(R. P. S.)Greek ArchitecturePrehistoric Period.—We have now to retrace our steps and go back to the prehistoric period of Greek architecture, to the origin and early development of that style which sowed the seed and determined the future form and growth of all subsequent European art.The discoveries in Crete and Argolis have shown that Greek architecture owes much less than was at one time supposed to Egyptian and Chaldaean architecture; and although from very early times there may have been a commercial exchange between the several countries, the objects imported suggested only new and various schemes of decorative design, and exercised no influence on the development of architectural style. The remains of the palace at Cnossus in Crete, together with the representations in fresco painting and other decorative objects, show that whilst the lower part of the walls under the level of the ground and up to a height of 5 ft. above were all built in well-worked masonry, the upper portions were constructed in unburnt brick with timber framing, which not only gave strength and solidity to the walls, but carried the cross beams and timbers of intermediate floors and the roof, and further, that the walls were always vertical, which was not the case in Egypt or Chaldaea.The principal remains discovered by Dr Arthur J. Evans (seeCrete) are described by him as belonging to the later Minoan age, from which it may be inferred they are the result of samecenturies of previous development. What, however, is most remarkable is the admirable planning of the whole palace, the bringing together, under one roof and in proper and regular intercommunication, of the numerous services, which in a palace are somewhat complicated. The palace measured about 400 ft. square, and was built round an open court, nearly 200 ft. long by 90 ft. wide; as the same arrangement was found at Phaestus, excavated by the Italian archaeologists, it may be assumed to have been the Cretan plan. It was built on the crest of a hill, and in the western or highest portion was the court entrance from the agora to the megaron or throne-room, and the halls of the officers of the state. In the lower portion facing the east (the rooms in which were two storeys below the level of the court on account of the slope of the hill) was the private suite of apartments of the king and queen. All the services of the palace were at the north end of the palace, where the entrance gateway to the central court was situated. This northern entrance, Dr Evans points out, “represents the main point of intercourse between the palace and the city on the one hand and the port on the other.” This is the only part of the palace in which there is evidence of some kind of fortification, as the road of access is dominated by a tower or bastion. Other provisions also in the plan of the western entrance suggest that its passage was guarded to some extent. In this respect the palace of Tiryns, excavated by Dr Schliemann, presents an entirely different aspect; the whole stronghold bears a singular resemblance to a fortified castle of the middle ages; a high wall from 24 to 50 ft. thick surrounded the acropolis, and the inclined paths of approach and the double gateways gave that protection at Tiryns which at Cnossus was assured, as Dr Evans remarks, by the bulwarks of the Minoan navy. The area on the spur of the hill, on which the citadel of Tiryns was placed, was very much smaller, but if we accept the forecourt at Tiryns as equivalent to the great central court at Cnossus, there are great similarities in the plans of the two palaces. The propylaea, the altar court, the portico, and the megaron are found in both, and those details which are missing in the one are found in the other. The discoveries at Cnossus have enabled Dr Evans to reconstitute the timber columns, of which the bases only were found at Tiryns, and the spur walls of the portico of the megaron and the sills of the doorways at Tiryns give some clue to the restoration of similar features at Cnossus; and if in the latter palace we find the origin of the Doric column, at Tiryns is found that of the antae and of the door linings, further substantiated by the careful analysis made by Dr Dörpfeld of the Heraeum at Olympia.The reconstruction by Dr Evans of the timber columns at Cnossus, which tapered from the top downwards, the lower diameter being about six-sevenths of the upper, has little historical importance (seeOrder), so that we may now pass on to the next early monument of importance, the tomb of Agamemnon, the principal and the best preserved of the beehive tombs found at Mycenae and in other parts of Greece. This tomb consists of three parts, thedromosor open entrance passage, thetholosor circular portion domed over, and a smaller chamber excavated in the rock and entered from the larger one. The tomb was subterranean, the masonry being concealed beneath a large mound of earth. The domed part, 48 ft. 6 in. in diameter and 45 ft. high, is built in horizontal courses of stone, which project one over the other till they meet at the top. Subsequently the projecting edges were dressed down, so that the section through the dome is nearly that of an equilateral triangle. Notwithstanding the great thickness of the lintel (3 ft.) over the entrance doorway, the Mycenaeans left a triangular void over, to take off the superincumbent weight, subsequently (it is supposed) filled with sculpture, as in the Lions’ Gate at Mycenae. The doorway was flanked by semi-detached columns 20 ft. high, the shafts of which tapered downwards like those reconstituted at Cnossus; the shafts rested on a base of three steps, and carried a capital with echinus and abacus. These shafts carried a lintel which has now disappeared; the wall above was set back, and was at one time faced with stone slabs carved with spiral and other patterns, of which there are fragments in various museums, the most important remains being those of the shafts, of which the greater part, which was brought over to England in the beginning of the 19th century by the 2nd marquess of Sligo, was presented by the 5th marquess to the British Museum in 1905. These shafts, as also the echinus moulding of the capitals, are richly carved with the chevron and spirals, probably copied from the brass sheathing of wood columns and doorways referred to by Homer.The Archaic Period.—The buildings just referred to belong to what is known as the prehistoric age in Greece; the dispersion of the tribes by invaders from the north about 1100B.C.destroyed the Mycenaean civilization, and some centuries have to pass before we reach the results of the new development. Among the invaders the Dorians would seem to have been the chief leaders, who eventually became supreme. They brought with them from Olympus the worship of Apollo, so that henceforth the sanctuary of the god takes the place of the megaron of the king. From Greece the Dorians spread their colonies through the Greek islands and southern Italy. Later they passed on to Sicily and founded Syracuse, and subsequently Selinus and Agrigentum (Acragas). The prosperity of all these colonies is shown in the splendid temples which they built in stone, the remains of many of which have lasted to our day.From Curtius and Adler’sOlympia, by permission of Behrend & Co.Fig.14.—Plan of the Heraeum. A, Peristyle; B, Pronaos; C, Naos; D, Opisthodomus; E, Base of statue of Hermes.The earliest Greek temple of which remains have been discovered2is that of the Heraeum at Olympia, ascribed to about 1000B.C.Its plan (fig. 14) shows that the enclosure of the sanctuary and its porticoes in a peristyle had already been found necessary, if only to protect the walls of the cella, built in unburnt brick on a stone plinth; further, that the antae of the portico and the dressings of the entrance were in wood; and, following Pausanias’ statement relative to the wood column in the opisthodomos, all the columns of the peristyle were in that material, gradually replaced by stone columns as they decayed, evidenced by the character of their capitals, which in style date from the 6th centuryB.C.to Roman times. The ephemeral nature of the materials employed in this and other early temples, and the risk of fire, must have naturally led to the desire to render the Greek sanctuaries more permanent by the employment of stone. But the Greeks were always timid as regards the bearing value of that material, and would seem to have imagined that unless the blocks were of megalithic dimensions it was impossible to build in stone. This may be gathered from the remains of the earliest example found, the temple of Apollo in the island of Ortygia, Syracuse, where the monolith columns had widely projecting capitals, the abaci of which were set so close together that the intercolumniation was less than one diameter of the column.Following the temple of Apollo at Syracuse is the temple of Corinth, ascribed to 650B.C., of which seven columns remainin situ, all monoliths, and the Olympieum at Syracuse. Nearly contemporary with the latter is one of the temples at Selinus in Sicily, 630B.C., remarkable for the archaic nature of its sculptured metopes. Of later date there are five or six other temples in Selinus, all overthrown by earthquakes; the temple of Athena at Syracuse, which having been converted into a church is in fair preservation; an unfinished temple at Segesta; and six at Agrigentum, built on the brow of a hill facing the sea, one of which was so large that it was necessary to build in walls between the columns.In Magna Graecia, in the acropolis at Tarentum, are the remains of a 7th century temple and three at Paestum about a century later in date. In one of these, the temple of Poseidon (figs. 15 and 16) the columns which carried the ceiling and roof over the cella are still standing; these are in two stages superimposed with an architrave between them, and although there are no traces in this instance of a gallery, they serve to render more intelligible Pausanias’ description of that which existed in the temple of Zeus at Olympia.The temple of Assus in Asia Minor is an early example remarkable for its sculptured architrave, the only one known, and in the temple of Aphaea in Aegina (q.v.) we find the immediate predecessor of the Parthenon, if we may judge by its sculpture and the proportions of its columns.So far we have only referred to the early temples of the Doric order; of the origin and development of those of the Ionic order far less is known. The earliest examples are those of the temple of Apollo at Naucratis in Egypt, and of the archaic temple of Diana at Ephesus, both about 560B.C.The remains of the latter, discovered by Wood, are now in the British Museum; they consist of two capitals, one with a portion of a shaft in good preservation; the sculptured drum and the base of one of the columns, inscribed with the name of Croesus, who is known to have contributed to it;two other bases, and the cornice or cymatium. The treasury of the Cnidians at Delphi was Ionic, judging by the carved ornament enriching the cornice and architraves, and in the Naxian votive column we have another early example of an early voluted capital.The tombs of Tantalais, near Smyrna, and of Alyattes, near Sardis, belong to the same date as those we shall find in Etruria. The Harpy tomb, now in the British Museum, built after 547B.C., is the predecessor of many other Lycian tombs of the 5th and 4th centuries, to which we return.Fig.15.