their columns are posts. We do not find, in the forms of Arabian art, that character of originality which can be traced from local causes. The Arabians had spread themselves out in every direction, far from their own country, in which they had never cultivated the arts; hence their architecture was founded upon the models before them, which the

Fig. 85.

ARABIAN ARCHES.

Byzantine school supplied. Of the forms of their arches, some whereof are here exhibited (ɲg. 85.), the most favourite seems to have been the horse-shoe form. They may be ranged into two classes, — that just named, and the other, that wherein the curve is of contrary flexure, and described from several centres. Both classes are vicious in respect of construction, from the impossibility of gaining resistance to thrust at the abutments. In masonry, such arches could not be executed on a large scale. In brick arches, however, the surface of the cement is so increased, that if it be good, and great care be used in not removing the centres till the cement is set, great variety of forin in them may be hazarded. If the pleasure—perhaps we may say sensuality of the eye is alone to be consulted, the Arabians have surpassed all other nations in their architecture. The exquisite lines on which their decorations are based, the fantasticness of their forms, to which colour was most tastefully superadded, are highly seductive. Their works have the air of fairy enchantment, and are only to be compared to that imagination with which the oriental poetry abounds. The variety and profusion wherewith they employed ornament impart to the interior masses of their apartments the appearance of a congeries of painting, incrustation, mosaic, gilding, and foliage; and this was probably much augmented by the Mahometan law, which excluded the representation of the human figure. If a reason be unnecessary for the admission of ornament, nothing could be more satisfactory than the splendour and brilliancy that resulted from their combinations. One of their practices, that of introducing light into their apartments by means of openings in the form of stars, has a magical effect. 130. We have principally confined ourselves, in the foregoing remarks, to the architecture of the Arabians as it is found in Spain, which, it is proper to observe, is only a class of the edifices in the style. There is so close a resemblance between the buildings of that country and those of other places that were, till lately, under

the

dominion of the Moors, Fig. 87.

ELEVATION, HOUSE AT ALGIERS.

that, allowing only for difference of climate, we might have left the subject without further illustration, but that we think the representation in figs. 86. and 87. of a Turkish house at Algiers, which we have extracted from Durand's Paralléle des Edifices, may give a better idea of Arabian architecture than a host of words.

131. In Mecca, the city of the Prophet, the houses are of stone, and three or four stories in height. The material employed inFig. 56. PLAN, HOUSE AT ALGIERS. dicates solidity of construction. The streets are regular. The leading features are— the balconies covered with blinds; fronts of the houses much ornamented; doors, with steps and small seats on both sides; roofs terraced, with very high parapets, opened at intervals by a railing formed of brick, in which holes are left for the circulation of the air, at the same time giving an ornamentai appearance to the front; staircases narrow and inconvenient; rooms of good dimensions and well-proportioned, having, besides the principal windows, an upper tier. Damascus, of which a slight view (fig. 88.) is annexed, has been described as resembling a large camp of conical tents, which, on a nearer approach, are found to be small cupolas to the houses. Brick, sun-dried, is the principal material, and the forms of the roofs mentioned are absolutely necessary to protect against the winter rains. Streets generally narrow, houses well supplied with fountains, and containing a large number of houses that may be ranked as palaces. Mosques, many in number, but presenting none that are very remarkable. The bazaars and baths of considerable size and splendour. In Bagdad, there are many large squares. The gates erected by the caliphs are still in existence, and are fine specimens of Arabian art. Its walls of mud are 25 ft. in height, but within them are ramparts, carried on arches. In Bussorah, the most remarkable feature is the mode in which they construct their arches, which is effected without centres.

132. We do not think it necessary to detain the reader on the architecture of Moorish or Western Arabia. As in the eastern parts of the ancient empire, the houses usually consist of a court, whereof some or all of its sides are surrounded by galleries. Narrow tooms run generally parallel with the gallery, usually without any opening but the door

opening on to the gallery. Roofs are flat or terraced. Walls variously built, often of lime, plaster, and stones, carried up in a sort of casing, which is removed when the work is set

