearly to a genuine revival of art, while in its later phases it soon passed into mere copying. This tendency to imitation, apart from original thought, is betrayed in some designs by Brunel In the thirteenth century the church of the Virgin of Assisi was erected in Tuscany, and the castel de. Ovo at Naples; the first by Lapo, and the last by Fucio, both Florentines. Nicolo da Pisa, their countryman and cotem-leschi himself. In the church of the Holy Spirit porary, was employed on several important edifices in Bologna, Padua, and Venice. His greatest works are the churches at Padua, of St. Anthony and of the Holy Trinity at Florence. Arnolpho di Lapo built the church of Sta. Croce, and designed the cathedral at Florence. All the cities of Italy, indeed, at this epoch seemed to be emulous of outvying each other. Paolo Barbetta was engaged at Venice on the church of Santa Maria Formosa; many works were in progress at Bologna; the marble chapel of the church of Santa Maria Maggiore at Rome, about the year 1216, was executed by Marchione: every effort indicated the speedy revival of classical design. These efforts, however, were confined to Italy; in the other parts of Europe the Gothic style continued to prevail until the Reformation checked the progress of church building. In Italy architecture was fast reverting to classical ideas. John of Pisa, son of the Nicholas whom we have just mentioned, was employed by his townsmen on the Campo Santo. This public cemetery was in the Gothic style, and is remarkable for the elegant simplicity of its plan and the beauty of its details. It is a singular link in the chain of architectural history: there is no difficulty in discerning the struggle in the mind of the architect to free himself from those Gothic shackles which seemed to hang on it as an impediment to an immediate return to the classic taste of the land. The troubles throughout Europe were stilled at the time when Brunelleschi was called on to finish the cathedral of Florence, of which the octagon had not been covered by Arnolpho and Giotto. Of Arnolpho's ability to cover this space with a dome there can be little doubt; but it would have been a dome ornamented with three or four tiers of galleries externally. It appears, however, that in the beginning of the fifteenth century a less expensive or more classical form of dome was demanded, but no one seemed to know exactly how to set about it. Under these circumstances Brunelleschi went to Rome, and studied with the most intense enthusiasm not only the dome of the Pantheon and all the other vaults which the Romans had left in that city; but, becoming enamoured of his subject, he mastered every detail of the style, and became familiar with every form of Roman art. In the year 1420 he returned to his native city, thoroughly a classic in all that referred to architecture; and not only did he, after innumerable complications, complete the great object of his life before he died, but he left his mark on the architecture of the age.' We have quoted the words of Mr. Fergusson, in his recently published History of 6 at Florence the classical details are used, as Mr. Fergusson remarks, with singular elegance and purity; but between the piers and the spring of the arch is inserted a fragment of entablature, which in this church has not even the excuse that it is repeated on the wall. It is, however, worthy of being remarked here as the earliest instance of the use of one of the typical forms of the Renaissance, which is, taking it all in all, perhaps the most fatal gift of classic art to modern times, as nine-tenths of the difficulties and clumsinesses of the revived art are owing to the introduction of this feature. The first thing the architects of the fifth and sixth centuries did was to abolish this fragment of an entablature, and place the arch direct on the pier or pillar where it ought to be; and the advantage of this proceeding is so self-evident that it seems strange that it could ever have been restored. No single feature can more clearly mark the dawn of copying, to the exclusion of thought, than its reproduction.' For the influence which this revival of classical design and ornamentation exercised on the countries of Northern Europe, we must refer the reader to Mr. Fergusson's History of Modern Architecture. He may be right or wrong in considering Gothic imitations or reproductions worse than classical imitations; but he has traced with the utmost exactness the downward course of the art from the earliest period of the Renaissance, and his chapters on the revived classical design in France and England are especially worthy of attentive study. ARCHITECTURE, Chinese. As a description of the buildings of China would be out of place in a work of this nature, the subject of the present article is confined to a general view of the principles, the character, and the taste of Chinese architecture. In China the rise of the arts seems to have been constantly repressed by the state of mechanical drudgery and servitude in which the people are kept. In their painting, for example, the most exact imitation of plants, fruits, and trees, is thought indispensable. Every matter relating to building is the subject of regulation by the police, which, rather than theory, governs its architecture. The laws of the empire detail and enforce with the greatest precision the mode of constructing a lou or palace for a prince of the first, second, or third rank, of a grandee, of a mandarin, &c. According to the ancient law of the kingdom, the number and height of the apartments, the length and height of a building, are all regulated with precision, from the plain citizen to the mandarin, and from the latter up to the emperor himself. ARCHITECTURE Herein alone we have sufficient to account