—Plan of the Temple of Poseidon at Paestum.As already pointed out, in the temple of Hera at Olympia (10th centuryB.C.), we find the complete plan of an hexastyle peripteral Greek temple, where columns originally in wood supported a wood architrave and superstructure protected by terra-cotta plaques and roofed over with tiles. The temple of Apollo at Syracuse, and the temple at Corinth (7th centuryB.C.) represent the earliest examples in stone, and in the temple of Poseidon at Paestum (6th century) are preserved the columns of the cella which carried the ceiling and roof. The structural development therefore of the temple was completed, and no great constructional improvements reveal themselves after 550B.C.The next century would seem to have been chiefly directed to the beautifying and refining of the features already prescribed, and it was the traditional respect for, and the conservative adherence to, the older type, which led the architects to the production of such masterpieces as the Parthenon and the Erechtheum, which would have been impossible but for the careful and logical progression of preceding centuries.The Parthenon (q.v.) at Athens represents the highest type of perfection, not only in its conception but in its realization. It is only necessary here to give a general description. It was designed by Ictinus in collaboration with Callicrates, and built on the south side of the Acropolis on a foundation carried down to the solid rock. The temple, commenced in 454B.C.and completed in 438B.C., was of the Doric order and raised on a stylobate of three steps; it had eight columns in front and rear and was surrounded by a peristyle, there being twenty columns on the flanks. It contained two divisions; the eastern chamber was originally known as the Hekatompedos (temple of 100 ft.), that being the dimension of the cella of the ancient temple which it was built to replace. The chamber on the western side was called the Parthenon (i.e.chamber of the virgin). All the principal lines of the building had delicate curves. The entablature rose about 3 in. in the middle to correct an optical illusion caused by the sloping lines of the pediment, which gave to the horizontal cornice the appearance of having sunk in the centre. The stylobate had therefore to be similarly curved so that the columns should be all of the same height. The columns are not all equidistant, those nearer the angle being closer together than the others, which gave a greater appearance of strength to the temple; this was increased by a slight inclination inwards of all the columns. In order to correct another optical illusion, which causes the shaft of a column, when it diminishes as it rises, and is formed with absolute straight lines, to appear hollow or concave, an increment known as the entasis was given to the column, about one-third up the shaft. The columns were not monoliths, like those of the earliest stone temples mentioned above; they were built in several drums, so closely fitted together that the joint would be imperceptible but for the slight discoloration of the marble. The setting of the lowest drum of these columns on the curved stylobate, with the slight inclination of the column, must have been a work of an extraordinary nature, only possible with such a material as Pentelic marble. The cella or naos was built to enshrine the chryselephantine statue of Athena by Pheidias. In order to carry the ceiling and roof there was a range of columns on each side of the cella returning round the end. These columns probably carried an upper range as in the temple of Poseidon at Paestum. The tympana of the two pediments and all the metopes were enriched with the finest sculpture, and were realized, designed, and executed by Pheidias and his pupils. On the upper part of the cella wall and under the peristyle was the Panathenaic frieze, of which, as also of the other sculptures, the British Museum possesses the finest examples.The Propylaea (q.v.), designed by Mnesicles and built 437-432B.C., was the only entrance to the Acropolis. It was of the Doric order, and consisted of a portico of six columns, the two centre ones being wider apart, to allow of the road through, up which the chariots and beasts for sacrifices ascended. The columns carrying the marble ceiling of the vestibule were of the Ionic order; beyond them the wall was pierced by three doorways, and on the other side and facing east was another portico of six columns. The front entrance was flanked on the left hand by a chamber known as the Pinacotheca, and on the right by a chamber intended probably to be a replica but subsequently curtailed in size in consequence of the proximity of another temple.The Erechtheum on the north side of the Acropolis occupied the site of three older shrines, which may account for its irregular plan. The eastern portion was the temple of Athena Polias, with a portico of six columns of the Ionic order. At a lower level on the north side was a portico of six columns (four in front and two at the sides) leading to the shrine of Erechtheus; the west front of this shrine had originally a frontispiece of four columnsin antisraised on a podium; subsequently during the Roman occupation these columns were taken down and reproduced as semi-detached columns with windows between. On the west side was a court in which was the olive tree and the shrine of Pandrosus (Pandroseion). At the south-west angle was the well-known portico or tribune of the Caryatides. There was a small entrance through the podium at the side, and stairs leading down to the shrine of Erechtheus.From a photo by Brogi.Fig.16.—Temple of Poseidon at Paestum.The only other building remaining on the Acropolis is the temple of Niké Apteros, raised on a lofty substructure south-west of the propylaea. It also was of the Ionic order, and belonged to the type known as “amphiprostyle,” with a portico of four columns in the front and rear but no peristyle. The term “apteros” applied to the temple and not to the goddess of victory.In 430B.C., shortly after the completion of the Parthenon, Ictinus was employed to design the temple of Apollo Epicurius, at Bassae, in Arcadia. This temple externally was of the Doric order, but, being built in local stone, no attempt was made to introduce those refinements which are found in the Parthenon. In the rear of the cella is a second sanctuary with a doorway facing east; it was probably the site of an ancient temple which had to be preserved, and this may account for the fact that the temple runs north and south. The cella is flanked by five columns of the Ionic order which are conntected by spur walls to the cella wall. These columns carry an architrave, frieze richly sculptured with figure subjects, cornice and wall above rising to the roof. There was no ceiling therefore, and the interior was probably lighted through pierced Parian marble tiles, of which three examples were found. The Corinthian capital found on the site is supposed by Cockerell to have belonged to the shaft between the two cellas.The same architect, Ictinus, was employed in 420B.C.to rebuild the hall of the mysteries at Eleusis on a larger scale. The hall was 185 ft. square, and its ceiling and roof were carried by seven rows of columns with six in each row. The propylaea, which gave access to the sacred enclosure at Eleusis, was copied from the propylaea at Athens. The so-called lesser propylaea had some connexion with the mysteries.The temple of Zeus at Olympia had much in common with the Parthenon, being nearly contemporaneous, built to enshrine a second chryselephantine statue by Pheidias, and in plan having a similar arrangement of columns inside the cella; the lower range of columns (according to Pausanias) supported a gallery round, so that privileged visitors could approach nearer to the statue. The temple, however, was built in the local conglomerate stone covered with a thin coat of stucco and painted.Of circular temples there are two examples known, the Philippeion at Olympia and the Tholos at Epidaurus. The latter had, inside the cella, a peristyle of Corinthian columns, the capitals of which are of great beauty and represent in their design the transitionbetween those of the monument of Lysicrates and the temple of Zeus Olympius at Athens.In the sacred enclosures of the Greek sanctuaries were other smaller temples or shrines, altars, statues and treasuries, the latter being built by the various cities, from which pilgrimages were made, to contain their treasures. At Olympia there were ten or eleven, the remains of some of which are of great interest. Of the treasury of the Cnidians at Delphi, discovered by the French, so much has been found that it has been possible to evolve a complete conjectural restoration in plaster, now in the Louvre. Its sculpture and the rich carving of its architectural features show that it was Ionian in character. In front was a portico-in-antis, in which the caryatide figures standing on pedestals took the place of columns. These are the earliest examples known of caryatide figures, and they precede those of the Erechtheum by about a century.Fig.17.—Lycian Tomb of Telmessus.The most important temple in Asia Minor was the temple of Diana (Artemis) at Ephesus (356-334B.C.). The archaic temple was burnt in 356, and was immediately rebuilt with greater splendour from the designs of Paeonius. The site of the temple was discovered by Wood in 1869, and the remains brought over to the British Museum in 1875. There were 100 columns, 36 of which (according to Pliny) were sculptured, and it was probably on account of the magnificence of the sculpture that this temple was included among the seven wonders of the world. The sculptured bases are of two kinds, square and circular, in the latter case being the lower drums of the columns. Examples of both are in the British Museum, and several conjectural restorations have been made, among which that of Dr A.S. Murray has been generally accepted, but recent researches (1905) suggest that it remains still an unsolved problem.The temple of Apollo Didymaeus, near Miletus, was the largest temple in Asia Minor, and its erection followed that of the temple at Ephesus, Paeonius and Daphnis of Miletus being the architects. The temple was decastyle, dipteral, with pronaos and vestibule, but no opisthodomos. The cella was so wide (75 ft.) that it remained open to the sky. The bases of the columns were elaborately carved with ornament, as if in rivalry with the temple of Diana. Both these temples were of the Ionic order, as also were those of Athena Polias at Priene (340B.C.), many of the capitals of which are in the British Museum, and the temples of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias and Cybele at Sardis.The mausoleum at Halicarnassus, also of the Ionic order, built by Queen Artemisia in memory of her husband Mausolus, who died in 353B.C., was, according to Pliny, recorded as one of the seven wonders of the world, probably on account of the eminence of the