Its

From want of good timber, the rooms are narrow. The mosques are by no means worthy of notice. Fez, an ancient Arabian city, contains some lofty and spacious houses. streets are narrow, and on their first floors have projections which much interrupt the light. In the centre of each house is an open quadrangle, surrounded by a gallery, communicating with a staircase. Into this gallery the doors of the apartments open. The ceilings are lofty, the floors of brick. All the principal houses are supplied with cisterns in the lower parts, for furnishing a supply to the baths, a luxury with which also every mosque is pro vided. In this town there are nearly two hundred caravanseras or inns, three stories high. in each of whose apartments, varying from fifty to one hundred, water is laid on for ablution. The shops, as in Cairo, are very small; so much so, that the owner can reach all the articles he deals in without changing his posture. In Tripoli, the houses rarely exceed one story in height; but we must be content with observing that the character is still the same. "Nec facies omnibus una, nec diversa tamen." Though the late Sultan built a new palace in the Italian style at Constantinople, the Moslems will not easily relinquish a style inti

mately allied to their habits and religion, a style whereof fig. 89. will convey some idea te the reader. Ile is also referred to figs. 31, 32, and 33., as examples of the same style ir

Persia.

SECT. XI.

GRECIAN ARCHITECTURE.

Writers on

These

133. The architecture of Greece is identical with columnar architecture. the subject have so invariably treated the hut as the type on which it is formed, that, though we are not thoroughly satisfied of the theory being correct, it would be difficult to wander from the path they have trodden. In the section on Egyptian architecture, we have alluded to the tombs at Beni-hassan, and we here present a representation of a portion of them from a sketch with which we were favoured many years since by the late Sir Charles. Barry fig. 90.). The reader will perceive in it the appearance of the Doric column almost in its purity. Wilkinson (Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians) is of opinion that the date of these tombs is 1740 B. c., that is, in the time of the first Osirtesen, an antiquity which can be as signed to no example in Greece. tombs are excavated in a rock, a short distance from the Nile, on its right bank, about forty-eight French leagues south of Cairo. Two of them have architectural fronts like the above plate. The columns are five diameters and a half in height. The number of the flutes, which are shallow, is 20, and the capital consists of a simple abacus. There are no indications of a base or plinth. Above the architrave, which is plain, there is a projecting ledge of the rock, somewhat resembling a cornice, whose soffit is sculptured, apparently in imitation of a series of reeds, laid transversely and horizontally. There certainly does, in this, appear some reference to imitation of a hut, and the refinement of the Greeks, in after ages, may have so extended the analogy as in the end to account for all parts of the entablature. dition doubtless existed long before Vitruvius wrote, who gives us nothing more than the belief of the architects of his time. The point is not, at this time, likely to be answered satisfactorily; if it could, it might be important, as leading to the solution of some points of detail, which limit the propriety or impropriety of certain forms in particular situations. Having thus cautioned the reader against implicit faith in the system we are about to develope, we shall preface it by the opinion, on this subject, of M. Quatremère de Quincy, an authority of great value in everything that relates to the art. Carpentry, says that writer, is incontestably the model upon which Greek architecture is founded; and of the three models which nature has supplied to the art, this is, beyond doubt, the finest and most perfect of all. And again, he observes, whoever bestows his attention on the subject, will casily perceive that, by the nature of it, it includes all those parts that are effective for utility and beauty, and that the simplest wooden hut has in it the germ of the most magnificent palace.

Fig. 90.

The tra

In

134. We must here premise that this section is strictly confined to the architecture of Greece and its colonies. Much confusion has arisen from the want of strict limits to the term Grecian Architecture, one which has been indiscriminately applied to all buildings in which the orders appear. The orders were altered in their profiles, proportions, and details by the Romans; and though between them and those of the Greeks there is a general resemblance, and their members are generally similar, yet, on a minute examination, great difference will be found. In the former, for instance, the contour of every moulding is a portion of a circle; in the latter, the contours of the mouldings are portions of conic sections. Roman architecture, we find the dome, which in Greek architecture never occurs. In the latter, the arch is never seen; in the former, it is often an important feature. Indeed, the columnar style, as used by the Greeks, rendered arches unnecessary; hence, in all imitation of that style, its introduction produces a discord which no skill can render agreeable to the educated eye. Attempts have been made by the modern German architects to introduce the use of the arch with Greek forms; but they have been all signal failures, and that because it is incapable of amalgamation with the solemn majesty and purity of Greek composition. Before such blending can be accomplished with success, the nature of pure Greek architecture must be changed.