for the poverty and want of invention in Chinese art. Lightness is the essential character of Chinese architecture; but there is another characteristic quality, both of the model and the copy, that is observable in the edifices of China; and this is its gay appearance. In this respect scarcely any style presents a more pleasing effect. Its roofs, single and double, brilliantly painted, its gaily diapered porticos, the gloss over the whole surface, the harmony of this species of decoration with the light and flowing forms of the buildings themselves, so please the eye when it is accustomed to see them, that our cold and monotonous mode of decoration may well appear uninviting in contrast. ARCHITECTURE, Egyptian. The preservation of the Egyptian monuments of architecture, in many instances so perfect as they still appear, is highly calculated to excite our surprise and admiration, inasmuch as ancient Egypt ceased to exist in its splendour long before the period of the earliest histories that have come down to us. Almost, as it were, separated from the rest of the world, by seas of sand as well as water, and bordering on the most savage tribes, it seems indebted to those circumstances for the protection its edifices have received. Had the country received as successors to its early inhabitants a powerful people, if rich and industrious cities had risen on the sites of the old ones, the temples of Egypt would doubtless have been used as quarries admirably suited to the purpose. Arabian hordes, and the almost The terraces of barbarous and wretched inhabitants of the present day, have indeed built their villages on some of the ancient sites. some of the temples serve as floors to modern habitations; and at Thebes, a town of two stories, or rather two stories of towns built on the ceilings of these everlasting ruins, indicate that the means of destruction have not been equal to the natural resistance of works of such solidity. In speaking of the principles of Chinese architecture, the word is not applicable in the same way as when we speak of classical architecture, but is meant to apply to those primitive causes which gave birth to it. Character and taste in every species of architecture are the necessary results of these elements. There can be no doubt that the tent is the real model of all Chinese buildings. One of the strongest proofs of this fact is the form of the Chinese roof. Nothing but a tent or pavilion could have given the idea of it. Again, there is nothing like the appearance of a member of wood, similar to our architrave, destined to lie on the tops of the columns, and receive and support the remainder of the carpentry. The Chinese roofs, on the contrary, jut out beyond the columns, whose upper extremity is hidden by the eaves: hence the omission of the use of capitals. It is easy to perceive that extreme lightness must result from this imitation. The spirit and character of tents carried into the construction of cities might, at least in reality, be lost and altered by a change of materials. The semblance of lightness might be found in union with essential solidity of construction; the character would have been intellectually the same. Here, however, identity of material has contributed to the identity of the copy with the original. Among the Greeks, whose model was carpentry, the change from wood to stone soon removed the appearance of weakness and lightness that was found in the model. In China the material remains the same, and its architecture of wood still copies the model of wood; hence, the lightness of the original is transferred to the copy. It should, however, be remarked that Mr. Fergusson, whose opinion must carry very great weight on all subjects of Eastern architecture, holds that the model followed by the In a preceding article we have adverted to the Chinese was not the tent, but the Buddhist tee, or termination at the apex of Buddhist temples three classes of mankind whose different wants in India. This consisted of a square box, in had an influence on their styles of architecture. stone, representing undoubtedly the original It seems to be no forced supposition that the wooden châsse, or relic-box surmounted by an primitive inhabitants of Egypt used the exumbrella, which, having also been originally of cavations with which nature furnished them for Some- protection against the heat of a sultry climate. wood, was afterwards worked in stone. times three umbrellas were placed one over the It is true that their country is not the only one other; and when, following the ordinary course in which excavations abound; but in most other of development, they came to be copied in stone, places these excavations have been caused by a more complete architectural character was working them as quarries, and no trace of argiven to them, until at last they assumed some-chitecture or human abode can be perceived in thing of a spirelike form, such as is that of the Chinese pagoda. (See Fergusson's Handbook of Architecture.) But, to say the least, however great may have been the zeal with which the Chinese embraced Buddhism, it seems strange that a mere piece of detail, insignificant in size, however important in its uses, should have been taken as the type of whole buildings and repeated with astonishing perseverance and uniformity; for the model which originated the pagoda originated also the whole domestic architecture of China. 