sculptors employed, Bryaxis, Leochares, Timotheus, Scopas and Pythius. Pliny’s description is somewhat vague, so that its actual design is a problem not yet solved. Professor Cockerell’s restoration is in accord with the description, but does not quite agree with the actual remains brought over by Newton and deposited in the British Museum. If the Nereid monument and the tombs at Cnidus and Mylasa be taken as suggesting the design, the peristyle (pteron) of thirty-six columns of the Ionic order with entablature stood on a lofty podium, richly decorated with bands of sculpture, and was crowned by a pyramid which, according to Pliny, “contracted itself by twenty-four steps into the summit of a meta.” The steps found are not high enough to constitute a meta, and it is possible therefore that, according to Mr J.J. Stevenson, these steps were over the peristyle only, and that the lofty steps which constituted the meta were in the centre, carried by the inner row of columns. The magnificent sculpture of the Macedonian period has in recent times been demonstrated by the discovery of the marble sarcophagi found at Sidon by Hamdi Bey and now in the museum at Constantinople.The Lycian tombs, of which there are many hundreds carved in the rock in the south of Asia Minor, are copies of timber structures, based on the stone architecture of the neighbouring Greek cities (fig. 17). The Paiafaor Payava tomb (375-362B.C.), found at Xanthus and now in the British Museum, is apparently a copy, cut in the solid rock, of a portable shrine, in which the wood construction is clearly defined.Capitals of the Greek Corinthian order have been found at Bassae, Epidaurus, Olympia and Miletus, but the earliest example of the complete order is represented in the Choragic monument of Lysicrates at Athens.The most important example of the Greek Corinthian order is that of the temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens, begun in 174B.C., but not completed till the time of Hadrian,A.D.117. The temple was 135 ft. wide and 354 ft. long, built entirely in Pentelic marble, the columns being 56 ft. high. There were eight columns in front and a double peristyle round.The two porches of the Tower of the Winds at Athens (c. 75B.C.) had Corinthian capitals. The upper part of the tower, which was octagonal in plan, was sculptured with figures representing the winds.The Greek houses discovered at Delosand Priene were very simple and unpretentious, but the palace near Palatitza in Macedonia, discovered by Messrs Heuzey and Daumet, would seem to have been of a very sumptuous character. The front of the palace measured 250 ft. In the centre was a vestibule flanked with Ionic columns on either side, leading to a throne room at one time richly decorated with marble, and with numerous other halls on either side. The date is ascribed to the middle of the 4th centuryB.C.In selecting the sites for their theatres, the Greeks always utilized the slope of a hill, in which they could cut out the cavea, and thus save the expense of raising a structure to carry the seats, at the same time obtaining a beautiful prospect for the background. The theatre of Dionysus at Athens was discovered and excavated in 1864, and has fortunately preserved all the seats round the orchestra, sixty-seven in number, all in Pentelic marble, with the names inscribed thereon of the priests and dignitaries who occupied them. The largest theatre was at Megalopolis, with an auditorium 474 ft. in diameter. The most perfect, so far as the seats are concerned, is the theatre at Epidaurus, with a diameter of 415 ft. Other theatres are known at Dodona in Greece, Pergamum and Tralles in Asia Minor, and Syracuse and Segesta in Sicily.(R. P. S.)Parthian ArchitectureThe architecture of the Parthian dynasty, who from 250B.C.toA.D.226 occupied the greater part of Mesopotamia, their empire in 160B.C.extending over 480,000 sq. m., was quite unknown until Sir A.H. Layard, following in the steps of Ross and Ainsworth, visited and measured the plan of the palace at Hatra (el Hadr) about 30 m. south of Mosul; the architecture of this palace shows that, on the one hand, the Parthians carried on the traditions of the barrel vault of the Assyrian palace, and on the other, from their contact with Hellenistic methods of building, had acquired considerable knowledge in the working of ashlar masonry.Fig.18.—Plan of Palace of el Hadr.A, Throne or reception room.B, Large hall, orC, Entrance hall of temple.D, Temple.El Hadr is first mentioned in history as having been unsuccessfully besieged by Trajan inA.D.116, and it is recorded to have been a walled town containing a temple of the sun, celebrated for the value of its offerings. The temple referred to is probably the large square building at the back of the palace, as above the doorway is a rich frieze carved with griffins, similar to those found at Warka by Loftus, together with large quantities of Parthian coins. The remains (fig. 18) consist of a block of 380 ft. frontage, facing east, and 128 ft. deep, subdivided by walls of great thickness, running at right angles to the main front, and built in an immense court, divided down the centre by a wall, separating that portion on the south side, where the temple was situated, from that on the north side, which constituted the king’s palace. The seven subdivisions of the different widths were all covered with semi-circular barrel vaults which, being built side by side, mutually resisted the thrust, the outer walls being of greater thickness, with the same object. In the centre of the south block was an immense hall 49 ft. wide and 98 ft. deep, which formed the vestibule to the temple in the rear; this vestibule was flanked by a series of three smaller halls on either side, over which there was probably a second floor. On the palace or north side weretwo great aiwans or reception halls. The main front (fig. 19) was built in finely jointed ashlar masonry with semicircular attached shafts between the entrance doorways, which had semicircular heads, every third voussoir of the three larger doors being decorated by busts in strong relief with a headgear similar to that shown on Parthian coins; other carvings, with the acanthus leaf, belonged to that type of Syrio-Greek work, of which Loftus found so many examples at Warka (Loftus,Chaldaea, Susiana, p. 225). In the great mosque of Diarbekr are two wings at the north and south ends respectively, which are said to have been Parthian palaces built by Tigranes, 74B.C.; they have evidently been rearranged or rebuilt at various times, the columns with their capitals and the entablature having been utilized again. The shafts of the columns of the upper storey are richly carved with geometrical patterns similar to those found by Loftus at Warka.Fig.19.—Portion of front of Palace of el Hadr.From Prof H V. Hilprecht’sExploration in Bible Lands, by permission of A.J. Holman & Co. and T. & T. Clark.Fig.20.—Plan of the Parthian Palace at Nippur.The American researches at Nippur have resulted in the discovery on the top of the mounds of the remains of a Parthian palace; and the disposition of its plan (fig. 20), and the style of the columns of the peristylar court, show so strong a resemblance to Greek work as to suggest the same Hellenistic influence as in the palace of el Hadr. Having no stone, however, they were obliged to build up these columns at Nippur with sections in brick, covered afterwards with stucco. The columns diminished at the top to about one-fifth of the lower diameter, and would seem to have had an entasis, as the lower portion up to one-third of the height is nearly vertical. A similar palace was discovered at Tello by the French archaeologists, and the bases of some of the brick columns are in the Louvre.(R. P. S.)Sassanian ArchitecturePlan.Section in lines BC, DE, FG of plan.Fig.21 andFig.22.—The Palace of Serbistan.Fig.23.—Plan of the Palace at Firuzabad.Although, on the overthrow of the Parthian dynasty inA.D.226, the monarchs of the Sassanian dynasty succeeded to the immense Parthian empire, the earliest building found, according to Fergusson, is that at Serbistan, to which he ascribes the dateA.D.380. The palace (fig. 21), which measures 130 ft. frontage and 143 ft. deep, with an internal court, shows so great an advance in the arrangements of its plan as to suggest considerable acquaintance with Roman work. The fine ashlar work of el-Hadr is no longer adhered to, and in its place we find rubble masonry with thick mortar joints, the walls being covered afterwards, both externally and internally, with stucco. While the barrel vault is still retained for the chief entrance porches, it is of elliptical section, and the central hall is covered with a dome, a feature probably handed down from the Assyrians, such as is shown in the bas-relief (fig. 10) from Kuyunjik, now in the British Museum. In order to carry a dome, circular on plan, over a square hall, it was necessary to arch across the angles, and here to a certain extent the Sassanians were at fault, as they did not know how to build pendentives, and the construction of these are of the most irregular kind. As, however, their mortar had excellent tenacious properties, these pendentives still remainin situ(fig. 22), and their defects were probably hidden under the stucco. In the halls which flank the building on either side, however, they displayed considerable knowledge of construction. Instead of having enormously thick walls to resist the thrust of their vaults, to which we have already drawn attention in the Assyrian work and at el Hadr, they built piers at intervals, covering over the spaces between them, with semi-domes on which the walls carrying the vaults are supported, so that they lessened the span of the vault and brought the thrust well within the wall. This, however, lessened the width of the hall, so they replaced the lower portions of the piers by the columns, leaving a passage round. It is possible that this idea was partly derived from the great Roman halls of the thermae (baths), where the vault is brought forward on columns; but it was an improvement to leave a passage behind. The elliptical sections given to all the barrel vaults may have been the traditional method derived from Assyria, of which, however, no remains exist. In the articleVaultthere will be found a reason why these elliptical sections were adopted (see also below in the description of the great hall at Ctesiphon). In the palace of Firuzabad, attributed by Fergusson to Peroz (Firuz) (A.D.459-485), the plan (fig. 23) follows more closely the disposition of the Assyrian palaces, and we return again to the thick walls, which might incline us to give a later date to Serbistan, except that in the pendentives carrying the three great domes in the centre of the palace at Firuzabad they show greater knowledge in their construction. The angles of the square hall are vaulted, with a series of concentric arches, each ring as it rises being brought forward, the object being to save centreing, because each ring rested on the ring beneath it. The plan is a rectangular parallelogram with a frontage of 180 ft. and a depth of 333 ft., more than double, therefore, of the size of Serbistan. An immense entrance hall in the centre of the main front is flanked on each side by two halls placed at right angles to it, so as to resist the thrust of the elliptical barrel vaults of the entrance hall. This hall leads to a series of three square halls, side by side, each surmounted by a dome carried on pendentives. Beyond is an open court, the smaller rooms round all covered with barrel vaults. Here, as in Serbistan, the material employed is rubble masonry with thick joints of mortar, and fortunately portions of the stucco with which this Sassanian masonry was covered remain both externally and internally. As there are no windows of any sort, the wall surface of the exterior has been decorated with semi-circular attached shafts and panelling between, which recall the primitive decorations found in the early Chaldaean temples, except that arches are carried at the top across the sunk panels. Internally an attempt has been made to copy the decoration of the Persian doorway, which represents a kind of renaissance of the ancient style. But instead of the lintel the arch has been introduced, and the ornament in stucco representing the Persian cavetto cornice shows imperfect knowledge of the original and is clumsily worked. The niches also, in the main front, have been copied fromthe windows which flank the doorway in the Persian palace. But they are decorative only, and are too shallow to serve any purpose.From Dieulafoy’sL’Art Antiqueby permission of Morel et Cie.Fig.24.