135. Following, then, the authors, ancient and modern, on the origin of the art, we now proceed to a development of its origin. The first trees or posts which were fixed in the earth for supporting a cover against the elements, were the origin of the isolated columns which afterwards became the supports of porticoes in temples. Diminishing in diameter

as they rose in height, the tree indicated the diminution of the column. No type, however of base or pedestal is found in trees: hence the ancient Doric is without base. This practice, however, from the premature decay of wood standing immediately on the ground, caused the intervention of a step to receive it, and to protect the lower surface from the damp. Scamozzi imagines that the mouldings at the bases and capitals of columns had their origin in cinctures of iron, to prevent the splitting of the timber from the superincumbent weight. Others, however, are of opinion that the former were used merely to elevate the shafts above the dampness of the earth, and thereby prevent rot. In the capital, it seems natura that its upper surface should be increased as much as possible, in order to procure a greater area for the reception of the architrave. This member, or chief beam, whose name bespeaks its origin, was placed horizontally on the tops of the columns, being destined, in effect, to carry the covering of the entire building. Upon the architrave lay the joists of the ceiling, their height being occupied by the member which is called the frieze. In the Doric order, the ends of these joists were called triglyphs, from their being sculptured with two whole and two half glyphs or channels. These, however, in the other orders in strictly Greek architecture, do not appear in the imitation of the type, though in Roman architecture it is sometimes otherwise, as in the upper order of the Coliseum at Rome, where they are sculptured into consoles. The space between the triglyphs was, at an early period of the art, left open, as we learn from a passage in the Iphigenia of Euripides, where Pylades advises Orestes to slip through one of the metopæ, in order to gain admission into the temple. In after times, these intervals were filled up, and in the other orders they altogether disappear, the whole length of the frieze becoming one plain surface. The inclined rafters of the roof projected over the faces of the walls of the building, so as to deliver the rain clear of them. Their ends were the origin of the mutule or modillion, whereof the former had its under side inclined, as, among many other examples, in the Parthenon at Athens. The elevation, or as it is technically termed, pitch of the pediment, followed from the inclined sides of the roof, whose inclination depended on the climate (See sect. 2030). Thus authors trace from the hut the origin of the different members of architecture, which a consideration of the annexed diagram will make more intelligible to the reader. Figs. 91. and 92. exhibit the parts of a roof in elevation and section: aa are the architraves or

trabes; bb the ridge piece or columen; c the king-post or columna of a roof; d d the tie-beam or transtrum; e the strut or capreolus; ff the rafters or cantherii; gggg the purlines or empla; hh the common rafters or asseres. The form of the pediment became un object of so much admiration, and so essential a part of the temple, that Cicero says, if a temple were to be built in heaven, where no rain falls, it would be necessary to bestow one upon it. Capitolii fastigium illud, et cæterarum ædium, non venustas sed necessitas ipsa fabricata est. Nam cum esset habita ratio quemadmodum ex utraque parte tecti aqua delaberetur utilitatem templi fastigii dignitas consecuta est, ut etiam si in cœlo capitolium statueretur ubi imber esse non potest, nullam sine fastigio dignitatem habiturum fuisse videatur." (De Oratore, lib. iii.) The inclination of the pediment will be hereafter discussed, when we speak on the article Roof, in another part of the work. Under the section on Cyclopean Architecture, mention has been made of the works at Tiryns and Mycene. We do not think there is sufficient chain of evidence to connect those ruins with the later Grecian works, though it must be confessed that the temples of Sicily, especially at Selinus, and perhaps those at Pæstum, are connecting links. Perhaps the sculptures at Selinus might be properly called Cyclopean sculpture, in its more refined state.

136. Architecture, as well as all the other arts, could only be carried to perfection by slow steps. Stone could not have been used in building until the mechanical arts had been well known. It is curious that Pliny gives the Greeks credit only for caves as their original dwellings, from which they advanced to simple huts, built of earth and clay. His words are (lib. vii. 3. 57.), “Laterarias ac domos constituerunt primi Euryalus et Hyperbias