151 them. In Egypt, on the contrary, where the caverns still furnish dwellings for the inhabitants, immemorial custom has assigned them to the use of mankind. The immense subterraneous apartments of Egypt need not all be placed to the account of luxury in sepulture. Throughout Egyptian architecture its origin appears. A simplicity bordering on monotony, extreme solidity amounting to heaviness, are its principal characteristics. There is an entire absence of everything that can be traced to a type of carpentry, as in the Grecian orders; ARCHITECTURE hence it appears likely that at least its type was different, and that this type was cavern excavation. The exception that seems to arise from the use of columns does not militate against the theory; for decoration invariably refers to nature for objects of imitation: and nothing would sooner occur in decorating pillars than the imitation of trees and plants, without referring to them as a type. Here, however, the judgment of Mr. Fergusson must be allowed to carry great authority. A thorough acquaintance with the rock-hewn temples of India has led him to refer all such buildings to an original wooden type. Thus, in his opinion, the sloping walls of the Egyptian temples were not originally suggested by still earlier works in rock, but the latter had abandoned, from the force of physical requirements, the perpendicular supports of their wooden model, and the later architects then came to recopy in stone the changes which had been thus introduced. (Fergusson, Handbook of Architecture.) and, as M. de Caylus observes, there exists no circular monument in this style. In the elevations the uniformity is still more striking; there is no division of parts, no contrast, no effect Esneh. As respects the materials for building which the country afforded, we shall speak as concisely as possible. Though palm trees are found about the deserts of Lybia, and near Dendera, timber of every sort is scarce; indeed, the soil is not suitable to the growth of trees. The most common next to the palm tree is the acacia; but, with the exception of the palm tree, most of the trees of Egypt are unfit for building purposes. The oak does not grow in Egypt, and the modern inhabitants import that from Arabia, as well as the fir which they use in their buildings. Brick seems to have been a material used from the earliest date; it was unburnt, being merely dried in the sun. Pocock says it is made of the mud deposited by the Nile, which is of a The honours of sepulture seem to have been the cause of the most stupendous of the Egyptian monuments. Diodorus Siculus tells us that the kings of Egypt expended sums upon their tombs more immense than other kings did upon their palaces. Some have supposed that the pyramids were but immense cenotaphs, and that the bodies of the kings were interred in some neigh-black colour, sandy, and mixed with flints and bouring subterranean spot; in short, that these masses of stone were erected to mislead one from the spot which the body occupied. This, however, would not make them the less monuments of sepulture. Some have attributed to the pyramids a mystic, others an astronomical, purpose. From Egypt were derived the principal mysteries that passed into other religions, and it was in the darkness of subterranean apartments that those initiations had birth in which secrecy was the first law. Secrecy was there deified under the figure of Harpocrates. According to Plutarch, the sphinxes with which the entrances of their temples were decorated signified that Egyptian mythology was mysterious and emblematic. The number of vestibules enclosed with a series of doors prevented the temple itself from being seen. This, which none were allowed to approach, was small in extent, and in it the sacred animal or its image was preserved. It was in the galleries, porticos, and dwellings of the priests, that the large area which the temples covered was occupied. Excepting some varieties in the plans of their temples, a sameness of character and uniformity is observable in their fronts, their general forms, and the details of their decoration; the latter being mostly of the hieroglyphic species, certainly the most monotonous of all decorations. To give the reader a general idea of the temples of the country, a diagram of that at Esneh is subjoined. With the Egyptians, heaviness seemed to be synonymous with strength, height with grandeur, and size or mass with power. Uniformity of plan is universal. The right line and square was never abandoned, shells. One of the pyramids described by Pocock was constructed with this species of brick, and unconnected by any cement. Bricks, however, were used after undergoing the heat of the fi at a very early period, as we learn from Exod. v. 6, where we find the Israelites condemned to the labour of making bricks without straw to burn them. Stone of almost every description, marbles, and granite, were to be had in profusion; and these, as we have before observed, the Egyptians were very expert in working. In construction there must have been considerable mechanical knowledge employed, for some of the blocks of stone were of enormous dimensions; and to form an idea of the quantity used, it is only necessary to mention that the walls of some of their temples extend to the extraordinary thickness of twenty-four feet. Indeed, the walls to the principal entrance of the gate at Thebes are at their base not less than fifty feet in thickness. The stones are all squared inside as well as on the external face; no rubble-work is to be seen; another cause of the surprising durability of their monuments. The roofs are all formed of single blocks of stone from pier to pier; no trace of the arch is anywhere discoverable. In the pyramids the passages are covered with stones inclined to each other, terminating in a point, one stone lapping over the other. The Egyptian temple, unlike that of the Greeks, which may be almost all taken in at one view, consists of an assemblage of porticos, courts, vestibules, galleries, and other apartments communicating with one another, each of which in size had little relation to the rest of |