—The Great Hall at Ctesiphon.If there has been some difficulty in determining the exact date of Firuzabad, that of the third great palace, at Ctesiphon, on the borders of the Tigris, is known to have been built by Chosroes I. inA.D.550. Owing probably to its proximity to Bagdad, from which it lies about 25 m. distant, it is much better known than the other examples we have quoted; but while they are constructed in rubble masonry, Ctesiphon is built of brick, because we have now returned to the alluvial plain where no stone could be procured. The only portion of the palace which still exists is that which was built in burnt brick, and this far exceeds in dimensions Serbistan and Firuzabad. Its main front measured 312 ft.; its height was about 115 ft.; and its depth 175 ft. The plan is very simple, and consisted of anaiwanor immense hall, 86 ft. in width and 163 ft. long, covered with an elliptical barrel vault, the thrust of which is counteracted by five long halls on each side, also covered with barrel vaults and probably used as guard chambers or stores. The great hall was open in the front, and constituted an immense portal, 83 ft. wide and 95 ft. to the crown of the arch. The springing of the vault is 40 ft. from the ground, but up to about 26 ft. above the springing the walls are built in horizontal courses projecting inwards as they rise, so that the actual width of the vaulted portion (fig. 24) has been diminished one-sixth and measures only about 71 ft. The crown of the vault is 9 ft. thick, the walls at the base being 23 ft. The bricks or tiles of which the vault is built are, like those at Thebes, laid flat-wise, and there is also a similar inclination of the rings of brick-work, which are about 10° out of the vertical. This leads to the conclusion that this immense vault was built without centreing, as the tenacious quality of the mortar would probably be sufficient to hold each tile in its position until the ring was complete. In the building of the arch of the great portal other precautions were taken; bond timbers 23 ft. long and in five rows, one above the other, were carried through the wall from front to back. The lower portion of the arch (5 ft. in height) was built with bricks placed flat-wise; the upper portion (4 ft. in height) in the usual way, viz. right angles to the face. The reason for this change was probably that the upper portions might be carved, as they have been, with a series of semi-circular cusps.The decoration of the flanks of this great central portal is of the most bewildering description. There has evidently been a desire to give a monumental character to the main front. With this idea in view they would seem to have attempted to reproduce Roman features, such as are found decorating the fronts of the various amphitheatres of the Empire. But the semi-circular shafts which form the decoration do not come one over the other on the several storeys, and there is a reckless employment of blank arcades distributed over the surface.There are remains of two other palaces at Imamzade and Tag Iran, and in Moab a small example, the Hall of Rabboth Ammon, supposed to have been erected for Chosroes II. during the subjugation of Palestine, which is richly decorated with carving, probably by Syrio-Greek artists, with a mixture of Greek, Jewish and Sassanian details. At Takibostan and Behistun (Bisutun), some 200 m. north-east of Ctesiphon, are some remarkable Sassanian capitals and panels (published in Flandin and Coste’sVoyage en Perse, 1851, Paris).(R. P. S.)Etruscan ArchitectureAlthough our acquaintance with Etruscan architecture is confined chiefly to the entrance gateways and the walls of towns, and to tombs, it forms a very important link between the East and the West. Though little is known of the history of Etruria (q.v.), the influence which her people exerted on Roman architecture, lasting down to the period when Greece was overrun and plundered of her treasures, was so great that it would be difficult to follow the origin of Roman architecture without some inquiry into the work of its immediate predecessor. The theory put forward by Fergusson, as to the migration of the Etruscans from Asia Minor in the 12th or 11th centuryB.C., is substantiated by the resemblance of the tumuli in the latter country, such as those at Tantalais, on the northern shore of the gulf of Smyrna, and that of Alyattes near Sardis, as compared with the Regulini Galeassi tomb at Cervetri and the Cucumella tomb at Vulci, in all cases consisting of a sepulchral chamber buried under an immense mound surrounded by a podium in stone. The chamber was covered over with masonry, laid in horizontal courses, each stone projecting slightly over the one below. The same system of construction prevailed in the bee-hive tombs of Greece, except that the latter were always circular on plan, whilst these cited above were rectangular. Similar methods of construction are found at Tusculum and in a gateway at Arpino. In all these cases the projecting courses were worked off on the completion of the tomb, in Greece and at Tusculum and Arpino following a curve, and in the Regulini Galeassi tomb a raking line.The earliest example known of the arched vault, with regular voussoirs in stone, is found in the canal of the Marta near Graviscae, ascribed to the 7th century. The vault is 14 ft. in span, with voussoirs from 5 to 6 ft. in depth. In the tomb of Pythagoras near Cortona, with a span of about 10 ft., only four voussoirs were employed. In the Cloaca Maxima at Rome the vault (now ascribed by Commendatore Boni to the 1st centuryB.C.) is built with three concentric rings of voussoirs. In all these cases the thrust of the arch was amply resisted as they were constructed under ground, and in the entrance gateways at Volterra, Perugia and Falerii a similar resistance was given by the immense walls in which they were built.We have already referred to one class of tomb in which the sepulchral chamber, built above the ground, was covered over with a mound of earth; there is a second class, carved out of the solid rock, in which we find the same treatment as that described in connexion with Egypt. The tomb represents, in its internal arrangements and in its decorations, the earthly dwelling of the defunct (compare the Egyptian “soul-houses”). The ceilings are carved in imitation of the horizontal beams and slanting rafters of the roof, the former carried by square piers with capitals; one well-known tomb at Corneto (fig. 25) represents the atrium of an Etruscan house, which corresponds with the description given by Vitruvius of thecavaedia displuviata, in which there was a small opening at the top, known as the compluvium, the roof sloping down on all four sides.The paintings which decorate these tombs have very much the same character as those which are found on what were thought to have been Etruscan, but are now generally considered as Greek vases, the principal difference being that instead of allegorical subjects, domestic scenes recalling the life of the deceased are represented. In a tomb at Cervetri the walls and piers were carved with representations of the helmets, swords and other accoutrements of a soldier, and also the mirrors and jewelry of his wife, even the kitchen utensils being included, so as to give the complete fittings of the house they occupied. In two examples at Castel D’Asso the rock has been cut away on all sides, leaving a rectangular block, crowned with reverse mouldings.Scarcely any remainsin situof Etruscan temples have been found, and the description given by Vitruvius is very scanty. Of late years, however, in the British Museum and in the museums at Florence and Rome, a large amount of material has been brought together, from which it is possible to make some kind of conjectural restoration. This has been facilitated by the discoveries made at Olympia, Delphi and elsewhere in Greece, showing the important function which terra-cotta served in the protection and decoration of the timber roofs of the Greek temples and treasuries. The cornices, antefixae, pendant slabs and other decorative features in terra-cotta, found on the sites of the Etruscan temples, show that the timber construction of their roofs was protected in the same way; and although Vitruvius (bk. iii. ch. 2) considered the temple of Ceres at Rome to be clumsy and heavy, and its roofs low and wide, in comparison with the purer examples of Greek architecture, the remains of terra-cotta found at Civita Castellana (the ancientFalerii), at Luna, Telamon and Lanuvium (the latter in the British Museum), show that in their modelling and colour they must have possessed considerable decorative effect, and when raised on an eminence, as in the case of the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, formed striking features of importance, enriched as they were with gilding. There is one feature in the Etruscan examples which seems to have been peculiar to their temples, viz. the pendant slabs hung round the eaves to protect the walls; these latter were probably covered with stucco and decorated with paintings. The lower portions of many of these slabs were decorated in relief and in colour at the back, showing that they were exposed to view below the soffit of the projecting eaves.Fig.25.—The Corneto Tomb.Owing to the ephemeral nature of the materials employed in the building of the walls of Etruscan temples, viz. unburned brick or rubble masonry with clay mortar, the roofs being in timber, little is known of their general design; the terra-cotta decorations are, however, fortunately in good preservation, and suggest that although the Etruscan temple, architecturally speaking, was not of a very monumental character, its external decoration and colour added considerably to its effect.