fratres Athenis: antea specus erant pro domibus." This, perhaps, is no more than a traditionary fable. Fables of this kind, however, often have some foundation in fact. We are not always inclined to discard them, for we have little more than tradition for the carly excellence of the Athenians in civilisation, a nation among the Greeks who first became a body politic, and whose vanity caused them to assume the name of Autoxboves, from a belief, almost sanctioned by Plato, that their ancestors actually rose from the earth. How strong the prevailing opinion was of the original superiority of the Athenians, may be gathered from Cicero, in his oration for Flaccus. Adsunt," he says, "Athenienses, unde humanitas, doctrina, religio, fruges, jura, leges ortæ, atque in omnes terras distributæ putantur: de quorum urbis possessione, propter pulchritudinem, etiam inter deos certamen fuisse proditum est: quæ vetustate eà est, ut ipsa ex sese suos cives genuisse dicatur." But we shall not attempt, here, an early history of Greece; for which this is not the place, and, if accomplished, would little answer our views. The Greeks exhibited but little skill in their earliest edifices. The temple of Delphi, mentioned by Homer, in the first book of the Iliad (v. 404. et seq.), which Bryant supposes to have been originally founded by Egyptians, was, as we learn from Pausanias (Phocic. c. 5.), a mere hut, covered with laurel branches. Even the celebrated Areopagus was but a sorry structure, as we learn from Vitruvius (lib. ii. cap. 1.), who judged of it from its ruins. The fabulous Cadmus for we cannot help following Jacob Bryant in his conjectures upon this personage has been supposed to have existed about 1519 B. C., to have instructed the Greeks in the worship of the Egyptian and Phoenician deities, and to have taught them various useful arts; but this carries us so far back, that we should be retracing our steps into Cyclopean architecture, if we were here to dwell on the period; and we must leave the reader. - as is our own, and as we apprehend will be the case with all who may succeed us to grope his way out of the darkness as best he may.

137. The earliest writer from whom gleanings can be made to elucidate the architecture of Greece is the father of poets. To Homer we are obliged to recur, little as we approve of the architectural graphic flights in which the poet is wont generally to indulge. Though the Odyssey may not be of so high antiquity as the Iliad, it is, from internal evidence, of great age, for the poem exhibits a government strictly patriarchal, and it sufficiently proves that the chief buildings of the period were the palaces of princes. We may here, in passing, observe, that in Greece, previous to Homer and Hesiod, the sculptor's art appears to have been unknown, neither was practised the representation of Gods. The words of Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christ. xiv.) are — Αἱ δ ̓ εικόνες μέχρι μηπω πλαστιχη, και γραφική, και ανδριαντοποιητικη ησαν, ουδε ενομίζοντο. The altar, which was merely a structure for sacred use, was nothing more than a hearth, whereon the victim was prepared for the meal; and it was not till long after Homer's time that a regular priesthood appeared in Greece. In Sparta, the kings performed the office. In Egypt, the dignity was obtained by inheritance; as was the case in other places. The Odyssey places the altar in the king's palace; and we may reasonably assume that the spot was occasionally, perhaps always, used as the temple. From such premises, it is reasonable to conjecture that until the sacerdotal was separated from the kingly office, the temple, either in Greece or elsewhere, had no existence. It may not be without interest to collect, here, the different passages in the Odyssey, which bear upon the nature and construction of the very earliest buildings of importance. Between the avλŋ and the doμos there must have been a distinction. The former, from its etymology aw, must have been a locus subdialis; and though it is sometimes used (Iliad, Z. 247.) for the whole palace, such is not generally its meaning in the Odyssey. The auλŋ was the place in which the female attendants of Penelope were slain by Telemachus (Odyss. X. 446.), by tying them up with a rope over the doxos or ceiling. Hence we arrive at the conclusion that this odos belonged to the autovra or cloister, supposing, as we have done, that the auλŋ was open at top, and the abovσa is described (Iliad, Y. 176.) as epidouros, that is, sonorous or echoing, and as circumscribing the open part of the avλn. The Solos was supported by Kloves, posts or columns, and in the centre of the avλn stood the Boμos or altar. If our interpretation be correct, the μerodua in this arrangement must be the spaces between the columns or posts, or the intercolumniations, as the word is usually translated; and the passage in the Odyssey (T. 37.), wherein Telemachus is said to have seen the light on the walls, becomes quite clear. The passage is as follows:

1

Ευπης μοι τοίχοι μεγάρων, καλαι τε μεσόδμαι,
Είλατιναι τε δοκοί, και κίονες υψοσ' έχοντες,
Φαινοντ' οφθαλμοις.

There seems no doubt that the word abovσa will bear the interpretation given, and the arrangement is nothing more than that of the hypæthral, and even correspondent with the Egyptian temple, particularly that of the temple at Edfou, described by Denon, and represented in his plate 34.

138. Before we quit this part of our subject, let us consider the description which Horner (Odyss. H. 81.) gives of the house of Alcinous as illustrative of Greek architectureThis dwelling, which Ulysses visited, had a brazen threshold, oudos. It was vepeons a