(R. P. S.)
Greek Architecture
Prehistoric Period.—We have now to retrace our steps and go back to the prehistoric period of Greek architecture, to the origin and early development of that style which sowed the seed and determined the future form and growth of all subsequent European art.
The discoveries in Crete and Argolis have shown that Greek architecture owes much less than was at one time supposed to Egyptian and Chaldaean architecture; and although from very early times there may have been a commercial exchange between the several countries, the objects imported suggested only new and various schemes of decorative design, and exercised no influence on the development of architectural style. The remains of the palace at Cnossus in Crete, together with the representations in fresco painting and other decorative objects, show that whilst the lower part of the walls under the level of the ground and up to a height of 5 ft. above were all built in well-worked masonry, the upper portions were constructed in unburnt brick with timber framing, which not only gave strength and solidity to the walls, but carried the cross beams and timbers of intermediate floors and the roof, and further, that the walls were always vertical, which was not the case in Egypt or Chaldaea.
The principal remains discovered by Dr Arthur J. Evans (seeCrete) are described by him as belonging to the later Minoan age, from which it may be inferred they are the result of samecenturies of previous development. What, however, is most remarkable is the admirable planning of the whole palace, the bringing together, under one roof and in proper and regular intercommunication, of the numerous services, which in a palace are somewhat complicated. The palace measured about 400 ft. square, and was built round an open court, nearly 200 ft. long by 90 ft. wide; as the same arrangement was found at Phaestus, excavated by the Italian archaeologists, it may be assumed to have been the Cretan plan. It was built on the crest of a hill, and in the western or highest portion was the court entrance from the agora to the megaron or throne-room, and the halls of the officers of the state. In the lower portion facing the east (the rooms in which were two storeys below the level of the court on account of the slope of the hill) was the private suite of apartments of the king and queen. All the services of the palace were at the north end of the palace, where the entrance gateway to the central court was situated. This northern entrance, Dr Evans points out, “represents the main point of intercourse between the palace and the city on the one hand and the port on the other.” This is the only part of the palace in which there is evidence of some kind of fortification, as the road of access is dominated by a tower or bastion. Other provisions also in the plan of the western entrance suggest that its passage was guarded to some extent. In this respect the palace of Tiryns, excavated by Dr Schliemann, presents an entirely different aspect; the whole stronghold bears a singular resemblance to a fortified castle of the middle ages; a high wall from 24 to 50 ft. thick surrounded the acropolis, and the inclined paths of approach and the double gateways gave that protection at Tiryns which at Cnossus was assured, as Dr Evans remarks, by the bulwarks of the Minoan navy. The area on the spur of the hill, on which the citadel of Tiryns was placed, was very much smaller, but if we accept the forecourt at Tiryns as equivalent to the great central court at Cnossus, there are great similarities in the plans of the two palaces. The propylaea, the altar court, the portico, and the megaron are found in both, and those details which are missing in the one are found in the other. The discoveries at Cnossus have enabled Dr Evans to reconstitute the timber columns, of which the bases only were found at Tiryns, and the spur walls of the portico of the megaron and the sills of the doorways at Tiryns give some clue to the restoration of similar features at Cnossus; and if in the latter palace we find the origin of the Doric column, at Tiryns is found that of the antae and of the door linings, further substantiated by the careful analysis made by Dr Dörpfeld of the Heraeum at Olympia.
The reconstruction by Dr Evans of the timber columns at Cnossus, which tapered from the top downwards, the lower diameter being about six-sevenths of the upper, has little historical importance (seeOrder), so that we may now pass on to the next early monument of importance, the tomb of Agamemnon, the principal and the best preserved of the beehive tombs found at Mycenae and in other parts of Greece. This tomb consists of three parts, thedromosor open entrance passage, thetholosor circular portion domed over, and a smaller chamber excavated in the rock and entered from the larger one. The tomb was subterranean, the masonry being concealed beneath a large mound of earth. The domed part, 48 ft. 6 in. in diameter and 45 ft. high, is built in horizontal courses of stone, which project one over the other till they meet at the top. Subsequently the projecting edges were dressed down, so that the section through the dome is nearly that of an equilateral triangle. Notwithstanding the great thickness of the lintel (3 ft.) over the entrance doorway, the Mycenaeans left a triangular void over, to take off the superincumbent weight, subsequently (it is supposed) filled with sculpture, as in the Lions’ Gate at Mycenae. The doorway was flanked by semi-detached columns 20 ft. high, the shafts of which tapered downwards like those reconstituted at Cnossus; the shafts rested on a base of three steps, and carried a capital with echinus and abacus. These shafts carried a lintel which has now disappeared; the wall above was set back, and was at one time faced with stone slabs carved with spiral and other patterns, of which there are fragments in various museums, the most important remains being those of the shafts, of which the greater part, which was brought over to England in the beginning of the 19th century by the 2nd marquess of Sligo, was presented by the 5th marquess to the British Museum in 1905. These shafts, as also the echinus moulding of the capitals, are richly carved with the chevron and spirals, probably copied from the brass sheathing of wood columns and doorways referred to by Homer.
The Archaic Period.—The buildings just referred to belong to what is known as the prehistoric age in Greece; the dispersion of the tribes by invaders from the north about 1100B.C.destroyed the Mycenaean civilization, and some centuries have to pass before we reach the results of the new development. Among the invaders the Dorians would seem to have been the chief leaders, who eventually became supreme. They brought with them from Olympus the worship of Apollo, so that henceforth the sanctuary of the god takes the place of the megaron of the king. From Greece the Dorians spread their colonies through the Greek islands and southern Italy. Later they passed on to Sicily and founded Syracuse, and subsequently Selinus and Agrigentum (Acragas). The prosperity of all these colonies is shown in the splendid temples which they built in stone, the remains of many of which have lasted to our day.
The earliest Greek temple of which remains have been discovered2is that of the Heraeum at Olympia, ascribed to about 1000B.C.Its plan (fig. 14) shows that the enclosure of the sanctuary and its porticoes in a peristyle had already been found necessary, if only to protect the walls of the cella, built in unburnt brick on a stone plinth; further, that the antae of the portico and the dressings of the entrance were in wood; and, following Pausanias’ statement relative to the wood column in the opisthodomos, all the columns of the peristyle were in that material, gradually replaced by stone columns as they decayed, evidenced by the character of their capitals, which in style date from the 6th centuryB.C.to Roman times. The ephemeral nature of the materials employed in this and other early temples, and the risk of fire, must have naturally led to the desire to render the Greek sanctuaries more permanent by the employment of stone. But the Greeks were always timid as regards the bearing value of that material, and would seem to have imagined that unless the blocks were of megalithic dimensions it was impossible to build in stone. This may be gathered from the remains of the earliest example found, the temple of Apollo in the island of Ortygia, Syracuse, where the monolith columns had widely projecting capitals, the abaci of which were set so close together that the intercolumniation was less than one diameter of the column.
Following the temple of Apollo at Syracuse is the temple of Corinth, ascribed to 650B.C., of which seven columns remainin situ, all monoliths, and the Olympieum at Syracuse. Nearly contemporary with the latter is one of the temples at Selinus in Sicily, 630B.C., remarkable for the archaic nature of its sculptured metopes. Of later date there are five or six other temples in Selinus, all overthrown by earthquakes; the temple of Athena at Syracuse, which having been converted into a church is in fair preservation; an unfinished temple at Segesta; and six at Agrigentum, built on the brow of a hill facing the sea, one of which was so large that it was necessary to build in walls between the columns.
In Magna Graecia, in the acropolis at Tarentum, are the remains of a 7th century temple and three at Paestum about a century later in date. In one of these, the temple of Poseidon (figs. 15 and 16) the columns which carried the ceiling and roof over the cella are still standing; these are in two stages superimposed with an architrave between them, and although there are no traces in this instance of a gallery, they serve to render more intelligible Pausanias’ description of that which existed in the temple of Zeus at Olympia.
The temple of Assus in Asia Minor is an early example remarkable for its sculptured architrave, the only one known, and in the temple of Aphaea in Aegina (q.v.) we find the immediate predecessor of the Parthenon, if we may judge by its sculpture and the proportions of its columns.
So far we have only referred to the early temples of the Doric order; of the origin and development of those of the Ionic order far less is known. The earliest examples are those of the temple of Apollo at Naucratis in Egypt, and of the archaic temple of Diana at Ephesus, both about 560B.C.The remains of the latter, discovered by Wood, are now in the British Museum; they consist of two capitals, one with a portion of a shaft in good preservation; the sculptured drum and the base of one of the columns, inscribed with the name of Croesus, who is known to have contributed to it;two other bases, and the cornice or cymatium. The treasury of the Cnidians at Delphi was Ionic, judging by the carved ornament enriching the cornice and architraves, and in the Naxian votive column we have another early example of an early voluted capital.
The tombs of Tantalais, near Smyrna, and of Alyattes, near Sardis, belong to the same date as those we shall find in Etruria. The Harpy tomb, now in the British Museum, built after 547B.C., is the predecessor of many other Lycian tombs of the 5th and 4th centuries, to which we return.
As already pointed out, in the temple of Hera at Olympia (10th centuryB.C.), we find the complete plan of an hexastyle peripteral Greek temple, where columns originally in wood supported a wood architrave and superstructure protected by terra-cotta plaques and roofed over with tiles. The temple of Apollo at Syracuse, and the temple at Corinth (7th centuryB.C.) represent the earliest examples in stone, and in the temple of Poseidon at Paestum (6th century) are preserved the columns of the cella which carried the ceiling and roof. The structural development therefore of the temple was completed, and no great constructional improvements reveal themselves after 550B.C.The next century would seem to have been chiefly directed to the beautifying and refining of the features already prescribed, and it was the traditional respect for, and the conservative adherence to, the older type, which led the architects to the production of such masterpieces as the Parthenon and the Erechtheum, which would have been impossible but for the careful and logical progression of preceding centuries.
The Parthenon (q.v.) at Athens represents the highest type of perfection, not only in its conception but in its realization. It is only necessary here to give a general description. It was designed by Ictinus in collaboration with Callicrates, and built on the south side of the Acropolis on a foundation carried down to the solid rock. The temple, commenced in 454B.C.and completed in 438B.C., was of the Doric order and raised on a stylobate of three steps; it had eight columns in front and rear and was surrounded by a peristyle, there being twenty columns on the flanks. It contained two divisions; the eastern chamber was originally known as the Hekatompedos (temple of 100 ft.), that being the dimension of the cella of the ancient temple which it was built to replace. The chamber on the western side was called the Parthenon (i.e.chamber of the virgin). All the principal lines of the building had delicate curves. The entablature rose about 3 in. in the middle to correct an optical illusion caused by the sloping lines of the pediment, which gave to the horizontal cornice the appearance of having sunk in the centre. The stylobate had therefore to be similarly curved so that the columns should be all of the same height. The columns are not all equidistant, those nearer the angle being closer together than the others, which gave a greater appearance of strength to the temple; this was increased by a slight inclination inwards of all the columns. In order to correct another optical illusion, which causes the shaft of a column, when it diminishes as it rises, and is formed with absolute straight lines, to appear hollow or concave, an increment known as the entasis was given to the column, about one-third up the shaft. The columns were not monoliths, like those of the earliest stone temples mentioned above; they were built in several drums, so closely fitted together that the joint would be imperceptible but for the slight discoloration of the marble. The setting of the lowest drum of these columns on the curved stylobate, with the slight inclination of the column, must have been a work of an extraordinary nature, only possible with such a material as Pentelic marble. The cella or naos was built to enshrine the chryselephantine statue of Athena by Pheidias. In order to carry the ceiling and roof there was a range of columns on each side of the cella returning round the end. These columns probably carried an upper range as in the temple of Poseidon at Paestum. The tympana of the two pediments and all the metopes were enriched with the finest sculpture, and were realized, designed, and executed by Pheidias and his pupils. On the upper part of the cella wall and under the peristyle was the Panathenaic frieze, of which, as also of the other sculptures, the British Museum possesses the finest examples.
The Propylaea (q.v.), designed by Mnesicles and built 437-432B.C., was the only entrance to the Acropolis. It was of the Doric order, and consisted of a portico of six columns, the two centre ones being wider apart, to allow of the road through, up which the chariots and beasts for sacrifices ascended. The columns carrying the marble ceiling of the vestibule were of the Ionic order; beyond them the wall was pierced by three doorways, and on the other side and facing east was another portico of six columns. The front entrance was flanked on the left hand by a chamber known as the Pinacotheca, and on the right by a chamber intended probably to be a replica but subsequently curtailed in size in consequence of the proximity of another temple.
The Erechtheum on the north side of the Acropolis occupied the site of three older shrines, which may account for its irregular plan. The eastern portion was the temple of Athena Polias, with a portico of six columns of the Ionic order. At a lower level on the north side was a portico of six columns (four in front and two at the sides) leading to the shrine of Erechtheus; the west front of this shrine had originally a frontispiece of four columnsin antisraised on a podium; subsequently during the Roman occupation these columns were taken down and reproduced as semi-detached columns with windows between. On the west side was a court in which was the olive tree and the shrine of Pandrosus (Pandroseion). At the south-west angle was the well-known portico or tribune of the Caryatides. There was a small entrance through the podium at the side, and stairs leading down to the shrine of Erechtheus.
The only other building remaining on the Acropolis is the temple of Niké Apteros, raised on a lofty substructure south-west of the propylaea. It also was of the Ionic order, and belonged to the type known as “amphiprostyle,” with a portico of four columns in the front and rear but no peristyle. The term “apteros” applied to the temple and not to the goddess of victory.
In 430B.C., shortly after the completion of the Parthenon, Ictinus was employed to design the temple of Apollo Epicurius, at Bassae, in Arcadia. This temple externally was of the Doric order, but, being built in local stone, no attempt was made to introduce those refinements which are found in the Parthenon. In the rear of the cella is a second sanctuary with a doorway facing east; it was probably the site of an ancient temple which had to be preserved, and this may account for the fact that the temple runs north and south. The cella is flanked by five columns of the Ionic order which are conntected by spur walls to the cella wall. These columns carry an architrave, frieze richly sculptured with figure subjects, cornice and wall above rising to the roof. There was no ceiling therefore, and the interior was probably lighted through pierced Parian marble tiles, of which three examples were found. The Corinthian capital found on the site is supposed by Cockerell to have belonged to the shaft between the two cellas.
The same architect, Ictinus, was employed in 420B.C.to rebuild the hall of the mysteries at Eleusis on a larger scale. The hall was 185 ft. square, and its ceiling and roof were carried by seven rows of columns with six in each row. The propylaea, which gave access to the sacred enclosure at Eleusis, was copied from the propylaea at Athens. The so-called lesser propylaea had some connexion with the mysteries.
The temple of Zeus at Olympia had much in common with the Parthenon, being nearly contemporaneous, built to enshrine a second chryselephantine statue by Pheidias, and in plan having a similar arrangement of columns inside the cella; the lower range of columns (according to Pausanias) supported a gallery round, so that privileged visitors could approach nearer to the statue. The temple, however, was built in the local conglomerate stone covered with a thin coat of stucco and painted.
Of circular temples there are two examples known, the Philippeion at Olympia and the Tholos at Epidaurus. The latter had, inside the cella, a peristyle of Corinthian columns, the capitals of which are of great beauty and represent in their design the transitionbetween those of the monument of Lysicrates and the temple of Zeus Olympius at Athens.
In the sacred enclosures of the Greek sanctuaries were other smaller temples or shrines, altars, statues and treasuries, the latter being built by the various cities, from which pilgrimages were made, to contain their treasures. At Olympia there were ten or eleven, the remains of some of which are of great interest. Of the treasury of the Cnidians at Delphi, discovered by the French, so much has been found that it has been possible to evolve a complete conjectural restoration in plaster, now in the Louvre. Its sculpture and the rich carving of its architectural features show that it was Ionian in character. In front was a portico-in-antis, in which the caryatide figures standing on pedestals took the place of columns. These are the earliest examples known of caryatide figures, and they precede those of the Erechtheum by about a century.
The most important temple in Asia Minor was the temple of Diana (Artemis) at Ephesus (356-334B.C.). The archaic temple was burnt in 356, and was immediately rebuilt with greater splendour from the designs of Paeonius. The site of the temple was discovered by Wood in 1869, and the remains brought over to the British Museum in 1875. There were 100 columns, 36 of which (according to Pliny) were sculptured, and it was probably on account of the magnificence of the sculpture that this temple was included among the seven wonders of the world. The sculptured bases are of two kinds, square and circular, in the latter case being the lower drums of the columns. Examples of both are in the British Museum, and several conjectural restorations have been made, among which that of Dr A.S. Murray has been generally accepted, but recent researches (1905) suggest that it remains still an unsolved problem.
The temple of Apollo Didymaeus, near Miletus, was the largest temple in Asia Minor, and its erection followed that of the temple at Ephesus, Paeonius and Daphnis of Miletus being the architects. The temple was decastyle, dipteral, with pronaos and vestibule, but no opisthodomos. The cella was so wide (75 ft.) that it remained open to the sky. The bases of the columns were elaborately carved with ornament, as if in rivalry with the temple of Diana. Both these temples were of the Ionic order, as also were those of Athena Polias at Priene (340B.C.), many of the capitals of which are in the British Museum, and the temples of Aphrodite at Aphrodisias and Cybele at Sardis.
The mausoleum at Halicarnassus, also of the Ionic order, built by Queen Artemisia in memory of her husband Mausolus, who died in 353B.C., was, according to Pliny, recorded as one of the seven wonders of the world, probably on account of the eminence of the sculptors employed, Bryaxis, Leochares, Timotheus, Scopas and Pythius. Pliny’s description is somewhat vague, so that its actual design is a problem not yet solved. Professor Cockerell’s restoration is in accord with the description, but does not quite agree with the actual remains brought over by Newton and deposited in the British Museum. If the Nereid monument and the tombs at Cnidus and Mylasa be taken as suggesting the design, the peristyle (pteron) of thirty-six columns of the Ionic order with entablature stood on a lofty podium, richly decorated with bands of sculpture, and was crowned by a pyramid which, according to Pliny, “contracted itself by twenty-four steps into the summit of a meta.” The steps found are not high enough to constitute a meta, and it is possible therefore that, according to Mr J.J. Stevenson, these steps were over the peristyle only, and that the lofty steps which constituted the meta were in the centre, carried by the inner row of columns. The magnificent sculpture of the Macedonian period has in recent times been demonstrated by the discovery of the marble sarcophagi found at Sidon by Hamdi Bey and now in the museum at Constantinople.
The Lycian tombs, of which there are many hundreds carved in the rock in the south of Asia Minor, are copies of timber structures, based on the stone architecture of the neighbouring Greek cities (fig. 17). The Paiafaor Payava tomb (375-362B.C.), found at Xanthus and now in the British Museum, is apparently a copy, cut in the solid rock, of a portable shrine, in which the wood construction is clearly defined.
Capitals of the Greek Corinthian order have been found at Bassae, Epidaurus, Olympia and Miletus, but the earliest example of the complete order is represented in the Choragic monument of Lysicrates at Athens.
The most important example of the Greek Corinthian order is that of the temple of Jupiter Olympius at Athens, begun in 174B.C., but not completed till the time of Hadrian,A.D.117. The temple was 135 ft. wide and 354 ft. long, built entirely in Pentelic marble, the columns being 56 ft. high. There were eight columns in front and a double peristyle round.
The two porches of the Tower of the Winds at Athens (c. 75B.C.) had Corinthian capitals. The upper part of the tower, which was octagonal in plan, was sculptured with figures representing the winds.
The Greek houses discovered at Delosand Priene were very simple and unpretentious, but the palace near Palatitza in Macedonia, discovered by Messrs Heuzey and Daumet, would seem to have been of a very sumptuous character. The front of the palace measured 250 ft. In the centre was a vestibule flanked with Ionic columns on either side, leading to a throne room at one time richly decorated with marble, and with numerous other halls on either side. The date is ascribed to the middle of the 4th centuryB.C.
In selecting the sites for their theatres, the Greeks always utilized the slope of a hill, in which they could cut out the cavea, and thus save the expense of raising a structure to carry the seats, at the same time obtaining a beautiful prospect for the background. The theatre of Dionysus at Athens was discovered and excavated in 1864, and has fortunately preserved all the seats round the orchestra, sixty-seven in number, all in Pentelic marble, with the names inscribed thereon of the priests and dignitaries who occupied them. The largest theatre was at Megalopolis, with an auditorium 474 ft. in diameter. The most perfect, so far as the seats are concerned, is the theatre at Epidaurus, with a diameter of 415 ft. Other theatres are known at Dodona in Greece, Pergamum and Tralles in Asia Minor, and Syracuse and Segesta in Sicily.
(R. P. S.)
Parthian Architecture
The architecture of the Parthian dynasty, who from 250B.C.toA.D.226 occupied the greater part of Mesopotamia, their empire in 160B.C.extending over 480,000 sq. m., was quite unknown until Sir A.H. Layard, following in the steps of Ross and Ainsworth, visited and measured the plan of the palace at Hatra (el Hadr) about 30 m. south of Mosul; the architecture of this palace shows that, on the one hand, the Parthians carried on the traditions of the barrel vault of the Assyrian palace, and on the other, from their contact with Hellenistic methods of building, had acquired considerable knowledge in the working of ashlar masonry.
A, Throne or reception room.
B, Large hall, or
C, Entrance hall of temple.
D, Temple.
El Hadr is first mentioned in history as having been unsuccessfully besieged by Trajan inA.D.116, and it is recorded to have been a walled town containing a temple of the sun, celebrated for the value of its offerings. The temple referred to is probably the large square building at the back of the palace, as above the doorway is a rich frieze carved with griffins, similar to those found at Warka by Loftus, together with large quantities of Parthian coins. The remains (fig. 18) consist of a block of 380 ft. frontage, facing east, and 128 ft. deep, subdivided by walls of great thickness, running at right angles to the main front, and built in an immense court, divided down the centre by a wall, separating that portion on the south side, where the temple was situated, from that on the north side, which constituted the king’s palace. The seven subdivisions of the different widths were all covered with semi-circular barrel vaults which, being built side by side, mutually resisted the thrust, the outer walls being of greater thickness, with the same object. In the centre of the south block was an immense hall 49 ft. wide and 98 ft. deep, which formed the vestibule to the temple in the rear; this vestibule was flanked by a series of three smaller halls on either side, over which there was probably a second floor. On the palace or north side weretwo great aiwans or reception halls. The main front (fig. 19) was built in finely jointed ashlar masonry with semicircular attached shafts between the entrance doorways, which had semicircular heads, every third voussoir of the three larger doors being decorated by busts in strong relief with a headgear similar to that shown on Parthian coins; other carvings, with the acanthus leaf, belonged to that type of Syrio-Greek work, of which Loftus found so many examples at Warka (Loftus,Chaldaea, Susiana, p. 225). In the great mosque of Diarbekr are two wings at the north and south ends respectively, which are said to have been Parthian palaces built by Tigranes, 74B.C.; they have evidently been rearranged or rebuilt at various times, the columns with their capitals and the entablature having been utilized again. The shafts of the columns of the upper storey are richly carved with geometrical patterns similar to those found by Loftus at Warka.
The American researches at Nippur have resulted in the discovery on the top of the mounds of the remains of a Parthian palace; and the disposition of its plan (fig. 20), and the style of the columns of the peristylar court, show so strong a resemblance to Greek work as to suggest the same Hellenistic influence as in the palace of el Hadr. Having no stone, however, they were obliged to build up these columns at Nippur with sections in brick, covered afterwards with stucco. The columns diminished at the top to about one-fifth of the lower diameter, and would seem to have had an entasis, as the lower portion up to one-third of the height is nearly vertical. A similar palace was discovered at Tello by the French archaeologists, and the bases of some of the brick columns are in the Louvre.
(R. P. S.)
Sassanian Architecture
Although, on the overthrow of the Parthian dynasty inA.D.226, the monarchs of the Sassanian dynasty succeeded to the immense Parthian empire, the earliest building found, according to Fergusson, is that at Serbistan, to which he ascribes the dateA.D.380. The palace (fig. 21), which measures 130 ft. frontage and 143 ft. deep, with an internal court, shows so great an advance in the arrangements of its plan as to suggest considerable acquaintance with Roman work. The fine ashlar work of el-Hadr is no longer adhered to, and in its place we find rubble masonry with thick mortar joints, the walls being covered afterwards, both externally and internally, with stucco. While the barrel vault is still retained for the chief entrance porches, it is of elliptical section, and the central hall is covered with a dome, a feature probably handed down from the Assyrians, such as is shown in the bas-relief (fig. 10) from Kuyunjik, now in the British Museum. In order to carry a dome, circular on plan, over a square hall, it was necessary to arch across the angles, and here to a certain extent the Sassanians were at fault, as they did not know how to build pendentives, and the construction of these are of the most irregular kind. As, however, their mortar had excellent tenacious properties, these pendentives still remainin situ(fig. 22), and their defects were probably hidden under the stucco. In the halls which flank the building on either side, however, they displayed considerable knowledge of construction. Instead of having enormously thick walls to resist the thrust of their vaults, to which we have already drawn attention in the Assyrian work and at el Hadr, they built piers at intervals, covering over the spaces between them, with semi-domes on which the walls carrying the vaults are supported, so that they lessened the span of the vault and brought the thrust well within the wall. This, however, lessened the width of the hall, so they replaced the lower portions of the piers by the columns, leaving a passage round. It is possible that this idea was partly derived from the great Roman halls of the thermae (baths), where the vault is brought forward on columns; but it was an improvement to leave a passage behind. The elliptical sections given to all the barrel vaults may have been the traditional method derived from Assyria, of which, however, no remains exist. In the articleVaultthere will be found a reason why these elliptical sections were adopted (see also below in the description of the great hall at Ctesiphon). In the palace of Firuzabad, attributed by Fergusson to Peroz (Firuz) (A.D.459-485), the plan (fig. 23) follows more closely the disposition of the Assyrian palaces, and we return again to the thick walls, which might incline us to give a later date to Serbistan, except that in the pendentives carrying the three great domes in the centre of the palace at Firuzabad they show greater knowledge in their construction. The angles of the square hall are vaulted, with a series of concentric arches, each ring as it rises being brought forward, the object being to save centreing, because each ring rested on the ring beneath it. The plan is a rectangular parallelogram with a frontage of 180 ft. and a depth of 333 ft., more than double, therefore, of the size of Serbistan. An immense entrance hall in the centre of the main front is flanked on each side by two halls placed at right angles to it, so as to resist the thrust of the elliptical barrel vaults of the entrance hall. This hall leads to a series of three square halls, side by side, each surmounted by a dome carried on pendentives. Beyond is an open court, the smaller rooms round all covered with barrel vaults. Here, as in Serbistan, the material employed is rubble masonry with thick joints of mortar, and fortunately portions of the stucco with which this Sassanian masonry was covered remain both externally and internally. As there are no windows of any sort, the wall surface of the exterior has been decorated with semi-circular attached shafts and panelling between, which recall the primitive decorations found in the early Chaldaean temples, except that arches are carried at the top across the sunk panels. Internally an attempt has been made to copy the decoration of the Persian doorway, which represents a kind of renaissance of the ancient style. But instead of the lintel the arch has been introduced, and the ornament in stucco representing the Persian cavetto cornice shows imperfect knowledge of the original and is clumsily worked. The niches also, in the main front, have been copied fromthe windows which flank the doorway in the Persian palace. But they are decorative only, and are too shallow to serve any purpose.
If there has been some difficulty in determining the exact date of Firuzabad, that of the third great palace, at Ctesiphon, on the borders of the Tigris, is known to have been built by Chosroes I. inA.D.550. Owing probably to its proximity to Bagdad, from which it lies about 25 m. distant, it is much better known than the other examples we have quoted; but while they are constructed in rubble masonry, Ctesiphon is built of brick, because we have now returned to the alluvial plain where no stone could be procured. The only portion of the palace which still exists is that which was built in burnt brick, and this far exceeds in dimensions Serbistan and Firuzabad. Its main front measured 312 ft.; its height was about 115 ft.; and its depth 175 ft. The plan is very simple, and consisted of anaiwanor immense hall, 86 ft. in width and 163 ft. long, covered with an elliptical barrel vault, the thrust of which is counteracted by five long halls on each side, also covered with barrel vaults and probably used as guard chambers or stores. The great hall was open in the front, and constituted an immense portal, 83 ft. wide and 95 ft. to the crown of the arch. The springing of the vault is 40 ft. from the ground, but up to about 26 ft. above the springing the walls are built in horizontal courses projecting inwards as they rise, so that the actual width of the vaulted portion (fig. 24) has been diminished one-sixth and measures only about 71 ft. The crown of the vault is 9 ft. thick, the walls at the base being 23 ft. The bricks or tiles of which the vault is built are, like those at Thebes, laid flat-wise, and there is also a similar inclination of the rings of brick-work, which are about 10° out of the vertical. This leads to the conclusion that this immense vault was built without centreing, as the tenacious quality of the mortar would probably be sufficient to hold each tile in its position until the ring was complete. In the building of the arch of the great portal other precautions were taken; bond timbers 23 ft. long and in five rows, one above the other, were carried through the wall from front to back. The lower portion of the arch (5 ft. in height) was built with bricks placed flat-wise; the upper portion (4 ft. in height) in the usual way, viz. right angles to the face. The reason for this change was probably that the upper portions might be carved, as they have been, with a series of semi-circular cusps.
The decoration of the flanks of this great central portal is of the most bewildering description. There has evidently been a desire to give a monumental character to the main front. With this idea in view they would seem to have attempted to reproduce Roman features, such as are found decorating the fronts of the various amphitheatres of the Empire. But the semi-circular shafts which form the decoration do not come one over the other on the several storeys, and there is a reckless employment of blank arcades distributed over the surface.
There are remains of two other palaces at Imamzade and Tag Iran, and in Moab a small example, the Hall of Rabboth Ammon, supposed to have been erected for Chosroes II. during the subjugation of Palestine, which is richly decorated with carving, probably by Syrio-Greek artists, with a mixture of Greek, Jewish and Sassanian details. At Takibostan and Behistun (Bisutun), some 200 m. north-east of Ctesiphon, are some remarkable Sassanian capitals and panels (published in Flandin and Coste’sVoyage en Perse, 1851, Paris).
(R. P. S.)
Etruscan Architecture
Although our acquaintance with Etruscan architecture is confined chiefly to the entrance gateways and the walls of towns, and to tombs, it forms a very important link between the East and the West. Though little is known of the history of Etruria (q.v.), the influence which her people exerted on Roman architecture, lasting down to the period when Greece was overrun and plundered of her treasures, was so great that it would be difficult to follow the origin of Roman architecture without some inquiry into the work of its immediate predecessor. The theory put forward by Fergusson, as to the migration of the Etruscans from Asia Minor in the 12th or 11th centuryB.C., is substantiated by the resemblance of the tumuli in the latter country, such as those at Tantalais, on the northern shore of the gulf of Smyrna, and that of Alyattes near Sardis, as compared with the Regulini Galeassi tomb at Cervetri and the Cucumella tomb at Vulci, in all cases consisting of a sepulchral chamber buried under an immense mound surrounded by a podium in stone. The chamber was covered over with masonry, laid in horizontal courses, each stone projecting slightly over the one below. The same system of construction prevailed in the bee-hive tombs of Greece, except that the latter were always circular on plan, whilst these cited above were rectangular. Similar methods of construction are found at Tusculum and in a gateway at Arpino. In all these cases the projecting courses were worked off on the completion of the tomb, in Greece and at Tusculum and Arpino following a curve, and in the Regulini Galeassi tomb a raking line.
The earliest example known of the arched vault, with regular voussoirs in stone, is found in the canal of the Marta near Graviscae, ascribed to the 7th century. The vault is 14 ft. in span, with voussoirs from 5 to 6 ft. in depth. In the tomb of Pythagoras near Cortona, with a span of about 10 ft., only four voussoirs were employed. In the Cloaca Maxima at Rome the vault (now ascribed by Commendatore Boni to the 1st centuryB.C.) is built with three concentric rings of voussoirs. In all these cases the thrust of the arch was amply resisted as they were constructed under ground, and in the entrance gateways at Volterra, Perugia and Falerii a similar resistance was given by the immense walls in which they were built.
We have already referred to one class of tomb in which the sepulchral chamber, built above the ground, was covered over with a mound of earth; there is a second class, carved out of the solid rock, in which we find the same treatment as that described in connexion with Egypt. The tomb represents, in its internal arrangements and in its decorations, the earthly dwelling of the defunct (compare the Egyptian “soul-houses”). The ceilings are carved in imitation of the horizontal beams and slanting rafters of the roof, the former carried by square piers with capitals; one well-known tomb at Corneto (fig. 25) represents the atrium of an Etruscan house, which corresponds with the description given by Vitruvius of thecavaedia displuviata, in which there was a small opening at the top, known as the compluvium, the roof sloping down on all four sides.
The paintings which decorate these tombs have very much the same character as those which are found on what were thought to have been Etruscan, but are now generally considered as Greek vases, the principal difference being that instead of allegorical subjects, domestic scenes recalling the life of the deceased are represented. In a tomb at Cervetri the walls and piers were carved with representations of the helmets, swords and other accoutrements of a soldier, and also the mirrors and jewelry of his wife, even the kitchen utensils being included, so as to give the complete fittings of the house they occupied. In two examples at Castel D’Asso the rock has been cut away on all sides, leaving a rectangular block, crowned with reverse mouldings.
Scarcely any remainsin situof Etruscan temples have been found, and the description given by Vitruvius is very scanty. Of late years, however, in the British Museum and in the museums at Florence and Rome, a large amount of material has been brought together, from which it is possible to make some kind of conjectural restoration. This has been facilitated by the discoveries made at Olympia, Delphi and elsewhere in Greece, showing the important function which terra-cotta served in the protection and decoration of the timber roofs of the Greek temples and treasuries. The cornices, antefixae, pendant slabs and other decorative features in terra-cotta, found on the sites of the Etruscan temples, show that the timber construction of their roofs was protected in the same way; and although Vitruvius (bk. iii. ch. 2) considered the temple of Ceres at Rome to be clumsy and heavy, and its roofs low and wide, in comparison with the purer examples of Greek architecture, the remains of terra-cotta found at Civita Castellana (the ancientFalerii), at Luna, Telamon and Lanuvium (the latter in the British Museum), show that in their modelling and colour they must have possessed considerable decorative effect, and when raised on an eminence, as in the case of the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol, formed striking features of importance, enriched as they were with gilding. There is one feature in the Etruscan examples which seems to have been peculiar to their temples, viz. the pendant slabs hung round the eaves to protect the walls; these latter were probably covered with stucco and decorated with paintings. The lower portions of many of these slabs were decorated in relief and in colour at the back, showing that they were exposed to view below the soffit of the projecting eaves.
Owing to the ephemeral nature of the materials employed in the building of the walls of Etruscan temples, viz. unburned brick or rubble masonry with clay mortar, the roofs being in timber, little is known of their general design; the terra-cotta decorations are, however, fortunately in good preservation, and suggest that although the Etruscan temple, architecturally speaking, was not of a very monumental character, its external decoration and colour added considerably to its effect.